Replies

And, as has been stated before, once a state has seceded, those provision, nor any other portion of that document apply any longer.

But if the way that they seceeded was not legal then they were still a state, regardless of whether they considered themselves one or not. Their actions then constituted rebellion.

There are quite a few states that did so among the original 13 as well as Texas later on.

There were, I believe, only three. But regardless of what they said in their ratification documents they also ratified the Constitution itself. And that included the part which said that the Constitution and laws made under it was the supreme law of the land, regardless of what any state law, state constitution, and, yes, ratification document may say. So unless the method in which they left the Union was allowed under the Constitution then their actions were illegal. And arbitrary secession is not allowed.

Lincoln was in office, he just wasn't in the Presidential office.

Please give me a break. He was president-elect without the power or authority to do anything. What other office did he hold?

In fact, the Lower South used their unconstitutional attack on Fort Sumter to attract the Upper South states to their cause.

Let's clear up a few misconceptions in your reply to this. Last time I looked at a map, Sumter was in Charleston and Charleston was in South Carolina, not Georgia. There is no Fort Marcy in Charleston, or anywhere else that I'm aware of. There was a Castle Pinkney and a Fort Moultrie where the soldiers were stationed before they moved to Sumter. Their actions did not constitute blockade since they made no threats and did not take any hostile action. Shipping flowed into and out of Charleston harbor the whole time the troops were there, with the exception of the federal supply ship that the south fired on in January 1861. Finally, you claim that the troops were there to collect ruinous taxes on exports is ludicrous since the Constitution forbids tariffs on exports, only allowing it on imports. Other than that I think you were pretty accurate.

Where in the Constitution is the power to initiate war granted to the President? Where in the Constitution is the power to deport dissenting Congressmen granted to the President? Where in the Constitution is the suppression of the Bill of Rights granted to the President? Where in the Constitution is the arrest and imprisonment of an entire state's Congress given to the President? Where in the Constitution is the call up of militias given to the President?

So many claims. Where to begin? First of all, Lincoln did not initiate a war. You conduct war with other nations, not rebellious sections of your own country. In any case, the south fired first, not the North, and it was the south which issued a declaration of war, not the North. Lincoln never deported a dissenting congressman, trampled over the Bill of Rights, or arrested an entire state legislature and I would be obliged if you would provide proof that he did any of this. The right to call up the militia for a limited time to supress rebellion or invasion was given the President by Congress by the Militia Act of 1792. To continue, Lincoln didn't arbitrarily restrict gun ownership and, again, I would ask for your evidence that he did. Finally Lincoln did not end slavery, he freed the slaves held in the south as a necessary measure to combat rebellion and in his capacity as Commander in Chief. Don't you read any of the documents you debate? I should also point out that just about action you mentioned, other than freeing the slaves of course, was also done by Jefferson Davis, from suspending habeas corpus to locking up political prisoners to seizing private property for the war effort. Would you direct some of your ire at him, too?

I'm glad that you agree that the Constituion is quite clear. Since we agree on that, if you can show me a single action affecting the status of a state which does not require congressional approval, or where the Constitution allows a state to act in an arbitrary manner where the interests of another state are involved then you might bring me around to your belief that arbitrary secession was legal. Until then, the actions of the southern states were acts of rebellion, they started the conflict, and they reaped the consequences of their actions.

And that included the part which said that the Constitution and laws made under it was the supreme law of the land, regardless of what any state law, state constitution, and, yes, ratification document may say. So unless the method in which they left the Union was allowed under the Constitution then their actions were illegal. And arbitrary secession is not allowed.

Then the Constitution is invalid because the original framers lied. Contracts signed under false pretenses are invalid.

Their actions did not constitute blockade since they made no threats and did not take any hostile action.

Their actions did constitute an attempt to blockade. There was no other legitimate purpose for the move. They couldn't even defend themselves in Fort Sumpter until the expected reinforcements arrived. Fort Moultrie, pardon my bad, was a customs house ensuring continued collection of tariffs against a sovereign entity, South Carolina.

Lincoln did not initiate a war. You conduct war with other nations, not rebellious sections of your own country.

Lincoln invaded seceded sections of North America. It's quite quaint that because he successfully trampled the rights of those states that you can now claim that they had never seceded in the first place, but the simple fact remains, he did invade.

In any case, the south fired first, not the North, and it was the south which issued a declaration of war, not the North.

Firing first is a legitimate form of self-defense under many circumstances. Ft. Sumpter was one of them.

Lincoln never deported a dissenting congressman, trampled over the Bill of Rights, or arrested an entire state legislature and I would be obliged if you would provide proof that he did any of this.

"Lincoln used war to destroy the U.S. Constitution in order to establish a powerful central government," says Roberts. This is certainly a strong statement, but in fact Lincoln illegally suspended the writ of habeas corpus; launched a military invasion without consent of Congress; blockaded Southern ports without declaring war; imprisoned without warrant or trial some 13,000 Northern citizens who opposed his policies; arrested dozens of newspaper editors and owners and, in some cases, had federal soldiers destroy their printing presses; censored all telegraph communication; nationalized the railroads; created three new states (Kansas, Nevada, and West Virginia) without the formal consent of the citizens of those states, an act that Lincoln's own attorney general thought was unconstitutional; ordered Federal troops to interfere with Northern elections; deported a member of Congress from Ohio after he criticized Lincoln's unconstitutional behavior; confiscated private property; confiscated firearms in violation of the Second Amendment; and eviscerated the Ninth and Tenth Amendments.

-- Fighting Facts With Slander by Thomas J. DiLorenzo

He had the state legislature of Maryland arrested to prevent their secession. When it comes to actual acts, not the purported reasons behind them, history can be a stickler.