Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: Secession, right or wrong?

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [American Civil War] >> Forge of Freedom: The American Civil War 1861-1865 >> RE: Secession, right or wrong? Page: <<   < prev  8 9 [10] 11 12   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Secession, right or wrong? - 11/29/2006 1:06:14 AM   
Santee Mtd Rifleman

 

Posts: 4
Joined: 11/28/2006
Status: offline
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?



Yes, I'm very glad I live in a country where we can have this kind of a discussion. Our diversity is definitely a great strength and I agree that every opinion has value. I learn more from the opinions of others than I could ever learn on my own! An excellent debate!

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.

"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



< Message edited by Santee Mtd Rifleman -- 11/29/2006 1:14:49 AM >


_____________________________


(in reply to RERomine)
Post #: 271
RE: Secession, right or wrong? - 11/29/2006 1:18:31 AM   
keystone

 

Posts: 20
Joined: 10/20/2006
Status: offline
There is language in the Constitution that bars secession, provisons added after 1866. If you disagree with the South's right to secede you cannot debate with modern day arguments. No one can even comprehend the state of mind of the typical man then. Many men that fought for the South had Grandfathers that fought in the Revolutionary War, my ancestors fought for the Old Palmetto Flag in both wars. The same attitude from the Revolution was in the men who defied the U.S. govt., if they could defeat the greatest power in the world they thought they could beat the North. Lincolns demands meant nothing to these men, they just fired them up even more. They felt that Sumter &
any other part of S.C. was thiers no matter what the Congress agreed to. There was no compromise that would satisfy them, either leave or we do what we said we were
going to do. Lincoln thought they would back down, he thought wrong.

(in reply to Reiryc)
Post #: 272
RE: Secession, right or wrong? - 11/29/2006 1:57:07 AM   
AU Tiger_MatrixForum


Posts: 1606
Joined: 10/9/2006
From: Deepest Dixie
Status: offline
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




Interesting. My family immigrated to Alabama from North Carolina and Virginia in the mid-18th century. I an a simple Johnson of the same pedigree with Huguenot (Bondurant) thrown in.
I wonder if your people were on the same boat as mine?


< Message edited by AU Tiger -- 11/29/2006 2:01:05 AM >


_____________________________

"Never take counsel of your fears."

Tho. Jackson

(in reply to Santee Mtd Rifleman)
Post #: 273
RE: Secession, right or wrong? - 11/29/2006 2:16:24 AM   
RERomine

 

Posts: 280
Joined: 7/19/2006
Status: offline
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.


I can easily respect fighting for your home state in 1860. To a great extent, the war wiped away the individuality of the states and defined the country as more important. No longer are military units identified by their state of origin other than Something National Guard. I can understand concerns, even fears, that the way of life was changing in the South as 1860 approached. Differences between States wasn't unheard of before 1860 as well. The Toledo War in 1835-36 was between Ohio and Michigan over a little strip of land. End up being a fairly bloodless affair and has subsequently moved to the football field. These days, states don't hash things out by picking up guns anymore. Can't say it wouldn't ever happen again, but it doesn't look like it.

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




Typical American mutt here as well. Still trying to fill in the blanks, but know my family lived in Kentucky and Virginia back in the day, and probably half a dozen other places. I have a distant relative who died during the American Revolution in a Kentucky battle that had Daniel Boone in it. And Robert E. Lee's picture adorns a wall in my house.


< Message edited by RERomine -- 11/29/2006 2:23:06 AM >

(in reply to Santee Mtd Rifleman)
Post #: 274
RE: Secession, right or wrong? - 11/29/2006 2:41:57 AM   
Murat


Posts: 803
Joined: 9/17/2003
From: South Carolina
Status: offline
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.



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.

(in reply to RERomine)
Post #: 275
RE: Secession, right or wrong? - 11/29/2006 3:02:14 AM   
Murat


Posts: 803
Joined: 9/17/2003
From: South Carolina
Status: offline
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.



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.
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.
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.
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.
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.

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:

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).


< Message edited by Murat -- 11/29/2006 3:17:18 AM >

(in reply to RERomine)
Post #: 276
RE: Secession, right or wrong? - 11/29/2006 3:08:00 AM   
Greyshaft


Posts: 2252
Joined: 10/27/2003
From: Sydney, Australia
Status: offline

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}



I also would like Twotribes to back up his arguments.

This fine gentleman of the Federalist cloth has poured scorn on his correspondents by claiming that we (myself included) cannot see where the US Constitution prohibited seccesion. You are right sir... we cannot see it because such a prohibition IS NOT THERE. In the absence of such a prohibition the power resides with the states by virtue of Amendment Ten.

The fact that such secession might cripple the US Federal government is irrelevant. The fact that a divorce might leave one party emotionally, financially or otherwise crippled is no bar to the divorce actually occuring.

_____________________________

/Greyshaft

(in reply to Reiryc)
Post #: 277
RE: Secession, right or wrong? - 11/29/2006 4:42:00 AM   
RERomine

 

Posts: 280
Joined: 7/19/2006
Status: offline
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.


Unwarranted. At no point have I made condescending remarks to you and this is the second time you have done so to me. My responses, although I may not agree and may not be correct, I have kept my responses professional. Should something I have said seemed sharp, I do apologize in this forum to you and everyone I may have offended.
I have made it clear that I am not a lawyer and my legal opinion and 50 cents will get you a cup of coffee ($1 for Starbucks)

The comments aside, lawyers often don't agree. While I haven't checked, there are probably very few unanimous decisions by the U.S. Supreme court, an official body composed of lawyers.

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.


Some degree of International Law did exist at the time, but please provide any supporting documentation that covered the process.

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.


Don't forget Mexico. Okay, I concur that the situation of reimbursement after the fact is not unprecidented.

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.


That is today, but what ruling body existed in 1860? I'm not saying one didn't exist, but simply asking what it was.

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.


This is correct. Once official recognition of mainland China took place, official diplomatic relations with Taiwan were severed on January 1, 1979. This is primarily to the hardcore stance on the issue by China.

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):


At no point have I disputed the right of South Carolina to secede. Being right and legal don't have to go hand in hand. The legality of secession was determined in 1869 (Texas v. White), after the barn door had been left open and the cow got out. Legality is pointless as people who view themselves as oppressed are going to do what is necessary to correct the problem.

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).


Under the authority of the Force Bill of 1833 expressly passed for that purpose and repealed as a negociated settlement with South Carolina.

< Message edited by RERomine -- 11/29/2006 4:06:14 PM >

(in reply to Murat)
Post #: 278
RE: Secession, right or wrong? - 11/29/2006 5:13:40 AM   
RERomine

 

Posts: 280
Joined: 7/19/2006
Status: offline

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.


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. 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.

As to the last part, there is no doubt. Somewhere, someone floated the idea or England got the idea, that the Southern states might "return to the fold" with England. Doubt that would have worked because of the slavery issue, but economic reasons certainly were viable.

(in reply to Murat)
Post #: 279
RE: Secession, right or wrong? - 11/29/2006 7:09:44 AM   
Twotribes


Posts: 6929
Joined: 2/15/2002
From: Jacksonville NC
Status: offline
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."

The act of leaving the Union VIOLATES EVERY Enumerated power that the Federal Government has over the State in question. Unless the Federal Government agrees to this act or unless an amendment is established delinating how succession would work a State can not simply leave the Union.

So I must assume your going to argue that a bank robber can rob his bank run into Mexico and declare he is no longer a US citizen so Federal Law doesnt apply to him?

States dont get to supercede Federal authority or Federal law. That is CLEAR in the Constitution. The act of leaving the Union, establishing a new Country and then preforming the actions of a country VIOLATE every enumerated power of the Federal Government.

One has no power if those whom the power exsists over can simply say, "well not today"

Any ACTION by the States that violates the authority and power and Jurisdiction of the Federal Government is illegal on its face. When it happens the Federal Government has several choices to make... they can accept the violation or the other extreme is they can enforce Federal Authority at the point of a gun.

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. And prior to 1860 no insurrection or rebellion was tolerated.

And AFTER the fact we have settled the question. By force of Arms, acts of Congress AND rulings of the Courts.

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.

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

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.

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.

(in reply to RERomine)
Post #: 280
RE: Secession, right or wrong? - 11/29/2006 8:29:37 AM   
Jonathan Palfrey

 

Posts: 535
Joined: 4/10/2004
From: Sant Pere de Ribes, Spain
Status: offline
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."


Why not? As I've pointed out, the government also has authority and power over individuals, but they can leave whenever they choose by emigrating.

If you go to work for a company, or join the Army, or whatever, your superiors have authority and power over you, until you leave. Just about any human organization that you can join, you can also choose to leave. If any human organization wants to forbid leaving, it should make that very clear to people before they join.

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.


This is not implied. It's merely your own interpretation. And I get the impression that at least some of the states that joined the USA did so in the belief that they were entitled to leave it.

(in reply to Twotribes)
Post #: 281
RE: Secession, right or wrong? - 11/29/2006 8:43:09 AM   
Twotribes


Posts: 6929
Joined: 2/15/2002
From: Jacksonville NC
Status: offline
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.

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"

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"?

(in reply to Jonathan Palfrey)
Post #: 282
RE: Secession, right or wrong? - 11/29/2006 8:47:02 AM   
Jonathan Palfrey

 

Posts: 535
Joined: 4/10/2004
From: Sant Pere de Ribes, Spain
Status: offline
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.



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.

The fact that the legal situation is different in the two cases is a secondary issue as far as I'm concerned. Laws can be changed if people decide that they're wrong. I'm talking about the rightness and wrongness of things.

(in reply to Greyshaft)
Post #: 283
RE: Secession, right or wrong? - 11/29/2006 8:57:22 AM   
Murat


Posts: 803
Joined: 9/17/2003
From: South Carolina
Status: offline
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.


They sent ships from the Royal Navy - not exactly a blind eye.

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.


Treaty negotiated by President Grant.

Was actually directing #1 to Twotribes, you already admitted you did not have a legal background.

(in reply to RERomine)
Post #: 284
RE: Secession, right or wrong? - 11/29/2006 9:14:15 AM   
Murat


Posts: 803
Joined: 9/17/2003
From: South Carolina
Status: offline
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.


Where?

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"


17, reduced to 12 of which 11 so far have been adopted.

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"?


Actually Amendment IX tells how the Constitution was meant to be interpreted, if a power is not enumerated (listed) the the government does not have it. Amendment X repeats this and states that anything not listed for the Federal government was left to the States or the People. Regardless you still have no response to the Declaration of Independence.

(in reply to Twotribes)
Post #: 285
RE: Secession, right or wrong? - 11/29/2006 10:18:00 AM   
Greyshaft


Posts: 2252
Joined: 10/27/2003
From: Sydney, Australia
Status: offline

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


_____________________________

/Greyshaft

(in reply to Twotribes)
Post #: 286
RE: Secession, right or wrong? - 11/29/2006 10:47:57 AM   
Jonathan Palfrey

 

Posts: 535
Joined: 4/10/2004
From: Sant Pere de Ribes, Spain
Status: offline
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



I vaguely remember seeing this mentioned earlier on. I believe that someone asked the question before the constitution was written and someone else answered "No." However, this was just one man's opinion at the time and I don't see that it has any importance. If there was any intent to forbid states from leaving (for ever and ever!), that should have been written clearly into the constitution -- both to clarify the situation, and to give states that objected to it the opportunity to say, "Well, in that case we're not joining."

< Message edited by Jonathan Palfrey -- 11/29/2006 10:52:08 AM >

(in reply to Greyshaft)
Post #: 287
RE: Secession, right or wrong? - 11/29/2006 11:12:16 AM   
Jonathan Palfrey

 

Posts: 535
Joined: 4/10/2004
From: Sant Pere de Ribes, Spain
Status: offline
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


Thanks. I don't have time to read it all now, but I've bookmarked it.

(in reply to Strelets)
Post #: 288
RE: Secession, right or wrong? - 11/29/2006 11:14:20 AM   
Twotribes


Posts: 6929
Joined: 2/15/2002
From: Jacksonville NC
Status: offline
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



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

Lets see, so far I have been called a liar, told to move from my home and called an idiot for having an opinion. Anyone else care to call me any other names while we are at it?

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)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.

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..."

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"

(in reply to Greyshaft)
Post #: 289
RE: Secession, right or wrong? - 11/29/2006 11:22:36 AM   
Jonathan Palfrey

 

Posts: 535
Joined: 4/10/2004
From: Sant Pere de Ribes, Spain
Status: offline
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.


You may be right -- though I think the USA might have trouble getting all the original states to sign up to such a constitution in any case.

I point out also that it's a bit absurd for people in the 18th century to sign away the fundamental rights of their children's children's children to the end of time. It may occur to some later generation to say, "We didn't sign this document. We're not bound by it."

(in reply to RERomine)
Post #: 290
RE: Secession, right or wrong? - 11/29/2006 11:27:23 AM   
Twotribes


Posts: 6929
Joined: 2/15/2002
From: Jacksonville NC
Status: offline
Well with that logic I guess I can say " damn I didnt vote for these laws( any passed before I was old enough to vote) so they dont apply."

(in reply to Jonathan Palfrey)
Post #: 291
RE: Secession, right or wrong? - 11/29/2006 12:11:37 PM   
Greyshaft


Posts: 2252
Joined: 10/27/2003
From: Sydney, Australia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Twotribes

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

No... I called you a fabricator of false references. It may well be that no-one has ever instructed you in the necessity and use of logic and accurate references in argument in which case the failing is not of your making and the problem is that you are simply attempting to punch above your intellectual and academic weight.


quote:

ORIGINAL: Twotribes

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

Does Twotribes fabricate references? Q.E.D.


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 ...

Yes we do insist on that. I have done that to support my argument as have other people but the best you can do is to offer a vague suggestion that the proof of your statement is somewhere in Articles I, II or III. You really need to do better than that if you want to be taken seriously.


quote:

ORIGINAL: Twotribes

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

And you keep ignoring those demands. Don't call the tune if you can't pay the Piper


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 ...

I have observed that whenever Twotribes uses the capitalized word 'CLEARLY' in a sentence it is an indication that the rest of his statement is an unsupported hypothesis.

_____________________________

/Greyshaft

(in reply to Twotribes)
Post #: 292
RE: Secession, right or wrong? - 11/29/2006 12:25:16 PM   
Jonathan Palfrey

 

Posts: 535
Joined: 4/10/2004
From: Sant Pere de Ribes, Spain
Status: offline
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.


This is not really relevant, but readers of this thread might be interested to read Michael Flynn's novella The Forest of Time (1987), which imagines a world in which the Pennamite Wars (fought between Connecticut and Pennsylvania in the late 18th century) got out of hand, and the states remained disunited and warring amongst each other for ever afterwards.

To be honest, I haven't been really keen on anything else by Flynn, but that one's an excellent story, a classic. It's available in The Forest of Time and Other Stories, and in other places.

(in reply to RERomine)
Post #: 293
RE: Secession, right or wrong? - 11/29/2006 3:09:55 PM   
Twotribes


Posts: 6929
Joined: 2/15/2002
From: Jacksonville NC
Status: offline
You cant resist name calling can you Greyshaft? As to your little points, Again the entire Articles apply, why would I type them out for you when all you have to do is go read them? But that isnt the point is it? Your trying through a sham to win a debating point.

We arent in a debating circle and you dont get points by pretending I didnt answer your smarmy little ruse.

Be so kind while we are at it to point out how my claim on the 10th amendment is wrong. Your claiming it is incorrect somehow or was that just another word game to try and twist whats said so you win some debating point?

Your the one playing games and trying to "win" by playing word games. Your not interested in answering my questions I notice.

(in reply to Jonathan Palfrey)
Post #: 294
RE: Secession, right or wrong? - 11/29/2006 3:24:59 PM   
AU Tiger_MatrixForum


Posts: 1606
Joined: 10/9/2006
From: Deepest Dixie
Status: offline
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.


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?


_____________________________

"Never take counsel of your fears."

Tho. Jackson

(in reply to Twotribes)
Post #: 295
RE: Secession, right or wrong? - 11/29/2006 3:48:55 PM   
Reiryc

 

Posts: 4991
Joined: 1/5/2001
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Twotribes

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


This is correct. They knowingly gave away certain rights, powers, authority and control on a host of issues, but not all by any stretch. This includes, the right to leave.

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.


This is a product of your imagination on what it says. The intent was to create a more 'energetic' government, not one that prevented states from leaving.

quote:


And prior to 1860 no insurrection or rebellion was tolerated.


Prior to 1860, no state attempted to leave.

quote:


And AFTER the fact we have settled the question.


Exactly, this was settled after the fact, which is not the question being discussed in this thread.

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.


Actually you don't need to cite any specific line or paragraph because they don't exist and you know it. The entire document applies only where it specifies that it applies.

quote:


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


Last I checked, an oath of office has nothing to do with a state. The state itself did not give an oath of office. So this is irrelevant.

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.


Leaving does not usurp those powers but rather negates them from being applied any further to your state. Those powers, such as making war, negotiating treaties, etc still exist for the federal government. What they prevent is current states of the union from engaging in activities reserved for federal government. They do not imply that once in, always in.

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.


That's right, there is no mention of it. Thus such a power is reserved to the states per that amendment 10.


_____________________________


(in reply to Twotribes)
Post #: 296
RE: Secession, right or wrong? - 11/29/2006 4:10:47 PM   
Reiryc

 

Posts: 4991
Joined: 1/5/2001
Status: offline

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)


That's because what doesn't seem to be penetrating is the reality that giving up some power is not akin to giving up all power.

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.


Why can't you copy or paste?

Would it help if I copied the constitution for you so that you can quote as necessary?

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..."


The answer has been given to you. The 10th amendment states that any powers not enumerated to the federal government are reserved to the states. This means that the federal government has superior power in some areas and no control at all in others.

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"


That's because the power of the federal government extends only to those under it's jurisdiction. Those that joined did so by giving up certain powers but retaining others. What powers did they retain? All powers not specifically given to the federal government. Now one must note that the word used in the 10th amendment was 'enumerated' which means listed. The listed powers given to the federal government. It does not say the assumed or the 'obvious' powers but rather the enumerated powers.

"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite."
-- James Madison, Federal No. 45



RESOLVED: That the principle and construction contended for by sundry of the state legislatures, that the general government is the exclusive judge of the extent of the powers delegated to it, stop nothing short of despotism; since the discretion of those who administer the government, and not the constitution, would be the measure of their powers:
That the several states who formed that instrument, being sovereign and independent, have the unquestionable right to judge of its infraction; and that a nullification, by those sovereignties, of all unauthorized acts done under colour of that instrument, is the rightful remedy.
-- Thomas Jefferson, 1799


[T]he powers of the federal government are enumerated; it can only operate in certain cases; it has legislative powers on defined and limited objects, beyond which it cannot extend its jurisdiction.
-- James Madison, Speech in the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 6, 1788


Now to your point about powers not existing, well let's check with Madison, known by his contemporaries as the 'father of the constitution'...



It has been objected also against a bill of rights, that, by enumerating particular exceptions to the grant of power, it would disparage those rights which were not placed in that enumeration, and it might follow by implication, that those rights which were not singled out, were intended to be assigned into the hands of the general government, and were consequently insecure. This is one of the most plausible arguments I have ever heard urged against the admission of a bill of rights into this system; but, I conceive, that may be guarded against. I have attempted it, as gentlemen may see by turning to the last clause of the 4th resolution.
-- James Madison, Proposing Bill of Rights to House, June 8, 1789



_____________________________


(in reply to Twotribes)
Post #: 297
RE: Secession, right or wrong? - 11/29/2006 4:17:49 PM   
RERomine

 

Posts: 280
Joined: 7/19/2006
Status: offline

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.


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.

(in reply to Jonathan Palfrey)
Post #: 298
RE: Secession, right or wrong? - 11/29/2006 5:04:55 PM   
RERomine

 

Posts: 280
Joined: 7/19/2006
Status: offline

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?


It seems to be more oriented towards clarifying the rights of the freed slaves. I don't think any amendments to the Constitution addressed secession in an explicit manner. The Supreme Court, full of Union justices, essentually put the question of secession to rest in 1869 in the Texas v White ruling based on the Constitution as it was written. It found something to the effect that Texas hadn't ever left the Union:

"Considered therefore as transactions under the Constitution, the ordinance of secession, adopted by the convention and ratified by a majority of the citizens of Texas, and all the acts of her legislature intended to give effect to that ordinance, were absolutely null. They were utterly without operation in law. The obligations of the State, as a member of the Union, and of every citizen of the State, as a citizen of the United States, remained perfect and unimpaired. It certainly follows that the State did not cease to be a State, nor her citizens to be citizens of the Union. If this were otherwise, the State must have become foreign, and her citizens foreigners. The war must have ceased to be a war for the suppression of rebellion, and must have become a war for conquest and subjugation."

It's an interesting ruling and I have to wonder if such a ruling would have been rendered had the case been heard in 1860, with four Northern justices, three Southern justices and one border justice. At this time, the court was one short as a justice had died and not yet been replaced, so I'm not sure what is decided with a 4 to 4 decision.

(in reply to AU Tiger_MatrixForum)
Post #: 299
RE: Secession, right or wrong? - 11/29/2006 5:07:44 PM   
Jonathan Palfrey

 

Posts: 535
Joined: 4/10/2004
From: Sant Pere de Ribes, Spain
Status: offline
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.


Governments don't like secession because it reduces their power; that's easy to understand. They feel diminished. They may also feel, "If this goes on, will we have anything left?" It's hard-hearted of me, but I'm afraid the psychological well-being of politicians isn't my prime concern.

The territory and resources aren't lost: they're still in active use and providing the same benefits as they did before. They're just reassigned to different management.

As for the defence risk: in defeating the Confederacy the Northern states suffered hundreds of thousands of casualties and spent a vast amount of money. That's definite, a matter of record. It seems unlikely that they could have suffered any worse from recognizing Confederate independence.

Having said all this, I recognize that ordinary people can also worry about secession in the ways you suggest. It's not a worry I tend to suffer from myself because I'm rootless and don't identify strongly with the country in which I happen to be living -- still less with its government.

(in reply to RERomine)
Post #: 300
Page:   <<   < prev  8 9 [10] 11 12   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [American Civil War] >> Forge of Freedom: The American Civil War 1861-1865 >> RE: Secession, right or wrong? Page: <<   < prev  8 9 [10] 11 12   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

5.234