 |
PM |  | |
Quote | | |
Reply | | |
Full Topic | |
Member
| Joined: | Sat Jan 27th, 2007 |
| Location: | Texas USA |
| Posts: | 830 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |    |
First, I would repeat my contention that the Constitution would never have been ratified if it had included a clause forbidding states to ever leave. There is nothing in the Constitution that says that the Union is forever. The: "Expectations" of many who signed it did not include the idea that it had to be permanent.
The vast majority of southerners who favored secession would have been more than happy to have left the Union peacefully. They would have been more than happy to see the Federal Government peacefully leave its installations on their territory. No doubt they would have offered their assistance in that case. At any rate, the reaction of the secessionists in the early days were not uniform. "Cooler heads" prevailed in some places more than others.
The new Confederate Government was even willing to compensate the US Government for federal property within its borders. In March of 1861, emissaries were sent to WDC to try to negotiate this very issue, but they were rebuffed by Mr. Lincoln and Mr. Seward. In addition, it was strongly implied to the emissaries that the US Government had no plans to reinforce Ft. Sumter. This turned out not to be the case.
As for the spelling of: "Ft. Sumter," perhaps you'll believe the US Government link below.
Fort Sumter National Monument - Fort Sumter National Monument
The fort was named after a Revolutionary War brigadier general by the name of Thomas Sumter.
Fort Sumter - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I very strongly disagree with any contention that the Lincoln Administration would EVER have agreed to allow secession, no matter what any court might have ruled. One only has to read Mr. Lincoln's statements before and after taking office to realize that he would NEVER have accepted secession. Mr. Lincoln had decided that in this national emergency, he had to assume what amounted to dictatorial powers, and the Judiciary was only a hindrance to him which he ignored. This was clearly seen in the treatment of USSC Chief Justice Roger Taney.
I repeat my contention that there was no way for the southern states to expect to litigate leaving, and also that there was no necessity to do so as they did (And I do) read the Tenth Amendment. You can go on and on about: "Expectations" in any kind of partnerships, but such expectations are irrelevant. It is the document that governs. And since you use the analogy of a marriage, the southerners would have contended that their attempt to leave the marriage was prevented by the use of physical force.
We do agree on some points. Most northerners would not have fought a war if it had been presented to them as a war to end slavery. Also, many in the north would have been happy early on to see the: "Wayward sisters" leave in peace. But after Ft. Sumter, Mr. Lincoln was able to mobilize the northern populace to fight a holy war to preserve the Union. Later on, Mr. Lincoln attempted to put the war on a higher moral plane by adding the abolition of slavery to his war aims. He cynically said to some who objected to that that if they did not want to fight to free the slaves, that they could fight only to preserve the Union.
On the issue of the ongoing political war up to 1860, I would contend that the southerners were losing the battle, and would never have: "Worn down" the northerners on the issue of expansion of slavery into the territories. The abolitionist movement had gained great political strengh in the 1840s and 1850s, and northern and western interests were gaining on the political scene, while the ability of the southerners to protect their interests was steadily declining. This trend would only have continued. The southerners, who had had great political influence in the early years of the Republic, were no longer able to win the political game, which is why they no longer wished to play the game. That is why they sought to leave the game, which they believed that they had the right to do.
The USSC decision Texas v. White (1869) said that Texas and the other states that attempted to secede had never actually left the Union. It denied that the states had the right to leave the Union. But your contention that the 1869 decision made secession: "Always illegal" is an absurdity. Using that logic, it would follow that when the 18th Amendment was ratified in 1919, that it made the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors: "Always illegal" prior to that. And then when the 21st Amendment repealed the 18th in 1933, would you have said that it was: "Never illegal?"
Because the USSC decision Brown v. Board of Education (1954) overturned the USSC decision Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) does not mean that segregation was illegal in 1896. It only means that segregation became illegal in 1954, when the USSC decided to interpret the Constitution in that way.
While it is extremely unlikely, it is at least theoretically possible that some future USSC could overturn Brown v. Board of Education. It could also overturn Texas v. White.
Last edited on Sat Dec 8th, 2012 08:20 pm by Texas Defender