Looking back on the whole bloody mess, I truly believe that it was completely pointless EXCEPT as a maneuver to obliterate southern independence.

Belfoured

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
Aug 3, 2019
Unless he has a law to apply. Otherwise, he only has an unproved opinion.
You're the one who challenged what he said by placing him back in 1860. I've simply pointed out his stated approach to interpreting and applying the Constitution when he was deciding actual cases. So - using your moving him back in time 150 years - this is how he would have decided that case and the meaning of the document. Feel free to point out why he would have done differently.
 

OpnCoronet

Lt. Colonel
Joined
Feb 23, 2010
You have a source for your statement?
Either the secessionist fire-eaters wee correct as concerning the validity of unilateral secession, and the proofs of their reasoning, Or those of their Unionists opponents were. Both could not be correct and since southern leaders refused to settle the issue through the means provided by Law(Constitution) and deliberately chose war to settle the issue or who was right, the Unionists accepted the challenge to settle the issue by force of arms.

Since the North met and defeated the southern challenge , then by that fact alone the Unionist views and proofs were proven correct, by the means chosen by the South themselves
 

OpnCoronet

Lt. Colonel
Joined
Feb 23, 2010
The Constitution does not forbid Secession, because secession is possible under the Constitution , but, it can only be achieved through a process provided by the Constitution itself, i.e., A process that does not violate ANY of its specified powers.

This is another of those questions that has been thoroughly discussed on this board through the years.


P.S. The Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land, state constitutions and laws to the contrary notwithstanding.
 

Zack

Sergeant
Joined
Aug 20, 2017
Location
Los Angeles, California
I would like to know the questions asked. Because Scalia write that is there is no right to secession.

But as I see it the civil war resolved the issue of of unilateral secession.
It is clearly not acceptable.

And as fare as I know, the texas v White ruling only cover what happened in 1861... unilateral secession.
It have some line about that Texas joining the USA, can only be undone true rebellion or with consent of the other states.

If anything I think that texas v White made it more clear that secession can be done with consent of the other states.


So are Scalia writing that secession with consent is also illegal?
Or is it simply obvious from the question he was asked that its unilateral secession he is replying about?

"I’m a screenwriter in New York City, and am writing to see if you might be willing to assist me in a project that involves a unique constitutional issue.

My latest screenplay is a comedy about Maine seceding from the United States and joining Canada. There are parts of the story that deal with the legality of such an event and, of course, a big showdown in the Supreme Court is part of the story.

At the moment my story is a 12 page treatment. As an architect turned screenwriter, it is fair to say that I come up a bit short in the art of Supreme Court advocacy. If you could spare a few moments on a serious subject that is treated in a comedic way, I would greatly appreciate your thoughts. I’m sure you’ll find the story very entertaining."

http://newyorkpersonalinjuryattorneyblog.com/2010/02/scalia-there-is-no-right-to-secede.html
 

Rebforever

Lt. Colonel
Joined
Oct 26, 2012
Either the secessionist fire-eaters wee correct as concerning the validity of unilateral secession, and the proofs of their reasoning, Or those of their Unionists opponents were. Both could not be correct and since southern leaders refused to settle the issue through the means provided by Law(Constitution) and deliberately chose war to settle the issue or who was right, the Unionists accepted the challenge to settle the issue by force of arms.

Since the North met and defeated the southern challenge , then by that fact alone the Unionist views and proofs were proven correct, by the means chosen by the South themselves
What Constitutional law are you talking about, the tenth amendment?
 

Rebforever

Lt. Colonel
Joined
Oct 26, 2012
You're the one who challenged what he said by placing him back in 1860. I've simply pointed out his stated approach to interpreting and applying the Constitution when he was deciding actual cases. So - using your moving him back in time 150 years - this is how he would have decided that case and the meaning of the document. Feel free to point out why he would have done differently.
Can’t do that because he wasn’t born yet.
 

Piedone

Corporal
Joined
Oct 8, 2020
Try reading a bit about how revolts where usually suppressed in Europe during this period.
(Paris in 1848 or 1871 would be a good place to start. Or if you want some relevance to the civil war, "germany" in 1848... a lot of "rebels" fled to the UJS when that revolt failed)

Usually, captured rebels was placed up against a wall and shot.

The south got of very very easy.
Please excuse me answering with such lateliness. When I read this post first I was quite convinced that it was correct but since did some reading and came to the conclusion that here (as seemingly quite always in historical debates) a certain relativization might be appropriate.

As a matter of fact the reaction to revolts / revolutions in Europe in the 19th century depended on the circumstances.

Napoleon III and his accomplices could plan and execute (at times comic) attempts of rebellion against the democratic government nearly at will and always got off easy (usually he could return after a certain time of exile).

It is correct that a lot of revolutionaries died but mostoften during the actual fights in the streets fighting over barricades etc. In Germany people were rather seldom executed after the end of the riots - and here also it depended on the circumstances. The kingdom of Bavaria never dared to put somebody against a wall, in Badenia 23 were shot.
All things considered death sentences were rare in 1849 in Germany, rather employment bans or prison confinement for a certain time were the reactions.

The relevant points that determined how a revolutionary attempt was answered by the european governments were:

1) Do never attempt any kind of social-revolutionary action - they will shoot you most probably - and your dog too....

2) You will get it far easier if you are bourgeois and a respected member of your community ( most of such revolutionary leaders could even return into parliaments and „Landtage“ after some time).

3) Absolutist governments (like the tsarist) are the bloodiest, wannabe-absolutist governments (like the prussian or the austrian) try to give you the impression that they are bloody (and will react harshly just in some singular cases to create the impression), tendentially liberal governments will react rather leniently.

As the secessionists of the South were indeed very bourgeois and respected in their communities
and as the US government was indeed liberal, even democratic
it‘s rather lenient reaction after 1865 seems (at least to me) not too remarkable or exceptional.

A lot of people left eg Germany - but it was because they felt they couldn‘t bear the new, more conservative atmosphere -
and it should also be remarked that they could emigrate (nobody hindered them) - and they could also (if they preferred to) return.

Many others emigrated to Switzerland and returned some time later
(just like some Confederates went to Canada or Brazil to return later....)

Around 1860 you could even enjoy a certain renommee as having been a bourgeois revolutionary
(as also Confederates did in their respective states...and to a certain degree eg at veteran‘s unions everywhere in the US)


So....I‘d say the reaction to (bourgeois) rebellions in the US and Europe might me much more comparable than not...
 
Last edited:

atlantis

Sergeant Major
Joined
Nov 12, 2016
I wonder what the process would look like in the case of secession by consent of the states, especially in the case of multiple states seeking secession.
 

Lubbock

Cadet
Joined
Dec 23, 2020
Location
Texas
I was taught to believe that Abraham Lincoln was a great national hero and that he was a tireless opponent of slavery, but now after all of the books that I’ve been reading about the subject I’ve reached an altogether different conclusion and have come to see Lincoln in an altogether different light, not as a national hero but rather as a ruthless tyrant who employed dishonest subterfuge in the service of a nefarious goal that is totally at odds with everything that I was taught to believe.

Is there anyone else who feels the same way ?
After a lifetime of looking at the war and Lincoln, I would agree with you. We were basically taught one view in school. It doesn't take much to realize much was repressed in that teaching. The truth is that there are always bad actors on both sides of a conflict but this war never should have happened.

Like Ron Paul, I believe in a states right to secede. When your Federal government no longer represents you and is unwilling to consider you then it's time to depart. Jefferson would agree.

"When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation."

I'll look up the book the OP mentioned. I noticed DiLorenzo has a new book out, 'The Problem with Lincoln'.
 

OpnCoronet

Lt. Colonel
Joined
Feb 23, 2010
Like Ron Paul, I believe in a states right to secede. When your Federal government no longer represents you and is unwilling to consider you then it's time to depart. Jefferson would agree.

"When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation."

Jefferson is not advocating secession but rather revolution which is rebellion until you succeed. The Southern states were not successful in their rebellion.
 

DanSBHawk

1st Lieutenant
Joined
May 8, 2015
Location
Wisconsin
Like Ron Paul, I believe in a states right to secede. When your Federal government no longer represents you and is unwilling to consider you then it's time to depart. Jefferson would agree.
Actually, Jefferson would agree that there is a right of revolution, but he would not agree that there is a right to secede at will. During the 1830's secession crisis, Madison wrote this about those who were claiming Jefferson would agree with them on secession:

It is remarkable how closely the nullifiers, who make the name of Mr. Jefferson the pedestal for their colossal heresy, shut their eyes & lips, whenever his authority is ever so clearly & emphatically against them. You have noticed what he says in his letters to Monroe & Carrington ps. 43 & 202. Vol 2d with respect to the power of the old Congress to coerce delinquent States, and his reasons for preferring for the purpose a naval to a military force; and moreover his remark that it was not necessary to find a right to coerce, in the Federal Articles; that being inherent in the nature of a compact. It is high time that the claim to secede at will should be put down by the public opinion; and I shall be glad to see the task commenced by one who understands the subject.​

If anyone would have known what Jefferson thought, it would be Madison.
 

Belfoured

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
Aug 3, 2019
Jefferson is not advocating secession but rather revolution which is rebellion until you succeed. The Southern states were not successful in their rebellion.
The Declaration is the Declaration and the Constitution is the Constitution. Two completely separate documents with completely separate purposes. The Constitution does not "recognize" the "right" of revolution/rebellion/insurrection. That would be a colossally absurd way to set up a government because the clock would be ticking before the ink was dry.
 

Dead Parrott

Sergeant
Joined
Jul 30, 2019
The Declaration is the Declaration and the Constitution is the Constitution. Two completely separate documents with completely separate purposes. The Constitution does not "recognize" the "right" of revolution/rebellion/insurrection. That would be a colossally absurd way to set up a government because the clock would be ticking before the ink was dry.

Correct. the 'Right to Revolution' is more of a human\social right rather than a Constitutional\legal one.
Hence it was a 'Natural' right, justifiably available to all ... except slaves, of course ..... :O o:
 

Similar threads

Top