Like all Lost Causers, our FRiend FLT-bird discards actual history in favor of a philosophical debate over his alleged “right to secede” and the equation of 1861 with 1776.
If we could “secede” in 1776 then why not in 1861 or, indeed, today, say our Lost Causers.
Like all PC Revisionists, Joe wants to get past the embarrassing constitutional arguments because, well, Lincoln doesn’t have a leg to stand on.
Ridiculous. Of course they seceded in 1776. They left a larger political entity...they declared independence. Hell, the colonies had never been recognized as sovereign. They were on far worse legal footing than the states which left in 1861. By 1776, the colonies had taken up arms against the Brits. Lexington and Concord and all that? 1775.
They took up arms the year before declaring independence. Mutual consent in 1788? WTH? The Treaty of Paris was in 1783. By 1788 the colonies’ sovereignty had been recognized by treaty for 5 years already. The British parliament and king certainly did not consent to the colonies declarations of independence in 1776. So much for “mutual”. What they did was almost exactly like what the sovereign states did in 1861 only by 1861, the states had already long been recognize as sovereign while the colonies had not been prior to 1783.
Who was to determine “necessity”? The states of course. The right of secession is unilateral. They nowhere agreed to subject themselves to any other state’s or the federal govt’s permission before “resuming the powers of government” as they phrased it.
This is simply false and there is no textual support for this claim.
Well considering this is flat out wrong.....that the Treaty of Paris was 1783 and that each state had just as much right to determine “necessity” as each colony did....nay more since the states were recognized as sovereign, any attempt at drawing a distinction between 1776 and 1861 can only be seen to favor 1861 for its legality.
Of course our Lost Causers argue Lincoln started war at Fort Sumter, but the fact remains there would have been no war had Jefferson Davis not ordered a military assault on Federal troops in the fort. So the right or wrong of secession was irrelevant to the start of Civil War.
War started because Davis ordered it.
The aggressor is one who invades the land of another - not one who fires to drive an invader away. Lincoln ordered a heavily armed flotilla to be sent into South Carolina’s sovereign territory. That was the act of war that started it. Furthermore he did so with the deliberate purpose of starting a war AND he did so without the consent of Congress.
Think George Washington would have tolerated the Brits maintaining a heavily armed fortress in the middle of New York harbor? Of course not.
Nonsense, the constitutional arguments were addressed by our Founders, especially Madison, but none ever supported unilateral unapproved declarations of secession at pleasure.
Lincoln's position was the same as outgoing Democrat President Buchanan & others which was: states had no "right of secession" at pleasure, but the Union should do nothing militarily to stop them.
FLT-bird: "Ridiculous.
Of course they seceded in 1776.
They left a larger political entity...they declared independence."
But in effect Founders had already been declared independent by the Brits -- that's what a declaration of rebellion & war is.
It means they are no longer governed by British law and must be defeated militarily.
So our Founders merely recognized the "secession" Brits had already declared them in.
And there was nothing even remotely resembling those 1776 conditions in late 1860 or early 1861.
FLT-bird: "Hell, the colonies had never been recognized as sovereign.
They were on far worse legal footing than the states which left in 1861."
In fact our Founders had no "legal footing" at all -- zero, zip, nada footing -- except, except the one thing that truly mattered: necessity.
They were declared outlaws -- outside the law and subject to hanging if captured.
The only issue was, as Patrick Henry expressed: "liberty or death".
So they chose liberty.
And nothing remotely resembling that 1776 situation existed in late 1860 or early 1861.
FLT-bird: "By 1776, the colonies had taken up arms against the Brits.
Lexington and Concord and all that? 1775."
You have it exactly backwards.
By 1776 the Brits had taken up arms against our Founders, revoked their charters of self government, declared them in rebellion and waging war:
So in 1776 "secession" (our Founders said "disunion") was already a fact accomplished by Brits making their Declaration a necessity.
FLT-bird: "They took up arms the year before declaring independence."
Only in response to British "injuries and oppressions" (remember that Va. phrase?) making resistance necessary (as NY said).
No situation even remotely resembling that existed in late 1860 or early 1861.
FLT-bird: "Mutual consent in 1788? WTH?
The Treaty of Paris was in 1783.
By 1788 the colonies’ sovereignty had been recognized by treaty for 5 years already.
The British parliament and king certainly did not consent to the colonies declarations of independence in 1776.
So much for 'mutual'."
Sorry, my fault for assuming you understand the basics of American history, will try not to do that again.
1788 was the year our Founders "seceded" from the old Articles of Confederation by mutual consent to adopt their new Constitution instead.
Necessity and mutual consent are the two (and only two) legitimate reasons our Founders acknowledged for dissolving one polity and forming a new one.
Neither condition existed in late 1860 or early 1861.
FLT-bird: "What they did was almost exactly like what the sovereign states did in 1861 only by 1861, the states had already long been recognize as sovereign while the colonies had not been prior to 1783."
There is no language recognizing the states as "sovereign" under the US Constitution, just the opposite.
FLT-bird: "Who was to determine “necessity”?
The states of course.
The right of secession is unilateral.
They nowhere agreed to subject themselves to any other state’s or the federal govt’s permission before 'resuming the powers of government' as they phrased it."
So the Fire Eaters & secessionists of 1860 claimed, but in fact our Founders had a very clear idea of what the word "necessity" implied, it meant what they experienced in 1776 and was starkly contrasted with "at pleasure" declarations which no Founder ever supported.
FLT-bird: "This is simply false and there is no textual support for this claim."
Wrong, every text supports it and no text contradicts it.
There is simply no example of any Founder ever supporting unilateral, unapproved declarations of secession at pleasure.
All assumed that disunion could only come from mutual consent (i.e., 1788) or serious necessity (1776).
Neither condition existed in late 1860 or early 1861.
FLT-bird: "The aggressor is one who invades the land of another - not one who fires to drive an invader away.
Lincoln ordered a heavily armed flotilla to be sent into South Carolina’s sovereign territory."
No more an act of "aggression" than the US today sending "heavily armed flotillas" to resupply or reinforce the US base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
Communist Cubans don't like it, don't recognize our right to be there, but if they start war over it, that's on them, just as the Civil War is on Jefferson Davis.
FLT-bird: "Think George Washington would have tolerated the Brits maintaining a heavily armed fortress in the middle of New York harbor?
Of course not."
Of course he did.
Brits remained in New York City for two years after their "unconditional surrender" at Yorktown.
They even lingered for four months after receiving orders to evacuate.
Washington was patient, and waited for negotiations to take their course.
And New York City was far from the only place Brits left their forts & troops on US territory.
In upstate New York, Ohio and Michigan the Brits still had dozens of forts and trading posts for 15 years until finally negotiated away by John Jay, in 1796.
The fact is that neither George Washington nor any other Founder after 1781 ever used British forts & troops on US territory as excuse for starting war.
Only Jefferson Davis considered that a matter of Confederate "integrity" being "assailed" and reason enough to launch Civil War.