Cause of Civil War

Along those lines what about the beating of Senator Sumner in the Senate chamber by one of his Southern colleaguesCharles Sumner - Wikipedia

quote:

---

He [Sumner] also portrayed Butler as having taken "a mistress who, though ugly to others, is always lovely to him; though polluted in the sight of the world, is chaste in his sightI mean, the harlot, Slavery." Sumner's three-hour oration later became particularly personally insulting as he mocked the 59-year-old Butler's manner of speech and physical mannerisms, both of which were impaired by a stroke that Butler had suffered earlier...

​

Two days later, on the afternoon of May 22, Brooks, confronted Sumner as he sat writing at his desk in the almost empty Senate chamber. Brooks was accompanied to the chamber by Keitt and Henry A. Edmundson of Virginia (the latter taking no part in the assault). Brooks addressed Sumner, "Mr. Sumner, I have read your speech twice over carefully. It is a libel on South Carolina, and Mr. Butler, who is a relative of mine." As Sumner began to stand up, Brooks began beating Sumner severely on the head with a thick gutta-percha cane with a gold head before he could reach his feet. Sumner was knocked down and trapped under the heavy desk (which was bolted to the floor), but Brooks continued to bash Sumner until Brooks ripped the desk from the floor. By this time, Sumner was blinded by his own blood, and he staggered up the aisle and collapsed, lapsing into unconsciousness. Brooks continued to beat the motionless Sumner until his cane broke at which point he left the chamber. Several other senators attempted to help Sumner, but were blocked by Keitt who brandished a pistol and shouted, "Let them be!"

---

quote:

---

She meets her sisters on the plain-
"Sic semper!" 'tis the proud refrain
That baffles minions back amain,
Arise in majesty again,
Maryland! My Maryland!

---

A bit tacky given Lincoln's final fate. I know this is not was not meant to link to JW Booth originally, but the song was adopted as the state song in 1939. Probably promoted for adoption by the UDC or the Sons of the Confederacy.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Could you elaborate a bit? What is the basis for such a right? What would be the appropriate process under which a state could sever the relationship between one of its citizens and the federal government against that citizen's will?

Not a problem. We were all just treading water waiting for Artermis to come back.I understand your position. I disagree with it primarily because I believe the union under the Constitution was not a dissoluble union of states. The people gained a number of important rights under the constitution, and I think the process of severing those rights is not well served by allowing a simple majority vote of the legislature or even direct vote by the people to eliminate those rights and protections. For example if the VA legislature decided today that the 14th amendment (or 13th or 15th) was incompatible with VA values, I don't believe the state legislature has any right to simply refuse to recognize that right regardless of how the public or the legislature votes. Secession in my view is the ultimate revocation of minority rights.A state might be said to have an extra-legal right to revolt or rebel against the union, but in that case, we get to judge the state's moral position. I believe that the seceding states utterly fail that examination.

The example was extreme and unrealistic, but it was for the limited purpose of trying to get Dr A. to add some flesh to his position. Northern Va really isn't all of VA.

quote:

---

which rights granted are the important ones? the bill of rights are self-evidenent and unalienable, and not granted by law, but are natural; the constituion merely protects those rights from infringment from the federal government.

---

I respectfully disagree. There's nothing particularly natural about the 1st Amendment. Further, most of the bill of rights protects us from the state government as well as the federal, thanks to the 14th Amendment. Clearly the 13, 14, and 15th amendments all protect citizens against state governments.I'm not going into detail regarding your examples of aggrieved states, other than to say that you and I differ significantly on federalism. I don't find your examples the least bit compelling. My experience is that it is generally the state government that wants walk its jack boots into private places or all over individual rights. There are plenty of examples of the federal courts vindicating individual rights against states.

If you take another look at the opening post, you'll see that both the Lee quote, and the causes of the civil war at least with respect to the southern and border states are clearly on topic.If you also take a look at your response, you'll see that you accepted the full scope proposed by Theodoric.Edited by NoNukes, : Fix up tags

No need to correct yourself here. The Bill of Rights is the first 10 amendments. However when I speak of protections for citizens under the constitution, I refer to all of the guarantees of individual rights.I have no interest whatsoever in exploring your dislike for the 13th and 15th Amendments.

Mr. Entreri, I believe you are mistaken And yet you now insist that challenging you on the reasons those states left is "moving the goalposts. Weren't you challenged to address your position on that in the original post? Theodoric quoted you as saying the following:

quote:

---

...its not was VA, NC, AR, or TN left the union, and its not why KY or MO tried to leave.

---

What did you think Theodoric meant by the following:

quote:

---

Artie, can you back up your statements? I know you can't on the Lee quote, but maybe on the others?

---

We don't have any pre-civil war statement of what the law is. I think arguing that your proposed statement has absurd and undesirable consequences is legitimate given that lack. Post war, we have a SC decision that session is illegal without the consent of the other states.

quote:

---

But it is also true that the federal government could do bad things and impose them on unwilling member states

---

The federal government has done bad things, and it has also prevented states from doing bad things and imposing them on individuals. States rights are not inherently a good thing. States rights must be taken in context with exactly what thing the state plans to do with those rights. In my opinion there are some individual rights that simply cannot or should not be removed by a simple majority vote at the state or federal level. The constitution is set up to prevent that very thing. Session by simple majority vote is an end run around that limitation.Edited by NoNukes, : particularly stupid typo removed

I can't argue with that. A whole lot of really unpalatable things would probably be legal here in VA.

See Texas v. White, 74 U.S. 700 (1869)

quote:

---

When Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation. The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration or revocation, except through revolution or through consent of the States.

---

As jar has pointed out, post civil war cases are suspect as being mere codification of the winner's position.Also, Justice Scalia has expressed his opinion that there is no right of secession.Justice Scalia's Thoughts on State Secession: Penned to One Man - WSJ

quote:

---

I am afraid I cannot be of much help with your problem, principally because I cannot imagine that such a question could ever reach the Supreme Court. To begin with, the answer is clear. If there was any constitutional issue resolved by the Civil War, it is that there is no right to secede. (Hence, in the Pledge of Allegiance, one Nation, indivisible.) Secondly, I find it difficult to envision who the parties to this lawsuit might be. Is the State suing the United States for a declaratory judgment? But the United States cannot be sued without its consent, and it has not consented to this sort of suit.

---

quote:

---

I said "the worst passed". As in the unconstitutional means by which they were ratified.

---

Then you did not say what you meant. What you actually said translates to the 13-15th Amendments being the worst of the Amendments that were actually passed.Quite frankly, even your intended meaning is simply wrong. The thirteenth amendment could never have even gotten out of Congress if the southern states had not bolted the union, taking their congressmen with them. A 2/3 majority in both houses was required before the amendment was presented to the states for ratification and the amendment narrowly passed in the House of Representatives. What was proven here is that secession is a pretty ineffective method for getting your way in Congress.Further, your take on the ratification process of the thirteenth amendment is completely bogus. You might have an argument if you were discussing ratification of the fourteenth amendment. But that process didn't happen until 1868.

There are a couple of things wrong with the treaty explanation.First the US never recognized the CSA as a foreign county and cetainly the 13th amendment was no treaty. Secondly, if it were a treaty, Artie is complaining that the south's signature on the treaty was forged.