Will Bush be rated one of the worst presidents?
- Thread starter Kiwi
- Start date
Larry Gude
Strung Out
SamSpade
Well-Known Member
Texas v. White, 74 U.S. 700 (1868) - enfacto
Just to make it interesting.
In either case, we recognize that it is the Supreme Court that inteprets the Constitution. If it says the Constitution guarantees the right to free beer, then it does until such is overturned.
If it is the Court's opinion in 1869 and onward that the Constitution does not permit states to secede, than we understand that it never did. That is, if it is unconstitutional NOW, then it was unconstitutional THEN.
However, if the states seceded, they were no longer bound by the US Constitution, regardless of what it said.
The States were united by mutual agreement, not by force. Until the Civil War, that is.
SamSpade
Well-Known Member
But according to Texas vs. White - that's not the case.
If we're going to look at whether or not they had the "legal" or Constitutional right to secede, no, they did not. If we want to look at whether or not they had any God given right to secede, that's another matter.
The Supreme Court said, no they didn't, this is why. It's not THAT long, and most of the stuff we're talking about starts around the 98th clause.
Larry Gude
Strung Out
Ok...
...but we're talking about Texas v. White 1868, not Texas v. White 1860. It was not universally accepted prior to the war that a state could succeed. It was, however, WIDELY accepted that they could, both North and South. Hell, New York threatened to do so in the middle of the war and New Hampshire, I think, nearly did so in the 1830's or there abouts.
Point is, it was NOT settled law prior to the war and, had Davis and company had a little more self control, it is highly likely that succession would have been accomplished and done so peacefully. In my view.
...but we're talking about Texas v. White 1868, not Texas v. White 1860. It was not universally accepted prior to the war that a state could succeed. It was, however, WIDELY accepted that they could, both North and South. Hell, New York threatened to do so in the middle of the war and New Hampshire, I think, nearly did so in the 1830's or there abouts.
Point is, it was NOT settled law prior to the war and, had Davis and company had a little more self control, it is highly likely that succession would have been accomplished and done so peacefully. In my view.
SamSpade
Well-Known Member
I realize this is the kind of thing we're not supposed to nitpick about, but can people just use the words "secede" and "secession" rather than "succeed" and "succession" (which, etymologically, don't even mean nearly the same thing to each other let alone the ones we're using).
I just drives me nuts to have to go back over a sentence and substitute the word back in because of what was meant. It would be like me using "glory" for "fine knock-down argument".
I just drives me nuts to have to go back over a sentence and substitute the word back in because of what was meant. It would be like me using "glory" for "fine knock-down argument".
Larry Gude
Strung Out
...
That's right.
And, still, the premise, however dubious, for the union using force after the South initiated hostilities, was that the Southern leaders had broken STATE laws and were thus violating the rights of US citizens within those states.
Davis and Lincoln were VERY conscience of how this would all look in histories pages and both tried to be very careful to be seen as acting properly. Davis lost control of events in a new nation full of men who didn't want ANYONE telling them what to do. There was talk during the war of some of the brand new Confederate States seceding from the CSA!!!
That's right.
And, still, the premise, however dubious, for the union using force after the South initiated hostilities, was that the Southern leaders had broken STATE laws and were thus violating the rights of US citizens within those states.
Davis and Lincoln were VERY conscience of how this would all look in histories pages and both tried to be very careful to be seen as acting properly. Davis lost control of events in a new nation full of men who didn't want ANYONE telling them what to do. There was talk during the war of some of the brand new Confederate States seceding from the CSA!!!
Larry Gude
Strung Out
...
...I apologize. I will endeavor to not cause you such stresses. Hopefully, I will succeed.
...I apologize. I will endeavor to not cause you such stresses. Hopefully, I will succeed.
However, that decision was written AFTER the Civil War. Prior to that, they were "*these* United States", a collection of states that were united by mutual agreement and purpose, not held hostage at gunpoint.
But, even so, let's say that Texas vs. White was written prior to the Civil War. If a state secedes, they would no longer be bound by their former nation's Constitution or court decisions. Then their former nation will have to go beat their ass and force them back into the fold, which is what happened in the early 1860s.
SamSpade
Well-Known Member
The original discussion is whether or not it is Constitutional. If the SCOTUS declares something as unconstitutional now, it's always that way. It's not like law, which changes today and changes back the next day. If the Constitution says so, it always has. It's kind of like Biblical interpretation - it doesn't proceed from the moment of declaration. It's retroactive because you're interpreting an historical document, not passing law.
And where do you presume this? If secession was not Constitutional, then it still would be if Davis had waited until hell froze over. They still would have had to fight a war. I think war was inevitable anyway. As much as people want to dance around slavery, fact is, without slavery, there's no war. The South had been restricted in its slave trade and needed the option to expand it into the new territories. The North wanted to end that. Sooner or later it would either come to blows or slavery would mercifully die on its own, and the issue of secession would pale away like so many other secessionist movements have.
SamSpade
Well-Known Member
SamSpade
Well-Known Member
Did you read the link? It addresses this.
What about Prohibition? And sufferage? And equal rights?
Using that logic our secession from Great Britain would be illegal and any Constitution derived from obtaining our independence would be illegal, correct?
SamSpade
Well-Known Member
Good that you brought these up. You realize that with the exception of Prohibition, these are rights further clarified - they are understood to be always protected by the Constitution and that Congress may not forbid them.
The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.
It's a right already there. It's like declaring the Patuxent a river - it didn't just become one when it was declared. It's recognizing something already true.
If the SCOTUS declares secession a Constitutional act, then by the same reason it retroactively legalizes actions in accordance done in the past.
But Texas vs. White probably isn't going to change this. I'm guessing you either didn't read it or haven't finished it yet.
Larry Gude
Strung Out
...
I beg to differ. Slavery was constitutionally anointed prior to the Civil War. That changed, but that does not change that Dredd Scott was scotus decided.
I beg to differ. Slavery was constitutionally anointed prior to the Civil War. That changed, but that does not change that Dredd Scott was scotus decided.
Yuck.
Anyway, now that I've skimmed it and get the gist, it appears to be a case of the winners making the laws. "We won, so you can no longer legally secede, and in fact were never able to do so."
However, direct your attention to the Reconstruction Acts, and tell me if the secessionist states were indeed states and always had been, equal to the Union states, or if they were conquered territories. There was a criteria for the CSA states to be readmitted into the Union, therefore they must not have been considered states until after they lost the war.
Larry Gude
Strung Out
...
I don't presume this. It is written in more places than enough and has been addressed from the standpoint of judges and senators and governors and presidents of the day; some thought you could. Others thought you couldn't. However, it was NOT, had NOT been addressed by the scotus at that time.
I have no doubt that if a state today wanted to, by veto proof popular demand, a state could secede, legally.
I don't presume this. It is written in more places than enough and has been addressed from the standpoint of judges and senators and governors and presidents of the day; some thought you could. Others thought you couldn't. However, it was NOT, had NOT been addressed by the scotus at that time.
I have no doubt that if a state today wanted to, by veto proof popular demand, a state could secede, legally.
Larry Gude
Strung Out
...
This is another can of worms; Lincoln refused to consider the seceded states as anything other than members of the Union the entire war. He considered it rebellion within the states and never stopped thinking that most people of the South never wanted secession. Booth's bullet was the one that REALLY hurt the South. Reconstruction would have likely been as Lincoln wished; the welcome return of wayward children, not the hard peace wanted by so many in the North.
This is another can of worms; Lincoln refused to consider the seceded states as anything other than members of the Union the entire war. He considered it rebellion within the states and never stopped thinking that most people of the South never wanted secession. Booth's bullet was the one that REALLY hurt the South. Reconstruction would have likely been as Lincoln wished; the welcome return of wayward children, not the hard peace wanted by so many in the North.