Posted on 02/18/2005 11:27:18 PM PST by churchillbuff
Well look at it another way. Since you believe that the southern acts of secession were legal, and that the confederacy was a legitimate, sovereign nation, then what prevented the western part of Virginia from seceding from Virginia and the confederacy and rejoining the Union?
I don't think a head of state is a legal military target. For a sufficiently evil head of state, like Hitler, I would break the law.
I'm sorry the Vatican extended diplomatic relations with Davis too, but if all you can cite is the Vatican, I think that means NO ONE ELSE extended diplomatic relations to Davis. So by your definition, I suppose the rest of the world is with me: JD doesn't qualify. If the Great Slaver Rebellion of 1861 had succeeded, diplomatic recognition most surely would have followed, but alas, it was not to be.
The War Between The States was not about Slavery or tarrifs. It was about the right of sovereign states to succeed from the compact that is/was the US Constitution
Wrong. Saxe-Coburg-Gotha did so as well, and the Confederacy established treaties with some 25 separate Indian nations (and acknowledged as nations per numerous Supreme Court decisions).
What the hell "Wrong?" I said "if that's all you can cite..." which at that point was, all you could cite. Now that you've googled up Saxe-Coburg-Gotha and 25 Indian nations, I can't help but, well, *YAWN*.
Whoopdie-do.
See if you can find any more...I can be convinced.
What rule of war is that?
We are now at a crossroads where the mood of the people is largely turning toward basic conservatism as the past two elections have shown and the rule of law is being sorely tested to ensure that the constitutional protections still hold sway.
Slavery was central to southern economics and production while the north controlled distribution, tariffs and markets. It was only by successfully marshalling support of a punishing embargo of foreign trade between the south and the demanding market in Britain and France, at some great cost to those nations' economies, that the north prevailed. Mostly, they starved the south, both figuratively and in actuality by cutting off the means to manufacture the tools necessary to sustain a long, drawn-out conflict where no victory eventually could be seen.
There is guilt aplenty to go around and no amount of re-writing the events as they happened wiil serve to suffer the enduring enmity felt in key areas whose collective memories are of evil and despicable acts.
The more I learn about Lincoln the less I like him, and I was born a Yankee.
What I asked was a simple clarification of a double standard. You and others object to someone being assassinated, yet wholehearted agree that it's ok to assassinate others. The sheer hypocisy amazes me.
That's a fallacy. No ambassadors were ever exchanged, and the Vatican Secretary of State has denied that any recognition was ever intended.
You can try the Lieber Code adopted in 1863. Article IX CONDEMNED assassination attempts:
The law of war does not allow proclaiming either an individual belonging to the hostile army, or a citizen, or a subject of the hostile government an outlaw, who may be slain without trial by any captor, any more than the modern law of peace allows such international outlawry; on the contrary, it abhors such outrage.
Didn't Saxe-Coburg-Gotha and its ruling house have a dynastic tie with the British royal family, as it was the German territory where Prince Albert, the husband of Queen Victoria, was born and raised? I must wonder if Saxe-Coburg-Gotha's recognition of the Confederacy served as a tentative first step to British recognition had the South decisively defeated the Union Army.
What you say is definitely a valid opinion, but you seem to be elevating your reasoning to the status of Constitutional law.
Not my reasoning, that of the Supreme Court, James Madison, and others.
I respect Col. Madison's opinion, but the Supreme Court can take a flying leap, if you'll pardon the expression :-).
Just because you don't agree with them does not alter the validity of their decisions. They are tasked with ruling on the Constitutionality of an issue, not you or me.
The same could be said of Robert Lee, Jefferson Davis, and just about every other confederate leader.
How?
None of them invaded the North until it became apparant that a victory needed to be won decisively on Northern Soil in order to gain foreign recognition.
Lee did not violate his oath when he resigned from the army.
Neither did Davis or any of the others.
The Federal Government had NO right, and still do not, to compel states by force of arms to stay in the Union.
The Power and Authority to Secede from the Union, for ALL states is contained in the 10th Amendment to the Constitution which reads as follows.
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.
Nowhere in that document does it state that the Federal Government has the authority or the power to compel states to remain in the Union. As such, they do not have the power, but the States involved had every right Under the Constitution, to dissolve that union.
Now, I will change my mind if I can be shown proof positive that the Constitution expressly gives the authority to the Federal Government, to prevent states from leaving the Union.
Until then, my position remains firm and I believe, on solid Constitutional grounds.
The power to approve a change in the status of a state is an power delegated to Congress, and by implication that would include leaving altogether. The power to act in a unilateral manner where the interests of other states are impacted is a power explicitly denied to the states in a number of ways. By implication that should include the ultimate impact, secession.
Do you mind enumerating those powers within the Document itself?
I'd like to see them.
Article I, Section 10 and Article IV, Section 3.
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.