Secession in the 1800's...?? HELP!?

Question

Okay. So, in US History class we are doing a debate thing about the southern state's secession during Lincoln's presidency and I am CLUELESS! I am supposed to be against the secession [like, we have to 'pretend' were back in the 1800's] and I can't find any websites saying pros and cons and crap. So, any help, people?

I'm aware there's places called libraries with books. It just so happens that there's none near me and I can't drive. Bear with me. I have internet and that's why I'm fxcking on here. Get over it.

Answer 1

Lincoln's were not the ONLY arguments made against secession, but clearly some of his would help you. So that's what I'd suggest for starters

First, here are links to key texts in which he laid out his arguments,
:
* First Inaugural Address - March 4, 1861
http://www.bartleby.com/124/pres31.html

* war message to special session of Congress - July 4, 1861
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1861lincoln-special.html

Here are recent books that explain and evaluate his arguments in his First Inaugural -- I don't have any on the other at the moment. (These may not completely agree with all his points, but are friendly to the argument as a whole.)

- chapter on this speech in Ronald White, *The Eloquent President*
- 2 chapters in Harry Jaffa *A New Birth of Freedom* (quite detailed)
- early section in Daniel Farber's book *Lincoln's Constitution*


Note that Lincoln made TWO sorts of arguments --

1) That secession was not justified by the Constitution.

He ALSO made the point, in his First Inaugural Address, that HE had just taken an oath to protect and defend the Constitution, and thus was personally bound to oppose secession and seek to keep/restore the Union. That is, whether or not they had some right to secede, the federal government DID have the right to OPPOSE their seceding, to prevents its own destruction, and its office-holders even had an OBLIGATION to oppose the breakup. (In other words, it's posssible to argue BOTH a right of states to secede AND of the federal government to oppose acts of secession, esp. if taken on the wrong grounds -- see #2)

2) That even if secession could be justified in some cases, it was certainly NOT in this case. NO act had been taken against these states, nor had Lincoln or his party said anything about taking such actions.

In fact (and here is one of his strongest points), the seven states that had seceded by his inauguration did so as a response to the fair and free election of Lincoln under the Constitutional system. NO ONE made any claims of his having won by someone cheating or rigging the election. In short, they were saying, 'If we don't like the results of any election, we'll just quit.' This was, in fact, consistent with their behavior for some years before this -- give us what WE want (even though we are the minority) or we'll leave! Of course, their fear was that, once a Republican President was in place, his party WOULD work to undermine the rights of the South (and esp to get rid of slavery)... but a "fear", esp. one not based on the the actions or stated policies of Lincoln and his party, is hardly a 'legal' basis for something like secession!**

** A great support for this point come from Alexander Stephens of Georgia, later Vice-President of the Confederacy, who specifically argued AGAINST secession because Lincoln and his supporters had not DONE anything yet.
http://sciway3.net/clark/civilwar/secession.html

(Also note - BEFORE the election many in the South had used the THREAT of secession to try to coerce people in the North NOT to vote for Lincoln. That, along with keeping him off the ballot in many states, suggests the steps against a fair and free election were those taken BY the very ones seceding... and who had themselves pressured the previous President to accept the results of rigged elections in Kansas.)

________________

Another sort of argument you might reasonably make -- The advocates of secession were NOT really advocating simply for their individual states to be able do as they pleased (as they repeatedly claimed), but for the federal government to FAVOR them and their sectional interests. For example, they were VERY insistent on the need for the federal government to do more to force the NORTH to help slave honors capture their runaway slaves (and those they CLAIMED were their slaves, even without the "slaves" having the right to prove in a trial that they were free, or were not the people the slave hunters claimed). The same may be said for their efforts to force a pro-slavery government on Kansas.

For that matter, there were even attempts of some among them to argue that their could be NO effective bar to their taking slaves to ANY territory or state, thus interfering with the rights of THOSE states NOT to have slavery. (Only the most extreme pursued the argument that far, but Republicans at the time did fear that the Supreme Court might use the logic of the Dred Scott decision to move in that direction.)

And those in the federal government (where the South had largely dominated all three branches since the beginning) would gladly use federal resources for big projects that favored the SOUTH. Key example -- Jefferson Davis,as Secretary of War, made every effort to secure a SOUTHERN route for a national railway being contemplated. (There is a brief treatment of this effort in the recent book *The California Gold Rush and the Coming of the Civil War* by Leonard Richards (Knopf, 2007).)

___________________

By the way, remember that Lincoln & company were not arguing about secession in the ABSTRACT, but about the real, historical situation. You may be unsure about whether secession is EVER justified or possible, but you can still show that the ACTUAL step of secession these states were taking was NOT justified by the circumstances.

Finally, related to these last two sections -- consider attacking the reasons for secession the Southern states offered in their OWN official documents when they seceded. (You will find that, contrary to what Southern apologists began saying AFTER the War --and do to this day-- that SLAVERY was indeed a central concern and justification. For example, the complaint I mentioned about the fugitive slave law, and the failure of Northern states to help enforce it is mentioned.)

Check out the Declarations of Causes of Seceding States for South Carolina, Mississippi, Georgia and Texas:
http://members.aol.com/jfepperson/reasons.html

Answer 2

Secession.
It's the old argument between States Rights vs Federal Government. Southern states believed that the ultimate government was vested in the state. And the state could override anything the Federal Government said. States Rights supporters also held that the States were NOT bound to the Federal Government and could LEAVE any time they wanted and reform their own government. This was know as SECESSION.

Obviously the North and the Federal Government held the opposing view - the Federal was the supreme government and that the states had to be subservient to it.

The war between the states settled the issue and the Federal Government became better known as The United States.

Answer 3

The southern states still had individuals, rich ones, anyway, that held slaves. The old Fugitive Slave law from the 1790s was not enforced to their satisfaction. Consequently, in order to agree to California's admission as a free state, they forced the passage of the Fugitive Slave act, one with much bigger teeth. Abolitionists did not feel obligated to surrender slaves to their owners or to the slave catchers sent to retrieve them. The slave owners objected to the lack of cooperation they received from some elements in the north.
As Sandburg points out in his biography of Lincoln, the average value of a slave was about $600. In order to free slaves, some people, Lincoln included until well into the war, believed the owners should be compensated in cash.

Though this seems absurd in the light of someone actually owning another, even today, when faced with what we know is the right thing to do, we still sometimes hesitate when it has to come out of our own pocket.

The Republican party was pledged to a platform that opposed the extension of slavery into the territories. As these territories would eventually become states, the south felt a balance had to be maintained. Each state has at least 1 representative in the House of Representatives and 2 Senators. The more states admitted as free states, the more votes the free states would have in Congress. Picture this, if there were 300 members in the House, 150 from the free states, and 150 from the slave states in 1860, then Free Kansas is added in 1861, with all other things being equal, the free states have a majority of one vote.

I am attaching a statement of the reasons for secession, from Georgia's point of view, from the University of Tennessee.

Answer 4

It is a long line of events since prior to Constitutional ratification. Some wanted a strong federal government with supreme sovereignty over the States and others wanted States to remain sovereign as stated in Article One of the 1783 Treaty of Peace
Writings of Alexander Hamilton supported a strong federal government.

The case of McCulloch v. Maryland [1819] reinterpreted the Constitution and gave new powers to the federal government Congress by a new interpretation of Article 1, Section 8, Clause 18. Chief Justice John Marshall opined that the words (of this clause) ‘necessary’ and ‘proper’ had the same meaning and this followed the perspective of Hamilton.

James Madison wrote the Virginia Resolution and Thomas Jefferson wrote the Kentucky resolution and in these States could not only secede but State Legislatures could nullify federal acts by determining them unconstitutional.

The 1828 Exposition written by former Vice President John C. Calhoun also supported States as sovereign.

These events (documents) are key points through the years laying (in part) the foundation for the debate of State verses federal government. The documents can be found through the internet and through the internet they can be found at the Yale Avalon Project which has many of these documents. Seeking each of these documents will lead to other opinions about this same subject area and seeking Lincoln and State secession will add to that.

All I have done here is point to some specific historic points that will guide you in your research on the internet. The subject is large and there are many books (many no longer in print) which you won’t be able to access which address this subject in great detail. One of the best you can order through Amazon is “Emancipating Slaves, Enslaving Free Men” by Hummel. It has great information and super sources as well as further links to additional information.

From my personal perspective, the main thing you’ve got going for the side you represent is that it won but (as justified in the Case of Texas v. White [1869]) only due to Right of Conquest. The case for State right to secede Constitutionally, historically, and legally, (to me) is far stronger..

Answer 5

http://www.nps.gov/archive/gett/gettkidz/cause.htm

http://www.us-civilwar.com/

http://www.teacheroz.com/Civil_War_Causes.htm
I didn't have a whole lot of time to look, but this one will probably be the best. It may be a little over-whleming, but it seems to cover alot from a well-rounded perspective. It gives both a Southern and Northern perspective..

If you are doing a debate, the Sourtherner are going to be all hard-core about it being a state's right's thing. Southerns would never say it was about slavery.. so I would pick specific examples where slavery really was a topic.. just so you can prove them wrong and get an A.

Answer 6

secession actually started under buchanan not lincoln -- they swapped out the office just before everything fell apart.

if you are against secssion you would be a northerner - the offical arguement is the south was in revolt -- they are naughty children that need to be brought back into the fold. the real arguement was the north lived on the sales and transportation of the south's most important crop -- cotton. the south grew it -- the north sold it and shipped it. without cotton lots of people in the north were without a job.

Answer 7

slaves had been, correctly, rather useful. whilst Lincoln emancipated them, in essence he diminish by means of part, all the wealth of the south. in that gentle, is it in any respect unexpected that the south seceded? i am not certain whether or not you keep in mind that to be "professional" or "con"? perhaps the query could had been larger if i were requested, "What had been one of the crucial motives that justified the south seceding, and what had been a few motives that they must now not have performed that?" definitely inflicting a struggle where a higher % of american citizens had been killed than some other struggle in US historical past must be a intent not to secede.

Answer 8

Have you ever heard of a thing called a "library"? It has things called "books".
.