This is due on Wednesday, November 10th.
1. Read in For the Record, "South Carolina's Ordinance of Secession and Declaration of Independence" pp. 520- 524.
2. Comment on the blog if you agree with the reasons South Carolina gave for leaving the Union.
Conor Helfrich
ReplyDeleteThe Declaration declaring the independence of South Carolina was well thought out and well written, and even had passion and belief. However, just because it contained all of these things does not make it right. I disagree with the reasons South Carolina gave for leaving the Union. Times change-- as we discussed in class, the founding fathers put off the topic of slavery so they could have the Union, knowing that it would have to be dealt with at some point. This is the point in which the U.S is dealing with the issue, and at the displeasure of the South. All of Europe abolished slavery, showing that the successful and prosperous countries did not use slaves anymore, and America needed to get on that track. In this Declaration, the South complains about the North's view of slavery, "They have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery." Southern people do not even think having slaves is wrong, and think the North rude for having bad thoughts towards it. The South's view reached the point where it was too misconstrued and someone needed to set it straight. Honest Abe was the man for the job, saying, "government cannot endure permanently half slave, half free." Lincoln knew a choice had to be made, and that choice was going to be against slavery. South Carolina saw that slavery was reaching its end, and was frightened by the realization that they would have to grow their own crops or work in their own fields-- so they complained with their well-written list of grievances, which I interpreted to be an embarassment of the state. They didn't get their way, so they left. They should have realized that the abolishment of slavery was coming much earlier so that they could have been ready to make their money a different way. Running away from your problems is never a good solution.
The largest point South Carolina made in the justification for ceding from the United States was the "law of compact"(p.522). They believed that the failure of one party to hold up a compact between two parties, dissolves the obligation of the other. As the declaration continues, South Carolina gives examples such as those in Helf's post. I personally don't believe that this is reason enough to cede from the Country, but as we discussed in class, from an unbiased perspective, it proves to be a strong rationale. The north's disregard of the Fugitive State Law, a law passed by the Federal Government, could be seen as a disregard of the Constitution, and therefore a betrayal of the ideals, compacts, and fundamentals thereof.
ReplyDeleteSouth Carolina was justified in seceding from the Union. The Constitution was a contract which all of the states entered into when they signed it. One stipulation of this compact was that a person of labor who escaped from one state to another would not be discharged from labor and would be returned to their master. The northern states blatantly disregarded this stipulation. The individual states passed laws which opposed the constitution whose law is the supreme rule of the land. A compact requires that all involved parties act to uphold the rules agreed upon. The northern states’ actions went against part of the constitution and therefore nullified the compact releasing the southern states from their constitutional obligations. Since other states would not see the situation the same way, South Carolina felt obliged to write an ordinance of secession to explain that they did not have to honor the rules of the compact if other parties would not.
ReplyDeleteChase Conklin
ReplyDeleteSouth Carolina gave justified reasons for seceding from the Union, stating that they joined the United Sates as states who independently agreed to the compact that was the Constitution. They argued that the North had elected a President that who intended to disrupt their way of life. Citing the Declaration of Independence, they justified their secession. “Whenever any form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government…” They argued that the North was destroying their rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and in doing so, gave South Carolina the right to leave the Union and establish a government of their own. To them, the purpose of the government of the United States has been defeated, and they therefore were able to separate themselves from it. Quoting the Articles of Confederation: “each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence,” they argued that they have the right to be free from the Union that they had previously pledged their allegiance.
Nate,
ReplyDeleteSouth Carolina decided whether the Union had broken this "compact", and could use this excuse whenever they so pleased. It is in all reality an underhanded attempt at faulting the North for their secession, as they blamed the North for electing a President destructive to their desires and called that a breach of the "compact" that the states had made. The people of the United States made and agreed to the Constitution, not the individual states, and therefore any individual state should not have the right to secede.
Chase, I agree with what you said. The sectionalism within the United States at that time was pronounced that no matter who was elected president one party would find the government to be acting or have the potential to act in a dangerous and destructive manner. It happened that the North succeeded in electing their candidate so the South felt threatened. They directly quoted the Declaration of Independence written by Thomas Jefferson because southerners felt that they were in a similar situation except now the body in power was the Federal Government which had a head who was not concerned with the upkeep of the southerners' way of life. Like the colonist before them, the southerners had the right to change their government when it became destructive towards things, such as the institution of slavery, it was intended to protect.
ReplyDeleteConnor,
ReplyDeleteI agree that South Carolina had the right to secede from the nation from a literal standpoint. Given the extent of sectionalism during this period in time, there was almost no other option available to them other than to remove themselves from the Constitution. This being said however, do you personally feel that seceding was the right course of action at this time? Was it possible that the differences between the North and the South could have been resolved without the South leaving the nation?
South Carolina’s declaration of succession from the Union was a justified action to be taken. When signing the compact to join the Union, South Carolina willingly modified their own state constitution to conform to the new constitutional rules. However, the actions of certain, primarily northern, states, which they felt infringed upon their rights, was a sign of betrayal to South Carolina. Their intention in entering the Union was to overall benefit their situation, but when they felt that some states were disregarding certain laws that were passed, the effectiveness of the compact was greatly diminished, leaving South Carolina skeptical. The main breach in the Constitution of the northern states was that slaves were workers in the South, and it was a constitutional law that workers of one state escaping to another had to be returned to work in their original state, yet northerners who found slaves did not return them to their original state. South Carolina felt that the way of life being created by an increasingly sectionalized Union was depriving their ability to make decisions as a state for their state. A betrayal on the compact, which was intended to be mutual, but was failed to be upheld, lead South Carolina to a justifiable secession.
ReplyDeleteSean
ReplyDeleteConnor, I agree that South Carolina felt that the northerners blatant disregard of the law about labor directly infringed the compact they created together. A compact was signed, and in the eyes of South Carolina, the northerners weren't following it, which as you said "nullified the compact releasing the southern states from their constitutional obligations." South Carolina took the stance that the Constitution was created for the states and not the people; so an important question to ask about whether they were justified is: were the true intentions of the Constitution to fulfill the state's rights or the people's rights?
South Carolina had the complete right to withdraw from the Union. They voluntarily joined the United States under the Constitution and specifically with a principle that stated “the right of people to abolish a government when it becomes destructive of the ends for which it was established.” The people of South Carolina felt that the government and the Northern states of the Union were being destructive towards the prosperity of their state and therefore, under the rules of the Constitution, South Carolina had to the right to secede. South Carolina also noted that under the Constitution there was a law that persons held to service or labor under another that ran away into another state would be returned to the person who is owed the service. The Northern states were ignoring part of the Constitution that bound the Union together and South Carolina expected mutual obedience of the laws of the terms of the Constitution. Because of this disobedience South Carolina was released from its bond with the Union and could leave voluntarily when ever they so pleased. So, South Carolina had perfectly legitimate and just reasons to leave the Union.
ReplyDeleteIn an unbiased way i understand South Carolina's reasoning in seperateing from the union. However i did not see this as right. They signed the constitution and agrred to be a part of the united states of America and therefore support the nations ideas and actions. South Carolina acted selfishly in declaring their independence and they didnt think about how it would the country as a whole.They disregarded the reasons for joining the union and signing the constitution."'to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, provide for the common defense, protect the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and prosperity.'" the government could not possibly succeed while being half free and half slave states,. the entire country needs to agree that abolishing slavery is the logical and just thing to do. also the excecutive branch and decisions of the common government need to be trusted by the entire union.If all states agreed with each other and didn't only think as independent states then the sectionalism would stop and the civil war would not have had to benn started.
ReplyDeleteI agree that although it seems wrong on the basis that the country was name the "United" States that one state may cede from the country. As decided by the colonies however was "the right of a state to govern itself, and the right of a people to abolish a government when it becomes destructive of ends for which it was instituted." (page 522) The south viewed the acts of the soon to be abolishing of slavery to be destructive to the very roots of the south's economy and no longer served its purpose to help the country prosper. They had the right to cede as Nate mentioned due to "The Law of Compact". "..the failure of one of the contracting parties to perform a material part of the agreement entirely released the obligation of the other..where no arbiter is appointed, each party is remitted to his own judgment to determine the fact of failure with all its consequences." There was no liaison within the country therefore it was left up to each state or party to decide whether or not to stay or leave the union. The only argument that the north had against the south’s decision to leave is that they were committing a crime against the country and were committing treason.
ReplyDeleteHelf, I agree with you that south carolina did not have good enough reasons to leave the Union. Slavery was no longer needed to be successful and it was moraly wrong. The country had to go one way or the other in order to be united and strong. the best way to go was to abolish slavery, the rest of the world already firgured it out and so did a lot of the united states.
ReplyDeleteSean, I agree with you the North Carolina joined the Union for the overall benefit of their situation and had rights to withdraw if they didn't feel like that was the case. The current government was creating a increasingly sectionalized Union as you said but did this sectionalism come from the North's disrespect of the South's culture and desires or the South refusing to leave behind their crude traditions and adapt to the progression of the modern world. However, I also agree that North was causing part of the problem by refusing to assist in the returning of slaves back to their masters who they ran away from. This was a serious act of betrayal on the North's part and they deserved to have some punishment put on them for the disrespect and attack on the South.
ReplyDeleteBoyd Green
ReplyDeleteSouth Carolina separated from the United States stating legitimate reasons. The Declaration of the Causes used the same reasoning that the colonists used to justify their independence from Britain. The colonists said that they were justified to separate if “a government becomes destructive of the ends for which it was instituted. “ South Carolina repeated this reasoning, stating that the north had united under a president that intended to abolish slaver. However immoral slavery was, the south had a point. Half of the country and now the most powerful man in the U.S. (Abraham Lincoln) were ready united in destroying the southern economy, in the eyes of the southerners. Granted, slavery is morally wrong, and it can also be argued that it only hurt the economy. However, the south truly believed that slavery was morally right, and that it was necessary for the success of the economy. If the colonists created the U.S. for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, the south now had reason to leave. They argued that now the federal government was prohibiting them from freedom and their property. While slavery is hypocritical in regards to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, South Carolina’s reasoning is not. If the Declaration of Independence states that the people have a right to abolish a government if it cannot do what it was built to do, then the south are justified in separating. However, do not be confused. Abraham Lincoln was correct in his fight to abolish slavery. It was immoral and incredibly inhumane. I am not denying that. I am simply saying that because Abraham and the North followed their conscience, it gave reason for the South to separate.
Helf,
ReplyDeleteI see what you're trying to say, however I feel that you are off a little. Abraham Lincoln did have a choice to be made. He was correct to say that it could no longer remain half slave, half free. He would later abolish slavery, and it was the correct choice. It was for the better of the country and I agree with you on that. However, the south could use that to argue that he was not doing it for their best interest. Slavery was basically their whole economy. The government was set up to help and protect them, not hurt it. So while I agree that the country could no longer continue as a divided nation, I also think that the south had reason, however immorally wrong it was, to declare independence from the United States of America.
I do not agree with the reasons that South Carolina gave for leaving the Union. I feel that they were on the verge of being unreasonable because they were unwilling to make any kind of compromise or even stay long enough to see if Lincoln's government was fair for all states. South Carolina was unhappy with the election of Abraham Lincoln, mainly because he was a Republican. Being a slave state, they feared that he would try to abolish slavery, since he declared that "government cannot endure permanently half slave, half free" (For the Record, p. 523). South Carolina believed that once the south is excluded from the common territory, the guarantees of the constitution would no longer exist, and therefore the slave states would no longer have the power of self-government or self-protection (p. 523). This reasoning is legitimate, yet selfish. They are part of the United States and should work to be united, not create sectionalism by refusing to cut back on slavery.
ReplyDeleteBoyd,
ReplyDeleteFor the most part I agree with you. Slaves were considered property, which citizens of the United States were entitled to having and protecting. However, you said that "the south truly believed that slavery was morally right". I'm assuming, well actually hoping, that many southerners knew that what they were doing wasn't morally right. They simply believed that African Americans were not close to the same status as they were. Do you think the southerners had any idea of how unethical their actions were?
Gabe
ReplyDeleteThe Southern states were indeed justified in seceding from the union. If we can say that they were not justified, then we have no justification in breaking off from Britain and creating the nation in the first place. There were different points of view, and we clearly state in the opening lines to our Declaration of Independence that when there are conflicting views, a separation can and must be made. People's views were adamant, and they would not back down. The southerners would never give up slavery completely, because they firmly believed they were their property. Although by today's standards this is unjust, however in those times, slaves were indeed considered property. It is like if you are living in your household, and your parents all of a sudden decide to stop feeding you. You need food to survive, as the South needed slaves to prosper. Eventually after realizing that no compromises can be made, you need to try something else. The South took this step and seceded from the union. It was very important that they did following Lincoln's election because instead of boiling up even more conflicting rights, they finally acted instead of planned. Most of the South's reasons to secede were legitimate by the standards of those times.
Sean,
ReplyDeleteI agree that you believe that the South was justified for the reason you stated, that they were being betrayed by the Northern states. It is not the case that the Northern states simply passed biased anti-slavery laws, but they passed many compromises through congress to try and please both sides of the argument. Although it looked fair on paper, the North end did not hold up on their end. The south could only go on for so long before the frustration of having a one-way agreement would become unbearable. If the Southern states decided to bring their slaves to California for instance which is a free state, the North would feel cheated and violated. However if a Northern person failed to report a fugitive slave, it went unnoticed. It was an unbalanced compromise from the beginning, because the North was unable to keep their word.