Did Lincoln Err in not Letting the South Secede?

ernst barkmann said:

show you?.....I posted what the founders stated on secession, and its legal.

Click to expand...

Here's what the founders said....

"And that the Articles thereof shall be inviolably observed by the States we respectively represent, and that the Union shall be perpetual."
—The Articles of Confederation

The basis of our political systems is the right of the people to make and to alter their Constitutions of Government. But the Constitution which at any time exists, 'til changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole People, is sacredly obligatory upon all."
—George Washington, "Farewell Address"

The Constitution is a compact; that its text is to be expounded according to the provision for expounding it, making a part of the compact; and that none of the parties can rightfully renounce the expounding provision more than any other part."
—James Madison, "Letter to Edward Everett"

Lincoln is not the constitution.

Click to expand...

Really? :roll:

that's false you don't need and amendment to leave the union, an amendment concerns the constitution.....by seceding the constitution is not being changed. or need a change

Click to expand...

Well, the Civil War kinda proves you do need an amendment to secede.


The pro-slavery cause argued that the constitutional compact had been violated, which justified their efforts to secede from the Union. However, the social compact, being entered into by all parties equally, continues until all simultaneously chose to dissolve it. As Lincoln stated, "the central idea of secession, is the essence of anarchy." The Constitution is wholly antithetical to anarchy and chaos....."
The Constitution Reader | Debates: Secession

as to Oregon you stated that you need an amendment and approval for other states......CAN YOU TELL ME......HOW ORGEON WAS ABLE CHANGE ITS FORM OF GOVERNMENT.....from a republican form to a democratic form in the late 1800's in violation of article 4 section 4 of the constitution......since no amendment according to you was made?

Click to expand...

If you don't know then why do you keep bringing it up?


This is what is being taught in college....

"...The social compact that created the Union did not, according to America's Founders, allow for the possibility of secession by individual states.

Abraham Lincoln, following the Founders' arguments for an indissoluble Union, argued that the Union was born with the signing of the Declaration of Independence. The Declaration precedes the Constitution, which gives political shape to that perpetual Union.

The pro-slavery cause argued that the constitutional compact had been violated, which justified their efforts to secede from the Union. However, the social compact, being entered into by all parties equally, continues until all simultaneously chose to dissolve it. As Lincoln stated, "the central idea of secession, is the essence of anarchy." The Constitution is wholly antithetical to anarchy and chaos....."

The Constitution Reader | Debates: Secession


You might as well live in Russia...or on the moon, for all you know about the Constitution, Ernst. lol

Moot said:

Here's what the founders said....

"And that the Articles thereof shall be inviolably observed by the States we respectively represent, and that the Union shall be perpetual."
—The Articles of Confederation

The basis of our political systems is the right of the people to make and to alter their Constitutions of Government. But the Constitution which at any time exists, 'til changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole People, is sacredly obligatory upon all."
—George Washington, "Farewell Address"

The Constitution is a compact; that its text is to be expounded according to the provision for expounding it, making a part of the compact; and that none of the parties can rightfully renounce the expounding provision more than any other part."
—James Madison, "Letter to Edward Everett"

Really? :roll:


Well, the Civil War kinda proves you do need an amendment to secede.


The pro-slavery cause argued that the constitutional compact had been violated, which justified their efforts to secede from the Union. However, the social compact, being entered into by all parties equally, continues until all simultaneously chose to dissolve it. As Lincoln stated, "the central idea of secession, is the essence of anarchy." The Constitution is wholly antithetical to anarchy and chaos....."
The Constitution Reader | Debates: Secession


If you don't know then why do you keep bringing it up?


This is what is being taught in college....

"...The social compact that created the Union did not, according to America's Founders, allow for the possibility of secession by individual states.

Abraham Lincoln, following the Founders' arguments for an indissoluble Union, argued that the Union was born with the signing of the Declaration of Independence. The Declaration precedes the Constitution, which gives political shape to that perpetual Union.

The pro-slavery cause argued that the constitutional compact had been violated, which justified their efforts to secede from the Union. However, the social compact, being entered into by all parties equally, continues until all simultaneously chose to dissolve it. As Lincoln stated, "the central idea of secession, is the essence of anarchy." The Constitution is wholly antithetical to anarchy and chaos....."

The Constitution Reader | Debates: Secession


You might as well live in Russia...or on the moon, for all you know about the Constitution, Ernst. lol

Click to expand...

some educational material for your reading moot

ernst barkmann said:

Constitutional convention notes may 31 1787

On the question for giving powers, in cases to which the States are not competent, Massts. ay. Cont. divd. [Sharman no Elseworth ay] N. Y. ay. N. J. ay. Pa. ay. Del. ay. Va. ay. N. C. ay. S. Carolina ay. Georga. ay. 9

The other clauses giving powers necessary to preserve harmony among the States to negative all State laws contravening in the opinion of the Nat. Leg. the articles of union, down to the last clause, (the words "or any treaties subsisting under the authority of the Union," being added after the words "contravening &c. the articles of the Union," on motion of Dr. FRANKLIN) were agreed to witht. debate or dissent. The last clause of Resolution 6. 11 authorizing an exertion of the force of the whole agst. a delinquent State came next into consideration.

Mr. MADISON, observed that the more he reflected on the use of force, the more he doubted the practicability, the justice and the efficacy of it when applied to people collectively and not individually. — A union of the States containing such an ingredient seemed to provide for its own destruction. The use of force agst. a State, would look more like a declaration of war, than an infliction of punishment, and would probably be considered by the party attacked as a dissolution of all previous compacts by which it might be bound. He hoped that such a system would be framed as might render this recourse unnecessary, and moved that the clause be postponed. This motion was agreed to nem. con.

The Committee then rose & the House

Adjourned

Click to expand...

Abraham Lincoln in 1847 on the floor of the United States House of Representatives:


Any people, anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable, a most sacred right, a right which we hope and believe is to liberate the world.

lib·er·ate


/ˈlibəˌrāt/


verb

verb: liberate; 3rd person present: liberates; past tense: liberated; past participle: liberated; gerund or present participle: liberating




set (someone) free from a situation, especially imprisonment or slavery, in which their liberty is severely restricted.

Moot said:

The Constitution is a compact; that its text is to be expounded according to the provision for expounding it, making a part of the compact; and that none of the parties can rightfully renounce the expounding provision more than any other part."
—James Madison, "Letter to Edward Everett"

Click to expand...

Letter to Edward Everett

James Madison


In this 1830 response to Massachusetts statesman Edward Everett, Madison maintains that a state does not possess the authority to strike down as unconstitutional an act of the federal government. The contrary doctrine, known as nullification, would take on later significance.

August 28, 1830

sad moot, very sad......

nullification,.......... not secession

calamity said:

Lincoln disagreed. And, apparently so did a majority of the Union because they re elected him.

Click to expand...

There's always the inclination for a state to either exhibit greed and to engage in expansionism or to merely act in a way to covetously guard it's own territorial integrity. The Northerners had no equitable claim on the South.

newpublius said:

There's always the inclination for a state to either exhibit greed and to engage in expansionism or to merely act in a way to covetously guard it's own territorial integrity. The Northerners had no equitable claim on the South.

Click to expand...

Perhaps, but we learned that independence in the USA can only come by the end of a rifle or musket. Just like the Brits would not relinquish millions of acres without a fight, neither would the Union.

ernst barkmann said:

unalienable rights...

Click to expand...

Inalienable vs. unalienable - Grammarist

no it is not unconstitutional because the constitution of 1788 does not deal in slavery....their is no written constitutional law making it illegal.

the founding principles of America were violated, which were not law at that time....they are today.

Click to expand...

I never made any claim about the Constitution pertaining to laws related to slavery. Other than to state that if Black Americans were treated like White Americans then there could have been no slavery since it would have been unconstitutional.

It took 3 Amendments to the Constitution to make blacks equal to whites under Constitutional law. Lincoln and every American should not have rested until every American enjoyed the benefits of Constitutional law. If liberty isnt mutual it isnt liberty.

FreedomFromAll said:

Inalienable vs. unalienable - Grammarist

Click to expand...

unalienable.....is what it says.

FreedomFromAll said:

I never made any claim about the Constitution pertaining to laws related to slavery. Other than to state that if Black Americans were treated like White Americans then there could have been no slavery since it would have been unconstitutional.

It took 3 Amendments to the Constitution to make blacks equal to whites under Constitutional law. Lincoln and every American should not have rested until every American enjoyed the benefits of Constitutional law. If liberty isnt mutual it isnt liberty.

Click to expand...

ok.....

Inalienable vs. unalienable

English has changed since the founders of the United States used unalienable in the signed final draft of their 1776 Declaration of Independence (some earlier drafts and later copies have inalienable). Inalienable, which means exactly the same thing—both mean incapable of being transferred to another or others—is now the preferred form. Unalienable mainly appears in quotes OF or references to the Declaration. Inalienable prevails everywhere else.

Although English usage rarely takes etymology into account, it’s worth noting that inalienable is truer to the word’s Latin and French roots, for what that’s worth. In- is a Latin negative prefix, and un- is an English one. While the founders’ Anglicized word remains an accepted variant, the more Latin form became more common around the beginning of the 19th century and has remained ascendant ever since.

This ngram, which graphs occurrence of the two forms in a large number of English-language books and periodicals published from 1700 to 2000, renders the history visually (note the large spike after 1776):



unalienable


The Declaration on parchment, now in the Department of State unalienable


The Declaration as written out in the corrected Journal unalienable....journal of congress


The Declaration as printed by Dunlap under the order of Congress unalienable


The copy in the handwriting of John Adams of the "Rough draught" of the Declaration, now at the Massachusetts Historical Society. unalienable


inalienable

The draft of the Declaration in the handwriting of Jefferson now in The American Philosophical Society, in Philadelphia inalienable


The Declaration in the handwriting of Jefferson now in the New York Public Library inalienable

The draft of the Declaration in the handwriting of Jefferson now in the Massachusetts Historical Society, in Boston inalienable

The copy in the handwriting of John Adams of the "Rough draught" of the Declaration, now at the Massachusetts Historical Society. unalienable

Unalienable: incapable of being alienated, that is, sold and transferred.” One cannot sell, transfer or surrender unalienable rights.

Inalienable Rights: Rights which are not capable of being surrendered or transferred without the consent of the one possessing such rights. Morrison v. State, Mo. App., 252 S.W.2d 97, 101.

I really don't care all that much for the legalisms or other such arguments regarding secession. It could have been blatantly unconstitutional to suppress Southern secession and it would still have been far and away the right decision. Death to the planter aristocracy, death to slavery, long live the Union.

Sherman123 said:

I really don't care all that much for the legalisms or other such arguments regarding secession. It could have been blatantly unconstitutional to suppress Southern secession and it would still have been far and away the right decision. Death to the planter aristocracy, death to slavery, long live the Union.

Click to expand...

The Americans that fought for the Union did so to preserve the Union for the same reasons that the Union was created. The secessionist fights for all the reasons against the Union that the founders fought to create.

Sherman123 said:

I really don't care all that much for the legalisms or other such arguments regarding secession. It could have been blatantly unconstitutional to suppress Southern secession and it would still have been far and away the right decision. Death to the planter aristocracy, death to slavery, long live the Union.

Click to expand...

At least you are honest in your disregard for the constitution. Unlike the others who support a tyrannical act

Sabanist said:

At least you are honest in your disregard for the constitution. Unlike the others who support a tyrannical act

Click to expand...

We still have a Constitution. I don't care that he had to bend it to preserve the Union. Hell even if he'd broken it the practical value of retaining the Union and abolishing slavery are more important than being upset that 160 years ago someone broke the rules.

Sherman123 said:

We still have a Constitution. I don't care that he had to bend it to preserve the Union. Hell even if he'd broken it the practical value of retaining the Union and abolishing slavery are more important than being upset that 160 years ago someone broke the rules.

Click to expand...

What good is the constitution when it can be cast aside for whatever cause is deemed noble enough?

Sherman123 said:

I really don't care all that much for the legalisms or other such arguments regarding secession. It could have been blatantly unconstitutional to suppress Southern secession and it would still have been far and away the right decision. Death to the planter aristocracy, death to slavery, long live the Union.

Click to expand...

Ends justify the means guy. Huh?

JC_CT said:

I own an acre. Do I have the right to secede? Or is my property line somehow more arbitrary than the lines denoting states?

Click to expand...

Yes and your property line is controlled by a whole different set of rules and agreements. You are not a state.

FreedomFromAll said:

The only reason that slavery was ever allowed is because of racism. As I said humans are humans and if the Bill of Rights is applied to humans without considering some humans less of humans as others then slavery is not constitutional.

And as far as how slavery was viewed during the early years of this nation the Northwest Ordinance is a extremely well documented record. On August 7, 1789, President George Washington signed the Northwest Ordinance of 1789 into law after the newly created U.S. Congress reaffirmed the Ordinance with slight modifications under the Constitution.

Click to expand...

The first part is incorrect. Slavery was indeed constitutional until we passed an amendment banning the practice. The second part has nothing to do with my post which you quoted.

calamity said:

Ends justify the means guy. Huh?

Click to expand...

Do the ends every justify the means? Of course they do. Only a fanatic would think otherwise.

Sherman123 said:

Do the ends every justify the means? Of course they do. Only a fanatic would think otherwise.

Click to expand...

Lincoln's actions, cost 600,000 Americans their lives. Not sure I agree with your claim.

As bad as slavery was, it probably wasn't the reason why the Union refused to allow the South to secede. In fact, it's pretty much a proven fact that the North went to war for reasons other than slavery, even though the South seceded over the issue of slavery.

The South wanted out so that they could determine the fate of Slavery without Northern political influences. The North went to war to reclaim the lost territory. In the end slavery was abolished. The means to get there totally sucked.

clownboy said:

The first part is incorrect. Slavery was indeed constitutional until we passed an amendment banning the practice. The second part has nothing to do with my post which you quoted.

Click to expand...

Black people are no different than white people then or now, natural rights are not bound by skin color, or any other attribute of humans. You saying that slavery was Constitutional is wholly ignorant and racist.

Strange how infrequently it's asked if the south erred in seceding instead of getting rid of slavery without a war. A lot of people seem to try to hold the south blameless, as if they were unconsciously reacting to stimuli instead of making conscious, moral decisions about slavery.

---------------------

FreedomFromAll said:

Black people are no different than white people then or now, natural rights are not bound by skin color, or any other attribute of humans. You saying that slavery was Constitutional is wholly ignorant and racist.

Click to expand...

The constitution doesn't say anything about natural rights. No legal document ever really does. Because no one has yet demonstrated any way to tell what is or is not a natural right. From 1789 to 1865, slavery was perfectly in line with the constitution. This is why we should all be glad that it has an amendment process.

Paschendale said:

Strange how infrequently it's asked if the south erred in seceding instead of getting rid of slavery without a war. A lot of people seem to try to hold the south blameless, as if they were unconsciously reacting to stimuli instead of making conscious, moral decisions about slavery.

---------------------



The constitution doesn't say anything about natural rights. No legal document ever really does. Because no one has yet demonstrated any way to tell what is or is not a natural right. From 1789 to 1865, slavery was perfectly in line with the constitution. This is why we should all be glad that it has an amendment process.

Click to expand...

As I said the only reason that blacks were allowed to be slave was that they were not white. What legal arguments would have been made if people started breeding white people as slaves?

And yes I am quite aware that natural rights isnt actually in the US Constitution. Along with a host of other things. Again though my point is that slavery did not happen to white people like it did to black people. If the natural rights angle is unfavorable then I ask you to look at the Bill of Rights and tell me what part of it allows slavery? It was also once illegal for women to vote or a host of other things that they should have had the right to do. I dont agree just because it was technically legal at the time that the laws were not over turned and shown to be unjust and unconstitutional latter. There isnt some magic rule that forbids us from asserting that the laws were wrong and invalid by todays standards. It is those standards that have shown in many cases that the Amendment process is one of the greatest things about our Constitution.

But to be clear it isnt enough to say that something used to be legal without expressing the wrongness of it. I have family in the South, they like to point out that slavery was legal as if the justified enslaving black people. It doesnt get the South of the hook, it just makes the fact that it was legal that much worse. Because if slavery was once legal what stops it from happening again in the right circumstances? Are we one (or a series of) amendment(s) away from reliving our mistakes?

Paschendale said:

---------------------



The constitution doesn't say anything about natural rights. No legal document ever really does. Because no one has yet demonstrated any way to tell what is or is not a natural right. From 1789 to 1865, slavery was perfectly in line with the constitution. This is why we should all be glad that it has an amendment process.

Click to expand...

sorry you are incorrect, ...it might no use the word natural however. the meaning is clear in the constitution.

DOI

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<----even the court recognizes happiness has property.

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.


AMENDMENT XIV

Passed by Congress June 13, 1866. Ratified July 9, 1868.

Note: Article I, section 2, of the Constitution was modified by section 2 of the 14th amendment.

Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

ernst barkmann said:

sorry you are incorrect, ...it might no use the word natural however. the meaning is clear in the constitution.

Click to expand...

We've been over this many times. You see the meanings you want to see. Two centuries of jurisprudence and the actual application of American law and the constitution do not agree with you. You are, at best, an armchair philosopher, while I am a trained attorney who specializes in constitutional law. You have no idea what you're talking about. And for the thousandth time, the declaration of independence is not a legal document. It has absolutely no bearing on anything our country does. Congratulations on your ability to bold portions of text, but none of that has anything to do with the idea of natural rights. There is no such thing, and our law does not trip over itself trying to find it.

FreedomFromAll said:

As I said the only reason that blacks were allowed to be slave was that they were not white. What legal arguments would have been made if people started breeding white people as slaves?

And yes I am quite aware that natural rights isnt actually in the US Constitution. Along with a host of other things. Again though my point is that slavery did not happen to white people like it did to black people. If the natural rights angle is unfavorable then I ask you to look at the Bill of Rights and tell me what part of it allows slavery? It was also once illegal for women to vote or a host of other things that they should have had the right to do. I dont agree just because it was technically legal at the time that the laws were not over turned and shown to be unjust and unconstitutional latter. There isnt some magic rule that forbids us from asserting that the laws were wrong and invalid by todays standards. It is those standards that have shown in many cases that the Amendment process is one of the greatest things about our Constitution.

But to be clear it isnt enough to say that something used to be legal without expressing the wrongness of it. I have family in the South, they like to point out that slavery was legal as if the justified enslaving black people. It doesnt get the South of the hook, it just makes the fact that it was legal that much worse. Because if slavery was once legal what stops it from happening again in the right circumstances? Are we one (or a series of) amendment(s) away from reliving our mistakes?

Click to expand...

I'm not entirely certain what your objection is. Of COURSE slavery is reprehensible to us today. It was reprehensible to a lot of people in 1860, and to some in 1789 and 1776. But the constitution, a document born of compromise, allowed it. It's not a perfect document. It never has been. That's why it comes with an amendment process, so that we can fix it when we find it lacking. That the constitution permitted slavery doesn't mean that enslaving people was ever morally justified, that it was ever the right thing to do. Likewise with the second class status that women faced and to some degree still face in this country.

So again, I'm not really sure of your objection. It sounds like we're saying pretty much the same thing. Except for the natural rights bit. There are no natural rights. Or if there are, no one has ever managed to demonstrate a way to determine what is or is not a natural right. People just insist that things are or aren't without proof.