Where do you draw the line???

[MrFun]

Originally posted by SpencerH
The Declaration of Independence itself provides for secession - "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new Government..."

What rights did the Southern states have taken away from them that they had to secede?? None -- the federal government was operating legitimately.

And that is IF the Declaration of Independence could be used as a legal document.

And under which document is there a law written that says muder is illegal??

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by SpencerH
Boris

I have to admit I like that argument.

Couple of points though. The Issue then becomes whether there was true consensus amongst the people of each state that seceded from the union (and that I have no idea about).

In some, there was. In others, there cleary wasn't. The South had a much more difficult time with rebellions and suppression pro-Union segments of its population than the Union ever had doing the same thing in their borders. The NYC draft riot was single biggest domestic uprising in the Union (not counting, of course, the Southern Rebellion ), and it was small potatoes to what Jeff Davis had to contend with in the South. David himself wrote at length blasting the notions of "States Rights," which he saw as destroying the ability of the C.S.A to wage its war successfully.

As for the decision by the SCOTUS in 1869 as to the legality of secession, its pretty clear that that august body is as affected by their personal beliefs as are any individual people. I wonder if that ruling would hold up today if challenged (and heard).

I have not done an in-depth reading of the decision, and while there was undoubtedly partisanship involved, I've not read of constitutional scholars (aside from some firebrand Southern ones) who find much problem with it.

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by MrFun

What rights did the Southern states have taken away from them that they had to secede?? None -- the federal government was operating legitimately.

I've heard of two causes for the attempted secession that relate to loss of the states powers, slavery, and northern interference with legitimate trade by the south with europe. I suspect that the trade matters stirred the waters enough that Lincolns election was the final blow.

[MrFun]

Abraham Lincoln wanted to prevent further expansion of slavery into western territories.

How does this take away states' rights??

[SpencerH]

Begining of the end.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by SpencerH
Begining of the end.

Slippery slope rationalizing from Southern States, especially considering S. Carolina had been itching to secede since the 1830s, and Lincoln's election was the fault of a split Democratic party anyway (which was split because the South was so extreme, the Northern Democrats couldn't stomach it).

[TCO]

Originally posted by Sikander


My uncle complained about the same thing. He said the trick to firing the .45 was to anticipate the line that the .45 would wander to, so that you could adjust quickly and bring it right back on to the target. If you are thinking of getting a gun for personal use, try a non 1911 Colt design. Both MtG and I have Sig .45s, and I can tell you that mine has no tendency to rear up like that. In fact it's definitely the most accurate center fire pistol I've ever owned, which is a nice feeling since it's designed as a smaller carry version of the P220 (with a slightly shorter barrel). I do fire with both hands, but that's just the way I was taught, it's not necessary to control the weapon.

I'm not a big shooter. Did get my sharpshooter ribbon for .45. (in 1984...) Got some training from one of the guys on the USNA pistol team for a day or so. Yeah I hold both hands on the weapon because it's better firing position regardless. But it has a hell of an upwards kick. bends your elbows and moves overhead. I wouldn't like to think about controlling the weapon with one hand. Might fly out of your hand.

The kick means you have to pull the weapon back into position and resight pretty quickly. (I mean it's moved a ways.) Also, at least for me, makes it a little more psychologically hard to concentrate on squeezing versus pulling. the whole "let the gun go off" thing. I find myself tending to anticipate the recoil and (of course) messing up my sight alignment. Can overcome this...but it requires more concentration than with the 9mm, which is more gentle.

You must have shot .45 right? It's the standard pistol in the service. For guard duty and stuff like that.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by MrFun
None -- the federal government was operating legitimately.

The question was, "where is the law that says that it was illegal for the states to secede?" If there's no law, and if it isn't in the Constitution, then it isn't illegal.

And under which document is there a law written that says muder is illegal??

Every single state in the nation has passed a law to outlaw murder. So I suppose the "document" would be the law books.

The Constitution may be the highest law in the US, but that doesn't mean that it's the only law in the US.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by loinburger


The question was, "where is the law that says that it was illegal for the states to secede?" If there's no law, and if it isn't in the Constitution, then it isn't illegal.

Who cares? The Confederacy declared war upon the United States.

There's a website I located using google, searching either "Fort Sumter" or "Civil War, causes" that features some of the speeches given by prominent Southern politicians arguing before their state legislatures in late 1860 and early 1861. They're real eye-openers. Many of these guys were floridly psychotic. The speeches leave no doubt that the South seceeded almost entirely for the cause of slavery. They also make it clear that the Southern politicians looked upon the American West, Mexico, and Cuba as essentially their god-given land. They viewed abolition, even in the free states as immoral and illegal, and considered the existence of the free states as a violation of their rights. Frankly some of these speeches on their own, delivered in the legislature of one country, openly threatening another country could have been considered in and of themselves as sufficient justification for the threatened country to declare war.

I'm not going to post a link to it because I've done it twice before.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
Who cares? The Confederacy declared war upon the United States.

Oh, I'm not questioning the causes of the Civil War, or who was justified in doing what when. I'm just challenging MrFun's misuse of the word "illegal."

Originally posted by MrFun
The Confederacy was an illegal establishment of a new nation, thus, it was not legitimate in the first place.

MrFun said that something can be illegal even if there isn't a law against it (like murder ). I'm just wondering how that works.

[Dom Pedro II]

Bah! It would've been better if the South had stayed independent. All my studies have shown this. It would've cut all the excess, useless fat off of the United States as well as busting down American jingoists a notch. The world would be a better place. Ah, the slavery thing would've been dealt with before 1900... there was no way the Confederates could hold onto it that much longer. In fact, pro-Confederate organizations in the South were already making movements towards gradual emancipation as early as 1862.


Given the situation world-wide at the time, my studies have shown that a possible Southern victory very well might have prevented World War I and would have AT LEAST prevented World War II.

[Boris Godunov]

Secession was not legal.

Article VI:

"All debts contracted and engagements entered into, before the adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.

This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."

Upon assuming their duties as State Legislators, said men were administered the above oath (as were governors). Under this article, they are bound by this oath. It was the same state legislators who voted to secede in each state. Therefore, the second they cast those votes, they violated this oath. They were consequently in violation of the Constitution and were considered to be in sedition.

Article 1, section 8 and Article 4, Section 4 grant the Federal government the ability to put down insurrections. Article 1 Section 8 also gives the president the authority (through congress) to call up state militias for such a purpose, thereby invalidating the secession arguments of the second group of states to try to withdraw. Article 4 section 4 gives the president to send troops into a state to quell rebellion even over the objections of the state legislature or governor. He can even do it over the objections of congress (as he can send troops wherever he wants), but congress can withhold payment of those forces.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Dom Pedro II
Bah! It would've been better if the South had stayed independent. All my studies have shown this. It would've cut all the excess, useless fat off of the United States as well as busting down American jingoists a notch. The world would be a better place. Ah, the slavery thing would've been dealt with before 1900... there was no way the Confederates could hold onto it that much longer. In fact, pro-Confederate organizations in the South were already making movements towards gradual emancipation as early as 1862.


Given the situation world-wide at the time, my studies have shown that a possible Southern victory very well might have prevented World War I and would have AT LEAST prevented World War II.

What rot! Yeah, in some ways the US might have been better off without the ol' Confederate States, if only because there would never have been a civil rights crisis in the 60s, but given a free choice the South would never have abolished slavery on their own. It was the most venerated feature of their culture.

Here's what I believe might have happened. Let's suppose that civil war was avoided; perhaps in an uncharacteristically diplomatic moment Jeff Davis offers the US right of passage on the Mississippi in exchange for ownership of the Federal forts built in Southern waters, and Lincoln agrees. Under such circumstances the Rebs would have gone wild. They would have picked fights with Spain over Cuba and France over Mexico. Within a few years they'd have gotten themselves into a war with most of the world. Either they would have wound up partitioned among the powers of Europe or the US would have intervened and taken them back into the union.

Even if one supposes that the Confederacy wouldn't wind up loosing it's independence over some foolish excess, I don't know why anyone would hypothesize that it's existence would have greatly influenced early 20th century European politics. Why wouldn't WW I have happened if the Confederacy had survived as a nation? Oh, I know, I know!!! Because the German Empire would have seen through all that Southern bluster, whomped them, and made them a colony, thus satisfying the Kaiser's lust for a hunk of world geography!

You haven't ben reading that garbage that Turtledove writes have you? He's a closet Klansman you know.

[Boris Godunov]

*claps for Dr. Strangelove*

[MrFun]

Originally posted by loinburger


Oh, I'm not questioning the causes of the Civil War, or who was justified in doing what when. I'm just challenging MrFun's misuse of the word "illegal."



MrFun said that something can be illegal even if there isn't a law against it (like murder ). I'm just wondering how that works.

Thanks for everyone's input from both sides.


If I can find something that is illegal in the United States, but there is no written law on it, then I could prove my argument.

However, if that is not the case, then you're right on this point.


In that case however, like Boris has pointed out, secession would be illegal for other reasons.