Lincoln and Secession

[Illuminatus Primus]

Did Lincoln only suspend habeus corpus in the rebelling territories?

How could he suspend the rights in another country? It would have been about as effective as him telling Canada the same thing.

The South was not a country! It was an illegal successionist movement. It was not recognized by Washington or anyone else.

By your logic, Lincoln didn't make the Emancipation Proclamation, because he was declared over "States in rebellion." It exempted only Border States from the freeing of slaves, and it was quite clear that the Proclamation would become universal at the conclusion of hostilities.

[Andrew J.]

Removing Habeus Corpus is 'bending the law a little'?

No, it's not bending the law at all. I think it's already been shown that Article I, Section 9, Clause 2 of the Consitution allows for it during rebellion and invasion. It was perfectly legal and you know it.

Another thing we must think of in this debate is the intent of the framers of the Constitution. Would they have wanted individual states to be bound to a tyrranical central government, or would they want them to be able to break away if they saw it fit? I do think that considering that they had just broken away from their central government, they would want the states to be able to break away.

Certainly not. If they had wanted states to be able to leave the union, they would have provided a process for it in the Constitution. The Constitution does provide for a means to deal with governmet officials that break the law and/or try to exceed their authority; the process of impeachment.

Now, I'm not saying that they would have been better off breaking away, or staying broken away, or if the central government was tyrannical, but were the states within their rights to break away if they saw it fit? I say yes, they were.

The Supreme Court says different, chump.

[Patrick Degan]

Removing Habeus Corpus is 'bending the law a little'?

The Confederacy was a clear and present danger to the preservation of the Union.

Not quite. The Confederacy was not seeking the breakup of the entire federal union among the non-seceeding states.

All of this is irrelevent. The seceding States did not have the legal right to do so, and your opinion doesn't change that.

Unless you can quote the passage in either the U.S. Constitution or any of the extant state constitutions of the period which specifically declared secession illegal, this argument is unsupportable.

Now, I'm not saying that they would have been better off breaking away, or staying broken away, or if the central government was tyrannical, but were the states within their rights to break away if they saw it fit? I say yes, they were.

Tell that to experts on Constitutional law and to SCOTUS.

In advising the Johnson administration to not attempt to pursue a treason conviction against Jefferson Davis in 1867, Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase pointed out that Davis' legal position in regards to secession was essentially correct and that theoretically he could well have successfully won acquittal on that basis had the case gone to trial. Chase's argument was one of the main reasons why Davis was never prosecuted.

[Nathan F]

Did Lincoln only suspend habeus corpus in the rebelling territories?

How could he suspend the rights in another country? It would have been about as effective as him telling Canada the same thing.

The South was not a country! It was an illegal successionist movement. It was not recognized by Washington or anyone else.

By your logic, Lincoln didn't make the Emancipation Proclamation, because he was declared over "States in rebellion." It exempted only Border States from the freeing of slaves, and it was quite clear that the Proclamation would become universal at the conclusion of hostilities.

And the southern states did not recognize the northern government as theirs. Now, point me to which one actually owned and controlled the southern states between the years of 1861 and 1864. How hard is that to understand? The Confederate States of America was an existing nation that had a central government, a constitution, carried on trade with other nations, and carried on warfare with another single nation.

Again, the British carried on trade with the Confederates, which means that they pretty well acknowledged their existence and the lack of authority of the Federal Government over the Confederacy.

[Iceberg]

And the southern states did not recognize the northern government as theirs. Now, point me to which one actually owned and controlled the southern states between the years of 1861 and 1864.

Point to me where in the Constitution or United States Statute Law there is a legal mechanism for secession. That's right, nowhere. There is a legal mechanism for states to enter the union but none for them to leave.

How hard is that to understand? The Confederate States of America was an existing nation that had a central government, a constitution, carried on trade with other nations, and carried on warfare with another single nation.

Again, the British carried on trade with the Confederates, which means that they pretty well acknowledged their existence and the lack of authority of the Federal Government over the Confederacy.

You're going to use that farce as a turning point for the Confederacy's legitimacy? The British acknowledged the Confederates solely because to not do so would have cut their trade margins, especially of cotton.

Ceasing trade with the Confederacy meant that the British would have been suddenly cut off from their supply of cotton, which, among other things, would have been devastating to the Royal Navy (the British used cotton powder bags).

Though with the north we sympathize
It must not be forgotten
That with the South we've stronger ties
Which are composed of cotton.

Whereof our imports mount unto
a sum of many figures
and where would be our calico
Without the toil of niggers.

(The American Quarrel was a popular British tune of the day)

British support of the South turned entirely on the cotton trade and they were entirely happy to subsidize slavery in the Confederacy - which they had outlawed in their own country - in order to get it.

[BlkbrryTheGreat]

The South was not a country! It was an illegal successionist movement. It was not recognized by Washington or anyone else.

Recognition by foreign governments is not a prerequisite of having a legitimate government. Your beating a strawman.

Point to me where in the Constitution or United States Statute Law there is a legal mechanism for secession. That's right, nowhere. There is a legal mechanism for states to enter the union but none for them to leave.

From the Bill of Rights, US constitution.

Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X
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.

[SirNitram]

Neither of those Amendments mention, in any capacity, secession.

[Nathan F]

Neither of those Amendments mention, in any capacity, secession.

But they state that just because something isn't mentioned in the constutition does not mean that it isn't in their rights. All it's saying is that whatever is in the constitution are the basic rights and aren't to be denied, but there ARE other rights that possibly weren't written or taken into consideration at the time.

[Nathan F]

And the southern states did not recognize the northern government as theirs. Now, point me to which one actually owned and controlled the southern states between the years of 1861 and 1864.

Point to me where in the Constitution or United States Statute Law there is a legal mechanism for secession. That's right, nowhere. There is a legal mechanism for states to enter the union but none for them to leave.

What a massive red herring. That statement is about what government had control of the southern states, and it wasn't the US.

How hard is that to understand? The Confederate States of America was an existing nation that had a central government, a constitution, carried on trade with other nations, and carried on warfare with another single nation.

Again, the British carried on trade with the Confederates, which means that they pretty well acknowledged their existence and the lack of authority of the Federal Government over the Confederacy.

You're going to use that farce as a turning point for the Confederacy's legitimacy? The British acknowledged the Confederates solely because to not do so would have cut their trade margins, especially of cotton.

Ceasing trade with the Confederacy meant that the British would have been suddenly cut off from their supply of cotton, which, among other things, would have been devastating to the Royal Navy (the British used cotton powder bags).

Though with the north we sympathize
It must not be forgotten
That with the South we've stronger ties
Which are composed of cotton.

Whereof our imports mount unto
a sum of many figures
and where would be our calico
Without the toil of niggers.

(The American Quarrel was a popular British tune of the day)

British support of the South turned entirely on the cotton trade and they were entirely happy to subsidize slavery in the Confederacy - which they had outlawed in their own country - in order to get it.

[/quote] There ARE other sources of cotton in the British empire. By simply saying, "Oh, they had to trade with the Confederacy just because they had to," does NOT in any way have anything to do with whether or not they recognized the Confederacy. The original statement was that no nation recognized the Confederacy, and I say that trading with the Confederacy was a way of legitimizing their government. The pretenses of that trading are irrelevent.

[SirNitram]

Neither of those Amendments mention, in any capacity, secession.

But they state that just because something isn't mentioned in the constutition does not mean that it isn't in their rights. All it's saying is that whatever is in the constitution are the basic rights and aren't to be denied, but there ARE other rights that possibly weren't written or taken into consideration at the time.

So the right to open rebellion is present? Funny; it affords the President rights in dealing with open rebellions. It would be quite contradictory to allow for open rebellion, after granting powers to enhance the ways to deal with it.

[Illuminatus Primus]

And the southern states did not recognize the northern government as theirs. Now, point me to which one actually owned and controlled the southern states between the years of 1861 and 1864.

Point to me where in the Constitution or United States Statute Law there is a legal mechanism for secession. That's right, nowhere. There is a legal mechanism for states to enter the union but none for them to leave.

What a massive red herring. That statement is about what government had control of the southern states, and it wasn't the US.

The southern States refused to awknowledge the legal and actual authority of the Federal Government as Washington. They were quite obviously corrected.

Recognizing yourself as a soveriegn nation does not determine your independence.

[Nathan F]

Neither of those Amendments mention, in any capacity, secession.

But they state that just because something isn't mentioned in the constutition does not mean that it isn't in their rights. All it's saying is that whatever is in the constitution are the basic rights and aren't to be denied, but there ARE other rights that possibly weren't written or taken into consideration at the time.

So the right to open rebellion is present? Funny; it affords the President rights in dealing with open rebellions. It would be quite contradictory to allow for open rebellion, after granting powers to enhance the ways to deal with it.

It was not declared illegal in the constitution, nor to my knowledge was on the books, also, you must look at the difference between rebellion and secession. Let us look at the dictionary definitions firstoff:

rebellion -
1)Open, armed, and organized resistance to a constituted government.
2)An act or a show of defiance toward an authority or established convention.

secession -
formal withdrawal or separation from an alliance or federation

Now, the difference is clear. The definition of secession is where a state see's the central government unfit and organizes it's own government, or joins another government. Open rebellion didn't occur until war broke out between the government of the Confederate States of America and the United States of America, and then it technically wasn't open rebellion, as it was a war between two governmental powers.

The states have the right to join, but the right to seceede isn't denied in the constitution. It's surprisingly absent, and there has yet to be a constitutional amendment to say either way. So, all we have to go off of is the 10th Amendment which states that there are other rights than those stated in the constitution, but, is secession one of those rights, and is attempting to force a state to remain part of the union legal? That's a question that hasn't been answered.

[Andrew J.]

The South was not a country! It was an illegal successionist movement. It was not recognized by Washington or anyone else.

Recognition by foreign governments is not a prerequisite of having a legitimate government. Your beating a strawman.

Point to me where in the Constitution or United States Statute Law there is a legal mechanism for secession. That's right, nowhere. There is a legal mechanism for states to enter the union but none for them to leave.

From the Bill of Rights, US constitution.

Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X
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.

[Andrew J.]

Whoops, screwed up there. Can someone merge my post above with this one? Anyway:

There is no explicitly defined mechanism in either the Ninth or Tenth Amendments, and something as important as secession would definitely have gotten one.

Nathan: since secession is NOT legal, according to the Supreme Court of the United States, the very act of secession is a form of rebellion, in the "show of defiance to authority" sense.

[SirNitram]

But they state that just because something isn't mentioned in the constutition does not mean that it isn't in their rights. All it's saying is that whatever is in the constitution are the basic rights and aren't to be denied, but there ARE other rights that possibly weren't written or taken into consideration at the time.

So the right to open rebellion is present? Funny; it affords the President rights in dealing with open rebellions. It would be quite contradictory to allow for open rebellion, after granting powers to enhance the ways to deal with it.

It was not declared illegal in the constitution, nor to my knowledge was on the books, also, you must look at the difference between rebellion and secession. Let us look at the dictionary definitions firstoff:

rebellion -
1)Open, armed, and organized resistance to a constituted government.

Let us look at this. The Confederacy was clearly open. It was not hiding. It was most definately armed, no one here will deny their had weapons. It was definately organized, people keep talking about how good the generals were. It was resistance to the constituted government of the US. Therefore, the Confederacy matches, exactly, the first definition.

2)An act or a show of defiance toward an authority or established convention.

Many such acts were committed, most obviously the establishment of the Confederacy in defiance of the democratically elected President.

secession -
formal withdrawal or separation from an alliance or federation

Yet no formal procedure was undertaken, at least not in any records I see. The Southern states just said 'fuck this' and left.

Now, the difference is clear. The definition of secession is where a state see's the central government unfit and organizes it's own government, or joins another government. Open rebellion didn't occur until war broke out between the government of the Confederate States of America and the United States of America, and then it technically wasn't open rebellion, as it was a war between two governmental powers.

The American Revolution was a rebellion, yet it had the Continental Congress. This attempt to declare it's not a Rebellion when it fits, exactly, the definition is semantic whoring, and something I loathe.

In addition, for those of us with history books going back further than 1600, it becomes clear that a 'legitimate government', by precedent, is one recignized formally by a noteworthy power. And 'trading with' is not 'formal recignition'.

The states have the right to join, but the right to seceede isn't denied in the constitution. It's surprisingly absent, and there has yet to be a constitutional amendment to say either way. So, all we have to go off of is the 10th Amendment which states that there are other rights than those stated in the constitution, but, is secession one of those rights, and is attempting to force a state to remain part of the union legal? That's a question that hasn't been answered.

Section 9, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution.

"The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it. "

This shows very much that the Constitution isn't about to let people commit open rebellion. And, again, if you like it or not, the Confederacy was an open rebellion.

Finally, the Supreme Court has ruled that yes, secession is illegal by the Constitution. Under the laws laid down by the same parchment, their word is binding on this.

Point, set, match.

[Iceberg]

What a massive red herring. That statement is about what government had control of the southern states, and it wasn't the US.

Southern rebels refused to acknowledge the authority of Washington.

Just what in the hell do you think a "rebellion" IS!?

Again, the British carried on trade with the Confederates, which means that they pretty well acknowledged their existence and the lack of authority of the Federal Government over the Confederacy.

You're going to use that farce as a turning point for the Confederacy's legitimacy? The British acknowledged the Confederates solely because to not do so would have cut their trade margins, especially of cotton.

Ceasing trade with the Confederacy meant that the British would have been suddenly cut off from their supply of cotton, which, among other things, would have been devastating to the Royal Navy (the British used cotton powder bags).

Though with the north we sympathize
It must not be forgotten
That with the South we've stronger ties
Which are composed of cotton.

Whereof our imports mount unto
a sum of many figures
and where would be our calico
Without the toil of niggers.

(The American Quarrel was a popular British tune of the day)

British support of the South turned entirely on the cotton trade and they were entirely happy to subsidize slavery in the Confederacy - which they had outlawed in their own country - in order to get it.

[/quote] There ARE other sources of cotton in the British empire. By simply saying, "Oh, they had to trade with the Confederacy just because they had to," does NOT in any way have anything to do with whether or not they recognized the Confederacy. The original statement was that no nation recognized the Confederacy, and I say that trading with the Confederacy was a way of legitimizing their government. The pretenses of that trading are irrelevent.[/quote]
The British government never recognized the Confederacy, you nit.

http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ho/time/cw/17609.htm

[Nathan F]

Maybe not officially, but, they had to recognize the southern government to carry on trade with them. What do you think they were doing? Trading with the US?

From your article:

A blockade was a weapon of war between sovereign states. In May, Britain responded to the blockade with a proclamation of neutrality, which the other European powers followed. This tacitly granted the Confederacy belligerent status, the right to contract loans and purchase supplies in neutral nations and to exercise belligerent rights on the high seas. The Union was greatly angered by European recognition of Southern belligerency, fearing that is was a first step toward diplomatic recognition, but as British Foreign Secretary Lord John Russell said, “The question of belligerent rights is one, not of principle, but of fact.”

Sounds like they took the Confederacy pretty seriously to me...

[Nathan F]

Yet no formal procedure was undertaken, at least not in any records I see. The Southern states just said 'fuck this' and left.

I'll look into it further, but I'm fairly certain that there were diplomats on each side in communication with each other.

Now, the difference is clear. The definition of secession is where a state see's the central government unfit and organizes it's own government, or joins another government. Open rebellion didn't occur until war broke out between the government of the Confederate States of America and the United States of America, and then it technically wasn't open rebellion, as it was a war between two governmental powers.

The American Revolution was a rebellion, yet it had the Continental Congress. This attempt to declare it's not a Rebellion when it fits, exactly, the definition is semantic whoring, and something I loathe.

In addition, for those of us with history books going back further than 1600, it becomes clear that a 'legitimate government', by precedent, is one recignized formally by a noteworthy power. And 'trading with' is not 'formal recignition'.

Yet was the Continental Congress a legitimate government? To the British, it most assuredly was not, but to say, the French, yes it was. As you'll notice in the reply to Iceburg I made above, the article he provided says that the European powers took Neutrality in the conflict. And yes, the British had consuls in the Confederacy. Last time I checked, sending diplomats meant that relations had been opened with a nation, and when you open relations with a nation, you recognize the government. The Europeans recognized it, but remained Neutral in the conflict.
http://docsouth.unc.edu/deptofstate/deptofst.html
Complete listing of British diplomats in Richmond.

The states have the right to join, but the right to seceede isn't denied in the constitution. It's surprisingly absent, and there has yet to be a constitutional amendment to say either way. So, all we have to go off of is the 10th Amendment which states that there are other rights than those stated in the constitution, but, is secession one of those rights, and is attempting to force a state to remain part of the union legal? That's a question that hasn't been answered.

Section 9, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution.

"The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it. "

This shows very much that the Constitution isn't about to let people commit open rebellion. And, again, if you like it or not, the Confederacy was an open rebellion.

Finally, the Supreme Court has ruled that yes, secession is illegal by the Constitution. Under the laws laid down by the same parchment, their word is binding on this.

Point, set, match.

[/quote] Please provide the appropriate documentation stating that the SCOTUS has said that the secession of the Confederacy was indeed against the constitution, and not just the clause that enables the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus.

[SirNitram]

Yet no formal procedure was undertaken, at least not in any records I see. The Southern states just said 'fuck this' and left.

I'll look into it further, but I'm fairly certain that there were diplomats on each side in communication with each other.

A diplomat being present does not constitute a formal procedure for secession.

Yet was the Continental Congress a legitimate government? To the British, it most assuredly was not, but to say, the French, yes it was. As you'll notice in the reply to Iceburg I made above, the article he provided says that the European powers took Neutrality in the conflict.

Neutrality != Formal Recignition.

And yes, the British had consuls in the Confederacy. Last time I checked, sending diplomats meant that relations had been opened with a nation, and when you open relations with a nation, you recognize the government.

Really? Prove it.

[quote[The Europeans recognized it, but remained Neutral in the conflict.
http://docsouth.unc.edu/deptofstate/deptofst.html
Complete listing of British diplomats in Richmond.[/quote]

Now, this is going to shock you, but being from Europe, my history books say nothing about recignizing the Confederacy. At best, trade ties were maintained to take cotton in. There was no formal recignition.. You'd do well to provide something more than 'They had guys there' if you want to prove formal recignition.

The SCOTUS decision is being a bitch to find, it will be posted once I've trapped it.

[MKSheppard]

Funny how a bunch of people that raised about a million men under an organized system of drafting into a coherent entity with it's own uniforms, regulations, etc isn't a separate state

[SirNitram]

Funny how a bunch of people that raised about a million men under an organized system of drafting into a coherent entity with it's own uniforms, regulations, etc isn't a separate state

Sorry, the precedent for such things is rather older than your entire country's history.

[MKSheppard]

When you look at the more spurious shit that has passed for "independent"
states *Cough* Chechenya *cough*, the Confederacy certainly did enough
in it's existence to merit calling it an independent nation.

[neoolong]

The SCOTUS case you're talking about, was that Texas v. White in 1869?

[MKSheppard]

The South was not a country! It was an illegal successionist movement. It was not recognized by Washington or anyone else.

Then why did the Union not hang Lee and Jefferson Davis for treason if it
was an illegal secessionist movement?

[MKSheppard]

The US government never recognized the Confederacy. The "independence" of the Confederacy was wholly dependent on its ability to defend that independence with force of arms and it failed to do so.

Funny, I don't recall seeing union troops in Richmond in 1861...oh that's right,
it took four long years and 600,000 dead to get to Richmond.