Southern history and the truth

[Ravi]

Notice that you didn't say "banning some firearms" or "banning one type of firearms."

 

[manifold]

Notice that you didn't say "banning some firearms" or "banning one type of firearms."

Ummm, you guys are kinda just arguing semantics here. And I hate to be the one to break it to you Ravi, but the tie-breaker in this case has to go to M14.


And a curse on your house for making me have to say that!

 

[M14 Shooter]

Notice that you didn't say "banning some firearms" or "banning one type of firearms."

The undeniable fact is, the Dems -have- banned guns, and given the legislation they have proposed in varous places, they will continue to try to do so.

 

[Ravi]

Ummm, you guys are kinda just arguing semantics here. And I hate to be the one to break it to you Ravi, but the tie-breaker in this case has to go to M14.


And a curse on your house for making me have to say that!

Why would you hate to break it to me?

He's trying to push the point that Democrats will take away everyone's guns. That's why he phrased it the way he did.

 

[manifold]

Why would you hate to break it to me?

He's trying to push the point that Democrats will take away everyone's guns. That's why he phrased it the way he did.

I know.

But technically, his statement was still accurate.

 

[Ravi]

Alright, alright, far be it from me to be pegged as someone that can't admit to being wrong.

 

[Swamp Fox]

True enough. My view is that SCOTUS got it wrong, but as Reilly points out their ruling means what the South did was illegal.

I was just pointing out the fallacy of them believing the Union would let them go quietly.

And I was simply pointing out the fallacy of believing that the federal government has the best interests of the people at heart.

 

[Gunny]

True enough. My view is that SCOTUS got it wrong, but as Reilly points out their ruling means what the South did was illegal.

I was just pointing out the fallacy of them believing the Union would let them go quietly.

What Reilly is pointing out is called not debating the topic; rather, trying to be right on a point of law. Yes, the Supreme Court's baseless ruling basically made secession illegal.

It is irrelevant to the actual discussion of whether or not the Constitution from the day it was ratified to the day SC seceded, precluded states the right to secede. It did not, and still does not.

Do we need to debate the ruling FIRST? No, because them the "Reilly's" will say irrelevant because that's how SCOTUS ruled.

It's called dodging the issue.

 

[Swamp Fox]

Gunny,
Give it up dude, these idiots will never figure it out.

 

[Rogue 9]

What Reilly is pointing out is called not debating the topic; rather, trying to be right on a point of law. Yes, the Supreme Court's baseless ruling basically made secession illegal.

It is irrelevant to the actual discussion of whether or not the Constitution from the day it was ratified to the day SC seceded, precluded states the right to secede. It did not, and still does not.

Do we need to debate the ruling FIRST? No, because them the "Reilly's" will say irrelevant because that's how SCOTUS ruled.

It's called dodging the issue.

It wasn't baseless. The states may not violate the territorial sovereignty of the United States. Period. It's all right there, black and white, 4.3.2. You don't need the Supreme Court to see it.

And for the third time in this thread, the Court had little alternative than to rule the way it did in Texas v. White anyway, because the argument was that secession had dissolved the Texas state government and annulled it's laws; had the court ruled that this was the case, every former Confederate state would have been dissolved and had to start over from the ground up.

Oh, and hi Swamp Fox. Long time no see.

 

[Ravi]

What Reilly is pointing out is called not debating the topic; rather, trying to be right on a point of law. Yes, the Supreme Court's baseless ruling basically made secession illegal.

It is irrelevant to the actual discussion of whether or not the Constitution from the day it was ratified to the day SC seceded, precluded states the right to secede. It did not, and still does not.

Do we need to debate the ruling FIRST? No, because them the "Reilly's" will say irrelevant because that's how SCOTUS ruled.

It's called dodging the issue.

I don't think we are disagreeing here so I'm not sure why you even posted this.

Except on saying Reilly is dodging the issue...he made a perfectly valid point.

 

[Ravi]

And I was simply pointing out the fallacy of believing that the federal government has the best interests of the people at heart.

Sometimes it does. Sometimes it doesn't.

 

[ReillyT]

What Reilly is pointing out is called not debating the topic; rather, trying to be right on a point of law. Yes, the Supreme Court's baseless ruling basically made secession illegal.

It is irrelevant to the actual discussion of whether or not the Constitution from the day it was ratified to the day SC seceded, precluded states the right to secede. It did not, and still does not.

Do we need to debate the ruling FIRST? No, because them the "Reilly's" will say irrelevant because that's how SCOTUS ruled.

It's called dodging the issue.

You are not quite correct on what I am saying. What I am saying is slightly different from what you think I am saying, but the slight difference does have meaning, and in precisely a way that impacts on what your assertion.

The USSC did not make secession unlawful in 1869. The 1869 USSC decision tells us that secession was always unlawful - in 1800, 1860, and in 1869. In 1869, the USSC looked at the Constitution, and made their interpretation of what it meant. They determined that the Constitution did not allow for secession, and as they relied on portions of the Constitution that hadn't changed since its inception, that it never allowed for secession. True, the USSC didn't get around to telling us this until 1869, but the USSC can only hear cases once an issue is comes to fruition, so in effect, there was no way they could have let us in on this very important revelation sooner.

Thus, when you say that the Constitution didn't prohibit secession from the time it was ratified up until secession was attempted, this is not actually true. According to the USSC, the Constitution never allowed for secession. The fact that they only let us in on this nugget in 1869 is irrelevant.

The question should be: Was it reasonable for SC to look at the Constitution and believe that it allowed for secession? Quite possibly. Another fine question would be: Did the USSC get it wrong?

If one wants to debate the USSC decision, that is fine. However, to the question of whether, technically, secession is unlawful; it is irrelevant, as that question has been answered.

I am just trying to clarify what the issues are.

 

[Gunny]

You are not quite correct on what I am saying. What I am saying is slightly different from what you think I am saying, but the slight difference does have meaning, and in precisely a way that impacts on what your assertion.

The USSC did not make secession unlawful in 1869. The 1869 USSC decision tells us that secession was always unlawful - in 1800, 1860, and in 1869. In 1869, the USSC looked at the Constitution, and made their interpretation of what it meant. They determined that the Constitution did not allow for secession, and as they relied on portions of the Constitution that hadn't changed since its inception, that it never allowed for secession. True, the USSC didn't get around to telling us this until 1869, but the USSC can only hear cases once an issue is comes to fruition, so in effect, there was no way they could have let us in on this very important revelation sooner.

Thus, when you say that the Constitution didn't prohibit secession from the time it was ratified up until secession was attempted, this is not actually true. According to the USSC, the Constitution never allowed for secession. The fact that they only let us in on this nugget in 1869 is irrelevant.

The question should be: Was it reasonable for SC to look at the Constitution and believe that it allowed for secession? Quite possibly. Another fine question would be: Did the USSC get it wrong?

If one wants to debate the USSC decision, that is fine. However, to the question of whether, technically, secession is unlawful; it is irrelevant, as that question has been answered.

I am just trying to clarify what the issues are.

I understand how the Supreme Court decision works. Even pulled it up to show that the decision is based on nothing, really. The argument I have been making is a Constitutional one, without the Suprerme Court ruling. In essence, "we" are the Supreme Court deciding the Constitutionality of secession. To turn around and toss out the Supreme Court decision as the end of the argument, IMO, is just not bothering to debate the issue itself. Rather, it's just trying to be right and win.

Again, the question is not irrelevant as there was no basis in law to support the Supreme Court decison. While this may be new and novel for some, the Supreme Court has ruled incorrectly on more than one occasion. Their word my be the unimpeachable be-all end-all in law, but it is not in an intellectual debate.

 

[ReillyT]

I understand how the Supreme Court decision works. Even pulled it up to show that the decision is based on nothing, really. The argument I have been making is a Constitutional one, without the Suprerme Court ruling. In essence, "we" are the Supreme Court deciding the Constitutionality of secession. To turn around and toss out the Supreme Court decision as the end of the argument, IMO, is just not bothering to debate the issue itself. Rather, it's just trying to be right and win.

Again, the question is not irrelevant as there was no basis in law to support the Supreme Court decison. While this may be new and novel for some, the Supreme Court has ruled incorrectly on more than one occasion. Their word my be the unimpeachable be-all end-all in law, but it is not in an intellectual debate.

I have no desire to win. I actually don't have an opinion on the merits of the USSC decision itself, or more accurately, I think there are good arguments on either side and I doubt that any clear answer is possible.

I am just trying to lay out what the actual argument is. When someone says "It was legal up until 1869," I just want to clarify that this is not the case. The correct question is the one you just referred to above: Was the USSC wrong?

 

[The_Hammer]

Wow this thread is still going on despite the numerous amounts of evidence against legal secession. I might have to start grabbing some lawyer friends and see how they might interpret it in addition to quoting the founding fathers on the issue.

 

[BrianH]

Wow this thread is still going on despite the numerous amounts of evidence against legal secession. I might have to start grabbing some lawyer friends and see how they might interpret it in addition to quoting the founding fathers on the issue.

The discussion is not about whether or not secession is illegal in accordance with the Supreme Court decision. The question is, if you were an neutral decision maker (which the SC was certainly not), and you were reading the U.S. Constitution. Naturally, you would be looking for direct law that stated that states were not allowed to secede. You wouldn't find it. Instead you would find Amendment 10 that states that all powers that are not prohibited in the Constitution, are reserved to the states respectively. It doesn't matter that the U.S. has the right to invade another country, or do what ever it is that they did, but according to the Constitution, the South did not act illegally by seceeding from the Union, or owning slaves for that matter.

 

[Rogue 9]

The discussion is not about whether or not secession is illegal in accordance with the Supreme Court decision. The question is, if you were an neutral decision maker (which the SC was certainly not), and you were reading the U.S. Constitution. Naturally, you would be looking for direct law that stated that states were not allowed to secede. You wouldn't find it. Instead you would find Amendment 10 that states that all powers that are not prohibited in the Constitution, are reserved to the states respectively. It doesn't matter that the U.S. has the right to invade another country, or do what ever it is that they did, but according to the Constitution, the South did not act illegally by seceeding from the Union, or owning slaves for that matter.

No, it didn't act illegally in owning slaves, though the slaveowners sure as hell acted immorally. However, the southern states did act unlawfully in seceding, because of Article 4, Section 3, Clause 2. Disregard that if you want; it won't change the fact that it's still there.

 

[BrianH]

No, it didn't act illegally in owning slaves, though the slaveowners sure as hell acted immorally. However, the southern states did act unlawfully in seceding, because of Article 4, Section 3, Clause 2. Disregard that if you want; it won't change the fact that it's still there.

That Article, Section, Clause, in no way, prohibits secession. That is referring to states that are still in the Union. Texas and Oklahoma cannot combine to form one state without the Consent of Congress. The South did not try to combine all states with one another. It wasn't Texassippicarolilouisitennegeorgiflarkanvirgabama.

The Constitution does not prohibit the right of secession anywhere. Once the states legally (according to the Constitution) seceeded, they were no long subject to the laws of the U.S. Constitution.

 

[Rogue 9]

Did you even read the section I named? It goes like this:

The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.

The clause that prohibits states from entering into treaties, alliances, and confederations without consent of Congress is 1.10.1. The one prohibiting the formation of new states by combining existing states is 4.3.1. 4.3.2 has nothing to do with that and everything to do with the authority of the United States over its territory.