Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: RERomine

It gets a little wild sometimes, but it is good. Be glad we live in a country where we can freely voice our opinions and not find outselves in front of a wall looking as some very determined gentlemen with rifles. Every opinion, even differing ones are worth something.

Hey, is your "William Moultrie" a "pen name" for this forum or is it really your name? If so, are you related to the Revolutionary War general William Moultrie?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Santee Mtd Rifleman I am actually just a simple Jones of Scots-Irish, French Huguenot (Mouzon, not Moultrie) and Welsh descent. In other words, your typical American mutt! :-)


William Moultrie

quote:

ORIGINAL: Santee Mtd Rifleman
Also for the record, I think we Americans are supremely lucky that the Union prevailed in the War of Northern Aggression. I'm very proud of my State, I'm Palmetto through and through, but I do believe Providence has always been on the side of the United States, right or wrong. In 1860, I would have put on the gray and gone off to defend my beloved South Carolina against all enemies, foreign or domestic. Today, I would consider the thought of bearing arms against the United States to be a vile, treasonous act not worthy of a patriot. Times, and wars, change ideas! IMO, it was an act of the Almighty that the South lost, and one of the greatest gifts to a people in the history of human freedom was when She furled the banner of secession and bowed to the Union once and for all.

quote:


"William Moultrie" is only pen name. He was one of my State's first heroes, first Colonel of our finest Revolutionary War regiment (Second SC Regt of Foot), defender of my Island, and father of our flag. I am actually just a simple Jones of Scots-Irish, French Huguenot (Mouzon, not Moultrie) and Welsh descent. In other words, your typical American mutt! :-)


William Moultrie

quote:

ORIGINAL: RERomine

The first is no one, other than the Confederacy itself, considered the South to be another country. I believe England and France considered the Civil War to be an internal problem to the United States.

quote:

ORIGINAL: RERomine
Yes, I've heard of eminent domain and there is a process. It varies some from state to state, but it doesn't starts with, "WE WANT IT, GET OUT". The first step is to negotiate the prices, if the seller is willing to sell. For sake of argument, we can conclude the Federal Government made it very clear they didn't want to sell. Hearings are then held to deteremine if the property is required for public use. Again, we can conclude South Carolina would have found this to be the case. Then South Carolina would have determined a fair market value of the property and this amount would be paid and the title transferred. Therein lies the rub. No fair market price was ever established and certainly no payment rendered other than steel. Appeals may take place at the end of the process.

All that aside, I don't believe State courts can seize Federal property under eminent domain laws. The simple fact is their was a fort in Charleston Harbor that South Carolina deemed a threat and wanted it. This I understand, but there weren't any laws existed that gives them legal rights to it. Rebellion is a sometimes violent process where people break away from parent nation. It all depends on how the parent country reacts to this. There is no international court of law where a country can go and declare their independence. If this was the case, Taiwan would have done that a long time ago. They act independent, up to and including having their own military, but no one officially recognizes them because China has made it clear they do not view they as independent and would consider any foreign recognition an act of war. Military threats have the ability to veto right.

We could go all day long on the legal aspects of rebellion and get nowhere. Courts interpret and enforce laws and often they don't agree. There are many things in life that are right, but illegal. Was the legal for the colonies to break away from England? I'm sure England felt it was not. Was it right for the colonies to break away? For them, they felt it was, just as the people of South Carolina felt it was right for them. I didn't live then and don't know how they felt. Through books, I can read how they felt, but I can't feel it anymore than I can feel how people thought about Pearl Harbor.

quote:

We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal, that they are endowed, by their Creator, with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Reiryc

quote:

ORIGINAL: Twotribes


As to Rieryc, can you read?

Yes, I can read. This is why I'm asking you for specifics.

quote:


Have you READ the Constitution?

Yes I have, many times.

quote:

Are you asking me to write here the provisions so clearly stated in the Constitution?

Yes I am.

quote:

If so why?

It's your argument and thus your responsibility to back up.
{snip}

quote:

ORIGINAL: Murat
I was going to quote Two Tribes but he has left reality so in short:

1] get a law degree. I worked hard to get mine.

quote:


2] International law as it existed at the time was followed by South Carolina in seceeding and in reclaiming all property from the US, research it.

quote:


3] As for getting reimbursed for property previously owned that had been seized, the US made treaties to handle such circumstances (Britain and the Oregon Territories for example) both prior to the War and after it.

quote:


4] There is an International Court of Justice in the Hague today. Each of the 5 permanent members f the UN Security Council has veto power over its cases. The US does not grant it jurisdiction over any matters wherein the US would be a party but much of the rest of the world uses it.

quote:


5] Taiwan was recognized by the US for quite a while, now they are in limbo. China would veto any case in the Hague by Taiwan involving independence.

quote:


6] As to what right South Carolina (and others) have to seceed, look no further than the Declaration of Independence (Recognized along with the US Constitution, Articles of Confederation, and the Common Law as being the Supreme Law of the Land by the US Supreme Court in 1803):

quote:

quote:

We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal, that they are endowed, by their Creator, with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

This is still in effect today although I think none would use it but an extremely few who could be handled by local police without much difficulty.

ALSO South Carolina almost seceeded in 1832 (Nullification Crisis), but President Jackson invaded then too and we relented (but got most of our concerns addressed in the Tariff of 1833).

quote:

ORIGINAL: Murat
Completely wrong. Britain and France did not want war with the US while the US seemed strong which is what Lincoln told them would happen if they recognized the CSA so they did acts short of war to aid the CSA, and may have gone to war if they found a way to gain from it so long as the CSA was winning.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Twotribes
You people amaze me... you can not on one hand say the federal Government had Authority and power over the States ( as they CLEARLY do) and in the same breath say "well until the State decides to just leave the Union."

quote:

ORIGINAL: Twotribes
Every State JOINED knowing they gave away rights, powers, authority and control on a host of Issues. The document does not have to say they couldnt leave, it is clearly the intent and implied by the entire list of enumerated powers.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Greyshaft

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jonathan Palfrey
I was replying to Twotribes, who keeps claiming that secession is unthinkable because it would 'negate' (his word) all the powers of the US government. Therefore I tried to point out that it is possible for US citizens to quit the USA and leave its jurisdiction -- by emigrating -- without, apparently, negating the powers of the US government. If they can quit the USA in one way, it shouldn't be unthinkable for them to quit in another way.

You are mixing two concepts here.

I agree that a citizen of the USA can renounce his citizenship. However the individual states are not citizens. They have rights which the citizens do not have (and vice versa). The laws which deal with renouncing citizenship are quite different from those which deal with the relationship of the states to the Federal government.

quote:

ORIGINAL: RERomine

Half wrong, the offical policy was one of neutrality, with belligerent rights granted to both sides. This policy obviously effected the Confederacy more than it effected the Union. While neither France nor England was willing to go to war with the United States over this issue, although England would have over the Trent Affair.

While England didn't formally support the Confederacy, they did turn a blind eye on occasion (or the activity was just well hidden) to activity that supported them.

quote:

They were required by an internation court (not positive where the case was heard) to pay some reparations to the United States for shipping sunk by vessels built in England.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Twotribes

And they were WRONG. It has already been posted here that the question came up before the Constitution was even written whether a state could leave or not and the clear answer was NO.

quote:

The Bill of Rights was drafted from nearly 200 proposed amendments, yet NOT one was drafted that dealt with documenting this claim that a State could just negate all federal Authority through out the Constitution by simply say " We dont wanna play anymore"

quote:

Once again one must completely IGNORE the powers granted to the Federal Government, must IGNORE the statements that Federal law supercedes State law, must IGNORE the 10th Amendment to lay claim to a right of a State to leave the Union any time it felt like it.

One doesnt grant power to some entity and then say "well unless I dont want you to do that today" There is no "ignore the Federal Government" clause in the Constitution.

There is in fact no need for the 10th Amendment if all one need do is leave the Union if the federal Government does something you dont like. Why state the States and the people retain those powers not granted to the Federal Government IF all it takes is to just say " we quit"?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Twotribes

And they were WRONG. It has already been posted here that the question came up before the Constitution was even written whether a state could leave or not and the clear answer was NO.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Greyshaft

quote:

ORIGINAL: Twotribes

And they were WRONG. It has already been posted here that the question came up before the Constitution was even written whether a state could leave or not and the clear answer was NO.

Please quote the post. I do not recall it. OTOH I did post an extract from Virginia's ratification of the Constitution which stated the opposite ie Virginia declared they were only joining the Union on the condition that they could secede if they so desired.

It seems to me suh, that you are a fabricator of false references

quote:

ORIGINAL: Strelets
For an exhaustive (and exhausting) discussion of the legalities of the matter from the Southern perspective, I strongly recommend the following, written by a Southern lawyer after the war (he evidently had a lot of time on his hands): http://www.civilwarhome.com/secessionjustification.htm

quote:

ORIGINAL: Greyshaft

quote:

ORIGINAL: Twotribes

And they were WRONG. It has already been posted here that the question came up before the Constitution was even written whether a state could leave or not and the clear answer was NO.

Please quote the post. I do not recall it. OTOH I did post an extract from Virginia's ratification of the Constitution which stated the opposite ie Virginia declared they were only joining the Union on the condition that they could secede if they so desired.

It seems to me suh, that you are a fabricator of false references

quote:

ORIGINAL: RERomine
As I've mentioned before, arguing the legality of the situation seems pointless. Even if the Constitution had spelled out in big bold letters SECESSION IS ILLEGAL, I believe it wouldn't have altered events one bit.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Twotribes

Calling me a liar ehh... I suggest before you trot down that path you reread this thread.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Twotribes

Lets see, so far I have been called a liar, ...

quote:

ORIGINAL: Twotribes

Meanwhile I have people insist that I write verbattem the Constitution for them cause they cant find any enumerated powers in it ...

quote:

ORIGINAL: Twotribes

I keep getting told the Document doesnt STATE " You cant leave the Union" and getting demands to provide such a statement....

quote:

ORIGINAL: Twotribes

While it is true the purpose of the 10th is to place a restriction on the federal Government, it CLEARLY indicates the Federal Government is superior ...

quote:

ORIGINAL: RERomine
As I've mentioned before, arguing the legality of the situation seems pointless. Even if the Constitution had spelled out in big bold letters SECESSION IS ILLEGAL, I believe it wouldn't have altered events one bit. The sequence of events probably would have played out pretty much the way it did. On the other hand, if it said in big bold letters SECESSION IS LEGAL, there probably wouldn't have been a war. In fact, the country probably would have splintered long before 1860.

quote:

AMENDMENT XIV

Passed by Congress June 13, 1866. Ratified July 9, 1868.

Note: Article I, section 2, of the Constitution was modified by section 2 of the 14th amendment.

Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Section 2.
Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age,* and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

Section 3.
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section 4.
The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section 5.
The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Twotribes

Every State JOINED knowing they gave away rights, powers , authority and control on a host of Issues.

quote:


The document does not have to say they couldnt leave, it is clearly the intent and implied by the entire list of enumerated powers.

quote:


And prior to 1860 no insurrection or rebellion was tolerated.

quote:


And AFTER the fact we have settled the question.

quote:


Once again I dont need to cite any specific line or paragraph, the entire Document applies. Every power enumerated in the Articles of I, II and III prevent a State from simply leaving the Union cause they want to. Article IV further clarifies the loss of power for the States.

quote:


Article VI provides an Oath of Office that clearly indicates ones loyalty is to the Constitution not ones State.

quote:


Amendment X clearly states that those powers that are federal can NOT be usurped by the States. Again that would be all the Enumerated powers in Article I, II and III as well as the prohobitions listed in Article IV.

quote:


The entire Bill of Rights was to appease the People and States, yet NO where is any mention of a right to leave the Union even brouched. Instead there is Amendment X that states Federal Power is Supreme.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Twotribes


Meanwhile I have people insist that I write verbattem the Constitution for them cause they cant find any enumerated powers in it ( Again I suggest you try Article I, II and III) and cant grasp that States willingly gave up power when they joined the Union ( the aforementioned Articles plus article IV and of course the 10th amendment)

quote:


Having informed these people I can not paste or copy on this board I must assume their desire is one of symantics, they want to claim a "victory" because I didnt rewrite the document for them, rather just directed them to the applicable parts.

quote:


I keep getting told the Document doesnt STATE " You cant leave the Union" and getting demands to provide such a statement.... Yet when I ask these same people to explain what good is an enumerated power that clearly restricts the "soveriegn" State and that specifically places the federal Government as the senior, superior Government, if all one must do is say " I quit" I get no response or that tired old saw " well as an Individual I can..."

quote:


What I really like is those trying to use the 10th Amendment to claim a right that doesnt exsist. While it is true the purpose of the 10th is to place a restriction on the federal Government, it CLEARLY indicates the Federal Government is superior and that the powers granted the Federal Government can NOT be overturned by the States. Yet we have the claim that JUST that can happen if the State just says " I quit"

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jonathan Palfrey
Yes, I appreciate that the legal details are different. I didn't say that secession is the same as emigration. I just pointed out that they're the same in one respect: that the people who do one or the other are choosing not to belong to their original country any more. If they can make this choice by emigrating, without causing any fuss, it seems a little odd to me that making the same choice by way of secession causes such a huge fuss.

quote:

ORIGINAL: AU Tiger
I am hardly a legal scholar, so I ask those who are: Does this amendment imply that prior to this amendment, secession was a valid option?

quote:

ORIGINAL: RERomine
Legal and people aspects aside, I think most countries look at secession as lost of territory, resources and a possible defense risk. They don't seem to care if the people just get up and leave, because they know more people, loyal to the current goverment will just move in.