The Altera Centauri collection has been brought up to date by Darsnan. It comprises every decent scenario he's been able to find anywhere on the web, going back over 20 years.
25 themes/skins/styles are now available to members. Check the select drop-down at the bottom-left of each page.
Call To Power 2 Cradle 3+ mod in progress: https://apolyton.net/forum/other-games/call-to-power-2/ctp2-creation/9437883-making-cradle-3-fully-compatible-with-the-apolyton-edition
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
U.S. Civil War - Did the South Have the Right to Secede?
For what it's worth in observation, 150 years later, it's not hard to magine a rift developing in real-time.
Life is not measured by the number of breaths you take, but by the moments that take your breath away.
"Hating America is something best left to Mobius. He is an expert Yank hater.
He also hates Texans and Australians, he does diversify." ~ Braindead
Well, I imagine there are a lot of Notherners who'd wished we hadn't a bothered.
Christianity: The belief that a cosmic Jewish Zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree...
Originally posted by Wycoff
Are you trying to argue that "provide for" means that Congress is only empowered to create some militia framework, and then passively bow out from deciding when and where the "militia" may be used?
No, I'm stating a fact supported by legislative history.
Congress has never had the authority to direct the deployment of state militias, or of United States forces. That would be a violation of separation of powers, as the duties of Commander-in-Chief are explicitly assigned to the President. With respect to forces of the United States, Congress had the authority to define funding, pass laws for training and regulation and promotion of discipline and order, to provide for the number of and grades of non-commissioned and commissioned officers, etc., but no right to directly operate or control. That limitation in Congressional power over a President run amok wasn't addressed until the War Powers Act in 1973. Authority over the funding, discipline, equipment, training and use of state militias was a matter for the states, not Congress, except for circumstances in which the militias were placed under Federal control.
Even in a declaration of war, Congress has no authority to direct the President to federalize the militias or to deploy troops anywhere. The only thing Congress can do is to refuse to fund any deployment or operation which they don't approve - then the executive branch would only be able to operate from existing funds or appropriated funds for other purposes it could transfer under administrative authority. If the executive already had operational funding, the Congress could do nothing until the War Powers Act.
In 1792, Congress enacted a mechanism whereby a Federal District Judge or Associate Justice of any Federal court could call for the militia to be Federalized to enforce United States law and suppress any insurrection hindering the enforcement of United States law within the judicial district over which the judge or justice had authority.
In 1795, seeing how that limitation of authority to call for the militia of other states was ineffective in responding to the Whiskey Rebellion, the Congress passed another act, enabling state legislatures, or the governor of a state in event the legislature could not be convened, to request militia of other states be Federalized and called in to suppress insurrection when that insurrection impeded enforcement of laws of the state or of the United States.
In 1807, Congress passed another law, adding that the land and naval forces of the United States could also be used to suppress insurrections in response to a request for outside militia forces made under authority of the 1792 or 1795 acts. That was the statutory authority that allowed a Lieutenant Colonel name of Lee to take some companies of Marines to Harper's Ferry and deal with that little problem in 1859.
Those three acts were the means by which Congress "provided for" the use of the militia to suppress insurrection prior to August, 1861, which was a little late.
"Provide for" is a very vague phrase, and it leaves a whole lot of room for Congressional interpretation. Have you ever seen how the commerce clause has been used?
Only in common English, not in law. Check out the term in "Words and Phrases." Use or misuse of the Commerce Clause is irrelevant.
With that in mind, this clause makes it absolutely clear that Congress can call forth the Militia to execute the laws of the Union and supress insurrections.
No, it doesn't, in the slightest. Separation of powers is absolutely clear - the President is the commander in chief. Congress can merely define the circumstances in which state militias may be transferred to Federal control, and who has the authority to call for their use in an insurrection. Suggesting that the Congress itself has executive or law enforcement authority is absurd.
We can argue over what is meant by Militia,
Not really, since legislative history and executive acts by each state pretty much settles the issue.
but this says that Congress is empowered to supress insurrections in some manner.
It's empowered to provide the means by which the judiciary or states can determine an insurrection exists, and it can provide the means by which and circumstand under which state militias can be transferred to Federal control. That's not at all the same as usurping executive or judicial functions.
When all else fails, blame brown people. | Hire a teen, while they still know it all. | Trump-Palin 2016. "You're fired." "I quit."
Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
IIRC the Declaration of Independence gave a list of greivances which the authors declared to be sufficient cause to break the "natural bonds" between themselves and the mother country. Their grievances included lack of representation, the quartering of British troops in their homes and arbitrary government in general. There is no place in the D of I where it says "we're seceding because we just want to", nor was their any mention of possible infringement on an imaginary right to own other human beings. It's true that the D of I is not part of the legal framework of the US goverment, but it does give us an good idea of what the founding fathers thought of the nature of the relationship between goverment and the governed and under which circumstances such a relationship might be broken. I submit to you that the authors of the Constitution would have never agreed that whimsical secession was a right, nor would thewy have agreed that the seceding states had just cause for their actions.
The Declaration of Independence was also a piece of PR work to get other royalist nations to support the rebellion and recognize the 13 states, rather than think it's just a bunch of commoner rabble who should be suppressed, even if they were the enemy's rabble, as rebellious rabble represented a greater threat to the established order of things.
When all else fails, blame brown people. | Hire a teen, while they still know it all. | Trump-Palin 2016. "You're fired." "I quit."
Christianity: The belief that a cosmic Jewish Zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree...
Hmmm, apparently the CSA declared war on the USA after the assault on Fort Sumter. Regardless of whether they had the right to secede or not, they started the war.
Christianity: The belief that a cosmic Jewish Zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree...
Christianity: The belief that a cosmic Jewish Zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree...
Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Hmmm, apparently the CSA declared war on the USA after the assault on Fort Sumter. Regardless of whether they had the right to secede or not, they started the war.
Whether the southern states had a right to secede then is a moot point, since they declared war. Making them return to the union was just a punishment for their aggression.
"I say shoot'em all and let God sort it out in the end!
The Declaration of Independence was also a piece of PR work to get other royalist nations to support the rebellion and recognize the 13 states, rather than think it's just a bunch of commoner rabble who should be suppressed, even if they were the enemy's rabble, as rebellious rabble represented a greater threat to the established order of things.
Thomas Jefferson was just a spin doctor? My heart is broken.
"I say shoot'em all and let God sort it out in the end!
Originally posted by chegitz guevara
I wonder why no one's brought up Texas v White.
Another example of Texas' status as a Republic.
Life is not measured by the number of breaths you take, but by the moments that take your breath away.
"Hating America is something best left to Mobius. He is an expert Yank hater.
He also hates Texans and Australians, he does diversify." ~ Braindead
Whether the southern states had a right to secede then is a moot point, since they declared war. Making them return to the union was just a punishment for their aggression.
considering the rest of the union is being punished by the south now, I dont know about that.
"I hope I get to punch you in the face one day" - MRT144, Imran Siddiqui
'I'm fairly certain that a ban on me punching you in the face is not a "right" worth respecting." - loinburger
Life is not measured by the number of breaths you take, but by the moments that take your breath away.
"Hating America is something best left to Mobius. He is an expert Yank hater.
He also hates Texans and Australians, he does diversify." ~ Braindead
the one where evangelical christian neo cons run the government? which one do you live in? kinky jew world?
"I hope I get to punch you in the face one day" - MRT144, Imran Siddiqui
'I'm fairly certain that a ban on me punching you in the face is not a "right" worth respecting." - loinburger
Originally posted by Wycoff
That's not completely true. While the United States couldn't be in insurrection against the United States, an individual state government could be in insurrection against the United States when a "gourp of individuals" in control of that state's government decides to no longer obey the lawful orders of the federal government.
A failure to discharge duties is not "insurrection" - an insurrection requires a forcible prevention of lawful authority from being exercised, and the "duties" of the sovereign state of South Carolina, or any other sovereign state, to the United States were clearly spelled out. The states had no other duties than those which were spelled out.
As a part of the United States, no state could formulate its own trade or foreign policies, nor could it enter into any treaty or compact with any other entity. For a state to do such clearly illegal acts would be a clear act of rebellion, so the seceding states solved that problem by the lawful political act of secession.
The group of individual Southern states were in an uprising against the lawful authority of the United States. The actions of the political leaders of the South could fairly be called insurrectionist.
Only if you adopt an expansive definition to include what you don't like, regardless of the laws as they existed at the time.
Yes, the Federal Government did. They started using volunteers, and they ended up using compulsory conscription. Congress created army. There's no real difference between the an army of consripts and a militia, at least as far as this discussion is concerned.
There certainly is a difference in terms of the law in effect at the time and the Constitution.
When all else fails, blame brown people. | Hire a teen, while they still know it all. | Trump-Palin 2016. "You're fired." "I quit."
Comment