Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

A sensitive question

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by Urban hermit View Post
    Again, I'm not asking if secession is legal, the question is about the leaders who lead a rebellion.
    I answered it also.
    We are not now that strength which in old days
    Moved earth and heaven; that which we are we are; One equal temper of heroic hearts
    Made weak by time and fate but strong in will
    To strive to seek to find and not to yield.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Massena View Post

      Where does it state in the Constitution that secession was legal?
      Where does it state that the secession from Britain was legal ?
      There are no Nazis in Ukraine. Idiots

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Emtos View Post

        Where does it state that the secession from Britain was legal ?
        Apples and oranges here, sorry. The states were equal partners and integral parts of the United States. As English colonies the original 13 states were not equal and integral parts of the mother country. The lack of representation in Parliament, and ownership of said colonies by the crown or proprietors vested by the monarch demonstrates that conclusively. The legality of the American Revolution is a subject for another forum.

        Regards,
        Dennis
        If stupid was a criminal offense Sea Lion believers would be doing life.

        Shouting out to Half Pint for bringing back the big mugs!

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by daddut roger View Post
          Secession not illegal?
          So what is your reading of the following passage from the Constitution?
          Article I
          Section 10

          1: No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.
          2: No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress.
          3: No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.


          Trial, yes it would have been possible, under the said Constitution
          Article II
          Section 3

          1: Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

          2: The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.


          but we must not forget Lincoln's first "Amnesty Proclamation" of December 8, 1863 and Johnston's second of May 29, 1865, and Johnston's third of December 25, 1868 which pronounces a total pardon and amnesty, without conditions...

          I second 82redleg on this. Once the states declared secession, they were no longer bound to the Constitution. Of course, the legality of unilateral secession was the issue, and the precedent is now based on war and a Supreme Court decision.
          "It is a fine fox chase, my boys"

          "It is well that war is so terrible-we would grow too fond of it"

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Urban hermit View Post

            The trial would not necessarily be about secession, but about rebellion.
            I guess the legality of secession determines if they were rebels or not. If we assume that they were rebels and secession illegal, then I think they should obviously be tried. But given the doubtful issue of secession, I think they should have been pardoned. There was no clear-cut right or wrong back then. Even today, I think the reasoning in Texas v. White is dubious.
            "It is a fine fox chase, my boys"

            "It is well that war is so terrible-we would grow too fond of it"

            Comment


            • #21
              There is always a clear-cut right or wrong. The Confederates were determined to destroy the Union.

              And what would have been the legal basis of secession as it was not in the Constitution?
              We are not now that strength which in old days
              Moved earth and heaven; that which we are we are; One equal temper of heroic hearts
              Made weak by time and fate but strong in will
              To strive to seek to find and not to yield.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by American87 View Post

                I guess the legality of secession determines if they were rebels or not. If we assume that they were rebels and secession illegal, then I think they should obviously be tried. But given the doubtful issue of secession, I think they should have been pardoned. There was no clear-cut right or wrong back then. Even today, I think the reasoning in Texas v. White is dubious.
                We don't call the battle cry of the Southern fighter the Secession Cry. we call it the Rebel Cry. They called themselves rebels, Lincoln would not allow negotiations with CSA representatives because he never recognized the CSA as anything but a rebellion.
                Lee and many other CSA officers were graduates of West Point and knew and even stated at the beginning of the rebellion that by resigning their commissions and joining the CSA they had to win or be forever branded as traitors.
                Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by Massena View Post
                  There is always a clear-cut right or wrong. The Confederates were determined to destroy the Union.

                  And what would have been the legal basis of secession as it was not in the Constitution?
                  The Confederates were determined to be independent.

                  And the legal basis of secession was the X Ammendment.
                  "It is a fine fox chase, my boys"

                  "It is well that war is so terrible-we would grow too fond of it"

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by Urban hermit View Post

                    We don't call the battle cry of the Southern fighter the Secession Cry. we call it the Rebel Cry. They called themselves rebels, Lincoln would not allow negotiations with CSA representatives because he never recognized the CSA as anything but a rebellion.
                    Lee and many other CSA officers were graduates of West Point and knew and even stated at the beginning of the rebellion that by resigning their commissions and joining the CSA they had to win or be forever branded as traitors.
                    West Point used William Rawle's A View of the Constitution of the United States of America as a constitutional law textbook, and it taught that secession was legal.

                    When Virginia ratified the Constitution, it retained the right to secede in its ratification document.

                    Legal unilateral secession was a living idea in the antebellum period, and even Texas v. White has no constitutionally binding effect on the states.

                    It came down to war, and even many Northerners were o.k. with Southern secession before the attack on Fort Sumter.

                    I can't say what every Confederate officer thought of secession, but Lee considered it rebellion because he believed the phrase "perpetual union," which was in the Articles of Confederation, was in the U.S. Constitution.

                    I wouldn't put 100% faith in phrases like "the rebel yell," when there were many on both sides who believed that unilateral secession was legal.
                    "It is a fine fox chase, my boys"

                    "It is well that war is so terrible-we would grow too fond of it"

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Until the war of 1861-1865, American jurists and statesmen viewed the right to secede in several ways. The isolation of John C. Calhoun has probably never been greater than the nature of this right. For him, it is indeed a constitutional right. The other authors adopted two types of position. Some accepted it, but they conceived as an extra-or supra-constitutional right; the rest rejected it, but most believed that there was a right of revolution or resistance.

                      Calhoun's position seems all the more original than the acceptance of the revolution which belongs to the common fund of American political thought in the prolongation of the founding events of the Republic. Calhoun was able to rely implicitly on the work of two authors: St. George Tucker and William Rawle. First, Tucker sees the Constitution as a pact between equal and sovereign states. The federal government is not a party to this pact, but its creature, responsible to the states and the people of the states for the performance of its duties. According to the Virginian, sovereignty resides in the peoples of the various states. The ordinary procedure to prevent usurpation of powers by the federal government is the call for the election of new representatives or the use of a constitutional amendment. The Union being only a confederation, it can be dissolved by mutual consent and secession is one of the rights of the States: the Union being a confederation made up of perfect, that is to say sovereign and independent States, any State can make a voluntary withdrawal. Second, Rawle views the Constitution as a pact and the work of the people of each state. The people of each state have the power to decide if they want to remain a member of the Union. This power derives from the right of the people to determine in all cases how it is to be governed. The secession of each state depends on the will of its people at the end of a deliberate, clear and unequivocal act. Rawle plays on the parallelism of forms: voluntarily entering the Union, states can leave as they please.

                      The Secession War is most often called in the United States "Civil War", and this ab origine. The expression is not innocent since it suggests that the secession was not legitimate and that it was only a revolutionary or rebel movement which was treated as such. Besides, A. H. Stephens, titled his opus magnum [A Constitutionnal View of the Late War between the States]… an elliptical reference to "the recent war between the states" ... The constitutional implications are also clear. Secession War refers to international law, Civil War to domestic law. The expression "Secession War" seems more adequate when the southern positions are analyzed and it is this expression which will be retained, beyond any ideological inference. It is also traditionally used in France since the preludes of the conflict.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by American87 View Post

                        And the legal basis of secession was the X Ammendment.
                        Really? How is that? Could you be more specific?

                        We are not now that strength which in old days
                        Moved earth and heaven; that which we are we are; One equal temper of heroic hearts
                        Made weak by time and fate but strong in will
                        To strive to seek to find and not to yield.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by daddut roger View Post
                          Until the war of 1861-1865, American jurists and statesmen viewed the right to secede in several ways. The isolation of John C. Calhoun has probably never been greater than the nature of this right. For him, it is indeed a constitutional right. The other authors adopted two types of position. Some accepted it, but they conceived as an extra-or supra-constitutional right; the rest rejected it, but most believed that there was a right of revolution or resistance.

                          Calhoun's position seems all the more original than the acceptance of the revolution which belongs to the common fund of American political thought in the prolongation of the founding events of the Republic. Calhoun was able to rely implicitly on the work of two authors: St. George Tucker and William Rawle. First, Tucker sees the Constitution as a pact between equal and sovereign states. The federal government is not a party to this pact, but its creature, responsible to the states and the people of the states for the performance of its duties. According to the Virginian, sovereignty resides in the peoples of the various states. The ordinary procedure to prevent usurpation of powers by the federal government is the call for the election of new representatives or the use of a constitutional amendment. The Union being only a confederation, it can be dissolved by mutual consent and secession is one of the rights of the States: the Union being a confederation made up of perfect, that is to say sovereign and independent States, any State can make a voluntary withdrawal. Second, Rawle views the Constitution as a pact and the work of the people of each state. The people of each state have the power to decide if they want to remain a member of the Union. This power derives from the right of the people to determine in all cases how it is to be governed. The secession of each state depends on the will of its people at the end of a deliberate, clear and unequivocal act. Rawle plays on the parallelism of forms: voluntarily entering the Union, states can leave as they please.

                          The Secession War is most often called in the United States "Civil War", and this ab origine. The expression is not innocent since it suggests that the secession was not legitimate and that it was only a revolutionary or rebel movement which was treated as such. Besides, A. H. Stephens, titled his opus magnum [A Constitutionnal View of the Late War between the States]… an elliptical reference to "the recent war between the states" ... The constitutional implications are also clear. Secession War refers to international law, Civil War to domestic law. The expression "Secession War" seems more adequate when the southern positions are analyzed and it is this expression which will be retained, beyond any ideological inference. It is also traditionally used in France since the preludes of the conflict.
                          The actual official title of the Civil War is The War of the Rebellion. And there is no inherent right for any state to secede in the US Constitution.

                          South Carolina threatened that action during the administration of Andrew Jackson and he threatened to lead an army into South Carolina if they actually attemtpted it. They backed off.
                          We are not now that strength which in old days
                          Moved earth and heaven; that which we are we are; One equal temper of heroic hearts
                          Made weak by time and fate but strong in will
                          To strive to seek to find and not to yield.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by Massena View Post

                            The actual official title of the Civil War is The War of the Rebellion. And there is no inherent right for any state to secede in the US Constitution.

                            South Carolina threatened that action during the administration of Andrew Jackson and he threatened to lead an army into South Carolina if they actually attemtpted it. They backed off.
                            Absolutely true, Buchanan blew it. He should have had federal troops march on Montgomery when the southern hell raisers were holding there convention. He (and Lee) had no problem using federal troop to stop John Brown from conducting his rebellion at Harpers Ferry. Nor did Buchanan have any problem suppressing the "Mormon Uprising." A side not, the federal troops that carried out the mission in Utah were lead by none other than Albert S. Johnston.
                            So basically, anyone who attempted to cause an uprising to end slavery as in Brown's case, or any citizens of a territory who chose to secede from the Union (even before becoming a state of that Union) future Confederate Generals had no issue, while still serving the Union, in leading troops against those people.
                            Even more hypocritical, Lee had no problem leading Federal troops through Virginia to attack John Brown,
                            Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              The southern officers were good and loyal until the question of their home states seceding came up.

                              Did you know that Winfield Scott was a Virginian? So was George Thomas. John Gibbon was a North Carolinian. They stayed loyal. Gibbon's entire family turned on him and they never reconciled.
                              We are not now that strength which in old days
                              Moved earth and heaven; that which we are we are; One equal temper of heroic hearts
                              Made weak by time and fate but strong in will
                              To strive to seek to find and not to yield.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by D1J1 View Post

                                Apples and oranges here, sorry. The states were equal partners and integral parts of the United States. As English colonies the original 13 states were not equal and integral parts of the mother country. The lack of representation in Parliament, and ownership of said colonies by the crown or proprietors vested by the monarch demonstrates that conclusively. The legality of the American Revolution is a subject for another forum.

                                Regards,
                                Dennis
                                It's normal that colonies doesn't have their word to say. They're second rate after all. On the other side it's normal when an equal partner decides to leave.
                                There are no Nazis in Ukraine. Idiots

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X