Posted on 07/11/2015 9:54:21 AM PDT by golux
If you say, "We am justified in our rebellion or secession or revolution and will attack your forces," and I say, "We am justified in maintaining legitimate civil government, but will not attack you unless you attack our troops first," and you attack, you certainly have the larger share of blame for the war. First of all, your firing first means you started the war. But secondly, you can't just dismiss the reasons I may have for resisting you and argue that I'm only attacking you because you shot first or because I want to invade and get something that you have. There was a case to be made that unilateral secession was unconstitutional.
In reference to what we were talking about, the right to revolution is very much a matter of reciprocity. If you accept that theory one person doing wrong very much does justify another person doing something that would under other circumstances be wrong. There are of course, different degrees of wrong or evil and atrocities aren't justified by oppression, but recourse to violence or force very often is a matter of "they did it first" or "they do it, too," whether we're talking about slave rebellion or secessionism or the federal response.
I do admit, though, that when people are always going on about how their opponents want to destroy them and any means are justified in response, things definitely get out of hand.
Actually, no (and I can see you didn't read all those nice quotes I gave you) There is nothing to that effect in the constitution or in any law whatsoever, and any rights or powers not delegated to the fed gov belong to the states. Period.
And it's pretty clear that any action involving admitting states, changing them one they've been admitted, and any actions that might affect the other states requires the consent of the states.
Notice how those all apply to states that are in the union or territories looking to join it. Doesn't follow for states looking to leave.
Remember, the constitution only applies to states that are in the union.
that property is still the property of the U.S" That was property that was delegated the fed gov. It belonged to the States before it ever belonged to the fed gov and when withdrawing the rest of their delegated powers they withdrew the fed gov's right to use those properties as well. Although by right these "federal" properties reverted back to the states when they were no long under the Federal government, the South still offered to pay for the forts, but Lincoln refused.
Napolitano's opinion and some Confederate leaders saying Lincoln provoked the war. What is that supposed to prove?
I thought you might find Napolitano interesting since he is a legal analyst. As to the opinions of Jefferson Davis and his VP Stevens, I posted it because it shows how they saw the situation. Here they had a hostile fort guarding their harbor. They had asked the garrison to leave numerous times and been refused. Now, after Lincoln had hinted that he would withdraw the garrison, Lincoln goes on to sent ships loaded with supplies, as well as soldiers and arms. Could they trust Lincoln? They knew he was a very wily politician, and where afraid of the harbor being exposed to the combined fire of a hostile fort and fleet combined. They were not acting on the offensive. They were acting on the defensive by making a preemptive strike because they felt threatened. Lincoln was very happy, as this was the result he had anticipated and hoped for when he sent out the fleet:
Lincoln in a letter to Gustavus Fox in May 1861. Fox was the commander of the expedition Abe sent to reinforce Ft. Sumter:
"You (FOX) and I both anticipated that the cause of the country would be advanced by making the attempt to provision Fort Sumter, even if it should fail ; and it is no small consolation now to feel that our anticipation is justified by the result (WAR).”
If the South had really wanted to be aggressive and start a war, they would have attacked much sooner, rather than waiting until the situation forced them to act. And they wouldn't have sent peace delegations to Washington in early 1861 (Lincoln refused to listen to these). Also, they would have declared war first (or at least right after Lincoln did). Rather they waited over two weeks after Lincoln declared war before they issued a declaration. In their declaration of war, they wrote that
"earnest efforts made by this government to establish friendly relations between the government of the United States and the Confederate States and to settle all questions of disagreement between the two governments upon principles of right, justice, equity and good faith, have proved unavailing, by reason of the refusal of the government of the United States to hold any intercourse with the Commissioners appointed by the government for the purposes aforesaid or to listen to any proposal they had to make for the peaceful solution of all causes of difficulties between the two governments...the President of the United States of America has issued his Proclamation, making the requisition upon the states of the American Union for seventy-five thousand men, for the purpose as therein indicated of capturing forts, and other strongholds of the jurisdiction of, and belonging to the Confederate States of America, and has detailed Naval armaments upon the coast of the Confederate States of America, and raised, organized and equipped a large military force to execute the purpose aforesaid, and has issued his other Proclamations announcing his purpose to set foot a blockage of the ports of the Confederate States"
They declared that these were "acts of hostilities and wanton aggression, which are plainly intended to oppress and finally, subjugate the people of the Confederate States."
So do you agree or disagree with Lincoln here? Do people have the right to self government or not?
The secession of a state from the Union depends on the will of the people of such state
This is the main point, a theme taken directly from the Declaration of Independence. The part about the legislatures adding this to their constitutions is something he is strongly recommending (because he believes, as you see, that this right will be abused). Their is no law anywhere saying that such is a requirement to leave.
Lincoln was speaking of the right to rebellion. You have the right to try. You don't have a right to win.
This is the main point, a theme taken directly from the Declaration of Independence. The part about the legislatures adding this to their constitutions is something he is strongly recommending (because he believes, as you see, that this right will be abused). Their is no law anywhere saying that such is a requirement to leave.
Rawle is not suggesting anything. He is stating legal fact as he sees it.
Hope, you didn’t include the qualifier “for the first time” until your most recent comment.
“I mean, if Parliament didn’t care about the working class and only cared about the rich and elite, it stands to reason that they should have recognized the CSA immediately, right?”
Not at all. As I said previously, Great Britain was being prudent and waiting to see how the war progressed before taking sides. Made a lot of sense, too.
Your comment about Great Britain not wanting to recognize CSA because of slavery just does not hold water. Think about it: Britain knew that Southern cotton was produced mostly by slave labor, and yet Great Britain continued to be the largest market for that cotton. Don’t you think that Great Britain — if it were so incensed about slavery — would have refused to be the largest purchaser of a product that was primarily produced by slave labor? It’s not like Great Britain did not have access to other sources of cotton (i.e., Egypt and India).
I think you’re not recognizing the effects of inertia on human relations. It’s one thing to hate something, but to accept current conditions. so, yes, the working class in Great Britain could hate slavery, but still accept the United States as a slaveholding nation, and run their mills with cotton grown by slaves, as this did not really drive any great effort on their part. The difference was in 1861, when the Confederacy asked to be recognized as a country explicitly formed to protect and continue slavery. This is where they drew the line, because their actions would have essentially meant they approved of slavery. This, I believe, was a major reason they did not recognize the Confederacy, although, as I said previously, Lee’s loss at Antietam had a lot to do with it as well.
“The Confederacy asked to be recognized as a country explicitly formed to protect and continue slavery. This is where they drew the line, because their actions would have essentially meant they approved of slavery. This, I believe, was a major reason they did not recognize the Confederacy.”
There is no evidence of that whatsoever. Please show me the evidence that Parliament refused to recognize CSA because of slavery as the major reason Great Britain did not recognize CSA. Hell, just point me to the official document that cited slavery as any reason Parliament did not recognize CSA.
Britain continued to trade with CSA after secession (though the trade was limited because of the Yankee blockade of Southern ports), and even sent military observers to embed with Southern forces (they embedded with Northern forces, as well). Britain held off on formally recognizing CSA as an independent, sovereign nation because Great Britain was waiting to see how the war would turn out. After 1863 Great Britain saw how the war would eventually resolve and by then it made no sense at all to recognize CSA. But I guarantee you, if the CSA had been successful Great Britain would have recognized it. The commerce was too lucrative not to.
I really can’t point to any document stating that Parliament refused to recognize the CSA because of slavery. I suspect that such a document does not exist for the very simple reason that it never got to a vote in Parliament. Would they have recognized the CSA if it won? That would be very likely - hatred of slavery only goes so far when compared to a fait accompli. I think that the important thing is that they did not recognize the CSA when it could have made a difference in 1861 or 1862.
The quote was actually in reference to Texas' secession from Mexico.
Rawle is not suggesting anything. He is stating legal fact as he sees it.
To be truly legal fact, there has to be a law indicating such.
You mean Texas's rebellion from Mexico.
To be truly legal fact, there has to be a law indicating such.
Or lack of law allowing such. In this case, the state constitution didn't grant the legislature the authority.
“I think that the important thing is that they did not recognize the CSA when it could have made a difference in 1861 or 1862.”
I do not dispute that at all.
It was secession. Look it up. Anytime people break away and declare their own new country it is secession.
Or lack of law allowing such. In this case, the state constitution didn't grant the legislature the authority.
The state's constitution doesn't need to. After all, the powers of the states are almost too many to list out anyway. In The Federalist, no. 45, Madison said, "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the Federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite."
When they have to fight their way out it's called a rebellion.
The state's constitution doesn't need to.
According to Rawle it did. How can you point to part of his writings and say they prove your point and then ignore other parts and say he didn't really mean it?
So Doodle when are you going to tell me and Jim Robinson about your position on the repeal of DADT you coward?
So Doodle when are you going to tell me and Jim Robinson about your position on the repeal of DADT you coward?
So Doodle when are you going to tell me and Jim Robinson about your position on the repeal of DADT you coward?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.