Civil War History - Secession and PoliticsWas it Slavery, or was it States Rights? Perhaps it was the election of Lincoln? What were the real reasons for Southern Secession and what were the political issues in this time of war? Find your answers here in the Secession and Politics Disussion.
I'm loathe to admit it, but I agree that "but I firmly believe there are times when 'freedom of the press' should take a back seat." You'll find no stroger advocate for the 1st Amend. than I. I guess this proves that there's an exception to every rule.
Cash posed an interesting hypothetical: "Does that include revealing sensitive military information that could result in the deaths of soldiers?" I'm going to extend that a little bit - Let's say that someone had sold a piece of that 'sensitive military information' to the NY Times, which was going to print in the morning. The US goes to court seeking an injunction. Does it get granted? Granting the injunction would constitute a "prior restraint" on speech which, last I checked, the S.Ct. had never done. They always have allowed the speech and punished the speaker after the fact. What do you think?
"Please show me where the People delegated that power to the states." Through their duly elected representatives and delegates; some of whom show up in state gov'ts and some of whom, for example, show up at constitutional conventions.
--------------------
That's an unsupported assertion and thus has no credibility. Please provide your evidence that the People delegated power to the states.
What happens to slavery in Georgia, South Carolina, and Kentucky?
Because more than 3/4 of the states voted to ratify the amendment, it is ratified and becomes part of the Constitution. And your point would be? And what to slavery if Tennessee, Virginia and N.C. vote against? A majority of states vote to abolish and its still there.
----------------
Please give a direct answer to the question. In the hypothetical I posed, what happens to slavery in Georgia, South Carolina, and Kentucky?
"I will simply disregard the..." You've been disregarding facts you don't like all along. Nothing new here.
-----------------
You have not provided any facts. You've provided your opinion and unsupported assertions, which without evidence is the same thing.
"I can make a conjecture that it is possible not all of them preferred a strong central government." I can live with that for now. You'd be right, BTW.
-----------------
Why don't you provide the evidence to prove that? Or do you just deal in uncorroborated opinion and nothing else?
In our next class, we'll work on - 'What is a direct answer?'
-------------------
I hope you learn how to give one.
I looked up Art. IX of the Art. of Confed.
---------------
I'm pleased to hear that, Russ.
and found this interesting little blurb:
"The United States in Congress assembled shall have authority to appoint a committee, to sit in the recess of Congress, to be denominated 'A Committee of the States', and to consist of one delegate from each State; and to appoint such other committees and civil officers as may be necessary for managing the general affairs of the United States under their direction -- to appoint one of their members to preside, provided that no person be allowed to serve in the office of president more than one year in any term of three years; to ascertain the necessary sums of money to be raised for the service of the United States,...
Thus, if I read correctly (and I admit it was a quick read), states would have to "ascertain the necessary sums of money to be raised for the service of the United States..." Thus from my quick read, any power to declare war in the Articles is tied to the states (or more properly a "Committee of the States") to fund the power. Do I read correctly?
-----------------
No, you do not. Look at the portion I bolded above that you appear to have missed.
I see a huge difference between shutting down newspapers because they have an opposing viewpoint, and those magazines/newspapers that would knowingly print military secrets...that would be treason, unless I am misunderstanding your question.
I see a huge difference between shutting down newspapers because they have an opposing viewpoint, and those magazines/newspapers that would knowingly print military secrets...that would be treason, unless I am misunderstanding your question.
So then it's okay to shut down a newspaper for printing military secrets.
How about a newspaper that printed a forged proclamation that they purported to be genuine and signed by the President but in actuality was a phony?
Please, which newspapers were shut down by the Lincoln administration specifically for the reason the voiced an opposing viewpoint?
By my own research (on the Slavery, THE Cause? thread, post #274), based upon the 22 newspapers you could find, they had been shut down for the following reasons:
Nine were shut down by angry Union soldiers home on furlough/sick leave who smashed their printing presses or destroyed their offices because they were personally angry over the papers stand on the war. No official government involvenment.
Two papers were shut down for a total of 2 days for printing false information with the intent of effecting the gold market.
Three papers were shut down for actively encouraging desertion from the Union army, a crime.
One paper was shut down for reasons I cannot find, but it is known that after he wrote an apology for what he said, he was released after being in jail for a few days.
This leaves six newspapers closed down for reasons I cannot find and which you have been unable to list. This out of over more than 1,000+ newspapers.
I would be very curious to know which papers were closed or suppressed for a political stand and which were shut down for other reasons. Until that can be backed up with some historical fact, it is just wistful thinking and an opinion.
Sincerely,
Unionblue
__________________ "The American people and the Government at Washington may refuse to recognize it for a time but the inexorable logic of events will force it upon them in the end; that the war now being waged in this land is a war for and against slavery." Frederick Douglass
"Loyalty to our ancestors does not include loyalty to their mistakes." George Santayana
Thank you for your reply in your post #90. If you want to use bold letters, underline and such, go to the 'post reply' box on the left after a person's last post, NOT the 'quick reply' box. A 'Reply to Thread' page will come up, and will give you all these neat options, to include smiley faces, icons, etc.
In reference to your first paragraph, "I'm not sure what the issue here," it is one that you say is implied because the evidence is invisible, i.e., "find the clause that prohibits the states from seceeding from the Union." Russ, there is no clause in the Constitution that says it's not OK to murder the President if I don't like his actions, either. I can go out, wait for a while, shoot him and no harm or foul? I would like to float that one up to the judge and jury! You say I have to agree with you "that there's no clause prohibiting secession." Russ, by that logic, you will have to agree with me that there's no clausepermitting secession either.
But yet there is clear language that says what a state cannot do. Left with our 'yes it is, no it isn't' section canceling each other out, I fall back on the clear language in the Constitution that limits what a state can not do. At least it is there where I can see and read it.
And now, why even bother if secession is in the Constitution or not if you are going with the idea that the Constitution was no longer in effect once the States seceded? Why not just admit the fact the Constitution was no big deal in the first place, that you don't need for it to be there if you aren't playing by its rules anyway? Call it what it truly is, a natural right to rebellion, not some mystical, unworded, unmentioned, unwritten theory never fully ascribed to by either Southern or Northern presidents. I fully believe that no where in the US Constitution there is a 'get out of the Union free card.'
I do see where you say that you ascribe to the idea that the people are the 'ultimate' sovereign power. But then you contridict yourselve in the very next sentence by saying this fact is 'irrelevant' because those same people somehow delegated such powers back to the states. Which is it as now I am confused over who has that ultimate sovereign power. Thank you for your agreement on my soldier example, it is appreciated. I also thank you for respecting my opinion on majority rule, just as I do yours and the idea that you weren't going to roll over anytime soon either
I further agree with you the states were not duped or falsely led into giving up their sovereignty to the US government. It is just that we disagree on just how much was given to the federal government by the people and what was given by the people to the states. In that line of thought I have no problem that the people decided what to give both, the state didn't decide anything in the way of what the US government got, just the people per the examples I have shown above.
Russ, I cannot go with the 'sin of obmission' the idea that if secession is not on the list of powers delegated to the fed, etc., it must have been reserved to the states. The old song goes, 'nothing from nothing leave nothing and ya gotta have something, if ya wanta be with me.' The Tenth Amendment doesn'st state what you think it does, not in any way, shape or form that make it as clear as the other clauses I have stated on what a state cannot do. If it ain't there, wishing so don't make it so. The Constitution is clear if you read it and stop looking for something between the lines or through secession colored spectacles.
As for your clarification on the 'industrializing north' I can come with you a short way on that. Ture, the North was industrializing and the South was not and slavery was rooted in the economy there, which tends to lean toward my idea the whole thing was about slavery, in my own opinion.
Your last sentence makes it very clear that in your opinion secession was not unlawful rebellion. And again, you are correct that I believe the latter, it was an unlawful attempt at rebellion with no basis in the Constitution or the law and therefore the United States was within the law and the Constitution to 'suppress insurrections.'
The board does have a Fort Sumter thread. I will get back to you once I find it again and direct you there.
Russ, found it. It is on the 3rd page of this general topic, Civil War History - Secession and Politics, page 3, under the thread Ft. Sumter: Can of Worms. Just go to page three of this general forum, scroll down about 2/3rds of the way on page three, and you'll find it. This thread contains some excellent postings, especially by Hal, as he quoted many source documents of great detail and interest. Hope you enjoy your time there.
Sincerely,
Unionblue
__________________ "The American people and the Government at Washington may refuse to recognize it for a time but the inexorable logic of events will force it upon them in the end; that the war now being waged in this land is a war for and against slavery." Frederick Douglass
"Loyalty to our ancestors does not include loyalty to their mistakes." George Santayana
You state "That's an unsupported assertion and thus has no credibility. Please provide your evidence..." You have my testimony on the issue, but I guess you're saying that's not enough for you, huh? It's an interesting approach you're using; if you don't agree with someone, divert them into hours of research. After which, I suspect, you'd criticize that as well. But there's no disrespect intended. To the contrary, you're relentless; I appreciate that.
As I said, there are other reasons that I don't jump to the library. Time is one of them; I've already spent too much on this challenging discussion. Another, as I said, is that the issues on this thread are too ill-defined. But the essence on what you propose intrigues me. Evidence; a trial on the issue of legality of secession. Or would it be on the delegation of sovereign powers? Or the Art. of Confed? Or the balance of power between the People/states/colonies/crown/fed. Did I say the issues are too ill-defined? Who would you propose as a neutral arbiter to judge the trial? Certainly not either of us! Nevertheless, its an intriguing concept. Until then, you'll either have to take my word for the factual accuracy of my statements (when it is fact rather than opinion offered) or, if you like, try to disprove my statements. Disproving is different that saying I haven't offered evidence on the issue. Disproving means showing that I'm wrong; something you've been unable to do thus far (excepting that when they chose to call themselves states thing, which you've played to the hilt).
Where was I? Oh, direct answers. If my answer displeases you, it's your fault because it's the answer you gave to your own hypothetical. I was just agreeing with you, and then offering an alternate hypothetical. I still don't get your point there; it seems like a straightforward application of Art. V.
"In our next class, we'll work on - 'What is a direct answer?'
-------------------
I hope you learn how to give one." Its clear enough that I won't learn how to from you. I thought my answer to your inquiry on my definition of sovereignty was quite clear. Yours, OTOH, to my question about the drafters and "strong" central gov't, was anything but direct. But I'm nothing if not forgiving - I'll give you another chance.
For clarity, allow me to merge our Article IX discussion back into the mix in our more general posts. I'm confused by your emphasis of 'to sit in recess of Congress.' Are you saying that the Articles otherwise provided funding for war which was not dependent on the states? On the site I found the Articles, the commentary states that "The United States had no independent power of taxation, relying on the good faith of the states to pay bills sent to them for the maintenance of the national treasury." usconstitution.net. Is this site wrong?
Thanks for the info on the emphasis. The only problem is that the post reply button is that the text of the post I'm replying to disappears. I don't like to flip back and forth, so I think I'll stick with the quick reply unless something crys out for more.
You state that "there is no clause in the Constitution that says it's not OK to murder the President if I don't like his actions." Absolutely right. Criminal laws are not on the list of sovereign powers granted to the fed (unless they involve interstate commerce; usually the mail). The prosecutor will rely on state murder laws, and you'd still go to jail (or worse). BTW, IIRC, there is a fed law against killing the President. My guess is that the fed reasoned that killing the President impacts interstate commerce. Fed criminal laws contain a blurb on how they affect interstate commerce, so that the fed has authority to enact the law. Fed indictments contain a blurb on how the particular offender used interstate commerce so that the court has jurisdiction to decide the case.
You state that "there's no clause permitting secession either" and that you "fully believe that no where in the US Constitution there is a 'get out of the Union free card.'" Correct again. But there doesn't have to be. Only fed powers are specifically enumerated in the Constitution. All others are reserved to the states. 10th Amend.
You refer to "our 'yes it is, no it isn't' section..." which I assume refers to the 10th Amend. I still don't think your affording it due respect. I guess that 'yes it is' refers to powers delegated to the states, and that 'no it isn't' refers to those powers prohibited to the states. In any event, if it's neither, it's a power reserved to the states. The words don't cancel each other out; a power is either delegated to the fed or prohibited to the states, not usually both. I'm not making this up. If you don't believe me, refer to the 10th Amend. itself. It says what I'm telling you it says. You cannot just refer to the Constitution's enumerated powers for all political power; most political power remains in the residuary reserved to the states. My discussion above regarding criminal laws is an example. If you don't believe there's a residuary, check your local law library for your state's codified laws. The combination of all 50 states laws dwarfs the US Code.
You state that "I do see where you say that you ascribe to the idea that the people are the 'ultimate' sovereign power. But then you contridict yourselve in the very next sentence by saying this fact is 'irrelevant' because those same people somehow delegated such powers back to the states." Its not contradictory. The powers just follow a path from the People to the states to, in part, the fed. I didn't say (and I don't believe) that its irrelevant generally; just that its irrelevant to this topic. In other words, by the time of the Constitution and secession, the People had already delegated the power to the states. Its important that they had, but they already had done so. The Pilgrims had already landed at Plymouth rock; that's important, but I didn't mention that either.
You state that "It is just that we disagree on just how much was given to the federal government by the people and what was given by the people to the states." We do, but neither of our opinions matter here. The answer is in understanding the words of the Constitution, not in what anyh one of us would have it say. You also say that "I cannot go with the 'sin of obmission' the idea that if secession is not on the list of powers delegated to the fed, etc., it must have been reserved to the states. The old song goes, 'nothing from nothing leave nothing and ya gotta have something, if ya wanta be with me.'" Its a great song. But its not constitutional law. We disagree on the import of the 10th Amend., but we cannot disagree as to what it says. Plug your issue - secession, slavery, war, coinage, whatever - into the word of the 10th Amend. and let the chips fall where they may. Its those words in the Constitution (specifically the 10th Amend.), not I, that determine whether a power belongs to the state or fed.
If you're saying that slavery was the cause of the ACW, I agree. There were other things going on at the time, like the south's perception that it was being unfairly taxed to pay for the industrialization of the north. But I believe that those other issues would have been resolved within the existing political process. The text of the seceeding states ordinances of secession demonstrates that slavery was the cause.
Thanks for the Ft. Sumter thread info.
Last edited by russ_aukerman; 03-11-2005 at 12:14 PM.
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
