Lincoln's decision to militarily prevent the secession of the Confederate states (economic, events)
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.
We have different opinions on how legality is determined then and we can leave it at that..
Well, you can leave it as a "difference of opinion" but you will remain in error. An out clause in a contract reads like an out clause. It states the conditions under which the contract may be void or may be dissolved.
Obviously the 10th amendment states no such thing, it is addressing the rights of state legislatures to pass laws which are not in conflcit with Federal law. It is a wild fancy on your part that this represents a clause which explains that it is okay for states to dissolve the contract unilaterally. There is no such statement, is there?
The Constitution does state what the process shall be for resolving conflict and it names the high courts as this process. The Confederate States opted not to risk the courts and behaved as though they could interpret the Constitution without having to reference the Fedral government, a majority of the states, or the courts.
And as I have repeatedly pointed out to you, when you choose to go that route, then you have to back it up with force. The South tried and failed, thus, they never achieved any sanctioned legality. Had they won, had they gained independence, then they could have their own courts and laws regarding whether or not a state could leave by its own choice without any other requirement.
Yep, it was better that Lincoln went againt the intent of the signers of constitution, with his bogus legal arguments. It's just great that a state can't succeed from the union of its own accord, in peace. It's comforting to know the president can draft people to gun them down, if they succeed, and it pleases him.
Mofford...you need to provide clear evidence that the Constitutional designers anticipated the break up of the nation by individual state declaration. Otherwise you are just at sea making noise. Clearly there is no such language in the 10th amendment, it does not address national disolution, it addresses internal legislative powers for the states, not some sort of super nationalistic substitution power which permits any state to exit at will.
Does it not occur to you that if the Constitution designers wanted the nation to be subject to unilateral withdrawal by states, they would have included language and process for this?
They did not. And you are grasping at straws when interpreting the 10th amendment, designed to address one thing, as being some all purpose permission to do anything.
So...you have the goods or you do not.
Im not a laywer, but if you did not read this section from the link posted earlier, maybe it might be relevant to the objective reader. This might be the goods your looking for, Grandstander.
"Those still harboring doubts about the constitutionality of secession in 1861 should attempt a sincere answer to the question: would the Constitution, as construed by President Lincoln and his allies in all eras, have been ratified in 1788? To answer this question, we must first make explicit those provisions Lincoln and his successors thought were implicit in the Constitution. For the sake of realism, these provisions will be organized in the form of an imaginary Eleventh Amendment to the Constitution.72 Such an amendment would read as follows:
(Imaginary) Amendment XI
Section 1. Notwithstanding the Guarantee Clause and the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, no state may ever secede from the Union for any reason, except by an amendment pursuant to Article V.73
Section 2. If any State attempts to secede without authorization, the Federal Government shall invade such State with sufficient military force to suppress the attempted secession.
Section 3. The Federal Government may require the militias of all states to join in the use of force against the seceding State.
Section 4. After suppressing said secession, the Federal Government shall rule said State by martial law until such time as said State shall accept permanent federal supremacy and alter its constitution to forbid future secessions.
Section 5. After suppressing said secession, the Federal Government shall force said State to ratify a constitutional amendment which gives the Federal Government the right to police the states whenever it believes those states are violating the rights of their citizens. Section 6. The President may, of his own authority, suspend the operation of the Bill of Rights and the writ of habeas corpus, in a seceding or loyal state, if in his sole judgment, such is necessary to preserve the Union.74
This imaginary amendment contains a fair summary of what Lincoln thought the Constitution ratified in 1788 had to say implicitly about state secession. Would the Constitution have been ratified if it contained such an amendment? Would that amendment have been ratified at any time between 1788 and 1861? The answer to both questions, according to any intellectually honest historian or constitutional lawyer, must be a resounding "No!"
Irrelevant. The Constitution says no such thing. Imaginary arguments are imaginary arguments.
You are stretching further and further in an attempt to justify that which was never intended.
I asked for the specific language which sanctions individual state departures. There isn't any, is there? And because there isn't any, any rights associated with such a concept, would have to be won by force of arms. The attempt to do this resulted in defeat.
There is little point in your staying on the line of attack that you are taking. Obviously I reject esoteric interpretations and that is what you keep doing. Esoteric, long stretches, maybe it meant this, if you squint it could be seen to mean that....none of that counters any of my arguments. THere is no specific sanctioning of secession in the Constitution....will you finally admit that?
Because there is no specific mentioning of secession in the constitution, does not mean there had to be a war. I don't think the founding fathers would of wanted that. Looking at their intent, is something to be considered. Clearly, they would of never ratified the constitution as interpreted by Lincoln (not irrevelevant or a stretch of the imagination).
The people are supposed to be in control of government, not the other way around. Im not so sure your arguments prevail to the objective reader, so lets agree to disagree, and hopefully get some fresh opinions on the matter.
Because there is no specific mentioning of secession in the constitution, does not mean there had to be a war. .
Well, no. Perhaps if the Confederates had sought to address the issue by legal means, utilizing Congress or the courts to establish or deny the right of secession, there would not have been a war. Of course that isn't the action that they took. Instead they unilaterally announced that their interpretation prevailed and they acted upon that interpretation without regard for anyone else's opinion. And that's why there was a war.
And can we avoid the suspicion that they did it the way that they did rather than pursuing legal means, was because they were aware that they would not prevail by legal means? Even rock solid Southern sympathizer Chief Justice Taney, he of the Dred Scott decision, refused to go along with secession. He remained loyal. He administered the oath to Lincoln and retained his seat on the court.
The only means available to resolve the issue of secession was going to be bloodshed. The only way to have avoided that bloodshed was for the South to have avoided secession.
The only way to have avoided that bloodshed was for the South to have avoided secession.
Would you at least admit that Lincoln made the decision to go to war ? And that it could of been a different decision not to go to war, if a different man had been in office at the time ? Your saying that ANY president would take it to war, and not pull out of Ft. Sumter, or recognize the CSA ? That sounds rediculous.
Would you at least admit that Lincoln made the decision to go to war ? And that it could of been a different decision not to go to war, if a different man had been in office at the time ? Your saying that ANY president would take it to war, and not pull out of Ft. Sumter, or recognize the CSA ? That sounds rediculous.
Lincoln had the decision forced upon him, as any honorable president would have. He had stood before the nation and sworn an oath to uphold the Constitution and execute its laws, and obviously that was going to include dealing with rebels who were defying that law. Had the rebels surrendered peacefully, then no martial action would have been needed. They didn't and it was. By the law of the land, Lincoln was absolutely entitled to send food and supplies to Ft. Sumter. He was frustrated in this design by armed rebels. Of course that meant war, how could it not?
And please, let us move away from this attitude that it was Lincoln alone. It was the entire government, it was millions of supporters of the Constitution in the North. As soon as Lincoln called for volunteers, the recruiting centers were instantly swamped by more men then had been requested. When Congress reconvened, they sanctioned all of Lincoln's actions.
I certainly believe that many presidents may have done what Lincoln did, and many honorable presidents may not have. It's not beyond possibility that those that would take it to war, might have negotiated for peace later. There was alot of pressure on Lincoln to break it off later in the war. When the bodies started coming home and the bloodbath was upon the nation, not all would of been as stubborn as Lincoln.
Perhaps when the CSA brought the war into Pennsylvania, a different man may have negotiated peace. Im particularly curious what Buchanan would of done in Lincoln's place, or some of the other politicians of that time frame might of done. What if Booth had shot Lincoln at the beginning of the war, and Johnson was in charge ? I know it's a stretch to speculate on some of these things, but history is a crap shoot and can change by the thinnest of margins.
BTW, I still don't want to be drafted and have to shoot a relative in another succeeding state.....by order of a hawk president that has a real option for peace instead.
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.