The Ominous ‘S-Word’ – Secession

Big Government ^ | 3-31-10 | Timothy H. Lee

[crusty old prospector]

Not when someone is not playing by the rules.

[rockrr]

It’s been a few years since that decision. Perhaps the southerners should revisit it to see if that particular SCOTUS opinion has changed...

[Mark17]

Then it would depend on the Army agreeing to do the fighting, possibly without legal approval from Congress.

There is the problem. Which side would the military be on? I think it would almost come down to individual soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines. Each one may have a different "side" that they, as individuals, would support. Some may fire on civilians, some may not.

[x]

Lincoln didn’t give two rips about slavery with regard to the civil war.

It had to do with a people getting out from under the statist thumb.

... because the federal government was soooo oppressive back in 1860 ...

... and the Confederacy was just soooo devoted to liberty ...

[fr_freak]

Does anybody else get pissed off when people claim the Civil War was not about slavery? I hated it when my liberal professors started preaching that tripe.

Yes, that annoys the hell out of me too. There seems to be two types of people who want to deny that the Civil War was about slavery: 1) left-wingers who wish to deny the USA any moral authority whatsoever, since they get so much headway using the slavery thing as a club to beat white (conservative) Americans with, and 2) Southerners who don't want to admit that the South was on the wrong side of that issue.

All one has to do to realize the truth of it is to look at all of the skirmishes before the Civil War, both political and physical, and recognize that ALL of them were about slavery. ALL OF THEM. The South may have invoked States' Rights to bolster their position, but slavery was the impetus for all of it.

[ScreamingFist]

The New York Draft Riots (July 13 to July 16, 1863; known at the time as Draft Week[2]) were violent disturbances in New York City that were the culmination of discontent with new laws passed by Congress to draft men to fight in the ongoing American Civil War. The riots were the largest civil insurrection in American history apart from the Civil War itself.[3] President Abraham Lincoln sent several regiments of militia and volunteer troops to control the city. Although not the majority, many of those arrested had Irish names, according to the lists compiled by Adrian Cook in his Armies of the Streets. The rioters were overwhelmingly working class men, resentful because they believed the draft unfairly affected them while sparing wealthier men, who could afford to pay a $300.00 Commutation Fee to exclude themselves from its reach. Initially intended to express anger at the draft, the protests turned ugly and degraded into "a virtual racial pogrom, with uncounted numbers of blacks murdered on the streets". The conditions in the city were such that Major General John E. Wool stated on July 16, "Martial law ought to be proclaimed, but I have not a sufficient force to enforce it."[4] The military suppressed the mob using artillery and fixed bayonets, but not before numerous buildings were ransacked or destroyed, including many homes and an orphanage for black children.

All the freedom loving NY people expressed their anger to the Civil War draft. They were met with artillery fire. Take that "freeing the slaves stuff" and tell you liberal teachers that it wasn't really about slaves.....

[southernsunshine]

To your posts 188 & 189.

I agree with your statement of history. However, there is more to this history than what you have stated. The fact that for some Southern states the EXPANSION of the Federal governments power, at that time, was viewed as a threat to individual freedoms and property rights, for one.

IMHO it is a mistake to lump all Southern states or all Northern states into “North” and “South” when studying our history. Individual states did not view all the issues the same regardless of which side they eventually wound up on. I have found that state by state research of the Civil War history to be most helpful in forming my own opinions.

I don’t recall a claiminig a “high moral cause against Federal power by the South”. I simply pointed out that the Federal government was physically located in the North.

Perhaps I just don’t understand your point.

[southernsunshine]

DUH!!! I misunderstood. Sorry about that!

[southernsunshine]

“The war was not about slavery from the Northern point of view. Only the Southern one”.

____________________________________________________________

If you understand the history of Nullification you would not agree with your own statement above?

[southernsunshine]

Glad to know it isn’t just me:)

[x]

Just one year into his tenure, however, America has become more resentfully divided than any time in generations. Conservative “Scoop Jackson” Democrats have become nearly non-existent, as have liberal “Rockefeller” Republicans.

Congress isn't the country. The political class and the people who post on Internet bulletin boards aren't the country either. I don't doubt that Congress is more divided than it's been in years, but I wouldn't conclude that the country itself is so bitterly divided. Most people just aren't that interested in politics, and they help keep the country going.

If this generation splits up the country our children and grandchildren will curse us for having thrown the country away. If the US ever does break up, we'll probably find the Chinese government had its hand in the secession movements, since the PRC will be the chief beneficiary of separation.

[RJS1950]

The revolution was not secession, this is not the 1860s and it would not succeed as it did not then. What should have been done in 1865 was to outlaw the democrat party and jail/hang their leadership. That, unfortunately did not happen. Not making the effort to take back the Constitution and the Republic and opting instead for secession fractionates any concerted effort to regain the Constitution and is the coward’s way out.

[southernsunshine]

I am a Southerner and will be the first to tell you that slavery was an issue which contributed to the War. Slavery is obviously wrong so you can conclude that I believe the South was wrong on that issue.

Some Southern states had issues with the Federal government prior to the issue of slavery itself. Nullification is one example of those issues. Nullification had nothing to do with slavery.

The Civil War era itself is a fascinating subject to me.
Researching the history of the War, state by state, leads me to believe that the tensions which escalated to actual war were due to failure of leadership on both sides.

[GonzoGOP]

I don’t recall a claiminig a “high moral cause against Federal power by the South”. I simply pointed out that the Federal government was physically located in the North

Well first for my stupid pointless hair splitting. Washington DC is South for the Mason Dixon line. Maryland is in the South. In fact a "Southern Capital" was one of the compromise required for several of the southern states signing the constitution. If you meant controlled by northern interest then yes that was the issue.

IMHO it is a mistake to lump all Southern states or all Northern states into “North” and “South” when studying our history.

I completely agree, As i pointed out in my earlier post several states that almost anyone would consider southern, such as Kentucky or Missouri, voted overwhelmingly to stay in the union. Virginia was literally torn apart over the issue of session. And Tennessee would probably have been as well had geography not caused the Union Army to march the secessionist western part of the state to reach the pro union eastern part.

The expansion of federal power was the proximate cause of the war. However the Confederate cause would have been much better served had the Democrat party not been so eager to wield federal power when they were in control. Just like now I want to vomit when I hear RINO's complain about massive Federal pork projects now when they were so eager to expand pork when they controlled the trough. And the same arguments are made that Obama's expansion of spending is not comparable to Bush's because it is twice as large.

[southernsunshine]

Thank God! Someone who thinks like I do:)

Your posts are a pleasure to read....even the ones I’m not sure I understand. You are obviously very knowledgeable on the Civil War and I respect your insight and opinions.

[southernsunshine]

And if I could just spell things correctly before posting I wouldn’t feel quite so dumb! Don’t you just hate to read something you’ve posted and find your own typos?!?!?!

[GonzoGOP]

Don’t you just hate to read something you’ve posted and find your own typos?!?!?!

Yes some times i pound my head on the desk wishing I could call back a post.

Now here is one to make peoples heads explode. When someone wants to argue about state's rights as a justification for secession just say it doesn't matter. Since secession is never mentioned in the constitution there are no criteria for its use. Therefor if it is legal no justification other then collective self interest is required. "We don't want to be in the Union any more" is all the reason you need. If the Union is perpetual and secession is illegal, no justification is required either. If right does not exist, then the reason is irrelevant.

For example FR is a free association. You can leave any time. You don't need to justify why. You don't need to write an opus, just stop posting and delete the shortcut from your favorites bar. On the other extreme you don't have the right to override the AdminMod. If the AdminMod zots someone you can't restore them, no matter how eloquent your prose or honorable your justifications. If you don't have the right to do something it doesn't matter why.

[southernsunshine]

Awesome! Never thought of it that way myself. If you don’t mind I believe I will use that one in the future.

Now if you can tell this dufus how to make the italics work on my pc........

[Nabber]

“What I don’t understand is your focus on ‘the national guard’. Wouldn’t the regular Army and Marine Corps be the ones to use?”

Wikipedia: The Posse Comitatus Act is a United States federal law passed on June 18, 1878, after the end of Reconstruction, with the intention of substantially limiting the powers of the federal government to use the military for law enforcement. The Act prohibits most members of the federal uniformed services (today the Army National Guard, Air Guard, and State National Guard forces when such are called into federal service) from exercising nominally state law enforcement, police, or peace officer powers that maintain “law and order” on non-federal property (states and their counties and municipal divisions) within the United States.

The statute generally prohibits federal military personnel and units of the National Guard under federal authority from acting in a law enforcement capacity within the United States, except where expressly authorized by the Constitution or Congress.

I think a rebellion, i.e., Secession, would see the Armed Forces quickly authorized by the Congress to be useable. At the present time, IMO, there would not be enough regular Army forces within U.S. borders to counter a Secession by multiple states. That could change after all the troops come home from Iraq; however, a conflict with Iran (which seems to be coming down the pike) would cause redeployment of the same forces.

To add to the problem of the U.S. military forces, the National Guard is currently highly mobilized to stations overseas, and so is also understrength as far as having to carry out operations within the U.S. boundaries.

[Non-Sequitur]

All the freedom loving NY people expressed their anger to the Civil War draft. They were met with artillery fire. Take that "freeing the slaves stuff" and tell you liberal teachers that it wasn't really about slaves.....

And when the freedom loving women of Richmond protested the high cost of food, Davis threatened to turn the troops out on them. Link