Talk:Confederate States of America

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former good article nominee Confederate States of America was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
March 13, 2007 Good article nominee Not listed
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject United States / Louisiana / Mississippi (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Louisiana (marked as Top-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Mississippi (marked as High-importance).
WikiProject Former countries (Rated B-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Former countries, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of defunct states and territories (and their subdivisions). If you would like to participate, please join the project.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
WikiProject Military history (Rated B-Class)
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality assessment scale.

Span of Control 'who?' tag.[edit]

Tag: In Span of Control there is a 'who?' tag at ...Reconstruction which some scholars [who?] treat as an extension of the Civil War.

Answer: One such scholar is Eric Foner in his Reconstruction: America's unfinished revolution:1863-1877, (1988) winner of the Francis Parkman Prize, with an introduction by the editors, Henry Steele Commager and Richard B. Morris.

Proposal: ...Reconstruction which some scholars such as Eric Foner treat as an extension of the Civil War. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:04, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

I suggest most scholars treat it that way-- see Fateful Lightning: A New History of the Civil War and Reconstruction by Allen C. Guelzo, (2012); Ordeal By Fire: The Civil War and Reconstruction by James McPherson and James Hogue (2010); Chicago in the Age of Capital: Class, Politics, and Democracy during the Civil War and Reconstruction by Jentz and Schneirov, (2012). Rjensen (talk) 12:09, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
What about Jim Crow and segregation? Are they extensions of the Civil War, or merely unfortunate results of same? Shouldn't they be addressed in some manner in this article? My inclusion at an earlier date was removed for "lack of citation." Having lived through it is not accepted, nor is common knowledge accepted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tresmegistus (talkcontribs) 04:21, 15 May 2014 (UTC) Tresmegistus (talk) 04:28, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Agree and disagree. Modern scholars see Reconstruction as an extension of the American Civil War, as in Reconstruction: America's unfinished revolution: 1863-1877 by Eric Foner. But I am not sure how still later Jim Crow and segregation fits into this article of the historic Confederacy 1861-1865.
On your article edit, suggesting "Percentage of territory was never equal to percentage of population. The percent stated undoubtedly refers to territorial control.", the atlas is of congressional districts, with nearly equal apportionment in each district the percent of congressional districts is equivalent to percent of population. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 05:37, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Congressional districts are, indeed, of nearly equal population. However, those districts are of vastly different sizes. Some districts consist of an entire state (e.g. Alaska), others of less than a square mile. Percentage of territory cannot have been equivalent to percentage of population. There are currently 6 districts in the Atlanta area, while there are 8 districts for the rest of Georgia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tresmegistus (talkcontribs) 23:11, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Agreed (and you beat me to it, I was composing a note along the same lines). The 73% and 34% numbers are sourced to Martis, and I unfortunately don't have access to the book so I don't know if Martis is discussing percent of territory, or population, or congressional districts. But whichever it is, we cannot extrapolate from one of those values to either of the others. (Not even between congressional districts and population. Within a state, the districts may have similar population, but between states, not as much. Florida's two districts had 70,000 each; Louisiana's six districts had 118,000 each. You can't apportion congressmen in fractions, so rounding creates differences in district size between states.)
In short: The percentages should ::only:: reflect what Martis uses them for, and should not be applied to other quantities.Rob (talk) 23:55, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Agree. Someone (me?) should refer to the source (i.e. Martis). Will attempt to do so.Tresmegistus (talk) 04:41, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
The atlas is widely held in public libraries, it is in print, and it is relatively inexpensive $60 new, $20 used. The maps referenced do not show territory regained under Confederate control, anywhere at any time. Territory under Confederate control is also consistently reduced as counted in Congressional Districts in charts found in accompanying text. Martis refers both to percent of Congressional Districts and to percent of populations. Milledgeville was the capital of Georgia, not Atlanta, and nowhere was the concentration of population comparable to 21st century Atlanta except New Orleans at the 2-CD of Louisiana, mapped as Federal occupied continuously from Confederate First Congress, second session, intersession April-August 1862, then subsequently for the duration.
Before the proportional representation of the present day, representatives were assigned by population increments of 50,000 or 75,000 depending on the census reapportionment, so each district was much more closely numbered to the others than in the present day. Representatives were apportioned in fractions, rounding up, increasing the number of the House of Representatives every decennial census where populations increased, independent of the total number of the of Representatives in the House.
Of course in states with declining populations such as antebellum Virginia, -- most of whose out-migration went to Ohio, Indiana Illinois, Kentucky and Missouri -- the number of representation shrank-- not at a proportion of 435 as in the modern day House (since the 1929), but then, directly related to the population in increments of 75,000. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:27, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
The inclusion of the statistic that the territory and population of the Confederacy shrank by the same percentage is ridiculous on its face, yet it stands because of what? Instead of just naming a citation to justify this, please provide the exact quote from the source that substantiates the claim.Tresmegistus (talk) 03:49, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
The statistic stands because there is no counter source, and your anachronistic error has been explained to you. The statistic stands because that is what the source says. It is true that enslaved populations counted as 3/5 fled from adjacent CDs in Confederate "control" wherever Union armies marched, so Martis calculation relative to population inflates Confederate span of control as it actually was on the ground. The passage now reads,

Confederate control over its claimed territory and population in Congressional Districts steadily shrank from 73% to 34% during the course of the Civil War due to the Union's successful overland campaigns, its control of the inland waterways into the South, and its Union blockade of the Southern seacoast.[n]

I copyedited the passage to modify "claimed territory and population..." to read, "claimed territory and population in Congressional Districts..." Hope that answers your concern. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 00:49, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
100% of the slaves were counted in the 1860 census reports. The 3/5 business was a mathematical routine to apportion numbers of Congressmen to each state and was never published or used otherwise. Rjensen (talk) 02:26, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

"Pre-capitalist society"[edit]

What does this mean? The Confederate States, slavery aside, clearly practised capitalism (i.e., wage labour and capitalist forms of exchange). — Preceding unsigned comment added by DublinDilettante (talkcontribs) 05:22, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

The argument is that the very rich slave owners minimized capitalism (and denounced free labor). They ruled their plantations as autocratic dictators. They supported very few capitalist enterprises (they put their $$$$ into more slaves and fresh cotton land). They avoided cities and industry. See Marxist historian Eugene Genovese's work. Rjensen (talk) 05:28, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
I agree with Dr. Jensen but it also occurred to me that the economic circumstances in the South in 1861 might be clearer to most readers if "pre-industrial" were used instead. The link for pre-capitalist leads to Pre-industrial societies. That word would fit in with the proposition that the South's lack of industry was a disadvantage. Just a thought for what it's worth. Donner60 (talk) 22:18, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
Pre-industrial makes a kind of sense, since the plantation system was agricultural/extractive -- even though there were mechanical devices, cotton gins the size of barns, and even though railroads and steam boats were harnessed to expedite transport. There is also the shear scale of production, far beyond local needs implied by the term "pre-capitalist". There were also capitalistic aspects, monetary investments and banking, in the plantation to manufacturing enterprises surrounding the cotton industry. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:20, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

"Invasion" as pov[edit]

Hello, I think the use of the word "invasion" is appropriate in some, though not all, circumstances. It was certainly viewed as "invasion" by the CSA and even the Union commanders viewed it as such, as when McClellan headed his correspondence as "Army of Occupation". Dubyavee (talk) 18:44, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

The territory belonging to the United States in the southern states was not invaded by the U.S.G. An advancing Union army may occupy an area previously controlled by rebels. The term "invasion" requires the pov that there were two countries, when rebellion requires success before it is recognized. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 19:17, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
I have to disagree with this premise, it is not one that even historians of the war endorse, they use "invasion" profusely in reference to Union troops entering southern territory. Expunging the word from texts is modern POV. James McPherson uses "invasion" often, as in this interview-
"The reason why industrial and population superiority was a necessary condition is that, to win the war, the North had to invade, conquer, occupy the South and destroy its capacity to wage war." [1]
As I say, "invade" is not pov and is appropriate in many contexts. Dubyavee (talk) 21:02, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
I agree with Dubyavee. It's not a legal issue here but standarfd terminology used in military histories. The term is used by the RS and that should settle it. For example a 1904 book Sherman: A Memorial in Art, Oratory, and Literature --highly favorable to him-- has chapters entitled "Preparations for the invasion of Georgia" and ."Sherman's army of invasion"; Scholars like McPherson, Albert E. Castel, William C. Davis also Englishman John Keegan use the term as did Sherman himself. Here's a twist: Connelly (2000) says of the Confederate generals: "Beauregard ordered Hood to invade Tennessee" (they considered Tennessee part of the Confederacy). Rjensen (talk) 01:13, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
"The term is used by the RS and that should settle it." What does "RS" mean? Scipio Edina (talk) 13:13, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Reliable Source[s]. --Golbez (talk) 13:50, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Thank you Golbez Scipio Edina (talk) 15:49, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Makes sense to use "invasion" if Rjensen, McPherson and Keegan say so, but whenever Confederates mounted counter-attacks, reconnaissance in force, incursions and raids, they inevitably resulted in greater loss of territory and lesser control over slave and free populations. Somehow I thought that "invasion" conveyed a meaning asserting expansion, not contraction. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 15:35, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
This is not a topic that I have a detailed academic knowledge of, but is there a question of formality or register of speech? For example, I understand Abraham Lincoln was careful never to refer to the Confederate States of America as such in formal communications as President, but presumably did so in private conversation. Likewise, does McPherson refer to "the North" and "invasion" in his academic writing (rather than "the Union", &c.) rather than when delivering speeches/talks? I don't know if the NPOV policy extends this far, but if there is language that can be used which definitely does not convey a POV, and language which has the potential to reflect a POV, is it not preferable to use the former? Scipio Edina (talk) 15:49, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Dubyavee and Dr. Jensen. Other words, including: expedition, incursion, advance, offensive, attack, campaign, drive, march, strike, movement, and even others with either more limited or more general meaning can be used in certain circumstances. Yet "invasion" is sometimes simply the clearest and best word to describe the movement of one army into territory defended or occupied by another. Although it could be part of a POV when used with other POV words and phrases, it need not be more than a good description. Here are some quotes from McPherson, James M. Battle Cry of Freedom: The Civil War Era. Oxford History of the United States. New York: Oxford University Press, 1988. ISBN 978-0-19-503863-7 showing McPherson's use of the word for actions by both Union and Confederate armies, and one other quote of interest about Lincoln's consistent viewpoint on the southern states remaining in the Union.

"Two days after Bull Run, Lincoln penned a memorandum on future Union strategy....Union troops in Virginia were to be reinforced, thoroughly trained, and prepared for a new invasion...." McPherson, p. 350.

"But the formidable difficulties of a Missouri command...impending Confederate invasions from Arkansas and Tennessee...." McPherson, p. 350.

"The strategic value of the river network radiating from Cairo had been clear from the outset. This southernmost city in the free states grew into a large military and naval base. From there, army-navy task forces launched invasions up the Tennessee and Cumberland rivers (southward) and down the Mississippi in 1862." McPherson, p. 392.

"For defense against river-brone invasions the Confederacy relied mainly on forts." McPherson, p. 393.

"Van Dorn had dazzled Johnston with visions of an invasion through Missouri to capture St. Louis and then to descend on Grant's forces from the north." McPherson, p. 404.

"Most southerners probably agreed with Davis about this - especially if they lived in Virginia or western Tennessee or Mississippi or Louisiana, which unlike Georgia were threatened by invasion in 1862." McPherson, p. 433.

"Banks had to contend not only with Jackson's army but also with a hostile civilian population - a problem confronted by every invading Union army...." McPherson, p. 456.

"With 2,500 men Forrest and Morgan had immobilized an invading army of forty thousand." McPherson, p. 514.

"He [Bragg] planned to take the remaining 34,000 to Chattanooga, for where he would launch an invasion of Kentucky." McPherson, p. 515.

"Buell missed a chance to wipe out one-third of the rebels who had invaded Kentucky; Bragg and Smith failed to clinch their invasion with a smashing blow that might have won Kentuckians to their side." McPherson, p. 520.

"...for with scarcely a pause Lee was leading his ragged but confident veterans across the Potomac for an invasion of the North." McPherson, p. 534.

"Van Dorn and Price were preparing to invade Tennessee." McPherson, p. 534.

"Lee's invasion of Maryland recoiled more quickly than Bragg's invasion of Kentucky." McPherson, p. 545.

"After the battle of Corinth in October, Grant had launched an invasion southward along the Mississippi Central Railroad to capture Vicksburg." McPherson, p. 577.

"This time the Virginian dazzled Davis and Seddon with a proposal to invade Pennsylvania with a reinforced army and inflict a crushing defeat on the Yankees in their own backyard." McPherson, p. 647.

"But Price could not stop the blue invaders who advanced toward Little Rock from two directions in midsummer." McPherson, p. 668.

"Lincoln never deviated from the theory that secession was illegal and southern states therefore remained in the Union." McPherson, p. 699.

"Sherman's invasion force consisted of three "armies" under his single overall command...." McPherson, p. 744.

"...some of Early's soldiers....went the Union invaders one better...." McPherson, p. 757.

"In September 1864, Price coordinated an invasion of Missouri with guerrilla attacks behind northern lines...." McPherson, p. 784.

"Using troops drawn from the Army of the Gulf and from Thomas's force in Tennessee, General E. R. S. Canby was to invade southern Alabama through Mobile." McPherson, p. 825. Donner60 (talk) 07:49, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

very well done Donner60! Rjensen (talk) 08:24, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
"Union invaders", "blue invaders" is neutral without carrying any pejorative context in American historiography? So Civil War scholars give us "invasion" meaning "march" without any other connotation or pov? I fear I have read too much into the term. On inspection, Keegan uses "march" p.272 and "advance" p.260 to describe Sherman's Atlanta campaign, a "movement" against Confederate forces and destruction of infrastructure. He uses "invasion" to describe Lee's offensive Gettysburg campaign.
Online we can find that invasion means generally a) invading a country or region with an armed force, with synonyms meaning occupation or annexation. b) Invasion means incursion by a large number, with synonyms rush and influx. c) Invasion means unwelcome intrusion into another’s domain, with synonyms infringement and interruption.
I guess I was thinking of the first general definition, related to occupation or annexation. "Invasion" may not be read as a neutral term by the international reader. Alternatively reliable sources of the American Civil War make a "raid" into an "invasion". That in itself seems imprecise not to say careless somehow, but it may be satisfactory for the general reader, who does not need the distinction and who otherwise will see the neutral use of the term "invasion" in the npov way WP editors intend. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:12, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
McPherson, in a book length treatment, uses “Union invaders” and “blue invaders” to assume the voice of the Confederate point of view, and to be even handed, vice versa. It reflects the scholarly evenhandedness considering the different Northern and Southern meanings of "freedom" found in his Battle Cry of Freedom. But in an encyclopedic article, this usage reflects the moral equivalency of Lost Cause historiography in my view. Objectively, it would be a disservice to the reader to summarize Confederate operations in Kentucky as equivalent to Union operations in Tennessee using a common term such as "invasion" to describe their respective operations against armies or places. All military movements are not equivalent, they are not all the same in purpose, size, force or sustainability.
Though I understand editors see no negative connotation to the term "invasion", I’m still uncertain that the encyclopedic article should assume the voice of one side then the other as might be appropriate in a book length treatment of the subject. Rather than an even-handed approach, a neural presentation throughout might be in closer alignment to WP policy. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 18:06, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
I don't see the need to draw this out. All words have understood definitions, and there is nothing explicit or implied in the definition of "invasion" that requires foreign territory to be involved. This is pure blogger spin, and if McPherson and other well-recognized authorities use the word invasion, both for Confederate and and Union activities, it goes well beyond Wiki's NPOV policy for anyone here to redefine the meaning and use of the word "invasion". Dubyavee (talk) 18:47, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
Okay, but no need for name calling. I concede the indiscriminate use of "invade" here by editor consensus. But as to the "pure blogger spin" accusation:
The term "invasion" as commonly used does involve foreign territory. To look at three commonly used sources in the English language: at Merriam-Webster in·vade. to enter (a place, such as a foreign country) in order to take control by military force. Oxford Dictionary (American English) Invasion. An instance of invading a country or region with an armed force: the Allied invasion of Normandy; in 1546 England had to be defended from invasion. Cambridge Dictionary Invasion. an occasion when an army or country uses force to enter and take control of another country.
No where do standard sources say, "An invasion is a military operation to put down an internal rebellion". And the RS, John Keegan uses "invasion" to describe rebel army offensive operations into territory not claimed by its government, regions held by them to be in a foreign nation. I do understand the consensus here is to use "invasion" interchangeably with various forms of "military operations" as you, Rjensen and Donner60 propose, and I agree not to disrupt it. Okay. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 23:15, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
Your point about a "raid" often being called an "invasion" rather than the narrower, more accurate word "raid" is a good one. Also, your point that "invasion" is commonly used in reference to foreign invasions is also well put. I do read "foreign country" as an example not as a requirement of the definition itself in the item you cite, however. I agree that the point is not just spin. Without the usage background, avoiding "invasion" might be better as more precise and in order to avoid misunderstanding that it recognizes the Confederacy's claim to separate nationhood. But because of the use of the word in reliable sources by reputable Civil War historians, as I noted in a quick run-through of McPherson's book, I think the horse is out of the barn when it comes to the use of "invasion" to refer to movement of Civil War armies into territory held by the other side (I know, a cliche) and so it is not necessary to be technical with respect to the occasional use of the word "invasion" here. I would grant that there is a little prospect for confusion by a few language purists or POV pushers but I think that as long as the word is used in an otherwise neutral context, and is not overemphasized, it is not wrong and there will be little, if any, confusion from its use. Donner60 (talk) 08:31, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

amnesty and treason[edit]

I revised the amnesty and treason section of the lede and moved it down. It does not belong in the lede. There is a large scholarly literature that i cited. the alleged quote ["condemn the North" "for by the Constitution, secession is not rebellion"] from Chief Justice Chase seems to be a fake. there is no footnote to the source and it does not appear in biographies of Chase. It does appear in Lost Cause websites Rjensen (talk) 10:21, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Rjenson? I definitely agree with the removal to a different location (which was really my whole thing to begin with), but please don't start repeating your sometime/often tendency to presume to be the Grand Judge of what is or isn't a "fake." Your POV will not suffice as in standing alone. I don't mean all that in a personal way in the least..but just calling it as I see it. The three sources I cited are of reliable and respected note. Burke Davis himself is a noted historian and author of many books -- look up his credentials yourself -- and he takes the South to task on many things. The sub-sources are of reliable note, and from unquestionable scholarly and reliable content. And I am going to re-add it, although I will make a few modifications for compromise sake. And the "generous terms" are nothing but a POV on the part of the sources you cite. Hell, history is that way and we both know it (a bias in a given direction). Anyway, I hope this compromise on my part and yours will meet muster for all of us. TexasReb (talk) 08:52, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
My point was that the Chase quote is a fake. It was invented by Rutherford in 1916 or so when he misread a commentary by someone else and assumed it was written by Chase. It appears only in neo-Confed literature. The biographers of Chase say that Chase felt Jeff Davis was guilty of treason. Rjensen (talk) 11:25, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Insert Well, while I can live with the latest edit, I also want to reinterate that your POV that it was "fake" is just that. What you call "Neo-Confed" literature is simply a presentation of evidence and etc., that has been pushed out of the mainstream history for almost a century. Thank god it is coming back. Anyway, can you provide this Rutherford thing you speak of? If not, then it has no validity. And c'mon, do you honestly believe that biographers of Chase are not extremely biased themselves. Good lord, how many times can this one be argued. History is NOT an objective subject, and as one historian to another, I don't know what is the argument...? But as it is, I will not argue that Chase did not personally believe that Jefferson Davis was not guilty of treason; that is not the point at all. The point is, that he strongly advised against a trial on treason charges...knowing full well what the outcome would be, and his own fear of that same outcome. In a nutshell though, I can go along with how it is written now. I may add some additional sources, but it is not objectionable as modified. TexasReb (talk) 08:54, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
At Texas v. White the Supreme Court explained that there was no secession in the American Civil War.
The issue of treason and amnesty is explored in April 1865: the month that saved America (2006) by Jay Wink. A major war goal of the victors in the American Civil War, was restoration of the Union, reincorporating the former rebels as countrymen with historically generous terms, both by presidential pardon and congressional amnesty 1866-1872 as a part of Reconstruction of the states in rebellion. It was successful in that virtually all those in the Confederacy took the loyalty oath to the United States Government and returned to peaceful participation in state self government, Congressional representation and presidential elections, -- the violence of the White Leagues against state citizens of the United States notwithstanding. The general acceptance among historians of the Lost Cause and its presumption of moral equivalence aided in that reunification. Nevertheless, war was made by individuals against the lawfully constituted government of the United States.
Taking up arms against the constitutional government is making oneself a domestic enemy of the Constitution, and in the Constitution, "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort." Furthermore, after the Civil War ended the rebels' children were immune from punishment as individuals or as enduring communities, "The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted." The clause is necessary because of Parliament's actions against rebels, their children and communities in past history. It is a shame that generosity in one generation and individual justice in later generations can be misunderstood as illegitimacy and weakness on the part of the people of the United States. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:29, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
The Texas vs. White decision involved bond issues, not the issue of secession itself, and did not explain anything. And it was far from a unanimous decision, in any event. It was dicta (i.e. Having no bearing on the actual issue at hand, although it may be persuasive in another realm.). And to reach the decision they did, a Lincoln packed SCOTUS had to "prove" Texas had never left the Union (and quite a few years later). Irrelevant. Here is a good site which gives another viewpoint...which makes the case.
No, it wasn't. That is simply your POV. And war was not launched against the United States (i.e. those northern states who kept the name only by default). To say most of mainstream history is not written by the victors is just to ignore the dynamics of history and the preponderance of all evidence. If the English had won the "American Revolution" (as we call it today), then school books and etc, would be giving their side of it as the one most read. LOL
Yes, yes, I know all about that Clause. The Confederate Constitution had the same clause. And it only applied if the said states were within the said Union. They were no longer in that Union. The Confederate States defended themselves against an unwarranted invasion on the part of the Lincoln administration to keep the South's tax money. Yes, that is MY POV, but documented in its own right. And the Southerners never gave "aid and comfort" to the enemies of the Old Union. In fact, they actively sought to make an economic and defensive alliance with the North. But were ignored. They were a sovereign nation and never had any intention of invading the Old Union. This was why Lincoln had to ingeniously contrive the incident at Ft. Sumter, as he knew northern public opinion was opposed to an invasion of the South for the dubious purpose of "preserving the Union." The prevailing sentiment was well expressed by Horace Greely as "Let the erring sisters go in peace", and Jefferson Davis in his inaugural address that implored "All the South wants is to be left alone." Horrid!. Again, the Southerners simply defended itself against an unwarranted and unconstitutional invasion, the same as any people worth their salt would have done. Arguing "from result" is not good history... TexasReb (talk) 08:54, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Note concerning the American Thinker article. George Washington Paschal was never governor of Texas, although, like Sam Houston, he was a Union supporter. See The Handbook of Texas Online. I have not checked other statements in the article but I think that a mistake of that magnitude does raise the question whether more should be checked. Donner60 (talk) 09:33, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
It does indeed appear, Donner, that G.W. Paschael was never governor of Texas. I can agree with that. However, it was likely just some sort of typo, and not anything of any "magnitude" as the term would be commonly understood. It is not like there are not quite a few other legal sources on line which tell the truth about Texas v. White. And that is the important thing. To wit, the concrete fact that the case involved bond sales, much after the War was over, and opinions on the legality of secession were dicta, not a binding ruling. Just to mention as well, Gov. Houston was not pro-Union in the sense he was a northern sympathizer. This is one of the biggest misconceptions some people have. That is, that pro-Union, among Southern men, translated into favoring the north. No, Houston, simply believed that secession (as did many Southern men), would be a "rash" mistake at the time it came up. However, when it was a fact, he declared himself a citizen of the "Southern Confederacy." His own son distinguished himself in Confederate service. Here is a letter Houston wrote to a friend explaining his ultimate position (very poignant and very articulate):
The time has come when a man's section is his country. I stand by mine. All my hopes, my fortunes, my affections are centered in the South. When I see the land for whose defence my blood has been spilt, and the people whose fortunes have been mine through more than a quarter of a century of toil, threatened with invasion, I can but cast my lot with theirs, and await the issue. TexasReb (talk) 10:37, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

This [2] blog entry discusses the fake quote issue in detail -- even referencing the exact sources used by Texasreb. IMO, much better sourcing is needed before this material is added back to the article. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 12:51, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Insert North Shoreman? Your bias is evident, which is fine on lots of levels. But I do notice one thing -- with all due respect -- many of your articles contain "talk" that strongly protest your lack of objectivity. It is fine if you take a pro-northern slant. No biggie...but that is all it is, your extreme TexasReb (talk) 11:41, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Houston's awaited issue was the failure of the secessionist movement in the 19th century, it is settled law in the United States. Texas v. White allows for state secession by the same process as Union. What could that mean? The people in a state may secede when a) a convention apart from the state government is called for the express purpose for secession, b) the elections are regularly held in good order in usual voting places, c) the convention votes for secession and petitions the Congress, d) Congress by two-thirds proposes the issue of the state secession to the states, e) the people of the United States in three-fourths of the states approve of the secession.

There was no secession in the American Civil War by a legitimate process, nor did any nation in the international community recognize the Confederacy as a nation. The process of the rebellion made it illegitimate, recognized to the status of a belligerent by coercion alone. U.S. citizens made war on the constitutionally elected government of the United States, they committed acts of treason, pardoned when they were acting under orders as soldiers in a generous effort at reconciliation.

The former rebels swore allegiance to the United States government and its Constitution, accepted the pardons and participated as faithful U.S. citizens just as Robert E. Lee admonished them to do, electing self-governing state governments and representatives to Congress, serving in uniform. Now comes a subsequent movement which both asserts the legitimacy of secessionist conspiracists, and denies the reconciliation, wishing to undo it. But that POV need not be admitted to an encyclopedic article on historical events. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 14:00, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Nice try, but no ceegar. To start -- how many times does it have to be said -- Texas v. White was about a bond issue. Nothing more. There has never been a direct ruling on secession as relates to the issue. But of course, if you want to invoke a case as being proof otherwise (which was quite a few years after the War ended, anyway), then you are totally grasping at straws. So any dicta parroted by Salmon Chase you present in your lecture is meaningless.
And besides, really...something like secession can never be settled by force of arms.
  • yawwwwns. We are just talking past each other. This is a classic case of "arguing from result." And totally ridiculous. While I understand that you cling fanatically to a pro-Northern viewpoint? Deny it as you might, the Southern states which seceded by proper legislative means, did not wage war upon the "United States (i.e. and can't be repeated and emphasized enough, northern states which kept the name only by default). In seceding, the Southern states only wanted to sever connections with the northern states. There was absolutely no intention in the least to wage war upon them or anything at all but get along in peace and even form a mutually beneficial alliance with one another. This was not acceptable to the Lincoln administration as it would have cost them money, and revenues to subsidize their own interests.
Good gawd, do you honestly believe most northerners favored coercion? It was all about keeping the South's tax money (which amounted to about 75% of that paid in.). Please read this sometime. And I will say that reasonable men can disagree. What I have a problem with is when some just are unwilling to see the other side at all; even though I understand that they have never really heard the other side. TexasReb (talk) 11:41, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Completely untrue. The taxes came from imports and the overwhelming majority of those came through northern ports. The 11 CSA states made up only 6.35% of those tax revenues, not 75%. This comes from perusal of the 1859 Custom's House data. Over 2/3 of that Southern total was from New Orleans alone! It is unfortunate that so much Lost Cause history is fabricated and repeated as if it were true. The reality is that the tariffs increased costs of goods for Southerners, Northerners, Westerners, etc. Numerically, Southerners were but a small fraction of the total. The tariff schedules also protected various Southern goods such as tobacco and sugar(increasing their costs to everyone else in the country.)
The real rub for the Deep South was that they lacked significant manufacturing capacity and this carried its own costs. However, that was a direct result of the slave based system they had adopted and nurtured. It undermined free labor and discouraged skilled workers from immigrating to Southern states. (See Dew's "Ironmaker to the Confederacy".) Southern investment/capital revolved around slave based agriculture and this made them dependent on imports from overseas and other parts of the country. This dependency included some grains and foodstuffs, because it was more economical for the plantation system to focus on high margin crops rather than food. Contrast this with Midwestern/western states that rapidly developed their own manufacturing and transportation. This was happening in the Upper South as well, where the dependence on cotton was less.
A more defensible observation is that per capita, Southerners paid a disproportionate share of the costs/impacts of the tariffs--although quantifying how much is a challenge. Considering how small the total tariff revenue was, $49 million in 1859 for a nation of roughly 30 million at the time, the economic burden cannot have been great. However, Southerners' perception of injustice at the time is another matter. Of course, there is a "chicken and the egg/cause and effect" problem in that some of the Southern complaints about it were justifications for other political/economic aims rather than serious problems in their own right. When the complaints of the secession conventions are examined (including those that failed to give consent), the weakness of the tariff argument for secession becomes apparent. Red Harvest (talk) 20:23, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Not quite so deflective and simple, RH. It is true that most of the federal revenues were spend on defense, but such only tells part of the story. That is to say, of that spent domestically? Well, the vast majority (due to the North's control of the House of Representatives where budget bills originate), of those monies were spent on canals, roads, railrods, etc, in the North which greatly benefited northern industry and interests. Here is a good link which outlines it all completely:
I realize the source is biased (just as we are! LOL), but the figures are based on solid sources, including official government figures of the era. TexasReb (talk) 11:18, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
That isn't a coherent argument. You claimed "It was all about the South's tax money (which amounted to about 75% of that paid in)" which is a demonstrated misrepresentation of large proportions. So you switch back to Federal expenditures (without providing an analysis of the breakdown) and the Morrill Tariff which became law in 1861 AFTER secession, as a result of Southern senators withdrawing. And that 2nd article makes the false claim that "87% of the total even before the Morrill Tariff" fell on the South. We've already reviewed that fallacy, so why repeat a falsehood and even expand on it? From what I glean of the author's bio he is not an historian (has been a political party chairman though and writes articles for Lew Rockwell) and his work lacks footnotes. Again, not a credible or verifiable source. You seem to have the mistaken impression that you are educating those of us already informed on the historical issues, when instead you are misinforming by providing incomplete summaries from willfully misleading and, by your own admission, biased sources. How exactly is that helpful? Red Harvest (talk) 15:20, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
You need to give it up, RedH. And not the least of reasons being that you don't even recognize that history is not an objective subject. Until you can grasp that simple fact, then you are just ranting and very much out of your league. For example, I totally disagree with Virginia Historian and Rjensens viewpoint and all, but I can respect them for at least arguing like men, and tacitly agreeing that history is indeed a biased subject. With you however, you seem to not understand the concept in the least. Instead, you cling to the fanciful notion that the northern viewpoint -- simply by some sort of social osmosis, perhaps...? -- is the gospel truth, and that anything which goes against it must automatically be a falsehood. Sorry, no disrespect intended, but your approach reminds quite a bit of some college undergrad or an ivory-towered academician who is not used to being disagreed with. If I may ask, are you either one...? By the way who, exactly, do you mean by "those of us" as in what bunch are you presuming to be the spokesperson of...? And by the way as well? If you had read the article carefully, it would have answered every question you raise and, further, exact figures, and what disproportionate taxes really meant. TexasReb (talk) 14:19, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
Give up responding to you? Perhaps, since you don't seem to understand the purpose of the talk page or how to evaluate sources. When it comes to history I prefer to consult verifiable timelines and events where available. Since you asked and missed by a mile: engineering is my discipline, career mostly in Texas where coworkers commented that I don't suffer fools gladly. I'm a border state person with an Ozark farm background who considers "yankee" derogatory/misapplied except for Northeasterners who proudly wear the moniker. Rather than taking a "northern viewpoint" most of what I read comes directly from Southerners before and during the war. I'm sorry if their POV in that time frame offends you. It would be entertaining to watch you go back to 1861 and argue with them about what they were doing, alas, we can't do that. Red Harvest (talk) 07:12, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Are you for real? But I just gotta add that you sure do seem to have an inflated opinion of yourself. For example, that remark you made about co-workers (so you say) seemingly are in awe of you as you "do not suffer fools gladly". ROFLMAO. Is that supposed to intimidate me or something? If so, you really do have delusions of grandeur. Wonderful you are an engineer (so was Robert E. Lee). Wellll, I am a teacher and a notary public, so what does that make me? But once again, to patiently explain to an "engineer", you still consistently seem to miss the concrete fact that history is not an objective subject. Further, that I really don't have a problem with those who take a pro-Union take on it all. Serious historians (professional or laymen) can take the same facts and form different conclusions. You seem to be incapable of grasping this. You seem to have a supercilious attitude that has no grounded reasons at all.

So ok, you say you formed a lot of your opinions from Southern viewpoints (why in the world do think would offend me?). As it is, I formed most of my opinions by reading the mainstream northern slant which attempted to use slavery as moral cover...and came to the honest conclusion that the South had the best constitutional arguments on its side. Here (again) is a good one. I don't expect that you will take it seriously but, in totality, it is not really you I am trying to get to see the other side, but those who are "on the fence", as it is: TexasReb (talk) 13:41, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

You asked for some personal information, I reluctantly provided it...which of course has led to only more uncivil behavior and insults from you. I wish you would take some care in the formatting of your responses, as you have made a mess of the talk page. As it is, there is no point in engaging in any discussion with you. You have admitted above that your intention here is to push POV. The talk page is not a personal political forum, and I'm not here to trade insults with you. Red Harvest (talk) 17:04, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Nor I with you (in terms of insults). I don't want that at all, and if you see it that way, I respectfully advance that you may be overly sensitive. Regardless, you are totally wrong in your understanding of what I mean by POV. What I meant was -- for the umpteenth time -- is that POV is really what history is all about, as in there is no such critter as objective when it comes to interpretation. It may be interesting to share (and it is as in sharing viewpoints). The problem comes in when that (ironically) fact, is not grasped nor understood. And yeah, sometimes I don't think you really get that. I have no problem at all with your pro-Union viewpoint; only when you try and present it in a way that simply dismisses other viewpoints as false by default. So please, if we are to have a civil discussion, don't presume to give me a lecture on the matter and what the talk page is all about. If anything, you are the one getting huffy and overbearing, and revising the main page to do so... TexasReb (talk) 17:20, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

I respect you, VH, as a man who has quite a bit of historical knowledge; I always enjoy talking with a worthy opponent. BUT your premise is as faulty as it is totally POV. Fine, far as tht goes, but your example of what Lee urged later has nothing to do with what transpired before the War itself. It is simply groundless that secession, during the day, was anything at all that many people, South and North, did not consider outlandish. As it was, not only did the Upper South states join the original Confederacy, but they did so because they had very deep-seated (rightfully), objections to using the force of the federal government to coerce a state.
And heck, it defies all historical logic that the sovereign states (recognized as such by the Treaty of Paris) would have entered into a Union -- after having just "seceded" from England -- that they knew they could never get out of. The principle that "Government derives its powers from the consent of the governed" is not in the least ambiguous. Secession may well have been rash, foolhardy, and stupid, but it was not unconstitutional; winners history doesn't make it different (knowing of course, that the American Revolution experience is a very inconvenient fact for northern apologists. LOL)
Might doesn't make right, and Jefferson Davis said it very well, when he wrote: "The principle for which we content is bound to reassert itself, even if in another time and another form." Or Alexander Stephens, along the lines of: If centralism is ultimately to prevail; if our entire system of free Institutions as established by our common ancestors is to be subverted, and an Empire is to be established in their stead; if that is to be the last scene of the great tragic drama now being enacted: then, be assured, that we of the South will be acquitted, not only in our own consciences, but in the judgment of mankind, of all responsibility for so terrible a catastrophe, and from all guilt of so great a crime against humanity. TexasReb (talk) 11:41, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
@Texasreb: Please do not break up my post, it is not the convention at Wikipedia. Please do not alter my posts using bold or other conventions. Use paragraphs in your own post, I have numbered by paragraphs for reference. Please sign your posts. I am happy to entertain a sustained discussion with you.
1. It seems you are overlooking three phases of early American history. First, the Revolutionary Congress, where the people in mass meetings and conventions instructed their representatives in Congress with national war and peace making and power to incur indebtedness. Second, the Articles Congress, where the states entered into a perpetual Union as a Confederation. —This where you seem to be hung up, but there is more to the story. The Articles of Confederation was unsatisfactory, so the people peaceably overthrew it by constitutional process approved by Congress, and the Articles Congress resolved itself out of existence, to be replaced by the Constitutional Congress.
Third, the Constitutional Congress, where the people in state conventions ratified a more perfect Union than the earlier perpetual union of the states. The Treaty of Paris did not create the United States, its sovereign was not King George or his treaty signatories. The people in the states making a new nation created the United States. The states were not sovereign, the sovereign is the one people dissolving the political bands with Great Britain, living as thirteen colonies until their independence in one nation.
2. To argue the Treaty of Paris made independence is to argue from result, versus legitimacy of the sovereign people of a nation. Secession is legitimate only if the nation approves it by Constitutional means, rebel assertion by force of arms is illegitimate. You may recall Jefferson Davis called up 100,000 militia for rebellion, then Lincoln called up 75,000 to restore federal property. Lincoln let go forts, armories, gold stocks at treasury mints, withdrew federal judges and federal marshals, preferring to await calmer heads to prevail in subsequent southern elections. But he was bound by law to collect tariffs at ports, the lowest tariffs of the decade prior.
3. Your website makes a great deal of John Calhoun’s analysis, it was dated by a decade. The problem in the Southern cotton economy of 1860 was rising competition from Egypt and India, not the ever decreasing tariffs protecting Northern industry.
4. Most northerners favored coercion to sustain the Union, they flocked to the colors with the same enthusiasm as southerners to the secessionist banners, all was not Wall Street. And the North voted to sustain war through midterm elections in 1862, and the presidential election in 1864. Jefferson Davis dared no such reliance on the people, see Martis The Historical Atlas of the Congresses of the Confederacy of Americafor an analysis of the non-elected governor appointees making up the pro-Davis administration majority in the Confederate Congress.
5. Alexander Stephens quotes referring to “common ancestors”, meaning Angles and Saxons in England before the Norman Conquest of Great Britain. But he is not an authority concerning the Constitution of 1789. At a time when “Uncle Tom’s Cabin” was the best seller in the North, Sir Walter Scott’s “Ivanhoe” set in 12th century England was the best seller in the South. The romance of the pre-Norman times was fantasy, the centralism that Stephens objected to had already prevailed in England and Great Britain by 1860. How is that relevant here? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk)
For some reason, VH and Red Harvest, my response to both of y'alls posts and points did not come thru. But I am not ignoring them. I am just too damn tired to re-type them. LOL But will do so (absolutely guaranteed!), in the next day or so. I welcome the opportunity! And BTW -- VH? I apologize for "breaking up" your post. I should not have done it like I did. However, I definitely -- again -- plan to counter. TexasReb (talk) 11:20, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Well, if you do respond, I hope that it is using accurate and better researched resources than I've seen you use here so far. It would probably be best to discuss particular changes that should be made to the article rather than treating this as a discussion forum. Relying primarily on sources that are defining themselves as representing a POV (in other words trying to make a case for one side rather than balance and weigh the issues) is not helpful. And while I didn't mention it in my original comment, your assertion "There was absolutely no intention in the least to wage war upon them or anything at all but get along in peace and even form a mutually beneficial alliance with one another" is at odds with the nature of the dispute and history before and during the war. Southerners had been actively filibustering and seeking to expand slavery. They attempted to do this in the 1850's by brute force (even raiding the Federal depot at Liberty, MO) and by organizing massive fraud at the polls in Kansas. The secession crisis itself arose from Southern anger at Lincoln's insistence that slavery would not be allowed in the territories. The Southern aim was the expansion of slavery, not peaceful coexistence and cooperation with neighbors who opposed its spread. There was considerable Southern expression (before shooting began) of trying to destroy New England's industry by denying them cotton for their mills. While you are welcome to your beliefs, they don't appear to be supported by historical events. Red Harvest (talk) 21:41, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, but your attempt to make slavery a primary issue does not work, and is false and silly...even though it does fit the contrived viewpoint of northern apologists who want to smugly ignore the other side. Now, the "northern side" has a distinct advantage as in the winners write the mainstream history, which is generally the one that finds it way into mainstream history/text books. The advantage the Southern side has is that the said northern apologists are not very adept at dealing with it. And many (such as you) react hysterically and attempt to use slavery as a self-righteous moral cover for what was actually an unjustified invasion of the lower Southern states to keep their cash cow. (and your lame attempt at irony and sarcasm is sophomoric to the nth degree. LOL)
But ok, lets take slavery. No one ever said slavery (at least I didn't) that it wasn't a major issue in its own right. In fact, I agree that slavery in the territories were the "flash point" so to speak. However, it was not out of any altruistic concern for blacks; it was because the northern interests and northerners in general did not want blacks in the said territories. Consider this direct quote by Lincoln, which totally destroys your assertion that Lincoln had a concern about blacks (he favored sending them all back to Africa):
The whole nation is interested that the best use shall be made of these territories. We want them for the homes of free white people. This they cannot be, to any considerable extent, if slavery shall be planted within them. Real moral high ground, huh? LOL
And while you are at it? Consider that of the 11 undeniable Confederate states, that only four mentioned slavery as a direct cause of secession...and all of those, other causes were mentioned and all bound up on the fact that the north was just using the South as their treasury. And was the source of the slave trade itself (not a single slave-ship was ever chartered out of a Southern port. So read this -- and the sublinks -- and weep (in poker parlance! LOL)
Sorry, but your attempt to make slavery a primary issue does not work, and is false and silly...even though it does fit the contrived viewpoint of northern apologists who want to smugly ignore the other side. Now, the "northern side" has a distinct advantage as in the winners write the mainstream history, which is generally the one that finds it way into mainstream history/text books. The advantage the Southern side has is that the said northern apologists are not very adept at dealing with it. And many (such as you) react hysterically and attempt to use slavery as a self-righteous moral cover for what was actually an unjustified invasion of the lower Southern states to keep their cash cow. (and your lame attempt at irony and sarcasm is sophomoric to the nth degree. LOL)
And peaceful coexistence was exactly what the South wanted. Jefferson Davis said it in his inaugural address and it was CSA policy to seek it the whole time, and was plainly stated time after time after time. Read it...or better yet, I will furnish the link and a quote from it:
The right solemnly proclaimed at the birth of the United States, and which has been solemnly affirmed and reaffirmed in the Bills of Rights of the States subsequently admitted into the Union of 1789, undeniably recognizes in the people the power to resume the authority delegated for the purposes of government. Thus the sovereign States here represented have proceeded to form this Confederacy; and it is by abuse of language that their act has been denominated a revolution. They formed a new alliance, but within each State its government has remained; so that the rights of person and property have not been disturbed. The agent through which they communicated with foreign nations is changed, but this does not necessarily interrupt their international relations. Sustained by the consciousness that the transition from the former Union to the present Confederacy has not proceeded from a disregard on our part of just obligations, or any, failure to perform every constitutional duty, moved by no interest or passion to invade the rights of others, anxious to cultivate peace and commerce with all nations, if we may not hope to avoid war, we may at least expect that posterity will acquit us of having needlessly engaged in it. Doubly justified by the absence of wrong on our part, and by wanton aggression on the part of others, there can be no cause to doubt that the courage and patriotism of the people of the Confederate States will be found equal to any measure of defense which their honor and security may require. An agricultural people, whose chief interest is the export of commodities required in every manufacturing country, our true policy is peace, and the freest trade which our necessities will permit. It is alike our interest and that of all those to whom we would sell, and from whom we would buy, that there should be the fewest practicable restrictions upon the interchange of these commodities. There can, however, be but little rivalry between ours and any manufacturing or navigating community, such as the Northeastern States of the American Union. It must follow, therefore, that mutual interest will invite to good will and kind offices on both parts. If, however, passion or lust of dominion should cloud the judgment or inflame the ambition of those States, we must prepare to meet the emergency and maintain, by the final arbitrament of the sword, the position which we have assumed among the nations of the earth.
I am sorry if this messes up your idealistic vision that the North was on some righteous crusade (wellll, actually I am not, but it gives me quite a bit of pure pleasure to say so!!). TexasReb (talk) 10:38, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Suggested reading: Gallagher, Gary W., and Alan T. Nolan, eds. The Myth of the Lost Cause and Civil War History. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 2000. ISBN 978-0-253-33822-8 and Davis, William C. The Cause Lost: Myths and Realities of the Confederacy. Lawrence, KS: University of Kansas Press, 1996. ISBN 978-0-7006-1254-3. Note that Davis is a professor at Virginia Tech, former editor of Civil War Times Illustrated and the only three-time winner of the Jefferson Davis Prize for Confederate history, according to his Wikipedia article. Donner60 (talk) 06:49, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
And? Do you not think these cannot be matched with opposing viewpoints? Actually, I always enjoy reading the other side (know thine enemy, as they say). Unfortunately, most of those on the said other side do not bother to do the opposite! Here is a good one: TexasReb (talk) 10:38, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Viewpoints, yes, facts from the time of secession, no. By the way, I am in agreement with this quote from the end of the article: "I also agree with James Webb, who served as Secretary of the Navy and Assistant Secretary of Defense under President Ronald Reagan: . . . to tar the sacrifices of the Confederate soldier as simple acts of racism, and reduce the battle flag under which he fought to nothing more than the symbol of a racist heritage, is one of the great blasphemies of our modern age. (Born Fighting: How the Scots-Irish Shaped America, New York: Broadway Books, 2004, p. 225)." That doesn't mean we need to, or should, accept invalid and unnecessary after-the-fact rationalizations for the actions of the political leadership, not supported by reliable and reputable scholarship, to boost our respect for the Confederate soldier and his accomplishments. Donner60 (talk) 21:54, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
There is no rationalization about it, Donner (although I appreciate part of you commentary), but the question also stands to be asked -- by the same standard -- what was the average Union soldier fighting for? As I see it, the northern farm boy was duped into fighting a war that was really nothing more than a desire to keep the South's tax money. They were brave soldiers and far be it from me to say in the least, otherwise.
No, that Griffith piece is self-proclaimed POV/spin, not a "good one" and is therefore useless for encyclopedic entries. If you want someone to take you seriously, find a credible source. Griffith starts out with blatant lies in his first paragraph and doesn't get any better: "It has been said that history is written by the victors. This is especially true when it comes to the Civil War." The EXACT opposite is true. Southern authors have been incredibly prolific and did a masterful job of recasting their cause to one of "States Rights" in the post war era--in direct contrast to the record leading up to and during the war. For Griffith to make such a demonstrably false claim in the lede of an article is absurd. But again, this isn't a debating page over personal views, it is intended to be used for discussion of edits/format of the wiki article. Try treating it as such. Red Harvest (talk) 13:36, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Are you really this lame with your replies??? It is almost comical. Hell, anyone can call another's sources "revisionist" -- but it only works if the other side can present their own unbiased sources...and they do not exist. See earlier reply. I am really sorry that you are getting all bent out of shape by your failure to not understand the dynamics of history as in that it is written by biased people who are naturally going to see it from their own unique history and culture and perspective. But yes, there have been many articles/books written by those who take a pro-South view. BUT...those are not the ones that are mainstream nor in textbooks. If you don't know this, then you are naïve as all get out. This is what I meant sometime earlier by, can you just imagine what mainstream books would be saying if the English had won the American Revolution? Bottom line is -- in my opinion -- you just can't handle anything that goes against your cloistered historical vision that the North was on a righteous crusade (even though the slave trade was firmly in their hands), to preserve the Union and free the slaves out of altruistic concerns. TexasReb (talk) 14:19, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
Both you and Griffith acknowledged the blatant POV of his piece. It's intent is to spin a story, rather than give a complete and accurate picture--there is zero attempt at objectivity in it. Go argue with yourself over your calling your own cite biased. Leave the rest of us out of it. Ironically, you are scolding me for agreeing with you about its lack of objectivity, and I pointed out some things you were missing. As for what is in text books/taught in schools: I grew up hearing the "states rights" BS in school. It wasn't until a decade or so later that I started reading more history on my own on the subject that I realized I had been fed a pile of Lost Cause nonsense. So yes, I'm well aware of the post-war revisionist spin that the Lost Causers successfully engaged in...and still are today. BTW, what does the Africa-to-America slave trade have to do with the ACW? It ended long before the ACW. Were Union men clamoring to import more slaves? Please tell us about this and give us cites. The slave trade as of the ACW was nearly wholly Southern and within the country. Red Harvest (talk) 07:35, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Virginia Historian? I gotta get to work now, so didn't have time to reply to your missive. Will do so tomorrow and all! TexasReb (talk) 11:48, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Virgina? Here is my reply to your first original, in "numerical sequence" (I will have to respond to the second I am hungry and tired and have limited time! LOL)

1. No, nothing hung up on about it at all. The Confederate States Constitution contained -- in its preamble -- an even stronger wording than either the AOC or that of the original Union. The former spoke of a desire for a "permanent federal government". The point is that any free republic nation formed is going to be hoped to be permanent (else it would never be created at all). But it doesn't mean that the sovereign states which formed it do not have the rights of the same sovereign states to withdraw those powers delegated to the central government, if conditions warrant such. James Madison said this...and he was no fan at all of secession without cause...

2. No, the Treaty of Paris did not create the United States (which was for many years referred to as "These united states". And this one of yours is most baffling of all. That is, the St. Lincoln argument that the states did not exist as sovereign entities before the original Union existed. I don't understand you in the least on this one, VH. It is, with all due respect, ridiculous. I think you might agree with me that Madison was the primary "Father of the Constitution" and his outlook was as follows:

Give me leave to say something of the nature of the government. Who are the parties to it? The people--not the people as composing one great body, but the people as composing thirteen sovereignties. It is fortunate when disputed theories, can be decided by undisputed facts. And here the undisputed fact is, that the Constitution was made by the people, but as embodied into the several States, who were parties to it; and therefore made by the States in their highest authoritative capacity. (Letter from James Madison to Daniel Webster, March 15, 1833)

LOL I think the numerical order got out of order, but I am sure it can be followed. In any event, nothing about the Treaty of Paris is "arguing from result" in the sense it is remotely comparable to what I have said earlier as concerns the "Civil War". I am arguing historical fact as to what Jefferson states in the DOI and what the Treaty of Paris recognized as individual sovereign states. On the other hand it is you are arguing from result by the fact the Confederacy was defeated, and therefore never officially recognized. And the even more shaky position that a three year after the fact SCOTUS decision (which did not address secession at all as the prime issue) has any standing. Also, your counterpoint about Lincoln and Davis as per calling out troops is also arguing from result. It is totally dependent -- again -- that the Confederate experience failed. But that does not in the least translate into that secession was not done peacefully and with a hope for peaceful coexistence. The original Confederate states fired upon Ft. Sumter because it was -- as they saw it -- a fort in their territorial waters occupied by armed troops of a foreign nation which had repulsed every single opportunity to settle the matter peacefully. Do you think the colonial "rebels" during the American Revolution would have allowed British troops to stay in the Boston harbor...or Charleston? Surely even you can't disagree with that.

But what I really find totally unfathomable is that northern apologists treat what the Colonials did in fighting their revolution as any different from what the Southerners did. Wellll, ok, I do agree there is a difference. To wit: Two in fact. The first is that the colonials won what we call the American Revolution and, by extension, the right to write the mainstream history. If the British had won, then we would be reading how proper it was that King George III thrashed a bunch of rebels who dumped perfectly good tea into the Boston Harbor, and justly hanged their leaders as traitors. LOL

Now, the second doesn't bode so well as the colonials were British citizens, totally under the rule of the Crown and never promised any representation in Parliament. This was understood aforehand and they knew full well the rope awaited them had they failed in their revolution. Of course, as an American I am proud they rose up and threw off the yoke (interesting to note that the most support for the revolution came from the Southern colonies). But just saying.

Of course -- to repeat -- the uncomfortable fact for some is that the Treaty of Paris (where the British surrendered)recognized the 13 colonies individually as being separate and sovereign states, with all the rights therein. Those states banded together into a Union (or Confederacy) of their own -- of the "compact" sort -- delegating only specified and limited powers to the central government. The rest belonged to the states as was clearly stated by the 10th amendment.

Later, 11 Southern states resumed the delegated powers and peaceably seceded to form a Confederacy of their own, as justified by one of the two conditions James Madison (Father of the Constitution) One of which is: "An abuse of the compact absolving the seceding party from the obligations imposed by it."

Of course, at this point (as evident by some of the posts on this thread), the northern apologists will deflect by saying the Southern states were just pissed off because Lincoln won the election and/or the only thing they wanted to protect was slavery. Nice try (to quote another fellow), but as it was, the Southern states made up 25% of the population of the country, yet were paying some 75% of the taxes. They had for years been used as the "cash cow" by the northern merchant class, which controlled the new Republican party and Lincoln. As John Reagan of Texas put it:

"You are not content with the vast millions of tribute we pay you annually under the operation of our revenue law, our navigation laws, your fishing bounties, and by making your people our manufacturers, our merchants, our shippers. You are not satisfied with the vast tribute we pay you to build up your great cities, your railroads, your canals. You are not satisfied with the millions of tribute we have been paying you on account of the balance of exchange which you hold against us. You are not satisfied that we of the South are almost reduced to the condition of overseers for northern capitalists." So bottom line is, what constitutes an "abuse of the compact" is subject to conditions and considerations of the day and age itself, not the self-righteous judgment of future generations using contemporary standards.

4. (I think! LOL). Of COURSE Stephens meant those of western and northern European decent, as a general rule. What about it? And what is your point at all? But where in the world do you come by the notion that his grasp and understanding of the constitutional history of the Union was inferior to other thinkers of his day? Can you name another that eclipsed him?

And what in the world does your example of best selling books have to do with the dangers of centralism? Matter of fact, you bring up England. Welllll, today there are other European countries are being swallowed up into a the worst type of centralism, the EU. And it really doesn't appear that it is embraced. Centralism never it involves the absolute antithesis of classic notions of real freedom..

Anyway, I am not working today, but going will reply to your later (below) post this evening or tomorrow! Have a good one! TexasReb (talk) 14:19, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Insert. Our facts are not matching up. The lead in independence were Massachusetts and Virginia. Middle colonies and southern were harder cases. A couple other items, some addressed in my item 6-8 post, some too lengthy to re-address here.
  • Our timelines are not matching up. The governments formed by the Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation, and the Constitution of 1789 had been formed by constitutional processes authorized by Congress, the national legislature. The Confederacy did not follow such a process, its attempt alone would not to be peaceable among the states of the nation. I would offer this observation as an addition to the article, but I need to source it first.
Although it achieved belligerent status by coercion, the Confederacy gained no international recognition because it was internationally illegitimate, and then it failed. You just supposed I argued it failed, therefore it got no international recognition. I’m trying to be more careful than that. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 20:10, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
So much is covered so quickly and at such length. I continue my numbering sequence. The #8 is a suggestion for an addition to the article.
6. Much of the confusion on the part of the rebels was a constant referral to the "sovereignty of states" when the sovereignty is in the people of the nation, all of it, though they live in states, and have local self-government in states. The Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions asserted the state's right to protect the individual citizen's right to publish criticism of the U.S. government within that state, where the Sedition Acts allowed the Adams administration to jail publishers and editors of critical newspapers. No such fundamental personal right within any state was at issue in 1860. Slavery was secure in every slave-holding state.
7. The expansion of slavery seemed to be everything to the secessionists. Then there were charges that one day there might be a majority in the nation to abolish slavery, but that is often overlooked in the narrative except to excoriate the Abolitionist fringe, since that likelihood was so remote, and indeed without the loss of life in such horrendous numbers, abolition of slavery likely would not have passed either 2/3 Congress nor if then, 3/4 states, in part due to the countervailing racial prejudice in the North noted by TexasReb. Part of the motivation for abolition was to take away the source of secessionists wealth.
  • 8. Actually, the Confederate Congress responding to a call from Jefferson Davis, did declare war on all the northern states in April-May 1861. A quick online search gives us New York Times online -- but war was not declared on slaveholding Missouri, Kentucky, Maryland and Delaware, who were invited to join the Confederacy, hence the "War Between the States". I think this should be included in the article, I'm looking for a better source.
9. You may recall Jefferson Davis calls up 100,000 militia for rebellion, and Abraham Lincoln, in response after withdrawing federal judges and marshals to avoid confrontation, calls up 75,000 for defense of federal property, the property having been ceded by state legislatures and accepted by Congress. Now, were those contracts to be lawfully annulled, there would have to be concurrent agreement between both parties in how to do it. But no peaceable tender was offered, only force of arms by rebels under the direction of Jefferson Davis at Fort Sumter and elsewhere.
10. The people of the United States chose to support the majority in ballots for Congress and Lincoln with the majority on the battlefield, a war sustained through 1862 mid term elections and 1864 presidential re-election, the first two-term presidency since Andrew Jackson, another unlikely development without the war. Their motives must be looked for in what they said to each other in public and private correspondence, -- just as I insist that attention be paid to the correspondence of rebel soldiers who were not secessionists per se, but joined to throw out the "invader". For the North, it was to preserve the republic, not for some economic or commercial purpose. As the war dragged on, Lincoln repeatedly proposed compensated emancipation, and secured it for DC. No Northerners sent their sons to die for cotton supply to New England mills. But Southerners said they sent sons to die for their "way of life" meaning a way of life with slavery, not one without it. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk)
VH? I failed to reply to the latest "numbered" post, as I was engaged in addressing another poster. Caught a lot of fish and going again today, so when I return, I will reply. Meantime, here is a good site and commentary I hope you and others might read as concerns the issue of secession as goes with Texas v. White:

TexasReb (talk) 14:08, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Alabama's Ordinance references to slavery[edit]

The current wording in the article is: "The other three states of the Lower South did not issue separate "Declarations of Causes" in their secession ordinances, and of those three, only Alabama made indirect reference to slavery as being a reason for its decision." This appears a rather misleading summary of Alabama's Ordinance.

Examples from the Ordinance that is cited: "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" While not saying "slavery" outright, that is a direct reference to the institution, but perhaps not only the institution of slavery since the object is plural. it isn't clear that it is simply a euphemism either because the Ordinance continues: "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 a 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 fourth 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."

This not only directly mentions slavery, "slaveholding States of the South," but invites all of them and only them to convention. If "domestic institutions" was used euphemistically to avoid saying "slavery," then why say "slaveholding States" rather than just "States of the South" or simply list the intended states as they did anyway? Red Harvest (talk) 14:26, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

For the sake of brevity in the article I removed the word "indirect." Otherwise a fuller quoting of the state's secession ordinance would be required (as illustrated above.) Red Harvest (talk) 22:27, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
You miss the point, RH. The kinship with the "slaveholding states" are simply a truism which deflects from the main point. Delaware and Maryland were also slave holding states. But to the point, slavery itself was not listed directly as the reason for Alabama's secession. And your question really as to why not do this or that is of absolutely no relevance at all. Virginia (an Upper South state which had voted down secession earlier) also listed a "kinship" with the slave-holding Lower South states...but not in the sense of slavery itself being a reason for their secession. No, it was objection to Lincoln's unjustified plans to invade the Lower South states and they had to make make a decision, either/or, so to speak. TexasReb (talk) 11:19, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
No, it is exactly that "truism" that is the issue: is slavery mentioned as a cause/the cause in the Ordinances of secession? The answer without any doubt among reasonable people would be "yes" in the case of Alabama. Red Harvest (talk) 20:20, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
That has nothing at all to do at all with that slavery was not listed directly as a cause. The phrase "domestic institutions" cannot be manipulated/stretched into being such. Which is why it is listed as being "indirectly" referred to as a cause. In total contrast to the four other Lower South states that did. Also, your wording is totally out -- in terms of syntax -- in writing harmony with what was previously presented. Go back and read it and see for yourself. By the way? Any further attempts to add/delete, are going to result in an elimination of the extended quotations from the Texas declaration of causes. Or else an addition of those clear justifications, having nothing to do with slavery, of those of the other Lower and Upper South states which did not bring it up as a compelling reason. I cannot figure out in the least why you cannot make the obvious distinction that slavery directly mentioned is not the same as indirect. Although, on another level, I understand that you cannot tolerate certain simple truths of history as per words presented. TexasReb (talk) 13:07, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
The "Causes of Secession" section has several extended quotes which do not seem to be in an encyclopedic style. Shouldn't they be summarized into a narrative? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:16, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, and two of them (which I hope you are fairly referring to), are those which make a lengthy issue out of Texas' direct reference to slavery, and the overt way it is done, is quite telling. I have let them remain for the time being, but why is this one being given so much attention, yet those states (which were most of them), are objected to when they do not mention slavery at all? Historical insecurity on the part of some, perhaps...? I love to debate with worthy opponents, and am capable of making compromises, but it is not a one-way street and I will not permit it to be as I have my limits (by the way, VH, you are one of several I consider a worthy opponent, even if we disagree..) TexasReb (talk) 11:19, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
It looks as if the only solution is to add the quotes so that the readers can conclude for themselves. Red Harvest (talk) 20:20, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
I agree -- and have said so before -- but it might benefit your assertions to really get a grip on this fact, yourself TexasReb (talk) 13:07, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Done. When disputes like this arise, it is often best to let the primary documents do the talking. It is interesting that 5 of the 7 states that seceded before shots were fired attributed secession to disagreement over slavery. The remaining 2 didn't bother to give any reason. A few years ago I read through various records of secession conventions/resolutions for the other states during a similar discussion. These were most enlightening for the slave states that held conventions, but had not seceded by the time of Sumter. In all that I and others found, slavery was the primary consideration and various wording about it was present in their resolutions. It would take some time to dig these up, but several are available. Things change after Sumter, when it becomes a matter of "coercion" of their former fellow slave states.
As has been repeatedly said, only four mentioned slavery as a primary cause...and in all those, the institution was wrapped up in other considerations which dated back the original formation of the Union and involved the said issues.

Here is a link to one of these "Passed by the Convention of the People of Arkansas, on the 20th day of March, 1861". It starts with "1. The people of the Northern States have organized a poli­tical party, purely sectional in its character, the central and controlling idea of which is hostility to the institution of African slavery, as it exists in the Southern States..." Slave or slavery is stated 28 times in the resolutions. Red Harvest (talk) 21:15, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

What about it? The secession declaration of Arkansas did not list it as a cause for secession. No, it emphatically named the decision of the Lincoln administration to use coercion against a people who had done them no wrong. Let's address who really profited off African slavery. The slave-trade itself was firmly in the hands of northern shipping merchants...and the said class continued to profit the whole time. Read this one again, and all the sub-links...

Even after slavery was outlawed in the North, ships out of New England continued to carry thousands of Africans to the American South. Some 156,000 slaves were brought to the United States in the period 1801-08, almost all of them on ships that sailed from New England ports that had recently outlawed slavery. Rhode Island slavers alone imported an average of 6,400 Africans annually into the U.S. in the years 1805 and 1806. The financial base of New England's antebellum manufacturing boom was money it had made in shipping. And that shipping money was largely acquired directly or indirectly from slavery, whether by importing Africans to the Americas, transporting slave-grown cotton to England, or hauling Pennsylvania wheat and Rhode Island rum to the slave-labor colonies of the Caribbean.

Northerners profited from slavery in many ways, right up to the eve of the Civil War. The decline of slavery in the upper South is well documented, as is the sale of slaves from Virginia and Maryland to the cotton plantations of the Deep South. But someone had to get them there, and the U.S. coastal trade was firmly in Northern hands. William Lloyd Garrison made his first mark as an anti-slavery man by printing attacks on New England merchants who shipped slaves from Baltimore to New Orleans.

And here is the record of Missouri's initial constitutional convention on the issue (March 1861). It has been a long time since I tried to slog through the document. However, throughout one will find the discussion over slavery, and slavery in the territories. The Missouri convetion rejected secession (and coercion.) Having recently lost the Border War over slavery in Kansas, Missourians were frank about what was happening. Slavery seems to dominate the discussion.Red Harvest (talk) 22:12, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
The following link provides a summary of the resolutions actually adopted--and my checking so far indicates it is correct. And notes that the Missouri convention "passed resolutions rejecting secession and endorsing the Crittenden Compromise." The Crittenden Compromise was entirely about guarantees to protect slavery. Red Harvest (talk) 23:09, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes? So the counter-point (as I brought up much earlier), is that the extension of slavery boiled down to economic issues, not a morality play. The real reason the northern powers that be did not want the expansion of slavery into the western territories was that they didn't want blacks in the said territories. Lincoln said it directly and without mincing any words. Want me to post it again? Here it is, anyway:

The whole nation is interested that the best use shall be made of these territories. We want them for the homes of free white people. This they cannot be, to any considerable extent, if slavery shall be planted within them -- Abraham Lincoln.

So far as the rest goes? Can you answer one simple question? Not withstanding that none of the states you mention listed slavery as a direct cause of their reasons for seceding, do you honestly believe that the reasons for the north to launch the invasion they did was out of any moral considerations? TexasReb (talk) 13:07, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

1. Lincoln did not want slavery --- the concentrations of great wealth ---taking away the ability of small farmers to develop a richer agricultural society in a democratic republic. Recall both North and South, 85% of the people were engaged in agriculture in 1860. But the plantation system exhausted the land generally within three generations, requiring constant expansion into fertile soils. The northern family farmer built up his farmland, and the contrast is noted in every travelogue of the period.
2. What is the moral grounds for democracy? Over time, the people will make better decisions for themselves, and change those decisions best peaceably, by persuasion. National policy should not be set by unpersuasive minorities with better militias. The moral consideration for sustaining electoral decision with coercion is that in a democracy, bullets of rebellion shall not rule ballots of national decision making. Changes in the nation will be by persuasion of the people in a majority sustained over time, with respect given to individual liberties as upheld in the courts. Slavery in the states permitting it was what a majority was persuaded to since the beginning of the country, upheld by the courts even when slave-holders were in a minority. From the time of the Articles Congress and the Northwest Ordinance, a majority had agreed that Congress could regulate slavery in the territories.
3. Change of government had been effected peaceably among the states unanimously by following constitutional procedures authorized by Congress. It was so in the case of declaring independence, establishing the Articles Congress by the states, and establishing the Constitution Congress by the people. For secession, only 2/3 of Congress and 3/4 of states in Amendment is required under the Constitution, -- not the unanimous consent attained in earlier United States history. But the fire-eating secessionists chose to force through state-only resolves irregularly, with only Texas, Tennessee and Virginia even attempting to consult the people directly.
4. There was no moral consideration for secession but rejection of democracy, Lincoln’s Congressionally certified election before the southern states vacated their seats. They objected to “mob rule”. There was no long chain of 20-year long abuses threatening any “rights” held by individuals in any state, certainly not by president-elect Lincoln, certainly not slavery. The parallel to the American Revolution fails. Although a case can be made that the state-righters in northern states made it impossible to enforce the federal Fugitive Slave Act, by requiring local jury trial to expel a presumed free black into perpetual slavery. As a matter of practice, northern juries did not convict blacks as slaves, but set men, women and children free into the second class citizenship available to African-Americans in northern states. But their numbers were small, the Underground Railroad notwithstanding.
5. For the fire-eating secessionists, there was only the prospect that expansion of slavery would not be allowed by a majority in Congress upholding democracy, northerners voted across party lines for the first time on the issue of Kansas, despite the lobbying of President Buchanan. Congress rejected coerced voting fraud in Kansas, denying entry as a slave state, but accepting it as a free state on January 29, 1861. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 14:30, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
The various Northern motives/plans for the territories, and morality issues are not particularly relevant in examining what Southerners themselves were claiming as their reasons for seceding. It doesn't matter whether the North was racist or what the North's motive was for going to war or opposing secession. (The Southern complaint was that "Black Republican" Lincoln was not racist enough and would make the black man equal to the white in the eyes of the law. This would of course upset their "domestic institutions.") Similarly, I can't see what the maritime slave trade of the first decade of the 1800's has to do with Southerners' views looking forward in 1860/61. If we end up discussing that as a cause of secession we might as well be discussing George Washington's false teeth for all of the relevance it will add.
If you scan through a handful of these conventions as I've been doing you will keep coming upon "domestic institutions", slavery, and even "peculiar institution" used seemingly interchangeably. Indeed, the language of the still pending Corwin Amendment makes use of it and goes on to specify what particular domestic institution is of concern: "No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State." Red Harvest (talk) 18:12, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Conclusion: The original sentence as well as "indirect" are misrepresentations of what Alabama declared in the way of the state's reason for choosing secession. Linking them to two states that did not give cause creates an erroneous impression to the reader. Rather than drafting a separate section that was a declaration of causes as the four other states had done, Alabama made the cause central to its ordinance. Therefore, rather than spin it as something it was not, let their own historical words state it. The original wiki wording made it sound like an indirect mention of slavery was made in passing when, instead, outside hostility toward their "domestic institutions" was their stated reason for secession. The only thing missing would be defining for readers what they meant by "domestic institutions," but adding that requires a good accepted cite, probably academic in nature. Most of us studying the ACW today already know what it is, and everyone did at the time. Red Harvest (talk) 19:02, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

No, what you are doing is desperately attempting to blend state resolutions passed -- some even before Lincoln's election -- with the wording of the actual Ordinances of Secession. One can only go by the actual wording, not your spin on it. And in this case, "domestic institutions" was indirect reference to slavery. Now if you want to create a new sub-article related to state resolutions? Then by all means do so (keeping in mind what is good for the goose is good for the gander). TexasReb (talk) 18:24, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
Untrue. These were all done after the election (though not necessarily the electoral college vote, which the Southern states didn't wait around for.) Why are you so eager to remove the period Southern POV as expressed in their ordinances and declarations? The sourced material you removed stays, since it directly addresses the lack of declaration for FL. Note that the wording you removed for FL said nothing about what was in the declarations draft, only that it existed. This seemed the correct approach for NPOV. I'm not putting my spin on it, I'm removing pre-existing spin/outright errors by letting the original state documents do the talking where possible. BTW, it was your own "talk" assertions about the causes in the ordinances that has led to my notice and correction of the errors in the then existing article, thanks for the heads up. Since shorter summaries cannot be agreed upon because of your stated desire to apply a POV, direct quotations from official publications are used where applicable. Red Harvest (talk) 20:01, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
The whole problem IMO started when the language of the ordinances of secession were added. The fact that these ordinances said very little or nothing about the reasons for secession (in contrast to the four declarations of causes that were very specific) is really not relevant in explaining why the states declared for secession. It is misleading to leave the language as it was, since it suggests to a reader that only the four states that issued the declarations cared about slavery. In fact, these states cared just as much about protecting slavery and it is our obligation to bring out the information that demonstrates that. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 20:39, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
PS The silliest argument being presented is the claim that the reference to "domestic institutions" is only an indirect reference to slavery. The people of the time as well as anybody familiar with the history of the era know exactly what institution was being referred to. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 20:45, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes. Ahhhh, I see the problem/disagreement/sensitivity now, it looks like the inaccurate summaries I've been editing were added by Texasreb back in March: Ironically, this originally included some of the same direct quotes of ordinances I've added back in or substituted to eliminate spin. The summaries themselves were problematic, but another editor removed some quotes from the primary sources, making it non-obvious. And that is why it is often best to let the subjects speak for themselves when disputes like this arise. Texasreb expanded the section, and doesn't like the direction it has headed as a result of that expansion.
The discussion of any ordinance after the firing on Ft. Sumter obscures the fundamental "secession causation" discussion, because the states were in effect forced to take sides. And that is why in order to consider the Upper South/Border States' original causes for considering secession, one must examine their conventions/resolutions prior to Sumter. Their immediate cause (of those that actually seceded) was that they opposed coercion to the degree that they would side with the states of the Deep South and take up arms against the rest of the U.S. Red Harvest (talk) 22:31, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Boutwell article[edit]

I read the online version of the very short paper by George S. Boutwell. "Why Jefferson Davis Was Never Tried."Southern Historical Society Papers. Vol.38 pp.347-49. online here first line It is a recollection 40 years later about a discussion among the attorneys for Jefferson Davis held in early 1869. The talk involves speculation on what Jefferson Davis would say about the situation – his lawyers had to make a decision because Davis could not be reached. The situation was that the federal government was about to drop the case, and whether or not the lawyers should agree with the government or wait until they could reach Jefferson Davis. They decided to agree with the government, and the prosecution was dropped and the case against Davis ended. The Boutwell article adds nothing new to this article and can be ignore. Rjensen (talk) 20:55, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. Ironically it calls into question his own argument that prosecution would likely not succeed and instead vindicate Davis if pursued. For as Boutwell says, he was in disagreement with the opinion of the four men of Davis' counsel who "thought quite sure that if he were to be tried before Judge Underwood his conviction would be inevitable with such a jury as could be counted on, and that it would not be wise to expect anything from an appeal to the Supreme Court as then constituted." It is revealing that he states several times that he (Boutwell) believed Davis would have agreed with him to insist on trial if he could have been contacted, yet never claims in the piece that Davis stated this to him afterward--Davis lived for over two decades after the event. Boutwell notes at the end that he penned this piece after all of the other participants were deceased. Red Harvest (talk) 22:17, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Florida secession convention[edit]

For understanding what the participants of the day thought were their reasons for seceding or not, there is little better than their own conventions on the matter. While not all slave states held them, several did. The journals and resolutions were typically published and many can be found online. I've already linked to AR and MO, here is FL. Since their ordinance says nothing about causes, editors here might want to read the opening statements...summarized by the Chair as: "The rapid spread of Northern fanaticism has endangered our liberties and institutions, and the election of Abraham Lincoln, a wily abolitionist, to the Presidency of the United States, destroys all hope for the future." When the president of the convention was elected he had this to say: "In the formation of the Government of our Fathers, the Constitution of 1787, the institution of domestic slavery is recognized, and the right of property in slaves is expressly guaranteed.

The People of a portion of the States who were parties to the Government were early opposed to the institution. The feeling of opposition to it has been cherished, and fostered, and inflamed until it has taken possession of the public mind of the North to such an extent that it overwhelms every other influence. It has seized the political power and now threatens annihilation to slavery thoughout the Union.

At the South, and with our People of course, slavery is the element of all value, and a destruction of that destroys all that is property.

This party, now soon to take possession of the powers of the Government, is sectional, irresponsible to us, and driven on by an infuriated fanatical madness that defies all opposition, must inevitably destroy every vestige or right growing out of property in slaves.

Gentlemen, the State of Florida is now a member of the Union under the power of the Government, so to go into the hands of this party.

As we stand our doom is decreed." Red Harvest (talk) 00:15, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Good job. Later the convention would ratify a resolution that stated:
Whereas, All hope of preserving the Union upon terms consistent with the safety and honor of the Slaveholding States has been finally dissipated by the recent indications of the strength of the Anti-Slavery sentiment of the Free States; therefore
Be it Resolved, by the people of Florida, in Convention assembled, That it is undoubtedly the right of the several States of the Union to withdraw from the said Union at such time and for such cause as in the opinion of the people of each State, acting in their sovereign capacity, may be just and proper; and, in the opinion of this Convention, the existing causes are such as to compel Florida to proceed to exercise that right.
This passed by 62-5 -- see as well as pages 13 and 18 in the convention journal. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 01:22, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Of note is that a text search made from the sites crude OCR text does not turn up the word "tariff" anywhere. "Duties" does show up in regards to office holder oaths and obligations, and in a single instance it shows up in the 2nd Ordinance "until otherwise provided by the General Assembly of the State of Florida, no duties shall be collected upon imports from the States forming the late Federal Union, nor upon the tonnage of vessels, owned in whole or in part by the citizens of said States, nor shall any act of Congress regulating foreign commerce, or prescribing forms to be observed by foreign vessels, be held or deemed applicable to said State." This doesn't appear in anyway to be a statement of cause, but like most of the other twenty ordinances which follow, it is a realignment of the state both for independent operation and for a "Convention of slaveholding States". This latter declared in Ordinance #22, and interestingly absolutely no provision is made for the possibility of any non-slaveholding state joining said convention. (See pp. 99-109 for these.)
If this secession thing wasn't about slavery, they did a marvelous job of making it appear that it was while hiding their true motives. So, we can check off Florida as yet another example of a secession convention dedicated to the preservation of slavery. We are now at 6 of 7 for the Deep South states, time to see if I can find LA's journal for the convention...might not be available, took them over a century to release the conventions election returns. Not that there was much doubt/alternative, as the governor had seized the Federal arsenal and forts before the convention vote. Red Harvest (talk) 04:41, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Just came across this, Florida did plan a declaration of causes, but the committee was discharged on March 1, before it was completed. For the draft see: and with respect to the convention is at: While the rambling draft is centered mostly on slavery issues and the expansion of it into the territories, it also mentioned "duties on importations" (tariffs) claiming a disproportionate share paid by the South because of the resulting higher prices of Northern goods, etc. Red Harvest (talk) 02:52, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

I've added these two links about the intent to make a declaration to the paragraph containing Florida. There are a number of other links to the story itself on the web since the discovery was made by Dr. Dwight Pitcaithley, former chief historian of the National Park Service. Red Harvest (talk) 23:31, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Louisiana's Secession Convention[edit]

I've found LA's convention journal here It is only half as long as it looks because it is published in English, then French. Looking at the text version I found "slave" 62 times. Much of that is in the first dozen pages of proposed resolution/ordinance wording which reveals the causes. Considering that the Ordinance was adopted by page 18 that says a lot about what had them concerned. I did find "tariff" under discussion...but instead of complaining about tariffs, a rep offered this: "that the people of Louisiana are opposed to the abolition of the tariff system and equally so to its reduction below a revenue standard." For reference, the port of New Orleans collected roughly 2/3 of the tariffs in the South (although NOLA was only about 4% of the national tariff collection figure.) LA also benefitted from some protectionist tariffs such as that on sugar if memory serves. Red Harvest (talk) 05:18, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

The following article published by the Louisiana History Association in 1978 is not written about the causes but reviews the convention and has a little to say about the election to select delegates. Among the interesting aspects is that the immediate secessionists were aided by having the slave headcount adjusted into their delegate representation. And while the article does not go into causes it begins with the following: "This exercise is not addressed to the substantive causes of secession: that is, the southern belief, whether right or wrong, that slavery was vital to the regions economic and social well-being; and the conviction, right or wrong, that Republican ascendancy posed a mortal threat to slavery. Instead, this essay is concerned with the unique course, and the paradox, of secession by Louisiana." The author is Charles_P._Roland. Red Harvest (talk) 05:35, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Sounds like that makes seven out of seven of the first ordinances deem slavery, its protection and expansion, to be the governing factor for secession. I'm looking through Coulter to see if he concisely says the same thing, so we are not reliant on original research. Also, making points by original documents makes for a slogging read and an over-long encyclopedia article.
Coulter adds that white status in society was grounded in the racial caste system, that without slavery, the poor white would be thrown into direct wage competition with the freedman. And the poor white was not expected to do well in that competition. In the best of circumstances, he would be disadvantaged in business, craftsmanship, farming and courtship, or alternatively, he would suffer Haitian-like butchery in a race war at the worst. (Though one white Southerner could whip twenty Yankees, and because Yankees were a race intermixed with immigrants, they ranked below the Chinese according to one Coulter source.)
Racial terror is one of the factors that Coulter (1950) ascribes to sustaining Confederate morale throughout the war, and it helped explain non-slave holder support of the Confederacy throughout the South in his view. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:41, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
No doubt that slogging through primary sources is a painful way to make a point, and open to charges of original research if much is given other than the quotes, but it can become necessary when an editor charges bias against all secondary sources that don't support his/her POV. One thing it does though when it amounts to governmental journals, orders etc., is make the source material itself nearly indisputable (aside from typos or other forms of error.) I've had occasion to quote the text of specific orders (e.g. Gen. Order #11 in Missouri) to correct bogus claims of the order's content that came from wild, poorly researched works.
Racial terror/servile insurrection was a big factor/common theme. IIRC Charles Dew's Apostles of Disunion highlights it in addresses made by the secession commissioners. Related to this is the "horror" of elevating negroes to the point they might serve on juries, racial equality! Yep, a few seconds thumbing through and I just found my favorite quote along that line in the book: "or to submit to the degradation of being reduced to equality with them, and all its attendant horrors." (p. 77) The other biggy was "racial amalgamation" or as AL's commissioner to TN put it, "the sacred purity of our daughters." Anti-miscegenation laws would severely limit this until overturned in 1967. Red Harvest (talk) 10:04, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

new article needed on state resolutions[edit]

In my opinion, Texasreb is right: the state resolutions would make an interesting separate article. None of them mention the CSA and so they are only tangential to this particular article. Rjensen (talk) 19:30, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Rjensen. That is all I have been wanting to do all along. I appreciate it. On a related tangent, I will refrain from doing any additional "editing" in the actual article for the next 24 hours in the interest of a "cooling off" period. We need to all discuss it, and come to an agreed upon decision. TexasReb (talk) 12:40, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
Are we talking about resolutions or ordinances/declarations? Because what I've been editing has been primarily about the ordinances themselves. TexasReb just committed a 3RR violation on this page. He seems to have a real problem with what the ordinances actually state vs. the spin he wants to see applied. I do not see deleting all this material until there is an existing sub-article. In that manner links can be placed to the sub-article. The major problem in this article is that the summaries as given have been incorrect or misleading for several of the states. Red Harvest (talk) 20:19, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
Secession was declared state by state. Why these individual declarations were made is relevant to the creation of the CSA. I have no problem in trimming this section AFTER such an article is written, but it would be premature to do so before such an article is written. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 20:25, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
Agreed, need to keep material until article is in place to link to. With regards to ordinances, conventions, resolutions, etc., they are even more complex since many states did them differently. Some had conventions, some addressed the matter legislatively. Some then went forward with referendums. In some cases the conventions or legislatures originally rejected secession. Then there are the rump/exiled govts to consider, as well as states that considered it--such as MD and DE.
The material that was deleted was in the "causes of secession" section, and is of direct relevance to that topic. A structural problem with the article at this time is the mixing of chronologies and multiple sections that overlap. There are three sections on secession. Red Harvest (talk) 20:56, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
No, the "causes of secession" is NOT directly related to CSA. The causes did not mention the CSA. Instead they formed independent republics. The point is the secession issue can spin off with ease. Rjensen (talk) 03:31, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
It is directly related since several states were speaking directly of forming such an entity in their ordinances. Based on their own wording (and those commissioners they sent to the other slave states, see Dew) they weren't really forming independent republics, but seeking to establish a new "federal union" (as Mississippi declared) outside of the present one. Alabama was even more explicit. After the first 7 the states were simply setting up an interim in order to join the already extant provisional CSA. While it can be spun off, that doesn't fix the problem of still having a direct connection to "causes of secession" or that the same is a prominent section of this article. As noted in the discussion by Tom and myself elsewhere on this page, the problem arose from inaccurate summaries made of the ordinances by Texasreb when that editor expanded the section. The effort to address those has led us to this point.
What exactly is the structure you are after in the spin off and how does it integrate with this and other articles? Origins of the American Civil War, while useful for the longer term history, doesn't examine the ACW secession ordinances or conventions. In addition to "causes of secession" the CSA article includes the sections "Secessionists and conventions" and "Secession." What states were doing in order to apply for Confederate statehood is a primary thrust of this article. Until I can see how a new article is going to work and how it will be populated, I am not inclined to support deleting relevant content to the formation of the CSA here. Red Harvest (talk) 06:13, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
I suggest one paragraph in this article and full coverage (state by state) in the new spinoff article. Everything is interrelated but this has to be a survey covering a huge amount of territory. This article does NOT handle the CSA state by state because that is the function of a specialized spinoff.Rjensen (talk) 06:26, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
Summaries can be very contentious or problematic, as this particular section has illustrated and that is why we've ended up going state-by-state where applicable. Unless it is a distillation of the other article after the fact (which can be difficult to keep in sync), the summary paragraph here would require some good non-primary sources as well, which is challenging for 11, 13 (KY,MO) or 15 (DE, MD) states considering secession in a number of different legislative/constitutional forms. Then there are the two time periods/cases: pre-Sumter, and post-Sumter. For the Upper South/Border States this requires reliance on conventions and/or legislative resolutions for one, and then ordinances for the other. I wouldn't get my hopes set on a single paragraph, as I suspect it will naturally break down into classifications and therefore two or three shorter paragraphs.
What title do you have in mind for the spin off, and what sections? Are we addressing a question (e.g. "causes given") or ordinances, conventions, form, referendums, timeline etc.? At present, this article is addressing the declarations/ordinances/and to a more limited degree resolutions of the states with regard to causation. That is a narrow focus. Red Harvest (talk) 07:32, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
How about, Secession resolves of the American Civil War. That would comprehend declarations, ordinances, and formal proposals considering secession. Or Resolutions of Secession in the American Civil War. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:27, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
I think the scope should actually be bigger than just written documents. I would suggest that the spinoff article encompass the calling of the conventions and the reasons, the elections of delegates and the factions (i.e. cooperationists, fire eaters, etc), the convention debates, their final actions, and the coordination of the states (the secession commissioners for example). My preference for the article title would be "Southern states during the Secession Winter 1860-1861."
I count 18 paragraphs in the present article that address state secession actions prior to Fort Sumter. Reducing that to one paragraph (assuming the spinoff article is created) does not seem to be feasible. WP:Summary Style indicates that "The summary in a section at the parent article will often be at least twice as long as the lead section in the child article" so that suggests at least two paragraphs.
The actual language of the secession ordinances, as opposed to the declarations and the Cornerstone speech, are insignificant. The latter two are often referenced in general works while the ordinances (other than the fact that they were issued) are rarely mentioned. This whole debate started over whether the reference to slavery in the Alabama ordinance was "indirect". I think everything after the quotes from the Texas declaration could be eliminated right now from the "Causes of secession" right now -- even before the spinoff article is written. I would even favor eliminating the Texas quotes if the following is also eliminated:
Georgia also claimed a general Federal policy of favoring Northern over Southern economic interests. Texas mentioned slavery 21 times, but also listed the failure of the federal government to live up to its obligations, in the original annexation agreement, to protect settlers along the exposed western frontier.
These sentences, like the discussion of the secession ordinances, only confuse the immediate issue which generated secession -- Lincoln's election and the perceived threats to slavery. If Lincoln actually had a position on Texas' border I am unaware of it and Georgia's references to economic issues is limited to the early 1850s. If either of these two issues were instrumental in Texas or Georgia secession, then reliable secondary sources saying that need to be produce. Simply observing that a primary document "mentions" something is misleading original research. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 16:24, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
The thing is Tom, that this addition of mine (done quite a while back), was in direct response to the heavy emphasis put by (whoever the original editor was) on the almost self-evident attempt to make white supremacy and slavery to be the main reasons. I also do not see how you could dispute the actual wording of the Texas' and Georgia' ordinances and declaration of causes. They are sourced totally by their existence alone. Also, the references which you seem to dismiss as in being related to the 1850's are very relevant as they are directly related to that the reasons for secession went back quite a ways...not just an immediate concern/interest in slavery. TexasReb (talk) 12:26, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
I assume that commenters on this page are aware of the article Secession in the United States. There is one long paragraph that discusses Confederate States of America with the hatnote: See main articles Origins of the American Civil War, Confederate States of America and American Civil War. It seems to me this presents another choice, perhaps not a good one in view of the article's length, of adding the material to that article. A better option probably is to add another article title covering the topic under discussion here to hatnotes. A brief mention of Secession in the United States is also made in the article Secession. I thought it might be a good idea to look at the whole range of related articles. I wonder whether readers would find an article with a title as general as North Shoreman's proposed title, except by link from Secession in United States or one of the three main articles. Maybe that is ok. I think TheVirginiaHistorian's proposal is closer to one that readers might search for. I have thought of a few tweaks but hesitate to propose any because I think some descriptive additional words could lead to POV claims one way or the other. I do agree that this topic is too long for this article and should be separated. Donner60 (talk) 17:39, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
Secession winter is a common term. If you google it, the first thing that comes up is the wikipedia article on the American Civil War -- "Secession winter" is actually a sub heading in that article. IMO the scope is the most important issue -- VH's proposed name suggests a limited scope. I have the draft of the lede of an article and an outline here [3]. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 18:20, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
"Secession winter" is about the entire USA. We need an article that covers the secession process in each Confederate state. Rjensen (talk) 20:52, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
Which is why my suggestion was for "Southern states during the Secession Winter 1860-1861" rather than just "Secession Winter 1860-1861." On the scope issue, I agree that the article should include the entire process of secession rather than just the documents generated by parts of the process. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 21:04, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
I agree as to the scope. You have persuaded me as to the desirability of a broader title and that secession winter would alert readers to the topic, especially with the years included. Donner60 (talk) 21:13, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
I agree with what Donner60 just wrote. I like "Southern states during the Secession Winter 1860-1861" Rjensen (talk) 21:34, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

New article[edit]

I've started roughing out an article based on the above discussion -- see [4]. I found surprisingly little in state civil articles with only Tennessee, Virginia, and Texas having significant information. I have done some pasting from these articles but nothing, as of this post, is in anywhere close to a final form. Comments are welcome. If there is suggested text, please put it on the discussion part of my sandbox rather than in article portion. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 00:47, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

I am going to draft out one of my own, Tom. And versions can be compared. I wrote a lot of the Texas article, and agree that many of the state articles do not really contain any detailed information. TexasReb (talk) 12:11, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

'Causes of secession' intro paragraph[edit]

While I can go along with a goodly portion of Virginia Historians revisions, I also respectfully suggest it should have been presented and discussed on the talk page before actually making official changes. Personally, I am certainly willing to do that. However, some of the new ones by VH contain POV opening (particularly in the opening portion). We all know this is an extremely controversial topic, and that all of us can open with a "lead" which telegraphs a certain conclusion intended for the reader to arrive. I am going (for the sake of compromise and fairness), to refrain (again) from actually making any changes/deletions) for the time being, but at the same time, advance the opinion that there needs to be quite a bit more mutual "give and take" and agreement, before anything is changed. TexasReb (talk) 14:12, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
@Texasreb: Agree with TexasReb, the lede paragraph is removed for further copyedit here. It read in an earlier draft,
[Recalled intro paragraph] The causes of secession revolved around the slave-holding South developing a separate identity from the national democracy that was developing the in United States. It was based on a fear that somehow it could be remade into the image of the North by outside forces, but that transformation would bring an end to its way of life. By 1861, to preserve that way of life, Southerners had been led to divide national churches such as the Methodists and Baptists, and political parties such as the Whigs and Democrats, splitting them along sectional lines. [end intro paragraph to mainspace]
[omitted paragraphs] Secession required a massive coordinated breakdown of Constitutional authority among individual office holders in state and U.S. government. Several Deep South states sent commissioners to every slave-holding state to urge state legislature secession before the presidential election. With the constitutionally elected Abraham Lincoln, secessionists determined to divide the nation by fifteen states along slave-holding lines without consent of Congress. (Coulter 1950) This, though Congress is required to direct constitutional procedures of amendment in the national establishment from the beginning, as required by Art. VI of the Articles, "No two or more States shall enter into any treaty, confederation or alliance whatever between them, without the consent of the United States in Congress assembled.”, and again in the U.S. Constitution, Art. I Sec. 10, "No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation.” By stampeding state legislatures, resolutions of secession were passed without consulting the people of the states, even though in the Constitution Art. VI the state constitutional conventions had agreed that the Constitution, and Congressional laws; and all Treaties of the United States, "shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."
Six proposals for laws addressing slave power grievances, including federal compensation for unrepatriated fugitive slaves, and a Virginia circular for a Constitutional Convention, and the Corwin Amendment passed by Congress out to the states for ratification, guaranteeing slavery in the slave-holding states, all these and more were rejected by the secessionists prior to hostilities (Coulter 1950). Remarkably, only Sam Houston of Texas is widely known to have stood by his Constitutional oath among Southern office holders in compliance with Art. VI, that U.S. and state legislators, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution." The violation of this oath would be the grounds for barring from office those U.S. and state officeholders participating in the rebellion during the course of Reconstruction.
I thought that the considerations of the Constitutional provisions as rehearsed in the omitted paragraphs are so well known, that they need not be reiterated in this section, but perhaps a shorter version is called for. What wording would editors propose in lieu of these summary statements? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 16:10, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks VH, for taking this extremely reasonable view of the matter at hand. In my opinion, what we should all do, is submit our ideas for edit/rewrites, and post them in a separate "talk article" and then start from there in terms of gradually working things out...? Yeah, I KNOW that will involve time and length, but it also might be a worthy "investment" in the long run. What do y'all think? TexasReb (talk) 14:32, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure why any introduction to this sub-section is necessary since the larger section (A revolution in disunion) already has a two paragraph introduction. It seems like the sub-section should start right into the specifics. I'm not trying to tell you how to use your yime, but it also appears that there is a consensus to do away with much of the pre CSA convention info on the states, pending a new article being written, so I'm not sure why any additions to this section or sub-section are needed since the article is, apparently, going in a different direction. I'm also not sure, since you're eliminating non-encyclopedic quotes, why the block quote from Emory Thomas remains. It's an interesting quote, but the CSA's self image as represented to foreign governments doesn't really say a lot about what specific issues led to secession -- especially since everything else in the section is about state actions.
It is my assumption that the material to be deleted includes everything in "A revolution in disunion" before the subsection "Inauguration and response". The replacement for this should parallel the lede from the unwritten new article. This replacement should be between one (a suggestion made by an editor) and eight (the number suggested by Wikipedia:Summary Style) paragraphs. IMO the paragraph you added and reverted, as well as parts of the first "omitted paragraph" seem like they could easily fit into the replacement section.Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 18:15, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
PS BRD applies even in contentious articles and I have no problem with you adding the material w/o prior discussion and it does appear that your edits were intended to address some of the concerns already discussed on this page. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 18:19, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Infobox. Anti-partyist and Non-partisan democratic[edit]

@Ben Tuckett: Is there a source to characterize the Confederacy as a "Confederal Anti-partyist Non-partisan democratic republic” in the info box? Isn't that better discussed in the body of the article to expand the "Legislature" section rather than clutter the info box?

The article now addresses some of the Confederate Congress legislative characteristics in the "Legislature" section of Government and politics. "Without political parties, key candidate identification related to adopting secession before or after Lincoln's call for volunteers to retake Federal property. Previous party affiliation played a part in voter selection, predominantly secessionist Democrat or unionist Whig.[204] The absence of political parties made individual roll call voting all the more important, as the Confederate "freedom of roll-call voting [was] unprecedented in American legislative history.[205]"

This could be expanded commenting on the determination of Congress to provide a united front to the world and to the people back home. Though, former Whigs were less supportive of centralizing measures by Jefferson Davis than the original secessionist-Democratic members of the Confederate Congress, and the former Whigs grew in numbers after the mid term elections. By 1864 there was certainly something of a peace party in the Confederate Congress.

I propose removing the terms Anti-partyist and Non-partisan democratic from the info box, and collaborating on an extension of the "Legislature" section, with sources. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 16:08, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

We can leave the terms in. They are quite accurate. two excellent sources: Eric L. McKitrick, "Party Politics and the Union and Confederate War Efforts," in William N. Chambers and Walter D. Burnham, eds., The American Party System (Oxford University Press, 1967), pp35-68, which in turn is based on David M. Potter, "Jefferson Davis and the Political Factors in Confederate Defeat," in David Donald, ed., Why the North Won the Civil War (Louisiana State University Press, 1960). Rjensen (talk) 17:31, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
Great good historiography, thanks. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 19:12, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
I question both the utility and accuracy of the terms in this infobox context (encyclopedic reference accessible to the reader.) The most obvious comparison is with the United States: "a federal republic" (lede) or "federal presidential constitutional republic" (infobox) by Wikipedia and this seems to fit common usage/definitions today. The U.S. like the C.S. began without established parties. The C.S. never reached an established state where its partyism/partisan or anti-partyist/non-partisan nature could be determined/tested in any meaningful way. Are the sources suggesting that national/regional parties would not have formed shortly after independence as they had in the U.S.? Because that is what the terms imply as used in an infobox summary. Was the CSA a "non-partisan democracy" or a "Confederal republic" as the two terms suggest some differences in terms of democracy vs. representative form of govt.? The CSA was a representative democracy (like the U.S., although this is usually simplified to "republic") Was it "non-partisan" or actually single party dominated? The sectional party that controlled secession and therefore the statehouses and Confederate govt. was a faction of what had been a national party until the secessionists split it on regional lines. In relation to the USA and even the pre-war Southern states the CSA's party identification and tolerance was historically very narrow. It was in effect a single party state, rather than a "non-partisan" one. While "non-partisan" might be technically true for the wartime period, it carries a different connotation to the modern reader--suggesting an apolitical tone, when historically the opposite was true. VH was correct in objecting to the terms in the info boxes for this reason. Use elsewhere in the article does give proper local context, so no objection there, and nothing will be lost by dropping misleading terms from the infobox. Red Harvest (talk) 09:20, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
I agree with removing the info box terms "Anti-partyist" and "non-partisan democratic" as unconventional terms which clutter. Political systems which have no organized opposition to the ruling party are frequently referred to as "single party states", including ante-bellum South Carolina.
According to Martis, by the second session of the first Confederate Congress and into the first session of the second, the administration party measures often required support of representatives in delegations from occupied areas, such as Missouri, Kentucky, Tennessee and Louisiana, whose pro-administration delegations were appointed by expatriate governors or elected by out-of-state army camps in unopposed slates.
@Rjensen: I would like to hear more from McKitrick and Potter on their terminology, as I do not have the articles referenced at hand. Would they allow for “single party republic”? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:12, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Single party? No -- CSA leaders wanted ZERO PARTIES -- There was no "administration party" in any state. they believed that parties were evil & caused much of the trouble because they made patronage & corruption more important that principle and honor. The best recent study is Christopher J. Olsen, Political Culture and Secession in Mississippi: Masculinity, Honor, and the Antiparty Tradition, 1830-1860 Oxford University Press, 2002. For a quick look at where the idea came from see Mayo Rjensen (talk) 15:58, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Origins of the Confederacy summary[edit]

The proposed section removal to another article, — everything in "A revolution in disunion" before the subsection "Inauguration and response” — leads us to consider what summary introduction might replace it. I propose three paragraphs, in outline, I. secessionists and national separation, II. causes of sectional crisis, and III. secession declarations.

I. The Confederate States of America was created by secessionists in Southern slave states who refused to remain in a nation that they believed was turning them into second–class citizens by stripping away their Constutitional right--a "state's right"-- to owning slaves.. The "Black Republicans" as they were named by Southerners, and their northern allies were feared to soon become a majority in the United States House, Senate, and Presidency. Craven (1953) p. 350. Southerners feared Lincoln and his party “would attempt to remake Southerners in the image of the North”. Coulter (1950) p. 13. But the division of the country was already almost complete except for the government framework. Southerners in the great majority churches, Methodists and Baptists, had already divided, and the last political unifier crumbled with the Democratic party in 1860. Coulter (1950) p.18. The only thing remaining was for secessionists to divide the nation along slave-holding lines without consent of Congress. This, though Congress was required to direct constitutional procedures of amendment in the national establishment from the beginning, as required by Art. VI of the Articles, "No two or more States shall enter into any treaty, confederation or alliance whatever between them, without the consent of the United States in Congress assembled.”, and again in the U.S. Constitution, Art. I Sec. 10, "No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation.”

II. Southern historian E. Merton Coulter suggested that protection of slavery and its expansion was the "mighty force" which underpinned secession. “But more powerful than slavery was the Negro himself…the fear of what would ultimately happen…the danger of the South becoming another San Domingo,” or at least loss of non-slaveholder racial status and social standing, were slaves ever to be emancipated. Coulter (1950) p. 8-10. During the campaign for president in 1860, some secessionists threatened disunion should Lincoln be elected, most notably William L. Yancey. Yancey toured the North calling for secession in the event of Lincoln's election. Freehling, (1990) p. 398. A Lincoln victory presented Southern secessionists with a momentous choice in their eyes, even before his inauguration, it was "The Union without slavery, or slavery without the Union.” Craven, (1953) p. 366. Secession leaders expected all fifteen slaveholding states to secede; South Carolina adopted a flag with fifteen stars in it. Coulter (1950) p.3. And that secession would never lead to war, because no Yankee could be made into a soldier. Coulter (1950) p.14. In the event, most Southerners believed that their national citizenship came through state citizenship, so even those who had been Unionists until secession resolves gave up their opposition. Coulter (1950) p. 17

III. The South Carolina Program promising union of the slave-holding states before Lincoln’s inauguration was backed by fifty-two commissioners from South Carolina, Alabama, Mississippi, Georgia and Louisiana. They pressed state legislatures in every slave-holding state to resolve immediate secession. Thomas (1979) p.43. Every one of the first seven states forming the Confederacy had authorized a sovereign convention before South Carolina’s secession. Just before the South Carolina convention, a large number of Southern Congressional delegations signed a manifesto in Washington, declaring the argument over union was exhausted, that “the sole and primary aim of each slaveholding State ought to be its speedy and absolute separation from an unnatural and hostile Union”. Coulter (1950) p. 2. Following the enactment of the Provisional Confederate States Constitution, Fort Sumter became an emotional symbol, both for Federal authority and for Confederate “integrity, existence, and independence”. Coulter (1950) p. 38. Most Americans hesitating at war had their loyalties clarified at the firing on Fort Sumter. But especially important for the states which had not yet seceded was Lincoln’s call for 75,000 militia from the governor of each state. For most Southerners, even for most of the Upper South Unionists, the choice for secession had been made easier. Secession resolutions from Virginia, Arkansas, Tennessee and North Carolina followed. Coulter (1950) p. 39.

This is meant as an opener for discussion and collaboration. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 04:57, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

OK but slavery has to be in at the start. try: "The Confederate States of America was created by secessionists in Southern slave states who refused to remain in a nation that they believed was turning them into second–class citizens by stripping away their Constutitional right--a "state's right"-- to owning slaves.". Nationalism needs to be in there too. And go light on Craven and Coulter--their ideas (from the 1930s) are VERY out of date. Much better is Potter. Rjensen (talk) 05:44, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
I am following this, and will submit my own suggestions shortly, but I maintain there is too much emphasis (and I find it hard to believe it can possibly be devoid of POV, on white supremacy and slavery). NOW...let me emphasis I am not so wrapped in the belief that the South was essentially right, as to deny the strong connection of slavery as a cause for the War. No, where the objection comes in is what appears to be a focus on it in a way of seemingly implying it had a role in a moral way separating the North and South, when the reality is that the slave-trade itself was a purely northern commodity. And white supremacy? Hell, let's get real, everyone, in all sections of the country, would be considered a hateful racist by today's standards.
But anyway, slavery became the flashpoint of war when it could no longer be ignored in the western territories, southerners maintained their slaves were "property", while northerners objected because they didn't want blacks in there (Lincoln expressed this sentiment). This aspect, if slavery is to be brought up (and I agree/know it should), should be the core of it all in terms of secession sentiment.
As it is, I am going to present a bit of a revision of my own, which of course can/should be discussed just like any other. Also, in tandem, that the resolutions should be a separate sub-article from ordinances of secession, unless they were an intrinsic part of them to begin with. All will be submitted before I actually make any changes! Thanks! TexasReb (talk) 08:37, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
@Rjensen: I've incorporated your suggested language. I'm afraid my Potter, Impending Crisis is still boxed in the garage. I'll look for another copy. I have Thomas, The Confederate Nation for a look at nationalism. I suppose the main point is that the civil war is a secessionist initiative, even though they protested there could be no war, because the nation had no will to survive (Buchanan's early pronouncements did not help), and the Yankees were incompetent to be soldiers.
Each side tragically misread the other. Coulter dismisses territorial expansion as more ideological cant than settlement reality, --- But nationalism clearly played a major part, as the Corwin Amendment guaranteeing slavery in the states, protecting it from northern congressional majorities, did not suffice to end the crisis. Another element in Coulter's analysis was that the secessionist movement, though a young man's politics, was genuinely democratic and became majoritarian in the South with the outbreak of war. That should be added into the section also. (Of course emancipation became majoritarian in the nation with the prosecution of the war, but that is outside our scope here.) @Texasreb: Following Rjensen and your previous input, I am open to greater emphasis on nationalism and democracy as explanatory elements in the origins of the Confederacy.
I suppose the main take away for the first effort is to establish some sort of expectation as to the "Origins of the Confederacy" length in word count, perhaps 150% of the first draft? As Thomas and Potter are added, Coulter can be trimmed. But the essential feature is in an outline (amended now with your input), --- I. secessionists and national separation, II. causes of sectional crisis, and III. state secessionist declarations --- (the territories and tribes are treated in their own sections, state declaration of seven are essential to the establishment of the Confederacy). TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:50, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
Nationalism and democracy, yes indeed. All the nationalism impulses were based on protecting & expanding slavery, which was increasingly impossible inside the USA. Democracy yes, but note that Washington falsely thought it was a coup by a small group that could be quickly crushed by 75,000 men (Potter explains that Lincoln believed this). Rjensen (talk) 02:47, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
@Rjensen: In my search for another volume of Potter, I stumbled upon “At the precipice: Americans north and south during the secession crisis.” It is a 2010 work by Shearer Davis Bowman, published at the UNC Press. I am in the "introduction and overview", previewed at the link, where he quotes Potter and McPherson extensively. Part of Southern nationalism was an interpretation of the Declaration and Constitution upholding slavery at variance with interpretations developed in the North.
Bowman also notes Lincoln’s misreading of the crisis as a small conspiracy that would be overthrown at the next general election, an observation also made in Coulter, but we are looking for replacement sources for the Coulter (1950) citations from 1930s scholarship. Though Coulter notes the widely held Unionist sentiment that citizenship came by states, so at secession, men either followed their state or became men without a country. My new 2011 paperback edition of Potter (1976) is in the mail. Can you recommend Bowman (2010) as well? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:57, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
the Bowman book looks good. Rjensen (talk) 04:25, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

add Potter[edit]

DRAFT 2 -- add Potter, to consider what summary introduction might replace proposed section to be removed. In outline, I. secessionists and separation, II. causes of sectional division, and III. secession declarations.

I. secessionists and separation. The Confederate States of America was created by secessionists in Southern slave states who refused to remain in a nation that they believed was turning them into second–class citizens by stripping away their Constutitional right--a "state's right"-- to owning slaves. Southerners feared Lincoln and a majority Northern party “would attempt to remake Southerners in the image of the North”. Coulter (1950) p. 13. But the division of the country was already almost complete except for the government framework. Southerners in the great majority churches, Methodists and Baptists, had already divided, and the last political unifier crumbled with the Democratic party in 1860. Coulter (1950) p.18. The Southern Commercial Convention which had begun annual meetings in the 1850s, was transformed from economic and commercial agendas to extreme southern rights proclamations by editors and politicians. Potter, p. 396-397. The only thing remaining was for secessionists to divide the nation along slave-holding lines without consent of Congress.

Despite protests that slaves were contented and loyal, “the white South could never for a moment rid itself of the fear of insurrection”. In the face of over 200 reports of slave “revolts” in the American South, they built a social system designed a system to prevent it, including militias and nightly patrols. Potter, p. 452 The southern reaction to the anti-slavery movement was a fear of what abolitionists might persuade slaves to do. Potter, p. 454 While protection of slavery was the "mighty force" which underpinned secession, “...more powerful than slavery was the Negro himself…the fear of what would ultimately happen…the danger of the South becoming another San Domingo,” or at least were slaves ever to be emancipated, loss of non-slaveholder racial status and social standing. Coulter (1950) p. 8-10. During the 1850s the “spirit of southernism” continued to grow, and even those southerners who were themselves Unionists were prepared to defend other southerners who wanted to leave. Potter, p. 462.

II. causes of sectional division. During the campaign for president in 1860, radical secessionists threatened disunion should Lincoln be elected. Freehling, (1990) p. 398. Even before his inauguration, a Lincoln victory presented Southern secessionists with a momentous choice. In their eyes, it was "The Union without slavery, or slavery without the Union.” Craven, (1953) p. 366. And any secession would never lead to war, because no Yankee could be made into a soldier. Coulter (1950) p.14. The question became whether the slaveholding society would be safer inside the Union or outside in a new Confederacy. As long as the North and South were fairly equal in economic and political power and slavery had been immune from serious attack, there could be reasonable harmony, but the sections were no longer evenly balanced. Potter, p. 474-476. Since the Mexican War, Wisconsin, California, Minnesota and Oregon had entered the Union as free states without balancing slave-holding states for Senate seats, and the Senate would confirm future Supreme Court justices.

The legitimacy of the Union in the South was impacted immediately after the John Brown's raid on Harpers Ferry of October 1859, a year before presidential election. Northern abolitionists had financed an attempt at servile insurrection. An enemy, proclaimed by the Atlanta “Confederacy”, was anyone “who does not boldly declare that he believes African slavery to be a social, moral and political blessing”. But if Southerners believed themselves to be a friendless minority within the Union, they had an internal solidarity. Potter p. 382-383. The Democratic party had been increasingly dominated in Congress by "militant southerners who dealt freely in threats of disunion,” and these now split the national Democratic party. Potter, p. 414-416. In the presidential election, Lincoln the Republican won an electoral majority in the North alone, while Breckinridge the Southern Democrat won the second place in the South alone by splitting the 55% majority opposing him who voted for Bell and Douglas throughout the slave states. In political structure, a thirty-year era of bi-sectional parties came to an end. The process of national polarization was nearly complete. Potter, p. 442, 447.

III. secession declarations. When Southern fears of a northern ascendancy came at last with Lincoln's election, they were not yet united in southern nationalism either to secede by individual states, or to advance an alternative republic. “But they were united by a sense of terrible danger”, united in a determination to defend slavery against moralistic attacks of abolitionism and to gain recognition as status as decent, respectable human beings holding an inferior race in perpetual slavery. Potter, p.478 The southerner had learned to accept an interpretation of the Constitution at variance from that held in the North, a conception of states each as politically autonomous from the nation, and so obtaining political state sovereignty and a right to singular secession. Some alternatively read the Declaration of Independence so as to not require “a long train of abuses”, but merely the anticipated threat to justify a "right to revolution". Even southern Unionists agreed in secession as a theoretical right in one way or another. And Southerners generally believed that “no state should be forced to remain in the Union”. Potter, p. 479, 482-484 In the event, most Southerners believed that their national citizenship came through state citizenship, so even those who had been Unionists for their state until secession resolves gave up their opposition as the crisis unfolded, or be counted men without a country. Coulter (1950) p. 17

The South Carolina Program promising union of the slave-holding states before Lincoln’s inauguration was backed by fifty-two commissioners from South Carolina, Alabama, Mississippi, Georgia and Louisiana. They pressed state legislatures in every slave-holding state to resolve immediate secession. Thomas (1979) p.43. Every one of the first seven states forming the Confederacy had authorized a sovereign convention before South Carolina’s secession. Just before the South Carolina convention, a large number of Southern Congressional delegations signed a manifesto in Washington, declaring the argument over union was exhausted, that “the sole and primary aim of each slaveholding State ought to be its speedy and absolute separation from an unnatural and hostile Union”. Coulter (1950) p. 2. Following the enactment of the Provisional Confederate States Constitution by the first seven states, Fort Sumter became an emotional symbol, both for Federal authority and for Confederate “integrity, existence, and independence”. Coulter (1950) p. 38. Most Americans hesitating at war had their loyalties clarified at the firing on Fort Sumter. But especially important for the states which had not yet seceded was Lincoln’s call for 75,000 militia from the governor of each state. For most Southerners, even for most of the Upper South Unionists, the choice for secession had been made easier. Secession resolutions from Virginia, Arkansas, Tennessee and North Carolina followed. Coulter (1950) p. 39.

This stays generally inside my target for word count, getting on the long side, but again, commentary is invited. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:19, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Texas v. White[edit]

1. @Texasreb: The issue of a) perpetual Union explicitly declared in the Articles of Confederation, and b) the nullity of any prospective confederation between two or more states explicitly denied to the states in the Constitution's more perfect Union, --- are "settled law”.

2. The Union is not moot, --- secession is moot. It does not matter how reasonable an argument for secession may be, it is moot because in the United States “settled law” decrees that the Union is perpetual under the Constitution as written.

3. Texas v. White is the Supreme Court case cited by most reliable sources for the determination that secession is unconstitutional in law. This article includes two of those reliable sources. Unsourced copyedits should not be made to contradict their meaning. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:36, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

1. Sorry, VA, but this point has been hashed and rehashed. Repeating the same arguments on both our sides does nothing to settle a question that has been and likely will be discussed and debated forever. Do you think there are not people on both side of this issue? As in the applicability of the AOC when it was replaced by the Constitution? See No. 3 for more on this aspect. .
2. This is pure POV (which is fine on a talk page, far as that goes), but the point you seem to miss -- or just won't accept -- is that the issue of Union or secession, was not the one before the SCOTUS. Therefore, since it wasn't, any rulings not related to the issue of bond sales (the one before the court), was dicta and ex-post-facto. Second, a concerns SCOTUS rulings, "moot" they will not accept one until after the fact, itself. And heck, if the Southern states seceded, then they were bound by no ruling the former made, simply for that they were no longer in it. And also, a 5-3 majority is hardly overwhelming; have you ever read the dissenting opinions?
3. I agree with you on one narrow realm in this point. Yes, I should have sourced the material for my edit, and plan to re-write and correct this oversight. As an aside here, I repeat again, it makes no sense at all that the American colonies granted the status of individual, sovereign, STATES -- would have entered into a federation/confederation -- after having just seceded from England -- with the principal that government derives its powers solely from the consent of the governed -- would have gotten into another that repudiated the same, and that they could never get out of. Also, I might mention that a clause to the constitution offered which would explicitly forbid secession, was soundly defeated during the formation of the same. But anyway, we are just going over old ground...
3a. Two things. Secession can never be "moot" in the larger sense, as it cannot be settled by a court of law -- especially after the fact -- but only force of arms...which is exactly what the northern states did for monetary reasons. Also, it seems kinda funny you should make a spurious distinction between the accusation that I "censor" the posts of other's, but can't look at the history of how mine have been eliminated and censored as well. Matter of fact, if you go back thru the history of this post, you will find (and it wasn't me), that this section has a consistent history of being re-written, edited, and outright censored. I never tried to re-word anybody's post, but only to add some long-neglected information giving what is quite obvious...the historical controversy. TexasReb (talk) 06:26, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
You have almost got it right, stating many things which are true although your conclusions are not completely correct, which is why I continue to take your arguments seriously, even when we disagree. Let’s look at Michael C. Dorf, in his No Litmus Test: law versus politics in the twenty-first century, Rowman & Littlefield, 2006, p. 82-83. Dorf is a professor of law at Columbia University School of Law, editor and co-author. He clerked for both Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy and Judge Stephen Reinhardt of the Ninth Circuit. Dorf wrote:
The military resolution of the secession question was then given legal force by the U.S. Supreme Court in the 1868 case of Texas v. White. The Court ruled that even Texas—an independent republic before it joined the Union in 1845—had no right to secede. “The Constitution,” the Court said, “in all its provisions, looks to an indestructible Union, composed of indestructible States.”
In this regard, Texas v. White is settled law. It stands for the proposition that the Constitution prohibits unilateral secession. What does Texas v. White have to say about secession by mutual agreement? … Texas v. White, strongly implied that it would be possible for one or more states to leave the Union with the consent of the Union as a whole.
I am afraid your plumbing the depths of Supreme Court dicta and ex-post facto is original research. Both Articles and Constitution are clear, no constitutional alteration of the federal compact can be attempted without the consent of Congress, "the door swings one way" as Dorf would have it. Your online cite is a start to find an alternative perspective which can be admitted here, perhaps they have WP:RELIABLE SOURCE to back up their posting, an academic journal or peer reviewed published book. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:45, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Let me become the 4th editor to revert the changes to this section. I agree that it s entirely original research and adding a footnote to an opinion piece from a political website written by a person who is neither a constitutional scholar nor an historian does not change that. The claim was added that, "This case has been a topic of controversy among many historians and legal scholars over the years." If that were actually true, then it should be no great problem to quote actual "historians and legal scholars" to support the claim.
What is especially bizarre is the claim that the case is an "ex post facto case." All Supreme Court decisions are based on events and laws that have already occurred. In this case, the decision was based on the Court's interpretation of the Constitution, the supreme law of the land. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 16:41, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
The logic used to eliminate and revert information presented related to another viewpoint is nothing more than an obvious bias on the part of certain editors whom I otherwise respect -- seemingly -- would rather see it not presented. I have gone as far as I am going to go in attempting to compromise on this particular point, and it will be reverted (albeit with certain minor changes). If a compromise cannot be reached and both sides of the argument presented, then the entire section of Texas v. White should be taken out (or perhaps moved elsewhere). Apparently, NorthTom, you choose to ignore that all SCOTUS decisions are NOT based on precedent, as SCOTUS sometimes overrule previous decisions, and also take up original questions. And, in any event, the case at hand was not based on any events/laws that had already occurred in the sense of stare-decisis (let the decision stand, as you know), as the subject of secession directly had never come before the court before. Further, the dissenting opinion made clear (IMO)that not only was jurisdiction over the case at issue to hear it to begin with, but that the issue involved bond sales; not secession. Thus, it was dicta, and ex post facto combined when it comes to the secession question. In other words, the issue of the bond sales was an original question accepted by the court, but secession itself was moot by then (due to force of arms crushing it) and would not have been accepted at all. So far as it "should be no problem to quote" historians and legal scholars who disagree with the ruling, is a bizarre argument in its own realm. I don't see how anyone can not know that it is a controversial decision. Some things are just too obvious to think otherwise. They would be too numerous -- from both angles -- to possibly list. In any event, the credentials for the writer of the piece is Cory Genelin, who can be accessed at And it should go without saying that the dissenting opinion is extremely relevant (see more below on "original research" aspect) TexasReb (talk) 12:33, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Cory Genelin, the source named here, does not cite Constitutional law as one of his specialties. The online posting does not have the advantage of editorial oversight for the source. As Rjensen called for, some scholarly journal would be appropriate.
From WP:RELIABLE SOURCES, "Articles should rely on secondary sources whenever possible. For example, a review article, monograph, or textbook is better than a primary research paper. When relying on primary sources, extreme caution is advised: Wikipedians should never interpret the content of primary sources for themselves. See Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view." TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 05:26, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Some scholarly journal cites are fine, but it still begs a question. That is, the double-standard used by some editors here, as to why the secession aspect of the case is being cited as established law, when it was not the direct issue before the court. I realize that many northern historians/apologists seize upon this dicta to justify their outlook on the war, but that is all it is. Dicta. And it matters little that Genelin did not specifically mention constitutional law as one of his specialties, because it must have been in some ways or else he would not have been hired to do the review itself. Also, his analysis is the primary source would have been the opinion itself (including the dissenting)which was by no means insignificant and obviously relevant. Far as that goes, any SCOTUS opinion will, by necessity, involve the consolidation of previous original research of its own. So there are likely several generations of regression here which exclude it from being primary research. How can one argue against that fact?

Anyway, as far as my own use of Genelin's outline? I was interpreting nothing at all. It was merely supporting a fact I presented that should be obvious to anyone who is a student of "Civil War" history...which is that there is controversy. Not only with the legalities of secession, but the Texas v. White decision. As I pointed out in an earlier post, some things are so obvious that a blind man should be able to see them. Hell, this is indicated by the dissenting opinion itself (which was also taken out). Bottom line is, to ask for more sources is one thing, to totally eliminate another editors contribution -- which I have not done in the least with others -- is quite another. The only conclusion I can come to is that -- on some levels -- it threatens their own premises.

Let's be real, most of the sources cited to support the position of some of the above editors do not come from "scholarly journals" either. Anyway, on a lighter note? We who take the position that the South had the best arguments on its side, are used to being outnumbered. But numerical advantage in this realm matters not if Wiki rules are not violated. And in this case, if anything, the violations are on the part of those who wipe out obvious facts for the seeming reason they can't stand them presented. One easy example is the taking out of the numerical ruling of the SCOTUS. Now why in the world is that irrelevant? Makes no sense at all... TexasReb (talk) 13:33, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Your most recent "source". From Amazon on the author Robert F. Hawes (not Hayes): "A self-described "Jeffersonian," Robert Hawes is a life-long student of history, politics, religion and philosophy, and believes very strongly that no people will ever remain strong and free who allow others to do their thinking for them. Robert is a graduate of Pensacola Christian College and currently works in the I.T. field. Originally from Fairfax County, Virginia, he now lives in South Carolina with his wife Betty and their two children." The publisher? Fultus Corporation -- a vanity press. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 22:06, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
"Paid for" legal services are not "peer reviewed". But I like the general idea of including something on the dissenting opinion at Texas v. White at the end of the passage. I think you will find that there is no controversy in reliable sources subsequent to the Supreme Court at Texas v. White, which held that secession is illegal under the Constitution, both as dicta and in the specific resolution of the case. Secession is moot, the Union is not.
That is individual states cannot lawfully withdraw without constitutional amendment --- without some process approved by Congress --- allowing states to get out of the nation perhaps by the same percentages as getting into the Constitution, three-fourths, on equal footing with the original thirteen,.
Tom Northshoreman, introduced to me some years ago by his reverting my unsourced edit, will insist on a well sourced copyedit, as will Rjensen. Would you try out language here at Talk with a proposed source before further mainspace edits? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 17:25, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
The three dissenting Justices do not dispute the most significant finding that secession was illegal. In fact, Justice Grier wrote the decision in the Prize Cases which supported Lincoln in treating the war as a rebellion rather than a contest between two independent nations. The significance of the dissents relate to the nature of the government of reconstruction Texas. The political controversy generated concerned Reconstruction policy rather than any feelings about "ex post facto cases" or it just being a "bond case". Discussion of these reconstruction issues goes beyond the scope of this article -- only the finding of illegality is relevant to this article. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 20:01, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Ex post facto?[edit]

“Ex post facto” may be a gloss to suppose the revolutionaries in the Constitutional Convention did not know to craft constitutional clauses to take away the means of sedition in the states against the United States, in particular where the machinery of an entire state might be subverted by those disloyal to the Constitution. But they did.

Article I, section 10. "No State shall enter into any ... Confederation; ...No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, ... and all such Laws [passed by a state legislature] shall be subject to the Revision and Control of the Congress. —even if a state starts first before Congress acts. "...No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, ... keep Troops, or Ships of War ..., enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, — even if a state starts first before Congress acts. Article VI. "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States ... shall be the supreme Law of the Land; ... any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.” — even if a state starts first before Congress acts.

— "anything in the Constitution or Laws of any state" includes unilateral state resolutions of secession without consent of Congress. In the event, all of these things prohibited states on entering the Union were attempted in rebellion without consent of Congress. But they were explicitly forbidden in the Constitution before the attempts in 1860-1861. There is no “ex post facto” to it, as Texas v. White explains, according to reliable sources cited here and in the article. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 18:01, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

To kinda cover all the above (and I have said this before), the Confederate Constitution had the very same Articles in them. BUT...they are only valid if and only if the states remain part of the Union in question. This is where we are talking past each other and proceeding from different premises. Obviously, you believe there was no power for any state to secede, and obviously I do as it was not forbidden (and an amendment to actually make it so was soundly defeated), and the federal government had no authority to use force to coerce any state. Whether secession was wise or foolish, rash or carefully considered, or justified or unjustified is immaterial.
On a related tangent, your argument that the AOC using "perpetual union" and that the Constitution using the phrase "more perfect Union" is the one Salmon Chase used to imply a continuity(and to say he was not slanted and influenced by his personal views is really stretching it LOL). But thing is, the CSA document used the even stronger phrase of "permanent"...but it would be ludicrous for any of the Southern states to have agreed to such a thing when it meant binding them to a central government forever. Same as that to think the American colonies -- after just seceded from England -- would have done anything likewise, particularly when the whole concept was based on the DOI foundation of that government derives is powers from the consent of the governed. The preambles of all of them boil down to that -- just as when a club is formed -- the members hope it will be forever -- or why else form it? -- but nothing prohibits leaving if they feel it is no longer for them. Otherwise it is neither a Confederacy nor Union in the proper sense of the word, which by nature means voluntary. Otherwise the said members have no check whatsoever on a tyranny. There would be no limits at all on what the central government could do...
It might also be mentioned that SCOTUS decisions -- as you know -- have the power of law only if they can be enforced. Jackson and Lincoln both ignored this when decisions didn't go their way (which were direct issues before the court). So consider, if SCOTUS had ruled the other way in the Texas v. White case, would you make the same argument from the other direction as concerns secession? Or if Congress had declared the ruling null and void? What it seems to amount to (in addition to the ex post facto aspect) is that the supreme authority on all questions reside in the opinions of unelected judges, whose opinions may be changed by future courts easily. That just doesn't jib at all with the system of checks and balances.
Actually, as it is, we are both beating a dead horse here and it settles nothing besides having an interesting discussion! LOL. We have discussed/debated the issue of secession before, extensively. And all the case you lay out above have been covered. I know where you (and NT) stand, on secession, and y'all know where I stand, and there is no need to repeat them all (as they can be found in the Archives). The source provided was from a legal scholar hired to review the case, and was improperly removed. At some point, every source furnished for anything on Wiki was original research. The point is, I did not do the original research, which negates the Wiki rules. Hell, I can label anything I disagree with as "original research" and go back far enough and it is. But anyway, the author of the piece is an attorney for a legal firm in Minnosota named Cory Genelin and can be looked up on line. But mainly, please show me where secession is "explicitly forbidden" in the constitution? With all due respect, this is the weakest argument you have made yet; and I say this as one who absolutely respects your opinions and -- as you say -- even when I disagree with them. TexasReb (talk) 12:33, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Regardless of how much I enjoy our discussion, the difficulty with your recent copyedits at Texas v. White has to do with finding a reliable source to support an alternative interpretation of the case, — the issue for this article is not with the vagaries of judges in the court system. There is a reason Jefferson believed in his (Republican) Congress and resented Marshall’s (Federalist) court. But we sort it out without rebellion.
If secession were legal, the contracts which secession legislatures declared void would be void, but the contracts were not found void in U.S. courts because secession is not legal. On the other hand, state police functions during the rebellion such as marriages were accepted with full faith and credit in U.S. courts, the states being indestructible. A neat threading of the needle for those who would have a Union after the Civil War.
Well, you and I are agreed there is a right to revolution when there is a long train of abuses subverting personal liberties by a tyrannical government. But the checks and balances entered into voluntarily to limit abuses by states and national government are not a legitimate cause of revolution. In the Constitution, the procedures for constitutional changes must be approved by 2/3 Congress and then 3/4 the states, unless there is a Constitutional Convention called directly by 2/3 the states to be approved by 3/4 the states. The first seven states of the Confederacy refused to attend the Peace Conference called by Virginia to consider calling a Constitutional Convention of all the states. The issue was not to be decided by constitutional protections, it was to be decided by war.
And in the event, there was no long train of abuses, no specifics could be listed as charges against the Lincoln administration to subvert individual rights to slaves in the states. A nation-state is not a club, you have been reading too much Thoreau. Were the nation a contract among the states, then the parties must agree to end the contract by procedures as provided in the contract, the Constitution. Just so we are not talking past one another entirely, Have you an reference for a vote against denying secession? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 05:48, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Copy edits? Surely you jest. To include the fact of the vote of the SCOTUS is not a "copy edit". Why was that taken out? Does it perhaps state a fact, and let readers know that this vote was far from unanimous? On the other hand, eliminating entire passages of my presentation is much more than a copy edit, it is outright censorship...of the type you accused me of earlier, of which I only did some re-writing and polishing; the same as every editor on here has done on one article or another when they believe important information should be added for neutrality.
As relates, you are presuming that secession would have to involve a total change in the constitution. I don't accept that, as it would not involve a change in the original constitution, as there was no provision that it was ever unconstitutional at all. If so, please cite the source for your earlier assertion -- other than your own POV -- that there was ever anything specifically forbidding it, and where was the power given to the federal government (which was only delegated to it, not surrendered to it)? You are arguing from result.
Here again, we are talking past each other (although loosely agreeing on certain things). To start from the bottom? Your position presumes certain things that are (IMO) and all due respect, quite simplistic. That is, that slavery alone was the underlying cause of the War. Yes, it had a role, but as even the original states of the CSA made clear, there were other reasons as well, and all were wrapped up into one another. Also (and I am not a fan of Thoreau! LOL), but you assume I accept the "contract" theory of the Union, whereas I subscribe to the "compact" version, as did Jefferson and Madison. So that is one example of disagreement, and it was by no means unusual at the time, even among many northern politicians. Also, what do you mean by a vote against secession...? That can be easily looked up. In every case, a majority of the Southern states, made their wishes clear by either elected officials, convention, or popular referendum...or all three. As far as abuses go? The Southern states with some 25% of the population were paying roughly 75% of the tax money, and the same being spent on northern interests. This had long been a festering point, and it finally blew up.
The first "peace conference" was actually an offer on the part of the Confederacy, for the intention of an amicable relationship between the two nations. The South offered to negotiate a mutual beneficial treaty between the two, which would include an economic and defensive relationship, and open up the Mississippi River for free trade and navigation. But Lincoln put them off on one pretest or another (because he needed the South's tax money). All the South wanted was to be left alone and go its own way in peace, as Davis' said in his inauguration address.
Finally, I am going to once again advance the suggestion, that if compromise on wording and relevant content cannot be reached? Then the whole of the sub-article should be taken out until it can be. Otherwise, this will remain a point of dispute until the cows come home! But I better quit here, as I gotta get to work soon! LOL TexasReb (talk) 13:33, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Google scholar gives 2000 citations for Texas v White in the scholarly literature. There is no controversy that Texasreb claims--he needs solid evidence for his extreme neo-Confederate fringe views. see on the historiography Belz, Herman. "Deep-Conviction Jurisprudence and Texas v. White: A Comment on G. Edward White's Historicist Interpretation of Chief Justice Chase." N. Ky. L. Rev. 21 (1993): 117.; on the fringe views see Paulsen, James W. "If at First You Don't Secede: Ten Reasons Why the Republic of Texas Movement Is Wrong." S. Tex. L. Rev. 38 (1997): 801.; for a free online scholarly summary of what the bonds were all about (from back in 1915) see esp p 360ff . Rjensen (talk) 16:31, 28 August 2014 (UTC)