Refighting the War

[Horace Porter]

I'm curious about the tendency of several discussions here, especially those about secession's constitutionality and state sovereignty, to become, if you will, reenactments of the discussions offered during the nineteenth century ... with the same failure of resolution through reason.

If someone definitively proved a constitutional right of secession, and reasonable people accepted that, how would that change anything from 150 years ago?

If someone definitively proved that there was no constitutional right of secession, and reasonable people accepted that, how would that change anything from 150 years ago?

What we know is that people disagreed about these issues at the time. How do we believe that we here are going to resolve an issue that they could not?

Just asking.

 

[RebelCaptainDave]

We can not resolve this issue. Nothing is going to change because we are not in the same mindset as the past. Oh, the idea sounds good, it fires up a new sense of free rights, but the folks of today just talk nothing else.

The days of people actually doing anything about it is long passed. Today folks don't even stand up for themselves, they go see a lawyer who will take their money and resolve nothing.

Captain Dave

 

[trice]

I'm curious about the tendency of several discussions here, especially those about secession's constitutionality and state sovereignty, to become, if you will, reenactments of the discussions offered during the nineteenth century ... with the same failure of resolution through reason.

If someone definitively proved a constitutional right of secession, and reasonable people accepted that, how would that change anything from 150 years ago?

If someone definitively proved that there was no constitutional right of secession, and reasonable people accepted that, how would that change anything from 150 years ago?

What we know is that people disagreed about these issues at the time. How do we believe that we here are going to resolve an issue that they could not?

Just asking.

If someone were to prove the existence of a Constitutional "right of secession", there would have to be a procedure involved. The procedure would probably be pollitical in nature, which would mean it involved the passage of enabling legislation by the Congress.

For example, when the state of Massachusetts was thinking of "seceding" in 1814-15, they sent a delegation of three men down to Washington to ask what the process would be for leaving if, indeed, they decided to go through with it. (Time passed them by: they arrived in Washington as the Treaty ending the War of 1812 did, and as news of Jackson's victory at New Orleans did. They saw the writing on the wall, packed up, and went back home.)

The supposed legal "right of secession" being claimed in 1860 is different than that: it claims that each individual state can break the agreement at will, leaving the Union without any consultation, negotiation, or agreement with the other states. No legal system could permit such a "right" to exist without making its' own laws superfluous. Even if some form of Constitutional "right of secession" was found to exist, it could not be the one the Confederate states tried to claim in 1860-61.

Tim

 

[CChartreux]

"What we know is that people disagreed about these issues at the time. How do we believe that we here are going to resolve an issue that they could not?" [Horace Porter/#1]


I've never thought we could 'resolve' it today (that would be way too presumptuous on any of us). Hokey as it sounds, I think the level of discussion/disagreement about this (even today) gives each of us at least something of a feeling for how controversial and difficult it was for them to live through.


To that end…

"…reenactments of the discussions offered during the nineteenth century ... with the same failure of resolution through reason." [ibid]

….reenactors themselves probably know (obviously) that an approximation of the soldier's life in the Civil War is the closest they'll ever get (and probably care to get – those fake bullets help a lot). Nevertheless, I trust the reenactors' experience is what it is for the sake of itself alone (which, to some extent, is probably why they do it regardless of their individual reasons for doing so).

I don't know…are we 'reenactors' of the discussions? In a way, maybe we are and maybe that's the best way to learn the history itself (even if it is just an approximation). From a distance, it might appear to be easily resolved…but, as you probably well know, a nano-second inside (vis-à-vis on the outside looking in) the study of the Civil War will immediately reveal the truly grand scale of the disagreement attending to this issue (regardless of which 'side' you come down on).

Just some ideas.








CC


p.s....um,...so I guess instead of 'combat karaoke,' we're doing 'argument karaoke'....er....follow the dot.

 

[Elennsar]

Not to be unduly critical of fellow board members, but the old saying does come to mind.

Those who do not learn from the past are doomed to repeat it.

 

[CChartreux]

And isn't that sort of the sisyphean burden of being human?

I'm trying to think of a historical time when people sat around and said...'hey, let's learn from the past' - and actually cooled emotions enough to prevent a war.

However, I wonder if the position that's usually adopted is a declaration of '...but our situation isn't exactly like the past, there's actually some differences'.

I don't know....just an idea.







CC

 

[OpnDownfall]

Historically, The issue of Union or Secession; Peace or War, was settled, 1860-1865 and beyond.

 

[cash]

I'm curious about the tendency of several discussions here, especially those about secession's constitutionality and state sovereignty, to become, if you will, reenactments of the discussions offered during the nineteenth century ... with the same failure of resolution through reason.

If someone definitively proved a constitutional right of secession, and reasonable people accepted that, how would that change anything from 150 years ago?

If someone definitively proved that there was no constitutional right of secession, and reasonable people accepted that, how would that change anything from 150 years ago?

What we know is that people disagreed about these issues at the time. How do we believe that we here are going to resolve an issue that they could not?

Just asking.

Oh, it's not going to change a single thing from what happened 150 years ago. But it's fun.

Also, it helps provide a dose of truth when silly politicians start making silly statements about being sovereign when they're not.

Regards,
Cash

 

[diddyriddick]

What we know is that people disagreed about these issues at the time. How do we believe that we here are going to resolve an issue that they could not?

Just asking.

I have no answers, Horace, but what an eloquent question!

 

[Elennsar]

If we ever stop searching for answers to questions that those who came before us were unable to find, then I for one would say that our reasons for living just dimmed.

What is the study of history if not seeking answers to old questions? And questioning old answers.

: )

Elennsar

 

[TexasStrayDog]

I agree with Cash. There is no "solution" to what happened in the past. There is no solution to the "right of secession." But it is fun to play with the philosophies, the legal arguments, and the possibilities. It is an exercise which keeps us involved with our own history, and interested.

The Civil War is who we are. It reaches beyond its time. The passions and disagreements of the period give us fodder to reaffirm who we are.

And it tells me Cash and I are both Americans, loyal and devout to our country. This is so with everyone else who argues or contends a point of this watershed event in American History. It is a catharsis. And it is a reaffirmation of US.

 

[ole]

Will not even try to top that, dawg. Can't do it.

Ole

 

[M E Wolf]

Dear TexasStrayDog;

Extremely well said sir.

Respectfully submitted,
M. E. Wolf

 

[unionblue]

TexasStrayDog,

I must echo M. E. Wolf on this one.

Well said, sir, well said!

Sincerely,
Unionblue

 

[whitworth]

The Confederacy lost

They lost the war; they lost the argument that secession was legal.

After the Confederacy lost the war, there was only the U.S. Supreme Court to decide the Constitutional argument on secession and insurrection. When your armies get beat to a pulp, the pulp doesn't get to decide the issue.

The U.S. Supreme Court did so in a number of cases. That secession was illegal and insurrection could be punished. Of course the neo-confederates ignore such and ignore that after the Confederates lost the war, there is not a Confederate Supreme Court to establish and decide the case.

At best and worst, there is a price of failure.

 

[trice]

They lost the war; they lost the argument that secession was legal.

After the Confederacy lost the war, there was only the U.S. Supreme Court to decide the Constitutional argument on secession and insurrection. When your armies get beat to a pulp, the pulp doesn't get to decide the issue.

The U.S. Supreme Court did so in a number of cases. That secession was illegal and insurrection could be punished. Of course the neo-confederates ignore such and ignore that after the Confederates lost the war, there is not a Confederate Supreme Court to establish and decide the case.

At best and worst, there is a price of failure.

FWIW: despite the establishment of a Supreme Court in the Confederate Constitution, the Confederate Congress refused to fund the Supreme Court, led by the more extreme "states' rights" men. They did this to prevent it from over-ruling of the individual state Supreme Courts (which in the absence of a Confederate Supreme Court generally had superior power on deciding the law).

Apparently the Confederacy, or at least a large part of it, wasn't too comfortable with the idea of a national court system -- and it didn't matter which nation it might be.

Tim

 

[Freddy]

After the Confederacy lost the war, there was only the U.S. Supreme Court to decide the Constitutional argument on secession and insurrection.

The U.S. Supreme Court did so in a number of cases. That secession was illegal and insurrection could be punished. Of course the neo-confederates ignore such and ignore that after the Confederates lost the war, there is not a Confederate Supreme Court to establish and decide the case.

Yes, Texas v. White 1869 is the law of the land making secession both unconstitutional and illegal. How some can ignore or deny this fact is amazing.

 

[Savez]

Yes, Texas v. White 1869 is the law of the land making secession both unconstitutional and illegal. How some can ignore or deny this fact is amazing.

1869 ? Yeah I bet that was a fair trial.

 

[Freddy]

1869 ? Yeah I bet that was a fair trial.

Fair or not it was a 5-3 decision and its ruling on state secession has not been overturned.

 

[cash]

1869 ? Yeah I bet that was a fair trial.

If you think it was unfair, present your evidence. Otherwise, your contention looks like sour grapes. I don't think you mean for that, so it would be up to you to provide the evidence that it was unfair.

Regards,
Cash