The Glade 4.0

That to me is always one of the most interesting paradoxes in these discussions. Invariably, it is argued that the confederate states were both part of the Union and never left, and they left and everything after was a condition of being allowed to rejoin.

The Tenth Amendment is pretty clear and was neither procedurally nor juridically vacated until the Incorporation Doctrine that came with the Fourteenth Amendment. Consequently, since there is no specific language preventing a state from legally seceding from the Union until after the Civil War, the Tenth Amendment reserves that right to the States. So, as Kaffis said, either the Amendments were Ratified legally, giving credence and legitimacy to the right of secession; or, they were ratified illegally and the point stands.

_________________

That's actually not what's being argued, although to be perfectly fair I can see why anyone would think that, since it has never been laid out.

The confederate states left the Union, but they did not cease to be U.S. territory. Their actions caused them to lose their statehood. Being allowed to rejoin did not mean allowing them to become part of the United States again; it meant allowing them to become states again, coequal with the other states.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

The problem with this logic is that A) the 10th ammendment has never been vacated and B) the 10th Ammendment reserves powers to the States or the People; it does not grant powers to individual states. In the case of most powers that a state exercises it makes individual decsions about how some manner or other will be resolved internally, therefore most of the time this distinction is moot.

However, seceding from the union is an action that changes the relationship of that state in regard to all the other states and thereby affects them as well. The power of secession would necessarily be reserved to the states as a whole. In other words, a state wishing to secede would need the permission of some proportion of the others; most likely a simple majority since the power to admit states does not mandate a supermajority.

Alternately, if we accept that the Constitution is a contract, then some decision that the contract has, indeed, been violated from some competant authority is needed for any secession to be legitimate. No such authority is specified, but that needn't be a barrier; either the Supreme Court, the People of the United States as a whole by referendum, or a poll of the views of the several States could be recognized as such.

Yet another alternative is that Congress has the power to release a state from the Union based on its power to admit States.

If not, then you're arguing that any state can simply secede from its obligations to the other states any time it pleases for any reason. Since you've argued in the past that the Constitution is a type of contract, I'll ask you why you think the Founders would have gone through the exercise of creating a Constitution that is rendered completely irrelevant by any one state wishing to throw a tantrum.

In any case, the South took it upoin itself to just up and leave because it wasn't getting its way, which quite frankly, is the entire point of a Republic, Democracy, or any other representative system. You don't get your way all the time. Claiming that they had a unilateral right to do so is tanamount to saying the entire Constitution was pointless from the beginning.

I should also point out that powers to suppress treason and insurrection, which are granted, are rather pointless as well if some other article allows an end run around them.

OF course, maybe you think it is a pointless waste of time from the start, but that would cause one to wonder why anyone would bother complaining if it is not adhered to.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

That's a plausible argument, but ultimately a losing one, in my opinion. The Tenth Amendment, which refers to "powers" not "rights", was intended to clarify the division of powers between the Feds and the States within the system being set up. That's different than having a right to withdraw from the system. Also, other parts of the Constitution do explicitly reference Federal power to punish and suppress "treason", "insurrection", and "rebellion", and there's nothing in the text to indicate such references are exclusively to treason/insurrection/rebellion by private individuals rather than by State governments and/or the representatives thereof.

And as an aside: I wish you'd stop claiming the Tenth has been vacated. You may think it has very little practical weight under current precedent, but you know that's not the same as being "vacated".

I already addressed this apparent contradiction in response to Ladas, but I'll point out something else:

There was no "unprovoked attack". Even if one accepts that the states had a legitimate right of secession unilaterally, the unwillingness to continue in a Republican government with other states was a provocation in and of itself. Not only did it weaken the nation as a whole, the stated reasons for secession revolved around the belief of the Southern states that they were entitled to, as a group, maintain at least parity with the non-slave states in terms of numbers, for no better reason than to protect Slavery from normal political examination.

Declarations of secession went even further than this, in some cases citing the exercise of Freedom of Speech and Religion by normal citizens as a supposed justification for their departure.

Given this apparent view that slavery was due some extra-constitutional protection from political process, or even public discussion, I don't think that the southern states ever joined the Union in good faith in the first place. This makes their secession, if it was technically legal, also an unfriendly act by a neighboring power.

Furthermoe, I really don't care if it was a war to annex a neighboring nation. In my view it was in our interests to do so. I don't particularly have a problem with war for territory when it is A) in the interest of a nation and B)provided that the acquired territories and people are then given a route to becoming full parties in the acquiring state (since the needs of the people are the point of government in the first place), which is why most counterexamples of territorial acquisition are not so acceptable.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

I didn't mean to imply that was what you were arguing thus far, but it is the direction a lot people take.


I don't follow how you think the states "left the union" but the land upon which the states existed remained a "US territory".


That is a reasonable argument, and one I could support, if the actions and political decisions/rhetoric of the time undermine don't that position.

Abraham Lincoln suspended habeas corpus, declared martial law in the north, censored all telegraph communication in the north, ordered federal troops to prevent opposition voting in the north, deported a political opponent in congress, illegally established West Virginia as a state, shut down hundreds of northern newspapers, occupied the state of Maryland, issued an arrest warrant for the Chief Justice or the Supreme Court, confiscated private firearms, invaded the south without consulting congress, and blockaded southern ports.



The powers he assumed were those of a dictator. From Wiki:



In addition, demonstrate for me how any of those usurpation's of power have been rescinded. Instead they have been built upon.



Clever omission. The fact that our government has grown in size and scope since the rise of the Presidential Dictator without rescinding any usurpation's of power is what makes our president a dictator. To the second: No it is not. Again, from Wiki:



It draws a distinction between the form and framework, and the political unit which used it.



Wrong. Again from Wiki:





I have both provided a definition for hegemonic empire, and demonstrated all aspects of that definition to be present in the government of The United States. Your own willful obtuseness aside.

In addition, all terms are invented terms. If I were to argue as you clearly intend to I could dismiss everything you are saying as all of your words are invented. Dumbest Argument Ever.

The term "warfare state" is a very valid descriptor. Empires must be warfare states in order to maintain there relative position to vassals and to maintain their national territory. The only reason I say "almost synonymous" is that while all empires are warfare states, not all warfare states are empires.

_________________

Ezekiel 23:19-20 

Diamondeye:

The South left because the North violated certain provisions regarding self-determination for new territories that were agreed upon during the Missouri Compromise. It's a gross mis-statement of reality to say they were throwing a tantrum, as they had a legitimate grievance.

_________________

Lincoln didn't assume sole and absolute power, didn't suspend elections, didn't repress political opponents without abiding by rule of law procedures, the US government wasn't autocratic nor a single party state and Lincoln didn't have a "cult of personality".

You may feel qualified to make these assertions, Rynar, but they're not widely held.

In fact, you reference quite a bit from wiki - Abraham Lincoln's page there doesn't characterize him as a dictator.

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.

He jailed political prisoners, even ones in other branches of government. He halted the concept of free speech, and ability to petition the government for redress.

Another word that fits is tyrant. - The proper functioning of the government was halted and Lincoln assumed power far and beyond what are legal.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

No, Khross, it is not. The South had been throwing a tantrum ever since the 3/5 compromise. They had no legitimate greivance as there is no such thing as "the south" and "the north" in the Constitution. Moreover, this supposed "violation" of an agreement during the Missouri compromise is just the normal legislative process. The Missouri compromise was not entitled to any special protection from alteration that other laws are not, and in any case, any right of self-determination belongs only to the state requesting admission, only within the limits of the restrictions on states that the Constitution imposes, and subject to approcal by Congress. It is not cause for a grievance by existing states.

They brought this upon themsevles by attempting to have things both ways at the Constitutional Convention, and continuing to try to arrange things to protect a voting bloc of Southern states that they were not entitled to. No state is entitled to a particular proportion of other sympathetic states.

It also does not matter if they had a legitimate greivance or not because none of these states made any attempt whatsoever to bring any greivance before any sort of impartial body - not even a token attempt before someone likely to give them their way out of pure sympathy. They simply proclaimed their greivances legitimate by fiat.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

They ahd no right to leave, so the territory remained U.S. territory. They surrendered statehood, however, by engaging in rebellion.



I don't see how they do.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Perfectly legitimate Constitutional action.



Perfectly legitimate wartime actions



source



source



patently false



Again perfectly normal wartime actions, especially since MAryland bordered the enemy.



source



Perfectly within the purview of the President's role as Commander in Chief.



This is sheer nonsense. Warfare state has no definition nor is it possible to derive one from the definitions of the two words that make it up that is not absurd.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Diamondeye:

Except, the South did try to resolve the issue without resorting to secession and in a peaceful manner. New Territories were reserved the right of self-determination by a law that was not changed until after said self-determination was denied and the South started leaving. And it matters very little, since the Tenth Amendment reserves the right to leave, contrary to popular interpretations. It was, indeed, one of the core reasons for adding the Tenth. The idea of the Union was that it was of the willing, and if a state felt the Union no longer met or served it needs, it could and would take its ball and go home. But, heh, the Civil War has always been the province of revisionist historians who like to leave out important things -- say, like, Slavery was bankrupting the South in the first place and its labor system cost more than the wage labor in industrialized portions of the nation.

That said, I grow exceedingly tired of the ingrained dismissal of any Secessionist State's claims to sovereignty and individuality. The situation was vastly more complex than you want to paint it; the questions were not then and still aren't adequately answered as matters of law today.

Indeed, your entire argument hinges on the bare assertion that something explicitly denied South Carolina from leaving the Union. And, yet, there's no law, no amendment, nor any constitutional provision to defend that point. There is, however, Anti-Federalist literature and the Tenth Amendment to suggest that secession was a legitimate action.

Incidentally, West Virginia is a sticking point in your argument and defeats the anti-secession argument soundly:Virginia would had to have sanctioned the forming of West Virginia without threat of further force from the Federal government.

_________________

Bare assertion fallacy. The Constitution disagrees with you:



Secession is not rebellion, and the northern states were never invaded, nor were the southern states aggressors. The public safety was certainly never threatened in either case. Regardless, Article One explicitly deals with the legislative branch, not the executive branch as you would apparently like to pretend.

You are wrong.



Bare assertion fallacy. Perhaps in your mind they are, and in your preferred method of government, but we are not discussing you. We are discussing what defines a dictator, and the United States Constitution in the year 1861. There is no constitutional provision for a declaration of martial law, nor one for restricting free speech. There is a reason no president prior to Lincoln saw "special war powers" in the document. They didn't exist, and certainly didn't exist to the extend that the president himself could declare war on his own whims, and then utilize these powers. You will note that the south was invaded without consent of congress, and that only the congress, not the president, has the authority to declare war.

You are wrong.



The Real Lincoln, by Thomas DiLorenzo, pp. 138, 143-144. Google Books



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clement_Vallandigham



Again, we aren’t talking about what you think would be nice, we are talking about the American Constitution. And again it disagrees with you.:



The Federal Government is explicitly denied the authority to do exactly as Lincoln did. This doesn’t even consider the fact that the crux of your argument clings precariously to the idea that there is, and never was, the right to secession. You can’t possibly resting another portion of your argument that the right to secession did, in fact, exist.

Again, you are wrong.



To the first: Your personal opinions of legitimate wartime actions notwithstanding, as we are not government by military junta, the Constitution does not provide for the shutting down of newspapers for publishing disagreement with the Federal Government. Nor had any law, Constitutional or otherwise, existed at the time of Lincoln’s presidency affording the office of president that power since the Sedition Act expired in 1801. Conversely, and again, the Constitution expressly forbids the action taken by Lincoln.




To the second: Coupled with the disbanding the Legislature of the State of Maryland, by arresting all Democratic (read opposition) representation in that body (bold lettering mine):



…occupying the state in and of itself becomes an act of war. It is certainly not provided for in the Constitution for the federal government to overturn state governments, or to militarize one. In addition the fact that there is no provision for this in the Constitution is further evidence of the fact that the Founders did not wish to restrict the right of secession held by the states. The mande no provisions for the amount of violence the federal government was allowed to use because the federal government have the authority to compell them otherwise.



The above mentioned Justice Taney was one of Lincoln’s most vocal critics. He opined in Ex parte Merryman, while sitting in United States Circuit Court, against Lincoln’s suspension of habeas corpus. This led up to Lincoln’s issuing of an arrest warrant for the Chief Justice.

The confiscation of private firearms was a consequence of the The Confiscation Act of 1861, under which law any confederate property could be siezed.
The law was intended to apply more to non-human property, and as such required the Passage of the Second Confiscation Act in 1865 to finally settle the slavery side of the issue.



Again, the Constitution disagrees with you. The power to invade is an extension of the power to declare war. The power to declare war is not vested in the executive branch, which is what would have had to be required American law in 1861 for your argument to hold any water. Instead, after dealing with a petulant war-making tyrant while shedding our chains to England, the founders saw fit to afford that power to the legislature as a check and balance against exactly what you wrongheadedly claim to be an explicit power of the executive.



You are wrong.



This is one of the worst arguments I’ve ever read. You are arguing against the existence of an idea, and the word that describes that idea, when both the term and the idea it represents clearly exist. The etymology of the term predates the term “welfare state”, which it was coined to contrast during the World War II. You are attempting to Orwelliate the idea out of existence simply because you do not like what the idea does to your own tenuous logic and positions.

_________________

Ezekiel 23:19-20 

Nope, you're wrong. Secession is rebellion. Your assertion that it is not flies in the face of how the Constitution was, in fact, interpreted in the precedent we are discussing right now. It also demonstrates your utter ignorance of events at the time that you ignore that Lee did, in fact, invade the North, and whiel you will no doubt argue that he did it in response tot he actions of the North, the Constitution make no distinction based ont he reason we get invaded.



There does not need to be a Constitutional provision for either martial law or restriction of free speech during open combat on American soil. Those powers are inherent in the definition of treason as a crime unde the Constitution.

Moreover, the power to declare war essentially does nothing. The Constitution does not in any way limit the power of the Commander in Chief based on whether or not a war is declared. In any case, no declaration of war was necessary because this was a rebellion within the United States, not a war with a foriegn power. Not only that, but invasion is a strategic and operational matter, and to a limited degree a tactical one. Congress does not determine strategy, operations, or tactics; those are determined by the Commander in Chief and his subordinate officers.



No, once again you try to cover up your own bare assertion fallacy (which is what your entire argument is) by claiming I'm making one, and then insisting on being granted all kinds of assumptions in order to even discuss anything. You're not going to get that, nor is saying "you are wrong" going to disguise that tacic for you.



Since I've never seen that anywhere else, and I'm not about to go buy some book for purposes of this debate you're going to need to come up with something better.



I'll concede that this was a questionable (at best) action by Lincoln.



Again, you try to make it look like you're right by saying "you're wrong!" and trying to sound all profound. We are talking about the Constitution - what it actually says, not what you're pretending it says.

If we go with YOUR argument that the South has legally seceded, then Virginia was no longer a State. Therefore, West Virginia deciding to split off from this now-independant country and form a new territory requesting admission as a State is not "forming a State from a part of another" because Virginia is no longer a State.

On the other hand, MY argument is that once the southern states had atempted secesion, they returned to the status of U.S. territory by virtue of their illegal renunciation of statehood. Therefore, no longer being a state, forming West Virginia from that territory was no different than any other territory.

Of course, since you're apparently either A) not bothering to understand my argument or B) intentionally distorting it I fulyl expect you'll simply ignore this.

Not only that, but West Virginia was not admitted by Lincoln exclusively. He only signed the bill after Congress had already voted that way, so regardless any use of this issue to ascribe "dictatorial" powers to Lincoln is absurd.



The crime of treason necessarily gives the power to restrict information flow that would aid and abet the enemy. Or are you arguing that the government has no power to deal with treason? I have no idea what "military juntas" have to do with anything other than being an excuse for you to slip in more inapplicable terms for their predjudicial connotations.



You seem to ignore the fact that your own article points out that the State's governnor took the disbanding action, not Lincoln.

Of course, going on to the parts that you did manage to read accurately, I've pointed out that the existance of the crime of treason grants considerable power during active combat on American soil, unless you are prepared to argue that the portion defining treason is somehow of magically lesser importance than the rest of the Constitution.



Occupying a state is not an "act of war" at all; it falls under the requirement the Constitution places on the government to defend states, and under the provision of power to suppress rebellion.

Furthermore, there is no right of secession that the Founders wished to protect or they would have provided one explicitly, nor does it matter what they wished since they failed to do so. You are imagining a historical scenario that never existed to invent support for your absurd ideas. You ignore the fact that the Founders greatly feared a splintering of the States because they would be liable to piecemeal defeat and conquest.



From your own article on the Chief Justice:



So we'll be tossing this one out as historically unsubstantiated at this time, and even if the evidence were firmer, Lincoln apparently thought better of this action almost immediately. Of course, we can't include such trivial details if it would weaken our ideological conviction about dictators now can we?



Power to suppress rebellion, and if you want to argue that the South was another country, then the Second Ammendment does not apply.



Except that they did no such thing. It doesn't matter what their opinion of Geroge III was, nor their ideas about what they thought. The power to declare war is not a limit on the Executive. It says nowhere that the Executive must have a declaration of war in hand to exercise any power as Commander in Chief. Any assertion to the contrary is inventing extra-constitutional restrictions on the executive.

There is no "power to invade"; invasion is a military strategy and tactic. It does not require a power of its own any more than there needs to be a specific power to conduct a hasty defense.



Ahh, yes, I'm attempting to "Orwelliate" out of existance a nebulous term with no clear definition other than contrasting in some unspecified way with another term. I notice you cite no article, Wiki or otherwise for "warfare state" because there isn't one, and we still don't know what it means, aside from "Rynar likes the way it sounds".

As for what it "does to my arguments", that would be absolutely nothing, since the applicability of it is what you're trying and failing to prove. What you really mean is that you think merely mentioning it in conjunction with my position makes some point, because clearly, the nebulous connotations of it apply to the U.S.! Why would we need definitions or reason or any attempt at proof! After all, it's self evidently true to anyone with the "correct" ideology, isn't it?

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Ahh, in other words:

A) The 10th Ammendment preserves a right to leave becuase Khross says so and
B) If the South feels that it tried to "resolve the issue" and then just makes up its mind that it has a grievance, it's perfectly ok for it to leave despite a total lack of any attempt to bring the matter before any sort of body that might even present the appearance of impartially considering the issues.

I don't see any source for secession being a purpose of the 10th Ammendment, and even if it were, that should be ignored as A) not specified and B) absurd as it renders the entire Constitution superfluous.

I'm well aware of the effect Slavery was having on the South. I'm also well aware that a certain amount of revisionism has applied to the Civil War as it has to pretty much any other aspect of history. However, the idea that the Southern states had some perfect right to leave any time they pleased without restriction is far more revisionist than most other viewpoints.

That said, I grow exceedingly tired of the ingrained dismissal of any Secessionist State's claims to sovereignty and individuality. The situation was vastly more complex than you want to paint it; the questions were not then and still aren't adequately answered as matters of law today.



It's hardly a bare assertion that South Carolina was not explicitly denied permission to SC to leave the union because SC never even tried to obtain it. It's rather hard to deny a request that has not been made.

The 10th Ammendment in no way suggests that secession is legitimate unless you argue that one ammendment was supposed to render the entire remainder of the Constitution pointless and the government hostage to threats of secession.



I'll address this one more time.

If, indeed, Virginia had legitimately seceded, then it was no longer a state and the formation of West Virginia from it would not be a violation of that clause, since nothing prohibits forming a state from an area seceding from another country.

However, I assert that Virginia was still part of the United States. As I pointed out to Ladas, however, it was not actually a state at that time having engaged in rebellion and renounced its statehood. Therefore, a portion of it breaking off and attempting to form a new state is no different than forming a state from any other territory.

I should also point out that the Constitution prohibits forming new states from two or more states or portions thereof, not from just one. While that is a technicality and it could also be read as meaning"from two or more states or portions of any state or states" the fact is that claiming West Virginia's formation violates that clause is exceedingly tenuous, at best.

In any case, I still await your response as to why secession at the sole discretion of any state does not render the entire Constitution superfluous and an exercise in futility.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Clement Vallandigham lost his bid for a third term in 1862. The 37th Congress adjourned on March 4th, 1863.
Lincoln ordered Clement Vallandigham sent under guard to Tennessee on May 19th, 1863, two months later.

No need to concede anything. The man got what he wanted, and no political opponent in congress was deported.


http://www.civilwarhome.com/vallandighambio.htm

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.

I'm curious how you can "deport" someone out of the country by sending them to the Confederate States, at least using DE's position.

"deport" was Rynar's position.

LINK to the Federal Judicial Center "Teaching Judicial History: Federal Trials and Great Debates in United States History"

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.

Your argument hinges on one of two notions.

1) Vallandigham was not a political oppenent of Lincoln while he was in congress.

2) Vallandigham was not deported.

Argue either one and you are a liar.



Unsubstantiated, and contrary to most other evidence. Even if it were so, Vallandingham, who was a resident of Ohio, was still, in fact, deported.

_________________

Ezekiel 23:19-20 

Lincoln never deported a political opponent in congress as you asserted, Rynar. The calendar of events shows that. Lincoln commuted the prison sentence and ordered General Burnside to release Vallandigham to a Confederate general in Tennessee.

Still trying to shift the burden to the challenger, I see.

And as far as being unsubstantiated, you need to take that up with the Federal Judicial Center. I think their credibility trumps your dismissal.

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.

Taskiss:

Federal History, within the confines of the government, is written by the winners of wars. Once outside the reach of government revisionism, even the apologist court historians (Schlesinger, Goodwin, el et.) agree with me on this point. Goodwin even speaks to Lincoln's burden of inner torment over perpetrating the event. If you don't enjoy reading history on your own enough to learn of this for yourself, I'm not going to waste my time and energy doing it for you. Keep making the fools argument if you want though. I thought you were old enough to know better, but maybe historical research and intellectual honesty are tricks this old dog never learned.

As to shifting the burden to the challenger:

You are a liar, plain and simple.

1) Vallandigham was not a political opponent of Lincoln in congress.

2) Lincoln did not have Vallandigham deported.

Choose one, and build your foolish argument around it.

_________________

Ezekiel 23:19-20 

Rynar, your need of a conspiracy theory to substantiation your claims should show you the inherent weakness they possess. Yeah, I'll stick with the Federal Judicial Center over revisionist fantasies, thanks.

And, you're confused, I think ... it's the only explanation I can come up with for why you keep coming down on both sides of the argument at the same time.

Either Lincoln was a dictator (someone with sole and absolute power) or he wasn't, and someone with political opponents obviously doesn't have absolute power.

So, pick one and argue it:

1) Lincoln had sole and absolute power
2) Lincoln had political opponents

OR, try to redefine what a dictator is... knock yourself out.

And - the liar thing?



Lincoln refused to recognize the secession as legitimate, so he wouldn't consider his sending Vallandigham to Tennessee a deportation.

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.