Was secession "legal"?

[ironfoot]

Here is Seward's congressional speech from 1850:
http://www.furman.edu/depts/history/

Go to the link.
Click on  "Resources" on the left column at the link.
Click on 'Furman Primary Sources (19th century)
Then scribe down to Seward's speech.

He argued that the people, not the states, were sovereign.
Here is part of the speech:

The United States are a political state, or organized society, whose end is government, for the security, welfare, and happiness of all who live under its protection. The theory I am combating reduces the objects of government to the mere spoils of conquest. Contrary to a theory so debasing, the preamble of the Constitution not only asserts the sovereignty to be, not in the states, but in the people, but also promulgates the objects of the Constitution:

[p19]
"We, the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, provide for the common defence, promote the GENERAL WELFARE, and secure the blessings of liberty, do ordain and establish this Constitution."

[IntrepidWizard]

The question will always reamain mute unless acted upon by the Supreme Court of the US or War.----that is Period as in Period.

[El Confederado]

Ironfoot,
Thanks for trying at least it seems as such to explain  why you feel as you feel.Again, you have asked me about where in the Constitution does it say secession is legal, and sir, I point to one Amendment, the 10th. That single amendment states basicly, that all powers not given to the federal government are reserved by the states and thus the people. This is widly seen by many as the basis for secession and to honest I think it speaks as loud as the trumpets of the Lord on those powers.Some, one of which you seem to be say that the 10th amenedment gives not such power or right and this sir is why this is still such a wound as it is. You will never see that the people have the last say on things and I will never think that the government has total power over the people, this is why the war was fought, plain and simple.

But I will say this in closing, I hope that many more people see things my way in the future otherwise America will see an oppressive cetral government again , as you seem to agree with and even seem to preach. I pray that I am wrong, God save America.

[ironfoot]

Sorry...double post.
So let me use this message to say:

Merry Christmas to all of you!

[ironfoot]

El confederado
You:
Or how about James Madison, I guess he didnt know what he was saying either,

At Virginia's ratification convention, the delegates said, "The powers granted under the Constitution being derived from the People of the United States may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression." In Federalist Paper 39, James Madison, the father of the Constitution, cleared up what "the people" meant, saying the proposed Constitution would be subject to ratification by the people, "not as individuals composing one entire nation, but as composing the distinct and independent States to which they respectively belong." In a word, states were sovereign; the federal government was a creation, an agent, a servant of the states.


In Federalist Paper 45, Madison guaranteed: "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite."

Me:
Here is more from Madison in Federalist Paper 45:

"But if the Union, as has been shown, be essential to the security of the people of America against foreign danger; if it be essential to their security against contentions and wars among the different States; if it be essential to guard them against those violent and oppressive factions which embitter the blessings of liberty, and against those military establishments which must gradually poison its very fountain; if, in a word, the Union be essential to the happiness of the people of America...."

You can find the whole document here:

http://www.law.ou.edu/hist/federalist/

Hmmm. The Union is essential according to the author of the Constitution. You don't want to argue with a Founding Father do you?

[ironfoot]

El Confederado
You:
"You will never see that the people have the last say on things and I will never think that the government has total power over the people, this is why the war was fought, plain and simple."

Me:
I agree that the power lies in the people. They exercise that power in elections. The people elected Lincoln. To negate the results of that election through secession deprives the people of that power.

[El Confederado]

Ironfoot,
Come on pard, lets be honest, first  more people voted against Lincoln than for him, second, he got elected on a lie, he promissed that he would not act against slavery in the States and would honor the will of those people, he didnt.

[ironfoot]

Didn't Lincoln win the election of 1860 according to the laws of the US in effect at that time?
Didn't Lincoln get more votes than any other presidential candidate in that election?
When Lincoln enacted the Emancipation Proclamation, was the Confederacy composed of "states" with rights under the Constitution?
If so, then they also had duties under the Constitution to abide by the results of the presidential election.
If not, then any statements Lincoln made about not ending slavery in the states was not relevant to the Confederacy.
At the time of the enactment of the Emancipation Proclamation, the north and the south were at war.
Isn't it OK to deprive the other side of its property during time of war,
or is it only OK to kill the enemy, but not OK to free his slaves?
Yes...lets be honest about this.
Freeing a people from slavery is the right thing to do, no matter what was said, by whom, or when, whether "legal" or not.
Fighting to preserve slavery and expand slavery is wrong, whether "legal" or not.

[El Confederado]

Ironfoot,
Ye , Mr Lincoln did win in 60, but a person would have a hard sell on saying he was the "American President" , that you would have to agree on, yes?
Now here we go again, now when Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation, those States were not part of the United States, therefore his proclamation was nothing more than a PR move to make folks up north get all up in a roar and enlist in the army that was losing the war, so lests face that fact right quick.

Now before I answer the rest of this little post, I have a question for you as so we can atleast get on the same page.

The question is. Were the States of the Confederacy part of the United States  during the war or were they a seperate country?

[ironfoot]

Hello El Confederado, my old friend.
I will answer with a question.
If a person commits treason, do they still have the rights of a citizen?

[ironfoot]

El Confederado
You:
Ye , Mr Lincoln did win in 60, but a person would have a hard sell on saying he was the "American President" , that you would have to agree on, yes?
Me:
If he won, then he was the American president. Just like George W. Bush was elected president in the 2000 election.

[IntrepidWizard]

Hello El Confederado, my old friend.
I will answer with a question.
If a person commits treason, do they still have the rights of a citizen?

By all interpretations of Traitor,Foot Check Mate nice going.

[nohorse]

Ironfoot:  Consider when the states ratified secession they forfeited their United States citizenship; that’s why they had to swear an oath of allegiance before returning to the fold, so to speak. The remainder of the United States may have considered them ‘traitors’ but those that seceded realized they were forming a new nation.  You made a good point by asking the question but I don’t think it is quite a ‘check mate’ as the wizard relates.

[williamlayton]

EL-
I will have need to ask why you believe the South was EVER winning this conflict.
Give the following dates so we can follow a time line to your thoughts.
When was Lincoln Inaugurated?
When did The states secede?
When was the first shot fired?
On what date was there any fear that the South had won the war?
The onliest folks that soulda been hung, an the folks from the South shoulda done it, was those folks in leadership of the south that led them into this illconcieved, kneejerk, lost before it was done conflict. Those folks were idiots, at best, and should not have been in charge of a turkey farm, much less a nation.
Blessings

[nohorse]

Williamlayton:

A little inflammatory don’t ya think? The last couple of sentences are asking for a confrontation. My immediate thought after reading them:  WAaaauugghhhhhaahahahahahaha!!!

Now to address one of your specific questions, the others have already been answered in other posts:

On what date was there any fear that the South had won the war?  There were several occasions when the South maintained a military advantage and could have marched on Washington. Presumably that would have forced a decision in the South's favor.  Bull Run at the very start of the war is one instance but of course Beauregard did not pursue or recognize the initiative of the moment.  That being said -

From the outset I believe [my opinion] that the South did not necessarily set out for a decisive string of victories that would bring the north to its knees [although they would have welcomed this]. In other words, the goal was not to conquer the north and force it into the Confederacy [contrary to the goal of the north].  The South’s intent and desire was international recognition as a sovereign nation and independence from the Union.  

The South was not industrialized and their economy was not very fluid in contrast to the north so many realized a long term conflict would be disastrous. As such, many individuals went into the conflict realizing if they could not attain international recognition and sue for peace in the early stages of the conflict that the Union would conquer them and return them to the fold by force- which, as we know, is exactly what happened. Of course the north could have avoided the conflict altogether [and the connotation of being the aggressors] by recognizing the Confederacy and allowing it to secede, but as stated in other posts, this was not in the best economic interest of the Union.  Just as before when the Union sought its independence from England it was not in the best economic interest of Britain to free the colonies.  Otherwise there would have been no revolutionary war and King George would have immediately granted their freedom.  There were taxes and money to be made from the colonies as well as from the states that seceded.  Thus both governments similarly decided armed conflict was a valid and legitimate option.

[williamlayton]

Well guess I did get up a little, sorry!
Let's dissect the situation a little and see if we can see it thru 19th century eyes and thoughts a little. Probably will not be complete as we are looking back and playing Monday morning quarterback, but lets see how we woulda looked at it.
What reasons would there be to just let the South go their own way?
What were the possible consequences if this decision was made?
What was the mood or plans for the Union for the future?
What were the negatives in allowing secession?

There was, I believe, a strong desire to maintain a union amongst a lot of folks, South as well as North. Some of this was due to loyalty, and some was due to fear or need for a strong alliance.
There was still a strong European influence in this hemisphere and a lot of folks looked at this area with more than lustful eyes. As a matter of fact, there was open attempts to re-conquer old and lost territory by european governments.
This Union had to consolidate its borders, from sea to shining sea, no area of possible foreign incursion could be allowed. As I have proposed before, The South was ripe for foreign manipulation.
The South itself, was a thorn in the side of consolidation. They would be making attempts to consolidate bordering states and territory for their own needs and expansion and greed.
To ever believe that this area of the world could have grown and expanded under two governments was not possible. To ever believe that the Union was just going to lay down and let South go was, at best ludicrous.
The South was ill-prepared and without sound leadership if this concept was unseen or not understood. The only chance for sucess was for one of the two opposing sides to dominate. Not another choice. Zip. Nada. This is the most obvious and mysterious part of the whole situation, and the leadership in the South was OBLIVIOUS too it. They shoulda been hung, they were leading folks into a conflict with no thoughts beyond TODAY. Reminds me of a couple of other situations, but that is another thought for another day.
El-and I love ya, but, them folks was without a clue and for others to blindly follow is unthinkable.
I can find no other options. Now them boys did what they did, and the boys that followed were honorable and not without courage, but they suffered the obvious outcome of their indiscretions.
Blessings

[El Confederado]

Well,first, I will bite my tongue and not flip out as I am growing tired of fighting, but I will say this the Southern States were as much traitors to the Unites States as the United States was to England, or the Texans to Mexico,or the Mexicans to the Spanish, or the Californians to Mexico, hell the list can go on and on, so if your going to call the South traitors then ya best slap that label to all those above, including y'all beloved North.Oh and Williamlayton, read your hisory pard, prior to Gettysburg the Union was getting worked and bad, and as for Ironfoot, last time I checked Bush did win in 2000, so I dont get your point.

[nohorse]

Williamlayton:

”There was, I believe, a strong desire to maintain a union amongst a lot of folks, South as well as North. Some of this was due to loyalty, and some was due to fear or need for a strong alliance.”:

There was obviously some strong sentiment for not dividing the nation and yes, as we have discussed before, there were loyalists in the Confederacy just as there were loyalists to Britain among the colonies.

”There was still a strong European influence in this hemisphere and a lot of folks looked at this area with more than lustful eyes. As a matter of fact, there was open attempts to re-conquer old and lost territory by european governments.” :

Out of curiosity, after the war of 1812 and after Texas was relinquished by Mexico what open attempts were there by European countries to re-conquer lost territory?

”This Union had to consolidate its borders, from sea to shining sea, no area of possible foreign incursion could be allowed.” :

Explain the 'manifest destiny' doctrine to the Native Americans.


“ As I have proposed before, The South was ripe for foreign manipulation.”

Both the north and the South sought support from European nations however I think the South had a better trump card – consider that the loss of the South constituted a major loss of revenue needed to expand the government, among other things.  This would also create tariff-free Southern ports and create a free trade zone in the South that would certainly influence international trade to utilize Southern rather than northern ports.  This would have been financially devastating to the North.  For these reason many European nations were definitely interested in the outcome of the struggle. Besides, the Monroe doctrine later proved we could live without Europe anyway.

“The South itself, was a thorn in the side of consolidation.” :

What consolidation and how was the South a thorn?


“They would be making attempts to consolidate bordering states and territory for their own needs and expansion and greed. “ :

Are you again referring to the nation’s ‘manifest destiny’? If any government was consolidating it was the federal government.

”To ever believe that this area of the world could have grown and expanded under two governments was not possible.” :

They obviously believed it was possible.  Canada and Mexico exist on the same continent with separate forms of government and they are surviving.  Why was this impossible?

 “To ever believe that the Union was just going to lay down and let South go was, at best ludicrous. “ :

From the northern perspective this is probably quite true.

“The South was ill-prepared and without sound leadership if this concept was unseen or not understood. The only chance for sucess was for one of the two opposing sides to dominate.”

Like I said before - the goal was not to conquer the north and force it into the Confederacy [contrary to the goal of the north]. The South’s intent and desire was international recognition as a sovereign nation and independence from the Union.

“Not another choice. Zip. Nada. This is the most obvious and mysterious part of the whole situation, and the leadership in the South was OBLIVIOUS too it. “  

I don’t think they were oblivious at all.  I think the South seceded with a firm grasp of the potential repercussions except that they could not predict the north’s scorched earth policy, abuse of civilians, and reconstruction.

“They shoulda been hung, they were leading folks into a conflict with no thoughts beyond TODAY.” :

I assume you are referring to Mr. Lincoln and his cabinet? If so I would tend to agree.

[williamlayton]

Well lets see, France in Mexico. Spain in florida and the whole of the caribbean.
These folks would not have let the opportunity slip away should they have found a soft spot. I am not real sure there was not a strong British support group still active in Virginia and the Carolina's. Been a long time since I looked into that but I seem to recall some loyalties still existing in this region.
Mexico, til nearly the 20th century, lusted for the Southwest, they just could not stop fighting amongst theirownselves to get the act together.
It is speculation on all as to what if,etc but their were nations willing to take a chance if opportunity reared its ugly head. It is MY proposition that the south would have been ripe for the taking--my reason for believing--The North took it.
Now El-- Treason is a strong word, and it doesn't make you a bad person, depending on what side your own. Those boys did what they thought best, and lost. If your willing to take the risk, go ahead, if you loose don't spin it.
Still does not change the fact that the leadership in the South was as greedy as any in the North. They just made some very poor choices based on some VERY bad assumptions and poor thinking. This leadership, as has many in history, led a lot of boys into eternity at too early an age.
Blessings

[williamlayton]

No, I was not referring to Lincoln, but you knew that.
The South was not going to be content with the territory they had, there were several territories the South had cast a greedy eye on.
The two nations were competing for the same territory, too my eyes, only one could accomplish this.
Again, I think this is proof enough the South did not gety the big picture.
The scorced earth policy is, again, evidence the South did not think thru.
Oh well.
Blessings
PS
I know of no one who can explain or defend manifest destiny, that however, has never stopped a nation bent on domination.

[nohorse]

"The scorced earth policy is, again, evidence the South did not think thru":

I believe it was more of a difference in fundamental philosophy and ethics. If the same strategy was even considered by the South  it was never implemented on such a scale and with such a vengence.

[williamlayton]

While I would somewhat agree there were a couple of raiders which used this policy on a smaller scale.
After 150 years, I am not picking sides, just relating what I see as fundamental flaws.
If you look at a map, consider the policies of both sides, and ponder this whole scene, I cannot see any alternative the North had. That is assuming the North was not willing to just let the South have its own way with things. I think the results were laid out like a map and really cannot understand why it was so difficult for all to see.
One of the things that really bothers me is how the South could have under estimated the outcome so severely. I have thought about this often, we have had discussions concerning this in a couple of classes ( this was years ago, not too long after the war :-) ) and all agreed the South blundered and had their collective heads buried in the sand.
Blessings

[New Hampshire]

Well Ill give my down an dirty opinion on this.  "Legal" is a gray word.  Its open to too much interpertation.  In the end we can only determine things by pushing the limits of the constitution and seeing the results.  Lincoln pushed the limits, so didnt the confederacy.  Roosevelt did during the depression.  Dubbya is pushing right now.  While I cant exactly say it was legal or not for seccession I can say that in the end the Union was preserved.  I guess thats what really matters.  It stinks that things had to go the way they did.  It mainly had to do with two groups of people trying to push the limits at the same time.
Brian M.

[El Confederado]

So it seems to me that some of y'all seem to think that might makes right or that the ends justifies the means, is that correct to say?

[williamlayton]

That is what every side thinks, and, well, so did the South.
Blessings

[El Confederado]

williamlayton,

How do you figure that is what the south thought?

[El Confederado]

williamlayton,

How do you figure that is what the south thought?

[williamlayton]

I am gathering, from the actions taken by the South, they figgered they had the might to do what they thought was right. It was not a peaceful, as in Ghandi's peaceful resistance, that they were planning. They were planning to resist at all cost. Those boys figgered what was coming, as in, not surprised.
If they were running a bluff, it was ill conceived.
If they thought it was going to be a peaceful split it was ill conceived.
If they thought there would be immediate foreign sympathy it was ill conceived.
If they thought the North was afraid to take up arms to preserve the union it was ill conceived.
I am not saying that those boys were "BAD". The way I see it, looking back, and in all honesty, looking forward from their time in space, this war was inevitable, if they made a split.
This thing would have come to a head pretty soon. The South, I believe, would have made a play for several border states and territories as well as some parts of the west. I think the North saw this, realized this and if you had been there so would you. I believe that you, judging from your background that you have revealed, would have suggested to the leadership in the north to take the offensive and put down this rebellion as soon as possible. The North thought it was going to be a walk in the park. War would be over by the end of the summer--and that was a sorry thought on their part.
The South made some terrible errors in judgement. The question that has been avoided IS, who was the South. The South was those people who had the most to gain, The landed, The banks, the rich. They had bigger and greedier plans than just secession.
Just as always, the greed of the rich killed off a generation of fine young boys. Boys that were lured into a war on the basis of pride, spirit, and nationalism--without seeing that they were fighting not for all this but just a few.
Blessings

[El Confederado]

williamlayton,
If you would include the Union rich and powerfull into this and the fact that they were pushing for war as much if not more that the Southern rich and powerfull, I think could agree with you for the most part. The rich  and powerfull on both sides pushed the war into a war, the problem with most unionist is that they will still say that the rich in the North were not involved, it was a mission to preserve the Union and free the slaves and this we all know is a load of gut wind, this is why Ironfoot and I will never see eye to eye and you and I can atleast talk.

[williamlayton]

EL-
My bad, I just had assumed that as your thought had already been evoked by many it was unnecessary to reiterate it again.
I certainly agree with you.
Blessings