An Analysis of President Lincoln's Legal Arguments Against Secession

Apollo3 ^ | April 9, 1994 | James Ostrowski

[tacticalogic]

The fourth rejects all law

If it's in response to a failure to abide by the supreme law of the land, then there is nothing of any consequence left to reject.

[staytrue]

I don’t think the other 49 states would let Missouri, Alaska, or Texas secede.

Ak has too much oil that would throw the rest into chaos if it were lost, ditto for Texas and if Missouri fell into foreign hands, it could shut off all river traffic from the Mississipi, Ohio and Missouri rivers.

[Tennessee Nana]

You appear to not know that during at least 2 winters Sarah Kast McGinnis came back down to the Albany, New York area to the Indian castles to urge them in their own languages to go north to Canada as the war would end and the white man would cease to be friendly and would go back to wanting the Indian lands...yes even the Mohawk..

[jospehm20]

I don’t think what other states allow matters.

[BroJoeK]

tacticalogic: "If it's in response to a failure to abide by the supreme law of the land, then there is nothing of any consequence left to reject."

You don't state specifically, but I'm beginning to suspect that you don't grasp the historical fact that the Deep South Slave-Power first declared their secession, in Madison's words, "at pleasure", meaning without any constitutionally valid reasons for doing so.

Indeed, they did not believe that any such reason was really necessary, and clearly expressed their views that the constitutional election of "Black Republican" Lincoln represented a threat to their "peculiar institution".
And that was it -- not some past Federal power usurpation, but rather a perceived possible future threat to slavery.

Bottom line: the secessionists initiated everything, including the war itself without serious constitutional, legal or even ethical justifications.

[Bubba Ho-Tep]

First, I’d ask what supreme law of the land had actually been violated and what steps the aggrieved parties had attempted to correct this.

Second, If you want to call it a revolution, be my guest. But the usual Lost Cause position is that it was not. Because if you call it a revolution, you can’t complain about the laws you’ve rejected not protecting you anymore. And complaining about how unfair it all was is what you guys do.

[tacticalogic]

Bottom line: the secessionists initiated everything, including the war itself without serious constitutional, legal or even ethical justifications.

If it can be qualified, that means the Civil War did not definitively answer the question of secession, only that particular instance of it.

[AEMILIUS PAULUS]

The Medieval concept was fealty, one swore allegiance to ones overlord. The vast difference between the English experience and the French experience being in England one swore to ones overlord that one would fight all except the king-(William I required this). The French experience was one swore to fight for ones lord against ALL-which included the king. The reason average Brit was not punished being pardon not lack of guilt.

Common sense is against the idea that the founders would form a government from which one could leave anytime one became dissatisfied. Secondly, your position assumes the states were the source of the Constitution. That is not true.

Our national government is NOT a compact, a treaty between sovereign states, a contract or any civil agreement. The Founders started a government not a league./p>

[tacticalogic]

First, I’d ask what supreme law of the land had actually been violated and what steps the aggrieved parties had attempted to correct this.

Do you require a comprehensive list of ways the current federal government is out of compliance with the original intent of the Constitution?

[Tau Food]

"We, the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

"We, the People of the United States, . . . do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

Our Constitution is a compact between the people of the United States. No state or local government, not even a school board, can sever those bonds between the people except by Constitutional amendment per the terms of Article V of the Constitution. The attempt of a state to "secede" necessarily includes an attempt to deprive each and every U.S. citizen living within that state's borders of every one of his or her Constitutional rights under the U.S. Constitution and an attempt to deprive each such person of his or her U.S. citizenship. It's an abominable notion.

[BroJoeK]

staytrue: "This is why russian is not allowing Ukraine to secede.
It is because russia would be landlocked except for the Pacific ocean route."

You sound to me like a very confused, woefully misinformed, puppy.
Who in the wide world told you such blithering nonsense?!

Where did you receive your education?
Are you the product of failed US schools, or some post-Soviet propaganda machine (but I repeat myself)?

Just so we're clear:

1. Russia has access to the Baltic Sea & Atlantic Ocean at St. Petersburg, to the Arctic Ocean at Murmansk, Archangel & many other places, to the Pacific Ocean at Vladivostok & many other eastern ports, and to the Black Sea at numerous places outside the Crimea, including Rostov & Sochi.
   So any claim that Russia is somehow "landlocked" is just ludicrous.

2. The old Soviet Union broke up in 1991, that is when Ukraine became independent of Russia -- not today!
   So Putin's Russia is now trying to reestablish its hegemony over Ukraine and annex the Ukrainian territory of Crimea.

3. So far, Russian military occupation of Ukrainian Crimea has been done peacefully, but the fact remains it's an act of war against Ukraine, and only Ukraine's abject surrender has thus-far prevented bloodshed.

4. The western world is today possessed of the same illusions as Neville Chamberlain in the years before the Second World War.
   They fantasize that if they just appease & appease the aggressive dictator, he will be satisfied, and they will have "peace in our time".

History shows us that appeasement doesn't work for long.
Peace through strength does, but our leaders seem to have forgotten all that...

[BroJoeK]

tacticalogic: "If it can be qualified, that means the Civil War did not definitively answer the question of secession, only that particular instance of it."

Of course.
If you've followed these threads in the past, then you know that all of who defend Lincoln & Union do so from the perspective that our Founders Original Intent did allow for "dis-union", but not "at pleasure", only for strong & valid reasons, such as "usurpation" and "oppression", or with mutual consent of Congress.
Indeed, that is also what Lincoln believed.

The historical fact is that no such condition existed in November 1860, when Slave-Power secessionists began organizing to declare their independence and a new Confederacy.

[WhiskeyX]

I’m aware of that and a lot more from my research in the British and Canadian archives. The Johnsons, Simon Girty, and others have a cruel and bloody legacy that that waas responsible for much the carnage visited upon the people of all sides in the war.

[Tennessee Nana]

she no longer had her trading post,
__________________________________________

BTW when the rebels burnt down the trading post they did not allow anyone to save William, the invalid son of Sarah Kast McGinnis..

He perished in the flames...

Plus there was teenager Margaret Thompson, the daughter of John Thompson and Dorothy McGinnis and granddaughter of Sarah, who was raped and died in prison..

so much for freedom from tyranny..

[tacticalogic]

If you've followed these threads in the past, then you know that all of who defend Lincoln & Union do so from the perspective that our Founders Original Intent did allow for "dis-union", but not "at pleasure", only for strong & valid reasons, such as "usurpation" and "oppression", or with mutual consent of Congress.

I have followed them enough to have seen too many instances of claims that the CW answered the question of secession, once and for all, and those claims coming back again and again after having been soundly thrashed.

[Bubba Ho-Tep]

Do you require a comprehensive list of ways the current federal government is out of compliance with the original intent of the Constitution?

I thought we were talking about 1860, when someone actually attempted secession. But the basic idea remains the same--either work within the system established through legislation, the courts, or the amendment process--or declare a revolution, sweep away all laws and start over again.

[Tennessee Nana]

the carnage visited upon the people of all sides in the war.
___________________________________________

That I will agree on...

Both sides were guilty of cruelty..

just don’t make a villain of Sarah Kast McGinnis and as for Timothy McGinnis..

Timothy died fighting the Indians...

to save the undeserving butts of those same neighbors who imprisoned his widow and the family 20 years later..

[Bubba Ho-Tep]

I have followed them enough to have seen too many instances of claims that the CW answered the question of secession, once and for all, and those claims coming back again and again after having been soundly thrashed.

Yet another Lost Causer unilateral declaration.

[tacticalogic]

Yet another Lost Causer unilateral declaration.

Does that mean I'm not one of the cool kids?

[BroJoeK]

tacticalogic: "I have followed them enough to have seen too many instances of claims that the CW answered the question of secession, once and for all, and those claims coming back again and again after having been soundly thrashed."

Certainly that's true, regarding unilateral secession "at pleasure".
Constitutionally legitimate paths to secession would include:

1. An act of Congress authorizing some states to secede.

2. A supreme court ruling that "usurpation" or "oppression" justified dis-union.

3. A constitutional amendment prescribing conditions & methods for secession.

Of course, as is frequently pointed out: any group of states which had the political wherewithal to get Congressional approval for their secession, would also have the power to correct whatever conditions were motivating them in the first place.

So the whole conversation remains completely theoretical & hypothetical.
But historically speaking, what the Confederates did cannot, will not ever, be done again.