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.
Specific cases of where and when the 1st Amendment was supressed, please.
The admission of WV was done according to the Constitution and the law.
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
I think many people are wasting their time attempting to determine 140 some years after the war was over, what the legal ramifications were. They were determined a long time ago, and nothing is going to change.
I do a little electical work, a little plumbing, a little carpentry work, a little mechanical work. But I don't think I'd attempt building a house, all by myself.
A lot of people ought to avoid interpreting the Constitution, and attempt to outthink Lincoln. You couldn't outthink Lincoln then; you can't outthink him now.
Lincoln destroyed the Confederacy; he called it an insurrection.
Lincoln never depended on the Bill of Rights to exercise his power as commander in chief, under the U.S. Constitution.
The U.S. Supreme Court accepted Lincoln's interpretation and declared secession unconstitutional.
Lincoln freed the slaves and the slaveholders never got paid for the freeing of their slaves. Slaveowners lost it all.
Lincoln signed bills confiscating property from individuals supporting the Confederacy; many had their lifesavings confiscated. One southerner took his case to the Supreme Court, and the court declared that his northern railroad stock, valued at over $100,000 was seized legally under the Confiscation Acts.
After Lincoln's death the Congress passed an amendment that said no state could assume or pay any debt incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion. No Confederate got paid for any bond or debt incurred by the Confederate states.
Lincoln beat the Confederates like a drum, militarily, politically, and legally.
I'd suggest staying away from attempting to beat Lincoln.
Illegal? Precisely what law was it against? Please cite constitutional text or US code provision.
Says who? Where in the Constitution does it say that its provisions may be suspended during such times?
I don't think I'll devolve there just now. Previous threads have addressed that.
I've got some swamp land in Florida - wanna buy some? :-) I think its interesting how you, or Cash, can justify retaining jurisdiction of the land of Va., but ever so arbitrarily reject its duly elected legislature. Where in the Constitution does it give the President or Congress authority to determine that a state legislature, other than the one duly elected by the state's citizenry, is "legitimate?" If that's what you call legal, why bother having a Constitution at all? Pretty soon we'll all have internet watches and we can have on the spot popular votes for any issue. I'm sure big brother will see that the votes are counted correctly.
I'm going by your playbook and state there are enough threads that prove the Civil War was a rebellion, illegal, unlawful and more than likely fattening.
For someone who loves to use the constitution as 'back-up' its amazing the questions you sometimes ask. Article I, section 9, second paragraph of the Constitution states, "The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it."
If you have swamp land in Florida, you had to buy it off of someone Russ. A duly elected legislature, in rebellion against the lawful government with its citizens saying it is not representing them by this act of rebellion.
I am fairly confident the citizens of this nation will keep their government in check and that big brother, whom I happened to work for years ago, will keep his mits off.
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're quote only goes to rebellion and invasion. There was no rebellion, but lawful secession. The only invasion was that of the US invading the south; I believe the Constitution refers to when the US is invaded. And what about Lincoln's other constitutional violations?
"A duly elected legislature, in rebellion against the lawful government with its citizens saying it is not representing them by this act of rebellion." I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. It looks as if you meant to add something. But again, there was NO rebellion - just lawful secession. And you've yet to point out where the Constitution gives the President and Congress the authority to determine the legitimacy of a state's duly elected legislature, or where the Constitution gives the right to annex the land of an independent, sovereign nation like Va. at the time W.Va. was created. Don't bother looking - you won't find it.
Your confidence in big brother is a leap of faith in which I'll never be willing to join. No disrespect intended, but I think you're being naive. The framers gave us a Constitution and checks and balances because they were not so naive.
I stand with Lincoln, history and the Supreme Court on this one. To me there is more than ample evidence that secession was never considered a legal option, not even by such men as Robert E. Lee and the then Vice President of the Confederacy, Alexander Stephens.
If we are talking about a leap of faith, this is were I feel that we part company when viewing the Constitution when you speak of 'lawful secession' as I believe there is no such thing in the law, the constitution or even in the minds of most men at the time of the Civil War. You believe, Russ, even in the face of evidence of a historical nature that neither you nor I can deny. That the idea of 'lawful secession' never passed the final judgment of history in the fact that it could not gather enough true believers in order for it to survive into our time and that history has judged it a failure along with other ideas that people could not accept.
I continue to look at the Consititution and simply find the reverse where you seem to let faith let you 'see.' And as much as you dislike the concept, James Madison, the Father of the Constitution, when speaking of the concept that secession was somewhere in the document he helped bring into the world, that gave hope to millions on this planet, said it was 'not in him.' For a man and his time that had to face the strongest Empire on the planet, bring order and hope out of the chaos and trouble of a new nation based on the idea of the people deciding their own destiny, I lean a little on his side. I will have faith that he did not want a disgruntled, selfish minority who wished to keep people, not property, in chains even at the exspense of destroying their country.
Again, it is hard to argue faith with someone and it always reminds me of the following passage in the Bible, "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." Hebrews, 1, 11. One cannot argue faith as it requires no substance, no evidence. But I tend to couple faith with another verse from the Bible. "Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone." James, 2, 17.
As for having faith in the people, and not any state or government, we part company on that idea too. Americans are a strange and wonderful people. Slow to anger, slow to wrath and boy is it hard to get their attention at times. But friend Russ, when they do focus that attention on some wrong or some one who does them wrong, best to step out of their way. Remember, it was the people who ratified that document we love to argue about. My faith lies in them.
Until next time.
Yours in the faith,
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 sure like to use Stephens to support your case. But you seem to only want to use isolated statements. When he was debating to keep Georgia in the Union, he was saying every thing he could to appeal to the people. Yet before, during and after the war he steadfastly maintained it was legal. And not only legal for a state to leave, but it's moral and ethical obligation to the people.
"The war has not been of our seeking. We have done all that we could to avoid it. We feel assured of the righteousness of our cause, and that ""thrice armed is he who hath his quarrel just."" We have committed no wrong on those who force the war on us; we have made no aggression on them or theirs; we have merely claimed and exercised the right of all free and independent States to govern ourselves as we please, and according to our own wishes, without interfering with or in any way molesting the other sovereign and independent States that formed the old Union. With those States we were united under a compact known as the Constitution, that imposed obligations upon all the States. These obligations, on the part of the Southern States, have been faithfully performed, while on the part of a large number of the Northern States, they were openly and avowedly disregarded. The breach of faith was on their part. In the judgment of our people the only hope for safety was in a resumption of their delegated powers. Having resumed the powers delegated to the general government——a right which Virginia distinctly reserved to herself in the adoption of the Federal Constitution——there is no power on earth that can rightfully call in question our acts as free, sovereign, and independent States, so far as the old Union is concerned. Even in the opinion of Mr. Webster, the great Northern expounder of the Constitution, when the Northern States refused to fulfill their obligations under the Constitution, it was no longer binding upon the Southern State"
Call me crazy but Stephens doesn't seem to be saying here it is illegal.
I think Stephens summed up Lincoln's position quite well:
"I do not think that he (Abraham Johnson) intended to overthrow the institutions of the country. I do not think he understood them or the tendencies of his acts upon them. The Union with him in sentiment, rose to the sublimity of a religious mysticism, while his ideas of its structure and formation in logic, rested upon nothing but sophism"
Amen.
There is a wonderful discussion somewhere online where Stephens argues eloquently the position that secession was quite constitutional. I will kindly and lazily leave it to you to find it. Trust me, it is there. Just look for "A Constitutional View of the Late War Between the States"
As to the Supreme Court. Bah, a bunch of Republican lackeys. No where is secession forbidden in the Costitution nor did the Supreme Court show exactly where it is written forbidding it. If the Supreme Court had ruled upon it, there would be no need to amend it after the war forbidding secession. None.
I stand with the Constitution. Its text leaves the question of secession to the states. It matters not who 'considers' it legal when it is legal by the Constitution. History is not the arbiter of secession's legality - the Constitution is.
You stand if defiance of history and the Constitution or else there would be a Confederate States of America today. As the man said, "Fellow citizens, we can not escape history." If the creation of West Virginia was an unconstitutional act or was against the wishes of the citizens of that state, the Supreme Court would have ruled against it, the Congress would not have admitted the state nor seated its representatives. But, if you think the reverse, that its creation was illegal, a suit filed with the Supreme Court today might make interesting reading.
Tommy, timing is everything. Before the war, Alexander Stephens did all he could to discourage secession, and it is plain to see in his speech to the Georgia legislature, he was speaking to the citizens of Georgia and the rest of those who advocated secession when he answered Toombs charges against the Union. And did pretty well, actually.
At the beginning of the war, he was very clear on the reasons for the war also, that of slavery and its importance to the South. After the war, the excuses begin hot and heavy and sadly to the present day.
In my own opinion, of course.
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
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
