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.
To the unconditional Unionists of the board, I would like to propose a question.
Before I do, however, I would like to emphasize that the following is not a reflection of what actually happened before the outbreak of the Civil War, nor do I consider it a likely event in the future. It is merely a theoretical possibility, and simply used to illustrate the principles involved.
Suppose that the President became concerned that that voters in New Jersey had elected politicians from the other party, and thereby thwarted the good policies that he is trying to enact. Thus, the people of New Jersey are enemies of the Republic, and of humanity, entitled to no rights whatsoever. He asked Congress to pass a law stating that everyone living in New Jersey, as of some date in the past, is an enemy of the Republic, their life and property are forfeit without trial, they are beyond the protection of the laws, and can be killed on sight. Their property will then be sold and the proceeds going to pay off the national debt. Congress obliges, and passes the law, but it is challenged in court, and declared unconstitutional. So Congress passes (by more than ⅔ vote of both houses), and ¾ of the states adopt, a constitutional amendment allowing exactly what the President wanted. New Jerseyans are beyond the protection of the laws, their lives and property forfeit, without trial. New Jersey remonstrates, but the rest of the country is adamant.
Now, in such a case, do the people of New Jersey have no recourse? The courts will rule that the law is constitutional, since the amendment was adopted in the manner prescribed by the Constitution. New Jersey ratified the Constitution in 1787, and agreed to abide by its provisions, including the amendment process. Likewise, since the rest of the States are going to benefit financially from this new provision, they refuse to let New Jersey go her own way. So, in this extreme case, what recourse doe the people of New Jersey have?
In closing, I wish to reiterate that I do not say that this case bears any resemblance to that happened in the run-up to the Civil War, nor do I consider this at all likely to happen in the future. I would just like the unconditional Unionists to tell me what recourse they believe the people of New Jersey would have.
I ask this to understand the limits of the views of Tim, and others, as to what the rights of the people of the States might be in extreme situations.
Respectfully,
John Taylor
If the laws of the land are follow as you state then New Jersey will cease to be a state.
The laws of the land were followed and with judicial oversight agrees the law or amendment are constitutional then the State of New Jersey will be a footnote in history. We are a nation of laws not men the law is not always fair or just but it is the law.
New Jersey suffered the tyranny of the Majority....but it the law!!
I do not fully understand the point by if it as follows: If states can not leave our union then the union should not be able to kick out a state. Except, we have forgotten the tyranny of the Majority which our system is design to prevent but as we know it does not always secede at preventing tyranny of the Masses.
Rambling about something I have no clue about......
__________________
"States Rights are about States Wrongs" - Jesse Jackson
If all due process of law is followed and no arguement is able to undo the law, New Jersey must either submit or rebel.
Wouldn't it take a while for an actual amendment to the Constitution (3/4 states) to be ratified? Wouldn't the pres be impeached before that came about? Wouldn't he be shot, stabbed, blowed-up, egged, poisoned by a NJ-ite before that much time passed?
I don't know....kind of a stretch for me. Don't think NJ would have to make the decision.
Respectfully,
Leland
__________________ "What armies and how much of war I have seen, what thousands of marching troops, what fields of slain, what prisons, what hospitals, what ruins, what cities in ashes, what hunger and nakedness, what orphanages, what widowhood, what wrongs and what vengeance."
Well, I'd have to define "unconditional unionism" as preservation of the Union at all costs. Lincoln was an unconditional unionist, whether he wanted to be or not. As president he was charged with the task to preserve the Union at all costs, and he had no choice but to do just that. I hope I would have been an UU, though I hail from a "butternut" area of the country and a border state, ...but then so did Lincoln.
A popular song of the era has this stanza:
"The Union forever, Hurrah! boys, hurrah! Down with the traitors, Up with the stars; While we rally round the flag, boys, Rally once again, Shouting the battle cry of Freedom."
and the last stanza-
"So we're springing to the call From the East and from the West, Shouting the battle cry of Freedom; And we'll hurl the rebel crew From the land that we love best, Shouting the battle cry of Freedom."
"Battle Cry of Freedom", George Root, 1862
The song, I think, is a good example of what I think could be considered "unconditional unionism".
Respectfully,
Leland
__________________ "What armies and how much of war I have seen, what thousands of marching troops, what fields of slain, what prisons, what hospitals, what ruins, what cities in ashes, what hunger and nakedness, what orphanages, what widowhood, what wrongs and what vengeance."
Clara Barton
Last edited by Glorybound; 08-25-2008 at 11:05 AM.
Wouldn't the pres be impeached before that came about?
In the example, the Congress actually passed a law, so there is apparently such a massive 'anti-New Jersey' sentiment that the law passes. Ostensibly the same majority that passed the law wouldn't impeach the President.
The example is good example of attempts to carve out exceptions to general rules. For instance, in the US the general rule is that you must obey the speed limit. If you've suffered a heart attack and need to be rushed to the hospital, we obvoiusly permit ambulances to exceed the posted limit (usually by rule no less), but even for a private citizen, if that citizen was issued a summons for speeding, the common law defense of necessity could be asserted.
With that particular defense, the court would 'weigh' the relative value of enforcing the speed restriction (positive benefit to public health, welfare and safety) vs. permitting a private citizen to speed (and there are still limits to what the court would consider to be reasonable) with a dying person in the car.
The case can get even tougher if we tweak the facts a little bit. What if, instead of speeding, the driver was breathing .081% on a breathalyzer, .14, .21, etc. Would the fact that there is a dying person in the car mitigate your position that drunk driving, under any circumstances, is impermissable?
The example provided is trying to get you to think, specifically, under what circumstances would even the most ardent Unionist (myself), support the secession of a state from the Union?
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Tyranny----- 
Linear Mode
