The Civil War (Constitutional Issues)

[DGS49]

(1) Did the "states in rebellion" have a constitutional right to leave the Union? Why or why not? They came in voluntarily, right?

(2) What is a "proclamation" (e.g., the "Emancipation Proclamation")? Does it have the force of law within the United States? Where, in Article II does the President get this power? Why did President Lincoln not free the slaves in the Border States? Was the emancipation legal anywhere? Why was the thirteenth amendment necessary?

(3) On what legal basis did the U.S. government "take" the property of slaveholders? Were the slaveholders entitled to compensation for these freed chattel/assets (under the Fifth Amendment)? Is this what is meant when we hear of "reparations" for slavery?

 

[regent]

Did the CSofA have a clause in their Constitution about a confederate state, if upset with the government, leaving the Confederacy in peace? If not, why not?

 

[Skylar]

Did the CSofA have a clause in their Constitution about a confederate state, if upset with the government, leaving the Confederacy in peace? If not, why not?

I look at it this way. If there is no right to seccede, then the civil war was a rebellion. And the Union had the authority to put it down.

If there is a right to secede, then the Confederate States attack on federal holdings were an act of war. And the Union had the authority to conquer the Confederate States and annex their territory.

 

[Skylar]

(3) On what legal basis did the U.S. government "take" the property of slaveholders? Were the slaveholders entitled to compensation for these freed chattel/assets (under the Fifth Amendment)? Is this what is meant when we hear of "reparations" for slavery?

I think they're a fair argument that the Federal Government didn't 'take' anything. As its not as if the Federal Government assumed ownership of the slaves. The slaves ceased to be property, and were held by no one.

'Taking' requires possession. And the govenment never possessed the slaves. Slaves simply ceased to exist.

 

[JakeStarkey]

A 'trial by arms' resulted from the bombardment on Ft Sumter. The USA won that trial. Nothing else matters.

 

[EatMorChikin]

(1) Did the "states in rebellion" have a constitutional right to leave the Union? Why or why not? They came in voluntarily, right?

(2) What is a "proclamation" (e.g., the "Emancipation Proclamation")? Does it have the force of law within the United States? Where, in Article II does the President get this power? Why did President Lincoln not free the slaves in the Border States? Was the emancipation legal anywhere? Why was the thirteenth amendment necessary?

(3) On what legal basis did the U.S. government "take" the property of slaveholders? Were the slaveholders entitled to compensation for these freed chattel/assets (under the Fifth Amendment)? Is this what is meant when we hear of "reparations" for slavery?

1. Depends on the interpretation to a degree. There have been dissenting opinions from various supreme court judges.

2. Slaves were never freed. All men were proclaimed to be treated equal. Therefore all men are slaves.

3. I don't have any type of opinion.

 

[Moonglow]

Lincoln did offer to buy slaves from the south, even sold bonds to gather resources, but the south had another plan...

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Did the CSofA have a clause in their Constitution about a confederate state, if upset with the government, leaving the Confederacy in peace? If not, why not?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Lincoln did offer to buy slaves from the south, even sold bonds to gather resources, but the south had another plan...

yeah, with other people's money. damn that rail splitter!

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Did the CSofA have a clause in their Constitution about a confederate state, if upset with the government, leaving the Confederacy in peace? If not, why not?

I look at it this way. If there is no right to seccede, then the civil war was a rebellion. And the Union had the authority to put it down.

If there is a right to secede, then the Confederate States attack on federal holdings were an act of war. And the Union had the authority to conquer the Confederate States and annex their territory.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

(1) Did the "states in rebellion" have a constitutional right to leave the Union? Why or why not? They came in voluntarily, right?

(2) What is a "proclamation" (e.g., the "Emancipation Proclamation")? Does it have the force of law within the United States? Where, in Article II does the President get this power? Why did President Lincoln not free the slaves in the Border States? Was the emancipation legal anywhere? Why was the thirteenth amendment necessary?

(3) On what legal basis did the U.S. government "take" the property of slaveholders? Were the slaveholders entitled to compensation for these freed chattel/assets (under the Fifth Amendment)? Is this what is meant when we hear of "reparations" for slavery?

1. Depends on the interpretation to a degree. There have been dissenting opinions from various supreme court judges.

2. Slaves were never freed. All men were proclaimed to be treated equal. Therefore all men are slaves.

3. I don't have any type of opinion.

1) name the justices and the cases

2) Did Lincoln Really Free the Slaves - The Root

3) really? hmm...

 

[Liminal]

(1) Did the "states in rebellion" have a constitutional right to leave the Union? Why or why not? They came in voluntarily, right?

(2) What is a "proclamation" (e.g., the "Emancipation Proclamation")? Does it have the force of law within the United States? Where, in Article II does the President get this power? Why did President Lincoln not free the slaves in the Border States? Was the emancipation legal anywhere? Why was the thirteenth amendment necessary?

(3) On what legal basis did the U.S. government "take" the property of slaveholders? Were the slaveholders entitled to compensation for these freed chattel/assets (under the Fifth Amendment)? Is this what is meant when we hear of "reparations" for slavery?

The United States of America wasn't formed as a social club. Dismembering the nation would require some kind of constitutionally based legal framework.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

(1) Did the "states in rebellion" have a constitutional right to leave the Union? Why or why not? They came in voluntarily, right?

(2) What is a "proclamation" (e.g., the "Emancipation Proclamation")? Does it have the force of law within the United States? Where, in Article II does the President get this power? Why did President Lincoln not free the slaves in the Border States? Was the emancipation legal anywhere? Why was the thirteenth amendment necessary?

(3) On what legal basis did the U.S. government "take" the property of slaveholders? Were the slaveholders entitled to compensation for these freed chattel/assets (under the Fifth Amendment)? Is this what is meant when we hear of "reparations" for slavery?

The United States of America wasn't formed as a social club. Dismembering the nation would require some kind of constitutionally based legal framework.

The Confederacy didn't claim what you say, straw man. They insisted they had a constitutionally based legal framework, not some kind of one. They were ultimately proved wrong

 

[RKMBrown]

Did the CSofA have a clause in their Constitution about a confederate state, if upset with the government, leaving the Confederacy in peace? If not, why not?

I look at it this way. If there is no right to seccede, then the civil war was a rebellion. And the Union had the authority to put it down.

If there is a right to secede, then the Confederate States attack on federal holdings were an act of war. And the Union had the authority to conquer the Confederate States and annex their territory.

wow

 

[Liminal]

(1) Did the "states in rebellion" have a constitutional right to leave the Union? Why or why not? They came in voluntarily, right?

(2) What is a "proclamation" (e.g., the "Emancipation Proclamation")? Does it have the force of law within the United States? Where, in Article II does the President get this power? Why did President Lincoln not free the slaves in the Border States? Was the emancipation legal anywhere? Why was the thirteenth amendment necessary?

(3) On what legal basis did the U.S. government "take" the property of slaveholders? Were the slaveholders entitled to compensation for these freed chattel/assets (under the Fifth Amendment)? Is this what is meant when we hear of "reparations" for slavery?

The United States of America wasn't formed as a social club. Dismembering the nation would require some kind of constitutionally based legal framework.

The Confederacy didn't claim what you say, straw man. They insisted they had a constitutionally based legal framework, not some kind of one. They were ultimately proved wrong

Sounds almost like a near distinction without a difference.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

(1) Did the "states in rebellion" have a constitutional right to leave the Union? Why or why not? They came in voluntarily, right?

(2) What is a "proclamation" (e.g., the "Emancipation Proclamation")? Does it have the force of law within the United States? Where, in Article II does the President get this power? Why did President Lincoln not free the slaves in the Border States? Was the emancipation legal anywhere? Why was the thirteenth amendment necessary?

(3) On what legal basis did the U.S. government "take" the property of slaveholders? Were the slaveholders entitled to compensation for these freed chattel/assets (under the Fifth Amendment)? Is this what is meant when we hear of "reparations" for slavery?

The United States of America wasn't formed as a social club. Dismembering the nation would require some kind of constitutionally based legal framework.

The Confederacy didn't claim what you say, straw man. They insisted they had a constitutionally based legal framework, not some kind of one. They were ultimately proved wrong

Sounds almost like a near distinction without a difference.

may sound the way to the hearing impaired amongst us, but in reality it says loudly and clearly "Distinction with a difference"

 

[Liminal]

(1) Did the "states in rebellion" have a constitutional right to leave the Union? Why or why not? They came in voluntarily, right?

(2) What is a "proclamation" (e.g., the "Emancipation Proclamation")? Does it have the force of law within the United States? Where, in Article II does the President get this power? Why did President Lincoln not free the slaves in the Border States? Was the emancipation legal anywhere? Why was the thirteenth amendment necessary?

(3) On what legal basis did the U.S. government "take" the property of slaveholders? Were the slaveholders entitled to compensation for these freed chattel/assets (under the Fifth Amendment)? Is this what is meant when we hear of "reparations" for slavery?

The United States of America wasn't formed as a social club. Dismembering the nation would require some kind of constitutionally based legal framework.

The Confederacy didn't claim what you say, straw man. They insisted they had a constitutionally based legal framework, not some kind of one. They were ultimately proved wrong

Sounds almost like a near distinction without a difference.

may sound the way to the hearing impaired amongst us, but in reality it says loudly and clearly "Distinction with a difference"

I still can't hear you. Maybe if you yell a little louder.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

(1) Did the "states in rebellion" have a constitutional right to leave the Union? Why or why not? They came in voluntarily, right?

(2) What is a "proclamation" (e.g., the "Emancipation Proclamation")? Does it have the force of law within the United States? Where, in Article II does the President get this power? Why did President Lincoln not free the slaves in the Border States? Was the emancipation legal anywhere? Why was the thirteenth amendment necessary?

(3) On what legal basis did the U.S. government "take" the property of slaveholders? Were the slaveholders entitled to compensation for these freed chattel/assets (under the Fifth Amendment)? Is this what is meant when we hear of "reparations" for slavery?

The United States of America wasn't formed as a social club. Dismembering the nation would require some kind of constitutionally based legal framework.

The Confederacy didn't claim what you say, straw man. They insisted they had a constitutionally based legal framework, not some kind of one. They were ultimately proved wrong

Sounds almost like a near distinction without a difference.

may sound the way to the hearing impaired amongst us, but in reality it says loudly and clearly "Distinction with a difference"

I still can't hear you. Maybe if you yell a little louder.

that's what the Flame Zone is for, but you have yet to earn your stripe

 

[RetiredGySgt]

This is Moot. In 1869 the Supreme Court answered this question and ruled that the ONLY way a State may leave the Union is by act of Congress.

 

[hortysir]

(1) Did the "states in rebellion" have a constitutional right to leave the Union? Why or why not? They came in voluntarily, right?

(2) What is a "proclamation" (e.g., the "Emancipation Proclamation")? Does it have the force of law within the United States? Where, in Article II does the President get this power? Why did President Lincoln not free the slaves in the Border States? Was the emancipation legal anywhere? Why was the thirteenth amendment necessary?

(3) On what legal basis did the U.S. government "take" the property of slaveholders? Were the slaveholders entitled to compensation for these freed chattel/assets (under the Fifth Amendment)? Is this what is meant when we hear of "reparations" for slavery?

The United States of America wasn't formed as a social club. Dismembering the nation would require some kind of constitutionally based legal framework.

Actually the way it WASNT formed was contrary to the notion the state's had to answer to a federal government