RE: Secession, right or wrong?

RE: Secession, right or wrong? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [American Civil War] >> Forge of Freedom: The American Civil War 1861-1865

Message

Jonathan Palfrey -> RE: Secession, right or wrong? (11/16/2006 7:14:02 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Raverdave Just to toss a spanner in the works............should not we be calling this the second civil war? Call it the third if you like: the English Civil War came first.

RERomine -> RE: Secession, right or wrong? (11/16/2006 7:19:59 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Grotius Much the same set of rules may apply in American constitutional law. The U.S. Supreme Court has held, in a post-Civil War case, that states can't unilaterally secede from the Union, which the Court described as "indissoluble." But that decision might not preclude secession by mutual agreement. That strikes me as a liveable compromise. Being after the war, the Supreme Court decision would have been influenced by the fact that a war had been fought over the issue. If it was within 10 years or so after the end of the war, the court would have certainly been dominated by justices from Northern states, further effecting their decision. Twotribes is raising in greater depth the point I mentioned before with reference to powers granted to the Federal government by the U.S. Constitution. The act of secession interferes with the powers, thus the question of legality. Sure, nowhere in the Constitution does it say a state can or cannot secede in so many words. It is implied that secession is illegal. The often referenced to the 10th Amendment isn't a free pass out of the Union: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. First, it indicates the Constitution has the power to prohibit powers to states. This basically means it has power of the states. Not a big problem because the power it has was approved by all the states to begin with. They wouldn't be states if they hadn't. Here is one nifty little prohibition I found: No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay. Second, it says the states may exercise powers not reserved to the Federal government. The implied is states may not interfere with those powers. Again approved by the states when the ratified the Constitution. The explicit includes things like states may not maintain a navy or coin money. There are lots of others as well. It seems to me, the Confederate states violated their legal agreement to the U.S. Constitution in many areas. Twotribes also brought up the reference in the other thread to Treason. All Confederate soldiers and officers would have been subject to United States laws governing treason had General Grant's terms to General Lee not removed that possibilty. The terms said they could go home "...not to be disturbed by the United States authorities so long as they observe their paroles and the laws in force where they may reside." Obviously, all this is nothing more than my opinion. Were I a judge, it might be worth something on this topic, but I'm not. Want to ask me questions about computer programs, I can give you a professional opinion on those. I also charge a fee [:D]

AU Tiger_MatrixForum -> RE: Secession, right or wrong? (11/16/2006 7:22:14 AM)
quote: Jonathan Paltrey quote: ORIGINAL: Oldguard You keep trying to make the point that secession was illegal. I responded to you once in the other thread, pointing out that the Constitution never says a word (then OR now) about the right to secede but now you're back again trying to throw the same assertions against the wall - they're still not sticking. The basis for claiming that the South did not have the legal right to secede is solely based on the fact that the North won the war. Period. It's no different than if we'd lost the Revolution and the British could claim we had no right to declare our independence -- as callous and superficial as it may sound, there's truth to the fact that the victors write history, not the losers. If the South had won, Southern history books would never claim it was an illegal war. I agree with you about all this. quote: ORIGINAL: Oldguard The issue of representation was not important until the tax rates were jacked so high. As far as I know, tax rates in Britain's American colonies were very low and remained very low. The colonists objected even to the very low taxes they were asked to pay. And arguably, without representation, they were entitled to object; but I don't think it's right to say that the taxes were ever high. The first point: Ditto The second point: I am hardly a scholar of the First American Revolution, but I believe a large part of the discontent was involved in trade policies regarding the colonies and mother England, AND a lack of specie in the colonies. Concerning my second point, even if taxes are low, if you live in a barter economy, any tax is considered onerous because you have no cash to pay the tax with. Concerning my first point, England had instituted very harsh (from the colonial point of view) trade policies whereas all incoming trade to the colonies had to be funneled through England and also all imports were required to pass through the same. As I recall, blackmarket enterprise via primarily the Dutch had introduced goods into the colonies at a much cheaper price, and the various tax acts of the time were designed to stamp (pun not intended) out the alter-economy, thereby increasing the cost of living substantially. Once again, I am hardly an authority on the period, this is merely what I recall from the mists of time.

AU Tiger_MatrixForum -> RE: Secession, right or wrong? (11/16/2006 7:26:36 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jonathan Palfrey quote: ORIGINAL: Raverdave Just to toss a spanner in the works............should not we be calling this the second civil war? Call it the third if you like: the English Civil War came first. Fourth if you count Spartacus. etc. etc. ad nauseum What would an Aussie know about this anyway?[8\|]

AU Tiger_MatrixForum -> RE: Secession, right or wrong? (11/16/2006 7:30:46 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: RERomine quote: ORIGINAL: Grotius Much the same set of rules may apply in American constitutional law. The U.S. Supreme Court has held, in a post-Civil War case, that states can't unilaterally secede from the Union, which the Court described as "indissoluble." But that decision might not preclude secession by mutual agreement. That strikes me as a liveable compromise. Being after the war, the Supreme Court decision would have been influenced by the fact that a war had been fought over the issue. If it was within 10 years or so after the end of the war, the court would have certainly been dominated by justices from Northern states, further effecting their decision. Twotribes is raising in greater depth the point I mentioned before with reference to powers granted to the Federal government by the U.S. Constitution. The act of secession interferes with the powers, thus the question of legality. Sure, nowhere in the Constitution does it say a state can or cannot secede in so many words. It is implied that secession is illegal. The often referenced to the 10th Amendment isn't a free pass out of the Union: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. First, it indicates the Constitution has the power to prohibit powers to states. This basically means it has power of the states. Not a big problem because the power it has was approved by all the states to begin with. They wouldn't be states if they hadn't. Here is one nifty little prohibition I found: No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay. Second, it says the states may exercise powers not reserved to the Federal government. The implied is states may not interfere with those powers. Again approved by the states when the ratified the Constitution. The explicit includes things like states may not maintain a navy or coin money. There are lots of others as well. It seems to me, the Confederate states violated their legal agreement to the U.S. Constitution in many areas. Twotribes also brought up the reference in the other thread to Treason. All Confederate soldiers and officers would have been subject to United States laws governing treason had General Grant's terms to General Lee not removed that possibilty. The terms said they could go home "...not to be disturbed by the United States authorities so long as they observe their paroles and the laws in force where they may reside." Obviously, all this is nothing more than my opinion. Were I a judge, it might be worth something on this topic, but I'm not. Want to ask me questions about computer programs, I can give you a professional opinion on those. I also charge a fee [:D] There is also the case made by some (not in this forum) that the Constitution never would have been ratified by the individual states if language forbidding their leaving had been inserted. I don't recall the exact arguments made on the subject, but they were convincing.

AU Tiger_MatrixForum -> RE: Secession, right or wrong? (11/16/2006 7:43:11 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: RERomine Want to ask me questions about computer programs, I can give you a professional opinion on those. I also charge a fee [:D] A bit off the subject line here, I am an 'older' mechanical engineering student. Occasionally I am required to create small no-frills programs to generate, for example the moment of inertia of some irregular shape. When it comes to Magic and Sorcery....errrr... programming I am at a loss. Ballpark, what would you charge to generate the like, given I provide the proper formulae? I am serious here.

Raverdave -> RE: Secession, right or wrong? (11/16/2006 7:53:43 AM)
quote: What would an Aussie know about this anyway?[8\|] If that is not a challenge for a PBEM then I don't know what is [:D]

AU Tiger_MatrixForum -> RE: Secession, right or wrong? (11/16/2006 7:56:23 AM)
GAME ON! I get the good guys. [sm=00000055.gif]

Jonathan Palfrey -> RE: Secession, right or wrong? (11/16/2006 8:36:38 AM)
Obviously, when it comes to US constutitional law, I'm even less of an expert than you are. However, my one-cent contribution is that all the provisions of the Constitution apply to States as long as they're members of the Union. If they're no longer members of the Union, the Constitution simply doesn't apply to them, any more than it applies to Mexico or Canada. The Constitution doesn't explicitly forbid States from leaving the Union; and, as other people have mentioned, it might never have been adopted in the first place if it had done so. For me, these legal arguments are not vital, because for me morality trumps legality; and the moral questions are more interesting. But I have difficulty in keeping my mouth shut, as you may have noticed.

Jonathan Palfrey -> RE: Secession, right or wrong? (11/16/2006 8:43:20 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: AU Tiger quote: ORIGINAL: Jonathan Palfrey quote: ORIGINAL: Raverdave Just to toss a spanner in the works............should not we be calling this the second civil war? Call it the third if you like: the English Civil War came first. Fourth if you count Spartacus. etc. etc. ad nauseum What would an Aussie know about this anyway?[8\|] Well, I mentioned the English Civil War because the people involved in it were the ancestors of most of the people on both sides of the first American war of independence. And the ancestors of quite a lot of the people on both sides of the second American war of independence (commonly known as the American Civil War).

AU Tiger_MatrixForum -> RE: Secession, right or wrong? (11/16/2006 8:44:49 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jonathan Palfrey quote: ORIGINAL: AU Tiger quote: ORIGINAL: Jonathan Palfrey quote: ORIGINAL: Raverdave Just to toss a spanner in the works............should not we be calling this the second civil war? Call it the third if you like: the English Civil War came first. Fourth if you count Spartacus. etc. etc. ad nauseum What would an Aussie know about this anyway?[8\|] Well, I mentioned the English Civil War because the people involved in it were the ancestors of most of the people on both sides of the first American war of independence. And the ancestors of quite a lot of the people on both sides of the second American war of independence (commonly known as the American Civil War). I figured that. I was just being a pain in the a$$.

Jonathan Palfrey -> RE: Secession, right or wrong? (11/16/2006 9:05:45 AM)
Incidentally, I toss in without comment part of the introduction to Alexander's Military Memoirs of a Confederate: As to the causes of the war, it will, of course, be understood that every former Confederate repudiates all accusations of treason or rebellion in the war, and even of fighting to preserve the institution of slavery. The effort of the enemy to destroy it without compensation was practical robbery, which, of course, we resisted. The unanimity and the desperation of our resistance -- even to the refusal of Lincoln's suggested compensation at Fortress Monroe, after the destruction had already occurred -- clearly show our struggle to have been for that right of self-government which the Englishman has claimed, and fought for, as for nothing else, since the days of King John.

Mike Scholl -> RE: Secession, right or wrong? (11/16/2006 9:17:40 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jonathan Palfrey Obviously, when it comes to US constutitional law, I'm even less of an expert than you are. However, my one-cent contribution is that all the provisions of the Constitution apply to States as long as they're members of the Union. If they're no longer members of the Union, the Constitution simply doesn't apply to them, any more than it applies to Mexico or Canada. The Constitution doesn't explicitly forbid States from leaving the Union; and, as other people have mentioned, it might never have been adopted in the first place if it had done so. For me, these legal arguments are not vital, because for me morality trumps legality; and the moral questions are more interesting. But I have difficulty in keeping my mouth shut, as you may have noticed. Ah Ha! The truth will out at last! And for me, REALITY trumps all other "-ALITIES". But if it weren't for those of us who "can't keep our mouths shut.", this Forum would be a damned dull place......

AU Tiger_MatrixForum -> RE: Secession, right or wrong? (11/16/2006 9:21:29 AM)
[sm=00000028.gif]

Paper Tiger -> RE: Secession, right or wrong? (11/16/2006 1:55:09 PM)
6th May 1783 a meeting between General Washinton (and other representatives of the rebels) and General Carleton representing the British. The subject of Vermont which still had a majority in favour of the crown and against indepenence. Governor Clinton (no I'm not making it up, and I have no idea how he stored his cigars[:D]) was asked by the British side whether, in the event of states disagreeing with congress, they could be allowed to go their own way. "Not at all" was the shouted response of Clinton. I would suggest that the issue of a states right to secede was at this point made clear enough...

Greyshaft -> RE: Secession, right or wrong? (11/16/2006 2:33:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: RERomine The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. First, it indicates the Constitution has the power to prohibit powers to states. This basically means it has power of the states. Not a big problem because the power it has was approved by all the states to begin with. They wouldn't be states if they hadn't. The Constitution does NOT have the right to prohibit power to states. All it does in list the powers that the states have agreed not to exercise while they are within that Federal Union. Anything not mentioned is reserved to the states. So the USA has no power to prohibit the states from doing something which is not mentioned in the constitution. Since secession is not mentioned then I don't see where the states gave up that right. It may be morally or politically wrong for them to secede but there ain't nothing in the rulebook against it. quote: No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay. Second, it says the states may exercise powers not reserved to the Federal government. The implied is states may not interfere with those powers. Again approved by the states when the ratified the Constitution. The explicit includes things like states may not maintain a navy or coin money. There are lots of others as well. The States agreed to cede powers to the Union and as part of that agreement agreed to refrain from making navies, minting coins etc but that doesn't mean that they don't retain the right - they have just agreed not to exercise that right as a condition of remaining within the union. Besides which, I seem to recall that the southern States were actually invaded so therefore they were entitled to "... keep troops, or Ships of War...". Remember that the war was fought by Abraham Lincoln's volunteers rather than the regular Army so the southern states were actually entitled to petition the Federal Government under Article 4 section 4 to use the USA regular army to "... protect each of them against invasion;" Wouldn't you hate to be the Federal Judge needing to rule on that point of law ? quote: Twotribes also brought up the reference in the other thread to Treason. Here's an excerpt from the US constitution.. Section 3. Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. Now lets try Constitutional Law for 20 points... Which President of the US declared a naval blockade on the State of North Carolina PRIOR to that state making any official pronouncement on a change of its status as a member of the United States?" Sounds like Treason to me... especially when you realize that the same President did not recognize the 'legality' of the declarations of secession by the southern states and was therefore invading what he still considered to be members of the United States. Now I'm not waving a flag here... to me the whole deal was done and dusted in 1865 and States Rights is effectively a dead issue. I'm just pointing out that Lincoln technically committed Treason in order to win the war. For Bonus Points discuss the legality of that same President calling for volunteers to invade a number of southern states in order to eliminate "...combinations too powerful to be suppressed by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, or by the powers vested in the Marshals by law.". Include an analysis of Article 4 section 4 of the constitution in your answer. (I will now retreat to the other side of the planet until the dust settles [:D])

Twotribes -> RE: Secession, right or wrong? (11/16/2006 3:33:14 PM)
You should reread history. And also a bit of American military reality. Lincoln did NOT call for an army UNTIL the Southern States began forcably attacking US Federal forts. The aggressor being the South not the North. As for the claim that a volunteer force is somehow NOT part of the US military. Umm perhaps one should read all the articles and clauses of the Constitution , one may find one were in the US Government can and does control the several "militias" of the States and has the power to "call" them up. Thus making them PART of the US Military.

Twotribes -> RE: Secession, right or wrong? (11/16/2006 3:38:41 PM)
Let me see if I have this right, according to you, the Constitution prevents the Federal Government from protecting the individual States and the Country as a whole because even though the States left the Union, formed armies and attacked the Federal Government, they were still part of the Union? And again, the "volunteers" were part of the US Army. Which is covered in the Constitution. The US also has the right and power to ensure trade is as allowed by the federal Government. North Carolina was engaged in illegal trade, thus the Federal Government had the right , authority and power to prevent that trade.

RERomine -> RE: Secession, right or wrong? (11/16/2006 7:44:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Greyshaft The Constitution does NOT have the right to prohibit power to states. All it does in list the powers that the states have agreed not to exercise while they are within that Federal Union. Anything not mentioned is reserved to the states. So the USA has no power to prohibit the states from doing something which is not mentioned in the constitution. Since secession is not mentioned then I don't see where the states gave up that right. It may be morally or politically wrong for them to secede but there ain't nothing in the rulebook against it. Sure it does. There are powers specifically prohibited to the states in Article I, Section 10. Also, no one has yet, shown me the escape clause that says a state can leave if they aren't happy. I have admitted my opinion of the illegality of secession is just that, opinion and I may well be wrong, but no one is going to prove that to me with another opinion. There are many aspects of the U.S. Constitution that indicate the powers of states are second to the power of the Federal Government. I have yet to see anywhere where it says states powers override the power of the Federal Government. quote: The States agreed to cede powers to the Union and as part of that agreement agreed to refrain from making navies, minting coins etc but that doesn't mean that they don't retain the right - they have just agreed not to exercise that right as a condition of remaining within the union. Besides which, I seem to recall that the southern States were actually invaded so therefore they were entitled to "... keep troops, or Ships of War...". Remember that the war was fought by Abraham Lincoln's volunteers rather than the regular Army so the southern states were actually entitled to petition the Federal Government under Article 4 section 4 to use the USA regular army to "... protect each of them against invasion;" Wouldn't you hate to be the Federal Judge needing to rule on that point of law ? Kinda makes the United States sound like a hotel. As long as you are checked in, you must follow the rules [:)] Sure, states could build navies and coin money, if they could legally nullify the Constitution. Even if they can't, nothing prevents them from doing so, but they would do so in violation of the Constitution. Lots of guns carry more power than any piece of paper (ICBM launch codes excluded [:D]). quote: Here's an excerpt from the US constitution.. Section 3. Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. Now lets try Constitutional Law for 20 points... Which President of the US declared a naval blockade on the State of North Carolina PRIOR to that state making any official pronouncement on a change of its status as a member of the United States? Sounds like Treason to me... especially when you realize that the same President did not recognize the 'legality' of the declarations of secession by the southern states and was therefore invading what he still considered to be members of the United States. Now I'm not waving a flag here... to me the whole deal was done and dusted in 1865 and States Rights is effectively a dead issue. I'm just pointing out that Lincoln technically committed Treason in order to win the war. For Bonus Points discuss the legality of that same President calling for volunteers to invade a number of southern states in order to eliminate "...combinations too powerful to be suppressed by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, or by the powers vested in the Marshals by law.". Include an analysis of Article 4 section 4 of the constitution in your answer. (I will now retreat to the other side of the planet until the dust settles [:D]) Declaring a blockade, whether a state was in rebellion or not, was an error in judgement on Lincoln's part, but not illegal. In declaring a blockade, he gave the Confederacy a belligerent status to the rest of the world. Such a status can only be attained by nations. As to the other points, in 1833, Congress passed the Force Bill in response to tariff Nullification by South Carolina (yes, them again). This bill was oriented towards tariff laws permitted the President to use whatever force he deemed necessary to enforce Federal law. This bill was repealed as part of a compromise with South Carolina over the tariff issue. The point is it showed how far Congress was willing to let the President go to enforce laws protected by the Constitution. One thing I did find out after someone earlier in this thread had eluded to it is the U.S. Supreme court has visited and resolved the secession issue. In the decision for Texas v. White (1869), it found that Texas had not left the Union and a state cannon secede from the Union. I will admit this is like closing the gate after the cows have gotten out. It is just as likely they would have reach a similar decision in late 1860. The court at the time was composed of eight justices (one died during the summer of 1860 and had not been replaced), of which four were from the North, three from the South and one a boarder state. During the war, two of the three justices left, implying the third to be a Unionist. That being the case, it is likely secession would have been ruled illegal by at least 5 of the justices.

Jonathan Palfrey -> RE: Secession, right or wrong? (11/16/2006 8:55:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: RERomine Also, no one has yet, shown me the escape clause that says a state can leave if they aren't happy. As far as I know, it's a general principle of law that anything is permitted unless it's explicitly forbidden. Otherwise, for instance, you'd need a law specifically authorizing you to tie your own shoelaces.

RERomine -> RE: Secession, right or wrong? (11/16/2006 9:02:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jonathan Palfrey quote: ORIGINAL: RERomine Also, no one has yet, shown me the escape clause that says a state can leave if they aren't happy. As far as I know, it's a general principle of law that anything is permitted unless it's explicitly forbidden. Otherwise, for instance, you'd need a law specifically authorizing you to tie your own shoelaces. In 1869, it was ruled by the U.S. Supreme Court states could not secede. Not that it matters a hill of beans, the ruling effectively said Texas never seceded because it couldn't legally do so. To bad they couldn't rule the lives of all those lost during the war back to life just as easily. It also seems this only applies to states. Territories, protectorates, etc., the rules would be different because they never ratified the Constitution.

Jonathan Palfrey -> RE: Secession, right or wrong? (11/16/2006 9:21:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl And for me, REALITY trumps all other "-ALITIES". How does that work? If I see an opportunity to kill someone and steal his money, morality and legality tell me I shouldn't do it. What does 'reality' tell me, and how? quote: ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl But if it weren't for those of us who "can't keep our mouths shut", this Forum would be a damned dull place... Thank you, kind sir.

Greyshaft -> RE: Secession, right or wrong? (11/16/2006 9:34:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Twotribes You should reread history. And also a bit of American military reality. Lincoln did NOT call for an army UNTIL the Southern States began forcably attacking US Federal forts. The aggressor being the South not the North. As for the claim that a volunteer force is somehow NOT part of the US military. Umm perhaps one should read all the articles and clauses of the Constitution , one may find one were in the US Government can and does control the several "militias" of the States and has the power to "call" them up. Thus making them PART of the US Military. Lets keep it 'Civil' here ... heh heh [:D] By the strict chronology of events Lincoln made war on the sovereign state of North Carolina prior to that state making any declaration of secession. I agree that the President can respond to domestic disturbance within a state but that has to be on application of the Governor of that state and I don't recall Governor Vance making any such request. If you want to Sure Lincoln won the war, but he broke the law in order to do it. Was he justified in committing Treason in order to "save" the Union? That's a matter of opinion. Article 1 section 8 does give the President the ability to "To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions; " however the States reserve the right to appoint the officers. Article II Section II Section 2 does provide that "The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states," The kicker comes in Article IV section 4 which holds "The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on application of the legislature, or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened) against domestic violence. ". If the legislature of North Carolina didn't apply to Lincoln for help (which we all know never happened), then under what authority did Lincoln attempt to 'protect' the state from domestic violence? quote: Also, no one has yet, shown me the escape clause that says a state can leave if they aren't happy. No-one has to do that. All powers not granted to the Federal government are reserved to the States so if the constitution doesn't mention secession then that power remains under state control.

Vyshka -> RE: Secession, right or wrong? (11/16/2006 9:52:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jonathan Palfrey As far as I know, tax rates in Britain's American colonies were very low and remained very low. The colonists objected even to the very low taxes they were asked to pay. And arguably, without representation, they were entitled to object; but I don't think it's right to say that the taxes were ever high. I believe that was the case until the end of the 7 years war. At that point Britain began to levy much higher taxes to pay off the debt accumulated in the war, and they felt the colonies should foot the bill since they had to come to their aid. The higher tax rates combined with lack of representation were sources of great friction.

RERomine -> RE: Secession, right or wrong? (11/16/2006 10:20:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Greyshaft By the strict chronology of events Lincoln made war on the sovereign state of North Carolina prior to that state making any declaration of secession. I agree that the President can respond to domestic disturbance within a state but that has to be on application of the Governor of that state and I don't recall Governor Vance making any such request. If you want to Sure Lincoln won the war, but he broke the law in order to do it. Was he justified in committing Treason in order to "save" the Union? That's a matter of opinion. The chronology of events seems correct, but what was North Carolina doing during between Ft. Sumter and when they formally seceded? One may act warlike without formally declaring war. A formal secession isn't required for the President to take steps to restore order. I will admit the Union was a little loose with the rules at times. None the less, I don't see how it is treason. Formally declared or not, the Southern states were in rebellion. quote: Article 1 section 8 does give the President the ability to "To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions; " however the States reserve the right to appoint the officers. Article II Section II Section 2 does provide that "The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states," The kicker comes in Article IV section 4 which holds "The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on application of the legislature, or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened) against domestic violence. ". If the legislature of North Carolina didn't apply to Lincoln for help (which we all know never happened), then under what authority did Lincoln attempt to 'protect' the state from domestic violence? Again, they were in rebellion. North Carolina may have been slow about the secession process, but it is unlikely they did nothing while it was in motion. quote: quote: Also, no one has yet, shown me the escape clause that says a state can leave if they aren't happy. No-one has to do that. All powers not granted to the Federal government are reserved to the States so if the constitution doesn't mention secession then that power remains under state control. As long as the powers exercised by the state do not nullify the powers of the Federal Government. Secession of the Southern states was retroactively declared illegal in 1869. The war would have still happened had this been decided in 1860 instead of 1869, but we wouldn't be having this splended conversation then [:)]

Jonathan Palfrey -> RE: Secession, right or wrong? (11/16/2006 10:21:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: RERomine In 1869, it was ruled by the U.S. Supreme Court states could not secede. Yes, I've looked it up. The decision was 5-3, and the five voting in favour were all appointed by Lincoln. What a surprise result. However, the written Constitution as agreed between the states doesn't prohibit secession.

Oldguard -> RE: Secession, right or wrong? (11/16/2006 11:22:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Twotribes If you had bothered to actually read the other thread you would have found my response. I did read the thread. And I found your answer to be very vague and really begging the question - exactly as you're doing when you say: quote: EVERY article, every clause in the Constitution is why a State or local Government can NOT simply leave without approval of the federal Government. Requiring either an amendment to the Constitution or an agreement from the federal Government authorizing the State or local Government to leave. So you're saying that the entire Constitution, taken as a whole, is your defense? That's not very satisfying and certainly not the "clearly" you originally asserted. The unassailable fact remains that the Constitution has never, nor does it now, specifically forbid secession. In fact, contrary to your argument, the original Constitution itself was given force only by the act of ratification by the states, it's also within those states' power to revoke their ratification. The Constitution retains its power solely through the "consent of the governed", not through force of arms or law. quote: The Constitution isnt worth the time or paper it is written on if every time a State disagreed with the majority it could simply pick up its ball and go away. EVERY power granted to the federal Government and the stipulation that the federal Government Superceded every State and local Government would mean NOTHING if a State or local Governmetn could just leave if it disagreed with the Federal Government. While technically true, that argument's pretty meaningless. No law has value if the citizens it governs choose not to follow it. quote: Only the Federal Government or an amendment to the Constitution can authorize a State or local Government the right to leave the Union. Cite for me the Article and clause that denies this right to any state. Do so or yield the field, sir, because I do not believe you can find ONE THING in the Constitution that specifically denies states the right to secede. It's simply not there at all. Article IV grants "priveleges and immunities" to the citizens of the various states and provides for admission of new states. It also guarantees a republican government and protection from invasion. Not one word about secession. Article V merely says that no state may be unwillingly denied its "equal suffrage" in the Senate. Here, I'll even make it easy for you: Articles of the U.S. Constitution. Get back to me when you find something. quote: I have already named specific Articles and Clauses though I didnt mention all that apply. No you have not. And, for the record, the original Articles of Confederation were superceded by the Constitution when it was ratified. They are no longer binding law.

RERomine -> RE: Secession, right or wrong? (11/16/2006 11:48:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jonathan Palfrey quote: ORIGINAL: RERomine In 1869, it was ruled by the U.S. Supreme Court states could not secede. Yes, I've looked it up. The decision was 5-3, and the five voting in favour were all appointed by Lincoln. What a surprise result. However, the written Constitution as agreed between the states doesn't prohibit secession. Quite true. Probably because they hadn't really given it much thought. The thought they did give to it was the U.S. Supreme Court is responsible for ruling on interpretation. I don't doubt that those interpretations are subject to political influences and personal biases, but once an opinion is rendered, it in effect becomes law. As we've already discussed, the South would have seceded when the did, even if the Constitution had spell out in bold letters Secession Is Illegal.

RERomine -> RE: Secession, right or wrong? (11/16/2006 11:58:58 PM)
I need to give some thought to reading a little closer. quote: Cite for me the Article and clause that denies this right to any state. Do so or yield the field, sir, because I do not believe you can find ONE THING in the Constitution that specifically denies states the right to secede. It's simply not there at all. The Supreme Court used Article IV of the Constitution when it declared secession illegal. Article IV. - The States Section 1 - Each State to Honor all others Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof. Section 2 - State citizens, Extradition The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. A Person charged in any State with Treason, Felony, or other Crime, who shall flee from Justice, and be found in another State, shall on demand of the executive Authority of the State from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the State having Jurisdiction of the Crime. (No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, But shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due.) (This clause in parentheses is superseded by Amendment XIII.) Section 3 - New States New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new States shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress. The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State. Section 4 - Republican government The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.

RERomine -> RE: Secession, right or wrong? (11/17/2006 12:19:18 AM)
For those who wish to read the Supreme Court decision in Texas v. White: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=CASE&court=US&vol=74&page=700

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 5 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.859375