Did the Secessionists of 1860-61 use the Treaty of Paris to Justify their actions?


(Membership has it privileges! To remove this ad: Register NOW!)
Joined
Apr 14, 2011
Messages
5,721
Location
Kansas City
#22
You obviously missed reading my post about the sovereignty states using the United States as an agent...
Obviously. Let me see if I can guess at it's content. The thirteen states are all sovereign and independent nations who just happen to allow some artificial entity handle specific responsibilities. But could these sovereign states negotiate with foreign powers? Nope, they delegated that. Could they negotiate and make treaties with their fellow sovereign states? Nope, delegated that. Could they choose their own form of government? Nope, their agent says what kind of government they may have. Can they have their own army or navy? Nope, their agent controls that. Can they make their own money? Nope. Can they set their own borders? Control their trade through tariffs? Nope and nope. Every single power that makes a sovereign nation a sovereign nation they delegated to their "agent". So other than a single reference in a single paragraph of the Treaty of Paris, and their own illusions, makes these states sovereign and independent?
 

jgoodguy

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Retired Moderator
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Messages
35,552
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
#27
Obviously. Let me see if I can guess at it's content. The thirteen states are all sovereign and independent nations who just happen to allow some artificial entity handle specific responsibilities. But could these sovereign states negotiate with foreign powers? Nope, they delegated that. Could they negotiate and make treaties with their fellow sovereign states? Nope, delegated that. Could they choose their own form of government? Nope, their agent says what kind of government they may have. Can they have their own army or navy? Nope, their agent controls that. Can they make their own money? Nope. Can they set their own borders? Control their trade through tariffs? Nope and nope. Every single power that makes a sovereign nation a sovereign nation they delegated to their "agent". So other than a single reference in a single paragraph of the Treaty of Paris, and their own illusions, makes these states sovereign and independent?
I think the best description of State sovereignty in the AOC is undetermined. No one tested it.
 
Joined
Apr 4, 2017
Messages
7,909
Location
Denver, CO
#29
I thought the whole purpose the Treaty of Paris was to be independent of Britain? Looks like the King pulled a fast one on them and defined the nature of the relationship of the states anyway. And the states bought into it when "their agents" ratified it?
But what was the authority of the agents? They had no authority to anything because the states were free and independent.
But wait, the United States gave both real and implied authority to the agents.
So the United States was bound, but the states were not bound by the Treaty of Paris.
Too bad Britain did not take South Carolina back about 1812. Or better had they tried and South Carolina had collaborated and failed,...
 

jgoodguy

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Retired Moderator
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Messages
35,552
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
#31
Joined
Apr 4, 2017
Messages
7,909
Location
Denver, CO
#32
Stopping secession is not illegal. No law says stopping secession is illegal. Nothing in the Constitution against stopping secession. Not anymore.
Wouldn't stopping secession be one of those sneaky reserved powers to be exercised by the people or the non seceding states?
Probably cheating to use the federal government to do it though. But since the non seceding states are sovereign and independent, they can suppress secession by any means?
 

jgoodguy

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Retired Moderator
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Messages
35,552
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
#33
Wouldn't stopping secession be one of those sneaky reserved powers to be exercised by the people or the non seceding states?
Probably cheating to use the federal government to do it though. But since the non seceding states are sovereign and independent, they can suppress secession by any means?
Good points.
 

unionblue

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Member of the Year
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Messages
29,024
Location
Ocala, FL (as of December, 2015).
#37
I don't see why not. South Carolina cited both when building their case for secession.
It smacks of desperation.

If one misread and deliberately distorted treaty between two nations won't satisfy, let's try another document that was created to form a more perfect Union.

Shotgun effect. Fire a wide enough pattern and you're bound to confuse fact with fiction.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Jan 12, 2016
Messages
7,825
Location
South Carolina
#38
It smacks of desperation.

If one misread and deliberately distorted treaty between two nations won't satisfy, let's try another document that was created to form a more perfect Union.

Shotgun effect. Fire a wide enough pattern and you're bound to confuse fact with fiction.
Not what they were doing. The Treaty of Paris was cited as part of the historical record demonstrating state sovereignty, and the Constitutional arguments were used to show a right to secede, and that the North had broken the compact by failing to uphold the agreement they had entered into. Two different legal documents were cited for two different reasons and to make two different points. It was focused, not scattershot.
 

jgoodguy

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Retired Moderator
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Messages
35,552
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
#39
Not what they were doing. The Treaty of Paris was cited as part of the historical record demonstrating state sovereignty, and the Constitutional arguments were used to show a right to secede, and that the North had broken the compact by failing to uphold the agreement they had entered into. Two different legal documents were cited for two different reasons and to make two different points. It was focused, not scattershot.
OTOH the North had not broken the compact. SC had 23 fugitive slaves or on 1 in 9500. I am not sure of that 'focus'. Sounds more like if they could have blamed Yankees for problems with kitchen sinks, that would have been in the secession document too. That and the truth and veracity of the document was not tested. The SC secessionists were judge, jury, and executioner of their version of the untested truth. Note that the all over fugitive slave rate dropped between 1850 and 1860 from .03% to .02% as well as a minuscule amount.

p4.jpg
 

Attachments

unionblue

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Member of the Year
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Messages
29,024
Location
Ocala, FL (as of December, 2015).
#40
Not what they were doing. The Treaty of Paris was cited as part of the historical record demonstrating state sovereignty, and the Constitutional arguments were used to show a right to secede, and that the North had broken the compact by failing to uphold the agreement they had entered into. Two different legal documents were cited for two different reasons and to make two different points. It was focused, not scattershot.
Like I said, deliberate misreading of a treaty clearly between two nations and a constitution drawn up to form a more perfect Union.

One can close their eyes to the actual words in both documents, but they remain there for all to see, read, and fully understand, not to twist out of all factual recognition.

It is a deliberate attempt to take parts from each and make whole out of fragments of perception, not actual historical fact.
 



(Membership has it privileges! To remove this ad: Register NOW!)
Top