Common Misconceptions/Myths

[lurid]

I admire Hampton for his abilities as a hunter, horseman, and commander of cavalry.

But I disagree with his comparison of Washington and Lee.

They are equating patriotism for England and the United States as being synonymous. No..

 

[CW Buff]

If this is true what gives the United States the right to preach to other authoritarian regimes with unalterable "fundamental laws"?

The US is not an authoritarian regime. Authoritarian regimes do not have fundamental laws (though some have propaganda props they purport to be constitutions). Nations are not subject to each others laws, fundamental or otherwise. All Americans are subject to the Constitution. In short, this has nothing to do with what I said.

"If we were wrong in our contest, then the Declaration of Independence of 1776 was a grave mistake and the revolution to which it led was a crime. If Washington was a patriot; Lee cannot have been a rebel."
Wade Hampton

Typical false equivalency between the American Revolution and the Confederate rebellion.

 

[NedBaldwin]

Couldn't have been about slavery. That was not illegal in America yet.

yet...

"On the 4th day of March next, this party will take possession of the Government. It has announced that the South shall be excluded from the common territory, that the judicial tribunals shall be made sectional, and that a war must be waged against slavery until it shall cease throughout the United States."
- South Carolina

 

[CW Buff]

I am quoting from an article by Brion McClanahan. "Delegated powers are still retained by the people of the States at large for their exercise if they chose to rescind that delegation. Sovereignty can never be divided or surrendered in part. If the states had it in 1776 as Jefferson wrote, then they maintain that sovereignty to this day and thus can exercise that sovereignty through an act of interposition or withdraw." It was mentioned above about "stealing" federal property, you cannot steal something that is yours already. The cause was as legitimate as the people felt they were being mistreated or seeing their economy taken away. An economy partly established by their northern brothers who then questioned how it was conducted.

Sovereigns can do whatever they wish with their sovereignty, and 1787-1790 the sovereign people of each state did in fact surrender a portion of their sovereignty,

"It is obviously impracticable in the federal government of these states, to secure all rights of independent sovereignty to each, and yet provide for the interest and safety of all: Individuals entering into society, must give up a share of liberty to preserve the rest." -- Official letter of the Federal Convention, September 17, 1787

and the Constitution did in fact therefore create a nation in which sovereignty was divided between the Union itself (the people of the United States) and its individual member states (the people of the respective states).

"It has hitherto been understood, that the supreme power, that is, the sovereignty of the people of the States, was in its nature divisible; and was in fact divided, according to the Constitution of the U. States, between the States in their United, and the States in their individual capacities..." -- Madison, Essay on Sovereignty, December 1835

Secessionists were at least smart enough to veil the fact they were calling the Constitution a treaty in vague talk of compacts, attempting to conflate a compact among sovereign nation-states (treaty) with a social compact (fundamental law). However, the Constitution is clearly a fundamental law, "the supreme Law of the Land," and there is simply no way sovereign nation-states can collectively make a law without pooling at least a portion of their sovereignty. This should be abundantly clear in the case of republics, in which the people of a nation-state consent to the government. The sovereign people of Massachusetts had agreed to be governed by the government of Massachusetts, and the sovereign people of South Carolina had agreed to be governed by the government of South Carolina. Governments are created to make and apply the law. The governments of MA & SC cannot get together and make a law common to both, because the sovereign people of those states have not consented to be governed by any such hybrid entity, unless of course they have separately agreed to enact a fundamental law that establishes such a hybrid entity. Nothing can make it so crystal clear that 1) the Constitution is such a fundamental law and 2) that the states are no longer fully sovereign polities and 3) that the Constitution therefore divided sovereignty just as Madison stated than: "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding." How can a state whose constitution is so restrained and whose judges are so commanded be considered a sovereign nation-state? The truth is clear:

"...the people, in their collective and national capacity, established the present Constitution. It is remarkable that in establishing it, the people exercised their own rights, and their own proper sovereignty, and conscious of the plenitude of it, they declared with becoming dignity, 'We the people of the United States, do ordain and establish this Constitution.' Here we see the people acting as sovereigns of the whole country; and in the language of sovereignty, establishing a Constitution by which it was their will, that the State Governments should be bound, and to which the State Constitutions should be made to conform. Every State Constitution is a compact made by and between the citizens of a State to govern themselves in a certain manner; and the Constitution of the United States is likewise a compact made by the people of the United States to govern themselves as to general objects, in a certain manner." -- SC Chief Justice John Jay, Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 U.S. 419, 1793

McClanahan and Calhoun can pretend otherwise, but the Framers designed the first federation (union of divided sovereignty) in world history, and the people of the United States then chose to enact that design.

 

[CW Buff]

What is not in the Supremacy Clause - Secession

False. It doesn't have to be there in name to be there in fact. Make up whatever self-serving theory you want, nullification, unilateral secession, ALL unilateral subversion of the Constitution is clearly prohibited by the SC.

 

[CW Buff]

I recall the 1776 secessionist rebels had a problem with that.

Well which is it, were they seceding (constitutional/legal withdrawal) or rebelling (unconstitutional/illegal separation). Or are you simply missing the difference between the two?

 

[CW Buff]

The 10th amendment was a good argument for secession

Only if you ignore the last four words, however secession doctrine is all about finding a good pair of blinders.

Independence is a good argument to fire on a hostile power occupying a fort in the harbour of a major port city.

It was neither a legal argument, seeing how unilateral withdrwal is not constitutional, nor a moral one, when conducted to perpetuate slavery.

I believe the Revolution was a crime against the Crown. Not unjust, but a crime. The Revolution was right but it wasn't lawful. I believe secession was neither right or lawful. You believe it was both.

It may be hard to believe, but I had not read this when I originally posted. Well said.

 

[Rebforever]

False. It doesn't have to be there in name to be there in fact. Make up whatever self-serving theory you want, nullification, unilateral secession, ALL unilateral subversion of the Constitution is clearly prohibited by the SC.

CW, subversion? Where does the apply to the Supremacy Clause. I strongly believe you are wrong about the Supremacy Clause.
There is no law in the Constitution. There can be no subversive in your post about.
As an old friend of yours, I would suggest you take another study of what the Supremacy Clause really is. You appear to be way off, IMO.

 

[leftyhunter]

Nations withdraw from treaties, associations etc. all the time. If you feel that your best interests are being denied or removed, you may not have any other recourse. An individual firing on a federal institution would be in trouble yes, but I am not so sure about a state that has held a convention, an election of the people and decided to act.

The US Supreme Court was quite clear about the legal validity of so can called state conventions having the authority to seceede from the Union.
The Secessionists had no illusions about Secession being legal they instead choose trial by combat.
Leftyhunter

 

[leftyhunter]

CW, subversion? Where does the apply to the Supremacy Clause. I strongly believe you are wrong about the Supremacy Clause.
There is no law in the Constitution. There can be no subversive in your post about.
As an old friend of yours, I would suggest you take another study of what the Supremacy Clause really is. You appear to be way off, IMO.

It would be great if you could cite case law that Secession is legal.
Leftyhunter

 

[Rebforever]

It would be great if you could cite case law that Secession is legal.
Leftyhunter

Gladly. Before 1865. There was no case law that said secession was illegal.

 

[leftyhunter]

Gladly. Before 1865. There was no case law that said secession was illegal.

That's a rather poor legal argument since a legal issue can only be adjudicated after it has occurred. Texas v.White only cited antebellum law.
No contemporary court had ever declared that the federal government had no right to quell Secession.
Leftyhunter

 

[CW Buff]

CW, subversion? Where does the apply to the Supremacy Clause. I strongly believe you are wrong about the Supremacy Clause.
There is no law in the Constitution. There can be no subversive in your post about.
As an old friend of yours, I would suggest you take another study of what the Supremacy Clause really is. You appear to be way off, IMO.

Please Reb, tell us what YOU believe the SC really is. I've heard plenty say or suggest I'm wrong. Don't believe I've ever seen any of them provide an alternate interpretation.

 

[Rog]

Abe Lincoln was personally responsible for the greatest loss of life in US history. If he had wisdom or even patience, slavery would have died on its own like it did everywhere else in the world without any loss of life.

 

[unionblue]

Abe Lincoln was personally responsible for the greatest loss of life in US history. If he had wisdom or even patience, slavery would have died on its own like it did everywhere else in the world without any loss of life.

Wrong.

But I would like to know what you expected him to do to avoid the Civil War.

And when did you expect the $4 billion dollars of slave property to have died on it's own?

 

[Rebforever]

Please Reb, tell us what YOU believe the SC really is. I've heard plenty say or suggest I'm wrong. Don't believe I've ever seen any of them provide an alternate interpretation.

I am going to tell you like others here do it. Google it and see for yourself. There are lawyers, judges, etc. that interpret the Supremacy Clause. You will find it says NOTHING and has Nothing to do with secession. IT applies only to the Constitutional Law and nothing else.

 

[thomas aagaard]

Abe Lincoln was personally responsible for the greatest loss of life in US history. If he had wisdom or even patience, slavery would have died on its own like it did everywhere else in the world without any loss of life.

Hogwash. The US president got a duty to defend the constitution. By the time he became president the south was in open rebellion... and shortly after they started the shooting war.

The CSA congress are the people who are ultimately responsible for pushing a political crisis into open war by ordering the bombardment of a US fort on US soil.
Something no US president can just let happen with no reaction.

They could just have waited a few days and the fort would have run out of food. And they knew it. They wanted a war to push the last of the slave states of the fence.

 

[NedBaldwin]

I am going to tell you like others here do it. Google it and see for yourself. There are lawyers, judges, etc. that interpret the Supremacy Clause. You will find it says NOTHING and has Nothing to do with secession. IT applies only to the Constitutional Law and nothing else.

Yet doing what you suggest -- actual research -- leads to the opposite result you wish for.

 

[NedBaldwin]

Abe Lincoln was personally responsible for the greatest loss of life in US history. If he had wisdom or even patience, slavery would have died on its own like it did everywhere else in the world without any loss of life.

Definitely one of the myths and misconceptions

 

[NedBaldwin]

Gladly. Before 1865. There was no case law that said secession was illegal.

"They have cast off their allegiance and made war on their Government, and are nonetheless enemies because they are traitors."
- Supreme Court 1862.
If it was legal, the court wouldn't call them traitors.

"That if a body of people, conspire and meditate an insurrection to resist or oppose the execution of any statute of the United States by force, they are only guilty of a high misdemeanor; but if they proceed to carry such intention into execution by force, that they are guilty of the treason of levying war" - Supreme court 1799
Seems an accurate description of what happened in 1860-1865

and

"'The constitution and laws of a State, so far as they are repugnant to the constitution and laws of the United States, are absolutely void." - Supreme Court 1821
Laws of secession are repugnant to the constitution and laws of the United States