Was the South right?

[billmatt04]

Hello all,
As I was browsing through Border's bookstore I came across a copy of the book The South was Right! Forgive me, but I cannot remember the names of the authors, but I know they wrote another book entitled The Myths of American Slavery. I was interested in seeing their views on the constitutionality of secession. As far as I understand it (from skimming over the chapter) the authors maintain that the Southern states had a constitutional right to secede from the Union. I am not trying to start a fight here and I pray that I will not be raked over the coals for this, but I am curious as to other research that backs up this idea. I did not get a chance to read the book, but I was wondering if anyone else had any thoughts on this. Again, I do not mean to start up an ideological firefight, but as a amature historian I would like to explore both sides of this issue further. Thank you all for your help.

Sincerely,
Matthew Cassady
104th Illinois Vol. Inf.

[K Bartsch]

Re: Was the South right?

Matthew,
The man who wrote that book (Kennedy) had an agenda. In my opinion, it is a subjective interpretation of historic events and should not be considered serious scholarship.

Now, a word of unsolicited advice. There are three areas we would be well advised to avoid here on the A-C. They are, in no particular order, politics (this subject included), religion, and the relative merits of members of the fairer sex.

Cordially,

[ThehosGendar]

Re: Was the South right?

Article I, section 10 of the Constitution sums things up nicely:


Section 10.

No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation; grant letters of marque and reprisal; coin money; emit bills of credit; make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts; pass any bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts, or grant any title of nobility.

No state shall, without the consent of the Congress, lay any imposts or duties on imports or exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection laws: and the net produce of all duties and imposts, laid by any state on imports or exports, shall be for the use of the treasury of the United States; and all such laws shall be subject to the revision and control of the Congress.

No state shall, without the consent of Congress, lay any duty of tonnage, keep troops, or ships of war in time of peace, enter into any agreement or compact with another state, or with a foreign power, or engage in war, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent danger as will not admit of delay.

[Tom Ezell]

Re: Was the South right?

Matthew:

As long as you remember that The South Was Right! is mostly wrong, you should do okay.

I've read the book, met the author a time or two (he's apparently a member of our old mainstream battalion) and checked many of the assertions against other sources, and come to a few conclusions of my own.

The book is propaganda, intended to provide concerted "sound bite" answers for many of the common questions that come up about the Late & Great Unpleasantness, its roots and consequences, for members of southern nationalist organizations. You may have noted, for instance, that Kennedy, et al. never once mention folks like William L. Yancey, Robert Toombs, Robert Barnwell Rhett, and others who were the true architects and instigators of the southern confederacy.

Tom

[Justin Runyon]

Re: Was the South right?

I suspect this post was flame bait originally, and even if it was not, it has been made pretty clear that the book central to the discussion is not one of scholarly research. In light of those facts, and several comments from our user base, I'm locking this thread until further notice.

[Justin Runyon]

Re: Was the South right?

After some discussion with fellow Mods, and Paul earlier today over dinner, I've decided to reopen this thread. Here is the kicker...I feel this could be a very useful thread if taken in the right direction. All posts to this thread must be on the constitutional argument as it was in the ante-bellum US and suported by first person documentation and opinions. Modern politics and ideals have no place here. This thread will be watched closely. Enjoy.

[MuleyGil]

Re: Was the South right?

At this time, I do not have access to my library of books and magazines, so I am unable to provide the exact reference. However, I remember reading that one of the reasons that Jefferson Davis and other Confederate leaders were not charged with treason was that the text book used at West Point during the 1820s to 1840s, while most of the commanders were attending the Academy, taught that sessesion (sp?)was a legal and natural right of each individual State. Perhaps someone who is closer to West Point than 6000 miles away, which I am at the present, can research the exact book used during that time period.

[billmatt04]

Re: Was the South right?

Gentlemen and ladies,
I want to thank the moderators for clearing up what could have turned into a terrible incident. I should have worded my original post more correctly and refrained from references to certain published material. However, my original query remains the same, and I restate it here so that there is no further confusion:
What was the constitutional argument for secession that was used by secessionists both from the North and South from the pre-Civil War antebellum era? What were the precedents that were cited by these secessionists?
Thank you again for the appropriate response from the moderators. I am looking for scholaraly responses and hope to glean some greater insight into the turbulent issues surrounding the separation of the southern states.

Sincerely,
Matthew Cassady
104th Illinois Vol. Inf.

[Hank Trent]

Re: Was the South right?

However, I remember reading that one of the reasons that Jefferson Davis and other Confederate leaders were not charged with treason was that the text book used at West Point during the 1820s to 1840s, while most of the commanders were attending the Academy, taught that sessesion (sp?)was a legal and natural right of each individual State.

Don't know about that specifically, but the first thing that occurs to me is President Jackson's proclamation to South Carolina in 1832, in which he wrote:

Secession, like any other revolutionary act, may be morally justified by the extremity of oppression; but to call it a constitutional right is confounding the meaning of terms, and can only be done through gross error or to deceive those who are willing to assert a right, but would pause before they made a revolution or incur the penalties consequent on a failure. * * * Disunion by armed force is treason. Are you really ready to incur its guilt?

The whole proclamation is here http://www.nv.cc.va.us/home/nvsageh/...ksonProcSC.htm and contains more extensive anti-secession arguments.

If West Point was teaching that secession was constitutional in the 1834-1840s period, while presumably addressing the issue in a calm, hypothetical way instead of trying to whip up support during a crisis, I'd be curious how they reconciled that philosophy with Jackson's proclamation, and the many people who supported Jackson's viewpoints with their own constitutional arguments, like Webster. For the opposite side, see John C. Calhoun, but his pro-secession stand was apparently not supported by the majority, even among those who agreed with his "compact" argument.

The secession issue in the 1830s-1840s was well-known enough and debated enough, that I'd be surprised anyone could get away with saying, "Well, that's what we were taught in school so we thought it was constitutional," so I'd be interested to see how indeed the reasoning worked, if that's why they weren't charged.

Hank Trent
hanktrent@voyager.net