Civil War Interactive Discussion Board Home
Home Search search Menu menu Not logged in - Login | Register


The Declaration of Independence - Other Civil War Talk - Civil War Talk - Civil War Interactive Discussion Board
 Moderated by: javal1 Page:  First Page Previous Page  ...  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next Page Last Page  
 New Topic   Reply   Printer Friendly 
 Rate Topic 
AuthorPost
 Posted: Mon Nov 30th, 2009 01:37 am
   PM  Quote  Reply 
121st Post
Unionblue
Member
 

Joined: Mon Nov 23rd, 2009
Location: Columbus, Ohio USA
Posts: 56
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

19bama46 wrote: No Blue, the idea of a judge and a court of law is putting  a 21st century spin on things... she just walks out... lets pretend they not married, just voluntairly had come together to live. when it was over, she walked!Ed, the idea of a judge and court are also a 19th century spin on things.  And to be honest, we are not talking as anything as simple as two people walking out on one another, are we?
Now lets don't intertwine the war with the secession. They are two seperate events in my mind... but for the states to just walk out...
Sorry, Ed, but I can't buy into that.  Secession and the war are all part of the same fuse that led to war.  The spark is slavery, the fuse is secession, which led to the war.  They are all intertwined, for without one of them missing from the equation/fuse, no war.  IMO.
Blue, I am sorry, but we just have to agree to disagree on this issue.. they were seperate up until the firing on Sumpter... No Sumpter, no war..

Sincerely,

Unionblue
By the way, TD has done a much better job of explaining what I was trying to get at. Thanks TD
 
Ed, I understand and have no problem with the idea that we have two different points-of-view on the topic.

 

As for TDs post, I hope you read and enjoyed our exchange as much as I did.  I look forward to more from him.

Thanks again for your time and input.

Sincerely,

Unionblue



____________________
Belief does not make truth. Evidence makes truth. And belief does not make evidence.


 Posted: Mon Nov 30th, 2009 02:12 am
   PM  Quote  Reply 
122nd Post
Texas Defender
Member


Joined: Sat Jan 27th, 2007
Location: Texas USA
Posts: 920
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Unionblue-

  It seems that we don't disagree on very much. But I'll continue for the sake of clarification.

  My post answering yours was of course not addressing whether or not the: "leaders of secession" were justified in their actions. That is another question entirely. The purpose of my post was to dispute the statement: "....in their hearts and minds, the leaders of secession knew they had no moral, political, or legal ground to justify their attempt at rebellion." It seems that we are now in agreement that they at least felt justified.

  I do believe that it did matter who became president on March 4, 1861. A man less determined to preserve the Union at all costs might have allowed a peaceful separation. My contention is that Mr. Lincoln came into office determined that federal authority would be upheld or there would be a war. Perhaps if he had been seen as less threatening by the southerners, they would not have acted as they did. But the reality is that he was, and they did. And even if the final accounting could have been delayed once more, it could not be delayed forever.

  As for the legality of secession, Chief Justice Taney's opinion would count as only one vote in a Supreme Court decision (as in the Dred Scott decision, where he was one of the majority of seven voting against Scott). How the complete court might have voted on the question is not known to me.

  To the: "leaders of secession," however, the opinion of the US Supreme Court on the matter was irrelevant. Their position on the Constitution was that since it did not forbid secession, then it was allowed under the 9th and 10th Amendments. Argue the question if you wish, but you can't demonstrate that the Constitution forbids secession. And if as you contend, that the question was resolved previously to the war, then there would have been no need for it to be argued in the 1869 Supreme Court decision Texas v. White. The question argued then was whether or not Texas had remained a US state even after it seceded. (We here in Texas also have the additional question of whether or not the Treaty of 1845 between the Republic of Texas and the US still applies).

  Ed's analogy to a no fault divorce can be used. In such a case. there is no need to prove anyone guilty of any offense, only to point out that differences cannot be reconciled. The southerners decided that that was the case. They decided that their actions were justified, and they acted.

  I have to wonder if Chief Justice Taney was aware of a statement made in 1848 by a young Whig congressman, when criticizing : "Mr. Polk's War" against Mexico. He said: "Any people anywhere being inclined and having the power have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable, a most sacred right which we hope and believe is to liberate the world."

  The name of the young Whig congressman was Abraham Lincoln.

  So, the southerners shook off the existing government. But it turned out in the end, as General Joseph E. Johnston said much later, that while secession might not have been illegal, it was in this case certainly impractical.

Last edited on Mon Nov 30th, 2009 04:03 am by Texas Defender



 Posted: Mon Nov 30th, 2009 02:47 am
   PM  Quote  Reply 
123rd Post
ole
Member


Joined: Sun Oct 22nd, 2006
Location:  
Posts: 2027
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

We're wandering somewhat. And I'll admit to be an active wanderer in the field of speculation and hypotheticals. I'm just not confident that the secesh were operating within the bounds of speculative logic.

Frankly, what I see is that a double-handful of radicals somehow managed to rile up enough voters to effect secession. And I'm not convinced that it was a real majority. Kinda like a bar fight. Your first reaction is to step aside, your next is to mix in on the side of your retarded, homicidal cousin who is just shy of certifiable. You're not mad at nobody, but it is, after all, your cousin. Blood. Water. Y'all know the routine.

Upshot: the common Southerner got hisself railroaded into a war that he couldn't win. After four years of gruesome death, he got his butt handed to him on a platter. I don't fault the southerner for that disaster. Just his leadership. He didn't ask for the fight; he just weighed in on the side of his retarded, homicidal cousin.

Just a thought.

Ole

 



 Posted: Mon Nov 30th, 2009 03:06 am
   PM  Quote  Reply 
124th Post
Texas Defender
Member


Joined: Sat Jan 27th, 2007
Location: Texas USA
Posts: 920
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

ole-

  We forgive you.   :)

  But I would contend that the course of the war wasn't finally decided until Mr. Lincoln won re-election.

  Of course, thats just speculation on my part.     :P

 

 



 Posted: Mon Nov 30th, 2009 03:09 am
   PM  Quote  Reply 
125th Post
19bama46
Member
 

Joined: Thu Mar 23rd, 2006
Location:  
Posts: 146
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

If I may, since I started this.. let me say it has been a distinct pleasure discussing points of interest instead of arguing points of interest...

Blue, the essential points I have been trying to express is put rahter well by TD... it is not enough for us to question whether or not they had sufficient cause to seceed, it is that THEY believed they did...

finally, Ole, given the political realities of the day, I doubt a single popular election was held on the issue of secession... that was decided in legislatures, and mosp probably by a half dozen or so "movers and shakers"... you know kinda like here in Springfield an dChicago!



 Posted: Mon Nov 30th, 2009 05:30 am
   PM  Quote  Reply 
126th Post
ole
Member


Joined: Sun Oct 22nd, 2006
Location:  
Posts: 2027
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Not playing fair, bama! But maybe you've hit on it. The secession movements appears to have been, to me at least, a stacked political deck. We've been living too long in Illinois to accept an otherwise. I suspect, repeat SUSPECT, that there was some pattyfingers going on down there. Someone sold a great many people down the river with all of that foofoo.

The more things change, the more they remain the same. 

It may be that self-interest was not the same as it is today, but it remains that self-interest prevailed. Taken as a point, self-interest is always a given, but it also remains that self-intererest, in the representation of the people, always ought to be in the interest of the people.



 Posted: Tue Dec 1st, 2009 04:48 am
   PM  Quote  Reply 
127th Post
Unionblue
Member
 

Joined: Mon Nov 23rd, 2009
Location: Columbus, Ohio USA
Posts: 56
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Texas Defender wrote: Unionblue-

  It seems that we don't disagree on very much. But I'll continue for the sake of clarification.
TexasDefender, I would be honored if you would continue.My post answering yours was of course not addressing whether or not the: "leaders of secession" were justified in their actions. That is another question entirely. The purpose of my post was to dispute the statement: "....in their hearts and minds, the leaders of secession knew they had no moral, political, or legal ground to justify their attempt at rebellion." It seems that we are now in agreement that they at least felt justified.I can agree with you that the leaders of secession FELT they were justified, but I remain firm in my opinion that they knew if they attempted a legal course of action with the Supreme Court, they would not be able to justify secession by any legal means.  I also believe the leaders of secession knew they had no political grounds by which they could justify secession, as a majority of the country felt secession could not be justified by political means (an amendment to the Constitution, a national referrendum, etc.).  As for the moral grounds for secession, what was the issue that troubled the South the most?  The tariff?  Hardly as the tariff in place was considered almost a 'free trade' one.  The upcoming vote on the Morril Tariff?  It had been designed to replace the existing tariff and had nothing within it to cause and sense of forboding with the Southern states.  Excessive federal government interference?  From an army of 16,000 men, two thirds of which was scattered West of the Mississippi in company sized units fighting indians and manning isolated forts?  A government which employed a handful of federal marshals and a part-time attorney general?  Yes, TexasDefender, I am sure the leaders of secession felt justified in attempting secession, but it was justified to protect the institution of slavery and over the idea that the federal government was too weak to stop it, hence my view that they lacked a moral justification also.I do believe that it did matter who became president on March 4, 1861. A man less determined to preserve the Union at all costs might have allowed a peaceful separation. My contention is that Mr. Lincoln came into office determined that federal authority would be upheld or there would be a war. Perhaps if he had been seen as less threatening by the southerners, they would not have acted as they did. But the reality is that he was, and they did. And even if the final accounting could have been delayed once more, it could not be delayed forever.I am less inclined to go with the election of Lincoln greatly increased the idea there would be fighting over the issues that brought such actions to its final conclusion.  If Seward or Chase had been nominated at the Republican convention, the South would have seceded just as quickly as it did with Lincoln.  I also believe if Stephen Douglass had been elected ( a neat trick, I admit) the South would have seceded over Douglass's policy of letting the citizens of a territory decide the issue of slavery in a new state (popular sovereignty).  The other two candidates didn't stand a chance out of that four-party race in 1860, in my view, but Southern secession was coming no matter who won the office.  The issue was slavery in the territories, slavery in the United States, slavery being forced into the Free States and slavery's continued push for expansion elsewhere in the Western Hemisphere.  The threat to the institution was never going away unless the South could be assured that it would go away forever.As for the legality of secession, Chief Justice Taney's opinion would count as only one vote in a Supreme Court decision (as in the Dred Scott decision, where he was one of the majority of seven voting against Scott). How the complete court might have voted on the question is not known to me.Taney was much admired and respected at the time, in spite of the hostile viewing of his Dred Scott ruling.  Much of the Court was  from the South and had Southern leanings.  My point is, the South didn't even try to get a reading from the Court.  It does make for interesting speculation, however.To the: "leaders of secession," however, the opinion of the US Supreme Court on the matter was irrelevant. Their position on the Constitution was that since it did not forbid secession, then it was allowed under the 9th and 10th Amendments.It was irrelevant to the leaders of secession because they knew they could not seek justifying secession under the Constitution.  If not, why not appeal secession to the Supreme Court?  The only reason NOT to do so is that you know you can't win via that avenue. Argue the question if you wish, but you can't demonstrate that the Constitution forbids secession. A document, created after the Articles of Confederation which recognized the individual sovereignty of the states fell flat on its face and almost destroyed the nation, which was conceived to form a "more perfect union" has a very strong argument against a concept nowhere mentioned within its borders, IMO.And if as you contend, that the question was resolved previously to the war, then there would have been no need for it to be argued in the 1869 Supreme Court decision Texas v. White. And yet, TexasDefender, we have all those Presidents who denied the concept of secession was ever an option under the Constitution.  We have President Jackson telling South Carolina it was not there nor was the option to nullify federal laws to be found within the document.  We have Zachory Taylor, telling Southern representatives that if they attempt to lead their states in secession, he would personally lead the army against them and hang them higher than Haman for their actions.  We have the South itself speaking against New England, saying there can be no such thing as secession, actively calling such attempts treason, during the War of 1812.  And then we have the majority of the South speaking out against South Carolina in 1830 during the nullification crisis and during the Congressional elections of 1850, when secessionist candidates proposed secession from the Union.  If we also add all of the Congressional debates on the topic, especially the Webster-Hayne debates, secession was long doubted to be an option under the Constitution, no matter which section one would mention.  The actions taken to justify it from 1861-1865 also proved inadequate to support the concept.The question argued then was whether or not Texas had remained a US state even after it seceded. (We here in Texas also have the additional question of whether or not the Treaty of 1845 between the Republic of Texas and the US still applies).I consider Texas v. White a period at the end of a paragraph, not the beginning of a new sentence.  As for the Treaty of 1845 question, a careful reading of later actions might show that the Republic of Texas applied to be a State within the Union and Congress granted the request.  My view is that it was a sovereign nation that gave up that position to become a part of the sovereign nation of the United States.  What happens in the future cannot be based upon a status that was willingly given up to gain a new status within a new nation, IMO.Ed's analogy to a no fault divorce can be used. In such a case. there is no need to prove anyone guilty of any offense, only to point out that differences cannot be reconciled. The southerners decided that that was the case. They decided that their actions were justified, and they acted.Forgive me, as I am not a lawyer, but does not a no-fault divorce have to be agreed upon by both parties?  Again if the husband feels justified that he owns the living room, the master bedroom, the bathroom, and then has to fire on his wife to take over the garage, is this considered no fault when the wife has no input as to what is taken or if she is shot at?  Besides, we are in no way talking about a simple, no-fault divorce here, but of about a significant part of a nation attempting to leave and to leave with assets that belong to ALL of the nation.  This is precisely my point.  The SOUTH decided and THEY acted.  And we are living with the results in the present day.I have to wonder if Chief Justice Taney was aware of a statement made in 1848 by a young Whig congressman, when criticizing : "Mr. Polk's War" against Mexico. He said: "Any people anywhere being inclined and having the power have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable, a most sacred right which we hope and believe is to liberate the world."I am very familar with the young man's comments, especially with the oft-lifted part of the above speech.  We both know he speaks of rebellion, not a legal attempt at smoke and mirrors to accomplish the same without firing a shot. The name of the young Whig congressman was Abraham Lincoln.I wonder if the southern leaders shouldn't have taken the time to read all of Mr. Lincoln's speech, pause, and reconsider what they were about to attempt.  Well, I can wonder all I wish about what "might have been."  But history is all that I am left with. So, the southerners shook off the existing government. But it turned out in the end, as General Joseph E. Johnston said much later, that while secession might not have been illegal, it was in this case certainly impractical.

We should emphathize "might not have been illegal" as no Southerner who led the South into the firey path of secession ever contemplated finding out if it were, and change "impractical" to imprudent.

IMHO.

Sincerely,

Unionblue



____________________
Belief does not make truth. Evidence makes truth. And belief does not make evidence.


 Posted: Tue Dec 1st, 2009 04:53 am
   PM  Quote  Reply 
128th Post
Unionblue
Member
 

Joined: Mon Nov 23rd, 2009
Location: Columbus, Ohio USA
Posts: 56
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

19bama46 wrote: If I may, since I started this.. let me say it has been a distinct pleasure discussing points of interest instead of arguing points of interest...19bama46, I agree wholeheartedly.  It has been a real joy to exchange points-of-view in a spirit of friendly debate.  I appreciate it very much.Blue, the essential points I have been trying to express is put rahter well by TD... it is not enough for us to question whether or not they had sufficient cause to seceed, it is that THEY believed they did...I agree that THEY believed they did.  I just believe THEY were wrong and that because of that belief, based on what I have read and researched for myself, it is sufficient cause for us to ask if they had good reason to help plunge this nation into a war lasting four, bloody, terrible years.  In fact, I feel it is imparitive for us to do so if we are to truly learn anything from history.finally, Ole, given the political realities of the day, I doubt a single popular election was held on the issue of secession... that was decided in legislatures, and mosp probably by a half dozen or so "movers and shakers"... you know kinda like here in Springfield an dChicago!

The book, Apostles of Disunion, is a good read on that topic.

Until our next post,

Unionblue



____________________
Belief does not make truth. Evidence makes truth. And belief does not make evidence.


 Posted: Tue Dec 1st, 2009 06:40 am
   PM  Quote  Reply 
129th Post
Texas Defender
Member


Joined: Sat Jan 27th, 2007
Location: Texas USA
Posts: 920
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Unionblue-

  Perhaps I spoke too soon about not having much to disagree about.

  We have come to agree that the southern leaders felt justified in their decision to leave the Union. That was the point of my initial response. You continue to want to argue about moral grounds for secession. To me, arguments about tariffs, or slavery, or other issues effecting the decision to secede are endless and useless arguments. Opinions are opinions and facts are facts. The fact is that they did secede.

  Since the southerners believed that the Constitution allowed them to leave the Union, and that that action was justified, what point would there have been to submitting the question to a federal court? Since they felt that they had the right, there was no need to ask permission. If that sounds simplistic, so be it. That was their position.

  I do not share your belief that the southerners would have seceded regardless of who was elected president. I see no warnings coming from the southern leaders regarding the consequences of electing any candidate except for Mr. Lincoln.  If the democrats had not split their party and Douglass was elected, there might have been another wave of violence similar to what happened over popular sovereignty in the 1850s. That is pure speculation. But I doubt that if Mr. Douglass had been elected in November of 1860 that South Carolina would have seceded in the following month.

  As for Chief Justice Taney, he might have been admired by some, but apparently not by Mr. Lincoln. I would refer you to the Merryman case where Mr. Taney's opinions were totally disregarded. So much for the writ of habeas corpus. In fact, some of his friends feared that the Lincoln administration was going to arrest the Chief Justice.

  I would repeat that the: "leaders of secession" saw no requirement to try the case for secession in a federal court. The reason was not that they couldn't win (I don't know if they could have or not), but that in their view they weren't REQUIRED to.

  The Articles of Confederation might have talked about: "perpetuity" but the governing document is the Constitution. I don't share your view that the Constitution in any way argues against secession, by statement or by implication.

  It is true that previous presidents threatened possible secessionists with military force, but that in no way makes a conclusion about the constitutionality of secession. I would point out that in the case of President Jackson that he did not always concern himself with legal niceties. Aside from once threatening to hang VP John C. Calhoun, he ignored at least one Supreme Court decision (See Worcester v. Georgia). The result of that was the infamous: "Trail of Tears" that resulted in the deaths of thousands of Native Americans. Now that really was: "Nullification" on the part of Mr. Jackson. He nullified Chief Justice Marshall's court. He had a very different view of the idea of nullification when South Carolina revived talk of it.

  As for Texas v. White, the decision concluded that Texas never actually left the Union. Therefore, it can't be argued that it legally gave up any prior status. As for the present status of Texas, the argument is irrelevant unless the citizens here feel the need to try to invoke the 1845 Treaty to split Texas into five states and thus have ten US senators (That would cause major heartburn to many in the northeast). That won't happen, but if it did, you'd have your Supreme Court case to decide the question.

  I don't share your apparent view that the southerners were attempting to steal assets of the US in the course of the: "divorce." The peace commissioners went to Washington to attempt to negotiate payments for federal property on southern soil. They were rebuffed by Mr. Lincoln and the negotiations with Mr. Seward switched to the status of the occupied forts in Charleston and Pensacola. The southerners were willing to pay for federal property, but that process never advanced.

  So, in the end we have come full circle. My case is that the: "leaders of secession" felt justified in their actions based on their interpretation of the Constitution. That is the bottom line. Call them: "imprudent" if you wish to. You can argue about: "morality" endlessly and it makes no difference at all. That remains a matter of opinion. The fact that in the end the north prevailed by force of arms in no way makes any statement about the morality of the actions taken by the secessionists (Or their view of the Constitution). It only serves to further reinforce a quote attributed to Napoleon that: "Morality is on the side of the heaviest artillery."

Last edited on Tue Dec 1st, 2009 07:55 am by Texas Defender



 Posted: Tue Dec 1st, 2009 07:04 am
   PM  Quote  Reply 
130th Post
Unionblue
Member
 

Joined: Mon Nov 23rd, 2009
Location: Columbus, Ohio USA
Posts: 56
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

TexasDefender,

Not wishing to bore you or to repeat what I have already stated, I will agree to disagree and thank you for your time and consideration for answering my posts on this thread.

I see that you refer to the oft-used quote about who has the heaviest battalions.

I would reply with a quote from a friend on another forum.

"If you wish to secede, you had better succeed."

Again, thank you for your time and consideration.

It is much appreciated.

Sincerely,

Unionblue

Last edited on Tue Dec 1st, 2009 07:06 am by Unionblue



____________________
Belief does not make truth. Evidence makes truth. And belief does not make evidence.


 Posted: Tue Dec 1st, 2009 09:45 am
   PM  Quote  Reply 
131st Post
Marmaduke
Banned
 

Joined: Wed Nov 25th, 2009
Location:  
Posts: 16
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

19bama46 wrote: ole wrote: Now lets don't intertwine the war with the secession. They are two seperate events in my mind... but for the states to just walk out...

I'll be very interested to read your take on how the two can be unmeshed.

Ole


One was not certain to follow the other....

It COULD have ended peacefully!

Not if the federal government was willing to use force against states. This double-crosses the original bonds of union, and creates a prison empire. The states never intended this when they joined the Union.

Last edited on Tue Dec 1st, 2009 09:45 am by Marmaduke



 Posted: Tue Dec 1st, 2009 09:54 am
   PM  Quote  Reply 
132nd Post
Marmaduke
Banned
 

Joined: Wed Nov 25th, 2009
Location:  
Posts: 16
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Texas Defender wrote: Unionblue-

  Perhaps I spoke too soon about not having much to disagree about.

  We have come to agree that the southern leaders felt justified in their decision to leave the Union. That was the point of my initial response. You continue to want to argue about moral grounds for secession.


What about the legal grounds? That is the elephant in the room that nobody wants to talk about. Why not? According to written law, every state was its own judge; but Lincoln said that the federal government was judge. This does not make sense, since the federal government is chosen by majority, and so it would just be like before 1776, when the Parliamentary majority would decide all the rules over the colonies. Even if they colonies were given representation, the result would be the same since they were a minority. And it was the same with the southern states.
And this was especially true with the political gaimes played by the Republicans to agitate against fairness in congress. When a party gains control through dishonest means, only a madman would try to stay and play by the rules against a rigged game.
This is how Lincoln plotted to take power: by cheating, and then making war when they quit. Secession was definitely not unlawful like he claimed.


Since the southerners believed that the Constitution allowed them to leave the Union, and that that action was justified, what point would there have been to submitting the question to a federal court? Since they felt that they had the right, there was no need to ask permission. If that sounds simplistic, so be it. That was their position.
The states each won their freedom in 1783, so they were right.

As for Chief Justice Taney, he might have been admired by some, but apparently not by Mr. Lincoln. I would refer you to the Merryman case where Mr. Taney's opinions were totally disregarded. So much for the writ of habeas corpus. In fact, some of his friends feared that the Lincoln administration was going to arrest the Chief Justice.
Perhaps because he signed an arrest-warrant.

I would repeat that the: "leaders of secession" saw no requirement to try the case for secession in a federal court. The reason was not that they couldn't win (I don't know if they could have or not), but that in their view they weren't REQUIRED to.
No more than Britain would be required to get permission to end a treaty.
Also, they saw how Republicans treated federal court-judgments from Dred Scott (i.e. promising to honor it, and then summarily ignoring on that promise when the court ruled against them) -- which was precisely why the states were were seceding in the first place. 
It would be silly to think they'd handle a respect a federal secession-verdict any differently-- as the saying goes, "fool me once, shame on you-- fool me twice, shame on me."
And Lincoln was nothing, if not wholly shameless.


The Articles of Confederation might have talked about: "perpetuity"

 Also soveriegnty, freedom and independence. And the Constitution didn't mention taking these away, contrary to some drug-induced readings.



It is true that previous presidents threatened possible secessionists with military force, but that in no way makes a conclusion about the constitutionality of secession.


Just Jackson, who no one even mentions anymore since he was so erroneous.
But Jackson took his case to Congress, while Lincoln deliberately bypassed the congress in order to take the law into his own hands and start a war, since he knew that this would allow him to get away with murder... and censorship.

President Jackson that he did not always concern himself with legal niceties. Aside from once threatening to hang VP John C. Calhoun, he ignored at least one Supreme Court decision (See Worcester v. Georgia).


So did Lincoln (see Dred Scott) and tried to arrest Justice Taney. He also claimed secession illegal, under the argument that the union was older than the states; but in fact the constitutional union was not even as old as the constitution.




As for Texas v. White, the decision concluded that Texas never actually left the Union.

It also held that the union was intended to be perpetual, under the articles of confederation, and we've already dispensed with that argument. 
That decision was rendered in a 4-3 tie-breaking vote by Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase, who was Lincoln's former treasury-secretary.

A lttle about Chief Justice "Manhattan Bank" Chase:


The first major investment-banking house in the United States was a creature of government privilege. Jay Cooke, an Ohio-born business promoter living in Philadelphia, and his brother Henry, editor of the leading Republican newspaper in Ohio, were close friends of Ohio U.S. Senator Salmon P. Chase.

When the new Lincoln Administration took over in 1861, the Cookes lobbied hard to secure Chase the appointment of Secretary of the Treasury. That lobbying, plus the then enormous sum of $100,000 that Jay Cooke poured into Chase’s political coffers, induced Chase to return the favor by granting Cooke, newly set up as an investment banker, an enormously lucrative monopoly in underwriting the entire federal debt.


Cooke and Chase then managed to use the virtual Republican monopoly in Congress during the war to transform the American commercial banking system from a relatively free market to a National Banking System centralized by the federal government under Wall Street control. A crucial aspect of that system was that national banks could only expand credit in proportion to the federal bonds they owned – bonds which they were forced to buy from Jay Cooke.


Jay Cooke & Co. proved enormously influential in the post-war Republican administrations, which continued their monopoly in under-writing government bonds.



Naturally, Chase would want to protect his investment, by rendering an 1869 verdict that validated it.


I don't share your apparent view that the southerners were attempting to steal assets of the US in the course of the: "divorce."

It's not even relevant, once the right of southern states to their own soil is denied.

Otherwise, the issue is ridiculous, given the untold wealth surrendered by the seceding states via giving up their claims to the territories-- which amounted to about half the land-mass of the entire union prior to secession. This gives new meaning to the term "making mountains out of molehills," since it's absurd to squabble over a few buildings, when given a million square miles of land in exhange for them. It's like the saying that the Indians "swindled" the settlers when selling them New York for $24.


So, in the end we have come full circle. My case is that the: "leaders of secession" felt justified in their actions based on their interpretation of the Constitution. That is the bottom line. Call them: "imprudent" if you wish to. You can argue about: "morality" endlessly and it makes no difference at all. That remains a matter of opinion. The fact that in the end the north prevailed by force of arms in no way makes any statement about the morality of the actions taken by the secessionists (Or their view of the Constitution). It only serves to further reinforce a quote attributed to Napoleon that: "Morality is on the side of the heaviest artillery."



Which is ironic, since Lincoln refused an offer by Napoleon III to negotiate a peace-treaty with Davis.

However morality can be better served by a clear establishment of prior agreements-- by which it was clear that the union held no national authority over any state, and therefore Lincoln acted in an imperial capacity by claiming such, and then using it in order to invade and conquer those states.

Last edited on Tue Dec 1st, 2009 10:51 am by Marmaduke



 Posted: Tue Dec 1st, 2009 10:32 am
   PM  Quote  Reply 
133rd Post
Unionblue
Member
 

Joined: Mon Nov 23rd, 2009
Location: Columbus, Ohio USA
Posts: 56
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Marmaduke,

Every state was its own judge?

Even with that phrase "Supreme Law of the Land" in the US Constitution?

Question.  Does every province in Denmark its own judge over the central government?

Perhaps you should rethink your opinion.

Sincerely,

Unionblue



____________________
Belief does not make truth. Evidence makes truth. And belief does not make evidence.


 Posted: Tue Dec 1st, 2009 11:17 am
   PM  Quote  Reply 
134th Post
Marmaduke
Banned
 

Joined: Wed Nov 25th, 2009
Location:  
Posts: 16
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Deleted by admin



 Posted: Wed Dec 2nd, 2009 03:13 am
   PM  Quote  Reply 
135th Post
19bama46
Member
 

Joined: Thu Mar 23rd, 2006
Location:  
Posts: 146
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Marmaduke wrote: Deleted by admin

must have been one hell of a post!

to go along with one hell of a day!



 Posted: Thu Dec 10th, 2009 06:17 am
   PM  Quote  Reply 
136th Post
Unionblue
Member
 

Joined: Mon Nov 23rd, 2009
Location: Columbus, Ohio USA
Posts: 56
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

To All,

Saw a part of an article I had copied long ago and thought it would fit nicely on this particular thread.

"In analyzing the "revolution" of 1861, therefore, we must have reference to the question of slavery.  WHY did the Confederacy fire on Fort Sumter?  WHY did they break the supreme law of the land by declaring themselves no longer part of the union?  The answer is, in order to preserve their slave property from interference by the federal government.  Or, more accurately, in reaction against the election of a President who had pledged himself to halt the spread of slavery into the western territories (which he did have the constitutional authority to do).  Although the Confederates phrased their arguments in terms of "freedom," it was the "freedom to enslave" that they were defending.  This made the Confederacy an illegitimate government, rather like the communist coups taking place on an hourly basis in South America.  When the Confederacy initiated force by firing on Fort Sumter, therefore, it became the responsibility of the President to "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed," including the supreme law of the land, by putting down the rebellion by force if necessary. 

This is the answer to our second question: the secession of 1861 was not a legitimate revolution.  Its "cournerstone" rested on "the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery--subordination to the superior race--is his natural and normal condition."  The Constitution of the Confederacy protected slavery from any government interference.  The Confederacy seceded, not in response to the initiation of force, but in response to the election of Abraham Lincoln--no radical abolitionist, as other anti-Lincoln writers have emphasized--and fired upon Fort Sumter, which was federal property.

It was illegal for the American Patriots to fire on the Redcoats in 1776, but they did so because the British had violated the natural rights of Americans, and declared the right to "bind them in all cases whatsoever."  The American Revolution was based explicitly on the principles of equality and the right of individuals to own themselves.  The Confederacy's attack on Fort Sumter, on the other hand, was engaged explicitly in the name of defending the "right" to enslave without the interference of federal authorities, and in defense of a Constitution explicitly protecting "right of property in negro slaves."

Source document: Why Joseph Sobran Is Wrong About The Civil War, by Timothy Sandefur.

Sincerely,

Unionblue



____________________
Belief does not make truth. Evidence makes truth. And belief does not make evidence.


 Posted: Thu Dec 10th, 2009 01:20 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
137th Post
Texas Defender
Member


Joined: Sat Jan 27th, 2007
Location: Texas USA
Posts: 920
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

  Wonderful, Unionblue. On another thread, the Confederates were compared to the Nazis. Now on this one you bring on someone who compares them to communists.
  The last thing in the world they were was communists, since the relative weakness of the central government was a great handicap to the Confederates.
 

  This latest quoted person's objection to secession is to argue the morality of slavery. That is a separate question and does not speak to the legal question of secession, which is what was being discussed before.

  Maintaining that one : "rebellion" is justifiable because in your opinion its based on positive moral principles, and saying another is illegal because in your opinion it isn't based on sound moral principles is an absurdity. Mixing a moral question with a legal one answers neither.

  The issue of slavery was of course the catalyst issue, but it wasn't the only one. The larger question was (and to a degree still is) how much authority the federal government rightfully has over the states.

 

 

Last edited on Thu Dec 10th, 2009 03:56 pm by Texas Defender



 Posted: Thu Dec 10th, 2009 11:36 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
138th Post
19bama46
Member
 

Joined: Thu Mar 23rd, 2006
Location:  
Posts: 146
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

And that brings us to the issue of "State's Rights"

there are some who would say that State's Rights are an eupheunasm for slavery/segregation/Jim Crow, etc, etc and that it is all a southern conspiracy to keep black folk down. At one time there was an element of truth in that as State's Rights was used as an argument for continuing all these evils, but the larger issue is " What is the proper relationship between the states and the Federal Government?"

The "Sovereign States" and all that implies, came together, voluntairly, and formed a national, central government. They all ponied up some power for the pot, but not all of it..

The feds declare war, coin money, move the mail, provide for the common defense, etc..

What about the power (Rights) the states did NOT pony up?

 

who wants to discuss this one?

 

Ed



 Posted: Fri Dec 11th, 2009 12:23 am
   PM  Quote  Reply 
139th Post
Mark
Member
 

Joined: Mon Mar 30th, 2009
Location:  
Posts: 434
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

You know, the funny thing is that we are rather passionately debating the exact same things that were being debated in 1860-61, viz. is secession legal under the Constitution? Southern legislatures made the same Constitutional arguments that bama and TD are, and Lincoln made the same ones that Unionblue is. I confess that I can see both sides of the argument and think that perhaps the only way that the question could have been answered completely was a war and 600,000 lives.

-Mark



 Posted: Fri Dec 11th, 2009 01:05 am
   PM  Quote  Reply 
140th Post
19bama46
Member
 

Joined: Thu Mar 23rd, 2006
Location:  
Posts: 146
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Mark wrote: You know, the funny thing is that we are rather passionately debating the exact same things that were being debated in 1860-61, viz. is secession legal under the Constitution? Southern legislatures made the same Constitutional arguments that bama and TD are, and Lincoln made the same ones that Unionblue is. I confess that I can see both sides of the argument and think that perhaps the only way that the question could have been answered completely was a war and 600,000 lives.

-Mark


the issue of the relationship between the states and the feds is one that is being debated/tested today. Several states are seeking to nullify federal edict relative to the 2nd ammendment, specifically to nullify federal law as it relates to firearms and ammunition manufactured and used within the confines of a single state. Additionally, Vermont, Texas and other states are talking about secession over the issues of federal intrusion and exorbitant taxes, immigration, et.al..

Where are these issues going and how will they affect those people woh call themselves Americans?



 Current time is 05:38 amPage:  First Page Previous Page  ...  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next Page Last Page  
Top




UltraBB 1.17 Copyright © 2007-2008 Data 1 Systems
Page processed in 0.4887 seconds (12% database + 88% PHP). 33 queries executed.