Slavery Museum - Bad Idea?

[David Floyd]

I'm starting to see that we are going to get into a game of semantics, if I don't get one thing out of the way before I answer this claim. How do you define the term rebellion/insurrection?

I would agree with MtG's definition, but would also add that if the federal government or the state government are acting in a manner wholly inconsistent with the Constitution (state or federal), and are ignoring all attempts to non-violently change, then armed resistance is not only called for, but the responsibility of citizens, and would not be rebellion or insurrection.

I really don't understand what logical hoops you had to jump through in order to apply this example to me arguement.

1) The Federal government is Constitutionally barred from directly setting the drinking age within a State.

2) Opperating within the Constitution, the most the Federal government could legally do is to withhold a portion of thier highway monies.

3) Nothing in the Constitution gives the Federal government either explicit of implied authority to take such an action in the situation you describe anyway. Such is not the case with the case of the CSA.

You're missing the overriding concept.
The federal government has no explicit or implied authority to use the Army to stop a State from legally seceding. Your argument is that they can call that secession rebellion and insurrection, and justify it in that way.
Well, if they can do that for secession, why can't they do it for anything else, that a state tries to do against the wishes of the federal government? Nothing in your argument stops them from doing so.

To address point 3 in particular, you say (imply) that it is within the powers of the federal government to prevent secession. Fine. I'd disagree with you there, and I think you're wrong. If that's the case, then, it is ridiculous also to call it insurrection and rebellion, because it would already be legal for the federal government to prevent secession. Unless you are saying that the federal government has the power to prevent secession because secession is an act of rebellion or insurrection, in which case you're not using logic. If secession is an act of rebellion/insurrection, then why can't any other action be so as well? I mean, those terms can be loosely defined to mean anything, right? No, you have to argue that the federal government has a power to prevent secession by virtue of something OTHER than your claim that it is rebellion or insurrection, otherwise your argument really makes no sense at all. Unless you're saying that the federal government has no checks on it, because it can declare anything an act of rebellion or secession. Is that what you're saying? If you are, we're gonna have problems right there, and if you're not, then placing "secession" within the definition of "rebellion/insurrection" is nothing more than an arbitrary decision on your part, with no Constitutional basis, and opens the floodgates to anything and everything.

2) Opperating within the Constitution, the most the Federal government could legally do is to withhold a portion of thier highway monies.

By the way, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor would disagree with you there, and I'd tend to agree with her dissent, although I can't remember the case citation right off hand. I imagine Thomas and Scalia would have problems as well, based on what they say about Interstate Commerce. That's three Supreme Court Justices just for starters, and it's within the realm of possibility that two others would join them.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by David Floyd
By the way, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor would disagree with you there, and I'd tend to agree with her dissent, although I can't remember the case citation right off hand.

Good. My response to this point was based on what is currently allowed by the Court, not my own personal opinions on the subject.

If there is anything in your post that isn't covered in someway by my responses to MtG, point it out to me.

Edit: BTW, why don't you have ICQ.

[David Floyd]

Sorry, Dino, didn't see your last post.
I do have ICQ, but never use it. I don't like it much.
I'm DavidFloydUT on AIM, and civfreak@hotmail.com on MSN.

Anyway,

We're dressing up armed, organized resistance against a duly constituted government that hadn't and wouldn't have taken any agressive actions against the States and thier "peculiar institution" when the wave of secessions started as something romantic.

That's really irrelevant, isn't it? The southern States chose to secede. They had the right to do so. Reasons for secession aren't relevant to this discussion, I don't think.

The main reason for my contention that the preservation of the peculiar institution of slavery was of primary importance to the CSA is that had they freed thier slaves and then petitioned Great Britian for military aid we would likely wishing President Helms luck in his war against Al Qaeda today.

Possibly, but there were other reasons for the preservation of slavery, economic ones, for example, as well as quite frankly pride, in some cases.
But you're actually incorrect. If Lee's Lost Order was never lost, then more than likely we'd be wishing President Helms luck.

You're talking to a born and brred MS boy. I actually hope you can prove me wrong on either the legality of or the justification for rebellion.

Read my last post. There is not a good, logical argument for calling secession rebellion or insurrection. There are certainly cases when rebellion is called for, but secession is not rebellion, and is Constitutional in ANY case.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by DinoDoc


We're dressing up armed, organized resistance against a duly constituted government that hadn't and wouldn't have taken any agressive actions against the States and thier "peculiar institution" when the wave of secessions started as something romantic.

There was no armed, organized resistance until the Yankee government made clear it intended to use force. The Commonwealth of Virginia, for example, did not organize forces for defense until after Lincoln's call for troops to be organized and transferred to Federal control (an act which was unconstitutional in the manner and circumstances in which it was conducted)

We're talking a "duly constituted" government which was duly constituted with clearly limited powers by sovereign states, for their mutual benefit and security. 80 years later, northern politicians found it convenient to make it the dominant form of government, disregarding the limits on those powers to carry out their political aims. (which at the time, for most, did not involve abolition)

29 large caliber guns, 1400 men under arms, and shiploads of shot, powder, smallarms as well as provisions is hadly not taking "agressive action"

The only "resistance" offered by the south was resistance to armed Yankee trespassers.

You also had three prominent states which did not secede, but concluded (until forced to do otherwise) that they had the right to declare neutrality with respect to the Federal actions against sovereign sister states.

The agression came from the Yankee side for many reasons unrelated to the actions of some Charleston hotheads back in December of 1859. The whole California question was a major issue, as were the imperial ambitions of Stanton and others within the cabinet and war department. And Lincoln frankly masterfully outwitted, outlied, outfrauded, outmanipulated, and outmaneuvered the South Carolinians.

These conditions aren't relevent to the definition you originally gave, MtG.

They certainly are. "The people" as a term of law, generally means the body politic of a state or country, namely those enfranchised to participate in it's government. I made an exception for Dorr's rebellion because the Constitution guarantees that each state shall be provided a republican form of government - something clearly lacking in any substantive sense in Rhode Island's charter with it's extremely restricted suffrage requirements hinged on property ownership, when such requirements were far more restrictive than the Federal suffrage standard of the time.

If you don't adopt that condition, you have to conclude no action of any type by the Federal or state governments of that era were "justified" because the definition of suffrage was limited to white males over 21 - a definite minority of the population.

The legality of rebellion is and was already a settled Constitutional question.

Yes it is. The legality of secession is another matter entirely. We weren't rebelling, we were simply telling the Yankees "it's been nice, but the party's over. Good bye"

Now, the question of weather that rebellion was morally justified is another matter altogether and one in which I look foward to seeing your opinions on.

Nothing at all regarding the institution of slavery was morally justified. To the extent that the seven deep south states justified their secession in relation to slavery, any "moral" justification given on that basis was inherently false. It's my position, though, that secession required no moral justification at all, only the consent of the state. The United States of America was created as a voluntary association of sovereign governments, and nothing obligated them to perpetual loyalty to a supergovernment, when they had no other remedy but secession for any violation of their rights by that supergovernment.

The scrapping of the Articles of Confederation was one clear instance of secession, and the Yankees took the position that West Virginia could secede from Virginia, despite the similar silence in the Virginia constitution regarding sucession, and the prohibition in the Federal constitution regarding creation of a state from another state without the consent of the people of the state so affected. Nothing in the Constitution provides for a denial of suffrage or due process to states "in rebellion" or to the people of those states, but the Yankee government rode both sides of the fence when convenient - denying the legality of secession, but undertaking acts which had no constitutional basis or authority within a state, but would be valid in a war against a foreign power.

Where southern revisionists screw up and do the similar fence riding is with respect to reconstruction - despite the corruption, etc., once we renounced the ties of the US Constitution, we sure as hell couldn't claim rights under it. So whatever the Yankees chose to do to the conquered south was within their legal rights as a foreign conqueror. Same thing when we got our state governments back by kissing their asses on reconstruction, the 14th Amendment, and other issues - they had the right to dictate to us the terms under which we'd be allowed to rejoin the union, in lieu of being under a permanent military occupation where we had no rights. They stuck a gun to our ribs, but we made a choice.

With respect to the secession of North Carolina, Virginia, Arkansas and Tennessee, and the declared neutrality of Missouri, Kentucky and Maryland, I have no doubt as to the moral justification (though none is necessary), because those secessions and declarations of neutrality were based on the unconstitutional Federal demand for troops to be raised by the states, turned over to Federal control, and used in an invasion of sovereign states.

The main reason for my contention that the preservation of the peculiar institution of slavery was of primary importance to the CSA is that had they freed thier slaves and then petitioned Great Britian for military aid we would likely wishing President Helms luck in his war against Al Qaeda today.

Well, for the seven deep south states, I agree that preservation of slavery was at least of equal importance to any other notion of states' rights, at least to the elected secession commisioners, legislatures, newspapermen and other hothead loudmouths who served the interests of the feudal lord plantation class. It was not the driving issue for a majority of southerners though - a simply fundamentally different view of the role of government was far more significant for most southerners. We were still for the most part rural states, with small town populations, limited outside industry and commerce, and our political views of the role of government hadn't changed since the revolution and the constitutional convention days. For a majority of the Yankees, there views had changed, and that is largely a result of economics. The notion of an ever more powerful central government, and the development of a national identity, rather than a state one, started their much earlier than it ever did down south.

The issue of how the Yankees handled the political issue down south was of more importance to the latter seven states - Virginia rejected secession soundly the first time around, but Lincoln's call for troops rang loud, and was just a little too close to King George's way of handling things.

And yeah, we elected crappy politicians (Davis and Stephens, God help us in his mercy, because they sure as hell couldn't *shudder*), so Jesse would probably have been president of a modern CSA.

You're talking to a born and brred MS boy. I actually hope you can prove me wrong on either the legality of or the justification for rebellion.

I know you are . I didn't use to think it was either legal or justified, until I studied the source documents, including the constitutional convention delegate's notes and reports. From our modern view of the role of the Federal government, it seems absurd, but in terms of adherence to the views and covenants of 1776 and 1787, I have come to think secession was the clear course of action.

In the long term result up to today, we are clearly better off that our ancestors failed, but there was no way to know that then, and they did what they saw as right, with a clear legal right and capacity to do so.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by David Floyd
But you're actually incorrect. If Lee's Lost Order was never lost, then more than likely we'd be wishing President Helms luck.

You can't presuppose such things in military matters. Things **** up, and you have to deal with the results as they happen. One what if always leads to another. If George McClellan had had a single ball, let alone two, he'd have been in Richmond before we ever got up to Sharpsburg.

But he didn't, and the rest, as they say, is history.

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by David Floyd


I would agree with MtG's definition, but would also add that if the federal government or the state government are acting in a manner wholly inconsistent with the Constitution (state or federal), and are ignoring all attempts to non-violently change, then armed resistance is not only called for, but the responsibility of citizens, and would not be rebellion or insurrection.

It would be a rebellion. It would be a rebellion with good reason but then all rebellion's have probably had good reason.

Rebellion and the like is amoral.

Jon Miller

[David Floyd]

You can't presuppose such things in military matters. Things **** up, and you have to deal with the results as they happen. One what if always leads to another. If George McClellan had had a single ball, let alone two, he'd have been in Richmond before we ever got up to Sharpsburg.

True, but the point was that all we needed for British/French recognition was a victory on Northern soil. That's all I was trying to say.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by David Floyd
True, but the point was that all we needed for British/French recognition was a victory on Northern soil. That's all I was trying to say.

Not true at all. The abolitionist sentiment among the populace of those countries wouldn't have allowed for such an action.

[David Floyd]

Maybe, maybe not. More than likely, though, if the CSA showed it could defeat the US on the battlefield on US soil, Britain and France would have granted diplomatic recognition.

[Chris 62]

You know Reb, you always crack up up when you go on about "Yankee agression".

The fact is, and we both know it, is that the Southern democrats were p1ssed Lincoln won, and saw the handwriting on the wall for slavery, so tried to lit out of the USA.

You always miss the point, when you say "Yankee tresspassers".

That was USA soil, as was every bit that claimed to be CSA soil in the whole war.
You yourself pointed out that sucession wasn't kosher, so give it up.
The federal government refussed to recognize succession, so they couldn't be tresspassing in a leagal sense.

The southern boys tried to pull a fast one, couldn't pull it off, fought well, but in the end, got their butts kicked by the Blue bellies.

[David Floyd]

Chris, I've never seen MtG say that secession wasn't kosher, as you put it, but even if he did, he's just as wrong as you are on the topic.

The sovereign States of Virginia, Mississippi, etc., were never US soil. They were sovereign States in a union of other sovereign States. Once they seceded, legally, using their 10th Amendment rights, they ceased to be bound by the union, or by any US law.

The US was more than just trespassing - they were invading a sovereign nation.

[SlowwHand]

AND Texas joined the Union as a Republic, not a territory.

[David Floyd]

Indeed.

And Texas is currently the only State with a secession clause built into its Constitution, IIRC - of course every State has the right based on the 10th Amendment, but I think especially in Texas's case not even Chris or any of the others could deny the right.

[Chris 62]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Chris, I've never seen MtG say that secession wasn't kosher, as you put it, but even if he did, he's just as wrong as you are on the topic.

This is the second time you interjected into my conversation, just because you don't know where he said it, doesn't mean it isn't so.

The sovereign States of Virginia, Mississippi, etc., were never US soil.

Ah, but they were.

They were sovereign States in a union of other sovereign States.

Semantics argument, just as invalid in the 1860s as today.

Once they seceded, legally, using their 10th Amendment rights, they ceased to be bound by the union, or by any US law.

This is the tenth amendment:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

What does that mean?
The 10th Amendment (1791) is the final amendment in the BILL OF RIGHTS of the U.S. CONSTITUTION. It provides that those powers not delegated to the federal government by the Constitution nor prohibited to the states are reserved to the states or to the people. The main purpose of the amendment was to counter fears that the new national government would trespass on the authority of the states.

Although the amendment does not enumerate these reserved powers, traditionally they have included internal matters such as local government, education, and regulation of commerce, labor, and business within the state, as well as such matters as marriage, divorce, inheritance, and related family concerns. The states also share certain powers with the federal government, such as establishing courts, chartering banks, imposing taxes, and protecting the public health. The 10th Amendment is not seen today as limiting the authority of the federal government where the exercise of its powers might interfere with those of the states.

No where does it provide for the right of sucession.

The US was more than just trespassing - they were invading a sovereign nation.

Non-sense, as you were just shown.
Being in a Texas school, I'm not surprised you got this wrong, or are proud of the South, but they had no leagal leg to stand on to suceed from the union, and that's a fact.

I too am often impressed with the South's performance in the war, but it doesn't mitigate one bit the fact that they were dead wrong to do so.

[chequita guevara]

BTW, just cuz Texas' Constitution says it has the right to secede don't make it so. Florida's Constitution could say, "All people in the State of Florida are blue," that doesn't make it so. State constitutions do not supercede the Federal Constitution (or reality).

The question of "right of the states to secede" was settled by force of arms. The secessionists lost. States cannot secede.