Removal of Confederate statues and flags?

Code Blue

Ad Honorem
Feb 2015
3,589
Caribbean
One could equally well infer that the states who gave no details did so because they had no legal argument to justify their secession.
One could also infer that - but not equally well. You could apply your same method of inference to Lincoln. He did not try to repair the union by going to court, because he knew he would lose. Both of those inferences would be weaker than the one posted.

Keep in mind the context. I was responding to a post that claimed ALL the states said something - and that was an exaggeration. Out of the two posts in that exchange, I note your post opts not to contradict the one with the clear error. What should I infer from that? :)

For the Confederates, those states that did give reasons for secession made it clear that their primary reason was the preservation of slavery.
Is that so? How about?
We are seceding PRIMARILY because you guys have been violating the Constitution
"...many and dangerous infractions of the constitution of the United States by many of the States and people of the Northern section," (AL)
and because you are going to keep doing it
"The guaranties of the Constitution will then no longer exist." (SC)
and SECONDARILY, because all these Constitutional violations are a threat to slavery.
Oops

Does it matter which is primary and which is secondary? Is that determination critical to judging whether or not Jefferson Davis is a traitor and whether he can have a statute on public property - like von Braun?
 
Last edited:
Jun 2017
2,388
Connecticut
One could also infer that - but not equally well. You could apply your same method of inference to Lincoln. He did not try to repair the union by going to court, because he knew he would lose. Both of those inferences would be weaker than the one posted.

Keep in mind the context. I was responding to a post that claimed ALL the states said something - and that was an exaggeration. Out of the two posts in that exchange, I note your post opts not to contradict the one with the clear error. What should I infer from that? :)

Is that so? How about?
We are seceding PRIMARILY because you guys have been violating the Constitution
"...many and dangerous infractions of the constitution of the United States by many of the States and people of the Northern section," (AL)
and because you are going to keep doing it
"The guaranties of the Constitution will then no longer exist." (SC)
and SECONDARILY, because all these Constitutional violations are a threat to slavery.
Oops

Does it matter which is primary and which is secondary? Is that determination critical to judging whether or not Jefferson Davis is a traitor and whether he can have a statute on public property - like von Braun?
Pretty sure he didn't go to court because a court order isn't going to stop a rebellion from the country the court derives from.
 
Jun 2017
2,388
Connecticut
One could also infer that - but not equally well. You could apply your same method of inference to Lincoln. He did not try to repair the union by going to court, because he knew he would lose. Both of those inferences would be weaker than the one posted.

Keep in mind the context. I was responding to a post that claimed ALL the states said something - and that was an exaggeration. Out of the two posts in that exchange, I note your post opts not to contradict the one with the clear error. What should I infer from that? :)

Is that so? How about?
We are seceding PRIMARILY because you guys have been violating the Constitution
"...many and dangerous infractions of the constitution of the United States by many of the States and people of the Northern section," (AL)
and because you are going to keep doing it
"The guaranties of the Constitution will then no longer exist." (SC)
and SECONDARILY, because all these Constitutional violations are a threat to slavery.
Oops

Does it matter which is primary and which is secondary? Is that determination critical to judging whether or not Jefferson Davis is a traitor and whether he can have a statute on public property - like von Braun?
"
"...many and dangerous infractions of the constitution of the United States by many of the States and people of the Northern section," (AL)
and because you are going to keep doing it"

And all of them had to do with slavery. There was also the tariff issue but the Southerners had won at this issue and the Whigs had given up on tariff increases until you know the South left the Union and their Republican successors had a blank check to 19th century New Deal to their heart's desire.

What were these "dangerous infractions" that didn't have to do with slavery? The secession was a result of Lincoln's election for the first 7(something the South made a certainty by splitting the Dem party), a result of Lincoln's call to warms for the last 4. Anyway the South had basically won on the slavery issue and there huge defeat was a President who was simply trying to stop the expansion of slavery that had run rampant through the 1850s.
 
Jun 2017
2,388
Connecticut
Sorry, but we don't "know" that, though you may opine about what the court did.

Dred Scot is the ultimate can of worms, It not only deserves it's own thread, but probably it's own forum. I have surely been acculturated enough to know that I am supposed to be aghast by the three great monsters of the 19th century: Mary Shelley's Frankenstein, Bram Stoker's Dracula, and Roger Taney's opinions.:) [It's at least a little funny]. Are you arguing for the removal of Taney's statue? I don't think he was on board with secession. :)

FWIW, I have read the case twice, have a bunch of scholarly articles on it – and still can't figure the whole thing out. I do know that most opinions are expressed by people who haven't read the case; and that most of those opinions are inaccurate.

Taney ordered that the justices craft individual opinions. Curtis quit the court over this. One of the justices just “mailed it in,” writing that he agrees with whatever Taney wrote. So, there are nine separate, and eight distinct opinions. Does that give you pause?

So, every time someone writes something like
-The court ruled..., or
- (and I love this one) Writing for the majority, Taney said..., or
and that is followed by one of the two most quoted passages
-the one about Negroes have no right that a white man must recognize
-Negroes are a sub-order
the claims are quite flawed. And if only two justices endorse such claims, are they “the law of the land?”

As to the Missouri Compromise and such – if Scott's attorney's are arguing that residing in Missouri, for example, somehow implicitly manumitted or naturalized Scott into a citizen, then isn't the law supposedly prevailing in Missouri – then mechanism by which Scott was freed - something that ought to be scrutinized?

I surely struggle with the idea that Congress's authority over territories is custodial and not plenary. However, I find it more understandable that once the territory becomes a state, the state is "sovereign" enough not to be bound laws passed pursuant to jurisdiction that Congress has only over territories. I think what is particularly offensive to most people is accepting that the right to own slaves is - under these rulings - inalienable. And that it is portable, like every other inalienable right. And that is in keeping with the Constitution - and not proof of some urge to promote slavery beyond what the allows. This is why Garrison used to say that if slavery is legal, then the Constitution is a pact with the devil, that the north should secede to avoid being bound to the devil and his sin of slavery. I like his argument.
I mean the main holdings were beyond the vanilla case and controversy even if he went in the opposite direction. That isn't arguable. He brought race into it, and he basically ruled all compromises that had held the Union together unconstitutional. Courts are supposed to not answer political questions especially when they are not related to the litigation and Dred Scott went well beyond this, even not bringing in morals.

He has statues? Where? Didn't know Dred Scott being a terrible decision was a point of contention.

You seem to hate the consensus and group think, for being consensus and group think rather than having a substantive issue with the group think itself. Not all propaganda and one way stories are false, sometimes telling both sides is the greatest injustice.

No, none at all given the men who had appointed them especially when two of those pro slavery administrations only existed due to President's dying in office and ideologically contrarian Vice Presidents taking over. Take down all the statues. The Southern Democrats left the Convention over Stephen Douglas, Southern Congressmen and Southern Senators almost all jumped ship. Is their numerical number supposed to convince me of the logic of their decision? The "Dred Scott is bad" consensus isn't relying on being consensus it's relying on the decision being terrible on the merits and starting a war.

Would you prefer we cite the name of every judge? Barring a particularly eloquent or legally significant opinion or dissent given by another justice, court decisions particularly one's that are almost unanimous are labelled by the Chief Justice. Marshall, Warren etc. Taney was Chief Justice, not discounting the evil of the other justices but it's more convenient to label the chief here. Sure it might be interesting to see the concurring opinions but the fact they agreed is really all that matters here, because those separate opinions were concurring meaning they agreed and the fact Taney asked them to write them makes this doubly true, usually SCOTUS Justices opt to write concurring opinions because they agree with the majority but have different reasoning for it, not the other way around where the Justice asks them.

The Missouri Compromise was also repealed by Kansas Nebraska. They were ruling on Congress's right to do the Compromise in the first place cause it was what made Missouri a slave state. They were going out there and typically judges don't do that even within the relevant subject matter, never mind this. Anyway that's one point of the three.

Where does the Constitution say slavery is an inalienable right?
 

Poly

Ad Honorem
Apr 2011
6,661
Georgia, USA
...the "United States" is exactly that - a union of States. It is not the United Individual Persons of America. The question on which the issue of the lawfulness of secession turns is - to what did the States assent, and is that assent conditions or unconditional, a mere "delegation" of part of their authority as it says in the Constitution, or an unconditional surrender of sovereignty which seems to be the presumption of your claim. However, if you want to renounce your citizenship individually, I'd don't think that's treason as you are not "levying war." (and that is the Constitution's definition)....
What is one or more states wish to seek freedom from the United States ?

Are you saying that if a state joins the USA it can never leave...no matter how badly the USA treats it ?

The confederate states fought for their freedom....but the USA crushed them.


...the question of lawfulness re secession in the US ca 1860 is whether the States can renounce their membership - at which point the politicians who engineered this are no longer citizens, and their mere renunciation is not levying war, either. So, it's not treason on law or facts....
Are you saying that the declaration of independence of the confederate states was illegal ?


Well by that score, the UK deemed that the declaration of independence by the 13 colonies was also illegal.

What is the difference ?
 

Code Blue

Ad Honorem
Feb 2015
3,589
Caribbean
What is one or more states wish to seek freedom from the United States ?
Are you saying that if a state joins the USA it can never leave...no matter how badly the USA treats it ?
To answer the second question first - not that I know of. I am sure there are several participants in this thread who think I am arguing much the opposite.

Have you read the thread?

As to the first question, I was going to ask that one myself at some point. Like if all 50 States agree, both houses of Congress in super majority agree? That question ought to be asked of those who construe the Constitution as a surrender document, because even a surrender document, like pretty much anything else in law, can be unmade in the same manner in which it was made.
 

Code Blue

Ad Honorem
Feb 2015
3,589
Caribbean
Didn't know Dred Scott being a terrible decision was a point of contention.
Did you miss my points? How many contenders actually read the case? Also, it is a huge can of worms, and I don't want to sidetrack this thread.

You seem to hate the consensus and group think
Am I the issue? FWIW, mostly I hate murders, thieves, perjurers and rapists, especially child rapists. Group think is not necessarily bad. Group non think probably is, with or without the group.

Where does the Constitution say slavery is an inalienable right?
Just to clarify the statement you are addressing. I wrote Taney treated it like an inalienable right (with respect to Congress}. As I recall the reasoning in its simplest form was something like - the citizen slave owner had just as much right to bring his property into territories and the non slave owning citizen. Do you think it is unreasonable to infer that he is saying - the slave owner can't be alienated or separated from his right to possess slaves just because he is moving to a territory? An unalienable right is one from which the citizen cannot be alienated. By contrast, a State could alienate one of its citizens from the right to own a slave or pretty much any other rights, antebellum.
 
Last edited:
Jun 2017
2,388
Connecticut
Did you miss my points? How many contenders actually read the case? Also, it is a huge can of worms, and I don't want to sidetrack this thread.

Am I the issue? FWIW, mostly I hate murders, thieves, perjurers and rapists, especially child rapists. Group think is not necessarily bad. Group non think probably is, with or without the group.

Just to clarify the statement you are addressing. I wrote Taney treated it like an inalienable right (with respect to Congress}. As I recall the reasoning in its simplest form was something like - the citizen slave owner had just as much right to bring his property into territories and the non slave owning citizen. Do you think it is unreasonable to infer that he is saying - the slave owner can't be alienated or separated from his right to possess slaves just because he is moving to a territory? An unalienable right is one from which the citizen cannot be alienated. By contrast, a State could alienate one of its citizens from the right to own a slave or pretty much any other rights, antebellum.
1)Even law students only read edited landmark cases that talk about the legally relevant points. Dred Scott is not a relevant case, the law in it is not relevant so therefore very few legal scholars are going to have reason to read it unless making some sort of unflattering comparison.

2)Context is everything. I see this movement where people are distrusting established things and concepts for the sake of distrusting them, because there used to the general narrative being false. We have an underlying bias for discovering truth or figuring out things are different no matter how obvious they might seem.

3)He brought up the Property Clause but it sickens me to even entertain this for the purpose of rebuttal but other types of property can be banned in one state and not another, and a person's moving to a state where said practice is illegal and even then there's the whole "due process", "just compensation issues" and the fact in pro slave states under state law you know humans might be treated as humans not as chattels(part of what made this case so disgusting is it made free Africans in states that deemed them citizens not citizens based on racial inferiority, something that no matter how you interpret it was not something that the Founders intended even if many of them and the Constitution was "pro slavery"(and it isn't, it specifically ignores the issue). This case made no sense no matter what years twisted social lens, legal precedents etc you view it through. Congress didn't have to admit a new state, the reason Missouri and it's successors were admitted in the first place was because under the infrastructure of the Missouri Compromise, it maintained the balance of power in Congress and states were willing to vote for it and wouldn't have if the Compromise wasn't in place.
 
Jun 2017
2,388
Connecticut
It is also possible the court would say this isn't a rebellion. Fear of the jury saying that is exactly what Jefferson Davis wasn't put on trial.
The Union went with a "if the crime wasn't legal and you aren't able to do it, it never actually happened" sort of logic even when maintaining secession was illegal, can see the Chase court seeing recognizing Davis's role as recognizing the existence of the CSA, rather than just another former US Senator who left the Union. Lincoln was in the process of ignoring Habeus, and this probably didn't make the Courts a fan so who knows but I'm very skeptical SCOTUS would rule on that.
 

Similar History Discussions