# Revisiting the Past : Part 3 - An re-examination of the concept of Secession



## Bob Hubbard (Dec 9, 2008)

*Revisiting the Past : Part 3 - An re-examination of the concept of Secession
By Robert Hubbard*

In part 1 of this series I examined the concept of the legality of Secession. My suggestion to the reader would be to read the following prior to this article for some background.

Revisiting the Past : Part 1 - An examination of the concept of Secession
Revisiting the Past : Part 2 - The Road to War : Causes

Both are available online at several sites. See the resource section below for links.

Since the publication of the 1st and 2nd parts of this series, a number of people have objected to it's conclusions. Sadly, the "Official History" tells us that the incorrectly named "Civil War" was about slavery, and that it was illegal for a State to leave the warm loving bosom of America. The idea of a state doing so seems absurd, why how would they survive without the Federal Government!

People forget or simply aren't aware that Texas was once an independent Republic, and survived quite well as one for some ten years before joining the Union. Hawaii was brought in illegally at gun point, a fact that former US President Bill Clinton apologized for on November 23, 1993 through United States Public Law 103-150. Alaska was allowed into the Union in violation of international law.

*Let us ask a simple question here.
Why would any state think that secession was legal?*

*1: Because prior to Lincoln taking office no one questioned it. *
On several occasions, the New England States had threatened to secede. Arguments used to convince them to stay involved things such as trade, commerce and defense, not the legality of the idea.

Alexis de Tocqueville, wrote in "Democracy in America" that "The Union was formed by the voluntary agreement of the States; and in uniting together they have not forfeited their nationality . . . . If one of the states chooses to withdraw from the compact . . . the Federal Government would have no means of maintaining its claims directly either by force or right." 

Howard Cecil Perkins surveyed about 1,000 Northern newspapers. The majority of them agreed secession was legal.

The Bangor Daily Union wrote on November 13, 1860: "The Union depends for its continuance on the free consent and will of the sovereign people of each state, and when that consent and will is withdrawn on either part, their Union is gone." 

Horace Greeley, editor of the New York Tribune and a prominent Republican, editorialized on December 17, 1860, that if tyranny and despotism justified the Revolution of 1776, then "we do not see why it would not justify the secession of Five Millions of Southrons from the Federal Union in 1861." On February 5, 1861, Greeley continued on that "The Great Principle embodied by Jefferson in the Declaration is . . . that governments derive their just power from the consent of the governed." Therefore, if the Southern states want to secede, "they have a clear right to do so." 

*2: Because there is a belief that the 10th Amendment of the US Constitution allows for it.*
_Amendment 10 - Powers of the States and People. Ratified 12/15/1791. 
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people._

Since there is nothing in the US Constitution is silent on the matter of secession, and up until Reconstruction there was nothing in the various State Constitutions that denied them an out, the argument goes that the right to Secede remained a reserved right of the states. 

This is why in part Lincolns predecessor President Buchanan allowed the first seven states to leave peacefully. While he disagreed with them, he believed the Federal Government didn't have the right to force them to stay.

In addition, at least 3 states, Virginia, New York and Rhode Island included specific clauses in their ratification of the US Constitution that permitted them the right to leave the Union. Since all states are considered equal under the US Constitution, this right extended to all the others.

*3: Because Jefferson, Adams and even Lincoln said they could!*
"_[We should be] determined... to sever ourselves from the union we so much value rather than give up the rights of self-government...in which alone we see liberty, safety and happiness._"
-- Thomas Jefferson in a letter to James Madison in August 1799

"_The alternatives between which we are to choose [are fairly stated]: 1, licentious commerce and gambling speculations for a few, with eternal war for the many; or, 2, restricted commerce, peace and steady occupations for all. If any State in the Union will declare that it prefers separation with the first alternative to a continuance in union without it, I have no hesitation in saying 'let us separate.' I would rather the States should withdraw which are for unlimited commerce and war, and confederate with those alone which are for peace and agriculture. I know that every nation in Europe would join in sincere amity with the latter and hold the former at arm's length by jealousies, prohibitions, restrictions, vexations and war._" 
--Thomas Jefferson to William H. Crawford, 1816.

"_Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up, and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable - a most sacred right - a right, which we hope and believe, is to liberate the world._" 
-- Abraham Lincoln 1848

"_But the indissoluble link of union between the people of the several States of this confederated nation is, after all, not in the RIGHT, but in the HEART. If the day should ever come (may Heaven avert it!) when the affections of the people of these States shall be alienated from each other, when the fraternal spirit shall give way to cold indifference, or collision of interests shall fester into hatred, the bonds of political association - will not long hold together parties no longer attracted by the magnetism of conciliated interests and kindly sympathies; and far better will it be for the people of the disunited States to part in friendship with each other than to be held together by constraint. Then will be the time for reverting to the precedents which occurred at the formation and adoption of the Constitution, to form again a more perfect Union, by dissolving that which could no longer bind, and to leave the separated parts to be reunited by the law of political gravitation to the center._"
-- John Quincy Adams (1767-1848) 6th US President, in his discourse before the New York Historical Society, in 1839

3 US Presidents said it was legal, yet one of these 3 went on to violate the law.

*4: It was Taught that is was legal*
William Rawle, a prominent Philadelphia lawyer wrote in 1825 in his book "A View of the Constitution" that under certain situations it would be legal for a state to secede. This book was used to teach Constitutional Law at West Point from 1825-1845.


*So why if it was legal was there a war?*

Money.  Plain and simple. Money.

A Southern nation, as a thriving Free-Trade zone would seriously impact the tariff funded North, and hurt the same New England States who had threatened to themselves secede a few decades earlier.

The sad irony of this war, and it's effect on the Constitution was summed up by H.L. Mencken:

"_The Gettysburg speech is at once the shortest and the most famous oration in American history. Put beside it, all the whoopings of the Websters, Sumners and Everetts seem gaudy and silly It is eloquence brought to a pellucid and almost gem-like perfectionthe highest emotion reduced to a few poetical phrases. Nothing else precisely like it is to be found in the whole range of oratory. Lincoln himself never even remotely approached it. It is genuinely stupendous.

But let us not forget that it is poetry, not logic; beauty, not sense. Think of the argument in it. Put it into the cold words of everyday. The doctrine is simply this: that the Union soldiers who died at Gettysburg sacrificed their lives to the cause of self-determination"that government of the people, by the people, for the people," should not perish from the earth. It is difficult to imagine anything more untrue. The Union soldiers in that battle actually fought against self-determination; it was the Confederates who fought for the right of their people to govern themselves. What was the practical effect of the battle of Gettysburg? What else than the destruction of the old sovereignty of the States, i.e., of the people of the States? The Confederates went into battle free; they came out with their freedom subject to the supervision and veto of the rest of the countryand for nearly twenty years that veto was so effective that they enjoyed scarcely more liberty, in the political sense, than so many convicts in the penitentiary._"
 Journalist H.L. Mencken, From Five Men at Random, Prejudices: Third Series, 1922, pp. 171-76: First printed, in part, in the Smart Set, May, 1920, p. 141

Until Lincoln waged his vindictive and barbarous war against a Confederacy who had chosen to use their right to secede, and forced them at gun point to rejoin the Union, and in doing so revise their own state constitutions to bar them from again seceding in the future, the United States was a grouping of equals. After this, it began a rapid shift to the bloated all-powerful monolithic centralist government that we have today. What I wonder is the true cost of a nation that continuously violates it's own laws? If we look around and check the news today, we see where the path begun with the illegal reunification of the 1860's.


=====

*Time Line of US State Secession*
 

December 20, 1860 : South Carolina
January 9, 1861 : Mississippi
January 10, 1861 : Florida
January 11, 1861: Alabama
January 19, 1861 : Georgia
January 26, 1861 : Louisiana
February 1, 1861 : Texas
February 4, 1861 : South Carolina, Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, and Texas formed the Confederate States of America
March 4, 1861 : President James Buchanan turns over US Government to President Abraham Lincoln
April 12, 1861 : Hostilities Begin: After the Confederate attack on Fort Sumter on April 12, 1861, and Lincoln's subsequent call for troops on April 15, four more states declaredtheir secession
May 6, 1861 : Arkansas
April 17, 1861 : Virginia
May 7, 1861 : Tennessee
May 20, 1861 : North Carolina
June 1865 : War ends, Reconstruction Begins.

*References*:
 

Republic of Texas
United States Public Law 103-150
Alaska Legal Status
Confederate State Information
US Constitution
Book: 33 Questions about American History by Thomas E. Woods Jr. : Chapters 4 and 10.
Book: Politically Incorrect guide to American history by Thomas E. Woods Jr. :Chapter 6.
Rewriting History, American Style by Thomas J. DiLorenzo
Revisiting the Past : Part 1 - An examination of the concept of Secession
Revisiting the Past : Part 2 - The Road to War : Causes
====

Bob Hubbard is the CEO of SilverStar WebDesigns Inc, a web design and hosting company specializing in martial arts sites, as well as an administrator on the popular martial arts communities MartialTalk.com, Kenpotalk.com and FMATalk.com. He is also a respected professional photographer specializing in martial arts event, nature and portrait photography. His martial arts photography can be found there as well as at his martial arts photography web site, martialphotos.com. He may be reached through these sites.
Copyright © 2008 - Bob Hubbard - All Rights Reserved
_Permission is granted to reprint this article on websites, blogs and ezines provided all text, links and authors bio is left intact._


----------



## jarrod (Dec 10, 2008)

there is, imo, no such thing as a just war.  there are unavoidable wars, but no just ones.  

nevertheless, without the civil war slavery would have been around much longer.  given the attitudes of some southerners, it might still survive today.  

jf


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Dec 10, 2008)

Unlikely.  The "War of Northern Aggression" wasn't fought over slavery.

1- The Emancipation Proclamation freed -noone-.  Slaves held in "Loyal" Northern States weren't freed until the war ended, and those in the seceded states were beyond Lincolns control.

2- Lincoln himself stated he could care less about the slaves.
"If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that." - Abraham Lincoln to Horace Greeley August 22, 1862
http://www.civilwarhome.com/lincolngreeley.htm

3- The United States was the only nation in this hemisphere that felt a war was needed to free slaves. All others found peaceful ways to do so.
-The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History - Pg 73

4- The Confederate Constitution forbid the importation of new slaves.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confederate_States_Constitution

5- While some held to the institution of slavery, and the CSA Constitution in fact was pro-slavery in many statutes, time would have forced a reality check on the culture. The main reason for slavery's gradual departure from the Northern States wasn't because they thought that the blacks, whites and indians held in bondage were equals, but that progress had rendered slavery obsolete and inefficient. Why feed, clothe and manage slaves when one can have a machine that does the work of 20, without the costs, concerns and liabilities of frail humans?  As industrialization spread, the institution of slavery would have gradually died out, much as it did elsewhere in the industrialized world.


SideBar:
Why do I refer to this as not a Civil War? A Civil War is a war where 2 or more factions fight over control of the central government. The seceding Southern States weren't fighting to take control, they were fighting to declare themselves independent, much like the original 13 Colonies had done when they seceded from England.


----------



## jarrod (Dec 10, 2008)

Bob Hubbard said:


> Unlikely. The "War of Northern Aggression" wasn't fought over slavery.
> 
> 1- The Emancipation Proclamation freed -noone-. Slaves held in "Loyal" Northern States weren't freed until the war ended, and those in the seceded states were beyond Lincolns control.
> 
> ...


 

jf


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Dec 10, 2008)

1: Pulled this from Wiki's article on the EP.


> The Emancipation Proclamation was widely attacked at the time as freeing only the slaves over which the Union had no power. In practice, it committed the Union to ending slavery, which was a controversial decision in the North. Lincoln issued the Executive Order by his authority as "Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy" under Article II, section 2 of the United States Constitution.
> 
> *The proclamation did not free any slaves of the border states (Kentucky, Missouri, Maryland, Delaware, and West Virginia), or any southern state (or part of a state) already under Union control. *It first directly affected only those slaves who had already escaped to the Union side. Hearing of the Proclamation, more slaves quickly escaped to Union lines as the Army units moved South. As the Union armies conquered the Confederacy, thousands of slaves were freed each day until nearly all (approximately 4 million, according to the 1860 census[1]) were freed by July 1865.
> 
> After the war, abolitionists were concerned that since the proclamation was a war measure, it had not permanently ended slavery. Several former slave states passed legislation prohibiting slavery; *however, some slavery continued to exist until the institution was ended by the sufficient states' ratification of the Thirteenth Amendment on December 18, 1865.*


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emancipation_Proclamation

2: Lincoln was a product of his time. He believed the negro was inferior, and in fact supported deportation and colonization (meaning he was in favor of getting the out of the US).



> Between late August and mid-October, 1858, Lincoln and Douglas travelled together around the state to confront each other in seven historic debates. On August 21, before a crowd of 10,000 at Ottawa, Lincoln declared:17
> 
> I have no purpose directly or indirectly to interfere with the institution of slavery in the states where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.
> 
> ...


http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v13/v13n5p-4_Morgan.html

3: The US was a minor African Slave destination. Most went to plantations in the Caribbean and South America.  
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_slave_trade
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_slave_trade

Timeline of Slavery ending : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abolition_of_slavery_timeline

Slavery was at one time practiced through out the country. At it's birth there was considerable debate concerning it, and it was the New England States who were a key force behind it's continuance. Seems they were making quite a bit of profit on the importation of new slaves. So the Constitution tabled the issue until 1808!


> In Article 1, Section 9, Congress is limited, expressly, from prohibiting the "Importation" of slaves, before 1808. The slave trade was a bone of contention for many, with some who supported slavery abhorring the slave trade. The 1808 date, a compromise of 20 years, allowed the slave trade to continue, but placed a date-certain on its survival. Congress eventually passed a law outlawing the slave trade that became effective on January 1, 1808.


 http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_slav.html

4- No, breeding was allowed, in part due to the large internal trade that existed. An irony of which is that as the Northern States outlaws slavery, their slaves weren't reed, just resold to states that allowed slavery. Shipped there by New England shippers and sold by Virginia traders. 

5- The South and North evolved differently, a key reason for the Southern Revolution's failure. If they had possessed the manufacturing and manpower of the industrialized North, there may be 2 nations here instead of the 1.  As better more efficient machines came into existence, slavery would have been made obsolete.  After all today we use high tech equipment in much of our farming, and no longer have rooms full of women spinning and sewing.  Could it have held on through thhe 20th century? Maybe. But more graduated emancipation might have avoided much of the race issues that exist today.



As to what to call it, hey, whatever works.  Civil War is shorter to type too. LOL!


----------



## jarrod (Dec 10, 2008)

Bob Hubbard said:


> 1: Pulled this from Wiki's article on the EP.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emancipation_Proclamation
> 
> ...


 
cheers,

jf


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Dec 10, 2008)

A couple of the ideas I've seen tossed around was a desire to gradually emancipate the slaves, similar to what Brazil did, easing them into society.  I don't have hard data, but I believe there is less racism in Brazil than in the US, due to the forced situation in the US.  Remember, the North for the most part didn't want the freed slaves there either.  The deportation wasn't so much something considered because it was thought best for the freed slaves, but because they didn't want blacks mixing with whites.

Men such as Jefferson in fact noted the inconsistency between the "All Men Created Equal" clause and slavery. Didn't stop him from keeping slaves though.  Washington had his freed and taken care of upon his and Martha's deaths.  Men such as R.E. Lee noted the Souths poor international standing, and many a Southern Commander commented to the extent of "should have freed the slaves, then fired on Sumter."

Regarding the 3rd class status of blacks.....thats another article in the works that's going to open a **** storm I'm sure. 


My background is simple : Yankee by Birth Southern by Heart.  Family was in Europe during the war, but I've long understood the deeper reasons for the war, and in all honesty think the South was right. Not because of slavery, which I abhor, but the general principles surrounding it.  The more I research it, the more convinced I become that had the US split into USA/CSA, the CSA wouldn't be facing many of the issues the US currently is, such as an out of control bloated government, huge bailouts, and whatnot.  Not that I see the CSA as flawless. It wasn't. Course I'm also planning on moving to Texas soon where I'm sure I'll experience being seen as an "uppity damyankee" by some sharing the same views as I do. LOL!


----------



## Empty Hands (Dec 10, 2008)

Bob Hubbard said:


> Unlikely.  The "War of Northern Aggression" wasn't fought over slavery.



From the official declarations of secession from:
Texas
"She was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery - the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits - a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time."
Georgia
"For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slaveholding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery."
Mississippi
"Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery - the greatest material interest of the world."


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Dec 10, 2008)

All true.

7 of the States seceded in major part over the issue of Slavery (as well as political power revolving around slavery in the territories, new states, tariffs, etc).

4 others left after Lincoln ordered up an army in violation of accepted law and custom to forcibly coerce the Confederate back into the Union.

As to the issue of slavery:


> two days earlier the Northern-dominated U.S. Senate passed a proposed constitutional amendment that would have forbidden the federal government from ever interfering with Southern slavery. This "first thirteenth amendment" read: "No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State&#8217; (U.S. House of Representatives, 106th Congress, 2nd Session, The Constitution of the United States of America: Unratified Amendments, Document No. 106-214, presented by Congressman Henry Hyde (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, January 31, 2000).


http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo89.html

This is the oft referred to "missing" 13th Amendment, passed by a Northern controlled Congress, -after- the 7 had seceded and their representatives vacated Washington.

Why did they leave?



> On the same day that the U.S. senate passed this "first thirteenth amendment," President James Buchanan signed into law the Morrill Tariff, which more than doubled the average tariff rate. The U.S. House of Representatives had passed the bill during the 1859&#8211;60 session, long before Lincoln&#8217;s election or the secession of any southern state. It received only one vote from a congressman from one of the states that would eventually secede (Tennessee).


http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo89.html

Why did Lincoln want them back so badly he'd violate the letter and spirit of the law, mobilize several armies, invade a sovereign nation, and endorse the wholesale slaughter of it's people, the rape of it's women, the theft of it's property, and the destruction of that which couldn't be carried away?



> On the issue of slavery, he was one hundred percent accommodating, even going so far as to support the enshrinement of southern slavery explicitly in the Constitution. But on the issue of tax collection he was one hundred percent uncompromising. "Pay up or die," he essentially told the South. Not in these exact words, of course, but in the weasel words of a skilled trial lawyer/politician.
> 
> Here&#8217;s what he actually said: "[T]here needs to be no bloodshed or violence, and there shall be none unless it be forced upon the national authority." And how might it be "forced"? Failure on the part of any state to collect the newly-doubled tariff, that&#8217;s how. After stating that he assumed the power to "possess the property and places belonging to the Government," he said he was also obligated "to collect the duties and imposts; but beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion, no using force against or among the people anywhere."
> 
> The Confederates had offered to pay for any federal property on southern soil (federal forts were there for their protection anyway), as well as their share of the federal debt. Lincoln refused to even discuss this with them. Fully 95 percent of all federal revenue came from tariffs in 1860, and with the southern states seceding a large portion of that amount would go uncollected. The seceded states were not about to send any checks to Washington, D.C. Fail to pay the newly-doubled tariff tax, Lincoln said, and there will be an invasion. He would not back down to the South Carolina tax resisters, as Andrew Jackson did. (*Two weeks after Fort Sumter, where no one was wounded or killed, Lincoln announced a naval blockade of the southern ports and gave only one reason for it: tariff collection*).


http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo89.html



> The U.S. House of Representatives had passed the Morrill tariff in the 1859-1860 session, and the Senate passed it on March 2, 1861, two days before Lincoln&#8217;s inauguration. President James Buchanan, a Pennsylvanian who owed much of his own political success to Pennsylvania protectionists, signed it into law. The bill immediately raised the average tariff rate from about 15 percent (according to Frank Taussig in Tariff History of the United States) to 37.5 percent, but with a greatly expanded list of covered items. The tax burden would about triple. Soon thereafter, a second tariff increase would increase the average rate to 47.06 percent, Taussig writes.


http://mises.org/article.aspx?Id=952&FS=Lincoln's+Tariff+War



> *on April 12, Fort Sumter, a tariff collection point in Charleston Harbor, was bombarded by the Confederates. No one was hurt or killed, and Lincoln later revealed that he manipulated the Confederates into firing the first shot, which helped generate war fever in the North.*


http://mises.org/article.aspx?Id=952&FS=Lincoln's+Tariff+War


*References*:
http://mises.org/article.aspx?Id=952&FS=Lincoln's+Tariff+War
http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo89.html
Charles Adams: "For Good and Evil"
Charles Adams:  "When in the Course of Human Events: Arguing the Case for Southern Secession"
Thomas J. DiLorenzo: The Real Lincoln


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Dec 10, 2008)

Here are the 2 previous threads on MT that I worked on.

Researching the Past - An examination of the concept of Secession 
Revisiting the Past - The Road to War : Causes 

If you haven't read them yet, please do. Some of what I refer to is found there.

Thanks!


----------



## jarrod (Dec 10, 2008)

Empty Hands said:


> From the official declarations of secession from:
> Texas
> "She was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery - the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits - a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time."
> Georgia
> ...


 
AAAWWWWW DAAAAYUUMM!!! empty hand shoots; he scores!

just teasing you a bit bob. if i may offer up a suggestion, i think you may be idealizing the south/CSA just a bit based on the enourmous problems that the union is facing right now.  arguing that the loser was right is always a defensible position in history because we'll just never know.  we can't point out what's wrong with the moder CSA, only the union.  

you have a point with brazil, however south america had already undergone several waves of racial integration.  from what i understand, brazilians are primarily a combination of portugese & native cultures, so i suspect they might not have had the same ideas of racial purity/superiority that were (& in some places still are) prevelent in the south.  i think that gradual emmancipation might have smoothed the transition, but more because it would give freed slaves time to develop economic skills rather than ease any sort of culture shock.  we're talking about the age of social darwinism; many whites as you pointed out saw themselves as flat out better than blacks.   

as for the destruction caused in the south by the union...just like any war, both sides commited atrocities.  my favorite town in kansas (lawrence) sits near the missouri border & was burned to the ground twice missouri bandits licensed to act under the CSA.  there wasn't even a significant union presence there, just a lot of abolutionist civilians.  (if you're interested in civil war stuff, look up bloody kansas if you haven't already.  it's the last time we were interesting, until we took the theory of evolution out of our schools).  more atrocities were commited by the north only because the north was operating in southern territory.  you don't really think that southerners would have marched right past all those civilian targets if they had been able to penetrate into the south, do you?

imho, i think that it's a flawed premise to look at two sides of a war & determine who's "right".  you can try to determine who did the most to avoid it, who pressed their interests the least, or more likely who you sympathize with the most.  but it's seldom if ever a clear issue of right & wrong.

jf


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Dec 10, 2008)

You're blending 2 separate issues.  The causes for secession, and the causes for war.

Keep in mind that the South was responsible for approximately 75% of the tariff income of the Union. When the initial 7 State -legally- seceded, the Union faced a major cash crunch.  Remember, tariffs were the main source of Federal income at this time.  This issue revolving around tariffs was over 30 years in the making, and *Lincolns -only- purpose for illegally declaring war and ordering the blockade of Southern ports was to enforce the collection of US Federal Tariffs.*  (Remember, Under the US Constitution, the President can not legally declare war).  During the period of 1800-1861 several states and a few cities including NYC threatened to secede. In fact, the State of West Virginia was illegally formed by the Lincoln administration in violation of the law, which stated the government couldn't split a state, but the people could. In any event, if it were legal for West Virginia to secede from Virginia, why wouldn't it be legal otherwise?



> In doing this there needs to be no bloodshed or violence, and there shall be none unless it be forced upon the national authority. *The power confided to me will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property and places belonging to the Government and to collect the duties and imposts; but beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion, no using of force against or among the people anywhere.* Where hostility to the United States in any interior locality shall be so great and universal as to prevent competent resident citizens from holding the Federal offices, there will be no attempt to force obnoxious strangers among the people for that object. While the strict legal right may exist in the Government to enforce the exercise of these offices, the attempt to do so would be so irritating and so nearly impracticable withal that I deem it better to forego for the time the uses of such offices.


 http://www.famousquotes.me.uk/speeches/Abraham_Lincoln/1.htm

If the war was about freeing the slaves, it would have been in there from the start (April 1861), not 2 years after the start of hostilities (Jan 1, 1863 - Lincolns Emancipation proclamation), and not 8 months after an assassin ended Lincolns life, when the current 13th amendment was ratified on Dec 6, 1865.

In fact, Lincolns own words state that wasn't his intent.


> I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.


http://www.famousquotes.me.uk/speeches/Abraham_Lincoln/1.htm



> Myth: Abraham Lincoln freed the slaves.
> 
> The Emancipation Proclamation, which took effect on Jan. 1, 1863, didn't free a single slave that Lincoln was in a position to set free. It ordered the release of slaves in "any state or designated part of a state" that was in rebellion against the federal government. The areas covered by Lincoln's historic order were under the control of the Confederate Army, a fact that made the Emancipation Proclamation virtually unenforceable.
> 
> ...




As to how Southern troops would have behaved, Lee's army made 2 excursions into the North, the more famous ending at Gettysburg. I believe their showed good order, compared to Grant, Sheridan and Sherman, the later who admitted after the war that he deserved to be executed for war crimes for his part in it, as well as Union General Benjamin Butler, who with his Order #28 authorized the wholesale rape of the women of New Orleans.  These may be addresses in an article in the future.


This article's purpose was to focus on the legality of State Secession up to 1865. It's ow extended to the reasons for such secessions, as well as some CW/WOSI/WONA discussion.


*References*:
See above prior referenced.
Inaugural Speech by Abraham Lincoln - March 4th 1861
Thomas J. DiLorenzo - Lincoln Unmasked


----------



## KenpoTex (Dec 11, 2008)

Good thread Bob...

Sic Semper Tyrannis!  %-}


----------



## jarrod (Dec 11, 2008)

but i don't think i'm blending the two; i think that you may be over-looking the popular opinion.  which in a democracy counts for a lot.  

even though emancipation was not pressed at the outset of the war, slavery ended as a direct result of the war.  that may not have been lincoln's intention, or it may have been.  kinda like how bush might _really, really_ have thought that there were WMDs in iraq.  

wars are almost never fought over ideals.  but the politicians make use of the idealists, & as a result they might get something that they want.

lincoln could not have gotten support in the north for the civil war if he had placed himself wholly in the abolutionist camp, or wholly in the pro slavery camp.  he did a brilliant job of politicking to pull it off by claiming that slavery wasn't the issue.  _now i'm not doubting that lincoln was concerned primarily with the tariffs_.  but he could not have had his war without conceeding to the demands of the abolitionists.  & he had to do it while appeasing those in the north who were just as pro-slave as those in the south.  

WWII wasn't about stopping the holocaust, but it did.  

jf


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Dec 11, 2008)

The war didn't free the slaves any more than the EP did.  That was a result of what is currently the 13th Amendment, passed after the war had ended. Between the time the war ended and then, it continued to exist, in the Union!

Lincoln didn't care either way about the slaves, other than he wanted them removed from the country if they were freemen. A review of his writings will indicate that quite well.

Lincoln however got what he wanted.  A South hit with a Scorched Earth policy, his tarrifs, and an expansion of the Clay-Hamilton view of a single government which is directly responsible for our current mess.

It was Northern States that wanted to continue the slave trade, whose insistence resulted in the extension of importation until 1808. It was New England shippers who made the money in the slave trade, and it was the Northern States who when faced with lost revenue from trade and a heavier tax burden wanted the war.

Lets say for a moment that California decided to secede today. (They can't, it's in their Constitution, btw).
California is responsible for 12% of the Federal Income Tax Revenues. (largest amount btw)
$74,372,000,000

Federal Tariff income today btw is a mere $20,000,000,000 or so.

What do you think would happen if the largest income source in the nation were to try to leave today?  

But, back to Slavery and the EP.  If it didn't free anyone, what was the intent? 
To formulate a slave uprising behind enemy lines, where the plantations were being run by women, children and old men; the young men being in the army and away. 

It wasn't issued to free anyone, but as a careful political move to weaken his enemy. It actually hurt the Union more, as over 200,000 Union soldiers deserted, 120,000 evaded conscription and over 90,000 went to Canada, rather than fight for "the negro".  What was the Norths response? Shock and Surprise. Oh, and random mob killings of anyone black such as the race riots in NYC that left men women and even children in an orphanage dead.  Enlistment rates plummeted, as did sales of war bonds. In short, Lincolns move most likely prolonged the war rather than shortened it.

Now, the fact that slavery ended as a result of the war can't be denied. The final 13th was a result of that, the original 13th being scrapped (which would have forbid the Federal Gov. from interfering in slavery).  But a war wasn't needed to end it. It just might have taken a decade or 2 longer to ease it out without killing a few million people.

So, what is the status of secession today?  As part of their terms to rejoin the Union (though if they never left as some insisted during the war, what were they then rejoining under duress?), the Confederate States were forced to rewrite their constitutions to specifically prevent them from leaving again. Newer states also had no-secession clauses included or inserted. I am unaware of any state that currently still has secession ability, however NY and a few others may.  Suggest Secession today however, and you'll receive the blank stare of one who doesn't know their own history, due to years of Official History. They can't understand how a State could survive without the warm nursing bosom of the Federal Government.  Exactly the way Alexander Hamilton, Henry Clay and Abraham Lincoln wanted it.


----------



## jarrod (Dec 12, 2008)

Bob Hubbard said:


> ....Now, the fact that slavery ended as a result of the war can't be denied.


 
that's all i'm saying man.  

i'm acknowledging most of what you're saying as correct, though i think that lincoln might have been a better politician than he gets credit for on the slave issue.  i agree that money was the reason for the war, just like it's the reason for every war, that there was plenty of racism in the north, & that forcibly prohibiting succession was probably illegal.  

but it's hard for me to say that it would have been better for so many to languish in slavery for another decade or two rather than for the war not to happen.  i kind of doubt that we wouldn't have gotten a more powerful centralized governement eventually precisely because of all the money to be made.  i'm not sure i can think of any nation or empire of comparable size to the united states that did not eventually adopt a strong centralized government.  greece, rome, china, the british empire...it seems as if once a country decides to focus on expansion it does so at the cost of state autonomy.

jf


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Dec 12, 2008)

Regarding Lincoln, lets just say that I don't hold him in high esteme.
Might start researching here: http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig2/w-williams1.html for more of the "whys" if you're curious.

Going back to slavery, other nations managed to abolish it withoutwar, some fast, some slow. Where they did, there isn't the racial divides that we have in the US.  In fact, I've seen some statistics that say backs are migrating back towards the south where it's reportedly less biased than the north. Look what happened right after the war. Many former slaves ended up right back on the plantations, only as underpaid and overworked serfs than fed and housed slaves. They had no educations, no where else to go, so they were rather stuck.  Add to that they became a scapegoat for the lost war, we heavily discriminated against across the nation, some might say that 20 years more in bondage with gradual education, freedom and integration into society might have been beter than the 110 years of bigotry and second class treatment they got.


----------



## jarrod (Dec 12, 2008)

all good points that i can't answer.  i don't think the racial divide is exclusively the product of the civil war though.  & comparing the US to other nations can only carry so far.  gun control works fairly well in japan, but that doesn't mean it would here.  they have a long history of popular disarmament, whereas firearm ownership was largely a necessity for many americans at one time.  

still, centralized government was inevitable as US policy focused on expansion.  lincoln might have been the catalyst but i still need some convincing that he was the primary cause.

i'll take a look at that link when i get a chance,

jf


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Dec 12, 2008)

Look at Alexander Hamilton, then Henry Clay, then Abraham Lincoln.

Japan is a different animal. Here we have rights, there they mostly don't.  Differnt mindset, well outside this thread...but possibly food for later. 

As to guns, there's the myth of how "Wild" the West was, but you were safer on the Wild West than in Chicago or NYC today. (Yup, another article that is... )


----------



## jarrod (Dec 12, 2008)

Bob Hubbard said:


> Look at Alexander Hamilton, then Henry Clay, then Abraham Lincoln.
> 
> *bleh, honestly american history isn't my strong suit.  which maybe should have prevented me from getting into this thread.*
> 
> ...


 


jf


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Dec 12, 2008)

Naw.  Been a good discussion.   Alot of what I reference isn't "common knowledge", and it isn't taught in schools.  There, wehear how Honest Abe grew up in a log cabin and became president and freed all the slaves and was shot by the evil Booth. We then Remember the Maine, and fast forward to Hitler...usually in 1 class.   Americans are very unaware of their own history, it's depth, etc.   You know more than the average.


----------



## The Last Legionary (Dec 12, 2008)

At least no one called you a racist bastard this time around Kaith.  I read the last debate. WhoooEee! 

Oh yeah, Squeal!  :rofl:


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Dec 12, 2008)

I'm sure that if I touch a couple of the topics I'm considering, that I'll get his with that again.


----------

