The Civil War (Constitutional Issues)

[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?

This guy sums it all up brilliantly, but it's only for people who have the patience to learn.

Discussion Legacies Civil War Video C-SPAN.org

 

[danielpalos]

Thank you for supporting my contention why Conventions by State were necessary.

Your point being that an illegal act was perpetuated in the ratification of YOUR CONstitution...
Yes, on that we. Agree .

Conventions by State satisfied the requirements under the Articles.

 

[JakeStarkey]

There is no denying that the members of the ACC understood their law far better than you, James and sent the legislation on with a majority vote IAW with their governing document.

 

[James Everett]

There is no denying that the members of the ACC understood their law far better than you, James and sent the legislation on with a majority vote IAW with their governing document.

JAKE ,
Even criminals understand the law, so your point doesn't mean much.
The requirements were and remain clear.

 

[JakeStarkey]

James, the requirements were clear and they were met.

That you disagree in the face of 229 years is meaningless.

 

[James Everett]

Thank you for supporting my contention why Conventions by State were necessary.

Your point being that an illegal act was perpetuated in the ratification of YOUR CONstitution...
Yes, on that we. Agree .

Conventions by State satisfied the requirements under the Articles.

No Conventions by State did not satisfy the law.
Again lets us review the law as stated under Article XIII.....
"Every State shall abide by the determination of the United States in Congress assembled, on all questions which by this confederation are submitted to them. And the Articles of this Confederation shall be inviolably observed by every State, and the Union shall be perpetual; nor shall any alteration at any time hereafter be made in any of them; unless such alteration be agreed to in a Congress of the United States, and be afterwards confirmed by the legislatures of every State."
A State convention wherein delegates are elected by the people, does make a State legislature.
The first order of business in adopting a new Constitution via any other method than required by the law as it was stated in article XIII would have been to amend article XIII to allow State Conventions as a method of alteration. This requirement of the law was NOT met.

 

[InfoQuest]

(1) Did the "states in rebellion" have a constitutional right to leave the Union?

The Supreme Court ruled on this after the Civil War. It said there was no secession because the Constitution did not define a right to secede.

Therefore citizens of Texas and other Confederate states were US citizens before, during and after the War between the States.

 

[James Everett]

(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?

This guy sums it all up brilliantly, but it's only for people who have the patience to learn.

Discussion Legacies Civil War Video C-SPAN.org

Liminal,
Thank you for sharing.
I am about 3/4ths of the way through the presentation, but it is very late, and I am very tired after a long day, therefore I will finish it tomorrow. A few of things I would point out at this early point.....
One is that he is correct in that most peoples understanding is base and fixed, and will not listen to the more complex, (These are my words, as I am paraphrasing), I witness this in every discussion, and it sure has been a mainstay in this thread.
Another observation at this point is that the legalities of secession have not been addressed, aside from his reference to rebellion against the federal government, though he was using it as an example: I would state that there must first be a law in place for there to be a rebellion as rebellion is defined as "Insurrection against lawful authority" hence for their to be a lawful authority, there must first be a law in place.
I personally have never claimed that one of, if not the major issue for the Southern States was slavery, however, as awful as slavery was, slavery was of no consequence to the legality of secession, and yet it has always been of interest to me, that at the same time the U.S. was supposedly fighting to free the slaves, it was also exterminating the Native American Indian, and forcing survivors into internment camps called reservations.
There is no moral high ground held by either side concerning the treatment of our fellow man.
While I had ancestors who fought for our Confederacy, such is not of great interest to me aside from being in aw of what they were able to accomplish, but I do not live vicariously through them as I witnessed in the majority of our people.
My interest is only in defending the legality of secession and the fact that it was accomplished, for the purpose of restoring federalism and the founders ideal, which can only, in my view be gained by returning to what I equate to the first incorrect equation of a math problem, wherein every subsequent equation is made incorrect by the first, and the answer will never come out correct, (The answer being liberty).
The first incorrect equation was the adoption of the 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution, and the only middle ground as the speaker was suggesting be found, is in my view a return to the Articles, which is absent of the two party duopoly that divides and conquers. In this way the union of States would be restored, federalism would be restored along with a chance at getting the end result correct, which is liberty.
Yet so many are to base to understand the complexity of our cause.

 

[James Everett]

(1) Did the "states in rebellion" have a constitutional right to leave the Union?

The Supreme Court ruled on this after the Civil War. It said there was no secession because the Constitution did not define a right to secede.

Therefore citizens of Texas and other Confederate states were US citizens before, during and after the War between the States.

You refer to Texas v White, wherein YOUR SCOTUS rendered its opinion (NOT RULING) based on the perpetuity stated in the Articles, which were no longer in force. THE SCOTUS opinions are limited, and too and to be based on the 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution and the laws established in pursuance thereof. There was now law, or CONstitutional amendment for the bases of their opinion, within the 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution, or any law, therefore they refereed to a Constitution that was supposedly abandoned. Also Texas v White was a case concerning bonds, and the reference to the Articles was simple DICTA.

 

[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?

This guy sums it all up brilliantly, but it's only for people who have the patience to learn.

Discussion Legacies Civil War Video C-SPAN.org

Liminal,
Thank you for sharing.
I am about 3/4ths of the way through the presentation, but it is very late, and I am very tired after a long day, therefore I will finish it tomorrow. A few of things I would point out at this early point.....
One is that he is correct in that most peoples understanding is base and fixed, and will not listen to the more complex, (These are my words, as I am paraphrasing), I witness this in every discussion, and it sure has been a mainstay in this thread.
Another observation at this point is that the legalities of secession have not been addressed, aside from his reference to rebellion against the federal government, though he was using it as an example: I would state that there must first be a law in place for there to be a rebellion as rebellion is defined as "Insurrection against lawful authority" hence for their to be a lawful authority, there must first be a law in place.
I personally have never claimed that one of, if not the major issue for the Southern States was slavery, however, as awful as slavery was, slavery was of no consequence to the legality of secession, and yet it has always been of interest to me, that at the same time the U.S. was supposedly fighting to free the slaves, it was also exterminating the Native American Indian, and forcing survivors into internment camps called reservations.
There is no moral high ground held by either side concerning the treatment of our fellow man.
While I had ancestors who fought for our Confederacy, such is not of great interest to me aside from being in aw of what they were able to accomplish, but I do not live vicariously through them as I witnessed in the majority of our people.
My interest is only in defending the legality of secession and the fact that it was accomplished, for the purpose of restoring federalism and the founders ideal, which can only, in my view be gained by returning to what I equate to the first incorrect equation of a math problem, wherein every subsequent equation is made incorrect by the first, and the answer will never come out correct, (The answer being liberty).
The first incorrect equation was the adoption of the 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution, and the only middle ground as the speaker was suggesting be found, is in my view a return to the Articles, which is absent of the two party duopoly that divides and conquers. In this way the union of States would be restored, federalism would be restored along with a chance at getting the end result correct, which is liberty.
Yet so many are to base to understand the complexity of our cause.

Although I don't really agree with your view about the legality of secession, I appreciate you actually taking the time to review the video. I've devoted a lot of time and energy into researching Civil War history, and I consider myself a pretty solid amateur authority on the Confederacy. Happy to discuss the subject with you any time.

 

[James Everett]

(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?

This guy sums it all up brilliantly, but it's only for people who have the patience to learn.

Discussion Legacies Civil War Video C-SPAN.org

Liminal,
Thank you for sharing.
I am about 3/4ths of the way through the presentation, but it is very late, and I am very tired after a long day, therefore I will finish it tomorrow. A few of things I would point out at this early point.....
One is that he is correct in that most peoples understanding is base and fixed, and will not listen to the more complex, (These are my words, as I am paraphrasing), I witness this in every discussion, and it sure has been a mainstay in this thread.
Another observation at this point is that the legalities of secession have not been addressed, aside from his reference to rebellion against the federal government, though he was using it as an example: I would state that there must first be a law in place for there to be a rebellion as rebellion is defined as "Insurrection against lawful authority" hence for their to be a lawful authority, there must first be a law in place.
I personally have never claimed that one of, if not the major issue for the Southern States was slavery, however, as awful as slavery was, slavery was of no consequence to the legality of secession, and yet it has always been of interest to me, that at the same time the U.S. was supposedly fighting to free the slaves, it was also exterminating the Native American Indian, and forcing survivors into internment camps called reservations.
There is no moral high ground held by either side concerning the treatment of our fellow man.
While I had ancestors who fought for our Confederacy, such is not of great interest to me aside from being in aw of what they were able to accomplish, but I do not live vicariously through them as I witnessed in the majority of our people.
My interest is only in defending the legality of secession and the fact that it was accomplished, for the purpose of restoring federalism and the founders ideal, which can only, in my view be gained by returning to what I equate to the first incorrect equation of a math problem, wherein every subsequent equation is made incorrect by the first, and the answer will never come out correct, (The answer being liberty).
The first incorrect equation was the adoption of the 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution, and the only middle ground as the speaker was suggesting be found, is in my view a return to the Articles, which is absent of the two party duopoly that divides and conquers. In this way the union of States would be restored, federalism would be restored along with a chance at getting the end result correct, which is liberty.
Yet so many are to base to understand the complexity of our cause.

Although I don't really agree with your view about the legality of secession, I appreciate you actually taking the time to review the video. I've devoted a lot of time and energy into researching Civil War history, and I consider myself a pretty solid amateur authority on the Confederacy. Happy to discuss the subject with you any time.

My point remains that for there to be a violation of a law, there must first be a law established to violate. There was, nor is a law stating that secession was or is an unlawful or illegal act.
The only thing remotely related comes from the Articles of Confederation which all claim were replaced. If they were replaced then any and all mention of perpetual was replaced as well.
If the perpetual clause was carried over, then it would require its enumeration in the new CONstitution; if perpetuity was carried over without enumeration, then what other portions were carried over without enumeration that one may use at a given time to ones advantage?
Besides even all of that, if the union was still to be perpetual, then the 17th amendment to the U.S. CONstitution ended the perpetual union between the States by removing the States from the equation.
The States governments which form each State, are no longer participants in the central body of "the United States" hence there is no longer a union. The purpose of the central body was to unite the States through a collective body called a congress. Under the Articles the congress only consisted of State legislature appointed representatives, under the 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution, the State legislatures continued to be participants in the union between themselves through a congress containing State appointed Senators as their representatives, maintaining a federal system that existed under the Articles. An addition was made in the form of a national component wherein an addition to the congress was made in the form of a House of Representatives which was made up of districts without regard to State affiliation, that body was/is made up of elected officials to represent the whole of the people, (this is the addition of the national component).
Now was a result of the 17th amendment the State governments do not appoint representatives to represent the State governments, hence the States are no longer participants as the have no representation/no part in a union between States. Now only the people as a whole and the two corporately owned political party,s have representation, as the Senators through election instead of appointment, owe their allegiance political party of their affiliation rather than a State government that appointed them and could re-call them in the event of poor representation of the government which appointed them.

 

[JakeStarkey]

OThe states have no been sovereign since ACC willingly forwarded the Constitution to the states, as agents of We the People, for ratification or not. The 17th in no way frustrates the perpetual union of the nation.

 

[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?

This guy sums it all up brilliantly, but it's only for people who have the patience to learn.

Discussion Legacies Civil War Video C-SPAN.org

Liminal,
Thank you for sharing.
I am about 3/4ths of the way through the presentation, but it is very late, and I am very tired after a long day, therefore I will finish it tomorrow. A few of things I would point out at this early point.....
One is that he is correct in that most peoples understanding is base and fixed, and will not listen to the more complex, (These are my words, as I am paraphrasing), I witness this in every discussion, and it sure has been a mainstay in this thread.
Another observation at this point is that the legalities of secession have not been addressed, aside from his reference to rebellion against the federal government, though he was using it as an example: I would state that there must first be a law in place for there to be a rebellion as rebellion is defined as "Insurrection against lawful authority" hence for their to be a lawful authority, there must first be a law in place.
I personally have never claimed that one of, if not the major issue for the Southern States was slavery, however, as awful as slavery was, slavery was of no consequence to the legality of secession, and yet it has always been of interest to me, that at the same time the U.S. was supposedly fighting to free the slaves, it was also exterminating the Native American Indian, and forcing survivors into internment camps called reservations.
There is no moral high ground held by either side concerning the treatment of our fellow man.
While I had ancestors who fought for our Confederacy, such is not of great interest to me aside from being in aw of what they were able to accomplish, but I do not live vicariously through them as I witnessed in the majority of our people.
My interest is only in defending the legality of secession and the fact that it was accomplished, for the purpose of restoring federalism and the founders ideal, which can only, in my view be gained by returning to what I equate to the first incorrect equation of a math problem, wherein every subsequent equation is made incorrect by the first, and the answer will never come out correct, (The answer being liberty).
The first incorrect equation was the adoption of the 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution, and the only middle ground as the speaker was suggesting be found, is in my view a return to the Articles, which is absent of the two party duopoly that divides and conquers. In this way the union of States would be restored, federalism would be restored along with a chance at getting the end result correct, which is liberty.
Yet so many are to base to understand the complexity of our cause.

Although I don't really agree with your view about the legality of secession, I appreciate you actually taking the time to review the video. I've devoted a lot of time and energy into researching Civil War history, and I consider myself a pretty solid amateur authority on the Confederacy. Happy to discuss the subject with you any time.

My point remains that for there to be a violation of a law, there must first be a law established to violate. There was, nor is a law stating that secession was or is an unlawful or illegal act.
The only thing remotely related comes from the Articles of Confederation which all claim were replaced. If they were replaced then any and all mention of perpetual was replaced as well.
If the perpetual clause was carried over, then it would require its enumeration in the new CONstitution; if perpetuity was carried over without enumeration, then what other portions were carried over without enumeration that one may use at a given time to ones advantage?
Besides even all of that, if the union was still to be perpetual, then the 17th amendment to the U.S. CONstitution ended the perpetual union between the States by removing the States from the equation.
The States governments which form each State, are no longer participants in the central body of "the United States" hence there is no longer a union. The purpose of the central body was to unite the States through a collective body called a congress. Under the Articles the congress only consisted of State legislature appointed representatives, under the 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution, the State legislatures continued to be participants in the union between themselves through a congress containing State appointed Senators as their representatives, maintaining a federal system that existed under the Articles. An addition was made in the form of a national component wherein an addition to the congress was made in the form of a House of Representatives which was made up of districts without regard to State affiliation, that body was/is made up of elected officials to represent the whole of the people, (this is the addition of the national component).
Now was a result of the 17th amendment the State governments do not appoint representatives to represent the State governments, hence the States are no longer participants as the have no representation/no part in a union between States. Now only the people as a whole and the two corporately owned political party,s have representation, as the Senators through election instead of appointment, owe their allegiance political party of their affiliation rather than a State government that appointed them and could re-call them in the event of poor representation of the government which appointed them.

I would never claim to be any kind of expert on Constitutional questions, so you won't hear me argue from a technically legal standpoint. My interests are primarily military history and the political and cultural history surrounding that.
However, I can share my personal views about secession. It's a question that seems to have some renewed interest in a modern context, so that's how I'm frame the opinion.

If a group of citizens in Dog Patch, Idaho managed to gain political control over the state government, and subsequently proclaim Idaho to be a separate and sovereign nation; I would say to them: You don't get to break apart my county, you don't have my permission, because that's my country too. Just because some corrupt and self serving politicians get a bug up their asses, doesn't give them the right to tear apart a nation. They didn't build it, they stand on the shoulders of those who did.

 

[natstew]

(1) Did the "states in rebellion" have a constitutional right to leave the Union?

The Supreme Court ruled on this after the Civil War. It said there was no secession because the Constitution did not define a right to secede.

Therefore citizens of Texas and other Confederate states were US citizens before, during and after the War between the States.

If that's true, why did the Confederate States have to be re-admitted to the Union, and re-write their State Constitutions to be re- admitted?

 

[James Everett]

(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?

This guy sums it all up brilliantly, but it's only for people who have the patience to learn.

Discussion Legacies Civil War Video C-SPAN.org

Liminal,
Thank you for sharing.
I am about 3/4ths of the way through the presentation, but it is very late, and I am very tired after a long day, therefore I will finish it tomorrow. A few of things I would point out at this early point.....
One is that he is correct in that most peoples understanding is base and fixed, and will not listen to the more complex, (These are my words, as I am paraphrasing), I witness this in every discussion, and it sure has been a mainstay in this thread.
Another observation at this point is that the legalities of secession have not been addressed, aside from his reference to rebellion against the federal government, though he was using it as an example: I would state that there must first be a law in place for there to be a rebellion as rebellion is defined as "Insurrection against lawful authority" hence for their to be a lawful authority, there must first be a law in place.
I personally have never claimed that one of, if not the major issue for the Southern States was slavery, however, as awful as slavery was, slavery was of no consequence to the legality of secession, and yet it has always been of interest to me, that at the same time the U.S. was supposedly fighting to free the slaves, it was also exterminating the Native American Indian, and forcing survivors into internment camps called reservations.
There is no moral high ground held by either side concerning the treatment of our fellow man.
While I had ancestors who fought for our Confederacy, such is not of great interest to me aside from being in aw of what they were able to accomplish, but I do not live vicariously through them as I witnessed in the majority of our people.
My interest is only in defending the legality of secession and the fact that it was accomplished, for the purpose of restoring federalism and the founders ideal, which can only, in my view be gained by returning to what I equate to the first incorrect equation of a math problem, wherein every subsequent equation is made incorrect by the first, and the answer will never come out correct, (The answer being liberty).
The first incorrect equation was the adoption of the 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution, and the only middle ground as the speaker was suggesting be found, is in my view a return to the Articles, which is absent of the two party duopoly that divides and conquers. In this way the union of States would be restored, federalism would be restored along with a chance at getting the end result correct, which is liberty.
Yet so many are to base to understand the complexity of our cause.

Although I don't really agree with your view about the legality of secession, I appreciate you actually taking the time to review the video. I've devoted a lot of time and energy into researching Civil War history, and I consider myself a pretty solid amateur authority on the Confederacy. Happy to discuss the subject with you any time.

My point remains that for there to be a violation of a law, there must first be a law established to violate. There was, nor is a law stating that secession was or is an unlawful or illegal act.
The only thing remotely related comes from the Articles of Confederation which all claim were replaced. If they were replaced then any and all mention of perpetual was replaced as well.
If the perpetual clause was carried over, then it would require its enumeration in the new CONstitution; if perpetuity was carried over without enumeration, then what other portions were carried over without enumeration that one may use at a given time to ones advantage?
Besides even all of that, if the union was still to be perpetual, then the 17th amendment to the U.S. CONstitution ended the perpetual union between the States by removing the States from the equation.
The States governments which form each State, are no longer participants in the central body of "the United States" hence there is no longer a union. The purpose of the central body was to unite the States through a collective body called a congress. Under the Articles the congress only consisted of State legislature appointed representatives, under the 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution, the State legislatures continued to be participants in the union between themselves through a congress containing State appointed Senators as their representatives, maintaining a federal system that existed under the Articles. An addition was made in the form of a national component wherein an addition to the congress was made in the form of a House of Representatives which was made up of districts without regard to State affiliation, that body was/is made up of elected officials to represent the whole of the people, (this is the addition of the national component).
Now was a result of the 17th amendment the State governments do not appoint representatives to represent the State governments, hence the States are no longer participants as the have no representation/no part in a union between States. Now only the people as a whole and the two corporately owned political party,s have representation, as the Senators through election instead of appointment, owe their allegiance political party of their affiliation rather than a State government that appointed them and could re-call them in the event of poor representation of the government which appointed them.

I would never claim to be any kind of expert on Constitutional questions, so you won't hear me argue from a technically legal standpoint. My interests are primary military history and the political and cultural history surrounding that.
However, I can share my personal views about secession. It's a question that seems to have some renewed interest in a modern context, so that's how I'm frame the opinion.

If a group of citizens in Dog Patch, Idaho managed to gain political control over the state government, and subsequently proclaim Idaho to be a separate and sovereign nation; I would say to them: You don't get to break apart my county, you don't have my permission, because that's my country too. Just because some corrupt and self serving politicians get a bug up their asses, doesn't give them the right to tear apart a nation. They didn't build it, they stand on the shoulders of those who did.

M

(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?

This guy sums it all up brilliantly, but it's only for people who have the patience to learn.

Discussion Legacies Civil War Video C-SPAN.org

Liminal,
Thank you for sharing.
I am about 3/4ths of the way through the presentation, but it is very late, and I am very tired after a long day, therefore I will finish it tomorrow. A few of things I would point out at this early point.....
One is that he is correct in that most peoples understanding is base and fixed, and will not listen to the more complex, (These are my words, as I am paraphrasing), I witness this in every discussion, and it sure has been a mainstay in this thread.
Another observation at this point is that the legalities of secession have not been addressed, aside from his reference to rebellion against the federal government, though he was using it as an example: I would state that there must first be a law in place for there to be a rebellion as rebellion is defined as "Insurrection against lawful authority" hence for their to be a lawful authority, there must first be a law in place.
I personally have never claimed that one of, if not the major issue for the Southern States was slavery, however, as awful as slavery was, slavery was of no consequence to the legality of secession, and yet it has always been of interest to me, that at the same time the U.S. was supposedly fighting to free the slaves, it was also exterminating the Native American Indian, and forcing survivors into internment camps called reservations.
There is no moral high ground held by either side concerning the treatment of our fellow man.
While I had ancestors who fought for our Confederacy, such is not of great interest to me aside from being in aw of what they were able to accomplish, but I do not live vicariously through them as I witnessed in the majority of our people.
My interest is only in defending the legality of secession and the fact that it was accomplished, for the purpose of restoring federalism and the founders ideal, which can only, in my view be gained by returning to what I equate to the first incorrect equation of a math problem, wherein every subsequent equation is made incorrect by the first, and the answer will never come out correct, (The answer being liberty).
The first incorrect equation was the adoption of the 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution, and the only middle ground as the speaker was suggesting be found, is in my view a return to the Articles, which is absent of the two party duopoly that divides and conquers. In this way the union of States would be restored, federalism would be restored along with a chance at getting the end result correct, which is liberty.
Yet so many are to base to understand the complexity of our cause.

Although I don't really agree with your view about the legality of secession, I appreciate you actually taking the time to review the video. I've devoted a lot of time and energy into researching Civil War history, and I consider myself a pretty solid amateur authority on the Confederacy. Happy to discuss the subject with you any time.

My point remains that for there to be a violation of a law, there must first be a law established to violate. There was, nor is a law stating that secession was or is an unlawful or illegal act.
The only thing remotely related comes from the Articles of Confederation which all claim were replaced. If they were replaced then any and all mention of perpetual was replaced as well.
If the perpetual clause was carried over, then it would require its enumeration in the new CONstitution; if perpetuity was carried over without enumeration, then what other portions were carried over without enumeration that one may use at a given time to ones advantage?
Besides even all of that, if the union was still to be perpetual, then the 17th amendment to the U.S. CONstitution ended the perpetual union between the States by removing the States from the equation.
The States governments which form each State, are no longer participants in the central body of "the United States" hence there is no longer a union. The purpose of the central body was to unite the States through a collective body called a congress. Under the Articles the congress only consisted of State legislature appointed representatives, under the 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution, the State legislatures continued to be participants in the union between themselves through a congress containing State appointed Senators as their representatives, maintaining a federal system that existed under the Articles. An addition was made in the form of a national component wherein an addition to the congress was made in the form of a House of Representatives which was made up of districts without regard to State affiliation, that body was/is made up of elected officials to represent the whole of the people, (this is the addition of the national component).
Now was a result of the 17th amendment the State governments do not appoint representatives to represent the State governments, hence the States are no longer participants as the have no representation/no part in a union between States. Now only the people as a whole and the two corporately owned political party,s have representation, as the Senators through election instead of appointment, owe their allegiance political party of their affiliation rather than a State government that appointed them and could re-call them in the event of poor representation of the government which appointed them.

I would never claim to be any kind of expert on Constitutional questions, so you won't hear me argue from a technically legal standpoint. My interests are primary military history and the political and cultural history surrounding that.
However, I can share my personal views about secession. It's a question that seems to have some renewed interest in a modern context, so that's how I'm frame the opinion.

If a group of citizens in Dog Patch, Idaho managed to gain political control over the state government, and subsequently proclaim Idaho to be a separate and sovereign nation; I would say to them: You don't get to break apart my county, you don't have my permission, because that's my country too. Just because some corrupt and self serving politicians get a bug up their asses, doesn't give them the right to tear apart a nation. They didn't build it, they stand on the shoulders of those who did.

Here is my response to not, simply you, but many who have made a similar statement......
You are looking at the union through a distorted lens.
You statement that......
"You don't get to break apart my county, you don't have my permission, because that's my country
too"
This was before the Lincoln's war of rebellion, and the subsequient 17th amendment as a result thereof, (A UNION OF STATES) ......
As Alexander Hamilton stated in "The Federalist #32.....
"An entire consolidation of the States into one complete national sovereignty would imply an entire subordination of the parts; and whatever powers might remain in them, would be altogether dependent on the general will. "
Point being is that there was NOT suppose to be a consolidation into one complete national sovereignty, yet you view Idaho as YOURS. I never view another State as mine, I view it as a member State in a union/confederacy of States, just as one would view those States united under the United Nations Charter. A Constitution after all is a Charter, between States, it is a treaty between States, it is a compact between States.
Why do you think that another State belongs to you?
Here are a few SCOTUS opinions concerning this municipal jurisdiction that so many think that they hold over a State wherein they do not reside, as if.....
"You don't get to break apart my county, you don't have my permission, because that's my country
too"
Pollard’s Lessee v Hagan, that for the United States, (The States collectively in union) to hold municipal jurisdiction within a State that …….
“Such a power is not only repugnant to the Constitution, but it is inconsistent with the spirit and intention of the deeds of cession.”
“Then to Alabama belong the navigable waters, and soils under them, in controversy in this case, subject to the rights surrendered by the Constitution to the United States, and no compact that might be made between her and the United States could diminish or enlarge these rights.”

The United States never held municipal jurisdiction within a State once a State is formed and admitted to the union: "the soil, the shores, the waters, and land beneath the waters belong to the State respectively:"
We see here that Idaho does NOT belong to you as in.....
"You don't get to break apart my county, you don't have my permission, because that's my country
too"
Also in Harcourt v. Gaillard, 25 U.S. (12 Wheat.) 523, 526, 527 (1827), we find that the U.S. Court stated:

“There was no territory within the United States that was claimed in any other right than that of some one of the confederated states; therefore, there could be no acquisition of territory made by the United States distinct from, or independent of some one of the states.

“Each declared itself sovereign and independent, according to the limits of its territory.

“[T]he soil and sovereignty within their acknowledged limits were as much theirs at the declaration of independence as at this hour.”

Also in M’Ilvaine v. Coxe’s Lessee, 8 U.S. (4 Cranch) 209, 212 (1808), where it was held:

“This opinion is predicated upon a principle which is believed to be undeniable, that the several states which composed this Union, so far at least as regarded their municipal regulations, became entitled, from the time when they declared themselves independent, to all the rights and powers of sovereign states, and that they did not derive them from concessions made by the British king. The treaty of peace contains a recognition of their independence, not a grant of it. From hence it results, that the laws of the several state governments were the laws of sovereign states, and as such were obligatory upon the people of such state, from the time they were enacted.”

Art. I, Sec. 8, Cl. 17 of the U.S. Constitution, which read as follows:

“To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings.”
Here we see that any jurisdiction of the States as a collective in government formation has NO JURISDICTION OUTSIDE OF THE TEN MILES SQUARE THAT IS THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA IS NON-EXISTENT EXCEPT WITHIN A U.S. FORT, AN ARSENAL, A U.S. GOVERNMENT BUILDING, MAGAZINE, OR DOCK YARD, THUS ANY JURISDICTION BEYOND THAT IS THAT OF EACH STATE RESPECTIVELY/INDIVIDUALLY.
What I am pointing out here is that this was intended to be a union of States, not a consolidation of them, I as a Tennessean do not own New YORK, Idaho or any other State, I cannot claim ...
"You don't get to break apart my county, you don't have my permission, because that's my country
too"
They are suppose to be separate States united, NOT CONSOLIDATED.

 

[natstew]

As a 72 year old fifth generation Florida Cracker with two Great Grandfathers in the 16th Maine Infantry at Gettysburg and two Great Grandfathers in the Fifth Florida Infantry, also at Gettysburg, Yes, that's four Great Grandfathers in opposing units at the greatest battle of the War Of Northern Aggression, or The War Between The States, or The War To Free The Slaves, or whatever you choose to call it. (16th Maine Thomas Dorset and Sylvanus Chick, Mothers side, My Mother was the daughter of a "Brush Arbor Preacher" travelling through Tallahassee when my father met her), and (William James Stewart Private, Company A fifth Florida Infantry Reg., and Robert May Private Fifth Florida Infantry, William James Stewart was my direct Grandfather on my Father's side, Robert May was the Father of my Father's Mother), anyway, if you're not confused maybe you can understand how I grew up a little confused about the War. My Mother's side justified the Northern Aggression and my Father's side justified the Southern secession.
I see all four of my G Grandfathers fighting for patriotic reasons. Only the May's owned slaves and family tradition has it that Asa May was trying to figure a way to do away with slavery in a peaceful way without being thrown into poverty. The War has always been an obsession with me. Thank everyone for their input.

 

[James Everett]

(1) Did the "states in rebellion" have a constitutional right to leave the Union?

The Supreme Court ruled on this after the Civil War. It said there was no secession because the Constitution did not define a right to secede.

Therefore citizens of Texas and other Confederate states were US citizens before, during and after the War between the States.

If that's true, why did the Confederate States have to be re-admitted to the Union, and re-write their State Constitutions to be re- admitted?

The Confederate States were NOT re-admitted, this was an illusion. The Confederate States were replaces....
A State by definition is "A MODE OF GOVERNMENT"
Example of how the Confederate States were replaced, therefore WERE NOT RE-ADMITTED.....
Isham (I'-sam) G. Harris, of Memphis, was elected governor of Tennessee in 1857, and again in 1859, both times by large majorities.
On February 22 upon the invasion and occupation of Tennessee Grant declared martial law
On March 12, 1862, Andrew Johnson, whom President Lincoln had appointed Military Governor of Tennessee, arrived and took over for the Union. Governor Johnson demanded that all Confederate officers and employees take an oath of allegiance tot he Union, when they refused, he arrested them for treason and appointed his own officers in their place.
Duress any unlawful threat or coercion used by person to induce another to act (or refrain from acting) in a manner he or she otherwise would not (or would). Subjecting person to improper pressure which vercomes his will and coerces him to comply with demand to which he would not yield if acting as free agent [Henry-Campbell: Black, Blacks Law Dictionary®, Sixth Edition, West Publishing Co. St. Paul Minnesota, 1990]
A convention of Unionist met in Nashville January 9, 1865, drafted amendments to the state constitution, nominated candidates for governor and the legislature, and set February 22 and March 4, 1865 for the people to ratify their actions. No Confederates or Confederate sympathizers, were allowed to vote.
According to Military Government and Martial Law [William E. Birkhimer, LL.B., Major General Staff U.S. Army, Third Edition, 1914], ". . . the adoption of a constitution during the war [was] under military orders" (page 110).
Governor Harris was a lame duck governor at the time of the invasion of Tennessee, Robert Caruthers was governor elect, hence the dejure elected governor of Tennessee, yet was NOT allowed to take office.....
William Gannaway Brownlow was elected Governor on March 4.
This election, was limited to only pro-Unionists.
It was under this appointed government/State that this NEW TENNESSEE was admitted, not the de jure Confederate State of Tennessee.
If The Confederate State of Tennessee had been re-admitted, then that would indicate that secession had been accomplished which would NOT be possible if secession was indeed illegal.
So one must answer the question....
Was the Confederate State of Tennessee "re-admitted" or replaced by another State?

 

[James Everett]

As a 72 year old fifth generation Florida Cracker with two Great Grandfathers in the 16th Maine Infantry at Gettysburg and two Great Grandfathers in the Fifth Florida Infantry, also at Gettysburg, Yes, that's four Great Grandfathers in opposing units at the greatest battle of the War Of Northern Aggression, or The War Between The States, or The War To Free The Slaves, or whatever you choose to call it. (16th Maine Thomas Dorset and Sylvanus Chick, Mothers side, My Mother was the daughter of a "Brush Arbor Preacher" travelling through Tallahassee when my father met her), and (William James Stewart Private, Company A fifth Florida Infantry Reg., and Robert May Private Fifth Florida Infantry, William James Stewart was my direct Grandfather on my Father's side, Robert May was the Father of my Father's Mother), anyway, if you're not confused maybe you can understand how I grew up a little confused about the War. My Mother's side justified the Northern Aggression and my Father's side justified the Southern secession.
I see all four of my G Grandfathers fighting for patriotic reasons. Only the May's owned slaves and family tradition has it that Asa May was trying to figure a way to do away with slavery in a peaceful way without being thrown into poverty. The War has always been an obsession with me. Thank everyone for their input.

I only hope that I have stated the truth,as it is,in a way that will reveal it to you.
Thank you Sir.

 

[Liminal]

This guy sums it all up brilliantly, but it's only for people who have the patience to learn.

Discussion Legacies Civil War Video C-SPAN.org

Liminal,
Thank you for sharing.
I am about 3/4ths of the way through the presentation, but it is very late, and I am very tired after a long day, therefore I will finish it tomorrow. A few of things I would point out at this early point.....
One is that he is correct in that most peoples understanding is base and fixed, and will not listen to the more complex, (These are my words, as I am paraphrasing), I witness this in every discussion, and it sure has been a mainstay in this thread.
Another observation at this point is that the legalities of secession have not been addressed, aside from his reference to rebellion against the federal government, though he was using it as an example: I would state that there must first be a law in place for there to be a rebellion as rebellion is defined as "Insurrection against lawful authority" hence for their to be a lawful authority, there must first be a law in place.
I personally have never claimed that one of, if not the major issue for the Southern States was slavery, however, as awful as slavery was, slavery was of no consequence to the legality of secession, and yet it has always been of interest to me, that at the same time the U.S. was supposedly fighting to free the slaves, it was also exterminating the Native American Indian, and forcing survivors into internment camps called reservations.
There is no moral high ground held by either side concerning the treatment of our fellow man.
While I had ancestors who fought for our Confederacy, such is not of great interest to me aside from being in aw of what they were able to accomplish, but I do not live vicariously through them as I witnessed in the majority of our people.
My interest is only in defending the legality of secession and the fact that it was accomplished, for the purpose of restoring federalism and the founders ideal, which can only, in my view be gained by returning to what I equate to the first incorrect equation of a math problem, wherein every subsequent equation is made incorrect by the first, and the answer will never come out correct, (The answer being liberty).
The first incorrect equation was the adoption of the 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution, and the only middle ground as the speaker was suggesting be found, is in my view a return to the Articles, which is absent of the two party duopoly that divides and conquers. In this way the union of States would be restored, federalism would be restored along with a chance at getting the end result correct, which is liberty.
Yet so many are to base to understand the complexity of our cause.

Although I don't really agree with your view about the legality of secession, I appreciate you actually taking the time to review the video. I've devoted a lot of time and energy into researching Civil War history, and I consider myself a pretty solid amateur authority on the Confederacy. Happy to discuss the subject with you any time.

My point remains that for there to be a violation of a law, there must first be a law established to violate. There was, nor is a law stating that secession was or is an unlawful or illegal act.
The only thing remotely related comes from the Articles of Confederation which all claim were replaced. If they were replaced then any and all mention of perpetual was replaced as well.
If the perpetual clause was carried over, then it would require its enumeration in the new CONstitution; if perpetuity was carried over without enumeration, then what other portions were carried over without enumeration that one may use at a given time to ones advantage?
Besides even all of that, if the union was still to be perpetual, then the 17th amendment to the U.S. CONstitution ended the perpetual union between the States by removing the States from the equation.
The States governments which form each State, are no longer participants in the central body of "the United States" hence there is no longer a union. The purpose of the central body was to unite the States through a collective body called a congress. Under the Articles the congress only consisted of State legislature appointed representatives, under the 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution, the State legislatures continued to be participants in the union between themselves through a congress containing State appointed Senators as their representatives, maintaining a federal system that existed under the Articles. An addition was made in the form of a national component wherein an addition to the congress was made in the form of a House of Representatives which was made up of districts without regard to State affiliation, that body was/is made up of elected officials to represent the whole of the people, (this is the addition of the national component).
Now was a result of the 17th amendment the State governments do not appoint representatives to represent the State governments, hence the States are no longer participants as the have no representation/no part in a union between States. Now only the people as a whole and the two corporately owned political party,s have representation, as the Senators through election instead of appointment, owe their allegiance political party of their affiliation rather than a State government that appointed them and could re-call them in the event of poor representation of the government which appointed them.

I would never claim to be any kind of expert on Constitutional questions, so you won't hear me argue from a technically legal standpoint. My interests are primary military history and the political and cultural history surrounding that.
However, I can share my personal views about secession. It's a question that seems to have some renewed interest in a modern context, so that's how I'm frame the opinion.

If a group of citizens in Dog Patch, Idaho managed to gain political control over the state government, and subsequently proclaim Idaho to be a separate and sovereign nation; I would say to them: You don't get to break apart my county, you don't have my permission, because that's my country too. Just because some corrupt and self serving politicians get a bug up their asses, doesn't give them the right to tear apart a nation. They didn't build it, they stand on the shoulders of those who did.

M

This guy sums it all up brilliantly, but it's only for people who have the patience to learn.

Discussion Legacies Civil War Video C-SPAN.org

Liminal,
Thank you for sharing.
I am about 3/4ths of the way through the presentation, but it is very late, and I am very tired after a long day, therefore I will finish it tomorrow. A few of things I would point out at this early point.....
One is that he is correct in that most peoples understanding is base and fixed, and will not listen to the more complex, (These are my words, as I am paraphrasing), I witness this in every discussion, and it sure has been a mainstay in this thread.
Another observation at this point is that the legalities of secession have not been addressed, aside from his reference to rebellion against the federal government, though he was using it as an example: I would state that there must first be a law in place for there to be a rebellion as rebellion is defined as "Insurrection against lawful authority" hence for their to be a lawful authority, there must first be a law in place.
I personally have never claimed that one of, if not the major issue for the Southern States was slavery, however, as awful as slavery was, slavery was of no consequence to the legality of secession, and yet it has always been of interest to me, that at the same time the U.S. was supposedly fighting to free the slaves, it was also exterminating the Native American Indian, and forcing survivors into internment camps called reservations.
There is no moral high ground held by either side concerning the treatment of our fellow man.
While I had ancestors who fought for our Confederacy, such is not of great interest to me aside from being in aw of what they were able to accomplish, but I do not live vicariously through them as I witnessed in the majority of our people.
My interest is only in defending the legality of secession and the fact that it was accomplished, for the purpose of restoring federalism and the founders ideal, which can only, in my view be gained by returning to what I equate to the first incorrect equation of a math problem, wherein every subsequent equation is made incorrect by the first, and the answer will never come out correct, (The answer being liberty).
The first incorrect equation was the adoption of the 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution, and the only middle ground as the speaker was suggesting be found, is in my view a return to the Articles, which is absent of the two party duopoly that divides and conquers. In this way the union of States would be restored, federalism would be restored along with a chance at getting the end result correct, which is liberty.
Yet so many are to base to understand the complexity of our cause.

Although I don't really agree with your view about the legality of secession, I appreciate you actually taking the time to review the video. I've devoted a lot of time and energy into researching Civil War history, and I consider myself a pretty solid amateur authority on the Confederacy. Happy to discuss the subject with you any time.

My point remains that for there to be a violation of a law, there must first be a law established to violate. There was, nor is a law stating that secession was or is an unlawful or illegal act.
The only thing remotely related comes from the Articles of Confederation which all claim were replaced. If they were replaced then any and all mention of perpetual was replaced as well.
If the perpetual clause was carried over, then it would require its enumeration in the new CONstitution; if perpetuity was carried over without enumeration, then what other portions were carried over without enumeration that one may use at a given time to ones advantage?
Besides even all of that, if the union was still to be perpetual, then the 17th amendment to the U.S. CONstitution ended the perpetual union between the States by removing the States from the equation.
The States governments which form each State, are no longer participants in the central body of "the United States" hence there is no longer a union. The purpose of the central body was to unite the States through a collective body called a congress. Under the Articles the congress only consisted of State legislature appointed representatives, under the 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution, the State legislatures continued to be participants in the union between themselves through a congress containing State appointed Senators as their representatives, maintaining a federal system that existed under the Articles. An addition was made in the form of a national component wherein an addition to the congress was made in the form of a House of Representatives which was made up of districts without regard to State affiliation, that body was/is made up of elected officials to represent the whole of the people, (this is the addition of the national component).
Now was a result of the 17th amendment the State governments do not appoint representatives to represent the State governments, hence the States are no longer participants as the have no representation/no part in a union between States. Now only the people as a whole and the two corporately owned political party,s have representation, as the Senators through election instead of appointment, owe their allegiance political party of their affiliation rather than a State government that appointed them and could re-call them in the event of poor representation of the government which appointed them.

I would never claim to be any kind of expert on Constitutional questions, so you won't hear me argue from a technically legal standpoint. My interests are primary military history and the political and cultural history surrounding that.
However, I can share my personal views about secession. It's a question that seems to have some renewed interest in a modern context, so that's how I'm frame the opinion.

If a group of citizens in Dog Patch, Idaho managed to gain political control over the state government, and subsequently proclaim Idaho to be a separate and sovereign nation; I would say to them: You don't get to break apart my county, you don't have my permission, because that's my country too. Just because some corrupt and self serving politicians get a bug up their asses, doesn't give them the right to tear apart a nation. They didn't build it, they stand on the shoulders of those who did.

Here is my response to not, simply you, but many who have made a similar statement......
You are looking at the union through a distorted lens.
You statement that......
"You don't get to break apart my county, you don't have my permission, because that's my country
too"
This was before the Lincoln's war of rebellion, and the subsequient 17th amendment as a result thereof, (A UNION OF STATES) ......
As Alexander Hamilton stated in "The Federalist #32.....
"An entire consolidation of the States into one complete national sovereignty would imply an entire subordination of the parts; and whatever powers might remain in them, would be altogether dependent on the general will. "
Point being is that there was NOT suppose to be a consolidation into one complete national sovereignty, yet you view Idaho as YOURS. I never view another State as mine, I view it as a member State in a union/confederacy of States, just as one would view those States united under the United Nations Charter. A Constitution after all is a Charter, between States, it is a treaty between States, it is a compact between States.
Why do you think that another State belongs to you?
Here are a few SCOTUS opinions concerning this municipal jurisdiction that so many think that they hold over a State wherein they do not reside, as if.....
"You don't get to break apart my county, you don't have my permission, because that's my country
too"
Pollard’s Lessee v Hagan, that for the United States, (The States collectively in union) to hold municipal jurisdiction within a State that …….
“Such a power is not only repugnant to the Constitution, but it is inconsistent with the spirit and intention of the deeds of cession.”
“Then to Alabama belong the navigable waters, and soils under them, in controversy in this case, subject to the rights surrendered by the Constitution to the United States, and no compact that might be made between her and the United States could diminish or enlarge these rights.”

The United States never held municipal jurisdiction within a State once a State is formed and admitted to the union: "the soil, the shores, the waters, and land beneath the waters belong to the State respectively:"
We see here that Idaho does NOT belong to you as in.....
"You don't get to break apart my county, you don't have my permission, because that's my country
too"
Also in Harcourt v. Gaillard, 25 U.S. (12 Wheat.) 523, 526, 527 (1827), we find that the U.S. Court stated:

“There was no territory within the United States that was claimed in any other right than that of some one of the confederated states; therefore, there could be no acquisition of territory made by the United States distinct from, or independent of some one of the states.

“Each declared itself sovereign and independent, according to the limits of its territory.

“[T]he soil and sovereignty within their acknowledged limits were as much theirs at the declaration of independence as at this hour.”

Also in M’Ilvaine v. Coxe’s Lessee, 8 U.S. (4 Cranch) 209, 212 (1808), where it was held:

“This opinion is predicated upon a principle which is believed to be undeniable, that the several states which composed this Union, so far at least as regarded their municipal regulations, became entitled, from the time when they declared themselves independent, to all the rights and powers of sovereign states, and that they did not derive them from concessions made by the British king. The treaty of peace contains a recognition of their independence, not a grant of it. From hence it results, that the laws of the several state governments were the laws of sovereign states, and as such were obligatory upon the people of such state, from the time they were enacted.”

Art. I, Sec. 8, Cl. 17 of the U.S. Constitution, which read as follows:

“To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings.”
Here we see that any jurisdiction of the States as a collective in government formation has NO JURISDICTION OUTSIDE OF THE TEN MILES SQUARE THAT IS THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA IS NON-EXISTENT EXCEPT WITHIN A U.S. FORT, AN ARSENAL, A U.S. GOVERNMENT BUILDING, MAGAZINE, OR DOCK YARD, THUS ANY JURISDICTION BEYOND THAT IS THAT OF EACH STATE RESPECTIVELY/INDIVIDUALLY.
What I am pointing out here is that this was intended to be a union of States, not a consolidation of them, I as a Tennessean do not own New YORK, Idaho or any other State, I cannot claim ...
"You don't get to break apart my county, you don't have my permission, because that's my country
too"
They are suppose to be separate States united, NOT CONSOLIDATED.

(1) Did the "states in rebellion" have a constitutional right to leave the Union?

The Supreme Court ruled on this after the Civil War. It said there was no secession because the Constitution did not define a right to secede.

Therefore citizens of Texas and other Confederate states were US citizens before, during and after the War between the States.

If that's true, why did the Confederate States have to be re-admitted to the Union, and re-write their State Constitutions to be re- admitted?

The Confederate States were NOT re-admitted, this was an illusion. The Confederate States were replaces....
A State by definition is "A MODE OF GOVERNMENT"
Example of how the Confederate States were replaced, therefore WERE NOT RE-ADMITTED.....
Isham (I'-sam) G. Harris, of Memphis, was elected governor of Tennessee in 1857, and again in 1859, both times by large majorities.
On February 22 upon the invasion and occupation of Tennessee Grant declared martial law
On March 12, 1862, Andrew Johnson, whom President Lincoln had appointed Military Governor of Tennessee, arrived and took over for the Union. Governor Johnson demanded that all Confederate officers and employees take an oath of allegiance tot he Union, when they refused, he arrested them for treason and appointed his own officers in their place.
Duress any unlawful threat or coercion used by person to induce another to act (or refrain from acting) in a manner he or she otherwise would not (or would). Subjecting person to improper pressure which vercomes his will and coerces him to comply with demand to which he would not yield if acting as free agent [Henry-Campbell: Black, Blacks Law Dictionary®, Sixth Edition, West Publishing Co. St. Paul Minnesota, 1990]
A convention of Unionist met in Nashville January 9, 1865, drafted amendments to the state constitution, nominated candidates for governor and the legislature, and set February 22 and March 4, 1865 for the people to ratify their actions. No Confederates or Confederate sympathizers, were allowed to vote.
According to Military Government and Martial Law [William E. Birkhimer, LL.B., Major General Staff U.S. Army, Third Edition, 1914], ". . . the adoption of a constitution during the war [was] under military orders" (page 110).
Governor Harris was a lame duck governor at the time of the invasion of Tennessee, Robert Caruthers was governor elect, hence the dejure elected governor of Tennessee, yet was NOT allowed to take office.....
William Gannaway Brownlow was elected Governor on March 4.
This election, was limited to only pro-Unionists.
It was under this appointed government/State that this NEW TENNESSEE was admitted, not the de jure Confederate State of Tennessee.
If The Confederate State of Tennessee had been re-admitted, then that would indicate that secession had been accomplished which would NOT be possible if secession was indeed illegal.
So one must answer the question....
Was the Confederate State of Tennessee "re-admitted" or replaced by another State?

I'm much more familiar with the battles of Franklin, Shiloh, Stones River and Nashville. I've actually made quite a study of the campaigns in Tennessee. That aside, my answer to your argument is: you don't own Tennessee any more than I do. In any case the proponents of secession have an extremely limited scope and circumstance to their argument, more about fine legal distinctions rather than any actual principles. If you believe secession is an absolute right based on some principle, then you should have no problem when the result is West Virginia.

 

[James Everett]

Liminal,
Thank you for sharing.
I am about 3/4ths of the way through the presentation, but it is very late, and I am very tired after a long day, therefore I will finish it tomorrow. A few of things I would point out at this early point.....
One is that he is correct in that most peoples understanding is base and fixed, and will not listen to the more complex, (These are my words, as I am paraphrasing), I witness this in every discussion, and it sure has been a mainstay in this thread.
Another observation at this point is that the legalities of secession have not been addressed, aside from his reference to rebellion against the federal government, though he was using it as an example: I would state that there must first be a law in place for there to be a rebellion as rebellion is defined as "Insurrection against lawful authority" hence for their to be a lawful authority, there must first be a law in place.
I personally have never claimed that one of, if not the major issue for the Southern States was slavery, however, as awful as slavery was, slavery was of no consequence to the legality of secession, and yet it has always been of interest to me, that at the same time the U.S. was supposedly fighting to free the slaves, it was also exterminating the Native American Indian, and forcing survivors into internment camps called reservations.
There is no moral high ground held by either side concerning the treatment of our fellow man.
While I had ancestors who fought for our Confederacy, such is not of great interest to me aside from being in aw of what they were able to accomplish, but I do not live vicariously through them as I witnessed in the majority of our people.
My interest is only in defending the legality of secession and the fact that it was accomplished, for the purpose of restoring federalism and the founders ideal, which can only, in my view be gained by returning to what I equate to the first incorrect equation of a math problem, wherein every subsequent equation is made incorrect by the first, and the answer will never come out correct, (The answer being liberty).
The first incorrect equation was the adoption of the 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution, and the only middle ground as the speaker was suggesting be found, is in my view a return to the Articles, which is absent of the two party duopoly that divides and conquers. In this way the union of States would be restored, federalism would be restored along with a chance at getting the end result correct, which is liberty.
Yet so many are to base to understand the complexity of our cause.

Although I don't really agree with your view about the legality of secession, I appreciate you actually taking the time to review the video. I've devoted a lot of time and energy into researching Civil War history, and I consider myself a pretty solid amateur authority on the Confederacy. Happy to discuss the subject with you any time.

My point remains that for there to be a violation of a law, there must first be a law established to violate. There was, nor is a law stating that secession was or is an unlawful or illegal act.
The only thing remotely related comes from the Articles of Confederation which all claim were replaced. If they were replaced then any and all mention of perpetual was replaced as well.
If the perpetual clause was carried over, then it would require its enumeration in the new CONstitution; if perpetuity was carried over without enumeration, then what other portions were carried over without enumeration that one may use at a given time to ones advantage?
Besides even all of that, if the union was still to be perpetual, then the 17th amendment to the U.S. CONstitution ended the perpetual union between the States by removing the States from the equation.
The States governments which form each State, are no longer participants in the central body of "the United States" hence there is no longer a union. The purpose of the central body was to unite the States through a collective body called a congress. Under the Articles the congress only consisted of State legislature appointed representatives, under the 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution, the State legislatures continued to be participants in the union between themselves through a congress containing State appointed Senators as their representatives, maintaining a federal system that existed under the Articles. An addition was made in the form of a national component wherein an addition to the congress was made in the form of a House of Representatives which was made up of districts without regard to State affiliation, that body was/is made up of elected officials to represent the whole of the people, (this is the addition of the national component).
Now was a result of the 17th amendment the State governments do not appoint representatives to represent the State governments, hence the States are no longer participants as the have no representation/no part in a union between States. Now only the people as a whole and the two corporately owned political party,s have representation, as the Senators through election instead of appointment, owe their allegiance political party of their affiliation rather than a State government that appointed them and could re-call them in the event of poor representation of the government which appointed them.

I would never claim to be any kind of expert on Constitutional questions, so you won't hear me argue from a technically legal standpoint. My interests are primary military history and the political and cultural history surrounding that.
However, I can share my personal views about secession. It's a question that seems to have some renewed interest in a modern context, so that's how I'm frame the opinion.

If a group of citizens in Dog Patch, Idaho managed to gain political control over the state government, and subsequently proclaim Idaho to be a separate and sovereign nation; I would say to them: You don't get to break apart my county, you don't have my permission, because that's my country too. Just because some corrupt and self serving politicians get a bug up their asses, doesn't give them the right to tear apart a nation. They didn't build it, they stand on the shoulders of those who did.

M

Liminal,
Thank you for sharing.
I am about 3/4ths of the way through the presentation, but it is very late, and I am very tired after a long day, therefore I will finish it tomorrow. A few of things I would point out at this early point.....
One is that he is correct in that most peoples understanding is base and fixed, and will not listen to the more complex, (These are my words, as I am paraphrasing), I witness this in every discussion, and it sure has been a mainstay in this thread.
Another observation at this point is that the legalities of secession have not been addressed, aside from his reference to rebellion against the federal government, though he was using it as an example: I would state that there must first be a law in place for there to be a rebellion as rebellion is defined as "Insurrection against lawful authority" hence for their to be a lawful authority, there must first be a law in place.
I personally have never claimed that one of, if not the major issue for the Southern States was slavery, however, as awful as slavery was, slavery was of no consequence to the legality of secession, and yet it has always been of interest to me, that at the same time the U.S. was supposedly fighting to free the slaves, it was also exterminating the Native American Indian, and forcing survivors into internment camps called reservations.
There is no moral high ground held by either side concerning the treatment of our fellow man.
While I had ancestors who fought for our Confederacy, such is not of great interest to me aside from being in aw of what they were able to accomplish, but I do not live vicariously through them as I witnessed in the majority of our people.
My interest is only in defending the legality of secession and the fact that it was accomplished, for the purpose of restoring federalism and the founders ideal, which can only, in my view be gained by returning to what I equate to the first incorrect equation of a math problem, wherein every subsequent equation is made incorrect by the first, and the answer will never come out correct, (The answer being liberty).
The first incorrect equation was the adoption of the 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution, and the only middle ground as the speaker was suggesting be found, is in my view a return to the Articles, which is absent of the two party duopoly that divides and conquers. In this way the union of States would be restored, federalism would be restored along with a chance at getting the end result correct, which is liberty.
Yet so many are to base to understand the complexity of our cause.

Although I don't really agree with your view about the legality of secession, I appreciate you actually taking the time to review the video. I've devoted a lot of time and energy into researching Civil War history, and I consider myself a pretty solid amateur authority on the Confederacy. Happy to discuss the subject with you any time.

My point remains that for there to be a violation of a law, there must first be a law established to violate. There was, nor is a law stating that secession was or is an unlawful or illegal act.
The only thing remotely related comes from the Articles of Confederation which all claim were replaced. If they were replaced then any and all mention of perpetual was replaced as well.
If the perpetual clause was carried over, then it would require its enumeration in the new CONstitution; if perpetuity was carried over without enumeration, then what other portions were carried over without enumeration that one may use at a given time to ones advantage?
Besides even all of that, if the union was still to be perpetual, then the 17th amendment to the U.S. CONstitution ended the perpetual union between the States by removing the States from the equation.
The States governments which form each State, are no longer participants in the central body of "the United States" hence there is no longer a union. The purpose of the central body was to unite the States through a collective body called a congress. Under the Articles the congress only consisted of State legislature appointed representatives, under the 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution, the State legislatures continued to be participants in the union between themselves through a congress containing State appointed Senators as their representatives, maintaining a federal system that existed under the Articles. An addition was made in the form of a national component wherein an addition to the congress was made in the form of a House of Representatives which was made up of districts without regard to State affiliation, that body was/is made up of elected officials to represent the whole of the people, (this is the addition of the national component).
Now was a result of the 17th amendment the State governments do not appoint representatives to represent the State governments, hence the States are no longer participants as the have no representation/no part in a union between States. Now only the people as a whole and the two corporately owned political party,s have representation, as the Senators through election instead of appointment, owe their allegiance political party of their affiliation rather than a State government that appointed them and could re-call them in the event of poor representation of the government which appointed them.

I would never claim to be any kind of expert on Constitutional questions, so you won't hear me argue from a technically legal standpoint. My interests are primary military history and the political and cultural history surrounding that.
However, I can share my personal views about secession. It's a question that seems to have some renewed interest in a modern context, so that's how I'm frame the opinion.

If a group of citizens in Dog Patch, Idaho managed to gain political control over the state government, and subsequently proclaim Idaho to be a separate and sovereign nation; I would say to them: You don't get to break apart my county, you don't have my permission, because that's my country too. Just because some corrupt and self serving politicians get a bug up their asses, doesn't give them the right to tear apart a nation. They didn't build it, they stand on the shoulders of those who did.

Here is my response to not, simply you, but many who have made a similar statement......
You are looking at the union through a distorted lens.
You statement that......
"You don't get to break apart my county, you don't have my permission, because that's my country
too"
This was before the Lincoln's war of rebellion, and the subsequient 17th amendment as a result thereof, (A UNION OF STATES) ......
As Alexander Hamilton stated in "The Federalist #32.....
"An entire consolidation of the States into one complete national sovereignty would imply an entire subordination of the parts; and whatever powers might remain in them, would be altogether dependent on the general will. "
Point being is that there was NOT suppose to be a consolidation into one complete national sovereignty, yet you view Idaho as YOURS. I never view another State as mine, I view it as a member State in a union/confederacy of States, just as one would view those States united under the United Nations Charter. A Constitution after all is a Charter, between States, it is a treaty between States, it is a compact between States.
Why do you think that another State belongs to you?
Here are a few SCOTUS opinions concerning this municipal jurisdiction that so many think that they hold over a State wherein they do not reside, as if.....
"You don't get to break apart my county, you don't have my permission, because that's my country
too"
Pollard’s Lessee v Hagan, that for the United States, (The States collectively in union) to hold municipal jurisdiction within a State that …….
“Such a power is not only repugnant to the Constitution, but it is inconsistent with the spirit and intention of the deeds of cession.”
“Then to Alabama belong the navigable waters, and soils under them, in controversy in this case, subject to the rights surrendered by the Constitution to the United States, and no compact that might be made between her and the United States could diminish or enlarge these rights.”

The United States never held municipal jurisdiction within a State once a State is formed and admitted to the union: "the soil, the shores, the waters, and land beneath the waters belong to the State respectively:"
We see here that Idaho does NOT belong to you as in.....
"You don't get to break apart my county, you don't have my permission, because that's my country
too"
Also in Harcourt v. Gaillard, 25 U.S. (12 Wheat.) 523, 526, 527 (1827), we find that the U.S. Court stated:

“There was no territory within the United States that was claimed in any other right than that of some one of the confederated states; therefore, there could be no acquisition of territory made by the United States distinct from, or independent of some one of the states.

“Each declared itself sovereign and independent, according to the limits of its territory.

“[T]he soil and sovereignty within their acknowledged limits were as much theirs at the declaration of independence as at this hour.”

Also in M’Ilvaine v. Coxe’s Lessee, 8 U.S. (4 Cranch) 209, 212 (1808), where it was held:

“This opinion is predicated upon a principle which is believed to be undeniable, that the several states which composed this Union, so far at least as regarded their municipal regulations, became entitled, from the time when they declared themselves independent, to all the rights and powers of sovereign states, and that they did not derive them from concessions made by the British king. The treaty of peace contains a recognition of their independence, not a grant of it. From hence it results, that the laws of the several state governments were the laws of sovereign states, and as such were obligatory upon the people of such state, from the time they were enacted.”

Art. I, Sec. 8, Cl. 17 of the U.S. Constitution, which read as follows:

“To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings.”
Here we see that any jurisdiction of the States as a collective in government formation has NO JURISDICTION OUTSIDE OF THE TEN MILES SQUARE THAT IS THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA IS NON-EXISTENT EXCEPT WITHIN A U.S. FORT, AN ARSENAL, A U.S. GOVERNMENT BUILDING, MAGAZINE, OR DOCK YARD, THUS ANY JURISDICTION BEYOND THAT IS THAT OF EACH STATE RESPECTIVELY/INDIVIDUALLY.
What I am pointing out here is that this was intended to be a union of States, not a consolidation of them, I as a Tennessean do not own New YORK, Idaho or any other State, I cannot claim ...
"You don't get to break apart my county, you don't have my permission, because that's my country
too"
They are suppose to be separate States united, NOT CONSOLIDATED.

(1) Did the "states in rebellion" have a constitutional right to leave the Union?

The Supreme Court ruled on this after the Civil War. It said there was no secession because the Constitution did not define a right to secede.

Therefore citizens of Texas and other Confederate states were US citizens before, during and after the War between the States.

If that's true, why did the Confederate States have to be re-admitted to the Union, and re-write their State Constitutions to be re- admitted?

The Confederate States were NOT re-admitted, this was an illusion. The Confederate States were replaces....
A State by definition is "A MODE OF GOVERNMENT"
Example of how the Confederate States were replaced, therefore WERE NOT RE-ADMITTED.....
Isham (I'-sam) G. Harris, of Memphis, was elected governor of Tennessee in 1857, and again in 1859, both times by large majorities.
On February 22 upon the invasion and occupation of Tennessee Grant declared martial law
On March 12, 1862, Andrew Johnson, whom President Lincoln had appointed Military Governor of Tennessee, arrived and took over for the Union. Governor Johnson demanded that all Confederate officers and employees take an oath of allegiance tot he Union, when they refused, he arrested them for treason and appointed his own officers in their place.
Duress any unlawful threat or coercion used by person to induce another to act (or refrain from acting) in a manner he or she otherwise would not (or would). Subjecting person to improper pressure which vercomes his will and coerces him to comply with demand to which he would not yield if acting as free agent [Henry-Campbell: Black, Blacks Law Dictionary®, Sixth Edition, West Publishing Co. St. Paul Minnesota, 1990]
A convention of Unionist met in Nashville January 9, 1865, drafted amendments to the state constitution, nominated candidates for governor and the legislature, and set February 22 and March 4, 1865 for the people to ratify their actions. No Confederates or Confederate sympathizers, were allowed to vote.
According to Military Government and Martial Law [William E. Birkhimer, LL.B., Major General Staff U.S. Army, Third Edition, 1914], ". . . the adoption of a constitution during the war [was] under military orders" (page 110).
Governor Harris was a lame duck governor at the time of the invasion of Tennessee, Robert Caruthers was governor elect, hence the dejure elected governor of Tennessee, yet was NOT allowed to take office.....
William Gannaway Brownlow was elected Governor on March 4.
This election, was limited to only pro-Unionists.
It was under this appointed government/State that this NEW TENNESSEE was admitted, not the de jure Confederate State of Tennessee.
If The Confederate State of Tennessee had been re-admitted, then that would indicate that secession had been accomplished which would NOT be possible if secession was indeed illegal.
So one must answer the question....
Was the Confederate State of Tennessee "re-admitted" or replaced by another State?


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.

I'm much more familiar with the battles of Franklin, Shiloh, Stones River and Nashville. I've actually made quite a study of the campaigns in Tennessee. That aside, my answer to your argument is: you don't own Tennessee any more than I do. In any case the proponents of secession have an extremely limited scope and circumstance to their argument, more about fine legal distinctions rather than any actual principles. If you believe secession is an absolute right based on some principle, then you should have no problem when the result is West Virginia.

The principle cannot ignore the law, While the creation of West Virginia may be based in our a Declaration of Independence, to which I agree, a law was in place in Both Constitutions that.....
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.
Now, just as in the ratification of the 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution, concerning Article XIII of the 1781 Constitution, the law in place must be repealed following the proper prescribed procedure before any further action can take place concerning that law.
In other words, the law must be followed, amended, or repealed to allow the principle to follow through, otherwise it becomes an act of rebellion to the law.
Again however, there was no law concerning secession, hence no law existed to be amended, or repealed.
Concerning The battles in Tennessee, my ancestors were involved, one of which fought in the 4th Tennessee cavalry in McClemores unit under Starnes and Forrest.\, which were involved in many battles, the most amazing to me was the pursuit of Streights raiders. My great great grandfather was among the 4th Tennessee escort when our President was abducted by the invaders.
This however is not my motivation or any blind dedication to the restoration cause, as the restorations end is at the restoration of a wholly federal system, of the Articles of Confederation, a true Confederacy of States as was intended by the founders.