So, Texas has right to secede the union, right? Did they have this right already when there was civil war? If yes, then what part did that right play in the civil war? (I guess none, if they were part of the confederation, but was there for example option to secede and stay independent for them?)

Texas does not have the right to secede from the Union. They did not have this right prior to the Civil War (see .Shane.'s excellent arguments in the civil war thread). They and the other traitor states claimed to have this right because they perceived themselves to be losing a political struggle and chose to resort to military action to attempt to reach their aims. I don't understand your last sentence.

The only legal argument I have seen in that thread is that the US Constitution allows the federal government to put down insurrections and rebellions.

That said, Texas is no different from any other state no matter the legality.
IIRC there was a clause in its original annexation that is commonly misinterpreted, but it had to do with secession of parts from Texas to create new states, but I am really unsure about this.

Since Texas was readmitted to the Union in 1870, is its original annexation agreement even valid?

Don't know the technicalities about that, but I have a vague memory of the source of the misconception being that. So there is a good chance I am completely wrong.

Anyway, there's no way in hell that that isn't worth its own thread, Atticus, especially as it already has one in Off-Topic. :p

Since Texas was readmitted to the Union in 1870, is its original annexation agreement even valid?
No, since Texas then entered into the Confederacy, all prior agreements became invalid.

The United States government didn't recognize the traitor confederation as a legal entity so I don't think that has any effect on its annexation agreement.

My thoughts exactly. There are a lot of inconsistencies with this stuff. If they never actually left the Union (the North just subjugated rebellious states) then how could they be readmitted?
If they had to be readmitted, then they legally (as in by law they had left, not that leaving was legal) left the United States and hence the CSA was a legal entity and the Congress should have needed to declare war.

If readmission is an inaccurate term and more of that upon rebelling all rights were revoked from the states and returned later (upon the so called "readmission") then as they were just suspended all rights must have been returned and all provisions of the Texas annexation would still be valid.

They were readmitted because they lost all representation and state government when the federal government instituted the military district system in 1867.

But yeah, there are some legal bits here that I'm not sure about. I assume the federal government noted legal technicalities at the time, but I dunno how exactly they dealt with them.

But does that mean they were (in theory) permanently removed from the union as states, or had their rights as states suspended.
Sorry, I don't know the technical details, and as we go from the main discussion I know less and less.

I don't know either, most of what I know about the period has to do with the peacetime and wartime operations of the Army. We'll have to wait for .Shane. to clean up my mess. :p

The United States government didn't recognize the traitor confederation as a legal entity so I don't think that has any effect on its annexation agreement.
Yes, but in any case no one claimed the existence of an independent Texas between 1861 and 1865, ergo there was no institution of Texas to have an agreement with, same as why all Austria's treaties with Italy didn't come back into effect in 1945.

Wait, that comparison doesn't work. We're not talking about third-party treaties.

The point is that when Texas willingly gave up it's independence, after seceding, there ceased to be a Texas, so all previous treaties ceased to function.

But this wasn't a treaty, it was the annexation ordinance adopted by Congress and approved by the Texans, and so a matter of internal American law as opposed to an international agreement.

But this wasn't a treaty, it was the annexation ordinance adopted by Congress and approved by the Texans, and so a matter of internal American law as opposed to an international agreement.
Isn't the "Aproved by Texas" part necessarily international?

Is it, though? Since a sovereign Texan entity ceased to exist by the passage of the ordinance, it can't be that the ordinance's terms were only valid if a sovereign Texan entity existed. It should be viewed in that sense as the same as any other state constitution approved by the citizenry of a given territory when it applies(/d) for full entry into the Union.

it can't be that the ordinance's terms were only valid if a sovereign Texan entity existed.
Well if it's a state constitution then it also doesn't apply as it's been replaced with a new one.

Exactly, that's my argument.

Texas does not have the right to secede from the Union. They did not have this right prior to the Civil War

Is one of these sentences typo?

I don't know if it's urban legend or something like that, but I've read couple of times that Texas is the only state that has right to secede from the union. I could imagine it's just a myth. That's where my question came from.

I didn't understand pretty much anything about your posts, I know so much less about American history/politics :)

"Who's to blame for the civil war"-thread sounds very much like it's micro-patriotic-bickering/argumentation -ratio is way too small, so I haven't taken a look at it, but will later when I'll have time.

It was probably a Texan who said it. :p

I don't know if it's urban legend or something like that, but I've read couple of times that Texas is the only state that has right to secede from the union. I could imagine it's just a myth. That's where my question came from.
It is just a myth. The closest thing, that I have heard of, is that it included the right of four states to break off from Texas. In reality it was just given to the South as a potential measure to compensate for the creation of more states in the North.

EDIT: I don't know where the right for Texas to secede comes out of that, but it is the oft cited reason.

So Texas has no rights to secession beyond any other state,

Anyway, there's no way in hell that that isn't worth its own thread, Atticus, especially as it already has one in Off-Topic. :p

Agreed! Thread split. :)

Texas has no special rights in regards to secession, relative to other states. As Dachs pointed out (tx for the kind words) there's a Civil War thread in OT that gets into the overall question of the right to secession, but, again, Texas is no different than any other state in this regard.

Texas has the right to be divided into 4 states. Beyond that it can't secede.

Texas has the right to be divided into 4 states. Beyond that it can't secede.
You mean up to 5 states. That provision had language relative to the legality of slavery at the time. So, while I haven't researched it, it may well be that this is no longer legally possible. Plus, its not unilateral. New states still have to be ratified by Congress. Meaning... its never going to happen.

I haven't looked into it, but my assumption was that the agreement was essentially that Congress pre-approved splitting of Texas (not that it will happen now).

I wouldn't mind splitting up Texas. If gerrymandered properly one or two parts might even go blue!

Yeah... because the "blue" leaders have done so much to help your country.

Right-o...

Yeah... because the "blue" leaders have done so much to help your country.

Right-o...

Says the person from Canada.

Heh?

I don't agree with a single word from my fellow countryman but may I ask if our being Canadian disqualifies us from disliking things in America?

Heh?

I don't agree with a single word from my fellow countryman but may I ask if our being Canadian disqualifies us from disliking things in America?

Yes by virtue of living in Canada a far inferior country in every respect, except perhaps health care, standard of living, income inequality, crime, pollution, and politics. But by every other measure we're much better.

Ah, I understand entirely then

I'll go back to my hellish existance

Texas should go back to Mexico

Only if they reinstate the position of Emperor. Maximiliano and Iturbide were just too damn cool. Except for Maximiliano's facial hair. Which was just disgusting.

Yea, poor Iturbide ... they betrayed him in the most cynical way . . . and Maximiliano had syphilis ... which was also disgusting.

Nah, lets just have Spain annex Portugal and all their former Empires.

but in that case the EU would have to spend again millions on Spain... that's not fair :)

Yeah... because the "blue" leaders have done so much to help your country.

Right-o...

yep, the blue states are the epitome of evil, the invention of the five day work week :eek: 40 hours a week is considered full time :cry: what kind of evil is this??
the US was so much better when we had 7 day work weeks 18 hours a day 363 days a year:cry: these damn liberals wrecked it :mad:

Saw this.
Is one of these sentences typo?
No, I was saying that not only was it never legal for Texas to secede before the war, it is not legal for Texas to do so now either. I was answering your questions in the order in which you asked them. :p
I don't know if it's urban legend or something like that, but I've read couple of times that Texas is the only state that has right to secede from the union. I could imagine it's just a myth. That's where my question came from.
Yes, it is a myth.
I didn't understand pretty much anything about your posts, I know so much less about American history/politics :)
's all good.
"Who's to blame for the civil war"-thread sounds very much like it's micro-patriotic-bickering/argumentation -ratio is way too small, so I haven't taken a look at it, but will later when I'll have time.
You're right, there's ridiculous amounts of micro-patriotic bickering and not nearly enough gems. And a lot of it centers, like my posts that you say you didn't understand, on minutiae of American politics.

I don't know if it's urban legend or something like that, but I've read couple of times that Texas is the only state that has right to secede from the union. I could imagine it's just a myth. That's where my question came from.
As Dachs indicated, its a myth, misconception, whatever.
"Who's to blame for the civil war"-thread sounds very much like it's micro-patriotic-bickering/argumentation -ratio is way too small, so I haven't taken a look at it, but will later when I'll have time.
If you filter that thread for my posts you will get a fairly dispassionate, civil, reasonable, backed-by-the-historical record, objective (I admit to a bit a snark from time to time, but tried to minimize it in that thread) comment.

Texas has the right to be divided into 4 states.

That's actually not obvious. The actual wording in the annexing resolution is:

New States of convenient size not exceeding four in number, in addition to said State of Texas and having sufficient population, may, hereafter by the consent of said State, be formed out of the territory thereof, which shall be entitled to admission under the provisions of the Federal Constitution.

In other words, it's not clear whether the intent was to give Texas the option of splitting itself in 5, or whether it was to give Texas the option of vetoing any such proposed division of the state by Congress. On the other hand, regardless of how it's interpreted, both the U.S. Congress and the Texas Legislature would have to approve such a division. In fact, this is no different from the case of any other state -- this is spelled out in Article IV of the U.S. Constitution:

... no new States shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.

Ok, thanks guys! :goodjob:

As Dachs indicated, its a myth, misconception, whatever.

If you filter that thread for my posts you will get a fairly dispassionate, civil, reasonable, backed-by-the-historical record, objective (I admit to a bit a snark from time to time, but tried to minimize it in that thread) comment.

you are a better man than I am, if I knew vastly more about a topic and these lay people keep arguing and I try to share my knowledge and they accused me of lying/fabricating details/ignoring me I would get very snarky especially at the people who said I was unqualified to participate

Away down South in the land of traitors,
Rattlesnakes and alligators,
Right away, come away, right away, come away.
Where cotton's king and men are chattels,
Union boys will win the battles,
Right away, come away, right away, come away.

Then we'll all go down to Dixie,
Away, away,
Each Dixie boy must understand
That he must mind his Uncle Sam,
Away, away,
And we'll all go down to Dixie.
Away, away,
And we'll all go down to Dixie.

It can't be legal, when it's full of rednecks

Away down South in the land of traitors,
Rattlesnakes and alligators,
...


As a transplanted Yankee, I can't help but chuckle at this. I remember once being subjected to a Lone Star Beer commercial that actually used the word "carpetbagger"...

Arent you guys supposed to believe the constitution?

Arent you guys supposed to believe the constitution?

We do. That's why secession without legal process is treason.

"Treason"!

That's a meaningless word. If secession without legal process is unconstitutional, then it's illegal. End of story.

"Treason"!

That's a meaningless word. If secession without legal process is unconstitutional, then it's illegal. End of story.

What? Treason is clearly defined in Article III: "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort." If secession without legal process is unconstitutional, then the Confederates remained U.S. citizens during their rebellion, and thus were clearly traitors as they levied war against the United States, or gave aid and comfort to those levying war.

More clearly to the point, the argument "secession is treason" is not strictly true. However, while secession is only illegal, any organized resistance to lawful authorities moving to suppress rebellion is clearly treason. Therefore, secession is only not treason when it is in words only, and the seceding states immediately surrender to lawful authority.

However, while secession is only illegal, any organized resistance to lawful authorities moving to suppress rebellion is clearly treason.

I don't see how that follows from the definition you gave. It would follow only if the seceding state were considered an enemy of the US; but surely that would depend upon the circumstances. At any rate, even allowing your argument, it would follow not that secession is treason but that certain actions taken after secession are treason, which isn't the same thing. And that raises the question whether resisting the lawful authorities under other circumstances counts as treason as well - for example, resisting arrest.

I don't see how that follows from the definition you gave. It would follow only if the seceding state were considered an enemy of the US; but surely that would depend upon the circumstances. At any rate, even allowing your argument, it would follow not that secession is treason but that certain actions taken after secession are treason, which isn't the same thing.

Indeed, as I mentioned, it is not exactly the same thing. However, one does not follow the other only when the secession is just playing around. The U.S. government will try to suppress rebellion as the Constitution demands, and if the rebels are serious (ie not just a small group of malcontents that somehow hijacked the state government), they will resist with force sufficient to be considered making war, thus rendering themselves traitors. If they are just a small group of malcontents however, yes it could be interpreted that they were just resisting arrest, but then, in what real way did the state secede?

Yes, I'm sure you're right. I suppose that the language of "treason" and suchlike just sounds so quaint in this day and age. I have to say that it does seem strange to me that not only are states just forbidden from ever leaving the Union but the federal government is constitutionally bound to react to such secession with force. That's because (a) the US itself was founded after such a rebellion, so it's a bit odd, and (b) I suppose I was always brought up to think that self-determination is a fairly fundamental right, and that if a group or area does wish to be self-determined, it's wrong to prevent that.

But what that argument misses is that while the Constitution is silent on the issue of succession, we still have a legal framework for resolving disputes of all forms. In the Civil War, no effort was made to secede within a recognized legal framework. Had they done so, they could have developed the legal framework for it to happen again. By not attempting to use a recognized legal framework, they effectively closed the door on the option.

I suppose that the language of "treason" and suchlike just sounds so quaint in this day and age. I have to say that it does seem strange to me that not only are states just forbidden from ever leaving the Union but the federal government is constitutionally bound to react to such secession with force. That's because (a) the US itself was founded after such a rebellion, so it's a bit odd, and (b) I suppose I was always brought up to think that self-determination is a fairly fundamental right, and that if a group or area does wish to be self-determined, it's wrong to prevent that.

The Federal government must act to suppress rebellion. Thus, it is bound to react to unilateral secession with force if necessary, though these days, it is most likely not necessary. However, that doesn't mean there can't be self-determination, just not unilateral self-determination. Take Puerto Rico, for instance, where Congress has repeatedly offered the choice of independence. Any state can petition Congress to reverse statehood. While it is not explicitly said, it's pretty clear that secession would be perfectly legal if both Congress and the state legislatures vote to leave the Union. Congress could also specifically allow a referendum.

And remember that the U.S. rebelled against a government in which it had no representation, other than the laughable concept of virtual representation. The U.S. on the other hand is fully democratic and each state has representation. Under these circumstances, unilateral "self-determination" is nothing more than rejecting the democratic process.

The Federal government must act to suppress rebellion. Thus, it is bound to react to unilateral secession with force if necessary, though these days, it is most likely not necessary. However, that doesn't mean there can't be self-determination, just not unilateral self-determination. Take Puerto Rico, for instance, where Congress has repeatedly offered the choice of independence. Any state can petition Congress to reverse statehood. While it is not explicitly said, it's pretty clear that secession would be perfectly legal if both Congress and the state legislatures vote to leave the Union. Congress could also specifically allow a referendum.

Fair enough then.

And remember that the U.S. rebelled against a government in which it had no representation, other than the laughable concept of virtual representation. The U.S. on the other hand is fully democratic and each state has representation. Under these circumstances, unilateral "self-determination" is nothing more than rejecting the democratic process.

Well, no, it might be a matter of rejecting one democratic process in favour of another. You can't identify one particular political system with "the" democratic process, and I don't think that any country currently existing can uncontroversially claim to be "fully democratic". But I agree that if legal mechanisms exist to achieve independence then seizing it unilaterally is unlikely to reflect a democratic urge.

What? Treason is clearly defined in Article III: "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort." If secession without legal process is unconstitutional, then the Confederates remained U.S. citizens during their rebellion, and thus were clearly traitors as they levied war against the United States, or gave aid and comfort to those levying war.

Whilst it might be treason, isn't it almost certain that the Confederates intended to renounce their U.S citizenship?

constitutionally bound to react to such secession with force.
The Federal government must act to suppress rebellion

Where is either of those things actually said in the Constitution?

But what that argument misses is that while the Constitution is silent on the issue of succession

Even if the intention was probably not there, technically the Tenth Amendment gives the right to the States.

Whilst it might be treason, isn't it almost certain that the Confederates intended to renounce their U.S citizenship?

But did they?


Even if the intention was probably not there, technically the Tenth Amendment gives the right to the States.

Even if you make that assumption, we still circle around to the fact that there is a process for resolving legal disputes. And instead of using that process, the South started a war.

I'm going to ignore this thread in favor of the badassness of Texas in doing whatever it wants.

Whilst it might be treason, isn't it almost certain that the Confederates intended to renounce their U.S citizenship?


It's nearly impossible to renounce your citizenship, even today. It's certainly impossible to renounce your citizenship by going to war with the Federal government. And an illegal renouncing of U.S. citizenship is yet another crime that the government must suppress.

Where is either of those things actually said in the Constitution?

The President must "take care that the laws be faithfully executed." He also swears that he "will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic." What is rebellion if not a domestic enemy?

Even if the intention was probably not there, technically the Tenth Amendment gives the right to the States.

Only if the lack of such a right cannot be implied by the rest of the Constitution, such as the more perfect than "perpetual union" bit.

It's nearly impossible to renounce your citizenship, even today. It's certainly impossible to renounce your citizenship by going to war with the Federal government. And an illegal renouncing of U.S. citizenship is yet another crime that the government must suppress.

1- The first part of that claim is clearly incorrect- whether or not it was a good idea, the Supreme Court ruled that citizenship could be lost through fraud in the naturalisation process or voluntarily renounciation of citizenship. Not to mention that the United States Code states:

(a) A person who is a national of the United States whether by birth or naturalization, shall lose his nationality by voluntarily performing any of the following acts with the intention of relinquishing United States nationality—
(1) obtaining naturalization in a foreign state upon his own application or upon an application filed by a duly authorized agent, after having attained the age of eighteen years; or
(2) taking an oath or making an affirmation or other formal declaration of allegiance to a foreign state or a political subdivision thereof, after having attained the age of eighteen years; or
(3) entering, or serving in, the armed forces of a foreign state if
(A) such armed forces are engaged in hostilities against the United States, or
(B) such persons serve as a commissioned or non-commissioned officer; or
(4)
(A) accepting, serving in, or performing the duties of any office, post, or employment under the government of a foreign state or a political subdivision thereof, after attaining the age of eighteen years if he has or acquires the nationality of such foreign state; or
(B) accepting, serving in, or performing the duties of any office, post, or employment under the government of a foreign state or a political subdivision thereof, after attaining the age of eighteen years for which office, post, or employment an oath, affirmation, or declaration of allegiance is required; or (5) making a formal renunciation of nationality before a diplomatic or consular officer of the United States in a foreign state, in such form as may be prescribed by the Secretary of State; or
(6) making in the United States a formal written renunciation of nationality in such form as may be prescribed by, and before such officer as may be designated by, the Attorney General, whenever the United States shall be in a state of war and the Attorney General shall approve such renunciation as not contrary to the interests of national defense; or
(7) committing any act of treason against, or attempting by force to overthrow, or bearing arms against, the United States, violating or conspiring to violate any of the provisions of section 2383 of title 18, or willfully performing any act in violation of section 2385 of title 18, or violating section 2384 of title 18 by engaging in a conspiracy to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, if and when he is convicted thereof by a court martial or by a court of competent jurisdiction.

2-
a- It is reductio ad absurdum to claim that such is the case- you are assuming that such actions are somehow so outrageous as to prevent renunciation of citizenship, without actual evidence. It is easily possible that it is on an unforeseen technicality, as would be so if the Supreme Court's interpretation of the Constituttion was used).
b- The Confederate States had no intention of making war on the United States- they believed (mistakenly) that all the relevant forts would be evacuated. Given that the land was legally theirs, the actions were an eviction of tresspassers more then anything else.

3- It was never stated that it was somehow a crime to renounce citizenship (even if it would not be llegally recognised).

The President must "take care that the laws be faithfully executed." He also swears that he "will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic." What is rebellion if not a domestic enemy?

The States would argue that it was not rebellion but lawful secession. Whilst technically the President is obliged to try to stop them, that does not make the act illegal. (This may appear somewhat absurd, but it was an oversight on the part of the people who made the Tenth Amendment)

Only if the lack of such a right cannot be implied by the rest of the Constitution, such as the more perfect than "perpetual union" bit.

That was a statement of intent. If one assumes a law should be interpreted by the intent of it's makers, then your case follows- but if the actual words are to be used to interpret the law, then it clearly does not.

1- The first part of that claim is clearly incorrect- whether or not it was a good idea, the Supreme Court ruled that citizenship could be lost through fraud in the naturalisation process or voluntarily renounciation of citizenship. Not to mention that the United States Code states:


You might want to try reading a bit more closely. Renouncing citizenship is possible. It is also possible to have citizenship stripped from you, for among other causes, treason. Incidently, you only lose your citizenship after you become a traitor, not before. However, there is a legal process to renouncing citizenship, and the U.S. government does not have to accept a petition to renounce one's citizenship. Among other reasons, by long standing international agreement, governments must take care so that individuals do not become stateless. In general, this means the government will not (and most likely cannot under international law) allow its citizens to renounce their citizenship if they have no other citizenship, or would not shortly gain other citizenship. As the Federal government and the international community did not recognize the Confederate States, the U.S. and the international community would have to reject any renunciation of U.S. citizenship by self-proclaimed Confederate citizens even had they chosen to follow the legal process for doing so, which of course, they did not. Therefore, both in the eyes of the U.S. and the world, all Confederates remained U.S. citizens for the duration of the ACW.

a- It is reductio ad absurdum to claim that such is the case- you are assuming that such actions are somehow so outrageous as to prevent renunciation of citizenship, without actual evidence. It is easily possible that it is on an unforeseen technicality, as would be so if the Supreme Court's interpretation of the Constituttion was used).

You don't seem to understand what reductio ad absurdum means, particularly since it is a valid logical argument, which admittedly, I did not use. And I assume nothing. The Confederates simply did not follow the legal process for renouncing their citizenship, the U.S. government did not accept any such renunciation, and the Confederates did make war on the U.S.

b- The Confederate States had no intention of making war on the United States- they believed (mistakenly) that all the relevant forts would be evacuated. Given that the land was legally theirs, the actions were an eviction of tresspassers more then anything else.

Notice how the definition of treason in the Constitution made no mention of intent. In fact, the Confederates did make war on the United States, therefore in fact, they were treasonous. And the land would only be legally theirs if (a) secession was legal under any circumstance, (b) the Confederates followed the legal process for doing so. and (c) the Confederates paid the Federal government for the property, even if only under eminent domain. (Those installations were built on land purchased by, or ceded to the Federal government, and even a legal secession would not end those property rights) I'm willing to avoid debating (a) here, but clearly (b) and (c) did not occur.

3- It was never stated that it was somehow a crime to renounce citizenship (even if it would not be llegally recognised).

I don't know what you are saying here, but I'm pretty sure it was answered in my first point.

The States would argue that it was not rebellion but lawful secession. Whilst technically the President is obliged to try to stop them, that does not make the act illegal. (This may appear somewhat absurd, but it was an oversight on the part of the people who made the Tenth Amendment)
...
That was a statement of intent. If one assumes a law should be interpreted by the intent of it's makers, then your case follows- but if the actual words are to be used to interpret the law, then it clearly does not.


I'm sorry, but it is absurd. Even if there were lawful secession, the Confederates went about it illegally. And if it is illegal, the President is obliged to stop them. And if they make war on the President's forces in pursuit of their duties to resist, then they are committing treason.

And it seems your argument in general relies on an interpretation of the 10th Amendment that 1) is clearly not intended by its framers, and 2) would render most of the government unworkable. The Constitution is not a suicide pact, as Jefferson, Lincoln, and Justices Jackson and Goldberg have said throughout U.S. history.

You might want to try reading a bit more closely. Renouncing citizenship is possible. It is also possible to have citizenship stripped from you, for among other causes, treason. Incidently, you only lose your citizenship after you become a traitor, not before. However, there is a legal process to renouncing citizenship, and the U.S. government does not have to accept a petition to renounce one's citizenship. Among other reasons, by long standing international agreement, governments must take care so that individuals do not become stateless. In general, this means the government will not (and most likely cannot under international law) allow its citizens to renounce their citizenship if they have no other citizenship, or would not shortly gain other citizenship. As the Federal government and the international community did not recognize the Confederate States, the U.S. and the international community would have to reject any renunciation of U.S. citizenship by self-proclaimed Confederate citizens even had they chosen to follow the legal process for doing so, which of course, they did not. Therefore, both in the eyes of the U.S. and the world, all Confederates remained U.S. citizens for the duration of the ACW.

1- This is clearly an argument from authority.
2- International conventions do have the force of law under the U.S constitution.

You don't seem to understand what reductio ad absurdum means, particularly since it is a valid logical argument, which admittedly, I did not use. And I assume nothing. The Confederates simply did not follow the legal process for renouncing their citizenship, the U.S. government did not accept any such renunciation, and the Confederates did make war on the U.S.

Even the Supreme Court does not claim there to be only a single specific process for renouncing citizenship- a person can renounce it by serving in a foriegn army, for example, without going through the legal process.

I'm sorry, but it is absurd. Even if there were lawful secession, the Confederates went about it illegally. And if it is illegal, the President is obliged to stop them. And if they make war on the President's forces in pursuit of their duties to resist, then they are committing treason.

There is no mention in the Constitution of a specific way in which secession has to be done to be legal- you are assuming without good reason that there must be a specific process. If within State law it is done legitimately, it is therefore legal.

And it seems your argument in general relies on an interpretation of the 10th Amendment that 1) is clearly not intended by its framers, and 2) would render most of the government unworkable. The Constitution is not a suicide pact, as Jefferson, Lincoln, and Justices Jackson and Goldberg have said throughout U.S. history.

The idea of the Constitution being a "suicide pact" assumes that one can compare the American nation to be a person that is therefore "killed". There is no reason why anybody would have been killed by the Tenth Amendment being followed properly.

Also, Thomas Jefferson actually argued that the Tenth Amendment was "the foundation of the Constitution", and added “to take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specially drawn … is to take possession of a boundless field of power, no longer susceptible of any definition.” (http://www.answers.com/topic/amendment-x-to-the-u-s-constitution)

Whilst Madison, for example, would probably agree about the Tenth Amendment supporting secession Jefferson clearly would not.

Notice how the definition of treason in the Constitution made no mention of intent. In fact, the Confederates did make war on the United States, therefore in fact, they were treasonous. And the land would only be legally theirs if (a) secession was legal under any circumstance, (b) the Confederates followed the legal process for doing so. and (c) the Confederates paid the Federal government for the property, even if only under eminent domain. (Those installations were built on land purchased by, or ceded to the Federal government, and even a legal secession would not end those property rights) I'm willing to avoid debating (a) here, but clearly (b) and (c) did not occur.

Whilst it may have been unilateral stealing of land, the soldiers clearly had authorisation from the Cabinet to capture Fort Sumter. Not only did this have the support of the Legislature, but given that they were technically trying to capture the fort (not confiscate it), it counts as legitimate use of government powers.

You don't seem to understand what reductio ad absurdum means, particularly since it is a valid logical argument, which admittedly, I did not use. And I assume nothing. The Confederates simply did not follow the legal process for renouncing their citizenship, the U.S. government did not accept any such renunciation, and the Confederates did make war on the U.S.

I was using it in the legal sense- in philosophy it would be reductio ad incommodum. To repeat myself, you assume without good cause that there is a specific legal process necessary to secede.

I don't know what you are saying here, but I'm pretty sure it was answered in my first point.

And I refuted your argument.

Also, to correct an earlier misconception:

The Federal government must act to suppress rebellion. Thus, it is bound to react to unilateral secession with force if necessary, though these days, it is most likely not necessary. However, that doesn't mean there can't be self-determination, just not unilateral self-determination. Take Puerto Rico, for instance, where Congress has repeatedly offered the choice of independence. Any state can petition Congress to reverse statehood. While it is not explicitly said, it's pretty clear that secession would be perfectly legal if both Congress and the state legislatures vote to leave the Union. Congress could also specifically allow a referendum.

By your interpretation of the Tenth Amendment- this doesn't seem to apply- nowhere is Congress given the power to permit secession, and no Founding Father said secession was legitimate with the consent of Congress.

EDIT: Additionally, the Convention Relating to Statelessness was not made until 1954.

1- This is clearly an argument from authority.
2- International conventions do have the force of law under the U.S constitution.


And it seems you don't quite understand what argument from authority means either. As for the second part, is there supposed to be a not there?

Even the Supreme Court does not claim there to be only a single specific process for renouncing citizenship- a person can renounce it by serving in a foriegn army, for example, without going through the legal process.

It would be grounds for the stripping of citizenship. (and this could be changed at any time by legislation) It is not automatic. And of course, as the Confederacy was not a recognized state (by anyone), no Confederate served in foreign army, but instead took part in unlawful rebellion.

There is no mention in the Constitution of a specific way in which secession has to be done to be legal- you are assuming without good reason that there must be a specific process. If within State law it is done legitimately, it is therefore legal.

Indeed, it is possible, and certainly implied in the Constitution and the Federalist Papers, that there is simply no right to secession at all, under any circumstance. I was merely willing to grant a possible exception, but would be quite happy to accept secession is simply illegal, under all circumstances.

The idea of the Constitution being a "suicide pact" assumes that one can compare the American nation to be a person that is therefore "killed". There is no reason why anybody would have been killed by the Tenth Amendment being followed properly.

Also, Thomas Jefferson actually argued that the Tenth Amendment was "the foundation of the Constitution", and added “to take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specially drawn … is to take possession of a boundless field of power, no longer susceptible of any definition.” (http://www.answers.com/topic/amendme...s-constitution)


And all the framers and founding fathers did see the nation as a living entity that must be defended, including Jefferson. For instance, that quote of yours was from 1791, while in 1803, he wrote: "strict observance of the written law is doubtless one of the high duties of a good citizen, but it is not the highest. The laws of necessity, of self-preservation, of saving our country when in danger, are of higher obligation. To lose our country by a scrupulous adherence to the written law, would be to lose the law itself, with life, liberty, property and all those who are enjoying them with us; thus absurdly sacrificing the ends to the means." Clearly, Jefferson changed his mind on the 10th Amendment.

Whilst it may have been unilateral stealing of land, the soldiers clearly had authorisation from the Cabinet to capture Fort Sumter. Not only did this have the support of the Legislature, but given that they were technically trying to capture the fort (not confiscate it), it counts as legitimate use of government powers.

Ah, so you agree that the Confederates were making war on the U.S. Illegally too, as they did not pay, and did not offer to pay the Federal government for its property. And no, unilaterally confiscating property without compensation is not a legitimate use of government powers, either under the U.S., or C.S. Constitutions.

I was using it in the legal sense- in philosophy it would be reductio ad incommodum.

Which is still a valid argument, albeit not in the sense that it proves a proposition false, but rather that it proves a proposition undesirable, which serves just as well if it is undesirable to the one putting forth the proposition. Sadly, I didn't use that either.

To repeat myself, you assume without good cause that there is a specific legal process necessary to secede.

This point is covered above.

And I refuted your argument.

And I repeat myself. Accepting a renunciation of citizenship (or stripping one of citizenship) is a power of the Federal government. (which incidently is not granted in the Constitution, and therefore by your interpretation of the 10th Amendment, a nonexistent power) The process of doing so is subject purely to legislative fiat. It was understood at the time and now, that whatever process is used cannot allow a large number of people to become stateless. The Confederates did not renounce their citizenship through the proper channels, and the U.S. government is not bound to accept it if they did.

By your interpretation of the Tenth Amendment- this doesn't seem to apply- nowhere is Congress given the power to permit secession, and no Founding Father said secession was legitimate with the consent of Congress.

Quite true, and I'm happy to accept that there is simply no right of secession. However, I do point out that the Supreme Court has determined that there is no right to unilateral secession, but yet there has been no rulings against Congress permitting referenda on self-determination. Admittedly, it's for a territory, not a State, so perhaps no one has the right to allow secession for a state. But certainly, Congressional assent is required if there is such a right.

EDIT: Additionally, the Convention Relating to Statelessness was not made until 1954.

Come now, by this logic, POWs had no protection prior to the Geneva and Hague conventions. In fact however, both international standards on statelessness and POW protection long predated the actual treaties signed in the 20th Century. It was simply understood by all parties, much like diplomatic immunity and the need to declare war before commencing hostilities.

And it seems you don't quite understand what argument from authority means either. As for the second part, is there supposed to be a not there?

1- What is your claim that because the U.S and the world see things a certain way it is true, other than an argument from authority?
2- Embarrasing though they admittedly are, typing errors are irrelevant to the discussion.

It would be grounds for the stripping of citizenship. (and this could be changed at any time by legislation) It is not automatic. And of course, as the Confederacy was not a recognized state (by anyone), no Confederate served in foreign army, but instead took part in unlawful rebellion.

You are assuming that a state needs foreign recognition to be legitimate. You have not actually established that.

Indeed, it is possible, and certainly implied in the Constitution and the Federalist Papers, that there is simply no right to secession at all, under any circumstance. I was merely willing to grant a possible exception, but would be quite happy to accept secession is simply illegal, under all circumstances

I agree that the original Constitution gave no right to secession, but the post-Tenth Amendment Constitution did- this altered the "intent" of the document and thus changed the law.

And all the framers and founding fathers did see the nation as a living entity that must be defended, including Jefferson. For instance, that quote of yours was from 1791, while in 1803, he wrote: "strict observance of the written law is doubtless one of the high duties of a good citizen, but it is not the highest. The laws of necessity, of self-preservation, of saving our country when in danger, are of higher obligation. To lose our country by a scrupulous adherence to the written law, would be to lose the law itself, with life, liberty, property and all those who are enjoying them with us; thus absurdly sacrificing the ends to the means." Clearly, Jefferson changed his mind on the 10th Amendment.

Whilst Jefferson's second quote is idiotic, I agree he changed his mind. However, quotes from closer to the time he participated in the making of the Constitution should be more authoritative on an intentionalist theory (as his state of mind is closer to his state of mind as of the adoption of the Constitution)

Ah, so you agree that the Confederates were making war on the U.S. Illegally too, as they did not pay, and did not offer to pay the Federal government for its property. And no, unilaterally confiscating property without compensation is not a legitimate use of government powers, either under the U.S., or C.S. Constitutions.

In all of Europe and the Americas at the time, the doctrine of Westphalian Soverignity (a name I made up on the spot, although describing a real phenomena) existed. This stated amongst other things that states had soveriegn rights to their territory, and that leaders of a soverign state could not even be bound by their word. The C.S confiscation of Fort Sumter was illegal under Confederate law, but so was the U.S invasion under U.S law. (If I remember correctly, Lincoln did not even consult the Senate)

Which is still a valid argument, albeit not in the sense that it proves a proposition false, but rather that it proves a proposition undesirable, which serves just as well if it is undesirable to the one putting forth the proposition. Sadly, I didn't use that either.

Just because something is undesirable does not mean it is not true- or haven't you heard of climate change?

You originally argued commodum that it had to be impossible to renounce citizenship by going to war with the federal Government. I would argue that, whilst it could easily be argued to be a ridiculous institution, it is still what the law says.

Come now, by this logic, POWs had no protection prior to the Geneva and Hague conventions. In fact however, both international standards on statelessness and POW protection long predated the actual treaties signed in the 20th Century. It was simply understood by all parties, much like diplomatic immunity and the need to declare war before commencing hostilities.

Even by the Confederate secession, citizenship was not a universial institution. Monarchs such as the Tsar had no reason to institute it, and "nations" such as China were not sufficently modern. Your argument in this case therefore falls apart.

And I repeat myself. Accepting a renunciation of citizenship (or stripping one of citizenship) is a power of the Federal government. (which incidently is not granted in the Constitution, and therefore by your interpretation of the 10th Amendment, a nonexistent power) The process of doing so is subject purely to legislative fiat. It was understood at the time and now, that whatever process is used cannot allow a large number of people to become stateless. The Confederates did not renounce their citizenship through the proper channels, and the U.S. government is not bound to accept it if they did.

1- Nobody at the Constitutional Convention expressed concerns about statelessness- nor was statelessness protested when American people who were NOT British citizenships were drafted into the navy.

2- The argument about citizenship and proper channels would work only if Congress was sufficently incompetent to forget to put clauses about U.S citizens fighting in foriegn armies.

Quite true, and I'm happy to accept that there is simply no right of secession. However, I do point out that the Supreme Court has determined that there is no right to unilateral secession, but yet there has been no rulings against Congress permitting referenda on self-determination. Admittedly, it's for a territory, not a State, so perhaps no one has the right to allow secession for a state. But certainly, Congressional assent is required if there is such a right.

If I were, hypothetically, in the Cult of the Supreme Court, I would agree with you. However, the Supreme Court is not infallible- they can misinterpret both the words and the intentions behind the Constitution.

1- What is your claim that because the U.S and the world see things a certain way it is true, other than an argument from authority?


Umm, no. The reason that U.S. law on renunciation and stripping of citizenship is the way it is, is because of the generally accepted consensus among international powers. However, that the law is that way is simply fact. There is no citation of authority involved.

You are assuming that a state needs foreign recognition to be legitimate. You have not actually established that.

We are talking legality, are we not, considering the name of this thread? A state is not legally sovereign unless it is recognized, though just how many nations need to recognize it is uncertain. This question, however is moot for the Confederacy, as it was never recognized by anyone.

I agree that the original Constitution gave no right to secession, but the post-Tenth Amendment Constitution did- this altered the "intent" of the document and thus changed the law.

Except of course, the Federalist papers spoke of the 10th Amendment, with the Madison among others stating that it added nothing new. In other words, it was added as a political measure to placate anti-federalists, and did not in fact alter the intent of the document.

Whilst Jefferson's second quote is idiotic, I agree he changed his mind. However, quotes from closer to the time he participated in the making of the Constitution should be more authoritative on an intentionalist theory (as his state of mind is closer to his state of mind as of the adoption of the Constitution)

What? Jefferson wasn't one of the framers. He was an ardent anti-Federalist, who nevertheless found out that his high sounding rhetoric was unsustainable in practice. Indeed, his first quote is pretty amazingly idiotic, considering it is outright stating that rigid adherence to the letter of the law is paramount, even if it should destroy the nation.

In all of Europe and the Americas at the time, the doctrine of Westphalian Soverignity (a name I made up on the spot, although describing a real phenomena) existed. This stated amongst other things that states had soveriegn rights to their territory, and that leaders of a soverign state could not even be bound by their word. The C.S confiscation of Fort Sumter was illegal under Confederate law, but so was the U.S invasion under U.S law. (If I remember correctly, Lincoln did not even consult the Senate)


Odd that you would bring that up, considering that convention was a part of the same consensus as opposition to statelessness and sovereign states requiring recognition. And considering Lincoln did not in fact invade the South until after an illegal CS act caused a state of war, the second part of your claim is also meaningless. As President, it was one of his duties to suppress rebellion, and he had no need of Senatorial support once the war began.

Just because something is undesirable does not mean it is not true- or haven't you heard of climate change?

Try reading again. The truth of the matter does not matter for purposes of argumentation if it can be shown that your own proposition is repugnant to yourself. In that case, you lose whether or not you withdraw your proposition.

You originally argued commodum that it had to be impossible to renounce citizenship by going to war with the federal Government. I would argue that, whilst it could easily be argued to be a ridiculous institution, it is still what the law says.

No. Rather I claimed that in fact, you cannot renounce your citizenship by going to war with the U.S. That would be grounds for renunciation, or for the Federal government to strip you of your citizenship, but that is a power of the Federal government, not an individual right. You could argue that to be an argument to incredulity, though that wouldn't get very far since it is still true. It certainly is not a reductio ad commodum.

Even by the Confederate secession, citizenship was not a universial institution. Monarchs such as the Tsar had no reason to institute it, and "nations" such as China were not sufficently modern. Your argument in this case therefore falls apart.

Statelessness refers to nationality, not citizenship, though clearly citizenship is a form of nationality. Russian serfs and other subjects of the Czar remain Russian nationals, just as southern slaves remained U.S. nationals, even though they lacked citizenship. So no, my argument does not fail, unless you wish to propose that the Confederates voluntarily enslaved themselves. (Note that still won't work. Whatever the reasons for the law being set up, it is still set up that way, and all the Confederates enslaving themselves still won't change it.)

1- Nobody at the Constitutional Convention expressed concerns about statelessness- nor was statelessness protested when American people who were NOT British citizenships were drafted into the navy.

They didn't express concerns about the Wesphalian system either, or the requirement for nations to declare war before commencing hostilities. Did you really think that they would specifically mention something taken by everyone to be granted? And you might want to know that the Constitutional Convention took place several years after the Treaty of Paris, where the U.S. was recognized by all the powers, and its sovereign right of nationality was acknowledged.

2- The argument about citizenship and proper channels would work only if Congress was sufficently incompetent to forget to put clauses about U.S citizens fighting in foriegn armies.

So what are you saying here? The Confederates did not in fact fight in a foreign army as the Confederacy was never recognized. And even if they did, that does not mean their citizenship is somehow automatically revoked.

If I were, hypothetically, in the Cult of the Supreme Court, I would agree with you. However, the Supreme Court is not infallible- they can misinterpret both the words and the intentions behind the Constitution.

Since I was refering in that instance to a fact of law, there is no need to be in any cult. Fact: Supreme Court rulings are law. You can debate the correctness of the law, but that does not change its legality.

Umm, no. The reason that U.S. law on renunciation and stripping of citizenship is the way it is, is because of the generally accepted consensus among international powers. However, that the law is that way is simply fact. There is no citation of authority involved.

Your argument led to the conclusion that things were a certain way in the eyes of the U.S and the world- you did NOT assert that they were true, except implicitly.

We are talking legality, are we not, considering the name of this thread? A state is not legally sovereign unless it is recognized, though just how many nations need to recognize it is uncertain. This question, however is moot for the Confederacy, as it was never recognized by anyone.

You ASSUME a state is not soveriegn until it is legally recognised. This is true by definition under international law, but you have not established that it is true under the laws of any soverign state (in the conventional sense).

Except of course, the Federalist papers spoke of the 10th Amendment, with the Madison among others stating that it added nothing new. In other words, it was added as a political measure to placate anti-federalists, and did not in fact alter the intent of the document.

That much is conceded, although the argument over intent remains.

What? Jefferson wasn't one of the framers. He was an ardent anti-Federalist, who nevertheless found out that his high sounding rhetoric was unsustainable in practice. Indeed, his first quote is pretty amazingly idiotic, considering it is outright stating that rigid adherence to the letter of the law is paramount, even if it should destroy the nation.

What is so bad about destroying a nation- it's not an actual person, after all. Also, Jefferson is as is well known one of the Founding Fathers.

Odd that you would bring that up, considering that convention was a part of the same consensus as opposition to statelessness and sovereign states requiring recognition. And considering Lincoln did not in fact invade the South until after an illegal CS act caused a state of war, the second part of your claim is also meaningless. As President, it was one of his duties to suppress rebellion, and he had no need of Senatorial support once the war began.

1- It does, however, "trump" any such international consensus in terms of international law.

2- You assume that it is rebellion- the Tenth Amendment argument is not part of this thread, but it rests on that premise.

Try reading again. The truth of the matter does not matter for purposes of argumentation if it can be shown that your own proposition is repugnant to yourself. In that case, you lose whether or not you withdraw your proposition.

I have checked.

Some legal usage, and some common usage, depends on a much wider definition of reductio ad absurdum, where it is argued a proposition should be rejected because it has merely undesirable (though perhaps not actually self-contradictory) consequences. In a strict logical sense, this might be reductio ad incommodum rather than ad absurdum - since in formal logic, 'absurdity' applies only to impossible self-contradiction

No. Rather I claimed that in fact, you cannot renounce your citizenship by going to war with the U.S. That would be grounds for renunciation, or for the Federal government to strip you of your citizenship, but that is a power of the Federal government, not an individual right. You could argue that to be an argument to incredulity, though that wouldn't get very far since it is still true. It certainly is not a reductio ad commodum.

And how do you demonstrate that it is a power of the federal government? Under the Tenth Amendment, shouldn't such power be with the States anyway?

Statelessness refers to nationality, not citizenship, though clearly citizenship is a form of nationality. Russian serfs and other subjects of the Czar remain Russian nationals, just as southern slaves remained U.S. nationals, even though they lacked citizenship. So no, my argument does not fail, unless you wish to propose that the Confederates voluntarily enslaved themselves. (Note that still won't work. Whatever the reasons for the law being set up, it is still set up that way, and all the Confederates enslaving themselves still won't change it.)

The key word is statelessness- as opposed to the absence of nationality. By your own definition this is commodum, anyway- the Confederates would still somehow be Americans and therefore renounciation of citizenship would be perfectly acceptable.

They didn't express concerns about the Wesphalian system either, or the requirement for nations to declare war before commencing hostilities. Did you really think that they would specifically mention something taken by everyone to be granted? And you might want to know that the Constitutional Convention took place several years after the Treaty of Paris, where the U.S. was recognized by all the powers, and its sovereign right of nationality was acknowledged.

Actually, I have read the relevant documents- the King of England formally recognised each individual state as sovieregn.

So what are you saying here? The Confederates did not in fact fight in a foreign army as the Confederacy was never recognized. And even if they did, that does not mean their citizenship is somehow automatically revoked.

This assumes international recognition is necessary for a seperate state- a premise you have not established.

Since I was refering in that instance to a fact of law, there is no need to be in any cult. Fact: Supreme Court rulings are law. You can debate the correctness of the law, but that does not change its legality.

Even the Founding Fathers and framers of the Constitution did not intend the Supreme Court to be allowed to contradict them- it is probable they did not consider the prospect of the Supreme Court getting it wrong, but if they did they would not consider such decisions law anyway.

Your argument led to the conclusion that things were a certain way in the eyes of the U.S and the world- you did NOT assert that they were true, except implicitly.


No. I wrote: It's nearly impossible to renounce your citizenship, even today., and when you questioned me on this, I provided the reason for such difficulty. The difficulty exists, independent of the reasoning behind it.

You ASSUME a state is not soveriegn until it is legally recognised. This is true by definition under international law, but you have not established that it is true under the laws of any soverign state (in the conventional sense).

No. A sovereign state has uncontested authority over its territory and among other things, has treaty making and full diplomatic powers. All of this is dependent on recognition by its peers. By definition, a state cannot be sovereign unless it has at least some degree of recognition. Since the Confederacy had no degree of recognition, it was by definition, non-sovereign.

What is so bad about destroying a nation- it's not an actual person, after all. Also, Jefferson is as is well known one of the Founding Fathers.

As to the first, no need to debate it here, but it is one sentiment that you won't find a single founding father to agree to. As to the second, you were using his quote to bolster an argument as to the intent of the framers of the Constitution, of which Jefferson was not one of.

1- It does, however, "trump" any such international consensus in terms of international law.

What? The Westphalian principle was an international consensus, just like statelessness and the laws of war.

2- You assume that it is rebellion- the Tenth Amendment argument is not part of this thread, but it rests on that premise.

Indeed I do, but even if I don't; even if I assume the Confederates had the legal right to secede, they still don't have the legal right to confiscate Federal property without compensation, and thus their attack on said property was an act of war. Being at war not by his own action, Lincoln would still be justified in prosecuting said war.

And how do you demonstrate that it is a power of the federal government? Under the Tenth Amendment, shouldn't such power be with the States anyway?

It can be taken as granted that citizenship was national. All mention of the citizenship in the Constitution or other early documentation refered to citizens of the United States. As a national matter rather than one pertaining to the states, it clearly falls under the "general welfare" power of Congress. For that matter, there is also the Article I Section 8 power to "To establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization." Note uniform, as in no individual state rules.

The key word is statelessness- as opposed to the absence of nationality.

And of course, by the 19th Century Westphalian consensus, state and nation were generally used interchangeably, hence the term nation-state, of which the United States was one. In either case, whatever term you wish to use, it still disproves your notion that lack of universal citizenship somehow harms my argument.

By your own definition this is commodum, anyway- the Confederates would still somehow be Americans and therefore renounciation of citizenship would be perfectly acceptable.

Yes, they could renounce their citizenship through the proper channels, and the U.S. government could accept their renunciation. In fact however, they did not do so, and the U.S. government did not do so, and there we are.

Actually, I have read the relevant documents- the King of England formally recognised each individual state as sovieregn.

Yup. Said sovereign states then signed Articles of perpetual union, giving up most of their sovereignty, before a few years later signing the Constitution, giving up the rest of it. Which in either case is beside the point, since your idea that the confused nature of citizenship/nationality during the Revolution somehow relevant to citizenship most of a century later is false regardless.

This assumes international recognition is necessary for a seperate state- a premise you have not established.

But I have indeed established that recognition is necessary for a sovereign state. And since it is a right of sovereign states to raise armies...

Even the Founding Fathers and framers of the Constitution did not intend the Supreme Court to be allowed to contradict them- it is probable they did not consider the prospect of the Supreme Court getting it wrong, but if they did they would not consider such decisions law anyway.

Funny then, considering SC rulings have been law since its inception, and none of framers did any protesting, despite still being alive at the time. Maybe this is because they wrote: "The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court."

No. I wrote:
, and when you questioned me on this, I provided the reason for such difficulty. The difficulty exists, independent of the reasoning behind it.
Therefore, both in the eyes of the U.S. and the world, all Confederates remained U.S. citizens for the duration of the ACW.

No. A sovereign state has uncontested authority over its territory and among other things, has treaty making and full diplomatic powers. All of this is dependent on recognition by its peers. By definition, a state cannot be sovereign unless it has at least some degree of recognition. Since the Confederacy had no degree of recognition, it was by definition, non-sovereign.

Definitions of sovereign on the Web:

autonomous: (of political bodies) not controlled by outside forces; "an autonomous judiciary"; "a sovereign state"
a nation's ruler or head of state usually by hereditary right
greatest in status or authority or power; "a supreme tribunal"
wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

Even if your definition is accepted, there are several points makeable against it:
-The Confederacy was recognised by it's own people
-Newspapers in the United States were moving Confederate-related matters to Foriegn Affairs
-Diplomatic missions were accepted from the Confederate States, giving some (if a limited) recognition

As to the first, no need to debate it here, but it is one sentiment that you won't find a single founding father to agree to. As to the second, you were using his quote to bolster an argument as to the intent of the framers of the Constitution, of which Jefferson was not one of.

1- Jefferson, whilst he made an about-face later, did actually describe the Federal Government as a foriegn government.

2- The Founding Fathers are considered such for a reason- Jefferson, as the (hypocritical, admittedly) founder of State's Rights, was a sufficent influence on the delegates to be worth noting.

What? The Westphalian principle was an international consensus, just like statelessness and the laws of war.

It was the highest rule of the consensus of the time- if, for example, France had confiscated British land, Britain would have considered it just cause to declare war but nobody would claim it was illegal.

Indeed I do, but even if I don't; even if I assume the Confederates had the legal right to secede, they still don't have the legal right to confiscate Federal property without compensation, and thus their attack on said property was an act of war. Being at war not by his own action, Lincoln would still be justified in prosecuting said war.

It would have been legitimate for him to secure a declaration of war through the normal means- but if the premises you concede for the sake of argument apply, then that was required first.

It can be taken as granted that citizenship was national. All mention of the citizenship in the Constitution or other early documentation refered to citizens of the United States. As a national matter rather than one pertaining to the states, it clearly falls under the "general welfare" power of Congress. For that matter, there is also the Article I Section 8 power to "To establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization." Note uniform, as in no individual state rules.

1- You assume that the United States is a nation. At the time, Washington believed that but many others did not. Various quotes from State governments during the War of 1812:

It must not be forgotten, that the state of Connecticut is a FREE SOVEREIGN and INDEPENDENT state; that the United States are a confederacy of states; that we are a confederated and not a consolidated republic. The governor of this state is under a high and solemn obligation, “to maintain the lawful rights and privileges thereof, as a sovereign, free and independent state,” as he is “to support the constitution of the United States,” and the obligation to support the latter, imposes an additional obligation to support the former.

A power to regulate commerce is abused, when employed to destroy it; and a manifest and voluntary abuse of power sanctions the right of resistance, as much as a direct and palpable usurpation. The sovereignty reserved to the states, was reserved to protect the citizens from acts of violence by the United States, as well as for purposes of domestic regulation. We spurn the idea that the free, sovereign and independent State of Massachusetts is reduced to a mere municipal corporation, without power to protect its people, and to defend them from oppression, from whatever quarter it comes. Whenever the national compact is violated, and the citizens of this State are oppressed by cruel and unauthorized laws, this Legislature is bound to interpose its power, and wrest from the oppressor its victim.

And of course, by the 19th Century Westphalian consensus, state and nation were generally used interchangeably, hence the term nation-state, of which the United States was one. In either case, whatever term you wish to use, it still disproves your notion that lack of universal citizenship somehow harms my argument.

In the relevant period of history, Austria was not considered a nation- the delusion of the time was that it was part of Germany. Nobody disputed (despite good reasons to do so) that the Irish, "Syrians", Scottish, etc were independent nationalities, but none of them would have been recognised as having seperate citizenships.

Yes, they could renounce their citizenship through the proper channels, and the U.S. government could accept their renunciation. In fact however, they did not do so, and the U.S. government did not do so, and there we are.

Following an intentionalist theory, there was no need- as with the secession of the United States, it was assumed that such allegiances were abandoned.

Yup. Said sovereign states then signed Articles of perpetual union, giving up most of their sovereignty, before a few years later signing the Constitution, giving up the rest of it. Which in either case is beside the point, since your idea that the confused nature of citizenship/nationality during the Revolution somehow relevant to citizenship most of a century later is false regardless.

As I have established already, they didn't seem to think so- and they are, after all, the best judges of what they were doing.

But I have indeed established that recognition is necessary for a sovereign state. And since it is a right of sovereign states to raise armies...

Argument refuted above.

Funny then, considering SC rulings have been law since its inception, and none of framers did any protesting, despite still being alive at the time. Maybe this is because they wrote: "The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court."

1- In that time period, people believed in the idea of objective truth. Inherent in the idea of objective truth is that the meaning of a document cannot be changed by it's interpretation. Perhaps naively, the Founding Fathers did not realise that Common Law would be applied to the interpretation of the Constitution.
2- The framers did not actually agree as to the interpretation of the Constitution- similiarly, they thought that the Supreme Court somehow knew better then they did.

Definitions of sovereign on the Web:

autonomous: (of political bodies) not controlled by outside forces; "an autonomous judiciary"; "a sovereign state"
a nation's ruler or head of state usually by hereditary right
greatest in status or authority or power; "a supreme tribunal"
wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

Even if your definition is accepted, there are several points makeable against it:
-The Confederacy was recognised by it's own people
-Newspapers in the United States were moving Confederate-related matters to Foriegn Affairs
-Diplomatic missions were accepted from the Confederate States, giving some (if a limited) recognition


If you wanted to use the Westphalian definition of sovereignty, you have to take those parts you don't like so well to boot. Notice how the very first part of your definition immediately rules out the individual states as being sovereign, as indeed they weren't under the Westphalian definition as well. Additional points, the Westphalian system is at is core a system of formal diplomacy. Recognition by its own citizens means nothing, because it brings about no diplomatic relations. Confederate diplomatic missions were not accepted as such by any foreign power.

2- The Founding Fathers are considered such for a reason- Jefferson, as the (hypocritical, admittedly) founder of State's Rights, was a sufficent influence on the delegates to be worth noting.

Indeed, it is very much worth noting that even the most ardent opponents of unified sovereignty would change their minds once the real world intrudes. Tells you quite a bit about how legitimate the absolute literal take of the Constitution is.

It was the highest rule of the consensus of the time- if, for example, France had confiscated British land, Britain would have considered it just cause to declare war but nobody would claim it was illegal.

You seem to be getting a bit confused. You were trying previously to argue that the Confederate seizure of Federal land was a legitimate use of government power, not an act of war, yet here you are flat out admitting that it is an act of war. I certainly agree.

It would have been legitimate for him to secure a declaration of war through the normal means- but if the premises you concede for the sake of argument apply, then that was required first.

No, because a declaration of war would mean recognizing the Confederacy as legitimate. That you would call for him to do it is a circular argument. In any case, there's no need to seek a declaration of war because the United States was already at war, as the Confederacy began it, as you admitted above.

You assume that the United States is a nation. At the time, Washington believed that but many others did not. Various quotes from State governments during the War of 1812

The United States was a nation by any definition of the term, just as the states were in fact not sovereign. And you might want to note that the quotes are of people that failed. Indeed, they were condemned as traitors by the very leaders of the later Confederacy.

In the relevant period of history, Austria was not considered a nation- the delusion of the time was that it was part of Germany. Nobody disputed (despite good reasons to do so) that the Irish, "Syrians", Scottish, etc were independent nationalities, but none of them would have been recognised as having seperate citizenships.

You still fail to realize that none of this harms my original argument in any way. Austrians, whether subjects or citizens remained of the state of Austria. Confederates can renounce their citizenship for slavery, but that doesn't change that they remain of the United States, and in any case, the United States had no obligation to accept their renunciation.

Following an intentionalist theory, there was no need- as with the secession of the United States, it was assumed that such allegiances were abandoned.

It can be intrepreted that they did intended to renounce their citizenship by going to war. Yet as the renunciation of citizenship is a legal process without constitutional provision, this intent does not translate to actually doing so, and in either case, the United States did not accept any such renunciation. You might want to note how John Walker Lindh is still an U.S. citizen.

As I have established already, they didn't seem to think so- and they are, after all, the best judges of what they were doing.

Except no matter what they thought, by the Westphalian standard, they in fact were not sovereign. There was another political entity with power over them, the United States, and they had no right of diplomacy or border control, as stated in the Constitution. Thus they were either mistaken or they were using a definition of sovereignty that in fact bore no relation to the Westphalian definition and thus cannot be used with said definition to claim for them rights.

Argument refuted above.

Refutation failed

1- In that time period, people believed in the idea of objective truth. Inherent in the idea of objective truth is that the meaning of a document cannot be changed by it's interpretation. Perhaps naively, the Founding Fathers did not realise that Common Law would be applied to the interpretation of the Constitution.

Umm, no. The United States was a common law nation from its beginning. The founding fathers in no way failed to realize this, considering they were born in, and raised in a common law environment, and the Supreme Court took no powers that the assorted state courts did not already have, and have at the time the framers placed supreme judicial power in the hands of the SC.

2- The framers did not actually agree as to the interpretation of the Constitution- similiarly, they thought that the Supreme Court somehow knew better then they did.

No. The Framers agreed. A number of founding fathers who were not framers did not. In any case, even if the framers were sadly mistaken as to how correct the Supreme Court would be, they nonetheless game the SC its powers, and its rulings remain law.

That's actually not obvious. The actual wording in the annexing resolution is:



In other words, it's not clear whether the intent was to give Texas the option of splitting itself in 5, or whether it was to give Texas the option of vetoing any such proposed division of the state by Congress. On the other hand, regardless of how it's interpreted, both the U.S. Congress and the Texas Legislature would have to approve such a division. In fact, this is no different from the case of any other state -- this is spelled out in Article IV of the U.S. Constitution:

being foreigner both to English language and to legal jargon ı first read this as poor Texans having land beside the area under debate at the time and if they could populate it with acceptable people those areas would be also wellcomed into the US . Just a flash of imagination but ı even remembered that the 36-45 joining was wildly opposed , Encyclopedia Britanica had some quotes on the feelings against adventurers and criminals . Having only seen a movie named Walker and knowing nothing else , ı naturally wonder how Nicaraguans would feel about this .

all of these is just a flash . Nothing to be taken seriously .

I love Texas, mostly for their eagerness to kill convicts (and their steaks). However I do wish they had acted on their right to secede from the Union shortly before the 2000 election.