That clause can be amended in the same amendment, too.
No.
Not on an ongoing basis. What Lincoln said, quoted by **Human Action **in the third post in this thread, shows the ruin that would lead to.
BUT:
The way things are these days, I’d love to see a “put up or shut up” amendment - one that would give states a limited window of time (e.g. 7 years) to either secede and get it over with, or shut the hell up about it for a few decades at least.
If it were up to me, I’d require that a state clear a fairly high bar in demonstrating that a substantial and enduring majority of its citizens desired to secede: they would have to have statewide referenda on the question of secession on the regular election day in the November of two consecutive even-numbered years, and in both instances, at least 60% of the voters would have to vote in favor of secession. Any state that could clear that hurdle in the 7-year window could skedaddle. Otherwise, forget it.
Only via an amendment or Constitutional convention. There is no other mechanism for secession or expulsion. Or, what ElvisL1ves said.
It would have been rather easy for the prosecution to demonstrate that Davis had waged war against the United States, given that he was the commander-in-chief of an army waging war against the United States. It would have been the most slam-dunk case in the entire history of jurisprudence.
This is not a matter of “absolutism.” The Constitution defines treason very clearly, and does so for the obvious reason of making it very clear what constitutes treason, and Davis did it.
"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. "
Article 3, Section 3 of the Constitution
Presumably there was a treason law in force at the time.
Well, no.
Why not? Is anyone who levies war against the United States guilty of treason?
No, only a US citizen. Which Davis was, according to the US, whose courts are the ones in question.
“If you bring these leaders to trial it will condemn the North”, “For by the Constitution secession is not rebellion”
Chief Justice of the Supreme Court
Salmon P. Chase
I do believe that settles the matter.
Capt
But that would be an element you’d need to prove. Which is why I disgree with the “no” answer as to whether the US would have to prove its authority over Davis.
But under American law, which is what an American court would be using, Davis was an American citizen. The fact that Davis might disagree wouldn’t matter. If the law required defendants to agree to the findings of a trial, we’d have a very different legal system.
I’m not sure that it would have been as clear “under American law” at the time as it is in your assertion, but even then they’d still have to prove it.
Which would be trivial to do. So?
Davis’ claim would have been that he had abjured his US citizenship upon his state’s secession, not that he’d never had it.
Apparently it didn’t settle the issue for Chase. He wrote the court’s opinion in Texas v. White: “The Constitution, in all its provisions, looks to an indestructible Union composed of indestructible States. When Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation. The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration or revocation, except through revolution or through consent of the States. Considered as transactions under the Constitution, the ordinance of secession, adopted by the convention, and ratified by a majority of the citizens of Texas, and all the acts of her legislature intended to give effect to that ordinance, were absolutely null. They were utterly without operation in law. The State did not cease to be a State, nor her citizens to be citizens of the Union.”
Well, quite frankly, you’re simply wrong. In American law, there is no such thing as Confederate citizenship. Anyone who claimed to be a Confederate citizen was actually a citizen of the United States according to American law. All the court would have had to do was show that Davis had been born in Kentucky in 1808 and had never lost his citizenship in a manner that the United States recognized as valid.
Even so, would his citizenship actually matter? He was born a US citizen, lived for 53 years as such, and decided to renounce (formally?) that citizenship for the purpose of leading the confederacy. As a citizen, he was privy to a great deal of knowledge and inside information. He proceeded to commit treasonous acts under the guise of not being a US citizen, but can that be accepted as extenuating?
If I want to martially engage the US, I just have to renounce my citizenship and therewith you cannot charge me with treason? When the US legal system treats foreign visitors with due process equivalent to that enjoyed by citizens? I think the idea that Davis could escape through such a tenuous loophole is naïve at best.
Does anyone think that, if the South had seceded, but then NOT attacked Fort Sumter and sparked a civil war, that the North would have resolved to attack first?
Or was it the act of aggression by the South that resolved the question by uniting the North in favour of fighting for the Union?
i.e. if no fighting, would the North have grudgingly acquiesced, not being prepared to fire the first shot to retake the seceding States?
Depending on how you view things, the presence of bluecoats at Fort Sumter and their refusal to surrender peacefully (or simply fuck off) can essentially be seen as passive aggression to begin with. At the very least it was an implicit denial of the South’s sovereignty.
Quite. What I’ve not been able to pin down is whether or not the Fort or the Federal Government ever said to the seceding States in those first few days after the first Secession ‘No, up yours, Sumter is ours and we’re coming to shut you all down.’ It seems they were actually surprisingly mute about the whole affair and didn’t attempt to lift any fingers to nip the secessions in the bud immediately.
Is this deliberate, as in, inviting the South to fire the first shot to better unite the North, or was Lincoln’s government actually uncertain about whether secession was legal?
No, both the Buchanan administration and the Lincoln administration were quite clear on this issue: they stated that secession was not legal.
The problem was trying to control it. The hope was that the seceding states could be convinced via negotiation to change their mind and return to the Union peacefully. Many people in the north (including Lincoln) wrongly assumed that secession was only favored by a few extremists and that a moderate anti-secession majority existed and would soon assert itself. More realistically, there were the border states where secession hadn’t happened yet and Lincoln was trying to convince these states not to join the states that had already seceded.
After the Confederates declared war on the United States by shooting at American troops, there was no longer any realistic hope of a peaceful resolution. Lincoln announced a military mobilization the week after the attack on Ft Sumter. In response, Arkansas, North Carolina, Tennessee, and Virginia announced they were seceding and joining the Confederacy.