Lincoln and Secession

[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.

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

No, I don't guess it does. As I said, I'll look into the issue further.

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.

No, but sending consuls from Her Majesty to the Confederacy DOES constitute something...

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.

Read below.

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

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.[/quote] Grah! Those letters are from the BRITISH CONSULAR in Richmond, VA. Does a country send diplomats and consuls if it's NOT recognizing that government? As for it not being taught in your schools, do you really expect to get a full explanation of another country's history, especially when there is so much to cover in the rich and long history of Britain and Europe in general? I know that I didn't get a big spiel on British history, in my general history classes in primary and secondary school.

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

I know what you mean, I looked for it some earlier. If I find anythign on it I'll post it here.

[MKSheppard]

The British were their typical selves. Waiting to see which way the wind
was blowing before committing themselves openly to the Confederacy.

It's worth noting that Britain didn't see any problem in taking a non-existent
country's money and outfitting a commerce raider for a non-existent
country's navy, however.

[Nathan F]

The British were their typical selves. Waiting to see which way the wind
was blowing before committing themselves openly to the Confederacy.

It's worth noting that Britain didn't see any problem in taking a non-existent
country's money and outfitting a commerce raider for a non-existent
country's navy, however.

Ah, yesss, the CSS Alabama. Forgot entirely about that. Yes, they do make a habit of supplying nonexistent navies from what I hear.

[MKSheppard]

Yes, they do make a habit of supplying nonexistent navies from what I hear.

Does that mean that all I need to do is declare the Kingdom of Sheppard
to get a Type 23 for cheap from the RN?

[Nathan F]

Yes, they do make a habit of supplying nonexistent navies from what I hear.

Does that mean that all I need to do is declare the Kingdom of Sheppard
to get a Type 23 for cheap from the RN?

Yeah, they do, the Empire of Western Middle Tennessee has already gotten 3 of them, plus a full wing of BAe Harriers.

[MKSheppard]

Yeah, they do, the Empire of Western Middle Tennessee has already gotten 3 of them, plus a full wing of BAe Harriers.

Ah excellent. The British really took it on the chin in the 1870s with
the Alabama Claims, we could have gone to war with them over the
Alamaba claims because they were being their typical selves over
that - assholes.

[BlkbrryTheGreat]

Nitram, your claim, namely that to be legitimate a government must be recognized by other governments, is complete bullshit. In America The People formed government, and The People have the right to abolish or change their government if they so desire. Other Governments have nothing to do with the process.

To quote the Declaration of Independence:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

[/quote]

[SirNitram]

Nitram, your claim, namely that to be legitimate a government must be recognized by other governments, is complete bullshit. In America The People formed government, and The People have the right to abolish or change their government if they so desire. Other Governments have nothing to do with the process.

And this has what to do with the legitimacy of said government? Sorry, but this is ultimately a question of legalities. Legalities are about specifics and precedent, not grand-sounding proclamations.

[RedImperator]

Great Britain NEVER recognized the CSA as a nation. Doing so would have either led to war with the United States, or forced Lincoln to the bargaining table. They DID recognize the CSA as belligerants, thanks to Lincoln declaring a "blockade" of Southern ports rather than simply declaring them closed (a blunder that can be chalked up to Lincoln's inexperience with the intracasies of international law). That allowed them to conduct trade and build ships for the CSA (though that stopped once Lincoln was in a position to threaten Britian with war if they didn't stop). They even had representatives in Richmond, same as the CSA had ministers in London in Paris. But neither Britian nor France nor anybody else ever recognized the Confederate States as an independent nation.

Oh, and Britain took payment in gold, not Confederate currency.

[Xenophobe3691]

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

Basically what happened in that case was that Texas sold a whole bunch of bonds they couldn't pay back. So Texas said that they never were really out of the Union, and the Supreme Court backed it up and Texas never repaid the bonds. They didn't argue against secession, just that Texas never really left. Salmon P. Chase, the chief justice at the time, actually advised the Jackson administration NOT to try Jefferson Davis for treason, since he actually had a very solid standing and he would have been acquitted. I'll post links to the story when I get back from Speech class...

[Stravo]

Nitram, your claim, namely that to be legitimate a government must be recognized by other governments, is complete bullshit. In America The People formed government, and The People have the right to abolish or change their government if they so desire. Other Governments have nothing to do with the process.

And this has what to do with the legitimacy of said government? Sorry, but this is ultimately a question of legalities. Legalities are about specifics and precedent, not grand-sounding proclamations.

So the tenants in my building and I can form the Confederate Apartments of Washington Heights and instantly be a government? We're the people to. Sorry. The US was not an official nation until France recognized us and Britain as well. There's a reason why it was called the War of Independence right?

[Nathan F]

Nitram, your claim, namely that to be legitimate a government must be recognized by other governments, is complete bullshit. In America The People formed government, and The People have the right to abolish or change their government if they so desire. Other Governments have nothing to do with the process.

And this has what to do with the legitimacy of said government? Sorry, but this is ultimately a question of legalities. Legalities are about specifics and precedent, not grand-sounding proclamations.

Uh, yeah, legalities are about written law and proclamations. The Declaration of Independence is a legal document, severing ties to the British crown. In that document, it is apparent that a case for secession is written, as Blkbrry so kindly pointed out. That statement isn't renegged in the Constitution, so, it should still be standing.

Or am I wrong and is the Declaration of Independence not a legal document, therefore we are still subjects of the British Crown?

[BlkbrryTheGreat]

Nitram, your claim, namely that to be legitimate a government must be recognized by other governments, is complete bullshit. In America The People formed government, and The People have the right to abolish or change their government if they so desire. Other Governments have nothing to do with the process.

And this has what to do with the legitimacy of said government? Sorry, but this is ultimately a question of legalities. Legalities are about specifics and precedent, not grand-sounding proclamations.

In other words, Its foreign governments that decide which government is legitmate, not the people who form and live in them.

You clearly have a strong grasp of the concept of Democracy.

[BlkbrryTheGreat]

Nitram, your claim, namely that to be legitimate a government must be recognized by other governments, is complete bullshit. In America The People formed government, and The People have the right to abolish or change their government if they so desire. Other Governments have nothing to do with the process.

And this has what to do with the legitimacy of said government? Sorry, but this is ultimately a question of legalities. Legalities are about specifics and precedent, not grand-sounding proclamations.

So the tenants in my building and I can form the Confederate Apartments of Washington Heights and instantly be a government? We're the people to. Sorry. The US was not an official nation until France recognized us and Britain as well. There's a reason why it was called the War of Independence right?

Stravo, if the US kicked out the British, and kept them out, they would be an Independent nation regardless of who recognized them.

[Andrew J.]

In other words, Its foreign governments that decide which government is legitmate, not the people who form and live in them.

You clearly have a strong grasp of the concept of Democracy.

No, he has a grasp on reality. Self-determination is a good principle, but in this unperfect world a government isn't gonna last unless other countries are willing to let it stick around.

[Andrew J.]

Stravo, if the US kicked out the British, and kept them out, they would be an Independent nation regardless of who recognized them.

And I guess the CSA was an independent nation too, since it kicked out the Union and kept them ou- whoops. Looks like there's a little hole in your argument.

[RedImperator]

Uh, yeah, legalities are about written law and proclamations. The Declaration of Independence is a legal document, severing ties to the British crown. In that document, it is apparent that a case for secession is written, as Blkbrry so kindly pointed out. That statement isn't renegged in the Constitution, so, it should still be standing.

Or am I wrong and is the Declaration of Independence not a legal document, therefore we are still subjects of the British Crown?

The Declaration of Independence has zero force in law. It was a philosophical declaration of principles, not a legal document. The United States of America was legally formed when the Articles of Confederation went into effect, which were superceded by the Constitution.

As for being British subjects, again, as far as the state governments were concerned, we ceased to be British as soon as they ratified the Articles of Confederation. From the point of view of the British, we stopped being British subject when they signed the Treaty of Paris.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Uh, yeah, legalities are about written law and proclamations. The Declaration of Independence is a legal document, severing ties to the British crown. In that document, it is apparent that a case for secession is written, as Blkbrry so kindly pointed out. That statement isn't renegged in the Constitution, so, it should still be standing.

Or am I wrong and is the Declaration of Independence not a legal document, therefore we are still subjects of the British Crown?

Even if that were true, how could something like that be meaningful or binding? If a bunch of militia crazies in Montana draft a Manifesto declaring a region independent of the United States, they're full of shit unless they can support their declarations by force.

Our proclamations are only meaningful insofar that they may be enforced. The "Confederate States of America" failed to ever enforce or support her supposed independence, and thusly it has no real binding importance that they formed their own ersatz government.

So let's see:

They couldn't support their claims of independence, they weren't recognized as a nation by anyone but themselves, and were an illegal rebellion.

The U.S. was an illegal rebellion too, that became a legal entity when the British signed a Peace Treaty recognizing us as a soveriegn nation. This is supported by other nations recognizing the U.S.'s soveriegnty.

Since a "succession" is indestinguishable from a "rebellion" without somesort of legal method or authority (and no, copying the American Revolution is not some sort of get-out-of-jail-free card), which is not granted by the Constitution or the Federal laws of the U.S., and the U.S. did not recognize the withdrawl from the Union by the States in rebellion, the C.S.A. was an illegitimate rebellion which was put down by force.

[BlkbrryTheGreat]

Uh, yeah, legalities are about written law and proclamations. The Declaration of Independence is a legal document, severing ties to the British crown. In that document, it is apparent that a case for secession is written, as Blkbrry so kindly pointed out. That statement isn't renegged in the Constitution, so, it should still be standing.

Or am I wrong and is the Declaration of Independence not a legal document, therefore we are still subjects of the British Crown?

The Declaration of Independence has zero force in law. It was a philosophical declaration of principles, not a legal document. The United States of America was legally formed when the Articles of Confederation went into effect, which were superceded by the Constitution.

As for being British subjects, again, as far as the state governments were concerned, we ceased to be British as soon as they ratified the Articles of Confederation. From the point of view of the British, we stopped being British subject when they signed the Treaty of Paris.

What are you talking about??? The Declaration of Independence was a document of the States declaring that they considered themselves independent and soverign nations. It was at that point that we were legally "formed" as the united States of America.

To quote from it again:

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by the Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

[MKSheppard]

Our proclamations are only meaningful insofar that they may be enforced. The "Confederate States of America" failed to ever enforce or support her supposed independence, and thusly it has no real binding importance that they formed their own ersatz government.

First Manassas and Second Manassas mean anything to you? Union Army
marches towards Richmond, Capital of a country that doesn't exist,
and has it's ass kicked roundly by an army that doesn't exist

[Illuminatus Primus]

Myth:
The Declaration of Independence exhibits a preference for Christianity.

Response:
It isn't uncommon for people to argue against the separation of church and state by pointing to the Declaration of Independence. Some believe, evidently, that the text in this document supports the position that the United States was founded upon religious, if not Christian, principles, and therefore church and state must remain intertwined in order for this nation to continue properly.

There are a couple of flaws in this argument. For one thing, the Declaration of Independence is not a legal document for this nation. What this means is that it has no authority over our laws, our lawmakers or ourselves. It cannot be cited as precedent or as being binding in a courtroom. The purpose of the Declaration of Independence was to make a moral case for dissolving the legal ties between the colonies and Great Britain; once that goal was achieved, the role of the Declaration was finished.

Blkbrry exposes his ignorance, the Sequel!

First Manassas and Second Manassas mean anything to you? Union Army marches towards Richmond, Capital of a country that doesn't exist, and has it's ass kicked roundly by an army that doesn't exist

Apparently you're arguing with someone who doesn't exist.

Will someone point out to me where I said that an illegitimate government couldn't establish a capital? Or that the Army of Northern Virginia didn't exist?

The C.S.A. failed its test of legitimacy. Any group of idiots can stage a revolt and claim legitimacy, and its not worth anything until that independence is recognized and fought for.

My argument was that the C.S.A. was never a legitimate government. The U.S.A. was not a legitimate government until the signing of the Treaty of Paris in 1783, either, Sheppard.

[RedImperator]

The Declaration of Independence has zero force in law. It was a philosophical declaration of principles, not a legal document. The United States of America was legally formed when the Articles of Confederation went into effect, which were superceded by the Constitution.

As for being British subjects, again, as far as the state governments were concerned, we ceased to be British as soon as they ratified the Articles of Confederation. From the point of view of the British, we stopped being British subject when they signed the Treaty of Paris.

What are you talking about??? The Declaration of Independence was a document of the States declaring that they considered themselves independent and soverign nations. It was at that point that we were legally "formed" as the united States of America.

By all means then, please, tell me what force in law the Declaration actually has. Did it establish the government of the US? No, the Articles of Confederation did that. Did it establish the formal and legal independence of the US? No, that was the Treaty of Paris. All the Declaration did was inform George III that the colonies no longer considered themselves to be governed from London. I could send a letter to Congress declaring my house is an independent nation, and it would have precisely the same legal force as the Declaration.

To quote from it again:

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by the Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

Yes, I'm familiar with the document. The fact that they SAID they were independent doesn't mean they WERE, nor does flowery language automatically equal legal document. It's a philosophical document, and an important one, but it is not a legal one.

[BlkbrryTheGreat]

By all means then, please, tell me what force in law the Declaration actually has. Did it establish the government of the US? No, the Articles of Confederation did that.

The Articles of Confederation were the first Constitution of the United States. The Second Continental Congress became the first Government of the United States when the Declaration of Independence was issue.

Did it establish the formal and legal independence of the US?

Not in the eyes of the British, but in the eyes of America it certainly did.

All the Declaration did was inform George III that the colonies no longer considered themselves to be governed from London

And give them the legal authority of an actual government within the US.

I could send a letter to Congress declaring my house is an independent nation, and it would have precisely the same legal force as the Declaration.

Thats a bullshit arguement through extreme, the "scale" of secession is indeed an issue. (As is the motive.) While I'm not sure, at this point, what the actual threshold is, its safe to say that secession movements that occupy the better part of a Continent meet the threshold, both the US and CSA meet it.

Yes, I'm familiar with the document. The fact that they SAID they were independent doesn't mean they WERE, nor does flowery language automatically equal legal document. It's a philosophical document, and an important one, but it is not a legal one.

After the Declaration was issued America was Independent. If they were not Independent then the British would not have had to attempt to military conquer to "restore" it to the Empire, the Treaty of Paris was nothing more then the British finally acknowledging the reality that was staring them in the face.

[BlkbrryTheGreat]

Myth:
The Declaration of Independence exhibits a preference for Christianity.

Response:
It isn't uncommon for people to argue against the separation of church and state by pointing to the Declaration of Independence. Some believe, evidently, that the text in this document supports the position that the United States was founded upon religious, if not Christian, principles, and therefore church and state must remain intertwined in order for this nation to continue properly.

There are a couple of flaws in this argument. For one thing, the Declaration of Independence is not a legal document for this nation. What this means is that it has no authority over our laws, our lawmakers or ourselves. It cannot be cited as precedent or as being binding in a courtroom. The purpose of the Declaration of Independence was to make a moral case for dissolving the legal ties between the colonies and Great Britain; once that goal was achieved, the role of the Declaration was finished.

Blkbrry exposes his ignorance, the Sequel!

1. That the Declaration of Independence is not a document legally binding under the Constitution does not mean that it was not a "legal" document at the time.

2. Even though the document is not legally binding under the Constitution the rights explicitly defined in it are reserved by the people under the Constitution; namely under the IX and X Amendments added to the Constitution in the Bill of Rights.

Now how about you stop being a mindless fuckwit.

[RedImperator]

By all means then, please, tell me what force in law the Declaration actually has. Did it establish the government of the US? No, the Articles of Confederation did that.

The Articles of Confederation were the first Constitution of the United States. The Second Continental Congress became the first Government of the United States when the Declaration of Independence was issue.

The Continental Congress was never the government of the United States. It was a forum where the thirteen colonies could coordinate their efforts. Until the Articles of Confederation were established, the United States was a military alliance and curency union of thirteen sovereign nations, not a single confederacy. You might consider it a sort of provisional government during the war years, and it did assume some sovereign powers by default, but the United States as a nation with a government didn't exist until 1781.

Did it establish the formal and legal independence of the US?

Not in the eyes of the British, but in the eyes of America it certainly did.

What established independence in American eyes was the actual decision on the part of Congress to sever ties with Britian (a decision the individual colonies had to make before their delegates could do anything). The Declaration was just that: a declaration of the fact and the reasons behind it. If they'd just walked out of Independence Hall and pronounced, "We took a vote and we decided we're independent now", it would have had the exact same effect.

All the Declaration did was inform George III that the colonies no longer considered themselves to be governed from London

And give them the legal authority of an actual government within the US.

It gave them nothing of the sort. The vote in Congress did that--and that vote was only possible because the individual colonies gave their delegates permission to do so.

I could send a letter to Congress declaring my house is an independent nation, and it would have precisely the same legal force as the Declaration.

Thats a bullshit arguement through extreme, the "scale" of secession is indeed an issue. (As is the motive.) While I'm not sure, at this point, what the actual threshold is, its safe to say that secession movements that occupy the better part of a Continent meet the threshold, both the US and CSA meet it.

Prove the Declaration, by virtue of having been issued by a larger political entitiy than mine, is more valid as a legal document by default. You've completely failed to demonstrate the Declaration of Independence has or had any force in law. It might have more MORAL legitimacy than my letter, but this whole argument is over the legality of succession, and legally, the Declaration and my declaration are equal.

After the Declaration was issued America was Independent. If they were not Independent then the British would not have had to attempt to military conquer to "restore" it to the Empire, the Treaty of Paris was nothing more then the British finally acknowledging the reality that was staring them in the face.

In the eyes of the colonies, yes they were--in fact, they were independent several days BEFORE the Declaration was written, thanks to the the unanimous vote in favor of independence on 1 July. And if you're going to use the fact that the British army was running around the continent trying to crush the rebellion and restore royal authority as proof of America's independence, then the United States had been independent a year before the Declaration was written, so that hardly helps your argument.

The Treaty of Paris was the formal, de jure establishment of the United States as a sovereign nation. It was de facto independence existed in parts of the colonies (primarily New England) much earlier. The reality of independence was hardly "staring the British in the face": had the French fleet not arrived in time at Yorktown, Cornwalis may well have escaped Virginia, a catastrophe that could well have pushed American war exhaustion over the edge and sent the two sides to the bargaining table. Losing an entire army sapped Britian's will to fight any longer (they had more important things on the table than chasing rebels around North America anyway--the war with France and Spain in the Carribbean was over much more important real estate), but the British were in no way militarily unable to continue the conflict.