1. Welcome to the CivilWarTalk, a forum for questions and discussions about the American Civil War! Become a member today for full access to all of our resources, it's fast, simple, and absolutely free!
Dismiss Notice
Join and Become a Patron at CivilWarTalk!
Support this site with a monthly or yearly subscription! Active Patrons get to browse the site Ad free!
START BY JOINING NOW!

What gave Lincoln the right to make an unconstitutional demand on the seceding Southern States?

Discussion in 'Civil War History - Secession and Politics' started by CSA Today, Feb 23, 2017.

  1. jgoodguy

    jgoodguy Brigadier General Moderator Forum Host

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2011
    Messages:
    24,040
    Location:
    Pelham, AL
    References?
    If I have to inconvenience CSA_Today and Rebforever, then I have to inconvenience every one.
     

  2. (Membership has it privileges! To remove this ad: Register NOW!)
  3. jgoodguy

    jgoodguy Brigadier General Moderator Forum Host

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2011
    Messages:
    24,040
    Location:
    Pelham, AL
    If we want to make an simple inquiry of the extent of any residual sovereignty in a State, use
    Chisholm v. Georgia and the eleventh amendment as bookends.
    Chisholm v. Georgia
    Sovereign immunity - Wikipedia
    Sovereign immunity is one of those basic attributes/properties of independent sovereignty. If an entity can be sued, then it is nowhere near soverign nor independent.
    The Constitution abrogated the states' sovereign immunity. If an entity don't have soverign immunity, then its sovereignty is limited.
    The tenth amendment did not ride to the rescue, because the power is delegated to the Federal government.
    This was fixed by the 11th amendment.
    The states not being soverign, had to appeal to the Congress to pass the amendment. States' soverign immunity is derived from Congress, the people's representatives, not inherent sovereignty.
     
    OpnCoronet and StephenColbert27 like this.
  4. 48th Miss.

    48th Miss. Sergeant

    Joined:
    May 11, 2016
    Messages:
    929
    Location:
    North Carolina
    Not that i am any expert but I read part of Amars book once and it seemed so off that I stopped. I cant remember what was off since it was years ago. Is he a quality resource on all this or just parts. Do I need to pull the book out again??.
    Is there by chance one or two books that nail each side of this argument that can be compared and contrasted. I need a noarrower focus than the back and forth here. I am too far behind this in backgroud that both sides here seem reasonable to me.

    I would appreciate anybody's response here. I tagged Jgoodguy since he has been quoting Amar.

    Still amazed at the depth of study and knowledge here.
     
  5. cash

    cash Brev. Brig. Gen'l

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2005
    Messages:
    27,143
    Location:
    Right here.
    He's probably the leading constitutional scholar in our country today.
     
    jgoodguy likes this.
  6. 48th Miss.

    48th Miss. Sergeant

    Joined:
    May 11, 2016
    Messages:
    929
    Location:
    North Carolina
    Thanks Cash, not to crank anything up but simply a question. Would you say he is revisionist or more Originalist. Seems we had a turn somewhere in how things are interpreted, changing from Blackstones law books to others. Bringing European ideas etc. Not wanting to swerve off topic here or derail so feel free to PM . Sometimes I just post what comes to mind. Thanks
     
  7. jgoodguy

    jgoodguy Brigadier General Moderator Forum Host

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2011
    Messages:
    24,040
    Location:
    Pelham, AL
    You recommended it to me FWIW.
     
  8. jgoodguy

    jgoodguy Brigadier General Moderator Forum Host

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2011
    Messages:
    24,040
    Location:
    Pelham, AL
    He appears to be a historian to me. The term revisionist is questionable because very time a historian writes, he revises something - it it up to us to judge. The term Originalist is about Constitutional interpretation and the stuff I am reading suggests that yet another problem with it is that the documentation is unreliable.
     
  9. cash

    cash Brev. Brig. Gen'l

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2005
    Messages:
    27,143
    Location:
    Right here.
    He's a law professor. "Revisionist" has no meaning in that context.
     
    Bee, unionblue and jgoodguy like this.
  10. 48th Miss.

    48th Miss. Sergeant

    Joined:
    May 11, 2016
    Messages:
    929
    Location:
    North Carolina
    Thanks
     
  11. 48th Miss.

    48th Miss. Sergeant

    Joined:
    May 11, 2016
    Messages:
    929
    Location:
    North Carolina
    Thanks, not sure I can agree with this statement as there is too much agenda in education, but thank you.
     
    Rebforever and CSA Today like this.
  12. trice

    trice Major

    Joined:
    May 2, 2006
    Messages:
    9,892
    Akhil Reed Amar teaches Law and Political Science up at Yale Law and is a controversial, undoubtedly brilliant, very unorthodox constitutional law scholar. People who agree with him think he is great and mention him as a future Supreme Court nominee. People who disagree with him have a profound sense that he is just plain wrong at some fundamental level. No matter which way they view him, though, everyone seems to agree that he is a very, very intelligent man.
     
  13. 48th Miss.

    48th Miss. Sergeant

    Joined:
    May 11, 2016
    Messages:
    929
    Location:
    North Carolina
    My view on the word revisionist is probably too modern and political but I see what your saying. As to unreliable documentation, i get your point. Sure would be easier with a spelled out user guide. Unfortunately it requires interpretation of a lot of material written over too many years and all needs to be in order and in context. Pretty tough on people like me with an average education and intellect. Thanks
     
    jgoodguy likes this.
  14. jgoodguy

    jgoodguy Brigadier General Moderator Forum Host

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2011
    Messages:
    24,040
    Location:
    Pelham, AL
    From Roberts rules of order. Looks like a sine die ends Congress and thus the AOC
    On October 10, 1788, the Congress formed a quorum for the last time; afterwards, although delegates would occasionally appear, there were never enough to officially conduct business, and so the Congress of Confederation passed into history.

    Last date NC attended a meeting of the AOC was November 3, 1788.
    Rhode Island last showed up on 2/12/1789
    Reminds me of Miracle Max and the difference between dead and mostly dead.
    Lots of AOC is dead dates, but the NC and RI join the Constitution after all of them.
    Ratification dates of NC and RI.
    • North Carolina: November 21, 1789
    • Rhode Island: May 29, 1790 (Rhode Island did not hold a Constitutional Convention.)
     
    Last edited: Feb 25, 2017
  15. OpnCoronet

    OpnCoronet Major

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2010
    Messages:
    8,558



    Have I missed something? What Unconstitutional demand was Lincoln making on the seceding southern states?



    PS. Lincoln was at great pains to act only by the expressed powers of the Constitution. Until, of course, southern demands became overt acts of War and insurrection and rebellion. More people really should read more of Lincoln's words, especially his First Inaugural Address.
     
    thomas aagaard likes this.
  16. jgoodguy

    jgoodguy Brigadier General Moderator Forum Host

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2011
    Messages:
    24,040
    Location:
    Pelham, AL
    There are days I think it had something to do with Varna being upset at Mary's taste in dresses and complaining to Jefferson.
     
  17. jgoodguy

    jgoodguy Brigadier General Moderator Forum Host

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2011
    Messages:
    24,040
    Location:
    Pelham, AL
    @CSA Today
    As host.
    You are not going to be allowed to post any mere rhetoric until you specify exactly what you mean by 'unconstitutional demand'.
     
    StephenColbert27 and JerseyBart like this.
  18. cash

    cash Brev. Brig. Gen'l

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2005
    Messages:
    27,143
    Location:
    Right here.
    Educating people is too much agenda?
     
  19. jgoodguy

    jgoodguy Brigadier General Moderator Forum Host

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2011
    Messages:
    24,040
    Location:
    Pelham, AL
    Please stay on topic and not get distracted.
     
  20. Joshism

    Joshism Sergeant

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2012
    Messages:
    804
    Location:
    Jupiter, FL
    By the time Lincoln was inaugurated the CSA had seized Federal property within their borders, including military arsenals and forts. Didn't they even hold some US soldiers as prisoners for a short time?

    Even if we assume secession was legal on what basis is a state's seizure of Federal property legal? Did the seceding states offer any proposals to assume their portion of the national debt?

    If states can unilaterally secede and unilaterally abandon the debt does that mean further secession movements could result in 'the last one out' being left holding the bag for the entire national debt?

    I don't think we need to debate what the 10th Amendment means. Common sense dictates that legal unilateral secession turns the entire union into a house of cards.
     
  21. civilken

    civilken 2nd Lieutenant

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2013
    Messages:
    2,628
    I believe the answer is in your question as president what gave him the right and I believe the answer is he was the president.duly elected by the people of the United States just because a state says they do not recognize him does not give them the right to oppose the government by force.
     
    NedBaldwin and OpnCoronet like this.

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

Share This Page


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