NationStates Jolt Archive

A spin off of this thread. (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=562610)

Did the South have the right to secede from the Union? Did the North have the right to engage in war with the South? If the South haven't attacked Ft. Sumter would the North eventually recognize the CSA as an independent nation?

Personally I believe the South did have the right to succeed from the union, and the North should've respected the CSA. However the South started the war with their attack on Fort Sumter.

I am the first one to point out you mean "secede." It didn't succeed either, though, at least not in seceding.

I don't believe the South had a right to secede. The antebellum South did its best to mimic the Romantic perception of feudal society, extending that idea to its government. While many Southerners supported it after secession, secession was never organized "by the people, for the people." Morally, historically, and I think constitutionally (although someone may be able to check me on that), I see no excuse for leaving the Union.

the south had the same right to seceed from the union that the US had to independence from britain.

the union had the same right to try to stop them as the british had to try to stop the colonies.

no the north never would have recognized the CSA. it had to be a military decision.

I am the first one to point out you mean "secede." It didn't succeed either, though, at least not in seceding.

hehe, say that three times fast.

Thanks for pointing that out.

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y5/freedumb2003/aw_jeez_not_this_shit_again2.jpg

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y5/freedumb2003/aw_jeez_not_this_shit_again2.jpg

It could be worse. The first time there's was an argument over whether Southern secession was justified, about 600,000 people died as a result. A bit of metaphorical flaming is the worst that can happen here.

jeez its not like we have a secession thread every month. if we can have a constant debate on abortion we can have an occasional debate on secession.

given that vast numbers of people in the seceding states weren't exactly asked their opinion on things, not really.

the south had the same right to seceed from the union that the US had to independence from britain.

But the South felt it wasn't being represented because of a shift in population, the growing North meant more Northern congressmen. A good example of the population disparity is the election that sparked secession; Lincoln didn't show up on the ballots of most Southern states and still won the electoral college.
The colonies, meanwhile, seceded due to a combination of their rights as British citizens being ignored (trials without juries, for instance) and having no representation at all, not even considering the size of the population.
Another difference is when the actual fighting took place: South Carolina said it was going to secede and made all of the necessary arrangements right after Lincoln won the election. Fort Sumter wasn't until April of 1861. The colonies only declared independence more than a year after fighting, when it seemed clear England wasn't going to meet their requests any time soon.

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y5/freedumb2003/aw_jeez_not_this_shit_again2.jpg

We don't exactly have these type of threads every week ya know. So chill.

jeez its not like we have a secession thread every month. if we can have a constant debate on abortion we can have an occasional debate on secession.

Exactly, now back on topic.

No of course not. The United States wasn't founded by the Constitution but by the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union. Considering that the Constitution was a revision to generally bring the states together under a stronger federal government, it hardly makes sense that the Union would at the same time be weakened by an unwritten implication that the union were no longer "perpetual".

But the South felt it wasn't being represented because of a shift in population, the growing North meant more Northern congressmen. A good example of the population disparity is the election that sparked secession; Lincoln didn't show up on the ballots of most Southern states and still won the electoral college.
The colonies, meanwhile, seceded due to a combination of their rights as British citizens being ignored (trials without juries, for instance) and having no representation at all, not even considering the size of the population.
Another difference is when the actual fighting took place: South Carolina said it was going to secede and made all of the necessary arrangements right after Lincoln won the election. Fort Sumter wasn't until April of 1861. The colonies only declared independence more than a year after fighting, when it seemed clear England wasn't going to meet their requests any time soon.


and how is that bullshit justification qualitatively different from the bullshit justification of independence from britain?

and how is that bullshit justification qualitatively different from the bullshit justification of independence from britain?

The Declaration of Independence complained chiefly that the former colonies were taxed without their consent, having no representation in Parliament, in contravention of British tradition and Constitutional Law. The Southern States were represented in the United States Congress, which passed all federal taxation levies against those states and their citizens. Taxation WITH representation.

No of course not. The United States wasn't founded by the Constitution but by the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union. Considering that the Constitution was a revision to generally bring the states together under a stronger federal government, it hardly makes sense that the Union would at the same time be weakened by an unwritten implication that the union were no longer "perpetual".

calling something "the inescapable empire of doom" doesn't affect the fact that legitimacy derives from the mandate of the people, and should some identifiable collection of the people no longer consent, they cannot justly be held against their will

and how is that bullshit justification qualitatively different from the bullshit justification of independence from britain?

No one was hurting the South. Things were actually going the South's way, at least more than they should have based on its population. The colonists had actually had civil liberties denied and no political power in what was otherwise a government more democratic than most. To use a modern hypothetical scenario, I think most people would agree that my state should not secede from the Union just because George Bush was elected president in 2004*. If I were to call for secession because George Bush then stripped my state of its representatives and senators, it'd still be up for debate, but secession would look a lot more palatable.


*This all assumes, of course, that my state didn't actually vote for George Bush.

The Declaration of Independence complained chiefly that the former colonies were taxed without their consent, having no representation in Parliament, in contravention of British tradition and Constitutional Law. The Southern States were represented in the United States Congress, which passed all federal taxation levies against those states and their citizens. Taxation WITH representation.

uhhuh

and does that make the south more or less justified in secession?

No one was hurting the South. Things were actually going the South's way, at least more than they should have based on its population. The colonists had actually had civil liberties denied and no political power in what was otherwise a government more democratic than most. To use a modern hypothetical scenario, I think most people would agree that my state should not secede from the Union just because George Bush was elected president in 2004*. If I were to call for secession because George Bush then stripped my state of its representatives and senators, it'd still be up for debate, but secession would look a lot more palatable.


*This all assumes, of course, that my state didn't actually vote for George Bush.
uhhuh and that makes it OK for the colonies to secede but not the south?

they seem to me to each have an equivalent amount of justification.

uhhuh

and does that make the south more or less justified in secession?

Not justified at all, on the basis upon which the American Revolution was carried out.

calling something "the inescapable empire of doom" doesn't affect the fact that legitimacy derives from the mandate of the people, and should some identifiable collection of the people no longer consent, they cannot justly be held against their will

Many identifiable collections of people will refuse to consent. Many elections have been decided by a plurality, others against the majority vote, but if they are decided according to law, the rebels don't have a leg to stand on.

As a Texan and a good old southern boy, I think I may be able to shed a little light on this issue. But before I begin I'll admit most of my knowledge is Texas related as it should be. We won every battle fought in Texas including the one that happened six months after the war ended. Anyhow here we go:

When the Republic of Texas, god bless her soul, became part of the Union in 1845 it was written in the state constitution and documents signed between the Union and the Republic of Texas, that Texas had the right to secede since it had once been a country. So yes Texas had every right to secede with the Confederacy, the rest of the CSA had a right to as well, but thats a matter of personal opinion.

Finally no one can say the South was immoral in seceding, the war wasn't about slavery, it was about state rights. The north wasn't behind the war so Lincoln tagged slavery on to get support.

As a Texan and a good old southern boy, I think I may be able to shed a little light on this issue. But before I begin I'll admit most of my knowledge is Texas related as it should be. We won every battle fought in Texas including the one that happened six months after the war ended. Anyhow here we go:

When the Republic of Texas, god bless her soul, became part of the Union in 1845 it was written in the state constitution and documents signed between the Union and the Republic of Texas, that Texas had the right to secede since it had once been a country. So yes Texas had every right to secede with the Confederacy, the rest of the CSA had a right to as well, but thats a matter of personal opinion.

Finally no one can say the South was immoral in seceding, the war wasn't about slavery, it was about state rights. The north wasn't behind the war so Lincoln tagged slavery on to get support.
yeah the war was about the states right to have slavery.

there was no other "right" that the south was worried about losing.

The concept behind the Constitution was to enumerate the powers of government with the implicit intent to limit government's powers in certain areas. That was deemed enough by many, but others demanded more. The Bill of Rights was included to enumerate specific limits on government's powers as a precaution.

No where in the Constitution is the secession of states mentioned. So what does this mean? Does it mean that the government does not have the power to recognize secession, or that it does not have the power to stop it? Well as the addition of states is enumerated in the Constitution and the secession is not, it can be implied that the secession of states was not intended to ever occur. However, there's the Tenth Amendment:

“ 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. ”

So clearly what we have here is a Constitutional question. This is the court's jurisdiction, specifically, the Supreme Court.

I can't seem to find anywhere how they ruled if there was even a case. Seems to me that the time from South Carolina's announcement of secession(December 24, 1860) and the assault on Fort Sumter by the Confederacy(April 12, 1861) didn't leave very much time for legal questions to get answered.

Many identifiable collections of people will refuse to consent. Many elections have been decided by a plurality, others against the majority vote, but if they are decided according to law, the rebels don't have a leg to stand on.

political legitimacy is ontologically prior to the law.

uhhuh and that makes it OK for the colonies to secede but not the south?

they seem to me to each have an equivalent amount of justification.

How so? The colonies were being denied the rights not that Americans would have later, but that British subjects had right then. The lack of representation, while not as big as deal as people make it out to be, seemed to only confirm the idea that the North American colonies were second-class citizens.

The South, meanwhile, had just as many rights as the North, unless you count the rights the Southern states themselves denied people. They had more representation than they should have, because of their large slave population, and the only thing the North ever did was to fairly elect a man who was close to being against slavery.

That's not to say it's black and white, the colonies were not as noble as Americans would later claim, and the South was not as morally depraved as abolitionists claimed. (Although as a citizen of a Southern state, there's certainly a strong counter-myth about the idyllic antebellum South.) But I think the circumstances show the colonies had more reason to secede than the South.

Finally no one can say the South was immoral in seceding, the war wasn't about slavery, it was about state rights.

yes, a state's right to own people and force other states to recognize their ownership over said people, even if they don't want to.

How so? The colonies were being denied the rights not that Americans would have later, but that British subjects had right then. The lack of representation, while not as big as deal as people make it out to be, seemed to only confirm the idea that the North American colonies were second-class citizens.

The South, meanwhile, had just as many rights as the North, unless you count the rights the Southern states themselves denied people. They had more representation than they should have, because of their large slave population, and the only thing the North ever did was to fairly elect a man who was close to being against slavery.

That's not to say it's black and white, the colonies were not as noble as Americans would later claim, and the South was not as morally depraved as abolitionists claimed. (Although as a citizen of a Southern state, there's certainly a strong counter-myth about the idyllic antebellum South.) But I think the circumstances show the colonies had more reason to secede than the South.
in my opinion both justifications are lame. they are only justified by the willingness to fight for them.

the south was facing the reality that the north would sooner or later make them give up slavery. maybe it wasnt the best time to secede, maybe it was the ONLY time. i wouldnt know. but fighting to keep their way of life is as good a reason as not getting respect from the crown.

political legitimacy is ontologically prior to the law.

I reject that proposition. Law does not come from political legitimacy. Law is natural.

The Declaration of Independence complained chiefly that the former colonies were taxed without their consent, having no representation in Parliament, in contravention of British tradition and Constitutional Law.

Not really.

Taxation is only one of 30 or so complaints in the Declaration of Independence. That's mainly because the D of I was written *after* the war had begun, of course - "taxation without consent" (as the D of I puts it) was a major cause of the outbreak of the war, but not the main complaint of the Declaration.

I reject that proposition. Law does not come from political legitimacy. Law is natural.

what? how?

yeah the war was about the states right to have slavery.

there was no other "right" that the south was worried about losing.

Well of course killing the economy would be unpopular but this issue of state rights goes back to the revolution. It all started with the Federalists and Anti-Federalists, it eventually led to the question of slavery but it began before that. The Articles of Confederation were heavy states rights and very little national government, because whats right for one state may not be right for the other. Thats why they fought the revolution in the first place, to get rid of an overbearing government. Now I'm not supporting the Articles of Confederation, I'm just saying the issue didn't start with slavery.

Not really.

Taxation is only one of 30 or so complaints in the Declaration of Independence. That's mainly because the D of I was written *after* the war had begun, of course - "taxation without consent" (as the D of I puts it) was a major cause of the outbreak of the war, but not the main complaint of the Declaration.

By my count, 17 of those complaints relate directly to the crown's disrespect for the colonies' right to rule their affairs, such as having their legislatures dissolved, having the power of appointing judges unilaterally assumed, and of course, taxation, etc. They did obviously complain that the King's men were shooting at them, but the chief complaint was indeed that they had no legislative voice, while being charged with raising funds for the British government.

Before the american revolution, people in the american colonies were being mistreated (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_revolution#Origins) by England.

Before the civil war, people in the south were being mistreated (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery) by other people in the south.

Well of course killing the economy would be unpopular

Keeping slavery did more harm to the South's economy than would have been done had they discarded it entirely. There was absolutely no reason for them to keep slavery other than to lord it over those they considered inferior.

what? how?

In the case of the American Revolution, this is obvious: The law, particularly the right of the people to accept or reject taxation, was disobeyed by the Crown, which de-legitimized the power of the Crown for the Colonies. Law begets legitimacy. Which is of course a permutation of the latin word for "law".

It wasn't a mistake to let the South secede, it was a mistake to let them back in.

In the case of the American Revolution, this is obvious: The law, particularly the right of the people to accept or reject taxation, was disobeyed by the Crown, which de-legitimized the power of the Crown for the Colonies. Law begets legitimacy. Which is of course a permutation of the latin word for "law".

The law was the right of Parliament to accept or reject taxation. Which is a very different thing, moreso in the 18th century.

In the case of the American Revolution, this is obvious: The law, particularly the right of the people to accept or reject taxation, was disobeyed by the Crown, which de-legitimized the power of the Crown for the Colonies. Law begets legitimacy. Which is of course a permutation of the latin word for "law".

i find that not obvious at all. i think you are using the term 'law' to mean something that it just doesn't mean. what law granted people the right to accept or reject taxation?

The law was the right of Parliament to accept or reject taxation. Which is a very different thing, moreso in the 18th century.

And Parliament represents the Commons of England. Are you saying that the Englishmen in America were represented by a Parliament that had no ridings for New York, Pennsylvania, Virginia, or South Carolina, etc.?

Keeping slavery did more harm to the South's economy than would have been done had they discarded it entirely. There was absolutely no reason for them to keep slavery other than to lord it over those they considered inferior.

Wrong. The South was a mostly agriculture based economy. It had very little immigration, unlike the North, and even less industry. It needed slavery to run the plantations, without the plantations they wouldn't have had an economy.

And if anything is immoral it is what the North did to the South after the war.

i find that not obvious at all. i think you are using the term 'law' to mean something that it just doesn't mean. what law granted people the right to accept or reject taxation?

The English Bill of Rights 1689

Yes, making it illegal to treat human beings as livestock is CLEARLY immoral. >_>

By my count, 17 of those complaints relate directly to the crown's disrespect for the colonies' right to rule their affairs, such as having their legislatures dissolved, having the power of appointing judges unilaterally assumed, and of course, taxation, etc.

Exactly. Taxes are mentioned once. Trade, once. Violations of various rights make up the remainder.

They did obviously complain that the King's men were shooting at them, but the chief complaint was indeed that they had no legislative voice, while being charged with raising funds for the British government.

Attempts to extract payment for war debts were a chief cause of the *war*. They aren't mentioned in the Declaration, at least directly.

Well of course killing the economy would be unpopular but this issue of state rights goes back to the revolution. It all started with the Federalists and Anti-Federalists, it eventually led to the question of slavery but it began before that. The Articles of Confederation were heavy states rights and very little national government, because whats right for one state may not be right for the other. Thats why they fought the revolution in the first place, to get rid of an overbearing government. Now I'm not supporting the Articles of Confederation, I'm just saying the issue didn't start with slavery.

the south didn't like states rights, except insofar as they could be used to justify owning people. they actively opposed any use of states rights that went against their 'right' to have slaves, even. for example, it was the 'states rights' south that demanded passage of the fugitive slave act because northern governors and federal agents were refusing to return runaway slaves.

Yes, making it illegal to treat human beings as livestock is CLEARLY immoral. >_>

No burning down every town you run across, leaving nothing for the blacks or the whites, and killing innocent civilians after the war is over is immoral as well.

Exactly. Taxes are mentioned once. Trade, once. Violations of various rights make up the remainder.



Attempts to extract payment for war debts were a chief cause of the *war*. They aren't mentioned in the Declaration, at least directly.

The Crown usurped many powers that were forbidden it by English Law. The enforcement of its pretended prerogatives fell to judges, bailiffs, and armies funded by tax money. This wouldn't have happened in Britain because Parliament would have shut the purse. The Americans had no ability to do so.

The English Bill of Rights 1689

yeah, no. that says parliament gets to make the call. and in any case, how is that law 'natural'?

in my opinion both justifications are lame. they are only justified by the willingness to fight for them.

the south was facing the reality that the north would sooner or later make them give up slavery. maybe it wasnt the best time to secede, maybe it was the ONLY time. i wouldnt know. but fighting to keep their way of life is as good a reason as not getting respect from the crown.
At the time, there was no indication the North could make them give up slavery. I think the Supreme Court had more or less okayed slavery, which would mean they would either have to wait at least a generation for a new Supreme Court or pass a constitutional amendment.

Eventually they would have had to give up slavery, which as you say the South realized. But specualative harm isn't a good reason for secession. The colonists, meanwhile, had concrete examples of British abuse, however exaggerated they might be. Again, seceding because George Bush may shift the Supreme Court into a more anti-abortion position is not as good as seceding because George Bush doesn't give me a fair trial.
Well of course killing the economy would be unpopular but this issue of state rights goes back to the revolution. It all started with the Federalists and Anti-Federalists, it eventually led to the question of slavery but it began before that. The Articles of Confederation were heavy states rights and very little national government, because whats right for one state may not be right for the other. Thats why they fought the revolution in the first place, to get rid of an overbearing government. Now I'm not supporting the Articles of Confederation, I'm just saying the issue didn't start with slavery.
That's true, and there were plenty of instances before the Civil War where Southern states complained about states rights. But by the time fighting started, slavery was the biggest, if not the only, right they wanted.

And Parliament represents the Commons of England. Are you saying that the Englishmen in America were represented by a Parliament that had no ridings for New York, Pennsylvania, Virginia, or South Carolina, etc.?

In a very loose sense. They were hardly representative of the population (see the Rotten Borough system). Indeed when the Parliamentary system was first directly elected many of its proponents were horrified at the idea of the common man having any say in the proceedings. And some MPs owned land in US, so the disparity isn't as large as you might think.

That's true, and there were plenty of instances before the Civil War where Southern states complained about states rights. But by the time fighting started, slavery was the biggest, if not the only, right they wanted.

There were other issues as well. The South was generally disenchanted with the Northern Government which they were loosing control of, their interests were no longer being repersented.

yeah, no. that says parliament gets to make the call. and in any case, how is that law 'natural'?

Taxation by consent of the Baronage goes back to the Magna Carta. It was formally logically extended to the Commons by the Bill of Rights. There were English Commoners in America specifically exempted from representation in Parliament. The denial of this right to Englishmen residing in America was arbitrary and illegal. The principle of taxation only by consent is based on the same idea that law derives from the consent of the govern. It is a cornerstone of Common and natural law.

There were other issues as well. The South was generally disenchanted with the Northern Government which they were loosing control of, their interests were no longer being repersented.

What were the other issues? I remember (and by remember I mean remember reading about; I wasn't actually alive in the 1800s) there was some tariff the South really hated and threatened to "nullify" (i.e., ignore), but that wasn't an irreconcilable difference, and it was years before the Civil War anyway.

There were other issues as well. The South was generally disenchanted with the Northern Government which they were loosing control of, their interests were no longer being repersented.

Their interests were no longer taking priority over the interests of the remaining 2/3rds of the country's population. That must suck.

Their interests were no longer taking priority over the interests of the remaining 2/3rds of the country's population. That must suck.

Come to think of it, that hasn't changed dramatically. Virginia still only gets thirteen representatives in Congress, despite our obvious wonderfulness. Hmmm...

I personally believe that all states had the constitutional ability to secede, and I would quote the tenth amendment as defense. The declaration of independence would also lend legality, as the events (american revolution and southern secession) were similar (although I certainly admit that the colonies had no representation, and the south was participating in the government. I would point out that the south seceded because there rights could have been circumvented if it were in the North's interest, due to the population gap.).

However, (and unfortunately) the case of Texas v White has effectively rendered secession illegal. After Texas seceded, it continued to grant bonds (what the court identified as US bonds, although I am unsure as to the reasoning behind this.). The state legislature passed a law bypassing the governor's endorsement to redeem the bonds. After the war, Texas brought the case against the main benefactors to recover the bonds, and Texas' status as independent or otherwise had bearing on whether the Supreme Court had jurisdiction on the case.

The court decided that secession was illegal (and therefor all laws passed by the state while breaking this law are rendered void). This was supported by the Articles of Confederation describing the nation as a "perpetual union" and the Fourth Article of the US Constitution guaranteeing every state "a republican form of government". However, seeing as the Chief Justice Salmon Chase served on Lincoln's cabinet, the decision is contentious.

Their interests were no longer taking priority over the interests of the remaining 2/3rds of the country's population. That must suck.

America was founded on the idea that majority should rule but that their should never be a tyranny of the majority. If a government fails to repersent those it rules and harms them, then a people have right to change of government. Whether they elect someone else or decide to secede they have the right to do so. And just for the record Texas could secede whenever it wants too, and wouldn't have to give a reason. So any war by the north on Texas was illegal and a violation of the treaties that brought Texas into the Union.

Taxation by consent of the Baronage goes back to the Magna Carta. It was formally logically extended to the Commons by the Bill of Rights. There were English Commoners in America specifically exempted from representation in Parliament. The denial of this right to Englishmen residing in America was arbitrary and illegal. The principle of taxation only by consent is based on the same idea that law derives from the consent of the govern. It is a cornerstone of Common and natural law.

Most English (or to be more accurate British) commoners had no more than virtual representation. It was the House of Commons in name only at that time.

*snip*
I disagree, but that's interesting. I never knew a court case actually outlawed secession, I just assumed the secessionists entered a sort of "plea bargain" after the war.

Most English (or to be more accurate British) commoners had no more than virtual representation. It was the House of Commons in name only at that time.

But the British subjects did have rights. I doubt representation was one of them, but plenty other were violated.

The Crown usurped many powers that were forbidden it by English Law. The enforcement of its pretended prerogatives fell to judges, bailiffs, and armies funded by tax money. This wouldn't have happened in Britain because Parliament would have shut the purse. The Americans had no ability to do so.

Oppression costs money, sure. That doesn't mean that the Declaration is focused on taxation above everything else, though.

In a very loose sense. They were hardly representative of the population (see the Rotten Borough system). Indeed when the Parliamentary system was first directly elected many of its proponents were horrified at the idea of the common man having any say in the proceedings. And some MPs owned land in US, so the disparity isn't as large as you might think.

In America, landowning requirements for the franchise would be much more easily met by the average man than in Britain. The population of the colonies was about 20% of Britain's, so however egregious the misrepresentation of rotten boroughs, America's complete lack was far more dire, considering they had no MPs at all.

America was founded on the idea that majority should rule but that their should never be a tyranny of the majority. If a government fails to repersent those it rules and harms them, then a people have right to change of government. Whether they elect someone else or decide to secede they have the right to do so. And just for the record Texas could secede whenever it wants too, and wouldn't have to give a reason. So any war by the north on Texas was illegal and a violation of the treaties that brought Texas into the Union.

Actually, they can't.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_v._White

The Supreme Court ruled that Secession is unconstitutional.

Oppression costs money, sure. That doesn't mean that the Declaration is focused on taxation above everything else, though.

And why would it be? A rather banal preoccupation for the poetic founding document of a new country, isn't it? But one thing is always true about history: It's all always about the money.

The principle of taxation only by consent is based on the same idea that law derives from the consent of the govern. It is a cornerstone of Common and natural law.

law doesn't derive from the consent of the governed (not directly, anyways), legitimate governance does. law is created by the government. the only situation where law and legitimate governance are the same is in a direct democracy. and while direct democracy is a just system, it isn't necessarily the only just system.

At the time, there was no indication the North could make them give up slavery. I think the Supreme Court had more or less okayed slavery, which would mean they would either have to wait at least a generation for a new Supreme Court or pass a constitutional amendment.

Eventually they would have had to give up slavery, which as you say the South realized. But specualative harm isn't a good reason for secession. The colonists, meanwhile, had concrete examples of British abuse, however exaggerated they might be. Again, seceding because George Bush may shift the Supreme Court into a more anti-abortion position is not as good as seceding because George Bush doesn't give me a fair trial.

That's true, and there were plenty of instances before the Civil War where Southern states complained about states rights. But by the time fighting started, slavery was the biggest, if not the only, right they wanted.
obviously thats not what they thought. they felt an urgent need to secede right then.

Actually, they can't.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_v._White

The Supreme Court ruled that Secession is unconstitutional.

That was after the Civil War. Before the Civil War it was legal. Not to mention its easy for the winner to change the state constitution after the fact.

That was after the Civil War. Before the Civil War it was legal.

No it wasn't. The 'Texas right to secession clause' is a myth.

it was legal only if it could be enforced. losing the war made it not legal.

law doesn't derive from the consent of the governed (not directly, anyways), legitimate governance does. law is created by the government. the only situation where law and legitimate governance are the same is in a direct democracy. and while direct democracy is a just system, it isn't necessarily the only just system.

Consent of the governed doesn't breed legitimate government. Extreme examples of the difference would be represented by the dictatorships of Napoleon and Caesar, both wildly popular and completely illegitimate.

Though I fully understand that slavery was in no way the cause of the war, I find it amusing that the Confederacy complained that they were not given proper "rights" by the Union, when the Southern governments denied basic human rights to a whole race of people.

Though I fully understand that slavery was in no way the cause of the war, I find it amusing that the Confederacy complained that they were not given proper "rights" by the Union, when the Southern governments denied basic human rights to a whole race of people.

Read the ordinances of secession written by the seceding states and then tell us again that slavery was in no way the cause of the war. Texas's is especially explicit about White Supremacy and Black Servitude.

obviously thats not what they thought. they felt an urgent need to secede right then.

Of course, but I'm arguing they were wrong to think that. The South's preemptive defense of its culture is no better than the later United States' preemptive defense of its safety by attacking Iraq.

Read the ordinances of secession written by the seceding states and then tell us again that slavery was in no way the cause of the war. Texas's is especially explicit about White Supremacy and Black Servitude.

The Confederacy's vice-president has particularly touching remarks (http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1861stephens.html) about the "peculiar institution."

Of course, but I'm arguing they were wrong to think that. The South's preemptive defense of its culture is no better than the later United States' preemptive defense of its safety by attacking Iraq.
they had a legit fear but it was probably not going to happen in the '60s. it would have gradually diminished over time until even the majority of southerner agreed that it needed to be abolished.

its a crazy thing to lose 600,000+ people over.

[QUOTE=Tigranakertia;13912558

Finally no one can say the South was immoral in seceding, the war wasn't about slavery, it was about state rights. The north wasn't behind the war so Lincoln tagged slavery on to get support.[/QUOTE]

Yes. It was about States' Rights. Specifically, the rights to have laws allowing human beings to be held in captivity like draft animals, which they were afraid that the "fedraal gov'ment" was going to force changed.

In America, landowning requirements for the franchise would be much more easily met by the average man than in Britain. The population of the colonies was about 20% of Britain's, so however egregious the misrepresentation of rotten boroughs, America's complete lack was far more dire, considering they had no MPs at all.

The entire point of the landowning requirements was to stop the average man getting a vote. IF they'd given the US a form of representation I'd say they'd have adjusted the requirements so the average man didn't get the vote.

I'd be willing to bet that a very large percentage of the UK population wasn't represented. No women so at least 50% gone before you start taking out the unwashed masses. The concept was based on landowners representing areas where they owned land. And MPs did own land there, hence a level of virtual consent. It was no worse than the rest of the UK really. What with Old Sarum having 2 MPs for 7 voters etc.

No it wasn't. The 'Texas right to secession clause' is a myth.

Really? Well then lets just blow everyother legal document in this country to hell then. The 1836 and 1876 Texas State Constitution say, “All political power is inherent in the people ... they have at all times the inalienable right to alter their government in such manner as they might think proper.” Furthermore the 1876 Constitution says, “Texas is a free and independent State, subject only to the Constitution of the United States." Not the President or Congress and since the Constitution does not explicitly or implicitly disallow the secession of Texas. It think we have every right to secede.

I don't support Texas seceding now or ever, but we do retain the right too and should have been treated differently following the Civil War.

they had a legit fear but it was probably not going to happen in the '60s. it would have gradually diminished over time until even the majority of southerner agreed that it needed to be abolished.

its a crazy thing to lose 600,000+ people over.

It is, which I guess is why Southern secession seems intuitively worse than colonial. If the colonies seceded, the worst that would happen was there'd be a new, ineffective government. If the South seceded, there would be a sizable country created just so it could continue slavery. The colonies certainly had a moral advantage, that much I'm sure of.

And why would it be? A rather banal preoccupation for the poetic founding document of a new country, isn't it? But one thing is always true about history: It's all always about the money.

I had a feeling you were of that opinion, and I know you aren't alone in it, but I like to think that the founding fathers had some higher principle in mind than personal gain. Their writings and preserved correspondence support that conclusion in many instances.

The entire point of the landowning requirements was to stop the average man getting a vote. IF they'd given the US a form of representation I'd say they'd have adjusted the requirements so the average man didn't get the vote.

I'd be willing to bet that a very large percentage of the UK population wasn't represented. No women so at least 50% gone before you start taking out the unwashed masses. The concept was based on landowners representing areas where they owned land. And MPs did own land there, hence a level of virtual consent. It was no worse than the rest of the UK really. What with Old Sarum having 2 MPs for 7 voters etc.
Let's not confuse representative government with modern universal suffrage. The Commons defended the rights of the bourgeois as a class against the the degenerate and destructive forces of the nobility and Crown. But America without representation was a whipping boy that could be made to bear the burden of government without complaint, even by its leading citizens. Given the nature and income of the Revolution's leadership, I'd say that many in the highest levels in American society felt unrepresented in Parliament.

Really? Well then lets just blow everyother legal document in this country to hell then. The 1836 and 1876 Texas State Constitution say, “All political power is inherent in the people ... they have at all times the inalienable right to alter their government in such manner as they might think proper.” Furthermore the 1876 Constitution says, “Texas is a free and independent State, subject only to the Constitution of the United States." Not the President or Congress and since the Constitution does not explicitly or implicitly disallow the secession of Texas. It think we have every right to secede.

As I just mentioned, the COnstitution does NOT allow secession. The SUpreme Court ruled on that in Texas vs. White.

It is, which I guess is why Southern secession seems intuitively worse than colonial. If the colonies seceded, the worst that would happen was there'd be a new, ineffective government. If the South seceded, there would be a sizable country created just so it could continue slavery. The colonies certainly had a moral advantage, that much I'm sure of.
if the south had sucessfully seceded it would have been a nightmare. constant wars over the western territories, fights over the return of "property", maybe even a sucessful french takeover of mexico.

I had a feeling you were of that opinion, and I know you aren't alone in it, but I like to think that the founding fathers had some higher principle in mind than personal gain. Their writings and preserved correspondence support that conclusion in many instances.

Principles mean nothing if a man can't make his way in the world because of the greed, jealousy, bigotry and fear of others. I don't regard it as base at all that the people of America wanted to prosper, and neither did they. The industry and ingenuity of Americans engaged in business and trade has always been something they're proud of, and rightly so. Being sucked dry and oppressed by an irresponsible government is a financial concern as much as a moral one.

As I just mentioned, the COnstitution does NOT allow secession. The SUpreme Court ruled on that in Texas vs. White.

And was ruled so after the fact. You can't prosecute someone for breaking the law if the law didn't exsist when it was broken.

And was ruled so after the fact. You can't prosecute someone for breaking the law if the law didn't exsist when it was broken.

The Constitution was ratified in 1786.

As I just mentioned, the COnstitution does NOT allow secession. The SUpreme Court ruled on that in Texas vs. White.

Furthermore Texas is subject to what the constitution says, nothing else as our State Constitution of 1876 says. Unless they wrote in an amendment about it, they can't stop a Texas secession.

And was ruled so after the fact. You can't prosecute someone for breaking the law if the law didn't exsist when it was broken.

And Southerners were not prosecuted for secession. But treason and rebellion are crimes mentioned in the Constitution.

Read the ordinances of secession written by the seceding states and then tell us again that slavery was in no way the cause of the war. Texas's is especially explicit about White Supremacy and Black Servitude.

I know, the the South is certainly hypocritical; but the cost of freeing every single slave in America paled in comparison to the cost of the war. All-in-all, I definitely would have hoped for the North to win, but I would be too irritated by both governments to fight for either, if I could avoid doing so.

The Constitution was ratified in 1786.

Does it explicitly say in the constitution Texas can't secede? Before Civil War it didn't, and after the Civil War I'm pretty sure it didn't.

Furthermore Texas is subject to what the constitution says, nothing else as our State Constitution of 1876 says. Unless they wrote in an amendment about it, they can't stop a Texas secession.
the constitution says what the supreme court decides it says.

so no, texas did not have a right to secession.

And Southerners were not prosecuted for secession. But treason and rebellion are crimes mentioned in the Constitution.

What act of Treason was committed by Texas, it was well within its rights.

Consent of the governed doesn't breed legitimate government. Extreme examples of the difference would be represented by the dictatorships of Napoleon and Caesar, both wildly popular and completely illegitimate.

consent of the governed is necessary, not sufficient

What act of Treason was committed by Texas, it was well within its rights.

Secession is rebellion.

consent of the governed is necessary, not sufficient

What else does it take? Flour, eggs, and cinnamon? There are multiple theories on political legitimacy. I subscribe to natural law.

I know, the the South is certainly hypocritical; but the cost of freeing every single slave in America paled in comparison to the cost of the war. All-in-all, I definitely would have hoped for the North to win, but I would be too irritated by both governments to fight for either, if I could avoid doing so.

I'm not sure about that. Immediately, there definitely would be a negative impact, much less than the Civil War. But something the South found out too late was that the North and the rest of the world didn't actually depend on it for its crops (mostly cotton). If they were freed over, say, a span of four years (as long as the war), freeing the slaves certainly could not have hurt more than what actually happened: freeing the slaves after burning down the plantation.

the constitution says what the supreme court decides it says.

so no, texas did not have a right to secession.

The Texas State Constitution of 1876 and 1836 clearly state Texas is subject to the Constitution. In 1861 the Supreme Court had not ruled it unconstitutional for Texas to secede. So Texas had every right to. Its not my fault the founding fathers didn't put something in the Constitution about it.

Does it explicitly say in the constitution Texas can't secede? Before Civil War it didn't, and after the Civil War I'm pretty sure it didn't.

the constitution says what the supreme court decides it says.

so no, texas did not have a right to secession.

Exactly. It is the Supreme COurt's job to rule on constitutional issues. That's is explicitly written in the Constitution.

Secession is rebellion.

Not when you have the right too. :p

Exactly. It is the Supreme COurt's job to rule on constitutional issues. That's is explicitly written in the Constitution.

Actually, I'm not so sure about that. I don't think it explicitly says the Supreme Court can review the constitutionality of stuff; that's a power the Court gave itself.

Fixed the title.

Fixed the title.

Thank God

Exactly. It is the Supreme COurt's job to rule on constitutional issues. That's is explicitly written in the Constitution.

But was ruled on after the fact. And you can't blame Texas for the big grey area the founding fathers left behind.

Actually, I'm not so sure about that. I don't think it explicitly says the Supreme Court can review the constitutionality of stuff; that's a power the Court gave itself.

You're right, it was Marbury vs. Madison that set up the principle of judicial review.

But was ruled on after the fact. And you can't blame Texas for the big grey area the founding fathers left behind.

That kind of goes back to my original point, that the founding document for the US was the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union...it sure sounds like they thought it would be permanent.

Actually, I'm not so sure about that. I don't think it explicitly says the Supreme Court can review the constitutionality of stuff; that's a power the Court gave itself.

Section 2. The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; to Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another State; between Citizens of different States; between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.

It's pretty explicit.

You're right, it was Marbury vs. Madison that set up the principle of judicial review.

That's right, it's starting to come back to me now. Marbury v. Madison declared a law, I think a Judicial Act, unconstitutional, officially setting a precedent.

It's a myth that slavery was the "reason" for the war. States' rights was what it was over, whether the federal government could trump the state. Slavery was but one issue - there were other trade, tax, economical, and related issues. If you'll notice, the Confederacy did not secede all at once. South Carolina was the first, and raised the Bonnie Blue flag which is a single white star on a blue field to represent standing alone. They were ready to go it alone and were gradually joined by six more states, and then four more. It is the true source for pride in what is known as "Southern heritage" - standing for your rights even if it means standing alone, even if it means you'll probably lose. It's the principal of the matter.

While I disagree on religious principal with the institution of slavery in the US during those times, I do agree with the principal that "states" should have the right to leave a union when they feel that they are being given a raw deal. In fact, it is the duty of the state to stand up against the failures of the federal government. For that reason, I would also support the individual border states closing and arming their borders with Mexico if the people of the state will it. Power is used most justly when delegated to the lowest possible level, and used most corruptly when collected at the highest level.

But was ruled on after the fact. And you can't blame Texas for the big grey area the founding fathers left behind.

True, but you CAN blame them and the other Confederate States for assaulting federally controlled land and beginning a war before the legality or illegality of their action could be decided in court.

That kind of goes back to my original point, that the founding document for the US was the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union...it sure sounds like they thought it would be permanent.

That document in no way applies to Texas if your trying to get at the whole "Perpetual Union" in the title. Texas is subject to the actual constitution.

It's a myth that slavery was the "reason" for the war. States' rights was what it was over, whether the federal government could trump the state. Slavery was but one issue - there were other trade, tax, economical, and related issues. If you'll notice, the Confederacy did not secede all at once. South Carolina was the first, and raised the Bonnie Blue flag which is a single white star on a blue field to represent standing alone. They were ready to go it alone and were gradually joined by six more states, and then four more. It is the true source for pride in what is known as "Southern heritage" - standing for your rights even if it means standing alone, even if it means you'll probably lose. It's the principal of the matter.

But the economic issues were economic issues concerning slavery. You could certainly argue that the states did not secede because of racism, which is what I think many people mean. The South did not secede because all the Southern whites hated black people; that's not true. But the South was agrarian because of slavery. It wanted low tariffs because they were friendlier to its slave-supported plantation system. Everything was connected to slavery.

True, but you CAN blame them and the other Confederate States for assaulting federally controlled land and beginning a war before the legality or illegality of their action could be decided in court.

From the Confederate perspective, the Union troops were on Confederate land, and at a strategic point, to boot. Given that perspective, I probably would have been helping those Citadel Cadets load the cannons. :p

From the Confederate perspective, the Union troops were on Confederate land, and at a strategic point, to boot. Given that perspective, I probably would have been helping those Citadel Cadets load the cannons. :p

It was federal land before the secession, by what reasoning could the Confederacy, a new government have to claim it? It didn't belong to the states before 1860, why would it after? Why would they offer to buy their own land two months before they attacked Fort Sumter?

But the economic issues were economic issues concerning slavery. You could certainly argue that the states did not secede because of racism, which is what I think many people mean. The South did not secede because all the Southern whites hated black people; that's not true. But the South was agrarian because of slavery. It wanted low tariffs because they were friendlier to its slave-supported plantation system. Everything was connected to slavery.

Conversely, they didn't want the high tariffs on the agrarian society that were actively being imposed, which economically befitted the industrial North and stood to destroy the agrarian South. Slavery, the sub-issue. ;)

Let's not confuse representative government with modern universal suffrage. The Commons defended the rights of the bourgeois as a class against the the degenerate and destructive forces of the nobility and Crown. But America without representation was a whipping boy that could be made to bear the burden of government without complaint, even by its leading citizens. Given the nature and income of the Revolution's leadership, I'd say that many in the highest levels in American society felt unrepresented in Parliament.

It was hardly bearing a burden given the relative levels of taxation at the time. But it was a revolution for one set of bourgeois against another set.

That document in no way applies to Texas if your trying to get at the whole "Perpetual Union" in the title. Texas is subject to the actual constitution.

Which says nothing about secession. Yeah but I figure that the history of America matters, even before the Constitution. Besides, most Texans were just Americans anyway. But I'm an American Nationalist, so I have an unjustifiable belief that an American owes loyalty to his nation. That's always going to be my bias.

It's a myth that slavery was the "reason" for the war.

not according to the states who left.

unless you claim they were lying in their various declarations and whatnot...

True, but you CAN blame them and the other Confederate States for assaulting federally controlled land and beginning a war before the legality or illegality of their action could be decided in court.

True, I can agree to this but only partially. When Texas seceded from the Union the new government of Texas appointed four commissioners to negotiate with Union units in Texas to hand over arms and bases. They did so peacefully. Infact the Union general in San Antonio later joined the Confederacy. The General was David Twiggs. However Texas did support the confederacy and joined the confederacy so bears equal responsiblity for what happened in other states.

What else does it take? Flour, eggs, and cinnamon? There are multiple theories on political legitimacy. I subscribe to natural law.

justice

It was hardly bearing a burden given the relative levels of taxation at the time. But it was a revolution for one set of bourgeois against another set.

The money wasn't the burden, the burden was that the money was used to commit illegal acts by the Crown. Bullets have always been cheap, individually, but I don't want to have to pay for the one someone shoots me with.

Here's some fun:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_the_Immediate_Causes_Which_Induce_and_Justify_the_Secession_of_South_Carolina_from_th e_Federal_Union

The next section asserts that the government of the United States and of states within that government had failed to uphold their obligations to South Carolina. The specific issue stated was the refusal of some states to enforce the Fugitive Slave Act and other laws protecting slavery and the refusal of the federal government to compel them to uphold these laws.

Yet they claim that their reasons for secession is about state's rights. ;)

justice

"Yeah..(steve-o beats on bongo bududludludlump...justice!) Seriously, we'll be here all night if we have to define that. There's no Socrates on NSG.

Which says nothing about secession. Yeah but I figure that the history of America matters, even before the Constitution. Besides, most Texans were just Americans anyway. But I'm an American Nationalist, so I have an unjustifiable belief that an American owes loyalty to his nation. That's always going to be my bias.

I'm not trying to knock your nationalism, the country could use a little more pride and loyalty to America. Yes many Texans were Americans. Davey Crockett was, god bless him. Not to mention Sam Houston, a famous Texas Patriot, refused to swear allegiance to the Confederacy and was ousted because of it. I'm not arguing whether it was right or wrong, I'm arguing the legal standpoint.

It was federal land before the secession, by what reasoning could the Confederacy, a new government have to claim it? It didn't belong to the states before 1860, why would it after? Why would they offer to buy their own land two months before they attacked Fort Sumter?

To avoid conflict. Yes, South Carolinians are smart enough to know that money is cheaper than blood. ;)

When using the word "belong" in reference to land during a secession, who it used to belong to is irrelevant. It's actual physical/geographic position is usually more important.

not according to the states who left.

unless you claim they were lying in their various declarations and whatnot...

Ever hear the phrase, "the victor writes the history books"? Read my other post - slavery was a sub-issue, states' rights what the main issue.

To avoid conflict. Yes, South Carolinians are smart enough to know that money is cheaper than blood. ;)

When using the word "belong" in reference to land during a secession, who it used to belong to is irrelevant. It's actual physical/geographic position is usually more important.

Like Guantanamo and Hong Kong? Not secession, I know, but some folks can live with a foreign naval base or enclave without shooting cannons at it. South Carolina will always be too small for a Republic and too large for a lunatic asylum.

Well I g2g to bed. To all you southerners out there, god bless and don't ever apologize for being right. :)

To avoid conflict. Yes, South Carolinians are smart enough to know that money is cheaper than blood. ;)

When using the word "belong" in reference to land during a secession, who it used to belong to is irrelevant. It's actual physical/geographic position is usually more important.

Usually, huh? Could you give some examples?

Ever hear the phrase, "the victor writes the history books"? Read my other post - slavery was a sub-issue, states' rights to keep slaves what the main issue.

Fixed.

Well I g2g to bed. To all you southerners out there, god bless and don't ever apologize for being right. :)

Or wrong, apparently.

Name one that it wasn't! During a succession, both sides believe some piece of land to be theirs that the other side disputes. That is what I mean by irrelevant - in the minds of the parties involved, the other side just doesn't see it their way. I guess you might use the term "moot".

Ever hear the phrase, "the victor writes the history books"?

yeah, i just don't typically associate it with the idea that the victors have time machines and the power to rewrite the documents written and disseminated by the losing side before there was a fight at all.

Fixed.

Among other issues, as in, not the sole issue.

Or wrong, apparently.

The Night They Drove Old Dixie Down

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=odBYhqZ9hAI

The money wasn't the burden, the burden was that the money was used to commit illegal acts by the Crown. Bullets have always been cheap, individually, but I don't want to have to pay for the one someone shoots me with.

The famous slogan is 'taxation without representation is tyranny'.

By 'illegal acts' I assume you're referring to the Intolerable acts yes? Though I don't know why you keep referring to 'the crown' since they were passed through Parliament.

Among other issues, as in, not the sole issue.

Yeah, I'm aware that's the common claim, but it was the sole issue IN 1861 The states' own declarations of secession verify that.

The Night They Drove Old Dixie Down

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=odBYhqZ9hAI

The Penis Song

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nGRPFUYUUdQ

:D

Ok, LG, it's clear that neither one of us are going anywhere on this issue. I've got better things to than to do than to argue with you over something that means absolutely nothing to you.

The famous slogan is 'taxation without representation is tyranny'.

By 'illegal acts' I assume you're referring to the Intolerable acts yes? Though I don't know why you keep referring to 'the crown' since they were passed through Parliament.

The whole declaration of independence is addressed to the king. The king's assent to the acts of parliament is implicit.

Actually, they can't.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_v._White

The Supreme Court ruled that Secession is unconstitutional.

Technically, they can, however the United States would refuse to recognize their right to do so much as most states refuse to recognize the rights of homosexual couples or polyamorous groups the right to marry. I don't think the country of Texas would much care what the constitution of the United States says and I would personally like to see Texas v. White tested in the world court.

Ok, LG, it's clear that neither one of us are going anywhere on this issue. I've got better things to than to argue with you over something that means absolutely nothing to you.

Oh, you can tell by how effectively I've argued my points with historical facts instead of vague feelings of southern pride and multigenerational angst over perceived injustices how little I care. :)

Technically, they can, however the United States would refuse to recognize their right to do so much as most states refuse to recognize the rights of homosexual couples or polyamorous groups the right to marry. I don't think the country of Texas would much care what the constitution of the United States says and I would personally like to see Texas v. White tested in the world court.

Well, they can't legally. Fair enough?

America was founded on the idea that majority should rule but that their should never be a tyranny of the majority. If a government fails to repersent those it rules and harms them, then a people have right to change of government. Whether they elect someone else or decide to secede they have the right to do so. And just for the record Texas could secede whenever it wants too, and wouldn't have to give a reason. So any war by the north on Texas was illegal and a violation of the treaties that brought Texas into the Union.
Sadly, upon joining the union, the constitution became the highest law, above all other treaties, including the Texas state constitution. Highest law of the land and all.

Really? Well then lets just blow everyother legal document in this country to hell then. The 1836 and 1876 Texas State Constitution say, “All political power is inherent in the people ... they have at all times the inalienable right to alter their government in such manner as they might think proper.” Furthermore the 1876 Constitution says, “Texas is a free and independent State, subject only to the Constitution of the United States." Not the President or Congress and since the Constitution does not explicitly or implicitly disallow the secession of Texas. It think we have every right to secede.Texas can say whatever they want. That doesn't make it constitutional, and therefore, not legal.

Interestingly, you also seem confused about supreme court rulings. Supreme court rulings are not "law", but instead interpretations of law. If the supreme court today says that abortion is not safe by means of privacy rights, that decision applies to all laws before and after the last decision, going back to the ratification of the constitution. The same logic applies to secession. The supreme court said no, which means that it was illegal from ratification, and remains so untill the supreme court revereses its decision or an amendment is passed specifically giving the right.

The Constitution was ratified in 1786.
This. Also, still like lemon cake?
The Texas State Constitution of 1876 and 1836 clearly state Texas is subject to the Constitution. In 1861 the Supreme Court had not ruled it unconstitutional for Texas to secede. So Texas had every right to. Its not my fault the founding fathers didn't put something in the Constitution about it.Supreme Court decisions are retroactive. The founding fathers put it in, they just might not have known it.

Well I g2g to bed. To all you southerners out there, god bless and don't ever apologize for being right. :)
Or wrong, as a war and supreme court decision may have shown.

That kind of goes back to my original point, that the founding document for the US was the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union...it sure sounds like they thought it would be permanent.

Thinking that the Union will be permanent (aside from being idiotic, NOTHING is permanent) is different from setting down an explicit rule that states flat out that there is no right to secede. Can you find an explicit rule that states this prior to Texas v. White?

Thinking that the Union will be permanent (aside from being idiotic, NOTHING is permanent) is different from setting down an explicit rule that states flat out that there is no right to secede. Can you find an explicit rule that states this prior to Texas v. White?

Given that it was a Supreme Court decision, Texas v. White existed prior to the decision. The decision merely gave it a name and reference number.

It was federal land before the secession, by what reasoning could the Confederacy, a new government have to claim it?

By it being within their borders?

This. Also, still like lemon cake?

With chocolate frosting. Mmm...

By it being within their borders?

Like West Berlin?

By it being within their borders?
Even if the secession was legal, what right does the CSA have to USA land and territory that is explicitly held by them? This isn't a random tract of farm land, this is a fort. With soldiers. None of which are CSA.

Well, they can't legally. Fair enough?

Except for the fact that I think an amendment should be passed allowing any state to secede upon a majority vote by that states citizens it's probably as close as we're going to get.

Even if the secession was legal, what right does the CSA have to USA land and territory that is explicitly held by them? This isn't a random tract of farm land, this is a fort. With soldiers. None of which are CSA.

Once they seceded it stopped BEING USA land and territory, much as the 13 colonies stopped being British land and territory.

Except for the fact that I think an amendment should be passed allowing any state to secede upon a majority vote by that states citizens it's probably as close as we're going to get.

I think an amendment should be passed allowing for the creation of mud surfing lanes on the sides of all major highways.

Given that it was a Supreme Court decision, Texas v. White existed prior to the decision. The decision merely gave it a name and reference number.

That seems positively Orwellian. (side note: Holy shit, that's actually in my spell checker.)

"This wasn't stated as being a rule, but because we say so it always has been and now we're going to punish you for breaking a rule you didn't (and couldn't) know was there!"

I think an amendment should be passed allowing for the creation of mud surfing lanes on the sides of all major highways.

Hey, I'd back that. :-)

Once they seceded it stopped BEING USA land and territory, much as the 13 colonies stopped being British land and territory.

Says who?

"Yeah..(steve-o beats on bongo bududludludlump...justice!) Seriously, we'll be here all night if we have to define that. There's no Socrates on NSG.

not that socrates got very far with it either...

but if your natural law isn't trivially silly, it also appeals ultimately to justice

That seems positively Orwellian. (side note: Holy shit, that's actually in my spell checker.)

"This wasn't stated as being a rule, but because we say so it always has been and now we're going to punish you for breaking a rule you didn't (and couldn't) know was there!"

If somebody claims there's no law specifically against setting a toddler on fire if you genuinely believed it would help and not harm, and the court decides that it's implicit to the law rather than explicit that setting someone on fire without their knowledge and consent is assault, that person is still going to jail. Ignorance of the law is no excuse.

Once they seceded it stopped BEING USA land and territory, much as the 13 colonies stopped being British land and territory.
The issue is that they legally didn't.
Not to mention the fact that, even after the 13 colonies left the Empire, we still had to fight for British-held forts and land. They had soldier there. We didn't.

Similarly, even IF the south got Fort Sumter by right of secession, they still fired upon US soldiers, which is an act of war.
That seems positively Orwellian. (side note: Holy shit, that's actually in my spell checker.)

"This wasn't stated as being a rule, but because we say so it always has been and now we're going to punish you for breaking a rule you didn't (and couldn't) know was there!"

That would be how the Supreme Court works. Same as how they can declare abortion illegal, and all abortions since 1787 were illegal. Nature of the law system. Think Brown v. BOE. Their ruling didn't say that "well, starting today, "seperate but equal ain't cutting it". The ruling stated "Seperate but equal is inherently flawed and must be fixed". They didn't say it as a law starting that day, but from the start of their authority.

If somebody claims there's no law specifically against setting a toddler on fire if you genuinely believed it would help and not harm, and the court decides that it's implicit to the law rather than explicit that setting someone on fire without their knowledge and consent is assault, that person is still going to jail. Ignorance of the law is no excuse.

No setting toddlers on fire seems explicitly covered by several laws in most civilized societies. If you join the club you can only leave in a box is only explicitly covered in organized crime rings.

That would be how the Supreme Court works. Same as how they can declare abortion illegal, and all abortions since 1787 were illegal.

I can't think of a way the supreme court could declare abortions illegal. Such a ruling, it would seem, would go quite beyond their jurisdiction.

I can't think of a way the supreme court could declare abortions illegal. Such a ruling, it would seem, would go quite beyond their jurisdiction.

Indeed it would. It's up to legislators to declare abortion illegal. The Supreme Court just decides if that law is constitutional or not.

Edit: As you well know, you lawyer you. ;)

I can't think of a way the supreme court could declare abortions illegal. Such a ruling, it would seem, would go quite beyond their jurisdiction.

I can't either...but really, that is the only issue I can possibly think of at 2 AM that may be reversed.

I can't either...but really, that is the only issue I can possibly think of at 2 AM that may be reversed.

but even if SCOTUS did reverse its previous ruling in Roe and Casey it would not make abortion illegal. It would merely mean it is not a federally constituted right which could be made illegal.

The issue is that they legally didn't.
Not to mention the fact that, even after the 13 colonies left the Empire, we still had to fight for British-held forts and land. They had soldier there. We didn't.

Similarly, even IF the south got Fort Sumter by right of secession, they still fired upon US soldiers, which is an act of war.

Now, I don't recall how much notice America had of the Confederacy's secession but isn't maintaining an armed force on another countries land without their permission also an act of war? Also keep in mind I'm not saying I agree with the South, their reasons for seceding, or the methods they used to do so. I'm simply stating that the right of a portion of a country to decide that it doesn't like the way the country is operating and cease to be a part of that country (either joining a different country or starting a new one) is a right that should be upheld.


That would be how the Supreme Court works. Same as how they can declare abortion illegal, and all abortions since 1787 were illegal. Nature of the law system. Think Brown v. BOE. Their ruling didn't say that "well, starting today, "seperate but equal ain't cutting it". The ruling stated "Seperate but equal is inherently flawed and must be fixed". They didn't say it as a law starting that day, but from the start of their authority.

But they did not, IIRC, say that schools would be retroactively punished for having followed the flawed doctrine of separate but "equal". Similarly I don't think that if they outlawed abortion this Wednesday that doctors could be fined/arrested for abortions done last month.

Now, I don't recall how much notice America had of the Confederacy's secession but isn't maintaining an armed force on another countries land without their permission also an act of war?

That's the whole point, it was never their land. Even if the southern conservative states could secceed and take their land out of the nation, that land belonged to the federal government, and they had no rights to it.

I can't think of a way the supreme court could declare abortions illegal. Such a ruling, it would seem, would go quite beyond their jurisdiction.

<waves hand in the air wildly> "Oooh, oooh, pick me, I can, I can!"

They could rule that a fetus (or even an embryo) has the same legal rights as a human infant, thus rendering abortions infanticide. (braces self for the hijack by abortion debaters claiming that it already is)

<waves hand in the air wildly> "Oooh, oooh, pick me, I can, I can!"

They could rule that a fetus (or even an embryo) has the same legal rights as a human infant, thus rendering abortions infanticide. (braces self for the hijack by abortion debaters claiming that it already is)

close, but not quite. Even if SCOTUS ruled that an embryo has the same constitutional rights as a fully born human, the constitution only prohibits governmental action. Such a ruling would prohibit governmentally mandated abortion (which, actually, it already is).

What such a ruling would do would give the legislature the option of including embryos and fetuses in their homicide laws, but they wouldn't have to. It would not make abortion illegal. It would just create the option for legislatures to make it illegal.

close, but not quite. Even if SCOTUS ruled that an embryo has the same constitutional rights as a fully born human, the constitution only prohibits governmental action. Such a ruling would prohibit governmentally mandated abortion (which, actually, it already is).

What such a ruling would do would give the legislature the option of including embryos and fetuses in their homicide laws, but they wouldn't have to. It would not make abortion illegal. It would just create the option for legislatures to make it illegal.

Well now, it seems to me that if they were given basic human rights that they would be covered by the equal protection clause and legislatures would be no more able to say "You can kill fetuses and embryos and we won't charge you with murder." than "You can kill (insert minority here) and we won't charge you with murder." Thus rendering the effect exactly the same as if they themselves were to have made abortion illegal.

If you'll pardon the expression, that's close enough for government work.

Well now, it seems to me that if they were given basic human rights that they would be covered by the equal protection clause and legislatures would be no more able to say "You can kill fetuses and embryos and we won't charge you with murder." than "You can kill (insert minority here) and we won't charge you with murder." Thus rendering the effect exactly the same as if they themselves were to have made abortion illegal.

That's um...no that's not quite how it works.

The whole declaration of independence is addressed to the king. The king's assent to the acts of parliament is implicit.

It accuses him without being specifically addressed to him, and royal assent has to be acquired, but he was hardly the prime mover in the intolerable acts, and let us not forget it is George III we're talking about here.

It's pretty explicit.

I don't think that means the court can render a law or action illegal because it's unconstitutional, or at least it didn't when it was first written. The consensus (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/article03/13.html) is Marbury v. Madison created judicial review, by which the Supreme Court can declare things unconstitutional. This article may have been used as the basis, and maybe that's what it means now, but if so it is only because the Supreme Court interpreted it that way when the Supreme Court said it could interpret it (if that makes any sense.)