3 ms·

>The constitution explicitly says that it's aim is to perfect the (perpetual) union that was established in the articles. The SCOTUS viewed that as clear eviden

>The constitution explicitly says that it's aim is to perfect the (perpetual) union that was established in the articles. The SCOTUS viewed that as clear evidence that the framers intended the union to be indissoluble. You put parenthesis around perpetual because it wasn't explicit. The SCOTUS confirm that in 1868, after the fact. At the time it could have been easily argued that it was omitted from the constitution for a reason, one being that the southern states wouldn't have signed it. >Ex-post-facto means a law that makes an act illegal that was previously legal. >In this case, that is not what happened. The legality of unilateral succession wasn't fully clear until the supreme court ruled. There was no new law created, just an official confirmation that Lincoln's position was indeed what the framers had intended and what the law had been all along. But it was. Lincoln deemed secession was illegal and sent troops to capture Richmond as a police/military act in response to secession. The legality of secession at the time was not clear, as in not confirmed by the SCOTUS, therefore not explicitly illegal. In the US, actions are default legal unless explicitly deemed otherwise by law and there was no law or ruling, particularly an explicit one, outside the AoC which weren't the law of the land. The SCOTUS confirmed it was illegal to secede after the fact, justifying Lincoln's prior police/military actions, which would have themselves been illegal had secession been confirmed as legal. Ask yourself this, why were no CSA politicians or military personnel ever brought up on charges of treason? >Trying to paint the confederate states as a victim is simply inaccurate. I'm not trying to paint the CSA as a victim, I'm just discussing history, establishing cause and effect, chain of events, and most importantly trying to answer the "why?" Again you are looking at history through modern eyes and trying to apply modern sensibilities to it. Victim is such an overused word today. We were having a good discussion, why would you throw that angle in it? >They chose the path of violence and the entire country paid the price for their desire to maintain slavery. Slavery was legal in the southern states and many of the northern states at the time of secession. Of course had they been allowed to secede, which wasn't confirmed to be illegal at the time, no one would have died. >An institution that was not only highly immoral It was certainly immoral and it was the US' "original sin," that we are still paying for. Of course the British are the ones who introduced it to the colonies, so we inherited that sin when we rebelled and 700K+ people died trying to atone for that sin. >but also one that was doomed and that would have put them at odds with the rest of the world within half a century. I'm not so confident in that, though I would want it to be true. There are still major countries where slavery exists today. I think has the CSA successfully seceded, they would either be a third rate country, or would have been invaded by now. They certainly would have missed the Industrial Revolution. https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/countries-that-still-have-slavery https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/countries... Ok, the text is getting narrow indicating this is getting to be a long thread. Thanks for the discussion, I'll let you have the last word.

shkkmo 3y ago
> At the time it could have been easily argued that it was omitted from the constitution for a reason, one being that the southern states wouldn't have signed it. That does not appear to be the case. Federalists were pretty clear that there would be no right to secession under the constitution. This is why anti-federalists in New York pushed to add language to New York's ratification that stipulated it's right to withdraw. James Madison argued that "the Constitution requires an adoption in toto, and for ever" and New York ended up ratifying the constitution without that language. So your argument here hinges on the assertion that despite their clear statements to the contrary, the federalists left ambiguity about secession in the constitution to win over anti-federalists. I don't see any evidence to back this up. Indeed, if the Southern states though they had the right to unilaterally secede under the constitution, they would have taken a case to the supreme court. They did not and when a case did make it to the supreme court afterwards, it was confirmed. > In the US, actions are default legal unless explicitly deemed otherwise by law and there was no law or ruling, particularly an explicit one That isn't how it works. There are general laws that cover a wide range of acts. When a court rules that a specific act falls under a law, the defendant doesn't get off because they committed the act before the ruling. > Ask yourself this, why were no CSA politicians or military personnel ever brought up on charges of treason? Because Andrew Johnson pardoned them to promote reconciliation and healing. Perhaps we would have been better of if they had been prosecuted for treason and we had traded short term animosity for justice and long term clarity. > Again you are looking at history through modern eyes and trying to apply modern sensibilities to it. How so? There was widespread condemnation of slavery at the time. What "modern" views am I imposing? > Victim is such an overused word today. We were having a good discussion, why would you throw that angle in it? That is precisly the angle that the effort to frame the civil war as a "war of nothern aggression" takes. You are repeating many of those talking points and factual mistakes so it seems highly relevant. > There are still major countries where slavery exists today. The "modern slavery" described in that article is substantially different from what was practiced in the South and there has been significant, if insufficient, international pressure put on those countries to change. > Of course had they been allowed to secede, which wasn't confirmed to be illegal at the time, no one would have died. What ifs are hard. There was far more to resolve about the secession than the possession of fort Sumter. Since the South had already demonstrated their willingness to use violence to get their way when they weren't satisfied with negotiations, it is hard to see how a path to peace could have existed. If the southern states hadn't resorted to violence, would Lincoln have had the support to prosecute the war? If the southern states had tried to establish the legality of that secession they could have won and Lincoln would have had even less support. The southern states seceded premptively without a legal basis because they lost an election and then chose to premptively start the violence and initiate a war. The southern leaders who made those choices deserve full responsibility for that path. The north had few choices. Secession movements were not limited to the South and establishing the precent of allowing them would have lead to the dissolution of the nation. This view of secession was shared by numerous presidents before Lincoln, including James Buchanan, who was a supporter of states rights regarding slavery. > In order to justify secession as a constitutional remedy, it must be on the principle that the Federal Government is a mere voluntary association of States, to be dissolved at pleasure by any one of the contracting parties. If this be so, the Confederacy [here referring to the existing Union] is a rope of sand, to be penetrated and dissolved by the first adverse wave of public opinion in any of the States. In this manner our thirty-three States may resolve themselves into as many petty, jarring, and hostile republics, each one retiring from the Union without responsibility whenever any sudden excitement might impel them to such a course. By this process a Union might be entirely broken into fragments in a few weeks which cost our forefathers many years of toil, privation, and blood to establish. So Lincoln was faced with either going to war to prevent secession or letting the US dissolve and this choice was readily clear to all involved. Perhaps it would have been more moral to chose to save the 700k lives than to save the nation. I guess the answer to that question depends on how much of a patriot your are. I personally think that intra state wars would have eventually broken out that would have cost more lives, but again, what ifs are hard.

shkkmo 3y ago

> At the time it could have been easily argued that it was omitted from the constitution for a reason, one being that the southern states wouldn't have signed it. That does not appear to be the case. Federalists were pretty clear that there would be no right to secession under the constitution. This is why anti-federalists in New York pushed to add language to New York's ratification that stipulated it's right to withdraw. James Madison argued that "the Constitution requires an adoption in toto, and for ever" and New York ended up ratifying the constitution without that language. So your argument here hinges on the assertion that despite their clear statements to the contrary, the federalists left ambiguity about secession in the constitution to win over anti-federalists. I don't see any evidence to back this up. Indeed, if the Southern states though they had the right to unilaterally secede under the constitution, they would have taken a case to the supreme court. They did not and when a case did make it to the supreme court afterwards, it was confirmed. > In the US, actions are default legal unless explicitly deemed otherwise by law and there was no law or ruling, particularly an explicit one That isn't how it works. There are general laws that cover a wide range of acts. When a court rules that a specific act falls under a law, the defendant doesn't get off because they committed the act before the ruling. > Ask yourself this, why were no CSA politicians or military personnel ever brought up on charges of treason? Because Andrew Johnson pardoned them to promote reconciliation and healing. Perhaps we would have been better of if they had been prosecuted for treason and we had traded short term animosity for justice and long term clarity. > Again you are looking at history through modern eyes and trying to apply modern sensibilities to it. How so? There was widespread condemnation of slavery at the time. What "modern" views am I imposing? > Victim is such an overused word today. We were having a good discussion, why would you throw that angle in it? That is precisly the angle that the effort to frame the civil war as a "war of nothern aggression" takes. You are repeating many of those talking points and factual mistakes so it seems highly relevant. > There are still major countries where slavery exists today. The "modern slavery" described in that article is substantially different from what was practiced in the South and there has been significant, if insufficient, international pressure put on those countries to change. > Of course had they been allowed to secede, which wasn't confirmed to be illegal at the time, no one would have died. What ifs are hard. There was far more to resolve about the secession than the possession of fort Sumter. Since the South had already demonstrated their willingness to use violence to get their way when they weren't satisfied with negotiations, it is hard to see how a path to peace could have existed. If the southern states hadn't resorted to violence, would Lincoln have had the support to prosecute the war? If the southern states had tried to establish the legality of that secession they could have won and Lincoln would have had even less support. The southern states seceded premptively without a legal basis because they lost an election and then chose to premptively start the violence and initiate a war. The southern leaders who made those choices deserve full responsibility for that path. The north had few choices. Secession movements were not limited to the South and establishing the precent of allowing them would have lead to the dissolution of the nation. This view of secession was shared by numerous presidents before Lincoln, including James Buchanan, who was a supporter of states rights regarding slavery. > In order to justify secession as a constitutional remedy, it must be on the principle that the Federal Government is a mere voluntary association of States, to be dissolved at pleasure by any one of the contracting parties. If this be so, the Confederacy [here referring to the existing Union] is a rope of sand, to be penetrated and dissolved by the first adverse wave of public opinion in any of the States. In this manner our thirty-three States may resolve themselves into as many petty, jarring, and hostile republics, each one retiring from the Union without responsibility whenever any sudden excitement might impel them to such a course. By this process a Union might be entirely broken into fragments in a few weeks which cost our forefathers many years of toil, privation, and blood to establish. So Lincoln was faced with either going to war to prevent secession or letting the US dissolve and this choice was readily clear to all involved. Perhaps it would have been more moral to chose to save the 700k lives than to save the nation. I guess the answer to that question depends on how much of a patriot your are. I personally think that intra state wars would have eventually broken out that would have cost more lives, but again, what ifs are hard.