A Letter from James Madison to Us Written in 1834

[ltorlo64]

The anti-federalists were opposed to much of what was included in the constitution. Surely the country did not stand unanimously, assuming that no state would ever have a desire to exit the union, especially when so many were fearful of the constitution's support of a strong federal government leading to Tyranny.

The interesting and cool thing about the Anti-federalists was that after the ratification debates when the Constitution was ratified they became, for the most part, supporters of the Constitution, serving in Congress and in various posts with distinction.

Does the pragmatic need for a stable union supersede the supremacy of the 10'th amendment, or is this sort of like the elastic clause, in which the constitution is assumed to support certain powers that remained unnamed?

No, but the intent of that amendment was also not to nullify the constituted condition (out of many one) that had been voted on by the citizens of the country.

It has been my understanding that the fort was fired upon by local miscreants, not an illegal state army. If secession is legal, which was the view of the state, then the federal government had no claim to any forts in the Charleston harbor.

I thought the miscreants were part of a state militia. T2K also provided interesting information about the supply ship. As I have stated, secession was not prevented but they have to get permission from the other states that it had constituted with. In the Confederation they could leave, under the Constitution they had to work with the same states that had agreed to become one with them to determine how they would leave.

I would argue that regardless of constitutionality, this represented a dangerous concentration of executive power that was grossly misused during and after the war. Unfortunately future presidents have and will continue to emulate Lincoln's use of execute powers during tumultuous times.

Don't necessarily disagree.

Additionally, I can't help but wonder if this would be a perfect example of exactly what the anti-federalists were fearful of during the ratification of the constitution.

While I haven't read all the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers, I don't think so. After the War for Independence the inability of the confederation to get money to pay debts and to get all the states to provide soldiers for the common protection was something a driving reason behind the states constituting, even for the Anti-Federalists.

I do remember that a common criticism of Lincoln was that his argument shifted between the south being a collection of states in rebellion and the south being a foreign enemy nation depending on how he intended to use executive power.

I could see both terms. The South was in rebellion and they set up another government making them, by default, an enemy nation as well.

I understand the pragmatic benefits of the constitution over a loose confederacy, and I certainly would never try to claim that the confederate states were somehow the greater defenders of liberty when their states maintained the "right" of keeping human chattel, however I would ask what is the real purpose of the constitution if it is going to sacrifice individual rights and the diffusion of government power in favor of maintaining its own authority? Were the horrors of the civil war and its aftermath worth it to maintain the stability of the political union of states

Additionally, I'd like to point out that it seems as if the modern state of the union has essentially verified the legitimacy of the fears of the anti-federalists and the secessionists. If that is the case, I believe Lincoln should be given credit for propelling the US in that direction with his concentration of executive powers and growth of the power of the federal government.

There were definitely some undesired consequences from Lincoln's actions. I am not sure that allowing the country to split apart would not have resulted in worse crimes and the loss of more rights than what has happened. But Lincoln's actions definitely strengthened the federal government which was something that the Founders, both Federalists and Anti-Federalists (Alexander Hamilton being a notable exception) were not in favor of.

[T2K]

Without a doubt, the firing on Sumter was done through the proper chain of command that existed at that time (Jefferson Davis -> Governor Pickens -> General Beauregard).
I repeat that I feel it was a mistake. In fact, Sumter would have surrendered fairly soon had we just left it alone. Then the US would have been, beyond a shadow of a doubt, the aggressor and invader.

[ltorlo64]

Without a doubt, the firing on Sumter was done through the proper chain of command that existed at that time (Jefferson Davis -> Governor Pickens -> General Beauregard).
I repeat that I feel it was a mistake. In fact, Sumter would have surrendered fairly soon had we just left it alone. Then the US would have been, beyond a shadow of a doubt, the aggressor and invader.

If Fort Sumter was required to surrender, even without shots being fired, I am not sure how that would be less of a violation of the Constitution that South Carolina had voted for. It would still have been an act of rebellion against the United States. Now, it is possible that without shooting it would have led the Congress to vote to allow South Carolina to leave, but it was still rebellion, treason and sedition.

[T2K]

"... it was still rebellion, treason and sedition." - Yes, just like signing the US Declaration of Independence would have been if Great Britain had won.

The winners get to make the final decision. If Lenin had failed against the Czar in 1917 there would never have been any statues of him, either. History was ever thus.

However, I am speaking in terms of the practical realities of 1861. The firing on Sumter played into the hands of those in the USA who supported invasion of the CSA. There were many who did not, and not firing on Sumter, but instead allowing Major Anderson to surrender peacefully and return to the USA, would have aided the cause of peaceful secession.

[ltorlo64]

"... it was still rebellion, treason and sedition." - Yes, just like signing the US Declaration of Independence would have been if Great Britain had won.

The winners get to make the final decision. If Lenin had failed against the Czar in 1917 there would never have been any statues of him, either. History was ever thus.

However, I am speaking in terms of the practical realities of 1861. The firing on Sumter played into the hands of those in the USA who supported invasion of the CSA. There were many who did not, and not firing on Sumter, but instead allowing Major Anderson to surrender peacefully and return to the USA, would have aided the cause of peaceful secession.

Actually, signing the Declaration was rebellion, treason, and sedition and the men that signed the Declaration knew it. They may not teach it in school anymore but it was no secret that they were rebelling and had already rebelled at Lexington and Concord.

I do agree with you assertion that if shots had not been fired it is very possible that a peaceful separation might have occurred.

[T2K]

Yes, we agree. My point was the same - if you win it gets taught at righteous revolution. If not - HANG, TRAITOR!

And we also agree that July 4, 1776 was just formalities. We were in open rebellion against GB from 1775. The Royal Governor of South Carolina, for instance, had to live on a British warship in the harbor. That was true of other colonies also. He was later mortally wounded in the June 28, 1776 attack on Charleston as he commanded one of the gundecks of a British warship.

[FunkyPertwee]

The Royal Governor of South Carolina, for instance, had to live on a British warship in the harbor. That was true of other colonies also. He was later mortally wounded in the June 28, 1776 attack on Charleston as he commanded one of the gundecks of a British warship.

Good for his ass! I love hearing about Charleston kick ass in history.

I believe I remember reading about some British that were unfamiliar with the local terrain and got washed out to sea at Folly, and whenever I watch the movie Glory, I have to cheer for SC at the end when all the main characters get wasted on Morris Island.