|View single post by Texas Defender|
|Posted: Sat Jan 19th, 2013 08:04 pm||
It is only: "Here we go again" because YOU have made that choice. In our last exchange, I listed the areas that we were in agreement about. Secession was not one of them.
My exchanges with ebg predated the last ones I had with you. It should be clear to most readers who was presenting facts, ebg or myself. One position that he took that especially irritated me was that the President could disregard the Constitution if he decided that his action:"Benefited the U.S. the most." He also tried to turn the 10th Amendment on its head in an exchange with Old Blu where he wanted to deny powers to the states when the Constitution sought to limit the powers of the Federal Government, and give those not given to the Federal Government to the states and the people.
It is still my position that in 1860 and 1861, the southern states had the Constitutional right to leave the Union. You could not say to them then that they couldn't do that, because they would lose the war that resulted, and eight years later a USSC (A majority of which were Lincoln appointees) would say that they never really did what they did in 1861. In 1860 and 1861, they had the option to leave.
The southerners were within their rights to secede in 1860 and 1861 because at that time the USSC had not ruled on the question. In 1896, the USSC decision Plessy v. Ferguson established the: "Separate but equal" doctrine, which in effect said that segregation was legal. This decision was not overturned until the 1954 decision Brown v. Board of Education. In 1953, the: "Separate but equal" doctrine was still in effect. Segregation could still be enforced. The USSC could say in 1954 that the 1896 decision was wrong, but there could be no punishment, legal or otherwise, meted out to those insisting on segregation before the 1954 decision. Only in 1954 and thereafter could segregation be prohibited.
It seems to me that it is YOU who insists on using subjective terms like: "Radical" or: "Hot-headed" in this discussion. I have only said that I believe that the southern states had a Constitutional right to leave the Union in 1860 and 1861. I haven't used any subjective terms to describe the action. Obviously, the outcome of their action was: "Bad" for the southerners because they lost the war. If the CSA had survived, then obviously there would have been no Texas v. White decision in 1869 telling them that Mr. Lincoln was right, and they were wrong. In effect, it was the outcome of the war that decided the: "Legality" of the action.
I would also point out (Again) that there was only a war because Mr. Lincoln would not accept secession, and the southerners would not agree to abandon their quest for independence. But it seems that certain angry individuals ("Hot-headed?") can only blame one side because two sides decided to have a war rather than back down from their positions.
I do not believe that those who wanted their independence in 1860 and 1861 would care how you choose to characterize them 150 years later. They believed then, and I believe now, that they had a Constitutional right to leave the Union when they did. It is obviously an issue that we will never agree on.
Last edited on Sat Jan 19th, 2013 08:15 pm by Texas Defender