Did the Civil War truly settle the secession question?

C-Pol: Constitutionalist, Conservative Politics ^ | February 17, 2010 | Tim T.

[lentulusgracchus]

Which is what it was. The War of Southern Rebellion.

There was no "rebellion". There was no "insurrection". There was secession -- and then a carefully-prepared attack by Lincoln, and total war, to accomplish the revolution outlined by John Quincy Adams 20 years before.

Before he dreamed up all that evil, though, and lawyer-talking wordsmiths and propagandists had "discovered" a novel "theory" of the Union that forbade the States their reserved powers and made the People the servants of whatever faction "owned" the federal government, Adams had also said this:

“The indissoluble link of union between the people of the several states of this confederated nation is, after all, not in the right but in the heart. If the day should ever come (may Heaven avert it!) when the affections of the people of these States shall be alienated from each other; when the fraternal spirit shall give way to cold indifference, or collision of interests shall fester into hatred, the bands of political associations will not long hold together parties no longer attracted by the magnetism of conciliated interests and kindly sympathies; and far better will it be for the people of the disunited states to part in friendship from each other, than to be held together by constraint.”

And I would add furthermore, Non-Sequitur, that Alexander Hamilton saw you coming:

Why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power. They might urge with a semblance of reason, that the Constitution ought not to be charged with the absurdity of providing against the abuse of an authority which was not given, and that the provision against restraining the liberty of the press afforded a clear implication, that a power to prescribe proper regulations concerning it was intended to be vested in the national government. This may serve as a specimen of the numerous handles which would be given to the doctrine of constructive powers, by the indulgence of an injudicious zeal for bills of rights.
-- Hamilton, Federalist No. 84

[Publius772000]

Back in the early days of my blog, I wrote up a couple of posts on this topic:

http://theconstitutionalalamo.com/2009/05/08/secession/

http://theconstitutionalalamo.com/2009/05/07/in-defence-of-the-secessionist-traitors/

The discussion threads surrounding them were very interesting, as were the legal grounds used by each side. In the end, brute force seemed to be the only thing that “ensures” a state cannot secede. But I think there’s a reason that in no place in the Constitution is there reference to secession as legal or illegal. Hence, the reason Scalia had to refer to the Pledge. There just is no constitutional prohibition against secession.

[Bigun]

LG No, it isn't. Notice that the States participate fully in the approval process for "adjustments" and the creation (and admission) of new States. This is not a federal prerogative but a shared power.

N-S What constitution are you thinking of? It sure isn't the U.S. Constitution.

With this, ladies and gentlemen, L-S has clearly demonstrated his complete misunderstanding of our form of government. LG's position is the correct one.

[Bubba Ho-Tep]

Yeah, yeah, yeah. You’re the Ralph Kramden of politics. “One of these days, Alice...”

[Bigun]

Should have pinged you to 163 as well!

Sorry.

[Lancelot Jones]

The subtle irony of using the Declaration of Independence, a document that declares that all men are created equal, and endowed by their Creator with the inalienable right to liberty, to justify the disbanding of the Union over the supposed right of some human beings to own other human beings, is just too rich for words.

If there was tyranny rampant in the United States prior to the Civil War, it was nowhere more evident than in the antebellum South.

In the years leading up to the Civil War, most (if not all) conflicts were centered around the issue of slavery.

From the debates on the three-fifths clause in 1787, to the compromise of 1850, they all revolved around the South's "peculiar institution." The end result was inevitable.

Many want to retool the issues leading up of the Civil War, and the South's attempt at destroying the Union, to make them seem more patriotic, more noble even, and palatable to today's Americans, but to do that, one must ignore the fact that a moral abomination existed in the same nation that stood on the inalienable rights of man to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Requiem æternam dona eis, Domine; In memoria æterna erit justus, ab auditione mala non timebit.

Beauseant!

[muawiyah]

There's always someone around who is more than willing to use extraneous incidentals to justify the continuation of slavery and the abuses surrounding that practice.

There'd be a lot less of that these days if they'd gotten rid of the Democrat party.

BTW, President Buchanan shows up as the worst President in American history because he was in charge as the nation drifted ever close to war.

BTW, one of the reasons the North could successfully prosecute the war was a massive recession throughout the Ohio Valley/Midwest states ~ those "merchants" you point to were OUT OF BUSINESS as were their customers. They had plenty of time to go shoot Souvrn'rs. Besides, they despised slavery.

[lentulusgracchus]

Try reading the Constitution some time.

Sez you, the great constitutional editor. I recognize the language of the Tenth Amendment as readily as you, and the only parties doing any "forbidding" are the States themselves -- and that language is not used in Articles I and IV; but rather, you had to go all the way back to Amendment X, which wasn't composed in the Philadelphia Convention, to get the word "prohibit". The original language of Articles I and IV is much more expressive of original intent, and it uses the phrase "no State shall...."

[lentulusgracchus]

From the debates on the three-fifths clause in 1787, to the compromise of 1850, they all revolved around the South's "peculiar institution."

No, they didn't. The severe crisis of 1833 revolved around the Tariff of Abominations and South Carolina's attempts somehow to repeal it. Slavery wasn't involved.

Brush up sometime. The whole Civil War was about political power, money, and destiny. The Republicans put together a faction capable, through its combinations of interest and propaganda, of dominating the entire country (look up "Gilded Age" sometime), and the South walked.

The Constitution was not, and is not, a suicide pact, as has been said repeatedly.

[lentulusgracchus]

There's always someone around who is more than willing to use extraneous incidentals to justify the continuation of slavery and the abuses surrounding that practice.

There's always someone around who is more than willing to raise the propaganda cry, "It was all about slavery!"

Why don't you go commune with Clintonista professors McPherson and Foner? I'm sure they'll have lots of amusing stories about how rotten Southerners are. Maybe Slick Hisself will drop by and regale you with some of his cornpone "Ah know those boys! Ah grew up down there!" Yeah, right. Spent all his time in the bathroom, and knows all about the South.

[muawiyah]

Maine ~ he’s talking about the state of Maine. It had been a Massachusetts county ~ not an independent territory. The clause was used in one of those Missouri Compromise moments to create a state out of another state.

[muawiyah]

Speaking of propaganda you changed my words. Someday take a course in reading analytically for meaning. It'll help out in all sorts of things in the future.

Again, you are using extraneous incidentals to detract from your prime motive ~ the continuation and expansion of slavery into free territory.

[krb]

Well duh.

[krb]

That’s like saying “if we could divide by zero, then we could...” (fill in the blank with all of your wants!)

[lentulusgracchus]

You’re the Ralph Kramden of politics. “One of these days, Alice...”

I'll wait to hear you say that on the day.

[muawiyah]

It was never a violation of any law for the United States to resupply one of its military installations inside the United States.

Souf' Carolina might well have thought they'd seized the territory, but they didn't. They just made a mess of things. Several of my great great grandfather's enjoyed the dickens out of burning Charleston to the ground.

[lentulusgracchus]

Speaking of propaganda you changed my words.

Show where I misquoted you, as opposed to lampooning your selfseriousness and high-horse references to slavery (again).

You guys are always harping on slavery and trying to play it as a moral card that indicts everyone who has ever lived in the South. Well, surprise, Sunshine! Because I was born in Indiana ..... and I believed the lies for years, until I was about 20 and the pennies began to drop, that something wasn't quite right in the liberal propaganda Case Against the South.

There's the Whole Truth, then there's the Operative Truth, and then there's All the Truth I Need to Get Your Money. Guess which kind we've been getting in the schoolroom.

[Non-Sequitur]

There was no "rebellion". There was no "insurrection". There was secession -- and then a carefully-prepared attack by Lincoln, and total war, to accomplish the revolution outlined by John Quincy Adams 20 years before.

You're a funny, funny guy. There was a rebellion, and the South lost it. There was total war, the result of the South's launching the war at Charleston Harbor.

[muawiyah]

You changed the words. End of story.

[thatdewd]

If we follow the Constitution there is no need to secede.

That, in many years, is the most perfect statement I have yet witnessed on FR. I salute you!!!! You deserve an award for ultimate truth!