Southern history and the truth

[ReillyT]

I think Reilly brings up a good distinction that I can use to more accurately convey my position. Arguing over "legality" of the invasion is in many ways missing the point. I argue that the Civil War WAS NOT merely putting down a rebellion. The Civil War was an invasion, conquering and annexation of a foreign, sovereign land. And the North's invasion was not borne out of a noble cause to free slaves, it was all about money and preserving the union.

I agree that the legalities are secondary. It was a political act. However, how do you distinguish between putting down a rebellion and conquering a foreign, sovereign land? That also is a political distinction. What is a rebellion to one party isn't perceived as just a rebellion to the other. Where is the line between the ETA in Spain and the Kosovars in Serbia? The only line that I can see is one of power differentials.

I agree that slaverly was not the main impetus of the Civl war.

 

[ReillyT]

As Reilly accurately pointed out, the real question of legality has to do with the secession itself. I say it was legal. What say you?

There is another discussion going on in the US Constitution thread on just this topic. Since legality has to be judged against some instrument defining relationships, and the Constitution is the only instrument available in this scenario, then it was not legal. The USSC decided this in 1869.

 

[Ravi]

I concede. In the case of invading a foreign, sovereign land, there usually does not exist any binding laws governing said action. I'm pretty sure Hitler didn't violate any German laws when he invaded Poland and France either (apologies for tangentially invoking Godwins law).

As Reilly accurately pointed out, the real question of legality has to do with the secession itself. I say it was legal. What say you?

I also think that was legal. You've really had a bad effect on my bleeding-heart liberalism.

 

[manifold]

I agree that the legalities are secondary. It was a political act. However, how do you distinguish between putting down a rebellion and conquering a foreign, sovereign land? That also is a political distinction. What is a rebellion to one party isn't perceived as just a rebellion to the other. Where is the line between the ETA in Spain and the Kosovars in Serbia? The only line that I can see is one of power differentials.

I agree that slaverly was not the main impetus of the Civl war.

I distinguish the two in this case by considering the basis upon which the union was originally founded, and the name itself. The United STATES of America. Each colony was an independent sovereign nation that agreed to join the union for the express purpose of having a unified voice for foreign policy and defense. However, I doubt any of the colonies would have joined if they were told that they were surrendering their sovereignty in the process. And if they were truly sovereign STATES (that's what the word meant back then), it is logical to conclude that membership in the union was discretionary and non-binding.

 

[manifold]

There is another discussion going on in the US Constitution thread on just this topic. Since legality has to be judged against some instrument defining relationships, and the Constitution is the only instrument available in this scenario, then it was not legal. The USSC decided this in 1869.

I'm sorry, but the SCOTUS justifying the decimation of the South 4 years after the fact is hardly what I consider solid evidence of anything.

 

[ReillyT]

I distinguish the two in this case by considering the basis upon which the union was originally founded, and the name itself. The United STATES of America. Each colony was an independent sovereign nation that agreed to join the union for the express purpose of having a unified voice for foreign policy and defense. However, I doubt any of the colonies would have joined if they were told that they were surrendering their sovereignty in the process. And if they were truly sovereign STATES (that's what the word meant back then), it is logical to conclude that membership in the union was discretionary and non-binding.

Everything that you say might be reasonable. However, things aren't lawful or unlawful in the abstract. They are only lawful by reference to some instrument (i.e., the Constitution, statutes, etc.). If we are going to use the Constitution as the instrument (which is really the only thing we have), then Art. III leaves it to the USSC to determine what the law is and what the law means. Once the USSC decides an issue (rightly or wrongly in your or my opinion), it is the law. The USSC decided this issue, and that decision is the law.

 

[ReillyT]

I'm sorry, but the SCOTUS justifying the decimation of the South 4 years after the fact is hardly what I consider solid evidence of anything.

It isn't evidence. If you want to argue about whether you think the Constitution should provide for a right to secession, as written, that can be argued by ignoring the USSC. However, if you want to talk about what the law is, as opposed to what the law should be, there is a final word, and that is the USSC.

 

[manifold]

Everything that you say might be reasonable. However, things aren't lawful or unlawful in the abstract. They are only lawful by reference to some instrument (i.e., the Constitution, statutes, etc.). If we are going to use the Constitution as the instrument (which is really the only thing we have), then Art. III leaves it to the USSC to determine what the law is and what the law means. Once the USSC decides an issue (rightly or wrongly in your or my opinion), it is the law. The USSC decided this issue, and that decision is the law.

Yes, secession has been officially unlawful since 1869. But I still maintain that it was lawful in 1861. Again, consider the issue of State sovereignty. Do you really believe any of the southern colonies would have ratified the Constitution if they understood it to be a surrender of their sovereignty?

 

[The_Hammer]

First I'm cutting out all that stuff that's not related to the topic

As far as slaves go, slave owners were in the minority in the South; large slave owners being the extreme minority.

Yet they held a large amount of the power because they were richer. You and I both know that just because you are a physical minority, doesn't mean that your are a power minority.

I hate to break it to you Hammer, but you're misguided by our Constitution.

I'm going to assume you mean misinterpreting.

Like I said, find where the COnstitution states that secession is illegal...and we can end this debate. I'm glad the North won and that slavery is illegal. But from a historical POV, the South seceded legally. Amendment 10.....Amendment 10....it's in the Bill of "RIGHTS"

The constitution (I'm not reposting where. It's further up) says that

1) The Constitution is the Supreme law of the land. On this we agree.
1a) The physical representative of the Constitution is the Federal Government, the United States of America, as a result of the supremacy of the constitution is therefore supreme over the states. This is not, for whatever reason, being realized.

2) The states have to ask the federal government permission to act on most things reserved for sovereign nations. When you have to ask someone permission for something, that means they have authority over you ergo, they are your superior. When these things are most of the freedoms reserved for a sovereign nation, then you are subject to what has authority over you.

3) The constitution demands loyalty to it and subsequently the US government. The oath made by all public officials to the constitution is a contract. The constitution barrs states from ending contracts. If a contract doesn't have a specific term of ending, then you assume it continues until both parties decide to end it. In the case of a State joining the union or any state officials gaining office this occurs when the federal government decides to end the contract since it's superior to both in both cases (which is why the southern states would have had to approach congress to secede). Removing onceself from the contract violates the supremacy of the federal government and is an attempt to subvert it's authority. Thus the federal government has the right, when it's authority is threatened, to assert it, with force if necessary.

 

[manifold]

It isn't evidence. If you want to argue about whether you think the Constitution should provide for a right to secession, as written, that can be argued by ignoring the USSC. However, if you want to talk about what the law is, as opposed to what the law should be, there is a final word, and that is the USSC.

Come on, let's be honest here. Secession was made unlawful, specifically to prevent it from happening again.

And again, I'm not talking about what the law "should be." I'm talking about what it was prior to secession. Personally, I think the whole concept of a united nations (allusion intended), albeit noble, was fatally flawed from the start. It necessarly had to end with either a break up of the union, or an effectively all powerful central government. And we all see how that worked out. If the war itself didn't finally put an end to the concept of state sovereignty, the 1869 USSC decision certainly did.

 

[ReillyT]

Yes, secession has been officially unlawful since 1869. But I still maintain that it was lawful in 1861.

That isn't how the law works. Issues are only decided after they come to fruition. The Court is not allowed to make advisory opinions. When Brown challenged segregation, he was making the argument that segregation was unlawful. The Court's decision was that Brown's rights had been violated at the time he was forced to take his child across town to go to a segregated school. His rights didn't just become violated when the court handed down the opinion - the opinion meant his rights had always been in violation (which is why damages can still be awarded in cases where the Court defines what the law is for the first time). Of course, had the decision come down the other way, his rights would never have been violated. It is a bit of a philosophical quandary, but there you have it.

The Southern States may reasonably have assumed that their actions were legal, but in this case, they were wrong.

Again, consider the issue of State sovereignty. Do you really believe any of the southern colonies would have ratified the Constitution if they understood it to be a surrender of their sovereignty?

I have no idea, but I am sure that they recognized that they were granting a central government some of their sovereignty.

 

[ReillyT]

Come on, let's be honest here. Secession was made unlawful, specifically to prevent it from happening again.

And again, I'm not talking about what the law "should be." I'm talking about what it was prior to secession. Personally, I think the whole concept of a united nations (allusion intended), albeit noble, was fatally flawed from the start. It necessarly had to end with either a break up of the union, or an effectively all powerful central government. And we all see how that worked out. If the war itself didn't finally put an end to the concept of state sovereignty, the 1869 USSC decision certainly did.

It doesn't matter why the USSC made the decision they did. The only question is what the decision was. I realize that I am falling back on the "because they said so" defense, but that is really how our system is designed.

 

[manifold]

I have no idea, but I am sure that they recognized that they were granting a central government some of their sovereignty.

I think we'll have to agree to disagree on that one. I'd bet everything I own that they wholeheartly believed they were retaining their sovereignty.

 

[manifold]

It doesn't matter why the USSC made the decision they did. The only question is what the decision was. I realize that I am falling back on the "because they said so" defense, but that is really how our system is designed.

I understand your point, but I'm still calling shenanigans on this particular decision. Considering what had just transpired, do you really believe this decision wasn't a foregone conclusion? I doubt it.

 

[ReillyT]

I think we'll have to agree to disagree on that one. I'd bet everything I own that they wholeheartly believed they were retaining their sovereignty.

You may very well be right, although if it was that much of a concern, one would think that they would have put that in writing. Of course, maybe it was taken for granted. I just don't know.

 

[BrianH]

First I'm cutting out all that stuff that's not related to the topic



Yet they held a large amount of the power because they were richer. You and I both know that just because you are a physical minority, doesn't mean that your are a power minority.



I'm going to assume you mean misinterpreting.



The constitution (I'm not reposting where. It's further up) says that

1) The Constitution is the Supreme law of the land. On this we agree.
1a) The physical representative of the Constitution is the Federal Government, the United States of America, as a result of the supremacy of the constitution is therefore supreme over the states. This is not, for whatever reason, being realized.

2) The states have to ask the federal government permission to act on most things reserved for sovereign nations. When you have to ask someone permission for something, that means they have authority over you ergo, they are your superior. When these things are most of the freedoms reserved for a sovereign nation, then you are subject to what has authority over you.

3) The constitution demands loyalty to it and subsequently the US government. The oath made by all public officials to the constitution is a contract. The constitution barrs states from ending contracts. If a contract doesn't have a specific term of ending, then you assume it continues until both parties decide to end it. In the case of a State joining the union or any state officials gaining office this occurs when the federal government decides to end the contract since it's superior to both in both cases (which is why the southern states would have had to approach congress to secede). Removing onceself from the contract violates the supremacy of the federal government and is an attempt to subvert it's authority. Thus the federal government has the right, when it's authority is threatened, to assert it, with force if necessary.

Hammer, no one is debating the U.S. right or ability to do what they did. That's not what this is about.

THe Federal Gov. is upheld by the Constitution and acts upon the COnstitutions laws. The fact that there is no law regarding the states right to secede, means that it's granted as a state's right. This is reiterated in the BILL of RIGHTS--Amendment 10. It's not about debating the U.S. supremacy. We all know that the U.S. was supreme over the South, otherwise, the South would have gotten it's way.

The Constitution does not even mention the U.S. "right" to keep a state from seceding. It mentions oaths, but you're interpreting different parts of the Constitution as if it were the Bible. Some people look too deep into it and draw more from it when it's actually quite literal and clear-cut.

The Constitution stated no law regarding the prohibition of secession by the states. And because it was not prohibited by the Constitution, the states reserve that right "respectfully."

Hindsight is twenty twenty, but when regarding the historical context of things, you simply cannot use hind-sight. You have to go back and see what was in the minds of the people were. Not all of the South were bad people. And believe it or not, not all southern slave holders treated their slaves poorly. But treated them with respect and treated them unlike the picture painted in Roots or American History (This does not justify the owning of slaves though).

The Constitution was clear cut then, if the Constitution did not forbid, and the power was not exercised by teh Fed. Government, then the states reserved that right. The power to stop secession was not among the powers of the federal gov. (Not stated directly anyway)

 

[ReillyT]

I understand your point, but I'm still calling shenanigans on this particular decision. Considering what had just transpired, do you really believe this decision wasn't a foregone conclusion? I doubt it.

No, I think it was clearly a foregone conclusion. Then again, Brown only happened when it did because the politics of the situation made it feasible. It would never have happened before WWII, regardless of the fact that the wording of the Constitution hadn't changed. The USSC is also a political instrument, just less political than the other branches.

 

[ReillyT]

THe Federal Gov. is upheld by the Constitution and acts upon the COnstitutions laws. The fact that there is no law regarding the states right to secede, means that it's granted as a state's right. This is reiterated in the BILL of RIGHTS--Amendment 10.

That is a perfectly reasonable interpretation, but Art. III gives the USSC the right to decide whether it is the correct interpretation. That is the part of the Constitution that matters here.

 

[BrianH]

That is a perfectly reasonable interpretation, but Art. III gives the USSC the right to decide whether it is the correct interpretation. That is the part of the Constitution that matters here.

I agree with that. I know that the USSC is the decider of how the Const. is interpreted. But that doesn't mean that they've interpreted it correctly. As what happened in the Plessy v. Ferguson decision. I guess my point is that there is nothing wrong with questioning their decisions. Where my opinons really don't matter when it comes to the law...decided by the USSC, I am entitled to question their actions, and in this case, I think their decision was a politically driven decision that did not correctly cite the Constitution.

 

[Ravi]

Reilly, you've made some good points. If what you say is true, wouldn't that mean that flying the rebel flag is an act of treason even now?