quote:

ORIGINAL: Twotribes

quote:

ORIGINAL: Reiryc

quote:

ORIGINAL: lvaces

Reiyrc - Jefferson is saying that people who are being oppressed have the right to rebel. I, and most people, would agree. This does not mean that anybody has the right to rebel just because of an election result they do not like (otherwise no democracy could ever exist).

He is saying that people who feel they are living under tyranny have the right to form a new government. The question is, what constitutes tyranny? Would the unjust loss of property constitute a reason? I would argue that he would think so.

quote:


You point out to me the oppression that Lincoln as President was going to place on the south and then your Jefferson quote from the Declaration of Independence becomes applicable.

The unwillingness of many in the north to uphold the 1850 fugitives slave law concerning runaway slaves comes to mind.

quote:


Otherwise it is not. The only real oppression in the Jefferson meaning being done here is by white southerners against their slaves. So what your quote actually proves is that the slaves had a right to rebel, not the white southerners.

No, it shows that the south had a right to rebel.

You didnt write this? Exactly what property was unjustly removed, stolen or taken?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Twotribes

LOL the South WAS treated in a friendly manner and the response was THEY attacked the North.

quote:

Be so kind as to show us ANY amendment proposal for the Constitution that included the language that the States could leave anytime they wanted?

quote:

LOL the South WAS treated in a friendly manner and the response was THEY attacked the North.

quote:

The aggressor here, notwithstanding the revisionist claims, was the South. The South not the North resorted to armed conflict. All Lincoln did is respond.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ivaces
Greyshaft - Let me ask you this, if the question before the house was "The Holocaust - right or wrong?" would you be satisfied by saying, well according to the laws of Germany in place in 1944 it was legal, so who are we to come around later and say it was wrong?

• From a legal point of view I believe that the southern states had the right to secede.

• I have made no statement regarding whether they had a moral right to do so.

• From a legal point of view I do not know whether the government of Nazi Germany gave themselves the right to exterminate the jews. I haven't studied their laws.

• From a moral point of view I state that regardless of whether the Nazis were operating within a legal framework or not, their actions are morally inexcusable. I personally abhor the Holocaust and I believe that sentiment is shared by the overwhelming majority of people in this Forum.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Greyshaft

quote:

Be so kind as to show us ANY amendment proposal for the Constitution that included the language that the States could leave anytime they wanted?

{SNIP}
Twotribes, you continually attempt to phrase the argument such that since the constitution did not explicitly permit secession then it must be illegal. However the boot is actually on the other foot. All rights are presumed to belong to the states unless they are explicitly ceded in the constitution. This rule is actually spelt out in Amendment Ten ie:"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."

Therefore since the constitution does not discuss the right of secession then that right was never given up by the states. End of story from a legal point of view.
{SNIP}

quote:

Now we have your rather pointless jibe equating the Southern States with Nazi Germany and suggesting that my refusal to discuss morality of the secession issue puts me in the same category as an apologist for the Holocaust

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jonathan Palfrey

Let's consider two possible cases:

1. The US government was willing to consider letting the Confederates secede up to Fort Sumter. In this case, it should have realized that it would lose outposts such as Fort Sumter, and it should have appreciated that keeping soldiers in such outposts would be seen as an aggressive provocation. Cuba aside, countries don't normally tolerate foreign military outposts in their own territory.

2. The US government never had any intention of letting the Confederates secede. In this case, Fort Sumter was irrelevant: war was inevitable whatever the Confederates did (short of recanting their secessionist heresy).

Having said that, I do agree (and I've said before) that the Confederates played it all wrong and should have been impeccably peaceful for as long as possible. I suppose the best excuse for the war is indeed that the Confederates weren't easy people to be friendly with at the time; and indeed that helps to explain why the northern soldiers were willing to fight.

quote:

Just out of curiosity, does anyone know Lee's views on secession? It was well known that he couldn't fight against Virginia and would defend it, but he may not have agreed with secession in principle.

quote:

ORIGINAL: lvaces
Greyshaft - The point of the analogy is ... that something can be wrong without being illegal.

• Mahatma Ghandi's civil disobedience in South Africa and India was most certainly illegal however I do not condemn his actions.
  
• Likewise the few German's in the 1930's who spoke out against the Holocaust were breaking the local German laws however I do not condemn their actions.
  
• Abraham Lincoln broke the law in the 1860's during his campaign to reunite the seceding states and I HAVE MADE NO COMMENT ON THE MORALITY OF HIS ACTIONS. (The capitals are for emphasis - I'm not meaning to shout at you.)
  

quote:

So why suddenly here are the practical results or moral components suddenly off the table and only the legality of the action matters?

quote:

I add that if anyone considers that my post was an attempt to say the south was like Hitler's Germany rather than just a strong attempt to show morality matters for "wrongness", let me state plainly that was not my intention or my feelings and certainly I retract it if I wrote my post in such an inartful manner to as to legitimately give that impression.

quote:

ORIGINAL: lvaces
Here is what seems to be the longest and most thought out of Lee's thoughts on secession. The following quote is from a letter he wrote on Jan 23, 1861. The source is Douglas Southall Freeman's famous biography of Lee and it can be accessed on the internet at http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Gazetteer/People/Robert_E_Lee/FREREL/1/24*.html

"The South, in my opinion, has been aggrieved by the acts of the North, as you say. I feel the aggression, and am willing to take every proper step for redress. It is the principle I contend for, not individual or private gain. As an American citizen, I take great pride in my country, her prosperity and institutions, and would defend any State if her rights were invaded. But I can anticipate no greater calamity for the country than a dissolution of the Union. It would be an accumulation of all the evils we complain of, and I am willing to sacrifice everything but honor for its preservation. I hope therefore, that all constitutional means will be exhausted before there is a recourse to force. Secession is nothing but revolution. The framers of our Constitution never exhausted so much labor, wisdom and forbearance in its formation, and surrounded it with so many guards and securities, if it was intended to be broken by every member of the Confederacy at will. It was intended for 'perpetual union' so expressed in the preamble, and for the establishment of a government, not a compact, which can only be dissolved by revolution, or the consent of all the people in convention assembled. It is idle to talk of secession. Anarchy would have been established, and not a government by Washington, Hamilton, Jefferson, Madison, and the other patriots of the Revolution."

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

"South Carolina didnt OWN the forts, they were Federal property. They were NOT State property. Using your logic we are back to Virginia demanding Washington DC back , Virginia and North Carolina demanding the states west of them back ( the territory oroiginal was part of those States. ect ect."

Couple of points. First, Washington DC is built on the Maryland side of the Potomac, and Maryland didn't succede. So your example is baseless and silly. And the Forts were "Federal Property" of a "federation" that no longer included the South after succession. As they were built on land originally given to the "federation" by the Southern States, and using tax money provided by the Southern States; there is a solid legal basis for assuming they would "revert" to the States when they left the "federation" (Union). The Northern case is weak because they voluntarily abandoned most of them without a struggle (or a formal surrender). The Confederacy was making no claim on any "federal property" except that which was built on land they had provided.

quote:

ORIGINAL: lvaces

quote:

Just out of curiosity, does anyone know Lee's views on secession? It was well known that he couldn't fight against Virginia and would defend it, but he may not have agreed with secession in principle.

Here is what seems to be the longest and most thought out of Lee's thoughts on secession.  The following quote is from a letter he wrote on Jan 23, 1861.  The source is Douglas Southall Freeman's famous biography of Lee and it can be accessed on the internet at http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Gazetteer/People/Robert_E_Lee/FREREL/1/24*.html

"The South, in my opinion, has been aggrieved by the acts of the North, as you say. I feel the aggression, and am willing to take every proper step for redress. It is the principle I contend for, not individual or private gain. As an American citizen, I take great pride in my country, her prosperity and institutions, and would defend any State if her rights were invaded. But I can anticipate no greater calamity for the country than a dissolution of the Union. It would be an accumulation of all the evils we complain of, and I am willing to sacrifice everything but honor for its preservation. I hope therefore, that all constitutional means will be exhausted before there is a recourse to force. Secession is nothing but revolution. The framers of our Constitution never exhausted so much labor, wisdom and forbearance in its formation, and surrounded it with so many guards and securities, if it was intended to be broken by every member of the Confederacy at will. It was intended for 'perpetual union' so expressed in the preamble, and for the establishment of a government, not a compact, which can only be dissolved by revolution, or the consent of all the people in convention assembled. It is idle to talk of secession. Anarchy would have been established, and not a government by Washington, Hamilton, Jefferson, Madison, and the other patriots of the Revolution." 

quote:

ORIGINAL: Twotribes

Once again, this agruement that the tenth amendment makes seccession legal.... Umm BZZZZT, wrong answer. The 10th CLEARLY states that those powers NOT given to the Federal Government are reserved for States and the people. The Succession of the states negates EVERY power explicitly GIVEN to the Federal Government. End of discussion.

quote:

ORIGINAL: RERomine
It seems to me that taking secession through the process, not that a formal one existed, should have been the first step. At least make an effort to create a process. The Northern states may have been willing to just let the Southern states go, as long as hostilities hadn't broken out. This wouldn't have stopped the abolitionists from ranting and raving, but might have prevented the war. It's difficult to say, but war should be at the bottom of the list of options, not near the top.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jonathan Palfrey
I'm not convinced that the US government would have been willing to recognize an independent Confederacy, even if it had played nice. But perhaps it might have done so reluctantly if public support for war had been seriously lacking.

quote:

ORIGINAL: RERomine


Even if someone comes up with a document where Lincoln said he would have restored the Union by force, even if Ft. Sumter wasn't fired upon, there is no way to know if he would have followed through with such an action. [:D]

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jonathan Palfrey
Mike, thanks for your comments. I would add that all Federal properties up to 1860 were paid for by Northern and Southern taxpayers and were therefore the joint property of the people of the North and South. In the event of a split, both sides were entitled to a share of the Federal properties, and the simplest and most workable division of those properties would be to assign to the South all properties on Southern land, and to the North all properties on Northern land.

quote:


Thus, the Confederacy had a reasonable case for saying that it was the rightful owner of Fort Sumter itself -- not just of the land on which it sat.

quote:


Admittedly, it was impolite to assert that claim without negotiating it. But it was equally impolite of the Union to assert its own (weaker) claim to the fort, by occupying it with soldiers.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jonathan Palfrey

quote:

ORIGINAL: Twotribes

Once again, this agruement that the tenth amendment makes seccession legal.... Umm BZZZZT, wrong answer. The 10th CLEARLY states that those powers NOT given to the Federal Government are reserved for States and the people. The Succession of the states negates EVERY power explicitly GIVEN to the Federal Government. End of discussion.

Secession does not negate any powers of the federal government. It merely means that those powers will be applied in future to a smaller federation... [:)]

quote:

ORIGINAL: SlapBone

quote:

ORIGINAL: RERomine


Even if someone comes up with a document where Lincoln said he would have restored the Union by force, even if Ft. Sumter wasn't fired upon, there is no way to know if he would have followed through with such an action. [:D]

Ft. Sumter was only pretext. Everyone knows the War of Northern Agression was started when the US government sent John Brown to attack the arsenal at Harper's Ferry.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Greyshaft

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jonathan Palfrey

quote:

ORIGINAL: Twotribes

Once again, this agruement that the tenth amendment makes seccession legal.... Umm BZZZZT, wrong answer. The 10th CLEARLY states that those powers NOT given to the Federal Government are reserved for States and the people. The Succession of the states negates EVERY power explicitly GIVEN to the Federal Government. End of discussion.

Secession does not negate any powers of the federal government. It merely means that those powers will be applied in future to a smaller federation... [:)]

He's got you there Twotribes [:)]

quote:

ORIGINAL: Twotribes

quote:

ORIGINAL: Greyshaft

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jonathan Palfrey

quote:

ORIGINAL: Twotribes

Once again, this agruement that the tenth amendment makes seccession legal.... Umm BZZZZT, wrong answer. The 10th CLEARLY states that those powers NOT given to the Federal Government are reserved for States and the people. The Succession of the states negates EVERY power explicitly GIVEN to the Federal Government. End of discussion.

Secession does not negate any powers of the federal government. It merely means that those powers will be applied in future to a smaller federation... [:)]

He's got you there Twotribes [:)]

No he doesnt.... IF the Government has the power then the States cant simply say, "Damn we quit" and negate that power... claiming they can ignores the reality.

quote:

ORIGINAL: RERomine

Except they gave up all rights to property in 1836:

Committee on Federal Relations
In the House of Representatives, December 31st, 1836

"The Committee on Federal relations, to which was referred the Governor's message, relating to the site of Fort Sumter, in the harbour of Charleston, and the report of the Committee on Federal Relations from the Senate on the same subject, beg leave to Report by Resolution:

"Resolved, That this state do cede to the United States, all the right, title and claim of South Carolina to the site of Fort Sumter and the requisite quantity of adjacent territory, Provided, That all processes, civil and criminal issued under the authority of this State, or any officer thereof, shall and may be served and executed upon the same, and any person there being who may be implicated by law; and that the said land, site and structures enumerated, shall be forever exempt from liability to pay any tax to this state.

"Also resolved: That the State shall extinguish the claim, if any valid claim there be, of any individuals under the authority of this State, to the land hereby ceded.

"Also resolved, That the Attorney-General be instructed to investigate the claims of Wm. Laval and others to the site of Fort Sumter, and adjacent land contiguous thereto; and if he shall be of the opinion that these parties have a legal title to the said land, that Generals Hamilton and Hayne and James L. Pringle, Thomas Bennett and Ker. Boyce, Esquires, be appointed Commissioners on behalf of the State, to appraise the value thereof. If the Attorney-General should be of the opinion that the said title is not legal and valid, that he proceed by seire facius of other proper legal proceedings to have the same avoided; and that the Attorney-General and the said Commissioners report to the Legislature at its next session.

"Resolved, That this House to agree. Ordered that it be sent to the Senate for concurrence. By order of the House:

"T. W. Glover, C. H. R."
"In Senate, December 21st, 1836

"Resolved, that the Senate do concur. Ordered that it be returned to the House of Representatives, By order:

Jacob Warly, C. S.

Based on the document above, I don't think the Federal claim to the property is that weak. Nowhere do I see, "We want it back if we cease to be members of the Union."

quote:

ORIGINAL: Santee Rifleman

How about the part which reads

"Resolved, That this state do cede to the United States, all the right, title and claim of South Carolina to the site of Fort Sumter and the requisite quantity of adjacent territory, Provided, That all processes, civil and criminal issued under the authority of this State, or any officer thereof, shall and may be served and executed upon the same, and any person there being who may be implicated by law; and that the said land, site and structures enumerated, shall be forever exempt from liability to pay any tax to this state..."

It seems to me that in the first months of 1861, the Free and Sovereign State of South Carolina was merely executing the provisional escape clause in the original 1836 State Ordinance that ceded the "land" upon which Sumter was built to the United States.

Further, in 1860, the concept of the right of the People to choose their own Government was a fundamentally American one, no matter what the "legalities" were or are. Otherwise, we'd still be putting English Royal stamps on our transactions and paying taxes to a crowned tyrant. Into the Union the peace-loving citizens of South Carolina came, uncoerced, of their own free will. Out of the Union they went, peacefully and of their own free will. Morally, where is the argument? It took war, invasion, death, desolation, destruction and defeat, occupations and Reconstruction to force them back into same Union, against their will, under a government they did not choose...


Dum Spiro Spero...

W.G.U. Moultrie.