View single post by Texas Defender
 Posted: Sat Oct 29th, 2011 03:37 pm
 PM  Quote  Reply  Full Topic 
Texas Defender
Member


Joined: Sat Jan 27th, 2007
Location: Texas USA
Posts: 907
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

MildMan-


  Apparently, the point that I was trying to make with the Texas v. White decision, and with ex post facto laws, was lost on you. Even though the justices said in 1869 that secession wasn't legal, it didn't make it a crime to do so in 1861. Thus, the 1869 decision didn't make those who seceded in 1860 and 1861: "Criminals" or: "Traitors" as you suggested in the 15th post on this thread.


  You go on and on with your contention that the southerners should have pursued the legality of secession in the federal courts. I gave my response to this in the 20th post on this thread. But, okay, we'll revisit it.

  First, I'll present an: "Old" law. Here is the Tenth Amendment:

  "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."

  If I am a citizen of South Carolina in 1860, and I think it is to my advantage for my state to leave the Union, first I must ask myself if it is legal for my state to leave the Union. Therefore, I consult the Constitution of the United States.

  The question of secession is not mentioned anywhere in the Constitution. But I then come to the Tenth Amendment. Reading it, my first question is: "Is the power to rule on the question of secession delegated to the United States Government in the Constitution?" The answer to that question is: "No." My next question is: "Does the Constitution deny the right of secession to the States?" Again, the answer is: "No."

  I then ask myself: "Based on the answers to the above questions, does the state of South Carolina have a legal obligation to submit the question of secession to the federal court system for adjudication?" For those in South Carolina at that time, the obvious answer was: "No."

  In one of your earlier posts, you mentioned the possibility that you might be naive. Well, you might be if you believe that those in South Carolina should have filed a case in the federal court system, or that if the Supreme Court had been allowed to rule on it, it would have prevented Mr. Lincoln from attempting to exert federal authority over the states that were trying to secede.

  It might have been more difficult for Mr. Lincoln to take: "Emergency powers" if Ft. Sumter had not been attacked, but I believe that he would have done so anyway. Mr. Lincoln in my opinion had no intention of complying with any demand made upon him by the Judiciary. I base this opinion on his treatment of Chief Justice Roger Taney.

  Mr. Lincoln could have prevented the Supreme Court from even considering the case in the same way that his minions prevented any secession convention from ever taking place in Maryland. Or he might have simply ignored any decision that they made, just as President Jackson ignored the decision in Worcester v. Georgia.

  You are welcome to your opinion that South Carolina should have taken the matter to the federal court system, but the citizens there didn't think so. Nor do I.

Last edited on Sun Oct 30th, 2011 03:00 am by Texas Defender

 Close Window