The Origins and Causes of the U.S. Civil War

[James Everett]

JakeStarkey,
Tell you what "son" you have this paperview contact me, and I will see what this person has to say. Clearly you have nothing of relevance to add. Sir, PLEASE cite the law that prevents a State from legally seceding from the union. There must first be established a Law U.S. Law concerning secession, yet there is NOT! Please by all means cite that LAW!!! So as you can see here, I HAVE JUST STRAIGHTENED YOU OUT, NOW PLEASE BY ALL MEANS SEND THIS PAPERVIEW MY WAY SO THAT I MAY STRAIGHTEN HIM/HER OUT.

 

[JakeStarkey]

son, this was decided long ago.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

A State does not have the right or authority to seize take or steal Federal land, Federal property or arms. Nor does it have the right to fire on Federal troops. All those acts are acts of Insurrection. And all of them occurred in the South.

 

[James Everett]

sticker trumpet.jpg,
No "son" a war was conducted long ago, the legal issue has NOT been settled. The Southern Confederate States have existed under the occupation of the U.S. for 150 years. It is time the occupation be ended. The U.S. can then do as it pleases. As our President Jefferson Davis said…….
“A question settled by violence, or in disregard of law,
must remain unsettled forever.”

 

[JakeStarkey]

The issues have been settled, yell all you want, and that changes nothing.

The CSA leadership, on capture, should have been summarily executed, by hanging only as they were traitors.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

sticker trumpet.jpg,
No "son" a war was conducted long ago, the legal issue has NOT been settled. The Southern Confederate States have existed under the occupation of the U.S. for 150 years. It is time the occupation be ended. The U.S. can then do as it pleases. As our President Jefferson Davis said…….
“A question settled by violence, or in disregard of law,
must remain unsettled forever.”

Actually legally it HAS been settled the US Supreme Court ruled in 1869 that a State or States may not legally leave the Union without approval from Congress.

 

[James Everett]

RetiredGYSGT,
You have stated.....
"A State does not have the right or authority to seize take or steal Federal land, Federal property or arms. Nor does it have the right to fire on Federal troops. All those acts are acts of Insurrection. And all of them occurred in the South."
I assume you are referring to Ft Sumter, here I would again direct to YOUR SCOTUS opinion....
Pollard's Lessee v. Hagan, 44 U.S. 3 How. 212 212 (1845)

Pollard's Lessee v. Hagan

44 U.S. (3 How.) 212
"The United States never held any municipal sovereignty, jurisdiction, or right of soil in and to the territory of which Alabama, or any of the new States, were formed, except for temporary purposes, and to execute the trusts created by the acts of the Virginia and Georgia legislatures, and the deeds of cession executed by them to the United States
The shores of navigable waters, and the soils under them, were not granted by the Constitution to the United States, but were reserved to the States respectively, (individually) and the new States have the same rights, sovereignty, and jurisdiction over this subject as the original States. Upon the admission of Alabama into the union, the right of eminent domain, which had been temporarily held by the United States, passed to the State."
None of the land within the seceded Southern State, neither the shores of navigable waters, NOR the soils under them belonged to the U.S. but the municipal jurisdiction belonged to each State INDIVIDUALLY.
When South Carolina seceded, any temporary jurisdiction on the part of the U.S. within the Soil, waters, or Soil under the waters ended, as South Carolina nullified all previous ties with the U.S. Further, Ft Sumter held NO benefit to the protection of the U.S as it sits off the shore of South Carolina. Again Sir, you must revisit the first cause...There was no law preventing a State from seceding from the union, THEREFORE, NO INSURRECTION OCCURRED other than that of Northern States and Lincoln's rebellion to the Lawful authority of the U.S. CONstitutions tenth amendment.

 

[James Everett]

JakeStarkey,
"Son" the only traitor was Lincoln and his Northern cronies, as they were in violation of the authority of the U.S. CONstitutions tenth amendment. Are you learning yet, or are you to indoctrinated to see the truth?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

RetiredGYSGT,
You have stated.....
"A State does not have the right or authority to seize take or steal Federal land, Federal property or arms. Nor does it have the right to fire on Federal troops. All those acts are acts of Insurrection. And all of them occurred in the South."
I assume you are referring to Ft Sumter, here I would again direct to YOUR SCOTUS opinion....
Pollard's Lessee v. Hagan, 44 U.S. 3 How. 212 212 (1845)

Pollard's Lessee v. Hagan

44 U.S. (3 How.) 212
"The United States never held any municipal sovereignty, jurisdiction, or right of soil in and to the territory of which Alabama, or any of the new States, were formed, except for temporary purposes, and to execute the trusts created by the acts of the Virginia and Georgia legislatures, and the deeds of cession executed by them to the United States
The shores of navigable waters, and the soils under them, were not granted by the Constitution to the United States, but were reserved to the States respectively, (individually) and the new States have the same rights, sovereignty, and jurisdiction over this subject as the original States. Upon the admission of Alabama into the union, the right of eminent domain, which had been temporarily held by the United States, passed to the State."
None of the land within the seceded Southern State, neither the shores of navigable waters, NOR the soils under them belonged to the U.S. but the municipal jurisdiction belonged to each State INDIVIDUALLY.
When South Carolina seceded, any temporary jurisdiction on the part of the U.S. within the Soil, waters, or Soil under the waters ended, as South Carolina nullified all previous ties with the U.S. Further, Ft Sumter held NO benefit to the protection of the U.S as it sits off the shore of South Carolina. Again Sir, you must revisit the first cause...There was no law preventing a State from seceding from the union, THEREFORE, NO INSURRECTION OCCURRED other than that of Northern States and Lincoln's rebellion to the Lawful authority of the U.S. CONstitutions tenth amendment.

Wrong read the Constitution again. Land ceded to the Federal Government by the States is permanently part of the federal Government. Owned and controlled henceforth by the Federal Government. A State can take no action that legally changes that State. Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, Virginia and the other States all ceded land to the federal Government after becoming States. No action by that State can change that act. Every Federal armory, building and fort seized was an act of rebellion. And firing on Federal troops is an act of Insurrection.

The Supreme Court in 1869 ruled that No State had the legal right to leave the Union EXCEPT as by an act of and accepted by Congress. Those States that tried to leave the Union were in fact in rebellion as established by competent legal authority both the Executive, Legislative and Judicial all agree to that point.

 

[James Everett]

RetiredGYSGT,
No "Son" what you are referring to is Texas V White, which was a case involving U.S. Bonds, NOT secession. Setting aside the fact that the SCOTUS opinion was flawed because it sought justification using the Articles of Confederation as a basis for the opinion when the SCOTUS is limited to the U.S. Constitution in rendering its opinions, NOT a Constitution that was no longer in effect, or a foreign governments constitution. Do you know what DICTA means? ....
Dicta
Opinions of a judge that do not embody the resolution or determination of the specific case before the court. Expressions in a court's opinionthat go beyond the facts before the court and therefore are individual views of the author of the opinion and not binding in subsequent casesas legal precedent.
Hence the case has no legal bearing on Secession.

 

[James Everett]

Again "son" read YOUR own SCOTUS opinion concerning YOUR Constitutional U.S. Jurisdiction, do you deny the SCOTUS opinion is valid, or binding?
Again........
Pollard's Lessee v. Hagan, 44 U.S. 3 How. 212 212 (1845)

Pollard's Lessee v. Hagan

44 U.S. (3 How.) 212
"The United States never held any municipal sovereignty, jurisdiction, or right of soil in and to the territory of which Alabama, or any of the new States, were formed, except for temporary purposes, and to execute the trusts created by the acts of the Virginia and Georgia legislatures, and the deeds of cession executed by them to the United States
The shores of navigable waters, and the soils under them, were not granted by the Constitution to the United States, but were reserved to the States respectively, (individually) and the new States have the same rights, sovereignty, and jurisdiction over this subject as the original States. Upon the admission of Alabama into the union, the right of eminent domain, which had been temporarily held by the United States, passed to the State."
None of the land within the seceded Southern State, neither the shores of navigable waters, NOR the soils under them belonged to the U.S. but the municipal jurisdiction belonged to each State INDIVIDUALLY.
When South Carolina seceded, any temporary jurisdiction on the part of the U.S. within the Soil, waters, or Soil under the waters ended, as South Carolina nullified all previous ties with the U.S. Further, Ft Sumter held NO benefit to the protection of the U.S as it sits off the shore of South Carolina. Again Sir, you must revisit the first cause...There was no law preventing a State from seceding from the union, THEREFORE, NO INSURRECTION OCCURRED other than that of Northern States and Lincoln's rebellion to the Lawful authority of the U.S. CONstitutions tenth amendment

 

[Rogue 9]

RetiredGYSGT,
No "Son" what you are referring to is Texas V White, which was a case involving U.S. Bonds, NOT secession. Setting aside the fact that the SCOTUS opinion was flawed because it sought justification using the Articles of Confederation as a basis for the opinion when the SCOTUS is limited to the U.S. Constitution in rendering its opinions, NOT a Constitution that was no longer in effect, or a foreign governments constitution. Do you know what DICTA means? ....
Dicta
Opinions of a judge that do not embody the resolution or determination of the specific case before the court. Expressions in a court's opinionthat go beyond the facts before the court and therefore are individual views of the author of the opinion and not binding in subsequent casesas legal precedent.
Hence the case has no legal bearing on Secession.

Pollard's Lessee v. Hagan was a case involving building a canal, not secession. See how it works both ways? The operative legal argument in Texas v. White was that the state of Texas' laws did not apply to Mr. White and his associates because they argued that its state government was illegitimate after the secession and could not sue them for recovery of the bonds. The entire focus of the decision, therefore, was whether or not Texas' secession was valid.

 

[James Everett]

RetiredGYSGT,
Sir, Pollard's Lessee v. Hagan was a case concerning jurisdiction, Texas V White was Concerning bonds, NOT secession. Also Texas v White is invalid even concerning those bonds, because YOUR SCOTUS opinion was based in the perpetuity of the union under the Articles of Confederation, Were the States at the time of the Texas v White opinion still operating under the Articles? NO. Does the 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution mention perpetual anywhere within? NO. Let us read what YOUR 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution states in Article III Sect.2......
"The Judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and eqquity, arising under THIS constitution." The opinion involved the perpetuity under the old Constitution, NOT the 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution. Now let us view International law since we are using law that does not concern the treaty called the "U.S. Constitution".......
"Treaties are not necessarily permanently binding upon the signatory parties. As obligations in international law are traditionally viewed as arising only from the consent of states
When a state withdraws from a multi-lateral treaty, that treaty will still otherwise remain in force among the other parties, unless, of course, otherwise should or could be interpreted as agreed upon between the remaining states parties to the treaty." Now, as During the U.S. CONstitutional debates, Gunning Bedford arose and stated....“That at present all of the States are equally sovereign and independent has been asserted from every quarter of this house, Our deliberations here are a confirmation of the position." In other words, ALL WERE IN AGREEMENT THAT THE STATES WERE SOVEREIGNS, hence the 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution was a TREATY. Therefore SGT if we are going beyond what is stated within YOUR 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution, then we have international law stating that secession, (withdrawal from Treaty is legal.
SGT, "See how it works both ways?"
The fact is there is NO Article, NO Amendment, or Law against a State seceding from the union, therefore secession is LEGAL.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Of course it is not. The law trumps, not your opinion. Trot along.

 

[James Everett]

JakeStarkey, Cite the law.... I am still waiting for you or anyone else to cite that law.
Indeed the law trumps my opinion as well as yours, yet you have yet to cite the law.

 

[James Everett]

This should have been directed at Rogue9. So here it is again.....
Sir, Pollard's Lessee v. Hagan was a case concerning jurisdiction, Texas V White was Concerning bonds, NOT secession. Also Texas v White is invalid even concerning those bonds, because YOUR SCOTUS opinion was based in the perpetuity of the union under the Articles of Confederation, Were the States at the time of the Texas v White opinion still operating under the Articles? NO. Does the 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution mention perpetual anywhere within? NO. Let us read what YOUR 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution states in Article III Sect.2......
"The Judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and eqquity, arising under THIS constitution." The opinion involved the perpetuity under the old Constitution, NOT the 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution. Now let us view International law since we are using law that does not concern the treaty called the "U.S. Constitution".......
"Treaties are not necessarily permanently binding upon the signatory parties. As obligations in international law are traditionally viewed as arising only from the consent of states
When a state withdraws from a multi-lateral treaty, that treaty will still otherwise remain in force among the other parties, unless, of course, otherwise should or could be interpreted as agreed upon between the remaining states parties to the treaty." Now, as During the U.S. CONstitutional debates, Gunning Bedford arose and stated....“That at present all of the States are equally sovereign and independent has been asserted from every quarter of this house, Our deliberations here are a confirmation of the position." In other words, ALL WERE IN AGREEMENT THAT THE STATES WERE SOVEREIGNS, hence the 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution was a TREATY. Therefore SGT if we are going beyond what is stated within YOUR 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution, then we have international law stating that secession, (withdrawal from Treaty is legal.
SGT, "See how it works both ways?"
The fact is there is NO Article, NO Amendment, or Law against a State seceding from the union, therefore secession is LEGAL.

 

[Rogue 9]

The Constitution is a compact between the states that forms a government over them all. It is not a mere treaty; it methodically and intentionally lays out a government of a nation, and was adopted by convention of the people, not statute of the legislatures. All the states are bound by it. James Madison put the argument quite well, I think.
James Madison to Nicholas Trist, December 23, 1832

Montpellier, Decr 23, 1832.

Dr. Sir

I have received yours of the 19th, inclosing some of the South Carolina papers. There are in one of them some interesting views of the doctrine of secession; one that had occurred to me, and which for the first time I have seen in print; namely that if one State can at will withdraw from the others, the others can at will withdraw from her, and turn her, nolentem, volentem, out of the union. Until of late, there is not a State that would have abhorred such a doctrine more than South Carolina, or more dreaded an application of it to herself. The same may be said of the doctrine of nullification, which she now preaches as the only faith by which the Union can be saved.

I partake of the wonder that the men you name should view secession in the light mentioned. The essential difference between a free Government and Governments not free, is that the former is founded in compact, the parties to which are mutually and equally bound by it. Neither of them therefore can have a greater right to break off from the bargain, than the other or others have to hold them to it. And certainly there is nothing in the Virginia resolutions of — 98, adverse to this principle, which is that of common sense and common justice. The fallacy which draws a different conclusion from them lies in confounding a single party, with the parties to the Constitutional compact of the United States. The latter having made the compact may do what they will with it. The former as one only of the parties, owes fidelity to it, till released by consent, or absolved by an intolerable abuse of the power created. In the Virginia Resolutions and Report the plural number, States, is in every instance used where reference is made to the authority which presided over the Government. As I am now known to have drawn those documents, I may say as I do with a distinct recollection, that the distinction was intentional. It was in fact required by the course of reasoning employed on the occasion. The Kentucky resolutions being less guarded have been more easily perverted. The pretext for the liberty taken with those of Virginia is the word respective, prefixed to the "rights" &c to be secured within the States. Could the abuse of the expression have been foreseen or suspected, the form of it would doubtless have been varied. But what can be more consistent with common sense, than that all having the same rights &c. should unite in contending for the security of them to each.

It is remarkable how closely the nullifiers who make the name of Mr Jefferson the pedestal for their colossal heresy, shut their eyes and lips, whenever his authority is ever so clearly and emphatically against them. You have noticed what he says in his letters to Monroe & Carrington Pages 43 & 203, vol 2, with respect to the powers of the old Congress to coerce delinquent States, and his reasons for preferring for the purpose a naval to a military force, and moreover that it was not necessary to find a right to coerce in the Federal Articles, that being inherent in the nature of a compact. It is high time that the claim to secede at will should be put down by the public opinion, and I shall be glad to see the task commenced by one who understands the subject.

I know nothing of what is passing at Richmond, more than what is seen in the newspapers. You were right in your foresight of the effect of the passages in the late Proclamation. They have proved a leaven for much fermentation there, and created an alarm against the danger of consolidation, balancing that of disunion. I wish with you the Legislature may not seriously injure itself by assuming the high character of mediator. They will certainly do so if they forget that their real influence will be in the inverse ratio of a boastful interposition of it.

If you can fix, and will name the day of your arrival at Orange Court House, we will have a horse there for you, and if you have more baggage than can be otherwise brought than on wheels, we will send such a vehicle for it. Such is the state of the roads produced by the wagons hurrying flour to market, that it may be impossible to send our carriage which would answer both purposes.

James Madison was just as much a party to the Constitutional Convention as Gunning Bedford, and George Washington chaired the convention. Thomas Jefferson stated repeatedly that breaking up the Union would be a calamity, and further Gunning Bedford didn't actually say anything relating to secession from the Constitutional government post-ratification. His opinion is no more or less valid than those of anyone else at that convention.

 

[James Everett]

Rogue9....
The Constitution is in fact a treaty between Sovereign States.
A Treaty is....
.A compact made between two or more independent nations with a view to the publicWelfare.
A formal agreement between two or more States containing terms of peace, trade, etc
A Compact is.....
An agreement or covenant.
I am quite aware of Madison's letters, as well as Washington's circular etc....
However, these are NOT law, they are NOT the Constitution, these men were NOT the States that ratified the 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution. At the time they were bound by the Articles of Confederation.....
Article XIII...."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"
They could NOT have ratified the 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution without the CONFIRMATION OF THE LEGISLATURES OF EVERY STATE.
The 1787/1789 .U.S CONstitution was indeed ratified by a convention in each State,
Delaware...
The first state to ratify was Delaware. The Delaware legislature began its new session in October 1787 and by early November had called for elections for the state ratifying convention to be held on November 9 and 10. Ten members were to be elected from each of the three counties for a total of 30 delegates, the same number of representatives in the lower house of the Delaware legislature. And what we have called the Madison forces were out there in the electoral districts making sure that the pro-Constitutionalists were selected as delegates.
Pennsylvania
All eight delegates at that States Convention resided in Philadelphia.
New Jersey
There were 13 counties in New Jersey and each chose three delegates to attend the ratifying convention.

So as we see here Rogue9, this was not by popular vote of the people, but by State convention with elected delegates within each State called for by each States legislature. In this process, it was indeed a ratification by the States and not by the people, otherwise the 1787/1789 U.S. Constitution established a de facto government in violation of the Articles Of Confederation.
As I have stated before, opinions are a dime a dozen, and mine, Yours and anyone elses are as valid as Madison's or Washington's, when it comes to law however, opinions take a back seat to the enumeration in the law. Madison, nor Washington ratified the TREATY.
However, non of this is relevant to the fact that YOU must cite the law, article within the 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution, or amendment to it that makes secession an unlawful, or illegal act.

 

[James Everett]

Rogue9,
I forgot to address this........"Gunning Bedford didn't actually say anything relating to secession from the Constitutional government post-ratification. His opinion is no more or less valid than those of anyone else at that convention."

As I stated....
Gunning Bedford stated that it had been asserted that from every quarter of the house that the States at present were equally sovereign and Independent.
In other words it was NOT simply his opinion, but rather an opinion asserted from every quarter of that house.
Again....Cite that law.....

 

[Rogue 9]

And Mr. Bedford was apparently mistaken, since other delegates at the convention including the chair disagreed. Or he didn't mean what you seem to think he did, which seems more probable since he was ardently in favor of adopting the Constitution, referred to it as the foundation of the country, and insisted on defining a common law of the United States.

Treaties do not do what the Constitution does. The Constitution is the foundational document of a nation, to which the states sublimated themselves - and with reason, for it was together that they achieved their independence, together that they were recognized as a nation on the world stage by the Treaty of Paris, and only together that they could have any real influence in the world. The Constitution, in so many words, forms a government, not a treaty organization. NATO is a treaty organization; the difference between the two is quite stark. A government cannot function without the power to enforce its laws - and if those subject to its laws can avoid them by simply breaking off the territory they stand on at whim and removing themselves from its jurisdiction, then the government has no actual power to enforce the laws.

It was the treaties and money of the United States that acquired the land that Alabama sits on, that made the Louisiana purchase, and it was the armies of the United States that powered the western expansion. Southern politicians, in fact, were eager to use more American blood and treasure to acquire yet more territory in the Caribbean and Central America in which to erect more slave states so as to recapture a majority in the Senate and thereby protect their repugnant institution; it can hardly be said that they were opposed to benefiting from this arrangement. To take the weal of the common effort and simply walk away with it without the consent of the co-states can hardly be reasonably considered within the scope of fair dealings in a compact.