Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
No, what I am referring to is even after the adoption of the U.S. Constitution many Americans clung to the concept of state sovereignty that was explicitly embodied in the Articles of Confederation. That being, states as individual sovereign nations, having voluntarily entered into a "compact" with other states to form the United States, could unilaterally end their membership in the Union. South Carolinians however held to this concept stronger than others, including Virginia and Kentucky. As early as 1832, South Carolina asserted her right to nullify and federal law that the state deemed to be unconstitutional which provoked the Nullification crisis of the same year.
This wasn't a sentiment held only by the Southern states, although it never really amounted to much in the north, nonetheless, as a result of Jefferson's election in 1800 the northeastern Federalist came to see the Louisiana purchase as blatant abuse of presidential power that would further weaken the electoral prospects of the Federalist Party and with it New England's power within the government. Headed by Timothy Pickering of Massachusetts the secessionist advocated the formation of a new nation comprised of the New England states and lower Canada. Abolitionist also at one time prior to the the civil war argued for the secession of the free states from slave.
As for Civil War re-enactors... well you can re-enact a battle without someone re-enacting the other side and there are plenty of Union re-enactors out there.
You are saying its part of our constitution to allow each state the right to choose to separate from the Usa?
Don't they like being part of the USA? Do they really think (with the exception of Texas) that they can financially survive on their own ? Or how weird it would be to partition America into separate countries?
I have studied a bit about the civil war though by no means an expert. It is a great tragedy in American history, over 600,000 lives lost . Entire small towns wiped out of a generation of young men. I was born in new england and moved to the south as a child. I do think many in the south still have strong feelings about the civil war.
The south made a big mistake threatening to secede and starting the war. They never had a chance against the north because all the weapons were manufactured up there. Cotten and tobacco are profitable crops but they won't win a war. The war lasted much longer then it should have because northern generals were stupid and made many mistakes and southern generals were brilliant and took full advantage of those mistakes, but that meant the war dragged on for years longer than it should have resulting in more death and suffering. Wouldnt the south have been better off just giving into the north's demands on slavery ? They ended up having to anyway and by then their towns were destroyed. It's all so heartbreaking for America
Just a minor quibble, but secession ideas have been going on for hundreds of years not just after Obama was elected. California has been going through this for a long time, the idea of secession but mostly just SoCal vs. NorCal. My own state has debated Eastern WA vs. Western WA for a while too. There was even an Indian tribe that declared some land in Montana and the Dakota's and I believe they marched on DC as well, that was back in 2005 or 2006.
Given the known outcome, then certainly. At the time of the decision, the results were unknown and the notion of voluntarily impoverishing themselves by giving up their most valuable "property" would have required much greater motivation than "We may lose." Voluntarily freeing their slaves at that time would also have involved having to overthrow their entire theory of slavery which claimed that the blacks were better off under the care and supervision of their superiors, than they would be on their own. It would have required admitting that their wealth was built upon an immoral foundation. People typically do not rush to do those sorts of things.
Further, it was not just their wealth, their political muscle was a product of the institution of slavery. Having the slave issue in common with half of the states, despite the slave states containing far fewer people than the free ones, meant that the slaves states could act in unison in the Senate, could veto any anti slavery candidate for president from either party by making him unelectable, and could control who got appointed to the Supreme Court. That is why they turned to secession, not out of fear of having their slaves liberated from out from under them, which no one was threatening to do, but because the Republicans ran on a platform which promised to end the expansion of slavery. Once that happened, all new states would be free states and the slave states would then be badly outnumbered and all the control that they had been able to exercise would evaporate.
Finally, that they would lose was not an absolute, nor did most southerners think that way. They were looking to the tradition of the Revolution and all the predictions that the puny colonials could not possibly beat the most powerful nation on the planet.
Thank you for that educated reply. I appreciate it.When you describe it like that it sounds like from the southern point of view they had no choice but to go to war over the issue of slavery. I wonder if Lincoln understood this?
I know many white people in the south did genuinely believe at that time that black people were inferior. I don't know how they came to believe that but they did. I also know that many blacks up north were free but lived in awful poverty. Still I think most black people at the time would have prefered poverty over slavery. Many slave owners were very kind to their slaves and even loved them. They raised their children, and cooked for and took care of the white families who owned them and often were treated very well, but if they were ever sold to a cruel master their life was hell on earth. While in the north blacks and whites rarely interacted, white people did not get to know them and treated them almost like aliens from another planet. It was a different type of racism up north from what I have read.
Just a minor quibble, but secession ideas have been going on for hundreds of years not just after Obama was elected. California has been going through this for a long time, the idea of secession but mostly just SoCal vs. NorCal. My own state has debated Eastern WA vs. Western WA for a while too. There was even an Indian tribe that declared some land in Montana and the Dakota's and I believe they marched on DC as well, that was back in 2005 or 2006.
Secession, not just for evil white racist
The succession of Indian owned land is a very interesting idea thanks for telling me about it. Again though they might have trouble surviving financially.
No state wants to be bifurcated. Every state has a minority of members who would like to see it split up - that's a far cry from any state as a whole wanting such.
No, it does not have any such approval. Here is what the Texas Annexation Resolution states:
The specifically mentioned provisions of the Constitution are the approval of Congress. And that has not been given. If so, please tell me of these states. What are their boundaries? Congress can't just approve a theoretical state admission any more than Congress can meet one day after a President is sworn in and declare that the next 12 cabinet members that President nominates are automatically approved, or to the same for the next X number of judicial nominees. Just as proposed nominees require specific approval, so do proposed states.
Aside from that fantasy, there's the little fact that Texas left the United States in 1861. Texas was not admitted back as a state until 1870, and that admission contained no reference to five states to mis-portray as some sort of unilateral right.
The "Texas can split itself into 5 states!" claim is basely.
Is it true that many Texans still think of themselves as separate from the rest of the Us?
Don't they like being part of the USA? Do they really think (with the exception of Texas) that they can financially survive on their own ? Or how weird it would be to partition America into separate countries?
I have studied a bit about the civil war though by no means an expert. It is a great tragedy in American history, over 600,000 lives lost . Entire small towns wiped out of a generation of young men. I was born in new england and moved to the south as a child. I do think many in the south still have strong feelings about the civil war.
The south made a big mistake threatening to secede and starting the war. They never had a chance against the north because all the weapons were manufactured up there. Cotten and tobacco are profitable crops but they won't win a war. The war lasted much longer then it should have because northern generals were stupid and made many mistakes and southern generals were brilliant and took full advantage of those mistakes, but that meant the war dragged on for years longer than it should have resulting in more death and suffering. Wouldnt the south have been better off just giving into the north's demands on slavery ? They ended up having to anyway and by then their towns were destroyed. It's all so heartbreaking for America
You are seeing this through the benefit of Hindsight. You have to remember, the South was THE leading producer of Cotton in the WORLD. Period. Liken it to say, someone telling the Sheiks to just surrender the profits made from Oil and you get a rough analogy.
The south was thriving prior to the war. Cotton was selling faster than they could produce it. They made these gains off the backs of slaves and indigents. Agrarian society desperately needed, and could not survive without, endless supplies of indentured slaves to produce those crops at very competitive rates.
Now, comes along the North threatening their very economic survival. Morality is nice, money tends to be king. With that in mind, the revolt was inevitable. Had they just "gave in" they would have lost everything they had built to that point. Wasn't going to happen without a fight?
As you can see, they lost and the South has literally never been the same. There are still towns you can visit throughout the South that have faint scars from the war but, the economic rebound simply evaded them. As the agrarian society gained mechanization, that changed to a point but, you only need tour these towns to see people steeped in poverty as the new world never came to them.
Resentment runs deep albeit slowly fading. As Vicksburg displayed by not celebrating the 4th of July for 86 years after Grant's arrival. Right? Wrong? Doesn't matter. That hatred was passed on to generations of those in the South who lost what they believed they owned. To those that were freed, no greater perversion could have been brought upon them as they fled to the North for jobs in the Rubber, Auto, and Steel industries. Detroit is just one such city where they fled to.
The South, while growing, has never caught up to the production of goods as those found in the North to this day. The rust belt is the only enemy the North ever truly faced. That and maybe the Chinese but, you can see this as you drive through the rust belt. You can see the remnants of Rockefeller, Carnegie, Morgan, etc.
Hindsight is indeed 20/20 but, I can't imagine a Southern Plantation owner or businessman in that time that wouldn't have defended his gains by any means possible up to and including war. It was never about slavery. It was all about cotton.
The South lost and they have the scars to prove it. Probably explains the major resentment the current administration feels. There are an ever increasing amount of Americans that resent the changes the WH has made with medical, IRS, etc. People feel they are being manipulated and no longer represented.
The chicanery we have witnessed in the last 4 years alone has brought about a hatred I have not seen since I was a child. I think it fair to say that this president will be remembered as the great provider to some, and the great divider to the rest. The tension is palpable and if it continues (read, people dying due to lack of access to advanced, AVAILABLE care) you could see violence and social division worse than what we witnessed 40-50 years ago.
Not much healing but, a whole lot of hating going on.
Doubtful anyone could secede but, one would be folly not to notice and pay attention to the rhetoric. People scream enough and sooner or later, bad things happen.
Ovcatto wrote that the above was an assumed right by some based on the Articles of Confederation, which of course was no longer in effect in 1861.
I have just read that Justice Antonin Scalia apparently answered a letter from a citizen answering the question of if the states ever have a legal basis for sucession. He wrote that the civil war decided this issue and that a state has no right to secede.
You are seeing this through the benefit of Hindsight. You have to remember, the South was THE leading producer of Cotton in the WORLD. Period. Liken it to say, someone telling the Sheiks to just surrender the profits made from Oil and you get a rough analogy.
The south was thriving prior to the war. Cotton was selling faster than they could produce it. They made these gains off the backs of slaves and indigents. Agrarian society desperately needed, and could not survive without, endless supplies of indentured slaves to produce those crops at very competitive rates.
Now, comes along the North threatening their very economic survival. Morality is nice, money tends to be king. With that in mind, the revolt was inevitable. Had they just "gave in" they would have lost everything they had built to that point. Wasn't going to happen without a fight?
As you can see, they lost and the South has literally never been the same. There are still towns you can visit throughout the South that have faint scars from the war but, the economic rebound simply evaded them. As the agrarian society gained mechanization, that changed to a point but, you only need tour these towns to see people steeped in poverty as the new world never came to them.
Resentment runs deep albeit slowly fading. As Vicksburg displayed by not celebrating the 4th of July for 86 years after Grant's arrival. Right? Wrong? Doesn't matter. That hatred was passed on to generations of those in the South who lost what they believed they owned. To those that were freed, no greater perversion could have been brought upon them as they fled to the North for jobs in the Rubber, Auto, and Steel industries. Detroit is just one such city where they fled to.
The South, while growing, has never caught up to the production of goods as those found in the North to this day. The rust belt is the only enemy the North ever truly faced. That and maybe the Chinese but, you can see this as you drive through the rust belt. You can see the remnants of Rockefeller, Carnegie, Morgan, etc.
Hindsight is indeed 20/20 but, I can't imagine a Southern Plantation owner or businessman in that time that wouldn't have defended his gains by any means possible up to and including war. It was never about slavery. It was all about cotton.
The South lost and they have the scars to prove it. Probably explains the major resentment the current administration feels. There are an ever increasing amount of Americans that resent the changes the WH has made with medical, IRS, etc. People feel they are being manipulated and no longer represented.
The chicanery we have witnessed in the last 4 years alone has brought about a hatred I have not seen since I was a child. I think it fair to say that this president will be remembered as the great provider to some, and the great divider to the rest. The tension is palpable and if it continues (read, people dying due to lack of access to advanced, AVAILABLE care) you could see violence and social division worse than what we witnessed 40-50 years ago.
Not much healing but, a whole lot of hating going on.
Doubtful anyone could secede but, one would be folly not to notice and pay attention to the rhetoric. People scream enough and sooner or later, bad things happen.
Thank you for such an honest post. Are you really sure that the southern plantation owners could not have found a way to free the slaves and still turn a profit? They may have made a little less but still been successful. What did they do after the war?
I do believe that everyone should have quality health care, as well as fair taxation laws. I think you are right that the anger people are showing should not be ignored. That is why I created this thread. I know that some of the worse poverty in America is in the deep south.
What could they possibly gain by being split into pieces?
Many states are divided politically. Urban voters tend to be liberal, and like high taxation, rural and suburban voters tend to be conservative and prefer lower taxation.
In many liberal states, take New York for example, all but 4 counties vote Republican most every election, yet the 4 counties that vote Democrat always take the state as the balance of population between NYC and the state rests in just 4 of NYC's 5 counties.
Same with Maryland, California and many other states.
As a result many conservatives feel unrepresented by their states government and wish to be separate. Generally states in this situation favor policies that harm conservatives to favor liberals as control of the electorate lies with pleasing liberals. Conservatives feel they lack representation and are unfairly burdened.
Congress will not permit any state to bifurcate. It would alter the balance of power in the Senate.
A state with a truce between liberal and conservative seems to be Texas where Austin is accepted as a liberal strange cousin to the other cities. As such there hasn't been much movement for Texas to break up recently.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
