Civil War Related

C

Chop

10,000+ Posts
it seems like we can't have a West Mall thread longer than a dozen posts or so without people bringing in some Civil War related info, analogy, or arguments. It must be a strange corollary of Godwin's Law applicable only to Hornfans.

Post Civil War related stuff here. Re-fight your Civil War related disputes lingering beneath the surface of a thin veneer of post-modern sensibilities--whatever.

Enjoy.
 
I'll kick it off.

It occurred to me that, perhaps if cooler heads prevailed in 1860 South Carolina, things could have turned out much differently.

Perhaps the State of South Carolina could have sued the United States for secession. I think the Supreme Court of that day leaned Southern. (Texas v White was decided by a post-Civil War SCOTUS packed with Reconstruction era justices). They might have won at SCOTUS and got their secession without the massive loss of life and destruction.

But... Major Constitutional crisis in the Union--would Lincoln respect such a SCOTUS decision letting South Carolina go (along with any other state that petitioned the Court). For all his admirable qualities, Lincoln was no respecter of Courts or due process when it interfered with his 'larger' goals...?
 
Last edited:
I always liked, “If the South Woulda Won,” by Hank Williams, Jr
 
Lincoln would not have allowed any type of Secession. Without the Southern States, tax revenue becomes 20-25% of what it was while retaining most the population. He fought that war for gold, like all other wars.
 
I have traced my family back over 1000 years. I'm related to some pretty interesting people My 29th paternal grandfather fought with William the Conqueror in the battle of Hastings and was so valiant he was rewarded with lands and title. I have a grand father that fought in the battle Acre with Richard the Lionheart, and he was also rewarded with lands and title. I'm related to two signers of the Declaration of Independence. My family was one of the most respected in American History.

But my family was also southern slave owners and fought on the losing side and thus lose all standing and money. They couldn't handle it and 3 generations of men in my family were drunks. Not just drunks, mean abusive and tormented. My dad was the first to break this cycle. I personally never touch alcohol because of my family.

I guess you can call it Karma, but it took 4 generations to overcome the effects of the Civil War, or more appropriately not having money, slaves, or standing.
 
Austin_Bill said:
I have traced my family back over 1000 years. I'm related to some pretty interesting people My 29th paternal grandfather fought with William the Conqueror in the battle of Hastings and was so valiant he was rewarded with lands and title. I have a grand father that fought in the battle Acre with Richard the Lionheart, and he was also rewarded with lands and title. I'm related to two signers of the Declaration of Independence. My family was one of the most respected in American History.

But my family was also southern slave owners and fought on the losing side and thus lose all standing and money. They couldn't handle it and 3 generations of men in my family were drunks. Not just drunks, mean abusive and tormented. My dad was the first to break this cycle. I personally never touch alcohol because of my family.

I guess you can call it Karma, but it took 4 generations to overcome the effects of the Civil War, or more appropriately not having money, slaves, or standing.
Click to expand...
Re: Norman England-- since you have known Norman lord ancestry, when you get a chance, look up the Doomsday Book online. It was a nationwide land and title survey of all England done in the later part of King William I's reign. With your ancestor's name, you can find what lands, in what counties, and towns he owned. Some of the Saxon lords who fought valiantly (and lived) and especially those who agreed to flip over and help the Normans keep and pacify their holdings after William had won, also got to keep sizable portions of their lands. Pretty cool.

Oh, almost forgot, this is a "Civil War" thread, soooooo: King William I reminds me of General Sherman (read about the "Harrowing of the North" under William I--he makes Sherman look like Mr. Rogers).
 
Last edited:
Chop said:
Perhaps the State of South Carolina could have sued the United States for secession. I think the Supreme Court of that day leaned Southern. (Texas v White was decided by a post-Civil War SCOTUS packed with Reconstruction era justices). They might have won at SCOTUS and got their secession without the massive loss of life and destruction.
Click to expand...

That's a very interesting question. Of course, Dred Scott v. Sanford was handed down in 1857 in a 7-2 ruling. Obviously that was a South-friendly decision. I could definitely see the Court of that era holding that a state had the right to secede. But as you pointed out, would the North have accepted the Court's ruling? Very likely that it would not have.
 
If So Car petitioned the SCOTUS for secession and the SCOTUS ruled in So Car's favor, then in order to preserve the Union, Lincoln would have to ignore the Court's decision. The Executive Branch would effectively overrule the Judicial Branch. Major Constitutional crisis.

Not sure if Lincoln was popular and powerful enough to do that before So Car and other states had left. The pro War fervor up North was after So Car left without permission and fired on federal troops. If the SCOTUS gave them permission to leave, that's a totally different ball game. There's a certain lawlessness and dictatorial things at work where the Executive effectively abrogates the SCOTUS's orders. Not sure if the non-abolitionists up North (most of the North) would have gone for it. It's an open question.

There was precedent in a Chief Executive telling the SCOTUS to f@ck off--Andrew Jackson. But Jackson was wildly popular. Lincoln didn't even win half the vote. 1860 was a three way race. Lincoln backed into the presidency.

The force of arms settled the issue practically. Texas v White settled it legally--after the war ended.
 
Last edited:
Interesting thread, including Monahorn's foray into Lost Cause Economics. The Supreme Court wrote on this issue in the context of bonds issued during the war, but it was after the war, and therefore a packed court, and was arguably merely ratifying the result of the war. The pre-war court, as noted, was a different animal.

The case is worthwhile, however, as it shows what political philosophers of the time thought. Most interesting to me: Salmon Chase writing for the majority: "By these (Articles of Confederation), the Union was solemnly declared to "be perpetual". And when these Articles were found to be inadequate to the exigencies of the country, the Constitution was ordained "to form a more perfect Union". It is difficult to convey the idea of indissoluble unity more clearly than by these words. What can be indissoluble if a perpetual Union, made more perfect, is not?" And the prize for the best writing goes to the dissent (not cleanly on the issue at hand): Texas, "[h]aving relied upon one fiction, namely, that she is a State in the Union, she now relies upon a second one, which she wishes this court to adopt, that she was not a State at all during the five years that she was in rebellion. She now sets up the plea of insanity, and asks the court to treat all her acts made during the disease as void."Texas v. White
Okay, a little nerdy and dry, but interesting stuff.
 
"to form a more perfect Union". It is difficult to convey the idea of indissoluble unity more clearly than by these words. What can be indissoluble if a perpetual Union, made more perfect, is not?"
Click to expand...

Complete fiction writing. The Articles talked of a very loose association of the States. The central government couldn't even levy taxes to pay for its own spending. But it somehow locked the States into perpetual union? Even though the Articles ceased to exist, some abstract statement linked all the States together permanently?

The same States fighting for the Union decades earlier were considering Secession for their own reasons. It was a common idea in the minds of the political class. The States were the indissoluble element not the Federation.
 
If So Car petitioned the SCOTUS for secession and the SCOTUS ruled in So Car's favor, then in order to preserve the Union, Lincoln would have to ignore the Court's decision. The Executive Branch would effectively overrule the Judicial Branch. Major Constitutional crisis.
Click to expand...

Lincoln didn't follow the Constitution much anyway. He even jailed media members for not agreeing with him on the war. He shut presses down. The guy didn't care what the Constitution said. He just wanted the South's tariff and duty money.
 
towersniper said:
Interesting thread, including Monahorn's foray into Lost Cause Economics. The Supreme Court wrote on this issue in the context of bonds issued during the war, but it was after the war, and therefore a packed court, and was arguably merely ratifying the result of the war. The pre-war court, as noted, was a different animal.

The case is worthwhile, however, as it shows what political philosophers of the time thought. Most interesting to me: Salmon Chase writing for the majority: "By these (Articles of Confederation), the Union was solemnly declared to "be perpetual". And when these Articles were found to be inadequate to the exigencies of the country, the Constitution was ordained "to form a more perfect Union". It is difficult to convey the idea of indissoluble unity more clearly than by these words. What can be indissoluble if a perpetual Union, made more perfect, is not?" And the prize for the best writing goes to the dissent (not cleanly on the issue at hand): Texas, "[h]aving relied upon one fiction, namely, that she is a State in the Union, she now relies upon a second one, which she wishes this court to adopt, that she was not a State at all during the five years that she was in rebellion. She now sets up the plea of insanity, and asks the court to treat all her acts made during the disease as void."Texas v. White
Okay, a little nerdy and dry, but interesting stuff.
Click to expand...
The Texas v White SCOTUS's take is quite interesting in that, among other things, it considers the Articles of Confederation as the founding document of the Union and the Constitution as a later amendment to the Articles (new and improved Articles).

Mainstream historians I've read, most Constitutional scholars, and most history books, regard the Constitution as the founding document and the Articles merely as a placeholder from the Revolution until our actual founding document (the Constitution) was ratified. The Texas v White SCOTUS sees it otherwise, or (putting the cynical cap on) at least manipulated their reasoning and cherry picked favorable ideas from the Articles to support his holding.
 
Last edited:
Also in the opinion is the idea that there actually was no secession, no CSA, just some rebels purporting to represent the confederate states.

Logically then, there would be no need for confederate states to be "re-admitted" to the Union, as they never actually left in the first place.
 
It's a close call, and not a stretch to say that fair-minded federal judges in 1860 would more likely than not have ruled that secession was permissible (although it's not a slam dunk, or even an easy lay up, by any means---it's an open question and could go either way).

But the Union army, through force of arms, won out and wrote the history books and appointed the judges in reconstruction. Texas v White was a necessary justification to maintain the illusory veneer of the rule of law. The rest is history.

Understand, I'm not anti-Union and am no fan of human chattel systems and the commodification of humanity. Had the CSA won, or States been allowed to secede by Court ruling, then we would likely have ended up like Europe, or worse the Balkans section of Europe, with lots of little weak countries constantly at war with each other. The UK, Spain, and France also may have re-colonized some of what is now the US. A Pandora's box of problems with splitting up the Union.
 
Last edited:
I was stationed in So Carolina for approx 1 year. At the counter/bar at a bar and grill, while munching on the complementary boiled peanuts, I overheard some older guys talking about how we lost the war. Being a bit nosey, and sporting an obvious military haircut, I casually asked "Did y'all serve in Vietnam?"

"Vietnam!?!?! Hell, we're talking about the War Of Northern Aggression son", and they belted out some laughs. I laughed along with them (right move, trust me).
 
Monahorns said: “Complete fiction writing. The Articles talked of a very loose association of the States. The central government couldn't even levy taxes to pay for its own spending. But it somehow locked the States into perpetual union?”

Oh, I don’t think it is unreasonable or “complete fiction writing” to conclude that THE ARTICLES OF CONFEDERATION AND PERPETUAL UNION BETWEEN THE STATES contemplated a confederation and perpetual union between the states, my unreconstructed friend. It is also not irrational to conclude that a document intended to strengthen “The Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union” should not be construed to shorten “perpetuity.” You may disagree with Chase’s conclusions, but shouldn’t let your nostalgia for the Lost Cause color your thinking so much that you call Chases’s very rational approach “complete fiction.” As I said, however, the White v., Texas Court was a very different court than the court Chop is referencing, and Chop’s original musing remains an interesting question.

Monahorns said: “The States were the indissoluble element not the Federation.” Whether the states are perpetual is no more set in concrete than whether the federation, or the more perfect union that followed is.

Chop: I disagree with your take on the Articles of Confederation etc.. The clearly contemplated perpetual union was not a cherry picking by Chase, it’s in the freaking title of the document. The Constitutional Convention (we call it that now) was indeed intended to revise the Articles. They were not merely a placeholder, they were the governing framework of the newly created union. They just proved inadequate, and needed to be replaced to create the “more perfect union.” Accordingly, The United States in Congress Assembled called for the Constitutional Convention:

“Resolved that in the opinion of Congress it is expedient that on the second Monday in May next a Convention of delegates who shall have been appointed by the several States be held at Philadelphia for the sole and express purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation and reporting to Congress and the several legislatures such alterations and provisions therein as shall when agreed to in Congress and confirmed by the States render the federal Constitution adequate to the exigencies of Government and the preservation of the Union.”

Obviously, the new Constitution made the union stouter, as called for in the resolution, and the Federalists succeeded in most of their aims, mostly thwarting the anti-Federalists. But it was the same union, the perpetual one described in the Articles. From time to time, when different oxen were being gored, different groups saw it differently. By 1861, South Carolina and others saw it very differently. Monahorns still does, and I see his point – it is not irrational. It might even be correct (!!:-0!!!). I just think Chase’s point is stronger and more rational and probably correct. Fortunately, someone else already fought a war over that, Monahorns, so you and I don't have to .

I also think both of your treatments of Lincoln are unfair, but that debate is even thornier than the secession debate, if that is possible - and too much for this thread. Perhaps another time over a few beers.

Back to the original point: you are both right that the 1860 Supreme Court might have gotten it wrong (or you might say right, you stinkin' sessesh). I'm no expert but I've read that it was a very political court.

Articles of confederation and perpetual union between the states of New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island, and Providence plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South
 
Last edited:
"to form a more perfect Union". It is difficult to convey the idea of indissoluble unity more clearly than by these words.
Click to expand...

Actually, it's quite easy: "to form a more perfect, indissoluble Union". There.

Also in the opinion is the idea that there actually was no secession, no CSA, just some rebels purporting to represent the confederate states.

Logically then, there would be no need for confederate states to be "re-admitted" to the Union, as they never actually left in the first place.
Click to expand...

This does seem to mostly represent Lincoln's thinking, although it was often ignored when convenient and then picked back up again afterward.
 
@towersniper

Your argument is clever, and well appreciated, but I'm not convinced. The Constitution entirely amended with a new document (not merely supplemented), and replaced the Articles. A new government (not a mere continuation of the old government) was formed. The Articles were (and still are) no longer in effect. Just like the 3rd French Republic didn't operate under the governing document of the 1st French Republic, we don't operate under the Articles--they're history. Don't go relying on the Articles for your authority in a Constitutional law brief. (Although RBG and a few others approve of using foreign law..., so why not?)

Under this view--the most reasonable and most widely accepted view--the answer to the question: who was our nation's first president is George Washington.

Under the competing (Texas v White SCOTUS) view, the answer to the question: who was our nation's first president is John Hanson.

I think we all know who our first president was (and it's not John Hanson). If you stand on the street corner announcing 'John Hanson was our first President,' you might as well be shouting 'I'm the King of France!' In other words, you'd be way out in kook country.

The Texas v White SCOTUS had to strain to pull this one out. Understand, the SCOTUS at the time of Texas v White was not about to let the result of the Civil War be undone judicially, PERIOD! If it wasn't the strained reasoning they used in Texas v White, they would have come up with something else. If they had done otherwise, there may have been another Constitutional crisis. The result was pre-ordained. The SCOTUS isn't as pure as the fresh falling snow, and never has been.

Whether the (pre-ordained) judicial result is good or bad is a matter of perspective. I personally see much more danger and likely harm in splitting up the Union (ultimately into many small pieces) than in keeping it together. Others may see it differently.
 
Last edited:
Years ago I was watching a show on History Channel called "How the States Got Their Shapes". It is a very interesting series which I *highly* recommend, there is so much history in the forming of the individual states that I did not know. Anyway, in discussing The Civil War, one of the commenters (might have been HW Brands from UT) posited that the The Civil War was fought when it was because Lincoln feared that, if they just left the states to their own devices, too many of the new states that were being formed due to westward expansion would choose slavery and therefore, over time, become too powerful as a group and would then be able to overthrow The Union states.
 
Go right ahead. Rely on foreign law, rely on the Articles, It's all good authority to me.

ginsburg1182.jpg

RBG

220px-Mathew_Brady%2C_Portrait_of_Secretary_of_the_Treasury_Salmon_P._Chase%2C_officer_of_the_United_States_government_%281860%E2%80%931865%2C_full_version%29.jpg
The Constitution, The Articles, I see no difference. Secession, what secession, I see no secession, there's no secession, there never was any secession, there cannot be any secession, there's no such thing as secession. The 10th Amendment--a mere superfluous appendage; I won't even consider it.

Justice Salmon Chase
 
Last edited:
So the title included "perpetual union" so people think that means there was no way out? That is some pretty bad logic there.

Or didn't it just mean the Articles therein when followed would allow for a perpetual union. The Articles themselves explicitly described the States as Independent and Sovereign not indissolubly linked with no recourse or allowance for exit.
 
Can anyone name a perpetual union?

Never been one and never will be one

As Marx said, “all that is solid melts into air”
 
Flail away, Monahorns . I, for my part, will continue to recite the Pledge of Allegiance, including the "indivisible" part. (that is not an argument, that is an attempt at irony, since you probably have strong views on the Pledge, and kneeling for the Anthem, etc.) You are in good company, however. A lot of very intelligent people agreed with you before the Civil War, and a few still do.

I do wonder how the question would reach the Supreme Court, and suspect that the question is not a justiciable one. The sovereign cannot be sued without its consent, so how would the issue get to the Court, procedurally? It would be a stretch, since the United Sates would be the real party in interest, but I suppose one could argue that a seceding state could have sued the remaining states under Article III section 2 for sime kind of Declaratory relief. I don't think so, and suspect that the remedy for a state wishing to secede is the one attempted by the Confederate States - see also July 4, 1776. Perhaps Deez could set down his Sangria and turn his formidable legal guns on the question.

Also, Article 1, Section 10 is a pretty strong statement that Congress had the right to slap the states around pretty good, despite claims of state sovereignty.

Chop: your take that the Constitution superseded the Articles rather than changing them was also the opinion of Justice Joseph Story, who wrote his very influential , though boring, Commentaries on the Constitution before the Civil War, which is roughly when I was forced to read that ungodly-difficult-to-read book. Story found the basis for a perpetual union in the Supremacy Clause, and did not believe in a right of Secession.

Among the founders, Jefferson, the libertarian near-anarchist (except when he was in office, of course) who wrote the Declaration of We're-Outa-Here, seems to have believed in some kind of right of secession (mechanism unclear) while Madison, who pretty much wrote the Constitution, believed in a perpetual union.

All in all, pretty complex. I’m glad that the war has made it all moot. For now…
 
Last edited:
It's really just academic, yet very interesting. The SCOTUS isn't going to overrule Texas v White, and no State is going to leave and take on the US Military. They shouldn't.*

Still an open question as to whether a fair and non-outcome-based-reasoning SCOTUS would have permitted secession pre-White v Texas. I suspect they would have in a split decision, but others clearly disagree.

Re: procedure, ripeness, and standing, some more interesting and esoteric questions. If So Carolina had seceded with a clause that their secession is voided if the SCOTUS ruled they couldn't, and NOT fired on Ft Sumter, then I suspect they would have eventually reached the Court--and without starting a war.^ In fact, the US may have sued So Carolina, arguing 'you can't do that.' Legal scholars can go on ad infinitum on these sorts of issues. Some ivory tower-types make a career off of it. A few interesting cases: Missouri v. Holland, 252 U.S. 416 (1920) (Justice O.W. Holmes#--upholding a State's quasi-sovereignty and right/standing to challenge federal law on 10th Amendment grounds in the federal courts); North Carolina v. United States, 325 U.S. 507 (1945) (upholding State's standing and deciding on the merits State's suit against an Interstate Commerce Commission order); Alabama v. United States, 325 U.S. 535 (1945) (same); but see Georgia v. Stanton, 73 U.S. 50 (1867) (No original SCOTUS jurisdiction over a political question raised by a State).

* If any State is stupid enough to try, I suspect it would be Hawaii, not Texas. Massive anti-Feds pro secession/independence stuff going on out there.

^ Possibly having to go through lower Fed Courts to get to SCOTUS.

# O.W. Holmes, arguably our nation's greatest jurist and legal scholar of all time, was a mid-level Union officer in the Civil War seeing much carnage in the thick of some major battles. In Missouri v. Holland, Holmes ruled that the State of Missouri's bill in equity in a federal court was a reasonable and proper means for Missouri to assert its quasi-sovereign State's rights.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Weekly Prediction Contest

* Predict HORNS-AGGIES *
Sat, Nov 30 • 6:30 PM on ABC

Recent Threads

Prediction Results Threads

2024 Schedules

Back
Top