Secession, right or wrong?

[RERomine]

ORIGINAL: AU Tiger

This is like watching CSPAN.
[>:]

Careful, or I'll break out my 'Bama sweatshirt tomorrow [:D]

[AU Tiger_MatrixForum]

ORIGINAL: RERomine

ORIGINAL: AU Tiger

This is like watching CSPAN.
[>:]

Careful, or I'll break out my 'Bama sweatshirt tomorrow [:D]

And join the rest of the losers like Ohio State?
[:D]

[RERomine]

ORIGINAL: AU Tiger

ORIGINAL: RERomine

ORIGINAL: AU Tiger

This is like watching CSPAN.
[>:]

Careful, or I'll break out my 'Bama sweatshirt tomorrow [:D]

And join the rest of the losers like Ohio State?
[:D]

No, I didn't just read that! [X(]

I will bore you with this thread until Auburn wins another National Championship, IF I LIVE THAT LONG! [:@]

[AU Tiger_MatrixForum]

ORIGINAL: RERomine

ORIGINAL: AU Tiger

ORIGINAL: RERomine




Careful, or I'll break out my 'Bama sweatshirt tomorrow [:D]

And join the rest of the losers like Ohio State?
[:D]

No, I didn't just read that! [X(]

I will bore you with this thread until Auburn wins another National Championship, IF I LIVE THAT LONG! [:@]

24 months isn't that long! (Too many young players starting for us next year, but the year after that......!)

[Goodwin]

ORIGINAL: Greyshaft

These are the words of the people who signed the Constitution into law for Virginia. It is clear that they claimed the right to revoke that agreement whenever they chose and that they were only joining the USA on the condition that they retained that right. That right was not challenged by the rest of the states for over seventy years until Lincoln became President.

I would argue that there are two things wrong with this claim. The first and most fundamental is, so what? Originalism is often a valid guideline for judging things like the Constitution, but it is not an unbreakable rule. I am not sure why the entire American government and every other state needed to hold itself for all eternity to the views expressed by a handful of leading figures from a handful of states in the end of the 18th century. Interpreting the Constitution requires much more than simply asking what its ratifiers believed, particularly because many of them had drastically different interpretations themselves.

Beyond that, it is wrong to say that this questions never came up before the Civil War. The dividing line between the powers of the states and the powers of the federal government was a constant source of contention during the antebellum period. In fact, my entire argument in the original thread was basically to copy a long quote from Daniel Webster's second reply to Hayne. This famous speech--known best for it's closing line of "Liberty and Union, now and for ever, one and inseperable!"--came in an 1830 debate about the same issue we are discussing here. Robert Hayne, a senator from South Carolina, used a debate about the sale of federal land to expound upon the idea that the states entered into the Constitution as sovereign entities and thus had the right to leave whenever they wished and nullify federal laws that they did not like. Webster rose in opposition to him and made what is considered one of the finest speeches in American history.

The foundation of Webster's argument can be seen in the very first words of the Constitution itself. It begins "We the people," not "We the states." Webster argues that the federal government is not a creature of the state governments, rather it is a creature of the very people who have the ultimate sovereignty in the American system of government, and therefore it is responsible to the people and not the states. If you will forgive me for posting yet another long quote, Webster is far smarter than I am and makes the point much better than I can:

I must now beg to ask, Sir, Whence is this supposed right of the States derived? Where do they find the power to interfere with the laws of the Union? Sir the opinion which the honorable gentleman maintains is a notion founded in a total misapprehension, in my judgment, of the origin of this governemnt, and of the foundation on which it stands. I hold it to be a popular government, erected by the people; those who administer it, responsibile to the people; and itself capable of being ammended and modified, just as the people may choose it should be. It is as popular, just as truly emanating from the people, as the State governments. It is created for one purpuse; the State governments for another. It has its own powers; they have theirs. There is no more authority with them to arrest the operation of a law of Congress, than with Congress to arrest the operation of their laws. We are here to administer a Constitution emanating immediately from the people, and trusted by them to our administration. It is not the creature of the State governments. ...This government, Sir, is the independent offspring of the popular will. It is not the creature of State legislatures; nay, more, if the whole truth must be told, the people brought it into existence, established it, and have hitherto supported it, for the very purpose, amongst others, of imposing certain salutary restraints on State sovereignties. The States cannot now make war; they cannot contract alliances; they cannot make, each for itself, separate regulations of commerce; they cannot lay imposts; they cannot coin money. If this Constitution, Sir, be the creature of State legislatures, it must be admitted that it has obtained a strange control over the volitions of its creators.

To my mind, although there may be some merit to the idea that states can seceed, no one has yet overcome Webster's arguments here. The "more perfect union" of the federal government is a creature of the American people, not the states, and thus can only be altered and modified, such as through removing portions, by the people. That the Constitution itself provides a method for doing so is only further evidence that no state can of its own volition irrevocably alter the American union.

To add one final note here, I think that those who say this discussion is foolish or useless is wrong. Most of us here are American citizens with the ability to vote in American elections. Those from other nations have their own systems of democracy and government to contribute to. All of us benefit from having discussions and thinking about the very nature of our governments as well as the more basic nature of democracy. Clearly the exact nature of the American federal system is an open question, always changing and evolving based on the influence of voters. The only way we can responsibly influence this evolution is if we consider the many issues involved. So a discussion of the Constitution, Civil War, and legality of secession among a bunch of average joes can actually provide a very valuable benefit.

[Greyshaft]

There are some holes in your theory...

1. ...the use of militia, so to be called forth, may be continued, if necessary, until the expiration of thirty days after the commencement of the ensuing session. I think Lincoln kept his troops in the field for a lot longer than this.[:D]

2. ...if the militia of a state, where such combinations may happen, shall refuse, ...I don't recall Lincoln ever calling out the militia of North Carolina. Since Lincoln didn't call out the NC militia then could not refuse his orders and since they hadn't refused his orders then he wasn't entitled to call on the militia of the other states. You may consider this pedantic but it is EXACTLY the issue on which such cases are decided.

A president fielded troops and entered a state of the Union, without invitation of the state governor, to put the rebellion down.

You are just plain wrong on this point. The Whiskey Rebellion was put down with the active assistance of the the State governor who willingly placed the state militia under the control of the President.

Sounds very much like the situation we've been discussing about North Carolina ...

The two situations are completely different. The Whiskey Rebellion was a group of civilians reacting to a tax they didn't like and the event was put down by state militia (including militia provided by the state in question) acting with the full approval and compliance of the governor of that state. The secession of North Carolina was the act of a sovereign state and the event was put down by a Federal army composed of volunteers called by the President. The actions of the President occurred despite the vocal and forceful objection of the Governor of that state.

It also helped define treason, allowing citizens to disagree with the government without them being defined as traitors.

Whoa there!!! How the heck do you justify a statement like that? It might define treason in your mind but I have yet to see you quote a historical authority to back up your point. Incidently I agree that the Whiskey Rebellion was exactly the sort of situation which the Militia Act was designed to meet. However I think you'll find that President Washington acted with the approval of the state Governors rather than in defiance of them LINK
On August 14, the President ordered the governors of Maryland, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Virginia to provide a total of 12,950 militiamen to serve in an expedition march to western Pennsylvania to put down the "Whiskey Rebellion."

All of this is interesting but is just a sideline to my original point which is that Lincoln committed Treason by imposing a blockade on North Carolina while that state was still a member of the United States. I've seen lots of posts attempting to justify Lincoln's actions but I haven't seen anything to disprove my allegation of treason.

[Jonathan Palfrey]

ORIGINAL: Goodwin
The foundation of Webster's argument can be seen in the very first words of the Constitution itself. It begins "We the people," not "We the states." Webster argues that the federal government is not a creature of the state governments, rather it is a creature of the very people who have the ultimate sovereignty in the American system of government, and therefore it is responsible to the people and not the states. If you will forgive me for posting yet another long quote, Webster is far smarter than I am and makes the point much better than I can:

I must now beg to ask, Sir, Whence is this supposed right of the States derived? Where do they find the power to interfere with the laws of the Union? Sir the opinion which the honorable gentleman maintains is a notion founded in a total misapprehension, in my judgment, of the origin of this governemnt, and of the foundation on which it stands. I hold it to be a popular government, erected by the people; those who administer it, responsibile to the people; and itself capable of being ammended and modified, just as the people may choose it should be. It is as popular, just as truly emanating from the people, as the State governments. It is created for one purpuse; the State governments for another. It has its own powers; they have theirs. There is no more authority with them to arrest the operation of a law of Congress, than with Congress to arrest the operation of their laws. We are here to administer a Constitution emanating immediately from the people, and trusted by them to our administration. It is not the creature of the State governments. ...This government, Sir, is the independent offspring of the popular will. It is not the creature of State legislatures; nay, more, if the whole truth must be told, the people brought it into existence, established it, and have hitherto supported it, for the very purpose, amongst others, of imposing certain salutary restraints on State sovereignties. The States cannot now make war; they cannot contract alliances; they cannot make, each for itself, separate regulations of commerce; they cannot lay imposts; they cannot coin money. If this Constitution, Sir, be the creature of State legislatures, it must be admitted that it has obtained a strange control over the volitions of its creators.

Personally, I agree with all this. But the secession of 1861 wasn't just something foisted on the people by the state governments. If it had been, of course it would have been wrong.

As I understand it, it was both formally and informally endorsed by the people, who were at least initially very happy about their new independence from the USA -- and who proceeded to fight and suffer for it during the next four years.

[Greyshaft]

ORIGINAL: Goodwin

ORIGINAL: Greyshaft

These are the words of the people who signed the Constitution into law for Virginia. It is clear that they claimed the right to revoke that agreement whenever they chose and that they were only joining the USA on the condition that they retained that right. That right was not challenged by the rest of the states for over seventy years until Lincoln became President.

I would argue that there are two things wrong with this claim. The first and most fundamental is, so what?

The 'so what' about this is that if Virginia and the United States had different ideas about the arrangement into which they were entering then you have a case of 'mutual mistake' for which the remedy is a declaration that the contract is void ab initio (void from the beginning ie the contract never occurred). See the following links for authorities on this point: Yale, Wikipedia or LawTeacher.net. In that case Virginia would have been held to have never joined the USA and therefore could hardly have been declared in rebellion against an authority which it had never accepted.

Interpreting the Constitution requires much more than simply asking what its ratifiers believed, particularly because many of them had drastically different interpretations themselves.

I would argue that what the ratifiers believed cannot be unilaterally dismissed as irrelevant and, at worst, should be accorded a strength equal to any other evidence. I could take it further and say that if you don't go by what they believe then you are back with a situation of mutual mistake but I appreciate the strength of your research and would like to explore it further.

Beyond that, it is wrong to say that this questions never came up before the Civil War.

Federalist issues were certainly debated prior to the war however I am referring to the specific issue of the right of secession.

Webster does not oppose my point. He concedes... "[The Federal Government] is created for one purpuse; the State governments for another. It has its own powers; they have theirs. There is no more authority with them to arrest the operation of a law of Congress, than with Congress to arrest the operation of their laws. Therefore the Federal Government has no power to override an ordinance of secession passed by a state government. However I do agree with Webster that the states have no authority over the Federal law save through a legally enacted alteration of the constitution.

" The "more perfect union" of the federal government is a creature of the American people, not the states, and thus can only be altered and modified, such as through removing portions, by the people. "

Not true. A change to the constitution is validated by its ratification by the states rather than a popular referendum endorsed by the people. Either the learned Webster is in error or is speaking metaphorically by alluding to the power of the people to vote for their choice of state government. I would presume the latter.

That the Constitution itself provides a method for doing so is only further evidence that no state can of its own volition irrevocably alter the American union.

The seceding states did not want to alter the Union. They wanted to leave it.

Most of us here are American citizens with the ability to vote in American elections.

Well I'm Australian but I agree with your point about the importance of these discussions.

I do appreciate the work you have done here sir. 'Tis a pleasure to debate with you.

[Twotribes]

You still havent answerer ONE simple question.

What does the Federal Government do when the rebellion is lead by the Governor and State legislature? Are you saying that since they have chosen to rebel the Federal Government has no right to act simply because ( according to you) only those two entities can call fopr assistance from the federal Government.

Once again this is akin to claiming unless a criminal agrees to be arrested the government cant arrest them because it violates their rights.

Next , as to your claim Lincoln kept "his" Armies in the field past the 30 days... humm did you read what you wrote? Congress approved of his action and WENT farther.

[RERomine]

ORIGINAL: Greyshaft

There are some holes in your theory...

1. ...the use of militia, so to be called forth, may be continued, if necessary, until the expiration of thirty days after the commencement of the ensuing session. I think Lincoln kept his troops in the field for a lot longer than this.[:D]

2. ...if the militia of a state, where such combinations may happen, shall refuse, ...I don't recall Lincoln ever calling out the militia of North Carolina. Since Lincoln didn't call out the NC militia then could not refuse his orders and since they hadn't refused his orders then he wasn't entitled to call on the militia of the other states. You may consider this pedantic but it is EXACTLY the issue on which such cases are decided.

1. Yes, he did. ...until the expiration of thirty days after the commencement of the ensuing session means until 30 days after the next session of Congress meets. This allows Congress to decide if the militia is required for a longer period. It is not a 30 day limit to the use of the militia. Also, look at the following links:

Lincoln's Call for Volunteers

Militia Act of 1792

You will see the following words in both ...too powerful to be suppressed by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, or by the powers vested in the marshals... Now, do you honest believe Lincoln wasn't utilizing the Militia Act when he called for volunteers?

2. Lincoln's call for volunteers was a general call to the nation. The North Carolina governor's response:

Governor Ellis, of North Carolina, replied to Secretary Cameron: "Your dispatch is received, and, if genuine--which its extraordinary character leads me to doubt--I have to say in reply that I regard the levy of troops made by the Administration, for the purpose of subjugating the States of the South, as in violation of the Constitution and a usurpation of power. I can be no party to this wicked violation of the laws of the country, and to this War upon the liberties of a free people. You can get no troops from North Carolina. I will reply more in detail when your Call is received by mail."

Sounds like a refusal to me.

A president fielded troops and entered a state of the Union, without invitation of the state governor, to put the rebellion down.
You are just plain wrong on this point. The Whiskey Rebellion was put down with the active assistance of the the State governor who willingly placed the state militia under the control of the President.

I am possibly wrong on the details, but it did set a precedent allowing the President to call for troops to put down rebellions, not that the government ever needs such a precedent.

The two situations are completely different. The Whiskey Rebellion was a group of civilians reacting to a tax they didn't like and the event was put down by state militia (including militia provided by the state in question) acting with the full approval and compliance of the governor of that state. The secession of North Carolina was the act of a sovereign state and the event was put down by a Federal army composed of volunteers called by the President. The actions of the President occurred despite the vocal and forceful objection of the Governor of that state.

In both cases, they are challenges to the rights granted to the Federal government by the U.S. Constitution.

It also helped define treason, allowing citizens to disagree with the government without them being defined as traitors.

Whoa there!!! How the heck do you justify a statement like that? It might define treason in your mind but I have yet to see you quote a historical authority to back up your point. Incidently I agree that the Whiskey Rebellion was exactly the sort of situation which the Militia Act was designed to meet. However I think you'll find that President Washington acted with the approval of the state Governors rather than in defiance of them LINK
On August 14, the President ordered the governors of Maryland, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Virginia to provide a total of 12,950 militiamen to serve in an expedition march to western Pennsylvania to put down the "Whiskey Rebellion."

[/quote]

It was the last sentence of a link I already provided: Whiskey Rebellion

The U.S. Constitution and many early bills were oriented to what the people of that time envisioned. It is obvious that realities changed as time went on. Things they never thought of at that time happened. No one considered states attempting to leave the Union enmass. That's where the Supreme Court comes it. It rules on the intent by the framers of the Constitution. One can't blindly just attempt to follow the exact words as written.

All of this is interesting but is just a sideline to my original point which is that Lincoln committed Treason by imposing a blockade on North Carolina while that state was still a member of the United States. I've seen lots of posts attempting to justify Lincoln's actions but I haven't seen anything to disprove my allegation of treason.

Your point seems to be that the treason acts being committed within North Carolina before it formally seceded could not be responded to in any way, shape or form by the Federal government, because in your view, those acts would be treason. Lincoln took the necessary steps to suppress the rebellion of a rouge state government. Just because that rouge state government hadn't seceded doesn't give it carte blanche to act how it pleases. Had Lincoln just sat on his hands and done nothing, then I would agree his actions were treasonous. The blockade was in response to rebellious actions in all of the Southern states, seceded or not. The definition observed by the U.S Constitution of treason is defined only as going to war against the USA, or aiding the enemies of the USA. Blockading the ports was making war on the rebellious factions within North Carolina, not those continuing to obey Federal law and certainly not the United States proper.

Show me where a Lincoln contemporary, North or South, accused him of treason, not just your opinion.

[Greyshaft]

TwoTribes/RERomine,
I am neither the author nor a signatory of the Constitution. I have merely pointed out the apparent paradox that a President who faces popular revolt cannot (according to my reading) deploy forces to meet it without first ensuring the co-operation of the state where he intends to deploy the troops. If the President does send the troops into a state over the objection of the governor and those troops "levy war" in that state, then the President is guilty of Treason.

In the case of the Whiskey Rebellion (which I am sure we we both familiar with before the start of the dialog) there was no objection from the Governor of Pennsylvania which is where the troops were deployed. The objection of the governor of NC was irrelevant since the troops were not deployed to his state.

If we use your analogy of a criminal I think your are presenting Lincoln as saying "Yes I committed Treason but so what." I have not ventured to suggest whether Lincoln was justified in committing Treason, merely that he did so. If we agree on that point then my question is answered and I can rest my case.

RERomine,

The definition observed by the U.S Constitution of treason is defined only as going to war against the USA, or aiding the enemies of the USA.

Your quote is inaccurate. In a discussion of this sort it is essential to work with the correct words. Article III Section 3 of the constitution reads as follows Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. Note the use of the plural in the phrase "... levying war against them..." which indicates a collection of states rather than a single entity. Therefore treason involves an action against a state or a group of states.

In both cases, they are challenges to the rights granted to the Federal government by the U.S. Constitution.

You are presuming that control of the right to secede was given to the Federal Government by the States. I have shown that (at least in the case of Virginia) that right was specifically retained by that state and a point was made of the issue in the document of ratification.

Your point seems to be that the treason acts being committed within North Carolina before it formally seceded could not be responded to in any way, shape or form by the Federal government,

Firstly the acts of North Carolina were NOT treason. Reread Article III Section 3. You may choose to define them as insurrection, rebellion or whatever you like but by the strict wording of the constitution they were NOT treason. Secondly, it does seem that the Framers of the Constitution didn't envisage a conflict between a state wishing to leave the Union and a Federal Government who didn't want that to happen. My understanding is that the Constitution just plain didn't cover that point so Lincoln had to use whatever other powers he could find to meet the challenge. Along the way he ran afoul of Article IV section 4 and committed Treason. End of story.

Was Lincoln right to do those things? That's a different discussion.

[Jonathan Palfrey]

I understand and accept the point you're trying to make, even if no-one else does. It's kind of interesting that the CSA was accused of violating the Constitution, whereas it actually seems as though it was the USA that violated it.

From a wider perspective, one can say that in such troubled and emotional times people in general feel justified in riding roughshod over laws and constitutions if they get in the way of what those people deeply feel to be right.

[Twotribes]

Once again the Constitution is worthless and was a waste of time and effort if one believes the States could simply quit if they didnt get their way. The Document gives power to the Federal Government AT the expense of the States. It CLEARLY places the Federal Government as Supreme in any dispute with the States UNLESS the courts disagree or an amendment is proffered and adopted.

You make the claim that because the document doesnt include the words ( can not leave the Union) it is therefore a power resting with the States. This is aimply erroneous. The specific powers of the Federal Governmetn CLEARLY indicate that whether a State likes them or not, they WILL obey. Furthermore besides the specific powers granted the Federal Government is the Statement that the Federal Government can and will be granted any other power neccassary for the enforcement of these powers. A power does NOT have to spelled out in detail if one can reasonable infer it exsists by what IS spelled out. The Federal Government is powerless and useless IF a State can simply quit the Union because the Federal Government did something it didnt like. You have been shown several examples of where your theory just doesnt hold water, fine you dont want to believe them, doesnt mean your continued claim no examples were given is truthful or accurate.

Your LUDICROUS claim that President Lincoln committed treason is beyond belief.Furthermore your claim that ONLY the Governor or Legislature can call for federal Aid IGNORES the reality that the PEOPLE not the States govern , if the Governor and or legislature rebel , according to you, the rest of the Country is powerless to do anyhting cause those entities havent ask for aid.

And of course we have your further completely erronoues claim that Lincoln formed a personal army ( ignoreing all the clauses and powers authorizing him to do so) followed by your claim that he kept it in the field past the time he was allowed. Which of course ignores the reality of the very passage you presented to justify the claim. Congress was NOT in session, leaving the power to him, he had till 30 days AFTER Congress onvened before he had to do anything about his Unilateral decision. The reality is Congress DID agree with his actions and CALLED for more and longer serving troops.

I am done with this. You wont convince me your OPINION is valid. And I am tired of responding to outrageous claims you make up on the fly.

[Greyshaft]

Twotribes,
Your reaction is understandable. I have seen it many times before. Whenever I show through logic and reason that Lincoln committed Treason the answer is frequently illogical and emotional.

Once again the Constitution is worthless and was a waste of time and effort if one believes the States could simply quit if they didnt get their way.

You are saying that if I point out a single flaw in the document then we should throw the whole thing away. I don't agree. The constitution is a most excellent document and a tribute to the people who wrote it. However it does has its flaws and its failure to provide a mechanism to deal with the secession of the southern states is the most obvious of those errors.

[The Constitution] CLEARLY places the Federal Government as Supreme in any dispute with the States UNLESS the courts disagree or an amendment is proffered and adopted.

You make the claim that because the document doesnt include the words ( can not leave the Union) it is therefore a power resting with the States. This is aimply erroneous.

Well I'll use the Eleventh Amendment to support my position. " The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." What are you relying on to support your position?

You have been shown several examples of where your theory just doesnt hold water, fine you dont want to believe them, doesnt mean your continued claim no examples were given is truthful or accurate.

Not so. I have been offered your opinions which you have failed to support through the words of the constitution. The Whiskey Rebellion was not the actions of a state government therefore it was not afforded the protections of Article IV section 4.

Your LUDICROUS claim that President Lincoln committed treason is beyond belief.Furthermore your claim that ONLY the Governor or Legislature can call for federal Aid IGNORES the reality that the PEOPLE not the States govern , if the Governor and or legislature rebel , according to you, the rest of the Country is powerless to do anyhting cause those entities havent ask for aid.

Well up to this point you have belitteld my claim but not attempted to disprove it. I do agree with your last statement though. I think this is a situation which the framers of the constitution did not imagine - that the Federal government would try to prevent a state from leaving the Union. Some states asserted that right when they joined the Union but in the end Lincoln ignored what they said. He won the war and generations of US citizens have been told to put him on a pedastal. I pass no judgement on Lincoln here. I simple observe that he committed Treason.

In the end this is only a theoretical debate. The Union won the war and ended the argument.

[Jonathan Palfrey]

ORIGINAL: Twotribes

Once again the Constitution is worthless and was a waste of time and effort if one believes the States could simply quit if they didnt get their way.

This can't be true. Millions of clubs and associations all over the world allow their members to leave whenever they wish, but they still feel it worthwhile to have rules.

It's quite simple. If you feel you get good enough benefits from your club membership, it's worth paying the fees and obeying the rules. If not, you may as well leave. And if the club doesn't offer you sufficient benefits to keep you as a willing member, then it doesn't deserve to keep you as a member.

When the USA got started, it seems fairly clear that at least some of the states thought it was a club that they could leave whenever they wished; but they also thought that a constitution was worth having.

[RERomine]

ORIGINAL: Greyshaft

The definition observed by the U.S Constitution of treason is defined only as going to war against the USA, or aiding the enemies of the USA.

Your quote is inaccurate. In a discussion of this sort it is essential to work with the correct words. Article III Section 3 of the constitution reads as follows Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. Note the use of the plural in the phrase "... levying war against them..." which indicates a collection of states rather than a single entity. Therefore treason involves an action against a state or a group of states.

In this instance, USA, United States or them refers to the same national entity. Supreme Court case EX PARTE BOLLMAN, 8 U.S. 75 (1807) To constitute that specific crime for which the prisoners now before the court have been committed, war must be actually levied against the United States.

Merely declaring a blockade, especially in ones own territory, doesn't automatically constitute levying war. To this, I point to the Cuban Missile Crisis. There was a blockade of Cuba, but no war resulted.

In both cases, they are challenges to the rights granted to the Federal government by the U.S. Constitution.

You are presuming that control of the right to secede was given to the Federal Government by the States. I have shown that (at least in the case of Virginia) that right was specifically retained by that state and a point was made of the issue in the document of ratification.

Since the Supreme Court decided secession was illegal, why would I presume the Federal Government had such a right? The right North Carolina was blocking was essentually the same that occurred in Whiskey Rebellion: the right to collect taxes. Lincoln outlined this, plus a few other reasons, when he announced the blockade.

Your point seems to be that the treason acts being committed within North Carolina before it formally seceded could not be responded to in any way, shape or form by the Federal government,

Firstly the acts of North Carolina were NOT treason. Reread Article III Section 3. You may choose to define them as insurrection, rebellion or whatever you like but by the strict wording of the constitution they were NOT treason. Secondly, it does seem that the Framers of the Constitution didn't envisage a conflict between a state wishing to leave the Union and a Federal Government who didn't want that to happen. My understanding is that the Constitution just plain didn't cover that point so Lincoln had to use whatever other powers he could find to meet the challenge. Along the way he ran afoul of Article IV section 4 and committed Treason. End of story.

With respect to treason and North Carolina, considering the time period we are discussing, it is likely you are correct. Prior to secession, it does not appear that North Carolina was levying war. They were in rebellion, however, authorizing Lincoln's action under the Militia Act of 1792. As pointed out above, merely blockading the ports of North Carolina does not make it a war. A sovereign nation might consider it such, but not alway. You would do better defining levying war. A blockade may be considered an act of war, but only if the blockaded nation perceives it as such. As far as I know, the United States didn't feel offended by the blockade of North Carolina. [:)]

[Greyshaft]

As pointed out above, merely blockading the ports of North Carolina does not make it a war.

The issue is the question of what constitutes "...levying war...". We could have a fruitful discussion on that subject however I think it is a moot point. Lincoln committed a whole lot of other actions which were indisputably the levying of war. I just picked the proclamation of blockade because it was well documented and occurred at an identifiable point in time while NC was still a member of the Union.

A blockade may be considered an act of war, but only if the blockaded nation perceives it as such. As far as I know, the United States didn't feel offended by the blockade of North Carolina.

Your sarcasm misses the point entirely. Lincoln never claimed to be blockading the USA - he specifically mentioned the states by name including North Carolina. Remember that Lincoln was the one who made the proclamation. He chose to identify North Carolina as the subject of the blockade. If this had been a domestic matter (rather than an issue touching on sovereignty) then Lincoln should have proclaimed the "closing" of the ports rather than their "blockade".

Also remember that the individual states all retained their sovereignty despite their adherence to the Union. All that the states had given up was the right to build navies etc. They never ceded their sovereignty. So Lincoln proclaims a blockade of the sovereign state of North Carolina and that state perceives it as an act of war. Sounds like it fulfils the requirements of Article IV section 4 regarding treason.

With respect to treason and North Carolina, considering the time period we are discussing, it is likely you are correct.

Thanks.

[RERomine]

ORIGINAL: Greyshaft

A blockade may be considered an act of war, but only if the blockaded nation perceives it as such. As far as I know, the United States didn't feel offended by the blockade of North Carolina.

Your sarcasm misses the point entirely. Lincoln never claimed to be blockading the USA - he specifically mentioned the states by name including North Carolina. Remember that Lincoln was the one who made the proclamation. He chose to identify North Carolina as the subject of the blockade. If this had been a domestic matter (rather than an issue touching on sovereignty) then Lincoln should have proclaimed the "closing" of the ports rather than their "blockade".

Also remember that the individual states all retained their sovereignty despite their adherence to the Union. All that the states had given up was the right to build navies etc. They never ceded their sovereignty. So Lincoln proclaims a blockade of the sovereign state of North Carolina and that state perceives it as an act of war. Sounds like it fulfils the requirements of Article IV section 4 regarding treason.

Closing ports doesn't allow the United States to board neutral shipping on the open seas. A blockade does.

The states gave up more than that. If England wanted to broker some sort of treaty, they did it with the Federal Government, not the states. Yes, North Carolina was and still is a sovereign state, not a nation. They are obligated to follow Federal laws.

[Twotribes]

Ya know, I change my mind. Your repeated attempts to prove the unprovable are funny. The Federal Government and Lincoln in particular had every right to "invade" the rebelling States. The rebelling States refused to allow the federal Government the right to EVERY clause in the Constitution that gave it power AND they refused to recognize the Federal Government as the Supreme power in those matters.

You keep creating red herrings and then pretending because you said it, it is now true. I have sited as have others, relevant passages of the Constitution, you ignore them. And then you pretend no such power exsists.

You have been shown repeatedly where Lincoln ( and every president before and after him) had the Authority and power to raise an army, be it militia or otherwise. You still claim he did so illegally.

You have been shown that the President followed the law and the Constitution by reconveneing Congress and getting their blessing. You choose to ignore it.

You have been shown passage after passage where in the Federal Government has ultimate authority over the States in NUMEROUS issues. Yet you continue to claim the States were NOT obligated to obey the federal Government.

You have been shown specific acts of Congress that gave Lincoln the right to do exactly what he did. You pretend they dont say what they say.

As to the claim that the US is just another club one joins and leaves at ones leisure, that is the funniest of all claims. It has been shown that the US was NOT a fraternity that one such quit when they didnt get their way. In fact the Constitution is quite clear, if you want that to happen amend the document. The people of the ENTIRE USA are the power, not those in a few States. You want to leave? You have to get the required amendment or act of Congress to do so.

A country is NOT some golf club or shooting club or poker club, where in you just take your stuff and go home when you decide the majority are wrong. Pretending it is and that the States thought it was is ludicrouis on its face. As a matter of fact you have been shown that the ANSWER to that question was asked and answered in 1783.

The 10th ( not the 11th amendment) says just as you claim, you just conviently IGNORE the fact that there are specific powers of the Federal Government spelled out clearly in the document called the Constitution. The States do not get to ignore them nor do they get to claim it is their power not the feds. By attempting to leave the Union those States Usurped the power of the Federal Government in ALL those powers delegated to the federal Government.

I suspect you think you can make crazy claims and then try to use hot words to make the claims seem reasonable. It wont work.

I am STILL waiting for your answer on one question....

Was it ILLEGAL or treason when the federal Government activated the States national Guard, placed it under federal control and enforced the Desegregation laws in the 60's? This was done expressly AGAINST the wishes of the Governor and State legislatures involved.

[Greyshaft]

ORIGINAL: RERomine
Closing ports doesn't allow the United States to board neutral shipping on the open seas. A blockade does.

True. So to achieve his objectives Lincoln was forced to declare the blockade. Damned if he did and damned if he didn't.

Yes, North Carolina was and still is a sovereign state, not a nation. They are obligated to follow Federal laws.

True again... while they are part of the Union they are obligated to follow those laws. I do not defend the illegal actions of the individual states prior to their separate ordinances of secession. Classifying the legality of the events after secession is a whole 'nother thread. eg what process that would be involved in peacefully handing back land in the southern states that had previously been ceded to Federal authority? Would compensation be required?