The Late Great Walter Williams said the South had a right to secede.

YouTube ^ | June 19,2023 | DiogenesLamp

[DiogenesLamp]

The late Great Walter Williams makes it quite clear that he believed the South had a right to secede.

[A strike]

If that had been assumed/understood to be in 1793, the Constitution would Never have been adopted.

[devere]

Lincoln sent a respectful letter to Davis, and Davis responded by attacking Fort Sumter. Your argument that Lincoln was wrong and Davis was right is really not relevant. The bottom line is Jeff Davis turned a winning legal case into a losing war. The Confederacy lost its independence due to the bad judgment of Jeff Davis.

[x]

The “inherent bias towards freedom” comes from the Bill of Rights, which was adopted later, and from the balancing of power against power in the Constitution itself. If the Congress that passed the Bill of Rights thought secession was important, they would have written it into their amendments. The convention of 1787 didn’t write it into the constitution, and the “inherent bias” of the Constitution towards checks and balances suggests that an absolute right of secession on demand was not part of the Constitution.

[A strike]

Just because you believe that the inherent bias of the Constitution towards freedom and self determination, which you don't accept, suggests something NOT in the constitution means Schiff.

[x]

A right to secession on demand is also not in the Constitution. It’s only your interpretation. Given comments like your last one, your interpretations aren’t worth much.

[central_va]

A right to secession on demand is also not in the Constitution

Exactly so secession is not unconstitutional.

[A strike]

I didn’t say there was a right to secede. There is NO prohibition thereof.
You believe that is a war worthy point?

[x]

States and localities are required to follow federal law by the Supremacy Clause. It was not universally assumed that secession was constitutional.

I’d say that secession was a subject for consideration by the courts, but Jefferson Davis thought it was a war-worthy point.

[A strike]

What is said about the word ‘assume’ ?

[BroJoeK]

A strike: "BroJoeK has got it all wrong as is usual with less intel people."

I've noticed before that you are quick to make personal attacks, quick to make sweeping statements and very meager with providing supporting evidence.
My advice to you is to work on improving in all three areas.

A strike: "Requiring “necessity” to demand separate self governance is total bullSchiff, and the Declaration acknowledges this.
That the Founders only considered the right to secede as in the same catagory as ‘the right to murder’ in self defense is nowhere in evidence and likewise total bullShiite."

Your opinion, similar to DiogenesLamp's, is noted, but the facts say otherwise, including these:

1. "Necessity", used several times, is indeed the key word driving the Declaration's logic, meaning: "we're doing this because we must, not "at pleasure".
   Necessity is also what turns premeditated murder into justifiable homicide.

2. Secession or "disunion" at pleasure is never suggested, or hinted at, in the Declaration of Independence.
   Of course, our Founders did believe in, and practiced, secession "at pleasure", but then only by mutual consent, as they did in 1788, "seceding" from the old Articles of Confederation and replacing it with their new Federal Constitution, by mutual consent.

3. A full explanation of our Founders' opinions on this subject can be found here, in James Madison's 1830 letter to Nicholas Trist.
   Madison does not use the metaphor of "murder becomes legal when it's in self defense", but he does use the thought which precedes it,
   "The compact can only be dissolved by the consent of the other parties, or by usurpations or abuses of power justly having that effect.
   It will hardly be contended that there is anything in the terms or nature of the compact, authorizing a party to dissolve it at pleasure."

4. Now sure, you may well say: "that's just one old man's opinion, not binding on anybody else, ever."
   But, first, if you say that, it must mean you do understand the concepts here, and can't claim to be still ignorant of them.
   Second, I don't agree that "old men" should be automatically ignored.
   Third, the fact is that no Founder ever directly contradicted Madison on this, all of them, in one way or another, confirmed his logic.

A strike: "Let’s be strict constructionalists here and acknowledge that there is NO Constitutional prohibition on leaving the Republic. Show me wrong"

Of course there's no constitutional prohibition on "disunion", or "secession", and it's a total lie to suggest that's what's at issue here.
Rather, the issue here is the same as with murder or any other serious crime -- was it justified?
Justifiable homicide under dire circumstances will get you recognized and rewarded as a hero in your community.
Unjustified murder could get you hanged as the most loathsome of criminals.
It's the same with secession, disunion or even treason.

Those are the facts.

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp: "I have actually ran across quoted bits of this discussion, and if memory serves me right, I believe what Justice Chase said was "You will lose everything in the courtroom that you gained on the battlefield.""

Several things need to be pointed out here:

1. Chase was a fickle politician, a RINO, similar to some today, he served as Lincoln's Secretary of Treasury during the Civil War, then switched parties and ran for the Democrat nomination for president after the war.

2. Chase's words, if accurate, are obviously true considering that Davis would have been tried for treason in Richmond, VA!!
   It would be like today, John Durham trying to get convictions for anti-Trump conspirators in Washington, DC!
   Not going to happen.
   Had such a trial been held in, for example, Boston, then Davis's conviction would be a near certainty.

3. Chase was convinced Davis's best defense would be that he forfeited U.S. citizenship upon secession, and therefore could not have committed treason.

4. In 1868, Chase himself dismissed treason charges against Jefferson Davis based on the argument that the new 14th Amendment prevented further punishment of former Confederates.

So, arguments over alleged Confederates' treason are strictly theoretical, hinge on whether you consider Confederates to have legally left the Union, which no Congress or Supreme Court ruling ever did, but which Democrat Chase himself was willing to contemplate.
However, that was not the argument which Chief Justice Chase used to dismiss treason charges against Jefferson Davis.
Rather, Chase said, in effect, "Davis has already been punished enough, no double jeopardy for Confederates."

[BroJoeK]

wuli: "“Some, like yourself assume that no mention of it in the Constitution means there is no Constitutional provision against it, and others disagree.”

A strike: "Given the U.S.Constitution’s inherent bias toward freedom and self determination, which side is TOTALLY wrong in their position?"

You're both barking up the wrong tree.
The facts are that our Founders totally supported disunion, or secession, "at pleasure" when done by mutual consent.
They also supported unilateral, unapproved disunion, or secession, but only when done by "necessity", such as they themselves experienced in 1776.

No Founder ever supported unilateral, unapproved secession "at pleasure".
James Madison, the "Father of the Constitution" specifically condemned it when attempted by South Carolina in 1830 during the Tariff of Abominations nullification crisis.

Those are the facts.

[BroJoeK]

A strike: "If that had been assumed/understood to be in 1793, the Constitution would Never have been adopted."

Well... first of all, the new Constitution was ratified in 1788, not 1793.

Second, some ratifying statements did include provisions for disunion, but only when made necessary by powers "...perverted to their injury or oppression..."

Third, no Founder or ratifying statement ever insisted on an absolute unilateral "right of secession" "at pleasure".

Finally, even at the time, James Madison insisted that ratifying statements were meaningless, and that the new Constitution must be adopted in whole, not a partial ratification.

[BroJoeK]

x: "A right to secession on demand is also not in the Constitution"

central_va: "Exactly so secession is not unconstitutional."

Understood correctly, there's no ambiguity here at all.

Our Founders totally supported secession "at pleasure", when done, as they did in 1788, by mutual consent.

They also supported unilateral unapproved secession when done, as they did in 1776, by absolute necessity

But no Founder ever supported unilateral unapproved secession at pleasure.

Once you understand that, everything else makes sense.

[Svartalfiar]

The War was about that money, and they didn't really care about the slaves.

Yup. If the North had really cared about slaves that much (besides using the emancipation as a way to get Southern slaves to rebel), they would have freed all the slaves in the North when the war started / before it. Delaware and Kentucky (maybe others, I'm not exactly sure when the last slaves were freed in MO or MD) held slaves until the 13th Amendment (SEVEN MONTHS after the war ended).

Additionally, several "Indian Territories" weren't considered as fully under Federal control, so their slaves weren't all freed until over a year after the war with specific treaties. The Creek were the last slaveholders within these US, not freeing theirs until 1866JUN14.

[Locomotive Breath]

Davis would have been tried for treason in Richmond, VA!!

Ummm... not sure about that. Please provide support for that statement. Nothing prevented the victors from trying him in DC. Or Boston for that matter. If secession makes you no longer a citizen and are therefore not treasonous then why is the secession itself not legal? Lincoln's suspension of habeous corpus and arrest of the Maryland legislators are well known. Engineering a move to Boston or assuring that in Richmond only pro-Union citizens were on the jury would have been easy enough to engineer. Simply say that anyone who fought for the South or was a Southern sympathizer is no longer a citizen would have been enough to exclude from the jury. I'm sure that even in Richmond they would have found 12 pro-Union jurors.

That's always been the Union dilemma and double talk. If you can't secede then the South never left the Union and everyone in the South retained their Constitutional rights as citizens, but were also liable for treason under Federal law including trial by jury. If you can secede then everyone in the South was temporarily part of another country, no longer citizens of the U.S., and not subject to prosecution under Federal law.

[BroJoeK]

quoting BJK: "Davis would have been tried for treason in Richmond, VA!!"

Locomotive Breath: "Ummm... not sure about that. Please provide support for that statement. "

In June 1866 Jefferson Davis was captured and held at Fort Monroe, which is just down the James River from Richmond.
In October 1865 the House of Representatives voted 105 to 19 to try Davis for treason.

On Davis: "His defense lawyer, Charles O'Conor wanted to argue that Davis did not commit treason because he was no longer a citizen of the United States when Mississippi left the United States.[287]
The trial was to be held in Richmond, which might be sympathetic to Davis, and an acquittal could be interpreted as validating the constitutionality of secession.[288]"

Lincoln's Supreme Court Chief Justice, Salmon Chase, was also a 4th Circuit Court Judge, which covered Richmond and gave Chase authority to dismiss the treason case against Davis, which he did.

But the argument Chase accepted to acquit Davis was not "loss of citizenship" after secession, but rather the new 14th Amendment's prohibition on double jeopardy for Confederates, meaning Davis could not be retried on something he'd already been punished for.

Locomotive Breath: "Nothing prevented the victors from trying him in DC. Or Boston for that matter."

Maybe, but it seems that as a 4th Circuit judge, Chase had authority over Davis and when the opportunity presented itself, promptly dismissed charges against Davis, on double jeopardy and 14th Amendment grounds.

Locomotive Breath: "If secession makes you no longer a citizen and are therefore not treasonous then why is the secession itself not legal?"

Because, contrary to what our FRiend DiogenesLamp and others claim, mere declarations of secession do not, by themselves, change your legal citizenship status, or didn't in the 1860s.
No court or Congress has ever formally agreed that secession made Confederates ex-citizens.
Yes, ex-Confederates were, from 1865 on, denied some rights of citizenship, including voting or holding public office.
But those are rights also denied to ex-convicts and do not affect their citizenship status.

Locomotive Breath: "Lincoln's suspension of habeous corpus and arrest of the Maryland legislators are well known. "

Both considered necessary and constitutional wartime emergency measures.

Locomotive Breath: "Engineering a move to Boston or assuring that in Richmond only pro-Union citizens were on the jury would have been easy enough to engineer. "

Maybe, if that was indeed Chief Justic Salmon Chase's intention, but it wasn't.
Rather, Democrat presidential candidate Chase was looking for some excuse, any excuse, to win favors among Democrats by freeing Jefferson Davis, and the excuse he eventually chose to use was double jeopardy and the new 14th Amendment.

Locomotive Breath: "That's always been the Union dilemma and double talk.
If you can't secede then the South never left the Union and everyone in the South retained their Constitutional rights as citizens, but were also liable for treason under Federal law including trial by jury.
If you can secede then everyone in the South was temporarily part of another country, no longer citizens of the U.S., and not subject to prosecution under Federal law."

I don't see the "dilemma" or "double talk" that you seem so excited about.
The Union position was always that "secession" was not lawful and therefore never really happened.
The issue then was what further punishments should, or should not, be delivered to former Confederates?

In 1865, Pres. Lincoln had instructed his generals, like Grant, to "go easy" on surrendering Confederates and that was the general view of Union leadership.
Most agreed that only Confederate leaders should be seriously punished, but then Democrat President Andrew Johnson began pardoning great categories of former Confederates, slowly working up from ordinary soldiers to their generals and political leaders.
By 1868, iirc, only one man remained to be pardoned, and that was Jefferson Davis, and his case was first dismissed by Chief Justice Chase, then again, iirc, Davis was granted amnesty and pardoned by Pres. Johnson on Christmas Day, 1868.

So, the whole question of "treason", or not, was rendered hypothetical and mute for practical purposes.

[BroJoeK]

“In June 1866...”

Typo, should be “In May 1865...”

[A strike]

The Southern states indeed considered disunion necessary.

[DiogenesLamp]

and it declares its authority as “We the people”

Again, is not voting for secession a power well within "We the People's" rights?

If government derives from the consent of the governed, what of government that no longer has their consent?