This Day In Civil War History - May 23rd

[mainepatsfan]

This Day In Civil War History

May 23rd

1861:

- Virginia voters approve secession by a vote of 97,750 to 32,134.

- Union Gen. Benjamin Butler declares three runaway slaves "contraband of war" establishing a precedent for slaves to escape behind Union lines.

- Confederate Gen. Benjamin Huger takes command at Norfolk, VA.

1862:

- Confederate forces under Gen. Thomas Jackson surprise and rout a Union outpost at Fort Royal, VA. The action threatens the rear of Union Gen. Nathaniel Banks army forcing him to race Jackson's army back towards Winchester.

1863:

- Confederate secretary of war John Seddon suggests to President Davis that an offensive against Helena, AK as a way to relieve pressure on Vicksburg since it partially serves Grant as a supply base.

- Confederate Gen. Richard Ewell is promoted to lieutenant general.

- Union Gen. Nathaniel Banks Army of the Gulf continues encricling Port Hudson, LA in preparation for an assault.

1864:

- The Army of the Potomac continues to move into position for a crossing of the North Anna River in Virginia.

- Union Gen. William T. Sherman's army advances towards Dallas, GA where he intends to cross the Etowah River.

1865:

- Unionist politicians from Virginia occupy the state capital at Richmond.

- In Washington there is a mass review of the Grand Armies of the Republic.

- The British blockade runner Sarah M. Newhall is captured off Savannah, GA by the USS Azalea.

[ricmc2175]

Not Constitutionally wrong, the SCOTUS had ruled that the States had the right to voluntarily leave the Union. Ricmc2175

The Supreme Court never issued such a ruling. Wideawake

The entire decision is available on the Web at
http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/cases/historic.htm

[wideawake]

You cannot claim that there is a specific Supreme Court ruling and then provide a generic link to an enormous database as a citation.

Give us the name of the specific case so it can actually be found.

[Michael.SF.]

Insurrection was never legal.

So then the founding fathers were criminals?

[Joe 6-pack]

Thanks for these interesting posts. As a Pennsylvania native, Gettysburg College grad, Army veteran and military history buff who chooses to reside in the deep south, I like to think I have a pretty unique perspective on the Civil War...and view it as possibly history's only example of two wrongs actually making a right. Both sides had their share of noble, virtuous, heroic men and outright scoundrels.

I can simultaneously view both Sherman and Lee as battlefield geniuses in their own right, one being the ultimate, dramatic conclusion of one book of warfare, and the other being the opening chapter of something completely new and unprecedented...but both being distinct reflections of the American character.

[wideawake]

So then the founding fathers were criminals?

This is a very common, yet completely specious, analogy.

The Founding Fathers spent more than a decade begging the British Crown for their fundamental right to representation.

Since the Crown was not willing to acknowledge the rights that its entire claim to rule was based upon, the Founders were absolved of their allegiance.

The states of the Confederacy did not only have full representation in the federal government, the federal Constitution was specifically strcutured to guarantee them overrepresentation.

Free whites of the South were one-fifth of the US population in 1860, yet they elected almost one-third of the Congress, fully one-third of the Senate and had a majority on the Supreme Court.

None of the rights of the Southern people were abridged in any way, let alone abolished.

[Joe 6-pack]

"So then the founding fathers were criminals?"

In the Declaration of Independence they basically acknowledged that their actions would be treated as treasonous by the Crown.

[Polybius]

What clause of the Constitution dictates the voluntary entry into the agreement as being a one way street? ... Michael.SF.

Article VI paragraph 2 clearly states that the Constitution and federal laws are the supreme law of the land and that the federal judiciary has the right of review of all state laws and acts. ..... wideawake

Article VI paragraph 2 states:

"This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

The Tenth Amendment reads:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

In 1860, what Federal law prohibited secession?

In 1860, in the absence of such a Federal law and in view of the silence of the Constitution in regards to secession, what made the clear language of the Tenth Amendment inoperative?

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

(To Sacajaweau: The back and forth arguments will now continue for 3,000+ posts.)

[wideawake]

In 1860, what Federal law prohibited secession?

The Constitution - specifically where it states that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land.

What is secession, other than the declaration by a state that the Constitution is not the supreme law of the land?

An act of secession is a state act that is a specific violation of an explicit provision of the Constitution.

[Polybius]

In 1860, what Federal law prohibited secession?

The Constitution - specifically where it states that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land.

The "Supreme Law of the Land" stated:

The "Supreme Law of the Land" thus stated that, in view of the silence of the Constitution regarding secession and the absence of a Federal law regarding secession, then secession was a "power not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States" and was therefore "reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

What is secession, other than the declaration by a state that the Constitution is not the supreme law of the land?

In view of the clear wording of the Tenth Amendment, secession was a power "reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

If you exercise an "out option" in a contract, you are not violating the contract. You are merely exercising your contractual rights.

After exercising that contractual option, said contract then no longer applies you but remains in force for those parties that have not yet exercised their "out option".

To simply ignore the plain language of the Tenth Amendment, now THAT'S violating the "Supreme Law of the Land".

Secession had been bounced around in the U.S. since the Hartford Convention. If it was to be outlawed, then the "supreme Law of the Land" required that a Constitutional Amendment be passed to that effect.

In the absence of such a Constitutional Amendment, the clear language of the Tenth Amendment remained in force.

[wideawake]

You are dancing around the central point.

Again, secession is nothing other than the declaration that the state legislature's acts, and not the Constitution, are the supreme law of the land.

You cannot have secession without directly violating the supremacy clause of the US Constitution.

[wideawake]

Your post reveals everything anyone needs to know about you and your favorite Robert Byrd Book Club selection.

[Polybius]

You are dancing around the central point.

Only if you define "The Central Point" as "Totally Ignoring the Clear Language of the Tenth Amendment".

Again, secession is nothing other than the declaration that the state legislature's acts, and not the Constitution, are the supreme law of the land.

Only if you totally ignore the clear language of the Tenth Amendment.

You cannot have secession without directly violating the supremacy clause of the US Constitution.

Only if you totally ignore the clear language of the Tenth Amendment.

Was secession mentioned in the Constiturtion?

No.

In 1860, had there ever a Federal law passed that mentioned secession?

No.

What did the Constitution say about the powers not specifically prohibited by the Constitution or prohibited by Federal law?

[wideawake]

Jurisdictional supremacy is one of the powers expressly delegated to the federal government by the Constitution.

So the Tenth Amendment, by its own language, does not permit any state to claim jurisdictional supremacy.

Secession is nothing other but a declaration by the seceding entity of its own jurisdictional supremacy - a violation of Article VI of the Constitution and a claim of power that is expressly excluded from the scope of the Tenth Amendment.

[Non-Sequitur]

Not Constitutionally wrong, the SCOTUS had ruled that the Sates had the right to voluntarily leave the Union.

And when did the Supreme Court rule that? Please cite the case.

[Non-Sequitur]

What clause of the Constitution dictates the voluntary entry into the agreement as being a one way street?

Thirty seven of fifty states didn't voluntarily enter anything. They were admitted, and only with the permission of a majority of the states as expressed through a vote in Congress. Why shouldn't leaving require the same?

[Non-Sequitur]

So then the founding fathers were criminals?

In the eyes of the British? Yes they were.

[Rebelbase]

“While it was morally and constitutionally wrong for the insurrection to have occurred in the first place, its failure was a good thing and the efforts to put it down were righteous indeed.”

How will you feel when it happens again for reasons of gross Constitutional abuse and Liberty deprivation from a tyrannical Government? It won’t be another revolution because there will be significant numbers of people who would live with the new rule.

[wideawake]

How will you feel when it happens again for reasons of gross Constitutional abuse and Liberty deprivation from a tyrannical Government?

Then it would occur in circumstances radically different from the circumstances that attended the Civil War.

It won’t be another revolution because there will be significant numbers of people who would live with the new rule.

In other words, it would reflect the will of the people and proceed according to the consent of the governed.

[Rebelbase]

I’m asking you a moral question, void of the context of the Civil War.

If the the US government abolished the Constitution (even if corrupt courts ruled that as “legal”) and adopts another form of rule which causes an even split in society bewteen those who want to retain/rule under the current constitution and those who choose a tyrannical but seemingly more secure form of government, would you consider insurrection to preserve the old Constitution?

Don’t dance around, answer the question as it’s written.