Is Secession Legal?

01/19/2020 | Rfreedom4u

[DiogenesLamp]

That, and Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase told Federal prosecutors that if they tried Davis, they would "lose in court everything they had won on the battlefield."

He also said "Secession is not treason."

[moehoward]

see #180

[Kevmo]

“Sending warships” is no more an act of war than embargoing oil supplies to Japan in 1940.

Firing artillershells onto a Fort Sumter.... that’s an act of war.

[DiogenesLamp]

You will have to explain the point you are trying to make here. Lincoln established that might makes right. This is not a legal argument to prove secession was illegal.

For that you have to start with the founding documents.

[DiogenesLamp]

“Sending warships” is no more an act of war than embargoing oil supplies to Japan in 1940.

Your analogy would fit if the embargo included instructions to go fire cannon shells at the men on the ground of a major Japanese port city.

You do understand these ships had orders to use "force" to make them comply?

Firing artillershells onto a Fort Sumter.... that’s an act of war.

It's a response to an act of war already engaged upon.

[Kevmo]

So if the embargo did NOT include those instructions, would you concede the point? I doubt it.

[devere]

“The attack on Ft. Sumter would not have happened had Lincoln not sent a fleet of warships to attack the Confederates around Sumter. It was the arrival of the first of the warships that triggered the attack.”

That’s nonsense. Lincoln sent ships to resupply the Fort with food only, and notified the confederates that was his plan.

The attack on Fort Sumter was the stupidest act of statecraft until December 7, 1941 was even stupider. Confederate Secretary of State Robert Toombs warned Jeff Davis just how disastrous his planned attack would be, but to no avail.

[Kevmo]

So you’re on both sides of this issue. Seems appropriate for someone naming himself after Diogeneses.

You don’t realize it , but that is YOUR bias. Heavily strong bias to fall into the middle.

[DiogenesLamp]

If the threat of force wasn't introduced by Lincoln, the Confederates would not have fired on Sumter.

They did in fact do everything of which they could think to avoid firing on Sumter.

General Beauregard sent word to Major Anderson that Union warships would be arriving soon, and that they might possibly attack Beauregard's forces, and if Anderson would refrain from firing at Beauregard's forces, He would refrain from firing on Anderson.

Anderson responded that if the Confederates fired at any ship bearing the Union flag, he would use all the force at his disposal against them.

So Beauregard was informed that he would have to face enemy fire from the Fort and from the Ships simultaneously.

His choice was to neutralize the fort immediately before the rest of the ships arrived, or face both the ships and the fort with a likely subsequent greater loss of his men.

What would you have done?

The tragedy is that Anderson had already written up the evacuation order and that if those ships hadn't arrived, Anderson and his men were going to leave the fort in another day or so.

And by the way, Anderson himself wrote that it was a nasty dirty deed the way Lincoln sent those ships to attack them after everyone had been led to believe such a thing would not be done.

[moehoward]

I was just countering the quote from Alberta’s Child from the same speech.

“For that you have to start with the founding documents.”

Well, yes. But their actions spoke louder than any words. Looking for legal permission to secede? The founders didn’t. They did justify it and I’d say we are pretty close in the justification department.

[Kevmo]

+1

[Kevmo]

I’ll read that later.

[DiogenesLamp]

That’s nonsense. Lincoln sent ships to resupply the Fort with food only, and notified the confederates that was his plan.

The Powhatan, The Pocahontas, The Pawnee, The Harriet Lane, The Yankee, and even the Thomas Freeborn has a big cannon on it. The "Baltic" was being used as a troop carrier and had troops and munitions on it.

Let me show you a picture of some of these "supply" ships.

The Powhatan and the Pocahontas were even more formidable.

Do those look like "Supply" ships?

[DiogenesLamp]

I do not understand how you think I am on both sides of the issue. I think the Declaration of Independence is the legal basis for secession being legal, and I think the Civil War was a tragedy.

[Kevmo]

By today’s standards, hell yes.

By their concurrent standards, maybe. The determination of who started a fight is ... who started the fight... by firing first.

The south fired first. They coulda sent out some kind of surrender monkey whiteflag shipe to “negotiate”. And so could have the North. Failure on both sides.

[Kevmo]

I’m just proceeding on the basis of your posts.

Feel free to establish your narrative. Perhaps even start your own vanity post.

[The Pack Knight]

Secession, without the consent of the other states, is not legal:

• The Articles of Confederation expressly provided that the union was to be "perpetual," and the Constitution provides that its purpose was to create "a more perfect Union" than that.
• The Constitution provides for the admission of states, but makes no provision for secession.
• The Constitution grants Congress the power "provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union [and] suppress Insurrections."
• The Constitution obligates the United States to "guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government."
• The Constitution provides that federal law "shall be the supreme Law of the Land."
• The Constitution requires that not only members of the federal government, but "the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers . . . of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution."

In light of all that, it seems clear to me that the Founders did not believe that a state could lawfully secede or withdraw from the Union. As the Supreme Court majority in Texas v. White recognized when holding that secession was unconstitutional, secession can only be accomplished through the consent of the other states or "revolution," an overthrowing of the existing legal regime.

[Kevmo]

What would I have done?

I woulda sent a nasty dirty telegram to Lincoln and others saying that they broke their word but I refuse to fire on this fort.

Of course, that’s with hindsight being 20/20. Nowadays, quite a bit of that kind of required restraint is in the training manuals, but probably not nearly enough, because shiite happens.

[central_va]

You are advocating that States remain enslaved because some misguided fools value the Union more than freedom.

[central_va]

Unilateral secession is expressly unconstitutional.

Come on you know there is nothing in the USC making secession unconstitutional. You know better.