Removal of Confederate statues and flags?

Maki

Ad Honorem
Jan 2017
3,412
Republika Srpska
That's dodging the point.
What is your point? Did Lincoln overstep his boundaries? Sure. Did he have legitimate reasons for doing so? Absolutely. The Constitution was silent on secession true, but it pretty much implied that it was not legal. The text of the Constitution states that it creates a "more perfect union" . It removed the previous constitutional document, the Articles of Confederation AND PERPETUAL UNION. So, the US Constitution pretty much said that it creates a union more perfect than the perpetual union of the old Articles. Does that sound like the document that really allows secession? Plus, it's not like all Southerners believed their secession was legal, they just justified by using the right of revolution.
 

Code Blue

Ad Honorem
Feb 2015
4,105
Caribbean
What is your point? Did Lincoln overstep his boundaries? Sure. Did he have legitimate reasons for doing so? Absolutely. The Constitution was silent on secession true, but it pretty much implied that it was not legal.
It was a lot less of a point than a question asked twice.

I asked you twice, straight away, were the troops lined up for Picketts charge believing that they were defending the right of the southern aristocrats to own slaves? And I picked them, because almost all the other battles the Southern soldier is almost literally defending his home. (See next post).

(Do you think drafted soldiers anywhere are fighting for a cause, or not be shot as a deserter. Remember the line from Stalin that - it was more dangerous to retreat than advance in his army?),

If you don't believe Southern soldiers mostly thought they were defending their homes, just say so. It's easy enough.
----

Does that sound like the document that really allows secession?
Yes, it does.
If it were prohibited, we'd all have the prohibition to quote. And Lincoln didn't use your argument, which kind of undercuts it. unless you are talking theory and not history.
There is a current thread on that, and my post is sitting there at the bottom unchallenged. You are invited

lus, it's not like all Southerners believed their secession was legal, they just justified by using the right of revolution.
Where are you getting right to revolution? The Declaration? The Federalist Papers?
It's only revolution if it is not legal.
 
Last edited:

Maki

Ad Honorem
Jan 2017
3,412
Republika Srpska
Of course Southern soldiers believed and with good reason that they were defending their homes against the Yankees, but my point was that the CSA soldiers knew the importance of the issue of slavery and that they were to some extent aware that slavery was the reason for the war.
 

Maki

Ad Honorem
Jan 2017
3,412
Republika Srpska
Where are you getting right to revolution? The Declaration? The Federalist Papers?
It's only revolution if it is not legal.
Senator Alfred Iverson of Georgia claimed that the South had the right of revolution, while the mayor of Vicksburg described secession as a "mighty political revolution". Also, a CSA colonel said to George Ward Nichols that he "never believed that the Constitution recognized the right of secession" and that he took up arms "on a brouder ground - the right of revolution".
 

Code Blue

Ad Honorem
Feb 2015
4,105
Caribbean
Senator Alfred Iverson of Georgia claimed that the South had the right of revolution, while the mayor of Vicksburg described secession as a "mighty political revolution". Also, a CSA colonel said to George Ward Nichols that he "never believed that the Constitution recognized the right of secession" and that he took up arms "on a brouder ground - the right of revolution".
Well, at least you got it somewhere.
The second fellow is somewhat on the right track - as I said - withdrawing is only revolution if it is illegal.
The second fellow is also somewhat on the right track, but he doesn't say that withdrawal is illegal.

However, rather than pick two obscure individuals, did the 11 ordinances and 4 causes documents describe a lawful process? Yes.
Is anyone officially claiming revolution? No.
Sorry, I presumed to answer the questions to avoid another long process of extraction.
What about the Declaration, does it say the right of a state to alter and abolish, etc., relate only to revolution? No.
Can the State of Great Britain legally leave the European Union?

I don't see where it is revolution. Withdrawal is not prohibited.
It is possible that Lincoln is just taking that position to justify war?
Do you think the Republican Platform of keeping slavery out of the territories is legal? No.
Do you think the Republicans actually believe their platform is legal? Not likely
Did Lincoln respect the Constitution in the US during the war? No.

Don't get me wrong. I don't deny the Republicans their "natural right of conquest" lol. Davis recognized that right in his farewell to the Senate, the US is perfectly entitled to invade a foreign country (meaning the CSA).
Does the Constitution give the US a right to invade a State? No.
Do the Republicans deserve any benefit of the doubt on being lawful re secession? Definitely no.
 
Last edited:

Maki

Ad Honorem
Jan 2017
3,412
Republika Srpska
Let's ask James Madison, the father of the American Constitution:

"this dodges the blow by confounding the claim to secede at will, with the right of seceding from intolerable oppression. The former answers itself, being a violation, without cause, of a faith solemnly pledged. The latter is another name only for revolution, about which there is no theoretic controversy."

So, Madison argues that unilateral secession is not legal and that only secession from intolerable oppression can be justified, though he certainly implies that it is also not technically legal, therefore calling it a revolution. Was the South intolerably oppressed in 1861?
 

Code Blue

Ad Honorem
Feb 2015
4,105
Caribbean
Let's ask James Madison, the father of the American Constitution:

"this dodges the blow by confounding the claim to secede at will, with the right of seceding from intolerable oppression. The former answers itself, being a violation, without cause, of a faith solemnly pledged. The latter is another name only for revolution, about which there is no theoretic controversy."

So, Madison argues that unilateral secession is not legal and that only secession from intolerable oppression can be justified, though he certainly implies that it is also not technically legal, therefore calling it a revolution. Was the South intolerably oppressed in 1861?
Mr. Maki, with all due respect that is a cherry-picked quote and a questionable interpretation on your part..

To the contrary, Madison is in his 30s, is much more clear than Madison in his 80s, in his 30s, Madison not only advocated, but codified secession into law.

First, what Madison says to Webster is confounding.
1. He says secession "at will" is breaking faith
2. He says secession from "intolerable oppression" is revolution.
?? Does that make sense?? If you leave in a snit you are unfaithful, if you leave with good reason it's revolution, Huh?

Second, you have to admit, it is a little peculiar that old Madison is siding with Northeastern-Hamiltonian-Federalist dogma when young Madison was part of fighting and defeating it - at the Philadelphia Convention, and in the Virginia Resolution,, and as President And despite secession threats from the North, like during the buildup to the Hartford Convention, President Madison didn't threaten to invade New England.

Third, as part of the Virginia Convention, deciding whether that state would ratify, Madison (and several other authors from of the Constitution from the Philadelphia Convention) included a so-called "secession" clause in their Ordinance ratification. In the first sentence, it says the powers delegated may be resumed at will. And if you look at the secession ordinances of 1860-61, they say exactly that - resuming delegated powers. No one is claiming revolution. South Carolina did not take an army to Washington DC and storm the White House. What Castro did in 1959 was a revolution.

Fourth, in Federalist 43 and elsewhere Madison describes what sounds like States seceding from the first Confederation in 1787. He talks of states as sovereigns. In contrast to the Webster letter, he cites basic treaty law, saying that violation of the compact by any member ends the compact and unbinds the other members. This is the same principle cited by South Carolina in her causes document.

And last, your argument, at best, is an attempt to sneak something into a 1787 Constitution, based on a single 1833 private quote from a man in his 80s. The secession clause in the Virginia ratification law ought to put to rest the idea that Madison thought state secession was lawless. To save you a few clicks, here is the clause from ratification law that establishes the Constitution for the State of Virginia:
"...in the name and in behalf of the People of Virginia declare and make known that the powers granted under the Constitution being derived from the People of the United States may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression:"

Can you understand why Madison and his colleagues who drafted both that secession clause and the Constitution, would not have put any prohibition to state secession in the Constitution?
And if i know this, didn't Lincoln know it?
 
Last edited:

Similar History Discussions