Dance, protests to mark 150 years since SC left US

WIS TV ^ | Dec 20, 2010

[Idabilly]

The Constitution says nothing about secession, one way or another -- so every argument has to look for other Constitutional language and then claim: well, this means x and that means y and therefore my position for / against secession is true

The Constitution doesn't need to mention secession for it to be legal. It was one of those rights never ceded away; furthermore, it was reserved with the 10th Amendment.

But the real truth is, our Founders considered their Constitution -- just like the previous Articles of Confederation -- to be "perpetual" and "forever."

Simply not true! The Articles of Confederation obviously was not that forever...laugh:) In addition, nothing prohibited Secession from the Articles of "Perpetual" Union. See Federalist No.43:

Two questions of a very delicate nature present themselves on this occasion: 1. On what principle the Confederation, which stands in the solemn form of a compact among the States, can be superseded without the unanimous consent of the parties to it?

The first question is answered at once by recurring to the absolute necessity of the case; to the great principle of self-preservation; to the transcendent law of nature and of nature's God, which declares that the safety and happiness of society are the objects at which all political institutions aim, and to which all such institutions must be sacrificed. PERHAPS, also, an answer may be found without searching beyond the principles of the compact itself. It has been heretofore noted among the defects of the Confederation, that in many of the States it had received no higher sanction than a mere legislative ratification. The principle of reciprocality seems to require that its obligation on the other States should be reduced to the same standard. A compact between independent sovereigns, founded on ordinary acts of legislative authority, can pretend to no higher validity than a league or treaty between the parties. It is an established doctrine on the subject of treaties, that all the articles are mutually conditions of each other; that a breach of any one article is a breach of the whole treaty; and that a breach, committed by either of the parties, absolves the others, and authorizes them, if they please, to pronounce the compact violated and void.

The wording "perpetual" and "forever" are nowhere to be found in the Constitution. What wording we do have, however, are the Several State ratification documents and assurances from many Federalist like James Madison. He like many others believed the authority that the States delegated could be "resumed by them when perverted to their oppression, and every power not granted thereby remains with the people, and at their will."

[patriot preacher]

Lost Causers refuse to admit that the south rebelled. They demand the protection of the law while rejecting the law’s authority.

---

As has already been pointed out — and as I have demonstrated and Idabilly noted in posts #95 & #100 — the Confederate States merely reclaimed the rights they had given to the Federal Government in Washington — AS THEY’D AGREED TO in their Ratification Conventions! The same debates took place in Pennsylvania and Massachusetts as in Virginia and South Carolina.

It was only when the Union faced losing CONTROL over the economically NECESSARY South that they FOUND REASON to REQUIRE the SOUTH to stay in the Union. The South recognized the Laws — The Union changed their MEANINGS in order to enforce a Union that was perpetual and unbreakable — regardless of how it inhibited or destroyed the liberties of “the States... or the People.” So much for the Constitution....

[Bubba Ho-Tep]

So what was it when the south screamed “treason” when a group of Federalists tossed around the idea of secession at the Hartford Convention?

[Idabilly]

[patriot preacher]Would the oppressed ask permission of a tyrant to be set free?

[Bubba]No, they would exercise the natural right of rebellion. But Lost Causers refuse to admit that the south rebelled. They demand the protection of the law while rejecting the law's authority.

Again, not true there Bubba! How can the creators partake in rebellion against their own creation? You can drop all that law jazz too. It was the South who wanted the Constitution followed, the law. When you Northern folk had violated the agreement (the Constitution) and proved you had no interest in an honest disagreement or being neighborly, the South left. Sadly, like any domestic abuser, y'all can't handle rejection or differences. The end result is always with your famous time honored tradition: torching family homesteads.

[Bubba Ho-Tep]

When you Northern folk had violated the agreement (the Constitution) and proved you had no interest in an honest disagreement or being neighborly, the South left.

What violation?

[upchuck]

Thanks for that info. Educational. I had never seen that flag before.

[BroJoeK]

cowboyway: "The why did you post that secession "constitutionally requires the approval of Congress." "

Because it does, imho, and also according to Constitutional scholars at the time, 1860 -- including most notably both Democrat Dough-faced Buchanan and Republican Honest Abe Lincoln.

And, while both Buchanan and Lincoln believed unilateral, unapproved secession (i.e., not by "mutual consent") was illegal, neither believed the Federal Government had the right to stop only secession by force.

But rebellion, insurrection, domestic violence and invasion -- those were matters the Constitution enumerates the Federal Government to address.

So, when Southern violence against the Union rose to the level of firing on, and seizing Fort Sumter, Lincoln and Congress declared a rebellion -- to which the South responded by declaring war on the United States -- May 6, 1861.

cowboyway: "First of all, it was a "perpetual union" between the original colonies in the AoC which was changed to "form a more perfect union" in the Constitution."

Now you're making Lincoln's argument!
Lincoln simply asked: how could "a more perfect Union" not also be "perpetual"?

cowboyway: "If the Founders had considered the Constitution to be "forever" they wouldn't have allowed amendments, which, theoretically, could be used to turn the Constitution into the communist manifesto."

Totally untrue.
Amendments and constitutional conventions were spelled out because the Founders clearly understood that, from time to time, major changes in the Constitution might be necessary.
Likewise, secession was not provided because the Founders did not consider secession part of "a more perfect Union".

cowboyway: "Secondly, the word "perpetual" in the AoC was specifically replaced to "more perfect" by the Founders specifically to allow the sovereign states to leave the union if they desired."

So you may claim, but there are no quotes to that effect that I know of.

In fact, the major quotes on this subject are just the opposite -- from James Madison, which I have posted on these threads many times. They are here and here:

According to Madison -- both at the time (1787) and many years later, everything that you guys claim about the Founders' intentions is just false.

Sure, if you want to quote Patrick Henry, or even Thomas Jefferson, that's fine.
But remember, neither was there to write the Constitution, and neither voted to ratify it.
Indeed, Henry voted against the Constitution -- so he is no authority whatsoever on what the Founders intended, or what its ratification meant.

And Jefferson's quotes are all over the map, depending on whether he was personally out-of-power, or in power as President.
Note especially Jefferson's kind words for nullification while he was out-of-power, but his total intolerance for the New England states, or Aaron Burr's threatened secessions under President Jefferson.

cowboyway: "Now, precisely how does one state, or ten states, leaving the 'union' terminate the perpetuity of the union for the remaining states?"

Unilateral unapproved secession by definition terminates the perpetuity of the Constitutionally approved Union.

cowboyway: "That's absurd. Just like any other contract, including a marriage contract, when it is broken, the damaged party does not have to have "mutual consent" to leave."

But the US Constitution was not broken in 1860, and there was no damaged party.
Madison listed three specific requirements for secession:

"The compact can only be dissolved by the consent of the other parties, or by usurpations or abuses of power justly having that effect.

It will hardly be contended that there is anything in the terms or nature of the compact, authorizing a party to dissolve it at pleasure."

In 1860 there was no "mutual consent", no "usurpations" and no "abuses of power" to remotely justify the South's secession.

So the South first seceded at pleasure then started and declared war on the United States.
Naturally, they expected to win this Second Revolutionary War, but their judgement was, well, poor, and so they lost.

cowboyway: "So, Constitutional violations are OK with you? (I'm guessing that obamacare is okeymacdokey, eh?)"

Nonsense.
The South first violated the Constitution by unilateral unapproved secession, "at pleasure," then rebelled and declared war on the United States -- which the Constitution required the Federal Government to suppress.

This has nothing to do with Obamacare, or any other Progressive Democrat policy that the South was so so so eager to vote for, back in the days of Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt.

[lentulusgracchus]

So the Founders provided no method for leaving the Union, though logically it would be identical to that for a state entering the Union -- namely with the approval of Congress.

You've been reading Non-Sequitur; that's his theory. For which there is no historical or constitutional support. He also agrees with Adolf Hitler, that the States are mere creatures of the Congress, and in no way sovereign.

This, by the way, is a case of "you're just saying that!" Of people "making stuff up" and "changing the rules as they go along".

IF the South had "applied" to the other States for "permission" to leave the Union, it would not have been granted in any case (see below); so the argument about the South's secession being procedurally deficient is a smoke screen, and a fraudulent one at that.

The simple fact is that President Lincoln and Congress did not consider the Deep South's secession to be Constitutional, ......

No, of course not. They wanted the cotton trade, they wanted the South in the Union and paying their high tariffs and making them rich. No way in hell would they recognize any Southern attempt to leave the Union for any reason whatsoever, because Lincoln and the Northern business interests wanted the money.

.....and when the South began shooting at Federal Forces, Lincoln declared an insurrection.

"Insurrection" wasn't Lincoln's call. Read the Constitution: it falls to the States to certify insurrection to the Congress, or the President.

Lincoln tried to get Gov. Sam Houston of Texas to certify insurrection, and he promised him troops, if Houston would do it (Gov. Sam was a Union man). Houston refused to betray his people, notwithstanding that he disagreed profoundly with them on the secession question, and instead threw Lincoln's letter in the fire.

In the case of Virginia, it was Lincoln who acted first, ordering Irvin McDowell to invade the State with 40,000 men as soon as the secession convention voted, and before the State plebiscite ratified the secession act. Lincoln also blockaded the State -- an act of war, and unconstitutional under Lincoln's theory that the States were still in the Union (Article I forbids the federal government to imposed preferences on ocean traffic to American ports).

[BroJoeK]

patriot preacher: "Neither Abraham Lincoln nor the Union would have ever let the South secede, because it wasn’t in their economic interest to do so.
They needed an impoverished South to exploit, where they could obtain cheap agricultural and raw goods for their growing industrial machine."

The first absurdity here is the fact that many Southern Cause defenders have posted on Free Republic claiming:

When you really look at the numbers, the South was far more prosperous, on average, than the North, and that indeed, it was the South's great wealth which excited the North's greed to go and take it.

So, was it Southern poverty or wealth which drove the North to dimentia?

The second absurdity is that the South never made the slightest attempt to seek Congressional approval for secession.
So it's impossible to say for sure whether such an attempt would have been successful or not.

Remember this: our Founders did not just wake up one morning, and out of the clear blue sky declare independence.
Instead, they spent years and years negotiating and trying to reach better terms with the British government.
Only after all else failed, and after war itself had already started, did our Founders finally declare independence.
And the Declaration itself included a long list of grievances, including in earlier drafts, a complaint against British imposed slavery.

In 1860 the Deep South did none of that: no negotiations, no long list of grievances, no efforts to reconcile, no waiting until war had already broken out before declaring independence.

Instead, the South simply declared itself seceded, then started a War of Independence to prove it.

The third absurdity is that the South effectively controlled the Federal Government all the way up through 1858, and was still in 1860 the largest single voting block.
So nothing the South strongly opposed could pass Congress, and even if it somehow did, Dough-face Buchanan was their President.

So, if some Southern states had wanted to secede at any time, they could have easily done so, "by mutual consent," with no war or other violence necessary.

Even in 1861, having lost their majorities in Congress, Southern states still wielded huge influence and could certainly have used it in time-honored political fashion to, ahem, influence other representatives to vote their way.

But I have long argued here that peaceful secession was not what the South wanted.
What they wanted was a successful Second War of Independence, and that explains all their actions.

patriot preacher: "If you’ll direct your attention to the excellent posts of Idabilly (#95 & #100) you’ll see a number of statements and declarations from the ratifications conventions of the Constitution, made by some of the Founding Fathers, no less!"

I've seen all these before. They have no effect on the real situation in 1860.

First of all, Patrick Henry voted against ratifying the Constitution, so his opinions on it have no effect whatever. Discard them totally.

Second, the Virginia ratifying language speaks only of Federal powers being "perverted to their [the states'] injury or oppression.".
In 1860 there were no Federal "perversions," no "injury" and no "oppression."

So the Deep South first seceded, in Madison's words: "at pleasure." Again in Madison's words:

"It will hardly be contended that there is anything in the terms or nature of the compact, authorizing a party to dissolve it at pleasure."

patriot preacher: "These States would NEVER have ratified the Constitution had they not retained the RIGHT to, at any time, by virtue of the State’s act ALONE, rescind their action and withdraw from the compact and withdraw their representatives from the Washington Government."

Go back and read them again.
That's not what Virginia's ratification statement says.
Nor is it what James Madison understood and wrote at the time to his friend Alexander Hamilton in New York.

I'll repeat what I've said before: according to Madison and Virginia's ratification statement the necessary conditions for secession are: "mutual consent" or Federal abuses, usurpations, injury and oppression having that same effect.

But none of those conditions -- not one -- existed in 1860. The Deep South first seceded "at pleasure."

patriot preacher: "The idea that a State must ask “permission” from Congress to secede from the Union legally is preposterous on its face!
Would the oppressed ask permission of a tyrant to be set free?
And would the tyrant grant such a request when HE ALONE is benefiting from such an arrangement??
Absurd!!
The “Union mindset” on display!"

And yet "mutual consent" was the first requirement for lawful secession.
And considering that the South effectively controlled the Federal Government all those years, it could have seceded lawfully almost any time it seriously wanted to.

Even in 1861, the South had the biggest single voting block in Congress, and could have easily negotiated its way to a peaceful and lawful resolution of any legitimate complaints.

But the South had no legitimate complaints, of course.
Its real motivation was the necessity to continue expanding slavery into non-slave territories and states.
Since anti-slavery Republicans would constitutionally prohibit that, the South must necessarily secede to protect it's "peculiar institution."

Secession in 1860 had nothing to do with the Constitution, or possibly legitimate reasons, and everything to do with expanding slavery.

[mac_truck]

How can the creators partake in rebellion against their own creation?

Using the same juvenile analysis, how can the creators partake in oppression and tyrany against their own creation?

Try again.

[cowboyway]

there are more genuine Conservatives in states like California and New York

You mean like Arnold and Rudy? Please......

[lentulusgracchus]

[Billy] When you Northern folk had violated the agreement (the Constitution) and proved you had no interest in an honest disagreement or being neighborly, the South left.

What violation?

Article IV, and the language about returning escaped slaves -- which Northern States flouted with their personal liberty laws, which in turn were declared unconstitutional in Dred Scott.

Please don't be disingenuous; we've discussed it before.

[BroJoeK]

lentulusgracchus: "You've been reading Non-Sequitur; that's his theory. For which there is no historical or constitutional support."

It's irrelevant what the FR-late Non-Sequitur may have believed.
What matters is, that's what historical figures such as James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, James Buchanan and Abraham Lincoln, amongst many others, all believed.

lentulusgracchus: "This, by the way, is a case of "you're just saying that!" Of people "making stuff up" and "changing the rules as they go along". "

I am not in the least confused about the difference between opinions and facts, but don't just assume that what may look like nothing more than my opinion is not also a fact.

Nearly everything I say as "opinion" I have in the past, and can again if requested, support by citing the facts they are based on.

You are, of course, free at any point to challenge my opinions, and ask me to show the facts.
Yes, it can be long work, and that's the reason I don't cite everything on every post.
But in all good faith, I will if you specifically ask.

lentulusgracchus: "IF the South had "applied" to the other States for "permission" to leave the Union, it would not have been granted in any case (see below); so the argument about the South's secession being procedurally deficient is a smoke screen, and a fraudulent one at that."

Not in the least.
I'll remind you again that the South effectively controlled the Federal Government from its founding all the way up until it walked out in secession in 1861.

So nothing the South adamantly opposed could pass.
And anything the South most wanted, it could eventually get.
A great example is tariffs, which at the South's insistence declined drastically from a peak of over 50% before 1830, to a low around 17% in the 1850s.

Yes, much is made of the new Morrill Tariff law of 1861, but the key point is: that could never have passed, had the South stood in united opposition to it.

And because Southern states effectively controlled Congress, those states could have seceded peacefully, with "mutual consent" had they wished to.
But they didn't.

lentusgracchus: "No, of course not. They wanted the cotton trade, they wanted the South in the Union and paying their high tariffs and making them rich."

In fact, tariffs in the 1850s were at historic low levels, precisely because that's what the South insisted on.
Nor could they have risen in 1861 had the South stood solid in opposition.

And I'll repeat: many defenders of the Southern Cause insist on these threads that the South was actually, on average, far more prosperous than the North.
I think that's debatable, but it does make it hard to claim the South was somehow being economically "oppressed", doesn't it?

lentulusgracchus: ""Insurrection" wasn't Lincoln's call. Read the Constitution: it falls to the States to certify insurrection to the Congress, or the President."

No it doesn't.
Article One, Section Eight, Congress shall have the power:

"To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;"

The requirement for State Legislatures' certifications applies only to "domestic violence." Was Lincoln out of line to declare an insurrection and ask for troops to suppress it? Not if Congress performed its Constitutional duty and either approved or disapproved it.
Which of course Congress soon did.

lentulusgracchus: "In the case of Virginia, it was Lincoln who acted first, ordering Irvin McDowell to invade the State with 40,000 men as soon as the secession convention voted, and before the State plebiscite ratified the secession act.
Lincoln also blockaded the State -- an act of war, and unconstitutional under Lincoln's theory that the States were still in the Union "

So far as I know of, except to defend Federal property (i.e., Fort Sumter), not a single Federal soldier crossed a single Confederate state border for any unfriendly purpose in the days, weeks and months prior to the South's Declaration of War on the United States, May 6, 1861.

At the same time, before their Declaration of War, the Confederacy was offering to send Confederate forces into Union states (i.e., Missouri) and holding Union military officers as prisoners of war (Texas).

lentulusgracchus: "unconstitutional under Lincoln's theory that the States were still in the Union (Article I forbids the federal government to imposed preferences on ocean traffic to American ports)."

The Constitution enumerates the Federal Government's power to suppress insurrections.

[Bubba Ho-Tep]

So it WAS all about slavery then. Thanks for confirming.

[BroJoeK]

cowboyway: "You mean like Arnold and Rudy? Please......"

Of course not.
I'm talking about millions and millions of ordinary American conservatives.

You can see them statistically on any county scale national election map -- they are the red counties which make up around 90% of the total US land mass.

They only lose major elections because the other 10% of land area has well over 50% of our population.

And that's the biggest irony of all: you guys think the big problem is North versus South.
It's not -- it's city versus country in every single state in the Union, even in the bluest of blue states, rural counties still vote conservative Republican.

[Ditto]

My point being, I think there is an argument to be made for allowing states to leave the Union.

The same way they got into the Union --- with the consent of the other states. The Union is a solemn contract with the other states with mutual obligations between those states. It is not a social club where you can just walk away and quit paying dues as the Confederates claimed.

[Ditto]

...comparing the Confederacy to a comon criminal.

Well now that you mention it.....

[gitmo]

Well said. I never got why people fetishize treason.

Are we to understand you detest Jefferson, Washington, Adams?

[gitmo]

Ending slavery was used as the “cause” and is a great outcome, but ultimately, like every war, it was about power and money.

There was a territory in the Appalachians that seceded from the Confederacy shortly after the Confederacy was formed. The area was primarily poor subsistence farmers and miners. The new nation, called Mayland, did not allow slavery.

The Confederacy pretty much left Mayland alone, but the Union ravaged the territory, burning out farms and enslaving the men. The old timers used to take us into the hills to show us the caves and hollers where people hid from the Union soldiers and defended their women-folk from the marauders. The books tell of gang-rapes and of hangings of women and children from the Union soldiers.

Slavery was legal in the Union, and not in Mayland.

[cowboyway]

Are we to understand you detest Jefferson, Washington, Adams?

tick..tick..tick..tick..tick..tick..tick..tick..tick.........