Southern history and the truth

[ReillyT]

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.

If you are just questioning whether the decision was the right one, then by all means continue. I may have misunderstood your focus. As for the decision itself, one would have to look back at what the founders intended and hope there is something there. Otherwise, I think you make very strong arguments.

 

[ReillyT]

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?

Secession may be unlawful based upon a reading of the Constitution, but treason is defined by statute. One would have to look at the statute books and court decisions interpreting those statues to determine whether flying a rebel flag is treasonous. Obviously, it isn't for 1st Amendment reasons.

Even with respect to secession, it is unlawful, and so null and void. It is not criminal. All acts against the union which follow from secession may be criminal acts.

 

[BrianH]

If you are just questioning whether the decision was the right one, then by all means continue. I may have misunderstood your focus. As for the decision itself, one would have to look back at what the founders intended and hope there is something there. Otherwise, I think you make very strong arguments.

well thanks.

My main argument may have lost focus...but it was not about the Supreme Court and it's legitimacy, but about the actual legality of the South's secession as of 1861. Alot of people cite the Supreme Court's decision in 1869, but how could the South have known about a SC decision that did not yet exist?

If one were to look at the Constitution in 1861, one could honestly read it and see that there was no prohibition to the states seceding. The Constitution never mentions it.

And in the 10th Amendment of the Bill of Rights, it states that powers not delegated to the federal government, and not prohibited to the states, are hereby reserved to the states respectively. This means that if the Constitution does not prohibit it, the decision and power rests with the state.

This is my debacle. LOL. I do recognize the power of the Supreme Court and that it's decisions are the law of the land in regarding the U.S.A. But at the time, the Constitution alone, (without a SC decision) would have reiterated that it was perfectly legal.

 

[ReillyT]

well thanks.

My main argument may have lost focus...but it was not about the Supreme Court and it's legitimacy, but about the actual legality of the South's secession as of 1861. Alot of people cite the Supreme Court's decision in 1869, but how could the South have known about a SC decision that did not yet exist?

If one were to look at the Constitution in 1861, one could honestly read it and see that there was no prohibition to the states seceding. The Constitution never mentions it.

And in the 10th Amendment of the Bill of Rights, it states that powers not delegated to the federal government, and not prohibited to the states, are hereby reserved to the states respectively. This means that if the Constitution does not prohibit it, the decision and power rests with the state.

This is my debacle. LOL. I do recognize the power of the Supreme Court and that it's decisions are the law of the land in regarding the U.S.A. But at the time, the Constitution alone, (without a SC decision) would have reiterated that it was perfectly legal.

A lack of decision from the USSC may have made it appear to be legal, even if the USSC determined later that it was not. However, the USSC is not empowered to decide issues that haven't come to fruition, so there was no way that the USSC could have made a decision on secession until secession occurred.

Also, with respect to the 10th Amendment, its purpose as I understand it was to limit the rights of the Federal government to those listed in the Constitution. It was not written to empower the states to additional rights that they didn't have by virtue of being a member of the union. So, the question becomes, 10th Amendment aside, does the Constitution empower states with the ability to seceed?

 

[Ravi]

Secession may be unlawful based upon a reading of the Constitution, but treason is defined by statute. One would have to look at the statute books and court decisions interpreting those statues to determine whether flying a rebel flag is treasonous. Obviously, it isn't for 1st Amendment reasons.

Even with respect to secession, it is unlawful, and so null and void. It is not criminal. All acts against the union which follow from secession may be criminal acts.

Thanks.

 

[BrianH]

A lack of decision from the USSC may have made it appear to be legal, even if the USSC determined later that it was not. However, the USSC is not empowered to decide issues that haven't come to fruition, so there was no way that the USSC could have made a decision on secession until secession occurred.

Also, with respect to the 10th Amendment, its purpose as I understand it was to limit the rights of the Federal government to those listed in the Constitution. It was not written to empower the states to additional rights that they didn't have by virtue of being a member of the union. So, the question becomes, 10th Amendment aside, does the Constitution empower states with the ability to seceed?

But you can't put aside the 10th Amendment, it's grouped in the Bill of Rights, considered to be 10 of the most important Amendments. Amendments that other Amendments have been derived from. Women voting, Civil Rights, etc...all come from the teachings of the first 10 Amendments.

 

[ReillyT]

well thanks.

My main argument may have lost focus...but it was not about the Supreme Court and it's legitimacy, but about the actual legality of the South's secession as of 1861. Alot of people cite the Supreme Court's decision in 1869, but how could the South have known about a SC decision that did not yet exist?

If one were to look at the Constitution in 1861, one could honestly read it and see that there was no prohibition to the states seceding. The Constitution never mentions it.

And in the 10th Amendment of the Bill of Rights, it states that powers not delegated to the federal government, and not prohibited to the states, are hereby reserved to the states respectively. This means that if the Constitution does not prohibit it, the decision and power rests with the state.

This is my debacle. LOL. I do recognize the power of the Supreme Court and that it's decisions are the law of the land in regarding the U.S.A. But at the time, the Constitution alone, (without a SC decision) would have reiterated that it was perfectly legal.

Article IV of the Constitution concerns the states. Section 3 says:

Section 3. New states may be admitted by the Congress into this union; but no new states shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of any other state; nor any state be formed by the junction of two or more states, or parts of states, without the consent of the legislatures of the states concerned as well as of the Congress.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.articleiv.html

This gives the federal government the authority to decide when new states can be admitted and restricts states from combining without federal approval. If the federal government has authority to decide whether two states who are willing to join are allowed to do so, it would suggest that secession cannot be undertaken unilaterally without the approval of the federal government. At least, that could be one interpretation.

 

[ReillyT]

But you can't put aside the 10th Amendment, it's grouped in the Bill of Rights, considered to be 10 of the most important Amendments. Amendments that other Amendments have been derived from. Women voting, Civil Rights, etc...all come from the teachings of the first 10 Amendments.

The Tenth Amendment has to be read as to its purpose, which was to restrict the expansion of federal rights.

Assume that at the formation of the Union, there was a bundle of rights that had to be allotted between the federal government and the states. The 10th Amendment restricts the federal government to those rights elaborated in the Constitution. The question remains: what was in the bundle of rights to begin with?

 

[manifold]

...the southern states got duped by a bait and switch tactic and were sold a bill of goods.


Well...nobody ever accused them of being too bright!

 

[ReillyT]

...the southern states got duped by a bait and switch tactic and were sold a bill of goods.


Well...nobody ever accused them of being too bright!

Elitist!

 

[Ravi]

Elitist!

Well, you must admit they are certainly still bitter.

 

[manifold]

Elitist!

At least I'm not a traitorous cur!

 

[Rogue 9]

I disagree with your conclusion concerning the legality of the secession. I understand and acknowledge that the matter was not specifically addressed by the Founding Fathers, which opens the door to the conflicting opinions we see voiced on the matter still today.

Incorrect. It was addressed by the Founding Fathers; after all, many were still alive during the Nullification Crisis when South Carolina first threatened secession. Here's what they had to say, starting with James Madison. From this letter to William Rives: constitution.org/jm/18330312_rives.htm

The milliners it appears, endeavor to shelter themselves under a distinction between a delegation and a surrender of powers. But if the powers be attributes of sovereignty & nationality & the grant of them be perpetual, as is necessarily implied, where not otherwise expressed, sovereignty & nationality according to the extent of the grant are effectually transferred by it, and a dispute about the name, is but a battle of words. The practical result is not indeed left to argument or inference. The words of the Constitution are explicit that the Constitution & laws of the U. S. shall be supreme over the Constitution & laws of the several States, supreme in their exposition and execution as well as in their authority. Without a supremacy in those respects it would be like a scabbard in the hand of a soldier without a sword in it. The imagination itself is startled at the idea of twenty four independent expounders of a rule that cannot exist, but in a meaning and operation, the same for all.

The conduct of S. Carolina has called forth not only the question of nullification, but the more formidable one of secession. It is asked whether a State by resuming the sovereign form in which it entered the Union, may not of right withdraw from it at will. As this is a simple question whether a State, more than an individual, has a right to violate its engagements, it would seem that it might be safely left to answer itself. But the countenance given to the claim shows that it cannot be so lightly dismissed. The natural feelings which laudably attach the people composing a State, to its authority and importance, are at present too much excited by the unnatural feelings, with which they have been inspired agst their brethren of other States, not to expose them, to the danger of being misled into erroneous views of the nature of the Union and the interest they have in it. One thing at least seems to be too clear to be questioned, that whilst a State remains within the Union it cannot withdraw its citizens from the operation of the Constitution & laws of the Union. In the event of an actual secession without the Consent of the Co States, the course to be pursued by these involves questions painful in the discussion of them.

Madison actually considered the idea of secession so preposterous that until it actually came up when South Carolina first threatened it he felt there was no need to even mention it, and was astonished that he should have to. He also references the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution as proof positive that the states had no such ability, something that modern neo-Confederates tend to deny. Given that he wrote the thing, I should think I trust Madison's interpretation of it.

Now how about George Washington? From his Circular to the States:

There are four things, which I humbly conceive, are essential to the well being, I may even venture to say, to the existence of the United States as an Independent Power:

1st. An indissoluble Union of the States under one Federal Head.

2dly. A Sacred regard to Public Justice.

3dly. The adoption of a proper Peace Establishment, and

4thly. The prevalence of that pacific and friendly Disposition, among the People of the United States, which will induce them to forget their local prejudices and policies, to make those mutual concessions which are requisite to the general prosperity, and in some instances, to sacrifice their individual advantages to the interest of the Community.

<snip>

Under the first head, altho' it may not be necessary or proper for me in this place to enter into a particular disquisition of the principles of the Union, and to take up the great question which has been frequently agitated, whether it be expedient and requisite for the States to delegate a larger proportion of Power to Congress, or not, Yet it will be a part of my duty, and that of every true Patriot, to assert without reserve, and to insist upon the following positions, That unless the States will suffer Congress to exercise those prerogatives, they are undoubtedly invested with by the Constitution, every thing must very rapidly tend to Anarchy and confusion, That it is indispensable to the happiness of the individual States, that there should be lodged somewhere, a Supreme Power to regulate and govern the general concerns of the Confederated Republic, without which the Union cannot be of long duration. That there must be a faithful and pointed compliance on the part of every State, with the late proposals and demands of Congress, or the most fatal consequences will ensue, That whatever measures have a tendency to dissolve the Union, or contribute to violate or lessen the Sovereign Authority, ought to be considered as hostile to the Liberty and Independency of America, and the Authors of them treated accordingly, and lastly, that unless we can be enabled by the concurrence of the States, to participate of the fruits of the Revolution, and enjoy the essential benefits of Civil Society, under a form of Government so free and uncorrupted, so happily guarded against the danger of oppression, as has been devised and adopted by the Articles of Confederation, it will be a subject of regret, that so much blood and treasure have been lavished for no purpose, that so many sufferings have been encountered without a compensation, and that so many sacrifices have been made in vain.

Ouch. That one's got to sting.

Now how about Thomas Jefferson?

I can scarcely contemplate a more incalculable evil than the breaking of the union into two or more parts.

And in another letter, this one addressed to a third party and talking about a discussion Jefferson had had with Washington that day:

That with respect to the existing causes of uneasiness, he thought there were suspicions against a particular party, which had been carried a great deal too far; there might be desires, but he did not believe there were designs to change the form of government into a monarchy; that there might be a few who wished it in the higher walks of life, particularly in the great cities, but that the main body of the people in the eastern States were as steadily for republicanism as in the southern. That the pieces lately published, and particularly in Freneau's paper, seemed to have in view the exciting opposition to the government. That this had taken place in Pennsylvania as to the Excise law, according to information he had received from General Hand. That they tended to produce a separation of the Union, the most dreadful of all calamities, and that whatever tended to produce anarchy, tended, of course, to produce a resort to monarchical government.

 

[AllieBaba]

Well, you must admit they are certainly still bitter.

Do you know that, or do you just get your info from Obama?

 

[Ravi]

Do you know that, or do you just get your info from Obama?

It was a joke, dear. Chill.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Article IV of the Constitution concerns the states. Section 3 says:
This gives the federal government the authority to decide when new states can be admitted and restricts states from combining without federal approval. If the federal government has authority to decide whether two states who are willing to join are allowed to do so, it would suggest that secession cannot be undertaken unilaterally without the approval of the federal government.

It would "suggest" that to someone looking for a way to argue that the Constitition prohibits secession. However, the text doesnt actually say what you argue it "suggests".

 

[ReillyT]

It would "suggest" that to someone looking for a way to argue that the Constitition prohibits secession. However, the text doesnt actually say what you argue it "suggests".

That's why I didn't use the word "says."

 

[M14 Shooter]

That's why I didn't use the word "says."

Well...
Unless it is prohibited to the states -- that is, the Constitution -says- so -- a right is retained by the states.

Your argument would also apply to the idea that the states could not amend the Constititoin in such a way that it voids and nullifies the Constititon.
Would you argue that the states do not have -that- right?

 

[Rogue 9]

Fair enough, but it was not just the South. There were UNion territories that permitted slavery also: Missouri, Kentucky, Maryland, West Virginia, Oklahoma, New Mexico, and Arizona.

Your right, they're intention was to keep slavery legal. But slavery was an underlying issue. The South didn't say, "We want to keep our slaves, so we're going to revolt so we can keep beatin the slaves!"

Actually, that's exactly what they said.

A Declaration of the Immediate Causes which Induce and Justify the Secession of the State of Mississippi from the Federal Union.

In the momentous step which our State has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part, it is but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course.

Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin.

That we do not overstate the dangers to our institution, a reference to a few facts will sufficiently prove.

The hostility to this institution commenced before the adoption of the Constitution, and was manifested in the well-known Ordinance of 1787, in regard to the Northwestern Territory.

The feeling increased, until, in 1819-20, it deprived the South of more than half the vast territory acquired from France.

The same hostility dismembered Texas and seized upon all the territory acquired from Mexico.

It has grown until it denies the right of property in slaves, and refuses protection to that right on the high seas, in the Territories, and wherever the government of the United States had jurisdiction.

It refuses the admission of new slave States into the Union, and seeks to extinguish it by confining it within its present limits, denying the power of expansion.

It tramples the original equality of the South under foot.

It has nullified the Fugitive Slave Law in almost every free State in the Union, and has utterly broken the compact which our fathers pledged their faith to maintain.

It advocates negro equality, socially and politically, and promotes insurrection and incendiarism in our midst.

It has enlisted its press, its pulpit and its schools against us, until the whole popular mind of the North is excited and inflamed with prejudice.

It has made combinations and formed associations to carry out its schemes of emancipation in the States and wherever else slavery exists.

It seeks not to elevate or to support the slave, but to destroy his present condition without providing a better.

It has invaded a State, and invested with the honors of martyrdom the wretch whose purpose was to apply flames to our dwellings, and the weapons of destruction to our lives.

It has broken every compact into which it has entered for our security.

It has given indubitable evidence of its design to ruin our agriculture, to prostrate our industrial pursuits and to destroy our social system.

It knows no relenting or hesitation in its purposes; it stops not in its march of aggression, and leaves us no room to hope for cessation or for pause.

It has recently obtained control of the Government, by the prosecution of its unhallowed schemes, and destroyed the last expectation of living together in friendship and brotherhood.

Utter subjugation awaits us in the Union, if we should consent longer to remain in it. It is not a matter of choice, but of necessity. We must either submit to degradation, and to the loss of property worth four billions of money, or we must secede from the Union framed by our fathers, to secure this as well as every other species of property. For far less cause than this, our fathers separated from the Crown of England.

Our decision is made. We follow their footsteps. We embrace the alternative of separation; and for the reasons here stated, we resolve to maintain our rights with the full consciousness of the justice of our course, and the undoubting belief of our ability to maintain it.

In short: Oh no, the feds are going to take our slaves!!1! The secession was motivated by slavery, first, last, and only.

 

[Rogue 9]

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

Incorrect. The court decided the way it did in Texas v. White because White's argument was that the current government of Texas was illegitimate due to it's rebellion and that it's laws had no hold over him. If the court had ruled in White's favor, it would have agreed that the governments of the former Confederate states were illegitimate. They would have reverted to territories, requiring the drafting of entirely new state constitutions and total reorganization of the state government, had the decision gone the other way.

In other words, the state of Texas itself was arguing that it's secession was illegitimate in the case.