Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You said the latter idea was treason. By the latter idea, I assume you mean that the Constitution is a contract and violating it is treason.
Since the northern states and the federal government violated the 10th Amendment of the Constitution they, by your own definition, committed treason.
Try reading the Supreme Court Decisions after the Civil War. The 10th Amendment counts for nothing. It is the Supreme Courts job to interpret the Constitution
Try reading the Supreme Court Decisions after the Civil War. The 10th Amendment counts for nothing. It is the Supreme Courts job to interpret the Constitution
Now I am confused
You are either saying that the 10th Amendment was repealed and nobody was told
or
That the Constitution means nothing and the Supreme Court rules us
You are either saying that the 10th Amendment was repealed and nobody was told
or
That the Constitution means nothing and the Supreme Court rules us
Which is it?
I think it means 10th Amendment is intrepted differently by the Supreme court than you. Since supreme court is given by the Constitution to explain and enforce the Constitution. It decides what the Constitution means and the law of the land. The beauty is that, if necessary, Constitution also allows the other two branches of government to over rule the supreme court. However, it only occurred once in our history. The president literally told the Supreme court to rule his way, or he will amend the Constitution (his party control 2/3 of both houses) to increase the judges to 11 and put his people in it.
I do have a question, since North did not have the vote to ban slavery and I believe it did not ban slavery at the time of secession, then why did the South seceded from the Union?
I do have a question, since North did not have the vote to ban slavery and I believe it did not ban slavery at the time of secession, then why did the South seceded from the Union?
Because the planter class legitimately believed Lincoln was going to abolish slavery, and Southern newspapers promptly spread the misinformation. You know that old saying, "a lie can travel half way around the world before the truth gets its boots on." South Carolina seceded shortly thereafter.
I think it means 10th Amendment is intrepted differently by the Supreme court than you. Since supreme court is given by the Constitution to explain and enforce the Constitution. It decides what the Constitution means and the law of the land. The beauty is that, if necessary, Constitution also allows the other two branches of government to over rule the supreme court. However, it only occurred once in our history. The president literally told the Supreme court to rule his way, or he will amend the Constitution (his party control 2/3 of both houses) to increase the judges to 11 and put his people in it.
I do have a question, since North did not have the vote to ban slavery and I believe it did not ban slavery at the time of secession, then why did the South seceded from the Union?
Honestly, it's been stated like a hundred times here already. Read the thread and stop asking people to repeat themselves...
Honestly, it's been stated like a hundred times here already. Read the thread and stop asking people to repeat themselves...
As far as I can see is that you said the Constitution had been violated yet apparently it didn't. If South seceded before our Constitution has been violated, then South broke the bound first and is simply enemy states not even protected by our Constitution, isn't it? In the end, South lost and North won. You keep saying the 10th amendment, and now I don't even see how it was violated at first place because South left the union first.
As far as I can see is that you said the Constitution had been violated yet apparently it didn't. If South seceded before our Constitution has been violated, then South broke the bond first and is simply enemy states not even protected by our Constitution, isn't it? In the end, South lost and North won. You keep saying the 10th amendment, and now I don't even see how it was violated at first place.
If South seceded before our Constitution has been violated, then South broke the bound first and is simply enemy states not even protected by our Constitution, isn't it?
The North never recognized the secession, thus the Southern states were still considered part of the United States, therefore the Constitution still applied in the view of Lincoln and the North (note: secession was declared illegal retroactively, see Texas v. White [1869]). A fine line was walked during the war as not to recognize the Confederacy as a legitimate nation, otherwise it would have completely changed the legal implications for the North. The most important of course being the power specifically outlined in the Constitution to suppress insurrection (Article I, Section 8).
Same applies for the US declaration of independence (i.e. secession) from Britain. The British still considered the colonies to be their territory and were simply present to suppress the insurrection. The difference being the colonies won their independence, while the South did not. Similar separatist movements have had different implications for the mother country, but in the case of the US in both the Civil War and the Indian Wars that preceded and followed, it is covered by the Constitution. In fact wars between the US and various Indian nations continued even during the war against the South, and both were treated in the same way (as insurrections vs. secessions or territorial claims).
The North never recognized the secession, thus the Southern states were still considered part of the United States, therefore the Constitution still applied in the view of Lincoln and the North (note: secession was declared illegal retroactively, see Texas v. White [1869]). A fine line was walked during the war as not to recognize the Confederacy as a legitimate nation, otherwise it would have completely changed the legal implications for the North. The most important of course being the power specifically outlined in the Constitution to suppress insurrection (Article I, Section 8).
Same applies for the US declaration of independence (i.e. secession) from Britain. The British still considered the colonies to be their territory and were simply present to suppress the insurrection. The difference being the colonies won their independence, while the South did not. Similar separatist movements have had different implications for the mother country, but in the case of the US in both the Civil War and the Indian Wars that preceded and followed, it is covered by the Constitution. In fact wars between the US and various Indian nations continued even during the war against the South, and both were treated in the same way (as insurrections vs. secessions or territorial claims).
Most nations never recognize secession movements anyway. That is why wars happen.
How this relates to the Confederate flag, well, yes, it is freedom of speech. That being said, the reason behind the insurrection is why I don't support or like the Confederate flag.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
