Secession: an academic discussion

[IndyDave1776]

The tariffs were not the central issue, but were definitely a stark point of division. You look at what the principles of the time on both sides were writing about, it was not the tariffs which consumed the public debate nearly as much as the issues of slavery.

The tariffs were a big enough deal to stop Virginia from abolishing slavery before the war out of spite.

 

[jamil]

The tariffs were a big enough deal to stop Virginia from abolishing slavery before the war out of spite.

Sure. The Tariffs were a secondary issue though. Otherwise the writings of the principles of the Southern Aristocracy would be primarily about the Tariffs. Most of the talk was in defense of slavery.

 

[BigRed]

Secession’s Magic Numbers, Part One – Abbeville Institute

www.abbevilleinstitute.org

"Woodard provides the historical foundations of the nations that might be reconstituted out of the inevitable break-up of the American Leviathan."

 

[BigRed]

The south viewed federal lands as theirs. The commissioners were supposed to negotiate "friendly relations" with the North and, "for the settlement of all questions of disagreement between the two governments upon principles of right, justice, equity, and good faith." They weren't sent there specifically to negotiate the price for federal land. There was no scenario where they were not going to claim federal land as theirs.

Regardless, the Federal government, being the rightful owners on behalf of the United States of America, had a right to decline any offers anyway, and retain the land. The first shot was because of that fact. The North had the right to re-supply Fort Sumter however they saw fit.

The commission was ignored by the US government, because to hear them was an acknowledgement of the legitimacy of the Confederate government. The insistence that the aggression was on the side of the North is silly. They have a right to have rejected the secession. They have a right to do what they will with their own land. Lincoln told the Governor of SC that he would re-supply Fort Sumter but would not reinforce troops, resupply with ammo or arms, unless SC attacked.

Davis could not abide that so he ordered Anderson, the commander of Ft Sumter, to surrender. Anderson declined, and you know the rest.

To continue to take the position that the North were the aggressors you would have to be of the opinion that the South had a right to claim the resources that belonged to the United States. Regardless of whether the South wanted to compensate the North for the land does not make the US Government the aggressors. They have a right to decline a sale.

So what if Nevada wanted to secede? Probably the US government is not inclined to just hand over 90% of US land inside Nevada to them. But it doesn't matter if it's only a few acres.

The “First Shot” Revisited – Abbeville Institute

www.abbevilleinstitute.org

 

[jamil]

The “First Shot” Revisited – Abbeville Institute

www.abbevilleinstitute.org

The point made in that article depends on the assumption that the federal land reverted to South Caroline when they seceded. It did not. This article does not refute what you replied to. Anderson moved his garrison from Moultrie to Sumter. The reasons why are well documented. The communications with his superiors are in the historical record. We don't have to wonder why he did it. It's all there.

Buchanan was a lame duck. He didn't want to be the one to start a war but he did not want to just hand over US property to the Rebels either. His orders were something to the effect of, hold the garrison but surrender if attacked. Anderson believed that an attack was eminent and that when attacked his men would sustain heavy losses at Moultrie regardless. So he decided to move them to Sumter and make Moultrie useless to the Rebels. Anderson's superiors were pissed. Buchanan just wanted to run out the clock and let the next administration inherit it.

Of course it pissed off the South. They wanted Sumter. And because of the people in the US government sympathetic to the South and Slavery, they thought they were going to get it handed over with a nice bow. One could argue that Anderson moved without permission. Some of his superiors up the chain were southern Sympathizers and joined the Rebel army after their states' own states seceded. So of course THEY were pissed. They also thought that the south was going to get those properties.

But. CAUSING the Civil War? Hardly. The first shot came, not when Anderson moved to Sumter, not when Anderson destroyed Moultire, but later, after Lincoln became president and it had become clear to the governor of SC, and Davis, that they were not going to get it peacefully. A lot of **** led up to those first shots, but most of it revolved around the US not just given the South those properties.

 

[spencer rifle]

Actually, the first shot was the January before:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_of_the_West

 

[jamil]

Actually, the first shot was the January before:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_of_the_West

I wouldn't classify that as "of the war". It really wasn't a war so much until after Sumpter. When the Star of the West was fired upon, it was of no significant blip in Buchanan's policy of running the clock out. It's just that its resupply mission was scrubbed as a result. There wasn't really any real anticipation of war until Lincoln took office. Back in January when the ship was fired on, there were still a lot of people in government from the many states that had not seceded yet. South Carolina was alone until Missippi only joined them on the same day the Star was shot at, and not having anything to do with that.

Those Southern Slave states were always going to secede when it came down to it. It was Lincoln's election that caused the Southern states to secede because Republican's platform was anti-slavery. The writing was on the wall for them. They believed Slavery would not survive the Lincoln presidency.

 

[spencer rifle]

I wouldn't classify that as "of the war".

I would. State cannon fire was used to prevent the resupply of a US facility on US property. The same thing was going on in the Fort Pickens/Pensacola Navy Yard area at the same time in a different state..

 

[jamil]

I would. State cannon fire was used to prevent the resupply of a US facility on US property. The same thing was going on in the Fort Pickens/Pensacola Navy Yard area at the same time in a different state..

There was no way the Buchanan administration was ever going to go to war with the South. War was never on the table. Only status quo.

 

[spencer rifle]

There was no way the Buchanan administration was going to be in power when the war they allowed and encouraged to happen heated up. They aimed and fired the arrow. They just weren't going to be around when it hit. War was already inevitable.

 

[Leadeye]

I don'r believe that the civil war was inevitable, I do believe it was the most colossal failure of leadership on both sides of the slavery question.

 

[jamil]

I don'r believe that the civil war was inevitable, I do believe it was the most colossal failure of leadership on both sides of the slavery question.

It was inevitable that stubborn people followed the paths that they did. But they didn’t have to.

 

[BigRed]

And now back to the topic....

Secession.

 

[NKBJ]

OK, I'll start.

Giving birth by secession leaves a big scar.

 

[jamil]

And now back to the topic....

Secession.

You think that’s viable? I’m not saying it won’t happen. If 0biden gets crazy legislation passed I can see a lot of red states saying “Nah, **** you”. Maybe that could eventually lead to secession. But they’re mostly rural states. It’d be a poor ass country. Maybe Texas and Florida might be economic powerhouses. But Texas is almost blue.

Why the hardon for secession?

 

[NKBJ]

I don'r believe that the civil war was inevitable, I do believe it was the most colossal failure of leadership on both sides of the slavery question.

I'm convinced that it took a lot of time and money to hot-button propagandize people into breaking apart the country. Same as now.

 

[BigRed]

You think that’s viable? I’m not saying it won’t happen. If 0biden gets crazy legislation passed I can see a lot of red states saying “Nah, **** you”. Maybe that could eventually lead to secession. But they’re mostly rural states. It’d be a poor ass country. Maybe Texas and Florida might be economic powerhouses. But Texas is almost blue.

Why the hardon for secession?

"Hardon"? Hey, this is a family forum!



The "nation" has expanded well beyond a size that can be called a "representative republic". The republic is dead.

What we have today is a highly centralized general government that has no regard for the individual citizen and that citizen's property or natural rights. Hell, we have moved well into the stage where our future children and grandchildren are being plundered of their property. They will be born into economic slavery.....perhaps without even knowing it.

I fully expect this trend will progress and the leviathan will continue its expansion and its plunder of citizens.

As attractive as that all may be to some, I believe it to be anything but.

Let the States reassert their delegated authority and be held accountable to their citizens to govern as citizens of those States determine best in their own self interest.

 

[jamil]

"Hardon"? Hey, this is a family forum!



The "nation" has expanded well beyond a size that can be called a "representative republic". The republic is dead.

What we have today is a highly centralized general government that has no regard for the individual citizen and that citizen's property or natural rights. Hell, we have moved well into the stage where our future children and grandchildren are being plundered of their property. They will be born into economic slavery.....perhaps without even knowing it.

I fully expect this trend will progress and the leviathan will continue its expansion and its plunder of citizens.

As attractive as that all may be to some, I believe it to be anything but.

Let the States reassert their delegated authority and be held accountable to their citizens to govern as citizens of those States determine best in their own self interest.

I don’t think it’s practical at this point. But Indo agree with what you say is happening. There is no common ground between the two competing visions anymore. Something has to give. Secession is not, IMHO, a very practical solution. But I’ll say this. We seem to be heading for a virtual secession, if not a real one.

Nullification seems to be the way these things are shaping to play out. First it’s nullification of some drug laws by several states. Then cities and states ignoring immigration law. On the right many rural counties are promising to nullify gun laws. Some red stares are ignoring 0biden’s covid recommendations.

I can see a lot of states might ignore 0biden on more bat **** crazy stuff. So there’s that. But I kinda doubt we’re heading towards secession.

 

[NKBJ]

The tariffs were a big enough deal to stop Virginia from abolishing slavery before the war out of spite.

The tariffs were a big enough deal that thirty years before the war the Vice-President of The United States said it would lead to a falling out between the states. The issue was created long before. It took time to exploit the division.

Like the pretty lady told Indiana Jones, "It's not that hard!"

 

[KLB]

I don’t think it’s practical at this point. But Indo agree with what you say is happening. There is no common ground between the two competing visions anymore. Something has to give. Secession is not, IMHO, a very practical solution. But I’ll say this. We seem to be heading for a virtual secession, if not a real one.

Nullification seems to be the way these things are shaping to play out. First it’s nullification of some drug laws by several states. Then cities and states ignoring immigration law. On the right many rural counties are promising to nullify gun laws. Some red stares are ignoring 0biden’s covid recommendations.

I can see a lot of states might ignore 0biden on more bat **** crazy stuff. So there’s that. But I kinda doubt we’re heading towards secession.

The best scenario is state's rights becoming forefront again. Of course, first the USSC would have to start paring back the use of the Commerce Clause. That is the root of most of the issues at this point, as it is used to justify all kinds of stupid things that I doubt the founders ever foresaw.