Actually the legality of allowing marriage of first cousins is not a southern monopoly. I heard on the radio ysesterday that California, Michigan and I believe Wisconsin allow such a thing.
"One can't deny that slavery was one of the main sources of conflict between the North and South, but that doesn't mean they went to war to stop slavery. "
But McPherson contended -- and you'll see it if you read again what I wrote --- that without the institution of slavery, there probably woudn't have been a war to go to.
The Union would not have dissolved, so there would have been no Civil War.
But McPherson contended -- and you'll see it if you read again what I wrote --- that without the institution of slavery, there probably woudn't have been a war to go to.
Probably not. Was slavery a cause of the war? Definitely. Was the war about putting an end to slavery? No.
The cause of the civil war is that the South wanted to secede and the north did not want them to. The north was not trying to end slavery. There was no legislation that would end slavery and it probably would have taken a Constitutional amendment to do so.
The south seceded because Lincoln was elected. The 1856 Republican platform seemed to indicate that slave owners would be treated as criminals by the Republican party. The south seemed to fear that John Brown had become president.
"The south seceded because Lincoln was elected. The 1856 Republican platform seemed to indicate that slave owners would be treated as criminals by the Republican party. The south seemed to fear that John Brown had become president. "
So leaders in the South set in motion their actis of treason and sedition. So when they wave the Confederate flag. the rebel yells go out for Robert E. Lee and John Walker Lindh.
As for John Walker his real crime, if he was involved, was in the prison riot. I don't think he should be prosecuted for anything else based on what I know.
You changed the subject abruptly after Jethro posted that timeline piece showing that the southern states "conspired" after seceding. Are you conceding that point, or do you have a "history book" to show which counters Jethro's?
Like I think I mentioned, I don't know that much about the details of that time period, and I'm curious to see what the deal is with whether the So. states violated the Constitution. Do you have evidence of that THX?
bill, i'm a believer that the south had the right to secede as well. to find the location where that right is "granted", all you need to do is read the 10th amendment:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
i've never once seen anything anywhere that denys any state the power to secede. i'll join jethro, bill, and put the pressure on you. find in the constitution, where it is prohibited that a state my secede.
...nobody could provide any literally translated "Right To Seceed" anywhere.
the fact is, bill, all the counterpoint arguments that have been posted here apply to a state while under the jurisdiction of the constitution. once a state has seceded, none of what that state previously subscribed to under the us constitution applies to them.
which brings us back to the 10th amendment and the opening statments of the declaration of independence. this country was founded because it was necessary to break the political ties we had with england. the guys who wrote up the constitution knew this, which is probably why they didn'tspecifically prohibit a state from leaving the union, once it had entered it.
Considering what a delicate process it turned out to be to get everyone to agree to ratify it in the first place, I have to believe they did it with the belief they could back out again if they wanted to.
fort sumter was bombarded on 12-13 april 1861. south carolina seceded on 20 december 1860. yep, it was an act of war against the united states, but it was in soil that was, at the time, foreign, to the united states.
i still want to know what crime was committed? treason? nope. south carolina seceded. forming an alliance opposed to the united states? yep. but not until 4 february 1861, after the seven states involved in forming that alliance seceded, at least not officially formed. so where's the crime?
i've heard the oath many many times over, bill (i've seen "an officer and a gentlemen" far too many times :)
you do have me there on the oath of office. but, what good is that oath when it comes down to a matter of "as our representative, you can either vote to secede, or we'll find someone who will"? there's no doubt in my mind that it was going on long before south carolina seceded. talk of it was occurring a decade or more before they actually did it.
So Bill, let's say for a moment you're right and it was 100% illegal. What does that prove then? Are you trying to say the Civil War was in essence a police action?
since the topic of the oath of office came up, bill, and since i know you're a veteran i'm just curious. i know officers take that oath, do enlistees as well? i'm assuming the answer is yes, i just don't know.
since i'm gonna say it anyway after i get a response from you on my previous post, bill, i'm gonna say it now. read that oath carefully.
"I, AB, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same;"
anyone who takes that oath is taking an oath to support the constitution, not the united states itself. probably a weak technicality to argue on but you get the idea.
also, what's supposed to happen to those guilty of "sedition"? we've all heard the adage that its not a crime if you're not caught. even if you are caught, its not a crime if you're not convicted. at that point in time, there was no way anyone would convict any one of their senators or representatives of sedition or treason for violating their oath of office in casting that vote to secede. remember, the sixth amendment also mandates that the jury come from the state in which the crime occurred.
Without looking up the details, can you tell me that 11 states all seceded in 1860 without first conspiring with each other? I say no, and that they were guilty of treason.
1 state seceded in '60. the other 10 left in '61. i'm not saying there wasn't any conspiracy going on there at all. it just wasn't formalised until 1861.
who was guilty of treason? the state, or the conspirators?
regardless, the question i asked bill earlier still stands. what difference does it make if you can't get a conviction out of it?
Does that mean we have the right to do those things that aren't written there?
It is to me, quite offensive to read.
no argument here. don't get me wrong here; i abhor the concept of slavery. on the other hand, i also understand the constitution. in answer to your question, rick, the constitution was written not as an ultimate piece of law. it provided the framework under which the rest of the laws of this country were written. it provides very, very specific powers to the federal government, and prohibits the individual states from doing very, very specific things. as the 10th amendment states, all other powers are left to the states.
fold: "As soon as even ONE Senator discussed dissolving the Union, he committed a crime by breaking his Oath Of Office."
ares: "you do have me there on the oath of office. but, what good is that oath when it comes down to a matter of "as our representative, you can either vote to secede, or we'll find someone who will"? there's no doubt in my mind that it was going on long before south carolina seceded. talk of it was occurring a decade or more before they actually did it."
No fold is wrong. U.S. Senators didn't vote to secede. As said before it was the state legislatures that voted to secede.
Ares, it makes a difference to you, obviously, but for the life of me, I do not know why and I cannot forgive the leaders of that era for causing what was surely the worst destruction this nation has ever been a part of.
Does that mean we have the right to do those things that aren't written there?
No it only menas that the powers not delegated to the federal government are left to the states. The states can proscribe actions that the feds couldn't.
On fold's board he has the following: Hey "Jethro"...C'mon. The Gloves Are Off!!! Of course he has denied me access to respond. How pathetic can he get?
actually jethro, bill is right. quoth article 6, united states constitution:
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
it was the members of the state legislatures who voted to secede, thus violating their oaths in his mind. but, as i asked bill last nite, where at that point in time are you going to get any sort of conviction of anyone who cast such a vote in their legislature?
No the legislators did not violate their oath because they had the right to seced. Furthermore, the south then adopted its own Constitution very similar to the US. Lincoln violated his oath when he decided he could use force to keep states in the union.
ok. post modified to make my point. the tecnicality that comes in here that really determines whether or not the act of secession violates that oath whatsoever is this: what are they swearing to support? the constitution or the united states? according to the oath, the constitution. since they were not sworn to allegiance to the us, i'll contend that the act of secession, or voting to secede, was not treasonous.
Closing that loophole in the Constitution might have saved a few hundred-thousand lives.
Given a little a time, someone with an active imagination could come up with all kinds of things -- that, since they're not specifically written in the Constitution -- states and institutions should be allowed to do.
Maybe the station of Oregon should be a "free alien abduction zone.:"
Nothin' in the Constition about that.
Rhode Island is a small state. What if the Senators and Congressmen decided that they wanted to carpet the entire state.
Point to a spot in the Constitution that says they can't.
Kinda silly, but let's pose this question -- by what authority did the Confederate states have the ability to secede. What claim do they have, and why should it be recognized?
The Senators and Representatives in those states broke an oath registered in Heaven. They spread treason and sedition in the Halls of Congress because they didn't like the way the election of 1860 swung. Too bad.
They had no claim and no authority to carry out what they did.
Closing that loophole in the Constitution might have saved a few hundred-thousand lives.
Given a little a time, someone with an active imagination could come up with all kinds of things -- that, since they're not specifically written in the Constitution -- states and institutions should be allowed to do.
Maybe the station of Oregon should be a "free alien abduction zone.:"
Nothin' in the Constition about that.
Rhode Island is a small state. What if the Senators and Congressmen decided that they wanted to carpet the entire state.
Point to a spot in the Constitution that says they can't.
Kinda silly, but let's pose this question -- by what authority did the Confederate states have the ability to secede. What claim do they have, and why should it be recognized?
The Senators and Representatives in those states broke an oath registered in Heaven. They spread treason and sedition in the Halls of Congress because they didn't like the way the election of 1860 swung. Too bad.
They had no claim and no authority to carry out what they did.
They didn't actually include language about "Secession" it in the Constitution because they did deal with the issue in other ways, would you not agree?
actually, i don't. the oaths of office that you guys point to only mandate that the person taking said oath support the constitution, not the united states. given that the constitution doesn't explicitly say anything about secession, those who voted in favor of secession weren't in violation of that oath. treason is a crime very specifically defined in the constitution, defined as levying war against the united states, or adhering to its enemies, giving them aid and comfort. ergo, a vote to secede is not treason under this definition. once south carolina repealed its legislation ratifying the constitution in 1860, it was no longer a part of the united states, in the same way that the transmission of the declaration of independence constituted an act of treason by its signers against the british empire. obviously, the british thought otherwise, as you guys think otherwise against the south. had there not been the general amnesty issued by lincoln as part of the surrender of lee, there would likely have been a lot of hangings for treason; the north after all won the war.
so, in a nutshell, while the constitution doesn't explicitly prohibit secession, it was an issue that ended up being decided by force of arms. probably the only such right or power of a state decided in such a way in the history of this country.
secession wasn't exactly something that happened overnight in 1860, it was at least the third time that i'm aware of that south carolina voted on the issue, the second attempt was in 1852. i don't know when the first attempt was. it just took lincoln's election as the final straw in the matter.
From the time of the Revolutionary War to that of the Civil War, the idea of state's rights was a far larger issue than it is now. State rights were assumed to take precedence over federal rights in most cases and the federal government was considered to exist only by the graces of the individual states. It was Lincoln and the Civil War that ended up changing that and putting federal concerns before those of the states. In 1789 it would have been inconceivable to expect any state to join the Union if they thought they wouldn't have been able to drop out again if they wanted. They wouldn't have done it. In theory, there didn't need to be any federal procedures for secession. It wasn't something that was supposed to require federal approval.
As for things not mentioned in the Constitution, let's not get silly here. But if you want to, yes you can carpet Rhode Island. The Constitution is not meant to be a complete legal code. It's only meant to specify what specific powers the U.S. Government has. Any power not given to federal government is then left up to the state. Now if the state of Rhode Island wants to pass a law saying the state shall not be carpeted, that's their business, but It's not the federal government's place to tell them that.
That's great ares, but neither you and especially not Jethro, who is the one who keeps saying that "The South Had The RIGHT To Seceed", but has never once provided proof of that right. Not once.
There is no "Right" to seceed from the Union. If there is, please, Show Me Where.
fold obviously you don't understand the concept that the Constitution is a document that gives the federal goverment LIMITED powers. If you understtod this you could at least consider that the southern states had a right to secede.
Kinda silly, but let's pose this question -- by what authority did the Confederate states have the ability to secede. What claim do they have, and why should it be recognized?
The Senators and Representatives in those states broke an oath registered in Heaven. They spread treason and sedition in the Halls of Congress because they didn't like the way the election of 1860 swung. Too bad.
They had no claim and no authority to carry out what they did.
Well you are just wrong. Why should you force a state to stay in the Union? I take it you are a supporter of the right to divore, aren't you?
But what if the two Senators and the members of the House of Representatives from Rhode Island walk into the Capital and say: We want funds to carpet the state or we're leaving the Union?
Who voted for the Confederacy? Was there a referendum?
in south carolina it was a mere matter of repealing every act of the legislature that ratified the constitution and the amendments thereto. texas sent its secession vote to the people, after it went through the legislature. once the states seceded, who cares who voted for the confederacy, as they were no longer a part of the union.
But what if the two Senators and the members of the House of Representatives from Rhode Island walk into the Capital and say: We want funds to carpet the state or we're leaving the Union? The US Senators and the Reps didn't have the authority to remove a state from the Union. Now if the citizens didn't want to leave the Union they can throw out the state legislators and then the new ones could get the state back in.
But what if the two Senators and the members of the House of Representatives from Rhode Island walk into the Capital and say: We want funds to carpet the state or we're leaving the Union?
Alright, before you get on me for giving a silly answer, remember, you're the one who asked a silly question.
If a state asks for funds for a project, they have to convince the Congress as a whole to approve it. This happens all the time regardless of how much or little sense the project makes. I'm sure some pork barrell projects over the years have been pretty ludicrous. Now if they threaten to leave the Union over it, well first, like Jethro says, are they even really representing the will of the people? It would be silly to leave the Union because you didn't get federal funds, because if you did, then you'd never get federal funds ever again.
Ultimately though, why does it even matter why they want to leave the Union? It seems to me you're just using silly examples to make the whole idea look sillier.
So now think about what it is you're really trying to say. That states can only do the things that the Constitution specifically gives them the right to do? Because the Constitution is pretty explicit in saying just the opposite.
At the start of each new Congress, in January of every odd-numbered year, the entire House of Representatives and one-third of the Senate performs a solemn and festive constitutional rite that is as old as the Republic. While the oath-taking dates back to the First Congress in 1789, the current oath is a product of the 1860s, drafted by Civil War-era members of Congress intent on ensnaring traitors.
I strongly suspect the oath the Southern officials who voted to secede took was phrased quite differently. So I don't think you're going to be able to keep claiming they broke their oaths.
The Constitution contains an oath of office only for the president. For other officials, including members of Congress, that document specifies only that they "shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation to support this constitution." In 1789, the First Congress reworked this requirement into a simple fourteen-word oath: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support the Constitution of the United States."
For nearly three-quarters of a century, that oath served nicely, although to the modern ear it sounds woefully incomplete. Missing are the soaring references to bearing "true faith and allegiance;" to taking "this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion;" and to "well and faithfully" discharging the duties of the office.
The outbreak of the Civil War quickly transformed the routine act of oath-taking into one of enormous significance. On April 30, 1861, at a time of uncertain and shifting loyalties, President Abraham Lincoln ordered all federal civilian personnel to retake the 1789 oath. When Congress convened for a brief emergency session several months later, members supplemented the president's action by enacting legislation requiring these employees to take an expanded oath in support of the Union. Its text is the earliest direct predecessor of the modern oath.
When Congress returned for its regular session in December 1861, members who believed that the Union had more to fear from northern traitors than southern soldiers fundamentally revised the August 1861 statute, adding a new first section known as the "Ironclad Test Oath." The war-inspired Test Oath, signed into law on July 2, 1862, required civil servants and military officers to swear not only to future loyalty, as required by the existing oath, but also to affirm that they had never previously engaged in criminal or disloyal conduct. Those government employees who failed to take the 1862 Test Oath would not receive a salary; those who swore falsely would be prosecuted for perjury and forever denied federal employment.
The 1862 oath's second section incorporated a more polished and graceful rendering of the hastily drafted 1861 oath. Although Congress did not extend coverage of the Ironclad Test Oath to its own members, many took it voluntarily. Angered by those who refused this symbolic act during a wartime crisis, and determined to prevent the eventual return of prewar southern leaders to positions of power in the national government, congressional hard-liners eventually succeeded by 1864 in making the Test Oath mandatory for all members.
The Senate then revised its rules to require that members not only take the Test Oath orally, but also that they "subscribe" to it by signing a printed copy. This condition reflected a wartime practice in which military and civilian authorities required anyone wishing to do business with the federal government to sign a copy of the Test Oath. The current practice of newly sworn senators signing individual pages in an elegantly bound oath book dates from this period.
As tensions cooled during the decade following the Civil War, Congress enacted legislation permitting former Confederates to take only the second section of the 1862 oath, the current version. Northerners immediately pointed to the new law's unfair double standard that required loyal Unionists to take the Test Oath's harsh first section while permitting ex-Confederates to ignore it. In 1884, a new generation of lawmakers quietly repealed the first section, leaving intact today's moving affirmation of constitutional allegiance.
You can see I hope, that this would not only pose a question of honesty, but also a question of integrity and a defiance and total disregard for the oath they took, which by the way is an oath which we almost impeached a President from office over, just 2 short years ago???
The central issue for impeachment was over his oath that he took before the federal courts, in other words perjury. The impeachment involved the oath of office indirectly.
bill, you're making the mistake, regardless of which version of the oath we're discussing, that the oath mandates that the person taking said oath support the united states. it doesn't. it only mandates that they support the constitution!
Yes, we'll rally 'round the flag, boys We'll rally once again Shouting the battle cry of freedom We will rally from the hillside We'll gather from the plain Shouting the battle cry of freedom.
Chorus
The Union forever, hurrah, boys, hurrah! Down with the traitor, up with the star! While we rally 'round the flag, boys, Rally once again Shouting the battle cry of freedom.
We are springing to the call For three hundred thousand more Shouting the battle cry of freedom And we'll fill the vacant ranks Of our brothers gone before Shouting the battle cry of freedom.
Chorus
We will welcome to our numbers The loyal, true and brave Shouting the battle cry of freedom And although he may be poor He shall never be a slave Shouting the battle cry of freedom.
Chorus
So we're springing to the call From the East and from the West Shouting the battle cry of freedom And we'll hurl the rebel crew From the land we love the best Shouting the battle cry of freedom.
Actually the legality of allowing marriage of first cousins is not a southern monopoly. I heard on the radio ysesterday that California, Michigan and I believe Wisconsin allow such a thing.
Why doesn't Wisconsin being on the list not surprise me ? :)
I see you remember Rahkonen!!!!!!
"One can't deny that slavery was one of the main sources of conflict between the North and South, but that doesn't mean they went to war to stop slavery. "
But McPherson contended -- and you'll see it if you read again what I wrote --- that without the institution of slavery, there probably woudn't have been a war to go to.
The Union would not have dissolved, so there would have been no Civil War.
But McPherson contended -- and you'll see it if you read again what I wrote --- that without the institution of slavery, there probably woudn't have been a war to go to.
Probably not. Was slavery a cause of the war? Definitely. Was the war about putting an end to slavery? No.
The cause of the civil war is that the South wanted to secede and the north did not want them to. The north was not trying to end slavery. There was no legislation that would end slavery and it probably would have taken a Constitutional amendment to do so.
The south seceded because Lincoln was elected. The 1856 Republican platform seemed to indicate that slave owners would be treated as criminals by the Republican party. The south seemed to fear that John Brown had become president.
Some southern states nearly seceded inthe 1830's over tariff issues.
"The south seceded because Lincoln was elected. The 1856 Republican platform seemed to indicate that slave owners would be treated as criminals by the Republican party. The south seemed to fear that John Brown had become president. "
So leaders in the South set in motion their actis of treason and sedition. So when they wave the Confederate flag. the rebel yells go out for Robert E. Lee and John Walker Lindh.
No act of treeason occured. The south betrayed no one since they had the right to go their seperate way.
As for John Walker his real crime, if he was involved, was in the prison riot. I don't think he should be prosecuted for anything else based on what I know.
THX-
You changed the subject abruptly after Jethro posted that timeline piece showing that the southern states "conspired" after seceding. Are you conceding that point, or do you have a "history book" to show which counters Jethro's?
Like I think I mentioned, I don't know that much about the details of that time period, and I'm curious to see what the deal is with whether the So. states violated the Constitution. Do you have evidence of that THX?
bill, i'm a believer that the south had the right to secede as well. to find the location where that right is "granted", all you need to do is read the 10th amendment:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
i've never once seen anything anywhere that denys any state the power to secede. i'll join jethro, bill, and put the pressure on you. find in the constitution, where it is prohibited that a state my secede.
...nobody could provide any literally translated "Right To Seceed" anywhere.
the fact is, bill, all the counterpoint arguments that have been posted here apply to a state while under the jurisdiction of the constitution. once a state has seceded, none of what that state previously subscribed to under the us constitution applies to them.
which brings us back to the 10th amendment and the opening statments of the declaration of independence. this country was founded because it was necessary to break the political ties we had with england. the guys who wrote up the constitution knew this, which is probably why they didn'tspecifically prohibit a state from leaving the union, once it had entered it.
Considering what a delicate process it turned out to be to get everyone to agree to ratify it in the first place, I have to believe they did it with the belief they could back out again if they wanted to.
fort sumter was bombarded on 12-13 april 1861. south carolina seceded on 20 december 1860. yep, it was an act of war against the united states, but it was in soil that was, at the time, foreign, to the united states.
i still want to know what crime was committed? treason? nope. south carolina seceded. forming an alliance opposed to the united states? yep. but not until 4 february 1861, after the seven states involved in forming that alliance seceded, at least not officially formed. so where's the crime?
i've heard the oath many many times over, bill (i've seen "an officer and a gentlemen" far too many times :)
you do have me there on the oath of office. but, what good is that oath when it comes down to a matter of "as our representative, you can either vote to secede, or we'll find someone who will"? there's no doubt in my mind that it was going on long before south carolina seceded. talk of it was occurring a decade or more before they actually did it.
So Bill, let's say for a moment you're right and it was 100% illegal. What does that prove then? Are you trying to say the Civil War was in essence a police action?
since the topic of the oath of office came up, bill, and since i know you're a veteran i'm just curious. i know officers take that oath, do enlistees as well? i'm assuming the answer is yes, i just don't know.
since i'm gonna say it anyway after i get a response from you on my previous post, bill, i'm gonna say it now. read that oath carefully.
"I, AB, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same;"
anyone who takes that oath is taking an oath to support the constitution, not the united states itself. probably a weak technicality to argue on but you get the idea.
also, what's supposed to happen to those guilty of "sedition"? we've all heard the adage that its not a crime if you're not caught. even if you are caught, its not a crime if you're not convicted. at that point in time, there was no way anyone would convict any one of their senators or representatives of sedition or treason for violating their oath of office in casting that vote to secede. remember, the sixth amendment also mandates that the jury come from the state in which the crime occurred.
Lance Brown 4/5/02 3:16pm
Sorry, I missed Jethro's post.
Without looking up the details, can you tell me that 11 states all seceded in 1860 without first conspiring with each other? I say no, and that they were guilty of treason.
1 state seceded in '60. the other 10 left in '61. i'm not saying there wasn't any conspiracy going on there at all. it just wasn't formalised until 1861.
who was guilty of treason? the state, or the conspirators?
regardless, the question i asked bill earlier still stands. what difference does it make if you can't get a conviction out of it?
There's a lot of things written in that Constitution, but there's more things that are not.
Does that mean we have the right to do those things that aren't written there?
Does that mean we have the right to do those things that aren't written there?
It is to me, quite offensive to read.
no argument here. don't get me wrong here; i abhor the concept of slavery. on the other hand, i also understand the constitution. in answer to your question, rick, the constitution was written not as an ultimate piece of law. it provided the framework under which the rest of the laws of this country were written. it provides very, very specific powers to the federal government, and prohibits the individual states from doing very, very specific things. as the 10th amendment states, all other powers are left to the states.
You say that fold with NO evidence.
You apparently don't understand that what you want those provisions to say don't say that at all.
Posted to remind us all of what the fight was about, Preserving The Union.
fold is right for ONCE. But he still needs to understand that Lincoln preserved the Union at the expense of the Constitution.
fold: "As soon as even ONE Senator discussed dissolving the Union, he committed a crime by breaking his Oath Of Office."
ares: "you do have me there on the oath of office. but, what good is that oath when it comes down to a matter of "as our representative, you can either vote to secede, or we'll find someone who will"? there's no doubt in my mind that it was going on long before south carolina seceded. talk of it was occurring a decade or more before they actually did it."
No fold is wrong. U.S. Senators didn't vote to secede. As said before it was the state legislatures that voted to secede.
Ares, it makes a difference to you, obviously, but for the life of me, I do not know why and I cannot forgive the leaders of that era for causing what was surely the worst destruction this nation has ever been a part of.
Blame Lincoln. He could have avoided it.
Does that mean we have the right to do those things that aren't written there?
No it only menas that the powers not delegated to the federal government are left to the states. The states can proscribe actions that the feds couldn't.
On fold's board he has the following: Hey "Jethro"...C'mon. The Gloves Are Off!!!
Of course he has denied me access to respond. How pathetic can he get?
actually jethro, bill is right. quoth article 6, united states constitution:
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
it was the members of the state legislatures who voted to secede, thus violating their oaths in his mind. but, as i asked bill last nite, where at that point in time are you going to get any sort of conviction of anyone who cast such a vote in their legislature?
No the legislators did not violate their oath because they had the right to seced. Furthermore, the south then adopted its own Constitution very similar to the US. Lincoln violated his oath when he decided he could use force to keep states in the union.
ok. post modified to make my point. the tecnicality that comes in here that really determines whether or not the act of secession violates that oath whatsoever is this: what are they swearing to support? the constitution or the united states? according to the oath, the constitution. since they were not sworn to allegiance to the us, i'll contend that the act of secession, or voting to secede, was not treasonous.
the right to secede is not denied to the states anywhere in the constitution. period.
Closing that loophole in the Constitution might have saved a few hundred-thousand lives.
Given a little a time, someone with an active imagination could come up with all kinds of things -- that, since they're not specifically written in the Constitution -- states and institutions should be allowed to do.
Maybe the station of Oregon should be a "free alien abduction zone.:"
Nothin' in the Constition about that.
Rhode Island is a small state. What if the Senators and Congressmen decided that they wanted to carpet the entire state.
Point to a spot in the Constitution that says they can't.
Kinda silly, but let's pose this question -- by what authority did the Confederate states have the ability to secede. What claim do they have, and why should it be recognized?
The Senators and Representatives in those states broke an oath registered in Heaven. They spread treason and sedition in the Halls of Congress because they didn't like the way the election of 1860 swung. Too bad.
They had no claim and no authority to carry out what they did.
Closing that loophole in the Constitution might have saved a few hundred-thousand lives.
Given a little a time, someone with an active imagination could come up with all kinds of things -- that, since they're not specifically written in the Constitution -- states and institutions should be allowed to do.
Maybe the station of Oregon should be a "free alien abduction zone.:"
Nothin' in the Constition about that.
Rhode Island is a small state. What if the Senators and Congressmen decided that they wanted to carpet the entire state.
Point to a spot in the Constitution that says they can't.
Kinda silly, but let's pose this question -- by what authority did the Confederate states have the ability to secede. What claim do they have, and why should it be recognized?
The Senators and Representatives in those states broke an oath registered in Heaven. They spread treason and sedition in the Halls of Congress because they didn't like the way the election of 1860 swung. Too bad.
They had no claim and no authority to carry out what they did.
They didn't actually include language about "Secession" it in the Constitution because they did deal with the issue in other ways, would you not agree?
actually, i don't. the oaths of office that you guys point to only mandate that the person taking said oath support the constitution, not the united states. given that the constitution doesn't explicitly say anything about secession, those who voted in favor of secession weren't in violation of that oath. treason is a crime very specifically defined in the constitution, defined as levying war against the united states, or adhering to its enemies, giving them aid and comfort. ergo, a vote to secede is not treason under this definition. once south carolina repealed its legislation ratifying the constitution in 1860, it was no longer a part of the united states, in the same way that the transmission of the declaration of independence constituted an act of treason by its signers against the british empire. obviously, the british thought otherwise, as you guys think otherwise against the south. had there not been the general amnesty issued by lincoln as part of the surrender of lee, there would likely have been a lot of hangings for treason; the north after all won the war.
so, in a nutshell, while the constitution doesn't explicitly prohibit secession, it was an issue that ended up being decided by force of arms. probably the only such right or power of a state decided in such a way in the history of this country.
secession wasn't exactly something that happened overnight in 1860, it was at least the third time that i'm aware of that south carolina voted on the issue, the second attempt was in 1852. i don't know when the first attempt was. it just took lincoln's election as the final straw in the matter.
From the time of the Revolutionary War to that of the Civil War, the idea of state's rights was a far larger issue than it is now. State rights were assumed to take precedence over federal rights in most cases and the federal government was considered to exist only by the graces of the individual states. It was Lincoln and the Civil War that ended up changing that and putting federal concerns before those of the states. In 1789 it would have been inconceivable to expect any state to join the Union if they thought they wouldn't have been able to drop out again if they wanted. They wouldn't have done it. In theory, there didn't need to be any federal procedures for secession. It wasn't something that was supposed to require federal approval.
As for things not mentioned in the Constitution, let's not get silly here. But if you want to, yes you can carpet Rhode Island. The Constitution is not meant to be a complete legal code. It's only meant to specify what specific powers the U.S. Government has. Any power not given to federal government is then left up to the state. Now if the state of Rhode Island wants to pass a law saying the state shall not be carpeted, that's their business, but It's not the federal government's place to tell them that.
That's great ares, but neither you and especially not Jethro, who is the one who keeps saying that "The South Had The RIGHT To Seceed", but has never once provided proof of that right. Not once.
There is no "Right" to seceed from the Union. If there is, please, Show Me Where.
fold obviously you don't understand the concept that the Constitution is a document that gives the federal goverment LIMITED powers. If you understtod this you could at least consider that the southern states had a right to secede.
Kinda silly, but let's pose this question -- by what authority did the Confederate states have the ability to secede. What claim do they have, and why should it be recognized?
The Senators and Representatives in those states broke an oath registered in Heaven. They spread treason and sedition in the Halls of Congress because they didn't like the way the election of 1860 swung. Too bad.
They had no claim and no authority to carry out what they did.
Well you are just wrong. Why should you force a state to stay in the Union? I take it you are a supporter of the right to divore, aren't you?
But what if the two Senators and the members of the House of Representatives from Rhode Island walk into the Capital and say: We want funds to carpet the state or we're leaving the Union?
Who voted for the Confederacy? Was there a referendum?
in south carolina it was a mere matter of repealing every act of the legislature that ratified the constitution and the amendments thereto. texas sent its secession vote to the people, after it went through the legislature. once the states seceded, who cares who voted for the confederacy, as they were no longer a part of the union.
But what if the two Senators and the members of the House of Representatives from Rhode Island walk into the Capital and say: We want funds to carpet the state or we're leaving the Union? The US Senators and the Reps didn't have the authority to remove a state from the Union. Now if the citizens didn't want to leave the Union they can throw out the state legislators and then the new ones could get the state back in.
But what if the two Senators and the members of the House of Representatives from Rhode Island walk into the Capital and say: We want funds to carpet the state or we're leaving the Union?
Alright, before you get on me for giving a silly answer, remember, you're the one who asked a silly question.
If a state asks for funds for a project, they have to convince the Congress as a whole to approve it. This happens all the time regardless of how much or little sense the project makes. I'm sure some pork barrell projects over the years have been pretty ludicrous. Now if they threaten to leave the Union over it, well first, like Jethro says, are they even really representing the will of the people? It would be silly to leave the Union because you didn't get federal funds, because if you did, then you'd never get federal funds ever again.
Ultimately though, why does it even matter why they want to leave the Union? It seems to me you're just using silly examples to make the whole idea look sillier.
So now think about what it is you're really trying to say. That states can only do the things that the Constitution specifically gives them the right to do? Because the Constitution is pretty explicit in saying just the opposite.
From www.senate.gov :
At the start of each new Congress, in January of every odd-numbered year, the entire House of Representatives and one-third of the Senate performs a solemn and festive constitutional rite that is as old as the Republic. While the oath-taking dates back to the First Congress in 1789, the current oath is a product of the 1860s, drafted by Civil War-era members of Congress intent on ensnaring traitors.
I strongly suspect the oath the Southern officials who voted to secede took was phrased quite differently. So I don't think you're going to be able to keep claiming they broke their oaths.
The rest of the article is interesting as well:
The Constitution contains an oath of office only for the president. For other officials, including members of Congress, that document specifies only that they "shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation to support this constitution." In 1789, the First Congress reworked this requirement into a simple fourteen-word oath: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support the Constitution of the United States."
For nearly three-quarters of a century, that oath served nicely, although to the modern ear it sounds woefully incomplete. Missing are the soaring references to bearing "true faith and allegiance;" to taking "this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion;" and to "well and faithfully" discharging the duties of the office.
The outbreak of the Civil War quickly transformed the routine act of oath-taking into one of enormous significance. On April 30, 1861, at a time of uncertain and shifting loyalties, President Abraham Lincoln ordered all federal civilian personnel to retake the 1789 oath. When Congress convened for a brief emergency session several months later, members supplemented the president's action by enacting legislation requiring these employees to take an expanded oath in support of the Union. Its text is the earliest direct predecessor of the modern oath.
When Congress returned for its regular session in December 1861, members who believed that the Union had more to fear from northern traitors than southern soldiers fundamentally revised the August 1861 statute, adding a new first section known as the "Ironclad Test Oath." The war-inspired Test Oath, signed into law on July 2, 1862, required civil servants and military officers to swear not only to future loyalty, as required by the existing oath, but also to affirm that they had never previously engaged in criminal or disloyal conduct. Those government employees who failed to take the 1862 Test Oath would not receive a salary; those who swore falsely would be prosecuted for perjury and forever denied federal employment.
The 1862 oath's second section incorporated a more polished and graceful rendering of the hastily drafted 1861 oath. Although Congress did not extend coverage of the Ironclad Test Oath to its own members, many took it voluntarily. Angered by those who refused this symbolic act during a wartime crisis, and determined to prevent the eventual return of prewar southern leaders to positions of power in the national government, congressional hard-liners eventually succeeded by 1864 in making the Test Oath mandatory for all members.
The Senate then revised its rules to require that members not only take the Test Oath orally, but also that they "subscribe" to it by signing a printed copy. This condition reflected a wartime practice in which military and civilian authorities required anyone wishing to do business with the federal government to sign a copy of the Test Oath. The current practice of newly sworn senators signing individual pages in an elegantly bound oath book dates from this period.
As tensions cooled during the decade following the Civil War, Congress enacted legislation permitting former Confederates to take only the second section of the 1862 oath, the current version. Northerners immediately pointed to the new law's unfair double standard that required loyal Unionists to take the Test Oath's harsh first section while permitting ex-Confederates to ignore it. In 1884, a new generation of lawmakers quietly repealed the first section, leaving intact today's moving affirmation of constitutional allegiance.
You can see I hope, that this would not only pose a question of honesty, but also a question of integrity and a defiance and total disregard for the oath they took, which by the way is an oath which we almost impeached a President from office over, just 2 short years ago???
The central issue for impeachment was over his oath that he took before the federal courts, in other words perjury. The impeachment involved the oath of office indirectly.
bill, you're making the mistake, regardless of which version of the oath we're discussing, that the oath mandates that the person taking said oath support the united states. it doesn't. it only mandates that they support the constitution!
you did, bill. aw posted the original 1789 oath in post 168.
what if lincoln had departed from the union? treason, perhaps, but not in violation of his oath, which is to the constitution, not the country.
Yes, we'll rally 'round the flag, boys
We'll rally once again
Shouting the battle cry of freedom
We will rally from the hillside
We'll gather from the plain
Shouting the battle cry of freedom.
Chorus
The Union forever, hurrah, boys, hurrah!
Down with the traitor, up with the star!
While we rally 'round the flag, boys,
Rally once again
Shouting the battle cry of freedom.
We are springing to the call
For three hundred thousand more
Shouting the battle cry of freedom
And we'll fill the vacant ranks
Of our brothers gone before
Shouting the battle cry of freedom.
Chorus
We will welcome to our numbers
The loyal, true and brave
Shouting the battle cry of freedom
And although he may be poor
He shall never be a slave
Shouting the battle cry of freedom.
Chorus
So we're springing to the call
From the East and from the West
Shouting the battle cry of freedom
And we'll hurl the rebel crew
From the land we love the best
Shouting the battle cry of freedom.