|
Guest
|
|
(1 of 170)
Anybody care to demonstrate that secession was illegal in 1860
Sep 21, 2008 1:20 PM
|
Well?
--
Certainty is not proof
Insistence is not fact
Opinion is not evidence
Arrogance is not credibility
|
|
|
Posts:
31,887
Registered:
2/13/04
|
|
(2 of 170)
Re: Anybody care to demonstrate that secession was illegal in 1860
Sep 21, 2008 1:32 PM
|
I think the real conversation is for someone to try to demonstrate that it was "LEGAL" in 1860. That is, please demonstrate to me where any document, the Declaration of Independance, the Articles of Confederation, or the United States Constitution specifically state that other states, once they are part of the Union, may leave any time they see fit.
And please, show me another country in the history of nations that had such a proviso written into the very documents that were it's very foundation.
Texa v. White in 1869 clearly demonstrates that the Supreme Court ruled that Secession was illegal after the war, and the only Secessions they could possibly be talking about are the ones that occurred immediately prior to the Civil War.
There were and are no provisions in the Constitution regarding Secession that were implemented following the Civil War, are there? So evidently none were thought to be necessary.
And the "Perpetual Union" clauses in the Articles of Confederation make it plain that those states which decided to joine to become the United States of America sought precisely that: a perpeutual union.
But of course, the final argument is the simpliest of all:
Who cares?
If the Southern states seceded from the United States, from their own perspective, why would they be held accountable to United States laws?
Were the original Thirteen Colonies concerned with Britsh law once they signed the Declaration of Independance?
THOSE are the arguments that I've always thought the hardcore supporters of the Confederacy would have made on this Message Board.
But the real bottom line in such situation, the one common denominator when anyone tries to leave a mother natiomn with significant portions of population and territory, is even simpler:
YOU HAVE TO WIN THE WAR.
We've already discussed this countless times. Has anythking changed?
|
|
|
Guest
|
|
(3 of 170)
Re: Anybody care to demonstrate that secession was illegal in 1860
Sep 21, 2008 2:37 PM
|
warrior...
Laws are listings of what cannot be done.
If you havent noticed....a list of what people, entities or things...could do....would be quite list...wouldnt it.
And, realizing that the Federal Experiment only derived its powers from delegations made from the States....
And realizing that the powers of the Federal Experiment was to be 'few and enumerated" as Madison outlined...and that the powers that were to remain with the States were to be many and indefinite....
The Burden of was it ILLEGAL lays with your team....
Prove it.
--
Certainty is not proof
Insistence is not fact
Opinion is not evidence
Arrogance is not credibility
|
|
|
Posts:
31,887
Registered:
2/13/04
|
|
(4 of 170)
Re: Anybody care to demonstrate that secession was illegal in 1860
Sep 21, 2008 3:45 PM
|
> warrior...
>
> Laws are listings of what cannot be done.
And yet we see throughout history that those listings are violated when it suits those whom those laws have been made for, don't we?
Tell me, how do United States laws apply when a state of the United States claims to no longer be part of the United States, Historicus?
Wouldn't that make U.S. laws irrelevent?
How can you leave the United States and form your own nation, yet still consider yourself subject to U.S. laws?
|
|
|
Posts:
3,540
From:
Monticello
Registered:
1/15/07
|
|
(5 of 170)
Re: Anybody care to demonstrate that secession was illegal in 1860
Sep 21, 2008 3:47 PM
|
> I think the real conversation is for someone to try
> to demonstrate that it was "LEGAL" in 1860. That is,
> please demonstrate to me where any document, the
> Declaration of Independance, the Articles of
> Confederation, or the United States Constitution
> specifically state that other states, once they are
> part of the Union, may leave any time they see fit.
Note the operative phrase, "demonstrate to me".
Sorry, but ignorance is not argument; just because you refuse to believe something, doesn't mean it isn't so-- it just means you are ignorant.
I've already demonstrated these things, time and time again; but you simply don't want to believe it, regardless of objective fact.
Are you a thinking person, or just a kool-aid swilling cultist who clings to myth and dogma regardless of objective fact-- like the 9-11 pilots?
> And please, show me another country in the hisotry of
> natins that had such a proviso written into the very
> documents that were it's very foundation.
Show ME where the US is a NATION-- you can't, because it isn't. It's a union of sovereign nations.
It's amazing that you can't grasp this SIMPLE FACT; the states started out as nations, and never relinquished that.
This is written, meanwhile, in the LAW of Nations, by which the nations of Europe abided since before 1758.
In the 1918 case of Arver v. United States, for example, the court cites from the Law of Nations as support for the draft (ironic, because the law of Nations also preserves the right of secession).
> Texa v. White in 1869 clearly demonstrates that the
> Supreme Court ruled that Secession was illegal after
> the war, and the only Secessions they could possibly
> be talking about are the ones that occurred
> immediately prior to the Civil War.
Do you REALLY believe that the court has jthe power to nullify the sovereignty of nations, with a rap of its gavel?
Ignorance is one thing, obstinance another entirely; I've already proven this to you, quoting the appropriate portions of n the US Constitution; but you continue to cling to denial-- it's not just a river in Egypt, you know.
> There were and are no provisions in the Constitution
> regarding Secession that were implemented following
> the Civil War, are there? So evidently none were
> thought to be necessary.
It's written in the Law of Nations-- as well as the fundamental law of all nations, that they do not lose their sovereignty by failing to specifically retain it.
The sovereignty, freedom and independence of every state it was only retained in the AoC (and you likewise blatantly ignore that, as well) only because it hadn't been yet recognized by other nations-- this happened in 1783, and was never relinquished by any state.
"Union nationhood," meanwhile, is purely an invention of revisionists like Jackson, Lincoln, Story and Webster (and that traitor, Madison). Nowhere did any state EVER agree to surrender its sovereignty to the Union as a "single nation."
> And the "Perpetual Union" clauses in the Articles of
> Confederation make it plain that those states which
> decided to joine to become the United States of
> America sought precisely that: a perpeutual union.
Oh, and what about the clause that says "each state retains its sovereignty, freedom and independence" clauses of Article II-- which you conveniently ignore, in a textbook example of straining out gnats and swallowing camels?
As well as Book I, section 10 of the Law of Nations regarding how sovereign nations can form a perpetual confederacy (as in "Articles of CONFEDERATION") with other nations, while each retains its complete sovereignty?
QUOTE:
"several sovereign and independent states may unite themselves together by a perpetual confederacy, without ceasing to be, each individually, a perfect state. They will together constitute a federal republic: their joint deliberations will not impair the sovereignty of each member, though they may, in certain respects, put some restraint on the exercise of it, in virtue of voluntary engagements. A person does not cease to be free and independent, when he is obliged to fulfil engagements which he has voluntarily contracted."
Again:
" a perpetual confederacy, without ceasing to be, each individually, a perfect state"
"their joint deliberations will not impair the sovereignty of each member"
What part of that do you not understand?
> But of course, the final argument is the simpliest of
> all:
>
> Who cares?
Everyone who believes in the absolute sanctity of national sovereignty-- i.e. everyone who's not an absolute fool that wallows in the insane belief of benevolent dictatorship of all-wise "philosopher kings" like Lincoln, ala you Straussian cultists and Marxist-pragmatists.
Likewise, if you don't believe in national sovereignty, then ergo you don't believe in laws at all-- or truth, justice or honor, or ANYTHING except rule by any means, including brute force and treachery. That's just the irrefutable truth.
--
"Sovereign states may unite themselves together by a perpetual federal republic: this will not impair the sovereignty of each member, though they may, in certain respects, put some restraint on the exercise of it, in virtue of voluntary engagements. Meanwhile a state that has passed under the dominion of another, can no longer avail itself directly of the law of nations; such were the nations and kingdoms which the Romans rendered subject to their empire."
--Vattel
|
|
|
Posts:
13,153
From:
Los Angeles
Registered:
3/12/07
|
|
(6 of 170)
Re: Anybody care to demonstrate that secession was illegal in 1860
Sep 21, 2008 3:58 PM
|
was it legal for New England to secede during the War of 1812 and join the Brits?
would be legal for Alaska to secede and become allied with Russia?
would it be legal for the South to secede and become allied with Spain?
this point was made earlier but censored
interesting
|
|
|
Posts:
7,583
From:
MD
Registered:
4/25/00
|
|
(7 of 170)
Re: Anybody care to demonstrate that secession was illegal in 1860
Sep 21, 2008 4:10 PM
|
The Burden of was it ILLEGAL lays with your team"
The legality of secession went out the window when the US flag was fired upon. This was an armed rebellion. and was dealt with as such. Until the 1930s the official term was called by the US Government was the "War of Rebellion" not the war of secession Kind of gives the US Government point of view on the 1861- 65 rebellion, doesn't it.
The so-called CSA may of had a point up until the lanyard was pulled. A crisis was turned into a war of rebellion at that moment.
--
Brgds,
Pat
|
|
|
Posts:
3,540
From:
Monticello
Registered:
1/15/07
|
|
(8 of 170)
Re: Anybody care to demonstrate that secession was illegal in 1860
Sep 21, 2008 4:15 PM
|
> > warrior...
> >
> > Laws are listings of what cannot be done.
>
>
> And yet we see throughout history that those listings
> are violated when it suits those whom those laws have
> been made for, don't we?
>
> Tell me, how do United States laws apply when a state
> of the United States claims to no longer be part of
> the United States, Historicus?
>
> Wouldn't that make U.S. laws irrelevent?
I can't believe I include this in every post, but you still continue to ignore it -- in one ear and out the other:
"Sovereign states may unite themselves together by a perpetual federal republic: this will not impair the sovereignty of each member, though they may, in certain respects, put some restraint on the exercise of it, in virtue of voluntary engagements."
Note the term VOLUNTARY-- as in Amendment 10, wherein it's clearly stated that all federal powers are delegated to the US by the people of the states respectively.
That means, obviously, that only the individual states have the sovereign power-- and that the Constitution is simply a list of how they agree to exercise it. Naturally, therefore, they
> How can you leave the United States and form your own
> nation, yet still consider yourself subject to U.S.
> laws?
You can't---- the states were already sovereign nations. You're simply parroting the myth in the Pledge of Allegiance, just like every dictatorship forces people from birth to recite oaths of loyalty.
--
"Sovereign states may unite themselves together by a perpetual federal republic: this will not impair the sovereignty of each member, though they may, in certain respects, put some restraint on the exercise of it, in virtue of voluntary engagements. Meanwhile a state that has passed under the dominion of another, can no longer avail itself directly of the law of nations; such were the nations and kingdoms which the Romans rendered subject to their empire."
--Vattel
|
|
|
Posts:
3,540
From:
Monticello
Registered:
1/15/07
|
|
(9 of 170)
Re: Anybody care to demonstrate that secession was illegal in 1860
Sep 21, 2008 4:31 PM
|
Historicus:
> And realizing that the powers of the Federal
> Experiment was to be 'few and enumerated" as Madison
> outlined...and that the powers that were to remain
> with the States were to be many and indefinite....
>
> The Burden of was it ILLEGAL lays with your team....
>
> Prove it.
You're completely off-point; the issue is soveriegnty, not legal substance. Substantive arguments are meaningless, since national decisions are final irregardless of substance.
This is why I say that if the US was a nation, then Lincoln would have been RIGHT, substantively AND legally (since perpetuity IS implied in the fundamental law of all nations).
Are you even reading this?
--
"Sovereign states may unite themselves together by a perpetual federal republic: this will not impair the sovereignty of each member, though they may, in certain respects, put some restraint on the exercise of it, in virtue of voluntary engagements. Meanwhile a state that has passed under the dominion of another, can no longer avail itself directly of the law of nations; such were the nations and kingdoms which the Romans rendered subject to their empire."
--Vattel
|
|
|
Guest
|
|
(10 of 170)
Re: Anybody care to demonstrate that secession was illegal in 1860
Sep 21, 2008 5:18 PM
|
prroh..
>"The legality of secession went out the window when the US flag was fired upon."
So it was legal up to that point...
Agreed ...
And if it was legal up to that point, pat, Anderson had no business in the state of SC...which is where Sumter is.
--
Certainty is not proof
Insistence is not fact
Opinion is not evidence
Arrogance is not credibility
|
|
|
Posts:
7,583
From:
MD
Registered:
4/25/00
|
|
(11 of 170)
Re: Anybody care to demonstrate that secession was illegal in 1860
Sep 21, 2008 5:28 PM
|
So it was legal up to that point...
Agreed '
No, I don't agree. No government, to my knowledge, has ever constucted itself around the idea od allowing members to leave the government. The USSR built a government around a fiction the the member "Republics were " were independent and even insisted that they got seats on the UN. With the breakup of the USSR came back to bite them. The recent Georgian intrusion shows that Russia is not happy about the Sviet Republic acting like independent Republics.
I doubt if a legal case could have been built to declare secession legal, but pulling that lanyard made the legal argument moot.
--
Brgds,
Pat
|
|
|
Posts:
31,887
Registered:
2/13/04
|
|
(12 of 170)
Re: Anybody care to demonstrate that secession was illegal in 1860
Sep 21, 2008 5:29 PM
|
> prroh..
>
> >"The legality of secession went out the window when
> the US flag was fired upon."
>
> So it was legal up to that point...
> Agreed ...
Not by me.
>
> And if it was legal up to that point, pat, Anderson
> had no business in the state of SC...which is where
> Sumter is.
Ft Sumter was Federal property under Federal law.
If taken from the point of view that South Carolina was still a state, it's an act of rebellion.
Secession was illegal.
Firing on the fort was illegal, and an act of war (firing on ANY nation's military installlation is considered an act of war) if the Confederacy is considered a nation (which I do not.)
|
|
|
Posts:
3,540
From:
Monticello
Registered:
1/15/07
|
|
(13 of 170)
Re: Anybody care to demonstrate that secession was illegal in 1860
Sep 21, 2008 5:31 PM
|
> prroh..
>
> >"The legality of secession went out the window when
> the US flag was fired upon."
>
> So it was legal up to that point...
> Agreed ...
>
> And if it was legal up to that point, pat, Anderson
> had no business in the state of SC...which is where
> Sumter is.
I just don't get how he figures that a nation forfeits its sovereignty, if it defends its soil against declared hostile aggressors and invaders?
Sovereignty, by definition, means the legal RIGHT to defend territory!
--
"Sovereign states may unite themselves together by a perpetual federal republic: this will not impair the sovereignty of each member, though they may, in certain respects, put some restraint on the exercise of it, in virtue of voluntary engagements. Meanwhile a state that has passed under the dominion of another, can no longer avail itself directly of the law of nations; such were the nations and kingdoms which the Romans rendered subject to their empire."
--Vattel
|
|
|
Posts:
3,290
Registered:
1/19/07
|
|
(14 of 170)
Re: Anybody care to demonstrate that secession was illegal in 1860
Sep 22, 2008 3:05 AM
|
I can't believe I include this in every post, but you still continue to ignore it -- in one ear and out the other:
What gives you the idea that because you say it over and over that we must accept it? It was opinion the first time you said it and still is. It was rebellion from start to finish and was treated as such, particularily once the South foolishly started a shooting war.
Dan
|
|
|
Guest
|
|
(15 of 170)
Re: Anybody care to demonstrate that secession was illegal in 1860
Sep 22, 2008 4:36 AM
|
sfcdan...
care to demonstrate that secession was illegal in 1860?
--
Certainty is not proof
Insistence is not fact
Opinion is not evidence
Arrogance is not credibility
|
|
|
|
|
