secession
Althouse:
http://althouse.blogspot.com/2008/07/22-…
22% of Americans “believe any state or region has the right to peaceably secede and become an independent republic.” According to a new Middlebury Institute/Zogby International poll…
So all these people have the law wrong and don’t seem to know the basics of the history of the Civil War.
Althouse’s statement is as stupid as saying “85% of Americans believe in the right to keep and bear arms…so all these people have the law wrong and don’t seem to know the basics of the history of gun control. “
“Rights” != “what law has been enforced”.
In fact, the Constitution does not deny states the right of secession, and the Bill of Rights says that any power not given to the federales is reserved to the states or to the people…so states (and/or individuals) do have the right to secede. There’s no reason to think that the founders thought otherwise.
Althouse is confusing Lincoln’s war of agression against The Confederacy (along with his draft, his supression of the free press, his jailing of political enemies, etc.) with “the law” and “the Constitution”.
!@#$ that static.
Humans have the right “to dissolve the political bands which have connected them” to others. Or, in less words “to secede”.
Now, I think a good case can be made for the invasion of the Confederacy, just like I think a good case was made for the invasion of Iraq.
“You may not own WMD”.
“You may not own slaves”.
– these are both concepts that I have no problem with the stronger, more moral states enforcing on their neighbors.
But the right way to liberate the slaves of the Confederacy would have been to announce that all plantation owners have 24 hours to free their slaves, and then burn down the plantation house of anyone that that still held slaves, and hang the pater familias of each such plantation.
Smash the system, maybe stick around for 5 years for nation building, maybe not, and then pull out.
The United States should not have conquered the Confederacy and incorporated it into itself (and taxed it – with out representation! – for the initial years).
July 24th, 2008 at 11:00 am
In fact, the Constitution does not deny states the right of secession, and the Bill of Rights says that any power not given to the federales is reserved to the states or to the people…so states (and/or individuals) do have the right to secede.
“The Congress shall have Power . . . To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections . . . . .”
Now, I think a good case can be made for the invasion of the Confederacy, just like I think a good case was made for the invasion of Iraq.
Had the United States ever recognized an entity called “the Confederacy,” such an invasion might indeed have been launched across the very same bloody ground where domestic insurrection was lawfully suppressed in 1861-65. I do not agree that the case for such a foreign adventure would have been a good one, and neither did the Congress who (nearly unanimously) passed Crittenden-Johnson: “nor purpose of overthrowing or interfering with the rights or established institutions of those States” is the key phrase against your moral crusade.
to dissolve the political bands which have connected them
Ah, but those rights are unalienable, so there is no sense in whining about any obstacles to claiming them. Free men are unconquerable as a matter of empirical fact, not of constitutional law. That right was never extinguished nor infringed by the Union Army’s lawful (or, in some exceptional cases, unlawful) actions; it was set down by defeated rebels who had lost their will to exercise it, and who preferred clemency to death. The sacred pledge which concludes Jefferson’s declaration isn’t a feel-good schoolmarm clause guaranteeing a gold star for effort; it’s an affirmation that the stakes are real.
There were once two live, legitimate opinions about what the CSA was, each with constitutional implications for the legitimate Union response. One of those opinions died at Appomattox.
July 24th, 2008 at 11:22 am
[quote comment="155046"]…suppress Insurrections…[/quote]
Absolutely.
The defense on a football team has the power to try to stop the
offense from making a touchdown.
That doesn’t mean that the offense doesn’t have the right to
attempt to make a touchdown.
[quote comment="155046"]
such an invasion might indeed have been launched across the very same bloody ground where domestic insurrection was lawfully suppressed in 1861-65.
[/quote]
Yes, exactly.
I’m debating matters of justification and follow through.
[quote comment="155046"]
I do not agree that the case for such a foreign adventure would have
been a good one
[/quote]
Reasonable people can differ.
[quote comment="155046"]
There were once two live, legitimate opinions about what the CSA was, each with constitutional implications for the legitimate Union response. One of those opinions died at Appomattox.[/quote]
There is a time for everything, and a season for every activity under heaven.
July 24th, 2008 at 11:53 am
There is a time for everything
There’s always a time for parlor rebs, of course, but not always an audience. For actual rebs, Yoda’s advice is still sound. And the novelty trade is always a fallback: though Lee and his mob preferred the dignity of quiet retirement after we spared them, the popular taste is often less fastidious.
July 24th, 2008 at 12:28 pm
[quote comment="155056"]
There’s always a time for parlor rebs[/quote]
Quite so.
[quote comment="155056"] of course, but not always an audience. [/quote]
Indeed.
[quote comment="155056"] For actual rebs, Yoda’s advice is still sound. [/quote]
I’ll quote you in my memoirs / from the defendant’s dock.
July 24th, 2008 at 1:23 pm
When I lived in North Carolina we visited Fort Macon. Fort Macon has an interesting history of always being a little obsolete for each war it played a role in. And it looks like a pentagon.
The important part is that Fort Macon was one of several US military bases in the South. Working under the militia system of the time, these bases had large arsenals under the protection of a single groundskeeper. If the British had tried for another war of 1812, the militia would have been called out to man these forts with the weapons and supplies kept at these forts.
One of the first actions of the Confederacy was to seize nearly all of these forts and their accompanying arsenals. Although it was never used to sell the war, seizing military forts is a pretty clear act of war and enough justification for me. If Cuba somehow takes over Guantanamo Bay today, with the accompanying weapons and equipment, you can be sure that US Marines will be inside Cuba by the weekend.
An interesting point about secession: Kentucky refused to join the Confederacy but did originally declare itself neutral, with the proviso that if either side sent troops into Kentucky, then the state would join the other side. Eventually Confederate troops entered the state, and Kentucky joined the Union cause. But that original declaration was as much a declaration of secession as the Confederacy’s.
July 24th, 2008 at 3:26 pm
The states do not have the right to secede. See Texas v. White.
“Under the Constitution, though the powers of
the States were much restricted, still, all
powers not delegated to the United States,
nor prohibited to the States, are reserved to
the States respectively, or to the people. .
. . [T]he people of each State compose a
State, having its own government, and endowed
with all the functions essential to separate
and independent existence[;] . . . without
the States in union, there could be no such
political body as the United States. Not
only, therefore, can there be no loss of
separate and independent autonomy to the
States, through their union under the
Constitution, but it may be not unreasonably
said that the preservation of the States, and
the maintenance of their governments, are as
much within the design and care of the
Constitution as the preservation of the Union
and the maintenance of the National
government. The Constitution, in all its
provisions, looks to an indestructible Union,
composed of indestructible States. When,
therefore, Texas became one of the United
States, she entered into an indissoluble
relation. All the obligations of perpetual
union, and all the guaranties of republican
government in the Union, attached at once to
the State. The act which consummated her
admission into the Union was something more
than a compact; it was the incorporation of a
new member into the political body. And it
was final. 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.”