Confederate War Aims

[NedBaldwin]

South Carolina's secession from the Union was done "under the Constitution"

not so. South Carolina made no such claim

as the Constitution does not prohibit secession

It does

Thus, asserting the U.S. had a lawful claim to hold and occupy Ft. Sumter requires a suspension of belief, international law, and common sense

It was Us property not private nor state land. So all it requires is a basic understanding of law

 

[DanSBHawk]

Here a link to get you up to speed, though I have a feeling you might have been here before.

Yeah, I was thinking the same thing.

 

[DanSBHawk]

To some extent you are playing a game of semantics. The colonies declaration of independence from the British Empire was termed rebellion...the secession of the Confederate States from the United States was termed a rebellion. What do you see as an overwhelming difference other than the fact that one was successful and the other was not?

Not asking about the reasons for rebellion/secession, just the act itself.

The biggest difference is that the revolutionaries were invoking a Natural right of revolution. Pretty much everyone agreed that this Natural right exists. Including Lincoln, Madison, whoever, etc.

But the secessionists claimed, and their defenders still continue to claim today, a non-existent Legal right to secession.

My opinion as to why anyone would invoke this Legal right, whether in 1861 or now, is because the cause of the attempted separation was too immoral to justify a claim to the Natural right to revolt.

 

[Sovereign States]

not so. South Carolina made no such claim

It does

Thus, asserting the U.S. had a lawful claim to hold and occupy Ft. Sumter requires a suspension of belief, international law, and common sense

It was Us property not private nor state land. So all it requires is a basic understanding of law

It was done under the Constitution, and it was Confederate property. It was not Us property or land. So it just requires a fundamental understanding of the law. Because I was thinking the same thing.

 

[wausaubob]

If secession is constitutional, then all the powers prohibited to the states are not really prohibited. Then the Constitution really means, as long as you are OK with it, the powers are prohibited to the states. Its just a suggestion.

 

[BuckeyeWarrior]

Here's a link to get you up to speed on the laws against secession:

About this Collection | A Century of Lawmaking for a New Nation: U.S. Congressional Documents and Debates 1774 to 1875 | Digital Collections | Library of Congress

Beginning with the Continental Congress in 1774, America's national legislative bodies have kept records of their proceedings. The records of the Continental Congress, the Constitutional Convention, and the United States Congress make up a rich documentary history of the construction of the...

memory.loc.gov

You can look, and look, and look, and look, but you will find no statute which announces secession to be illegal. Check for yourself.

The constitution is silent on secession. Though it does have a procedure for adding states. Maybe it's silent because the framers of the constitution wanted it to be permanent.

"The constitution must be adopted in toto and forever."
James Madison 20 July 1788

Now the branch of the government that is empowered by the constitution to interpret it, the Supreme Court, did make a ruling on secession. Here is what they said;
". . . the ordinance of secession, adopted by the convention and ratified by a majority of the citizens of Texas, and all the acts of her legislature intended to give effect to that ordinance, were absolutely null. . .
Texas v White 1869

 

[NedBaldwin]

If secession is unconstitutional, then all the powers prohibited to the federal government are not really prohibited. Then the Constitution really means nothing, as long as you are OK with it, the powers are prohibited to the federal government. Just a thought.

That's all you got?
a nothing burger?

 

[jackt62]

And legal and political theories are not tested by war. They are tested by more civilized and less barbaric methodologies.

Wish we lived in a world where that was always true.

 

[Sovereign States]

The constitution is silent on secession. Though it does have a procedure for adding states. Maybe it's silent because the framers of the constitution wanted it to be permanent.

"The constitution must be adopted in toto and forever."
James Madison 20 July 1788

Now the branch of the government that is empowered by the constitution to interpret it, the Supreme Court, did make a ruling on secession. Here is what they said;
". . . the ordinance of secession, adopted by the convention and ratified by a majority of the citizens of Texas, and all the acts of her legislature intended to give effect to that ordinance, were absolutely null. . .
Texas v White 1869

Agreed, the Constitution does not prohibit secession. And there are no federal statutes which prohibit it either. And there is no pledge of perpetuity in any of the original 13 ratifications. And there are no laws of perpetuity in any of the Acts of Congress which admitted new states into the union of states. And Texas v White? Please show me what evidence the Court considered in favor of the right to secede. And which counsel argued on behalf of the right. Thanks.

 

[unionblue]

Titles huh? How about "The Slave-owners rebellion of 1776"? Here's another one; "The War of the Rebellion". Pretty much crushes the idea that the war was fought over "slavery".

And the territorial integrity of the CSA was real enough that it cost the United States 350,000 of its best to claim it.

What you really had in the U.S. circa 1860 was a violent and rapacious bunch of slavers, and a greedy, grasping bunch of ****s.

The Constitution was a voluntary compact between states, not a tool for a quasi-literate tyrant to invoke death and destruction over two countries.

This was a lawful and peaceful political secession. Nothing else.

And yes, John Wilkes Boothe made a deposit on the ash heap of history.

Two can play.

Sovereign States

You know, saying a thing doesn't make it so.

When one speaks of the Revolution, almost everyone who stayed awake in their high school American history class knows automatically it has something to do with George Washington, Valley Forge, Yorktown, the Declaration of Independence and the 4th of July.

The War Department's official name for the American Civil War is, in fact, the War of the Rebellion. But the label doesn't list the cause of that rebellion (slavery) anymore than the title of World War II mentions Nazism.

Again, sorry for reading all that history, but no one, I repeat, no one recognized the territorial integrity of the Confederacy, to include the planet at the time. And the other fact is from day 1, that integrity was invaded, reduced, and recaptured and returned to the United States. While it may be satisfying to claim a number of US soldiers deaths in the destruction of this falsehood, the result of their sacrifice is undeniable in today's reality.

And I sincerely believe that slaveholders did bring on the war in order to keep their fortunes and their $4 Billion dollars worth of human property. Why do I believe such? Because they said so, over and over and over again.

And the Compact Theory died in the Constitutional Convention and when that document was ratified by the people. All the Compact Theory is today is a grain of sand to be thrown into the eyes in a historical debate.

This was an unlawful rebellion for the defense of slavery. Don't try to dress it up and pretend it's something normal or beautiful.

It was this nation's worst idea and deserved to die after a short, costly life of just four years.

Unionblue

 

[unionblue]

It was done under the Constitution, and it was Confederate property. It was not Us property or land. So it just requires a fundamental understanding of the law. Because I was thinking the same thing.

Repeating a belief does not give evidence or proof that such a statement is true.

Anyone reading the history of Ft. Sumter and it's construction will see the land was Federal land and South Carolina at one time refused to take it back.

That was the law then and it's history is there for anyone who cares to read it.

 

[unionblue]

Agreed, the Constitution does not prohibit secession. And there are no federal statutes which prohibit it either. And there is no pledge of perpetuity in any of the original 13 ratifications. And there are no laws of perpetuity in any of the Acts of Congress which admitted new states into the union of states. And Texas v White? Please show me what evidence the Court considered in favor of the right to secede. And which counsel argued on behalf of the right. Thanks.

I love it when this assertion is made. "If it's not there, it must be there!"

If the Constitution did not prevent secession, then what was all that shooting about from 1861 to 1865?

And, just for FYI, this forum has countless threads about the legality of UNI lateral secession, Texas V. White, and the many, many US Supreme Court rulings that show the States were not the "Supreme Law of the Land," nor could they overturn federal law by themselves.

Hence that straight shot they took when starting "The War of the Rebellion" to decide these sticky issues on the field of battle, instead of a peaceful resolution in a court.

Hence the reason the CSA does not exist today.

Unionblue

 

[unionblue]

Here's a link to get you up to speed on the laws against secession:

About this Collection | A Century of Lawmaking for a New Nation: U.S. Congressional Documents and Debates 1774 to 1875 | Digital Collections | Library of Congress

Beginning with the Continental Congress in 1774, America's national legislative bodies have kept records of their proceedings. The records of the Continental Congress, the Constitutional Convention, and the United States Congress make up a rich documentary history of the construction of the...

memory.loc.gov

You can look, and look, and look, and look, but you will find no statute which announces secession to be illegal. Check for yourself.

Yes, I can, just point me to the nearest Confederate embassy or government office of the Confederate Congress.

I'll wait.

Unionblue

 

[Sovereign States]

Repeating a belief does not give evidence or proof that such a statement is true.

Anyone reading the history of Ft. Sumter and it's construction will see the land was Federal land and South Carolina at one time refused to take it back.

That was the law then and it's history is there for anyone who cares to read it.

Simply repeating a belief does not, of itself, give any evidence or credibility that the repeated statement is true.

Anyone reading the history of Ft. Sumter and it's construction will see, and know, that the land belonged to South Carolina and the CSA.

That was the law then and it's history is there for all to see.

 

[Sovereign States]

Yes, I can, just point me to the nearest Confederate embassy or government office of the Confederate Congress.

I'll wait.

Unionblue

Yes I can. Just point me to the federal statute which prohibits secession. I'll wait.

 

[unionblue]

Simply repeating a belief does not, of itself, give any evidence or credibility that the repeated statement is true.

Anyone reading the history of Ft. Sumter and it's construction will see, and know, that the land belonged to South Carolina and the CSA.

That was the law then and it's history is there for all to see.

Echo's don't prove repeats either.

If you cannot provide source documents or historical references that Ft. Sumter was always considered the property of South Carolina, then you have only your personal belief and no evidence.

 

[unionblue]

Yes I can. Just point me to the federal statute which prohibits secession. I'll wait.

You're living in it.

 

[Sovereign States]

I love it when this assertion is made. "If it's not there, it must be there!"

If the Constitution did not prevent secession, then what was all that shooting about from 1861 to 1865?

And, just for FYI, this forum has countless threads about the legality of UNI lateral secession, Texas V. White, and the many, many US Supreme Court rulings that show the States were not the "Supreme Law of the Land," nor could they overturn federal law by themselves.

Hence that straight shot they took when starting "The War of the Rebellion" to decide these sticky issues on the field of battle, instead of a peaceful resolution in a court.

Hence the reason the CSA does not exist today.

Unionblue

I just adore it when this assertion is made: "if it's not there, it's illegal anyway!!"

If the Constitution prohibited secession, then why doesn't it say so?

And just for an FYI, this thread has a plethora of threads relative to the constitutionality of secession. But oddly, no one has ever, and I mean ever, pointed to any federal statute or provision of the Constitution which prohibits secession.

I find that absolutely hilarious, because they don't hesitate to show you Texas v White. So if they are willing to show you Texas, why not the statute or provision in the Constitution? Very, very odd, huh?

Hence, the Union sent it's boys off to war, like tyrants and bullies have been since time immemorial.

 

[unionblue]

I just adore it when this assertion is made: "if it's not there, it's illegal anyway!!"

If the Constitution prohibited secession, then why doesn't;t it say so?

And just for an FYI, this thread has a plethora of thread relative to the constitutionality of secession. But oddly, no one has ever, and I mean ever, pointed to any federal statute or provision of the Constitution which prohibits secession.

I find that absolutely hilarious, because they don't hesitate to show you Texas v White. So if they are willing to show you Texas, why not the statute or provision in the Constitution? very, veryh odd, huh?

Hence, the Union sent is boys off to war, like tyrants and bullies have been since time immemorial.

Your answer if there is anything in the Constitution that prohibits secession stares you in the face everyday of your waking existence.

Again, I ask you, if secession was constitutional, if the constitution does not prevent secession, where is the Confederate States of America today?

 

[unionblue]

You're living it.
.

You're in the same national lifeboat I am.

Sink or swim.