Automotive Deals HPCC Shop Women's Clothing Learn more nav_sap_plcc_ascpsc Stephen Marley Fire TV Stick Health, Household and Grocery Back to School Handmade school supplies Shop-by-Room Amazon Cash Back Offer harmonquest_s1 harmonquest_s1 harmonquest_s1  Amazon Echo  Echo Dot  Amazon Tap  Echo Dot  Amazon Tap  Amazon Echo Introducing new colors All-New Kindle Oasis Enter for the chance to win front row seats to Barbra Streisand Water Sports
Customer Discussions > History forum

Was Lincoln's invasion of the South Constitutional?


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 201-225 of 1000 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on May 13, 2012 7:38:17 PM PDT
Ataraxia writes...

"From a legal perspective, I am having a tough time seeing the difference between the secession of the colonies in the American Revolution and the secession of the southern states from the union."

RG responds...

So let's take a closer look...

In the case of the colonists in 1776, you have a class of British subjects living in North America, who are denied the right to elect represents to the legislative body which enacts the laws to which they are subject. They are totally disenfranchised. Add in the fact that in the run-up to Lexington & Concord, the colonists have been subject to, among other things, collective punishments which disregard the question of individual innocence or guilt.

In contrast...

The citizens of South Carolinia & Company can make no claim that they were disenfranchised. Nor can they claim that the representatives that they elected at the Federal level have been denied legislative due process. Thus, there can be no claim that they have been the victims of a breech of the constitutional contract. The most that can be claimed is that they are dissatisfied with the results of certain votes duly arrived at in accordance with wholly constitutional procedures which they voluntarily themselves ratified.

Now, bear in mind that in the Just War tradition, the right to rebel is based upon the right of self-defense against the unjust exercise of unlimited power. Based upon the underlying factual differences between the two cases, the colonists CAN legitimately invoke the right to rebel. South Carolinia & Company CANNOT. They simply don't have the same level of complaints. Moreover, they're also on problemmatic Just War grounds with regard to the requirement for just cause given the announced purpose of preserving the institution of slavery stated in several of their secession ordinances. In essence, the recourse to war cannot be held to be legitimate if its purpose is to effect an unjust objective. That alone would be sufficient to render SC's stated case for any right to defend its secession by force on just war terms a complete non-starter.

What SC & Company could have done legitimately at its lesser level of grievance was to PETITION the other states for a negotiated dissolution of the union. One can always seek to negotiate one's way out of a contract by persuading the other parties to the contract to grant a release. The critical point is that the original contract must be acknowledged as still in effect and legally binding until a negotiated release is agreed. This would have been a lawful means of secession. What you can't do lawfully is to declare a contract dissolved UNILATERALLY. If you do that, the other parties to the contract are within their rights to seek remedies against you. In essence, this is what happened.

In reply to an earlier post on May 14, 2012 5:05:58 AM PDT
freedom4all says:
Mark R. Allen says: f4a I don't think any of the confederate states held plebiscites

f4a: No they didn't. But they use the very same democratic legislative body that was used to join the Union. If that body was legal in 1788-9 why was it not in 1860-1? But what argument for legislative entrenchment justifies the right to bind future generations the dictates of long dead legislatures?

Wilson 14 point was a recognition of human rights and freedom that all people have always had no matter the tyranny pressed on them. So too does the D of I and the UN Charter. Humans has freedom and have right by the fact that they are human beings, not by the dictates of some government.

The D of I was true of all time, not just after it was written, as as Newton Laws of Gravity are true (within Einstein's parameters) for all time through out the entire universe. Principles are truths that set human being free. Law are artificial contrivances that enslave. Laws can be changed to suit poloticial purposes. Principles cannot.

In reply to an earlier post on May 14, 2012 5:12:40 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on May 14, 2012 12:51:16 PM PDT
freedom4all says:
Guy, it makes no difference to the reason. Just or unjust each individual human being has the inherent freedom of self determination . The evil of slavery is indescribable. They make have left to grow this crime against humanity and terrible thing indeed. But they had the right to leave, no matter the reason. Lincoln would have let them keep their slaves (against any considerations of right or wrong) if the would only honor his tariffs.

There is much to hate on both sides of this fight. That the winner make it into some holy is absurd.

Posted on May 14, 2012 5:18:30 AM PDT
Boy, the neo-Confederates just won't give up, will they? The South was the good guys! The North were the bad guys! Lincoln was an evil dictator! Slave owners were very considerate! Negroes have lower IQs!

Some crap just never dies, I guess.

Posted on May 14, 2012 5:20:22 AM PDT
To refute some of f's endless neo-Confed crap, which he's apparently spreading on every forum he can get into:

http://bartonpaullevenson.com/CivilWar.html

Posted on May 14, 2012 9:59:45 AM PDT
aLocher says:
Addressing the point (discussed above) as to whether any of the Confederate states held plebiscites on secession -- three actually did hold a statewide popular referendum or plebisicite on the issue: Texas, Tennessee, and Virgina. Obviously, in each instance, the vote was to secede.

In reply to an earlier post on May 14, 2012 11:51:49 AM PDT
f4a

But you talked about requiring plebiscites. But not for the confederacy. As much as I like the D of I, it is not comparable to a scientific law. You are stretching that one beyond recognition. Why do you keep bringing up the UN charter and the 14 points, as they did not exist at the time? They are irrelevant to the discussion.

In reply to an earlier post on May 14, 2012 12:12:39 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on May 14, 2012 12:24:21 PM PDT
S. Powell says:
No, the Lincoln invasion was not constitutional. The South had [and still has] as much right for self determination as the original colonies did in the beginning. Several of the original colonies who were not going to support the constitution did when [to put it in lay mans terms] they put in their state constitutions that they basically reserved the right to recall their support of the Federal government whenever it became clear that said Federal government was not representing them the way they wanted. Hell, the North has the right to withdrawal from the union and set up their own separate government.

Also, the North had no righteous cause. A large part of it had to do with money, and how much of it the Federal government would not see if the South broke away. Abraham Lincoln himself is quoted in History as saying that slaves, or freed people-whatever it took to save the Union. And his proclamation did not free the slaves. It only did this in the southern states in hopes of the freed people becoming a fifth column right here in the South. This never happened. Get away from Yankee history and you will find plenty of stories of Black people who stood side by side with Whites to protect their lives from invaders. You will also find plenty of stories of so called volunteer blacks for the North were anything but.

I could go on and on. There is decades upon decades of research and study on the fact the the South had the right to self determination and to this day we are no different then all of those little countries that Russia swallowed up at one time-some of whom are finally becoming free after over 100 years.

If any Southern people from that time were alive today to see the idiot in the White House trying to tell Americans that they have to buy something, they would probably say "we told you so." When the Federalists won it was inevitable that States rights would be trampled on. Most People today have no idea how people at that time thought. They looked upon their state as their home and who they owed their first allegiance to. States rights were tantamount in the original writing of the constitution. Another thing the Southern people of that time would say "we told you so" about is when some Federal Judge overrides the majority will of individual states-as has happened more times then I can count.

In reply to an earlier post on May 14, 2012 12:26:01 PM PDT
S. Powell says:
Tariffs-I am glad to see someone has at least a beginning grasp of what Her Lincoln's war against the South was really all about.

In reply to an earlier post on May 14, 2012 12:28:37 PM PDT
S Powell

So why didn't any of the confederate states mention them in their declarations of secession? They only talked about slavery.

In reply to an earlier post on May 14, 2012 12:34:09 PM PDT
S. Kessler says:
Oh, some did, but WAY down on the list of grievances. Slavery was first for all of them. I am not going to the trouble of refuting Pwell's claims one by one. It's all a delusional reading of history. All those slaves fighting side-by-side with their massas. Oh, what delusion!

In reply to an earlier post on May 14, 2012 1:01:00 PM PDT
freedom4all says:
Mark R. Allen says: Why do you keep bringing up the UN charter and the 14 points, as they did not exist at the time? They are irrelevant to the discussion.

f4a: Mass murder and crimes against humanity are OK because in the history before the international convention it was not law?

Law are lies invented for polticial purpose and can be changed.

Principles are truth that set human beings free. Like the law of physics that have always been true, but only discovered in recent history.

The D of I states Principles. The Constitution is only a Super Law that require a Super Majority to change.

Other Principles have been revealed as truths this century. In light of these Principles we can judge history with better understanding.

In reply to an earlier post on May 14, 2012 1:03:25 PM PDT
freedom4all says:
SP, I have been over this before with SK who is a disciple of the Righteous Cause and the Lincoln Myth.

In reply to an earlier post on May 14, 2012 1:03:47 PM PDT
aLocher says:
Only four of the seceding states produced a formal explanation of the reasons for secession (ala the Declaration of Independance from 1776): South Carolina, Georgia, Mississippi, and Texas. None of these documents mentions tariffs at all.

In reply to an earlier post on May 14, 2012 1:39:50 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on May 14, 2012 2:18:59 PM PDT
freedom4all says:
A. Locher says: South Carolina, Georgia, Mississippi, and Texas. None of these documents mentions tariffs at all.

f4a: No doubt they would not. It hard to get populated to go to war over money. They needed the middle and lower classes. Free black people walking around was a threat to them. Not the counter tariffs GB would enact on Southern Cotton. Both sides used lies and propaganda.

In reply to an earlier post on May 14, 2012 1:52:14 PM PDT
S. Kessler says:
I do not subscribe to any "Righteous Cause". I try to describe what actually happened, not what I wish had happened.

In reply to an earlier post on May 14, 2012 2:21:43 PM PDT
AL: Addressing the point (discussed above) as to whether any of the Confederate states held plebiscites on secession -- three actually did hold a statewide popular referendum or plebisicite on the issue: Texas, Tennessee, and Virgina. Obviously, in each instance, the vote was to secede.

BPL: Did the slaves get to vote?

In reply to an earlier post on May 14, 2012 2:23:03 PM PDT
SP: Get away from Yankee history and you will find plenty of stories of Black people who stood side by side with Whites to protect their lives from invaders.

BPL: Blacks weren't allowed in the CSA army at all. A black corps in New Orleans got to stage a parade. That was it.

Stop making stuff up. It's too easy to check.

In reply to an earlier post on May 14, 2012 2:23:57 PM PDT
SP: Tariffs-I am glad to see someone has at least a beginning grasp of what Her Lincoln's war against the South was really all about.

BPL: Look again.

http://bartonpaullevenson.com/CivilWar.html

Of the 11 declarations of secession, NOT ONE includes the word "tariffs." They're all about defending slavery.

In reply to an earlier post on May 14, 2012 2:42:40 PM PDT
f4a

f4a: Mass murder and crimes against humanity are OK because in the history before the international convention it was not law?

Where did I say anything about mass murder?

In reply to an earlier post on May 14, 2012 2:44:35 PM PDT
f4a

How does slavery, which 95% of the southerners didn't have, rouse the people to fight?

In reply to an earlier post on May 14, 2012 5:26:04 PM PDT
MRA: How does slavery, which 95% of the southerners didn't have, rouse the people to fight?

BPL: Simple. 95% of the people had no say. Half were slaves, most of the rest had no real voice. The planters ran the state legislatures, and they promoted whatever crazies backed their economic interests.

Posted on May 14, 2012 7:51:16 PM PDT
Nom DePlume says:
"Silent enim leges inter arma."

Posted on May 15, 2012 2:55:00 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on May 15, 2012 2:55:33 AM PDT
Nihil bonum malum accidit.

Culus.

In reply to an earlier post on May 15, 2012 8:18:25 AM PDT
freedom4all says:
BPL: Did the slaves get to vote?

f4a: What states allowed slaves to vote in 1860? Ohio? NY? Indiana? Illinois?
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


Recent discussions in the History forum

 

This discussion

Discussion in:  History forum
Participants:  108
Total posts:  2033
Initial post:  May 10, 2012
Latest post:  Jan 20, 2015

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 11 customers

Search Customer Discussions