Refighting the War

[TheGhost]

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

Any judgement made by federal authorities during or after the Civil War would be biased in the most extreme manner.
No sour grapes, just recognizing the obvious.

 

[Baggage Handler #2]

Any judgement made by federal authorities during or after the Civil War would be biased in the most extreme manner.
No sour grapes, just recognizing the obvious.

Possibly.
Possibly not. The statement carries the same weight as one saying "any judgment in the south before 1965 involving a person of color would be biased in the most extreme manner."

I don't believe either claim to be absolutely true.

 

[catspjamas]

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.

Making secession unconstitutional and illegal in 1869 is shutting the barn door after the cow had escaped. It didn't change the legality of secession before 1869. Changes to the Constitution are NOT retroactive, the new change is only valid from that date forward.

Joni

 

[cash]

Making secession unconstitutional and illegal in 1869 is shutting the barn door after the cow had escaped. It didn't change the legality of secession before 1869. Changes to the Constitution are NOT retroactive, the new change is only valid from that date forward.

Joni

The Supreme Court tells us what the law means at the time of the actions in question.

They ruled that unilateral secession was illegal and unconstitutional when attempted. That ruling is authoritative.

There is no right to unilateral secession, there was no right to unilateral secession in 1860, and there never was a right to unilateral secession since the Constitution was ratified. Any claim to the contrary is quite simply wrong.

Regards,
Cash

 

[cash]

Any judgement made by federal authorities during or after the Civil War would be biased in the most extreme manner.
No sour grapes, just recognizing the obvious.

Weak sour grapes approach--the argument, not you.

The Supreme Court is authoritative and has ruled on secession and has never reversed itself. There has been no evidence of unfairness, only supposition.

Regards,
Cash

 

[Scribe]

Making secession unconstitutional and illegal in 1869 is shutting the barn door after the cow had escaped. It didn't change the legality of secession before 1869. Changes to the Constitution are NOT retroactive, the new change is only valid from that date forward.

Joni

The Supremes didn't "make" secession unconstitutional or change the Constitution in any way in 1869. They ruled that secession was unconstitutional at any time.

 

[diddyriddick]

At the risk of being contrary, the Supreme Court also ruled that "separate-but-equal" was constitutional, and that it was constitutionally ok to detain American citizens ca. 1942 merely because they were of Japanese ancestry. I agree that we have to have an ultimate adjudicator of disputes, but the Supremes are not infallible.

 

[cash]

At the risk of being contrary, the Supreme Court also ruled that "separate-but-equal" was constitutional, and that it was constitutionally ok to detain American citizens ca. 1942 merely because they were of Japanese ancestry. I agree that we have to have an ultimate adjudicator of disputes, but the Supremes are not infallible.

The Court did overrule itself on "separate but equal," and regarding the internment, the decision was made based on military necessity, and while not morally palatable to us, it does appear to be constitutionally correct.

"It is said that we are dealing here with the case of imprisonment of a citizen in a concentration camp solely because of his ancestry, without evidence or inquiry concerning his loyalty and good disposition towards the United States. Our task would be simple, our duty clear, were this a case involving the imprisonment of a loyal citizen in a concentration camp because of racial prejudice. Regardless of the true nature of the assembly and relocation centers--and we deem it unjustifiable to call them concentration camps with all the ugly connotations that term implies--we are dealing specifically with nothing but an exclusion order. To cast this case into outlines of racial prejudice, without reference to the real military dangers which were presented, merely confuses the issue. Korematsu was not excluded from the Military Area because of hostility to him or his race. He was excluded because we are at war with the Japanese Empire, because the properly constituted military authorities feared an invasion of our West Coast and felt constrained to take proper security measures, because they decided that the military urgency of the situation demanded that all citizens of Japanese ancestry be segregated from the West Coast temporarily, and finally, because Congress, reposing its confidence in this time of war in our military leaders--as inevitably it must--determined that they should have the power to do just this. There was evidence of disloyalty on the part of some, the military authorities considered that the need for action was great, and time was short. We cannot-by availing ourselves of the calm perspective of hindsight-now say that at that time these actions were unjustified." [323 US 214, 223-224]

To get this back to the topic at hand, the rulings against secession have not been overturned despite the Court having ample opportunity to do so in several cases, and they fall in line with previous case law on the relations of states to the Federal government and to each other.

Regards,
Cash

 

[diddyriddick]

The Court did overrule itself on "separate but equal," and regarding the internment, the decision was made based on military necessity, and while not morally palatable to us, it does appear to be constitutionally correct.

"It is said that we are dealing here with the case of imprisonment of a citizen in a concentration camp solely because of his ancestry, without evidence or inquiry concerning his loyalty and good disposition towards the United States. Our task would be simple, our duty clear, were this a case involving the imprisonment of a loyal citizen in a concentration camp because of racial prejudice. Regardless of the true nature of the assembly and relocation centers--and we deem it unjustifiable to call them concentration camps with all the ugly connotations that term implies--we are dealing specifically with nothing but an exclusion order. To cast this case into outlines of racial prejudice, without reference to the real military dangers which were presented, merely confuses the issue. Korematsu was not excluded from the Military Area because of hostility to him or his race. He was excluded because we are at war with the Japanese Empire, because the properly constituted military authorities feared an invasion of our West Coast and felt constrained to take proper security measures, because they decided that the military urgency of the situation demanded that all citizens of Japanese ancestry be segregated from the West Coast temporarily, and finally, because Congress, reposing its confidence in this time of war in our military leaders--as inevitably it must--determined that they should have the power to do just this. There was evidence of disloyalty on the part of some, the military authorities considered that the need for action was great, and time was short. We cannot-by availing ourselves of the calm perspective of hindsight-now say that at that time these actions were unjustified." [323 US 214, 223-224]

To get this back to the topic at hand, the rulings against secession have not been overturned despite the Court having ample opportunity to do so in several cases, and they fall in line with previous case law on the relations of states to the Federal government and to each other.

Regards,
Cash

Actually, the court ultimately reversed itself in the Nisei case as well. My point was that the court is composed of 9 fallible people.

 

[Freddy]

Making secession unconstitutional and illegal in 1869 is shutting the barn door after the cow had escaped. It didn't change the legality of secession before 1869. Changes to the Constitution are NOT retroactive, the new change is only valid from that date forward.

Joni

All US Supreme Court decisions/rulings come after the actual action or lack of action it is ruling on. In this case Texas seceded on Febuary 23, 1861 and the Court ruled on April 12, 1869 that secession was not allowed under the US Constitution. It is possible that this ruling may be overturned in the future.

 

[TexasStrayDog]

Maybe by our act of pondering those old, unanswerable questions, we reinforce our sense of who we are. Besides being fun.

That seems worthwhile, if nothing else, to realize Cash and I are citizens of the same country with the same loyalties!

 

[cash]

Maybe by our act of pondering those old, unanswerable questions, we reinforce our sense of who we are. Besides being fun.

That seems worthwhile, if nothing else, to realize Cash and I are citizens of the same country with the same loyalties!

One nation, under God, indivisible.

Regards,
Cash

 

[Savez]

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?

Amen, sir, Amen !!

 

[trice]

All US Supreme Court decisions/rulings come after the actual action or lack of action it is ruling on. In this case Texas seceded on Febuary 23, 1861 and the Court ruled on April 12, 1869 that secession was not allowed under the US Constitution. It is possible that this ruling may be overturned in the future.

Heck, four Supreme Court decisions were reversed by Constitutional Amendment:

• XI reverses Chisholm v. Georgia (1793) -- greater immunity of the states from lawsuits
• XIV reverses Scott v. Sandford (1857) -- civil rights for African-Americans
• XVI reverses Pollock v. Farmers' Loan and Trust Co. (1895) -- the income tax
• XXVI reverses Oregon v. Mitchell (1970) -- 18 year-old voting rights

Tim

 

[Freddy]

Heck, four Supreme Court decisions were reversed by Constitutional Amendment:

• XI reverses Chisholm v. Georgia (1793) -- greater immunity of the states from lawsuits
• XIV reverses Scott v. Sandford (1857) -- civil rights for African-Americans
• XVI reverses Pollock v. Farmers' Loan and Trust Co. (1895) -- the income tax
• XXVI reverses Oregon v. Mitchell (1970) -- 18 year-old voting rights

Tim

I would be shocked if an amendment allowing secession was ever passed. or even if Texas v. White was overturned.

 

[ole]

I would be, too, Freddy, but stranger things have happened.

 

[trice]

I would be shocked if an amendment allowing secession was ever passed. or even if Texas v. White was overturned.

I'd be shocked, too.

However, if a state did want to leave, I would regard the matter as so important that an Amendment would be the most "proper" way to go about it.

The Amendment would look something like this:

1. The state of South Carolina may leave the Union once it has (list of conditions)
2. Congress shall have the power to pass all laws necessary to bring this about.

Tim

 

[cash]

I would be shocked if an amendment allowing secession was ever passed. or even if Texas v. White was overturned.

I know you mean the part of the Texas v. White ruling dealing with secession, Freddy, but before anyone else brings this up a portion of Texas v. White has already been overturned by Morgan v. United States, although the portion overturned was not the ruling on secession:

"It is apparent that the original decision of the court in reference to the Texas indemnity bonds in Texas v. White, 7 Wall. 700, has been questioned and limited in important particulars in the subsequent cases involving the same questions. The position there taken that the legislature of Texas, while the State was owner of the bonds, could limit their negotiability by an act of legislation, of which all subsequent purchasers were charged with notice, although the bonds on their face were payable to bearer, must be regarded as overruled. And the further position that negotiable government securities, redeemable at the pleasure of the government after a specified day, but in which no date is fixed for final payment, cease to be negotiable as overdue after the day named when they first become redeemable, must be regarded as limited to cases wehre the title of the purchaser is acquired with notice of the defect of title, or under circumstances which discredit the instrument, such as would affect the title to negotiable paper payable on demand, when purchased after an unreasonable length of time from the date of issue." [113 US 476, 496]

The holding of Court regarding the unconstitutionality of secession in Texas v. White was left untouched.

Regards,
Cash