Was it worth it?

[archieclement]

Aga

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.

Again it's only the opinion of the Supreme Court after a civil war. Rather ex post facto interpretation.

My only point was as written the constitution certainly wasn't very clear, even moreso with 10th amendment added. As anything not specifically granted or prohibited in Constitution was left to the states.Reality is many had debated it's legality. Secession was not expressly forbidden to states in constitution.

Certainly shaking your head sadly doesn't change the reality it was questionable enough it resulted in a civil war. As well required Court rulings after.

 

[Belfoured]

Ebay

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.

"Really don't care what they think."

Proof that we're right. Thanks ...

 

[Belfoured]

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.

Let's suppose this absurd theory were followed and an injunction was issued by the court pending a trial on the merits. The seceded states agree to call a halt to everything until the case is tried on the merits and any appeal is resolved? Because that's what happens in injunction cases.

Since we're in the fun and games/fantasy realm, the "proper course" for the seceded states would have been to file an action for a declaratory judgment based on an actual case or controversy instead of resorting to self-help.

 

[Belfoured]

That's the price of keeping America together.
Leftyhunter

And we ended up with 4,000,000 being freed. Somebody should have done a more reliable assessment before they decided to rebel and fire on a federal facility.

 

[uaskme]

"Really don't care what they think."

Proof that we're right. Thanks ...

Nor do I care about your ramblings.

However it is material. Supremacy Clause. 10th Amendment was in effect in 1861. Did Lincoln or anyone else use this in their arguments? Not that I've seen. Then Texas vs White wasn't enacted until after the Civil War. Anyone who studies it should see how little relevance it has to pre War.

 

[leftyhunter]

And we ended up with 4,000,000 being freed. Somebody should have done a more reliable assessment before they decided to rebel and fire on a federal facility.

To be fair Sam Houston and Uncle Billy did warn Southners but nobody listened.
Leftyhunter

 

[13 IL Cav & 64 GA Inf]

Aga

Again it's only the opinion of the Supreme Court after a civil war. Rather ex post facto interpretation.

My only point was as written the constitution certainly wasn't very clear, even moreso with 10th amendment added. As anything not specifically granted or prohibited in Constitution was left to the states.Reality is many had debated it's legality. Secession was not expressly forbidden to states in constitution.

Certainly shaking your head sadly doesn't change the reality it was questionable enough it resulted in a civil war. As well required Court rulings after.

The 13 original states certainly joined voluntarily and their leaders could reasonably have believed that they had a right to secede voluntarily. That is clearly no longer the case.

 

[archieclement]

The 13 original states certainly joined voluntarily and their leaders could reasonably have believed that they had a right to secede voluntarily. That is clearly no longer the case.

Agreed.

Others can disagree if they wish, however would make founders some the largest hypocrites in history, as they had just staked their lives on inherit peoples right to revolution and secession. Be rather remarkable to think they had flip flopped on if the people (of colony/state) wanted/voted to leave........

 

[Belfoured]

Nor do I care about your ramblings.

However it is material. Supremacy Clause. 10th Amendment was in effect in 1861. Did Lincoln or anyone else use this in their arguments? Not that I've seen. Then Texas vs White wasn't enacted until after the Civil War. Anyone who studies it should see how little relevance it has to pre War.

"Nor do I care about your ramblings"

Looks like it's Holiday Inn Express time ...

 

[Belfoured]

Agreed.

Others can disagree if they wish, however would make founders some the largest hypocrites in history, as they had just staked their lives on inherit peoples right to revolution and secession. Be rather remarkable to think they had flip flopped on if the people (of colony/state) wanted/voted to leave........

Actually not. They had no role in establishing their rights as colonists. We also know the "rights" they had and did not have as colonists. Their rebellion was indeed a rebellion but it was in that context. When it came time to form a government of their own they decided the terms and all agreed to those. That included the authority to suppress rebellion. Be remarkable to think they put all that work in only to let anyone of them blow it all up on a whim. You can label them "hypocrites" but this is why in January 1861 Robert E. Lee told his son:

"The framers of our Constitution never exhausted so much labour, wisdom & forbearance in its formation & surrounded it with so many guards & securities, if it was intended to be broken by every member of the confederacy at will. It was intended for pepetual [sic] union, so expressed in the preamble,4 & for the establishment of a government, not a compact, which can only be dissolved by revolution or the consent of all the people in convention assembled. It is idle to talk of secession. Anarchy would have been established & not a government, by Washington, Hamilton, Jefferson, Madison & the other patriots of the Revolution."

 

[archieclement]

No

Actually not. They had no role in establishing their rights as colonists. We also know the "rights" they had and did not have as colonists. Their rebellion was indeed a rebellion but it was in that context. When it came time to form a government of their own they decided the terms and all agreed to those. That included the authority to suppress rebellion. Be remarkable to think they put all that work in only to let anyone of them blow it all up on a whim. You can label them "hypocrites" but this is why in January 1861 Robert E. Lee told his son:

"The framers of our Constitution never exhausted so much labour, wisdom & forbearance in its formation & surrounded it with so many guards & securities, if it was intended to be broken by every member of the confederacy at will. It was intended for pepetual [sic] union, so expressed in the preamble,4 & for the establishment of a government, not a compact, which can only be dissolved by revolution or the consent of all the people in convention assembled. It is idle to talk of secession. Anarchy would have been established & not a government, by Washington, Hamilton, Jefferson, Madison & the other patriots of the Revolution."

Robert E Lee was not a founder so wouldn't speak for the founders. As well his view is a rather singular view, certainly most Virginians disagreed if looking at secession voting.

When Virginia did vote to secede, Lee certainly offered his sword and services to it, so perhaps his views evolved. Lee indeed in fact fought for secession as much as the founders had from Britain.

 

[Belfoured]

No

Robert E Lee was not a founder so wouldn't speak for the founders. As well his view is a rather singular view, certainly most Virginians disagreed if looking at secession voting.

When Virginia did vote to secede, Lee certainly offered his sword and services to it, so perhaps his views evolved. Lee indeed in fact fought for secession as much as the founders had from Britain.

He stated why he would nonetheless fight in the letter. His views wouldn't need to "evolve" and Lee was a pretty straight guy when it came to integrity who was unlikely to shift his core beliefs. You don't know how many Virginians felt as he did but voted for secession for the same reason that he presented as a hypothetical in January 1861.

"Robert E Lee was not a founder so wouldn't speak for the founders". Thanks for the clarification. Of course, none of them were around but Lee had as many connections to that generation as anybody in 1861. The response to his uncomfortable view is usually "he wasn't one of the founders" or 'he wasn't a lawyer." Hey - if that's the best you've got, no harm in using it.

 

[archieclement]

He stated why he would nonetheless fight in the letter. His views wouldn't need to "evolve" and Lee was a pretty straight guy when it came to integrity who was unlikely to shift his core beliefs. You don't know how many Virginians felt as he did but voted for secession for the same reason that he presented as a hypothetical in January 1861.

"Robert E Lee was not a founder so wouldn't speak for the founders". Thanks for the clarification. Of course, none of them were around but Lee had as many connections to that generation as anybody in 1861. The response to his uncomfortable view is usually "he wasn't one of the founders" or 'he wasn't a lawyer." Hey - if that's the best you've got, no harm in using it.

Indeed reality is the best we always have.

Certainly anyone who wasn't a founder, is not directly going to be able to speak for them. Certainly is no harm in acknowledging that.

 

[Belfoured]

Indeed reality is the best we always have.

Certainly anyone who wasn't a founder, is not directly going to be able to speak for them. Certainly is no harm in acknowledging that.

One would then look to see which of the "founders" stated that the belief which Lee later expressed was wrong. No harm in acknowledging that, either.

 

[kGs]

The 13 original states certainly joined voluntarily and their leaders could reasonably have believed that they had a right to secede voluntarily. That is clearly no longer the case.

Why do you think no longer the case?

 

[The Ninth Ohio]

One would then look to see which of the "founders" stated that the belief which Lee later expressed was wrong. No harm in acknowledging that, either.

But of course we know the apologists would go through the list of "founders" and find some reason to disqualify each one that had an opinion not supporting their own. "Oh look all the founders agreed!"

 

[archieclement]

One would then look to see which of the "founders" stated that the belief which Lee later expressed was wrong. No harm in acknowledging that, either.

As well any majority stating it was right, as haven't seen it. Probally why constitution purposely seems to left it vague without mentioning it expressly either granted or prohibited.............it certainly could been addressed it making it clear, but they didnt.

Often avoiding in politics is because there is not a consensus. Why they rather skirted around mentioning slavery also it would appear. It would seem folly to pretend there was not also certainly a Jeffersonion view among the founders.

It would strike me odd if valuing freedom, states were intended to be held against their will.......

 

[13 IL Cav & 64 GA Inf]

Why do you think no longer the case?

It's because of subsequent court rulings and because the Union proved militarily that any such secession would be quashed.

 

[genbeau]

It's because of subsequent court rulings and because the Union proved militarily that any such secession would be quashed.

Exactly, Secession is NOW illegal due to the results of the Civil War and nothing else.

 

[kGs]

It's because of subsequent court rulings and because the Union proved militarily that any such secession would be quashed.

So if the Supreme Court ruled the 2nd amendment CAN be infringed and tries to take them, you obey the Supreme Court over the constitution? And of course the military would be used to take those guns away same as opposing secession so there's no basis to defend the 2nd amendment anyway, if they decide to take them that's that?