Abraham Lincoln Speech in the Lincoln-Douglas Debate (on slavery)

The constitution of South Carolina and the principle of sovereignty.

OK, what clause? Surely you can provide that, can't you?

Yes. The tenth amendment.

Oh give me a break. The 10th Amendment allows you to steal federal property? Where do you find that?

For the umpteenth time, I've never once said that a state cannot secede. They cannot secede unilaterally, and I've quoted the parts of the Constitution that I used to reach that conclusion, Supreme Court cases that back me up, and writings from James Madison which support it.

No court decision prior to the war says a state cannot secede. And the writings of Madison are not law.

Neither are your opinions. But since nobody tried secession before the South rebelled then it stands to reason that no court could have ruled on it before the Chase court did in 1869. And the decisions I did quote support the concept of implied powers.

Details please. Who gave the order to fire on the “Nashville?” What was the chain of command that ultimately authorized the action? If a standing order, who wrote it, and when? Did the “Harriet Lane” give the “Nashville” a warning before firing, as required under maritime law? Or did it violate maritime law? If it did signal the “Nashville”, what specifically did the warning state? Was it by semiphore? Did the warning comply with maritime law? Was “Harriet Lane’s” action a war crime? If not, why not? You see how ridiculous this can get? We can play this idiot game forever.

Now, now, now, it's not nice to sulk. The Lane's captain fired a warning shot to stop the Nashville and get her to identify herself. As a revenue cutter, the Lane was tasked with preventing smuggling and requesting the Nashville stop and identify herself was well within the scope of her duties. It did not violate international law or maritime law because the Lane was a U.S. Revenue Cutter and the Nashville was an unidentified ship trying to enter a U.S. port. Firing a shot across the bow was an internationally recognized sign requesting a ship stop and identify and was the warning; no other warning was required. The Lane wouldn't signal by semaphore because there would be no reason to expect a merchant ship to be able to understand it; semaphone was used by the military for communications, not civilians. The Lane's act was certainly not a war crime as defined by Vatel or U.S. law or any other recognized international law of the time.

You see how ridiculous this can get? We can play this idiot game forever.

And you have been playing the idiot game for some time. All I want is the date of the proclamation you claim Lincoln issued before Sumter. Is that too much to ask?

Which is once again an appeal to the notion that might makes right. Most Lincoln apologetics ultimately reduce to that argument.

Isn't that the rebel arguement? No rule of law gave them the right to Sumter so they bombarded it into surrender.

For the umpteenth time, I've never once said that a state cannot secede. They cannot secede unilaterally, and I've quoted the parts of the Constitution that I used to reach that conclusion, Supreme Court cases that back me up, and writings from James Madison which support it.

For the umpteenth time, show me the text of the constitution that says a state cannot secede. Why can't you? The text you cite does not say a state cannot secede and it does not imply it either. You have not cited any court cases before the war which say a state cannot secede either.

But since nobody tried secession before the South rebelled then it stands to reason that no court could have ruled on it before the Chase court did in 1869.

That was after the fact victor's justice. Chase was a Lincoln cabinet member. BTW that same Chase court also ruled in another case that it had jurisdiction over persons and property but not over political rights.

And the decisions I did quote support the concept of implied powers.

But not a requirement for Congress to approve secession. You're just making that up.

The Southern economy depended almost entirely on the export of cotton and, to a lesser extent, tobacco and other crops. And they depended on slave labor to produce them. The prospect of abolition directly threatened the South with economic ruin.

I don't think that argument holds much water.

The Southern economy would continue just fine if they simply changed the status of slaves to paid laborers. Prevailing wages for farm hands at the time were very low, so it is doubtful such a move would drive the planters into ruin. Certainly, this would have involved a big transfer of wealth from the planter class to everyone else, including the majority of white Southerners who weren't planters. Forcing planters them to pay their slaves prevailing wages would have increased wages to all landless people.

The planter class still obviously had an interest in maintaining slavery in order to avoid this transfer of wealth, but that does not explain why secession received such widespread support from the non-slaveholding white population (which was a majority).

It was aspirational identification.

Even though the great majority of southern whites had essentially no prospect of rising to the wealth and status of the planter families, they were the ideal to which the rest of the workers in the economy aspired.

That’s why the spread of slavery was such an incendiary one after the Mexican-American War: working whites couldn’t hope to displace the entrenched planter families—they owned the good land in the existing slave states—the aspirations of the lower classes required the spread of slavery for the model to be sustained.

Freeholding northern whites, in turn, understood that this expansionist imperative was a direct threat to their aspirations, and they formed (with railroad financial support) the core supporters of the nascent Republican Party.

That’s why the spread of slavery was such an incendiary one after the Mexican-American War: working whites couldn’t hope to displace the entrenched planter families—they owned the good land in the existing slave states—the aspirations of the lower classes required the spread of slavery for the model to be sustained.

Excellent post. You hit the nail on the head. The reasoning above explains virtually all the facts surrounding the politics of secession.

For the umpteenth time, show me the text of the constitution that says a state cannot secede.

And for the umpteenth and first time, no such restriction exists. I cannot put it any more plainly than that.

The text you cite does not say a state cannot secede and it does not imply it either. You have not cited any court cases before the war which say a state cannot secede either.

Because no state had tried it before. And for those unclear on the workings of the judiciary, courts deal with things that have happened, not theoretical issues of what might happen. If the courts had not dealt with secession in any form it's because no state had attempted it. And once a state did try it the courts ruled that while secession was not illegal, but secession without the consent of the other states is. So not it's your turn to jump in with the same old tired complaint of a biased Supreme Court. Go ahead, it won't be anything I haven't seen before.

That was after the fact victor's justice. Chase was a Lincoln cabinet member. BTW that same Chase court also ruled in another case that it had jurisdiction over persons and property but not over political rights.

I spoke too soon, you went right ahead with that very complaint. I should have read ahead first.

But not a requirement for Congress to approve secession. You're just making that up.

Not hardly. You're making up the legal justification for stealing Sumter, but my opinions are based on the opinions of others, like John Marshall and James Madison, who would know.