Do States Have A Right of Succession?

[logroller]

And it kept England from joining the war on the side of the confederacy.

That, and European crop failures. Some say, king corn was more powerful than king cotton. Gotta give Lincoln credit, he was a resolute in his handling of outside interference-- he flat out told the world that any act of trade with the confederacy would be considered an act of piracy and would be subject to the laws of the same. He even got himself into a little hot water when union naval forces boarded a British ship and captured two confederate diplomates en route to England in an attempt to foster an English role in mediation. The Trent affair was unceremoniously squelched upon their release and a disavowing of the existance of any official order in the case at hand. The british generally viewed it as diplomatic victory, but England and, likewise, France realized it best to maintain a neutral position, as the US would not hesitate to defend itself from outside interference.

[revelarts]

Excellent post rev--indubitably, slavery was at the heart of secession. It did, however play a lesser role in the ensuing Civil War, at least initially. The division over the slavery issue riddled the political parties of their time; causing several, notably the whigs and freesoilers(?) to collapse altogether. The dems split north and south; leaving the radical republicans to capture control of House, Senate and Presidency. And with the lattermost, the election of Lincoln to the Presidency, secession was seen as the only alternative to preserving the southern way of life, which included slavery.

One passage of your's I would like to draw attention to: the mentioning of territory and interstate immunities (travel, property etc). That is a crucial aspect of the slavery dispute.

Tobacco and, especially, cotton had depleted much of the south's arable land; as such, expansion into new territories became necessary. Vast tracts of newly acquired territory in the early 19th century provided a heyday for new settlements. The south's plantation style farming, replete with slavery, was at odds with the homesteading style of subsistence agriculture. Think big business vs small business-- the nuances are quite similar. The southern plantation owner's, with their accumulated wealth, sought to vest their interests in the most profitable of these newly acquired lands. Unfortunately, a number of existing settlers weren't amicable to the southern way of life with its big plantations and slavery, whilst settlers were confined to the mediocre land and , and disputes gave way to violent and undemocratic behavior. Google Bleeding Kansas. The conflicting ways of life were as much a part of objection as slavery, and it was in the border states that these differences were of ripe concern. Consider rather you would support the union with armed secessionists running the town-- understandably, many were on the fence.

In fact, Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation didn't apply to those four border states, nor any of the states which hadn't seceded. For the proclamation was done via Lincoln's capacity as CIC, not as POTUS. An executive order freeing slaves within the Union states would have surely garnered constitutional objection. It wasn't until the passage of the 13th Amendment that abolition was realized. The emancipation wasn't so much a wise political move but, rather, a military one-- they needed fresh troops, and newly freedmen jumped at the chance as the Union advanced.

Thanks, and some interesting info.
But all due respect Log but slavery was the lynch pin issue.
Jefferson Davis didn't understand Lincoln's election and all of the abolitionist activity in congress and talk of "all men being equal" to be neutral to his "rights" as a Southerner. Lincoln was not running out of the gate to free the slaves but the south saw the political wind and numbers in congress and the sentiment of a large part of the rest of the union and decided they would not win in the short or long run on the slavery issue. Despite Lincoln's political equivocations and maneuverings on the matter.

And clearly If there was no slavery question there'd be no secession,
no secession no war.
I won't play the confederate apologist games here. They promote a historical lie.

All other factors notwithstanding, without the slavery issue there's extremely little to NO chance of there every being an American Civil War in the late 1800s. The other details of commerce and banking were very interesting and important in their own right but not Foundational or significantly egregious to ignite a civil war.

This is not directed at you Log but,
That is one of the points that I wish the apologist for the south would get strait and Just admit.
I don't want to paint the south as worse than they were or the north & Lincoln as angels but the idea we should cover one eye and white wash the facts that sit in front of us like a mountain so that people can salvage some more honor or recast the whole affair overall as HONORABLE and the North as evil in general is just dishonest and kinda sick. Like the germans trying to white wash many acts of the German Military during WW2. I mean , sure, not all Nazis where monsters, many just served as patriots, good soldiers never getting their hands dirty in some of the horrors. But don't try to alter history to make whole business a noble enterprise and the Allies as in the more serious wrong. AND then have an Attitude about it as well if people don't buy it.

Slavery was the not the straw that broke the camels back it was the pack, the man, all the straws and bone disease.

[mundame]

I think it was subtle.

I didn't understand this till lately; there is now some revisionist historical stuff going on about the Civil War and it's very interesting.

Of course the underlying problem was slavery! The South wanted to keep it.

But that's not why there was a war. The South saw that the territories were going to come in, and soon, one by one slave-free, and so ---- shortly they'd be direly outnumbered. Then the abolitionists would get slavery voted down thruout the Union, as soon as they had enough votes with the new territories as states. Burning Kansas and Harper's Ferry and all that.

So the South left out. Note it all happened inside a week, boom. That's how big things always happen. Nothing, nothing, nothing, then BOOM! The South did not want a war! The South just wanted out, out, out, like Catalonia wants out of Spain right now, for excellent reasons.

It was the North, after all, that started the war, and they did so to get back the large chunk of the Union that had just departed. The North and Lincoln didn't care about slavery at this point!! They cared that the United States had just gotten cut in half! As well they might. Slavery didn't matter at all. The the whole large South did matter.

So the War Between the States wasn't about Slavery at all, except indirectly: it was about the right of states to leave the Union and set up shop on their own terms.

I love this. It's a new concept. Probably because we're warming up to do it again. It won't be about slavery this time, either, but about the right of states to take their ball and go home.

[logroller]

Thanks, and some interesting info.
But all due respect Log but slavery was the lynch pin issue.
Jefferson Davis didn't understand Lincoln's election and all of the abolitionist activity in congress and talk of "all men being equal" to be neutral to his "rights" as a Southerner. Lincoln was not running out of the gate to free the slaves but the south saw the political wind and numbers in congress and the sentiment of a large part of the rest of the union and decided they would not win in the short or long run on the slavery issue. Despite Lincoln's political equivocations and maneuverings on the matter.

And clearly If there was no slavery question there'd be no secession,
no secession no war.
I won't play the confederate apologist games here. They promote a historical lie.

All other factors notwithstanding, without the slavery issue there's extremely little to NO chance of there every being an American Civil War in the late 1800s. The other details of commerce and banking were very interesting and important in their own right but not Foundational or significantly egregious to ignite a civil war.

This is not directed at you Log but,
That is one of the points that I wish the apologist for the south would get strait and Just admit.
I don't want to paint the south as worse than they were or the north & Lincoln as angels but the idea we should cover one eye and white wash the facts that sit in front of us like a mountain so that people can salvage some more honor or recast the whole affair overall as HONORABLE and the North as evil in general is just dishonest and kinda sick. Like the germans trying to white wash many acts of the German Military during WW2. I mean , sure, not all Nazis where monsters, many just served as patriots, good soldiers never getting their hands dirty in some of the horrors. But don't try to alter history to make whole business a noble enterprise and the Allies as in the more serious wrong. AND then have an Attitude about it as well if people don't buy it.

Slavery was the not the straw that broke the camels back it was the pack, the man, all the straws and bone disease.

Well shoot, if we're gonna condemn apologists and make Nazi references, even if its not directed at me-- I gotta add more.

I'd advance that the Native American population was far more mistreated than blacks ever were. Even as slaves, at least they had value, even it was as property; not so with Native Indians, they were seen as a obstacles. The slaves were freed, emancipated, then, finally, slavery was abolished and afforded rights as free men soon after the Civil War. Not so with Natives, no suffrage until 1924. Throughout the 19th century, Indians were massacred in nearly every state in which they existed. Often ruthlessly and in disregard of any sense of humanity-- things that are literally on par with those crimes punished at Nuremberg. Were those deeds condemned... sometimes; but they never went punished. Just another treaty, a little less land and more broken promises. Imagine if Lincoln had revoked the emancipation proclamation after Grant surrendered, and the 13th-15th amendments were never added. Would you still say servitude and its moral ineptitude was the issue? Shoot, Lincoln issued an ultimatum which would have allowed the Confederate States to retain slavery, but just couldn't advance it into other states and territories. That ultimatum expired on the very the emancipation proclamation was issued.

No, slavery was a squeaky wheel in the cogs of Northern industrial development; and those stubborn southerners just couldn't be compelled to adapt to the advancement of our nation and allow slavery to perish. That squeak was greased with the blood of nearly a million Americans, but that's only 3% of the total population. Whilst Native Americans were crushed by the wheels of territorial expansion. In California alone, from 1849 to 1870, some 4500 of the 25000 were violently killed. That's nearly 20%. Of course, we apologized for ethnically cleansing western tribes...in 2000. Better late than never I guess.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/poll...e-right-secede

Poll: 24 Percent of Americans Believe States Have a Right to Secede

By Elizabeth Harrington
June 5, 2012
Subscribe to Elizabeth Harrington's posts






Flag of the Second Vermont Republic secession movement. (Photo courtesy of Vermont Republic)

(CNSNews.com) – Nearly one-quarter of Americans believe that states have the right to secede, according to a recent poll from Rasmussen Reports -- up 10 percentage points in two years.
The latest poll is just one of many that shows that Americans have “serious and growing concern about the federal government,” according to Scott Rasmussen, founder and president of Rasmussen Reports.
According to the phone survey released Sunday, 24 percent of Americans believe that states should be able to withdraw from the United States to form their own country, if they want. Nearly 60 percent (59) of Americans say they don’t believe states have the right to secede, while 16 percent are undecided.
“We do see that people are concerned about the federal government in a variety of ways,” Rasmussen told CNSNews.com. “51 percent believe that it’s a threat to individual liberties.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Another 4 years of obama tyranny and it 'll be 75% thinking it a right and a blessing too !!-Tyr

[revelarts]

I think it was subtle.

I didn't understand this till lately; there is now some revisionist historical stuff going on about the Civil War and it's very interesting.

Of course the underlying problem was slavery! The South wanted to keep it.

But that's not why there was a war. The South saw that the territories were going to come in, and soon, one by one slave-free, and so ---- shortly they'd be direly outnumbered. Then the abolitionists would get slavery voted down thruout the Union, as soon as they had enough votes with the new territories as states. Burning Kansas and Harper's Ferry and all that.

So the South left out. Note it all happened inside a week, boom. That's how big things always happen. Nothing, nothing, nothing, then BOOM! The South did not want a war! The South just wanted out, out, out, like Catalonia wants out of Spain right now, for excellent reasons.

It was the North, after all, that started the war, and they did so to get back the large chunk of the Union that had just departed. The North and Lincoln didn't care about slavery at this point!! They cared that the United States had just gotten cut in half! As well they might. Slavery didn't matter at all. The the whole large South did matter.

So the War Between the States wasn't about Slavery at all, except indirectly: it was about the right of states to leave the Union and set up shop on their own terms.

I love this. It's a new concept. Probably because we're warming up to do it again. It won't be about slavery this time, either, but about the right of states to take their ball and go home.

"the War Between the States wasn't about Slavery at all, except indirectly"
INDIRECTLY?
As i said before
"clearly If there was no slavery question there'd be no secession, no secession no war."
That's called a strait line or directly.


and as you said
"Of course the underlying problem was slavery! The South wanted to keep it."
agreed, directly.

Keep it at the very likely cost of even fighting a war to keep it.
The South didn't want war but they were VERY willing to fight for the imagined right to keep slaves and knew that war was almost inevitable.

WAR to Keep slaves.

The North was willing to fight to -keep the Union- yes, but not willing to compromise on the slavery issue to the point they'd allow slavery to continue to the southern states satisfaction, just to preserve the Union.
If they really only " cared that the United States had just gotten cut in half!" The North would have compromised on slavery years ago if it all wanted was to NOT BE CUT IN HALF. They knew that the south would secede if they didn't get their way on slavery.



The whole war turned on slavery, all revisionist semantics and issue dicing logic aside.

[mundame]

No, I think you are wrong, revelarts: slavery was an indirect issue.

The North DID try, very hard, to keep the South in the Union. The Missouri Compromise and all that. Lincoln's speeches highly uncomplimentary to blacks to appease the South.

Until the South quite suddenly inside a week, Bang! left the Union, they had every hope they would succeed in keeping the Union intact.

The South did not start the war: the South simply withdrew from the American nation. They had real hope that there would be no war, that the North would say, "Good riddance!" But Lincoln didn't want the nation split in half and he went after them. Given that the North went to war on the South, and the fighting had nothing to do with slavery but with winning back half the territory of the United States, I don't see how you can say the War was about slavery.

It was about secession, and will be again. If states go out again, and we are WAAAAY overdue historically for another split, a war won't be about letting in too many immigrants, or welfare dependency, or gun control, or whatever the issue SEEMS to be about: a war would be to get back control of all the states in the Union.

I think you are just shocked that there was slavery in the United States. But that's like young Germans being shocked when they find out there were Nazis in Germany and they did the Holocaust. Well, that happened. But that was not what World War II was about!! World War II was about the same exact thing World War I was about --- whether Germany could rule Europe. Killing 6 million Jews was incidental to that: after all, 40 million people at least were killed in WWII. Perspective is necessary. Nobody even KNEW about the Jews till they opened the concentration camps, so there is no use saying WWII was about the Holocaust just because that is what most shocks you.

Same deal with the Civil War. Slavery shocks some people to the point that they don't realize that losing half the country was what mattered in Washington in 1860, not slavery. Losing big hunks of territory is always huge in terms of national interest.

[revelarts]

No, I think you are wrong, revelarts: slavery was an indirect issue.

The North DID try, very hard, to keep the South in the Union. The Missouri Compromise and all that. Lincoln's speeches highly uncomplimentary to blacks to appease the South.

Until the South quite suddenly inside a week, Bang! left the Union, they had every hope they would succeed in keeping the Union intact.

The South did not start the war: the South simply withdrew from the American nation. They had real hope that there would be no war, that the North would say, "Good riddance!" But Lincoln didn't want the nation split in half and he went after them. Given that the North went to war on the South, and the fighting had nothing to do with slavery but with winning back half the territory of the United States, I don't see how you can say the War was about slavery.

It was about secession, and will be again. If states go out again, and we are WAAAAY overdue historically for another split, a war won't be about letting in too many immigrants, or welfare dependency, or gun control, or whatever the issue SEEMS to be about: a war would be to get back control of all the states in the Union.

I think you are just shocked that there was slavery in the United States. But that's like young Germans being shocked when they find out there were Nazis in Germany and they did the Holocaust. Well, that happened. But that was not what World War II was about!! World War II was about the same exact thing World War I was about --- whether Germany could rule Europe. Killing 6 million Jews was incidental to that: after all, 40 million people at least were killed in WWII. Perspective is necessary. Nobody even KNEW about the Jews till they opened the concentration camps, so there is no use saying WWII was about the Holocaust just because that is what most shocks you.

Same deal with the Civil War. Slavery shocks some people to the point that they don't realize that losing half the country was what mattered in Washington in 1860, not slavery. Losing big hunks of territory is always huge in terms of national interest.

Indirectly?


You mean like a punch to the nose indirectly causes a nose bleed.
The real cause of the nose bleed is the heart pumping blood to the blood vessels in the nose.
The punch just opened the the blood vessels, SUDDENLY but INDIRECTLY, so it's not the real cause. Not sure why any one would think that it was.


"Until the South quite suddenly inside a week, Bang! left the Union, they had every hope they would succeed in keeping the Union intact."

As i said The North was UNWILLING to compromise to the point that the South desired.
And BTW SC had voted on seceding earlier over a tariff issue in the 1830's and the North finally "compromised" -gave it up- after the threat.



"...Until the South quite suddenly inside a week, Bang! left the Union, they had every hope they would succeed in keeping the Union intact..."

the South had been threatening leaving the Union during every slavery compromise throughout the early 1800s, even back to 1775-6. Various newspapers had called for it for years, various southern states and locals had voted on the slavery secession issue during that time. It was no -out of left field- shock to the North that the South finally did it. Or that it would mean war.

But Hey, De-Nile is not just a river in Egypt.

[mundame]

Interesting discussion! Well, not the insults, but otherwise.

I think it's terribly important to see that war is not necessarily about what it seems to be about, but about crucial national interests. One could say that the 17-year-old Serbian kid Gavrilo Princeps started World War I by shooting the Archduke, heir to the Austrian Empire, but that would be wildly incorrect. Shooting the Archduke simply destabilized the situation and Germany took the chance it had been hoping for for 12 years and finally made its move.

Suppose it all happens again here. Not about slavery, but let's say, gun control. Several senators and two presidents are assassinated (remember the 70s? could happen) and a whole lot of people take to doing Batman-shooter-type massacres. The government decides to remove all the guns from the people and make this country like Britain, where nobody but criminals get to have guns or defend themselves in any way.

So then there's a lot of upset for six weeks, and then suddenly the entire South and much of the Southwest decide to form a Confederacy and secede from the Union. And noises are being made by the northwestern states such as Idaho and Montana and the Dakotas that they might form a separate union.

So the Union still run by Washington, D.C. decides to make war on the Confederacy to bring it back into the Union. Now, what would this war be about? Gun control, or the right of states to secede from the Union? The latter, of course, because that is far more important. The country breaking up into several pieces is obviously a lot more important than whatever the original issue was.

Same deal going on in Europe. Greece isn't even within shouting distance of the conditions put on them for yet more loans ---- but everyone assumes they'll get WHATEVER money they need to keep them in the Union because if they go out, the whole thing will blow up, and that's worth a lot more money to the rest of Europe than giving the Greeks enough for every family to have a gold-plated toilet seat.

The question is, what is the real, crucial national interest? Slavery didn't matter next to the huge issue of breaking up the American union.

[Robert A Whit]

Thanks, and some interesting info.
But all due respect Log but slavery was the lynch pin issue.
Jefferson Davis didn't understand Lincoln's election and all of the abolitionist activity in congress and talk of "all men being equal" to be neutral to his "rights" as a Southerner. Lincoln was not running out of the gate to free the slaves but the south saw the political wind and numbers in congress and the sentiment of a large part of the rest of the union and decided they would not win in the short or long run on the slavery issue. Despite Lincoln's political equivocations and maneuverings on the matter.

And clearly If there was no slavery question there'd be no secession,
no secession no war.
I won't play the confederate apologist games here. They promote a historical lie.

All other factors notwithstanding, without the slavery issue there's extremely little to NO chance of there every being an American Civil War in the late 1800s. The other details of commerce and banking were very interesting and important in their own right but not Foundational or significantly egregious to ignite a civil war.

This is not directed at you Log but,
That is one of the points that I wish the apologist for the south would get strait and Just admit.
I don't want to paint the south as worse than they were or the north & Lincoln as angels but the idea we should cover one eye and white wash the facts that sit in front of us like a mountain so that people can salvage some more honor or recast the whole affair overall as HONORABLE and the North as evil in general is just dishonest and kinda sick. Like the germans trying to white wash many acts of the German Military during WW2. I mean , sure, not all Nazis where monsters, many just served as patriots, good soldiers never getting their hands dirty in some of the horrors. But don't try to alter history to make whole business a noble enterprise and the Allies as in the more serious wrong. AND then have an Attitude about it as well if people don't buy it.

Slavery was the not the straw that broke the camels back it was the pack, the man, all the straws and bone disease.

Why can't people understand that there was not one issue, as some claim, but more than one issue as I claim.

I have yet to read Thomas Di Lorenzos book on this topic and believe me, I plan to get a copy of that book right away.

Slavery is one of the issues.

We have two major events.

Why did states leave the union. Since they had slaves, the rush to judgement crowd stops at the door of slavery. Actually the South had been pissed off for decades. Even prior to the hulaboo over slavery. Few recall that the flag of the USA flew over slavery for many decades.

Slavery had been the norm in this area for over a century. People were used to it.

A few people called abolitionists were not happy, but most of the rest of the country did not care. I am not saying they liked it, they simply did not care. They had things to do where they were.

When Abe was elected, he had laid out his platform. Was that platform to end slavery? Well, NO. Did he disavow he fought over slavery?

Well that he did do.

It makes people who sympathize with the Lincoln crowd feel better to only discuss slavery.

We can oversimplify it by saying the South left and it's major issue was slavery and I will agree.

But Lincoln the invader did not invade due to slavery. He invaded due to the states leaving.

What process did the states use to figure out if they would leave or stay?

Some ignore that a larger number of states voted on this issue than just those that left. Some states that put it up for a vote found the voters wanted to remain in the Union.

Thus we would not have had that war had Abe the invader did as his predecessor president had done. Nothing. Some despise the earler president for doing nothing. I think he followed the law of the land. Many felt, even in the north, if they wanted to leave, good luck to them.

[logroller]

Interesting discussion! Well, not the insults, but otherwise.

I think it's terribly important to see that war is not necessarily about what it seems to be about, but about crucial national interests.

Yes. The secessionist thought maintaining slavery was a crucial national interests; the north didn't think maintaining slavery was crucial to the national interest. North wins...but its still about slavery.

Take you gun control war, take away the gun issue, no gun bans take effect-- do those states secede?

[mundame]

Yes. The secessionist thought maintaining slavery was a crucial national interests; the north didn't think maintaining slavery was crucial to the national interest. North wins...but its still about slavery.

Take you gun control war, take away the gun issue, no gun bans take effect-- do those states secede?

Are you saying that if there isn't an issue, then no problem, no war?

So....if there is no slavery, or people are fine with everyone giving up their guns, then there is no problem?

Well, I guess that's true --- if we didn't care that Japan bombed Pearl Harbor, then no war. (That's what the Japanese expected, in fact. That it would be a fait accompli and we'd leave the Pacific Ocean to them.)

So if Britain and France hadn't minded Hitler invading Poland Sept. 1, 1939, there'd have been no WWII?

Well, I guess that's true, but I don't quite see where it gets us. I mean --- there ARE issues, people do care about certain things. Some things that happen do seem to represent crucial national interests.

I guess Lincoln could just have let the South go --- that was certainly what Jefferson Davis hoped for! Or Britain could have just let Germany march through Belgium August 4, 1914 without joining the war and let Germany take France apart like it always does. That nearly happened, in fact: Churchill took exactly the right cabinet members to lunch that weekend and talked them into it.

I'm not sure what you are saying besides that people shouldn't have Issues and then there wouldn't be wars?

[Noir]

I remember having a discussion over what america would do if Hawaii to leave the union, which would be the most realistic.
It's be interesting to know what would happen.

[logroller]

I remember having a discussion over what america would do if Hawaii to leave the union, which would be the most realistic.
It's be interesting to know what would happen.

Puerto Rico becoming a state is far more realistic than Hawaii seceding.

[revelarts]

I remember having a discussion over what america would do if Hawaii to leave the union, which would be the most realistic.
It's be interesting to know what would happen.

Plenty of jailed and/or dead Hawaiians, "for freedom". Hawaii is militarily strategic, the powers that be would allow Hawaii to leave the Union only after it was pried from their cold dead fingers, imo.
Alaska too.

North Dakota, New Hampshire and other mainland states have a better chance.