SCOTUS musings split from Proposed Invasion of Charleston harbor by the North

TheSecretSix

Corporal
Joined
Nov 24, 2014
Southerners believed that any Federal presence in the new CSA was an invasion of its territory. Rightly or wrongly that is what they believed. History and SCOTUS has proved their belief to be wrong but that will not stop the Neo Confederates from rallying behind it almost a century and a half later.

You are right about what the South believed. In some dispatches just before fighting, LP Walker is ordering that no provision of the fort is to be allowed, on any conditions.

If History translates to the Outcome of the War, by force of arms, then agreed.

The SCOTUS gives an opinion which is potentially and politically biased due to the makeup of the bench. These also gave us Dred Scott 36 months before the war.
 
You are right about what the South believed. In some dispatches just before fighting, LP Walker is ordering that no provision of the fort is to be allowed, on any conditions.

If History translates to the Outcome of the War, by force of arms, then agreed.

The SCOTUS gives an opinion which is potentially and politically biased due to the makeup of the bench. These also gave us Dred Scott 36 months before the war.

Are you saying the SCOTUS Scott v. Sanford court and the Texas v. White court were the same?
 
Are you saying the SCOTUS Scott v. Sanford court and the Texas v. White court were the same?

And there is the crux. And my point, as well. It all depends on who is making the opinion. No, they are not the same, but yes, it is the same entity. And for that reason we can not depend upon it to set legislative precedent, such as 'deciding the legality of Secession.' That is the job of our legislature; one that it has ever shirked.

If we place an importance upon one court composition of jurors, yet not another... how them can SCOTUS mean anything to anyone, at all, by virtue of its existence as an art form? We will always have to be seeing who the actors were at that time before we can give it any credibility, or not. Because at no time do any elected figures come into the playing field as neutrals; they all have a letter after their names, and are owned by a faction of the voters, however slim the majority that elected them to power.

By the time of Texas v. White, we have three Texas entities; The Original, the Seceded Confederate, and the Newly-Formed Federally-Approved Permanent Union version. Three different versions of the same state. We also have two different ideas in the same political party about what Texas 'was' when it was 'not wearing blue.' The Radicals are swinging from the Lincolnian idea of "Let the Unionist Minority of Each State Up Easy" by calling them a majority whole... by ignoring anything that was not Unionist (i.e., the Confederates) -

- all the way down to treating them all as "Captured Provinces, Dragged Back in Kicking and Screaming" in order to give the Congress ten years of plunder while they "Reconstruct" each state.

The latter would appear to have actually been the case, as the third version of Texas was not the original version of Texas - as such as Philip Sheridan would never have been consulted in the formation of the original, nor would any of the leaders who were selected have been selected in the original. Thus, Chase is wrong. Change has occurred, and the Union had indeed been violated irreparably.

Chief Justice Chase, however, says that the state has not changed since the Articles of Confederation; that in order to enforce the perpetuity thing, the Articles are a more perfected Union under the Constitution... and so, Texas was in the hands of the politically-insanely-incorrect, or what Justice Grier called, in his dissent of Texas V. White (there were two others in dissension, as well), as being seen as having been done 'while under the disease of an insanity."

Chase is incorrect. The Original Texas did change when it went Confederate, and that would then make Three Texases, and not merely the One Texas Unchanged that Chase desires to infer... because it changed a third time when it was Permanently Unionized.

Original Texas is Confederate Texas. Original Texas seceded, which is also why Present Texas is not Original Texas. Confederate Texas was the result of Original Texas seceding from the Union, whether it was recognized defacto, or not.

Present Texas has been told they can not think that way, any longer, about Secession, and so they don't. Thus, we have Three Texaii, or Texases.

But actually, we have only two; Southern Sovereign Turned Confederate Texas and Forced Union Northern Owned Captured Province Texas. In others words, the two political parties who went to Civil War with each other...

... and now, we have justices who are divided by these very same politics, as well. (Grier was a doughface).

And you want to see about getting a 'ruling' based on 'law' from these guys?

It gets even better.

Aside from Texas v. White not being 'unanimous,' again it smacks of a might makes right situation. Rather like the Union victory. Numbers shall decide morality, and righteousness, in every case.


And we have not yet even begun to discuss the bonds, and who owes what to whom, and why, and for how much??? We are not even out of 'discovery' (compulsory disclosure), yet!

Now, none of this is based upon anything in the United States Constitution. None of it. It is all political, and use-justified, and militarily-derived from the war.

The Constitution, written in the negative, as are all law books (Thou Shalt Not) says nothing about Secession, unilateral or otherwise. The Constitution confers no such power to decide the legality of Secession by inference or by decree by any version of the United States Supreme Court. It confers no power of Judicial Review.

Thus, this is the opinion of a Sitting Political Party, just as Dred Scott was the opinion of a Sitting Political Party. And it has about as much morality, and legal morality, as well.

As always, it was the Legislature's job to consider Secession, and to put it up for an Amendment, one way or the other. It is not the job of a president, (who actually chooses the political party justices!) And as always, the Legislature choked, and chokes, and continues to choke. It refuses to do its duty, and chooses rather to allow some executive to compromise his integrity, for votes, or else to allow some judiciary to clean up a mess intended for its own members.

And so this is why I say that the SCOTUS is here today, gone tomorrow, and set up by a political faction in control of the force of arms in its decrees... which means it can also be undone, in the same such manner.
 
And there is the crux. And my point, as well. It all depends on who is making the opinion. No, they are not the same, but yes, it is the same entity. And for that reason we can not depend upon it to set legislative precedent, such as 'deciding the legality of Secession.' That is the job of our legislature; one that it has ever shirked.

If we place an importance upon one court composition of jurors, yet not another... how them can SCOTUS mean anything to anyone, at all, by virtue of its existence as an art form? We will always have to be seeing who the actors were at that time before we can give it any credibility, or not. Because at no time do any elected figures come into the playing field as neutrals; they all have a letter after their names, and are owned by a faction of the voters, however slim the majority that elected them to power.

By the time of Texas v. White, we have three Texas entities; The Original, the Seceded Confederate, and the Newly-Formed Federally-Approved Permanent Union version. Three different versions of the same state. We also have two different ideas in the same political party about what Texas 'was' when it was 'not wearing blue.' The Radicals are swinging from the Lincolnian idea of "Let the Unionist Minority of Each State Up Easy" by calling them a majority whole... by ignoring anything that was not Unionist (i.e., the Confederates) -

- all the way down to treating them all as "Captured Provinces, Dragged Back in Kicking and Screaming" in order to give the Congress ten years of plunder while they "Reconstruct" each state.

The latter would appear to have actually been the case, as the third version of Texas was not the original version of Texas - as such as Philip Sheridan would never have been consulted in the formation of the original, nor would any of the leaders who were selected have been selected in the original. Thus, Chase is wrong. Change has occurred, and the Union had indeed been violated irreparably.

Chief Justice Chase, however, says that the state has not changed since the Articles of Confederation; that in order to enforce the perpetuity thing, the Articles are a more perfected Union under the Constitution... and so, Texas was in the hands of the politically-insanely-incorrect, or what Justice Grier called, in his dissent of Texas V. White (there were two others in dissension, as well), as being seen as having been done 'while under the disease of an insanity."

Chase is incorrect. The Original Texas did change when it went Confederate, and that would then make Three Texases, and not merely the One Texas Unchanged that Chase desires to infer... because it changed a third time when it was Permanently Unionized.

Original Texas is Confederate Texas. Original Texas seceded, which is also why Present Texas is not Original Texas. Confederate Texas was the result of Original Texas seceding from the Union, whether it was recognized defacto, or not.

Present Texas has been told they can not think that way, any longer, about Secession, and so they don't. Thus, we have Three Texaii, or Texases.

But actually, we have only two; Southern Sovereign Turned Confederate Texas and Forced Union Northern Owned Captured Province Texas. In others words, the two political parties who went to Civil War with each other...

... and now, we have justices who are divided by these very same politics, as well. (Grier was a doughface).

And you want to see about getting a 'ruling' based on 'law' from these guys?

It gets even better.

Aside from Texas v. White not being 'unanimous,' again it smacks of a might makes right situation. Rather like the Union victory. Numbers shall decide morality, and righteousness, in every case.


And we have not yet even begun to discuss the bonds, and who owes what to whom, and why, and for how much??? We are not even out of 'discovery' (compulsory disclosure), yet!

Now, none of this is based upon anything in the United States Constitution. None of it. It is all political, and use-justified, and militarily-derived from the war.

The Constitution, written in the negative, as are all law books (Thou Shalt Not) says nothing about Secession, unilateral or otherwise. The Constitution confers no such power to decide the legality of Secession by inference or by decree by any version of the United States Supreme Court. It confers no power of Judicial Review.

Thus, this is the opinion of a Sitting Political Party, just as Dred Scott was the opinion of a Sitting Political Party. And it has about as much morality, and legal morality, as well.

As always, it was the Legislature's job to consider Secession, and to put it up for an Amendment, one way or the other. It is not the job of a president, (who actually chooses the political party justices!) And as always, the Legislature choked, and chokes, and continues to choke. It refuses to do its duty, and chooses rather to allow some executive to compromise his integrity, for votes, or else to allow some judiciary to clean up a mess intended for its own members.

And so this is why I say that the SCOTUS is here today, gone tomorrow, and set up by a political faction in control of the force of arms in its decrees... which means it can also be undone, in the same such manner.

1. The Union won. They got to make the rules.
2. There was several hypothetical versions of Texas consisting of possible threads of history. They collapsed into one version upon the defeat of the CSA.
3. There were several possible versions of secession. They collapsed into one version upon the ruling of Texas v White.

That is pretty much the story of it all. When one party decides to appeal to the uncertainty of war rather than the political process, they lost the right to appeal to the political process when defeated. Losing is a *****.
 
1. The Union won. They got to make the rules.
2. There was several hypothetical versions of Texas consisting of possible threads of history. They collapsed into one version upon the defeat of the CSA.
3. There were several possible versions of secession. They collapsed into one version upon the ruling of Texas v White.

That is pretty much the story of it all. When one party decides to appeal to the uncertainty of war rather than the political process, they lost the right to appeal to the political process when defeated. Losing is a *****.

Word. It was double or nothing, and you never heard the Original South complaining... (which was honorable to them, but did not do a blasted thing for us, their offspring~!) :nah disagree:

However, the joy of looking over a Supreme Court case as a precedent for a later case has to do with the court finding another law somewhere that backs them in the instant case. This and this only gives the Supreme Court its legitimacy in a decision. It comes off as, yes, but one side forgot about... thus and such case.. and here is that case... and it applies to this case... and so we decide... this... amen.

In this way, original jurisdiction problems do not arise, and neither does any political back-biting. The court comes off sane, and sound, and as having judged, rather than as having judicially legislated!
 
And there is the crux. And my point, as well. It all depends on who is making the opinion. No, they are not the same, but yes, it is the same entity. And for that reason we can not depend upon it to set legislative precedent, such as 'deciding the legality of Secession.' That is the job of our legislature; one that it has ever shirked

Uhh no it's not the job of the legislature it's the job of the Supreme Court according to the founding fathers.

Section 1.

The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.

Section 2.

The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.

In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.

The trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury; and such trial shall be held in the state where the said crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any state, the trial shall be at such place or places as the Congress may by law have directed.

If we place an importance upon one court composition of jurors, yet not another... how them can SCOTUS mean anything to anyone, at all, by virtue of its existence as an art form? We will always have to be seeing who the actors were at that time before we can give it any credibility, or not. Because at no time do any elected figures come into the playing field as neutrals; they all have a letter after their names, and are owned by a faction of the voters, however slim the majority that elected them to power.

Are you under the impression that the composition of Legislatures remain the same?

I wasn't aware that one of the perks of getting elected to the legislature was never having to run for re election and granted immortality so the "actors" don't change
 
The Constitution, written in the negative, as are all law books (Thou Shalt Not) says nothing about Secession, unilateral or otherwise. The Constitution confers no such power to decide the legality of Secession by inference or by decree by any version of the United States Supreme Court. It confers no power of Judicial Review.
Many many people disagree with your grasp of the Constitution.
I see it conferring the power of judicial review.
I see it prohibiting secession.


As always, it was the Legislature's job to consider Secession, and to put it up for an Amendment, one way or the other. It is not the job of a president, (who actually chooses the political party justices!) And as always, the Legislature choked, and chokes, and continues to choke. ... .

The legislature considered it in 1861, agreed with the President, and carried on with business.
No Amendment is needed.
 
Many many people disagree with you grasp of the Constitution.
I see it conferring the power of judicial review.
I see it prohibiting secession.

Whether Constitution conferred the power of judicial review or not, court decisions said it did and it was so useful that no one wanted to go back except the CSA which never had the chance to regret not having judicial review at the national level.
 
Uhh no it's not the job of the legislature it's the job of the Supreme Court according to the founding fathers.

Section 1.

The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.

Section 2.

The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.

In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.

The trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury; and such trial shall be held in the state where the said crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any state, the trial shall be at such place or places as the Congress may by law have directed.



Are you under the impression that the composition of Legislatures remain the same?

I wasn't aware that one of the perks of getting elected to the legislature was never having to run for re election and granted immortality so the "actors" don't change


Of course the Supreme Court can hear cases; that is their job. They can also offer opinions based upon other cases, and even Marshall originally decided that he had no jurisdiction when it applied in Marbury v. Madison.

But it is a fine line; to decide something that the legislature has not determined is to ignore the fact that 6 to 8 million people held the opposite view of Secession, and no written law condemned those 6 to 8 million people for their actions.

Whence, then, this implied 'judgement' upon Secession?

Even now, Texas v. White "decided" Secession. Based upon what? Based upon a legal article within the Constitution, or based upon a sectional view of that Constitution?

The founders actually disagree with Chief Justice Chase; they feel that they did away with the Articles, and started over with a Constitution. The more perfect Union was separate and away from the Articles of Confederation, because the Articles were not being improved; they were being rescinded altogether.
 
Many many people disagree with your grasp of the Constitution.
I see it conferring the power of judicial review.
I see it prohibiting secession.




The legislature considered it in 1861, agreed with the President, and carried on with business.
No Amendment is needed.


The legislature had 72 years to decide that. They 'decide' it after 4 March, 1861? After the deep South has already departed? Virginia and the other seceding states then disagreed with the legislature rubber-stamping Lincoln. I submit to you that this is exactly why the amendment process was developed.

They also have created no amendment to this day.
 
But it is a fine line; to decide something that the legislature has not determined is to ignore the fact that 6 to 8 million people held the opposite view of Secession, and no written law condemned those 6 to 8 million people for their actions.

No written law condemned secessionists for their actions? News flash, levying war against the United States is treason.

Article III Section 3

Section 3.
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted
 
the fact that 6 to 8 million people held the opposite view of Secession
That is not a fact. That is something you pulled out of ...


and no written law condemned those 6 to 8 million people for their actions.

Again we disagree. The Constitution and laws such as the Militia Act of 1795.


The founders actually disagree with Chief Justice Chase; they feel that they did away with the Articles, and started over with a Constitution. The more perfect Union was separate and away from the Articles of Confederation, because the Articles were not being improved; they were being rescinded altogether.
I think you are mistaken in your understanding of the founders. The governing document changed, but the Union continued.
 
No written law condemned secessionists for their actions? News flash, levying war against the United States is treason.

Article III Section 3

Section 3.
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted


Ahh, yes. I remember when Jefferson Davis was tried for treason, and hanged from a sour apple tree. John Brown appeared on an enlistment poster, and many were converted that day...

If secession was treason, or if ordering Beauregard to defend the harbor by reducing the fort was treason... then Davis would have surely hanged... but it did not seem to be that, later, for some reason... Mainly because the Northern attorneys advised against it because the North would lose in a court of law!!!
 
Ahh, yes. I remember when Jefferson Davis was tried for treason, and hanged from a sour apple tree. John Brown appeared on an enlistment poster, and many were converted that day...

If secession was treason, or if ordering Beauregard to defend the harbor by reducing the fort was treason... then Davis would have surely hanged... but it did not seem to be that, later, for some reason...

Nice try at a dodge, but your claim was that there was no law that condemed the actions of the secessionists.

Now that you're shown to be wrong (yet again) you want to try and move the goal posts.


And Jefferson Davis was indicted for treason. He was just never tried.

And why was it again that ex confederates received amenesty and pardons? What was it they needed amnesty/pardons for?

Singing to loudly in Church?
 
Last edited:
The legislature had 72 years to decide that. They 'decide' it after 4 March, 1861? After the deep South has already departed? Virginia and the other seceding states then disagreed with the legislature rubber-stamping Lincoln. I submit to you that this is exactly why the amendment process was developed.

They also have created no amendment to this day.

A Constitutional Amendment declaring that secession was illegal wouldn't alter the legality of secession.

First, and most obviously, since secession is already illegal, an amendment saying so is redundant.

But suppose someone disagrees with that position, and says that secession is currently legal. If secession were legal, that would mean that any time that a state decided that the obligations associated with being a part of the the United States outweighed the benefits, the state could declare itself out of the Union, freeing itself of the obligations. If secession were legal, then a Constitutional Amendment saying that states shall not secede from the Union would just one more restriction on the actions of states, and as with any other such restriction, a state could free itself of the restriction by seceding from the Union.
 
That is not a fact. That is something you pulled out of ...




Again we disagree. The Constitution and laws such as the Militia Act of 1795.



I think you are mistaken in your understanding of the founders. The governing document changed, but the Union continued.

The Militia Act? Invaded by a foreign nation, or Indian tribe? Which? Because Salmon Chase said that the Confederacy never existed!!! How can South Carolina be seen as a foreign nation, or even an Indian tribe?

And besides, I did not claim that Lincoln was at fault for raising the troops... just that no law existed condemning the South for seceding, and no law called them traitors for defending themselves against the invasion...

The Union did not continue the same when the Articles were done away with, it took two years to ratify everyone once again. No one at all was required to ratify the US Constitution, even though they all did eventually do so. No one would have been coerced to join it.
 
Nice try at a dodge, but your claim was that there was no law that condemed the actions of the secessionists.

Now that you're shown to be wrong (yet again) you want to try and move the goal posts.


And Jefferson Davis was indicted for treason. He was just never tried.

And why was it again that ex confederates received amenesty and pardons? What was it they need amnesty/pardons for?

Singing to loudly in Church?


Where is the law? Your Militia Act? What statute of that makes secession treason??

President Johnson begged Davis to ask for a pardon, so he could release him, but he refused. He said that he could not ask pardon for what he did not consider to be a crime. The south was guilty of nothing; from what would they ask pardon??
 
Where is the law? Your Militia Act? What statute of that makes secession treason??

I already posted what the law of the land (constitution) says. The secessionists levyed war against the United states, that is treason.

I am not the least bit surprised that you don't understand that.
 
Back
Top