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.
"It just seems logical" is not a legal concept. Nor is any unilateral assumption of settlements where the other party is given no say so in the arrangements. Nor does a contract become void simply because one side announces that it is canceling it.
Again, this was obviously not the issue surrounding Sumter. That was a territorial battle pure and simple.... The North never asked for compensation for federal installations in the South, nor did they ever offer to negotiate it...... This was over their perceived right to keep their troops in that fort which was now on Confederate soil (according to the South) and still on Federal soil (according to the North).....
You go back and tell the Confederate Congress that the North is willing to let them go if they will negotiate compensation for Federal installations and I'm almost 100% sure they'd have crapped themselves and gone out of their way to negotiate a fair settlement....
Quote:
Originally Posted by grandstander
All of this is why there had to be a war. And it also illustrates how foolish it is to argue that one side was at fault while the other was blameless.
Certainly agree there..... Hope no one is trying to paint either side as "blameless".... That's just a fool's argument.
You seem to be suggestinng that the national government craft some laws which sanction secession and explain the proper procedures for conducting it. This of course was not the process to which the Confederate states resorted in 1860 and '61.They did not seek anyone's permission to leave, they did not ask Congress or the courts if it was possible, and if so, how was it done. They simply declared the laws to which they had sworn fidelity, no longer in effect.
That's rebellion and rebellion may be moral, but it is never legal until after the rebellion is successful. Thus, the Southern Confederacy never enjoyed legal sanctioning. Their legality was all self declared and such declarations require the means to enforce them. The South fought with great skill and courage, but it wasn't enough to validate their declarations.
Eh, just when I thought we could agree..... No, recall at the end of the Revolution we had 13 separate colonies, EACH with their own government that came together to form a loosely bound nation.... The question of state's rights was ALWAYS at the very CORE of any discussion on how the Federal Government would work..... Hamilton, Adams, Jefferson, Madison all saw this question very differently..... (No coincidence that typically the Northeast saw a stronger Federal Government as the way to go, while the Mid-Atlantic and Southern states saw State's Rights as the most important.....
Anyway, when the Constitution was drawn up and 13 separate governments are coming together to attempt to make one common government, I think we can see why nothing binding these states FOREVER to be bound by this document is written into it.....
Just like slavery was a glaring omission really.
BECAUSE MOST STATES WOULDN'T HAVE RATIFIED IT OTHERWISE...
To call what occurred a "Rebellion" is the victor choosing the language as far as I'm concerned. If you are of the opinion that what the south did was within their rights (and again, I think the Constitution makes it clear by it's omission that it is), then you see where the "Northern Aggression" angle comes in....
What you consider the Civil War to be is influenced by the same question we've been discussing. Whether the South had the right to do it in the first place.
All you're doing is igoring pages of discussion on the matter and saying it was a "Rebellion", and a "dishonorable" one at that. You can't side-step any discussion on the South's right to do what they did and slap a label on it because the label holds within it's definition the righteousness of the act...
Rhett....I am unable to see how your arguments above are relevant to the points that I have advanced. You are still arguing from the point of view that the rebellion was justified. You seem to have developed the idea that a rebellion isn't a rebellion if it is justified. That is not the case, is it? All that a rebellion requires is an existing legal structure and someone who is defying it. Such were the circumstances of the Southern secession. They did not seek the approval of the existing legal government, they acted unilaterally. They rebelled against the law of the land. That in their minds they had every right to do so does not alter the fact that they were defying the legally constituted government. That they decided that the legally constituted government no longer had authority over them, made them into rebels. That the government actually no longer had authority over them, was always something that had to be won by force of arms or supressed by force of arms.
It is not a matter of the South believing that they had such a right, it was a matter of the South behaving as though they had such a right, when in fact, no such right had ever been established. The South then failied in its attempt to establish it. Thus, it was never established, was it?
In the case of rebellion, legality will always be retroactive. The cause may be moral from the start, but the legality must be established by means beyond simple declaration. The South was never going to be an independent nation on the basis of their announcing it, not so long as the government against which they were rebelling, opposed it effectively. The South would have become a legal nation once the government against which they rebelled, gave up the struggle and ceased resisiting the idea. That never happened.
You really should cease this line of argument which relies on the justification for the rebellion, it is completely irrelevant to the issue of legality.
Theres alot of good stuff in this link, thank you Sman. Lincoln's legal arguments, if anything, show that he was on shakey ground as far as the law was concerned. The constitution would never have been ratified if it's intent was what Lincoln said it was. States were meant to have much greater power to weigh against the fed.
There's alot to digest in this link, still trying to soak it all in.
Rhett....I am unable to see how your arguments above are relevant to the points that I have advanced. You are still arguing from the point of view that the rebellion was justified. You seem to have developed the idea that a rebellion isn't a rebellion if it is justified. That is not the case, is it? All that a rebellion requires is an existing legal structure and someone who is defying it.
So who's defying it??? That's the question you seem to think is already answered... This isn't a matter of people saying, "We aren't going to listen to your laws anymore.". This is, "We are opting out of participating in this nation as per our rights."
Our revolution was a matter of SUBJECTS OF ENGLAND who founded colonies on her behalf stating that they were no longer going to be bound by the rule of the King.
Our Civil War is people who voluntarily subjected themselves to a central government with the condition that they would still have some self-determination saying that they are now opting out the central government because it is infringing on those rights of self-determination... ie. It isn't like the North colonized the South here.... All states opted-in to the Union and there was nothing that stated they couldn't also opt-out.. Now if you want to call that "Rebellion" it is a different type of "rebellion" than any that ever existed, but the term "rebellion" is a loaded term either way.
Quote:
Originally Posted by grandstander
Such were the circumstances of the Southern secession. They did not seek the approval of the existing legal government, they acted unilaterally.
Now we're going in circles.... Again, they saw two "existing legal governments". The federal and state governments. They believed that the State Government had the right to opt out of pariticipation in the Federal.... That's it in all it's simplicity.
And I'm thinking you are unaware of what "unilateral" means..... This was half the country opting out of one central government and EACH choosing to join allegiance with a new central government......
Quote:
Originally Posted by grandstander
They rebelled against the law of the land.
You find me that law and we can end this discussion..... Fact is, it doesn't exist.
Quote:
Originally Posted by grandstander
That in their minds they had every right to do so does not alter the fact that they were defying the legally constituted government. That they decided that the legally constituted government no longer had authority over them, made them into rebels. That the government actually no longer had authority over them, was always something that had to be won by force of arms or supressed by force of arms.
See, you're using the term 'Legal' at your own convenience.... If two governments disagree on what "legal" is, what sense does it make for one to capitulate to the other's definition???
You're using the North's definition of the legality of secession to justify your terminology....
Quote:
Originally Posted by grandstander
It is not a matter of the South believing that they had such a right, it was a matter of the South behaving as though they had such a right, when in fact, no such right had ever been established.
Well the first talk of secession was with the New England states wanting to secede before the War of 1812. They stayed in, but it wasn't over any question having to do with the "legality" of secession... What it DOES show however is that the North too, believed this to be a right.
Quote:
Originally Posted by grandstander
The South then failied in its attempt to establish it. Thus, it was never established, was it?
If there's no law that says I can't spit on the sidewalk. I spit on it. And then my neighbor comes out and says I can't do it and we have a fight over it and he wins and I apologize, does that suddenly mean that there was a law against it when I did it???
NO!!!!
You're trying to say that the War retro-actively created a law that said "Secession is illegal".... It didn't.
Quote:
Originally Posted by grandstander
In the case of rebellion, legality will always be retroactive.
No, it isn't.... This is simply the victor saying, "We won't let you do that and we didn't let you do that"..... Violence doesn't retro-actively create law.....
Quote:
Originally Posted by grandstander
The cause may be moral from the start, but the legality must be established by means beyond simple declaration.
Again, you're going back and forth on whether we should question the legality of secession or not based on how convenient it is to your argument..... The Federal Government never outlawed secession. The state governments therefore ratified it and THUS ENDED any legal right the Federal Government had of challenging it..... It's a unique legal case to say the least, but you can't argue that the North had the final say in any way other than through forcibly keeping the South in the Union.
Quote:
Originally Posted by grandstander
The South was never going to be an independent nation on the basis of their announcing it, not so long as the government against which they were rebelling, opposed it effectively.
Not true..... Happens every day in our World..... Again you're arguing from the Northern perspective plain and simple....
Quote:
Originally Posted by grandstander
You really should cease this line of argument which relies on the justification for the rebellion, it is completely irrelevant to the issue of legality.
Only if you believe the Constitution to be "irrelevent" does the issue of legality fall by the wayside.... I'd quote the Bill of Rights again, but it'd be easier for you to just go back and read it.....
It's equally irrelevent in terms of legality what the north felt about it.
So who's defying it??? That's the question you seem to think is already answered... This isn't a matter of people saying, "We aren't going to listen to your laws anymore.". This is, "We are opting out of participating in this nation as per our rights."
Yeah? So? That's rebellion. Suppose that I was operating a meth lab in my home and the police came to bust me. If I answered the door and informed the police that I, Grandstander, was seceeding from the United States and establishing my own nation, Grandlandia, here on my property, and that in Grandlandia, there are no laws against meth labs, would that make everything legal?
You don't seem to realize that you are advancing an argument founded on such thinking. You cannot escape legally constituted authority simply by declaration. It must be declaration followed by the means to enforce all such declarations. If the latter cannot be established, then the legality cannot be established.
In short, the distinction that you are attempting to draw, does not and never has, existed. "We're not breaking the law, we are nullifying it"...that just does not wash. You seem to be under the impression that you can get out of the terms of a contract simply by announcing that you are withdrawing and that the other parties to the contract have no say so in the matter. And I don't seem to be able to get you to grasp that this is a false idea. Well, it is. Things do not work that way. If they did, then you would be right, but they don't so you are not.
Yeah? So? That's rebellion. Suppose that I was operating a meth lab in my home and the police came to bust me. If I answered the door and informed the police that I, Grandstander, was seceeding from the United States and establishing my own nation, Grandlandia, here on my property, and that in Grandlandia, there are no laws against meth labs, would that make everything legal?
You really haven't read the Constitution have you??? Any right not afforded to the Central Government is a matter for the state's to decide, NOT any individual.
You seem to ignore the entity of state governments entirely which is a shame because they are an ENTIRE HALF of this argument and the power they held at the time based on our Constitution is what the entire war revolves around.....
Quote:
Originally Posted by grandstander
You don't seem to realize that you are advancing an argument founded on such thinking. You cannot escape legally constituted authority simply by declaration. It must be declaration followed by the means to enforce all such declarations. If the latter cannot be established, then the legality cannot be established.
Eh, slippery slope you're arguing here.... You're basically saying that if two parties disagree that they fight and the winning side is legally correct....
That's not "legality" that's coercion which is as much a part of the history of the world as law, but it is not the equivelent of law.
Quote:
Originally Posted by grandstander
In short, the distinction that you are attempting to draw, does not and never has, existed. "We're not breaking the law, we are nullifying it"...that just does not wash. You seem to be under the impression that you can get out of the terms of a contract simply by announcing that you are withdrawing and that the other parties to the contract have no say so in the matter. And I don't seem to be able to get you to grasp that this is a false idea. Well, it is. Things do not work that way. If they did, then you would be right, but they don't so you are not.
No, what you are not grasping is that the "contract" has an out clause and instead of having an arbitrator decide any matter that it is instead for one of the two parties to decide....
If a landlord and I enter into a rental contract that says I'm going to rent an apartment and never says anything about the length of the lease or how I need to proceed to exit the lease and I decide one day that I'm moving then that is that..... 1) He cannot tell me that I cannot leave, and 2) If he still insists, we don't do the equivelent of asking his wife what she thinks and have her word be final....
There was no arbitration here and for you to think that trusting the courts of one side of the argument to come back and decide on this is ludicrous!!!
What I find amusing is that three states that I know of (Virginia, North Carolina and Tennessee) seceded over this VERY argument we're having... They were going to remain with the Union until Lincoln took it upon himself to put out a call for troops to put down the "Rebellion".... These three states basically took my side of the argument and said there IS NO rebellion, they have a right to do what they're doing and thus they seceded.......
And I'm not claiming that means those three states are the judge of judges, only that you are arguing your side as fact when we are actually arguing the exact arguments they had then.... I think we see why it came to war, because while you claim to not be able to make sense out of my argument, I can likewise make no sense out of yours...
No, what you are not grasping is that the "contract" has an out clause and instead of having an arbitrator decide any matter that it is instead for one of the two parties to decide
A contract has an out clause if an out clause has been inserted and all parties to the contract have signed off on it.
If a contract has no specific out clause, and one party declares that it exists while the other parties deny this, then something other than mere declaration will be required to resolve the dispute. At the end of that struggle, then we may say whether or not that out clause ever existed. If the side insisting that it was there loses, then it was never there.
Either way, these discussions have a tendency to go nowhere and with good reason when you consider that these same questions led to war....
Nice discussion but I'm not going to continue further to attempt to persuade you on a matter that there is no hope for persuasion...... There wasn't then, there isn't now. (And we wonder why there is STILL sectionalism between the North and South.. )
A contract has an out clause if an out clause has been inserted and all parties to the contract have signed off on it.
If a contract has no specific out clause, and one party declares that it exists while the other parties deny this, then something other than mere declaration will be required to resolve the dispute. At the end of that struggle, then we may say whether or not that out clause ever existed. If the side insisting that it was there loses, then it was never there.
We have different opinions on how legality is determined then and we can leave it at that..
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.
