PRO

Where Your Ideas can change Minds

Please visit our new forum at

http://www.4forums.com

CON


YouDebate.com Forum
» back to YouDebate.com
Register | Profile | Log In | Lost Password | Active Users | Help | Board Rules | Search | FAQ |
Custom Search
» You are not logged in.   log in | register

  YouDebate.com Forum
   History Debates
     Secession and the WSI

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
Patriotandproudofit

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Was the Union doing what was right by invading the Confederacy?


-------
Are you a man of the times, or a man for the times?
 


Posts: 51 | Posted: 01:09 AM on January 1, 2003 | IP
madbilly

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

no



-------
my name is madbilly....what did you expect me to be happy when my name says Mad in it...
 


Posts: 451 | Posted: 03:09 AM on January 1, 2003 | IP
fallingupwards84

|       |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

do you think the north should have just allowed the south to stay split then?


-------
i am a liberal chrisitian and proud of it!!!

"Those who produce should have, but we know that those who produce the most - that is, those who work hardest, and at the most difficult and most menial tasks, have the least." - Eugene Debs
 


Posts: 971 | Posted: 08:59 AM on January 1, 2003 | IP
Patriotandproudofit

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I believe that the North should have "live and let live." I am not necessarily saying that we would be better now if we were split up.


-------
Are you a man of the times, or a man for the times?
 


Posts: 51 | Posted: 12:33 PM on January 1, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

No.
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 6:21 PM on January 1, 2003 | IP
madbilly

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

yes...(to fallings last question)


-------
my name is madbilly....what did you expect me to be happy when my name says Mad in it...
 


Posts: 451 | Posted: 04:16 AM on January 2, 2003 | IP
fallingupwards84

|       |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

you guys claim to be "patriotic" (at least patriotandproudofit does) but then you believe that the united states would have been better off if the north and south remained split


-------
i am a liberal chrisitian and proud of it!!!

"Those who produce should have, but we know that those who produce the most - that is, those who work hardest, and at the most difficult and most menial tasks, have the least." - Eugene Debs
 


Posts: 971 | Posted: 12:19 PM on January 2, 2003 | IP
Patriotandproudofit

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Falling,

Almost every day I put on both an American Flag pin and a "CS" belt buckle. I have had many, many people ask why I contradict myself, and I have taken to saying, "It is patriotism. Patriotism to what is good and what is right." Just because I believe the Union had no reason to invade the Confederacy does not necessarily say that I think we would be better off today if we were still split.


-------
Are you a man of the times, or a man for the times?
 


Posts: 51 | Posted: 2:07 PM on January 2, 2003 | IP
Patriotandproudofit

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

New question, and possible more contraversial.

Did the Southern States have a Constitutional Right to secede?


-------
Are you a man of the times, or a man for the times?
 


Posts: 51 | Posted: 1:40 PM on January 3, 2003 | IP
Patriotandproudofit

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I hold that the right of secession was a Constitutional one. The 10th Amend. reserves it to the States. Secession was a right at the time of the adoption of the 10th Amend., and as such could be protected under the 10th. Ariticle I, Sec. 10, cl. 1 does not prohibit secession because it is speaking of foreign relations, not domestic.


-------
Are you a man of the times, or a man for the times?
 


Posts: 51 | Posted: 1:47 PM on January 3, 2003 | IP
Broker

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I don't think everyone would have been better off split. I think the people in the North knew that.

Did the South have a constitutional right to secede from the union? I don't think a debate will change any opinions on that.


-------
Don't tell me I'm conservative...I know that!
 


Posts: 351 | Posted: 4:40 PM on January 4, 2003 | IP
tsmith2771

|       |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

There is no debate on wether the south left the union, they did.  And they had every legal right to do so.  I love America but I love the south more.  So does that make me uunpatriotic?


-------
"I have no interest in making blacks equal to whites, they are of a lesser quality and this I am sure of." -Abraham Lincoln
"You don't win a war by dying for your country, you win a war by making the other person die for theirs." -General George Patton
 


Posts: 372 | Posted: 03:43 AM on January 6, 2003 | IP
Broker

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I live in Florida


-------
Don't tell me I'm conservative...I know that!
 


Posts: 351 | Posted: 11:01 AM on January 6, 2003 | IP
Patriotandproudofit

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Broker,

I brought up the second question because we are sadly lacking for a good debate here. I was hoping to find a challenger on the issue, and get something started. It was not necessarily for changing minds, but for having a good, educational debate.

Do I have an challengers???


-------
Are you a man of the times, or a man for the times?
 


Posts: 51 | Posted: 12:12 PM on January 6, 2003 | IP
Patriot

|     |       Report Post




Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Let's try this. How about if I state that the Southern states weren't justified in seceeding?


-------
- Patriot
 


Posts: 6 | Posted: 11:34 AM on January 8, 2003 | IP
Patriotandproudofit

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Patriot Jr. ;)

When you have a Constitutional right, you have a Constitutional right. And that is that! The Dec. has no legal applicability (you know where you can fight me on that and therefore the States are left up to common sense to decide when the federal gov't went to far. Obviously the Southern States had a legit. reason for secession!


-------
Are you a man of the times, or a man for the times?
 


Posts: 51 | Posted: 12:27 PM on January 8, 2003 | IP
Liberty

|      |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

In this debate, what if someone were to throw in a new angle and say that BOTH the North and the South had problems? Neither one was "right" on everything.
 


Posts: 4 | Posted: 1:45 PM on January 8, 2003 | IP
Patriotandproudofit

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Liberty,

I would ask you to show the errors of the South. Seeing that we all know that slavery was not the cause of the war, what did the South do wrong? But I am sure, from personal expericance, that Patriot Jr. would wholeheartedly agree with you.

But the question at hand is: Did the Southern States have a Constitutional right to secede?
I believe I can prove that they did, and therefore ask anyone to prove that they didn't.


-------
Are you a man of the times, or a man for the times?
 


Posts: 51 | Posted: 2:05 PM on January 8, 2003 | IP
fallingupwards84

|       |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

some of us believe that slavery was a major cause of the war. was it the only one? no. but it was the "straw that broke the camel's back"


-------
i am a liberal chrisitian and proud of it!!!

"Those who produce should have, but we know that those who produce the most - that is, those who work hardest, and at the most difficult and most menial tasks, have the least." - Eugene Debs
 


Posts: 971 | Posted: 2:41 PM on January 8, 2003 | IP
dsadevil

|       |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

OK, Patriot, the question you pose is interesting, but you aren't answering it fairly.
You state that the south is justified in its secession b/c it has the right to under the 10th amendment. Now whether or not that is true or not, the fact is that a constitutional allowance does not constitute justification. If so, was the south justified in segregating between 1896 and 1954, b/c under plessy v. ferguson it a constitutional mandate to do so? The same applies here.
But even if we accept that the south can secede, what position does that leave the north in? It can treat the new CSA like any other foreign nation, up to and including invasion. In effect the CSA "took" land that used to be US territory. So the US was merely responding to a new nation that was threatening to take some of its most productive agricultural land. If you believe that the south was, upon secession, an independent state, then I assume you also believe in Thaddeus Stevens holding (upon northern victory) that the south was a mere "occupied territory" and could be treated as thus? You can't have it both ways.

So if the south was justified in seceding, the north was every bit as justified in invading, pursuant to its powers over foreign relations, and taking it back.

Now, patriot Sr. also claims that the civil war didn't start due to slavery (and apparently "everyone knows it"). I must register my objection to such revisionism. Whatever code words the south tries to describe it as, the fact is the factionalism that came up between the north and south was over slavery. States rights? Specifically the states "right" to allow slave ownership. Objection to import tariffs? It made it hard to support the south's exploding agricultural economy, fed by slavery. Controversy over the Kansas-Nebraska act? It overturned the Missouri compromise, made to insure that there was an equal number of slave and free states. Bleeding Kansas? caused by the rush of northerners and southerners to kansas to influence the vote on whether Kansas would be slave or free. It all comes down to slavery, and I think, Patriot, that you know it.


-------
"If stupidity got us into this mess, why can't it get us out?" -Will Rodgers<br><br><br>"Neither man nor nation can prosper unless in looking at the present, thought is steadily taken for the future." -T. Roosevelt<br><br>"Might I remind you that extremism in the pursuit of liberty is no vice, and moderation in the pursuit of justice, is no virtue." -Barry Goldwater<br><br>

Respect through Excellence only
 


Posts: 789 | Posted: 2:45 PM on January 8, 2003 | IP
tsmith2771

|       |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The South did leave the union, legally.  And slavery was an issue but not as big as everyone now a days wants to think.  There were about a thousand economic reasons.  One huge one was the idea of a land tax being imposed (which never actually was) on the number of acres that you owned.  This was mainly a northern biased idea because in the north all you need was 10 acres and a factory to become a millionaire and in the south you needed 100,000 acres to become a millionaire.  This pissed off the southern men but luckily it never came until years later.


-------
"I have no interest in making blacks equal to whites, they are of a lesser quality and this I am sure of." -Abraham Lincoln
"You don't win a war by dying for your country, you win a war by making the other person die for theirs." -General George Patton
 


Posts: 372 | Posted: 4:58 PM on January 8, 2003 | IP
Patriotandproudofit

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

dsadevil,

Do I read correctly your assertion that Southern States had not a justified reason for secession?

When did the CSA "take" US land? I am unaware of any such action on the part of the Confederacy, so please inform me.

Slavery was a factor in the causes of the WSI, but it was not a direct cause, and certainly not THE cause, of the WSI. Yes, slavery was a factor, a factor in State's Rights, tariffs, and the Nebreaska-Kansas Act. It was a factor and nothing more.


-------
Are you a man of the times, or a man for the times?
 


Posts: 51 | Posted: 5:15 PM on January 8, 2003 | IP
dsadevil

|       |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Fine allow me to rephrase. Slavery was the DOMINANT factor. All the other problems could be traced back to it.

As to the CSA taking US land, its a quite simple concept. Pre-secession, the south was part of the US. post-secession, it wasn't, it was part of the CSA. All the land the CSA was made up was land that was originally US land. Thus it was "taken."

Tsmith, you are saying it was justified b/c of a TAXING dispute? please. If everyone seceded from the country b/c they disliked taxes, it'd be a small nation indeed. To the best of my knowledge, there was nothing stopping the south from building factories. It just happened to prefer building plantations instead. If it had become unprofitable to run plantations, it would train a workforce and would start factories.


-------
"If stupidity got us into this mess, why can't it get us out?" -Will Rodgers<br><br><br>"Neither man nor nation can prosper unless in looking at the present, thought is steadily taken for the future." -T. Roosevelt<br><br>"Might I remind you that extremism in the pursuit of liberty is no vice, and moderation in the pursuit of justice, is no virtue." -Barry Goldwater<br><br>

Respect through Excellence only
 


Posts: 789 | Posted: 5:51 PM on January 8, 2003 | IP
Patriotandproudofit

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I will agree that slavery was a "DOMINANT factor."

How could the CSA take land from the US when the US never owned the land? Go back and check the records and you'll find that the States owned their own land except that which was private or federal (military bases) property. The US Federal Government did not own the public land of the individual States in 1860.

Besides that, examining the details, the CSA could not have taken land directly from the US. When a State seceded it "resumed her position among the nations of the world" and remained in such a State until admitted into the CSA. So if anyone did any "land grabbing," and they didn't, it would have had to be the individual States and not the CSA.


-------
Are you a man of the times, or a man for the times?
 


Posts: 51 | Posted: 8:36 PM on January 8, 2003 | IP
dsadevil

|       |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The land may not have been "owned" by the federal govt. (though considering the CSA attacks on Ft. sumter et al I don't think they were only going after non-federal land) but that doesn't mean it isn't US territory. If I drew a map of 1859 America, the south would be in the borders.

1860: South is in the US
1861: A new state is set up and claims this land. The US understandably doesn't want to give it up, and tries to take it back.
1865: The US wins and gets its old territory back.

The point is is that the CSA was trying to assert territorial jurisdiction over land that was previously under the jurisdiction of the US. The US had every right to take it back.


-------
"If stupidity got us into this mess, why can't it get us out?" -Will Rodgers<br><br><br>"Neither man nor nation can prosper unless in looking at the present, thought is steadily taken for the future." -T. Roosevelt<br><br>"Might I remind you that extremism in the pursuit of liberty is no vice, and moderation in the pursuit of justice, is no virtue." -Barry Goldwater<br><br>

Respect through Excellence only
 


Posts: 789 | Posted: 10:41 PM on January 8, 2003 | IP
Patriotandproudofit

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

If the federal government didn't own the land, someone had to. And who was that "someone?" It was the States. For a State to exercise jurisdiction over its own territory is perfectly lawful, as a part of the US or not. The federal government had absolutly no right to invade the Confederacy on grounds that it was simply "protecting its property."

I would also challenge your language "considering the CSA attacks on Ft. sumter." Do you mean the attack that was forced upon them? According to the Law of Nations, I assume you know it is given your show of knowledge in the legal field, it is not the one who fires the first shot, but he that causes the first shot to be fired, that is the one to start a conflict. There is plenty of evidence to prove that the Union intended to force the Confederacy into firing the first shot by re-enforcing Fort Sumter. No, the Union was NOT trying to provision the garison at Fort Sumter, that was being done by South Carolina.


-------
Are you a man of the times, or a man for the times?
 


Posts: 51 | Posted: 11:05 PM on January 8, 2003 | IP
dsadevil

|       |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The fed govt. has some jurisdiction over the lands in question. It can tax people on them. It can prevent them from conducting foreign relations. It can set its currency. The fact is these are US lands. That isn't even questionable. The fact that it delegated some of those powers to the states in the constitution doesn't change the fact that the US govt is still the supreme authority over the US in the areas where it granted itself jurisdiction (McCulloch v. Maryland). If anyone actually "owned" the land in the technical sense, it was the people. The states had no more claim of ownership than the federal govt. did. But the govt still has jurisdiction over that area, it is still US territory per se.

Basically what you are trying to say is that the US only is federally owned lands, when that is ridiculous. The UNITED STATES of America is a group of non-sovereign states that came together to be under the overall jurisdiction of one body, while maintaining some authority over itself. For your analysis to hold true, you must also hold that Article 1 section 8 of the constitution only applies to federally owned lands (such as DC) and not to the states, b/c the govt "had no jurisdiction." But no one has ever advocated such an extreme and utterly indefinsible position. Please. Hit me with something better than that.

I take it you don't deny that Ft. Sumter was govt. property? If so, there is absolutely NO WAY you can legitimately argue that a government cannot reinforce its own military outposts. that is a ludicrious proposition. In terms of who actually caused the "the first shot" (defined, in my view, as: actually firing a shot, or doing something that made conflict inevitable), reinforcing a military base does not fall under that. Actually shooting at it does, no matter how you look at it. The only thing that make conflict inevitable was the south's demand the US withdraw from the fort. So either way they are at fault.


-------
"If stupidity got us into this mess, why can't it get us out?" -Will Rodgers<br><br><br>"Neither man nor nation can prosper unless in looking at the present, thought is steadily taken for the future." -T. Roosevelt<br><br>"Might I remind you that extremism in the pursuit of liberty is no vice, and moderation in the pursuit of justice, is no virtue." -Barry Goldwater<br><br>

Respect through Excellence only
 


Posts: 789 | Posted: 4:43 PM on January 9, 2003 | IP
Patriotandproudofit

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Dsadevil,

You equate the ability of the Federal Government to tax with that of jurisdiction. That is simply not the case. First, the Federal Government is one of LIMITED powers. It is limited to the powers GRANTED by the States. Let's start with the first sentence, "All legislative powers herein GRANTED shall be vested in a Congress of the United States..." (emphasis added). The writers of the Constitution left no doubt that the Federal Government was to be one of limited powers. Amendments 9 and 10 clearly state that if the power is not expressly GRANTED to the Federal Government it is retained by either the States or the people. Madison, in Federalist 45, says "The powers DELEGATED by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to REMAIN in the State governments are numerous and indefinite." (emphasis added). Therefore the ability of the Federal Government to "tax people on them [non-federal lands]...prevent them [the States] from conducting foreign relations...[and] set its currency." are by no means legitimate proofs of federal "jurisdiction" over lands it clearly did not own. Those powers were granted to the Federal Government by the States and therefore those powers could "be resumed by them, whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression." (Virginia's acceptance speech)

I am in no wise say "that the US only is federally owned lands." I am saying that the powers the federal goverment exercised were delegated to them, and from those delegated powers flowed the Federal Government's right to govern the PEOPLE. The United States of America, in 1860, was a group of "Free, Sovereign, and Independent" States (Tennessee's Ordinance of Secession), who came together to form a government of "few and defined" powers (Federalist 45). The retaining of sovereignty by the States was unquestioned by our founders. As Madison said in Federalist 40, "Do they (the priciples of the Constitution) require that in the establishment of the Constitution the States should be regarded as distinct and independent sovereigns? They are so regarded by the Constitution proposed." Madison would later say, "Who are the parties to it (the Union)? The people -- but not the people as composing one great body; but the people as composing thirteen sovereignties..." (Quoted from "It Is Their Right," James Bulman). The States were indeed sovereign, but they gave of some of their powers to join with others in the United States of America, and it was over those sovereign States that the Federal Government was to exercise the authority granted it. Yet it was common knowledge that those powers granted by the States to the Federal Government could be resumed by the States "whensoever it shall become necessary to their happiness." (New York's acceptance speech).

Indeed I "don't deny that Ft. Sumter was gov't property." Yet I am perfectly legit. in arguing "that a government cannot reinforce its own miliray outposts." If a country attempts  to reinforce its legitimate military outposts on foreign soil during a time a turmoil (certainly descriptive of April 1861), it could, and probably would, be taken as an act of war. (This info from US Army and Navy officers.) Thus when the US attempted to reinforce Fort Sumter (trying to do it secretly certainly didn't help matters any) they were taking the first step in starting a war, and they knew it. The Secretary of the Navy wrote in his journal "It is very important that the Rebels strike the first blow in this conflict." Captian Fox, the commander of the expedition sent to Fort Sumter by Lincoln, wrote in his logbook, "I simply propose three tugs convoyed by light-draft men of war...the first tug to lead in empty, to open their fire."


-------
Are you a man of the times, or a man for the times?
 


Posts: 51 | Posted: 12:27 AM on January 10, 2003 | IP
Patriot

|     |       Report Post




Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

First, I’ll put in my 3 cents worth into the general debate.
As we have already decided that slavery was a “DOMINANT factor,” I don’t need to lock horns with patriotandproudofit over that again.
I hold that the South was not justified in seceeding because they lacked sufficient grounds to do so. In the “State Declarations of Causes for Secession” the Southern states give us a look into their mindset. Because of these handy documents, this debate doesn’t need to be one of intangibles. To support my position, I will pull some random phrases from these document:

“On the 4th day of March next, this party will take possession of the Government. It has announced that the South shall be excluded from the common territory, that the judicial tribunals shall be made sectional, and that a war must be waged against slavery until it shall cease throughout the United States.
The guaranties of the Constitution will then no longer exist; the equal rights of the States will be lost. The slaveholding States will no longer have the power of self-government, or self-protection, and the Federal Government will have become their enemy.
Sectional interest and animosity will deepen the irritation, and all hope of remedy is rendered vain, by the fact that public opinion at the North has invested a great political error with the sanction of more erroneous religious belief.” (South Carolina)

“Utter subjugation awaits us in the Union, if we should consent longer to remain in it. It is not a matter of choice, but of necessity. We must either submit to degradation, and to the loss of property worth four billions of money, or we must secede from the Union framed by our fathers, to secure this as well as every other species of property. For far less cause than this, our fathers separated from the Crown of England.” (Mississippi)

“To avoid these evils we resume the powers which our fathers delegated to the Government of the United States, and henceforth will seek new safeguards for our liberty, equality, security, and tranquillity.” (Georgia)

“By the secession of six of the slave-holding States, and the certainty that others will speedily do likewise, Texas has no alternative but to remain in an isolated connection with the North, or unite her destinies with the South.” (Texas)

From these quotations we realize that the Southern slaveholding states seceeded because they were AFRAID something would happen. Despite their attempts to draw parallels with the 1776 War for Independence, there is a major difference in that formation of a nation and the one that the South attempted. First of all, the Founders didn’t declare dependence from Great Britain because they were AFRAID something would happen (i.e., taxation without representation, quartering of troops in civilian homes) but because these reprehensible acts had actually already HAPPENED. The only thing the South had to go on was a disregard of the Fugitive Slave Law by the non slaveholding Northern states, and a few political comments made by Lincoln and others close to the Republican party. I believe one of those comments made by Lincoln was “A house divided cannot stand, and I don’t intend to allow it to be divided.” The south immediately (unnecessarily) decided that he meant he was going to use armed force to receive compliance from the South in anti-slavery measures. If such a thing actually happened, there would be no debate, the South would have been justified in seceeding. But all the “acts of war” happened post secession.
Therefore, I hold that the Southern slaveholding states were not justified in seceeding, because they hadn’t exhausted every availible means toward reconciliation. They didn’t even give Lincoln a chance.
Now on to the smaller points:

I will strongly deny patriotandproudofit’s assertion that a government may not reinforce it’s outposts. The act may be interpreted any way the opposition may like. Your quote from the Secretary of the Navy only confirms that there was a good chance that nothing would have directly resulted from the Federal reinforcement of the garrison at Ft. Sumter. However, not reacting to that federal move would have been much too difficult for the people who carried public opinion in the South at that time.  The entry in the Captain’s logbook shows the North knew how the South would respond.

I will also back up dsadevil in saying that US territory was taken by the South during it’s bid for independence… specifically the Territory of Arizona.
[random]


-------
- Patriot
 


Posts: 6 | Posted: 2:57 PM on January 10, 2003 | IP
dsadevil

|       |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The United States is not a confederacy. It is a federalist system. The rights and obligations are shared between the state and federal governments. The states may have been the agent of action, but they still agreed to cede some jurisdiction to an overarching power, one that is superior (McColluch v. Maryland). The states "reservation" of the right to take all this stuff back is irrelevant, in fact we can compare it to an almost reversible situation. When Oklahoma applied for statehood, the US accepted, on the condition that the state not move its capital. Congress reserved that right for the federal govt.. Oklahoma was admitted, and promptly moved its capital. The move was upheld by the sup. ct. b/c, the US "reservation" not withstanding, once it had given Oklahoma statehood it was a state equal to all others, and the rights that were granted to it (such as selecting a capital) immediately were removed from federal jurisdiction. Similarily, the state claims of "reservation" are rendered null and void once they agreed to cede the rights, they could only get them back through the express means granted under the constitution (IE amending it). Though the states were anxious to maintain their rights, the original purpose for drafting the constitution (the failure of the articles of confederation) clearly shows that the federal govt. was supposed to be strong, that in the powers granted to it it was to be as strong or stronger than the states.

Furthermore, your apparent claim that ownership is synonomous with jurisdiction is unpersuasive. The federal govt does not have a deed to the lands in question, true. But neither do the states. The people actually own the land. What jurisdiction is is the right to make laws and establish rules over an area that you DONT "own", and the US had it.

Patriot (this is going to get confusing real fast) already talked about the Ft. Sumter issue, and so I will let it be.


-------
"If stupidity got us into this mess, why can't it get us out?" -Will Rodgers<br><br><br>"Neither man nor nation can prosper unless in looking at the present, thought is steadily taken for the future." -T. Roosevelt<br><br>"Might I remind you that extremism in the pursuit of liberty is no vice, and moderation in the pursuit of justice, is no virtue." -Barry Goldwater<br><br>

Respect through Excellence only
 


Posts: 789 | Posted: 3:22 PM on January 10, 2003 | IP
American

|     |       Report Post




Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Hey guys,

This is Patriotandproudofit. I changed my name so that it would be less confusing. I'll get to your posts soon, but things are getting rather busy over here so give me time.


-------
Are you a man of the times or a man for the times?
 


Posts: 26 | Posted: 5:40 PM on January 10, 2003 | IP
American

|     |       Report Post




Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Patriot,

You cover yourself well Patriot. "To support my position, I will pull some random phrases from these document [sic]." You certainly "pull[ed] some random phrases." Let's look at some other phrases:

"The people of the State of South Carolina, in Convention assembled, on the 26th day of April, A.D., 1852, declared that the frequent violations of the Constitution of the United States, by the Federal Government, and its encroachments upon the reserved rights of the States, fully justified this State in then withdrawing from the Federal Union; but in deference to the opinions and wishes of the other slaveholding States, she forbore at that time to exercise this right. Since that time, these encroachments have continued to increase, and further forbearance ceases to be a virtue." (South Carolina's Declaration)

"many and dangerous infractions of the constitution of the United States by many of the States and people of the Northern section, is a political wrong of so insulting and menacing a character as to justify the people of the State of Alabama in the adoption of prompt and decided measures for their future peace and security" (Alabama’s Ordinance)

"For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint" (Georgia's Declaration)

Sounds to me like it was a bit more than fear that drove the Southern States to exercise their Constitutional right of secession. They had suffered under the US Government "For...ten years" at least. Do you not think that in that time there was numerous attempts to bring the situation to a peaceable and reasonable resolution?

Now if you knew that someone was going to come to your house on March 4 and attempt to rob you, would you "give him a chance," or would you do all in your power to either, prepare for that him, or get out of town before the known date?

I am not the one calling the reinforcement of a military outpost an "act of war," that was done by knowledgeable people in a position to know. I simply reiterated what they told me.

Now if the Confederacy took the US territory of Arizona, as claimed by Patriot, then where is the attempt by the US government to peacefully get it back? At least the Confederacy was attempting to gain ownership of Fort Sumter the correct way.



Dsa,

I'll ask you to prove you assertion that "The United States...is a federalist system." All rights belong to the States, except those expressly granted to the federal government in the Constitution. True, the States did cede some power to the federal government, but their "reservation" of those rights it extremely important. You, I assume, know what the Tenth Amendment says, and as the rights protected under that Amendment have been determined by our courts to be only those which existed at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, it is extremely important that the States reserve the right of secession.

As to my claim that ownership and jurisdiction are synonymous. It must be understood that it was the people upon whom the authority of the federal government was to be exercised, not the land. To claim that the land is yours because the people owning it have submitted themselves to your authority is not a logically or legally sound one. You would never get that to hold up in a court of law.


-------
Are you a man of the times or a man for the times?
 


Posts: 26 | Posted: 4:59 PM on January 11, 2003 | IP
Patriot

|     |       Report Post




Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

American,

The only thing those documents point to in regards to the oppression they'd "suffered" was the non-slave holding states disregarding of the Fugitive Slave Law, "directly and indirectly." Other claims they make have to do with the North sucessfully getting tarriffs enacted. Frankly, I don't think that's a reason to fight a war. I think that the radical Democrats wanted war.
In your scenario, I would prepare for the lout, but I wouldn't leave. I would "give him a chance" to reconsider. I would have had no problem with the South being ready to defend their "rights" but as far as firing the first shot goes, I think it would have been wiser to wait.
You ask why the Government didn't try to peacefully regain the Arizona territory. Do you deny that the South seceeded as a direct result of Lincoln's election? I doubt it. They didn't even wait around to see what would happen. They left immediately. Why did they do that? No negotiations, nothing. The new administration hadn't been in office a week and they were seceeding left and right. I highly doubt that Lincoln would have marched an army to the South to enforce emancipation. I think the South was paranoid and acted out of fear.


-------
- Patriot
 


Posts: 6 | Posted: 5:34 PM on January 11, 2003 | IP
dsadevil

|       |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Interestingly enough, you yourself articulated a perfect solution to the people of the south's problems if they didn't like the way that the govt. was working (and couldn't stop it through legitimate democratic means): Get out of town, i.e., move somewhere else. The solution to your robber problem is not to secede your house from its town b/c the police force sucks. It is to leave the town and establish a new town SOMEWHERE ELSE that, presumably, will have better police. Similarily, if the south was THAT ticked off that democracy wasn't working in favor of them maintaining slavery, they could move to Brazil or wherever and try and establish a way of life more suitable to their tastes, through legitimate democratic action.

All a federal system is is a system where the rights are shared between the states and federal govt.. A confederal system is where the states have all the rights. Basically there was a pleasant tradeoff here: The states kept all the rights not mentioned (your use of "expressly" is deceptive b/c of the necessary and proper clause), but the federal govt got exclusive jurisdiction over some of the most important ones (federal control of tariffs, foreign relations, armies, currency, interestate commerce). And when the two entities come into conflict the FED is superior (how many times can i emphasize this?). On the balance the powers even out. I could turn your phrasing around by saying that "Anything that is given to the fed gov is their's entirely. the constitution only grants the states the leftovers."

Now on to the argument you just made, specifically that equating jurisdiction and ownership "would never be upheld in a court of law." I beg to differ. Two words: civil forfiture (two words, but I can only spell one). We aren't dealing with a case of ownership here anyway, we are dealing with jurisdiction. The US only "owns" federal land, but an entity that seeks to remove its jurisdiction over lands that it doesn't "own" per se but still has jursidction over is as much, if not a greater threat. If Mexico came in invaded Texas and Louisiana, but ignored all the federal lands in it, would the US have no cause for concern? The Mexicans removing these lands from US jurisdiction is as dangerous to the US, and as worthy of military response, as the CSA removing these states from US jurisdiction, which is what they did.  You are using semantics to try and win here by deliberatly misdefining the debate. Ownership isn't at issue here, b/c as I said, the states don't own this land either, they don't have deed to it. The only issue here is that of jurisdiction.

Oh and by the way, the supreme court held that secession was unconstitutional in Texas v. White (1868). "The Constitution, in all its provisions, looks to an indestructible Union composed of indestructible States.
  When, therefore, Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation. All the obligations of perpetual union, and all the guaranties of republican government in the Union, attached at once to the State. The act which consummated her admission into the Union was something more than a compact; it was the incorporation of a new member into the political body. And it was final." (Justice Salomon Chase, opinion of the court)


-------
"If stupidity got us into this mess, why can't it get us out?" -Will Rodgers<br><br><br>"Neither man nor nation can prosper unless in looking at the present, thought is steadily taken for the future." -T. Roosevelt<br><br>"Might I remind you that extremism in the pursuit of liberty is no vice, and moderation in the pursuit of justice, is no virtue." -Barry Goldwater<br><br>

Respect through Excellence only
 


Posts: 789 | Posted: 10:29 PM on January 11, 2003 | IP
American

|     |       Report Post




Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Patriot,

"Frankly, I don't think that's a reason to fight a war." I completely agree, and so did the Confederacy. You do not see the Confederacy trying to get the Union to send men down so they could have a reason to fire the "first shot." You do not see the South activly pursuing an agressive campaign against the Union. The Confederacy was not looking for War. War found them, as it did their forefathers.

What was the South doing but defending its rights when it was forced to open fire upon the Union reinforcements? "wiser to wait" for what? For the Union army to march into Richmond? For the Union navy to seal off all of their ports? Would it have been "wiser" for the Patriots wait till the British fired upon the first town before they opened fire? Would it have been "wiser" for the Israelis to wait until their Arab neighbors invaded them before they attacked in the Six-Days War?



Dsa,

The Southern States did move! They took their State and left the US. Eventually forming the CSA. It is rather hard to pick up a whole State and move it to Brazil. The States did what they felt necessary while still remaining within the bounds of legality. It is also an interesting note that the Nothern States also believed in secession. At least three times (some say five) the Northern States seriously considered leaving the Union. In 1803 with the admittance of Louisana, in 1814 during the Hartford Convention,a nd in 1845, some 16 years before the WSI, with the admittance of Texas. Obviously secession was a valid option, Northern or Southern.

I think that some of your misunderstanding in this debate might stem from a lack of knowledge as to the foundings of this nation. The Constitution is not a grant of powers from the federal government to the States. It is a grant of "few and defined" powers from the States to the federal government. The federal government is superior only so long as a State is under its authority. Once a State secedes the US Federal Government is no longer supreme over that State.

I did not equate "jurisdiction and ownership." I said that the Federal Government did not have jurisdiction over the LAND, it had jurisdiction over the people. Lands do not have rights, but people do. Therefore when the people voluntarily joined the Union, through their State, they submitted themselves, not their land, to the jurisdiction of the federal government. So when the people left the Union, through thier States, they were in no wise taking property away from the federal government.

State of Texas v. White (1868), is that not ex post facto law? The claim that a State did not retain its sovereignty cannot find its base in the Constitution or the works by the men who framed that great document. The sovereignty of a State was almost unquestioned, and it was understood, and expressed, that part of that sovereignty was the right of secession.


-------
Are you a man of the times or a man for the times?
 


Posts: 26 | Posted: 02:44 AM on January 12, 2003 | IP
dsadevil

|       |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

But the south DID fire the first shot. Their was no proof the Union was going to invade. Ft. Sumter was federal territory, and the south shot first. By contrast, the US didn't fire a shot until the brits already occupied lexington, the Israelis didn't until they had irrefutable intel that the arabs were going to invade (never doubt the Mossad). The south intitated hostilities. They could have moved all their troops into S.C. or next to the potomac and waited for the union to cross the border. They didn't.

When I say "move" I mean geographically. You said the state can't get up and move. But as you said yourself, the agent of action here was always people, and the people certainly can move wherever they want. If they desperately want to maintain the state, they can form the settlement "New Alabama" wherever they settle down and that will be that. If the North believed in secession, then that is wrong. They have no more right than anyone else. It is worthy of note that they never did.

When the people through their states joined the  union, they made that state and all its territory susceptable to govt. jurisdiction. Not just the people. The US can move its armies across New York w/out the state permission. It can build a fort there too. The land is as subject to the jurisdictional claim as the people are. Indeed, especially in dealing with armies, the land is the essential part of the power granted to federal govt.. Any claim that the feds had no jurisdiction over land in any event is ludicrious, and requires also proving that the fed cant move its armies across state land.

An ex post facto law is a law passed after the fact, which seeks to illegalize something already committed. Texas v. White was not based on statutory, but rather constitutional law, and the constitution was already around when Texas seceded. The fact that the case was ruled on after the civil war doesnt make it ex post facto just as trying a robbery case isn't ex post facto just because the robbery already happened. Since the relevant statute (in this case, the constitution), was in effect at the time of Texas secession, it was not ex post facto. "An indestructable union made of indestructable states." The states are sovereign within the context of the sovereign union. That is the pertinant case law, and it renders your point that "The federal government is superior only so long as a State is under its authority. Once a State secedes the US Federal Government is no longer supreme over that State" null and void, as a state can't legally secede and thus can't get out from under the authority.


-------
"If stupidity got us into this mess, why can't it get us out?" -Will Rodgers<br><br><br>"Neither man nor nation can prosper unless in looking at the present, thought is steadily taken for the future." -T. Roosevelt<br><br>"Might I remind you that extremism in the pursuit of liberty is no vice, and moderation in the pursuit of justice, is no virtue." -Barry Goldwater<br><br>

Respect through Excellence only
 


Posts: 789 | Posted: 12:13 PM on January 12, 2003 | IP
dsadevil

|       |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I win! I win I win I win!


-------
"If stupidity got us into this mess, why can't it get us out?" -Will Rodgers<br><br><br>"Neither man nor nation can prosper unless in looking at the present, thought is steadily taken for the future." -T. Roosevelt<br><br>"Might I remind you that extremism in the pursuit of liberty is no vice, and moderation in the pursuit of justice, is no virtue." -Barry Goldwater<br><br>

Respect through Excellence only
 


Posts: 789 | Posted: 8:45 PM on January 13, 2003 | IP
American

|     |       Report Post




Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

You do what?! Try I am REALLY busy right now, and more than likely won't be posting again this week. I hope to be active again in a week or so, but I make no promises.


-------
Are you a man of the times or a man for the times?
 


Posts: 26 | Posted: 9:13 PM on January 13, 2003 | IP
American

|     |       Report Post




Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Dsa,

The North knew that it was starting a war, and the "provisioning" of Fort Sumter was the best way to do so. Major Anderson, Union commander of Fort Sumter, said, "I ought to have been informed that the expedition was to come...We shall strive to do our duty, though I fankly say taht my heart is not in the war which I see is thus to be commenced." Lincoln said, "You and I both anticipated that the cause of the country would be advanced by making the attempt to provision Fort Sumter, even if it should fail; and it is no small consolation now to feel that our anticipation is justified by the result." The reinforcements were sent to Fort Sumter to start a war.

Sure, the people can move anywhere they want, but what country were they going to move into which would assure them of a Republican Form of Government? As Alabama said, "And as it is the desire and purpose of the people of Alabama to meet the slaveholding States of the South, who may approve such purpose, in order to frame a provisional as well as permanent Government upon the principles of the Constitution of the United States." You said, "It is worthy of note that they never did." Are you saying that the Norht never seceded, in which case you are right, or are you supposing that the North never considered secession?

Yes, the federal government has the right to move armies and build forts in any State it pleases, but to say that such an ability gives them the right to lay claim to that land after it had lawfully left its union is nonsense. The Southern States had the power to leave the union, as provided for by the Constitution's Tenth Amendment, and the exercising of that power removed the right of free access from the US federal government.

OK. I did not read the opinion of the court, thus my uninformed comment about ex post facto law. Yet I still hold that the right of secession was a legitimate one! Lincoln himself supported it on the floor of Congress in 1845, "Any people anywhere being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable, a most sacred right which we hope and believe is to liberate the world." "Or why is it suggested that three or four confederacies would be better than one?" (John Jay, Federalist No. 2) "There is nothing absurd or impracticable in the idea of a league or alliance between independent nations..." (Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 15) "...it will be suficient to remark here that, in the sense of the author who has been most emphatically quoted uon the occasion, it would only dictate a reduction of the SIZE of the more considerable MEMBERS of the Union, but would not militate against their being all comprehended in one confederate government." (Hamilton, Federalist No. 9) So obviously the framers of the Constitution, who would know best, said we are a confederacy, which you define as a system "where the states have all the rights."


-------
Are you a man of the times or a man for the times?
 


Posts: 26 | Posted: 6:16 PM on January 16, 2003 | IP
dsadevil

|       |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Your own quote by lincoln belays your point. "it is no small consolation now to feel that our anticipation is justified by the result." The anticipation of an attack by the confederacy was justified by the result, and reinforcing ft. sumter at least prevented it from falling sooner. I think, at the very least, who was trying to get a war started was unclear. Therefore, in the abscence of being able to determine who was thinking what, the responsibilty falls on the confederacy for actually acting on their opinions. There is nothing else we have to go on, as we have both aptly demonstrated the each group could interpret the other ones actions aggressively, and their own passively.

"Sure, the people can move anywhere they want, but what country were they going to move into which would assure them of a Republican Form of Government? As Alabama said, "And as it is the desire and purpose of the people of Alabama to meet the slaveholding States of the South, who may approve such purpose, in order to frame a provisional as well as permanent Government upon the principles of the Constitution of the United States." You said, "It is worthy of note that they never did." Are you saying that the Norht never seceded, in which case you are right, or are you supposing that the North never considered secession?"

First off, it is apparent that Alabama didn't want a republican form of govt. either, as the principle of a republican govt. is that everyone gets a voice, and a confederacy of "slave-holding states" can't meet that burden. But even so, what you are really missing is when a right to revolt applies (this touches on your next point as well). People can revolt against non-democratic/republican forms of government, b/c these governments are, by their very definition, not legitimate via Locke's definition and stand no chance of being changed by the people being governed. But in a democracy or republic, where the will of the people is paramount such a right does not exist except in the most egregious cases of rights violations. There is no such case here, as the "rights" beings violated were owning slaves, and not having high tariffs, neither which are "egregious" and deserve nor require redress from outside the normal democratic channels. The time when revolution is justifiable even in a democratic structure is when the rights violation is conducted against a group of people who cannot remedy or have a real chance at remedying the wrong through the democratic process. Slavery is an example here, slave revolts are justified. As is the locking up of unpopular political minorities. But tariff issues are certainly within the stream of a normal democratic debate. as to the "its worthy of note..."i was refering to the fact that the north never actually did secede.

"Yes, the federal government has the right to move armies and build forts in any State it pleases, but to say that such an ability gives them the right to lay claim to that land after it had lawfully left its union is nonsense. The Southern States had the power to leave the union, as provided for by the Constitution's Tenth Amendment, and the exercising of that power removed the right of free access from the US federal government."
You are doing it again. equating jurisdiction with ownership/claim. According to websters new world dictionary, jurisdiction is "The territorial claim of authority" I.E., what territories a government can exert authority over. Since the government CAN exert at least some jurisdiction over some aspects of these territories, (ie, how they are defended, how they conduct trade with other states) the partial jurisdiction of the US is unquestionable. Here you are presented with a logical dilemma:
Premise 1: Before secession, the US government had partial jurisdiction over the south.
Premise 2: After secession, the US had no jurisdiction over said territory IF we assume secession is legitimate
Premise 3: If secession is illegitimate, then the US still has jurisdiction over said area, including the right to put down rebellions (specifically provided for in the constitution)
If Premise 2 is accepted, and secession is ok, then the US has been directly harmed by the act of this new state (taking away its previous right to build an army base in Florida). So it is justified in taking it back. That is how nations work. They don't take kindly to a group that doesn't let them build forts in places that they used to be able to.
If Premise 3 is accepted, then the US maintains jurisdiction and can deal with the rebellion as it sees fit. Since one of the two have to be true, the unavoidable conclusion is that the north could legitimately attack.

Your attack on Texas v. White is the most pathetic. It comes down to "my opinion on what rights the states have under the constituiton should override the opinion of the supreme court." Forgive me for not buying. Not only that, but you quote the federalist papers out of context (interestingly enough, look at the name again. what does it imply?) Both hamilton and Jay were amongst the most ardent supporters of a strong central govt., in fact stronger than what we have today. It appears that you are making inferences from selections without quoting the whole (esp. in quote #2, which appears to deal with foreign relations).

The Lincoln quote is extremely interesting, I admit. Is it possible he was referring to a slave revolt?


-------
"If stupidity got us into this mess, why can't it get us out?" -Will Rodgers<br><br><br>"Neither man nor nation can prosper unless in looking at the present, thought is steadily taken for the future." -T. Roosevelt<br><br>"Might I remind you that extremism in the pursuit of liberty is no vice, and moderation in the pursuit of justice, is no virtue." -Barry Goldwater<br><br>

Respect through Excellence only
 


Posts: 789 | Posted: 9:26 PM on January 16, 2003 | IP
American

|     |       Report Post




Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Dsa,

Come on, you know your history! Role back the clock to Jan. 9, 1861. What happened that day? The ship "Star of the West" was attempting to reinforce Fort Sumter and it was fired upon. Why was not that the start of the war? If it was not wrong for the South to keep Fort Sumter from being reinforced on Jan. 9, why was in wrong 3 months and 3 days later? But if you wish to drop the subject of the "first shot" from this debate I will abide by that.


Well according to the US government the WSI was a war between two seperate nations. Look at the parole papers of a Confederate soldier. It states the names of the two countries at war, United States of America and Confederate States of America. There is no mention of rebellion or insurrection. So even the US government said that the South was legally independent. If therefore the Confederacy was an independent country, where does the US get the right to invade a country for keeping them from building forts on foreign soil without that country's consent?


I assume, then, that you believe the Supreme Court to be 100% correct. It is impossible. The SC is made of men, and men make mistakes. The framers of the Constitution would be the best informed on the subject at hand so let's look to them.

Federalist No. 2: Foreign relations?

"It is worthy of remark that not only the first, but every succeeding Congress, as well as the late convention, have invariably joined with the people in thinking that the prosperity of America depended on its Union. To preserve and perpetuate it was the great object of the people in forming that convention, and it is also the great object of the plan which the convention has advised them to adopt. With what propriety, therefore, or for what good purposes, are attempts at this particular period made by some men to depreciate the importance of the Union? Or why is it suggested that three or four confederacies would be better than one?"

Federalist No. 9: Quoted from two paragraphs earlier.

"The utility of a Confederacy, as well to suppress faction and to guard the internal tranquillity of States, as to increase their external force and security, is in reality not a new idea. It has been practiced upon in different countries and ages, and has received the sanction of the most approved writers on the subject of politics. The opponents of the plan proposed have, with great assiduity, cited and circulated the observations of Montesquieu on the necessity of a contracted territory for a republican government. But they seem not to have been apprised of the sentiments of that great man expressed in another part of his work, nor to have adverted to the consequences of the principle to which they subscribe with such ready acquiescence."

Federalist No. 15: Continutation of the thought.

"There is nothing absurd or impracticable in the idea of a league or alliance between independent nations for certain defined purposes precisely stated in a treaty regulating all the details of time, place, circumstance, and quantity; leaving nothing to future discretion; and depending for its execution on the good faith of the parties."


No, Lincoln was not talking about slave revolts in the quote I supplied. Allow me to continue the quote:

"Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up, and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable,---a most sacred right---a right, which we hope and believe, is to liberate the world. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government, may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people that can, may revolutionize, and make their own, of so much of the teritory as they inhabit."


-------
Are you a man of the times or a man for the times?
 


Posts: 26 | Posted: 11:32 PM on January 16, 2003 | IP
dsadevil

|       |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I wasn't aware of the attack on the Star of the  West, but if that did occur, and a war didn't start then that proves two things
a) the north showed alot of restraint (if my ship was attacked I'd fight back right away)
b) the north, by not immediately retaliating, showed it wasn't interested in starting a war.

"If therefore the Confederacy was an independent country, where does the US get the right to invade a country for keeping them from building forts on foreign soil without that country's consent?" Well first of all, again Texas v. White ruled that it wasn't a independent country, so its somewhat moot. And on parole papers having the two countries as "US" and "US" would be somewhat confusing. But even keeping in that vein of logic, let's apply the example you gave to a more grounded situation. In certain border regions of the Southwest, mexicans are the majority. If mexico walked into these areas, claimed them for Mexico and was supported by the mexicans living there, and then told the US military in the region to get the hell out of "new new mexico" (har har), what would the US do? say "OK!"? or crush them like bugs? the latter of course. The fact is we are dealing with a region where the US had jurisdiction to build forts. The new nation of the CSA took that jurisdiction away. That's a direct harm. Its not like the US had no jurisdiction in the area ever and was attacking the south for not allowing them to build new forts. the situation we have here is that the CSA prevented the US from exercising the jurisdiction that it had before, a direct harm as damaging as Mexico taking over south Texas.

"I assume, then, that you believe the Supreme Court to be 100% correct. It is impossible. The SC is made of men, and men make mistakes. The framers of the Constitution would be the best informed on the subject at hand so let's look to them."
Of course they aren't always right. But we still must abide by them. Interestingly enough, I've found that the most egregious examples of the court doing wrong is when it allows an action, not when it disallows one (such as secession). For example, the court was wrong to allow segregation in Plessy v. Ferguson. But the people still had the option to disregard the power they had and actually create an equal society. But with secession, the court forbid an action, and that statement must be abided by as the constitutional end of discussion. The FEDERALIST papers (and once again, doesn't the name give a hint here?) don't have any precedential power. But I'll look at them anyway.

Fed #2. Ok so it isn't talking about SC. But what does it say? "It is worthy of remark that not only the first, but every succeeding Congress, as well as the late convention, have invariably joined with the people in thinking that the prosperity of America depended on its Union. To preserve and perpetuate it was the great object of the people in forming that convention, and it is also the great object of the plan which the convention has advised them to adopt."
hmm...prosperity depends on union, preserving it was the great object of the people. ouch. that hurts the "secession is ok" cause doesn't it?
Fed 9 i cant comment on until u tell me what exactly was the consequence of montequies chain of thought (its impossible to analyze the point without it)
Fed 15 was the one i was referring to when asking about the foreign relations deal (it was the 2nd of your fed paper quotes in the last post, sorry about the confusion).

And once again, the Lincoln quote is extremely interesting. I'd like to know the context of the remark (what was he debating at the time). but it is certainly possible that he was wrong (in that quote, not his subsequent opposition to revolt in a democracy). He, just like the SC and fed paper boys, was a mere mortal man.


-------
"If stupidity got us into this mess, why can't it get us out?" -Will Rodgers<br><br><br>"Neither man nor nation can prosper unless in looking at the present, thought is steadily taken for the future." -T. Roosevelt<br><br>"Might I remind you that extremism in the pursuit of liberty is no vice, and moderation in the pursuit of justice, is no virtue." -Barry Goldwater<br><br>

Respect through Excellence only
 


Posts: 789 | Posted: 1:19 PM on January 17, 2003 | IP
American

|     |       Report Post




Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Dsa,

I could say the exact same things about the Confederacy. The fact is that the Union tried to reinforce Fort Sumter twice, and it was not ready to follow through with its actions until the second time.

And again I will say that the SC is perfectly able to make bad judgements. Texas v. White, Plessy v. Ferguson, and Dred Scott are all good examples of this (there are plenty more, but those are the most well known in relation to this debate). Your analogy about Mexio is somewhat misguided. To have another country come in and try to take over part of our land is "a direct harm," but when you are talking about the Constitutional power of a State to secede it is not "a direct harm." All of this hinges on the issue of the Constitutionality of secession. I ask you to show me the clause in the Constitution that prohibits secession.

OK, I have taken the hint. "once again, doesn't the name (FEDERALIST papers) give a hint here?" Let me explain a little something here. Go find the Records of the Constitutional Convention, and look very carefully at who is given what title. You will find that the "Federalist" (Madison, Hamilton, and Jay) were not "Federalists" at all, they were "Nationalists." And men like Patrick Henry, Richard Henry Lee, and many others were given the title "Federalist." So truly the name of the papers has very little to do with anything.

The quoting of the framers via the Federalist Papers is just an extention of the Constitutionality of secession debate. I will repeat my request for you to provide the Constitutional clause which disallows secession.

Lincoln was debating the War with Mexico on the floor of the House in 1847 at the time of the quote. You know I find it rather interesting that most everyone I have debated on the WSI has ended up saying, "Well I guess Lincoln, The Federalist Papers, and others were just wrong." They present no reason why they were wrong. No logical flaw in the statements I have made. No contradictory quote. Yet the quotes I use are "wrong" because they don't fit into one's views. Is it just me or is that not "open[ing] up to fresh new ideas?"


-------
Are you a man of the times or a man for the times?
 


Posts: 26 | Posted: 1:09 PM on January 20, 2003 | IP
dsadevil

|       |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

"I could say the exact same things about the Confederacy. The fact is that the Union tried to reinforce Fort Sumter twice, and it was not ready to follow through with its actions until the second time."
So? There is nothing wrong with trying to reinforce a fort on your own territory (Ft. Sumter, being federal territory, remains so even if the south legally seceded). There is a problem in trying to prevent another countries internal military movements however.

"And again I will say that the SC is perfectly able to make bad judgements. Texas v. White, Plessy v. Ferguson, and Dred Scott are all good examples of this (there are plenty more, but those are the most well known in relation to this debate)." Why is Texas a bad case? Have you read it? You don't even give a reason why other than the fact that it disagrees with what you believe. It seemed reasonable to me.

"When you are talking about the Constitutional power of a State to secede it is not "a direct harm." All of this hinges on the issue of the Constitutionality of secession. I ask you to show me the clause in the Constitution that prohibits secession."
It still is a "direct harm," regardless of whether its legal or not. But I don't need to find the clause, b/c while researching for my debate tourney this weekend, I found a very interesting point on the 10th amendment. The 10th amendment specifically says the states "reserve" powers. Quoting from U.S. Term Limits Inc. v. Thorton: "Justice Story recognized, "the states can exercise no powers whatsoever, which exclusively spring out of the existence of the national government, which the constitution does not delegate to them. . . . No state can say, that it has reserved, what it never possessed." " Since the right to secede from the union "sprung out" of the existance of a national government, the states can't claim to reserve this right, and thus the supremacy clause comes into play. Obviously the states didn't previously have the right to leave a union that never existed, just as they didnt previously have a right to set term limits for a US congress that didnt exist (the specific situation Thorton ruled on, rejecting a 10th amendment claim) (For the record, the case that is being cited here (the one Story wrote in) was pre-civil war).

"You will find that the "Federalist" (Madison, Hamilton, and Jay) were not "Federalists" at all, they were "Nationalists." And men like Patrick Henry, Richard Henry Lee, and many others were given the title "Federalist." So truly the name of the papers has very little to do with anything." I don't care how they named themselves, in the modern sense of the words, Madison, Hamilton and Jay are considered "federalists" and Lee, Henry et al were "anti-federalists" (source: West's American Government, see also "The Constitution of the United States," Harold Spaeth ).

Furthermore, I never said the federalist papers were wrong. I said they agreed with me (see fed #2).

The logical flaws you make are
a) that no harm was done to the US when the south attempted to leave (see "Fort" problem, Mexico analogy)
b) the US had only such jurisdiction over its territory that the states consented to give, a consent that could be removed at any time (see Texas v. White, meaning of the "reserved powers" clause, incompatibilty with the situation upon which the constitution was drafted (creating a federal government that was not beholden to the states))
c) Your refusal to except Texas v. White as valid case law.
d) your over-reliance on the federalist papers for support, when they do not constitute precedent and in any event do not in themselves seem to wholeheartedly support you
e) Lincoln quote (relying solely on this to say that Lincoln was wrong later is an Ad Hominem Tu Quoque)


-------
"If stupidity got us into this mess, why can't it get us out?" -Will Rodgers<br><br><br>"Neither man nor nation can prosper unless in looking at the present, thought is steadily taken for the future." -T. Roosevelt<br><br>"Might I remind you that extremism in the pursuit of liberty is no vice, and moderation in the pursuit of justice, is no virtue." -Barry Goldwater<br><br>

Respect through Excellence only
 


Posts: 789 | Posted: 8:34 PM on January 20, 2003 | IP
bamaunplugged

|       |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Amendment 10 of the Bill of Rights states, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."# This amendment implies that since there is nothing in the Constitution stating that states cannot legally secede it must be left strictly up to the states to decide whether it is legal or illegal. The Southern states made the decision that secession was legal. Therefore, because there is nothing written in the Constitution denying the states the right to secede, legally, the states could secede. This puts the Union at fault when one considers that the Constitution also granted no power to the federal government to make a state remain in the Union against its wishes. But oddly enough, while this proof should be enough to disprove the Union’s crusade to keep states in the Union, the Union still fought in their own favor. However, many Unionist supporters also used the Constitution to support their crusade. Their argument uses Article One, Section Ten of the Constitution, which reads, "No state shall enter into a treaty, alliance, or confederation."# Considering this only applies to States in the US, this section refers only to states within the Federal Union and not those outside of it. Before entering into the confederation, the Southern states all wrote ordinances dissolving all ties with the United States of America. Therefore the Constitution has no longer has bearing on their actions.  Because of these ordinances, the Southern states were no longer under the rule of the United States government, therefore this argument is void, and overall the South’s secession from the Union is by all means legal.
Another way to prove the legality of the South’s secession is in the relation between the State and Federal Constitutions. A little-known fact of the Constitution is that two of the largest states -- Virginia and New York -- made the right to withdraw from the union explicit in their acceptance of the Constitution. And in such an agreement between parties as is represented by the Constitution, a right claimed by one is allowed to all. In doing this, the state of Virginia’s secession was, in fact, legal. Even more so, considering that a right claimed by one is allowed to all, by technicality the actions of the states of Virginia and New York legalized the actions of each state in secession.  
The Declaration of Independence was yet another rallying point for secessionists. It states, "But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."# This quotation states that when the government is not doing their job, and it becomes destructive on the South's way of life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, then the Southern states could alter or abolish it. Considering that slave trade and the cotton plantations, which the slaves worked on, were the basis of the Southern economy, the government was being destructive to their economy. Lincoln stated in his first inaugural address "I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so."# However, Lincoln also states that he will not allow slavery to expand. If this were to happen, new Southern states being added to the Union would not be permitted to allow slavery. This would hinder the Southern cause politically and economically. While the Northern cause would grow, the Southern cause would surely wither away into oblivion. Another example of the government being destructive to the South can be seen in 1828, the United States Congress passed the Tariff of 1828, otherwise known as the "Tariff of Abominations". This was the first tariff to specifically target the South. The tariff put an unnecessary tax on imported goods. The South sold much of what they produce to the European nations and, in return, got many imports from them. This tariff angered the South because it was costing them too much money to import goods for their exports. However, Article One, Section Eight, reads: “All duties, imposts, and excise shall be uniform throughout the United States,"#. Therefore, this shows that a direct tariff on the South is unconstitutional and unjust. More tariffs were put to practice that specifically targeted the South for the next thirty-two years. When the South realized this, they acted upon it considering slavery was a major part of their lifestyle, and it was their Constitutional right. Their action was to legally abolish the government and secede from the Federal union.
Another reason that the South had the right to secede was that the Constitution is a "treaty among sovereigns", and under treaty law when one party violates its terms the other parties are automatically released from its obligations. So under that rationale, each state is a sovereign and has the right to remove itself from its union with the rest of the states, and considering that term violation occurred, each Southern state was free to justly secede.
In conclusion, the founding documents of the United States, including the Constitution, Bill of Rights, and Declaration of Independence, as well as state Constitutions and Lincoln’s Inaugural Address all legally allow secession and therefore the Southern states which seceded were all just in their actions.



-------
Peter: Hey, Lois, look! The two symbols of the Republican party: an elephant and a big fat white guy who's threatened by change.
 


Posts: 1 | Posted: 6:27 PM on December 5, 2004 | IP
shaggybill

|       |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Wow. What a great post!
 


Posts: 2 | Posted: 12:09 AM on July 12, 2005 | IP
    
[ Single page for this topic ]

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

Topic options: Lock topic | Unlock topic | Make Topic Sticky | Remove Sticky | Delete thread | Move thread | Merge thread

 

© YouDebate.com
Powered by: ScareCrow version 2.12
© 2001 Jonathan Bravata. All rights reserved.