Who Invaded Whom?

[OpnDownfall]

For whatever reasons (good, bad and/or indifferent) SC chose to join the Union. If they decided later that they had erred in that decision, it does not follow that they could withdraw from the Union as they had entered.
If the leaders of that state, thought the law said one thing when, in fact, it said another, well, Ignorance of the law is no excuse.

[samgrant]

Originally Posted by suwannee

Are there any Southerners in this forum?

Others besides this group deserve a chance to respond and be answered.

Suwannee, there are plenty of "Southerners" in this forum. Most all of them are very reasonable and intelligent persons.

Everyone has the opportunity to respond and/or state their own opinions.

Perhaps whoever it is that you hope to back you up are not sufficiently impressed with your views.

[johan_steele]

Sam the "southerners" on this site are noble men (such as Steven Cone & Larry to name just two) are reasonable, well educated and able to support their ideas with intelligent discourse and references.

[Freddy]

Did the Nortwest Ordinance 1787 prohibit states from secceding or leaving the Union after joining it?

[samgrant]

Originally Posted by johan_steele

Sam the "southerners" on this site are noble men (such as Steven Cone & Larry to name just two) are reasonable, well educated and able to support their ideas with intelligent discourse and references.

Sorry, Shane, I forgot to mention the "noble" part.

[johan_steele]

Originally Posted by suwannee

The only facility that the US government can own in another state is an embassy. The right to that embassy is granted by the state in question. If asked to leave the embassy reverts to the state, it does not remain the property of the United States. So you are saying it was w/in the legal right of SC to seize arsenals, mints, revenue cutters etc prior to secession? At what point are US soldiers allowed to defend themselves? You should know this. Rules haven't changed that much.

Guantanamo naval base does not belong to the United States; it is leased under treaty from Cuba.

Once South Carolina lawfully seceded from the United States all territory in that state reverted to state ownership.

Under the terms of the peace treaty the United States would agree to pay all losses suffered due to their invasion - or they could eat machinery.

I would have made sure before making any move that I had a supply of food and water for my people sufficient to outlast the invaders.

Anytime I have to choose between an invader destroying my country and destroying it myself I'll destroy it myself. At least Union troops would not have killed any of my people, but tens of thousands of them would die from poisoned water, malnutrition, and disease - without them ever seeing one of us.

Not only would I have preserved my people I would have defeated the invader; the result of that invasion would probably be Civil War in the North - not in the South. The Southern people would be intact. That is all that matters. What of the Southern people who were not interested in the CS... West Virginia, East TN, North GA, West TX, large tracts of NC, Missouri etc...
We won't be so foolish if it ever happens again. Perhaps a true agenda? Much in common w/ Partsman... same camp?

Now that we know what you would have done; I'm glad Jeff Davis was in charge. Then again he was a pro politician of the highest order and not a soldier... Fascinating that he was so out politiced by an Illinois country lawyer and out commander & chiefed by one as well.

[suwannee]

Originally Posted by Freddy

Did the Nortwest Ordinance 1787 prohibit states from secceding or leaving the Union after joining it?

The only reference I've ever seen used that secession was unlawful is Texas vs White.
That ruled the Confederate war debt to be unconstitutional, but it was after the war.
There is now and was then no prohibition in the Constitution against secession. The Constitution states that any powers not granted to the federal government are reserved to the states.
That means states and not the federal government decide on secession.
Texas vs White is not constitutional law and could be reversed by any Supreme Court.
Beyond that case the only justification I've heard that secession is unlawful is the Right of Conquest doctrine - that since the Union won the war secession is unlawful. The Conquest doctrine is not Constitutional.
The Constitution supercedes any previous law - the one you cite was replaced by the Constitution.

The Constitution only addresses states joining, not states seceding. The Southern states seceded lawfully.

[unionblue]

Ole,

"A state seceding from the United States is not a nation accepting ambassadorships and restoring to its ownership any foreign territory within its boundaries. It's simply a petulant part of the Union holding it's breath and turning blue."

I laughed until I had tears when I read this one!

This one quote is so beautiful and so percise in it's meaning to the subject at hand, I intend to have it printed, framed, and placed in my den next to my library of Civil War books. A true classic! Thank you!

suwannee,

There were plenty of Supreme Court cases that dealt with the subject of secession before the war and could be reviewed by those who proposed secession. There were also views on the Consitution written by men well-versed in Constitutional law who found the idea of secession wrong.

And there are plenty of things listed in the Constitution that show what a State CANNOT do. Aside from everything else, the Constitution clearly lists how a State may join the Union and under what conditions. There is NOTHING in the document that provides for a State leaving. Mainly because the debate leading up to the ratification of the document covered this question and all states who joined knew once in, the only way out was by the approval of ALL the states.

Sincerely,
Unionblue

[johan_steele]

Actually, I have never managed to figure out how an officer moving his command from one side of his garison to another is an act of war... it seemed a pretty thin line of reasoning then and it seems so now.

Ft Sumter as a threat to Charleston has been an idea thouroghly debunked on other threads. Davis needed a dramatic victory that would enrage the rest of the US into a call to arms... he got it and the rest of the soon to be CS states that were on the fence made a decision... it turned out to be the wrong one.

[trice]

Originally Posted by suwannee

The only reference I've ever seen used that secession was unlawful is Texas vs White.
That ruled the Confederate war debt to be unconstitutional, but it was after the war.
There is now and was then no prohibition in the Constitution against secession. The Constitution states that any powers not granted to the federal government are reserved to the states.
That means states and not the federal government decide on secession.

Nope. By agreeing to the Constitution, the states each agreed to place the power for deciding all such disputes in the Supreme Court. The states do not have that power when there is a dispute on the meaning -- and there clearly was a dispute on the existence of a "right of secession".

Originally Posted by suwannee

Texas vs White is not constitutional law and could be reversed by any Supreme Court.

No, Texas v. White and the associated cases are part of US law in the same way any decision by the Supreme Court is. Until overturned, or superceded by new legislation/amendment, they stand. This true whether we are speaking of White v. Texas, or Brown v. Board of Ed, or Plessy v. Fergusson.

But in this case, the decision has stood for 130 years and more without being overturned. It is possible some future court might reverse it, as with any other decision. It is highly unlikely that will happen.

Originally Posted by suwannee

Beyond that case the only justification I've heard that secession is unlawful is the Right of Conquest doctrine - that since the Union won the war secession is unlawful. The Conquest doctrine is not Constitutional.

It was the secessionists who chose war as their means of arriving at a decision on the issue. They avoided using the courts or the Congress to arrive at a peaceful resolution. Personally, I believe they had a decent chance of achieving separation through legal and legislative means and should have tried it.

But once they chose war, they need to stop yapping about the result, IMHO. Had they won, they would have been happy with a de facto result. But they lost. Get over it. Realize the Southerners of 1860 simply made bad choices and had to live with their own decisions.

Originally Posted by suwannee

The Constitution supercedes any previous law - the one you cite was replaced by the Constitution.

No, that is not so. The United States began before the Constitution and continued under it. Laws that were passed before it under the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union continued after it was adopted -- and in many if not all cases this was formally acknowledged by the first session of Congress under the Constitution, making small changes where necessary to be in accord with the new Constitution. The Northwest Ordinance of 1787 was one of them.

Originally Posted by suwannee

The Constitution only addresses states joining, not states seceding. The Southern states seceded lawfully.

No, that is unproven theory only -- and a theory that has been much weakened by events subsequent to 1860. It might easily be that it was not mentioned because there is no "right of secession" at all. Even before the Civil War, the very existence of such a "right" was highly controversial. Many well-educated and influential Southerners denied it existed or had ever been intended to exist. When some New Englanders considered it in 1814-15, Virginia politicians (and seemingly everyone on the other side of the Hudson) angrily declared the idea to be treason.

Once again, it is clear there was a dispute, a controversy, over whether or not such a "right of secession" existed. There was undoubtedly even more dispute over exactly what the details of such a "right" might be, so even if it were found to exist, the actions the South took (military action, financial seizures, etc.) might still be wrong.

In accepting the Constitution, the states deliberately gave the power to judge such disputes and controversies to the Supreme Court. They did so because the previous system of resolving disputes by the Congress of the states had proven unworkable.

This is all very clearly stated in the Constitution, in the section on the Supreme Court and as modified in the Amendments. There is no way around it. Every state agreed to it when accepting the Constitution. Every elected and appointed state official swore a personal oath to uphold it.

Please tell us why the seceding states refused to follow their sworn responsibilities in a peaceful way.

Tim