# Southern history and the truth



## AllieBaba

Ok, there are people on here who want to claim libs are responsible for everything good since marshmallow creme, but the truth is, the Democratic party in the south, NOT the Republican party, is the party that fought civil rights for so long.

The Republican Party was created for abolitionists, by abolitionists. The Democratic Party was responsible for the "Redemption" of 1873-77, where white Southern Democrats ("Redeemers") defeated Republicans, took control of the Southern states, and began to take away rights from blacks.

Democrats were pro-slavery, democrats then (as now) objected to equality, and were responsible for Jim Crow. 

Democrats are the reason the south was such a mess in the 60s, when Martin Luther King, Jr. and activists began their protests.

With regards to "black rule", here is the history of that:

When the South was conquered, and supported by the Military Reconstruction Act (1867) the southern state governments were replaced based on a Republican coalition of freedmen...."carpetbaggers and scalaways" per Wiki. 

Carpetbaggers were Northerners who moved to the South between 1865-77. They formed a coalition with freed slaves and "scalawags" (Southern whites who espoused the reconstruction) and in turn controleed the confederate states.

Are you getting a picture? People were kicked out of southern political and economic offices, and positions of power were filled by northerners, southern traitors and blacks. The south retaliated with the KKK and the "Redeemers" and again took rights away from blacks in those states.

If they were terrorists, some would say they were justified!

Now you know, and you'll know better than to scoff at historical references when you have no knowledge of what you're scoffing at.


----------



## ReillyT

AllieBaba said:


> People were kicked out of southern political and economic offices, and positions of power were filled by northerners, southern traitors and blacks.



Actually, since the North won the war, I don't think that the southerners you are referring to would be classified as "traitors."  Maybe all the other southerners, but not them.


----------



## Care4all

AllieBaba said:


> Ok, there are people on here who want to claim libs are responsible for everything good since marshmallow creme, but the truth is, the Democratic party in the south, NOT the Republican party, is the party that fought civil rights for so long.
> 
> The Republican Party was created for abolitionists, by abolitionists. The Democratic Party was responsible for the "Redemption" of 1873-77, where white Southern Democrats ("Redeemers") defeated Republicans, took control of the Southern states, and began to take away rights from blacks.
> 
> Democrats were pro-slavery, democrats then (as now) objected to equality, and were responsible for Jim Crow.
> 
> Democrats are the reason the south was such a mess in the 60s, when Martin Luther King, Jr. and activists began their protests.
> 
> With regards to "black rule", here is the history of that:
> 
> When the South was conquered, and supported by the Military Reconstruction Act (1867) the southern state governments were replaced based on a Republican coalition of freedmen...."carpetbaggers and scalaways" per Wiki.
> 
> Carpetbaggers were Northerners who moved to the South between 1865-77. They formed a coalition with freed slaves and "scalawags" (Southern whites who espoused the reconstruction) and in turn controleed the confederate states.
> 
> Are you getting a picture? People were kicked out of southern political and economic offices, and positions of power were filled by northerners, southern traitors and blacks. The south retaliated with the KKK and the "Redeemers" and again took rights away from blacks in those states.
> 
> If they were terrorists, some would say they were justified!
> 
> Now you know, and you'll know better than to scoff at historical references when you have no knowledge of what you're scoffing at.



Yes, times change, and the Democrats that were bigots, left the Democratic Party when Strom Thurmond ran for President as a DixieCrat, after the losses of the Dixicrats they JOINED the REPUBLICAN party, in the South...

Didn't you know this....?

Care


----------



## AllieBaba

ReillyT said:


> Actually, since the North won the war, I don't think that the southerners you are referring to would be classified as "traitors."  Maybe all the other southerners, but not them.



They were traitors to the Confederacy.

Is that all you have to say?


----------



## AllieBaba

Care4all said:


> Yes, times change, and the Democrats that were bigots, left the Democratic Party when Strom Thurmond ran for President as a DixieCrat, after the losses of the Dixicrats they JOINED the REPUBLICAN party, in the South...
> 
> Didn't you know this....?
> 
> Care



I knew it. Libs on this site didn't.

Just because they ran to the Republican Party doesn't mean anything. They just tainted us as well. 

The fact is, liberal policies and democratic policies are racist policies. I'm tired of the left insisting otherwise, and LYING about our history, and the history of racist policy, particularly in the South.


----------



## ReillyT

AllieBaba said:


> They were traitors to the Confederacy.
> 
> Is that all you have to say?



What did you want me to say?


----------



## AllieBaba

Nothing at all. Just continue to ask stupid questions which have obvious answers, if it makes you feel good.


----------



## ReillyT

AllieBaba said:


> I knew it. Libs on this site didn't.



You must get so excited when you realize that you know something.


----------



## ReillyT

AllieBaba said:


> Nothing at all. Just continue to ask stupid questions which have obvious answers, if it makes you feel good.



I didn't ask a question.  I just pointed out that who precisely was a "traitor" depends on the context.


----------



## AllieBaba

It's called "diverting". Don't focus on the topic, instead use techniques meant to distract. It's annoying.


----------



## AllieBaba

ReillyT said:


> You must get so excited when you realize that you know something.



If that were true, I'd be excited all the time.


----------



## ReillyT

AllieBaba said:


> It's called "diverting". Don't focus on the topic, instead use techniques meant to distract. It's annoying.



What exactly is the topic? Is it that you have demonstrated you know something.


----------



## AllieBaba

That's a diversion too.


----------



## Shogun

this thread totally makes my day.


----------



## CrimsonWhite

AllieBaba said:


> Ok, there are people on here who want to claim libs are responsible for everything good since marshmallow creme, but the truth is, the Democratic party in the south, NOT the Republican party, is the party that fought civil rights for so long.
> 
> The Republican Party was created for abolitionists, by abolitionists. The Democratic Party was responsible for the "Redemption" of 1873-77, where white Southern Democrats ("Redeemers") defeated Republicans, took control of the Southern states, and began to take away rights from blacks.
> 
> Democrats were pro-slavery, democrats then (as now) objected to equality, and were responsible for Jim Crow.
> 
> Democrats are the reason the south was such a mess in the 60s, when Martin Luther King, Jr. and activists began their protests.
> 
> With regards to "black rule", here is the history of that:
> 
> When the South was conquered, and supported by the Military Reconstruction Act (1867) the southern state governments were replaced based on a Republican coalition of freedmen...."carpetbaggers and scalaways" per Wiki.
> 
> Carpetbaggers were Northerners who moved to the South between 1865-77. They formed a coalition with freed slaves and "scalawags" (Southern whites who espoused the reconstruction) and in turn controleed the confederate states.
> 
> Are you getting a picture? People were kicked out of southern political and economic offices, and positions of power were filled by northerners, southern traitors and blacks. The south retaliated with the KKK and the "Redeemers" and again took rights away from blacks in those states.
> 
> If they were terrorists, some would say they were justified!
> 
> Now you know, and you'll know better than to scoff at historical references when you have no knowledge of what you're scoffing at.



I swear, you read "History for Dummies," becaause this is very simplistic. You should really consider suing your high school history teacher.

P.S. All of my Great Great Grandfathers wore Gray from 1861-1865. None wore white afterward. Are they the traitors you are refering to?


----------



## RetiredGySgt

onthefence said:


> I swear, you read "History for Dummies," becaause this is very simplistic. You should really consider suing your high school history teacher.
> 
> P.S. All of my Great Great Grandfathers wore Gray from 1861-1865. None wore white afterward. Are they the traitors you are refering to?



Reading comprehension is your friend.


----------



## Toro

The logic is specious.

Allie, you keep interchanging the term "Republicans" with "conservatives."  They are not the same.

Republicans were the party of abolitionists, but southern conservatives - the ones that dominate the Republican party today - were not, and fought all the way against emancipation, from the ending of slavery to civil rights.  _Conservatives_ used to dominate the southern Democratic party.  

Several years ago, I heard Newt Gingrich say that _conservatives_ were wrong to oppose the civil rights movement in the 1960s.  Gingrich said "conservatives," not Republicans.

Most Republicans and conservatives are not racists - on this board, RGS has been very vocal calling out some of the racist posts that get on this board for example - but the Republican party has played footsies with racists here in the south.  Reagan, a President I generally admire, announced his candidacy in Philadelphia MS, the town where the events depicted in the movie, Mississippi Burning, took place.  Bush II gave a speech at Bob Jones University when he was running for the nomination, a university that forbade interracial dating.  Remember the vociferous opposition of the South Carolina Republicans to the removal of the Confederate flag from the legislature (compared to when Jeb Bush removed the flag from the Florida legislature without any fanfare)?

So saying that "conservatives" fought to end slavery and racism here in the South is simply wrong.


----------



## jillian

She already has been told all of that. Gotta give her credit, though, no matter how ignorant her statements and no matter how many ways she twists to try to overcome having had her butt kicked, she keeps on ticking... better than a Timex and generally amusing.


----------



## dread

jillian said:


> She already has been told all of that. Gotta give her credit, though, no matter how ignorant her statements and no matter how many ways she twists to try to overcome having had her butt kicked, she keeps on ticking... better than a Timex and generally amusing.





For someone who likes to dictate manors to everyone SHE DOESN"T like, I find it hypocritical of you when you offer NONE in return.


----------



## BrianH

jillian said:


> She already has been told all of that. Gotta give her credit, though, no matter how ignorant her statements and no matter how many ways she twists to try to overcome having had her butt kicked, she keeps on ticking... better than a Timex and generally amusing.


----------



## CharlestonChad

Conservatives and liberals might be kinda pissed that you are shoring them up with a permanent party, seeing as how they switched parties a few decades ago.


----------



## maineman

AllieBaba said:


> Ok, there are people on here who want to claim libs are responsible for everything good since marshmallow creme, but the truth is, the Democratic party in the south, NOT the Republican party, is the party that fought civil rights for so long.



it shows stupidity to equate liberalism and the democratic party... just like it shows stupidity to equate conservatism with the republican party.

In fact, parties have, can and do change and shift their philosophical underpinnings.  In America, liberalism and conservativism are political philosophies, not political parties.


----------



## Swamp Fox

maineman said:


> it shows stupidity to equate liberalism and the democratic party... just like it shows stupidity to equate conservatism with the republican party.
> 
> In fact, parties have, can and do change and shift their philosophical underpinnings.  In America, liberalism and conservativism are political philosophies, not political parties.



You're not as stupid as you act.  Still need to work on your manners though.


----------



## Gunny

ReillyT said:


> Actually, since the North won the war, I don't think that the southerners you are referring to would be classified as "traitors."  Maybe all the other southerners, but not them.



Actually, it is ONLY because the North won the war that ANY Southerners are labeled "traitors" by yankees.

The Southern states each legally disolved their affiliation with the US.  A union that they joined freely as an "experiment", and a union that no legislation in 1860 prohibited any state from leaving as freely as it entered.

Abraham Lincoln TRAMPLED the US Constitution in order to unlawfully invade and subjugate a sovereign nation.


----------



## Gunny

Care4all said:


> Yes, times change, and the Democrats that were bigots, left the Democratic Party when Strom Thurmond ran for President as a DixieCrat, after the losses of the Dixicrats they JOINED the REPUBLICAN party, in the South...
> 
> Didn't you know this....?
> 
> Care



LMAO.  Bullshit.


----------



## ReillyT

GunnyL said:


> Actually, it is ONLY because the North won the war that ANY Southerners are labeled "traitors" by yankees.



Even if the South had won, those southerners that supported the Union would have been "traitors."  Either way, somebody was fucked.



GunnyL said:


> The Southern states each legally disolved their affiliation with the US.  A union that they joined freely as an "experiment", and a union that no legislation in 1860 prohibited any state from leaving as freely as it entered.



While true that no legislation prohibited it, nothing in the Constitution that I am aware of provides for the secession of any member.  It would be an interesting question what the legalities may be. I think BrianH may have recently posted a thread on just this topic.


----------



## Gunny

Toro said:


> The logic is specious.
> 
> Allie, you keep interchanging the term "Republicans" with "conservatives."  They are not the same.
> 
> Republicans were the party of abolitionists, but southern conservatives - the ones that dominate the Republican party today - were not, and fought all the way against emancipation, from the ending of slavery to civil rights.  _Conservatives_ used to dominate the southern Democratic party.
> 
> Several years ago, I heard Newt Gingrich say that _conservatives_ were wrong to oppose the civil rights movement in the 1960s.  Gingrich said "conservatives," not Republicans.
> 
> Most Republicans and conservatives are not racists - on this board, RGS has been very vocal calling out some of the racist posts that get on this board for example - but the Republican party has played footsies with racists here in the south.  Reagan, a President I generally admire, announced his candidacy in Philadelphia MS, the town where the events depicted in the movie, Mississippi Burning, took place.  Bush II gave a speech at Bob Jones University when he was running for the nomination, a university that forbade interracial dating.  Remember the vociferous opposition of the South Carolina Republicans to the removal of the Confederate flag from the legislature (compared to when Jeb Bush removed the flag from the Florida legislature without any fanfare)?
> 
> So saying that "conservatives" fought to end slavery and racism here in the South is simply wrong.



Please don't put it in proper context.  Those "conservatives" you say that used to dominate the Democrat party were at the time called liberals and progressives.  The shift of both parties to the left on the political spectrum is the only thing that makes them "conservatives" by today's standards.

The Republican party was NOT the party of abolitionists.  It was the part abolitionists supported.  Lincoln was MORE than willing to allow slavery to continue to exist if the Southern states would just toe the line, and he even offered such as a political attempt to avoid war.


----------



## onedomino

GunnyL said:


> Actually, it is ONLY because the North won the war that ANY Southerners are labeled "traitors" by yankees.
> 
> The Southern states each legally disolved their affiliation with the US.  A union that they joined freely as an "experiment", and a union that no legislation in 1860 prohibited any state from leaving as freely as it entered.
> 
> Abraham Lincoln TRAMPLED the US Constitution in order to unlawfully invade and subjugate a sovereign nation.


I agree, but not all aspects of succession were black and white. That Lincoln gave the Constitution scant attention during the War years is quite clear. But should the Constitution have been ignored in order to preserve the Union is another question. There was of course plenty of legal wrangling; it is what lawyers do. It can be maintained, for example, that South Carolina started the War by attacking Federal soldiers and property. Was that a justification for invasion of the South? Such has been debated for almost 150 years. The fact is that the Civil War period was the most significant in American history. As Shelby Foote observed, the Civil War turned the sentence "The United States are..." into the sentence "The United States is..." I recommend the Mississippian's three volume "The Civil War: A Narrative." Foote writes with a profound respect for the towering historical figures that populated both sides of the divide. But he does not hold back criticism when justified. Also he relates the stories of many ordinary citizens and immigrants whose lives were forever changed, and sometimes ended, by the greatest struggle in the history of the Western Hemisphere. To see a brilliant light cast upon the lives of ordinary people during the Reconstruction era find a copy of William Faulkner's "The Unvanquished."


----------



## Gunny

ReillyT said:


> Even if the South had won, those southerners that supported the Union would have been "traitors."  Either way, somebody was fucked.



It was not really all that uncommon for Southerners, especially in border states, to support the Union.  Of course, the exact same argument can be made for the Tories during the American Revolution, and "traitor" was a term relative to who was using it.  



> While true that no legislation prohibited it, nothing in the Constitution that I am aware of provides for the secession of any member.  It would be an interesting question what the legalities may be. I think BrianH may have recently posted a thread on just this topic.



True, there is no specific wording that provides for secession.  However, there is no specific wording that prohibits secession.  IMO, it is a logical assumption that if I enter something freely on a voulnteer and experimental basis, and no language is included in the contract that precludes my leaving on the same terms, I am free to do as I please should the relationship turn out to be something less than either party desires.

IMO, the legalities are not an "interesting question," because I see no question.  From a legal standpoint based on the law at that time, the South had every legal right to secede.

It is only a "question" for those who wish to try and justify the unlawful actions taken by the US to retain by force that which they could not keep by political intimidation.


----------



## Gunny

onedomino said:


> I agree, but not all aspects of succession were black and white. That Lincoln gave the Constitution scant attention during the War years is quite clear. But should the Constitution have been ignored in order to preserve the Union is another question. There was of course plenty of legal wrangling; it is what lawyers do. It can be maintained, for example, that South Carolina started the War by attacking Federal soldiers and property. Was that a justification for invasion of the South? Such has been debated for almost 150 years. The fact is that the Civil War period was the most significant in American history. As Shelby Foote observed, the Civil War turned the sentence "The United States are..." into the sentence "The United States is..." I recommend the Mississippian's three volume "The Civil War: A Narrative." Foote writes with a profound respect for the towering historical figures that populated both sides of the divide. But he does not hold back criticism when justified. Also he relates the stories of many ordinary citizens and immigrants whose lives were forever changed, and sometimes ended, by the greatest struggle in the history of the Western Hemisphere. To see a brilliant light cast upon the lives of ordinary people during the Reconstruction era find a copy of William Faulkner's "The Unvanquished."



Should the Constitution have been ignored to preserve the Union?  The preservation of the Union is a contrived, ideological argument that was not established by any legal basis.  

It is quite interesting how the political sides line up on the issue.  IMO, the left holds their usual double-standard where the US Civil War and Lincoln's disregard for the Constitution are concerned, as compared to current events.
Not to mention the general ignorance and blind beliefs held concerning the reasons for the war.

The same people who contend the end justified the means in regard to Lincoln's actions, have general heart failure every time Bush so much as opens his mouth.

Does the end justify the means?  If it does as it pertains to the US Civil War, why does it not on controversial issues such as the Patriot Act, NSA Wiretapping -- actions that are supposedly taken in the overall defense of and for the good of the Nation, that push the limit on government control and infringing on Constitutional rights?

The argument of the South firing on Ft Sumter is another one that depends on one's point of view.  After seceding from the US,  South Carolina demanded the US withdraw from all SC territory that it occupied.  
The premise of this argument attempting to compare the political parties of the Civil War era to today is fallacious.  A general observation would be that from that time to this, the Republican party and the Democrat have each gone 180 degrees on what they supposedly represent.


----------



## The_Hammer

AllieBaba said:


> Ok, there are people on here who want to claim libs are responsible for everything good since marshmallow creme, but the truth is, the Democratic party in the south, NOT the Republican party, is the party that fought civil rights for so long.
> 
> The Republican Party was created for abolitionists, by abolitionists. The Democratic Party was responsible for the "Redemption" of 1873-77, where white Southern Democrats ("Redeemers") defeated Republicans, took control of the Southern states, and began to take away rights from blacks.
> 
> Democrats were pro-slavery, democrats then (as now) objected to equality, and were responsible for Jim Crow.
> 
> Democrats are the reason the south was such a mess in the 60s, when Martin Luther King, Jr. and activists began their protests.
> 
> With regards to "black rule", here is the history of that:
> 
> When the South was conquered, and supported by the Military Reconstruction Act (1867) the southern state governments were replaced based on a Republican coalition of freedmen...."carpetbaggers and scalaways" per Wiki.
> 
> Carpetbaggers were Northerners who moved to the South between 1865-77. They formed a coalition with freed slaves and "scalawags" (Southern whites who espoused the reconstruction) and in turn controleed the confederate states.
> 
> Are you getting a picture? People were kicked out of southern political and economic offices, and positions of power were filled by northerners, southern traitors and blacks. The south retaliated with the KKK and the "Redeemers" and again took rights away from blacks in those states.
> 
> If they were terrorists, some would say they were justified!
> 
> Now you know, and you'll know better than to scoff at historical references when you have no knowledge of what you're scoffing at.



Let me put it to you this way.

The south was a traitorous, rebellious government against the United States of America. Anyone who served in it's government, recognized it's government, served in its military was a traitor, legally and figuratively.

Were the United States ANY other nation on the planet at that time which could have dealt with rebellion, mass executions of soldiers and members of the Confederate government would have followed. The south was not an ethnic or religious minority that was being repressed by a big mean United States. They were a whiny self-centered, post-feudal society. They made rules when the country was founded and when it turned out that the North was always going to have more people, got their slaves to get counted, but not vote, essentially getting free seats in congress. When that didn't even work (and even the total slave population had been counted they would still be outnumberd in congress 2 to 1) they revolted, claiming states rights, when in reality they had lost a game that they'd agreed to play, even changing some rules to favor them. They got a relatively _nice_ smackdown. They were allowed to keep a good portion of their culture (the fact that you are posting this is proof of that). If the North had wanted war more or more generals like sherman and grant had existed from the get go, there would have been massive depopulation of southern whites. The south got a really nice deal for a rebellion.


----------



## Gunny

The_Hammer said:


> Let me put it to you this way.
> 
> The south was a traitorous, rebellious government against the United States of America. Anyone who served in it's government, recognized it's government, served in its military was a traitor, legally and figuratively.
> 
> Were the United States ANY other nation on the planet at that time which could have dealt with rebellion, mass executions of soldiers and members of the Confederate government would have followed. The south was not an ethnic or religious minority that was being repressed by a big mean United States. They were a whiny self-centered, post-feudal society. They made rules when the country was founded and when it turned out that the North was always going to have more people, got their slaves to get counted, but not vote, essentially getting free seats in congress. When that didn't even work (and even the total slave population had been counted they would still be outnumberd in congress 2 to 1) they revolted, claiming states rights, when in reality they had lost a game that they'd agreed to play, even changing some rules to favor them. They got a relatively _nice_ smackdown. They were allowed to keep a good portion of their culture (the fact that you are posting this is proof of that). If the North had wanted war more or more generals like sherman and grant had existed from the get go, there would have been massive depopulation of southern whites. The south got a really nice deal for a rebellion.



The premise of your argument is fallacious, and obviously you have done no actual research on the legalities involved.  

There was no "rebellion."  Southern states legally terminated a contract they entered into voluntarily.  That contract did NOT include any language to the effect that once in, there was no out.  It did however include language to the effect that any powers not specifically granted to the Federal Government by the Constitution fell to the states.  The only language contained in the Constitution that pertains to the suject of membership is to the effect that the states joined as an experiment to form a union.  

In any other facet of life, when an experiment does not produce the desired results, what happens?  You move on.


----------



## Swamp Fox

The_Hammer said:


> Let me put it to you this way.
> 
> The south was a traitorous, rebellious government against the United States of America. Anyone who served in it's government, recognized it's government, served in its military was a traitor, legally and figuratively.
> 
> Were the United States ANY other nation on the planet at that time which could have dealt with rebellion, mass executions of soldiers and members of the Confederate government would have followed. The south was not an ethnic or religious minority that was being repressed by a big mean United States. They were a whiny self-centered, post-feudal society. They made rules when the country was founded and when it turned out that the North was always going to have more people, got their slaves to get counted, but not vote, essentially getting free seats in congress. When that didn't even work (and even the total slave population had been counted they would still be outnumberd in congress 2 to 1) they revolted, claiming states rights, when in reality they had lost a game that they'd agreed to play, even changing some rules to favor them. They got a relatively _nice_ smackdown. They were allowed to keep a good portion of their culture (the fact that you are posting this is proof of that). If the North had wanted war more or more generals like sherman and grant had existed from the get go, there would have been massive depopulation of southern whites. The south got a really nice deal for a rebellion.



Actually, Abraham Lincoln discarded the Constitution for the duration of the war, put people in jail for no reason, suspended most civil rights and forced the South into staying in a union that they had every legal right to leave.  The Civil War outcome was a major blow to Amendment 10 of the Bill of Rights and has resulted in an ever expanding federal government that threatens to consume us to this day.


----------



## The_Hammer

GunnyL said:


> The premise of your argument is fallacious, and obviously you have done no actual research on the legalities involved.
> 
> There was no "rebellion."  Southern states legally terminated a contract they entered into voluntarily.  That contract did NOT include any language to the effect that once in, there was no out.  It did however include language to the effect that any powers not specifically granted to the Federal Government by the Constitution fell to the states.  The only language contained in the Constitution that pertains to the suject of membership is to the effect that the states joined as an experiment to form a union.
> 
> In any other facet of life, when an experiment does not produce the desired results, what happens?  You move on.



There was no legal termination of contract. The south said "see you later, we don't want to play any more". There was no act of congress that said "O well if we don't want a state anymore we can vote it off the island." No such vote occured, and if it had, the south would have lost anyway. I'm sick of apologist with their "OOO it was legal. The south had a right to it." No they didn't have a right. Sorry. They lose.

In addition had the south wanted some legal precedent for sucession they shouldn't have attacked and siezed federal forts. Than in an of itself is an act of war. You attack federal property, the fed shoots you up. Sorry, they lose again.



			
				Swamp Fox said:
			
		

> Actually, Abraham Lincoln discarded the Constitution for the duration of the war, put people in jail for no reason, suspended most civil rights and forced the South into staying in a union that they had every legal right to leave. The Civil War outcome was a major blow to Amendment 10 of the Bill of Rights and has resulted in an ever expanding federal government that threatens to consume us to this day.



Necessary evils to preserve the union. And they didn't force the the south. You want to leave, take it up with congress. If congress says no, sit down and shut up.


----------



## Dr Grump

dread said:


> For someone who likes to dictate manors to everyone SHE DOESN"T like, I find it hypocritical of you when you offer NONE in return.



Didn't know Jillian was in charge of a whole lot of country estates...go figure..


----------



## Gunny

The_Hammer said:


> There was no legal termination of contract. The south said "see you later, we don't want to play any more". There was no act of congress that said "O well if we don't want a state anymore we can vote it off the island." No such vote occured, and if it had, the south would have lost anyway. I'm sick of apologist with their "OOO it was legal. The south had a right to it." No they didn't have a right. Sorry. They lose.
> 
> In addition had the south wanted some legal precedent for sucession they shouldn't have attacked and siezed federal forts. Than in an of itself is an act of war. You attack federal property, the fed shoots you up. Sorry, they lose again.



Incorrect.  Each state drew up Declarations of Secession.   That's called legal documentation.  They presented them to the US government that they no longer wanted to be in their club.



> Necessary evils to preserve the union. And they didn't force the the south. You want to leave, take it up with congress. If congress says no, sit down and shut up.



Only problem with your argument is it assumes there was any legal mandate to preserve the Union above and beyond even the law itself.  There was none. 

The Southern states had no reason to take it up with Congress since once they drew their terms of secession they no longer recognized the US Congress's authority.  The issue of unequal representation in Congress was part of the basis of the South's argument and reason for secession.  Seems rather ridiculous that they would then turn to that same Congress and ask for anything.

Basically your argument is that Federal authority is absolute and cannot be questioned even where legislation does not preclude such.  

Our own legislation says otherwise:

10 Amendment:  "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." 

then there's this little tidbit ...



> On March 2, 1861  the same day the "first Thirteenth Amendment" passed the U.S. Senate  another constitutional amendment was proposed that would have outlawed secession (See H. Newcomb Morse, "The Foundations and Meaning of Secession," Stetson Law Review, vol. 15, 1986, pp. 41936). This is very telling, for it proves that Congress believed that secession was in fact constitutional under the Tenth Amendment. It would not have proposed an amendment outlawing secession if the Constitution already prohibited it.
> 
> http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo37.html



Then there's "merely" one of the main Founding Father's opinions ...



> In the North, secession is still seen as a regional Southern issue, inseparable from, and therefore discredited by, slavery. But this is not so at all. At various times, Northern states had threatened to secede for various reasons. On one occasion, Thomas Jefferson said they should be allowed to go in peace. After all, the whole point of the Declaration of Independence was that these are, and of Right ought to be, Free and Independent States. Not, as Lincoln later said, a single new nation, but (to quote Willmoore Kendall) a bakers dozen of new sovereignties.
> 
> And the Articles of Confederation reinforced the point right at the beginning: Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence. And at the end of the Revolutionary War, the British specifically recognized the sovereignty of all 13 states! This is flatly contrary to Lincolns claim that the states had never been sovereign.
> 
> But didnt the Constitution transfer sovereignty from the states to the Federal Government, outlawing secession? Not at all. The Constitution says nothing of the kind. And as Davis wrote, sovereignty cannot be surrendered by mere implication. In fact, several states ratified the Constitution on the express condition that they reserved the right to resume the powers they were delegating  that is, secede. And if one state could secede, so could the others. A state was not a mere province or subdivision of a larger entity; it was sovereign by definition.
> 
> Claiming sovereignty for the Federal Government, Lincoln felt justified in violating the Constitution in order to save the Union  by which he meant saving Federal sovereignty. One of the best-kept secrets of American history is that many if not most Northerners thought the Southern states had the right to secede. This is why Lincoln shut down hundreds of newspapers and arrested thousands of critics of his war. He had to wage a propaganda war against the North itself.
> 
> more ...http://www.buchanan.org/blog/?p=623


----------



## The_Hammer

GunnyL said:


> Incorrect.  Each state drew up Declarations of Secession.   That's called legal documentation.  They presented them to the US government that they no longer wanted to be in their club.



They were documents that were not approved by the congress of the nation that they were sending them too. Using the same logic I could come up with a legal document saying that I have the right to punch peoples tires and I am no longer a citizen of the United States and can do whatever I want. If a court or congress doesn't recognize it, my point it moot.




			
				GunnyL said:
			
		

> Only problem with your argument is it assumes there was any legal mandate to preserve the Union above and beyond even the law itself.  There was none.



Using the same argument one could say that there was no legal mandate for secession. And since secession including seizure of federal property they were either A) Traitors as still being citizens of the US B) Comitting acts of war by damaging federal property.



			
				GunnyL said:
			
		

> The Southern states had no reason to take it up with Congress since once they drew their terms of secession they no longer recognized the US Congress's authority.  The issue of unequal representation in Congress was part of the basis of the South's argument and reason for secession.  Seems rather ridiculous that they would then turn to that same Congress and ask for anything.



It doesn't matter whether or not they recognized it. It had already been established. Likewise I could do the same thing and say I didn't recognize the authority of the US and do as I pleased and would suffer the consequences. This is what happened to the south.



			
				GunnyL said:
			
		

> Basically your argument is that Federal authority is absolute and cannot be questioned even where legislation does not preclude such.
> 
> Our own legislation says otherwise:
> 
> 10 Amendment:  "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."



Likewise in the same amendment
Section 10 - Powers prohibited of States

No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or *Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts*, or grant any Title of Nobility.

Their declaration (if you assume it to be equal to a law) said they were no longer bound to their obligations of their contract of statehood and of having accepting the constitution. Had they possibly pursued a legal course saying that the US government had failed on its obligations and had in fact won their case in the Supreme court then their secession would have been legal. But that didn't happen, and if it did, they probably would have lost. Tough noogies. You shouldn't have played if you didn't like the rules.



> On March 2, 1861 &#8211; the same day the "first Thirteenth Amendment" passed the U.S. Senate &#8211; another constitutional amendment was proposed that would have outlawed secession (See H. Newcomb Morse, "The Foundations and Meaning of Secession," Stetson Law Review, vol. 15, 1986, pp. 419&#8211;36). This is very telling, for it proves that Congress believed that secession was in fact constitutional under the Tenth Amendment. It would not have proposed an amendment outlawing secession if the Constitution already prohibited it.



Coulda woulda shoulda mighta happened. Nice. It's not solid. Personally I'd interpret it as leaving the constitution to appear open enough for secession while leaving it internally against it giving congress the ability to squash secession if it were occur but leaving the constitution appearing open enough that if a state thought it might want to secede in the future it would have the "freedom" to. I don't think the 13 would have ratified the constitution it hadn't had this rather wishy washy quality to it.




> Then there's "merely" one of the main Founding Father's opinions ...
> 
> 
> 
> In the North, secession is still seen as a regional &#8220;Southern&#8221; issue, inseparable from, and therefore discredited by, slavery. But this is not so at all. At various times, Northern states had threatened to secede for various reasons. On one occasion, Thomas Jefferson said they should be allowed to &#8220;go in peace.&#8221; After all, the whole point of the Declaration of Independence was that these &#8220;are, and of Right ought to be, Free and Independent States.&#8221; Not, as Lincoln later said, a single &#8220;new nation,&#8221; but (to quote Willmoore Kendall) &#8220;a baker&#8217;s dozen of new sovereignties.&#8221;
> 
> And the Articles of Confederation reinforced the point right at the beginning: &#8220;Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence.&#8221; And at the end of the Revolutionary War, the British specifically recognized the sovereignty of all 13 states! This is flatly contrary to Lincoln&#8217;s claim that the states had never been sovereign.
> 
> But didn&#8217;t the Constitution transfer sovereignty from the states to the Federal Government, outlawing secession? Not at all. The Constitution says nothing of the kind. And as Davis wrote, sovereignty cannot be surrendered by mere implication. In fact, several states ratified the Constitution on the express condition that they reserved the right to &#8220;resume&#8221; the powers they were &#8220;delegating&#8221; &#8212; that is, secede. And if one state could secede, so could the others. A &#8220;state&#8221; was not a mere province or subdivision of a larger entity; it was sovereign by definition.
> 
> Claiming sovereignty for the Federal Government, Lincoln felt justified in violating the Constitution in order to &#8220;save the Union&#8221; &#8212; by which he meant &#8220;saving&#8221; Federal sovereignty. One of the best-kept secrets of American history is that many if not most Northerners thought the Southern states had the right to secede. This is why Lincoln shut down hundreds of newspapers and arrested thousands of critics of his war. He had to wage a propaganda war against the North itself.
Click to expand...


There was a national emergency and Lincoln acted to preserve the union. Jeffersons thoughts were nice are largely ineffectual because no one actually put this on paper and into law. Interestingly the Declaration of Independence really doesn't have weight in my mind (at least when it was implimented). It wasn't a legal document, though it did have signers since no court could recognize it. Admittedly it was signed by a bunch of rogues who rebelled. The fact that they won their war and established their authority gave them their right to exist.

The articles of confederation were null and void once the constitution was ratified.

The next paragraph essentially repeats what I said before. The constitution was intentionally made to be ambigious. No one was going to say "States can secede" just like no one was going to say "States can't secede" if it happened the fed would determine what it thought was the meaning of its constitution. Turned out it didn't think states had the right to secede and it showed it had the authority to enforce that. The states are sovereign unto themselves *under* the sovereignty of the federal government.

Last bit is true. Lincoln did suspend constitutional rights during the war. But he got his hands dirty doing what he needed to do to get the job done.


----------



## Swamp Fox

The_Hammer said:


> They were documents that were not approved by the congress of the nation that they were sending them too. Using the same logic I could come up with a legal document saying that I have the right to punch peoples tires and I am no longer a citizen of the United States and can do whatever I want. If a court or congress doesn't recognize it, my point it moot.



Show me the part of the Constitution that says a state can't leave.





The_Hammer said:


> Their declaration (if you assume it to be equal to a law) said they were no longer bound to their obligations of their contract of statehood and of having accepting the constitution. Had they possibly pursued a legal course saying that the US government had failed on its obligations and had in fact won their case in the Supreme court then their secession would have been legal. But that didn't happen, and if it did, they probably would have lost. Tough noogies. You shouldn't have played if you didn't like the rules.



Never got a chacne to go to the Supreme Court because Lincoln declared war and started fighting.




The_Hammer said:


> Coulda woulda shoulda mighta happened. Nice. It's not solid. Personally I'd interpret it as leaving the constitution to appear open enough for secession while leaving it internally against it giving congress the ability to squash secession if it were occur but leaving the constitution appearing open enough that if a state thought it might want to secede in the future it would have the "freedom" to. I don't think the 13 would have ratified the constitution it hadn't had this rather wishy washy quality to it.



If you read the notes on the debates of the federal convention you'll see that the Founding Fathers were very concerned about the federal government becoming too strong and wanted to allow the states a way to leave the union if that happened.




The_Hammer said:


> There was a national emergency and Lincoln acted to preserve the union. Jeffersons thoughts were nice are largely ineffectual because no one actually put this on paper and into law. Interestingly the Declaration of Independence really doesn't have weight in my mind (at least when it was implimented). It wasn't a legal document, though it did have signers since no court could recognize it. Admittedly it was signed by a bunch of rogues who rebelled. The fact that they won their war and established their authority gave them their right to exist.



So, a little bit of trouble and the Constitution gets tossed?  Isn't that the same thing people are complaining about today?



The_Hammer said:


> Last bit is true. Lincoln did suspend constitutional rights during the war. But he got his hands dirty doing what he needed to do to get the job done.



The job that needed to be done, according to who?  All depends on your point of view.  Lincoln kept the Union together but also made the federal government more powerful then it had been before. This laid the ground work for FDR's "New Deal" which has really turned states rights into a joke and the federal government into the 800 pound gorilla.


----------



## The_Hammer

Swamp Fox said:


> Show me the part of the Constitution that says a state can't leave.



My exact argument is show me where is says they can. I did emphasize in my last post the bit about reneging on a contract as it refers to the states which could be used to refute their right. However at the time the constitution was sufficiently ambigious on the matter that it could have gone either way. When the states did secede congress decided to act on the matter and said it was illegal.




> Never got a chacne to go to the Supreme Court because Lincoln declared war and started fighting.



You don't quit first _then_ ask if you can quit. They should have pursued their case in a far more legal fashion that was not subject to the ambiguities of the constitution. They didn't. They started siezing federal forts and stores. They committed acts of war and gave Lincoln the US a casus belli. He didn't need to wait for them. He and the congress had the authority to act and they did.



> If you read the notes on the debates of the federal convention you'll see that the Founding Fathers were very concerned about the federal government becoming too strong and wanted to allow the states a way to leave the union if that happened.



What they debated about doesn't mean jack. What got put on paper and became the laws of the country does.




> So, a little bit of trouble and the Constitution gets tossed?  Isn't that the same thing people are complaining about today?



It wasn't a "little bit of trouble". The southern states had comitted acts of war against the union, their secession not withstanding. The border states were about to go. Riots were springing up due to drafting. Now compared to then would be like saying a social cat fight between two cheerleaders in beverly hills is equatable to sets of crips and bloods in compton having a gang fight.




> The job that needed to be done, according to who?  All depends on your point of view.  Lincoln kept the Union together but also made the federal government more powerful then it had been before. This laid the ground work for FDR's "New Deal" which has really turned states rights into a joke and the federal government into the 800 pound gorilla.



It's not an opinion. As president lincolns job was to assert the authority of the federal government. The president isn't about the states. He's about the country as a whole and primarily about the fed. His job was to keep the country together, maintain the feds authority (the expansion thereof a side effect), and protect Americas soverignty over it's states. He did that. Whether or not people liked the fact that that was his job is open to opinion. But his job was his job and he did what he needed to do. The fact that congress, and the judiciary didn't stop him (attempts to notwithstanding) just means that in the end his mission as president was more important to them too.


----------



## Gunny

The_Hammer said:


> They were documents that were not approved by the congress of the nation that they were sending them too. Using the same logic I could come up with a legal document saying that I have the right to punch peoples tires and I am no longer a citizen of the United States and can do whatever I want. If a court or congress doesn't recognize it, my point it moot.



Again, you are incorrect and your analogy is nonsense.  Obviously you did not read the links, and again, you obviously have not researched the topic very well.

Until the Southern states were subjugated by force of arms, even yankees believed states had the right to secede, and several northern states even threatened to at times prior to the US Civil War.



> Using the same argument one could say that there was no legal mandate for secession. And since secession including seizure of federal property they were either A) Traitors as still being citizens of the US B) Comitting acts of war by damaging federal property.



The tactic of backwards logic doesn't play with me.

The South did not seize Federal property.  South Carolina seized SC property.



> It doesn't matter whether or not they recognized it. It had already been established. Likewise I could do the same thing and say I didn't recognize the authority of the US and do as I pleased and would suffer the consequences. This is what happened to the south.



You are incorrect.  Congress's authority over the states had NOT been established or there would have been no war.  Get it?  



> Likewise in the same amendment
> Section 10 - Powers prohibited of States
> 
> No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or *Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts*, or grant any Title of Nobility.



Nice try.  No sale.  I don't see where it says a state that voluntarily entered the Union could not leave in the same manner if it deemed it in its best interest.



> Their declaration (if you assume it to be equal to a law) said they were no longer bound to their obligations of their contract of statehood and of having accepting the constitution. Had they possibly pursued a legal course saying that the US government had failed on its obligations and had in fact won their case in the Supreme court then their secession would have been legal. But that didn't happen, and if it did, they probably would have lost. Tough noogies. You shouldn't have played if you didn't like the rules.



You just don't get it, do you?  NOTHING precluded states from seceding from the United States.  Your ultimate Federal authority is an assumption on your part, and ignores the facts that have been presented.  




> Coulda woulda shoulda mighta happened. Nice. It's not solid. Personally I'd interpret it as leaving the constitution to appear open enough for secession while leaving it internally against it giving congress the ability to squash secession if it were occur but leaving the constitution appearing open enough that if a state thought it might want to secede in the future it would have the "freedom" to. I don't think the 13 would have ratified the constitution it hadn't had this rather wishy washy quality to it.







> There was a national emergency and Lincoln acted to preserve the union. Jeffersons thoughts were nice are largely ineffectual because no one actually put this on paper and into law. Interestingly the Declaration of Independence really doesn't have weight in my mind (at least when it was implimented). It wasn't a legal document, though it did have signers since no court could recognize it. Admittedly it was signed by a bunch of rogues who rebelled. The fact that they won their war and established their authority gave them their right to exist.
> 
> The articles of confederation were null and void once the constitution was ratified.
> 
> The next paragraph essentially repeats what I said before. The constitution was intentionally made to be ambigious. No one was going to say "States can secede" just like no one was going to say "States can't secede" if it happened the fed would determine what it thought was the meaning of its constitution. Turned out it didn't think states had the right to secede and it showed it had the authority to enforce that. The states are sovereign unto themselves *under* the sovereignty of the federal government.
> 
> Last bit is true. Lincoln did suspend constitutional rights during the war. But he got his hands dirty doing what he needed to do to get the job don



I see no point in responding to the rest.  You are being obtuse.  You have presented nothing to sustain your argument but your opinion the the Federal government has and had ultimate and unlimited power; which, it did not until it subjugated the Southern states by force and usurped those powers from all states by that precedent.

Do some research and get back to me.


----------



## BrianH

The_Hammer said:


> My exact argument is show me where is says they can. I did emphasize in my last post the bit about reneging on a contract as it refers to the states which could be used to refute their right. However at the time the constitution was sufficiently ambigious on the matter that it could have gone either way. When the states did secede congress decided to act on the matter and said it was illegal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't quit first _then_ ask if you can quit. They should have pursued their case in a far more legal fashion that was not subject to the ambiguities of the constitution. They didn't. They started siezing federal forts and stores. They committed acts of war and gave Lincoln the US a casus belli. He didn't need to wait for them. He and the congress had the authority to act and they did.
> 
> 
> 
> What they debated about doesn't mean jack. What got put on paper and became the laws of the country does.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It wasn't a "little bit of trouble". The southern states had comitted acts of war against the union, their secession not withstanding. The border states were about to go. Riots were springing up due to drafting. Now compared to then would be like saying a social cat fight between two cheerleaders in beverly hills is equatable to sets of crips and bloods in compton having a gang fight.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not an opinion. As president lincolns job was to assert the authority of the federal government. The president isn't about the states. He's about the country as a whole and primarily about the fed. His job was to keep the country together, maintain the feds authority (the expansion thereof a side effect), and protect Americas soverignty over it's states. He did that. Whether or not people liked the fact that that was his job is open to opinion. But his job was his job and he did what he needed to do. The fact that congress, and the judiciary didn't stop him (attempts to notwithstanding) just means that in the end his mission as president was more important to them too.




While it is agreed that things obviously didn't turn out from the South, there was no rebellion.  There was a secession.  You speak of seizing federal property.  The problem with this, is that this was not federal property.  It was property that the states allowed the federal government to occupy.  And when the states seceeded, it was no longer the Union's right, according to the southern states, for federal troops to occupy forts in the south.  This is why during emergencies, the state has to ask for federal assistance or troops.  Hence the big deal behind hurricane Katrina and the Governor waiting to ask for federal help.  It would be the same concept of a foreign nation wishing the U.S. to leave the U.S. embassies because they did not want us there.

The states voluntarily became annexed to the United States.  

The North relied on indudrialization for their profits and trade, the South relied heavily on agriculture, which increased the demand for (at the time) legal slavery according to the federal government.  
The South seceded from the UNion before Lincoln became president, which leads to the illegal activity of Northerners during the Buchanan administration.  Do we all remember the infamous John Brown and Harper's Ferry.  Illegal activities by the Union involved the the illegal arming of slaves to start a rebellion against the South by John Brown. There were illegal things going on from both sides. You could only imagine the reception this would receive in the South.  

The Civil War was not one sided by any means.  The South were not simply a bunch of traitors that decided to rebel against the North.  They felt like the federal government was intervening more than had been let on upon their annexation, and wanted no part of it.  How else can you explain numerous U.S. generals serving in the Confederacy?  It was POV conflict.  The South believed they were being mistreated by the North, and the North felt the South was rebelling.  

The Confederacy had no benefits from sending their secession to Congress for ratification, since the majority of COngress would not have voted for it.  
As far as states rights are concerned, the states can do things that are not prohibited to them in the Constitution.  

Amendment 10 - Powers of the States and People. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note

*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.*

So since secession was not prohibited to the states...they could reserve that right respectively.


----------



## The_Hammer

GunnyL said:


> Again, you are incorrect and your analogy is nonsense.  Obviously you did not read the links, and again, you obviously have not researched the topic very well.
> 
> Until the Southern states were subjugated by force of arms, even yankees believed states had the right to secede, and several northern states even threatened to at times prior to the US Civil War.



What people believed is moot. What matters is what was on the books.



GunnyL said:


> The tactic of backwards logic doesn't play with me.



I'm sorry that I'm framing my arguments premise exactly on the same one that you framed yours. It's an example showing a counter point. If you're reading it as backwards logic then I'm sorry. Perhaps I should have said congress magically deciding to kick South Carolina out of the union.



			
				QUOTE=GunnyL said:
			
		

> The South did not seize Federal property.  South Carolina seized SC property.



Brzzz. Wrong answer. The personel were US army. The cannons belonged to the army. The Fort was federal property. The government even made a request to the South Carolinans to let the fort be evactuated, which was turned down.


You said.


			
				GunnyL said:
			
		

> You are incorrect.  Congress's authority over the states had NOT been established or there would have been no war.  Get it?


from my response to


			
				GunnyL said:
			
		

> The Southern states had no reason to take it up with Congress since once they drew their terms of secession they no longer recognized the US Congress's authority. The issue of unequal representation in Congress was part of the basis of the South's argument and reason for secession. Seems rather ridiculous that they would then turn to that same Congress and ask for anything.



Like I said. It doesn't matter that they "no longer recognized the authority of congress". It doesn't matter if they don't recognize it. It was there because they'd given it authority. Now lets say that congressional authority hadn't been established. They still were violating their terms of contract. Their low population be damned. Their representation wasn't unequal. In fact they got a bigger slice of their populational pie than they deserved since under their laws the 3/5ths that were counted couldn't vote anyway. The fact that they got a handicap and still cried about unequality just means they didn't like a fair system. You have more people you get more say. Too bad your population is too low. That's the way equal representation works. Deal with it.



			
				GunnyL said:
			
		

> Nice try.  No sale.  I don't see where it says a state that voluntarily entered the Union could not leave in the same manner if it deemed it in its best interest.



No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

Obligation of contracts. Contracts are entered in to voluntarily. There is no provision for leaving the union (a contract) but is there is a law restricting a state from passing laws that impare ones obligation to them. Like I said in my post it's significantly ambigious enough that one could use it against a state that tried to secede. I'm not saying it's solid, I'm saying that from a legal standpoint it can be argued. Most assuredly more so than that of the right to secede. Of which the constitution says nothing.




			
				GunnyL said:
			
		

> You just don't get it, do you?  NOTHING precluded states from seceding from the United States.  Your ultimate Federal authority is an assumption on your part, and ignores the facts that have been presented.



I agree. There was no solid law which said that the states couldn't secede. But there wasn't any stonger evidence to give the states the rights to secede either.



			
				GunnyL said:
			
		

> I see no point in responding to the rest.  You are being obtuse.  You have presented nothing to sustain your argument but your opinion the the Federal government has and had ultimate and unlimited power; which, it did not until it subjugated the Southern states by force and usurped those powers from all states by that precedent.
> 
> Do some research and get back to me.



I don't see why you shouldn't respond. You haven't presented anything or refuted what I've said. It's not my job to pick apart my own argument.


----------



## Shogun

This is an interesting thread.  Good job people.  



I'm putting Civil War books on the top of my list now.


----------



## Swamp Fox

The_Hammer said:


> My exact argument is show me where is says they can. I did emphasize in my last post the bit about reneging on a contract as it refers to the states which could be used to refute their right. However at the time the constitution was sufficiently ambigious on the matter that it could have gone either way. When the states did secede congress decided to act on the matter and said it was illegal.



Amendment 10 in the Bill of Rights - Those powers not specfically enumerated herein are reserved for the states and the people.

Since the people in the south voted for secession, they had the legal right to do so and Lincoln was acting outside of his constitutional authority when he called up the military to fight them.





The_Hammer said:


> You don't quit first _then_ ask if you can quit. They should have pursued their case in a far more legal fashion that was not subject to the ambiguities of the constitution. They didn't. They started siezing federal forts and stores. They committed acts of war and gave Lincoln the US a casus belli. He didn't need to wait for them. He and the congress had the authority to act and they did.



This argument is nonsense.  They're supposed to apply to a court in a system they no longer support to make it okay for them to leave?  What kind of stupidity is that?




The_Hammer said:


> What they debated about doesn't mean jack. What got put on paper and became the laws of the country does.



See the answer above about Amendment 10.




The_Hammer said:


> It wasn't a "little bit of trouble". The southern states had comitted acts of war against the union, their secession not withstanding. The border states were about to go. Riots were springing up due to drafting. Now compared to then would be like saying a social cat fight between two cheerleaders in beverly hills is equatable to sets of crips and bloods in compton having a gang fight.



They told the US military to leave and it refused, thereby becoming invaders in their state.





The_Hammer said:


> It's not an opinion. As president lincolns job was to assert the authority of the federal government. The president isn't about the states. He's about the country as a whole and primarily about the fed. His job was to keep the country together, maintain the feds authority (the expansion thereof a side effect), and protect Americas soverignty over it's states. He did that. Whether or not people liked the fact that that was his job is open to opinion. But his job was his job and he did what he needed to do. The fact that congress, and the judiciary didn't stop him (attempts to notwithstanding) just means that in the end his mission as president was more important to them too.



Nowhere in the constitution does it state that the President is supposed to keep the union together.  In fact, he was in direct violation of Amendment 10 when he ordered the military to resist leaving the south.


----------



## The_Hammer

Swamp Fox said:


> Amendment 10 in the Bill of Rights - Those powers not specfically enumerated herein are reserved for the states and the people.
> 
> Since the people in the south voted for secession, they had the legal right to do so and Lincoln was acting outside of his constitutional authority when he called up the military to fight them.



There is nothing in the constitution that says you can vote to leave the Union. Nothing. Zip doo da. Power specifically not enumerated does not include forming your own nation. Because that means you're doing the following. The constitution was also significantly ambigious to give congress the right to claim that it was illegal also. 



			
				US Constitution said:
			
		

> United States Constitution, Article 4, Section 3, Clause 2
> 
> 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.



The claims of the United States comes first. If it claims that a state is part of it's territory you can't use the constitution against that claim. In addition Lincoln had every right to invade.



			
				US Constitution said:
			
		

> United States Constitution, Article 1, Section 8, Clause 15
> 
> To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions



A popular or favored rebellion is a rebellion (an insurgency ursurping the authority of the United States) none the less. The military is under the command of the President. It's his job to curb stomp it.



Swamp Fox said:


> This argument is nonsense.  They're supposed to apply to a court in a system they no longer support to make it okay for them to leave?  What kind of stupidity is that?



I wasn't saying it was smart. I wasn't saying it would work. I was saying that if they actually wanted to leave that was the legal way to go about it.




Swamp Fox said:


> They told the US military to leave and it refused, thereby becoming invaders in their state.



The forts in which soldiers were stationed were Federal Property, not south carolinan. The fact that their government was illegitimate notwithstanding, the forts were federal property and any state that attacked or siezed them was comitting an act of war. You can't so "O well this belongs to you, but we now claim it as ours. So go." Even if they didn't recognize it as Federal property in the first place, it doesn't matter because it _was_ federal property.






Swamp Fox said:


> Nowhere in the constitution does it state that the President is supposed to keep the union together.  In fact, he was in direct violation of Amendment 10 when he ordered the military to resist leaving the south.



See bit about insurrection.


----------



## BrianH

The South, at the time, was justified in seceding.  Not only economically, but politically as well.  What contracts have you ever entered into that were for life?  

The South had an agarian economy vs the North's mercantilist economy.  These two economies did not work well together at the time, one wins and one loses financially. The North won the majority of the time when it came to economic stability. The South owed huge debts to the North, debts that were growing every year.  This is because the money flow went Northward.  The South was paying an enormous amount of federal expenses.  

  So this leaves us to figure out why the South did not seek Congressional approval of secession.  First, the North had a majority in both houses of Congress.  When Abraham lincoln was elected, this did more (in the SOuth's eyes) to reinforce the Northern control of the government.  So this leaves us at a potential compromise between the North and South...why did the South not seek to compromise?
Three compromises come to mind leading up to the Civil War:  The Missouri Compromise, the Compromise of 1850, and the Kansas-Nebraska Act.  Being a Southern minority in Congress, the territories were to become free, thus further increasing the North's power over the land.

Arguing the immorality to slavery is irrelevant to the topic of the South's secession...considering that slavery was still (by the book) legal when the states seceeded.  Not to mention that there was a majority of non-slaveholders vs. slaveholders in the South.  Large slave holders made up a meager percentage of the population as well as slaveholders being a minority to the whole population of the South.  The South simply felt oppressed by the Union and were not represented well at the national level.  It's the same concept of the American Revolution.  

If a government is sucking money off of you while prohibiting your means of legal mass-production, you would have just cause for seceeding, then.  
Amendment 10 is vague, but because there is no law prohibiting a state from seceeding, the state can reserve that power as stated by the 10th Amendment.


----------



## Ravi

Have you ever read any of Jefferson Davis's statements about the Civil War? He believed without slavery the South would wither and die. These nuts that pretend the Civil War wasn't about slavery are just that--nuts.


----------



## manifold

Ravir said:


> Have you ever read any of Jefferson Davis's statements about the Civil War? He believed without slavery the South would wither and die. These nuts that pretend the Civil War wasn't about slavery are just that--nuts.



I disagree so I must be nuts.

The Civil War was as much about freeing the slaves as WWII was about ending the holocaust.  Tangentially related, but not the central purpose.


----------



## Ravi

manifold said:


> I disagree so I must be nuts.
> 
> The Civil War was as much about freeing the slaves as WWII was about ending the holocaust.  Tangentially related, but not the central purpose.



And the reason you believe that is because?


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Ravir said:


> And the reason you believe that is because?



Because the apologists for the South lose all moral rights to any claim of right if they accept that Slavery drove the South to rebel and the Civil War was in fact all about Slavery.

To claim slavery had nothing to do with the start of the Civil War would require one to be ignorant of the economic and political factors involved in the claim the Southern States used to explain a need to leave the Union, several of the States SPECIFICALLY state in the articles leaving the Union it was ALL about Slavery.


----------



## manifold

Ravir said:


> And the reason you believe that is because?



It makes a lot more sense than the bogus, propagandized notion that the Union invaded the South because of some noble, humanitarian endeavor to free the black man from bondage.  Slavery may have been the issue du jour that prompted the South to secede, but it had effectively zero to do with why the North went to war to prevent secession.  And in case you didn't know, it takes two to tango.


----------



## Ravi

RetiredGySgt said:


> Because the apologists for the South lose all moral rights to any claim of right if they accept that Slavery drove the South to rebel and the Civil War was in fact all about Slavery.
> 
> To claim slavery had nothing to do with the start of the Civil War would require one to be ignorant of the economic and political factors involved in the claim the Southern States used to explain a need to leave the Union, several of the States SPECIFICALLY state in the articles leaving the Union it was ALL about Slavery.



Hey, we agree on something!


----------



## Ravi

manifold said:


> It makes a lot more sense than the bogus, propagandized notion that the Union invaded the South because of some noble, humanitarian endeavor to free the black man from bondage.  Slavery may have been the issue du jour that prompted the South to secede, but it had effectively zero to do with why the North went to war.  And in case you didn't know, it takes two to tango.



You're just spinning the issue. If the South hadn't seceded over slavery there would have been no civil war. Therefore, the war was about slavery.

I do agree that the North wasn't on a humanitarian mission.


----------



## manifold

Ravir said:


> You're just spinning the issue. If the South hadn't seceded over slavery there would have been no civil war. Therefore, the war was about slavery.
> 
> I do agree that the North wasn't on a humanitarian mission.



Wrong!!!!!

If the North allowed the South to secede, which was their legal right, there would have been no civil war.

You make it sound as if the North only intervened because the South's reason for secession wasn't a good one.  And you accuse me of spin.


----------



## Ravi

What?

It wasn't a good reason but that's neither here nor there. I don't imagine there would have been any reason the North would have thought as good enough. That doesn't change the fact that the South seceded over slavery.


----------



## manifold

Ravir said:


> What?
> 
> It wasn't a good reason but that's neither here nor there. I don't imagine there would have been any reason the North would have thought as good enough. That doesn't change the fact that the South seceded over slavery.



That's not a fact.  It's an opinion.  And it doesn't matter how many sources you cite where this guy or that guy claims they seceded because of slavery.  I can find a lot of quotes that say we invaded Iraq for a whole multitude of reasons that are total bullshit and propaganda, peddled specifically to engender support from the uneducated masses.  Why do you think the colonists revolted against England?  Because of the Stamp Act?  No.  Because of what the Stamp Act represented.  And the groundswell of support that was growing for abolition, that would in all likelihood be forced upon the Southern states, REPRESENTED their loss of sovereignty.  So they did the only thing they thought could preserve their sovereignty, secede.

To claim that the Civil War was ALL ABOUT slavery is to oversimplify the South's reasons for secession and to COMPLETELY misstate the North's reasons for conquering the South.


----------



## Ravi

manifold said:


> That's not a fact.  It's an opinion.  And it doesn't matter how many sources you cite where this guy or that guy claims they seceded because of slavery.  I can find a lot of quotes that say we invaded Iraq for a whole multitude of reasons that are total bullshit and propaganda, peddled specifically to engender support from the uneducated masses.  Why do you think the colonists revolted against England?  Because of the Stamp Act?  No.  Because of what the Stamp Act represented.  And the groundswell of support that was growing for abolition, that would in all likelihood be forced upon the Southern states, REPRESENTED their loss of sovereignty.  So they did the only thing they thought could preserve their sovereignty, secede.
> 
> To claim that the Civil War was ALL ABOUT slavery is to oversimplify the South's reasons for secession and to COMPLETELY misstate the North's reasons for conquering the South.



That's a valid point about Iraq except for the fact no one believes any of the multitude of reasons we were given any longer. Or at least very few people do.

If slavery was still acceptable there would not have been a reason for the South to secede. If the South hadn't seceded over slavery there would have been no reason for the North to conquer. There was no other compelling issue that represented a loss of sovereignty to the Southern states.


----------



## manifold

Ravir said:


> That's a valid point about Iraq except for the fact no one believes any of the multitude of reasons we were given any longer. Or at least very few people do.




We'll see about that in ~150 years.


----------



## BrianH

The immorality of slavery is not the issue here.  We'll all agree that it's not a good thing.

The fact is, the Civil War was fought many years by two-sides that legalized slavery. The south was not exercising illegal activities.  Slavery did have something to do with the Civil War, but it was not the only reason, nor a more important one.  Economics and politics also plays a big role.  The problem with the North and the South, was that they had two different economical systems that did not work well with one another.  Agriculture vs. Mercantilist systems.  The reality of this, was that if one did good, the other did bad, and more times than not, the North did well and the South did bad. Not to mention that the South owed huge amounts of debt to the North. The majority of money drifted northward because of this economic relationship.  The South was significantly poorer than the North, and the North began advocating restricting means of productivity (slaves),not only restricting their economy, but incinuating the lack of sovereignty of the Southern people.  (I'm not advocating any side here, but just presenting the facts).  It was perceieved by the SOuth, that economic oppression was occuring among other things.   

Congress held a northern majority, so action through the government was out of the question for the South.  This was proven by the Missouri Compromise, the Compromise of 1850, and the Kansas-Nebraska Act, which garaunteed the acquisition of new "free" territories.  To add to tensions, we have the incident involving John Brown and his attempted armed revolution of slaves at Harper's Ferry involving Federal Arms that never turned up.  This was during the Buchanan admin. This was backed by numerous abolitionists and Republicans from the North.  One could only imagine how this was recieved by the South.

As far as legality to secession...the 10th Amendment answers this question.
*
"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."*

Because there was no law prohibiting the states' secession, they were perfectly legal in doing so.

Some would argue that the Fort Sumpter incident justified causes for the North to attack.  The siege of Fort Sumpter was in 1861, South Carolina seceeded in 1860, which means their lands belonged to them. The Federal refusal to leave the Fort prompted the bombardment.  South Carolina had signed an Armistice with U.S. as well as Florida.  After promising that troops would soon leave the fort, and that they would not be resupplied, the North began a secret operation to resupply the Fort using private vessels.  The provocation of Fort Sumpter was done by the North after the Confederacy had waited patiently for the Federal troops to withdrawl...only the North never intended on doing so.

I'm not saying I agree with slavery, but as far as legal justification and POV by the South, they were justified in seceding.  They believed they were being economically opressed and unrepresented in the government.  Much like the colonists felt unrepresented at the onset of the American Rev.


----------



## Ravi

_Because there was no law prohibiting the states' secession, they were perfectly legal in doing so_.

There also is no law saying the USA can't invade and conquer another country.


----------



## manifold

BrianH said:


> Because there was no law prohibiting the states' secession, they were perfectly legal in doing so.



In fact, most constitutional scholars agree that the Founding Fathers believed that the whole union of sovereign states experiment could only work if the states did in fact retain the right to secede.  The ultimate ace up their sleeve should the central government grow too large and abuse it's power.


----------



## BrianH

Ravir said:


> _Because there was no law prohibiting the states' secession, they were perfectly legal in doing so_.
> 
> There also is no law saying the USA can't invade and conquer another country.



True enough, but that's not what the argument is about.  Some people view the South as a bunch of traitorous rebels revolting against the U.S. government, and were not justified in their actions.  Legally, they were justified in their actions.  The Civil War has been used to brainwash people into thinking the war was all about freeing the slaves and doing good for man-kind, and that everyone in the South were big bad slave owners who whooped and beat the slaves, when in reality, there was a small percentage of southerners who owned slaves...and an extremely small percentage of the pop. that were large plantation owners.   You know, the North has always chastized the treatment of slaves by the South, while ignoring their treatment of the Native Indians as well as thousands of immigrants who were forced into serving for the Union as soon as they stepped off of the boat.  Neither side was the valiant and noble side.


----------



## Ravi

BrianH said:


> True enough, but that's not what the argument is about.  Some people view the South as a bunch of traitorous rebels revolting against the U.S. government, and were not justified in their actions.  Legally, they were justified in their actions.  The Civil War has been used to brainwash people into thinking the war was all about freeing the slaves and doing good for man-kind, and that everyone in the South were big bad slave owners who whooped and beat the slaves, when in reality, there was a small percentage of southerners who owned slaves...and an extremely small percentage of the pop. that were large plantation owners.   You know, the North has always chastized the treatment of slaves by the South, while ignoring their treatment of the Native Indians as well as thousands of immigrants who were forced into serving for the Union as soon as they stepped off of the boat.  Neither side was the valiant and noble side.



For the record, I've never thought of the South as a bunch of traitorous rebels. I just thought they wanted to enslave people. In fact, I'm sure they did want to do just that.


----------



## BrianH

manifold said:


> In fact, most constitutional scholars agree that the Founding Fathers believed that the whole union of sovereign states experiment could only work if the states did in fact retain the right to secede.  The ultimate ace up their sleeve should the central government grow too large and abuse it's power.



Well yeah.  That's why the the DOI speaks of "free and independent states."

It was the idea that states could join and leave freely based on a majority decision of that state.


----------



## BrianH

Ravir said:


> For the record, I've never thought of the South as a bunch of traitorous rebels. I just thought they wanted to enslave people. In fact, I'm sure they did want to do just that.



Fair enough, but it was not just the South.  There were UNion territories that permitted slavery also:  Missouri, Kentucky, Maryland, West Virginia, Oklahoma, New Mexico, and Arizona.  

Your right, they're intention was to keep slavery legal.  But slavery was an underlying issue.  The South didn't say, "We want to keep our slaves, so we're going to revolt so we can keep beatin the slaves!"  They believed the decisions made by the North were oppressive to their way-of-life and that they had no representation in the government.  And the way things were going, they would have none in the near future.  But on the flip-side, the North expected an enormous amount of money owed to them, but were trying to restrict the means in which they were to acquire that money.  A means in which both sides viewed legal at the time.  That would be like telling the North that they could not use industrialized means to produce goods.


----------



## Ravi

Yep. But industrialized means aren't exactly considered a bad thing like slave keeping is.

I don't especially think they just wanted to keep beating their slaves, either. Honestly, if they treated them like royalty the fact is the slaves didn't have any choice in the matter. Making money off of slavery is what they wanted to keep doing.


----------



## BrianH

Ravir said:


> Yep. But industrialized means aren't exactly considered a bad thing like slave keeping is.
> 
> I don't especially think they just wanted to keep beating their slaves, either. Honestly, if they treated them like royalty the fact is the slaves didn't have any choice in the matter. Making money off of slavery is what they wanted to keep doing.



Well I guess if you suppose working children to the bone in 15 hour a day job at a textile mill, and other industrialized plants...good things.  

I'm not saying slavery is right...but the North had done just as many thing to not be proud of.  And continued doing them even after the Civil War.  The North, wanting to expand their empire, should have helped come up with a better solution for solving the Southern economic crisis.  The problem with the Civil War, is that it was before the industrial revolution.  Slavery would have eventually ended as new methods of farming made it easier to harvest crops.


----------



## Toro

BrianH said:


> Well I guess if you suppose working children to the bone in 15 hour a day job at a textile mill, and other industrialized plants...good things.
> 
> I'm not saying slavery is right...but the North had done just as many thing to not be proud of.  And continued doing them even after the Civil War.  The North, wanting to expand their empire, should have helped come up with a better solution for solving the Southern economic crisis.  The problem with the Civil War, is that it was before the industrial revolution.  Slavery would have eventually ended as new methods of farming made it easier to harvest crops.



The industrial revolution occurred before the Civil War.


----------



## BrianH

Toro said:


> The industrial revolution occurred before the Civil War.



I know...did I say it was after?  I was talking about the fact that the North also abused people/children/immigrants in their economic system as well;  leading up to the Civil War.  And besides this, the majority of the industiralization was in the North, while the South remained poor. 

"The First Industrial Revolution merged into the Second Industrial Revolution around 1850, when technological and economic progress gained momentum with the development of steam-powered ships, railways, and later in the nineteenth century with the internal combustion engine and electrical power generation."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_Revolution


----------



## Ravi

BrianH said:


> Well I guess if you suppose working children to the bone in 15 hour a day job at a textile mill, and other industrialized plants...good things.
> 
> I'm not saying slavery is right...but the North had done just as many thing to not be proud of.  And continued doing them even after the Civil War.  The North, wanting to expand their empire, should have helped come up with a better solution for solving the Southern economic crisis.  The problem with the Civil War, is that it was before the industrial revolution.  Slavery would have eventually ended as new methods of farming made it easier to harvest crops.



I'm not for that either. But at least there was an element of choice.

We've done a lot of stupid things as a country so I can't really see making excuses for one as a way for validating another.

At the same time, I like moving forward instead of crying about the past.

But your point about slavery ending...it hasn't ended yet. Just the players and scale have changed.


----------



## BrianH

Ravir said:


> I'm not for that either. But at least there was an element of choice.
> 
> We've done a lot of stupid things as a country so I can't really see making excuses for one as a way for validating another.
> 
> At the same time, I like moving forward instead of crying about the past.
> 
> But your point about slavery ending...it hasn't ended yet. Just the players and scale have changed.



I would agree completely.  

I really could care less if the end result of the Civil War had turned out different like some southerners.  What I can't grasp is how people can think that it was illegal...because by the books, it was not.  It may be just an POV difference.


----------



## Swamp Fox

The_Hammer said:


> There is nothing in the constitution that says you can vote to leave the Union. Nothing. Zip doo da. Power specifically not enumerated does not include forming your own nation. Because that means you're doing the following. The constitution was also significantly ambigious to give congress the right to claim that it was illegal also.



What part of Amendment 10 don't you get.  If it isn't specifically stated in the Constitution, according to Amendment 10, the power belongs to the states and the people.  Since leaving the union isn't listed, it's a power of the states and the people.  The people voted, the state left.




The_Hammer said:


> The claims of the United States comes first. If it claims that a state is part of it's territory you can't use the constitution against that claim. In addition Lincoln had every right to invade.



Not when the United States is no longer recognized.  When South Carolina left the Union, all of the claims held by the US Government are invalid.




The_Hammer said:


> A popular or favored rebellion is a rebellion (an insurgency ursurping the authority of the United States) none the less. The military is under the command of the President. It's his job to curb stomp it.



They didn't rebel, they took their ball and went home.  




The_Hammer said:


> I wasn't saying it was smart. I wasn't saying it would work. I was saying that if they actually wanted to leave that was the legal way to go about it.



Where, praytell, is that spelled out?  What's the "legal" way to do it?  Seems to me that they did it the legal way and the north had a hissy fit about it.



The_Hammer said:


> The forts in which soldiers were stationed were Federal Property, not south carolinan. The fact that their government was illegitimate notwithstanding, the forts were federal property and any state that attacked or siezed them was comitting an act of war. You can't so "O well this belongs to you, but we now claim it as ours. So go." Even if they didn't recognize it as Federal property in the first place, it doesn't matter because it _was_ federal property.



US property on land belonging to South Carolina.  When they were politely asked to leave, they refused.  That's when it became an invasion and the South responded with force.



The_Hammer said:


> See bit about insurrection.



Why?  It wasn't an insurrection.  It was a perfectly legal manuever allowed under Amendment 10 of the US Constitution which Lincoln chose to ignore and force his will upon the South.


----------



## Ravi

BrianH said:


> I would agree completely.
> 
> I really could care less if the end result of the Civil War had turned out different like some southerners.  What I can't grasp is how people can think that it was illegal...because by the books, it was not.  It may be just an POV difference.



No, it wasn't illegal but I've not been paying attention. People are actually claiming this?


----------



## Swamp Fox

Ravir said:


> No, it wasn't illegal but I've not been paying attention. People are actually claiming this?



Yep, people here are claiming that the South committed an illegal act by leaving the Union.


----------



## BrianH

Ravir said:


> No, it wasn't illegal but I've not been paying attention. People are actually claiming this?



believe it or not, yes.  And I agree with you, it was not illegal.  What's funny, is that there are three (I think) different threads on this same topic right now.  I hope I wasn't the facilitator.  

Some are using the Supreme Court ruling of 1869 (4 years after the war) to claim that the South was acting illegally in seceding from the UNion.  It's a rediculous notion, but a notion none-the-less.   THe South did nothing illegally in seceeding.  Even the slavery that was made out to be the culprit, was legal until 1865.


----------



## The_Hammer

BrianH said:


> The South, at the time, was justified in seceding.  Not only economically, but politically as well.  What contracts have you ever entered into that were for life?



The fact that they weren't popping out enough people to compete with the norths massive population in the house isn't a justification. You can't bitch about playing a game if you're losing because suddenly you realize that the rules aren't in your favor and suddenly claim they aren't fair. You suck it up and deal. If they wanted to leave they should have done so legally.



BrianH said:


> The South had an agarian economy vs the North's mercantilist economy.  These two economies did not work well together at the time, one wins and one loses financially. The North won the majority of the time when it came to economic stability. The South owed huge debts to the North, debts that were growing every year.  This is because the money flow went Northward.  The South was paying an enormous amount of federal expenses.



The south could have expanded their industrial base and modernized their economy. It's not like the money wasn't there. But they didn't. They did so during the war, but it was wayy too little too late.



BrianH said:


> So this leaves us to figure out why the South did not seek Congressional approval of secession.  First, the North had a majority in both houses of Congress.  When Abraham lincoln was elected, this did more (in the SOuth's eyes) to reinforce the Northern control of the government.  So this leaves us at a potential compromise between the North and South...why did the South not seek to compromise?
> Three compromises come to mind leading up to the Civil War:  The Missouri Compromise, the Compromise of 1850, and the Kansas-Nebraska Act.  Being a Southern minority in Congress, the territories were to become free, thus further increasing the North's power over the land.
> 
> Arguing the immorality to slavery is irrelevant to the topic of the South's secession...considering that slavery was still (by the book) legal when the states seceeded.  Not to mention that there was a majority of non-slaveholders vs. slaveholders in the South.  Large slave holders made up a meager percentage of the population as well as slaveholders being a minority to the whole population of the South.  The South simply felt oppressed by the Union and were not represented well at the national level.  It's the same concept of the American Revolution.
> 
> If a government is sucking money off of you while prohibiting your means of legal mass-production, you would have just cause for seceding, then.
> Amendment 10 is vague, but because there is no law prohibiting a state from seceding, the state can reserve that power as stated by the 10th Amendment.



The south seceded over the fear of slavery becoming illegal and legislation against it. Also northern states were not complying with laws like the act which required escaped slaves to be returned to their masters. There were plenty of things related to other topics but the main reason was the souths fear on the attack on slavery.

From: http://members.aol.com/jfepperson/reasons.html#Mississippi



			
				Mississippi Declaration of Dissolution said:
			
		

> Paragraph 2
> 
> Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin.



That's just Mississippi. This is for South Carolina.

From: http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/csa/scarsec.htm



			
				South Carolina Declaration of Dissolution said:
			
		

> Paragraph 22
> 
> For twenty-five years this agitation has been steadily increasing, until it has now secured to its aid the power of the common Government. Observing the forms of the Constitution, a sectional party has found within that Article establishing the Executive Department, the means of subverting the Constitution itself. A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States, whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery. He is to be entrusted with the administration of the common Government, because he has declared that that "Government cannot endure permanently half slave, half free," and that the public mind must rest in the belief that slavery is in the course of ultimate extinction.
> 
> Paragraph 24
> 
> On the 4th day of March next, this party will take possession of the Government. It has announced that the South shall be excluded from the common territory, that the judicial tribunals shall be made sectional, and that a war must be waged against slavery until it shall cease throughout the United States.



Texas

From: http://www.tsl.state.tx.us/ref/abouttx/secession/2feb1861.html



			
				Texas Declaration of Causes said:
			
		

> Paragraph 10
> 
> In all the non-slave-holding States, in violation of that good faith and comity which should exist between entirely distinct nations, the people have formed themselves into a great sectional party, now strong enough in numbers to control the affairs of each of those States, based upon the unnatural feeling of hostility to these Southern States and their beneficent and patriarchal system of African slavery, proclaiming the debasing doctrine of the equality of all men, irrespective of race or color--a doctrine at war with nature, in opposition to the experience of mankind, and in violation of the plainest revelations of the Divine Law. They demand the abolition of negro slavery throughout the confederacy, the recognition of political equality between the white and the negro races, and avow their determination to press on their crusade against us, so long as a negro slave remains in these States.



K the south seceded over slavery. Next whether or not what they did was legal.


----------



## Ravi

BrianH said:


> believe it or not, yes.  And I agree with you, it was not illegal.  What's funny, is that there are three (I think) different threads on this same topic right now.  I hope I wasn't the facilitator.
> 
> Some are using the Supreme Court ruling of 1869 (4 years after the war) to claim that the South was acting illegally in seceding from the UNion.  It's a rediculous notion, but a notion none-the-less.   THe South did nothing illegally in seceeding.  Even the slavery that was made out to be the culprit, was legal until 1865.



Admit it. You're just a trouble maker.


----------



## BrianH

You really are naive aren't you?  No one is arguing that slavery played a part.  If you really think that the North was fighting this noble cause to end slavery, you're wrong.  It was not ok for the South to own slave, but it was ok for the North to abuse children by sticking them in industrial plants and working them to the core, while forcing immigrants right off the boat into military service??

Slavery was LEGAL until 1865.  The North had legalized slavery the entire war, even after Lincolns emancipation proclamation. So there's your whole slavery issue.  

The South seceded because they felt oppressed by the North, and that they had no representation in the government.  Everything you've posted is an underlying factor of that...slavery being one of them.

As far as legality goes....the South was perfectly legal in seceding from the Union.  

First, there is no law prohibiting secession in the Constitution.
Second, Amendment 10 grants all laws not prohibited to the states, to the states.  And since secession is not prohibited, it is reserved to the states.

Oh, did I mention slavery was legal in the North and South, and that the UNion had several states that permitted slavery?


----------



## BrianH

Ravir said:


> Admit it. You're just a trouble maker.



only sometimes.


----------



## The_Hammer

Swamp Fox said:


> What part of Amendment 10 don't you get.  If it isn't specifically stated in the Constitution, according to Amendment 10, the power belongs to the states and the people.  Since leaving the union isn't listed, it's a power of the states and the people.  The people voted, the state left.



You are saying it's an implied right because it's not specifically stated. However Federal superiority to the states is established and further implied throughout the constitution.




			
				United States Constitution Article. VI. said:
			
		

> All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.
> 
> This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
> 
> The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.



Bound by oath, ie contract, to support the constitution. You can't reject it. You can't not recognize it. Not recognizing the authority of the constitution is not recognizing the authority of the federal government.



Swamp Fox said:


> Not when the United States is no longer recognized.  When South Carolina left the Union, all of the claims held by the US Government are invalid.



There is a difference in one nation not recognizing another nation and a subject territory suddenly not recognizing the government it's under. The establishment of Federal superiority comes with restrictions placed on the states regarding inter-state transactions and treaties, raising and army, doing anything that a country normally does.




			
				United States Constitution said:
			
		

> No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.
> 
> 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.



I admit as I have before that is not a solid statement that states can not secede, however it is stronger than the argument that they can because the Federal government is sovereign in all the things that nations normally do, form treaties, have armies, etc.




Swamp Fox said:


> They didn't rebel, they took their ball and went home.



They refused to recognize the authority of a nation that was sovereign to them. That's called rebellion.



Swamp Fox said:


> Where, praytell, is that spelled out?  What's the "legal" way to do it?  Seems to me that they did it the legal way and the north had a hissy fit about it.



Congress was sovereign to the states. Anything that the states normally couldn't do they'd have to get congresses permission to do. Ergo, secession would need congressional approval.



Swamp Fox said:


> US property on land belonging to South Carolina.  When they were politely asked to leave, they refused.  That's when it became an invasion and the South responded with force.



Please show me where the land upon which the fort sat, belonged to South Carolina.





Swamp Fox said:


> Why?  It wasn't an insurrection.  It was a perfectly legal manuever allowed under Amendment 10 of the US Constitution which Lincoln chose to ignore and force his will upon the South.



See supremacy clause.


----------



## The_Hammer

BrianH said:


> You really are naive aren't you?  No one is arguing that slavery played a part.  If you really think that the North was fighting this noble cause to end slavery, you're wrong.  It was not ok for the South to own slave, but it was ok for the North to abuse children by sticking them in industrial plants and working them to the core, while forcing immigrants right off the boat into military service??
> 
> Slavery was LEGAL until 1865.  The North had legalized slavery the entire war, even after Lincolns emancipation proclamation. So there's your whole slavery issue.
> 
> The South seceded because they felt oppressed by the North, and that they had no representation in the government.  Everything you've posted is an underlying factor of that...slavery being one of them.
> 
> As far as legality goes....the South was perfectly legal in seceding from the Union.
> 
> First, there is no law prohibiting secession in the Constitution.
> Second, Amendment 10 grants all laws not prohibited to the states, to the states.  And since secession is not prohibited, it is reserved to the states.
> 
> Oh, did I mention slavery was legal in the North and South, and that the UNion had several states that permitted slavery?



I didn't say that the north had made slavery illegal. I didn't say that they fought the war to free the slaves. I've never made that an argument. Read my posts, hell read the damn articles. The souths primary reason for secession was the fear of the eventual illegality of slavery. All the states rights issues were related to slavery. Texas has a bit about not getting protection from raiding indians and mexicans from the federal government but that's largely it. Pretty much everything comes down to northern states not respecting southern laws in regards to slavery and the federal government not doing it's part to enforce the laws of the south or the laws of the federal government to protect southerners right to property.

The south was represented. Their voting population was even OVER represented due to the 3/5ths rule. And even if all the slaves had counted, they still would have lost. They weren't "oppressed". They were playing a game (both parties are playing by the rules mind you), losing, and bitching about it.


----------



## BrianH

The_Hammer said:


> You are saying it's an implied right because it's not specifically stated. However Federal superiority to the states is established and further implied throughout the constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bound by oath, ie contract, to support the constitution. You can't reject it. You can't not recognize it. Not recognizing the authority of the constitution is not recognizing the authority of the federal government.
> 
> *Secession is not in the constitution, nor was it law...therfore, secession was not illegal.*
> 
> 
> 
> There is a difference in one nation not recognizing another nation and a subject territory suddenly not recognizing the government it's under. The establishment of Federal superiority comes with restrictions placed on the states regarding inter-state transactions and treaties, raising and army, doing anything that a country normally does.
> 
> *There were no restrictions on secession.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I admit as I have before that is not a solid statement that states can not secede, however it is stronger than the argument that they can because the Federal government is sovereign in all the things that nations normally do, form treaties, have armies, etc.
> 
> *secession was legal, once the state secedes legally, it is not bound by oath to follow the U.S. Constitution.  Read the 10th Amendment.  Part of the Bill of Rights.  The 1oth Amendment of the Bill of Rights says that if it is not Prohibited in the Constitution, that the state can reserve that power resepctively.  The Constitution does not prohibit secession.*
> 
> 
> They refused to recognize the authority of a nation that was sovereign to them. That's called rebellion.
> 
> *The states make up the nation, not the other way around.  There was no rebellion.  The North invaded the South, not the other way around.*
> 
> 
> Congress was sovereign to the states. Anything that the states normally couldn't do they'd have to get congresses permission to do. Ergo, secession would need congressional approval.
> 
> *Congress was an extremely northern Majority as well as the Supreme Court.  Do you think Congress would have approved it?  Imagine that?....*
> 
> 
> 
> Please show me where the land upon which the fort sat, belonged to South Carolina.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> See supremacy clause.


----------



## BrianH

The_Hammer said:


> I didn't say that the north had made slavery illegal. I didn't say that they fought the war to free the slaves. I've never made that an argument. Read my posts, hell read the damn articles. The souths primary reason for secession was the fear of the eventual illegality of slavery. All the states rights issues were related to slavery. Texas has a bit about not getting protection from raiding indians and mexicans from the federal government but that's largely it. Pretty much everything comes down to northern states not respecting southern laws in regards to slavery and the federal government not doing it's part to enforce the laws of the south or the laws of the federal government to protect southerners right to property.
> 
> *   You stated that well young one.  You mentioned a little about slavery, and then followed it up with the main reason why the South seceded...they north did not respect them, they did not enforce laws in the South, etc...there were many other reasons why the South seceded, it was not strictly over slavery.  Slavery was a factor that was tied into the whole mess.  If the North was trying to outlaw Cowboy hats, there would have been a similar response. *
> 
> The south was represented. Their voting population was even OVER represented due to the 3/5ths rule. And even if all the slaves had counted, they still would have lost. They weren't "oppressed". They were playing a game (both parties are playing by the rules mind you), losing, and bitching about it.




*First, I hate to spill the beans on our election system, but popular representation means nothing.  If that was the case, Al Gore would have been the president.  They were opressed since the majority of the money in the nation went to the North and never returned.  The North conitnued racking up debts on the South, and then tried to outlaw their only means of mass production without providing any solution for their fellow nation.*

The states seceded legally, and the North got pissed and invaded...it's a simple as that. You cannot use a ruling in 1869 to unjustify secession in 1861, especially since the ruling was a joke and in no way justifies the laws in the Constitution.

Read Amendment 10, and then try to find somewhere in the Constitution of that forbade secession.


----------



## The_Hammer

BrianH said:


> First, I hate to spill the beans on our election system, but popular representation means nothing.  If that was the case, Al Gore would have been the president.  They were oppressed since the majority of the money in the nation went to the North and never returned.  The North continued racking up debts on the South, and then tried to outlaw their only means of mass production without providing any solution for their fellow nation.



Brzzzt! Wrong answer. Popular representation is the basis of our house and most states have popular votes. Gore lost because of the law (supreme court decision). Popular vote does matter for electoral representation. There isn't oppression in following the rules. The money goes where the people are. The north had more people, ergo, they get more money. That's how it works. Slavery wasn't the only means of mass production. Many plantations were profitable and had white labor. It wasn't necessary, just convenient.. Slavery was part of the souths hierarchical system. If you read some of the dissolution clauses they make the argument that the slavery of the African to the white was "natural".



BrianH said:


> The states seceded legally, and the North got pissed and invaded...it's a simple as that. You cannot use a ruling in 1869 to unjustify secession in 1861, especially since the ruling was a joke and in no way justifies the laws in the Constitution.



Wow you're retarded. I never mentioned the '69 ruiling. Way to put words in my mouth, again. I used the constitution.




BrianH said:


> Read Amendment 10, and then try to find somewhere in the Constitution of that forbade secession.



Don't need to. The constitution forbade states breaking oaths (contracts) and set itself up as the supreme law of the land. Things that sovereign nations could do states weren't allowed to do, only the fed could or if the fed gave the states permission. Ergo Fed > States. Actually read my posts please and you might not have some many problems understanding what I'm ACTUALLY saying.



			
				BrianH said:
			
		

> You stated that well young one. You mentioned a little about slavery, and then followed it up with the main reason why the South seceded...they north did not respect them, they did not enforce laws in the South, etc...there were many other reasons why the South seceded, it was not strictly over slavery. Slavery was a factor that was tied into the whole mess. If the North was trying to outlaw Cowboy hats, there would have been a similar response.



Right. Slavery was the main reason, the pillar, the load bearing wall, upon which their secession was based. It's removed, they have nothing to bitch about. Representation in congress? Because they can't counter the Norths attempts to eliminate slavery. Debts to the north? Because they chose to remain agrarian and use slavery and didn't modernize. Not respecting their laws? Their laws to keep slaves, the basis of their crappy economy.

If they had been so worried about the enforcement of their own laws they would have taken it to the supreme court and gotten the court to force the fed to force the states to respect the south. Thus far, I haven't seen that.


----------



## manifold

The North had absolutely no legal right to invade and conquer the South.  So apologists for the North justify it on moral grounds.  Slavery is bad, therefore raping, plundering, pillaging and otherwise razing the South to the ground was morally justified.  However, the right to secede from the union, which was allegedly retained by each individual state, was in no way predicated on having a good, moral reason to do so.  In the end, both the North and South could be considered both good guys and bad guys for different reasons.  But the fact remains that the South was LEGALLY justifed, the North was not.


----------



## Ravi

manifold said:


> The North had absolutely no legal right to invade and conquer the South.  So apologists for the North justify it on moral grounds.  Slavery is bad, therefore raping, plundering, pillaging and otherwise razing the South to the ground was morally justified.  However, the right to secede from the union, which was allegedly retained by each individual state, was in no way predicated on having a good, moral reason to do so.  In the end, both the North and South could be considered both good guys and bad guys for different reasons.  But the fact remains that the South was LEGALLY justifed, the North was not.



Are you saying that the USA has no legal standing to invade another country?


----------



## BrianH

The_Hammer said:


> Brzzzt! Wrong answer. Popular representation is the basis of our house and most states have popular votes. Gore lost because of the law (supreme court decision). Popular vote does matter for electoral representation. There isn't oppression in following the rules. The money goes where the people are. The north had more people, ergo, they get more money. That's how it works. Slavery wasn't the only means of mass production. Many plantations were profitable and had white labor. It wasn't necessary, just convenient.. Slavery was part of the souths hierarchical system. If you read some of the dissolution clauses they make the argument that the slavery of the African to the white was "natural".
> 
> 
> 
> Wow you're retarded. I never mentioned the '69 ruiling. Way to put words in my mouth, again. I used the constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't need to. The constitution forbade states breaking oaths (contracts) and set itself up as the supreme law of the land. Things that sovereign nations could do states weren't allowed to do, only the fed could or if the fed gave the states permission. Ergo Fed > States. Actually read my posts please and you might not have some many problems understanding what I'm ACTUALLY saying.
> 
> 
> 
> Right. Slavery was the main reason, the pillar, the load bearing wall, upon which their secession was based. It's removed, they have nothing to bitch about. Representation in congress? Because they can't counter the Norths attempts to eliminate slavery. Debts to the north? Because they chose to remain agrarian and use slavery and didn't modernize. Not respecting their laws? Their laws to keep slaves, the basis of their crappy economy.
> 
> If they had been so worried about the enforcement of their own laws they would have taken it to the supreme court and gotten the court to force the fed to force the states to respect the south. Thus far, I haven't seen that.



You seem to be doing what GW scientist do.  Cherry-picking information to come up with a desired result.  Which is what debate team is all about.  You want to prove your position.  The only thing you haven't done is look at the situation objectively.  You're coming from a biased point of view...which isn't a good crutch as far as debate goes.

I hate to tell you, but our election system is not all that you crack it up to be.  The idea is there to be fair, but it's not that way in practice.  Sorry...

As far as slaves go, slave owners were in the minority in the South; large slave owners being the extreme minority.  

I hate to break it to you Hammer, but you're misguided by our Constitution.  

Like I said, find where the COnstitution states that secession is illegal...and we can end this debate.  I'm glad the North won and that slavery is illegal. But from a historical POV, the South seceded legally.  Amendment 10.....Amendment 10....it's in the Bill of "RIGHTS"


----------



## manifold

Ravir said:


> Are you saying that the USA has no legal standing to invade another country?



No.  I'm talking about one specific case, The Civil War.


----------



## Ravi

manifold said:


> No.  I'm talking about one specific case, The Civil War.



Since the south was no longer part of the union, the union had legal standing to invade and conquer it.


----------



## manifold

Ravir said:


> Since the south was no longer part of the union, the union had legal standing to invade and conquer it.



Okie dokie.

I guess you must also be on board with invading Iran then.


----------



## Ravi

manifold said:


> Okie dokie.
> 
> I guess you must also be on board with invading Iran then.



Nope. Are you having non sequitur problems?


----------



## manifold

Ravir said:


> Nope. Are you having non sequitur problems?




No problem at all.  Merely responding to one with one of my own.

If I didn't know you better, I'd rightfully conclude that you believe that invading and conquering another country is always legal and justified so long as you have the power to do so.  The might makes right philosophy if you will.  Luckily for you, I do know you better. 

Now, if you care to explain, I'd like to understand why you believe the North had a legal right to destroy the South in the name of preserving the union.


----------



## ReillyT

manifold said:


> Okie dokie.
> 
> I guess you must also be on board with invading Iran then.



If the secession was not a lawful act (and it wasn't), then the United States just put down a rebellion in a province.  It has the same legitimacy as Spain suppressing the ETA in the Basque region.  Iran would be a poor comparison.


----------



## Ravi

manifold said:


> No problem at all.  Merely responding to one with one of my own.
> 
> If I didn't know you better, I'd rightfully conclude that you believe that invading and conquering another country is always legal and justified so long as you have the power to do so.  The might makes right philosophy if you will.  Luckily for you, I do know you better.
> 
> Now, if you care to explain, I'd like to understand why you believe the North had a legal right to destroy the South in the name of preserving the union.



I didn't say it was justified (though in the case of the Civil War I think it was). Just legal. As far as I know, Congress has the option to declare war on whomever it pleases. Am I incorrect?


----------



## manifold

ReillyT said:


> If the secession was not a lawful act (and it wasn't), then the United States just put down a rebellion in a province.



I disagree with your conclusion concerning the legality of the secession.  I understand and acknowledge that the matter was not specifically addressed by the Founding Fathers, which opens the door to the conflicting opinions we see voiced on the matter still today.  My position is that if it was not specifically made unlawful, then it was lawful by default.


----------



## manifold

Ravir said:


> I didn't say it was justified (though in the case of the Civil War I think it was). Just legal. As far as I know, Congress has the option to declare war on whomever it pleases. Am I incorrect?



hmmmm, so you do subscribe to the might makes right philosophy.

I stand corrected.


----------



## Ravi

manifold said:


> hmmmm, so you do subscribe to the might makes right philosophy.
> 
> I stand corrected.



No, you are still wrong. Show me how it was illegal.


----------



## manifold

I think Reilly brings up a good distinction that I can use to more accurately convey my position.  Arguing over "legality" of the invasion is in many ways missing the point.  I argue that the Civil War WAS NOT merely putting down a rebellion.  The Civil War was an invasion, conquering and annexation of a foreign, sovereign land.  And the North's invasion was not borne out of a noble cause to free slaves, it was all about money and preserving the union.


----------



## Ravi

manifold said:


> I think Reilly brings up a good distinction that I can use to more accurately convey my position.  Arguing over "legality" of the invasion is in many ways missing the point.  I argue that the Civil War WAS NOT merely putting down a rebellion.  The Civil War was an invasion, conquering and annexation of a foreign, sovereign land.  And the North's invasion was not borne out of a noble cause to free slaves, it was all about money and preserving the union.



That's all fine and dandy, but we were discussing the legality of it. I still haven't seen anything suggested that makes me question its legality.


----------



## manifold

Ravir said:


> That's all fine and dandy, but we were discussing the legality of it. I still haven't seen anything suggested that makes me question its legality.



I concede.  In the case of invading a foreign, sovereign land, there usually does not exist any binding laws governing said action.  I'm pretty sure Hitler didn't violate any German laws when he invaded Poland and France either (apologies for tangentially invoking Godwins law).

As Reilly accurately pointed out, the real question of legality has to do with the secession itself.  I say it was legal.  What say you?


----------



## ReillyT

manifold said:


> I think Reilly brings up a good distinction that I can use to more accurately convey my position.  Arguing over "legality" of the invasion is in many ways missing the point.  I argue that the Civil War WAS NOT merely putting down a rebellion.  The Civil War was an invasion, conquering and annexation of a foreign, sovereign land.  And the North's invasion was not borne out of a noble cause to free slaves, it was all about money and preserving the union.



I agree that the legalities are secondary.  It was a political act.  However, how do you distinguish between putting down a rebellion and conquering a foreign, sovereign land?  That also is a political distinction.  What is a rebellion to one party isn't perceived as just a rebellion to the other.  Where is the line between the ETA in Spain and the Kosovars in Serbia?  The only line that I can see is one of power differentials.  

I agree that slaverly was not the main impetus of the Civl war.


----------



## ReillyT

manifold said:


> As Reilly accurately pointed out, the real question of legality has to do with the secession itself.  I say it was legal.  What say you?



There is another discussion going on in the US Constitution thread on just this topic.   Since legality has to be judged against some instrument defining relationships, and the Constitution is the only instrument available in this scenario, then it was not legal.  The USSC decided this in 1869.


----------



## Ravi

manifold said:


> I concede.  In the case of invading a foreign, sovereign land, there usually does not exist any binding laws governing said action.  I'm pretty sure Hitler didn't violate any German laws when he invaded Poland and France either (apologies for tangentially invoking Godwins law).
> 
> As Reilly accurately pointed out, the real question of legality has to do with the secession itself.  I say it was legal.  What say you?



I also think that was legal. You've really had a bad effect on my bleeding-heart liberalism.


----------



## manifold

ReillyT said:


> I agree that the legalities are secondary.  It was a political act.  However, how do you distinguish between putting down a rebellion and conquering a foreign, sovereign land?  That also is a political distinction.  What is a rebellion to one party isn't perceived as just a rebellion to the other.  Where is the line between the ETA in Spain and the Kosovars in Serbia?  The only line that I can see is one of power differentials.
> 
> I agree that slaverly was not the main impetus of the Civl war.



I distinguish the two in this case by considering the basis upon which the union was originally founded, and the name itself.  The United *STATES* of America.  Each colony was an independent sovereign nation that agreed to join the union for the express purpose of having a unified voice for foreign policy and defense.  However, I doubt any of the colonies would have joined if they were told that they were surrendering their sovereignty in the process.  And if they were truly sovereign STATES (that's what the word meant back then), it is logical to conclude that membership in the union was discretionary and non-binding.


----------



## manifold

ReillyT said:


> There is another discussion going on in the US Constitution thread on just this topic.   Since legality has to be judged against some instrument defining relationships, and the Constitution is the only instrument available in this scenario, then it was not legal.  The USSC decided this in 1869.



I'm sorry, but the SCOTUS justifying the decimation of the South 4 years after the fact is hardly what I consider solid evidence of anything.


----------



## ReillyT

manifold said:


> I distinguish the two in this case by considering the basis upon which the union was originally founded, and the name itself.  The United *STATES* of America.  Each colony was an independent sovereign nation that agreed to join the union for the express purpose of having a unified voice for foreign policy and defense.  However, I doubt any of the colonies would have joined if they were told that they were surrendering their sovereignty in the process.  And if they were truly sovereign STATES (that's what the word meant back then), it is logical to conclude that membership in the union was discretionary and non-binding.



Everything that you say might be reasonable.  However, things aren't lawful or unlawful in the abstract.  They are only lawful by reference to some instrument (i.e., the Constitution, statutes, etc.).  If we are going to use the Constitution as the instrument (which is really the only thing we have), then Art. III leaves it to the USSC to determine what the law is and what the law means.  Once the USSC decides an issue (rightly or wrongly in your or my opinion), it is the law.  The USSC decided this issue, and that decision is the law.


----------



## ReillyT

manifold said:


> I'm sorry, but the SCOTUS justifying the decimation of the South 4 years after the fact is hardly what I consider solid evidence of anything.



It isn't evidence.  If you want to argue about whether you think the Constitution should provide for a right to secession, as written, that can be argued by ignoring the USSC.  However, if you want to talk about what the law is, as opposed to what the law should be, there is a final word, and that is the USSC.


----------



## manifold

ReillyT said:


> Everything that you say might be reasonable.  However, things aren't lawful or unlawful in the abstract.  They are only lawful by reference to some instrument (i.e., the Constitution, statutes, etc.).  If we are going to use the Constitution as the instrument (which is really the only thing we have), then Art. III leaves it to the USSC to determine what the law is and what the law means.  Once the USSC decides an issue (rightly or wrongly in your or my opinion), it is the law.  The USSC decided this issue, and that decision is the law.



Yes, secession has been officially unlawful since 1869.  But I still maintain that it was lawful in 1861.  Again, consider the issue of State sovereignty.  Do you really believe any of the southern colonies would have ratified the Constitution if they understood it to be a surrender of their sovereignty?


----------



## The_Hammer

First I'm cutting out all that stuff that's not related to the topic



BrianH said:


> As far as slaves go, slave owners were in the minority in the South; large slave owners being the extreme minority.



Yet they held a large amount of the power because they were richer. You and I both know that just because you are a physical minority, doesn't mean that your are a power minority.   



BrianH said:


> I hate to break it to you Hammer, but you're misguided by our Constitution.



I'm going to assume you mean misinterpreting.  



BrianH said:


> Like I said, find where the COnstitution states that secession is illegal...and we can end this debate.  I'm glad the North won and that slavery is illegal. But from a historical POV, the South seceded legally.  Amendment 10.....Amendment 10....it's in the Bill of "RIGHTS"



The constitution (I'm not reposting where. It's further up) says that

1) The Constitution is the Supreme law of the land. On this we agree.
1a) The physical representative of the Constitution is the Federal Government, the United States of America, as a result of the supremacy of the constitution is therefore supreme over the states. This is not, for whatever reason, being realized.

2) The states have to ask the federal government permission to act on most things reserved for sovereign nations. When you have to ask someone permission for something, that means they have authority over you ergo, they are your superior. When these things are most of the freedoms reserved for a sovereign nation, then you are subject to what has authority over you.

3) The constitution demands loyalty to it and subsequently the US government. The oath made by all public officials to the constitution is a contract. The constitution barrs states from ending contracts. If a contract doesn't have a specific term of ending, then you assume it continues until both parties decide to end it. In the case of a State joining the union or any state officials gaining office this occurs when the federal government decides to end the contract since it's superior to both in both cases (which is why the southern states would have had to approach congress to secede). Removing onceself from the contract violates the supremacy of the federal government and is an attempt to subvert it's authority. Thus the federal government has the right, when it's authority is threatened, to assert it, with force if necessary.


----------



## manifold

ReillyT said:


> It isn't evidence.  If you want to argue about whether you think the Constitution should provide for a right to secession, as written, that can be argued by ignoring the USSC.  However, if you want to talk about what the law is, as opposed to what the law should be, there is a final word, and that is the USSC.



Come on, let's be honest here.  Secession was made unlawful, specifically to prevent it from happening again.

And again, I'm not talking about what the law "should be."  I'm talking about what it was prior to secession.  Personally, I think the whole concept of a united nations (allusion intended), albeit noble, was fatally flawed from the start.  It necessarly had to end with either a break up of the union, or an effectively all powerful central government.  And we all see how that worked out.  If the war itself didn't finally put an end to the concept of state sovereignty, the 1869 USSC decision certainly did.


----------



## ReillyT

manifold said:


> Yes, secession has been officially unlawful since 1869.  But I still maintain that it was lawful in 1861.



That isn't how the law works.  Issues are only decided after they come to fruition.  The Court is not allowed to make advisory opinions.  When Brown challenged segregation, he was making the argument that segregation was unlawful.  The Court's decision was that Brown's rights had been violated at the time he was forced to take his child across town to go to a segregated school.  His rights didn't just become violated when the court handed down the opinion - the opinion meant his rights had always been in violation (which is why damages can still be awarded in cases where the Court defines what the law is for the first time).  Of course, had the decision come down the other way, his rights would never have been violated.  It is a bit of a philosophical quandary, but there you have it.

The Southern States may reasonably have assumed that their actions were legal, but in this case, they were wrong.



manifold said:


> Again, consider the issue of State sovereignty.  Do you really believe any of the southern colonies would have ratified the Constitution if they understood it to be a surrender of their sovereignty?



I have no idea, but I am sure that they recognized that they were granting a central government some of their sovereignty.


----------



## ReillyT

manifold said:


> Come on, let's be honest here.  Secession was made unlawful, specifically to prevent it from happening again.
> 
> And again, I'm not talking about what the law "should be."  I'm talking about what it was prior to secession.  Personally, I think the whole concept of a united nations (allusion intended), albeit noble, was fatally flawed from the start.  It necessarly had to end with either a break up of the union, or an effectively all powerful central government.  And we all see how that worked out.  If the war itself didn't finally put an end to the concept of state sovereignty, the 1869 USSC decision certainly did.



It doesn't matter why the USSC made the decision they did.  The only question is what the decision was.  I realize that I am falling back on the "because they said so" defense, but that is really how our system is designed.


----------



## manifold

ReillyT said:


> I have no idea, but I am sure that they recognized that they were granting a central government some of their sovereignty.



I think we'll have to agree to disagree on that one.  I'd bet everything I own that they wholeheartly believed they were retaining their sovereignty.


----------



## manifold

ReillyT said:


> It doesn't matter why the USSC made the decision they did.  The only question is what the decision was.  I realize that I am falling back on the "because they said so" defense, but that is really how our system is designed.



I understand your point, but I'm still calling shenanigans on this particular decision.  Considering what had just transpired, do you really believe this decision wasn't a foregone conclusion?  I doubt it.


----------



## ReillyT

manifold said:


> I think we'll have to agree to disagree on that one.  I'd bet everything I own that they wholeheartly believed they were retaining their sovereignty.



You may very well be right, although if it was that much of a concern, one would think that they would have put that in writing.  Of course, maybe it was taken for granted.  I just don't know.


----------



## BrianH

The_Hammer said:


> First I'm cutting out all that stuff that's not related to the topic
> 
> 
> 
> Yet they held a large amount of the power because they were richer. You and I both know that just because you are a physical minority, doesn't mean that your are a power minority.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm going to assume you mean misinterpreting.
> 
> 
> 
> The constitution (I'm not reposting where. It's further up) says that
> 
> 1) The Constitution is the Supreme law of the land. On this we agree.
> 1a) The physical representative of the Constitution is the Federal Government, the United States of America, as a result of the supremacy of the constitution is therefore supreme over the states. This is not, for whatever reason, being realized.
> 
> 2) The states have to ask the federal government permission to act on most things reserved for sovereign nations. When you have to ask someone permission for something, that means they have authority over you ergo, they are your superior. When these things are most of the freedoms reserved for a sovereign nation, then you are subject to what has authority over you.
> 
> 3) The constitution demands loyalty to it and subsequently the US government. The oath made by all public officials to the constitution is a contract. The constitution barrs states from ending contracts. If a contract doesn't have a specific term of ending, then you assume it continues until both parties decide to end it. In the case of a State joining the union or any state officials gaining office this occurs when the federal government decides to end the contract since it's superior to both in both cases (which is why the southern states would have had to approach congress to secede). Removing onceself from the contract violates the supremacy of the federal government and is an attempt to subvert it's authority. Thus the federal government has the right, when it's authority is threatened, to assert it, with force if necessary.



Hammer, no one is debating the U.S. right or ability to do what they did.  That's not what this is about.

THe Federal Gov. is upheld by the Constitution and acts upon the COnstitutions laws.  The fact that there is no law regarding the states right to secede, means that it's granted as a state's right.  This is reiterated in the BILL of RIGHTS--Amendment 10.  It's not about debating the U.S. supremacy.  We all know that the U.S. was supreme over the South, otherwise, the South would have gotten it's way.  

The Constitution does not even mention the U.S. "right" to keep a state from seceding.  It mentions oaths, but you're interpreting different parts of the Constitution as if it were the Bible.  Some people look too deep into it and draw more from it when it's actually quite literal and clear-cut.

The Constitution stated no law regarding the prohibition of secession by the states.  And because it was not prohibited by the Constitution, the states reserve that right "respectfully."  

Hindsight is twenty twenty, but when regarding the historical context of things, you simply cannot use hind-sight.  You have to go back and see what was in the minds of the people were.  Not all of the South were bad people.  And believe it or not, not all southern slave holders treated their slaves poorly.  But treated them with respect and treated them unlike the picture painted in Roots or American History (This does not justify the owning of slaves though).  

The Constitution was clear cut then, if the Constitution did not forbid, and the power was not exercised by teh Fed. Government, then the states reserved that right.  The power to stop secession was not among the powers of the federal gov.  (Not stated directly anyway)


----------



## ReillyT

manifold said:


> I understand your point, but I'm still calling shenanigans on this particular decision.  Considering what had just transpired, do you really believe this decision wasn't a foregone conclusion?  I doubt it.



No, I think it was clearly a foregone conclusion.  Then again, Brown only happened when it did because the politics of the situation made it feasible.  It would never have happened before WWII, regardless of the fact that the wording of the Constitution hadn't changed.  The USSC is also a political instrument, just less political than the other branches.


----------



## ReillyT

BrianH said:


> THe Federal Gov. is upheld by the Constitution and acts upon the COnstitutions laws.  The fact that there is no law regarding the states right to secede, means that it's granted as a state's right.  This is reiterated in the BILL of RIGHTS--Amendment 10.



That is a perfectly reasonable interpretation, but Art. III gives the USSC the right to decide whether it is the correct interpretation.  That is the part of the Constitution that matters here.


----------



## BrianH

ReillyT said:


> That is a perfectly reasonable interpretation, but Art. III gives the USSC the right to decide whether it is the correct interpretation.  That is the part of the Constitution that matters here.



I agree with that. I know that the USSC is the decider of how the Const. is interpreted. But that doesn't mean that they've interpreted it correctly.  As what happened in the Plessy v. Ferguson decision.  I guess my point is that there is nothing wrong with questioning their decisions.  Where my opinons really don't matter when it comes to the law...decided by the USSC, I am entitled to question their actions, and in this case, I think their decision was a politically driven decision that did not correctly cite the Constitution.


----------



## Ravi

Reilly, you've made some good points. If what you say is true, wouldn't that mean that flying the rebel flag is an act of treason even now?


----------



## ReillyT

BrianH said:


> I agree with that. I know that the USSC is the decider of how the Const. is interpreted. But that doesn't mean that they've interpreted it correctly.  As what happened in the Plessy v. Ferguson decision.  I guess my point is that there is nothing wrong with questioning their decisions.  Where my opinons really don't matter when it comes to the law...decided by the USSC, I am entitled to question their actions, and in this case, I think their decision was a politically driven decision that did not correctly cite the Constitution.



If you are just questioning whether the decision was the right one, then by all means continue.  I may have misunderstood your focus.  As for the decision itself, one would have to look back at what the founders intended and hope there is something there.  Otherwise, I think you make very strong arguments.


----------



## ReillyT

Ravir said:


> Reilly, you've made some good points. If what you say is true, wouldn't that mean that flying the rebel flag is an act of treason even now?



Secession may be unlawful based upon a reading of the Constitution, but treason is defined by statute.  One would have to look at the statute books and court decisions interpreting those statues to determine whether flying a rebel flag is treasonous.  Obviously, it isn't for 1st Amendment reasons.

Even with respect to secession, it is unlawful, and so null and void.  It is not criminal.  All acts against the union which follow from secession may be criminal acts.


----------



## BrianH

ReillyT said:


> If you are just questioning whether the decision was the right one, then by all means continue.  I may have misunderstood your focus.  As for the decision itself, one would have to look back at what the founders intended and hope there is something there.  Otherwise, I think you make very strong arguments.



well thanks. 

My main argument may have lost focus...but it was not about the Supreme Court and it's legitimacy, but about the actual legality of the South's secession as of 1861.  Alot of people cite the Supreme Court's decision in 1869, but how could the South have known about a SC decision that did not yet exist?  

If one were to look at the Constitution in 1861, one could honestly read it and see that there was no prohibition to the states seceding.  The Constitution never mentions it.

And in the 10th Amendment of the Bill of Rights, it states that powers not delegated to the federal government, and not prohibited to the states, are hereby reserved to the states respectively.  This means that if the Constitution does not prohibit it, the decision and power rests with the state.

This is my debacle. LOL.  I do recognize the power of the Supreme Court and that it's decisions are the law of the land in regarding the U.S.A.  But at the time, the Constitution alone, (without a SC decision) would have reiterated that it was perfectly legal.


----------



## ReillyT

BrianH said:


> well thanks.
> 
> My main argument may have lost focus...but it was not about the Supreme Court and it's legitimacy, but about the actual legality of the South's secession as of 1861.  Alot of people cite the Supreme Court's decision in 1869, but how could the South have known about a SC decision that did not yet exist?
> 
> If one were to look at the Constitution in 1861, one could honestly read it and see that there was no prohibition to the states seceding.  The Constitution never mentions it.
> 
> And in the 10th Amendment of the Bill of Rights, it states that powers not delegated to the federal government, and not prohibited to the states, are hereby reserved to the states respectively.  This means that if the Constitution does not prohibit it, the decision and power rests with the state.
> 
> This is my debacle. LOL.  I do recognize the power of the Supreme Court and that it's decisions are the law of the land in regarding the U.S.A.  But at the time, the Constitution alone, (without a SC decision) would have reiterated that it was perfectly legal.



A lack of decision from the USSC may have made it appear to be legal, even if the USSC determined later that it was not.  However, the USSC is not empowered to decide issues that haven't come to fruition, so there was no way that the USSC could have made a decision on secession until secession occurred.

Also, with respect to the 10th Amendment, its purpose as I understand it was to limit the rights of the Federal government to those listed in the Constitution.  It was not written to empower the states to additional rights that they didn't have by virtue of being a member of the union.  So, the question becomes, 10th Amendment aside, does the Constitution empower states with the ability to seceed?


----------



## Ravi

ReillyT said:


> Secession may be unlawful based upon a reading of the Constitution, but treason is defined by statute.  One would have to look at the statute books and court decisions interpreting those statues to determine whether flying a rebel flag is treasonous.  Obviously, it isn't for 1st Amendment reasons.
> 
> Even with respect to secession, it is unlawful, and so null and void.  It is not criminal.  All acts against the union which follow from secession may be criminal acts.



Thanks.


----------



## BrianH

ReillyT said:


> A lack of decision from the USSC may have made it appear to be legal, even if the USSC determined later that it was not.  However, the USSC is not empowered to decide issues that haven't come to fruition, so there was no way that the USSC could have made a decision on secession until secession occurred.
> 
> Also, with respect to the 10th Amendment, its purpose as I understand it was to limit the rights of the Federal government to those listed in the Constitution.  It was not written to empower the states to additional rights that they didn't have by virtue of being a member of the union.  So, the question becomes, 10th Amendment aside, does the Constitution empower states with the ability to seceed?



But you can't put aside the 10th Amendment, it's grouped in the Bill of Rights, considered to be 10 of the most important Amendments.  Amendments that other Amendments have been derived from.  Women voting, Civil Rights, etc...all come from the teachings of the first 10 Amendments.


----------



## ReillyT

BrianH said:


> well thanks.
> 
> My main argument may have lost focus...but it was not about the Supreme Court and it's legitimacy, but about the actual legality of the South's secession as of 1861.  Alot of people cite the Supreme Court's decision in 1869, but how could the South have known about a SC decision that did not yet exist?
> 
> If one were to look at the Constitution in 1861, one could honestly read it and see that there was no prohibition to the states seceding.  The Constitution never mentions it.
> 
> And in the 10th Amendment of the Bill of Rights, it states that powers not delegated to the federal government, and not prohibited to the states, are hereby reserved to the states respectively.  This means that if the Constitution does not prohibit it, the decision and power rests with the state.
> 
> This is my debacle. LOL.  I do recognize the power of the Supreme Court and that it's decisions are the law of the land in regarding the U.S.A.  But at the time, the Constitution alone, (without a SC decision) would have reiterated that it was perfectly legal.



Article IV of the Constitution concerns the states.  Section 3 says:



> Section 3. 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.



http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.articleiv.html

This gives the federal government the authority to decide when new states can be admitted and restricts states from combining without federal approval.  If the federal government has authority to decide whether two states who are willing to join are allowed to do so, it would suggest that secession cannot be undertaken unilaterally without the approval of the federal government.  At least, that could be one interpretation.


----------



## ReillyT

BrianH said:


> But you can't put aside the 10th Amendment, it's grouped in the Bill of Rights, considered to be 10 of the most important Amendments.  Amendments that other Amendments have been derived from.  Women voting, Civil Rights, etc...all come from the teachings of the first 10 Amendments.



The Tenth Amendment has to be read as to its purpose, which was to restrict the expansion of federal rights.

Assume that at the formation of the Union, there was a bundle of rights that had to be allotted between the federal government and the states.  The 10th Amendment restricts the federal government to those rights elaborated in the Constitution.  The question remains: what was in the bundle of rights to begin with?


----------



## manifold

...the southern states got duped by a bait and switch tactic and were sold a bill of goods.  


Well...nobody ever accused them of being too bright!


----------



## ReillyT

manifold said:


> ...the southern states got duped by a bait and switch tactic and were sold a bill of goods.
> 
> 
> Well...nobody ever accused them of being too bright!



Elitist!


----------



## Ravi

ReillyT said:


> Elitist!



Well, you must admit they are certainly still bitter.


----------



## manifold

ReillyT said:


> Elitist!



At least I'm not a traitorous cur!


----------



## Rogue 9

manifold said:


> I disagree with your conclusion concerning the legality of the secession.  I understand and acknowledge that the matter was not specifically addressed by the Founding Fathers, which opens the door to the conflicting opinions we see voiced on the matter still today.


Incorrect.  It _was_ addressed by the Founding Fathers; after all, many were still alive during the Nullification Crisis when South Carolina first threatened secession.  Here's what they had to say, starting with James Madison.  From this letter to William Rives:  constitution.org/jm/18330312_rives.htm  





> The milliners it appears, endeavor to shelter themselves under a distinction between a delegation and a surrender of powers. But if the powers be attributes of sovereignty & nationality & the grant of them be perpetual, as is necessarily implied, where not otherwise expressed, sovereignty & nationality according to the extent of the grant are effectually transferred by it, and a dispute about the name, is but a battle of words. The practical result is not indeed left to argument or inference. The words of the Constitution are explicit that the Constitution & laws of the U. S. shall be supreme over the Constitution & laws of the several States, supreme in their exposition and execution as well as in their authority. Without a supremacy in those respects it would be like a scabbard in the hand of a soldier without a sword in it. The imagination itself is startled at the idea of twenty four independent expounders of a rule that cannot exist, but in a meaning and operation, the same for all.
> 
> The conduct of S. Carolina has called forth not only the question of nullification, but the more formidable one of secession. It is asked whether a State by resuming the sovereign form in which it entered the Union, may not of right withdraw from it at will. As this is a simple question whether a State, more than an individual, has a right to violate its engagements, it would seem that it might be safely left to answer itself. But the countenance given to the claim shows that it cannot be so lightly dismissed. The natural feelings which laudably attach the people composing a State, to its authority and importance, are at present too much excited by the unnatural feelings, with which they have been inspired agst their brethren of other States, not to expose them, to the danger of being misled into erroneous views of the nature of the Union and the interest they have in it. One thing at least seems to be too clear to be questioned, that whilst a State remains within the Union it cannot withdraw its citizens from the operation of the Constitution & laws of the Union. In the event of an actual secession without the Consent of the Co States, the course to be pursued by these involves questions painful in the discussion of them.


Madison actually considered the idea of secession so preposterous that until it actually came up when South Carolina first threatened it he felt there was no need to even mention it, and was astonished that he should have to.  He also references the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution as proof positive that the states had no such ability, something that modern neo-Confederates tend to deny.  Given that he wrote the thing, I should think I trust Madison's interpretation of it.

Now how about George Washington?  From his Circular to the States:  





> There are four things, which I humbly conceive, are essential to the well being, I may even venture to say, to the existence of the United States as an Independent Power:
> 
> 1st. An indissoluble Union of the States under one Federal Head.
> 
> 2dly. A Sacred regard to Public Justice.
> 
> 3dly. The adoption of a proper Peace Establishment, and
> 
> 4thly. The prevalence of that pacific and friendly Disposition, among the People of the United States, which will induce them to forget their local prejudices and policies, to make those mutual concessions which are requisite to the general prosperity, and in some instances, to sacrifice their individual advantages to the interest of the Community.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> Under the first head, altho' it may not be necessary or proper for me in this place to enter into a particular disquisition of the principles of the Union, and to take up the great question which has been frequently agitated, whether it be expedient and requisite for the States to delegate a larger proportion of Power to Congress, or not, Yet it will be a part of my duty, and that of every true Patriot, to assert without reserve, and to insist upon the following positions, That unless the States will suffer Congress to exercise those prerogatives, they are undoubtedly invested with by the Constitution, every thing must very rapidly tend to Anarchy and confusion, That it is indispensable to the happiness of the individual States, that there should be lodged somewhere, a Supreme Power to regulate and govern the general concerns of the Confederated Republic, without which the Union cannot be of long duration. That there must be a faithful and pointed compliance on the part of every State, with the late proposals and demands of Congress, or the most fatal consequences will ensue, *That whatever measures have a tendency to dissolve the Union, or contribute to violate or lessen the Sovereign Authority, ought to be considered as hostile to the Liberty and Independency of America, and the Authors of them treated accordingly*, and lastly, that unless we can be enabled by the concurrence of the States, to participate of the fruits of the Revolution, and enjoy the essential benefits of Civil Society, under a form of Government so free and uncorrupted, so happily guarded against the danger of oppression, as has been devised and adopted by the Articles of Confederation, it will be a subject of regret, that so much blood and treasure have been lavished for no purpose, that so many sufferings have been encountered without a compensation, and that so many sacrifices have been made in vain.


Ouch.  That one's got to sting.  

Now how about Thomas Jefferson?  





			
				Thomas Jefferson to George Washington said:
			
		

> I can scarcely contemplate a more incalculable evil than the breaking of the union into two or more parts.


And in another letter, this one addressed to a third party and talking about a discussion Jefferson had had with Washington that day:  





> That with respect to the existing causes of uneasiness, he thought there were suspicions against a particular party, which had been carried a great deal too far; there might be desires, but he did not believe there were designs to change the form of government into a monarchy; that there might be a few who wished it in the higher walks of life, particularly in the great cities, but that the main body of the people in the eastern States were as steadily for republicanism as in the southern. That the pieces lately published, and particularly in Freneau's paper, seemed to have in view the exciting opposition to the government. That this had taken place in Pennsylvania as to the Excise law, according to information he had received from General Hand. *That they tended to produce a separation of the Union, the most dreadful of all calamities, and that whatever tended to produce anarchy, tended, of course, to produce a resort to monarchical government.*


----------



## AllieBaba

Ravir said:


> Well, you must admit they are certainly still bitter.



Do you know that, or do you just get your info from Obama?


----------



## Ravi

AllieBaba said:


> Do you know that, or do you just get your info from Obama?



It was a joke, dear. Chill.


----------



## M14 Shooter

ReillyT said:


> Article IV of the Constitution concerns the states.  Section 3 says:
> This gives the federal government the authority to decide when new states can be admitted and restricts states from combining without federal approval.  If the federal government has authority to decide whether two states who are willing to join are allowed to do so, it would suggest that secession cannot be undertaken unilaterally without the approval of the federal government.


It would "suggest" that to someone looking for a way to argue that the Constitition prohibits secession.  However, the text doesnt actually say what you argue it "suggests".


----------



## ReillyT

M14 Shooter said:


> It would "suggest" that to someone looking for a way to argue that the Constitition prohibits secession.  However, the text doesnt actually say what you argue it "suggests".



That's why I didn't use the word "says."


----------



## M14 Shooter

ReillyT said:


> That's why I didn't use the word "says."


Well...
Unless it is prohibited to the states -- that is, the Constitution -says- so -- a right is retained by the states.

Your argument would also apply to the idea that the states could not amend the Constititoin in such a way that it voids and nullifies the Constititon.  
Would you argue that the states do not have -that- right?


----------



## Rogue 9

BrianH said:


> Fair enough, but it was not just the South.  There were UNion territories that permitted slavery also:  Missouri, Kentucky, Maryland, West Virginia, Oklahoma, New Mexico, and Arizona.
> 
> Your right, they're intention was to keep slavery legal.  But slavery was an underlying issue.  The South didn't say, "We want to keep our slaves, so we're going to revolt so we can keep beatin the slaves!"


Actually, that's _exactly_ what they said.  


			
				Mississippi: Declaration of the Causes of Secession said:
			
		

> A Declaration of the Immediate Causes which Induce and Justify the Secession of the State of Mississippi from the Federal Union.
> 
> In the momentous step which our State has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part, it is but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course.
> 
> Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin.
> 
> That we do not overstate the dangers to our institution, a reference to a few facts will sufficiently prove.
> 
> The hostility to this institution commenced before the adoption of the Constitution, and was manifested in the well-known Ordinance of 1787, in regard to the Northwestern Territory.
> 
> The feeling increased, until, in 1819-20, it deprived the South of more than half the vast territory acquired from France.
> 
> The same hostility dismembered Texas and seized upon all the territory acquired from Mexico.
> 
> It has grown until it denies the right of property in slaves, and refuses protection to that right on the high seas, in the Territories, and wherever the government of the United States had jurisdiction.
> 
> It refuses the admission of new slave States into the Union, and seeks to extinguish it by confining it within its present limits, denying the power of expansion.
> 
> It tramples the original equality of the South under foot.
> 
> It has nullified the Fugitive Slave Law in almost every free State in the Union, and has utterly broken the compact which our fathers pledged their faith to maintain.
> 
> It advocates negro equality, socially and politically, and promotes insurrection and incendiarism in our midst.
> 
> It has enlisted its press, its pulpit and its schools against us, until the whole popular mind of the North is excited and inflamed with prejudice.
> 
> It has made combinations and formed associations to carry out its schemes of emancipation in the States and wherever else slavery exists.
> 
> It seeks not to elevate or to support the slave, but to destroy his present condition without providing a better.
> 
> It has invaded a State, and invested with the honors of martyrdom the wretch whose purpose was to apply flames to our dwellings, and the weapons of destruction to our lives.
> 
> It has broken every compact into which it has entered for our security.
> 
> It has given indubitable evidence of its design to ruin our agriculture, to prostrate our industrial pursuits and to destroy our social system.
> 
> It knows no relenting or hesitation in its purposes; it stops not in its march of aggression, and leaves us no room to hope for cessation or for pause.
> 
> It has recently obtained control of the Government, by the prosecution of its unhallowed schemes, and destroyed the last expectation of living together in friendship and brotherhood.
> 
> Utter subjugation awaits us in the Union, if we should consent longer to remain in it. It is not a matter of choice, but of necessity. We must either submit to degradation, and to the loss of property worth four billions of money, or we must secede from the Union framed by our fathers, to secure this as well as every other species of property. For far less cause than this, our fathers separated from the Crown of England.
> 
> Our decision is made. We follow their footsteps. We embrace the alternative of separation; and for the reasons here stated, we resolve to maintain our rights with the full consciousness of the justice of our course, and the undoubting belief of our ability to maintain it.


In short:  Oh no, the feds are going to take our slaves!!1!  The secession was motivated by slavery, first, last, and only.


----------



## Rogue 9

manifold said:


> Come on, let's be honest here.  Secession was made unlawful, specifically to prevent it from happening again.


Incorrect.  The court decided the way it did in Texas _v._ White because White's argument was that the current government of Texas was illegitimate due to it's rebellion and that it's laws had no hold over him.  If the court had ruled in White's favor, it would have agreed that the governments of the former Confederate states were illegitimate.  They would have reverted to territories, requiring the drafting of entirely new state constitutions and total reorganization of the state government, had the decision gone the other way.  

In other words, the state of Texas itself was arguing that it's secession was illegitimate in the case.


----------



## ReillyT

M14 Shooter said:


> Well...
> Unless it is prohibited to the states -- that is, the Constitution -says- so -- a right is retained by the states.
> 
> Your argument would also apply to the idea that the states could not amend the Constititoin in such a way that it voids and nullifies the Constititon.
> Would you argue that the states do not have -that- right?




It is prohibited by the Constitution.  It is irrelevant whether it is explicitly stated in the Constitution (quite a few things are not).  The USSC determined based on the preamble of the Constitution and the intent of the Articles of Confederation that secession is illegal.  Once again, it is irrelevant what you or I think.

The Constitution is the supreme law of the land.  Nothing trumps it. Therefore, if a Constitutional Amendment was passed that rendered the Constitution null and void, then I think that this would be sufficient.  Of course, how one could even know if it is sufficient since only the USSC could rule on it, and it would have been amended out of existence, is beyond me.  Still, I think there is a strong legal argument to be made that the Constitution could be amended to render it null and void (provided the proper procedures were followed).


----------



## ReillyT

M14 Shooter said:


> Well...
> Unless it is prohibited to the states -- that is, the Constitution -says- so -- a right is retained by the states.



As I pointed out in another thread, the purpose of the 10th Amendment was to limit the federal government to those rights enumerated (or implicitly derived from) the Constitution.  It did not empower the states to anything not recognized from the Constitution itself.  The question becomes: Was dissolutionment a right contained within the Constitution to be divied up between the States and the Federal government.  If not, then the 10th Amendment is not relevant.  The USSC says it was not.


----------



## BrianH

ReillyT said:


> It is prohibited by the Constitution.  It is irrelevant whether it is explicitly stated in the Constitution (quite a few things are not).  The USSC determined based on the preamble of the Constitution and the intent of the Articles of Confederation that secession is illegal.  Once again, it is irrelevant what you or I think.
> 
> The Constitution is the supreme law of the land.  Nothing trumps it. Therefore, if a Constitutional Amendment was passed that rendered the Constitution null and void, then I think that this would be sufficient.  Of course, how one could even know if it is sufficient since only the USSC could rule on it, and it would have been amended out of existence, is beyond me.  Still, I think there is a strong legal argument to be made that the Constitution could be amended to render it null and void (provided the proper procedures were followed).




We'll have to just agree to disagree.  IMO, a direct statement regarding states rights is more valid than an implied meaning


----------



## ReillyT

BrianH said:


> We'll have to just agree to disagree.  IMO, a direct statement regarding states rights is more valid than an implied meaning




I don't even think we disagree. I am not sure, were I reading the Constitution irrespective of any USSC decision, that I wouldn't come to the same conclusion.  I was merely pointing out that there are arguments that suggest otherwise.  The USSC just picked up one of them for its decision.


----------



## BrianH

ReillyT said:


> I don't even think we disagree. I am not sure, were I reading the Constitution irrespective of any USSC decision, that I wouldn't come to the same conclusion.  I was merely pointing out that there are arguments that suggest otherwise.  The USSC just picked up one of them for its decision.



Oh ok. We may be arguing the same thing then.  I'm aware of the USSC decision, and the argument that may have been used, even though I don't agree with it.   So, throwing out the USSC descision of 1869.  As a southerner or objective reader of the Constitution in 1861, would you have considered it legal for the states to secede?


----------



## Gunny

Rogue 9 said:


> Actually, that's _exactly_ what they said.
> In short:  Oh no, the feds are going to take our slaves!!1!  The secession was motivated by slavery, first, last, and only.



Most of the declarations of secession state something concering slavery.  It still was not "the" reason the Civil War was fought.  Most Southerners couldn't afford slaves.

Power and control in the Federal government was "the" reason, if there was "a" reason.  

The fact is, the proposed 13th Amendment that passed the House just prior to SC's secession originally guaranteed slavery in Southern states where it existed.  What it didn't do was guarantee an equal amount of slave states for every free state that entered the union.

That created an imbalance in Congress the Southern states were unwilling to accept.  The North wanted high tariffs to force the South to deal only with them, while the South wanted low tariffs because it made most of its money from England and Europe.      

Then there's the fact Abraham Lincoln would have allowed slavery in all Southern states, some Southern states and not others, or whatever it took to preserve the Union, and made a statement to that effect.

The cold hard fact is, NOBODY fought a war because they gave a damn about the black man.  The black man was a political pawn in the power game.


----------



## Gunny

ReillyT said:


> It is prohibited by the Constitution.  It is irrelevant whether it is explicitly stated in the Constitution (quite a few things are not).  The USSC determined based on the preamble of the Constitution and the intent of the Articles of Confederation that secession is illegal.  Once again, it is irrelevant what you or I think.
> 
> The Constitution is the supreme law of the land.  Nothing trumps it. Therefore, if a Constitutional Amendment was passed that rendered the Constitution null and void, then I think that this would be sufficient.  Of course, how one could even know if it is sufficient since only the USSC could rule on it, and it would have been amended out of existence, is beyond me.  Still, I think there is a strong legal argument to be made that the Constitution could be amended to render it null and void (provided the proper procedures were followed).



You are incorrect.  Secession is not prohibited in the Constitution, neither specifically stated nor implied.  

And just how far do you think you can get in court with that "Not explicitly stated" argument?  THAT is the whole problem with the Consitution today.  People demanding explicit statements when it suits them, but willingly accepting implications if it suits them.  Either way, the Constitution does not address secession either by explicit language nor by implication.


----------



## BrianH

GunnyL said:


> Most of the declarations of secession state something concering slavery.  It still was not "the" reason the Civil War was fought.  Most Southerners couldn't afford slaves.
> 
> Power and control in the Federal government was "the" reason, if there was "a" reason.
> 
> The fact is, the proposed 13th Amendment that passed the House just prior to SC's secession originally guaranteed slavery in Southern states where it existed.  What it didn't do was guarantee an equal amount of slave states for every free state that entered the union.
> 
> That created an imbalance in Congress the Southern states were unwilling to accept.  The North wanted high tariffs to force the South to deal only with them, while the South wanted low tariffs because it made most of its money from England and Europe.
> 
> Then there's the fact Abraham Lincoln would have allowed slavery in all Southern states, some Southern states and not others, or whatever it took to preserve the Union, and made a statement to that effect.
> 
> The cold hard fact is, NOBODY fought a war because they gave a damn about the black man.  The black man was a political pawn in the power game.



WEll put, not to mention that slavery was legal in the North as well until 1865.    Alot of people don't realize that the entire war was fought between two-sides that legalized slavery.  The tariffs also played a major role, as well as the different economies, and the one-sided money flow to the North.   
I've stated several times already that the North was not on this big crusade for black rights and the freedom of the slaves.  This is propoganda you learn in a censored 5th grade history class.  It was a power struggle between the states' power and federal power until the southern states legally exercised their right to secede using powers delegated to them by the powers not prohibted in the 10th Amendment.


----------



## Swamp Fox

The_Hammer said:


> You are saying it's an implied right because it's not specifically stated. However Federal superiority to the states is established and further implied throughout the constitution.



I'm saying that since it is not specifically mention in the constitution as a power granted to the United States or forbidden to the states, Amendment 10 means it is a power belonging to the states and the people.





The_Hammer said:


> Bound by oath, ie contract, to support the constitution. You can't reject it. You can't not recognize it. Not recognizing the authority of the constitution is not recognizing the authority of the federal government.



You mean like the Founding Fathers did when they told the British they didn't like the way they were being treated?




The_Hammer said:


> There is a difference in one nation not recognizing another nation and a subject territory suddenly not recognizing the government it's under. The establishment of Federal superiority comes with restrictions placed on the states regarding inter-state transactions and treaties, raising and army, doing anything that a country normally does.



So, no state can ever break away from the federal republic it belongs to?  How come the Confederation of Independent States have broken up?  What about all of the states that have been formed from Yugoslavia?  Are you saying they are not entitled to govern themselves in a manner they see fit?  Isn't that the main premise behind the Declaration of Independence and the founding of this country in the first place?





The_Hammer said:


> I admit as I have before that is not a solid statement that states can not secede, however it is stronger than the argument that they can because the Federal government is sovereign in all the things that nations normally do, form treaties, have armies, etc.



It's a flawed argument because it goes against the very things that formed this country in the first place.





The_Hammer said:


> They refused to recognize the authority of a nation that was sovereign to them. That's called rebellion.



So, the British were correct in their attempt to force the colonies to heel?





The_Hammer said:


> Please show me where the land upon which the fort sat, belonged to South Carolina.



It's in South Carolina, isn't it????


----------



## ReillyT

GunnyL said:


> You are incorrect.  Secession is not prohibited in the Constitution, neither specifically stated nor implied.



You are quite clearly wrong, for all of the previously mentioned reasons.  



GunnyL said:


> And just how far do you think you can get in court with that "Not explicitly stated" argument?  THAT is the whole problem with the Consitution today.  People demanding explicit statements when it suits them, but willingly accepting implications if it suits them.  Either way, the Constitution does not address secession either by explicit language nor by implication.



If one is strict constructionist, then that is a problem.  However, whole bodies of law rest on things that are only implied by the Constitution.


----------



## ReillyT

BrianH said:


> Oh ok. We may be arguing the same thing then.  I'm aware of the USSC decision, and the argument that may have been used, even though I don't agree with it.   So, throwing out the USSC descision of 1869.  As a southerner or objective reader of the Constitution in 1861, would you have considered it legal for the states to secede?



I think it is a toss up.  I don't have much to go on but my reading of history and the Constitution.  The Constitution doesn't forbid it expressly, but my answer would hinge on what the FF's intended when they formed the Union. Ravir made a good point that she doesn't think that at the time, the states would have agreed to form a union if they thought they couldn't break away from the experiment if it failed.  On the other hand, the Federalist Papers clearly suggest that at least Hamilton didn't think states should have the right to seceed.



> A FIRM Union will be of the utmost moment to the peace and liberty of the States, as a barrier against domestic faction and insurrection. It is impossible to read the history of the petty republics of Greece and Italy without feeling sensations of horror and disgust at the distractions with which they were continually agitated, and at the rapid succession of revolutions by which they were kept in a state of perpetual vibration between the extremes of tyranny and anarchy. If they exhibit occasional calms, these only serve as short-lived contrast to the furious storms that are to succeed. If now and then intervals of felicity open to view, we behold them with a mixture of regret, arising from the reflection that the pleasing scenes before us are soon to be overwhelmed by the tempestuous waves of sedition and party rage.



Federalist Paper #9. http://www.foundingfathers.info/federalistpapers/fed09.htm

Federalist papers 10 also is on this issue, and there are references to it in those papers discussing the defects of the Articles, which were deemed to weak an instrument.  On the other hand, Hamilton was the strongest voice in favor of a strong central government and it is not clear that the other FFs agreed with him in this.

In short, I really don't know.  It is a 50/50 sort of thing.


----------



## Ravi

Reilly, it wasn't I that made that point, I think it was Manifold.

Gunny -_ It still was not "the" reason the Civil War was fought. Most Southerners couldn't afford slaves._ That's kind of a silly argument. Most wars aren't fought because of what the general population does or does not want. The leaders decide.


----------



## ReillyT

Ravir said:


> Reilly, it wasn't I that made that point, I think it was Manifold.
> 
> Gunny -_ It still was not "the" reason the Civil War was fought. Most Southerners couldn't afford slaves._ That's kind of a silly argument. Most wars aren't fought because of what the general population does or does not want. The leaders decide.



My apologies.


----------



## Gunny

ReillyT said:


> You are quite clearly wrong, for all of the previously mentioned reasons.



I am quite clearly correct as the actual facts support my argument.



> If one is strict constructionist, then that is a problem.  However, whole bodies of law rest on things that are only implied by the Constitution.



That's all fine and dandy except therre is nothing even implied in the Constitution that supports your argument.  Without fabricating, you have no argument.


----------



## ReillyT

GunnyL said:


> That's all fine and dandy except therre is nothing even implied in the Constitution that supports your argument.  Without fabricating, you have no argument.



Perhaps you misunderstand my argument.  I only argue that secession was illegal because the USSC said so, and Art. III gives the USSC the authority to make that determination.  That is the law.  It is because of Art. III, more than any other portion of the Constitution, that one can say that the secession was unlawful.

The separate issue of whether I (or you) think the Constitution (irrespective of what the USSC might have said) _should_ be read to prohibit secession is a more difficult one.  I think there are good arguments on both sides.


----------



## Rogue 9

Oh for God's sake, do you people care to even read the document?  





			
				United States Constitution said:
			
		

> To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, *suppress Insurrections* and repel Invasions


So if insurrection is legal, why is the federal government empowered to suppress it, hmmm?  





			
				United States Constitution said:
			
		

> The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.


Again, if rebellion is legal, why the injunction against it?  





			
				United States Constitution said:
			
		

> *No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation*; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.


Confederacy is out.  





			
				United States Constitution said:
			
		

> 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.


As is keeping all those troops they were keeping.  Following so far?  





			
				United States Constitution said:
			
		

> The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States


So, who's running the Army again?  Ain't the states.  





			
				United States Constitution said:
			
		

> Treason against the United States, shall consist only in *levying War against them*, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.


Now then, who was levying war against the United States?  Oh, that's right...  





			
				United States Constitution said:
			
		

> 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.


This one's the kicker.  When taken in the context of the Supremacy Clause, we see that the states cannot violate the territorial sovereignty of the United States.  Secession is such a violation.  Here is that Clause, in case you've forgotten:  





			
				United States Constitution said:
			
		

> This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, *shall be the supreme Law of the Land*; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, *any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding*.


There's your constitutional argument for the unconstitutionality of secession.  If need be, I can bring forward multiple Federalist papers and letters from the members of the Constitutional Convention clearly spelling out that allowing secession was not their intent.  As I pointed out above, James Madison thought the idea was so preposterous that it was a wonder that he should have to point out why it's wrong.  He also pointed out that the people agitating for the "states' right" of secession at the time (the Nullification Crisis) would just as surely object to the same principle turned on it's head; a majority of the other states voting to kick one state out.  Secessionism was never a stand on principle; it was always merely a political tool of blackmail to force the federal government to pander to the interests of the region threatening it.


----------



## Ravi

ReillyT said:


> My apologies.



I'm sure he'll get over it.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Rogue 9 said:


> Oh for God's sake, do you people care to even read the document?
> So if insurrection is legal, why is the federal government empowered to suppress it, hmmm?
> Again, if rebellion is legal, why the injunction against it?


Secession, insurrection and rebellion are not the same things, at least not necessarily.



> This one's the kicker.  When taken in the context of the Supremacy Clause, we see that the states cannot violate the territorial sovereignty of the United States.


Secession doesnt violate the territorial sovereignty of the US.
It may change it, but it doesn't violate it.



> There's your constitutional argument for the unconstitutionality of secession.


If that's it, then it failed.


----------



## Rogue 9

M14 Shooter said:


> If that's it, then it failed.


Denial:  Not just a river in Egypt.   

The United States is sovereign over the member states.  The member states cannot violate the territorial claims of the United States, which incidentally _includes the states._  Even if it didn't, it certainly includes all the forts, magazines, and armories the rebels seized.


----------



## ReillyT

M14 Shooter said:


> Secession, insurrection and rebellion are not the same things, at least not necessarily.



Now you are really stretching.



> Main Entry: in·sur·rec·tion
> Pronunciation: "in-s&-'rek-sh&n
> Function: noun
> : the act or an instance of revolting esp. violently against civil or political authority or against an established government; also : the crime of inciting or engaging in such revolt <whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United Statesshall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than ten years U.S. Code>



http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/insurrection

Regardless of whether you feel that secession is different than insurrection, it is clearly a reasonable interpretation to equate the secession with an insurrection.  If you want a basis, you have been given one.  If you choose to only accept the word "secession," then you are free to stick to that silly standard.


----------



## M14 Shooter

ReillyT said:


> Now you are really stretching.


How so?
Secession is to withdraw.
Withdrawal in no way necessiates insurrection or rebellion.



> Regardless of whether you feel that secession is different than insurrection, it is clearly a reasonable interpretation to equate the secession with an insurrection.


Only if you can show that, in all cases, they are the same thing.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Rogue 9 said:


> Denial:  Not just a river in Egypt.


Yes.  Hope you can swim.



> The United States is sovereign over the member states.


On the contrary.
The states are soverign.  They can dissolve the union any time they choose.
The reverse is not true.


----------



## ReillyT

M14 Shooter said:


> Only if you can show that, in all cases, they are the same thing.



No.  The USSC has never ruled on this, so I don't know what they would say.  However, they would surely be empowered to interpret insurrection to include secession.  They are empowered to do quite a bit.


----------



## Rogue 9

M14 Shooter said:


> On the contrary.
> The states are soverign.  They can dissolve the union any time they choose.
> The reverse is not true.


The Supremacy Clause clearly states that the Constitution and laws made pursuant to it are the supreme law of the land, even going so far as to say that this is true notwithstanding anything in the state constitutions or any state laws.  I fail to see how it can get much more clear-cut than that.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Rogue 9 said:


> The Supremacy Clause clearly states that the Constitution and laws made pursuant to it are the supreme law of the land, even going so far as to say that this is true notwithstanding anything in the state constitutions or any state laws.  I fail to see how it can get much more clear-cut than that.


I believe I explained it to you.
The federal government exists at the pleasure of the states.
Thus, the states are sovereign.


----------



## M14 Shooter

ReillyT said:


> No.  The USSC has never ruled on this...


The SCotUS doesnt need to rule for you to understand that all of the words you specified have different meanings, none of which necesarily overlap -- especially where secession is concerned.


----------



## Rogue 9

M14 Shooter said:


> I believe I explained it to you.
> The federal government exists at the pleasure of the states.
> Thus, the states are sovereign.


What is your basis for this claim?  

Anyway, to try a different tack for a moment, let's find out of states' rights were really that important to the secessionists, or if it was just a smokescreen to cover their true aims.  A look at the framework they chose for their government should do nicely.  

It turns out that they pretty much ripped off the U.S. Constitution, with a few changes.  Here is a comparison chart detailing these changes:  filibustercartoons.com/CSA.htm You may note that _none_ of them address secession, one change makes the constitution say that the Confederacy is permanent, and several actually expand federal power.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Rogue 9 said:


> What is your basis for this claim?


Amendment XXVIII:
The Constititon, at the moment of ratification of this amendment, is null and void.



> Anyway, to try a different tack for a moment, let's find out of states' rights were really that important to the secessionists, or if it was just a smokescreen to cover their true aims.  A look at the framework they chose for their government should do nicely.


Irrelevant to the issue.


----------



## ReillyT

M14 Shooter said:


> The SCotUS doesnt need to rule for you to understand that all of the words you specified have different meanings, none of which necesarily overlap -- especially where secession is concerned.



Who says that they must fully overlap?  The USSC can interpret it any way they like.  I think the clauses that Rogue pointed out definitely provide a basis for interpreting the Constitution to prohibit secession.  Only the USSC can settle this issue of whether such an interpretation is the appropriate one.


----------



## Rogue 9

M14 Shooter said:


> Amendment XXVIII:
> The Constititon, at the moment of ratification of this amendment, is null and void.


By the amendment mechanism, yes.  Did the members of the CSA use the amendment mechanism to effect their secession?  



M14 Shooter said:


> Irrelevant to the issue.


Is it?  The title of this thread is "Southern History and the Truth."  The truth about the Southerners' aims, I think, is most relevant.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Rogue 9 said:


> By the amendment mechanism, yes.  Did the members of the CSA use the amendment mechanism to effect their secession?


Irrelevant to the issue of who is sovereign.
You stated the federal government is sovereign.  It isn't. 




> Is it?  The title of this thread is "Southern History and the Truth."  The truth about the Southerners' aims, I think, is most relevant.


Not in terms of if there is a right to seceed.


----------



## M14 Shooter

ReillyT said:


> Who says that they must fully overlap?  The USSC can interpret it any way they like.  I think the clauses that Rogue pointed out definitely provide a basis for interpreting the Constitution to prohibit secession.  Only the USSC can settle this issue of whether such an interpretation is the appropriate one.


Is it possible to seceed without rebelling or starting an insurrection?
Your answer MUST be "yes", if you have any degree of honesty.
As such, secession does not necessarily equate to insurrection or rebellion.


----------



## Rogue 9

M14 Shooter said:


> Irrelevant to the issue of who is sovereign.
> You stated the federal government is sovereign.  It isn't.


The states have to ask the federal government for permission to do things that sovereign nations get to do; the reverse is not true.  The fact that states need the consent of Congress to raise an army suggests that enforcement should be expected if they do so without said consent.  If any one state (not three quarters of the states working in concert; just one) is more powerful politically than the federal government, then why does the Constitution bother putting limits on the states at all?


----------



## M14 Shooter

Rogue 9 said:


> The states have to ask the federal government for permission to do things that sovereign nations get to do; the reverse is not true.  The fact that states need the consent of Congress to raise an army suggests that enforcement should be expected if they do so without said consent.  If any one state (not three quarters of the states working in concert; just one) is more powerful politically than the federal government, then why does the Constitution bother putting limits on the states at all?


Noen of this changes in any way that the Federal government, and any powers it may have, exists at the pleasure of the states.
Thus, the states are sovereign.


----------



## ReillyT

M14 Shooter said:


> Noen of this changes in any way that the Federal government, and any powers it may have, exists at the pleasure of the states.
> Thus, the states are sovereign.



No, the powers of the federal government exist due to a compact made between the states and the federal government.  If 10 people make a contract, and then 9 of them want to change it, that is too bad.  The contract remains so long as any party to the contract wishes to maintain it.  

States governments, even acting in concert, can't change federal laws.  Only federal legislatures can change federal laws.


----------



## M14 Shooter

ReillyT said:


> No, the powers of the federal government exist due to a compact made between the states and the federal government.  If 10 people make a contract, and then 9 of them want to change it, that is too bad.  The contract remains so long as any party to the contract wishes to maintain it.
> 
> States governments, even acting in concert, can't change federal laws.  Only federal legislatures can change federal laws.


Not sure how any of this negates my argument.


----------



## ReillyT

M14 Shooter said:


> Not sure how any of this negates my argument.



You don't?  I think it is pretty clear.  Read it again and if you still don't get it, I will try to rephrase it.


----------



## M14 Shooter

ReillyT said:


> You don't?  I think it is pretty clear.  Read it again and if you still don't get it, I will try to rephrase it.



OK...


> No, the powers of the federal government exist due to a compact made between the states and the federal government. If 10 people make a contract, and then 9 of them want to change it, that is too bad. The contract remains so long as any party to the contract wishes to maintain it.


Given that the states -can- dissolve the union w/o any input or consent from the federal government, and that the states -can- add and remove federal powers (and thus, laws) without any input or consent from the federal government, how can you be right, and how can the states NOT be sovereign?


----------



## Rogue 9

The states as a body (that is to say, the Union) are sovereign; the federal government exists as the collective governing body of the states.  Individual states on their own are not.  They gave that up when joining the Union; hell, Texas even admits to this in it's own Declaration of the Causes of Secession.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Rogue 9 said:


> The states as a body (that is to say, the Union) are sovereign; the federal government exists as the collective governing body of the states.  Individual states on their own are not.


Then you agree with my position that the states are sovereign.
Thank you.


----------



## ReillyT

M14 Shooter said:


> OK...
> 
> Given that the states -can- dissolve the union w/o any input or consent from the federal government, and that the states -can- add and remove federal powers (and thus, laws) without any input or consent from the federal government, how can you be right, and how can the states NOT be sovereign?



I don't think that the states can add or removal federal power without the input/consent of the federal government.  States can change the constitution, but they can only do according to the procedures found in the Constitution which form the basis of the contract with the federal government.  This was a power ceded to the states against the federal government when the compact was written.  It is part of the initial contract.  The states are not completely sovereign. They are only sovereign in their spheres.


----------



## M14 Shooter

ReillyT said:


> I don't think that the states can add or removal federal power without the input/consent of the federal government.  States can change the constitution, but they can only do according to the procedures found in the Constitution which form the basis of the contract with the federal government.


And the states can amend the constitution without the federal government -- the entitly created by the constition, anbd thus a party to same, under your argument -- having any input whatsoever, or having any legal way to stop them.  Thus, they have the ability to change the contract without all parties of that contract giving their consent.



> The states are not completely sovereign. They are only sovereign in their spheres.


They have the right and the plenary power to amend the powers that they gave the Federal government at will.  Thus, sovereign.


----------



## Rogue 9

M14 Shooter said:


> Then you agree with my position that the states are sovereign.
> Thank you.


An individual state is not; the Union, which is the joining of the states, is.  This is not a difficult concept.  If an individual state was sovereign, then it would take only _one_ state to amend the Constitution, not a large supermajority.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Rogue 9 said:


> An individual state is not; the Union, which is the joining of the states, is.  This is not a difficult concept.  If an individual state was sovereign, then it would take only _one_ state to amend the Constitution, not a large supermajority.


Your argument noted that the federal government was sovereign.
It is not, as you have agreed.


----------



## nukeman

Rogue 9 said:


> An individual state is not; the Union, which is the joining of the states, is.  This is not a difficult concept.  If an individual state was sovereign, then it would take only _one_ state to amend the Constitution, not a large supermajority.


EACH state has the ability to determine as to whether or not they will SUPPORT the federal gov't.  So if an individual state decides the Federal gov't is not representing them they can "choose" to change the way they interact with the Feds so YES they are in essence sovereign!


----------



## ReillyT

M14 Shooter said:


> And the states can amend the constitution without the federal government -- the entitly created by the constition, anbd thus a party to same, under your argument -- having any input whatsoever, or having any legal way to stop them.  Thus, they have the ability to change the contract without all parties of that contract giving their consent.



No, the federal government gave their consent to changes of this nature in the first instance.  If 10 people form a contract, and it provides that the contract can be amended if any 9 of them agree, then if it is amended, it is because the 10th person consented to amending it when he/she signed the initial contract.  It is just one more right given up at the outset.



M14 Shooter said:


> They have the right and the plenary power to amend the powers that they gave the Federal government at will.  Thus, sovereign.



They are only sovereign within their sphere.  They do not have complete sovereignty.  They gave a portion of their sovereignty up when they joined the union.  There are plenty of things the states are not allowed to legislate on (or do) without federal consent.  If they had complete sovereignty, they would not be beholden to the federal government in any way.


----------



## ReillyT

nukeman said:


> EACH state has the ability to determine as to whether or not they will SUPPORT the federal gov't.  So if an individual state decides the Federal gov't is not representing them they can "choose" to change the way they interact with the Feds so YES they are in essence sovereign!



They can't choose to change the way they interact with the federal government in the sense that they are completely sovereign.  When Alabama (I think it was Alabama) decided it wasn't going to enforce Brown, Federal troops ensured that they did.  Each state is bound by the Constitution that they signed.


----------



## Rogue 9

M14 Shooter said:


> Your argument noted that the federal government was sovereign.
> It is not, as you have agreed.


Except it is.  The federal government _is_ the governing body of the Union. You're drawing a dichotomy where none exists.


----------



## M14 Shooter

ReillyT said:


> They can't choose to change the way they interact with the federal government in the sense that they are completely sovereign.


"Completely" soverign v "ultimately" sovereign.
Compare and contrast.


----------



## ReillyT

M14 Shooter said:


> "Completely" soverign v "ultimately" sovereign.
> Compare and contrast.



Okay.  They are ultimately sovereign in their spheres.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Rogue 9 said:


> Except it is.  The federal government _is_ the governing body of the Union.


The federal government can be changed and/or eliminated, at will, by the states, without it being able to do anything about it.  Any sovereignty that the Federal government may have is situational and exists at the whim of the states.
Thus, the states are sovereign.


----------



## Rogue 9

You know, all this about the amendment process is totally irrelevant.  Even if it means the federal government isn't sovereign _at all_ (I contend it does not), it still takes three quarters of the states to agree to an amendment; if this is your argument for state sovereignty, then we can conclude that the states are not sovereign unless three quarters of them exercise their sovereignty in concert.  Thus, it should take no less than three quarters of the states to agree to a secession.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Rogue 9 said:


> You know, all this about the amendment process is totally irrelevant.  Even if it means the federal government isn't sovereign _at all_ (I contend it does not)


Given the plenary and unlimited power of the states to change and/or eliminate the federal government, how is it even possible that the states are not ultimately sovereign over the federal government.



> it still takes three quarters of the states to agree to an amendment if this is your argument for state sovereignty, then we can conclude that the states are not sovereign unless three quarters of them exercise their sovereignty in concert.


No one has argued any differently.



> Thus, it should take no less than three quarters of the states to agree to a secession.


Non-sequitur.


----------



## Rogue 9

Let's turn this on its head.  What if some of the other states decided in concert to eject one of the states from the Union against that state's will.  Would you agree that they were right to make that decision and that they had the power to compel the other state to leave?


----------



## M14 Shooter

Rogue 9 said:


> Let's turn this on its head


Because you can't argue otherwise?



> What if some of the other states decided in concert to eject one of the states from the Union against that state's will.  Would you agree that they were right to make that decision and that they had the power to compel the other state to leave?


Amendment XXVIII
California is ejected from the Union.

Right or wrong?  Doesn't really matter, as the power clearly exists.


----------



## Rogue 9

I can't help but note that every single argument you're putting forth uses the amendment mechanism, so if the amendment mechanism is the entire basis for your argument, why should it not have been used in 1860-61?  And if it didn't have to be used then, why would it have to be used to eject a state from the Union?


----------



## M14 Shooter

Rogue 9 said:


> I can't help but note that every single argument you're putting forth uses the amendment mechanism, so if the amendment mechanism is the entire basis for your argument, why should it not have been used in 1860-61?


Because the argument for the legitimate right to secession is based on the 10th amendment.



> And if it didn't have to be used then, why would it have to be used to eject a state from the Union?


That should be obvious - there is no inherent mechanism for ejecting a state.  The right to remain a state is covered by the 10th.


----------



## Rogue 9

M14 Shooter said:


> Because the argument for the legitimate right to secession is based on the 10th amendment.


I note that the 10th Amendment also reserves powers to the people.  You may wish to remember that; it seems you treat it as exclusively applying to state governments.  



M14 Shooter said:


> That should be obvious - there is no inherent mechanism for ejecting a state.  The right to remain a state is covered by the 10th.


Of course there is - according to your argument, anyway.  The other states are simply seceding from the one.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Rogue 9 said:


> I note that the 10th Amendment also reserves powers to the people.  You may wish to remember that; it seems you treat it as exclusively applying to state governments.


Given the context of the conversation, why does that matter?




> Of course there is - according to your argument, anyway.


No, not according to my argument.


----------



## Rogue 9

Okay, explain this.  If one state can summarily secede from the whole, why can the whole not remove one state by the same logic, i.e. seceding from it?


----------



## Rogue 9

GunnyL said:


> Most of the declarations of secession state something concering slavery.  It still was not "the" reason the Civil War was fought.  Most Southerners couldn't afford slaves.
> 
> Power and control in the Federal government was "the" reason, if there was "a" reason.
> 
> The fact is, the proposed 13th Amendment that passed the House just prior to SC's secession originally guaranteed slavery in Southern states where it existed.  What it didn't do was guarantee an equal amount of slave states for every free state that entered the union.
> 
> That created an imbalance in Congress the Southern states were unwilling to accept.  The North wanted high tariffs to force the South to deal only with them, while the South wanted low tariffs because it made most of its money from England and Europe.
> 
> Then there's the fact Abraham Lincoln would have allowed slavery in all Southern states, some Southern states and not others, or whatever it took to preserve the Union, and made a statement to that effect.
> 
> The cold hard fact is, NOBODY fought a war because they gave a damn about the black man.  The black man was a political pawn in the power game.


I didn't say they fought a war because they gave a damn about the black man; I said the southern states seceded in order to preserve slavery.  In their own Constitution, they mandated that all member states must be slave states.  

Regardless, the four states that issued Declarations of Causes (South Carolina, Georgia, Texas, and Mississippi) all cited threats to slavery as their primary motivation.   The seceding states themselves stated outright that their motivation in secession was the preservation of slavery.  The CSA's vice president, Alexander Stephens, said the same thing in a speech at the outset of the Confederacy.  This makes it quite difficult to argue that slavery was not the motivating factor; unless you contend that there was a massive conspiracy on the part of the CSA state and confederate governments to lie about their motivations, then I see no evidence that we should not take their stated reasons at face value.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Rogue 9 said:


> Okay, explain this.  If one state can summarily secede from the whole, why can the whole not remove one state by the same logic, i.e. seceding from it?


Well...
Secession by self is not the same as forced removal by others.


----------



## Rogue 9

How is it different?  Forcing the removal of one from the whole and the whole removing itself from the one is only a difference of semantics.  

Assuming the union consisted of only four states (just to make this easier), it would go like so:  

State 1:  I'm seceding.
State 2:  Wait a minute...
State 3:  Yeah, me too.
State 4:  You know, I'm with them.  
State 2:  Well crap.
State 1:  Hey states 3 and 4, want to form a union with the same rules as the last one, only without that loser over there?  
State 3:  Yes.
State 4:  Yeah, sure.
State 2:  ...

And there you have it.  The forced ejection of one from the whole, brought to you by the secession mechanism.


----------



## AllieBaba

The north and south were fighting for different things.

The north wanted to abolish slavery. When they tried to force that on the south, the South rebelled. Not "because" of slavery, but because they didn't like being told what to do.

If it was a non-issue, they would have just done it and nobody would have cared because everybody would have been of the same mind. The south's justification for seceding was "state's rights" but it came down to "state's rights to continue slavery."


----------



## manifold

I think I can sum it up as follows:

1. In the absence of the USSC 1869 ruling, it is pretty clear that it's not clear at all whether secession was allowable, once a state ratified the Constitution and joined the union.  There have been several good arguments made on both sides.

2.  It is my opinion that secession SHOULD have been allowed and was even understood to be allowed by the colonists that ratified the Constitution.  Because as I've already opined, I can't imagine they would have ever joined the union if they believed they were surrendering their sovereignty.

3.  The reality is that it is now settled law and secession is not allowed.  Period.  And...state sovereignty is a dead concept.

4.  Rogue9 didn't make one single valid point and seemingly did not really understand what was actually being discussed.


----------



## Ravi

One point number two, what makes you so certain that states didn't realize they were giving up their sovereignty? I imagine they realized they'd have to abide by the constitution and Congressional law, etc., to enjoy whatever benefits they received by becoming part of the USA.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Rogue 9 said:


> How is it different?  Forcing the removal of one from the whole and the whole removing itself from the one is only a difference of semantics.


My leaving a group of my own free will is, obviously and on its face, very different than that goup kicking you out when you don't want to leave.


----------



## manifold

Ravir said:


> One point number two, what makes you so certain that states didn't realize they were giving up their sovereignty? I imagine they realized they'd have to abide by the constitution and Congressional law, etc., to enjoy whatever benefits they received by becoming part of the USA.



I wouldn't say I'm 100% certain.  How could anyone be 100% certain?

However, it's by far the most logical conclusion, IMO.  So I'd give it about a 99.9% probability.


----------



## Ravi

manifold said:


> I wouldn't say I'm 100% certain.  How could anyone be 100% certain?
> 
> However, it's by far the most logical conclusion, IMO.  So I'd give it about a 99.9% probability.



Why is it the most logical conclusion? IMO, they'd have to be pretty stupid to think they could join a group and not have to abide by the group's rules.

Unless you mean that they thought they could back out at any time, I supposed that would make a shortsighted kind of sense.


----------



## jillian

What I find interesting about the whole seccession debate is that even under the articles of confederation, states could not enter into any treaties or agreements with other states that weren't approved by the full congress. I doubt that anyone would attempt to argue that the states had greater rights under the Constitution. So, if they couldn't enter into alterntive treaties under the confederation, the certainly couldn't under the US Constitution. That would have made the confederacy illegal even under the 

It was never intended for anyone to be able to withdraw or states could have withdrawn just to avoid their share of debt.

I know that there are old wounds with this issue, but it's really a non-issue, IMO. 

Sorry... maybe I'm being a bit simplistic aobut it, but that's what I see.


----------



## Ravi

That makes perfect sense, Jillian. I get the feeling the South wants to reverse the SCOTUS decision for some reason to assuage their pride.


----------



## Rogue 9

manifold said:


> 4.  Rogue9 didn't make one single valid point and seemingly did not really understand what was actually being discussed.


I didn't see _you_ coming up with any counters.  

If I don't understand what's being discussed, then please enlighten me.  If it is not the constitutionality of secession, then what is it?


Ravir said:


> That makes perfect sense, Jillian. I get the feeling the South wants to reverse the SCOTUS decision for some reason to assuage their pride.


If so, then they're not very bright.  If _Texas v. White_ were reversed, it would dissolve the state governments of every former member of the Confederacy.


----------



## manifold

Ravir said:


> Why is it the most logical conclusion? IMO, they'd have to be pretty stupid to think they could join a group and not have to abide by the group's rules.
> 
> Unless you mean that they thought they could back out at any time, I supposed that would make a shortsighted kind of sense.



I don't see anything shortsighted about it.  The whole concept of preserving state sovereignty was to prevent the central government from growing too powerful and ultimately tyrannical.  As long as the states could opt-out, it would keep the central government in check.  And I'd take it one step further and say that history has proven my point.  The remaining vestiges of states rights are largely symbolic.  The federal government rules the land.  Period.

Thank you "honest" Abe!


----------



## Ravi

manifold said:


> I don't see anything shortsighted about it.  The whole concept of preserving state sovereignty was to prevent the central government from growing too powerful and ultimately tyrannical.  As long as the states could opt-out, it would keep the central government in check.  And I'd take it one step further and say that history has proven my point.  The remaining vestiges of states rights are largely symbolic.  The federal government rules the land.  Period.
> 
> Thank you "honest" Abe!



Historically, how often have countries ever willingly given up territory? Truly, they weren't playing with a full deck if they thought they'd be able to back out easily.

I'm only guessing of course and I don't know much about this subject. But what is written that leads you to believe they thought they had the ability to opt out at will?


----------



## manifold

Ravir said:


> But what is written that leads you to believe they thought they had the ability to opt out at will?



Pretty much any and every text written about the American Revolution, what they faught against, and what they hoped could be prevented from ever happening again...an oppressive, tyrannical government in which they had little or no material representation.


----------



## jillian

Ravir said:


> That makes perfect sense, Jillian. I get the feeling the South wants to reverse the SCOTUS decision for some reason to assuage their pride.



Well, I think Gunny articulates their feelings pretty well when he says that southerners believe that they were kept from exercising a right because of the superior military might of the north. But I agree with you that there wasn't any way that the US was going to give up territory


----------



## Ravi

manifold said:


> Pretty much any and every text written about the American Revolution, what they faught against, and what they hoped could be prevented from ever happening again...an oppressive, tyrannical government in which they had little or no material representation.



But we don't exactly have an oppressive, tyrannical government...

Is there anything in particular that any of the founders said that leads you to believe states could opt out on a whim?


----------



## Ravi

jillian said:


> Well, I think Gunny articulates their feelings pretty well when he says that southerners believe that they were kept from exercising a right because of the superior military might of the north. But I agree with you that there wasn't any way that the US was going to give up territory



He could be right but at this point, does it matter? Are there any states that seriously wish to opt out?


----------



## jillian

manifold said:


> Pretty much any and every text written about the American Revolution, what they faught against, and what they hoped could be prevented from ever happening again...an oppressive, tyrannical government in which they had little or no material representation.



Notwithstanding the American Revolution, the one crime the founders saw fit to include in the constitution was treason.

Why do you think that would be?


----------



## manifold

jillian said:


> But I agree with you that there wasn't any way that the US was going to give up territory



No argument here.

As I've already stated, I have a hard time justifying the North's decision to invade and conquer the South at the time.  However, I also acknowledge that noboby has any clue about how history would have unfolded had they not.  And I think a pretty good argument could be made that we are better off today because they did.  In a way, it's similar to the genocide of the American Indians.  Sure, it wasn't justified at the time, but since I probably wouldn't be here today if it hadn't happened, I can't really condemn it either.


----------



## manifold

Ravir said:


> But we don't exactly have an oppressive, tyrannical government...



not yet




Ravir said:


> Is there anything in particular that any of the founders said that leads you to believe states could opt out on a whim?



Give me liberty or give me death - Patrick Henry


----------



## manifold

jillian said:


> Notwithstanding the American Revolution, the one crime the founders saw fit to include in the constitution was treason.
> 
> Why do you think that would be?



Benedict Arnold was still fresh on their minds.


----------



## Ravi

manifold said:


> Give me liberty or give me death - Patrick Henry



Way to take a quote out of context, he was talking about something else entirely. lol

_Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death!_


----------



## Rogue 9

jillian said:


> Notwithstanding the American Revolution, the one crime the founders saw fit to include in the constitution was treason.
> 
> Why do you think that would be?


That's because of the Crown of England's habit of charging whoever it felt like with treason and tossing them in the Tower of London indefinitely.  Treason was clearly defined in the Constitution so that it would have a clear legal definition and clearer standards of evidence from the get-go to prevent a U.S. government from doing the same thing.


----------



## jillian

Ravir said:


> He could be right but at this point, does it matter? Are there any states that seriously wish to opt out?



You'd have to ask the southerners. I'm betting Texas would want to be its own republic.


----------



## BrianH

jillian said:


> You'd have to ask the southerners. I'm betting Texas would want to be its own republic.



I wouldn't be so sure about that.  There are a few wackos that would think so.  I believe we've all turned out fine in regards to the U.S. and the North winning the Civil War.  I do think that every state should be able to support itself, food, energy, education.  None of this getting food, toys, etc... from China and other states.  I think states should be able to support themselves as if they were their own country.


----------



## Ravi

jillian said:


> You'd have to ask the southerners. I'm betting Texas would want to be its own republic.



Moreso after a Dem becomes president.


----------



## BrianH

Ravir said:


> Moreso after a Dem becomes president.



Moreso after the Dems try to ban firearms...LOL


----------



## M14 Shooter

BrianH said:


> Moreso after the Dems try to ban firearms..


... again.


----------



## Ravi

Nah, they're only going to ban Republicans from owning them.


----------



## Ravi

M14 Shooter said:


> ... again.



When did they ever try to ban firearms?

Answer: Never


----------



## M14 Shooter

Ravir said:


> Nah, they're only going to ban Republicans from owning them.


I'm sure that if they could, they would.


----------



## jillian

BrianH said:


> Moreso after the Dems try to ban firearms...LOL



Like that's going to happen...


----------



## BrianH

jillian said:


> Like that's going to happen...


----------



## M14 Shooter

Ravir said:


> When did they ever try to ban firearms?


You think they haven't?
They've done it on both the national and state level.


----------



## Ravi

M14 Shooter said:


> You think they haven't?
> They've done it on both the national and state level.



I know they haven't.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Ravir said:


> I know they haven't.


LOL
Tell me about the various national and state bans on 'assault weapons', and how they aren't examples of Dems banning guns.


----------



## M14 Shooter

BrianH said:


>


Obviously only banning -some- guns doesnt actually ban guns, because you still have access to other guns.

You know, like banning criticism of the President isn't banning free speech, because you can still criticize everything else.


----------



## Ravi

Banning one type of weapon isn't "banning firearms."


----------



## ReillyT

M14 Shooter said:


> You know, like banning criticism of the President isn't banning free speech, because you can still criticize everything else.



That is a fucking stupid analogy.


----------



## BrianH

Ravir said:


> Banning one type of weapon isn't "banning firearms."



The District of Columbia was just sued at the Supreme Court level for the banning of firearms.  The SC ruled against the DC gun ban.


----------



## Rogue 9

BrianH said:


> The District of Columbia was just sued at the Supreme Court level for the banning of firearms.  The SC ruled against the DC gun ban.


Did it?  The circuit court did, but I thought the SCOTUS decision wasn't due until summer.


----------



## jillian

Rogue 9 said:


> Did it?  The circuit court did, but I thought the SCOTUS decision wasn't due until summer.



It isn't.


----------



## Gunny

Rogue 9 said:


> I didn't say they fought a war because they gave a damn about the black man; I said the southern states seceded in order to preserve slavery.  In their own Constitution, they mandated that all member states must be slave states.



Which is incorrect.  They seceded to keep from being on the receiving end of the power split in Congress.

As I already pointed out, the original 13th Amendment that had been ratified by the House at the time SC seceded, the guarantee of slavery in existing slave-holding states was included.



> Regardless, the four states that issued Declarations of Causes (South Carolina, Georgia, Texas, and Mississippi) all cited threats to slavery as their primary motivation.   The seceding states themselves stated outright that their motivation in secession was the preservation of slavery.  The CSA's vice president, Alexander Stephens, said the same thing in a speech at the outset of the Confederacy.  This makes it quite difficult to argue that slavery was not the motivating factor; unless you contend that there was a massive conspiracy on the part of the CSA state and confederate governments to lie about their motivations, then I see no evidence that we should not take their stated reasons at face value.



Not difficult at all.  Not if you actually look at the history of the North and South, and threats of secession throughout the 1800s until the Southern states finally seceded.  

It was based on power and money.  I am not arguing that slavery did not represent a means to that end for Southerners who owned slaves.  

Northern industrialists were pissed that Southerners preferred to sell their goods in England and Europe instead of sending them to Northern mills   Attacking slavery was just part of the propaganda campaign to paint the South in a bad light.  

Guess it really isn't so surprising the South defended the means to its ends ...

I'm sure had positions been reversed, those same Northern industrialists would have defended their own brand of slavery -- taking immigrants off the boat, making them immediately beholden to the company store and tossing them in sweatshops to work off the debt 16 hours a day.  A debt that never seemed to decrease.  But they could call themselves, free, right? 

The North would have defended that system just as vehemently had the shoe been on the other foot because those Northern mills that wanted Southern products wouldn't have been able to operate without their sweatshops anymore than a Shouthern plantation could operate without its slaves.


----------



## Gunny

Ravir said:


> Why is it the most logical conclusion? IMO, they'd have to be pretty stupid to think they could join a group and not have to abide by the group's rules.
> 
> Unless you mean that they thought they could back out at any time, I supposed that would make a shortsighted kind of sense.



If you voluntarily join a club as an "experiment," and later decide that club is not in your best interest, do you leave?  Or do you stay because the board of directors says you can't go because you agreed to join?

If you participate in an experiment and it doesn't provide the results you desire, and it becomes clear that it never will, do you continue on?  Or do you scrap the experiment and move on?


----------



## Gunny

jillian said:


> What I find interesting about the whole seccession debate is that even under the articles of confederation, states could not enter into any treaties or agreements with other states that weren't approved by the full congress. I doubt that anyone would attempt to argue that the states had greater rights under the Constitution. So, if they couldn't enter into alterntive treaties under the confederation, the certainly couldn't under the US Constitution. That would have made the confederacy illegal even under the
> 
> It was never intended for anyone to be able to withdraw or states could have withdrawn just to avoid their share of debt.
> 
> I know that there are old wounds with this issue, but it's really a non-issue, IMO.
> 
> Sorry... maybe I'm being a bit simplistic aobut it, but that's what I see.



Under the Article of Confederation, states could not leave without the consent of all other states.  The US Constitution made the Articles of Confederation null and void, and did not include that same language.

The clause in the Constitution regarding other treaties would not apply once that state seceded.  Those rules apply only to those states to which the Constitution would apply.


----------



## Gunny

manifold said:


> I don't see anything shortsighted about it.  The whole concept of preserving state sovereignty was to prevent the central government from growing too powerful and ultimately tyrannical.  As long as the states could opt-out, it would keep the central government in check.  And I'd take it one step further and say that history has proven my point.  The remaining vestiges of states rights are largely symbolic.  The federal government rules the land.  Period.
> 
> Thank you "honest" Abe!



Totally agree.  States have lost more and more of their rights to govern without Federal interference on a daily basis from 1865 to date.


----------



## jillian

GunnyL said:


> Under the Article of Confederation, states could not leave without the consent of all other states.  The US Constitution made the Articles of Confederation null and void, and did not include that same language.
> 
> The clause in the Constitution regarding other treaties would not apply once that state seceded.  Those rules apply only to those states to which the Constitution would apply.



I know that re the articles of confederation. And under the Articles, the States had greater rights than under the Constitution. THAT'S my point... why would you think the states had greater options where they had less power?

There was never any right to secede. It was a binding agreement and there wasn't any termination date.


----------



## Gunny

Ravir said:


> Historically, how often have countries ever willingly given up territory? Truly, they weren't playing with a full deck if they thought they'd be able to back out easily.
> 
> I'm only guessing of course and I don't know much about this subject. But what is written that leads you to believe they thought they had the ability to opt out at will?



It is what is NOT written that leads one to believe they had the right to opt out at will.  They voluntarily joined, the Constitution in no way precludes their leaving, and under such terms one would believe they could leave just as freely and voluntarily as they entered.


----------



## BrianH

Rogue 9 said:


> Did it?  The circuit court did, but I thought the SCOTUS decision wasn't due until summer.



I'm sorry, I typed that up completely wrong.  They haven't made the final ruling.  You're right, it isn't until this summer.  
There was a news story that i'm trying to find.  The headline said something about a day in history regarding some decision that was reached a few weeks ago.  I don't think it was their actual ruling, but was some ruling of some kind regarding some aspect of the case.  I'm having trouble finding the link.  Sorry for the confusion.


----------



## Gunny

jillian said:


> Well, I think Gunny articulates their feelings pretty well when he says that southerners believe that they were kept from exercising a right because of the superior military might of the north. But I agree with you that there wasn't any way that the US was going to give up territory



Prior to the conclusion of the Civil War, the territory was not the US's to give up, and the US DID deny the states their rights by force of arms.

However, I'm not looking to overturn anything.  I'm attempting to have a discussion on a topic.  Nothing more.  The future of the United States does not rest on the outcome of this topic.


----------



## Gunny

jillian said:


> I know that re the articles of confederation. And under the Articles, the States had greater rights than under the Constitution. THAT'S my point... why would you think the states had greater options where they had less power?
> 
> There was never any right to secede. It was a binding agreement and there wasn't any termination date.



You are basing your conclusion on an assumption.  The Constitution does not decalre itself a binding agreement, nor does it preclude the states the right to secede.


----------



## BrianH

GunnyL said:


> You are basing your conclusion on an assumption.  The Constitution does not decalre itself a binding agreement, nor does it preclude the states the right to secede.



Correct. 

No one is attempting to overturn a Supreme Court decision.
There is nothing in the Constitution that prohibits secession.  Therfore, the 
10th Amendment gives the states this power. Anything power not prohibited in the Constitution, or not delegated to the Federal Gov.


----------



## Swamp Fox

ReillyT said:


> You are quite clearly wrong, for all of the previously mentioned reasons.
> 
> 
> 
> If one is strict constructionist, then that is a problem.  However, whole bodies of law rest on things that are only implied by the Constitution.



If you agree that the colonists had the legal right to secede from Great Britian, then the South had the same right to secede from the Union.


----------



## Rogue 9

Swamp Fox said:


> If you agree that the colonists had the legal right to secede from Great Britian, then the South had the same right to secede from the Union.


They didn't.  What made the Revolution not illegal was that at the end of it, the colonists won.  If you rebel and lose, you're still under the ruling authority's laws, and they're unlikely to look too kindly on your actions.  If you win, of course, you are now making the laws, and are unlikely to outlaw yourself.


----------



## Ravi

GunnyL said:


> If you voluntarily join a club as an "experiment," and later decide that club is not in your best interest, do you leave?  Or do you stay because the board of directors says you can't go because you agreed to join?
> 
> If you participate in an experiment and it doesn't provide the results you desire, and it becomes clear that it never will, do you continue on?  Or do you scrap the experiment and move on?



True enough. My view is that SCOTUS got it wrong, but as Reilly points out their ruling means what the South did was illegal.

I was just pointing out the fallacy of them believing the Union would let them go quietly.


----------



## BrianH

Ravir said:


> True enough. My view is that SCOTUS got it wrong, but as Reilly points out their ruling means what the South did was illegal.
> 
> I was just pointing out the fallacy of them believing the Union would let them go quietly.



Well nobody believes the Union would let them go quietly. But in this case, the laws of the "authority" (U.S.) allowed secession based on it's Constitution.


----------



## Ravi

BrianH said:


> Well nobody believes the Union would let them go quietly. But in this case, the laws of the "authority" (U.S.) allowed secession based on it's Constitution.



aiiiieeeee!

Let's refight the Spanish/American war now!


----------



## M14 Shooter

ReillyT said:


> That is a fucking stupid analogy.


Only because you're fucking stupid.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Ravir said:


> Banning one type of weapon isn't "banning firearms."


Sure it is.  Impossible to deny.
Note that I didn't say "banning all firearms".


----------



## Ravi

Notice that you didn't say "banning some firearms" or "banning one type of firearms."


----------



## manifold

Ravir said:


> Notice that you didn't say "banning some firearms" or "banning one type of firearms."




Ummm, you guys are kinda just arguing semantics here.  And I hate to be the one to break it to you Ravi, but the tie-breaker in this case has to go to M14.


And a curse on your house for making me have to say that!


----------



## M14 Shooter

Ravir said:


> Notice that you didn't say "banning some firearms" or "banning one type of firearms."


The undeniable fact is, the Dems -have- banned guns, and given the legislation they have proposed in varous places, they will continue to try to do so.


----------



## Ravi

manifold said:


> Ummm, you guys are kinda just arguing semantics here.  And I hate to be the one to break it to you Ravi, but the tie-breaker in this case has to go to M14.
> 
> 
> And a curse on your house for making me have to say that!



Why would you hate to break it to me?

He's trying to push the point that Democrats will take away everyone's guns. That's why he phrased it the way he did.


----------



## manifold

Ravir said:


> Why would you hate to break it to me?
> 
> He's trying to push the point that Democrats will take away everyone's guns. That's why he phrased it the way he did.



I know.

But _technically,_ his statement was still accurate.


----------



## Ravi

Alright, alright, far be it from me to be pegged as someone that can't admit to being wrong.


----------



## Swamp Fox

Ravir said:


> True enough. My view is that SCOTUS got it wrong, but as Reilly points out their ruling means what the South did was illegal.
> 
> I was just pointing out the fallacy of them believing the Union would let them go quietly.



And I was simply pointing out the fallacy of believing that the federal government has the best interests of the people at heart.


----------



## Gunny

Ravir said:


> True enough. My view is that SCOTUS got it wrong, but as Reilly points out their ruling means what the South did was illegal.
> 
> I was just pointing out the fallacy of them believing the Union would let them go quietly.



What Reilly is pointing out is called not debating the topic; rather, trying to be right on a point of law.  Yes, the Supreme Court's baseless ruling basically made secession illegal.

It is irrelevant to the actual discussion of whether or not the Constitution from the day it was ratified to the day SC seceded, precluded states the right to secede.  It did not, and still does not.

Do we need to debate the ruling FIRST?  No, because them the "Reilly's" will say irrelevant because that's how SCOTUS ruled.

It's called dodging the issue.


----------



## Swamp Fox

Gunny,
  Give it up dude, these idiots will never figure it out.


----------



## Rogue 9

GunnyL said:


> What Reilly is pointing out is called not debating the topic; rather, trying to be right on a point of law.  Yes, the Supreme Court's baseless ruling basically made secession illegal.
> 
> It is irrelevant to the actual discussion of whether or not the Constitution from the day it was ratified to the day SC seceded, precluded states the right to secede.  It did not, and still does not.
> 
> Do we need to debate the ruling FIRST?  No, because them the "Reilly's" will say irrelevant because that's how SCOTUS ruled.
> 
> It's called dodging the issue.


It wasn't baseless.  The states may not violate the territorial sovereignty of the United States.  Period.  It's all right there, black and white, 4.3.2.  You don't need the Supreme Court to see it.

And for the third time in this thread, the Court had little alternative than to rule the way it did in Texas v. White anyway, because the argument was that secession had dissolved the Texas state government and annulled it's laws; had the court ruled that this was the case, every former Confederate state would have been dissolved and had to start over from the ground up.

Oh, and hi Swamp Fox.  Long time no see.


----------



## Ravi

GunnyL said:


> What Reilly is pointing out is called not debating the topic; rather, trying to be right on a point of law.  Yes, the Supreme Court's baseless ruling basically made secession illegal.
> 
> It is irrelevant to the actual discussion of whether or not the Constitution from the day it was ratified to the day SC seceded, precluded states the right to secede.  It did not, and still does not.
> 
> Do we need to debate the ruling FIRST?  No, because them the "Reilly's" will say irrelevant because that's how SCOTUS ruled.
> 
> It's called dodging the issue.



I don't think we are disagreeing here so I'm not sure why you even posted this. 

Except on saying Reilly is dodging the issue...he made a perfectly valid point.


----------



## Ravi

Swamp Fox said:


> And I was simply pointing out the fallacy of believing that the federal government has the best interests of the people at heart.



Sometimes it does. Sometimes it doesn't.


----------



## ReillyT

GunnyL said:


> What Reilly is pointing out is called not debating the topic; rather, trying to be right on a point of law.  Yes, the Supreme Court's baseless ruling basically made secession illegal.
> 
> It is irrelevant to the actual discussion of whether or not the Constitution from the day it was ratified to the day SC seceded, precluded states the right to secede.  It did not, and still does not.
> 
> Do we need to debate the ruling FIRST?  No, because them the "Reilly's" will say irrelevant because that's how SCOTUS ruled.
> 
> It's called dodging the issue.



You are not quite correct on what I am saying.  What I am saying is slightly different from what you think I am saying, but the slight difference does have meaning, and in precisely a way that impacts on what your assertion.

The USSC did not make secession unlawful in 1869.  The 1869 USSC decision tells us that secession was always unlawful - in 1800, 1860, and in 1869.  In 1869, the USSC looked at the Constitution, and made their interpretation of what it meant.  They determined that the Constitution did not allow for secession, and as they relied on portions of the Constitution that hadn't changed since its inception, that it never allowed for secession.  True, the USSC didn't get around to telling us this until 1869, but the USSC can only hear cases once an issue is comes to fruition, so in effect, there was no way they could have let us in on this very important revelation sooner.

Thus, when you say that the Constitution didn't prohibit secession from the time it was ratified up until secession was attempted, this is not actually true.  According to the USSC, the Constitution never allowed for secession.  The fact that they only let us in on this nugget in 1869 is irrelevant.

The question should be:  Was it reasonable for SC to look at the Constitution and believe that it allowed for secession?  Quite possibly.  Another fine question would be:  Did the USSC get it wrong?  

If one wants to debate the USSC decision, that is fine.  However, to the question of whether, technically, secession is unlawful; it is irrelevant, as that question has been answered.

I am just trying to clarify what the issues are.


----------



## Gunny

ReillyT said:


> You are not quite correct on what I am saying.  What I am saying is slightly different from what you think I am saying, but the slight difference does have meaning, and in precisely a way that impacts on what your assertion.
> 
> The USSC did not make secession unlawful in 1869.  The 1869 USSC decision tells us that secession was always unlawful - in 1800, 1860, and in 1869.  In 1869, the USSC looked at the Constitution, and made their interpretation of what it meant.  They determined that the Constitution did not allow for secession, and as they relied on portions of the Constitution that hadn't changed since its inception, that it never allowed for secession.  True, the USSC didn't get around to telling us this until 1869, but the USSC can only hear cases once an issue is comes to fruition, so in effect, there was no way they could have let us in on this very important revelation sooner.
> 
> Thus, when you say that the Constitution didn't prohibit secession from the time it was ratified up until secession was attempted, this is not actually true.  According to the USSC, the Constitution never allowed for secession.  The fact that they only let us in on this nugget in 1869 is irrelevant.
> 
> The question should be:  Was it reasonable for SC to look at the Constitution and believe that it allowed for secession?  Quite possibly.  Another fine question would be:  Did the USSC get it wrong?
> 
> If one wants to debate the USSC decision, that is fine.  However, to the question of whether, technically, secession is unlawful; it is irrelevant, as that question has been answered.
> 
> I am just trying to clarify what the issues are.



I understand how the Supreme Court decision works.  Even pulled it up to show that the decision is based on nothing, really.  The argument I have been making is a Constitutional one, without the Suprerme Court ruling.  In essence, "we" are the Supreme Court deciding the Constitutionality of secession.  To turn around and toss out the Supreme Court decision as the end of the argument, IMO, is just not bothering to debate the issue itself.  Rather, it's just trying to be right and win.

Again, the question is not irrelevant as there was no basis in law to support the Supreme Court decison.  While this may be new and novel for some, the Supreme Court has ruled incorrectly on more than one occasion.  Their word my be the unimpeachable be-all end-all in law, but it is not in an intellectual debate.


----------



## ReillyT

GunnyL said:


> I understand how the Supreme Court decision works.  Even pulled it up to show that the decision is based on nothing, really.  The argument I have been making is a Constitutional one, without the Suprerme Court ruling.  In essence, "we" are the Supreme Court deciding the Constitutionality of secession.  To turn around and toss out the Supreme Court decision as the end of the argument, IMO, is just not bothering to debate the issue itself.  Rather, it's just trying to be right and win.
> 
> Again, the question is not irrelevant as there was no basis in law to support the Supreme Court decison.  While this may be new and novel for some, the Supreme Court has ruled incorrectly on more than one occasion.  Their word my be the unimpeachable be-all end-all in law, but it is not in an intellectual debate.



I have no desire to win.  I actually don't have an opinion on the merits of the USSC decision itself, or more accurately, I think there are good arguments on either side and I doubt that any clear answer is possible.  

I am just trying to lay out what the actual argument is.  When someone says "It was legal up until 1869," I just want to clarify that this is not the case.  The correct question is the one you just referred to above: Was the USSC wrong?


----------



## The_Hammer

Wow this thread is still going on despite the numerous amounts of evidence _against_ legal secession. I might have to start grabbing some lawyer friends and see how they might interpret it in addition to quoting the founding fathers on the issue.


----------



## BrianH

The_Hammer said:


> Wow this thread is still going on despite the numerous amounts of evidence _against_ legal secession. I might have to start grabbing some lawyer friends and see how they might interpret it in addition to quoting the founding fathers on the issue.



The discussion is not about whether or not secession is illegal in accordance with the Supreme Court decision. The question is, if you were an neutral decision maker (which the SC was certainly not), and you were reading the U.S. Constitution.  Naturally, you would be looking for direct law that stated that states were not allowed to secede.  You wouldn't find it.  Instead you would find Amendment 10 that states that all powers that are not prohibited in the Constitution, are reserved to the states respectively.  It doesn't matter that the U.S. has the right to invade another country, or do what ever it is that they did, but according to the Constitution, the South did not act illegally by seceeding from the Union, or owning slaves for that matter.


----------



## Rogue 9

BrianH said:


> The discussion is not about whether or not secession is illegal in accordance with the Supreme Court decision. The question is, if you were an neutral decision maker (which the SC was certainly not), and you were reading the U.S. Constitution.  Naturally, you would be looking for direct law that stated that states were not allowed to secede.  You wouldn't find it.  Instead you would find Amendment 10 that states that all powers that are not prohibited in the Constitution, are reserved to the states respectively.  It doesn't matter that the U.S. has the right to invade another country, or do what ever it is that they did, but according to the Constitution, the South did not act illegally by seceeding from the Union, or owning slaves for that matter.


No, it didn't act illegally in owning slaves, though the slaveowners sure as hell acted _immorally._  However, the southern states _did_ act unlawfully in seceding, because of Article 4, Section 3, Clause 2.  Disregard that if you want; it won't change the fact that it's still there.


----------



## BrianH

Rogue 9 said:


> No, it didn't act illegally in owning slaves, though the slaveowners sure as hell acted _immorally._  However, the southern states _did_ act unlawfully in seceding, because of Article 4, Section 3, Clause 2.  Disregard that if you want; it won't change the fact that it's still there.



That Article, Section, Clause, in no way, prohibits secession.  That is referring to states that are still in the Union.  Texas and Oklahoma cannot combine to form one state without the Consent of Congress.  The South did not try to combine all states with one another.  It wasn't Texassippicarolilouisitennegeorgiflarkanvirgabama.

The Constitution does not prohibit the right of secession anywhere.  Once the states legally (according to the Constitution) seceeded, they were no long subject to the laws of the U.S. Constitution.


----------



## Rogue 9

Did you even read the section I named?  It goes like this:  





			
				United States Constitution said:
			
		

> 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.


The clause that prohibits states from entering into treaties, alliances, and confederations without consent of Congress is 1.10.1.  The one prohibiting the formation of new states by combining existing states is 4.3.1.  4.3.2 has nothing to do with that and everything to do with the authority of the United States over its territory.


----------



## BrianH

Rogue 9 said:


> Did you even read the section I named?  It goes like this:
> The clause that prohibits states from entering into treaties, alliances, and confederations without consent of Congress is 1.10.1.  The one prohibiting the formation of new states by combining existing states is 4.3.1.  4.3.2 has nothing to do with that and everything to do with the authority of the United States over its territory.



With this same logic, a state in South America cannot enter into any alliance, treaty or confederatin without the approval of Congress.  

Again, this is pertaining to states who are members of the UNION.  For example, Texas, Oklahoma, and Louisiana (TODAY) cannot enter into a treaty, alliance, or confederation with one another, because they are part of the Union.  This cannot happen with states in the UNion, because then you have problems withing the UNion, and rivalry among different Confederations, alliances, etc...within the nation.

In 1861, the states, not prohibited by the Constitution, seceded and no longer were subject to this law.  Once they seceded, they were no longer states of the Union...therefore, this article does not apply.  Since the Constitution did not forbid the secession, they seceded and were no longer subject to the laws of the U.S.  They were not longer U.S. states in Confederation with another, they became a completely separated part of the landmass and were states of the Southern Confederation.  You are on the premise that after the states secedeing, they were still part of the U.S., when in fact they weren't....because the Constitution did not prohibit secession, therefore, powers not prohibited to them, were reserved to them.  And since secssion was not prohibted in the Constitution as of 1861, then the power was reserved to the states.


----------



## Rogue 9

Are you incapable of reading?  Seriously, this isn't hard.  





			
				United States Constitution said:
			
		

> *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.


This has _absolutely nothing to do_ with the states being unable to enter into alliances and confederations; I am at a total loss to explain why you keep saying it does.  The clause says that Congress has the power to dispose of the territory of the United States, and that nothing in the Constitution, 10th Amendment included, may be construed to the contrary.


----------



## Swamp Fox

Rogue 9 said:


> Are you incapable of reading?  Seriously, this isn't hard.
> This has _absolutely nothing to do_ with the states being unable to enter into alliances and confederations; I am at a total loss to explain why you keep saying it does.  The clause says that Congress has the power to dispose of the territory of the United States, and that nothing in the Constitution, 10th Amendment included, may be construed to the contrary.



I still think Amendment 10 trumps that because secession is not clearly spelled out in here.


----------



## Rogue 9

Which is a perfectly legitimate opinion to have; I just happen to disagree.  My frustration stemmed from Brian keeping on about the clause banning the states from entering confederations when that's a different clause entirely.


----------



## BrianH

Rogue 9 said:


> Which is a perfectly legitimate opinion to have; I just happen to disagree.  My frustration stemmed from Brian keeping on about the clause banning the states from entering confederations when that's a different clause entirely.



Listen, the only reason I'm "keeping on" is because it's pretty clear-cut.  It can't be any more obvious than the 10th Amendment.  I took a state social-studies test today, and one of the questions said, "The Tenth Amendment address which of the following?"...and the answer was "powers granted to the state."

I never brought up the clause about states entering into confederations, someone else did as justification that states couldn't secede.  When that clause clearly is only addressing states that are (at the time) currently in the Union.  My beef with this clause is that it is not relevant to the 1861 secession.


----------



## Rogue 9

BrianH said:


> Listen, the only reason I'm "keeping on" is because it's pretty clear-cut.  It can't be any more obvious than the 10th Amendment.  I took a state social-studies test today, and one of the questions said, "The Tenth Amendment address which of the following?"...and the answer was "powers granted to the state."


The 10th Amendment is fairly obvious:  What state powers the states are not prohibited from having, or that have not been given to the federal government, they have.  There's a lot of state power that falls under that purview.  





			
				United States Constitution said:
			
		

> 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.


However, this presents a problem:  You see, the power to regulate and dispose of the territory of the United States is delegated to the United States Congress by Article 4, Section 3, Clause 2, which I have quoted no less than twice on the previous forum page.  

It also presents another problem:  The thing's so damned open-ended that when read absolutely literally, it means the states and people have the power to do everything the Feds may not.  "Everything" includes a lot of things.  Like, say, the power to arbitrarily execute  citizens.  I'm sure you wouldn't argue the states can do _that._


BrianH said:


> I never brought up the clause about states entering into confederations, someone else did as justification that states couldn't secede.  When that clause clearly is only addressing states that are (at the time) currently in the Union.  My beef with this clause is that it is not relevant to the 1861 secession.


How is this clause not relevant?  You can argue that the clause you refer to (which is Article 1, Section 10, Clause 1) is not relevant if you wish, but I am talking about an entirely different clause.  4.3.2 does not bar the states from entering confederations.  It gives the Federal Congress the power to regulate the territory of the United States.  An ordinance of secession regulates the territory of the United States, and is therefore under the authority of Congress.  It also says that nothing in the Constitution may be considered to prejudice the claims of the United States.  The Tenth Amendment, being within the Constitution, may therefore not be considered to prejudice the claims of the United States.


----------



## BrianH

Rogue 9 said:


> The 10th Amendment is fairly obvious:  What state powers the states are not prohibited from having, or that have not been given to the federal government, they have.  There's a lot of state power that falls under that purview.
> However, this presents a problem:  You see, the power to regulate and dispose of the territory of the United States is delegated to the United States Congress by Article 4, Section 3, Clause 2, which I have quoted no less than twice on the previous forum page.
> 
> It also presents another problem:  The thing's so damned open-ended that when read absolutely literally, it means the states and people have the power to do everything the Feds may not.  "Everything" includes a lot of things.  Like, say, the power to arbitrarily execute  citizens.  I'm sure you wouldn't argue the states can do _that._
> 
> How is this clause not relevant?  You can argue that the clause you refer to (which is Article 1, Section 10, Clause 1) is not relevant if you wish, but I am talking about an entirely different clause.  4.3.2 does not bar the states from entering confederations.  It gives the Federal Congress the power to regulate the territory of the United States.  An ordinance of secession regulates the territory of the United States, and is therefore under the authority of Congress.  It also says that nothing in the Constitution may be considered to prejudice the claims of the United States.  The Tenth Amendment, being within the Constitution, may therefore not be considered to prejudice the claims of the United States.





Ok, I see your point now.....I can't say I agree, but I see what you're talking about.  The question becomes: Once the states have seceded, is the territory that belonged to the seceded states, still considered U.S. territory?  Or as soon as the states secede, does it now belong to the State, and not U.S. Territory?


----------

