Was it worth it?

[JerryD]

When the south seceeded from the union, the union should have gone to the supreme court for an injunction to sort it all out. The didn't and thus conceded that secession was legal in the sense they never challenged it. Even 4 years after the war with the ruling of a unionist supreme court justice not withstanding.

I love watching non-lawyers babble about what they think the law says. Its very amusing.

 

[genbeau]

Again to assert a legal point one has to cite actual statutory or case law. Texas v White was based on Antebellum law and at least one poster cited Antebellum era court decisions that addressed the issue of federal supremacy. Yes Jefferson Davis in 1881 did wrote a book justifying secession but it had no legal weight. If secession was truly legal then there would of been no ACW.
L

No, I assert that secession was not prohibed in the consititution. If it is contained in the constitution, point out the plain langauge where that is so.

 

[leftyhunter]

There was no court ruling to that effect prior to the civil war. It is quite possible had if it gone before the supreme court pre civil war secession would have been ruled legal. Your argument is that it was illegal because of the after the fact ruling in white v white?

Except upthread there were indeed rulings concerning federal supremacy.
Leftyhunter

 

[leftyhunter]

No, I assert that secession was not prohibed in the consititution. If it is contained in the constitution, point out the plain langauge where that is so.

Please cite said plain language.
Leftyhunter

 

[leftyhunter]

When the south seceeded from the union, the union should have gone to the supreme court for an injunction to sort it all out. The didn't and thus conceded that secession was legal in the sense they never challenged it. Even 4 years after the war with the ruling of a unionist supreme court justice not withstanding.

Google Search

No need to the President has broad powers to quash a rebellion.
Leftyhunter

 

[JerryD]

Google Search

No need to the President has broad powers to quash a rebellion.
Leftyhunter

Basically he is saying that banks need to go to court to prohibit bank robbers from robbing them. Otherwise I guess bankrobbery is legal. In his world.

 

[Belfoured]

When the south seceeded from the union, the union should have gone to the supreme court for an injunction to sort it all out. The didn't and thus conceded that secession was legal in the sense they never challenged it. Even 4 years after the war with the ruling of a unionist supreme court justice not withstanding.

Nothing beats getting procedural lessons from non-lawyers. But it's a free country, so I'll play. I could see the judge denying an injunction on the failure to establish the irreparable injury element because, well, "Mr. Lincoln: you have the authority under the Constitution to suppress rebellions now ..."

Next up: Lincoln should have filed a complaint seeking ejectment from the arsenals and facilities grabbed in January-March 1861, accompanied by notices of lis pendens in the local registries. For all those stolen rifles, ammunition, etc Count II could allege conversion.

 

[Belfoured]

Basically he is saying that banks need to go to court to prohibit bank robbers from robbing them. Otherwise I guess bankrobbery is legal. In his world.

The "glass half full" is that we seem to have moved on from that "morally superior" oxymoron.

 

[35th MA InfRegt]

Nothing beats getting procedural lessons from non-lawyers. But it's a free country, so I'll play. I could see the judge denying an injunction on the failure to establish the irreparable injury element because, well, "Mr. Lincoln: you have the authority under the Constitution to suppress rebellions now ..."

Next up: Lincoln should have filed a complaint seeking ejectment from the arsenals and facilities grabbed in January-March 1861, accompanied by notices of lis pendens in the local registries. For all those stolen rifles, ammunition, etc Count II could allege conversion.

Non-lawyer me tries to avoid pontificating on the law when there are actual lawyers about. I swear to God, I leave some of these threads feeling I now know less then when I started reading them.

 

[genbeau]

Except upthread there were indeed rulings concerning federal supremacy.
Leftyhunter

for example?

 

[genbeau]

Google Search

No need to the President has broad powers to quash a rebellion.
Leftyhunter

yes and wind up with 700000 dead.

 

[uaskme]

Ebay

Non-lawyer me tries to avoid pontificating on the law when there are actual lawyers about. I swear to God, I leave some of these threads feeling I now know less then when I started reading them.

Why don't some of these Lawyers, LOL, give us some mid 19C sources, where these arguments were being waged. Not some 160 year old biased, look backs? Really don't care what they think.

 

[genbeau]

Please cite said plain language.
Leftyhunter

I am asking you to cite the plain language, I certainly don't see it.

 

[13 IL Cav & 64 GA Inf]

Because in the end Federal law is that, Federal law. If we have or are to have federal supremacy it's rather that simple.

As I've pointed out in regards to federal supremacy it's not somehow exclusive to slavery, one can still see federal laws being defied today outside slavery. So i don't see it somehow just about slavery, as it's always gone far beyond just one aspect or issue. That's why I find assertion of Federal supremacy as a principle odd, as it's rather often not followed or enforced........

One astute and relevant comment was written by General James Longstreet after the war ended. On June 3, 1867 he wrote "It is fair to assume that the strongest laws are those established by the sword."

 

[archieclement]

Please cite said plain language.
Leftyhunter

As secession isn't specificly mentioned in constitution it would then fall under 10th amendment.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

As it's not actually mentioned, it's somewhat a stretch to suggest the constitution expressly prohibited it to the states.

The "to create a more perfect union" preamble doesn't really specify if it's a voluntary union as it was at the time it was being written, or intended to be a coerced union. Court rulings supporting coerced aren't until after the ACW. So as originally written think its less then clear we were to be a coerced union with States held against their will.

Personally I always found it bit odd or strange to think or suggest the founders who had just asserted and fought for the inherit right of revolution, were envisioning fighting to hold States against their will.

 

[rvbgrif]

Personally I always found it bit odd or strange to think or suggest the founders who had just asserted and fought for the inherit right of revolution, were envisioning fighting to hold States against their will.

It is just one of those deals where everyone is against it... unless they don't like the guy in charge. Then they support it.

 

[JerryD]

As secession isn't specificly mentioned in constitution it would then fall under 10th amendment.

Shakes head sadly....

As has been stated over and over, I know this is what you "feel", but you are wrong. And that is not my opinion. Its the opinion of the Supreme Court, which is the definitive source for what the Constitution says. So its irrelevant what you "feel". You can say this over and over til your face is blue (and I am sure you will), but it still will not change reality.

Now, if you want to argue that folks didnt know that before secession, you would have a valid argument. All the more reason why I keep saying if South Carolina felt they had a right to secede, then they should have filed suit instead of opening fire and trying to kill people. Maybe they would have gotten a different result, but probably not. We know Taney, who was very pro-southern and pro-slavery, thought it was illegal. If you don't have Taney, then its hard to imagine how you get a majority.

And I suspect South Carolina knew their argument was weak and that is why they avoided going to Court.

And as for the "legal scholars" who claim it was incumbent for the US to go to Court to say the right did not exist, that is simply not true and not how the Courts work. In areas where this is room for interpretation the President also has the obligation to interpret the Constitution as he sees fit (always subject to being overruled by the Courts), and act accordingly. This happens all the time when you dont have cases on point. And if you think they government is wrong, then you go to Court to get an injunction against it. This is how it has always worked, even up to today. So if Lincoln, as President, thought secession was illegal, he could act on that interpretation until the Courts told him otherwise.

Not to mention, its laughable to think of the US getting an injunction against South Carolina, and then delivering the injunction to the Governor, and the Governor saying "Oops, my bad. Guess we were wrong. Nevermind." Does anyone really think South Carolina would have cared what the Supreme Court said?

Conversely, a statement that Secession was legal would have had significant impacts against Lincoln's ability to carry on the war. Its hard to imagine Lincoln being able to prosecute a war that the Supreme Court has ruled was illegal. It would affect northern support for the war, subject draft boards to injunctions to stop the draft, and it likely would have given foreign powers a stronger basis on which to intervene. Is it possible Lincoln goes ahead anyway? He might try, but he would have been severely hampered and I think we would view him and the war much differently than we do today.

 

[leftyhunter]

yes and wind up with 700000 dead.

That's the price of keeping America together.
Leftyhunter

 

[leftyhunter]

I am asking you to cite the plain language, I certainly don't see it.

If one is making the argument that secession is legal and to make a legal argument then there should be citations from statutory or case law.
Leftyhunter

 

[genbeau]

Your age one making the argument that secession is legal and to make a legal argument then there should be citations from statutory or case law.
Leftyhunter

The Articles of Confederation outlawed secession specifically. The constitution did not.
In any case, I don't think your statement is valid.
The proper course in such an actiion would have been for the Federal Govt to file for an injunction with the courts and have the premise tested there.