slavery is at the bottom of everything they were worried about

[russ_aukerman]

Tim -

"You insist all discussion start with the states being empowered to secede, and have no desire to determine the accuracy of that demand." It is the Constitution, not I, that empowers the states to decide the question of secession for themselves. Anyone who can read can determine for themselves the accuracy of that proposition. You've yet to see me angry, let alone enraged. I know that there are opposing opinions. I have not seem any opposing opinion based on the common meaning of the text of the Constititution.

"Russ, only one message back that's where you said to look: in 20th Century Supreme Court interpretations of the Interstate Commerce clause. Clearly the Court was not basing their actions in the Nineteenth Century on this, so why bother suggesting it?" Because you kept referring to water rights and I was showing how Congress and the fed courts, using the ICC, could assert jurisdiction over them. I really don't even think that a broad definition of interstate commerce is necessary. Even the surface waters which you contend stay in one state are part of water tables that migrate across state lines. Be that as it may, let's try to stick to examples which stay within a state's boundary yet retain the capacity to affect, in greater or lesser degree, the citizens of another state.

"Interesting view. Must be nice to be able to disregard 200+ years of legislation and court interpertation. Must make it much easier to take your positions, I expect." I disregard them not because it makes anything easier, but because in the heirarchy of laws, legislation and court decisions are subordinate to the Constitution.

'Something more than a compact' doesn't, IMO, constitute a "rejection" of the compact theory. Nor does "it was the incorporation of a new member into the political body" explain the matter. When I look for a rejection of the compact theory, I find things like Justice Story's 'fundamental law' theory. I can't really say that I understand him either.

"I have already told you more than once what his argument was, that the 'more perfect Union' of the Constitution was necessarily the same Perpetual Union that the states pledged themselves to in 1781 with the 'Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union'. Yet you continue to come back with this demand for a cite of the word 'perpetual' in the Constitution." I know that the AoC were dissolved and have no legal force or effect. Therefore, I reject the Court's reasoning that somehow the concept of perpetual was incorporated into the Constitution absent words to that effect. If the Constitution, or any document, doesn't say 'something,' its hard for me to find that it means that 'something.' Unlike the Justices in Tx. v. White, I will not add words or contort meanings to arrive at a pre-ordained decision. I believe that the decision was preordained by period politics, Lincoln's death and the unwillingness of the Court to find that, after 600k dead, secession was constitutional after all. I agree that the Justices decisions, and not mine, carry the force of law. But that fact does not make them right. I'm more satisfied that my decision is defensible under constitutional text. Their's is not. I think that if the Union were "solemly declared to be perpetual," it would say so in the Constitution. It doesn't. I think that if the framers intended to prohibit state secession, they could have said in the Constitution that "State secession is prohibited." They didn't. I wholeheartedly disagree that "It is needless to discuss at length the question whether the right of a State to withdraw from the Union for any cause regarded by herself as sufficient is consistent with the Constitution of the United States." If the question is whether the right of a state to withdraw from the Union for any cause regarded by herself as sufficient is consistent with the Constitution, it is the very purpose of the USSCt. to discuss the question at length and support their decision by the text of the Constitution. It seems that it's the Court, not I, that avoided the needed discussion. I think they found as any good ostritches would under the circumstances.

"And when these Articles were found to be inadequate to the exigencies of the country, the Constitution was ordained "to form a more perfect Union." It is difficult to convey the idea of indissoluble unity more clearly than by these words." I don't find it nearly as difficult as does the Court. If I wish my Constitution to say that the "unity of the states is indissoluble," I say there that "the unity of the states is indissoluble." What's so darn difficult?

"The Confederate states decided to avoid using them and chose war as their tool." It takes two to fight. I think that its incorrect and unfair to allocate all blame for the war to the south as their chosen method as it's equally clear to be the North's choice as well. Neither side backed down when they could/should have.

"The Supreme Court was specifically given authority over controversies between states, or where the Federal government was a party." As I've tried to tell you, a state's exercise of its own sovereign powers is not a 'controversy between the states' or a controversy where the Federal gov't is a party. You might find later Cheif Justice Marshall's words interesting here: "Can they [Congress] make laws affecting the mode of transferring property, or contracts, or claims between citizens of the same state? Can they go beyond the delegated powers? If they were to make a law not warrented by any of the powers enumerated, it would be consideredn by the Judges as an infringement of the Constitution which they are to guard: - THEY WOULD NOT CONSIDER SUCH A LAW AS COMING UNDER THEIR JURISDICTION. - They would declare it void." John Marshall on the Fairness and Jurisdiction of the Federal Courts, June 20, 1788, in B. Bailyn, ed., The Debate on the Constitution (The Library of America, 1993), pp. 731-32.Note that 'laws affecting the mode of transferring property, or contracts, or claims between citizens of the same state' are, like secession and fireworks, subjects upon whidh a state may act entirely within their boundaries, which affect other states or people in other states. You would probably say that secession affects other states or people in other states in a degree that my other examples, and those of Marshall, do not. I would reply that the degree of 'affect' is irrelevant, under the Constitution, when a state exercises its own sovereign rights. In other words, the Constitution does not say that when a state's exercise of its own sovereign rights 'affects' others to a large degree, it becomes a 'controversy between the states' giving rise to federal court jurisdiction.

"Congress or the states can initiate amendments of the Constitution,...." An amendment to the Constitution would be required to prohibit state secession, as the present text of the Constitution allows it.

I agree that their were friendlier, more peaceable methods to broach the issue of secession. I don't think that the south wanted to give the north the idea that any such methods were required. Southerners might have thought that using your alternatives would be considered by the north as a sign of weakness. And when your posturing, as the two sides were at the time, signs of weakness would be strictly avoided.

Re: 'two wrongs make a right.' I inferred that from your posting about "many occasions on which US troops "'invaded' foreign soil without a declaration of war." That we've done so before does not make it right. The Japanese were 1 hour late on this before Pearl, and look how we played that up. I do sincerely hope that your relatives survive these police actions unscathed.

"Let's be clear here: you are dead wrong in your claim." Your clear as a bell; incorrect but clear. ;-) SC had a claim of right that Sumter was SC property, just as Ft. Monroe was Va. property when the Big Bethel operation was launched and McClellan used it to launch the Peninsula Campaign. There are alternate arguments but, looking at a map, Sumter and Monroe sure look like they belong to those respective states. No one could possibly claim that Bull Run or Henry house hill belonged to the US when that invasion occured. You could argue that those places belonged 'in' the US, but not 'to' the US. SC was simply trying to repel foreign soldiers from their native soil.

I never said that Confederate aggression never occured. I will say that Northern aggression was wholly disproportionate to Confederate aggression. BTW, when did the Northern occupation of Alexandria, Va. occur?

[Wild_Rose]

Originally Posted by trice

Well, to begin with, you just deliberately changed what I had posted to you.

What I did post was "February 1, 1861. -- Ordinance of secession adopted by Texas Convention. (Note: this Convention was convened illegally under Texas law)"

Why did you deliberately choose to eliminate this: "(Note: this Convention was convened illegally under Texas law)"?

I posted it that way because it was illegal. Only the legislature could call such a convention. The legislature was not in session at the time. The secessionists wanted the governor to call a special session in order to convene the secession convention. The governor refused, preferring to wait for the regular session. They held an "election" anyway. Many of the delegates were elected by a voice vote in public meetings; Unionists were discouraged from attending, or chose to absent themselves because the procedure was illegal.

The Texas Legislature convened at Governor Houston's request. They declared the convention was legal. I don't think it matters that you declare it to be illegal, which is why I omited that part. It is irrevelant. I'm aware of Governor Houston's opposition to secession, but he was overruled by the citizens of Texas. I'm also aware that some Unionists considered the convention to be illegal and refused to attend. That was unfortunate, but probably didn't make any difference since they would have been out voted.

Originally Posted by trice

Some 70% of the delegates chosen owned slaves; amazing in a state with a fairly sizable Unionist population; I have seen comments that not all the counties in Texas were represented at the secession convention. The U. of Texas site reports that there is evidence of suppression of Unionists in about 25% of the heavily secessionist counties in Jan-Feb 1861: the two months before the secession referendum was voted on.

The Convention's final vote was 166 for secession, 8 against. It was then put to a popular vote. It resulted in 46,153 for and 14,747 against. There is some indication of some violence surrounding the voting in some counties, but then Texas was an untamed land and Texans were not strangers to violence. They were still experiencing Indian raids on settlers in 1860. Texans often settled legal matters without benefit of law officials since they were often none convenient. I recently read the story of a man guilty of murder in Texas in 1861. He confessed and was taken by some citizens to a judge several miles away in Nacogdoches. The judge informed them he didn't have enough evidence and they hadn't brought the body, he couldn't do anything. So the citizens took the murderer back to the site of the murder and hung him. So goes Texas law and justice in the eighteenth century.

Originally Posted by trice

Texas did vote on February 23, 1861, but the result was not counted until March 4. The secession convention has already "authorized" the seizure of US property and the use of armed force; Twiggs had already been forced into his agreement to withdraw. Texas had already been admitted into the Confederacy before they counted the vote.

Governor Houston was able to slow the wheels of secession, but not stop them. Texans were overwhelming for secession. For all intents and purposes secession was a done deal both in the Convention and in the minds of the people. The referendum was needed only to legalize what the majority had already had accepted and approved.

Originally Posted by trice

Said Governor Houston: " To enumerate all its usurpations would be impossible, as a great portion of its proceedings were in secret. This much has been revealed: It has elected delegates to the provisional council of the Confederate States at Montgomery before Texas had withdrawn from the Union; and also, on the 2d day of March, annexed Texas to the Confederate States and constituted themselves members of Congress, when it was not officially known by the convention until the 4th of March that a majority of the people had voted for secession. While a portion of these delegates were representing Texas in the Congress of the Confederate States, two of them, still claiming to be United States Senators, have continued to represent Texas in the United States Senate, under the administration of Mr. Lincoln—an administration which the people of Texas have declared odious and not to be borne. Yet Texas has been exposed to obloquy and forced to occupy the ridiculous attitude, before the world, of attempting to maintain her position as one of the United States, and, at the same time, claim to be one of the Confederate States."

Sour grapes from Governor Houston is to be expected. And he is right that the Texans proceeded too rashly. This indicates the zeal which Texans showed in their persuit of independence. Perhaps patience should have ruled, but it wouldn't have changed the outcome.

Originally Posted by trice

Further from Houston: "It has created a committee of safety, a portion of which has assumed the executive power of the government, and, to supplant the executive authority, have entered into negotiations with federal officers. This committee, and commissioners acting under it, have caused the Federal troops to be removed from posts in the country exposed to Indian depredations, and had them located, with their arms and field-batteries, on the coast, where, if their desire is to maintain a position in the country, they cannot only do so successfully, but destroy the commerce of the State. They have usurped the power to withdraw these troops from the frontier; but though in possession of ample stores, munitions of war, and transportation, have failed to supply troops in place of those removed. As a consequence, the wail of women and children is heard upon the border. Devastation and ruin have thus come upon the people; and though the convention, with all the means in its power, has been in session two weeks (adjourned session), no succor has been sent to a devastated frontier."

That is probably true, but Texans complained in their Causes of Secession doc that the U.S. had failed in their promise to protect Texas citizens from the aggression of the Indians on the frontier. So, we really don't know how much good having Union troops on the frontier was doing.

Originally Posted by trice

More from Governor Houston: "The convention has assumed to appoint agents to foreign States, and created offices, civil and military, unknown to the laws, at its will, keeping secret its proceedings. It has deprived the people of a right to know its doings. It has appointed officers and agents under its assumed authority."

More from Governor Houston: "It has declared that the people of Texas ratify the provisional government of the Confederate States, requiring all persons then in office to take an oath of allegiance to the same or suffer the penalty of removal."

More from Governor Houston: "It has overthrown the theory of free government by combining in itself all the departments of government and exercising the powers belonging to each."

Yep. They did all that. Secrecy was necessary during the Convention debates just as secrecy is still practiced in government on sensitive matters. But what really matters is that the people did hear the final outcome of the Convention and were allow to vote.

Once the people chose secession it would have been insanity to leave Unionists in office so of course they would be required to show their allegiance to the Confederacy. That is no different than what the U.S. demands of it's legislators.

Originally Posted by trice

More from Governor Houston: "I have refused to recognize this convention. I believe it has received none of the powers it has assumed either from the people or the legislature. I believe it guilty of a usurpation which the people cannot suffer tamely and preserve their liberties. I am ready to lay down my life to maintain the rights and liberties of Texas. I am ready to lay down office rather than yield to usurpation and degradation."

Sam Houston was a great man and a key figure in early Texas history. He deserves much respect and no one can fault him for standing firm in his beliefs. However, the people he refers to chose secession. They did not feel their liberties had been violated. The exception would be the minority of Unionists that didn't carry enough weight to change the outcome of the vote.

I apologize for the length of this message. I kept my answers fairly brief. However, I wanted to be certain that I didn't leave out even one word from your post.

Regards,
Rose

[Wild_Rose]

Tim, with all due respect, we are going in circles and this discussion is not productive. You are ignoring what I say and you keep repeating the same questions to me. No offense, but it's getting tedious to keep answering the same things over again.

All these illegalities you keep hammering on are pretty much irrelevant since the seceeding states weren't bound by Federal law.

You excuse Major Anderson's actions and condem those of the Charlestonians, yet the Charlestonians were at home. Major Anderson was a threat to their security.

You know very well what "struggle for survival" I'm referring to. Independence and the Union's opposition to it. The threat was there in the refusal of the U.S. to acknowledge the South's independence. The South was painfully aware that the Union may not let them go without war. The threat of war hung over everyone's head.

You accuse me of avoiding data. I'm trying to keep these posts down to a more reasonable size. All I know of that I avoided was your reference to "abandoned posts" in Texas and I don't know what you want me to say about that. If the Federals abandoned them I don't how you can blame the Southern people for it. The second thing I didn't address was your long list of post-secession "illegalities" after the Southern states weren't bound by U.S. law and therefore, couldn't be breaking U.S. law. They were no longer U.S. citizens.

I realize you think the actions of the South were "stupid". You have made this much clear over and over. I also realize you believe you could have handled it much more "intelligently". But the facts remain and we don't get a chance to go back and change it. Your opinions do not necessarily make for facts.

Your comparisons of the CSA to the Japanese, Hitler, and Napolean are ludicrous. The CSA didn't bomb Pearl Harbor or anything close to such an action. They didn't attempt to kill an entire race of people. You could stop the exaggerations and try to be a bit more objective about the Southern states.

Regards,
Rose

[trice]

Originally Posted by russ_aukerman

Tim - "Let's be clear here: you are dead wrong in your claim."

Your clear as a bell; incorrect but clear. ;-) SC had a claim of right that Sumter was SC property, just as Ft. Monroe was Va. property when the Big Bethel operation was launched and McClellan used it to launch the Peninsula Campaign. There are alternate arguments but, looking at a map, Sumter and Monroe sure look like they belong to those respective states. No one could possibly claim that Bull Run or Henry house hill belonged to the US when that invasion occured. You could argue that those places belonged 'in' the US, but not 'to' the US. SC was simply trying to repel foreign soldiers from their native soil.

This would be nothing but fallacious argument.

South Carolina had ceded the rights to the spot where Fort Sumter was to the United States government specifically and directly in order to get the United States to build a fort there. South Carolina no longer owned it. When SC ceded it, the spot was a shallow part of the harbor, completely under water. The US at great expense built up the base of the island by importing granite from New England, then filling further with soil and other material, before beginning the construction of the fort. Fort Moultrie and Castle Pickney had also been ceded to the United States by South Carolina. The abandoned Ft. Johnson was, I believe, South Carolina property.

In the 1850s, the Department of War under Jefferson Davis made an effort to relieve themselves of the cost of garrisoning and maintaining the forts along the eastern shores. The states -- perfectly glad to have these properties remain Federal and thus avoid the costs of ownership -- refused. As a result, it is very clear that all these forts you are mentioning were US property. Ft. Sumter did not belong to South Carolina. Virginia did not own Harpers Ferry, the Norfolk Navy Yard, or Fort Monroe.

You use extremely strict legal arguments when it pleases you -- and avoid the law totally when it pleases you. The ownership of a property is not determined by "looking at a map", as I am sure you must know from your references to courses on the law you have taken. South Carolina had given away their rights to the Forts in the harbor. In 1860-61, they decided they wanted them back -- that does not give them ownership. The taking of the forts in the seceding states is simply illegal seizure without due process of law.

Originally Posted by russ_aukerman

I never said that Confederate aggression never occured. I will say that Northern aggression was wholly disproportionate to Confederate aggression.

OK, so you acknowledge that the secessionists illegally seized property, equipment, funds, vessels, bullion and specie, etc. That they used force and the threat of force to get what they wanted. That they did all this against the wishes of the Federal government, and the protests of the people they were using that force against. That they raised large forces and used them to besiege two Federal forts and, when the Lincoln administration made an effort to supply one of them, they assaulted Ft. Sumter, firing more than 3,000 rounds of heavy artillery at it, and attempting to kill the men inside.

Lincoln's response to this lengthy list of Confederate outrages seems fairly proportionate to me. Please describe exactly what you think was disproportionate about it.

Originally Posted by russ_aukerman

BTW, when did the Northern occupation of Alexandria, Va. occur?

Trying to get around the Virginians being the first to invade another state? It won't work.

The Federal troops crossed the Potomac and occupied Alexandria on May 24, 1861. Stonewall Jackson crossed the Potomac and occupied Maryland Heights to fortify it immediately after he assumed command of the Virginia forces at Harpers Ferry, about three weeks or more earlier. Out around Wheeling, the first company of 90-day Virginia Volunteers for the Federal side was mustered in on May 10. The first crossing of the Ohio that I am aware of by the Union was on May 26-27, in response to reports the Confederates had burned two bridges on the B&O RR.

The Confederate/secessionist forces had also sent arms into Maryland in April (attempting to foment rebellion/secession there) and had attempted to get troops into position to seize Washington, D.C. before the militia from the North could reach it to secure it. That second part fell through due to logistical and organizational difficulties, and it was cancelled -- but be in no doubt that they were trying to do it as Davis and the rest of the Confederate government hustled forward to Richmond in April of 1861.

Regards,
Tim

[trice]

Originally Posted by russ_aukerman

Tim - "Interesting view. Must be nice to be able to disregard 200+ years of legislation and court interpertation. Must make it much easier to take your positions, I expect."

I disregard them not because it makes anything easier, but because in the heirarchy of laws, legislation and court decisions are subordinate to the Constitution.

Subordinate? Certainly. But they express the trail of how our nation has acted and interperted the Constitution far more ably than any single person's opinion of it would. Yet you discard them to insist that your interpertation is the only one possible. Not very believable, and certainly not in accord with American practice.

Originally Posted by russ_aukerman

'Something more than a compact' doesn't, IMO, constitute a "rejection" of the compact theory. Nor does "it was the incorporation of a new member into the political body" explain the matter. When I look for a rejection of the compact theory, I find things like Justice Story's 'fundamental law' theory. I can't really say that I understand him either.

Once again, you appear to discard anything that disagrees with what you want to hold. What we have here is the majority of the Supreme Court explaining the why of their decision that Texas had no "right to secede" in 1861. They are telling you that the Constitution is "more than a compact"; the compact theory holds that the Constitution is only a compact. The compact theory was used to insist the states had the "right of secession"; the Supreme Court decision was denying Texas that right. Yet you do not think that constitutes a rejection of the compact theory. Not believable.

Originally Posted by russ_aukerman

Tim - "I have already told you more than once what his argument was, that the 'more perfect Union' of the Constitution was necessarily the same Perpetual Union that the states pledged themselves to in 1781 with the 'Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union'. Yet you continue to come back with this demand for a cite of the word 'perpetual' in the Constitution."

I know that the AoC were dissolved and have no legal force or effect. Therefore, I reject the Court's reasoning that somehow the concept of perpetual was incorporated into the Constitution absent words to that effect. If the Constitution, or any document, doesn't say 'something,' its hard for me to find that it means that 'something.' Unlike the Justices in Tx. v. White, I will not add words or contort meanings to arrive at a pre-ordained decision. I believe that the decision was preordained by period politics, Lincoln's death and the unwillingness of the Court to find that, after 600k dead, secession was constitutional after all. I agree that the Justices decisions, and not mine, carry the force of law. But that fact does not make them right. I'm more satisfied that my decision is defensible under constitutional text. Their's is not. I think that if the Union were "solemly declared to be perpetual," it would say so in the Constitution. It doesn't. I think that if the framers intended to prohibit state secession, they could have said in the Constitution that "State secession is prohibited." They didn't. I wholeheartedly disagree that "It is needless to discuss at length the question whether the right of a State to withdraw from the Union for any cause regarded by herself as sufficient is consistent with the Constitution of the United States." If the question is whether the right of a state to withdraw from the Union for any cause regarded by herself as sufficient is consistent with the Constitution, it is the very purpose of the USSCt. to discuss the question at length and support their decision by the text of the Constitution. It seems that it's the Court, not I, that avoided the needed discussion. I think they found as any good ostritches would under the circumstances.

Russ, you keep making insulting remarks about "ostriches", whether you are referring to the President, the Supreme Court, me, or just everyone who disagrees with you being unclear at some times. Here is some truth you need to acknowledge if you wish to avoid acting the ostrich yourself:

1) The United States existed before the Constitution and was acknowledged by all the states to be a Perpetual Union.
2) States like South Carolina pledged themselves individually to a perpetual Union with the other states when they joined in the United States. They then decided to unilaterally dissolve that Union, thus breaking their pledge.
3) The Constitution acknowledges that the Union of the United States pre-existed before the adoption of the Constitution and continues under it.

Originally Posted by russ_aukerman

"And when these Articles were found to be inadequate to the exigencies of the country, the Constitution was ordained "to form a more perfect Union." It is difficult to convey the idea of indissoluble unity more clearly than by these words." I don't find it nearly as difficult as does the Court. If I wish my Constitution to say that the "unity of the states is indissoluble," I say there that "the unity of the states is indissoluble." What's so darn difficult?

Russ, it is fun arguing minor points. Since they were referring to an already existing Perpetual Union, perhaps they were just not wise enough to understand that someone like you, 200+ years in the future, needed to have them say again "the Union shall be perpetual" a few more times. What's so darn difficult?

Originally Posted by russ_aukerman

"The Confederate states decided to avoid using them and chose war as their tool."

It takes two to fight. I think that its incorrect and unfair to allocate all blame for the war to the south as their chosen method as it's equally clear to be the North's choice as well. Neither side backed down when they could/should have.

This puts the South in the position of a man who starts a bar fight by punching the other guy in the nose, then claims that the second guy bears blame for fighting back. Please be a bit more reasonable.

Originally Posted by russ_aukerman

"The Supreme Court was specifically given authority over controversies between states, or where the Federal government was a party."

As I've tried to tell you, a state's exercise of its own sovereign powers is not a 'controversy between the states' or a controversy where the Federal gov't is a party. You might find later Cheif Justice Marshall's words interesting here: "Can they [Congress] make laws affecting the mode of transferring property, or contracts, or claims between citizens of the same state? Can they go beyond the delegated powers? If they were to make a law not warrented by any of the powers enumerated, it would be consideredn by the Judges as an infringement of the Constitution which they are to guard: - THEY WOULD NOT CONSIDER SUCH A LAW AS COMING UNDER THEIR JURISDICTION. - They would declare it void." John Marshall on the Fairness and Jurisdiction of the Federal Courts, June 20, 1788, in B. Bailyn, ed., The Debate on the Constitution (The Library of America, 1993), pp. 731-32.Note that 'laws affecting the mode of transferring property, or contracts, or claims between citizens of the same state' are, like secession and fireworks, subjects upon whidh a state may act entirely within their boundaries, which affect other states or people in other states. You would probably say that secession affects other states or people in other states in a degree that my other examples, and those of Marshall, do not. I would reply that the degree of 'affect' is irrelevant, under the Constitution, when a state exercises its own sovereign rights. In other words, the Constitution does not say that when a state's exercise of its own sovereign rights 'affects' others to a large degree, it becomes a 'controversy between the states' giving rise to federal court jurisdiction.

Please note that Marshall is saying to you here that it would be the Supreme Court that would make the decision on the controversy about the law. He is asserting the jurisdiction I am describing to you while you claim he does not. Talk about shooting yourself in the foot.

Originally Posted by russ_aukerman

"Congress or the states can initiate amendments of the Constitution,...." An amendment to the Constitution would be required to prohibit state secession, as the present text of the Constitution allows it.

Actually, the Supreme Court appears to have ruled that it does not allow secession. *YOU* insist that the Constitution allows it -- but you are merely a bystander and have no power to decide the issue.

Now clearly there was a controversy about it in 1860, as I have long since said. The Supreme Court has jurisdiction as a result. They do have a vote and the power to decide the issue.

But if you do not wish to go to the Court, the alternative is clear: pass an amendment that clarifies the issue so there is no more controversy. Specifically allow the "right of secession"; describe the means and methods of accomplishing it. End of controversy. Or deny the "right of secession" specifically -- end of controversy.

Originally Posted by russ_aukerman

I agree that their were friendlier, more peaceable methods to broach the issue of secession. I don't think that the south wanted to give the north the idea that any such methods were required. Southerners might have thought that using your alternatives would be considered by the north as a sign of weakness. And when your posturing, as the two sides were at the time, signs of weakness would be strictly avoided.

In short: you think the South tried to bluff and bluster and intimidate their way to what they wanted, and it backfired on them because they had acted badly. Having arrived at a confrontation of their own making, they started a war. Isn't that what I have been saying all along?

Originally Posted by russ_aukerman

Re: 'two wrongs make a right.' I inferred that from your posting about "many occasions on which US troops "'invaded' foreign soil without a declaration of war." That we've done so before does not make it right. The Japanese were 1 hour late on this before Pearl, and look how we played that up.

You didn't ask about wrong or right; I said nothing about wrong or right; then you started making aspersions about what I said. This is not what you should do.

You asked about what was "supposed" to happen. The truth is that while Congress has the power to declare war, neither the US nor many other nations has ever made it a requirement and I do not believe it is under international law. Also, Congress had specifically delegated many of their powers to the President for emergencies (much more common and necessary in those days of long travel) and Lincoln might be regarded as required to act in some fashion similar to what he did do when the Confederacy attacked.

As to the Japanese, yes, we made some propaganda value out of their lateness. You will also find the US attempted to get the Japanese to "fire the first shot"; many nations do when war seems inevitable. But the Japanese made their decision to accept war in early July of 1941, and their initial plan had the war with the US starting in early October; the delays in their own preparations pushed the start back, not anything the US did.

Originally Posted by russ_aukerman

I do sincerely hope that your relatives survive these police actions unscathed.

Only one there at the moment, with the 101st in Iraq on his second tour. Hopefully leaving in about 2 months. His first CO was the man killed in the command tent in Kuwait just as the war started; Robert was sitting in his Humvee outside, about to pull out, when the grenades went off. Fifteen minutes earlier, he'd been in the tent. He had worked with all the dead and injured.

Regards,
Tim

[russ_aukerman]

Tim -

I agree, for the most part, that property lines are not drawn by maps. Site surveys are the exception. I'm asking you to use the same common sense that SC was at the time.

Re: disproportionate. I would say that the land mass sought to be subjugated by the Union was many times greater than the 3 islands and Maryland Heights.

"Yet you discard them to insist that your interpertation is the only one possible." When I want to resolve an issue of constitutionality, I look only to the Constitution. I agree that my view is the only one possible under the Constitution as it is written.

Re: ostritches. When Lincoln refused to recognize the reality of secession
When the SCt. improperly assumed jurisiction over a matter not authorized by Art.III and held secession unconstitutional without referencing constitutional text,
When anyone agrees with the absurdity of either of those decisions.

Here is some truth you need to acknowledge if you wish to avoid acting the ostrich yourself:

1) The United States existed before the Constitution and was acknowledged by all the states to be a Perpetual Union.
2) States like South Carolina pledged themselves individually to a perpetual Union with the other states when they joined in the United States. They then decided to unilaterally dissolve that Union, thus breaking their pledge.
3) The Constitution acknowledges that the Union of the United States pre-existed before the adoption of the Constitution and continues under it.

1. I agree that the AoC referred to the states collectively as the US.
2. I disagree that SC so joined. I believe that if the Constitution prohibited secession, it would never have been ratified.
3. Where does the Constitution say that?

"What's so darn difficult?" Words have meaning and they are the method of expressing intention in a written document. Without the words, there's nothing by which to judge the intent.

What Marshall is saying is the fundamental principle that a court has jurisdiction to determine its jurisdiction.

you think the South tried to bluff and bluster and intimidate their way to what they wanted, and it backfired on them because they had acted badly. Having arrived at a confrontation of their own making, they started a war. Isn't that what I have been saying all along?" That's not what I've said or meant. It is what you've been saying, and I still don't agree.

"You didn't ask about wrong or right; I said nothing about wrong or right; then you started making aspersions about what I said. This is not what you should do." You're the one who tried to justify the North's invasion of Va. without any declaration of war on the grounds that it's been done before. I'd say that's a 'two wrongs make a right analysis' and I don't agree.

[trice]

Originally Posted by russ_aukerman

Tim -"You didn't ask about wrong or right; I said nothing about wrong or right; then you started making aspersions about what I said. This is not what you should do."

You're the one who tried to justify the North's invasion of Va. without any declaration of war on the grounds that it's been done before. I'd say that's a 'two wrongs make a right analysis' and I don't agree.

Russ, you need to stop and review the posts here. You are declaring things to suit yourself. They are proven wrong simply by reading the posts in order. Please stop this behavior.

I have made absolutely no attempt to justify "the North's invasion of Va. without any declaration of war". That is completely your invention here. All I did was describe the alternatives available to Lincoln and to note that the US (and other nations) often fight without declarations of war. You, OTOH, insisted there was "supposed" to be a declaration of war here without giving any support for what you say.


My feeling is that Lincoln was correct, the South was staging an insurrection, and that Lincoln was required to execute his duty by repressing it. No declaration of war would be required or appropriate here.

I did point out to you that, if Lincoln was wrong about secession and the Confederacy was a foreign nation, then the United States was under attack by a foreign nation and Lincoln would be required to do his duty and defend it.

In either case, Lincoln's action in calling for troops under the Militia Acts was completely legal and constitutional. If the Confederacy was a foreign power, Lincoln might then have asked Congress for a Declaration of War, or Congress might have voted one without him. There is no requirement to have one, as you implied, and the President has been empowered to begin the fight when attacked without waiting for Congress to assemble (at least since 1792, and possibly earlier).

But I am curious: does anyone know if the Confederacy passed a declaration of war upon the US when they decided to attack them?

Regards,
Tim

[trice]

Originally Posted by trice

1) The United States existed before the Constitution and was acknowledged by all the states to be a Perpetual Union.
2) States like South Carolina pledged themselves individually to a perpetual Union with the other states when they joined in the United States. They then decided to unilaterally dissolve that Union, thus breaking their pledge.
3) The Constitution acknowledges that the Union of the United States pre-existed before the adoption of the Constitution and continues under it.

Originally Posted by [B

russ_aukerman[/b]]1. I agree that the AoC referred to the states collectively as the US.

Nice to see. The United States was a concept that moves forward in a straight line from the Declaration of Independence in 1776 through the Articles of Confederation in 1781 into the Constitution. It is one and the same.

Originally Posted by russ_aukerman

2. I disagree that SC so joined. I believe that if the Constitution prohibited secession, it would never have been ratified.

It is obvious that you believe that. Other people did not believe it. One of them spoke out at the South Carolina convention that ratified the Constitution, declaring that the individual states had never been independently sovereign, but had always been independent and sovereign only as a group instead, dating from the Declaration of Independence.

South Carolina ratified the Constitution on May 23rd, 1788. The South Carolina representatives had signed the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union on July 9, 1778 (New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, Pennsylvania and Virginia signed the same day), ten years earlier. Maryland was last, in 1781 and the Articles went into affect on March 1.

The Articles created a "Perpetual Union". Not content with using that in the title and repeating the full title several times in the text, they twice said in Artilce XIII that "the Union shall be perpetual". This is what South Carolina agrees to in 1778. This is the Union that continues under the Constitution.

If you think not, please explain how, say, the Land Ordinance of 1785 and the Northwest Ordinance of 1787, both passed under the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union, remained in force as Federal law under the Constitution. Didn't the Congress of the United States acknowledge this continuance by merely modifying some sections of the Northwest Ordinance to put it in conformity with the Constitution in August 1789, instead of passing a new law?

Originally Posted by russ_aukerman

3. Where does the Constitution say that?

Right about here, in Article VI:

"All debts contracted and engagements entered into, before the adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation."

In short, it is the same United States under both the Constitution and Articles of Confederation. There is no pretense here. The laws remain in force unless explicitly changed. They are assuring their citizens, creditors, partners and allies that they will continue to uphold their obligations and pay their debts without fail.

Regards,
Tim

[trice]

Originally Posted by russ_aukerman

I agree, for the most part, that property lines are not drawn by maps. Site surveys are the exception. I'm asking you to use the same common sense that SC was at the time.

I cannot see what you are saying here. Legally, the United States owned the property the states of the Confederacy were seizing in 1860-61. Any map would have shown it, as well as any relevant site surveys. By what "common sense" do they lose their ownership under the law?

Originally Posted by russ_aukerman

Re: disproportionate. I would say that the land mass sought to be subjugated by the Union was many times greater than the 3 islands and Maryland Heights.

Using your own logic (which I don't, not thinking the war was about territory), the United States says that all of these states are part of the US and the Confederacy is trying to take it away from the Union. I fail to see what you are talking about; at best your "proportionality" argument based on territory being seized would come out even. Personally, I find it very flawed.

Originally Posted by russ_aukerman

Tim - "Yet you discard them to insist that your interpertation is the only one possible."

When I want to resolve an issue of constitutionality, I look only to the Constitution. I agree that my view is the only one possible under the Constitution as it is written.

In short, you discard any opinion that does not agree with yours. You agree with yourself, as you say, and reject evertything else.

Originally Posted by russ_aukerman

Re: ostritches. When Lincoln refused to recognize the reality of secession
When the SCt. improperly assumed jurisiction over a matter not authorized by Art.III and held secession unconstitutional without referencing constitutional text,
When anyone agrees with the absurdity of either of those decisions.

I see that your view is limited to what you can see down there under the sand, so you must be one of those ostriches you are talking about.

BTW, by what authority do you think Lincoln could "recognize the reality of secession"? Would you please cite the appropriate part of the Constitution that gives him this power? Neither he nor Buchanan believed they had that ability, it seems.[/quote]

Regards,
Tim

[JohnTaylor]

Originally Posted by trice

BTW, by what authority do you think Lincoln could "recognize the reality of secession"? Would you please cite the appropriate part of the Constitution that gives him this power? Neither he nor Buchanan believed they had that ability, it seems.

Article II, Section 3: The President ... shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers."
Just trying to help out.
Respectfully,
John Taylor

PS: Just out of curiosity, which provision of the US Constitution empowers the President to overthrow elected republican State governments and replace them with appointed military governors? (This ought to be rich...)