Posted on 02/17/2010 3:43:05 PM PST by Constitutionalist Conservative
Prior to the American Civil War, it was popularly assumed that states which had freely chosen to enter the Union could just as freely withdraw from said union at their own discretion. Indeed, from time to time individual states or groups of states had threatened to do just that, but until 1860 no state had actually followed through on the threat.
Since then, it has been considered axiomatic that the War “settled the question” of whether or not states had the right to secede. The central government, backed by force of arms, says the answer is No. As long as no state or group of states tests the central government’s resolve, we can consider the question to be “settled” from a practical viewpoint.
This assertion has long troubled me from a philosophical and moral viewpoint. We are supposedly a nation of laws, and the central government is supposedly subservient to the laws that established and empower it.
In a nation of laws, when someone asks, “Do states have a right to secede from the Union?”, a proper answer would have one of two forms:
Here, x would be an explanation of the laws that supported the Yes or No answer.
With the secession issue, though, we are given the following as a complete and sufficient answer:
“No, because if any state tries to secede, the central government will use force of arms to keep it from succeeding.”
There is no appeal to law in this answer – just brute force.
Based on this premise, the central government can amass to itself whatever right or power it chooses, simply by asserting it. After all, who has the power to say otherwise?
Come to think of it, that’s exactly how the central government has behaved more often than not since the Civil War.
This issue came to mind today because of an item posted today on a trial lawyer’s blog (found via Politico). The lawyer’s brother had written to each of the Supreme Court justices, asking for their input on a screenplay he was writing. In the screenplay, Maine decides to secede from the US and join Canada. The writer asked for comments regarding how such an issue would play out if it ever reached the Supreme Court.
Justice Antonin Scalia actually replied to the screenwriter’s query. I have a lot of respect for Scalia regarding constitutional issues, but his answer here is beyond absurd.
I am afraid I cannot be of much help with your problem, principally because I cannot imagine that such a question could ever reach the Supreme Court. To begin with, the answer is clear. If there was any constitutional issue resolved by the Civil War, it is that there is no right to secede. (Hence, in the Pledge of Allegiance, "one Nation, indivisible.")
He actually said that a constitutional issue was settled by military action. Oh, and by including the word “indivisible” in the Pledge of Allegiance, the issue became even more settled.
What if the president were to send out the troops to prevent the news media from publishing or broadcasting anything critical of his administration? This is clearly an unconstitutional action, but by Scalia’s logic, if the president succeeds, we must then say that the military action “settled the question” of free speech.
If these scenarios are not comparable, I’d like to hear why.
You keep saying they needed permission to leave. Was
Caesar Lincoln's understanding of this “permission” the same as yours,yes or no?
No,To answer your question
Then there was nothing to negotiate unless Lincoln first surrendered to rebel demands.
You keep saying they needed permission to leave. Was Caesar Lincoln's understanding of this “permission” the same as yours,yes or no?
No. Lincoln didn't believe secession was allowed with or without permission. I disagree with that.
“Then there was nothing to negotiate unless Lincoln first surrendered to rebel demands.”
Would have saved 600,000+ lives.Plus,Prevented You from being forced to watch the SEC - Kick your “collective” asses!
“No. Lincoln didn’t believe secession was allowed with or without permission. I disagree with that.”
What choice is left? Lincoln was going to get his war.
Permission was never ‘on the table’. Southern States were going to be invaded.No?
Again, by surrendering. Your complaint seems to be that Lincoln didn't roll over and surrender to every Southern demand, not that Davis chose to start a war that killed 600,000 plus.
Plus,Prevented You from being forced to watch the SEC - Kick your “collective” asses!
SEC? Security and Exchange Commission?????
What choice is left? Lincoln was going to get his war.
Only if Davis started it. Which he did.
Permission was never ‘on the table’. Southern States were going to be invaded.No?
You're the one insisting that the South was there to negotiate when the answer is that no, they were not. They had no flexibility in their demands. Lincoln didn't have any in his. So if you want to say that neither side was open to negotiation then I won't disagree. But please drop the Southron nonsense that they were there to negotiate anything at all.
“SEC? Security and Exchange Commission?????”
sec FOOTBALL. My bad,You folk’s like “ballet”.
Bwahahahahahaha.....you appear to have snared yourself in your own trap!
You have stated for years that the South never seceded because it was 'illegal' and then you trot out Texas v White. Now, ignoring the fact that the Texas v White decision was from a highly biased, politically motivated, Lincoln appointed court, it was decision, not a law and now you must admit that the Chase court did nothing to change the fact that the South legally seceded.
Then, to top it off, in a vain attempt to tie Southern secession with ex post facto law, you whip out Furman v Georgia in which the law that was broken to land these criminals on death row wasn't challenged but just the method in which the death sentence was applied. Sheer lunacy!
You truly are dumb as a post.
And you're as dumb as the post hole.
Your rationality is rapidly fading, and it was never all that strong to begin with.
Based on your long history of irrational ramblings, lies, denials and spin, I would suggest that you are the least qualified among us to be a judge of rational behavior, rat turd.
In your dreams.
...and now you must admit that the Chase court did nothing to change the fact that the South legally seceded.
Why must I admit that? The Supreme Court ruled the Southern acts of secession unconstitutional in the Texas v White case.
Then, to top it off, in a vain attempt to tie Southern secession with ex post facto law....
On the contrary, it is you making the apples-and-oranges comparison with a court decision and an ex post facto law. And making it clear you apparently have not a single clue as to what either one is.
Your mouth is writing checks that your feeble mind can't cash.
The Supreme Court ruled the Southern acts of secession unconstitutional in the Texas v White case.
Here we go, Texas v White again. You are pathetic.
The Chase court was totally corrupted in that case. If they hadn't ruled that secession was unconstitutional just 3 years after the end of the war they would have essentially ruled what everyone already knows: that disHonest Abe's war was an unnecessary waste of hundreds of thousands of lives, a waste of valuable treasure and the cause of misery for countless millions of people for many years after wards. Obviously, Lincoln's Lackeys sure as heck weren't going to do anything to sully his good name, so, for all practical purposes, they ruled that constitutional issues are settled on the battlefield, which, apparently is a stance that you advocate.
On the contrary, it is you making the apples-and-oranges comparison with a court decision and an ex post facto law. And making it clear you apparently have not a single clue as to what either one is.
More non-sequitur dicta.
Yawn...............
Says the feeblest mind in the whole Lost Cause brigade...
Here we go, Texas v White again. You are pathetic.
Here we go again, Chase was corrupt blah, blah, blah. Lincoln started the war, yadda, yadda, yadda. It's like a broken record. The pathetic one in the picture is you.
More non-sequitur dicta.
Obiter dictum. Another legal term you apparently can't define.
You should know all about lost causes since you've never won a single debate on any of the WBTS threads and you never will as long as you keep trying to defend The Big Lie.
Here we go again, Chase was corrupt blah, blah, blah. Lincoln started the war, yadda, yadda, yadda. It's like a broken record. The pathetic one in the picture is you.
Was the Union Army's Invasion of The Confederate States a Lawful Act?
Obiter dictum. Another legal term you apparently can't define.
Sigh...........
dicta - Plural of "obiter dictum." A remark made in a legal opinion that is irrelevant to the decision and does not establish a a precedent.
The plural was used for obvious reasons but this is another legal term that you obviously don't know the definition of.
You should know all about lost causes since you've never won a single debate on any of the WBTS threads and you never will as long as you keep trying to defend The Big Lie.
Running away and declaring victory on your part does not constitute defeat on my part.
Was the Union Army's Invasion of The Confederate States a Lawful Act?
Oh Jeez, is that Ostrowski POS still floating around? Nothing like unbiased sources and reputable essays, is there? An Ostrowski's work is nothing like an unbiased source and is nowhere near a reputable essay.
If South Carolina illegally seceded from the Union, then both the Union’s initial refusal to surrender Fort Sumter and its subsequent invasion were lawful and constitutional. Conversely, if South Carolina had the right to secede from the Union, then indeed the Union soldiers in the Fort were trespassers and also a potential military threat to South Carolina.
See? It falls apart right here, because regardless of whether the South Carolina act of secession was legal or illegal it didn't impact the ownership of Sumter. Fort Sumter was the property of the federal government, built on land deeded to the U.S. free and clear by an act of the South Carolina legislature. The state had absolutely no legal claims to the property, even if their secession had been legal, so for Ostrowski to call the troops there 'tresspassers' is factually wrong. How do you tresspass on your own property? So if the troops were not tresspassing then the confederacy was completely in the wrong to demand Sumters surrender and bombarding it was indeed an act of war.
His whole site is built on falsehood after falsehood, myth after myth.
IMO States need to dissolve the Federal government by refusing to hold Federal elections or just flat out secede. There is no other solution. And no, secession does not mean war. Only the reaction to it may or may not cause war, the act itself is war neutral.
All you need is the legislatures of 3/4s of the states to agree to dissolve the United States and it's done.
“You have no right to ask, or expect that she will at once profess unbounded love to that Union from which for four years she tried to escape at the cost of her best blood and all her treasure. Nor can you believe her to be so unutterably hypocritical, so base, as to declare that the flag of the Union has already surpassed in her heart the place which has so long been sacred to the ‘Southern Cross.’ “
General Wade Hampton
Are you talking Constitutional Convention?
Yes. Get two thirds of the states to demand it. Write an amendment that says something like “All the above is null and void and the states are all on their own to do what they want.” Get 38 state legislatures to pass it.
Actually Lost Cause = Trying to defend the Southern rebellion of 150 years ago, blaming everything wrong on Lincoln, and pretending that the confederacy would have somehow, miraculously turned out different.
You're going to actually come up with some?
IMO States need to dissolve the Federal government by refusing to hold Federal elections or just flat out secede. There is no other solution. And no, secession does not mean war. Only the reaction to it may or may not cause war, the act itself is war neutral.
If the act involves trying to screw the remaining states six ways from Sunday by repudiating debt and obligations, stealing property, and threatening their economic well-being then the secession act itself is a hostile act.
I see that you're another Saul Alinsky student.
It falls apart right here, because regardless of whether the South Carolina act of secession was legal or illegal it didn't impact the ownership of Sumter. Fort Sumter was the property of the federal government, built on land deeded to the U.S. free and clear by an act of the South Carolina legislature.
The state had absolutely no legal claims to the property,
"South Carolina had ceded property in Charleston Harbor to the federal Government in 1805, upon the condition that “the United States... repair the fortifications now existing thereon or build such other forts or fortifications as may be deemed most expedient by the Executive of the United States on the same, and keep a garrison or garrisons therein” (The Statutes at Large of South Carolina [Columbia, South Carolina: A.S. Johnston, 1836], Volume V, page 501).
Work on Fort Sumter had begun in 1829 and had still not been completed by 1860. Unfinished and unoccupied for over thirty years, the terms of the cession were clearly violated and it was thus “void and of no effect.”
Consequently, the fort was never the property of the United States Government, as Lincoln claimed in his first Inaugural Address, and, upon secession from the Union, the only duty which South Carolina owed, either legally or morally, to the other States was “adequate compensation... for the value of the works and for any other advantage obtained by the one party, or loss incurred by the other” (Jefferson Davis, The Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government, Volume I, page 211). "
Oops. You've done it again.
His whole site is built on falsehood after falsehood, myth after myth.
Your entire life is built on lies and myths.
Well, no. South Carolina ceded the property on December 31, 1836 without any such qualifiers: Link
Work may not have been finished by April 1861 but it was certainly underway, with construction being performed under the supervision of an Army officer as late as December 1860 when Major Anderson transferred his command to the site. The transfer of ownership passed by the South Carolina legislature in 1836 was certainly valid, and ownership of Sumter could only be returned to the state through Congressional action. The claim that it was South Carolina's or that the troops were there illegally is flat out false.
Oops. You've done it again.
I think it's you who've done it. Again.
You said: “They were not there to negotiate, the letter doesn't say they were there to negotiate.?
So, again, your statement is shown to be what it is....a total misrepresentation.
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.