- Joined
- Oct 1, 2005
- Messages
- 38,750
- Reaction score
- 13,845
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian - Right
Even if you follow Texas v. White, it doesn't change anything -- "the States" didn't consent.
The re-admission process was the outrgowth of Charles Sumner's legal rationalizations of "state suicide" and statewide felo de se.
The flaw in the logic is that if a state has the capacity to dissolve itself via secession from the Union, then secession becomes accomplished fact, and that the inhabitants of the presumably dissolved state are then free to establish such government outside the Union as they see fit; felo de se fails because there was no statute prohibiting such dissolution, nor does common law address the notion as applied to states, and thus no state felonious conduct.
However, if a state, by secession, ceases to be a state, then the territory of that dissolved state necessarily is outside the United States--it cannot be a territory of the United States because the territory was not "owned" by the United States for the duration of statehood, and thus, upon secession/dissolution, the territory of that state is outside the jurisdiction of the United States, and the inhabitants of that territory are unencumbered from fashioning a new government for themselves.
It is worth noting that even Texas v White, the one Supreme Court ruling I know of touching on secession, did not absolutely say that secession was unequivocally legally impossible.
If there can be "consent of the States," there can be secession.
Oh...but it is.
The Confederate constitution would indicate otherwise. If the supremacy of state sovereignty were their foremost concern, they would have addressed it. But they didn't. Instead, they bolstered slavery.
In any case, there are many things states are not free to impose within the confines of their borders, and by any measure of enlightened thought, slavery sure as hell would to be one of them.
Look, the slaveowners of the south didn't want to ruin their personal economies, so they wanted to preserve their wretched institution, and that's just about it. It's not the like north was wanting them to give up cotillions, mint julep, or anything else about their culture -- just their slaves.
Are you going to argue, by the way, that if today there were no 13th Amendment, or if for some reason it were repealed, that any state should be able to institute slavery?
Slavery was intrinsictly tied to the Civil War, there's no question about that.
However, how much of the "reason" it was for it is extremely debatable.
State rights, economy, societal issues all played into it. Slavery tied to many of these things.
However, for me, the breaking point is here....Would it still have happened if we had never had slavery in the first place?
I think, essentally, yes. Slavery was the ignition more than the root cause. The root cause in my mind was the disconnect between the industrious north and the agricultural south, and the disagreement in regards to the amount of control one should be able to put upon the other in a governmental level. Slavery happened to be how it was manifested and BECAUSE it was, it is largely tied to it (the economy issues tie into slavery. The societal issues tie into slavery. even the state rights issues tie into slavery). HOWEVER, I think if it was not slavery it would've been something else.
Ultimately in my mind the civil war was a culture war based on States Rights and the societal differences between the two areas of the country. Slavery was directly tied to it all, but I wouldn't actually call it the root issue as much as the tool used by the issue.
There was no need to "bolster states rights" among states that were already like minded.
And slavery was mentioned because it was a pressing issue to the agricultural south who relied on slaves at the time.
Not during that time. Context is important.
That is so absurdly false I don't even know how to address it.
I don't know what makes you think that.
They claimed the Union was fundamentally flawed because it didn't have sufficient guarantees of state sovereignty. They were also smart people who knew that the interests of Virginia and the interests of Arkansas weren't always going to be the same. And, they attempted to recruit states such as New York into the Confederacy.
Yes, it was the primary impetus.
Yeah, the context was that the southern states were the only place in all of Western civilization which hadn't abolished slavery as the evil it was.
Give it a shot, because saying it doesn't make it so.
It was a question. If there were no 13th Amendment (and there needn't have been), and Colorado wanted to institute slavery, would you be OK with it? If not, why not, and what should be done about it? Should it stand?
I will grant that it may have been the final straw, but it was not the core issue.
No, that was not the context.
I don't need to hold a history lesson for you because you are married to your revisionist ideas and nothing will divorce you from them.
Yes, and it was an absurd question that I will not indulge.
They wanted to keep their slaves. They knew they were losing. Hence, they decided to try secession.
It sure as hell was. Enlightened civilization had condemned the practice as unconscionable long before.
The idea that it was a fight about states' rights is the revisionist history. It was a crutch. It was an excuse. But for the south, it was about preserving slavery.
It actually irritates me quite a bit that people I agree with -- people who believe in federalism, the limits of the federal government, and the 10th Amendment -- latch on so fervently to the Confederate cause and blind themselves to what was really going on because of the states' rights fantasy involved.
Sure, they sang a few catchy philosophical tunes. But they were just slogans. They perverted a just principle into serving eminently unjust ends.
It does no one who believes in the fundamental principles of federalism any good at all to be such fervent defenders of the Confederacy, and it does the philosophy even more disservice.
Why not? It's directly relevant. If it were a legitimate state sovereignty issue for the south then, it would be for any state now.
But I think you realize the point -- slavery was an evil that trumps states' rights.
Which has what to do with the reason the southern states seceded? Nothing.
I would suggest you begin your enlightenment by looking at the Tariff of Abominations of 1828 and then move forward from there.
The Civil War wasn't just about Lincoln and his Proclamation and it damned sure wasn't about slavery at its core.
I never said it wasn't. I said that slavery wasn't the real issue behind the Civil War. I don't recall ever making any assertion about the moral value of slavery so please don't attribute to me things I did not say.
Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin.
In all the non-slave-holding States, in violation of that good faith and comity which should exist between entirely distinct nations, the people have formed themselves into a great sectional party, now strong enough in numbers to control the affairs of each of those States, based upon an unnatural feeling of hostility to these Southern States and their beneficent and patriarchal system of African slavery, proclaiming the debasing doctrine of equality of all men, irrespective of race or color-- a doctrine at war with nature, in opposition to the experience of mankind, and in violation of the plainest revelations of Divine Law. They demand the abolition of negro slavery throughout the confederacy, the recognition of political equality between the white and negro races, and avow their determination to press on their crusade against us, so long as a negro slave remains in these States.
...
That in this free government all white men are and of right ought to be entitled to equal civil and political rights; that the servitude of the African race, as existing in these States, is mutually beneficial to both bond and free, and is abundantly authorized and justified by the experience of mankind, and the revealed will of the Almighty Creator, as recognized by all Christian nations; while the destruction of the existing relations between the two races, as advocated by our sectional enemies, would bring inevitable calamities upon both and desolation upon the fifteen slave-holding states.
Those States have assume the right of deciding upon the propriety of our domestic institutions; and have denied the rights of property established in fifteen of the States and recognized by the Constitution; they have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery; they have permitted open establishment among them of societies, whose avowed object is to disturb the peace and to eloign the property of the citizens of other States. They have encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to leave their homes; and those who remain, have been incited by emissaries, books and pictures to servile insurrection.
Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth.
The American Civil War (1861–1865), also known as the War Between the States and several other names, was a civil war in the United States of America. Eleven Southern slave states declared their secession from the U.S. and formed the Confederate States of America (the Confederacy). Led by Jefferson Davis, they fought against the U.S. federal government (the "Union"), which was supported by all the free states and the five border slave states in the north.
In the presidential election of 1860, the Republican Party, led by Abraham Lincoln, had campaigned against the expansion of slavery beyond the states in which it already existed. The Republican victory in that election resulted in seven Southern states declaring their secession from the Union even before Lincoln took office on March 4, 1861. Both the outgoing and incoming U.S. administrations rejected secession, regarding it as rebellion.
[...]
Confederate Vice President Alexander Stephens said[12][13] that slavery was the chief cause of secession[14] in his Cornerstone Speech shortly before the war. After Confederate defeat, Stephens became one of the most ardent defenders of the Lost Cause.[15]
There was a striking contrast[14][16] between Stephens' post-war states' rights assertion that slavery did not cause secession[15] and his pre-war Cornerstone Speech. Confederate President Jefferson Davis also switched from saying the war was caused by slavery to saying that states' rights was the cause.
While Southerners often used states' rights arguments to defend slavery, sometimes roles were reversed, as when Southerners demanded national laws to defend their interests with the Gag Rule and the Fugitive Slave Law of 1850. On these issues, it was Northerners who wanted to defend the rights of their states.[17]
It has everything to do with the "context," as you put it.
That was lifted 30 years before the war. And then the real fight over slavery began.
And yes, there were also tariff issues. I never said there weren't. But the economic effects of the tariffs were a drop in the ocean next to the economic and social effects of abolishing slavery. So, which do you think was more of a threat?
Yeah, no kidding, considering the Proclamation wasn't until 1863.
Besides, I haven't mentioned Lincoln once, and you note I said that "for the south," it was about slavery, purposely excluding Lincoln. The Union didn't go to war to end slavery. It went to war to preserve the Union.
Didn't say you said anything. In fact, I said "it was a question."
That's why I said "start there" and move forward. Go from there to Jackson's renegotiation of the tariff in 1833, thanks in large part to the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions which then supported South Carolina's Nullification Crisis. The threat of a state claiming its sovereignty brought about new interpretations of the Aliens and Seditions Act that leveled it against members of Southern legislatures, specifically in South Carolina and was a key argument for raising a federal army against South Carolina in order to enforce the tariff. The whole secession argument was building before slavery was ever even threatened.
No need to be a smartass about it.
You are the one making the erroneous claim that the Civil War was over slavery
so how was I supposed to know that you actually knew any timelines at all?
It went to war to preserve the economic status quo. If the South seceded successfully, then the North would suffer economically because the South had plans to introduce very low tariffs that would undercut Northern manufacturing by importing from Great Brittain. Even Lincoln was purported to have said, upon it being suggested that the South should be permitted to quietly leave, "But what will become of my tariff?".
The war was not prosecuted by the north to keep the fam together as you would have us believe. It was over economics and Northern avarice when faced with their little protectionist tariff system being abandoned by the South.
You implied that I was defending slavery...which I have not done.
Yet, they made all their loudest noise about slavery and didn't do a thing to address the other issues when they set up their own shop.
I wasn't. But I was responding to a smartass comment of yours.
I made no such claim. You need to reread.
This is why you shouldn't make assumptions.
Even taking this dark interpretation, it's still to preserve the Union.
I implied no such thing. It was a question about the extent of states' rights, and in fact, the actual implication in the premise of the question is that you WOULDN'T defend slavery.
I'm done here.
I tried to explain it to you and as I stated before...you are married to your revisionist perspective and there is nothing that will divorce you from it. I refuse to beat my head against a wall over it so think whatever you've been led to think. It appears you are happy with your fairy tales so who am I to rob you of them?
Of course you are.
Dunno; looks to me like I responded pretty well to everything you wrote, whereas you've proceeded mostly on unfounded assumptions and misreadings of my posts.
But hey; I guess I done bin told.
No, you "done bin" given up on. It probably isn't the first time either.
I would love to see Texas Secede from the union. Then we'll put up a border crossing and put tariffs on goods and services, all federal agencies will pull out including funding for police and fire... of course th military will have to be removed. No more welfare, SSI, unemployment... nothing no federal funds period. The Texas economy would turn to ****, unemployment would skyrocket, people would be trying to leave in droves. And then of course, how long would it be before Tejas was calling to help fend off the annexation by Mexico. :rofl
I would SO love to see that happen just so the ignorant fools who think this idea is peachy could beg to be brought back into the union. GO TEJAS!!!
The colonies did not secede from England, because they were never sovereign members of the British Empire, they were simply possessions.
When the states joined the Union, part of the agreement was that they would stay together no matter what, the Union was not a club they could un-join. That's why Lincoln was determined to save the Union, the secession of southern states was a test of the concept.
A state cannot secede, just like you can't leave the Mafia.
Over the long run it would be the US that loses out considering we are the only red state that contributes more in federal taxes than we get back. FYI many around here consider me liberal.
Who pays for all those wonderful assistances and agencies?Well you can ignore all that EVERY state gets in support from the federal government if you want. Besides funding there is planning and development... Here are just the "A"s (I removed the state specific like the Alabama website)
Doesn't matter because Tejas wouldn't get them. I think it's VERY intellectually honest to ignore the truth about what would happen to Tejas in favor of flailing about like a fish out of water.Who pays for all those wonderful assistances and agencies?
It does matter.Doesn't matter because Tejas wouldn't get them. I think it's VERY intellectually honest to ignore the truth about what would happen to Tejas in favor of flailing about like a fish out of water.
The Tejas economy would turn to **** long before the actual secession would take place as the smart people would be exiting ASAP.
It does matter.
Ultimately, taxpayers fund all these wonderful things. A state which secedes loses these agencies and their presumed benefits....but that state's citizens gain by the taxes they no longer send to the Federal government.
.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?