Could the Civil War have been avoided?

[aariediger]

What decisions/events/political figures could have prevented the war? Short or long term?

Lots of things. Depends on how far back you want to go. What if Europeans had never "re-discovered" America? Or if the King had given into the colonists' demands and we hadn't fought for independence. Or if the supreme court had ruled differently in 'Dred Scott'. Or what if a few of the strategically important states didn't secede? Say North Carolina, and Lincoln lands a few Regular Brigades in Wilmington, makes South Carolina re-think whether slavery is really worth fighting for, when the war is going to be in their backyard, instead of far off in some place called 'Virginia.' No war is pre-ordained. This one could have been prevented. Any of them could have. Just like certain events could have caused wars to happen, like the Cuban Missile Crisis.

In a similar vein, no war is impossible to win. The South 'could' have won, but it was unlikely. The war could have been avoided. But it's unlikely.

[khbynum]

I have taken the time to show you that a very, very great man, in the course of some half-dozen paragraphs, informed his listeners of the central and essential and correct construction of the genesis of the American Union, its transformation into a nation, the agreements reached that embodied this central understanding, and their application to the crisis of the very hour in which he spoke. In a a mere handful of paragraphs. This alone should convince anyone with an appreciation of the English language of the immense intelligence and perspicacity of our 16th President, not to mention his astounding ability to cast these perceptions so succinctly and clearly.

When one reads nothing else - nothing else - but the speech Mr. Lincoln gave at his first inauguration, it is almost assuredly beyond question that his views, therein expressed, were, and are, the only correct and true understanding of what makes us a nation, why we are a nation, its nature, and the Union from which it was formed.

I would assert with no hesitation that you are unfamiliar with his address. Until you do become acquainted with it, and make a mature and reasoned attempt to refute the grounds upon which Lincoln laid his arguments - an historical refutation, bear in mind, demonstrating, beyond almost any reasonable doubt, that Lincoln had his facts wrong, drew incorrect conclusions, or misunderstood the constitution of this Union and nation, then, sir, you have not done the work you need to do to show that Lincoln was wrong, started a war, was guilty of a profound misjudgment, or was simply mistaken in his understandings.

You think Lincoln was a great man, but all you have shown me is that you think he was great man. I have read his 1st Inaugural Address (why would you assume I had not?). It was a political speech. In fact what he offered the South was simply this: come back into the Union or I'll kick your ass. Get over your fascination with that political speech and look at the totality of what he did and said. I don't need to demonstrate that he was wrong in his interpretation of the Constitution (and yes, I know what capitaliztion means, why do you demean people over mistakes they haven't made?) or that he misinterpreted the situation at the time. He was wrong because he prosecuted a war that did not need to be fought, and 600,000 men died as a result of his lack of imagination. No, I don't think he was a great man. A great man would have found another way. The government is not always right. The President is not always right. There is no need to continue this discussion, because it isn't a discussion. You are a True Believer and no more amenable to discourse than a religious zealot. And please, spare me another wall of words. No one doubts your erudition, but it always boils down to the same thing. The government is always right. Just ask them, they'll tell you (or provide documents to that effect).

I was enjoying this forum until you returned, but now that you dominate every thread it just isn't fun anymore. So, you win. I won't post here again unless I need technical help. Before I go, though, please tell me what a "Dixie cup collector" is.

[fred zeppelin]

He was wrong because he prosecuted a war that did not need to be fought, and 600,000 men died as a result of his lack of imagination. No, I don't think he was a great man. A great man would have found another way.

khbynum

I disagree with you on this one, but appreciate your perspective. Pretty boring world if we all talk only with those who agree with us. Thanks for starting this thread and contributing to the discussion.

[GraniteStater]

I have read his 1st Inaugural Address (why would you assume I had not?

You seem to have no clue about the principles of the Founding of this nation. To keep on asserting that the South was, in any way, to the slightest degree, justified in what they did, after it has been shown conclusively, that what they did was in entire contravention to those principles, as inhered in the Constitution of the United States, is sophomoric, and would be somewhat risible if not for your willingness to ignore that the consequences of their folly led to thousands and thousands of needless deaths.

There is no appeal from ballots to bullets. I wrote that in 72 point type so that a one-eyed Missouri mule could read it. If you don't understand that point, you are determined to remain unconvinced, and have a very incomplete grasp of what it means to live in a constitutional republic, not to mention a ready acquiescence to lawless behavior.

And to disparage a man who, by his very words and actions, demonstrated that he was a tower of forbearance and prudence, a reflective man, an example of reasoned morality of which not many nations may, in their histories, boast - shows a most distressing aspect of your mode of discourse, I am awfully afraid.

[fred zeppelin]

And to disparage a man who, by his very words and actions, demonstrated that he was a tower of forbearance and prudence, a reflective man, an example of reasoned morality of which not many nations may, in their histories, boast - shows your true nature, I am awfully afraid.

I'm a huge Lincoln fan, but he was hardly a saint. He did more than a little to subvert the Constitution in the name of protecting it.

The South was wrong - in every sense of that word - because of slavery. But the political and philosophical doctrines they espoused to preserve the institution weren't illegitimate in some universal sense - many Americans, North and South, viewed the theory of secession as legitimate - at least as a theory. The concept of Union wasn't nearly so ingrained before the Civil War as it would become afterward. That's a large part of the reason that it took the North so long to get behind the war effort.

I personally disagree with the doctrine. Secession, taken to its logical conclusion, is just another word for anarchy. Something the South quickly learned once the war started. A nation founded on the right to destroy itself is hardly a nation. But I've read enough history to know that the doctrine wasn't "crazy" in those decades after the Revolution when the relationship of the states was less settled.

What makes Lincoln great, in my view, is not that he was some sort of supernatural saint. Rather, he was very much a man of his times, ambivalent about slavery, pragmatic about the Constitution - but implacable for Union. He ultimately came to see slavery as a universal wrong, but never lost sight of the fact that only by surviving could the Union end it. I truly believe the Union would not have survived without him - and for that he will always be "right" in the eyes of history.

[GraniteStater]

I try not to liken him to a saint. I think it is important to understand that he was as imperfect as any of us. He was, however, a man of the deepest moral convictions and probity, a man of such stature, as evinced by his intelligence, judgement, and even wisdom, not many nations or countries may claim to have in their history.

A man of the most incisive and penetrating insight who also had a easy and practical common sense, a sense that informed his humanity, morality and more than outstanding ability to convey this sensibility in prose that shall last as long as we Americans preserve the Republic for which he gave his very life.

[GraniteStater]

I would like to add some concluding remarks.

I have revisited and edited my posts above, to tone down a few remarks and recast them to make it clear that I do not wish to disparage any poster here as a person. The forum rules are clear about personal attacks and it helps one to keep things within bounds of rational discussion.

One may notice that some posts here were more 'sociological'; one parenthetical remark was made about possible excesses by Lincoln in the exercise of his duties and powers; others were speculative about different sets of circumstances. I did not address these points, either because I did not feel some were entirely germane to the question posited, or were a true historical inquiry - this is put somewhat clumsily, but I think my meaning may be discerned. I spent my efforts on one item only, i. e., the original question, to which I replied, Yes, there was a clear and unquestionably available way to avoid the American Civil War of 1861-1865: obey the law.

The question asked is tantamount to: "May any State of this Union, of its own accord, lawfully remove itself from the federation styled 'The United States'?"

There is one and only one answer to that: No. That was true on 2 July 1776 when we declared ourselves to be a nation and a sovereign people - if New Hampshire, for any reason, during the struggle with the British Crown, had attempted to make a separate peace or understanding with the kingdom of Great Britain, then all the other States would have been entirely justified in treating New Hampshire as a threat to this nation, for we had formed one nation, not an association of several nations.

The answer was No on 3 September 1783, when we signed the Treaty of Paris ending the War for Independence.

The answer was No when the Annapolis Convention moved to reconvene as a more general assembly to determine whether the Articles of Confederation should be modified or perhaps superseded and replaced.

The answer was No on 17 September 1787, when the Constitution was submitted to the people of this nation for ratification by the instrumentalities of the several States.

The answer was No on 21 June 1788, when the great State of New Hampshire, to her eternal credit, ratified the Constitution of the United States, being the ninth to do so and thereby bringing that Constitution into effect.

The answer was No in 1832, when South Carolina precipitated the Nullification Crisis.

And the answer was a thunderous and reverberating NO on 20 December 1860 when South Carolina attempted to sever its connections with the national government and this Union.

And, on 4 March 1861, the answer was eloquently and patiently expressed by the greatest President these United States have ever had.

khbynum is welcome to his opinions and I hope contributes to this community for years to come. However, when someone, in the proper forum, inquires whether it is constitutional, legal, or acceptable for a State, or any State, to secede from this Union there is one answer and one answer only:

NO.

With all respects to this community,
GraniteStater

John Edward Salisbury Lee
East Kingston, New Hampshire
March 2nd, 2014

[pgr]

In fact what he offered the South was simply this: come back into the Union or I'll kick your ass... I don't need to demonstrate that he was wrong in his interpretation of the Constitution... He was wrong because he prosecuted a war that did not need to be fought, and 600,000 men died as a result of his lack of imagination... A great man would have found another way.

Well we seem to have gotten to the crux here. You think the war was unnecessary, could have been avoided, and Abe was an unimaginative tyrant. You start a thread on the issue, and then get offended that our long winded friend Granite disagrees. I agree with GraniteStater that the war was caused by illegal Southern secession, and that if we are to assign blame for the 600,000 dead, it should go to the Southern leaders that opted for treason before Lincoln even assumed office.

He was offering "come back to the Union, or we will kick your ass." The South was saying accept our demands or we will kick yours. Lincoln was wrong in his interpretation? Please do demonstrate. I am not familiar with the article that governs the unilateral dissolution of the union by a minority of states. I am familiar with Section 8 of Article I that allows congress to call the militia to suppress insurrection and Section 3 of Article II that compels the President to faithfully execute the laws of the Federal Government.

A great man would have found another way? Well since you asked the question, what could he have done? I made it clear in my post that I think all compromise positions that maintained the Union had been exhausted by 1860. Indeed, post Dred Scott, the South had every legal and constitutional protection possible for slavery and they still split over a legal election they lost.

Finally, you maintain that because the South "voted" to leave, that legitimizes everything and the North had no right to object. But where does the popular sovereignty principle end? I could get 50 friends together, go to our local bar, we pass a resolution creating the independent Absorakian country of Mint. Does that give me the right to disobey the laws of my state and nation in the name of self determination?

Southern secession was not a referendum. Armed militias were in the streets as white men (excluding women and of course slaves) voted to constitute stacked conventions to deliver a secession vote. In Missouri and Kentucky dueling state governments claimed legitimacy over their entire states. What gives any of these assemblies any more legitimacy to dissolve a national union than my bar club? The South felt they had the right, the North disagreed.

Could the war have been avoided? Sure, the South could have just used all the legal tools already protecting slavery and stayed in the Union. Of course that was about as likely just simply accepting without complaint the south's right to extend slavery wherever it wanted, compel Northerners to chase slaves in Northern states, and the South's right to unilaterally dissolve its responsibilities to other states under the Federal Constitution.

[GraniteStater]

Good man. Somebody who can freakin' read.

And a good writer, too.

[Pat "Stonewall" Cleburne]

I don't feel qualified to jump in but what if slavery were outlawed in the constitution? Would there have been a civil war, and what would it have been about? 1860 wasn't the first secession crisis. It seems to me that something else would have had to force the issue of federal vs state dominance.

[GraniteStater]

If I may, Most Esteemed Kicker of My Digital Posterior, there has always been a certain degree of tension between the governments of the several States and the Federal government.

Within certain bounds, this tension (I mean this more as a close analogy to a clothesline than nasty disputes) is, in my view, healthy. It keeps the discussion about lawful exercise of powers alive and lends a certain vibrancy to the daily life of this, as Churchill called it, the Great Republic.

I would like to add a point that I hope is useful.

The people of this nation are its lawful sovereigns. If the people of this nation, exercising their inherent right to do so, wished to amend the Constitution so as to dissolve the States, which, I believe, they could do through lawful means, establish a unitary national government, establish a monarchy, or found a permanent dictatorship, they may do so, no matter how much anyone would decry the abandonment of the principles expressed in the Declaration.

Certain ends arrived at by the lawful process of Amending would be tragic beyond description - but, as Jefferson said, they may, when they wish, make other arrangements for their self-governance.

Under our present arrangement, they must do so lawfully, however, with the nicest scruples and prudent consideration.

[khbynum]

I think in fact P"S"C has hit the nature of the problem squarely on the head (is that a mixed metaphor)? If slavery had been outlawed in the Constitution, there would have been no Civil War. Considering the balancing act required to get a Constitution in the first place, such an outcome seems unlikely. I don't think disagreement over any other factor (trade, tariffs, National Banks, state's rights, you name it) would have been sufficient to provoke a forcible dissolution of the Union. I hope no one here has taken my posts to indicate an approval of slavery, that "peculiar institution" that caused so much misery and bloodshed.

As to South's right to secede, we shall simply have to agree to disagree. I believe everyone has a right to self-determination and in the end no agreement, compact or document can compel them if they decide, as a people, that they wish to go their own way. In fact, in this case, none did and we know the result full well. And, please don't tell me about white men stacking the vote. Blacks and women couldn't vote in the Union, either.

I understand the historical arguments that some think made secession illegal. I wonder why, though, despite other changes to the Constitution made as a result of the war, there was no specific change added to make future secession specifically, unquestionably illegal. I understand the legal guarantees the South was given that slavery would not be interfered with (except extension to the territories). I understand that all of you regard secession as illegal, wrong-headed and unjustified. In the context of the time, it was not so regarded in the South and by many in the North. I'm not taking about a group of friends in a bar who don't want to pay income tax any longer. I'm talking about a distinct geographic region, culture, and economic system. To bring it back to the future, one of the most common political trends in the world today is the drive for cultural and political autonomy. Africa, the Balkans, Indonesia, the former Soviet Union. Unfortunately, it usually takes violence to achieve because the previous owner never wants to let go. The South had a right to self-determination as defined by themselves, however mistaken you think they were. I simply will not give up that opinion.

As for Lincoln, how would he be regarded if the South had achieved its independence? How would history look at all those dead young men? The victors write the history books. I also don't collect Dixie cups. Why would I even want to?

PS. Just so there is no doubt about where I'm coming from: Slavery was wrong and evil. The South screwed up big-time when they seceded and paid the price. They had a moral, inalienable right to pursue self-determination. Father Abraham could have handled it better by displaying the flexibility demanded by a unique situation. Specifically, let them go, let the situation calm down and talk instead of shoot. Yes, I know, they shot first. A truly great man would not have shot back.

[GraniteStater]

As to South's right to secede, we shall simply have to agree to disagree....

There is some wisdom there. Don't ever bring this up in my presence when I've had a few and am watching the Red Sox, though. Fair enough?

Blacks and women couldn't vote in the Union, either....

Not entirely true, I believe, at least per the universal constuction used here.

I wonder why, though, despite other changes to the Constitution made as a result of the war, there was no specific change added to make future secession specifically, unquestionably illegal....

Because the instrument specifically states that "No State shall enter into any treaty, alliance or confederation," in the First Article. To maintain that a State may withdraw from this Union and then do these things is disingenuous, I believe, and acting upon this assertion is criminal sedition, for a start - to further it by the use of arms is treason outright and should be absolutely crushed with the utmost rigor and resolve.

[In the context of the time, it was not so regarded in the South and by many in the North.... I'm not taking about a group of friends in a bar who don't want to pay income tax any longer....

Really? "Many in the North"? I don't buy it. Some, yes. Not "many", I would say. Maybe 15%, maybe - Rasmussen wasn't around back then.

Bear in mind that (a) western Virginia got so p*ss*d that they told Richmond to take a long walk off a short pier and cried for succor, and (b) every single Southern state in rebellion, except South Carolina, provided regiments to fight for this most noble and illustrious Union.

You can think what you wish, but the answer is still No and always will be.

ADDENDUM

About twenty-five years ago, I was waiting for an appointment and was walking on the town common in Rowley, Massachusetts, very near my hometown. I went and looked at the Civil War statue so often found in New England towns. Inscribed on it was a phrase, a construction I had never, never read before:

"Erected in memory of those sons of Rowley who gave their lives for this Union in the War of the Rebellion."

And that is exactly what it was.

E Pluribus Unum

[fred zeppelin]

It's difficult for us on this side of the Civil War to fairly appreciate the philosophical and political arguments for secession, though, khbynum, you've done a very good job of it. The fact of Union is so ingrained today that it's almost impossible to think of secession in any but the most theoretical terms. But for those who lived before the war, the issue was far from theoretical.

I hate to rely on Wikipedia for much, but I'm lazy and busy with real-life stuff, so it'll have to do for now. This article gives a pretty good overview of the history of secession in the US: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secession_in_the_United_States Certainly, the concept didn't spring, fully formed, from the South Carolina legislature. Americans had a long history of pondering their ability to sever their ties with government - pretty much ever since they created their nation by severing ties with Great Britain. Secession was seen by many, North and South, to be at least the first cousin of the right of self-determination that gave rise to the Revolution.

It is interesting to note that the first serious secession movement arose, not in the South, but in New England during the War of 1812. After the Hartford Convention, Massachusetts actually sent delegates to Washington to discuss terms - only to find that the war was over (and that Jackson had whipped the British at New Orleans). Certainly that threat never approached the seriousness of the one that arose 50 years later, but it's worth noting that this wasn't a bunch of Southern hotheads, but rather sober-minded New Englanders.

While I think the concept of secession ill-founded, what made it morally wrong in the case of the South was slavery. Without slavery, the South almost certainly never would have elevated the notion of secession beyond the much-discussed, little exercised theory it had been up to then.

[GraniteStater]

It is interesting to note that the first serious secession movement arose, not in the South, but in New England during the War of 1812

Well, there were the KY & VA Resolutions that preceded this. The Hartford Convention was WRONG, also.

what made it morally wrong in the case of the South was slavery

You then clarified this to some extent by the sentence immediately succeeding this and I won't gasp too loudly, but...but...

The moral repugnance of secession is comprehensive in light of the history of this Union, from the Albany Convention, through the events flowing from 19 April 1775, and then on 2 July 1776. IOW, slavery is nugatory - it adds to the reprehensibility, but is not germane, really.

The US is not an arrangement between polities. The Articles left much to be desired. They established the Constitution and in the Preamble, set out the purposes for which it was established. The Preamble is not a commentary nor a preface. It specifies the six Great Objects of the instrument and is just as integral a part of that Constitution as any clause that follows.

The first object is "to form a more perfect Union." A clause following unmistakably prohibits the several States from entering into any understandings among themselves or with foreign powers. Things like the TVA or the NYNJ Port Authority are legal and constitutional, for Congress (in effect the United States) has exercised a lawful power to allow certain specific arrangements.

To maintain that any State may ignore this clear prohibition by the disingenous, fatuous pile of tripe that some liken to a legal argument and is commonly called secession ignores the historical record and the writings of the Founders and others. Patrick Henry, George Mason and others, at the time of the Ratification, had reservations, cogent reservations. They feared a unitary and centralized national government, with good reason. They set aside these reservations when most solemnly assured there would be a Bill of Rights, the last provision of which is the Tenth Amendment, clearly demarcating the spheres of power, and the Ninth, specifying that unenumerated rights are not disparaged because they are unenumerated.

All understood that we had established ONE NATION on 2 July 1776, at the very microsecond when R. H. Lee's resolution had passed the Second Continental Congress. This was a nation because we had all agreed to the principles enunciated by Jefferson. Those principles are what make us a nation - not the language, not the Anglo-Saxon heritage, not the circumstances of several colonies on the same littoral, not the common history, although some of these are, of course, important considerations.

Nonetheless, the fundamental and irrevocable conception of this nation is irretrievably and inherently bound up with the principles expressed in the Declaration of Independence. We were not an association, nor a league - we were, and are, One Nation.

The Articles were not a compact among sovereign polities. Nor is the Constitution.

"We the People of the United States..." - of who? The United States, a nation, a singularity born on 2 July 1776.

We, the People...the people of this nation, all of them, granted these powers and defined what the government of the United States may or may not do. We did so as one people, one nation.

This Union is perpetual and Lincoln reminded his listeners why. He reminded them, because Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, Adams, Henry, Mason, Otis, Marshall, all of them, including the signer Josiah Bartlett, whose grave is but two miles from where I sit, understood this. Henry, Mason and others had reservations about the form of government that was proposed by the Constitution, but all were in agreement that any government designed for the government of the nation drew its lawful authority from all the people of this nation, one nation.

One consequence of the present arrangement, dating from 21 June 1788, is that no individual, state, or any association whatsoever may interfere with the lawful exercise of Federal powers by the officers thereof, or any other mechanism that the Federal government lawfully employs.

*Pauses and takes deep, deep breath*

What I am about to say will shock more than a few, but this principle is not just an abstraction. It is the very taproot of our national existence. It is a vital, a vital, moral principle. I will say this as carefully as I can and hope I am not violating the courtesies and rules of these forums.

If I saw anyone, anyone at all, my wife, my child, my sainted mother, my father who served the United States faithfully, my priest, my pastor, my bookie, anyone at all, including the Pope in his vestments, resisting the lawful exercise of Federal authority by Federal officers through force of arms, so as to threaten life or limb, and the present and exigent circumstances obtaining at that moment did not permit the calling for aid and those officers were in imminent peril of life or limb, I would shoot them stone cold dead without a single grain of compunction.

Is this perfectly clear?

[Ol' Choctaw]

There weren't two wrongs. We're not exploring history.

Not exploring history? What? You think it is your way or no way!

GranitStater, I respect your opinion on most things but when it come to the Union, we are not discussing religious dogma but history.


You need not get so worked up. No one is dissolving the Union over this, but you seem to like leaving parts out.

It is not so black and white as you make it.

At least get it right.

Lincoln was elected. The 7 Deep South states said they feared the Republican Agenda. It was not Lincoln’s proposed agenda or the party platform but it rally was a frightening prospect.

In part they called for a war against the slave holing states. The eradication of the slaveholding class. Placing freed slaves over the remaining population as punishment for their sins, and of course these former slaves being grateful would be overseen by the GOP. At least that is what all the papers were printing.

I am pretty sure some people would get upset, especially with the views of the day and the recent violent attempts to start a slave rebellion.

Now, this may not upset you but at least admit that it could be put to serious political use. Leaving the Union was something that had been often discussed but not resolved.

At this point Lincoln takes office and in his speech he called for reconciliation but said he would not leave it to the court to decide.

Now Lincoln was new in office and found he needed the radical element with its proposition of a sectional war. They were not all that numerous but had some powerful men behind them. A number of the more radical types were in the Lincoln Cabinet or close to the man.

Downplaying the role of sectionalism is a mistake. Sectionalism played a large part. It even went so far as churches were split north and south.
The admission of Maine was a part of it, and a technical violation of the constitution. But you see compromises were allowed.
It seemed fair enough and was handled in a legal way.
So was secession. It was untested and not ruled upon.

Now! As to whether those southern states who seceded had grounds to fear their northern brethren, I submit to you Reconstruction. Not the reconstruction Lincoln had in mind but the one that the Radical Republicans insisted upon. It looks almost exactly like what was said their proposition was before the war, right a long with much of the prosecution of the war its self.

If you want to say slavery was wrong, I will agree with you.

You want to say secession is not provided for in the constitution, that is true. But the natural right to revolution is.

They did handle the secession ordinances in a democratic manor and submitted them to congress.

From there it was all hotheadedness.

Tell me no one in the Union made mistakes. Why did four more states secede if the Union was so right? Why did they face resistance elsewhere?

Now, as to the Evils of Slavery, you would find the war would have fallen flat on its face had it been about slavery in the beginning. Most people didn’t want them freed at all. It would mean people who would work for less money.

What they wanted was them gone or restricted to the south. Only the abolitionists wanted them free and they were not a majority but a very unpopular minority. Most of the North were Free Soilers, which meant they wanted the county free for whites only. Blacks, Indians, and all others were not welcome.

That is why you find Lincoln speaking against blacks voting or serving on juries and the like.

That is why Jim Crow laws didn’t find much opposition. It also happens to be why some former Confederates were very unpopular with whites.

Forrest and Shelby worked for civil rights for blacks and paid a high price for it. Hindman was assonated because he was building a coalition of blacks and Democrats.

It is not THEY HAD NO RIGHT TO LEAVE! end of story.

[khbynum]

If I saw anyone, anyone at all, my wife, my child, my sainted mother, my father who served the United States faithfully, my priest, my pastor, my bookie, anyone at all, including the Pope in his vestments, resisting the lawful exercise of Federal authority by Federal officers through force of arms, so as to threaten life or limb, and the present and exigent circumstances obtaining at that moment did not permit the calling for aid and those officers were in imminent peril of life or limb, I would shoot them stone cold dead without a single grain of compunction.

Is this perfectly clear?

Yes, perfectly clear. Holy....sh*t. I'm really sorry I told you where I live.

PS. For the record, I've saved a copy of this post on my computer. And other places. I've also reported it to the moderators.

[GraniteStater]

The circumstances I describe are so narrow, so very narrow.

But there is a profound moral point involved, rooted in the meaning of law and abiding by it. Any and all arguments for secession are morally repugnant to the foundation of this nation.

If, and only if, there were a clear and unmistakable effort by the US government to establish an outright tyranny and imposed its will by unconstitutional and unlawful means, then that is a vastly different story.

Not until then. No one is justified in resisting the lawful exercise of Federal power, most especially by force.

[GraniteStater]

It is not THEY HAD NO RIGHT TO LEAVE! end of story.

No State may secede. That is it, pure and simple. Volumes of ink have been used to discuss this, but it is abundantly clear that this is one nation.

South Carolina never, never left the Union. They attempted to leave the Union, but they could not, in any constitutional, legal or moral wise, cease to be part of this nation.

The 'Jeffersonian moment' is conceivable, but, I hope, so unlikely as to never obtain.

Not while the courts are open. Not while we may peaceably redress grievances.

The advocacy of secession from this Union is a moral repugnation to the solemn principles upon which it was established, not to mention an implication that Might makes Right, the mailed fist and anarchy enshrined.

If one does not see that, then one needs to bone up, starting with Lincoln's First Inaugural. You really don't need anything else to grasp his cogent and dispositive analysis and conclusion.

And it is dispositive - Lincoln was absolutely correct in every single aspect of the question - every single facet. He disposed of the question, that's what 'dispositive' means.

End of story.

[Jim-NC]

If, and only if, there were a clear and unmistakable effort by the US government to establish an outright tyranny and imposed its will by unconstitutional and unlawful means, then that is a vastly different story.

Not until then.

And who decides that? The victor? You?

[GraniteStater]

This would be the 'tripwire' discussion and this forum does not recognize the subject.

[fred zeppelin]

The philosophical basis for secession - what khbynum expressed so well earlier: "everyone has a right to self-determination and in the end no agreement, compact or document can compel them if they decide, as a people, that they wish to go their own way" - is in no conceivable sense "immoral." It may be ill-founded as a political doctrine and unworkable as a principle of governance, but it doesn't violate some immutable universal principle of right and wrong.

Slavery does. Shooting people who disagree with you does. But Secession? No.

[GraniteStater]

is in no conceivable sense "immoral."

There is a conceivable sense and that sense obtains in the context of this thread.

It obtains in a proper understanding of the Founding.

Whether any polity, anywhere, may secede from another is a general case.

In the context of our history, though, this sense is immanent.

I may not leave my wife precipitously without breaking the vows of marriage. This is immoral. It is immoral to abnegate and abjure solemn agreements.

We are one nation. This was understood and exemplified in the Declaration.

No polity in this nation may declare that it is no longer part of this nation, for this nation was born a nation by the will of all the people of this nation and no public association subject to its jurisdiction may declare that it is not part of this nation.

This conception of the nation being one, a single people, a single nation, is a fundamental concept and is immanent in that conception. The notion that an association may 'secede' is, within the context of the Founding and the history of this nation, profoundly immoral, for it essentially avers that the association may, unilaterally, violate the agreement, present and immanent from 2 July 1776, if not earlier, that we are one nation and indivisible (I dearly hope people still remember the Pledge of Allegiance).

So we enter into whether precipitously and unilaterally, of its own accord, a polity within this nation may attempt to secede and consider that to be a moral act, although it can be demonstrated, as Lincoln did, that it is an abjuration of the most solemn agreements and principles.

Hogswallop.

As Laplace used to write, it should be easy to see that this idea is a promulgation of an immoral contention when considered within the context of US history and a clear understanding of why we are a nation - for this nation is a nation because of a set of principles, not whether our forefathers spoke Gothic and settled in Austrasia.

And a central fundamental principle is that we are indivisible.

What the South did was not only unconstitutional and illegal and unlawful, it was also immoral, profoundly and deeply immoral.

It is not an abstruse point of litigation or some rather interesting and entertaining subject of theoretical discussion to be tossed around at the Sigma Pi bull session on Saturday night. To even hint that any polity or association in this nation and subject to its jurisdiction may leave of its own accord is a deeply offensive and profoundly immoral proposition that must be countenanced out of a respect for other's rights, but it is also to be met with the plain and honest truth that such a notion is immoral and unlawful and directly contravenes an essential and fundamental agreement reached by all the people of this nation, well over two centuries ago.

To repeatedly maintain that secession is possible since that agreement was reached on 2 July 1776, if not before, is to resemble the south end of a horse going north.

To say that such an act could possibly be moral in the context of that agreement only demonstrates a poverty of understanding the Founding of this nation, its import and its meaning.

Read the First Inaugural Address, just that, and it should be clear as day that the set "principles inhered in the Founding of the United States" does not include secession. To assert that the set does contain that element is morally repugnant, for those principles were agreed to by all the people of this nation and secession is a dagger striking at adherence to oaths, solemn understandings and agreements and any clear understanding of justice.

"Slavery was immoral, but secession wasn't," is, in the context of the Founding and all that proceeded from it, an absurdity of the first order.

[fred zeppelin]

Read the First Inaugural Address, just that, and it should be clear as day that the set "principles inhered in the Founding of the United States" does not include secession.

You are aware, I presume, that the First Inaugural Address, worthy as it is, is not the only statement of the principles underlying our Republic? Nor is it even the first.

I agree with your interpretation of the issue today, 150 years after the question was tested by war. But you seem incapable of viewing the world as it existed before the war. Lincoln's was a compelling argument. But there were others that many Americans, North and South, found more compelling. Heck, even William Lloyd Garrison advocated that the North secede over the issue of slavery - sort of South Carolina in reverse.

Your conception of the Union - the modern one - wasn't shared nearly so universally then as it is now. If it had been, Lincoln wouldn't have had to compose so many eloquent speeches, suspend habeas corpus, wander the halls of the White House on so many sleepless nights - or perhaps even free the slaves - in order to preserve it. If even a significant minority of Northerners had believed in Union in 1861 as fervently as you do today, the war would have been over in six months.

[GraniteStater]

You are not mistaken when you review the "particular views", shall we say, bruited about by some citizens of the US in the antebellum South and other regions. Your last statement might be dragged into court and sued by its spouse and family for lack of support, but although I disagree in that historical contention, it is not all that important.

There is something called a sense of proportion. One may see that exemplified by Lincoln in his address - and I wish to take the opportunity to mention that his second address in 1865 is an even better oration. The more often I have read these, as well as the Gettysburg Address (and I don't think there is a more outstanding oration in recorded history, with the possible exception of Socrates's address to his jury and, of course, the teachings of the Redeemer: ten sentences, count them, ten, wherein he states what this nation is all about and, as too many are unaware, he, not for this first time in his career, but in the most profoundly moving language, reconnects the nation to the Declaration), and his On the Perpetuation of Our Political Institutions, commonly known as the Lyceum Speech, given by him as a young man, the more I am, much like my reaction to Shakespeare, in simple and profound awe that any man could so clearly conceive essentials and express them so clearly, definitively, and concisely.

A sense of proportion is important - Jefferson goes out of his way to make it clear that this Union was not declaring its nationhood because it had a hissy fit, like some folks in 1860. That point is one of the cruxes of the matter and why I will refute any understanding but the one expounded by Jefferson and Lincoln. Before Lincoln's ascension to the Presidency, the issues of the day were about the Constitution. We had left a judicial 'hole', if you will, in Article III and quickly, very quickly indeed, added the Eleventh Amendment. Then we improved the electoral process of the Electoral College - the Twelfth. That was it until 1865.

Sectionalism and the controversies about the Territories were disagreements largely over the Constitution. What Lincoln saw and so marvelously restored to us, was a dusty document that in the early 19th century, had been, believe it or not, largely forgotten - the Declaration.

"All my political sentiments spring from the Declaration of Independence. Insofar as a man agrees with the principles espoused therein, I agree with him; insofar as he differs from them, I disagree with him." - Abraham Lincoln

I personally subscribe to and agree with every syllable of that statement.

"...all men are created equal [and have inalienable rights] among [which] are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men."

There is no 'modern' understanding. There is no 'antebellum' understanding. There is no new understanding instituted by either Roosevelt, Wilson, JFK, or any recent individual.

There is only the understanding and that understanding has its origins in the Declaration explicitly and implicitly from the events leading up to 19 April 1775, the months thereafter, and crystallized by one Thomas Jefferson of Virginia on behalf of the nation whose birth certificate he wrote.

It is the finest and most noble statement of the purpose of government and what a free nation is all about in the history of mankind.

And the actualization of this statement involved, and involves, certain principles. These principles are the lifeblood of this nation and are what makes it a nation.

And we can teach these to our children, every generation, until the last syllable of recorded time. The complete expostulation takes a mature and clear effort for historical and moral sensibilities to be shown fully. However, the essence is not hard to teach, even to seven year old schoolchildren.

"...one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

[GraniteStater]

With the above, I bid all a fond adieu. As Jefferson said at his Inaugural in 1800, let those who differ stand tranquilly, as monuments to the safety in which they may hold their views.

[fred zeppelin]

There is only the understanding and that understanding has its origins in the Declaration explicitly and implicitly from the events leading up to 19 April 1775, the months thereafter, and crystallized by one Thomas Jefferson of Virginia on behalf of the nation whose birth certificate he wrote.

It is the finest and most noble statement of the purpose of government and what a free nation is all about in the history of mankind.

Do you mean the same Declaration that said this:

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,—That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Or was there some other Declaration you were referring to?

[GraniteStater]

See above. I addressed this when I talked about the people's right to alter or abolish our present arrangement.

I don't think I have left any readers unsure about my beliefs.

Avoir. Auf Wiedersehen. To paraphrase the greatest military genius in American history, "from where the thread now stands, I will write no more forever."

[pgr]

The 7 Deep South states said they feared the Republican Agenda. It was not Lincoln’s proposed agenda or the party platform but it rally was a frightening prospect.

In part they called for a war against the slave holing states. The eradication of the slaveholding class. Placing freed slaves over the remaining population as punishment for their sins, and of course these former slaves being grateful would be overseen by the GOP. At least that is what all the papers were printing.

Ol' Choctaw, it is still disingenuous because it clearly was not the Republican platform in 1860. It is a blatant fabrication that the Republicans in general, and Lincoln in particular, intended to to eradicate the slaveholding class. John Brown certainly did, but he was most certainly not embraced by Lincoln.

Now! As to whether those southern states who seceded had grounds to fear their northern brethren, I submit to you Reconstruction. Not the reconstruction Lincoln had in mind but the one that the Radical Republicans insisted upon. It looks almost exactly like what was said their proposition was before the war, right a long with much of the prosecution of the war its self.

This isn't evidence of any intent of the Republican party. Prior to the war, NOBODY was talking about military reconstruction of the South. The attempt to "eradicate" the anti-bellum power structure called reconstruction was a direct result of the slaveholding class electing to make war against the government of the United States.

You want to say secession is not provided for in the constitution, that is true. But the natural right to revolution is.

Nowhere in the U.S. Constitution is there a provision protecting the natural right to revolution. It may be part of Natural Law (the discussion of which is akin to discussing religious dogma), but it is not part of U.S. constitutional law. To invoke it, as the South attempted, is to enter into conflict with U.S. constitutional law.

We should remember that this thread started as a discussion what actions could have been taken to avoid conflict, not as a debate of the moral justice of secession. Heck, this thread's debate shows that when secession becomes the topic, there already is a conflict. Where is the room for debate when one government wants to maintain its laws and territory while another attempts to create itself out of a piece of the existing state.

Once secession happened, war was inevitable. If we want to talk about how it could have been avoided, we should be talking why the various leaders and compromises proposed during the 1850s failed to avoid secession, and what could have happened differently.

Otherwise, this becomes an exercise in saying the South had the right to go its own way and Lincoln had no right to stop them. My view of self-determination is largely in line with the Declaration of Independence's reasoning that:

"Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed."

Revolutions are treason and aggression against an existing order and should only be undertaken following "a long train of abuses and usurpations." The signers made no claim that Britain had no right to fight their rebellion, they maintained that British abuse justified their struggle for independence. My view is that the South staged its revolution (and treason) for the light and transient cause of loosing an election, and out of hypothetical Federal future abuse. The South clearly felt justified. It doesn't really matter what side of the fence you fell on, once the situation arrived at this point, both sides were going to make their point by force.

[pgr]

And to push the question...

Compensated Emancipation. It was the model used in most of the world at the time. the U.S. could have jumped from slavery to Jim Crow without any of the messy warfare in between...