U.S. Civil War - Did the South Have the Right to Secede?

[SlowwHand]

DaShi, shove it.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
And once secession occurred, the Yankees had no rights to Sumter at all, as the bonds of union, and thus the concept of "providing for the common defense" were severed.

That's something to work out by negotiation, not initiating war. Lincoln informed the South that they'd be resupplying Sumter and they took it upon themselves to start the war.

No other battles took place between the Union and the Confederacy until the CSA declared war on the United States.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
State law and process is not limited to arresting fugitives.

And no, they didn't have authority to "order soldiers around," but they did have the authority to order their removal as trespassers if they were there without the permission of the state.

If the Federal government owned the property then the state government did not have the right to remove "trespassers" any more than the Commonwealth of Virginia can come on to my land and remove my kids' friends for trespassing, or are you proposing some sort of communism?

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat


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.

Please prove this point. Prove that the Declaration of Independence wasn't actually a sort of mission startement for the fledgling American nation.

[SlowwHand]

The North has and has had what seems to be a "Get away closer" attitude about the South.

"We don't want you, but by Hell you're not leaving."
Same kind of mental fraility.

[Dr Strangelove]

Actually the rest of the country has pretty much gotten over the whole sordid affair of the Civil War era. Only southerners still care. I think this is largely from a difficulty many southerners have with reconciling the magnitude of the crime that the practice of slavery in the south truly was. They need to vindicate themselves in some sort of way. Portraying themselves as the victims of Yankee aggression is their imagined vindication, sort of like the child abuser who blames his misdeeds on his own crappy childhood. I've got only one thing to say to that: Concrete Angel.

[SlowwHand]

Oh really? I have to disagree. Other than this one started by a Kiwi, who starts them? Not the damned South.
Who harbors the most vicious sentiments? Not the South. Read this or any thread on it.
I hate to burst your bubble, but you're wrong, sawbones.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
Oh really? I have to disagree. Other than this one started by a Kiwi, who starts them? Not the damned South.
Who harbors the most vicious sentiments? Not the South. Read this or any thread on it.
I hate to burst your bubble, but you're wrong, sawbones.

Dang, man. You can't get much further south than New Zealand!

Who's vicious? Do you feel threatened? Why? Because people disagree with you? Sounds like repressed guilt to me.

[Will9]

Seceding is treason, which is not a right, so the southern states had no right to secede.

[Wycoff]

MtG, could you please cite those statutes to which you refer? I believe what you're saying, but I'd like to look into them further.

[Elok]

Originally posted by Will9
Seceding is treason, which is not a right, so the southern states had no right to secede.

Seceding is treason only assuming that leaving the union is forbidden to begin with. You're begging the question.

...or did I just feed a troll?

[Kuciwalker]

No, Will9 actually believes this stuff.

Will9, look at the Constitution again. It very specifically limits the definition of treason.

[Wycoff]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat 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.

The President is clearly commander-in-chief, but that doesn't mean that warfare is entirely and solely the domain of the Executive branch. As shown, Congress can "provide for" the Militia to "execute the laws of the union" (Art. I, §8, cl. 15). Congress is empowered to declare war (§8, cl. 11), and to "raise" Armies (§8, cl.12). Though this isn't dispositive of what I'm arguing, it does show that Congressional involvement with military affairs isn't totally barred by seperation of powers. The issue is determining when Congress is barred from interfering.

Furthermore, the C-i-C clause (Art. II, §2, cl. 1) states that the President shall be Commander-in-Chief of the Army and Navy of the U.S., and the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States. It doesn't specify who/what calls them into service, it just dictates who is in charge after they have already been called into service. The plain language of the Constitution doesn't necessarily bar Congress from calling forth the Army or the militia; it just makes it so the President is the C-i-C if/when those forces are summoned. As such, it could be fair to interpret Art. I, §8 cl. 15 as allowing Congress to call the militia to supress insurrection. Congress just couldn't dictate what they could do once called.

You're right about one major thing, though. It doesn't matter how I read the Constitution, it matters how it was read at the time that the war occured. I'm sure that the SCOTUS of 1861 would have rejected my interpretation, but that was the Taney court. After the Dred Scott fiasco, I'm not surprised that the pro-unionists decided against a court strategy.

[SlowwHand]

Originally posted by Elok


Seceding is treason only assuming that leaving the union is forbidden to begin with. You're begging the question.

...or did I just feed a troll?

This is the exactly the point. Wipe all else out of the picture.
Texas had the right. a few others were admitted to have the right, probably. So thats half.
Soowhat's being denided is the deep South. Mississippi, Georgia, Albama, and such.
Let me ask a question. how the **** do you figure?

[Caligastia]

Re: Re: U.S. Civil War - Did the South Have the Right to Secede?

Originally posted by MRT144




the southern states refer to themselves as rebels, and are quite proud of that distinction, you idiot.

Many other southerners don't like the 'rebel' term. Is there any reason to be insulting about it? Other than to give yourself an ego boost, of course.