Could the South Have Won?

NY Books ^ | June 2002 ed. | James M. McPherson

[Non-Sequitur]

I understand that. There are decisions made which have had me scratching my head as well. But when it comes to what is Constitutional and what is not then the opinions of the Justices are the only opinions that carry any legal weight. You and 4CJ and I can argue the why's and the wherefore's all we want but the fact of the matter is that unilateral secession as practiced by the southern states has been ruled unconstitutional.

[rustbucket]

Ah but you see slavery was never specifically recognized by the Constitution. The words 'slave' or 'slavery' appear nowhere in it. Nowhere are there any expressed or implied permissions or restrictions on it so the powers to enact legislation affecting slavery were not powers reserved to the United States. The states could legislate against it or for it as they wished.

Perhaps you are right. Now substitute the word "secession" for "slavery".

Northern states were not adhering to Article IV, Section 2, Clause 3 of the Constitution ("No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due."). That is specifically mandated in the Constitution. How did they get around that?

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

Reluctantly I have to agree since the Supreme Court is the supreme arbiter of what the Constitution says.  Too bad that they've abused this position from time to time.

[Aurelius]

"With slight shades of difference, you have the same religion, manners, habits, and political principles -- you have in a common cause fought and triumphed together; the independence and liberty you possess, are the work of joint counsels, and joint efforts, of common dangers, sufferings, and successes..."

But this is not true today and had already failed to be true well before 1860. It is precisely the fact of this failure of commonality that prompted the secession of the South - their desire to form a Confederacy where such a commonality did exist.

[Non-Sequitur]

Perhaps, but from time to time they have come to the fore and corrected past wrongs, too. I would be willing to give them credit for having more hits than misses.

[PsyOp]

Definition: DIATRIBE

LOL! Thank you for that!

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

Most of the problems seem to come from the circuit courts vice supremes.

However, when the supremes refuse to even listen to such cases, the de-facto then becomes de-jure.

[Non-Sequitur]

Perhaps you are right. Now substitute the word "secession" for "slavery".

No, substitute the words "unilateral secession" for slavery. It's quite a different thing. In Article I and Article IV the Constitution lays out a number of actions that a state may not take unilaterally, either alone or in concert with other states, becuase they may affect the interests of other states. The Constitution also requires congressional approval for any changes affecting the status of a state. Whether splitting up, combining with another, or the slightest change in its borders, a state must get congressional approval. Given this, the implication is clear that any action affecting the status of a state, or action which may affect the interests of another state, cannot be done unilaterally. That's where the south violated the Constitution. Secession isn't necessarily a violation of the Constitution, unilateral secession is.

[PsyOp]

Lee was pro-Union, freed his slaves, and took the Confederate defeat on his shoulders. What's the point?

Actually, that was just one of the points that I tried to make to "varina davis", that even Lee knew the cause was wrong and only followed it because he could not bring himself to take up arms against his home state.

If you read the entire exchange between "varina davis" and I, you will see that it began with my dispute over a statement she made about in reference to a quote in the article. And while I attempted to argue from point of historical fact, she repeatedly side-stepped my arguments and questions and responded to me in an arrogant and condecending manner, implying that I simply wasn't "educated" enough to understand Southern concepts of "principle" and "honor". This brought me to Lee's defense when she essentially accused him (unwittlingly, of course) of being a liar with regard to a Lee quote regarding Grant which I used in making one of my arguments. When I boxed her into a corner she couldn't side-step, she falsely accused me of name-calling and of engaging in a "diatribe", before running home with her bag of marbles. The point of the final post speaks for itself.

[rustbucket]

No, substitute the words "unilateral secession" for slavery. It's quite a different thing. In Article I and Article IV the Constitution lays out a number of actions that a state may not take unilaterally, either alone or in concert with other states, becuase they may affect the interests of other states. The Constitution also requires congressional approval for any changes affecting the status of a state. Whether splitting up, combining with another, or the slightest change in its borders, a state must get congressional approval. Given this, the implication is clear that any action affecting the status of a state, or action which may affect the interests of another state, cannot be done unilaterally. That's where the south violated the Constitution. Secession isn't necessarily a violation of the Constitution, unilateral secession is.

I find your argument very weak (you probably think the same of mine). Nowhere in the Constitution do I read that secession (or even your made-up term 'unilateral secession') is prohibited to the states.

You didn't answer my other question concerning whether it was legitimate or not for the Northern states to ignore Article IV, Section 2, Clause 3.

[Non-Sequitur]

Nowhere in the Constitution do you find that secession is permitted, either. So you have to fall back to the tired old 10th Amendment arguement, and I maintain that the power to alter the status of a state, and the power to prevent any state or states from acting unilaterally any time the interests of other states are involved, are clearly powers reserved to the United States.

As for your second question, of course it was not permissible for the Northern states, or any other state, to ignore Article IV. On the other hand, it was also not permissible for the slave catchers to act with impunity. Slavery was immoral but it was also legal. Run away slaves, if caught, legally had to be handed back to the state that they wanted in. But that state also had an obligation to follow local laws in pursuing the run-aways. They should have had to file for extradition and go through the courts.

[Aurelius]

"With such powerful and obvious motives to union, affecting all parts of our country, while experience shall not have demonstrated its impracticability, there will always be reason to distrust the patriotism of those who in any quarter may endeavour to weaken its hands."

So, Washington was already using the despicable ploy of accusing those who disagree with you of a lack of patriotism. The funny thing about you and Walt is, your abject worship of George Washington so blinds you that you don't hesitate to expose his less attractive features when you think you can thereby support an argument.

[Aurelius]

"As Chief Justice Chase said, what can be more perpetual than a perpetual union made more perfect?"

Since perpetuity is an imperfection in a freely entered union, a perpetual union made more perfect would not be perpetual.

[WhiskeyPapa]

Since perpetuity is an imperfection in a freely entered union, a perpetual union made more perfect would not be perpetual

That would mean that no marriage could last, wouldn't it?

But some do.

This doesn't seem like blazingly piercing analysis on your part.

Walt

[4CJ]

Try this - pretend that you have a contract that contains only one solitary clause - the sumpremacy clause.

Now what rights and powers have been delegated, and what has been prohibited? None, on both counts - it's just a statement that asserts that this contract takes legal precedence over others.

[Non-Sequitur]

Wait a moment. I thought that Walt and I were Lincoln worshipers. So who do you worship? Lee, Davis, who?

[4CJ]

sumpremacy?

LOL - Supremacy. Spell check on aisle 13.

[Aurelius]

"That would mean that no marriage could last, wouldn't it?"

It would mean nothing of the sort. As usual your logic is fatally flawed. Perhaps your new screen name could be Fallacio.

[Aurelius]

"Wait a moment. I thought that Walt and I were Lincoln worshipers. So who do you worship? Lee, Davis, who?

I never suggested that you were monotheists. As for me, I follow the admonition of Horace: nil admirari.

[Aurelius]

"That would mean that no marriage could last, wouldn't it?"

In an attempt to enlighten you, although I would probably have more likelihood of success at bench-pressing an elephant, a marriage is not a perpetual compact, it ends with the lives of those who made the compact.