Let's talk Civil, shall we?

[Accountable]

Originally Posted by yaaarrrgg

Most libertarians I talk to view the civil war as unconstitutional, and a federal abuse of power. I think the South could have seceded legally, but choose a violent route instead... being the hot-headed rednecks they were.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20061123153403AAawQdS

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dorf/20041124.html

According to this timeline, the states did secede, but Buchanan and later Lincoln didn't honor their sovereignty and kept forts in the area occupied. So it wasn't the hot-headed rednecks you quip about who started the war.

I'm no expert on this, but the time and legality question fascinates me, so I look forward to learning alot from this thread.

[yaaarrrgg]

Originally Posted by Accountable

According to this timeline, the states did secede, but Buchanan and later Lincoln didn't honor their sovereignty and kept forts in the area occupied. So it wasn't the hot-headed rednecks you quip about who started the war.

I'm no expert on this, but the time and legality question fascinates me, so I look forward to learning alot from this thread.

I'm no expert either. In my view, the South was morally in the wrong, although legally may have had the option to secede. I think the mistake though was in doing it unilaterally, and violently, since it was seen as a military coup.

Lincoln's argument was interesting:

"Lincoln denied that the Union was a mere voluntary association--and claimed that even if it were, ordinary principles of contract law would bar unilateral secession. Lincoln noted that while one party can breach a contract, the consent of all parties is required to rescind a contract. But secessionists analogized the Constitution to a treaty, not a contract--on the ground that each state was more like a sovereign nation than a human being. And under treaty law, unilateral rescission is permissible."

From: http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dorf/20041124.html

I think the South fixated on the idea of unilateral secession, but didn't need to. It only had to become such a nuisance, that the North would have wanted to separate from it voluntarily.

But practically speaking had the South seceded, it would have collapsed anyway ... it was destroying itself economically with slavery. Why hire a a person to do a job, when they could buy someone and pay them nothing? After collapse, it would then be absorbed either back into the U.S. or Mexico. This would have created a lot of political instability I think, resulting in even bloodier warfare (possibly lasting to this day). The act of secession has practical effects which pose a danger to the other states. To this degree, unilateral secession is reckless, and fails to recognize how these actions will affect the other party.

[Accountable]

Originally Posted by yaaarrrgg

I'm no expert either. In my view, the South was morally in the wrong, although legally may have had the option to secede. I think the mistake though was in doing it unilaterally, and violently, since it was seen as a military coup.

Lincoln's argument was interesting:

"Lincoln denied that the Union was a mere voluntary association--and claimed that even if it were, ordinary principles of contract law would bar unilateral secession. Lincoln noted that while one party can breach a contract, the consent of all parties is required to rescind a contract. But secessionists analogized the Constitution to a treaty, not a contract--on the ground that each state was more like a sovereign nation than a human being. And under treaty law, unilateral rescission is permissible."

From: http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dorf/20041124.html

Sure they were morally wrong. The founding was morally wrong and hypocritical saying all men are created equal while permitting slavery. But being wrong is just as much a God-given right as any other enumerated in the Constitution. The Constitution clearly set states equal if not superior to the federal government. That's the reason for the designation of "state" rather than province or some other such designation. A state, a government, is clearly not a corporation to be contracted, but a country, or at least demi-country if I may make up new words. The agreement is more treaty than contract.

Originally Posted by yaaarrrgg

I think the South fixated on the idea of unilateral secession, but didn't need to. It only had to become such a nuisance, that the North would have wanted to separate from it voluntarily.

But practically speaking had the South seceded, it would have collapsed anyway ... it was destroying itself economically with slavery. Why hire a a person to do a job, when they could buy someone and pay them nothing? After collapse, it would then be absorbed either back into the U.S. or Mexico. This would have created a lot of political instability I think, resulting in even bloodier warfare (possibly lasting to this day). The act of secession has practical effects which pose a danger to the other states. To this degree, unilateral secession is reckless, and fails to recognize how these actions will affect the other party.

You're probably right about failure though I disagree about war to this day, but the ends don't justify the means. The ends never justify the means. They deserved to exercise their right to secede and fail.

[Lon]

Originally Posted by Accountable

According to this timeline, the states did secede, but Buchanan and later Lincoln didn't honor their sovereignty and kept forts in the area occupied. So it wasn't the hot-headed rednecks you quip about who started the war.

I'm no expert on this, but the time and legality question fascinates me, so I look forward to learning alot from this thread.

Google Abe Lincoln's Cooper Union Speech--------the speech contributed to his being elected. It's an outstanding speech.

[Accountable]

Originally Posted by Lon

Google Abe Lincoln's Cooper Union Speech--------the speech contributed to his being elected. It's an outstanding speech.

I found it but I'm really short on time. I'll read it later; maybe even in speech class. In the meantime, would you summarize the parts that apply to this thread, please?

Yikes! All the legal wrangling makes my head soppy. If we have in our constitution the ability for a state to leave the 'union', which I think is the right based on a balance of power, as a warning for the federal side to not try to take up too much power then any state that chooses to leave the protection of the ‘union’ should be allowed to do so even if that increases the risk to the rest of the union. That’s an issue that needs to be thought about when or if the 'union' starts to gain more power. I don't know the history well enough to comment on the legal arguments. But I don't think Abraham Lincoln followed the idea our constitution was created for. I think Abraham Lincoln thought he was doing the best thing for the country when he fought to keep the union together and found legal verbage to justify his opinion.

[chonsigirl]

That is a great article on FindLaw, I read it last night.

Succession, and the constitutional right to do this. It is not specifically said you cannot in the Constitution. That was the stand the South used when they did it. They were a valid entity unto themself during the period of the Civil War. It is only how a historian writes about it afterwards, whether they see it that way.

Is it feasible today? You hear about it every so often, about an area, municipalship or something similar trying it, to make a specific point.

[Accountable]

Originally Posted by Hoss

Yikes! All the legal wrangling makes my head soppy. If we have in our constitution the ability for a state to leave the 'union', which I think is the right based on a balance of power, as a warning for the federal side to not try to take up too much power then any state that chooses to leave the protection of the ‘union’ should be allowed to do so even if that increases the risk to the rest of the union. That’s an issue that needs to be thought about when or if the 'union' starts to gain more power. I don't know the history well enough to comment on the legal arguments. But I don't think Abraham Lincoln followed the idea our constitution was created for. I think Abraham Lincoln thought he was doing the best thing for the country when he fought to keep the union together and found legal verbage to justify his opinion.

I agree with you. Many people today would say "Well at least he preserved the Union." But the ends never justify the means. I often wonder what the world would be like if Lincoln (and his predecessors, let's be fair) had done his job properly.

Originally Posted by Accountable

I agree with you. Many people today would say "Well at least he preserved the Union." But the ends never justify the means. I often wonder what the world would be like if Lincoln (and his predecessors, let's be fair) had done his job properly.

There’s a saying in my family: It's never right to do wrong to do right. LOL! The discussion based on this statement, and the phrase you stated above 'the ends justifies the means', has been sometimes intensely discussed around the dinner table.

It's my very inexperienced opinion that its easy to say I’m never going to do wrong in order to do right, then I fall on my face and do it my way anyway and I’m stuck with the consequence of my choice. Somewhere in between those two things is where I'm at most of the time. My dad sums it up like this: "It is what it is, now go choose again, this time do it better".

It’s hard to do my job, when I think I see the bigger picture then try to manipulate things to the outcome I think is best, but it wasn’t for me to do that.

I think your exactly right, if we just do our jobs, and not try to makes things happen our way we'd be much more successful and pass on much better conditions to our children.

[K.Snyder]

Originally Posted by Accountable

You're probably right about failure though I disagree about war to this day, but the ends don't justify the means. The ends never justify the means. They deserved to exercise their right to secede and fail.

I'd have to assume a weaker North would be more vulnerable to being taken over by foreign interests wouldn't you?...