Talk:Confederate States of America/Archive 15

Archive 10

←

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

→

Archive 20

new article needed on state resolutions

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 [1]. 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

I've started roughing out an article based on the above discussion -- see [2]. 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

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)

Origins of the Confederacy summary

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

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)

Infobox. Anti-partyist and Non-partisan democratic

@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)

Texas v. White

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 http://www.gislason.com/Our-People/Cory-A-Genelin.shtml 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 secondary...as 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)

So? It makes no difference where it was published, if the case itself is solid. You are just pretty much resorting to an ad homonym attack, because you (obviously), would rather not deal with the argument itself. Hell, I really don't blame you given your desperation to censor the opposing viewpoint, which is absolutely necessary in any article of encyclopedic quality. That seems to matter little to you, though... TexasReb (talk) 17:31, 1 September 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)

Thanks Virginia Historian. Even though we profoundly disagree on this topic, you seem to be only one who maintains a semblance of neutrality when it comes to content as to this particular sub-topic. Interesting you should mention Dorf, as I am going to add his article as a source. But as to your suggestion, reasonable as it comes across, I fear that nothing I provide is going to satisfy certain editors who -- for whatever reason -- do not want the fact that there is disputation, to be known. That is the only way I can figure it. Not for the least of reasons being that it seems one does not even want the basics of the dissenting opinion presented. There can be no other way to explain it, that I know of. I can actually understand questioning the validity of certain sources, but it is absolutely unfathomable that a synopsis of the dissenting opinion would not be considered legitimate. TexasReb (talk) 18:42, 1 September 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)

North Shore Tom? This is nothing but your own attempt to eliminate anything which goes against your pro-northern bias. And "pfffft" on your warnings. I can issue warnings the same way and stand on better ground because I have not eliminated nor censored another editors information and sources. You are not a moderator nor the senior editor here, no matter how many colorful ribbons you award yourself. I have not violated any Wiki rules at all. Again, you are simply desperate to disallow anything that disputes your own vision. By the way, you can soon expect, on the "Slavery in the United States" article, a sub-section which outlines the actual slave trade itself, and how it was firmly in northern hands and profited on by the same. Of course, I am sure you will try and censor that one as well...LOL

Regardless, Your objections to the inclusion of the dissenting opinion are on the flimsiest of grounds and your saying otherwise doesn't change it. So run off to mommie and report me if you want (as I said, I could do the same, but I don't operate that way). In any event, it won't change the concrete truth that this decision needs the airing of both sides, one iota; it would be nothing more that censorship of the worst sort to think otherwise. Let readers make up their own minds. I won't be intimidated into silence, least of all by you...who has their own reputation for using biased accounts and sources, and has been called out on it before. TexasReb (talk) 16:10, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Ex post facto?

“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 http://www.jstor.org/stable/30234655 esp p 360ff . Rjensen (talk) 16:31, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

You seem a little desperate, Rjenson. WOW! If you honestly think some scholarly source is needed to substantiate that not only the War itself but the Texas v. White decision is not a subject of historical controversy, then welllll, I got the proverbial swamp land in Arizona and Brooklyn Bridge for sale. LOL But seriously, as Wiki rules even say, no source is necessarily needed for something that ought to be a generally known truth. To be frank, this argument of yours otherwise is rather silly. And even original research is not categorically prohibited, but just to something to be treated very gingerly; as it should be. Regardless, the article presented it no original research, just an analysis of a SCOTUS opinion by a lawyer whose credentials are solid. And also, just because an attorney does not list a specialty as "constitutional law" doesn't mean s/he has no expertise in the area. Hell, I majored in political science of the pre-law variety, and even I had to take two courses in "Constitutional Law", and brief a few cases. So I would just bet on solid ground that this practicing attorney had to have done farrrr and beyond that. And to argue a case before SCOTUS does not require a degree in "Constitutional Law" (there probably isn't any such thing, anyway). As to the "neo-Confederate" comment? LOL I would expect better from you, Rjensen. I believe the South had the best constitutional arguments on its side, but that is just that. So what? *shrug* Of course if that translates into being "neo-Confederate" (whatever the hell that means), then ok, I am. But whatever. Censoring the opposing viewpoints on the most spurious grounds are really just that. Perhaps there might be some merit in the matter of sources (perhaps, mind you), but that does not take away in the least that it is extremely important for readers (if Wiki is to have an unbiased content) to know both sides. And to eliminate the summation of the dissenting opinion is simply beyond belief and any possible justification. I am not going to be "shouted down" because some here want to do so. TexasReb (talk) 17:11, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

No the lawyer you depend on is not a rfeliable source on the Constitution. (He leaves out constitutional law when listing the two dozen fields he can handle). As for your extreme hostile tone tone, you can't seem to appreciate what an encyclopedia is, or what experts are. That verges on serious disruptive behavior. Rjensen (talk) 17:15, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

There is no "hostile tone" about it on my part, only on yours. You are not always this way, but you seem to regard yourself in this instance in the same way NorthShoreTom does. That is, the alpha and omega of what is or isn't allowed. If you regard disagreement as "hostility", then I respectfully suggest you are overly sensitive. I have said nothing at all in a hateful tone to you or anyone else, and it is ridiculous to say I did. Funny that when I am attacked it is ok, but when I respond in kind it is not, and considered hostility. Geez! TexasReb (talk) 17:51, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm afraid that every single edit by TexasReb has been in violation of the spirit of Wikipedia. He has not comes up with a single constructive suggestion. His few flimsy sources are very bad and unencyclopedic. Rjensen (talk) 18:00, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

So says you, Rjensen. And I am not going to keep this silly playground/pissing contest up any longer. If you cannot honestly see the value in presenting the obvious fact the decision is not disputed, then there is not much more to say. So I leave it with you to shut me down if you (or anyone else) wants...but it doesn't change a damn thing. If you think the outline of the dissenting opinion is "unencyclopedic" then this is very telling. Even though I disagree with Virginia Historian, he seems to be the only one who has a neutral attitude in general.TexasReb (talk) 20:24, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

How to include Grier's dissent?

There is no legal controversy, the Union is settled law; secession is moot. Assertions to the effect that secession is legitimate under the present constitution is WP:FRINGE. Were Texas Reb to take a procedural housekeeping breath, he might consider my effort at a reconciling his interest of restating the de facto rebellion in Texas by noting Justice Grier’s dissent in Texas v. White. (I regret that Paulsen's article "If at first you don't seceded: ten reasons..." seems available only for $20-30 online. I would appreciate a link to a summary review if it is available...it looks promisingly persuasive as recommended by Rjensen).

Footnote proposed wording for this article:

Justice Grier's dissent in the case hinged on the political fact that in his view, over the preceding eight years, Texas was first found to be in rebellion by Congress without Congressional representation, then it had been administered as a military district without self governance. Grier wrote, "Politically, Texas is not a State in this Union. Whether rightfully out of it or not is a question not before the court.” He considered all else a “judicial fiction”. cite: Texas v. White, Legal Information Institute online, Cornell University Law School, viewed August 28, 2014.

But because no mainstream reliable source gives the three dissents any shrift at all, nor does the dissent reappear in Supreme Court jurisprudence to my knowledge, the dissent at Texas v. White only merits a footnote, were a consensus formed to include it. My primary objection early on was that Texas Reb's copy edits seemed to be attributed to the sources cited, when the dissent does not seem to be mentioned there. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 18:37, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

But the thing is, VA, that the dissent is specifically mentioned. In any event, with certain reservations, your general proposal is not at all unreasonable. I would certainly be willing to entertain it with adequate discussion aforehand... TexasReb (talk) 20:20, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

But you are muddying the waters by insisting in article mainspace 3RR on a) your adding commentary about legal controversy when there is none, --- the Union is settled law and secession is moot, not actual; theoretical; hypothetical. --- and b) your adding language questioning the legitimacy of the Court, which Grier did not do, he merely stated he could not join the majority. This has got to be handled on the Talk page if any part of your agenda is going to be adopted in consensus. It cannot be done by 3RR on the article page. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:21, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

No, you are reading something into it that isn't there. SCOTUS is not a law-making body, it is -- by the constitution -- intended to interpret the law. Now, I could possibly agree that "controvery" may not be the quite the right term (and I can correct that easily), but to say that Texas v. White is "settled law" is simply using dicta to -- in a way -- overshadow what the actual case before the court was. I cannot emphasize it enough...secession was not the issue before the court. Therefore, anything used to reach that conclusion has no value in terms of a legal standing. And too, secession is one of those things that exist outside a court ruling. If a people feel the need -- as did the American colonists -- to declare their independence, then no court ruling is going to make any difference. Secession is the ultimate check on tyranny.

But anyway, I guess as a point of comparison, to use a familiar case? In Brown v. Topeka, the issue before the court was segregation in schools. Ok, regardless of the logic used to reach the decision, the dicta directly related to the final ruling and did not involve a retroactive opinion. In the Texas v. White case, a Lincoln packed court could hardly be impartial on the matter, as to say otherwise would have repudiated the ridiculous logic they had used all along to justify an invasion of the South, which wanted nothing more than to go its own way in peace.

Now, I realize I am outnumbered here. We Southern partisans are used to that, LOL, so I really don't care and I can deal with it. And I hasten to add I am very proud to be a citizen of the United States of America, and that my state and region are a part of it, the best part, far as that goes in terms of old fashioned patriotism...but that doesn't extend to the point of accepting the winners version of the conflict, and seeing some editors attempt to censor it. All I am trying to do is give relevant information to the sub-article. I simply fail to see why that some get some so worked up over adding such. And further, reporting me and attempting to shut balance down does nothing but confirm that some just can't stand anything that goes against their pro-northern bias...at least I am honest enough to state forthright I make no bones about where I stand on it all. But I haven't tried to erase any other editor's contribution, no reason to. It is valid, and it belongs. But at the same time, so does the vote and the dissenting opinion and its rationale, as well as what the actual issue before the court was. Makes no sense. And, as an addendum, I have to say that I can't feel anything but a bit of contempt for those (I mention no names), who run to report someone for the most trivial of reasons, rather than truly engaging in discussion that truly involves listening to the other side rather than being locked into their own arrogant box.

Ok, I have rambled enough. Just to wind it up by saying, your presentation is reasonable and I could easily go along with it, generally speaking, if the actual vote is mentioned and the actual issue presented. Seems fair to me, don't you think?

TexasReb, much of what you have said here I would enjoy discussing on your Talk page. Here, let’s look at Texas v. White and the proposed passage you would amend. In Texas v. White, Texas the state is held indestructible, therefore Texas had standing to sue in the Supreme Court in original jurisdiction, and under the Constitution Texas was awarded the bonds back with no payment required to White. In Reconstruction the Texas taxpayers did not have to pay on the bonds because they were issued illegally for an illegal purpose.

The group who purported to sell the bonds were the secessionist legislature, secession is held illegal. They sold the bonds for the purposes of financing a rebellion, rebellion is held illegal. That is, part of the Texas v. White reasoning was dicta, and part was reasoning for the decision on the bonds. Secession was held to be illegal according to the Constitution both in dicta and in the holding for the decision. The Supreme Court does explain the meaning of the national law in cases that come before it, when an issue is ripe for national resolution by interpretation of the supreme law of the land: the Constitution, Acts of Congress and Treaties. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk)

First of all, I am a bit unsure -- I admit -- how to limit this to a private talk page. So forgive me if I post it here first. But that would be great to confine it to private talk, so let me know if this one came out to you on the said page and, if so, we can take it there for sure!

Anyway, sorry VA, but we are beginning to talk in circles and proceeding from different premises. There was nothing in the Constitution that forbade secession and nothing at all in it that gave the federal government the power to use force to prevent it. That is really the bottom line far as I am concerned. But we obviously disagree on that score. And no, I am not arguing for secession at this moment, I really don't know where this came from. But I DO believe it is the ultimate check on a tyrannical central government and if it is erased, then it is check, checkmate, and match; there is no limit to what the central government can do.

Further, perhaps most importantly, there is no way -- I don't really see how anyone can argue differently -- that the American colonies (recognized as sovereign states by the Treaty of Paris), would have entered into a Union that they knew they could never get out of. It makes not the slightest bit of sense, especially given that the DOI had a basic premise that the powers of the government are derived from the consent of the governed. C'mon, VA, I don't see how you could possibly dispute this one. And I am not saying that the secession of the original lower South states was not foolhardy, rash, and unwise (many a good Southern man thought so) -- it may or may not have been -- but it was not unconstitutional.

The figure on the tariffs? It comes directly from the sources. In fact, we have discussed this one before (see the archives talk). The North controlled the House of Representatives and that is where budget bills originate, and how to spend the money. 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. Anyway, here is the section in question about the tariffs as well as a link.

http://www.ashevilletribune.com/archives/censored-truths/Morrill%20Tariff.html

It is simply outrageous to say that the South was not paying a disproportionate share of the tariffs. And that while much of federal revenues were spent on mutual defense, of that spent domestically? It was overwhelmingly spent on northern interests. such as on canals, roads, railroads, etc, which greatly benefited northern industry and interests.

Yes, 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. You can look them up for yourself. The blunt truth is, that slavery simply became -- in a later day -- an excuse to provide moral cover for what was really an unjustified invasion of a people who had done them no wrong, and wanted nothing more than to go their own way in peace. What other reason could the North (Lincoln administration, specifically) have had for invading the South?

To free the slaves? Oh BS, and likewise with some idealistic idea to "preserve the Union" with no other ulterior motive at hand. They wanted to keep the South's tax money, and while the flash point was certainly the issue of slavery in the western territories, it was not for moralistic reasons, it was because they didn't want blacks in the said territories. As Lincoln said himself: 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.

Yes, I will find that source that shows at one time it was proposed that secession be specifically made illegal, but it was voted down. I will get it to you as soon as possible. But you are -- intentionally or not -- mis-stating my words. I never said it was intended to be "outlawed." What I said was that an amendment was proposed to specifically outlaw it, and it was voted down. But again, I will find it for you. And once again as well, your argument concerning the Constitution of the United States forbidding states entering into treaties and etc, is -- with all due respect -- grasping at straws.

They are totally dependent upon your own point of view that secession was unconstitutional from the start. And obviously I don't buy that at all. As I have said before, what you say holds true if and only if the states in question remain in the Union. If they secede, then they are no longer bound by those rules. And too -- as has been said before as well -- the Confederate Constitution has the exact same clauses in it.

And it is absurd to the max to think that the intention was anything other than forbidding a member state to make its own treaties while a part of the said federation/confederacy. And further, the CSA preamble spoke of a desire to create a permanent government...which was actually stronger language than in the old Union Constitution (largely written by Southern men). Anything otherwise would have actually made less sense -- given their recent secession -- than that the American colonies would get into a Union they couldn't get out of, regardless of circumstances. Both simply stated a truism; it holds true only if they are member states. But here we come to loggerheads.

Anyway, I am sure there is more, but right now, I gotta hit the sack and get ready for work tomorrow. We can continue later. And again, yes, this is best continued on a private talk page! So let me know if it came thru over there. Just gotta make sure I am doing it right! LOL Best and respectful regards! TexasReb (talk) 03:31, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

While I'll deign not to weigh in on the issues, IMHO, TexasReb's discussion is straying into the arena of WP:FORUM, that is, discussing the subject (and other editors) instead of the pagespace. The opinions of Wikipedia editors are only as useful in pagespace as the reliable sources presented to back them up. I will volunteer I'd be hard pressed to find anyone in the American History wiki-community who has over the long haul demonstrated more respect for the relevant sources than Rjensen, a historiographer by profession. I also thought TheVirginiaHistorian's explanation above was quite clear and well-considered. If TexasReb wants to pursue this discussion privately, TheVirginiaHistorian's talk page can be found here. BusterD (talk) 04:27, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

The confusion on the part of Texas Reb stems in part from a deficiency in the first sentence of the article. It should read, “…the Confederacy, was a secessionist government established in an 1861 rebellion by seven slave states…"

Federalist No.25. (Mentor ed. p.163) …the state governments will too naturally be prone to a rivalship with that of the Union, the foundation of which will be the love of power; and that in any contest … the people will be most apt to unite with their local government ... The framers … fully aware of the dangers to the Union from the separate possession of military forces by the States ["to subvert the constitutional authority of the Union"], have in express terms prohibited them from having either ships or troops, unless with the consent of Congress.

Federalist No.26. p.173. ...Few persons will be so visionary as seriously to contend that military forces ought not to be raised to quell a rebellion… No.27. p.175. …The hope of impunity is a strong incitement to sedition … but [a seditious faction] can hardly be so infatuated as to imagine itself a match for the combined efforts of the Union.

Federalist No.28.p.178. That there may happen cases in which the national government may be necessitated to resort to force cannot be denied….[in] seditions and insurrections… there could be no remedy but force. The means to be employed must be proportionate to the extent of the mischief. …If … the insurrection should pervade a whole state,…the employment of a different kind of force [than militias] might be unavoidable…[such as a large standing army]...

Recall in response to the Jefferson Davis call up of 100,000 to rebellion, Lincoln called up of 75,000 militia proportioned among the states, to secure federal property ceded by state legislatures to the federal government, to include coastal forts. At the same time Lincoln withdrew postal service, federal judges and U.S. marshals from the South to avoid incitement to rebellion. But those initial measures did not prove proportionate to the emergency. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 06:56, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

To VH. Uhhh, this sentence of yours on the talk page: The confusion on the part of Texas Reb stems in part from a deficiency in the first sentence of the article. It should read, “…the Confederacy, was a secessionist government established in an 1861 rebellion by seven slave states…" is nothing less than a pure POV that has no application whatsoever. I honestly don't even know how you could advance something so POV and absolutely ridiculous as concerns an encyclopedic article and site. But ok, at least you posted it on the talk page...which of course is fine! TexasReb (talk) 06:17, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Abandoning hope?

I have given up hope of including Grier’s dissent for the moment, unless another editor would like to carry it forward. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 06:56, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

@Texasreb: But in any event, the language needs to be hammered out here in consensus at Talk, not in 3RR edit wars on the mainspace page. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:17, 9 September 2014 (UTC)