War of Northeern Aggression

[David Floyd]

The 13th Amendment was passed quite legally. Get over it. When we seceded from the Union, we rescinded those bonds and obligations between our sovereign states and the Yankee states, and with the Federal government. We also rescinded any rights under the Constitution.

Right, *I* agree - BUT my argumeny here is that that action by the US was morally wrong, and, more importantly, the US never viewed the CSA as independent, therefore the Southern States never left from their POV, and as such what they did was legally wrong as well, if you accept the premise - as so many Unionists seem to - that might makes right.

[mactbone]

I've been doing some researching and I'm starting to think the Constitution did provide for this.

Article 1, Section 10 (Powers Denied to the States), Clause1, of the original Constitution of the United States states that: "no state shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation." When southern states seceded from the Union and formed the Confederation, they defied this section of the Constitution.

Article 6, Supremacy of the National Government, states that: "The Constitution and the laws of the United States shall be the supreme law of the land, and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, to anything in the constitution."

Since the Southern states mutually agreed to uphold all Articles of the Constitution, it would be illegal to go in opposition to any part of them. These are specific examples of the Constitution that the South opposed by seceding from the Union and forming the Confederacy.

If they wanted to, I guess they could just remain automonous states that could not enter any treaty, etc.

[David Floyd]

Article 1, Section 10 (Powers Denied to the States), Clause1, of the original Constitution of the United States states that: "no state shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation." When southern states seceded from the Union and formed the Confederation, they defied this section of the Constitution.

Article 6, Supremacy of the National Government, states that: "The Constitution and the laws of the United States shall be the supreme law of the land, and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, to anything in the constitution."

Since the Southern states mutually agreed to uphold all Articles of the Constitution, it would be illegal to go in opposition to any part of them. These are specific examples of the Constitution that the South opposed by seceding from the Union and forming the Confederacy.

If they wanted to, I guess they could just remain automonous states that could not enter any treaty, etc.

You're missing the obvious fact that once a State secedes, it is no longer bound by the laws it used to live under, or the US Constitution. This is just common sense

[MrFun]

David, you have troubling understanding the part that says "no state shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation"??

AFTER the completion of secession, the Confederate states were not bound by Union laws obviously. BUT DURING the process of initial secession, they were violating the law that says "no state shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation."

[David Floyd]

The CSA didn't form until well after secession - and the second a state seceded it ceased to be bound. I thought you were a history major?

[mactbone]

Another problem I have with secession, is if it was so integral to the Union, why are there are no sections in the Constitution dealing with it? There is a large section on the admittance of new States, but nothing on departing States.

Also, what process must the States go through to secede? Is it the Governor's decision? The decision of the State Assembly? Does the State have to ask for permission?

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
They were more concerned with the notion of the Federal government being used as an instrument of economic struggle between north and south -

Are we talking about the same politicians who essentially declared that thier position was thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery?

[Bereta_Eder]

Originally posted by DinoDoc


Are we talking about the same politicians who essentially declared that thier position was thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery?

*cough* Mississippi burning*cough*

[DinoDoc]

Now, I'll appeal to the Geeks

Corellia Closes Borders
Bel Iblis Leaves Senate in Uproar
Corellians Insist it is not Secession - Invoke Obscure Constitutional Proviso

Ando, Sy Myrth Secede

I thought that it would be of interest since it deals with several members of a Republic's response to the overbearing moves of the central government.

[Lonestar]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat






That is incorrect as a generalization. There were regions in the south with strong pro-Union sentiment, especially eastern Tennessee, and northwestern Virginia. At the statewide level, though, majority support for secession was pretty solid, at least when it was established - Virginia first rejected secession, then voted to secede in response to Lincoln's unconstitutional demand for specially furnished regiments of "volunteers."

There was also significant pro-Confederacy support in the border states of Missouri, Kentucky, and Maryland, as well as in southern Illinois, Indiana and Ohio, and in Delaware. It is well known that people on both sides mistreated and threatened sympathizers of the other side.

It's also worth noting that the largest mass hanging EVER in the United States occured in Northern Texas, when Rebel Calverymen rode into Cooke county and hung "at least 42 of these prisoners for conspiring to commit treason and forment insurrection."

Said "prisoners" were pro-Union settlers who (1) voted not to secede in the referendum, and (2) resisted conscription when it came.

Now, thanks to Neo-Confederates like David Floyd and the UDC, there's a Pro-Confederate monument on the site that omits any mention of the awful crime. Said monument's inscription ends with "..No nation rose so white and fair, None fell so free of crime."

Of course, Neo-Confederates have been successful in blocking out memory of most pro-union southerners, even in area dominated by them. I wonder if David's Ancestor was a Unionist, but he's just acting all proud of the confederacy because that's 'cool'.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by MacTBone
I've been doing some researching and I'm starting to think the Constitution did provide for this.

Article 1, Section 10 (Powers Denied to the States), Clause1, of the original Constitution of the United States states that: "no state shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation." When southern states seceded from the Union and formed the Confederation, they defied this section of the Constitution.

States did not enter into the Confederacy until after they seceded from the Union.

Article 6, Supremacy of the National Government, states that: "The Constitution and the laws of the United States shall be the supreme law of the land, and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, to anything in the constitution."

Since the Southern states mutually agreed to uphold all Articles of the Constitution, it would be illegal to go in opposition to any part of them. These are specific examples of the Constitution that the South opposed by seceding from the Union and forming the Confederacy.

The Constitution (or more precisely, the state delegations which ratified it), did not contemplate either that the Federal government would itself violate the Constitution, and no "remedy" was specified for such event. The immediate precedent was the Articles of Confederation, and the states each agreed to terminate their participation in such. The key is the intent of the parties who ratified the Constitution - they considered themselves to be independent, sovereign entities who entered into a limited purpose, limited scope, voluntary association with similar sovereign entities to accomplish limited, specified, common goals.

If they wanted to, I guess they could just remain automonous states that could not enter any treaty, etc.

Once they seceded, they were then free to do what they chose.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Lonestar


It's also worth noting that the largest mass hanging EVER in the United States occured in Northern Texas, when Rebel Calverymen rode into Cooke county and hung "at least 42 of these prisoners for conspiring to commit treason and forment insurrection."

Said "prisoners" were pro-Union settlers who (1) voted not to secede in the referendum, and (2) resisted conscription when it came.

Now, thanks to Neo-Confederates like David Floyd and the UDC, there's a Pro-Confederate monument on the site that omits any mention of the awful crime. Said monument's inscription ends with "..No nation rose so white and fair, None fell so free of crime."

UDC are a bunch of idiots. And yeah - there were a lot of crimes committed against "dissidents" in the west - Kansas and Missouri were pretty damned bad too, and the whole raider / bushwhacker thang in Tennessee and Kentucky - both the Confederate actions and Union actions were pretty disgusting.

And Texas had the misfortune of having Sterling "Pap" Price as the head of the Texas Rangers at the time - then going into the CSA as a Major General. He was a disgrace to the species, on a number of levels, and his men were worse.

[Lonestar]

In the interest of Balance, the Kansas Jayhawkers weren't that much nicer than the Bushwackers.

[mactbone]

Even though I know DF understands the CSA was no better than the Union, I would like to point out one thing I learned recently. Eastern Tenesee tried to secede from the Confederacy and the Confederated denied them the option.

Also, WRT conscription, according to family history, I have a relative that was drafted by the Union, but paid someone else to go for him so that he could stay and farm. From what I was told, that was legal at the time. So, during the Civil War, there were ways to not be conscripted.

[Richelieu]

Enlighten me

I would assume that all states decided to be part of the union of their own free will. If the states legislatures voted to secede, were they not entitled to ? Did they have the right to decide ? And if not, is there / can there be any mechanism for a state to secede/seperate from the union ? And how much does the union have a say in the manner in which that is decided ?

I'd like to have your opinions on this.