Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

A sensitive question

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

  • #76
    Originally posted by Massena View Post

    When the British took over others' colonies they certainly became British subjects.
    We are getting off topic, but German and Dutch settlers carried on their traditions, until 1915 German was the second language of the US.
    40% of us are descendants of German and Dutch settlers.
    Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.

    Comment


    • #77
      Originally posted by D1J1 View Post

      Secession still legal? I see you missed Texas v White. So, (referencing my bold of your post), you also obviously missed out on McCulloch v Maryland which in fact has established just the opposite as a precedent.

      On a practical basis, by believing in secession you are implying that the Founding Fathers established the Constitution as some sort of temporary expedient. That is a knee slapper.

      I suppose your logic plays well at SCV and UDC conventions, but other than those throwbacks pining for the good old days of some folks knowing their place, that thinking holds no water. Carry on with it if you wish, but it is more stand up comedy than rational thought.

      Regards,
      Dennis
      McCulloch vs. Maryland decided that the states could not control federal instruments, in that case Maryland could not tax the National Bank. The Supreme Court can decide cases involving the federal government, like McCulloch vs. Marlyand, and it can decide cases between a state and another state, or a state and citizens of another state, or similar cases. It cannot decide the internal cases of a state, nor does it constitutionally have the power to declare laws unconstitutional.

      Its power to declare laws unconstitutional is a theory only, known as Judicial Review, but it has generally been accepted since the Civil War. The alternative theory is that the states can declare federal law unconstitutional, or "Nullification Theory" (my term). Neither has the backing of the Constitution, so Chase's opinion in Texas vs. White has no constitutional validity; it is simply Judicial Review, and people say secession is unconstitutional because they don't know that Judicial Review is just a theory. If a state seceded today, it would not be breaking the constitution just because Chase said secession is illegal.

      The Founding Fathers knew how foolish it would be to declare the union as perpetual. They did that in the Articles of Confederation, and then most of the states seceded from that Union. There was a snag in their logic: they wrote that the Union was perpetual, but that the states retained their soveriegnty. If a state is sovereign, it can do whatever it wants, including backing out of unions, and that is what the states did. State Sovereignty. Madison addressed this in the Federalist Papers, and he wrote that it was fine for the states to dissolve the "perpetual union" in case of necessity. The need for a new constitution was deemed a necessity, so seceding from the Articles of Confederation was o.k.

      It would have been silly for the Founding Fathers to include "perpetual union" in the U.S. Constitution, because they knew firsthand that such a Union could not be perpetual if the states wanted to break it up. The states, or rather the people of each state, are soverign, so they can dissolve the Union. It's that simple. That is what happened with the Articles of Confederation, which stated the union was "perpetual." It doesn't matter what the document says or what the gentlemen who wrote it intended, because the people of each state are sovereign and have the ultimate say. If they want to secede they can. That is the wharp and whoof of this country, the first, last, and everything you need to know about how this country works.

      The only illegal secession would be if a part of a state tried to break away from the rest of a state without going through the proper procedures, which is attaining the consent of the state legislature and Congress. Otherwise, that section of the state would be in rebellion, which is fine, because rebellion was established as a valid precedent with the Declaration of Independence and common sense, both the pamphlet and the way of thinking.


      I had to look up SVC, and it shows how limited your thinking is. If you think constitutional law is racist, that's your problem. Don't bring it in here when people actually know what they're talking about.
      "It is a fine fox chase, my boys"

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

      Comment


      • #78
        Originally posted by daddut roger View Post


        The Tenth Amendment’s simple language—“The 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”—emphasizes that the inclusion of a bill of rights, does not change the fundamental character of the national government. It remains a government of limited and enumerated powers, so that the first question involving an exercise of federal power is not whether it violates someone’s rights, but whether it exceeds the national government’s enumerated powers.

        In this sense, the Tenth Amendment is “but a truism.” The only question posed by the Tenth Amendment is whether a claimed federal power was actually delegated to the national government by the Constitution, and that question is answered by studying the enumerated powers, not by studying the Tenth Amendment. That was the understanding of the Supreme Court for nearly two centuries.

        in any case, secession is a right enshrined in the Constitution ... your Xth Amendment proves nothing in this sense ...
        on the contrary, I can quote, a second time, the Section 10 of Article I, where it is written:
        1: No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; Money corner; 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.
        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.


        the Southern Confederation therefore had no legal existence.
        Yes, those articles apply when the states are bound by the Constitution. For example, if you and I signed a contract to construct a house, we would be bound by that contract until it was fulfilled. If I built you a house, you would not be obligated to pay me over and over throughout the course of your life. No, you would simply pay me the agreed upon term, the house would be completed, and the contract fulfilled and terminated.

        When the states seceded, they terminated their agreement with the federal government and other states. They were no longer bound to the articles of the constitution anymore that you are bound to terminated contracts you have signed in the past.
        "It is a fine fox chase, my boys"

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

        Comment


        • #79
          Originally posted by Urban hermit View Post

          The colonist were not all British
          No, but they all wound up that way, did they not?. Also, none of the folks you mentioned were subjugated native populations as I discussed in my first post. There was a huge difference between the 13 British colonies in America and the rest of her holdings.

          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


          • #80
            Originally posted by American87 View Post

            Interesting. Chase was an abolitionist, so I always figured he ruled according to his conscience rather than the law. His reasoning was based on the common history of the states rather than on the Constitution.
            But I could definitely see him ruling to seize funds and otherwise benefitting the Northern cause.

            Secession is still legal, since Supreme Court cases are not binding on the states, and the X Ammendment is still in effect. It comes down to public will. If California wanted to secede, for example, it depends on the federal government and if the people of other states want to go to war to keep it in the Union.

            It is a Union of the bayonet, where if you want to leave, you have to be prepared for war.
            Especially if the South at the time just so happened to be producing 60% of the total Federal tariff income, without which the government would quickly become bankrupt.
            Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Who is watching the watchers?

            Comment


            • #81
              Originally posted by American87 View Post

              Yes, those articles apply when the states are bound by the Constitution. For example, if you and I signed a contract to construct a house, we would be bound by that contract until it was fulfilled. If I built you a house, you would not be obligated to pay me over and over throughout the course of your life. No, you would simply pay me the agreed upon term, the house would be completed, and the contract fulfilled and terminated.

              When the states seceded, they terminated their agreement with the federal government and other states. They were no longer bound to the articles of the constitution anymore that you are bound to terminated contracts you have signed in the past.
              For the above to be correct, one would have to prove that the founding fathers intended the Constitution to be a matter of convenience rather than a binding agreement. Throughout all the repeated incarnations of this argument over many years that singular important fact has never been demonstrated. Absent that, such arguments are spurious.

              The great flaw of the Articles of Confederation, corrected by the Constitution, was precisely the fact that too much power had been placed in the states to have an effective central government.

              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


              • #82
                [QUOTE][Especially if the South at the time just so happened to be producing 60% of the total Federal tariff income, without which the government would quickly become bankrupt./QUOTE]

                Like they would never have figured out another way to generate needed revenue? You ever known a government that couldn't think up a way to generate money?


                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


                • #83
                  Originally posted by D1J1 View Post

                  No, but they all wound up that way, did they not?. Also, none of the folks you mentioned were subjugated native populations as I discussed in my first post. There was a huge difference between the 13 British colonies in America and the rest of her holdings.

                  Regards,
                  Dennis
                  To answer your question I have to ask one, What does this have to do with the OP?
                  The Civil War wasn't fought exclusively by the original 13 colonies. But even the American Revolution wasn't fought exclusively by British, or people of British origins.
                  The Brits employed Hessians, George Washington turned to a Prussian and a Frenchman to be commanders.
                  But by the time of the Civil War are you going to tell me that Wisconsin and Minnesota were not settled by Swiss and Polish and Germans?
                  Are you suggesting Louisiana wasn't most French, or that Florida had no Spanish influence? (even though it had been in Spanish control longer than it had been a state)
                  Pennsylvania, German Dutch and Irish? Western Pennsylvania was already mining coal and many of the miners there were Irish and German.
                  Kansas, Nebraska, Iowa? Those states had many newspapers printed in German and it stayed that way until 1915.
                  I would tell you, the anti slavery abolitionist movement grew out of the many German religious groups that dated back to the early Dutch and German settlers in New England, long before Britain took over New Amsterdam, and only grew stronger as the numbers of immigrants from Prussia, Sweden, Holland and Germany grew.
                  But all of this is a diversion from the OP.
                  Through out history, a failed revolution is a rebellion and the leaders have been dealt with as traitors or insurgents.
                  It is true that Lincoln and his proxy Grant, offered favorable conditions to the officers and enlisted men of the CSA, and it is true that Lincoln did not want to have political leaders arrested and tried as traitors.
                  What did that get us as a nation?
                  Jim Crow laws? The KKK? Lost Causers? Mythology!?!
                  My premise is that we blew it. By convicting the leaders and the officers who betrayed their oaths the citizens of the South would have been able to move back into American society without a sense of collective guilt, slavery would have been atoned for.
                  Punish the leaders, just as the founding fathers understood, if they failed they were responsible, "We Pledge Our?"
                  Last edited by Urban hermit; 12 Jul 20, 22:19.
                  Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    I don't disagree that the leaders of secession most certainly would be traitors. I do not think their execution would serve the nation. Trial to prove such and pardons seems reasonable, as I stated earlier.

                    I don't deny other groups beside English were here, but as things worked out England took control, hence all became British subjects. The American colonies do remain different due to the lack of subjugation of a native population by a ruling elite. None of this has anything to do with the OP, but, as usual with these questions, thread drift led by a diversion into Lost Cause logic is a reality.

                    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


                    • #85
                      Originally posted by D1J1 View Post
                      I don't disagree that the leaders of secession most certainly would be traitors. I do not think their execution would serve the nation. Trial to prove such and pardons seems reasonable, as I stated earlier.

                      I don't deny other groups beside English were here, but as things worked out England took control, hence all became British subjects. The American colonies do remain different due to the lack of subjugation of a native population by a ruling elite. None of this has anything to do with the OP, but, as usual with these questions, thread drift led by a diversion into Lost Cause logic is a reality.

                      Regards,
                      Dennis
                      I agree, with your conclusion.
                      Compare these three incidents
                      The end of the Civil War.
                      The End of WWI.
                      The end of WWII.

                      The first, nobody was tried, nobody was held accountable.
                      The second, Everyone was punished harshly, but were any individuals tried?
                      The third, the leaders were tried and punished.
                      Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        Originally posted by Urban hermit View Post

                        I agree, with your conclusion.
                        Compare these three incidents
                        The end of the Civil War.
                        The End of WWI.
                        The end of WWII.

                        The first, nobody was tried, nobody was held accountable.
                        The second, Everyone was punished harshly, but were any individuals tried?
                        The third, the leaders were tried and punished.
                        And why were 'the leaders' tried and punished? For genocide and crimes against humanity. And the punishment was meted out by the allies, not just the Americans. The Germans developed assembly line murder and over 11 million, including 6 million Jews, were systematically murdered.

                        And then we have the huge murder rate that Stalin was responsible for, highlighted by the Katyn massacres and the deliberate ignoring of the Polish Home Army rising in Warsaw in 1944.
                        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


                        • #87
                          Originally posted by Massena View Post

                          And why were 'the leaders' tried and punished? For genocide and crimes against humanity. And the punishment was meted out by the allies, not just the Americans. The Germans developed assembly line murder and over 11 million, including 6 million Jews, were systematically murdered.

                          And then we have the huge murder rate that Stalin was responsible for, highlighted by the Katyn massacres and the deliberate ignoring of the Polish Home Army rising in Warsaw in 1944.
                          The point is, in order for the citizens of Nazi Germany to move forward, someone was held responsible. After the Civil War, nobody was held responsible.
                          Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            How long was Jefferson Davis imprisoned? Two years in Fortress Monroe perhaps? And his US citizenship was revoked. It wasn't restored until the Carter administration.
                            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


                            • #89
                              Originally posted by Massena View Post
                              How long was Jefferson Davis imprisoned? Two years in Fortress Monroe perhaps? And his US citizenship was revoked. It wasn't restored until the Carter administration.
                              So you don't agree with your own post #54
                              Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                Originally posted by American87 View Post

                                Citing the Constitution is how constitutional law cases work. The X Ammendment is clear.
                                No, the Tenth Amendment is neither clear nor specific. And it does not mention secession as a states' right.
                                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

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X