Author Topic: Question about the south (Read 4108 times)

Toad · « **Reply #150 on:** June 06, 2006, 06:33:35 AM »

LOL, twist it any way you like.

In the end, even slavery was a Constitutional issue from the very beginning of the Union.

Can't dodge that one; CONSTITUTIONAL. All. The. Way.

midnight Target · « **Reply #151 on:** June 06, 2006, 07:50:10 AM »

Toad=Black Knight?

lazs2 · « **Reply #152 on:** June 06, 2006, 08:17:04 AM »

No matter how you look at it.... Toad is correct.

It was about states rights. The states had the right to succeed from the union. The federal government had no right to stop them. There was no procedure for succession because our constitution and declaration of independence pretty much gave any state the right.

The U.S. recognized that when a body could no longer tollerate the rule of a govenment then that body had the right to leave and form their own government.

It was the whole premise of the declaration of independance. The constitution was a document that spelled out rights of individuals. It also said that states had rights. It said that the states had all rights not specificaly given to the federal government... That would mean that the south had the right to leave the union if they desired.

As for slavery? It was on the way out in any case. The civil war may have cut it's last gasps a little shorter but not by much.

lazs

Holden McGroin · « **Reply #153 on:** June 06, 2006, 12:09:53 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by lazs2
...The constitution was a document that spelled out rights of individuals....

Actually this is a misinterpretation. The constitution spelled out the limitations of government. The first amendment does not give individuals the right to frre speech. It limits government from abridging those rights.

Quote

...That would mean that the south had the right to leave the union if they desired.....

But leaving the Union requires an organized opposition to established authority and that is the definition of insurrection. The Congress has the constitutional authority to supress insurrection. (art 1 section 8)

In Texas vs. White, The Supreme Court said,

Quote

"But the perpetuity and indissolubility of the Union, by no means implies the loss of distinct and individual existence, or of the right of self-government by the States. Under the Articles of Confederation each State retained its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right not expressly delegated to the United States. Under the Constitution, though the powers of the States were much restricted, still, all powers not delegated to the United States, nor prohibited to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. And we have already had occasion to remark at this term, that cthe people of each State compose a State, having its own government, and endowed with all the functions essential to separate and independent existence,' and that 'without the States in union, there could be no such political body as the United States.' 12 Not only, therefore, can there be no loss of separate and independent autonomy to the States, through their union under the Constitution, but it may be not unreasonably said that the preservation of the States, and the maintenance of their governments, are as much within the design and care of the Constitution as the preservation of the Union and the maintenance of the National government. 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.

Toad · « **Reply #154 on:** June 06, 2006, 05:02:23 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Holden McGroin

But leaving the Union requires an organized opposition to established authority and that is the definition of insurrection. The Congress has the constitutional authority to supress insurrection. (art 1 section 8)

In Texas vs. White, The Supreme Court said,

Now Holden...that is just TOO FUNNY!

Texas vs White?

This Texas vs White?

Quote

TEXAS
v.
WHITE ET AL.

December Term, 1868

So you're saying that.... 3 years AFTER the North invaded the South and won... that the US Supreme Court said it was all legal?

No kidding! I am SO suprised.

Too bad Lincoln didn't have this as precedent when he violated the Constitution.

This is law "after the fact" my friend.... a decision post facto by several years; what answer would you expect from a government that just successfully violated the Constitution?

You would expect an "ooops" verdict?

Holden McGroin · « **Reply #155 on:** June 06, 2006, 11:10:20 PM »

Yeah 1868.

The supreme court acts slowly. That was the first time the court dealt with seccesion as far as I can find. sue me. Far be it from me to question the authority of the Supreme Court on constitutional issues, or the state legislature of slave holding states as to why the seceeded.

However, the state legislatures, by voting for secession, conspired against the established federal government.

This was an "act or instance of revolting against civil authority or an established government"

It can also be characterised as "organized opposition to authority; a conflict in which one faction tries to wrest control from another."

These are dictionary definitions of insurrection.

The fact that congress has the constitutional power to put down insurrection should say something about a state right to seceed. Perhaps if that secession was disorganized, but that would fall under the federal responsibility to ensure domestic tranquility wouldn't it?

Sandman · « **Reply #156 on:** June 06, 2006, 11:18:57 PM »

The South made one major mistake and that was Sumter.

Without Sumter, Lincoln could not have mustered enough support for a war. Once the South attacked Sumter, the Constitutional argument is moot, IMHO.

DiabloTX · « **Reply #157 on:** June 06, 2006, 11:35:14 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Sandman
The South made one major mistake and that was Sumter.

Without Sumter, Lincoln could not have mustered enough support for a war. Once the South attacked Sumter, the Constitutional argument is moot, IMHO.

Winner.

Brenjen · « **Reply #158 on:** June 07, 2006, 12:04:14 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Sandman
The South made one major mistake and that was Sumter.

Without Sumter, Lincoln could not have mustered enough support for a war. Once the South attacked Sumter, the Constitutional argument is moot, IMHO.

Hardly. The Confederacy had withdrawn from the union & was therefore an independent nation & the union was an occupying foreign power by that time. The union was told to vacate & they refused.

The constitutional arguement was what caused the formation of a seperate nation in the first place.

nirvana · « **Reply #159 on:** June 07, 2006, 12:14:49 AM »

Why have you all turned my innocent post into a 4 page "i'm right, you're wrong, **** off" argument?

Sandman · « **Reply #160 on:** June 07, 2006, 12:16:57 AM »

The AHBBS exists for two reasons.

1. To argue.
2. To make Nirvana unhappy.

This thread is perfect.

nirvana · « **Reply #161 on:** June 07, 2006, 12:25:46 AM »

Yes, it's all about me, 50% of the time.

Scherf · « **Reply #162 on:** June 07, 2006, 12:39:17 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Sandman
The South made one major mistake and that was Sumter.

Nah, their mistake was Grits.

What the hell are (is?) Grits, anyway?

DiabloTX · « **Reply #163 on:** June 07, 2006, 12:42:59 AM »

GRITS R TEH NUMMEH!1!!!1!1!!!

kevykev56 · « **Reply #164 on:** June 07, 2006, 01:16:50 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by nirvana
Why have you all turned my innocent post into a 4 page "i'm right, you're wrong, **** off" argument?

So your vacation is over....

Did you get your flag?????????