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.
This topic isn't even history, it's politics. Which is why I now avoid this subject which is almost relgious in nature. I'd feel like a Dominican arguing with a Calvinist.
Concerning an earlier exchange, I would like say this:
I was a little hasty in my replies to "Grandstander". I was in a hurry (ready to go on a 3-day fishing trip! LOL), and read over what he had written -- which itself was in reply to another post of mine -- in a hurried manner; and I misunderstood, somewhat, the tone and counter-points being made.
Therefore, my own response was hurried and harsh, and lacking in understanding. While I stand solidly behind my position on the issue per se, and the essense of certain "personality" factors, I acknowledge -- after really reading over everything -- I was in the wrong the way I went about it. There is really no excuse (speaking for myself) for not carefully reading and absorbing another poster's missive before replying to it.
This is not an apology per se (because I do stand by certain things), but it IS an expression of regret to all concerned for handling it the way I did. I would like to wipe the slate clean and, when the chance arises, to go back and do things the right way...
Yes, that is TexasReb's position regarding the Civil War. However, I didn't get the impression he was framing his argument in this case solely on the Civil War. I believe his point and Davis' was that the "ultimate question" had not been resolved making such an event as the Civil War possible over another issue that would prove divisive. That is the point I agree with.
And you are exactly right on that. I appreciate that you, at least, discerned the point without it being spelled out meticulous detail!
However, I would like to respectfully quibble/clarify a bit on your opening sentence above. Perhaps I have not been clear in the past (and I can be very guilty of that! LOL), but my reading of the Constitution as regards secession is not really any different than the one you and some others advance. That is, it is generally silent on the subject, and likely for the reason that no new nation sows the seeds (as the saying goes) of its own demise.
Hell, the Confederate Constitution is just as silent. In fact, perhaps even more vauge, and even a bit contradictory had it ever been subject to "alternate history" review (i.e. the South had won and a state or several of them, decided to secede and the CSA government had used force): To wit:
We, the people of the Confederate States, each State acting in its sovereign and independent character, in order to form a permanent federal government...
But point is, I never have disagreed with that there is nothing explicitly said either way of the subject of secession. So it is absurd and absolutely false for any poster (I am not referring to you at all) to argue that I ever said otherwise and to presume to state/imply such.
Now then, do I believe the South was legally and morally justified in seceding? Yes, I clearly do. BUT...this position has nothing to do with any clause or right clearly spelled out (or not) in the constitution. Rather, it is based upon a three-fold consideration:
1. The United States itself was formed by "seceding" colonies, and later recognized as independent and soveriegn states by the Treaty of Paris.
2. It just seems to stand to reason and common-sense that, having been itself formed upon the principle that government derives their powers from the consent of the governed, that this ideal would be given the nod if it came up against the wish that the new Union would remain forever intact. Sorta like Calhoun summed up when he returned Jackson's toast of "Our Union, it must be preserved" replied "Our Union, next to our liberty, most dear."
3. The fact the Constitution is silent on the issue...yet specifically limits the powers of the federal government and gives the states and people all those not mentioned (i.e. 9th and 10th), and since secession is NOT expressly forbidden gives a default victory in favor of the seceding states.
Sorry to be so long-winded, but I just wanted to clear all that up. Especially in light of that, earlier, "Grandstander" took it upon himself to state my position...and in a groundless way, to boot.
Quote:
If the "question" had been firmly settled such a tool wouldn't exist and IMO would strip factions of their ability to cloak themselves in legitimacy by claiming states rights.
On a somewhat related tangent, it is definitely true that a "state's righter's" can become "federalists" and vice-versa. And yes, I very much agree it depends on the issue. But that fact does not necessarily involve a hypocritical contradiction/cynicism in one's basic ideological position and vision. Generally speaking, those of the "conservative" persuasion will tend to line up with "states rights." While those on the left will tend to favor centralized government. Although the same ideological labels might not be those used as back in 1850, the same historical consistency applies. I get the impression you agree with this...
You have addressed only the legal aspect with the above. You are already aware that my position is that both sides had legal arguments, but neither had legality on their side, the Constitution was silent on the issue, and we have discussed why that was the case.
So, no sense restaging the legal arguments.
Instead, if we assumed that the South was within its legal rights to depart, we have left two major questions.
1) Did the South depart in a legal manner? In other words, agreeing that the right of secession existed, was the method employed by the South, unilateral action by States rather than any sort of national process, the proper, legal way to go about it? If if took a national process with the participation of all of the States to ratify the Constitution, why would it not require a national process with all states participating to unratify it? (Disratify? Disenratify? Blow this pop stand?)
2) Even assuming a right of secession, did the South have sufficient reason for unmaking the nation? Was anything taking place that represented a gross violation of the national compact? Were the laws of the nation being capriciously enforced to the detriment of the South? Was the election of 1860 in any manner the product of fraud? Did Southerners pay more than their fair share of taxes? Were Southerners denied civil rights enjoyed by Northerners?
Secession was a direct reaction to losing an election. The South began to depart before Lincoln had even taken office, he couldn't have done anything yet to have outraged the South. Was Lincoln threatening the South with anything illegal? Promising any of the behavior described in the previous paragraph? Warning the South that he intended to free their slaves?
What the South was threatened with was a long term loss of the ability of the slave states to block the legislative programs of the Northern states. Was that sufficient moral justification? The Southern states had a firm grip on political power from the election of Andrew Jackson through the administration of James Buchanan. They maintained this thirty two year poltical hegemony by winning elections.
Now they had lost one. Do you really see no obligation at all on the part of the South to live with the results of the system, especially when they lose? What do you see as the point of a democracy if election results may be treated with such caprice?
I appreciate your civil and respectful reply, and I hope we can "bury the hatchet" as to any personal (personality?) issues between us.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grandstander
You have addressed only the legal aspect with the above. You are already aware that my position is that both sides had legal arguments, but neither had legality on their side, the Constitution was silent on the issue, and we have discussed why that was the case.
So, no sense restaging the legal arguments.
Instead, if we assumed that the South was within its legal rights to depart, we have left two major questions.
First of all, I can see immediately where we are going to come to loggerheads. For one thing, the collision of "constitutional" vs. "legal" arguments. Yes, I realize that might seem quibbling, but as concerns this issue, it is an important nuance.
You seem to be proceeding from the premise that all constitutional issues can be subject to a legal process (let me hasten to add that I do not claim to be a legal scholar). I admit, that most probably are (even if subject to the ideology of SCOTUS make-up). However, the issue of something so serious as secession, which involves the right of a people to govern themselves (i.e. government by consent of the governed; the bedrock of the DOI) is not something subject to a purely legal process...simply because it involves a higher principle. I mean, were the American colonies historically and legally "wrong" because they did not petition the British Crown/Parliament for independence? Or agree to submit to the ruling of the same? In a nutshell, my reply to your next points are going to be predicated upon that I make that distinction (constitutional vs. legal). Which, of course, is why we will definitely come to loggerheads in the framing of our arguments! LOL However, I WILL try to argue upon your own turf a bit as well...
Quote:
1) Did the South depart in a legal manner? In other words, agreeing that the right of secession existed, was the method employed by the South, unilateral action by States rather than any sort of national process, the proper, legal way to go about it? If it took a national process with the participation of all of the States to ratify the Constitution, why would it not require a national process with all states participating to unratify it? (Disratify? Disenratify? Blow this pop stand?)
The essence of the "legal" aspect has been addressed above. But regardless, let me use this analogy (and I am sure you have heard it before) as to your national process argument:
Yes, it takes a process -- often a long and involved one -- to formulate the by-laws of an organization/club in which all potential members can agree to. However, can you imagine one existing -- at least among a free people -- which stipulated that there was no right to resign from it without a meeting of the board of directors to approve it? And if they don't, would the said member be subject to coercion and his dues taken out of his paycheck? Or he be subject to forcible attendance at meetings?
You may be scoffing at this as an inept analogy. But as I see it, it is -- in microcosm -- very applicable.
Quote:
2) Even assuming a right of secession, did the South have sufficient reason for unmaking the nation? Was anything taking place that represented a gross violation of the national compact? Were the laws of the nation being capriciously enforced to the detriment of the South? Was the election of 1860 in any manner the product of fraud? Did Southerners pay more than their fair share of taxes? Were Southerners denied civil rights enjoyed by Northerners?
It is neither here nor there was "sufficient reason" to secede. It may well have been rash and foolhardy action (and many Southern men thought so), but that is immaterial. Did the American colonies have "sufficient reason" to declare their independence from the Brits? Answer that and we can take it from there, in historical/chronological order. But yes, the Southern states paid more than their "fair share" of taxes, and since the Northern states controlled the House (where budget bill originate) they used the power to spend it subsidizing their own interests. This had long been a point of conflict.
Quote:
Secession was a direct reaction to losing an election. The South began to depart before Lincoln had even taken office, he couldn't have done anything yet to have outraged the South. Was Lincoln threatening the South with anything illegal? Promising any of the behavior described in the previous paragraph? Warning the South that he intended to free their slaves?
No, it wasn't. It was just the impetus. Actually, the real issue that brought things to a head was the issue of slavery in the territories. The powers that be in the North did not want slavery in the said areas because they did not want blacks in the said areas.
Quote:
What the South was threatened with was a long term loss of the ability of the slave states to block the legislative programs of the Northern states. Was that sufficient moral justification? The Southern states had a firm grip on political power from the election of Andrew Jackson through the administration of James Buchanan. They maintained this thirty two year poltical hegemony by winning elections.
Sorry, Grandstander, but, once again, I am not going to accept your premise in a one-sided way. So to start? The sufficient "moral justification" is bound up in what is written in the DOI: Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed
Regardless, what was the North threatened with? That is the better way to frame the question. Why did Lincoln choose to use force against a people who had done the North no wrong and simply want to peacefully go their own way? What was his moral justification for invading the South? Could it have been he wanted to keep their tax money? Or his political philosophy involved the eventual establishment of an empire of which states were little more than the original colonies? What made him any different from King George III
Quote:
Now they had lost one. Do you really see no obligation at all on the part of the South to live with the results of the system, especially when they lose? What do you see as the point of a democracy if election results may be treated with such caprice?
The Southern states seceded by a democratic process. Should the American colonies have submitted to a democratic process by the total electorate of England? And as you know, the Colonials were British subjects. They had even less historical justification to rebel. The Southern people were citizens of soveriegn states (and all that implies) which had entered into a voluntary compact with other states.
And keep in mind, originally, the four states of the Upper South firmly rejected secession initially. It was Lincolns own actions that pushed them firmly into the CSA.
One last thing to note is that, as concerns a "legal" process. What IF the issue had been brought to SCOTUS? And what IF the same had ruled secession "legal"? Do you really think Lincoln would have accepted it and just said, oh, ok...it is now settled"? Not trying to be a smartass, but c'mon...
Last thought for the night: I need to hit the sack. It is wayyyyy past my bedtime! G'night, all...
the collision of "constitutional" vs. "legal" arguments.
There is no such thing as a constitutional vs legal argument because by definition they are one in the same. The constitution is the basis of all American jurisprudence. If it is unconstitutional it ain't legal.
Quote:
the premise that all constitutional issues can be subject to a legal process (let me hasten to add that I do not claim to be a legal scholar).
The Constitution is the supreme law of the land as a result you've got the formulation backwards, all legal processes must be weighed against the strictures of the Constitution not the other way around.
Quote:
However, the issue of something so serious as secession, which involves the right of a people to govern themselves (i.e. government by consent of the governed; the bedrock of the DOI) is not something subject to a purely legal process...simply because it involves a higher principle.
You are quite right, the people have a right to determine how they govern themselves and eleven state governments do not constitute the people. The union was bound by ratification process of the people and the people had as much say in disunion as they had in union.
Quote:
I mean, were the American colonies historically and legally "wrong" because they did not petition the British Crown/Parliament for independence? Or agree to submit to the ruling of the same?
Was the union between the Colonies and Great Britain a voluntary compact? Was that union the result of what amounted to a national plebiscite and was that bargain between the people or between a monarch/parliament in which they did not share representation?
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.
Just to say...
