Was it worth it?

[genbeau]

True but by the 1860s many certainly not all Americans opposed slavery. Some slave owners correctly opposed secession because they knew it would absolutely end slavery. At least two Union generals actually owned slaves one being Major General Thomas and Brig. General Oden Guitar of the Missouri State Milita which was a misnomer as the MSM was actually a full time force.
Leftyhunter

"End slavery" if and only if the union won the civil war. But lets not quibble.

 

[JerryD]

Because in the end Federal law is that, Federal law. If we have or are to have federal supremacy it's rather that simple.

As I've pointed out in regards to federal supremacy it's not somehow exclusive to slavery, one can still see federal laws being defied today outside slavery. So i don't see it somehow just about slavery, as it's always gone far beyond just one aspect or issue. That's why I find assertion of Federal supremacy as a principle odd, as it's rather often not followed or enforced........

Not really sure what you mean by "assertion" of Federal Supremacy. The Supremacy Clause of the Constitution is quite specific in that regard. Its not an assertion, its a fact.

 

[rvbgrif]

I never said

Do you want to actually post facts to back up your claims or do you want to just say "I disagree, you are dumb".

I will say that the decision to use the floatilla wasn't a terrible move from Lincoln. It forced Davis to get off the fence and make a decision. Either fire on Fort Sumter, or let it be resupplied and reinforced. Davis was aggressive so he chose to fire.

It was just a bad decision in that it missed the game which was to see which side Virginia would fall on. Lincoln was astute enough to know what was going on, but he got outplayed there. If he had foresight and the ability to go back in time, I am sure he would change how he handled Virginia.

I think everyone in Davis's cabinet supported the decision to fire except for Robert Toombs.

 

[leftyhunter]

"End slavery" if and only if the union won the civil war. But lets not quibble.

Slavery was ended at the end of a bayonet so yes it required the Union to win. For African Americans the ACW was very much worth it.
L

 

[atlantis]

For non-slave owners it was worth it in the sense that it proved how important they were to the order and stability of southern society.

 

[Andersonh1]

Also, as I always point out, its difficult to imagine that a state had a right to leave when South Carolina decided the best way to accomplish this was by starting a war instead of going to court to have this implied right recognized by the Supreme Court. The mere fact they chose warfare over lawfare tells me they knew their argument held no weight and would be rejected by the courts, and thus no such right existed.

In the same way that we don't go to court before we exercise our right to free speech or free exercise of religion, they didn't go to court to exercise a right that they clearly believed they had. They simply exercised that right. They didn't "choose warfare" until later when they felt backed into a corner, they used the same style of convention to secede from the Union that had been used to ratify the Constitution, which tells me that they saw secession as a legal right with an established process that had to be followed. It was only when they saw that the United States government was clearly not going to recognize secession that they turned to warfare.

 

[OhioUnion]

Alternatively, the country could have passed an amendment to make secession illegal, no? But It would never have passed. So they relied on a court ruling against secession as a result of white vs texas which was quite easily given because the chief justice was a former member of Lincolns cabinet. He started with a verdict and then reversed engineered the reasoning.

As for your judicial findings listed above, I would have to investigate them to see the context. They are only quotes, Were they all affirmed. If not, they are not national rulings.

In the end secession is legal or not, depending if the seceding side can pull it off or not, It is an exercise in power, not law.

If you investigate you will find a long line of supreme court decisions, prior to the civil war about the nature of the constitution and the relationship of the states to the federal government that show secession at will is unconstitutional.
You can also look at the proclamation President Jackson issued during the nullification crisis, which was written with the Attorney General of the United States, which stated secession was nothing more than revolution.

Or perhaps look at the letter James Madison, the father of the constitution, wrote to Nicholas Trist, in which he stated - "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."

Letter from James Madison to Nicholas Trist (1832)

“James Madison to Nicholas P. Trist, 23 December 1832,” Founders Online, National Archives, https://teachingamericanhistory.org/pcuw. Dr. Sir, I have received yours of the 19th, inclosing some of the South Carolina papers. There […]

teachingamericanhistory.org

 

[JerryD]

In the same way that we don't go to court before we exercise our right to free speech or free exercise of religion, they didn't go to court to exercise a right that they clearly believed they had. They simply exercised that right. They didn't "choose warfare" until later when they felt backed into a corner, they used the same style of convention to secede from the Union that had been used to ratify the Constitution, which tells me that they saw secession as a legal right with an established process that had to be followed. It was only when they saw that the United States government was clearly not going to recognize secession that they turned to warfare.

Actually, you are kind of proving my point. We dont go to court to assert those rights because they are recognized by law and legal precedent, something that secession most definitely was not! But people who are trying to assert a new right actually DO go to court to get a court to recognize that right. For example, women who wanted to vote filed suit to get a court to say they had a right to vote! See how that works? Of course, they lost until a Constitutional Amendment was passed, but the point remains. It happens all the time. People who claim some new kind of right go to court all the time to get a court to recognize that right.

 

[JerryD]

Do you want to actually post facts to back up your claims or do you want to just say "I disagree, you are dumb".

LOL, wow, maybe you do have a reading comprehension issue. Its not that I disagree. Let me say it again, you are saying I said things I never said. Let me repeat that for you. You are putting words in my mouth I never said, and then trying to dispute what I never said. So its not that I disagree with what you are saying. I am saying I never said what you think I said. So there is nothing to disagree with!!

Going back I think you got triggered way back in post 531 when I said "You may claim that Lincoln was brilliant in making the CSA fire the first shot, and that may be true." Cause then you went off trying to prove Lincoln was an idiot. But note, I never said Lincoln was brilliant. I said "You may claim that Lincoln was brilliant..." Can you see what that means? That maybe you think that. But it does not say I believe it. I acknowledge later in the same sentence that may be true, but by saying it may be true, I also implied that it may not. I did not express an opinion either way. And then you went on a multi-post rant trying to disprove something I never said.

 

[archieclement]

Not really sure what you mean by "assertion" of Federal Supremacy. The Supremacy Clause of the Constitution is quite specific in that regard. Its not an assertion, its a fact.

Not at all if not enforced. Any law or claim of supremacy of federal law is rather dependent on it actually being enforced.

Otherwise as lefty suggested it just " suggestion" or mere rhetoric. Without active federal enforcement we are comparable to the the UN without member nations willing to step up to enforce resolutions...........

 

[rvbgrif]

LOL, wow, maybe you do have a reading comprehension issue. Its not that I disagree. Let me say it again, you are saying I said things I never said. Let me repeat that for you. You are putting words in my mouth I never said, and then trying to dispute what I never said. So its not that I disagree with what you are saying. I am saying I never said what you think I said. So there is nothing to disagree with!!

Going back I think you got triggered way back in post 531 when I said "You may claim that Lincoln was brilliant in making the CSA fire the first shot, and that may be true." Cause then you went off trying to prove Lincoln was an idiot. But note, I never said Lincoln was brilliant. I said "You may claim that Lincoln was brilliant..." Can you see what that means? That maybe you think that. But it does not say I believe it. I acknowledge later in the same sentence that may be true, but by saying it may be true, I also implied that it may not. I did not express an opinion either way. And then you went on a multi-post rant trying to disprove something I never said.

I was never triggered. I disagree that it was a brilliant move. I have posted why, it lost him Virginia, which was previously in his hand.

I also disagree that it was a terrible move, as it forced Davis off the fence. It put the Confederacy in a much better position than before, but at the same time initiated the war for both sides. It would have been a strong move, he wasn't afraid of Davis and was confronting him head on without firing, but his assumption that the rebellion was limited was incorrect, and he got forced out of Fort Sumter and half of the border states.

I will say that Lincoln's move was mediocre/poor and Davis's move was mediocre/good but only under the assumption that war was inevitable. Certainly Lincoln made brilliant moves during the US Civil War, for example the Emancipation Proclamation which had the effect of keeping the UK out of the war. But he didn't make brilliant moves this early.

If you would like to make an argument why it was brilliant, please go ahead. I will not put words in your mouth, I am waiting for a response.

 

[genbeau]

If you investigate you will find a long line of supreme court decisions, prior to the civil war about the nature of the constitution and the relationship of the states to the federal government that show secession at will is unconstitutional.
You can also look at the proclamation President Jackson issued during the nullification crisis, which was written with the Attorney General of the United States, which stated secession was nothing more than revolution.

Or perhaps look at the letter James Madison, the father of the constitution, wrote to Nicholas Trist, in which he stated - "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."

Letter from James Madison to Nicholas Trist (1832)

“James Madison to Nicholas P. Trist, 23 December 1832,” Founders Online, National Archives, https://teachingamericanhistory.org/pcuw. Dr. Sir, I have received yours of the 19th, inclosing some of the South Carolina papers. There […]

teachingamericanhistory.org

You will have to provide some of the supreme court decisions you are referring to in order to get my interest. Personal opinions of Jackson and Madison are irrelevant when not backed up by law. Politicians say whatever benefits them at an instant in time and often changes rapidly.
I have no doubt others expressed opinions opposed to these two gentlemen. None of it is in the law, correct?

 

[archieclement]

As well it doesn't apply to just federal law or supremacy being meaningless if not enforced.

Across the nation there's a host of archaic laws that still technically are on various jurisdictions books, but mean nothing though as they simply are no longer enforced.

 

[genbeau]

Was it worth it?
Yes, because it ended slavery. However it was also done illegally by the North/USA as secession was the right of the states

 

[leftyhunter]

Was it worth it?
Yes, because it ended slavery. However it was also done illegally by the North/USA as secession was the right of the states

Legality is determined by either statutory or case law. In the US only costs are deemed competent to interpret statutory law. What exact legal authority ever determined that President Lincoln was not entitled to use force to put down a rebellion?
Leftyhunter

 

[atlantis]

Wasubob brings up the need for post war conscription, I think that would be less of an issue for the confederates if limited to 3 years' service.

 

[genbeau]

Legality is determined by either statutory or case law. In the US only costs are deemed competent to interpret statutory law. What exact legal authority ever determined that President Lincoln was not entitled to use force to put down a rebellion?
Leftyhunter

This wasn't a rebellion, this was a secession.
But if you want to call it a rebellion, its okay with me. The Declaration of Independence says people have a right to overthrow an oppressive government. So it seems you are putting the south in the moral right. 160 years ago the civil war ended so the return of the south to the fold is a long done deal. Thank you for admitting the South was in the morally stronger position.

 

[Belfoured]

This wasn't a rebellion, this was a secession.
But if you want to call it a rebellion, its okay with me. The Declaration of Independence says people have a right to overthrow an oppressive government. So it seems you are putting the south in the moral right. 160 years ago the civil war ended so the return of the south to the fold is a long done deal. Thank you for admitting the South was in the morally stronger position.

Stop playing little word games - he "admitted" no such thing. The Constitution authorizes the US to put down rebellions/insurrections. The secession was a rebellion - just as the AWI was. We know what Robert E. Lee told his son in January 1861.

 

[JerryD]

Was it worth it?
Yes, because it ended slavery. However it was also done illegally by the North/USA as secession was the right of the states

As as has been stated over and over on this forum, the Supreme Court determined in Texas v. White that secession was illegal, and that case has never been overturned, so since they are the ultimate arbiter of what is and is not permitted under the Constitution, you are wrong. There is a definitive Supreme Court case right on point on this issue, so that opinion carries way more weight than your opinion on this issue.

 

[rvbgrif]

Texas v. White

Texas V. White was weird in that it ruled that Confederate States were always full-fledged US states, with all the rights and privileges of a US state even during the Civil War. It just rejects the Confederate government as illegitimate.

Congress however, made the opposite decision. Confederate States were not US states and had no rights as a state after the Civil War. They had to be readmitted into the US. Texas was readmitted in 1870.

What is the purpose of this? Well it technically declared all of reconstruction unconstitutional but nobody did anything.