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.

[wideawake]

If the the US government abolished the Constitution

It cannot do so.

Its powers derive from the Constitution.

The Constitution cannot be abolished absent a Constitutional Convention.

[Michael.SF.]

In the eyes of the British? Yes they were.

I was not asking the British, I was extending the logic used by the person that the post was directed to.

[Rebelbase]

I figured you’d dance on that one. Pussy.

[Michael.SF.]

Thirty seven of fifty states didn't voluntarily enter anything.

have it your way: 37 states voluntarily asked to be admitted............

sheesh.......

[Non-Sequitur]

have it your way: 37 states voluntarily asked to be admitted............

And they were admitted only if Congress said 'Yes'. In several cases years passed between the time a territory petitioned for admission and their being allowed to join.

So if they are allowed in only with the permission of the other states, why shouldn't that permission be required to leave? I noticed you ignored that part.

[wideawake]

I figured you’d dance on that one. Pussy.

Hmmm. The neo-Confederates on this thread are, as always, all class.

You present an extremely vague question - apparently at some time in the near future some magical force within the government is going to abolish the Constitution by some as-yet-unknown means and replace it with some rather popular new system that some imagined band of stalwarts will take up violent hands against.

Without any specifics of any kind, there can be no rational answer.

Usually when someone talks about dark forces abolishing the Constitution it means passing laws - like The PATRIOT Act - which, although quite constitutional, get some special interest group's knickers in a twist.

Will I join with MoveOn.org to assault policemen at the GOP convention because they believe the PATRIOT Act is unconstitutional?

No, that's pathetic.

[mainepatsfan]

Yeah I wanted to see if there’d be any interest so I think I’ll start putting one together.

[Michael.SF.]

why shouldn't that permission be required to leave?

We have discussed this subject (the CW) on other threads and it really seems pointless to continue, but if you insist and remain polite (as I will try to do) I would suggest that you read the Declaration of Independence, especially the part concerning the "consent of the governed".

I noticed you ignored that part.

Yes, I did. I figured since your opening statement was a misdirection and not really relevant that we should clear that one up first. That and I was pressed for time at that moment.

[mainepatsfan]

Sorry. I didn’t have enough caffeine this morning :)

[Polybius]

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.

True ..... as long as the State remained in the Union.

When an NFL player or coach is under contract to the New England Patriots, he cannot exercise "supremacy" on the football field and simply switch teams at half time to play for the Miami Dolphins.

He must first excersise whatever "out clauses" are in his contract and the presence or absence of those "out clauses" depend on how their contract is written.

However, once that player or coach exercises his "out clause" contractual rights, he can go his own way and THEN play for the Miami Dolphins.

By the plain language of the Tenth Amendment, since secession was not mentioned in the Constitution and since no Federal law prohibited secession, secession was a "Power ... reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

It is equivalent, in the NFL, to free agency being permitted under certain circumstances to some players because that is the way the NFL contracts for that player are written.

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

And no State did as long as they remained in the Union.

After they exercised their "out clause" contractual rights guaranteed by the Tenth Amendment, the Supremacy Clause in the U.S. Constitution was a moot point just as Bill Parcell's prior New England Patriot coaching contract provisions are a moot point now that he legally exited his contract with the New England Patriots and entered a new and separate contract with the Miami Dolphins.

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.

Not at all.

"Jurisdictional supremacy" would be Bill Parcells switching teams in mid-game in violation of his New England Patriots coaching contract or refusing to abide by the rulings on the field of the NFL officials.

Exercising the "out clause" of your contract and then entering into a new contract with another team has absolutely no equivalence with "supremacy" of any kind.

It is simply the exercising of one of the rights guranteed by the language of your particular contract.

[Non-Sequitur]

I would suggest that you read the Declaration of Independence, especially the part concerning the "consent of the governed".

I will point out that the Declaration of Independence is not the supreme law of the land. The Constitution, and the laws and treaties made under it, is.

[Non-Sequitur]

He must first excersise whatever "out clauses" are in his contract and the presence or absence of those "out clauses" depend on how their contract is written.

Since you insist on reducing the Constitution to the level of a sports contract, I'll point out that if there is no "out clause" in the contract then one doesn't exist. You don't assume that since there is no "out clause" specified then you can leave in any manner and for any reason that you want. Or take team equipment with you or walk away from money owed the management.

[Non-Sequitur]

May 23, 1861 - Virginia voters approve secession by a vote of 97,750 to 32,134.

There's an interesting sidepoint to that fun fact. And that is on May 9, 1861, two weeks before the vote, Virginia was admitted to the confederacy. I wonder what would have happened if the vote had gone against secession?

[Alas Babylon!]

There is no need for that kind of language here, please.

[Michael.SF.]

I will point out that the Declaration of Independence is not the supreme law of the land.

You are really talking in circles and repeating yourself w/o responding directly to the issue at hand.

All rebellions, ours included, are deemed illegal by the governing authority and then deemed to be either justified or criminal by the victor.

Such is the case here. The Colonists deemed the repressive regime of the British to be such that they justified a rebellion by declaring issues and rights that previously did not exist, consent of the governed being one.

The Colonists are praised for their heroism, judgment and righteousness. But how did they differ from the Confederates, who essentially followed the same guidelines and principles established a mere 80-90 years earlier?

Recall, slavery was Constitutional, so one cannot condemn them for defending their Constitutional rights, while simultaneously arguing that the Consitution is the Supreme Law of the land, and then use that argument to deny them their Rights.

[Non-Sequitur]

Recall, slavery was Constitutional, so one cannot condemn them for defending their Constitutional rights, while simultaneously arguing that the Consitution is the Supreme Law of the land, and then use that argument to deny them their Rights.

What I am denying is the claim that the Southern acts of unilateral secession were legal. You seem to support that same viewpoint with your constant comparisons with American Revolution.

[mainepatsfan]

It would have been particularly embarrassing for the Confederate government considering that they had just moved their capital to Richmond.

[Michael.SF.]

You seem to support that same viewpoint

I have never said it was "legal", in fact earlier I said all rebelions are illegal (as defined by the victor). I am of the opinion that it was justified, just as our rebellion was justified.

[Polybius]

He must first excersise whatever "out clauses" are in his contract and the presence or absence of those "out clauses" depend on how their contract is written.

Since you insist on reducing the Constitution to the level of a sports contract, ...

A legal contract is a legal contract.

If you wish, I can make an analogy regarding a marriage contract, a corporate partnership contract, a real estate contract, contracted services or goods contract, another Constitution, etc. etc, .....

I'll point out that if there is no "out clause" in the contract then one doesn't exist.

There was an old joke about Germany that said that the difference between America and Germany was that, in Germany, anything that was not specifically allowed was strictly forbidden while in America, any thing that was not specifically forbidden was allowed.

The purpose of the Tenth Amendment is to enshrine that in the Constitution.

Was secession mentioned in the Constitution?

No.

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

No.

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

You don't assume that since there is no "out clause" specified then you can leave in any manner and for any reason that you want.

No. I assume that the men of 1861 believed that the Constitution said what it meant and meant what it said and the Tenth Amendment said:

You will notice that the Tenth Amendment did not come with an asterisk referring you to the fine print you wish to trump the Constitution with.

Or take team equipment with you or walk away from money owed the management.

Very true. That was something that was not guaranteed by the Tenth Amendment and the matter of property was handled atrociously by both side. The matter was certainly not worth the lives of 600,000 Americans.

For a way to do it without killing hundreds of thousands, refer to the 1997 Partition Treaty of the Soviet Fleet between Ukraine and Russia.

[wideawake]

The Constitution is not a contract.

It does not describe itself as a contract and it does not take the form of a contract.

Analogizing it to a contract consequently puts us off track. It is an inherently self-contradictory notion - all laws governing contracts in the United States derive from the US Constitution: the Constitution is not subordinate to itself. It is, as I have pointed out, the supreme law of the land and not a contract governed by a law inferior to itself.

Again, by ratifying the Constitution, each state acknowledged the Constitution as the supreme law of the land.

You say that "secession" is not mentioned in the Constitution. This leads to a manner of thinking which says: "If I can use a word that is not actually used in the Constitution, then I can evade the Constitution."

Can you tell us what secession is?

I have mentioned it several times now: secession is a state's claim of jurisdictional supremacy over its land.

Secession has no other purpose - it has no meaning at all - unless it means to assert jurisdictional supremacy.

The Constitution plainly says that it is the law of the land. Whether one wants to assign the name of "secession" or "sovereign separation" or "doingourownthingism" or "Fred" to the act of claiming a jurisdictional supremacy which is contrary to the Constitution, it is still unconstitutional.