Was the Confederacy constitutional?

Good Luck said:
A load of bovine cookies. Perpetual means continuing forever - as in the states do NOT have the right to END it. If it is ENDED - especially unilaterally, then it is NOT "continuing forever" is it? You Dixieland patriots can claim wishy-washy crap about the constitutionality/legality of secession all day long. In the end, the FACTS are the states agreed to a perpetual (lasting forever) union under the Articles, and then agreed that their commitment was still valid under the Constitution.

FACT: it is NOT Constitutional. And it was not in 1860 either or the Civil War would not have been fought over the question.
Click to expand...

GL, question about the perpetuality part.

the constitution is a legal binding document that sets up the framework of the federal government assigning a specific set of powers to them from the states, right? So, in your opinion, the states aren't allowed to end their membership in the union, but what happens if the federal government usurps more power than they were given?
 
Good Luck said:
A load of bovine cookies. Perpetual means continuing forever - as in the states do NOT have the right to END it. If it is ENDED - especially unilaterally, then it is NOT "continuing forever" is it? You Dixieland patriots can claim wishy-washy crap about the constitutionality/legality of secession all day long. In the end, the FACTS are the states agreed to a perpetual (lasting forever) union under the Articles, and then agreed that their commitment was still valid under the Constitution.

FACT: it is NOT Constitutional. And it was not in 1860 either or the Civil War would not have been fought over the question.
Click to expand...

I guess it did no good to post the definition of "perpetual" earlier? I'm sorry, it is simply NOT synonymous with "permanent!"

If the states did not have a right to end it, the arrangement would have been "PERMANENT" not "PERPETUAL!" When they ENDED their relationship through secession, did the United States cease to exist? No, it continued... perpetually! The 11 states who broke away from the US, did not alter or change the arrangement of states who remained in the Union, that relationship continued perpetually.

FACT: IF it had been unconstitutional, there would have been no need for a SCOTUS ruling, or even a case, in Texas v. White.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
congratulations, dix. you just promoted the living constitution theory. :palm:
Click to expand...

No, actually, I just presented the Living in the Real World Theory. Whereby, we look at things as they presently are, in the world we live in. It doesn't matter if you and I are strict Constitutionalists, that doesn't change the reality, or the history of the SCOTUS and how it has operated through the years.

I'm not "promoting" anything, just being honest about the way things are. When the Constitution was written, freedom, liberty, and equality, meant quite different things than they mean today, or at least, the application was different. Women and blacks were not granted equality in 1776, blacks would have to wait until 1865 to enjoy "freedom" and then... did it mean what it does today? Or did blacks have to wait another century to realize true "equality?"
 
Damocles said:
It was a Federal Government, not a National Government. It wasn't until after the Civil War that it was called a "national" government, and that was after the Constitution was amended taking power away from the states.
Click to expand...
Exactly right. Before the war, when people spoke of the United States they said "the United States are..." after the war they said "the United States is..."
 
Good Luck said:
That is the most amazing demonstration of reading what one wants to hear I have ever seen.

Again: the CONSTITUTION states that all agreements entered into under the Articles of Confederation were still valid under the Constitution. It's right there in plain straight forward language in Article VI.

In the Articles of Confederation the States agreed to a PERPETUAL UNION.

Perpetual: 1 a : continuing forever : everlasting <perpetual motion> b (1) : valid for all time <a perpetual right> (2) : holding (as an office) for life or for an unlimited time

As such, the agreement to a perpetual union, maintained via Article VI of the Constitution, means it is UNCONSTITUTIONAL for a state to BREAK that agreement unilaterally. A court ruling on constitutionality does not mean it is unconstitutional from the point of the court ruling. That is a ridiculous notion. Does it take a SCOTUS decision to make a law prohibiting open criticism of government unconstitutional? No, making such a law IS unconstitutional with or without a SCOTUS decision. The courts merely VERIFY the unconstitutionality of a law. It is the language of the Constitution itself that makes it unconstitutional for the government to make certain laws or take certain actions.

Secession was unconstitutional from the point of each state ratifying the Constitution because the language that makes it unconstitutional was present from the beginning.


That said, the southern states certainly had a number of very legitimate grievances against the way the federal government was strangling their economy. It does not matter that many of the measures taken by the northern states were designed to make slavery an uneconomical practice. The federal laws that deliberately imbalanced interstate trade were plain, dead wrong. As such, via the principles laid out in our Declaration of Independence, a strong argument can be made that secession was the proper answer to a government which had shown a "a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object..."

However, justification under the wrongs committed by the federal government coupled with the principles under which the Colonies had seceded from the British Empire, still does not make the action legal, nor constitutional.

Neither was our Revolution of 1776 legal if one wants to strictly talk legalities. Necessary, yes, in the opinions of our founding fathers, and with which most today would agree. But legal - no.

Therefore, the debate is not whether secession was unconstitutional, but rather whether violating the States' obligations to the Constitution (inherited via the Articles of Confederation) was justified with respect to the constitutional violations imposed on the states by the federal government.
Click to expand...
what is funniest about all of this, is that Dixie does not see that you completely voided his belief that you smacked down that pinhead with your response. What you did, was smack down Dixie's view of things and he never even got it.
 
At the risk of this becoming a debate on thirds,

per·pe·tu·i·ty [ pùrpə t ətee ]
perpetual condition: the state of continuing for a long time or indefinitely
eternity: eternity or the rest of time
transfer of real estate forever: the transfer of real estate for an unlimited period of time, restricted in law by the rule against perpetuity.
Synonyms: eternity, time without end, endlessness, permanence, imperishability, all time, infinity, timelessness
 
That you would argue that perpetual does not mean forever or permenant is to completely ignore the english language. You have decided it does not mean what it has meant for centuries.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
LOL I think that question was answered succinctly in 1865! LOL
Click to expand...

***chortle***snort***chortle*** actually, it was more like 1869.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_v._White

Justice Salmon P. Chase delivered the majority opinion, and it would henceforth be viewed as 'unconstitutional' for a state to secede from the U.S. At that point, the question became "answered" by the SCOTUS, and not before. Prior to that, there were several other rulings, which were believed to give the states the power to secede through "rebellion or consent of the states."

You'll find, very often in American history, when something is controversially debated regarding constitutionality, it requires a SCOTUS ruling to settle the debate. They generally do not hear cases where a consensus viewpoint over Constitutionality prevails. We can pontificate on what we think TODAY, but to be honest about the history, we must confine our thoughts to the limitations of the day, they didn't have a crystal ball in 1860, to foresee Sal Chase's opinion in 1869! That opinion of the court was not in existence, it had not been articulated yet, it would be nearly another decade before men heard those words in a Supreme Court ruling... that detail needs to stick in your head like glue, when HONESTLY evaluating the actions of the Confederacy in 1860.
 
Dixie said:
***chortle***snort***chortle*** actually, it was more like 1869.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_v._White

Justice Salmon P. Chase delivered the majority opinion, and it would henceforth be viewed as 'unconstitutional' for a state to secede from the U.S. At that point, the question became "answered" by the SCOTUS, and not before. Prior to that, there were several other rulings, which were believed to give the states the power to secede through "rebellion or consent of the states."

You'll find, very often in American history, when something is controversially debated regarding constitutionality, it requires a SCOTUS ruling to settle the debate. They generally do not hear cases where a consensus viewpoint over Constitutionality prevails. We can pontificate on what we think TODAY, but to be honest about the history, we must confine our thoughts to the limitations of the day, they didn't have a crystal ball in 1860, to foresee Sal Chase's opinion in 1869! That opinion of the court was not in existence, it had not been articulated yet, it would be nearly another decade before men heard those words in a Supreme Court ruling... that detail needs to stick in your head like glue, when HONESTLY evaluating the actions of the Confederacy in 1860.
Click to expand...

I think Mottle was referring to the night they drove old Dixie down.....not the SCOTUS case.
 
Socrtease said:
That you would argue that perpetual does not mean forever or permenant is to completely ignore the english language. You have decided it does not mean what it has meant for centuries.
Click to expand...

If they intended it to mean "permanent and irrevocable" why wasn't THAT language used? Perpetual means, continuous, no need to renew. This was so States couldn't have a vote every 4 years as to whether they wanted to remain in the "United States" or just be a state again! It was not intended to remove their right to self-determination regarding their course permanently. As I correctly stated, this was a hotly contested issue of the time, it wasn't "clear" and it wasn't "unmistakable" by any stretch of the imagination, it was very unclear, and uncertain, as to whether or not the states had the right to secede. Obviously, the US government held the view that States did not have this right, and obviously, the 11 States which seceded, held a different view. The question remains, when was the debate settled by the courts, and answered by law? And that was 1869.
 
Dixie said:
No, actually, I just presented the Living in the Real World Theory. Whereby, we look at things as they presently are, in the world we live in. It doesn't matter if you and I are strict Constitutionalists, that doesn't change the reality, or the history of the SCOTUS and how it has operated through the years.

I'm not "promoting" anything, just being honest about the way things are. When the Constitution was written, freedom, liberty, and equality, meant quite different things than they mean today, or at least, the application was different. Women and blacks were not granted equality in 1776, blacks would have to wait until 1865 to enjoy "freedom" and then... did it mean what it does today? Or did blacks have to wait another century to realize true "equality?"
Click to expand...

k, i see what you did there.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
k, i see what you did there.
Click to expand...

I didn't "do" anything except be honest. Whether you and I think the SCOTUS should interpret the Constitution as it has or not, doesn't change or alter history or fact of the matter. It's the difference between living in some fantasy ideological world, where the SCOTUS does what you philosophize would be the "right" thing, and the real world, where history has actually taken place. One is good for a philosophical discussion, the other is applied to reality and understanding of context.

The point is, in 1860, black men who were slaves, didn't have Constitutional rights, they had been deemed "property" by the SCOTUS... right or wrong, like that or not, it WAS the case! We can't apply a 21st century definition of "equality" to Americans in 1860, they held a different viewpoint of how that applied regarding black slaves, or even women, for that matter. We must take into consideration, the viewpoint of the times, not our viewpoints as they stand today. To do anything else, is intellectually dishonest.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
and i was acknowledging and agreeing with you, that although the courts swayed outside the constitution, it's still 'constitutional' because the courts said it wa.
Click to expand...

Well the problem is with how you are stating this. For instance, is the SCOTUS "swaying outside the Constitution" to allow abortion on demand or upholding laws prohibiting gay marriage? Or, are they upholding the Constitution as they have interpreted it thus far?
 
Dixie said:
I didn't "do" anything except be honest. Whether you and I think the SCOTUS should interpret the Constitution as it has or not, doesn't change or alter history or fact of the matter. It's the difference between living in some fantasy ideological world, where the SCOTUS does what you philosophize would be the "right" thing, and the real world, where history has actually taken place. One is good for a philosophical discussion, the other is applied to reality and understanding of context.

The point is, in 1860, black men who were slaves, didn't have Constitutional rights, they had been deemed "property" by the SCOTUS... right or wrong, like that or not, it WAS the case! We can't apply a 21st century definition of "equality" to Americans in 1860, they held a different viewpoint of how that applied regarding black slaves, or even women, for that matter. We must take into consideration, the viewpoint of the times, not our viewpoints as they stand today. To do anything else, is intellectually dishonest.
Click to expand...
The concept of whom freedom applies has certainly changed over the years, but not the concept of freedom itself. Also, is it the concept of equality that has changed in scope, or perhaps it is what we have learned to accept as who belongs to the set "mankind"? If the definition of "mankind" is limited to men of European decent, then "all men are created equal" is also limited to that set, but the term remains stable. Equality did not change in concept when other races were added, it was the set of individuals to which equality referred. Ditto when women were added, etc. Now all we need do to make the set complete is expand it to mean all living humans.

(side note: it was not SCOTUS, but the Constitution itself that defined blacks as property which could be counted toward population at a discounted value. That error has been rectified.)
 
Dixie said:
If they intended it to mean "permanent and irrevocable" why wasn't THAT language used? Perpetual means, continuous, no need to renew. This was so States couldn't have a vote every 4 years as to whether they wanted to remain in the "United States" or just be a state again! It was not intended to remove their right to self-determination regarding their course permanently. As I correctly stated, this was a hotly contested issue of the time, it wasn't "clear" and it wasn't "unmistakable" by any stretch of the imagination, it was very unclear, and uncertain, as to whether or not the states had the right to secede. Obviously, the US government held the view that States did not have this right, and obviously, the 11 States which seceded, held a different view. The question remains, when was the debate settled by the courts, and answered by law? And that was 1869.
Click to expand...
Ridiculous. You are defining "perpetual" to mean "until someone decides to end it." That is NOT what the word means.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top