Civil War Politics Debate Thread

[Ajidica]

And I insist The North Will Raze Again.

 

[amadeus]

I don't get why people that hate the south so much want to keep them in.

For anyone that says the war was justified because it ended slavery: what if a non-slave state had seceded?

 

[Masada]

For anyone that says the war was justified because it ended slavery: what if a non-slave state had seceded?

You would need to exhaust all legal and political options in that order, before a secession involving force could be considered. Whether or not that was justified would depend on the circumstances of the case: if the government was oppressive and acting to frustrate the will of the people then those might be sufficient cause. If the default option was to take up arms and use those arms to molest public servants, appropriate property and besiege soldiers of your legitimately constituted government because you didn't like the person who won a free and fair election and thought he might do Bad Things then there's not a hope of it being justified ever. Keeping in mind that those Bad Things basically involved limited the proliferation of slavery into free states like Kansas by force and more generally elsewhere through the use of overreaching Federal legislation like the Fugitive Slave Act that took a big dump on states rights.

 

[Quackers]

I don't get why people that hate the south so much want to keep them in.

Aye, - your a bunch of evil, traitors but we want you back anyway!

 

[Crezth]

I don't get why people that hate the south so much want to keep them in.

We need a place to rest our jack-boots.

 

[Mango Elephant]

I don't get why people that hate the south so much want to keep them in.

lol that's always confused me.

For anyone that says the war was justified because it ended slavery: what if a non-slave state had seceded?

I think that depends, but in general I think that would be justified. I believe the role of the government is to cater to its citizens and their wishes, and if the government fails to do this than obviously the states have a right to secede. Of course there are exceptions.

 

[Patroklos]

You would need to exhaust all legal and political options in that order, before a secession involving force could be considered.

This would be what actually happened. The US government is the entity that resorted to force.

Whether or not that was justified would depend on the circumstances of the case: if the government was oppressive and acting to frustrate the will of the people then those might be sufficient cause.

So what would yoru opinion be of the cases of Maryland and Delaware?

 

[Joecoolyo]

For anyone that says the war was justified because it ended slavery: what if a non-slave state had seceded?

Then we'd kick their ass for allying with the slave states.

Not that hard a dilemma.

 

[Traitorfish]

This isn't just "some portion" of the rights of association, though: it's all of it. It seems intuitive that disassociation is just a variation of that (albeit slightly more than just the adding of a syllable).

Well, no, it doesn't, because as I've pointed out, there are plenty of other examples of states giving up these rights while retaining the right to disassociation. You're really going to have to argue for the prohibition of disassociation in itself, rather than just making an assumption to that effect based on alleged historical correlations.

At any rate, the argument that secession is legal seems rather against the spirit of the Constitution, especially in light of how carefully it enumerated certain legal, political, and diplomatic rights on the part of the states. You'd think that an issue as important as secession would be discussed in so plain terms. From a historical perspective, it seems that the states were certainly not intended to be separate nations, which is why so much pain was put into federating them despite the failure of the articles of confederation, the soul of which was that the union be everlasting.

Maybe so, but constitutional law is not traditionally understood in terms of "spirit". That would be an awfully unreliable way to construct a body of law, given how vastly open to interpretation it is.

Aye, - your a bunch of evil, traitors but we want you back anyway!

Rather like Unionists and the Scots in that regard, eh?

 

[Patroklos]

Interpretation of the Constitution is arbitrary at best, and arguably it's even more dubious to attempt to get at the "intentions" of the people who wrote it, but it's fairly clear that ensuring secession would not/could not happen was pretty high on the list, seeing as the largest of the failures of the Articles of Confederation was that the weak (or non-existent) central power it created was unable to keep the states' in line with the laws laid down by the federal government, and was unable to maintain any real degree of sovereignty. Crezth can and has made this argument better than I'm capable of doing, but I think it's important to understand that we can reasonably assume that when the Constitution was written it was intended to be the basis for a binding union between the states, not a loose association or document that the states agreed to be bound to for self-serving purposes; if that was the true intention of the document, it probably was unnecessary to write it, seeing as the Articles were well on their way to creating a "states' rights" utopia in which the states would be free to go their separate ways as they chose; meaning that the Articles were well on their way to seeing the disunion of the states. But that was a change made by state ratification, not federal fiat.

If it was ever in the intention of allowing the states to secede, then the changes to the Articles of Confederation certainly would have been less drastic, and arguably would have been unnecessary from the start, seeing as secession was already being discussed by the larger, more populous and more self-sufficient states. The entire premise of the Constitution was to create "a more perfect Union", and I doubt states dictating terms to each other and to the supposedly-central federal government was part of that.

I suppose we must always maintain that The South Will Rise Again, however.

I like this arguement more than any others made, however it has some fatal flaws.

1.) The replacement to the Articles of Confederation has nothing to do with the character of the states membership in the Union, it was concerned with the character of the Federal government created to serve that Union. Indeed, the ratification and authorization from both flowed from the same place: the states.

If you are going to be involved in a Union, you want that Union to work as well as possible as long as you are involved with it. That has nothing to do with whether you intend to always be involved with it. The same logic works for any contract whether it be your mortgage, cell plan or marriage. To pretend anyone at the time intended for the states to be led by the nose involuntarily by a federal goverment given the recent rebellion from Britain and the obvious state loyalties of all the delegates present is patently absurd and indeed directly contradicted by the text of the Constition. Note, the text, not some poetic interpretation thereof.

Both the Constitution and the AoC were created and ratified under the same basic premise: The Union and the federal government were created by the states and beholden to those states. The federal government has no power over the states, the states chose to follow federal initiatives of its own volition as a requirement to remain affiliated with that Union. There is a reason the federal goverment does not have the power to ammend the Constitution. Congress and the states can propose amendments, but the states always have the final word via ratification outside the Federal govenment. Things are different now than they were in 1861. If the states call for an amendment Congress then initiates a Constitional convention. At that time the Senate was still selected by the state legistlatures whereas now they are popularly elected, so the state legislatures do not have as much influence as they did then.

2.) As has been pointed out the AoC has far stricter language as to the permanence of the Union created under those laws. That language was intentionally left out of the new Constitution. The founders were not idiots, to pretend this was not intentional when this would obviously have been a key issue for people who had not even decided whethere they wanted the Union in the first place yet is not logical.

3.) This position is not relying on the documents themselves, but rather a fictional (albiet good) story incorporated far more than just the Consititution. In the end the Constitution as written is the only thing that matters. It is the law. It reserves the power of secession to the states.

 

[Traitorfish]

In the end the Constitution as written is the only thing that matters. It is the law.

I thought that the United States had a common rather than civil law system?

 

[Cutlass]

I don't get why people that hate the south so much want to keep them in.

For anyone that says the war was justified because it ended slavery: what if a non-slave state had seceded?

We didn't hate the South. We hated the slavers.

As has been said many times by a number of people, if you want to make an argument for legal secession, first you have to exhaust all legal remedies within the existing framework before starting shooting. A legal route might not have worked, but it might have as well. So you simply do not get a right to resort to aggression before even attempting to work out a legal deal.

 

[Patroklos]

And as we have stated here, you need to

1.) decide what that legal route should have looked like.
2.) back that up with the Constitution.

As it is the states left the union by the same legal method the joined it, via their own legislatures democraticly expressed will.

 

[Masada]

This would be what actually happened. The US government is the entity that resorted to force.

Yeah, that didn't happen. You know it didn't. The traitors jumped the gate, declared independence and delivered it as a fait accompli to the incoming Lincoln administration. There was no attempt to take the matter before the Courts or even consult with the incoming government. Hell the traitors couldn't even be bothered issuing an ultimatum for the government to respond to. No attempt was made to seek Good Offices or preserve the Union. At that point American citizens became traitors.

Moreover it was the South who undertook hostile acts first. It was the South who enticed soldiers to surrender (a hostile act), to desert (a hostile act), to hand over their weapons (a hostile act), seized Federal property (a hostile act) and sought through force and intimidation (hostile acts) to besiege (a hostile act) still more good men who took refuge in Charleston Harbour. When relief was sent to these embattled soldiers, the South opened fire (another hostile act).

I could keep going on but in Patroklos world, it's aggressive to withdraw from one piece of Federal property to another. Keeping in mind that this was done under clear and present threat of violence from a bunch of traitors and renegades. A threat that would be born out scant months later, the first shots of a treasonable and dishonourable conflict all the for the sake of a reprehensible institution - slavery.

So what would yoru opinion be of the cases of Maryland and Delaware?

I'd have charged them with felony murder of the Union; Lincoln did and history's vindicated him for having done so.

And as we have stated here, you need to

1.) decide what that legal route should have looked like.
2.) back that up with the Constitution.

As it is the states left the union by the same legal method the joined it, via their own legislatures democraticly expressed will.

Wrong. We now know that there was no legal route. That the South couldn't collectively be bothered to check at that time isn't our problem.

 

[Patroklos]

Get back to me when you have read the thread.

 

[Crezth]

Well, no, it doesn't, because as I've pointed out, there are plenty of other examples of states giving up these rights while retaining the right to disassociation. You're really going to have to argue for the prohibition of disassociation in itself, rather than just making an assumption to that effect based on alleged historical correlations.

In those cases, however, there weren't overarching restrictions of the freedom of association except in that they were all in a state of association with their respective bodies. Which is to say, the Kazahk S.S.R. was associated with the U.S.S.R. but was not barred from associating with non-U.S.S.R. entities in a nontrivial way. Correct me if I'm wrong about this, though, and I will happily drop the issue.

Back to the U.S., however, the states forfeit plenty of rights in the Constitution and in such a manner as to legally (if not explicitly) suggest that secession is illegal...

Maybe so, but constitutional law is not traditionally understood in terms of "spirit". That would be an awfully unreliable way to construct a body of law, given how vastly open to interpretation it is.

...which I shall enumerate presently, understanding the importance of specificity in this discussion. There are, in sum, three essential points to keep in mind (Patroklos, pay attention):

1. The use of language in the Constitution and in its predecessor the Articles of Confederation suggests the permanency of the Constitution and, in the latter case, the Union. The Preamble is very clear that among the purposes of the constitution are the establishment of a "more perfect" Union with the insurance of "domestic Tranquility:"

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

It is difficult to argue for any strict interpretation of these facts in either the affirmative or the negative, but "more perfect Union" can describe one of two things by itself: a Union more perfect than that which existed under the Articles of Confederation (which specifically described the Union as permanent) and before (during the Second Continental Congress, wherein the states were called into being, although this suggests that the union is older than the states); or, a Union that is perfect so as to preclude secession as a course of action. The latter case is even a stretch.

Furthermore, no language is used to describe the United States as a union of sovereign states, or as a confederation of any sort; the Constitution describes a government of its people, not of its states. That is to say, it is a centralized government intended to preside over all Americans as Americans, not as citizens of their respective states.

2. The Constitution offers specific duties to the Federal government in the event of insurrection and bars the states from engaging in War. For the first case:

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

And for the second:

No State shall, without the Consent of Congress ... engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.

Which would be consistent with the secessionist viewpoint if secession were legal (an argument not entirely refuted yet). However, there are some important things to remember about the Federal government and its relationship to the States. Those are, primarily, that the Federal government - the lawfully elected ruling body that, according to the Constitution, presides over the entire United States - is permitted to raise armies, and:

to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;

Which includes Ft. Sumter. When discussing who began hostilities, it is important to keep in mind that every move the Federal government made of troops, every posture that could be interpreted as "aggressive," was entirely lawful under the Constitution. Legally, the Union could not have initiated hostilities: the law was on its side.

It follows, then, that the State which entered into war with the Union by firing on Ft. Sumter was either a) aggressing against the Union by attacking Union property, if it is independent, or b) breaking the law of the Constitution by entering into War, disrupting Tranquility, and being the font of Insurrection, all prescribed against by the Constitution.

If this weren't enough, speaking legally, again, the actions of the southern states are explicitly described as treasonous by the Constitution:

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

The Congress shall have power to declare the Punishment of Treason,

Where an "enemy" could be a so-called seceding state that attacked Union property (such as Ft. Sumter, legally the property of the Federal government as examined above).

3. The Constitution is incomplete, a fact that most sensible Americans understand intuitively from observing its continued amendment. Although it does not offer any specific instructions i.e. "In case of secession break glass," there is a mechanism for interpretation of legality under the Constitution. This, I think, is the most important point of all: the Supreme Court's interpretations are as much the law of the land as the Constitution according to the Supremacy clause.

Note that the Supreme Court's duty is to interpret, not to legislate, meaning that wherever they find something unconstitutional or constitutional, such is the case as it has always been. Texas v. White, I think, exemplifies this nicely. Even though the decision was passed in 1869, it is as true then as it would have been in 1860.

It is of paramount importance, then, to note that the southern states did not do everything in their power to seek redress of grievances before seceding and, upon secession, immediately engaged in hostilities with the North, including aggressive posturing against the Capital. If the southern states would have taken up their grievances with the courts, specifically the Supreme Court, or had consulted with the Supreme Court on the subject of secession, they would have found that secession was illegal. They chose not to do this: they declared their interpretation of the Constitution to be superior to that of the Federal government at large, broke away, and immediately went to war.

If that's not enough, let me hasten to remind that the passing of the 1869 opinion by the Supreme Court is an entirely legal interpretation of the U.S. Constitution by the very standards of that same Constitution. Is secession constitutional? No, said the Supreme Court; and the Constitution says that what they say goes. QED, secession is unconstitutional.

 

[Traitorfish]

In those cases, however, there weren't overarching restrictions of the freedom of association except in that they were all in a state of association with their respective bodies. Which is to say, the Kazahk S.S.R. was associated with the U.S.S.R. but was not barred from associating with non-U.S.S.R. entities in a nontrivial way. Correct me if I'm wrong about this, though, and I will happily drop the issue.

As far as I understand, that was also the case in the USSR (can you imagine Moscow tolerating confederations being organised under its nose?). The USSR was much more centralised than the US ever has been, and the Congress of Soviets was nominally possessing of far greater powers than Congress, and yet in 1991 it was possible for all the non-Russian republics to unilaterally declare independence. So there's certainly no correlation between the degree of federal authority and the legitimacy of secession.

Anyway, I won't bother responding to the rest, because I don't actually disagree with the claim that secession was illegal- the Supreme Court says "yup", and that's good enough for me- I simply don't think that this can be inferred form the correlations which you alleged as existing within federations more generally. What's more, the real question, as far as I'm concerned, is whether the Souther states had the moral right to wave their legal obligations if they wanted to. That's a much more interesting discussion, especially in light of the founding of the United States itself.

So I'll put that up for general response: What implications, if any, does the unilateral, illegal secession of the Thirteen Colonies from the British Empire in 1776 have for the moral legitimacy of the unilateral secession of the Souther states form the Union in 1861?

 

[Crezth]

As far as I understand, that was also the case in the USSR (can you imagine Moscow tolerating confederations being organised under its nose?). The USSR was much more centralised than the US ever has been, and the Congress of Soviets was nominally possessing of far greater powers than Congress, and yet in 1991 it was possible for all the non-Russian republics to unilaterally declare independence. So there's certainly no correlation between the degree of federal authority and the legitimacy of secession.

But if those powers (or the restrictions thereof) were never explicitly enumerated, and all the power/authority of the Congress of Soviets et al was by fiat, then the entire legitimacy of the system is called into question re: the rights to (dis)association. It took a disintegration of powers to dissolve the USSR, and it occurred in a much more general sense than did the splitting of the CSA from the Union.

So I'll put that up for general response: What implications, if any, does the unilateral, illegal secession of the Thirteen Colonies from the British Empire in 1776 have for the moral legitimacy of the unilateral secession of the Souther states form the Union in 1861?

Of course: in a vacuum, the confederates had every right to secede. Just as the Union was legally obligated to put them down, and morally obligated to stop that slavery business.

 

[Patroklos]

In those cases, however, there weren't overarching restrictions of the freedom of association except in that they were all in a state of association with their respective bodies. Which is to say, the Kazahk S.S.R. was associated with the U.S.S.R. but was not barred from associating with non-U.S.S.R. entities in a nontrivial way. Correct me if I'm wrong about this, though, and I will happily drop the issue.

Ummm, are you serious? You think that the Soviet Republics (anything but in reality) were free to associate internationally as they pleased? Without involvement of their national government? Really?

Provide one example of this.

Back to the U.S., however, the states forfeit plenty of rights in the Constitution and in such a manner as to legally (if not explicitly) suggest that secession is illegal...

As has been stated this is irrelevant. This only matters when one is a member of that Union, it is entirely unrelated to the topic of whether one is required to be a member of that Union.

1. The use of language in the Constitution and in its predecessor the Articles of Confederation suggests the permanency of the Constitution and, in the latter case, the Union. The Preamble is very clear that among the purposes of the constitution are the establishment of a "more perfect" Union with the insurance of "domestic Tranquility:"

1.) Its predecessors are not law. The Declaration of Independance (some people use this in these arguements) and the Articles of Confederation are of no consequence to US legal underpinnings.

2.) The preamble has nothing to do with membership in the union in terms of language. It is talking about making the Union perfect. I agree, a any Union should work as well as possible, that has nothing to do with whether that Union is perpetual.

It is difficult to argue for any strict interpretation of these facts in either the affirmative or the negative, but "more perfect Union" can describe one of two things by itself: a Union more perfect than that which existed under the Articles of Confederation (which specifically described the Union as permanent) and before (during the Second Continental Congress, wherein the states were called into being, although this suggests that the union is older than the states); or, a Union that is perfect so as to preclude secession as a course of action. The latter case is even a stretch.

The Constitution was created because the the AoC did not create a perfect Union. You are making an unfounded assumption that any of the AoC was maintaned (in legal fact, it wasn't).

Honestly, none of your assumptions follow. Did it ever occur to you that the reason the AoC needed a more perfect Union was because nobody liked that "perpetual" language and thats exactly why it doesn't appear in the Constitution? Probably not, but that has all the weight of logic as your opposite assumptions.

In the end though it is irrelevant. The Constitution says what it says, namely that all powers not reserved to federal government (one of those being secession) are reserved to the states. This is not ambiguous.

Furthermore, no language is used to describe the United States as a union of sovereign states, or as a confederation of any sort; the Constitution describes a government of its people, not of its states. That is to say, it is a centralized government intended to preside over all Americans as Americans, not as citizens of their respective states.

That really doesn't make sense, but in an attempt to follow answere this: why did they not have a popular referendum to ratify it, and why did states legislatures pick federal Senators?

2. The Constitution offers specific duties to the Federal government in the event of insurrection and bars the states from engaging in War. For the first case:

Irrelevant, again, this only applies to members of the Union. Seceeded states are not part of the Union. All you are doing is proving that the Northern states could not attack the South on their own, only under the auspicies of the federal states.

And for the second:

Which would be consistent with the secessionist viewpoint if secession were legal (an argument not entirely refuted yet). However, there are some important things to remember about the Federal government and its relationship to the States. Those are, primarily, that the Federal government - the lawfully elected ruling body that, according to the Constitution, presides over the entire United States - is permitted to raise armies, and:

This is all irrelevant. Nobody is declaring that the US was not legally able to invade the South, only that they are the original belligerent.

The US can legally invade and conquer any nation they want.

Which includes Ft. Sumter. When discussing who began hostilities, it is important to keep in mind that every move the Federal government made of troops, every posture that could be interpreted as "aggressive," was entirely lawful under the Constitution.

Who denied this?

Legally, the Union could not have initiated hostilities: the law was on its side.

The legality of something has nothing to do with whether something is aggressive or not. Your logic does not follow.

It follows, then, that the State which entered into war with the Union by firing on Ft. Sumter was either a) aggressing against the Union by attacking Union property, if it is independent, or b) breaking the law of the Constitution by entering into War, disrupting Tranquility, and being the font of Insurrection, all prescribed against by the Constitution.

Fort Sumter is irrelvant, the first aggressive acts were either the refusal to remove troops in the first place, or the the Star of the West event.

If this weren't enough, speaking legally, again, the actions of the southern states are explicitly described as treasonous by the Constitution:

Seceeded states are not bound by the Constitution. Again, you are putting the cart before the horse.

Where an "enemy" could be a so-called seceding state that attacked Union property (such as Ft. Sumter, legally the property of the Federal government as examined above).

It would be an enemy, but not based ont he Constitution.

3. The Constitution is incomplete, a fact that most sensible Americans understand intuitively from observing its continued amendment.[ Although it does not offer any specific instructions i.e. "In case of secession break glass," there is a mechanism for interpretation of legality under the Constitution. This, I think, is the most important point of all: the Supreme Court's interpretations are as much the law of the land as the Constitution according to the Supremacy clause.

Then the Union should have brought it to the Supreme Court. They didn't.

Note that the Supreme Court's duty is to interpret, not to legislate, meaning that wherever they find something unconstitutional or constitutional, such is the case as it has always been. Texas v. White, I think, exemplifies this nicely. Even though the decision was passed in 1869, it is as true then as it would have been in 1860.

But it wasn't passed in 1860, and the Confederacy was no longer in the Supreme Courts's jurisdiction after that.

Again, you take us right back to the beginning of this debate: Were the actions Parlament binding to the US after 1776 and before 1783?

It is of paramount importance, then, to note that the southern states did not do everything in their power to seek redress of grievances before seceding and, upon secession,

Please point out where in the Constitution such a grevence process is outlined. Also, point out where the US government challenged the actions of the seceeding states by your own prefered (not required) grevience process.

immediately engaged in hostilities with the North, including aggressive posturing against the Capital.

Unattested.

If the southern states would have taken up their grievances with the courts, specifically the Supreme Court, or had consulted with the Supreme Court on the subject of secession, they would have found that secession was illegal.

Unattested. Historical what ifs are not real history. We have no idea what the Supreme Court would have said, because the US government did not bring the case to it.

Again, it would be the US government's jon to challenge the seceeding states. Why do you think the chose not to?

They chose not to do this: they declared their interpretation of the Constitution to be superior to that of the Federal government at large, broke away, and immediately went to war.

Wrong on all three counts. Factually wrong.

If that's not enough, let me hasten to remind that the passing of the 1869 opinion by the Supreme Court is an entirely legal interpretation of the U.S. Constitution by the very standards of that same Constitution. Is secession constitutional? No, said the Supreme Court; and the Constitution says that what they say goes. QED, secession is unconstitutional.

In 1869 correct. Who contested this. I will remind the thread again, 1861 comes before 1869.

 

[Traitorfish]

In 1869 correct. Who contested this. I will remind the thread again, 1861 comes before 1869.

So is there a single, objective reading of the Constitution, or isn't there? If so, then the 1869 ruling can only be assumed to be retroactively valid until some contrary ruling is established, and if not, then what's your basis for adhering to a "strict constitutionalism" on this matter in the first place?