US Constitution

[BrianH]

Once again for the slow, EVEN if the States could freely withdraw they did NOT have the right nor authority to sieze FEDERAL land, property or fire on Federal Troops. Check out the law, those forts were NOT South Carolina property or territory. They were Federal. Once land is ceded it is only regained IF the Federal Government agrees to give it back.

One can not be conducting espionage on their own Country and there was no armistice since the South was not recognized as a country.

The key here, is that federal troops were allowed access by the state. Just like it is today. The Fort was garrisoned after the the war of 1812. Federal troops will not intervene unless asked by the state. Or unless Marshall law is declared. The South wrote up Constitutions for their secession just like the colonies did during their revolution, the only fact that remains is that the U.S. did not find it legitimate, much like the British didn't legitimize the colonists declaration of independence, don't know why though. They had no law prohibiting secession.

But do keep trying. Further the States can not leave on their own. Proven in battle if not in written word. One could take another tact if one wanted, it is weak but no more so then the claim the Southern States were allowed to withdraw on their own.

Find anywhere in the Constitution that it says states cannot secede, and I'll concede that you win this discussion. If not, then you're opinion is nothing more than an opinion..


The Constitution states the Federal Government is responsible to ensure a democratic Government exists in every State. The Southern States denied democracy to the slaves and to poor white trash. Thus their Governments were illegal and had no right to pass articles to leave the union to begin with.

News flash, slaves were legal, on both sides until 1865. The entire war was fought by two sides that legalized slavery. And as far as the Constitution goes, ensure a democratic government in each state is an assinine POV. So they believed the SOuth would turn into a dictatorship if they were allowed to secede? Lincoln did more to destroy the Constitution than the South did.

But it is not needed the 1869 Supreme Court ( 0r 1868) decision settles the issue. No matter how much you or anyone finds it weak it is the LAW of the land until either Congress passes new laws or a Supreme Court rules otherwise.

Yeah, since the Supreme Court has always been right and just. Such as the Plessy v Ferguson case. Yeah, the Supreme Court made a great democratic decision in regards to black people in 1896 didn't they. Segregation of the black man is constitutional.

Now if you want to talk about weak Supreme Court decisions look no farther than the Case that gave us legalized abortion. Or are you now going to argue we should ignore that ruling also?

It's funny how Northerners view the South as this terrible slavery machine that aggressed on the U.S. I'm definately starting to notice the historical debacle of U.S. History. The North teaches it's kids that the North was on this Noble cause to end slavery and fighting the rebels who wanted to enslave and beat Africans. (Ex: Roots)

Not only did the North commit several acts of agressions on the South, such as the Harper's Ferry incident with John Brown. (Attempted Armed revolution of slaves using federal arms....I wonder what would have happened if the slaves had revolted and won....this would have been an African nation possibly, and the UNion would have been kickin themselves in the ass.)

They talk about slave labor being so bad, but fail to recognize the treatment of Native Americans as well as the mass abuse of child and immigrant labor. The only thing to remember, is that according to the Constitution, slavery was legal until 1865. So if the North was fighting to end slavery as is taught, then they were the one's making illegal agression to the South. The South did not invade the North, it was the other way around.

And as far as me being slow, if you want to throw little insults at each other and be a smartass, I can do just as good a job as you can. However, if you want to have a real frickin discussion about this, then do so. Other wise don't attempt to grow a brain on the matter.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Only the states seceded in 1860-1861, before any such ruling was established. Not to mention the ruling had th weakest of arguments.

As far as agression of the South against the North....Harper's Ferry was an agression against the South by Northern Republicans during the Buchanan admin. The refusal of Federal troops to withdraw from South Carolina property was also an act of agression as well as the re-supply of federal troops at the fort...something Lincoln promised not to do after an armistice was signed by South Carolina and the U.S. Lincoln secretly broke the Armistice without Cabinet or Congressional approval by sending reinforcements and supplies to Fort Sumpter under the cloak of private vessels....after numerous acts of espionage. Not to mention failing to evacuate the premises after timely allowance of the Confederacy.

The states did not rebel. There was no rebellion. There was a secession. It's not even closely related. What were they rebelling against? Considering the 10th amend. gives them the right to exercise powers no prohibited to them by the Constitution. And because secession was not prohibted in the constituion, then the states could and did reserve the right.

Wrong again. And as I said decided in a Supreme Court case that stated ( whether you like it or not) that they had no such right. It does not matter one whit how weak the decision is, until such time as it is overturned or An Amendment is created and passed that nullifies it, it IS the law.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

It's funny how Northerners view the South as this terrible slavery machine that aggressed on the U.S. I'm definately starting to notice the historical debacle of U.S. History. The North teaches it's kids that the North was on this Noble cause to end slavery and fighting the rebels who wanted to enslave and beat Africans. (Ex: Roots)

Not only did the North commit several acts of agressions on the South, such as the Harper's Ferry incident with John Brown. (Attempted Armed revolution of slaves using federal arms....I wonder what would have happened if the slaves had revolted and won....this would have been an African nation possibly, and the UNion would have been kickin themselves in the ass.)

They talk about slave labor being so bad, but fail to recognize the treatment of Native Americans as well as the mass abuse of child and immigrant labor. The only thing to remember, is that according to the Constitution, slavery was legal until 1865. So if the North was fighting to end slavery as is taught, then they were the one's making illegal agression to the South. The South did not invade the North, it was the other way around.

And as far as me being slow, if you want to throw little insults at each other and be a smartass, I can do just as good a job as you can. However, if you want to have a real frickin discussion about this, then do so. Other wise don't attempt to grow a brain on the matter.

Go ahead remind us what happened to Brown? Remind us how only the poor State of Virginia had to raise a militia to retake the armory.

Ohh wait, the US sent Federal troops that stormed and took back the armory. So much for that attempted diversion.

AT every turn the Federal Government bent over backwards to appease the South. They had no grievance, in fact the Northern States were the ones FORCED by law to abide by Southern Slave laws, required BY law to return escaped slaves even in Northern States were slavery was ILLEGAL.

And again FEDERAL land is NOT STATE property. Those Forts were FEDERAL property CEDED to the Federal Government BY the individual States. US property.

South Carolina started the war and paid the price for it. We will never know what Congress might have done when back in session in regards the States Leaving. South Carolina forced Lincoln's hand. In fact remind us how before South Carolina fired on Federal troops the US did not even raise an Army to oppose them? Or don't you remember that ohh so "minor" point.

It is funny how after the fact and 0ver 100 years later the South is still trying to rewrite history to make themselves the Noble victim of the US Government. Get over it, YOU LOST.

 

[Taomon]

According to maineman, those who ignore or violate the US Constitution should be considered domestic enemies and should be shot on sight. Yet we have a holiday dedicated to the one person who violated more parts of the US Constitution than any other person in history, Abraham Lincoln.

So, under maineman's logic, Lincoln should not be a respected President, but a domestic enemy and we should dig his corpse up so we could hang him.

I beg to differ, George W Bush violated the Constitution more than Abraham Lincoln, as did Ronald Reagan and Richard M Nixon.

 

[maineman]

"According to maineman, those who ignore or violate the US Constitution should be considered domestic enemies and should be shot on sight."

that is not correct. I have said that our military takes an oath to defend the constitution against ALL enemies foreign and domestic. I have said, that when push comes to shove - when our CinC turns our military loose on any domestic enemy insurrection - that those who have pissed on the constitution will become legitimate targets for that military. Were I still on active duty, I would gladly shoot a domestic enemy if that was my unit's mission. Further, I think that those who feel that they can ignore entire articles in constitution because THEY intepret them to be not worth following, piss on the document and place themselves in the crosshairs when ever push DOES come to shove.

 

[Larkinn]

Like... Bush v Gore (2000).

Correct.

Bad law but nonetheless, the law of the land.

 

[Larkinn]

Yeah, since the Supreme Court has always been right and just. Such as the Plessy v Ferguson case. Yeah, the Supreme Court made a great democratic decision in regards to black people in 1896 didn't they. Segregation of the black man is constitutional.

And hey, it was legal for another 60 years.

Just because you disagree with it doesn't mean its somehow illegal. You don't get to decide that, the USSC does.

 

[ReillyT]

"According to maineman, those who ignore or violate the US Constitution should be considered domestic enemies and should be shot on sight."

that is not correct. I have said that our military takes an oath to defend the constitution against ALL enemies foreign and domestic. I have said, that when push comes to shove - when our CinC turns our military loose on any domestic enemy insurrection - that those who have pissed on the constitution will become legitimate targets for that military. Were I still on active duty, I would gladly shoot a domestic enemy if that was my unit's mission. Further, I think that those who feel that they can ignore entire articles in constitution because THEY intepret them to be not worth following, piss on the document and place themselves in the crosshairs when ever push DOES come to shove.

Okay, let's all take a deep breath. No crosshairs here.

Ironically, when a liberal (and I consider myself one) generally refers to pissing on the constitution, the lack of respect for the document that they are condemning does not encompass the act of actually physically urinating on the constitution. The right to urinate (literally) on the constitution is something we cherish.

Sorry, I am bit tired today. I saw "piss on the document" and this is all that came to mind.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

If open rebellion occurs again in a large enough segment of the population to be noticed the military will split along the same lines the population does. Some will enforce the edicts of the Government, some will rebel and some will be forced to decide the issue when the time to fire on Americans comes to them personally.

Maineman is right some units and troops will do exactly what the Government tells them to do. He is a perfect example though of why all won't. If the right controlled the Government and the left openly rebelled because of cause, Maineman would be with the left.

If the Government , left or right, becomes oppressive enough an armed rebellion WILL occur. The left thinks if they disarm us they can forestall that because they believe they will be the ones in control.

Just my personal opinion.

 

[ReillyT]

If the Government , left or right, becomes oppressive enough an armed rebellion WILL occur. The left thinks if they disarm us they can forestall that because they believe they will be the ones in control.

Just my personal opinion.

Do you really give us that much foresight?

We are the party of Mike Dukakis.

 

[Gunny]

Actually The Supreme Court ruled in 1869 that the rebelling States had no right to withdraw from the Union. But thanks for playing.

Actually, if you do the math, you will note that the Supreme Court made that decision 4 years after the issue have been settled by military force, and it decided in favor of the winner, and it decided incorrectly since there was NO legal documentation (don't know how many times this needs to be said to get through to some), nor even implication that precluded a state from leaving the union as voluntarily as it had entered up to that point.

Had the decision been rendered in 1859, agree with it or not, you'd have an argument.

As it is, the Supreme Court's decision in 1969 amounted to nothing more than after the fact justification for previous actions taken.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Actually, if you do the math, you will note that the Supreme Court made that decision 4 years after the issue have been settled by military force, and it decided in favor of the winner, and it decided incorrectly since there was NO legal documentation (don't know how many times this needs to be said to get through to some), nor even implication that precluded a state from leaving the union as voluntarily as it had entered up to that point.

Had the decision been rendered in 1859, agree with it or not, you'd have an argument.

As it is, the Supreme Court's decision in 1969 amounted to nothing more than after the fact justification for previous actions taken.

Your wrong. The Court ALWAYS decides AFTER the fact, that is the NATURE of our court system. And whether you like it or not, IT IS THE LAW.

 

[ReillyT]

Actually, if you do the math, you will note that the Supreme Court made that decision 4 years after the issue have been settled by military force, and it decided in favor of the winner, and it decided incorrectly since there was NO legal documentation (don't know how many times this needs to be said to get through to some), nor even implication that precluded a state from leaving the union as voluntarily as it had entered up to that point.

Had the decision been rendered in 1859, agree with it or not, you'd have an argument.

As it is, the Supreme Court's decision in 1969 amounted to nothing more than after the fact justification for previous actions taken.

An act isn't legal or illegal in the abstract. It is only legal or illegal in reference to some instrument by which to judge legality. If we are even going to talk about whether secession was legal, that instrument obviously must be the Constitution.

The USSC decides the legality of acts by virtue to that document, and decided in 1869 that states do not have the power to seceed (I am trusting RGS here). That is the law. If you are even going to talk about whether something like secession is "legal" or "illegal" (which is kind of silly b/c it is first and foremost a political act), then one has to accept that in this case, that question has been answered.

 

[Larkinn]

Actually, if you do the math, you will note that the Supreme Court made that decision 4 years after the issue have been settled by military force, and it decided in favor of the winner, and it decided incorrectly since there was NO legal documentation (don't know how many times this needs to be said to get through to some), nor even implication that precluded a state from leaving the union as voluntarily as it had entered up to that point.

Had the decision been rendered in 1859, agree with it or not, you'd have an argument.

As it is, the Supreme Court's decision in 1969 amounted to nothing more than after the fact justification for previous actions taken.

As RGS said, the courts don't "justify" anything. They decide the legality or illegality of it and what they say is the law, and has been the law (unless they reverse something, which they didn't do here).

If you commit an act that *might* be illegal and the court decides its illegal, you still go to jail.

 

[BrianH]

Correct.

Bad law but nonetheless, the law of the land.

But was not the law of the land until after the fact. This was a legal secession until 1869 when the SUpreme Court dubbed it unconstitutional. Like I said, up until that point, you find a part of the Constitution that says the states cannot secede.

Amendment 10
"powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Since there was no prohibition of of secession, nor a prohibition of slavery at the onset of the war...The South had no legitimate illegal activity. The North always wanted to play the side of the "noble cause" even though slavery was legal in the North, there were several Union states that permitted slavery. Maryland, Kentucky, Missouri, New Mexico, and Arizona. There may have been more, but this is off the top of my head. The North also waged the same type of system in their industrialized economy by abusing children and forcing them to work extremely long work-days for little pay, and throwing them out to die when they were injured and could not work. They also did the same with the Chinese when it came to setting the rail-system in the U.S., They also did this to the Native Americans, as well as the immigrants coming over who were forced to join the military when they got off of the ships. The North was real peachy and all about morality in those days.

It was not illegal for the states to secede, there was no law prohibiting it, therefore the states could exercise it.

 

[Swamp Fox]

And by the way, Even IF South Carolina could leave the Union, they do not get to keep Federal property nor attack Federal troops defending it, THOSE are acts of WAR.

South Carolina Started the war. Before they wantonly fired on, killed and captured federal troops Lincoln took NO action against the leaving States, he did not even raise an army as the South was doing.

They left the Union and asked the feds to leave. The feds refused therefore they were invading South Carolina.

Time Line of The Civil War, 1861
1861 | 1862 | 1863 | 1864 | 1865 | Other Photographs


This time line was compiled by Joanne Freeman and owes a special debt to the Encyclopedia of American History by Richard B. Morris.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



January 1861 -- The South Secedes.
When Abraham Lincoln, a known opponent of slavery, was elected president, the South Carolina legislature perceived a threat. Calling a state convention, the delegates voted to remove the state of South Carolina from the union known as the United States of America. The secession of South Carolina was followed by the secession of six more states -- Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, and Texas -- and the threat of secession by four more -- Virginia, Arkansas, Tennessee, and North Carolina. These eleven states eventually formed the Confederate States of America.


February 1861 -- The South Creates a Government.
At a convention in Montgomery, Alabama, the seven seceding states created the Confederate Constitution, a document similar to the United States Constitution, but with greater stress on the autonomy of each state. Jefferson Davis was named provisional president of the Confederacy until elections could be held.


February 1861 -- The South Seizes Federal Forts.
When President Buchanan -- Lincoln's predecessor -- refused to surrender southern federal forts to the seceding states, southern state troops seized them. At Fort Sumter, South Carolina troops repulsed a supply ship trying to reach federal forces based in the fort. The ship was forced to return to New York, its supplies undelivered.

http://memory.loc.gov:8081/ammem/tl1861.html

 

[Swamp Fox]

But was not the law of the land until after the fact. This was a legal secession until 1869 when the SUpreme Court dubbed it unconstitutional. Like I said, up until that point, you find a part of the Constitution that says the states cannot secede.

Amendment 10
"powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Since there was no prohibition of of secession, nor a prohibition of slavery at the onset of the war...The South had no legitimate illegal activity. The North always wanted to play the side of the "noble cause" even though slavery was legal in the North, there were several Union states that permitted slavery. Maryland, Kentucky, Missouri, New Mexico, and Arizona. There may have been more, but this is off the top of my head. The North also waged the same type of system in their industrialized economy by abusing children and forcing them to work extremely long work-days for little pay, and throwing them out to die when they were injured and could not work. They also did the same with the Chinese when it came to setting the rail-system in the U.S., They also did this to the Native Americans, as well as the immigrants coming over who were forced to join the military when they got off of the ships. The North was real peachy and all about morality in those days.

It was not illegal for the states to secede, there was no law prohibiting it, therefore the states could exercise it.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

From your post.

When President Buchanan -- Lincoln's predecessor -- refused to surrender southern federal forts to the seceding states, southern state troops seized them

notice the " they SEIZED them part. As in they attacked the United States of America by unlawfully seizing the property of the Country. Then South Carolina decided to ATTACK US troops IN US TERRITORY.

Thanks for playing though. Perhaps in another 100 years you revisionists can convince people you are right.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

The US Supreme Court disagreed with you, making it the law of the land. A State can not leave the Union without the consent of said Union.

 

[maineman]

If open rebellion occurs again in a large enough segment of the population to be noticed the military will split along the same lines the population does. Some will enforce the edicts of the Government, some will rebel and some will be forced to decide the issue when the time to fire on Americans comes to them personally.

Maineman is right some units and troops will do exactly what the Government tells them to do. He is a perfect example though of why all won't. If the right controlled the Government and the left openly rebelled because of cause, Maineman would be with the left.

If the Government , left or right, becomes oppressive enough an armed rebellion WILL occur. The left thinks if they disarm us they can forestall that because they believe they will be the ones in control.

Just my personal opinion.

your opinion of what I would do if I were on active duty is profoundly insulting to me.

go fuck yourself.