Interesting that no on has noted

The Civil War didn't create a divide. Slavery created the divide. The War happened because the divide was unbridgeable and uncompromising religion had made its way into politics in the middle-1800's.

ram said:

tom said:

They started the war, we won it. Slavery apologists need to just suck it up already.

It has nothing to do with slavery. Just following the constitution. But people have been undermining the constitution since the day it went into effect. But that does not make it right.

Which parts of the Constitution? The parts where it says that the person elected is the President of The United States, not just some of them or those that feel like it?

The parts about dealing with rebellions and insurrections?

Sovereign states can not be rebellious or mount insurrections because they are sovereign.

ram said:

qrysdonnell said:

This was settled by the Supreme Court in Texas v. White in 1869. Nothing has changed since, so that decision is still going to stand.

Guess we can close the thread now, right?
;-)

1869 is after 1861. So no it does not.

The Supreme Court does have a bizarre tendency to only rule on things from the past...

What did happen before 1861 is that the Articles of Confederation existed and included the wording "perpetual" in relation to the Union. The Union did not end with the adoption of the Constitution, but was made "more perfect". This is unfortunately how the Constitution works. And just to be clear, the case is about a Civil War secession, so 100% directly related.

Now, you did give me some ideas that I'll pitch to Syfy for season 2 of 12 Monkeys.

ram said:

Sovereign states can not be rebellious or mount insurrections because they are sovereign.

There was a document that took care of that. It's called the Constitution and it transferred sovereignty from the individual states to the 'United States'. You can be pro state's rights if you want, but it's ironic to venerate the Constitution while doing it.

You are such a Federalist, you! Probably venerate Alexander Hamilton or something.

I only go to ATMs that dispense $10 bills.

scottgreenstone said:

mbaldwin said:

It's also the day that my hellebores bloomed...so there's that.

Really? Mine started blooming about 2 weeks ago

Well, might be the first day I noticed them!!

:-D

ram said:

Sovereign states can not be rebellious or mount insurrections because they are sovereign.

Where do you get that they are sovereign? That's not in the Constitution.

Sovereignty is the power of a state to do everything necessary to govern itself, such as making, executing, and applying laws; imposing and collecting taxes; making war and peace; and forming treaties or engaging in commerce with foreign nations.

The individual states of the United States do not possess the powers of external sovereignty, such as the right to deport undesirable persons, but each does have certain attributes of internal sovereignty, such as the power to regulate the acquisition and transfer of property within its borders. The sovereignty of a state is determined with reference to the U.S. Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land. --

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/State+sovereignty

In international law, a sovereign state is a nonphysical juridical entity that is represented by one centralized government that has sovereignty over a geographic area. International law defines sovereign states as having a permanent population, defined territory, one government, and the capacity to enter into relations with other sovereign states.[1] It is also normally understood that a state is neither dependent on nor subject to any other power or state.[2]
-- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_state

No doubt you'll whine that it's Wikipedia, but the citations seem genuine enough. For example,

Shaw, Malcolm Nathan (2003). International law. Cambridge University Press. p. 178. "Article 1 of the Montevideo Convention on Rights and Duties of States, 1 lays down the most widely accepted formulation of the criteria of statehood in international law. It note that the state as an international person should possess the following qualifications: '(a) a permanent population; (b) a defined territory; (c) government; and (d) capacity to enter into relations with other states'"

Hey, even conservapedia defines "sovereign state" as:

A sovereign state is a state which administers its own government, and is not dependent upon, or subject to, another power.

Emphasis added throughout. All the states, under the Constitution, are subject to the power of the Federal government. This is indisputable, if you believe in the authority of the Constitution as you say you do, because it clearly states (no pun intended):

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

You don't have a leg to stand on, other than that you wish it were otherwise.

Why, I don't know. It puts you in a camp with the slaveholders -- some of the most cruel, anti-democratic and un-republican citizens this country has ever hosted.

Claiming the secession was not about slavery contradicts the documents that formed the secession. Those documents stated that they wanted to continue slaveholding and that this was the reason for the secession.

Secession Acts of the Thirteen Confederate States

So your argument is based on making sh*t up.

But apparently it's sh*t he really wants to be true.

Oh geez. This?

Maybe legally right, in theory. So amazingly morally wrong. Would that history fit into neat little boxes, but it doesn't.

Still pissed about General "Spoons" Butler, though. Never going to get over that one.

Morality is irrelevant. The constitution is not a moral document. But it is supposed to be a controling one as written.

I think it is long past time that we admit that we were wrong and let the CSA leave the Union. If the last ten years have shown us anything it is that the US would almost certainly be better off without them.

Wow, really? Once again, I'm caught in the middle of all sides...

ram said:

Morality is irrelevant.

Yes, you have made clear time and again that morality really is an encumbrance holding us back from achieving your ideal world.

Morality has affected Americans' interpretation of the Constitution more and less throughout history, by all parties, including in its inception.

I could be off here, but the South was becoming an economic power with cotton and other industries. The South had great success due to the advantageous labor they held in slaves. Which led to the audacity to propose succession from the Union. The North didn’t want that to happen so the start of the Civil War. However they needed additional support by way of slaves to win the war, so the chance for freedom from slavery was used as an incentive to join the North.

Therefore the Civil War was not directly related to slavery but was instrumental in helping the North. Said differently, I think if the South didn’t propose succession from the Union, slavery would not have ended when it did. Actually despite the Civil War being over, slavery essentially continued but that’s another story.

The Articles of Confederation required unanimous consent for amendment. Those who wrote the Constitution decided it would go into effect when ratified by nine States. Therefore the Constitution was illegal from jump.

GL2 said:

ram said:

tom said:

They started the war, we won it. Slavery apologists need to just suck it up already.

It has nothing to do with slavery. Just following the constitution. But people have been undermining the constitution since the day it went into effect. But that does not make it right.

Must be a pretty deficient document.

Many argue that is so.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/31/opinion/lets-give-up-on-the-constitution.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/07/us/we-the-people-loses-appeal-with-people-around-the-world.html

dos_centavos said:

I could be off here, but the South was becoming an economic power with cotton and other industries. The South had great success due to the advantageous labor they held in slaves. Which led to the audacity to propose succession from the Union. The North didn’t want that to happen so the start of the Civil War. However they needed additional support by way of slaves to win the war, so the chance for freedom from slavery was used as an incentive to join the North.

Therefore the Civil War was not directly related to slavery but was instrumental in helping the North. Said differently, I think if the South didn’t propose succession from the Union, slavery would not have ended when it did. Actually despite the Civil War being over, slavery essentially continued but that’s another story.

I don't think this is too far off, but this isn't my primary area. Slavery became a more widespread moral calling over the course of the war but it wasn't as important as the idea of the Union in most yan... er, northerners' minds in 1861.

Meanwhile, on this day in 1682, René-Robert Cavelier, Sieur de La Salle claimed the Mississippi River and all its tributaries for France.

SouthernBaron said:

dos_centavos said:

I could be off here, but the South was becoming an economic power with cotton and other industries. The South had great success due to the advantageous labor they held in slaves. Which led to the audacity to propose succession from the Union. The North didn’t want that to happen so the start of the Civil War. However they needed additional support by way of slaves to win the war, so the chance for freedom from slavery was used as an incentive to join the North.

Therefore the Civil War was not directly related to slavery but was instrumental in helping the North. Said differently, I think if the South didn’t propose succession from the Union, slavery would not have ended when it did. Actually despite the Civil War being over, slavery essentially continued but that’s another story.

I don't think this is too far off, but this isn't my primary area. Slavery became a more widespread moral calling over the course of the war but it wasn't as important as the idea of the Union in most yan... er, northerners' minds in 1861.

Meanwhile, on this day in 1682, René-Robert Cavelier, Sieur de La Salle claimed the Mississippi River and all its tributaries for France.

I think it was uncompromising hotheads that led to the Civil War. Slavery was an issue that defied compromise.

LOST said:

The Articles of Confederation required unanimous consent for amendment. Those who wrote the Constitution decided it would go into effect when ratified by nine States. Therefore the Constitution was illegal from jump.

Though any state that did not want to join could choose not to be part of it, so it may be an attempt to form a more perfect union, but it was indeed a new union. Ratification did not change that right of states to be able to choose not to be part of it at any time.

gonets said:

Tell you the truth if Hillary becomes president, I expect the modern day secessionist movement in the South and Southwest which is just a fringe movement to grow. I'm getting to the point where I'd support an amicable separation. We had a good run, but who are we kidding? We just want different things.

Plus aren't most of those the 'welfare' states that now take more from than give to the union?

Might give us up here (specificly NJ) a much needed break were they to leave. Just day dreaming here...

tjohn said:

Slavery was an issue that defied compromise.

Really? They made a lot of compromises. They didn't last, but they sure kept trying. Slavery is just an issue that defies a presentist mindset.

ram said:

Morality is irrelevant. The constitution is not a moral document. But it is supposed to be a controling one as written.

so where is it written that they're sovereign?

They were sovereign and nothing says they are relinquishing tat. Just giving up powers in very limited areas.

Nothing other than the new constitution they all ratified.

A good number of the confederate States never existed under the articles of confederation. Where did Mississippi's sovereignty come from?

The Colonies were not Sovereign. They were colonial possessions of Great Britain.
By what Right did they secede?

This is turning into a case in Chancery. And then there were four.