Topic: Secession
On the Right to Secede Membership in the Union should have more advantages to the State than drawbacks.by Lojiko
(Libertarian)
Monday, April 28, 2008
The smallest unit of government is the individual. The three fundamental rights of the individual are Life, Liberty, and Property. This is the basis of self-government, the right of the individual to govern their own life, liberty, and property.
The moment government extends beyond the individual, a social contract is made. For instance, perhaps two neighbors agree to a land sale. They make a contract to exchange one form of property (land) for another (other commodity, money).
Carried further, individuals who live in a certain city de facto agree to live by the laws of that city, so long as they are residents. Carried further yet, citizens of a state or nation agree to abide by the laws of that nation, so long as they live there. This is not to say that citizens cannot try to change the laws, only that they generally agree to abide by them.
Now the right of individual secession is generally accepted at the lower levels of government. No US town would consider a law that forbids its residents from moving to another town. Extending this further, it is not unheard of for a section of a town to secede from their parent town to form a new social contract amongst the residents of that section. In fact, it is not unheard of in US history for whole counties to secede from their parent States.
Another example of individual autonomy is the right of an individual to leave their parent nation to live, and become a citizen of, another nation. In all these examples, the right of individuals and small communities to secede from their parent town, State, or nation has been guaranteed. No free person would restrict the right of another free person not contractually bound to do otherwise from breaking free from the political confines of one system to join those of another or no other.
... but then there's the Union.
It is interesting that our society - having been given birth by a fight to secede from of foreign power is so opposed to the right of any particular member of the Union (except individuals) to break free from that Union. Given the right of individuals and communities to secede from the State, it should also be allowed for the State to secede from the Union.
Secession in the United States has a long and storied history apart from the Civil War. There are currently almost as many secessionist movements in the United States as there are States. [link edited for length]
Membership in the Union should have more advantages to the State than drawbacks. For instance, being a member of the Union may free a State from the hassles of printing a currency, foreign affairs managements, and may benefit in terms of free trade with other Union members and providence for a common defense. If membership in the Union, however, becomes detrimental to the State and its People, it is an obligation of the State to sever its ties to the Union just as the 13 Original Colonies did in 1776.
In the end, the right of secession is justified by the right of individual secession and by extension the right of individuals organized into groups to declare said group independent from the Union at large. To believe anything else, usurps the right of the individual to organize into a group (a violation of their right to free association) and to act on the needs of that group.
So what about rebellion? Does the fact that a gang of gun-toting weirdos has seized control of Main Street County, USA preclude the State and/or Union from taking action? Quite simply, NO.
Rebellion can be discerned from secession by virtue of the proportion of participants. Rightful secession being defined by the will of the majority - or preferably greater proportion - to separate from the social contracts that bind them to the State or Union. Any number less than that supporting the uprising is inherently opposed to the will of the People, and thereby illegal.
This whole idea of rebellion vs secession raises a whole host of issues that cannot be adequately addressed in this column. For instance, what is the proper majority for an issue so serious as secession? Simple majority, 2/3, 3/4? Such guidelines should be set prior to the formation of contract. For instance, if the Constitution had stated that anything less than a majority for secession would be considered insurrection, then at least there would be a Constitutional means to justify a course of action (such as the US Civil War) that was approved by representatives of the citizens prior to joining the Union. Perhaps States should not be allowed to leave the Union will-nilly, but at least there should be some way out if it is in their best interests.
Imagine a world of legalized secession. Too often minority groups of a given state are made slaves to the tyranny of the majority (power). Imagine how blessed Palestinians would be if they could simply secede from Israel? Imagine how blessed Israel would be, for that matter. What if Kurds could secede from Iraq? Basque from Spain? Lakota from the US? Tibet from China? Boer from South Africa? Chiapas from Mexico?
These movements exist as a result of the suffering of a people in a particular region at the hands of a larger, more powerful political source. To do anything less than allow for regions and peoples to break free from the political ties that bind them to repressive regimes, is to abandon the fundamental rights we possess as human beings, for no better reason than because we exist and deserve self-rule.
Stated as such, there is no defensible reason not to allow for the right of secession by members of a Union, from said Union.
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 14 thumbs so far
2008 Lojiko, all rights reserved.
Published: Monday, April 28, 2008
Last modified: Tuesday, April 29, 2008
The views expressed in this
article are those of Lojiko only and do not represent
the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. Lojiko is
solely responsible for the contents of this article and is not an
employee or otherwise affiliated with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
The result would be greater balkanization, and eventually China would simply conquer the entire mess of tiny, ineffectual, stupidly "liberty-based" states.
Militias cannot stop nation-backed armies. Nor can less organized, decentralized mobs of idealistic and brave soldiers defeat a modern foe. I though the Civil War illustrated this perfectly.
the southern states lost the civil war because grant had no qualms against using huge numbers of poorly trained gruntsto overrun the more experienced although glaringly outnumbered southern commanders. it wasnt skill that won the war for the feds, it was weight. if the union armies hadn't had the foundries, mills, and larger population, the civil war would have been longer, messier, and possibly had a different outcome.
the biggest reason why the british lost to the continental army in 1783 was a similar circumstance to the confederates- lack of timely supply. if either group's supply lines had been shorter, or perhaps more intense, things might have been different from today's reality.
Ethically, legally, morally and pragmatically secession has the high ground. Provided, it is done with voluntarily and with consent. Unfortunately, the likelihood of any constituent portion of the United States breaking away and becoming a separate independent country remains remote. Granted, some former Pacific Trust Territories such as Palau did achieve independence in the 1990's and for other circumstances the Philippines did too in 1946.
Presently, I am working to establish a brand new libertarian nation located outside of the United States of America. The idea will be to purchase land and political sovereignty from an existing power. The idea isn't to displace anyone or to use any coercion but to try our hand with a clean slate. http://www.myspace.com/newnationproject
There is indeed the largely theoretical individual right of secession. There is however no Constitutional right to secede. The Constitution is a flexible document. Until 1865 the ownership of slaves was a "constitutional right". The slave-holding states could have attempted to secede through legislative means in 1860 but instead chose armed rebellion. They lost and they deserved to lose.
The important issue is not the so-called "right of secession" but rather the reasons for secession. When the southern-states rebelled against the Union they did so to preserve slavery. They took three million slaves with them. The reason they chose to secede was not to preserve freedom but enshrine oppression.
Every person has a right to their own liberty. No one has the right to enslave others, which is exactly the right being claimed by those who champion the "right of secession" by the Southern states in 1860.
I understand that the Civil War is the most pertainment example of secession in the eyes of Americans, but why is it that example alone that keeps coming up? What about the right of Ireland to secede from Great Britain, or Scotland for that matter? What about Mexico from Spain? THese are examples every bit as timely - if not more so - than the example of the US Civil War.
Although I won't argue that the CSA was enshrining oppression with its secesion (not that I agree with you, I'm just not going to touch that topic), I do take exception to your idea that the Southern States could have seceded legally through legslative means, but seceded illegally through armed rebellion. According to my history books, the Southern States did secede legislatively and only took up arms when Lincoln refused to remove federal troops from federal military installations embedded in the South - an obvious provocation on Lincoln's part.
I argue that the whole Civil War could have been prevented and our nation (both USA and CSA and the citizens and slaves of each) would have been better off had the war not been fought. In fact, perhaps that will be my next column.
I'm not discussing the "right" of seccession, or its justification, morality, legality, et al. Make whatever stance on that you will.
I'm simply saying these are not the days of King George, where the only real difference between militia and armies was the level of training, and where privateers were a real threat to naval warships. In the modern day,
Jason hits it right on the head. The likelyhood is that any "seceeding state" is going to be smaller, less populous, and have less infrastructure than the government it separates from. That may mean nothing -- if , say, the old south seceeded from the Union, perhaps the US would not engage in a war.
But it ignores the rest of the world, especially China. The author of the article asked "Imagine a world of legalized secession. Too often minority groups of a given state are made slaves to the tyranny of the majority (power). Imagine how blessed Palestinians would be if they could simply secede from Israel? Imagine how blessed Israel would be, for that matter. What if Kurds could secede from Iraq? Basque from Spain? Lakota from the US? Tibet from China? Boer from South Africa? Chiapas from Mexico?" In a place like that, any country that did not allow secession to happen -- China, Russia, authoritarian regimes -- would have the "throw weight" neccessary to crush smaller states easily.
Additionally, every split along these lines is a failure to work out differences, and a greivance in the making getting worse. There is no guarantee that anything would result but petty wars, ended only when a larger nation smashed the small "sectionals" flat.
Kurds seceeding from Iraq? Nothing to stop Turkey from invading and slaughtering them all. Basque seceeding from Spain? What's to stop the SPANISH in Basque regions from starting terrorism on their own? People are not reasonable, and the splits listed are mostly long term, hateful splits that cannot be solved by drawing more imaginary lines on a map.
The problem is that there is no inherent right of secession independent of the reasons for seeking to secede, which is what the supporters of slavery try to claim. For Ireland, Mexico, or the North American colonies of Britain to seek independence is in no way comparable to the Southern states rebelling against the Union in order to preserve slavery.
To claim that the "Southern States .... only took up arms when Lincoln refused to remove federal troops from federal military installations embedded in the South - an obvious provocation on Lincoln's part" is silly and contradicts history. The South seized military arsenals belonging to the United States and raised a rebel army against the existing government. The South started the war. Lincoln did his duty under the Constitution.
Posted By: patrick henry
Date: 2008-04-29 10:12:57
Rick,
You are an excellent example against the Department of Education, keep spouting the propaganda guys, the Ministry of Truth loves your work, now back to work Winston, all hail Big Brother. The War Against the States all about slavery, good one. The South started the War again, priceless trite garbage. Try an above High School level history book on for size, you might be amazed at what you find.
Having lived in Kurdistan for almost two years and becoming very close to the Kurds, I can say you further show your ignorance to the real situation. The Kurds would be 1000X times better off if we would leave them alone and allow them to form Kurdistan (which they have and we fail to recognize). The only problem is the Kurds are land locked with no way to get their precious natural resource (oil) out of the country, plus a very large portion of southern Turkey is Kurdish land stolen from them by the Turkish-Ottoman Empire. The Kurds are more than willing to stand up and fight for their soveriegnty, too bad most of my countrymen arent.
PH, other than to call me names, do you have anything to say?
Anyone who equates fighting for freedom or eeven independence with the Southern fight to preserves slavery is either dishonest or ignorant of history, or both.
Posted By: patrick henry
Date: 2008-04-29 13:06:16
It is laughable that you would argue the War of Northern Agression as a fight to end slavery as history. I would argue it is you who is ignorant to the facts of history and very learned on the propoganda of the establishment.
Answer me this, how come the Emancipation Proclaimation was written two years into the war and not before it. It was written after the defeat at Antetim creek in which the North posessed Lees general order number 11 which detailed his strength and manuever plan. The Union couldnt beat Lee even when they knew his plan. Lincoln needed something sensational to keep the North into the fight for the Radical Republican Empire.
Lincoln also suspended Habeaus Corpus (criminal).
The south fired on Ft. Sumtner because the Union Navy was blockading a very important port to the south (Commerce raiding) leaving the south no choice, as far as Harpers Ferry goes, look at the time line. The war had already started and VA had already succeeded, making the garrison at Harpers Ferry an occupying force from another country, you figure it out.
How is it that the Union would allow the South to succede, when 84% of the revenues of the union came from the south? They could not allow it as it would cause economic ruin to the North.
How is it that VA outlawed slavery in 1820? Yet they were fighting for an institution they illegalized?
How is it that the slave trade continued (by norhtern traders/merchants) in the US after it was abolished? Easy one, money.
How come Lincoln was willing to permantly maintain the institution of slavery if the south did not succeded and take its tarriffs with them? Again easy. money
I have tons to say, but mainly learn the real truth and not spout propoganda in defense of your argument then claim we are/I am ignorant to history. This proves the point that if you sensationalize something enough to the ignorant masses they will believe it. You equate succession with slavery, how convenient to the powers that are threatened by succession for you to feel that way.
In 1850 Jefferson Davis, stated that the institution of slavery has come to an end and that all slaves should be educated to their responsibility in a free society. This brings up two points, the future President of the CSA realized/verbalized the end of the institution of slavery, 11 years prior to the War Against the States, what changed his mind 11 years later?
Secondly it brings up that man has to be educated to live in a free society. Not half educated but educated. Believing half the truth is also believing half a lie.
Republicae did a very nicely researched article last week on an inconvenient history- the war for southern independance pt. 1 and 2, look it up it may shed some light on the subject for you.
You call me ignorant and then post so much foolishness. And you suggest that I should learn history? You are amusing, if little else.
Your post was so full of nonsense I wonder if responding is even worthwhile. A few obvious points - Virginia did not outlaw slavery in 1820. Where did you dream that one up?
The international slave trade into the US ended in 1807. The illegal importation by Northern traders dropped to a trickle. A large interstate trade developed in which Virginia and other coastal states sold slaves inland to less developed slave states.
And yes, the Emancipation Proclamation was mostly symbolic and political. Lincoln had no power to free the slaves until the Constitution was amended. That is pretty basic High School history. Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus is provided for in the Constitution in times of rebellion. Secession was never provided for in the Constitution. Suppression of rebellion was and is.
I know you prefer the revisionist fantasies but if you want to see why the Southern states seceded read their proclamations of secession where they spell it out. They intended to preserve the institution of slavery at all costs. They chose rebellion instead of attempting to preserve slavery by legislative means. The slave states had lost control of the House that the 3/5 of a man provision had once effectively guaranteed them and were losing control of the Senate as free states were added to the Union. As long as the union was preserved, they knew that slavery was doomed.
It is absolutely impossible for anyone to make the claim that there is no Constitutional Right of Secession since each and every State was independent prior to giving assent to the Ratification of the Constitution. Additionally, the nature of the government as it was transformed from a Revolutionary government to the Articles of Confederation to the the Federation remained the same, only the functionality of the government changed due to necessary requirements.
To doubt this is to doubt the words of the Father of the Constitution James Madison who made it extremely clear that there was bascially no change in the nature of either the States or the federal government, the only changes were in the co-ordinate nature of the governments themselves. Besides a subordinate can only receive delegated powers from a superior. The States, upon consent of the People, delegated all powers to the federal government, not vice-versa.
Also, the Kentucky and Virgina Resolutions plainly state that it is the Right of a State to revert back to its former Sole Sovereingty when the parties of the Compact no longer adhere to the provisions of the contract.
The only people that dared to attempt to usurp such nationalistic powers were those of the Federalist Party, such as Hamilton, Adams and unfortunately Washington. All of whom sought to make the federal government a national one instead of a federation. If you look at the definition of a federation it becomes obviously clear that the Right of Secession is inherent in that form of government.
Additionally, it is impossible to make such a blanketed statement when both the 9th and 10th Amendments to the Constitution clearly and uncategorically declare that the States and the People Retain Reserved Rights that were not Delegated in Trust to the subordinate federal government.
It is also apparent within the Constitution and the ancillary supporting documents written at the time, including the Debates at the Constitutional Convention, that the Delegated Powers rendered to the federal government are extremely limited in both scope and application. Additionally, there are Rights Retained by the People themselves that were never delegated or enumerated within the Constitution. It is, within the scope of these un-enumerated Rights that the People themselves have the ultimate choice on the form and function of their government, whether to retain it in its current form, to change it or to abolish it completely.
To ignore such declarations by inordinate construction is a sign of a base mentality and little more, it exhibits a lack of facility to understand or to accept the functionality and formation of our federal system of States as reflected in the general government.
What intrigues me is the claim that one has a right to secede in order to continue slavery. Any independence movement must justify its reasons for independence or separation. In the words of Jefferson "...a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation."
The declarations of secession by the Southern states are explicit. They seceded to preserve slavery. To support secession to support slavery is indeed to support slavery.
And, by the way, all your tap dancing notwithstanding, there was no provision for secession in the Constitution of 1860. There was however language related to the suppression of rebellions.
RickSp...What intrigues me is that you don't seem to have the capacity to understand that the Right of Secession had absolutely nothing to do with slavery.
In terms of the South, if they simply wanted to continue slavery unmolested then all they had to do was remain in the Union and Lincoln would have protected slavery forever. So, you are harping up an empty tree when you attempt to link the two issues as inseparable.
Here for instance is the Ordinance of Secession for the State of Mississippi, tell me, do you read anything in it regarding slavery?
"AN ORDINANCE to dissolve the union between the State of Mississippi and other States united with her under the compact entitled "The Constitution of the United States of America."
The people of the State of Mississippi, in convention assembled, do ordain and declare, and it is hereby ordained and declared, as follows, to wit:
Section 1. That all the laws and ordinances by which the said State of Mississippi became a member of the Federal Union of the United States of America be, and the same are hereby, repealed, and that all obligations on the part of the said State or the people thereof to observe the same be withdrawn, and that the said State doth hereby resume all the rights, functions, and powers which by any of said laws or ordinances were conveyed to the Government of the said United States, and is absolved from all the obligations, restraints, and duties incurred to the said Federal Union, and shall from henceforth be a free, sovereign, and independent State.
Sec. 2. That so much of the first section of the seventh article of the constitution of this State as requires members of the Legislature and all officers, executive and judicial, to take an oath or affirmation to support the Constitution of the United States be, and the same is hereby, abrogated and annulled.
Sec. 3. That all rights acquired and vested under the Constitution of the United States, or under any act of Congress passed, or treaty made, in pursuance thereof, or under any law of this State, and not incompatible with this ordinance, shall remain in force and have the same effect as if this ordinance had not been passed.
Sec. 4. That the people of the State of Mississippi hereby consent to form a federal union with such of the States as may have seceded or may secede from the Union of the United States of America, upon the basis of the present Constitution of the said United States, except such parts thereof as embrace other portions than such seceding States."
Here is the Ordinance of Secession for the State of South Carolina, now tell me, do you see anything in it about slavery?
" AN ORDINANCE to dissolve the union between the State of South Carolina and other States united with her under the compact entitled "The Constitution of the United States of America."
We, the people of the State of South Carolina, in convention assembled, do declare and ordain, and it is hereby declared and ordained, That the ordinance adopted by us in convention on the twenty-third day of May, in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty-eight, whereby the Constitution of the United States of America was ratified, and also all acts and parts of acts of the General Assembly of this State ratifying amendments of the said Constitution, are hereby repealed; and that the union now subsisting between South Carolina and other States, under the name of the "United States of America," is hereby dissolved."
Here is Florida's Ordinance:
"ORDINANCE OF SECESSION
We, the people of the State of Florida, in convention assembled, do solemnly ordain, publish, and declare, That the State of Florida hereby withdraws herself from the confederacy of States existing under the name of the United States of America and from the existing Government of the said States; and that all political connection between her and the Government of said States ought to be, and the same is hereby, totally annulled, and said Union of States dissolved; and the State of Florida is hereby declared a sovereign and independent nation; and that all ordinances heretofore adopted, in so far as they create or recognize said Union, are rescinded; and all laws or parts of laws in force in this State, in so far as they recognize or assent to said Union, be, and they are hereby, repealed."
Now, while the Ordinance of Secession for the State of Alabama mentions slaveholding States, it does not state at anytime that the reasons for Secession is to protect slavery, do you see any where it refers to such protection or that it is the cause of Secession?
" AN ORDINANCE to dissolve the union between the State of Alabama and the other States united under the compact styled "The Constitution of the United States of America"
Whereas, the election of Abraham Lincoln and Hannibal Hamlin to the offices of president and vice-president of the United States of America, by a sectional party, avowedly hostile to the domestic institutions and to the peace and security of the people of the State of Alabama, preceded by many and dangerous infractions of the constitution of the United States by many of the States and people of the Northern section, is a political wrong of so insulting and menacing a character as to justify the people of the State of Alabama in the adoption of prompt and decided measures for their future peace and security, therefore:
Be it declared and ordained by the people of the State of Alabama, in Convention assembled, That the State of Alabama now withdraws, and is hereby withdrawn from the Union known as "the United States of America," and henceforth ceases to be one of said United States, and is, and of right ought to be a Sovereign and Independent State.
Sec 2. Be it further declared and ordained by the people of the State of Alabama in Convention assembled, That all powers over the Territory of said State, and over the people thereof, heretofore delegated to the Government of the United States of America, be and they are hereby withdrawn from said Government, and are hereby resumed and vested in the people of the State of Alabama. And as it is the desire and purpose of the people of Alabama to meet the slaveholding States of the South, who may approve such purpose, in order to frame a provisional as well as permanent Government upon the principles of the Constitution of the United States,
Be it resolved by the people of Alabama in Convention assembled, That the people of the States of Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Florida, Georgia, Mississippi, Louisiana, Texas, Arkansas, Tennessee, Kentucky and Missouri, be and are hereby invited to meet the people of the State of Alabama, by their Delegates, in Convention, on the 4th day of February, A.D., 1861, at the city of Montgomery, in the State of Alabama, for the purpose of consulting with each other as to the most effectual mode of securing concerted and harmonious action in whatever measures may be deemed most desirable for our common peace and security.
And be it further resolved, That the President of this Convention, be and is hereby instructed to transmit forthwith a copy of the foregoing Preamble, Ordinance, and Resolutions to the Governors of the several States named in said resolutions."
Would you like another example, here is Louisiana.
" AN ORDINANCE to dissolve the union between the State of Louisiana and other States united with her under the compact entitled "The Constitution of the United States of America."
We, the people of the State of Louisiana, in convention assembled, do declare and ordain, and it is hereby declared and ordained, That the ordinance passed by us in convention on the 22d day of November, in the year eighteen hundred and eleven, whereby the Constitution of the United States of America and the amendments of the said Constitution were adopted, and all laws and ordinances by which the State of Louisiana became a member of the Federal Union, be, and the same are hereby, repealed and abrogated; and that the union now subsisting between Louisiana and other States under the name of "The United States of America" is hereby dissolved.
We do further declare and ordain, That the State of Louisiana hereby resumes all rights and powers heretofore delegated to the Government of the United States of America; that her citizens are absolved from all allegiance to said Government; and that she is in full possession and exercise of all those rights of sovereignty which appertain to a free and independent State.
We do further declare and ordain, That all rights acquired and vested under the Constitution of the United States, or any act of Congress, or treaty, or under any law of this State, and not incompatible with this ordinance, shall remain in force and have the same effect as if this ordinance had not been passed."
Now, I realize that you must use such blanket condemnations in order to illicit some sort of emotional support for your position however, it is not only unnecessary, but only exposes the fact that you must ignore a vast amount of history and historical documents, including the Constitution, the Federalist Papers, writings of numerous contemporary legal minds of the period, including Jefferson and Madison, especially Madison's Notes on the Debates of the Constitutional Convention which absolutely rejected all notions that this government was to be a nationalist centralized government imbued with the power to force Union upon the States and the People. Such a position must rely totally upon such tactics as you resort to on this forum in seeking to link the two when they are not linked by anything but the events of leading up to the War of 1861. The Right of Secession is founded throughout the transition from a Revolutionary government to the Confederation under the Articles of Confederation to the Federation under the Constitution. In fact, Madison and even Hamilton himself used the two terms interchangeably; Confederation and Federation. The sense was that the Union was not one central nation, but a co-ordinate Union that reflected the Sovereignty of the People through the function of the States. The federal government is the work-horse of the People as reflected by their delegated powers to their respective States.
As I said, you must ignore massive amounts of documentation to the contrary to believe that there is no Right of Secession.
A good book that was written in 1825 by William Rawle, a Northerner by the way, was used in every law school and in every military institute in this country, even West Point, that is until around 1862 when it was systimatically purged from those institutions.
It is an extremely clear and very compelling expose on the Constitutionality of the Right of Secession.
I am quite sure that you have never read about the Adams/Corwin amendment that was proposed by the Committee of Thirty-Three in Congress. However, it was an extraordinary piece of legislation because it proposed to abolish slavery in every State where it existed, so you would think that Congressmen from the North would have fully supported the legislation and that the South would have vehemently opposed it. However, every single Southern, except one, representative voted for the measure and almost every Northern representative in Congress voted against the law...it makes one wonders, or it should.
Indeed, it made it through the House by but one majority however, 65 Republican members of the Senate headed by Mr. Hickman of Pennsylvania, voted it down and fought against any further proposals to eliminate slavery.
So, my question is why? What was really going on? Of course, if one takes your position there is no need to ask questions about the history of the period since to you it is a closed book, sealed all nice and neat in a comfortable package.
Few people realize the reason why Jefferson Davis was never tried for Treason against the United States. The answer, of course, is because there was no treason. In fact, if you read the writings of Chief Justice Chase you will readily see that he advised President Andrew Johnson against such a trial because the federal government would lose.
In fact, there just about every Northern lawyer turned the prosecution of the case against Davis down for the very reason given by Chief Justice Chase, there was no treason for secession since it was considered Constitutional. Actually, one attorney said that although the Union won the war at the end of a gun, if the government tried Jeff Davis it would lose the war in the courts.
Jeff Davis, of course, wanted his day in court, it never came.
"Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable, a most sacred right — a right which we hope and believe is to liberate the world. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people, that can, may revolutionize, and make their own of so much of the territory as they inhabit" (excerpt from a speech by Abraham Lincoln, delivered in the U.S. House of Representatives on 12 January 1848; Congressional Globe, Volume XIX, page 94).
Want to comment on this
article? Leave your comment here. Your email address is
required to track your comment. However, we will neither
publish your email address nor distribute it to other
organizations or persons. The only reason we might use
it would be if we needed to contact you regarding your
comment. All comments are subject to our
terms of use policy.
2008 Lojiko, all rights reserved.