SoxFan59: I stand corrected–the wording does indeed seem to be a holding that secession in general is unconstitutional. (Purely rhetorical question–so why have I seen the assertion more than once that the constitutionality of secession has never been decided? Is this just from commentators who want that to be so?)
Here we have another quirk. As I understand it (though, as you’ve already shown, I have occasional moments of ignorant wankerhood) there were never any prosecutions for treason after the Civil War–yet rebellion would seem to be treason if anything is. Was this simply a matter of leaving well enough alone afterwards? Or perhaps reluctance of the federal government to take a chance on what the courts might rule? (Texas v. White was decided three years after the war ended, so there would have initially been no precedent.)
West Virginia–I think you have to torture the wording a hell of a lot to find an actual legal justification for this–there is no provision for punishing states by dismembering them. I think it would fall under the catagory of “we did it, it’s done, and we ain’t gonna change it.” (I don’t know the answer to this–was Virginia perhaps required to give retroactive consent to the creation of West Virginia as part of the conditions of regaining full statehood?)
It is also specifically defined in the COnstitution.
Article. III - Section. 3, Clause 1:
*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. *
Arguments might be made that the Confederacy did not levy War against the Union nor Aid and Comfort its Enemies.
MysterEcks:
The West Virginian legislature got itself declared the Virginian legislature ( not an unreasonable outcome ) by the Rump Congress. Each state may divide itself up as it would like, subject to the consent of Congress. “Virginia” then voted to seperate itself into Virginia and West Virginia. The Rump went along with the division. See zev steinhardt’s 1st post.
I’m not sure that no one was ever convicted of treason, but hundreds of thousands could have been, legally. Jefferson Davis spent 2 years in jail, but was never tried for anything.
I don’t think there’s much question that a state would need Congressional approval in order to secede, just as it needs approval to join the Union. This isn’t just semantics. The fact that the CSA was never a country is important, at least in as much as it allowed us to “put down the rebellion” instead of “ruthlessly invading our neighbor to the south” (say, as we did to Mexico in 1848). Also, one could of course argue that what makes a country a country is not a claim of independence, but the recognition of other countries that your plot of land and your people are your own. The CSA never got anyone to respect her borders (or her existence), and so was never a real country.
Hmmm, that’s not a very cohesive argument up there, but I’m sure all of you will understand. It’s late.
“Arguments might be made that the Confederacy did not levy War against the Union nor Aid and Comfort its Enemies”
How can one argue that the military action jointly engaged in by each of the secessionist states was not “levying war?”
“Here we have another quirk. As I understand it (though, as you’ve already shown, I have occasional moments of ignorant wankerhood) there were never any prosecutions for treason after the Civil War–yet rebellion would seem to be treason if anything is. Was this simply a matter of leaving well enough alone afterwards? Or perhaps reluctance of the federal government to take a chance on what the courts might rule? (Texas v. White was decided three years after the war ended, so there would have initially been no precedent.)”
This was a huge controversy at that time. Much of the republican leadership wanted to punish the Confederacy and its citizens. However, the tone set by General Grants surrender terms and by Lincoln’s plan to re-integrate the states back in the Union were at the forefront. I mean, it was logical. Prosecutions for treason would have led to thousands upon thousands of convictions, and would have been a waste of energy and resources. I think the leaders of the Union at that time determined that most individuals who supported the Confederacy would be absolved if they laid down their arms, accepted the surrender, and took an oath to be loyal to the Union.
It should also be noted that many officals in Andrew Johnson’s administration and the military leaders who occupied the former Confederacy ruled over the defeated South as a conquered enemy, and the bad blood that flowed from that has left an indelible mark on the southeren mentality. In addition, many of the southern leaders were made an example of (as noted, Jefferson Davis, though never tried for treason, served time as a military prisoner, and many former leaders of the Confederacy, i.e. Robert E. Lee, were never allowed full pardon and citizenship during thier lives).
If the South thinks that Northernors are arrogant, it is a natural cognitive distortion to compensate for a perceived inferiority. This is because it is true; There are a number of vocal and rabid knuckle dragging ideologues who diminish the legions of decent, well-meaning Southernors. Have you ever noticed that the only ones sporting Confederate flags are the skinheaded freaks? Get real, get over it.
2sense: I would still have to say the creation of West Virginia was an action with no legal basis. Or, to put it another way, they were making it up as they went along. Not unreasonable under the circumstances, perhaps, but not legal.
Chronolicht said:
I haven’t spent much time in the South–I’m a Northeast and Midwest boy–but I’d have to dispute the idea that the asshole per capita ratio is any higher in the South than anywhere else in the country. There are assholes all over the place. For that matter, in my own state of Pennsylvania there are apparently all sorts of hate groups running around–I forget the number, but it startled me when I read it. Skinheads and their ilk are not just a Southern disease.
My “theory” regarding West Virginia was done “off the top of my head” without benefit of reference material. My apologies to zev, I did not mean to impugn his history – my issue was merely one of semantics.
For the sake of clarity, I offer this quote from the Britannica article on the history of West Virginia:
“The advent of the American Civil War fueled new desires for a politically separate western area. At the Virginia secession convention of April 1861 a majority of the western delegates opposed secession. In subsequent meetings at Wheeling (May 1861), dominated by the western delegates, the ordinance of secession was declared an illegal attempt to overthrow the federal government. The second Wheeling convention (June) pronounced the Richmond government void, established a restored Government of Virginia, and provided for the election of new state officers. The restored governor, Francis H. Pierpont, secured federal recognition and maintained civil jurisdiction over the region until Congress consented to the admission of West Virginia to the Union on June 20, 1863. A condition of entry was the gradual emancipation of slaves in the region. The capital was permanently established at Charleston in 1885.”
I echo MysterEcks sentiment in finding that most of the badly stereotypical “rednecks” are not confined to the south. They also tend not to be ideolouges, just “idjits.” South Chicago and Northwest Indiana are crawling with them.
I take some measure of offense for those who believe the Confederacy was some sort of noble cause. To argue that the betrayal of our country’s values by a conspiracy of treason to perserve a social order and economic system that was tragically immoral was somehow “noble” is, to be blunt, stupid.
Despite all the talk about “perfect unions”, there is nowhere in the constitution where it specifically says that states can’t secede if they want to. However, there is nothing to stop Congress from passing a law outlawing secession, on the grounds that it would affect interstate commerce. Congress has used that loophole to erode the power of the states for years so it should work just as well for this. What interests me is if secession was legal back then, are the Confederate states even legally part of the USA today? They were under military occupation at the time they re-entered the Union so the argument could be made that they did it under duress, and so it was not legally binding.
The 10th amendment limits the central government to powers which are prescribed by the Constitution. The power to disolve the Union is not enumerated in the document. Therefore it belongs to the state or the people. A state that seceded would no longer be bound by the rules of interstate commerce, due to the fact that commerce with them would no longer be interstate. The definition of treason does not include secession. The definitions afterward are not germane.
I do not find myself in agreement with VarlosZ’s definition of a “real country”. I think that international recognition is arbitrary. But I do not think that this is an important issue. Whether or not the war was legal does not remove the moral high ground from the North. The North, after all, was fighting the war to end slavery.
I think that the reason that the FF did not call the Constitution eternal is due to the fact that they were signing the death knell of the old constitution which had been termed eternal. Am I recalling correctly that the idea of permanence was included in one of the earlier drafts of the Constitution?
>>>I take some measure of offense for those who believe the Confederacy was some sort of noble cause. To argue that the betrayal of our country’s values by a conspiracy of treason to perserve a social order and economic system that was tragically immoral was somehow “noble” is, to be blunt, stupid.<<<
The notion that the North was morally superior to the South is profoundly amusing. There was no important difference between a ten-year-old black kid being worked to death on a Southern plantation and a ten-year-old white kid being worked to death in a Northern coal mine. The chief difference between the North and the South is that the South was honest enough to call slavery by its right name.
As for the offense you take at Southerners who refuse to despise their history and their heritage, I want to say with all sincerity from the bottom of my heart, that I don’t give a shit.
>>>Whether or not the war was legal does not remove the moral high ground from the North. The North, after all, was fighting the war to end slavery.<<<
You really believe that? Say, how would you like to trade your car for some magic beans?
Ah, you poor Yankees! You have to come up with some excuse for the death and destruction you inflicted on the South, and the best you can do is to pretend that it was a noble crusade against slavery!
The Emancipation Proclamation was propaganda, pure and simple. It was mainly for European consumption and was calculated to keep England and France from siding with the Confederacy. (You’ll note that it didin’t emancipate slaves from the four slave states that remained in the Union.) The average Northerner didn’t give a rat’s patoot about the slaves down South, and for that matter he didn’t much give a damn whether or not the Southern states remained in the Union. Quite a few Northerners took the attitude of “wayward sisters, part in peace,” and there were copperheads who wanted to see the South win. Lincoln’s chief purpose in fighting the war, which enjoyed only lukewarm popular support in the North throughout most of its course and was not supported at all by many, was to keep the Southern states in the Union against their will. That may or may not have been a laudable goal, but it was certainly the real motivation for prosecuting the war.
I think you’d be amazed at how many blacks would agree with me.
I must respectfully disagree with LonesomePolecat’s first post. The situation faced by a Northern child laborer was not equivalent to that of a slave. The laborer’s parents, for instance, would not be sold down the river. While it would be an oversimplification to state that the Northern family could just move, at least the family would not be facing armed bands of men trained and charged with hunting them down.
Unfair treatment of people is not the same thing as slavery. Inequity still exists today, but thanks to the war we agree that people should not be enslaved.
Regarding his 2nd post: many of the posters here seem to agree. I think it is time to start yet another thread to disprove this.
Labor conditions in the North and South before and after the Civil War were not much different, but slavery created a class of people who were granted no civil or human rights whatsoever. I find that far from being “honest”.
>>>I must respectfully disagree with LonesomePolecat’s first post. The situation faced by a Northern child laborer was not equivalent to that of a slave. The laborer’s parents, for instance, would not be sold down the river. While it would be an oversimplification to state that the Northern family could just move, at least the family would not be facing armed bands of men trained and charged with hunting them down.<<<
The conditions that many so-called “free” workers in the North endured reduced them to a state of de facto slavery. While the laborer’s parents couldn’t be sold down the river, as you say, they could be fired and reduced to beggary and starvation. Please think about this very carefully. Why would a loving parent allow his 10-year-old child to work 12 hours a day 6 days a week in a coal mine and watch him cough his life away with black lung disease before he’s even 15? If they’d had any viable alternative at all, don’t you think they would have taken advantage of it? And you are simply wrong on one point: persons attempting to improve working conditions in the mines and factories often faced mobs and hired thugs.
The chief difference between a Northern factory owner and a Southern plantation owner was that the plantation owner had specific moral and legal obligations to his slaves (admittedly often poorly enforced), whereas the factory owner had practically no such obligations whatsoever.
>>>Unfair treatment of people is not the same thing as slavery.<<<
As I’ve already stated above, when the treatment is unfair enough, it becomes de facto slavery whether or not the law recognizes the relationship as such.
>>>Inequity still exists today, but thanks to the war we agree that people should not be enslaved.<<<
No, this was due not to the American civil war but primarily to the anti-slavery movement that originated and flourished in Europe, with much of the credit going to the British. (All you Brits in the audience, stand up and take a bow.)
<<<Regarding his 2nd post: many of the posters here seem to agree. I think it is time to start yet another thread to disprove this. <<<
The civil and human rights of the so-called “free” workers of the North were praised in theory and generally ignored in practice. I am far less interested in theory than in actual practice. You can make anything sound great in theory. In theory the citizens of the Soviet Union under Stalin had all sorts of wonderful rights, but if they actually attempted to exercise them, they got a one-way ticket to the Gulags and maybe the firing squad.
Say whatever you please. The fact remains that, speaking very generally, both Northern society and Southern society were organized to protect the wealth and power of the upper classes, and the North’s economic institutions were every bit as inhumane as the South’s.
Your quirky little analysis of the constitution as a support for making secession legal will not work.
The Ninth amendment has long been used to establish that matters which are not expresly spelled out in the Constitution are nonetheless inherent in the document. the Ninth Amendment states “t)he enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” Cases like Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 85 S.Ct. 1678 (1965) used this language to infer that the the complete absense of either a reference in the text of the Constitution or in the evidence of the original intent of the drafters does not mean that the rights in question do not exist at the federal level. Certainly, the legal arguments used to support the concept of a perpetual union as set forth in Texas v. White could be defended with the language of the 9th amendment, even if the issue is phrased as a negative, rather than a positive fundamental right.
In addtion, the 10th amendment only serves to support the concept that secession can never be legal. The Court has interpreted the 10th amendment to mean “The States unquestionably do retai[n] a significant measure of sovereign authority … to the extent that the Constitution has not divested them of their original powers and transferred those powers to the Federal Government.” New York v. U.S. 505 U.S. 144, 112 S.Ct. 2408 (1992). Through the 14th amendment, no state government can deprive a citizen of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, and no state can treat similarly situated citizens differently. The Court’s interpretation of the commerce power has given nearly all regulation of the economy to the Federal Government. Because secession would pull every citizen in that state out from under the authority and protection of the Federal Government in each of these areas, secession will always be a per se violation of the 14th amendment, and the 10th amendment via the 14th.
Finally, just because treason doesn’t mention secession doesn’t mean secession isn’t treason. The federal test for treason follows the constitutional definition – “treason shall consist only in levying war against the United States or in adhering to its enemies and giving them aid and comfort.” Cramer v. U.S., 325 U.S. 1, 65 S.Ct. 918 (1945)Thus, by firing on Ft. Sumter, the acts of the Confederacy became treasonous under the first half of that test. Had the Confederacy never taken up arms against the United States, one could argue they never committed treason. Yet, the seceding states wanted to keep all the federal property within their borders. Would the South have allowed the federals to remain in order to police the property owned by the Union in the Condederate States? Would the southern states have allowed the citizens who lived within thier borders who wanted to remain citizens of the U.S. to remain loyal to the U.S. (e.g., continue to pay federal taxes?). No,not hardly. So, by “not being for us, you’re against us.” By withdrawing from the Union, you become a de facto “enemy” of the U.S., no matter how peacable your intent. A foreign power who invaded our shores and took control of one of our states, no matter how peaceably or in cooperation with the citizens of that state, would be an “enemy” for purposes of treason. So too, would any state that seceded from the United States.
Please, Mr. Polecat. I do “give a shit.” I would love to hear your justifications for the secessionist movement of the 1860s, and of the glorious cause of the Confederacy, which us amusingly morally superior Northerners can seem to grasp.
I find your argument interesting but I am not convinced. I would like to pursue this further. I propose that we wait a week or 2 and then I will open a new thread. This way we could get input from more posters.