Did the South have a right to secede?

[Temacht]

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.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

This quote from the Declaration of Independence leads me to think they did. However, the perpetuation of slavery and the attacks on Union forces cannot be justified.

[Greed and Death]

On the contrary, the issue at hand at the time was Federalism vs. Confederation, and the issue at hand presently in this thread is whether or not the South had a political/legal right to secede. Both of these issues are indeed philosophical, the first being a question of Political Philosophy, and the second being a question of Political and Legal Philosophy (Philosophy of Law is a branch of Political Philosophy).

We're arguing NOW whether or not they had a right to secede.

In which case it is Texas v. White and thats the end of it.
What the supreme court says is the black letter law no way around it.

Now if we were going to have a purely academic debate we could remove all the case law, and just argue from the text of the Constitution, Articles of the Confederation and various theories of international law.

I assumed the latter because quoting Texas v. White over and over again gets boring.

[Milks Empire]

This quote from the Declaration of Independence leads me to think they did. However, the perpetuation of slavery and the attacks on Union forces cannot be justified.

The Declaration of Independence was never and is not now a legal document. Your point is, therefore, invalid.

[Dusk_Kittens]

We're arguing NOW whether or not they had a right to secede.

In which case it is Texas v. White and thats the end of it.
What the supreme court says is the black letter law no way around it.

Now if we were going to have a purely academic debate we could remove all the case law, and just argue from the text of the Constitution, Articles of the Confederation and various theories of international law.

I assumed the latter because quoting Texas v. White over and over again gets boring.

And maybe you could read my lengthy post on the previous page, the bulk of which is a rather in-depth critique of the case you're holding up so valiantly (and vainly).

Edit: I do apologize to you, CM, for being a bit snarky in my previous reply. However, I did address that as well, in the bulk of the post just linked above.

[Senestrum]

They did not have the power to secede. Therefore, they did not have any right to do so.

[Dusk_Kittens]

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.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

This quote from the Declaration of Independence leads me to think they did. However, the perpetuation of slavery and the attacks on Union forces cannot be justified.

The perpetuation of slavery was enshrined in the Constitution itself! It was the attempts by non-slaveholding states to IGNORE those portions of the Constitution which the State of South Carolina judged to be sufficient to render the entire Constitution null and void -- yes, on this occasion, South Carolina resorted to the question of slavery, because it was how the Constitution was being flaunted by the non-slaveholding states, but South Carolina had previously threatened to secede over the tariffs; South Carolina was, as I have maintained in two previous threads, looking for any excuse to secede, because they were dissatisfied with the way the new government was turning out. In this particular, they thought they had finally found one, as, under their understanding of the Constitution, it was a "compact," and could be regarded as null and void if any portion of it were violated by any party to it. This was in fact what had been occurring, by virtue of certain non-slaveholding states' flagrant violation of Article IV, Section 2, paragraph 3 of the Constitution. The trouble with me pointing this out is that, every time I do so, people seem to focus on the word "slave" and ignore the part about violation of the Constitution. I'm not defending slavery. I'm not defending racism. I'm pointing out that the Constitution was being violated, which was considered justification for secession by South Carolina, who, as I have shown before, had already threatened to secede over another issue entirely, because they preferred decentralized (confederate) government over centralized (federal) government.

Behold:

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

A Person charged in any State with Treason, Felony, or other Crime, who shall flee from Justice, and be found in another State, shall on Demand of the executive Authority of the State from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the State having Jurisdiction of the Crime.

No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due.

The question of whether they had a right to secede or not, I have addressed in my first post in this thread, by criticizing the Supreme Court's decision on logical and legal grounds.

[Greed and Death]

In which case it is Texas v. White and thats the end of it.
What the supreme court says is the black letter law no way around it.

Now if we were going to have a purely academic debate we could remove all the case law, and just argue from the text of the Constitution, Articles of the Confederation and various theories of international law.

I assumed the latter because quoting Texas v. White over and over again gets boring.

And maybe you could read my lengthy post on the previous page, the bulk of which is a rather in-depth critique of the case you're holding up so valiantly (and vainly).

Edit: I do apologize to you, CM, for being a bit snarky in my previous reply. However, I did address that as well, in the bulk of the post just linked above.

That's nice, I read it. The point still stands the court ruled secession illegal.
Pretty much until a the Supreme court says otherwise, a constitutional amendment is passed or congress passes a law (in theory consent of the states), What the Supreme court has said is the law.

Your allowed to disagree, but that does not change the law.

[Dusk_Kittens]

And maybe you could read my lengthy post on the previous page, the bulk of which is a rather in-depth critique of the case you're holding up so valiantly (and vainly).

Edit: I do apologize to you, CM, for being a bit snarky in my previous reply. However, I did address that as well, in the bulk of the post just linked above.

That's nice, I read it. The point still stands the court ruled secession illegal.
Pretty much until a the Supreme court says otherwise, a constitutional amendment is passed or congress passes a law (in theory consent of the states), What the Supreme court has said is the law.

Your allowed to disagree, but that does not change the law.

Even assuming, for the moment, that the Constitution itself is not illegal (as I have argued in that post), the constitutionality of secession was, according to the statement of the Supreme Court itself which ruled on the case, not fully considered in the case:

It is needless to discuss, at length, the question whether the right of a State to withdraw from the Union for any cause, regarded by herself as sufficient, is consistent with the Constitution of the United States.

Source (that's the case which many of you are claiming decided the question)

There is no law about secession. In order for the case in question to be "law," it would have to be legislated. The Supreme Court does not legislate; it interprets the law, and in this case, the Supreme Court refused to give full consideration to the question of the legality of secession, and yet went ahead and gave a decision on a related matter, in connection with one particular case involving monies claimed by the State of Texas, and issued some cursory pontifications about secession -- while stating early on that it was not going to give due consideration to the question of whether or not a State has the right to secede.

[Greed and Death]

That's nice, I read it. The point still stands the court ruled secession illegal.
Pretty much until a the Supreme court says otherwise, a constitutional amendment is passed or congress passes a law (in theory consent of the states), What the Supreme court has said is the law.

Your allowed to disagree, but that does not change the law.

Even assuming, for the moment, that the Constitution itself is not illegal (as I have argued in that post), the constitutionality of secession was, according to the statement of the Supreme Court itself which ruled on the case, not fully considered in the case:

It is needless to discuss, at length, the question whether the right of a State to withdraw from the Union for any cause, regarded by herself as sufficient, is consistent with the Constitution of the United States.

Source (that's the case which many of you are claiming decided the question)

There is no law about secession. In order for the case in question to be "law," it would have to be legislated. The Supreme Court does not legislate; it interprets the law, and in this case, the Supreme Court refused to give full consideration to the question of the legality of secession, and yet went ahead and gave a decision on a related matter, in connection with one particular case involving monies claimed by the State of Texas, and issued some cursory pontifications about secession -- while stating early on that it was not going to give due consideration to the question of whether or not a State has the right to secede.

It is needless to discuss, at length, the question whether the right of a State to withdraw from the Union for any cause, regarded by herself as sufficient, is consistent with the Constitution of the United States.

The magic two words have been bolded. This means they did discuss the matter, but it was simply pointless to discuss the matter at length.

[Dusk_Kittens]

Even assuming, for the moment, that the Constitution itself is not illegal (as I have argued in that post), the constitutionality of secession was, according to the statement of the Supreme Court itself which ruled on the case, not fully considered in the case:


Source (that's the case which many of you are claiming decided the question)

There is no law about secession. In order for the case in question to be "law," it would have to be legislated. The Supreme Court does not legislate; it interprets the law, and in this case, the Supreme Court refused to give full consideration to the question of the legality of secession, and yet went ahead and gave a decision on a related matter, in connection with one particular case involving monies claimed by the State of Texas, and issued some cursory pontifications about secession -- while stating early on that it was not going to give due consideration to the question of whether or not a State has the right to secede.

It is needless to discuss, at length, the question whether the right of a State to withdraw from the Union for any cause, regarded by herself as sufficient, is consistent with the Constitution of the United States.

The magic two words have been bolded. This means they did discuss the matter, but it was simply pointless to discuss the matter at length.

Are you familiar with the term "doublethink," by any chance?

Do you even know what "The State of Texas vs. White et al." was about? Here's a hint: It wasn't about secession. Their "discussion" of the constitutionality of secession was only undertaken in an effort to come to a verdict on the actual issue under consideration in the case, which had to do with monies that the State of Texas claimed belonged to it.

[Senestrum]

The south had no right to secede because the people with more guns decided to press the argument. I don't see what's controversial about that. It's not like "rights" exist unless you, or an entity representing you, are able to enforce the existence of said right.

[Dusk_Kittens]

The south had no right to secede because the people with more guns decided to press the argument. I don't see what's controversial about that. It's not like "rights" exist unless you, or an entity representing you, are able to enforce the existence of said right.

Oh, I see we've come back to the fallacy of Argumentum ad Baculum again.

[Greed and Death]

The magic two words have been bolded. This means they did discuss the matter, but it was simply pointless to discuss the matter at length.

Are you familiar with the term "doublethink," by any chance?

Do you even know what "The State of Texas vs. White et al." was about? Here's a hint: It wasn't about secession. Their "discussion" of the constitutionality of secession was only undertaken in an effort to come to a verdict on the actual issue under consideration in the case, which had to do with monies that the State of Texas claimed belonged to it.

When Texas joined the Union they were given Federal bonds in exchange for settling a boundary dispute.
When Texas was in the Confederacy they sold the bonds.
When Texas was back in the Union Texas argued that because of illegality, the selling of the bonds was void.
The court ruled because any act furthering secession was illegal the selling of the bonds was void.

[Senestrum]

The south had no right to secede because the people with more guns decided to press the argument. I don't see what's controversial about that. It's not like "rights" exist unless you, or an entity representing you, are able to enforce the existence of said right.

Oh, I see we've come back to the fallacy of Argumentum ad Baculum again.

It's a fallacy to point out that a right which cannot be enforced is not a right at all? You crack me up.

[The Burgundy Plains]

While practicing slavery no, simply for the fact that if they want to have slaves they deserved to BE slaves to a federal government.

Without slavery, maybe. Depends on why they are leaving the union. Generally though, I think we need MORE unity not less.

If you think the war was about slavery, you're wrong. Northern politicians wanted more power than southern politicians and they were about to get it. That is why the South seceded. Slavery was on its way out, most politicians in the south recognized that slavery was not economically sustainable, but they wanted to abolish it in a way that did not give northern states like seven eighths of Congress, which is what the North wanted. So they seceded. And yes they had a right to, they ratified it, they can "un"ratify it.

[Revolutopia]

While practicing slavery no, simply for the fact that if they want to have slaves they deserved to BE slaves to a federal government.

Without slavery, maybe. Depends on why they are leaving the union. Generally though, I think we need MORE unity not less.

If you think the war was about slavery, you're wrong. Northern politicians wanted more power than southern politicians and they were about to get it. That is why the South seceded. Slavery was on its way out, most politicians in the south recognized that slavery was not economically sustainable, but they wanted to abolish it in a way that did not give northern states like seven eighths of Congress, which is what the North wanted. So they seceded. And yes they had a right to, they ratified it, they can "un"ratify it.

Nope, that arguement has been completely demolished by ASG back in February

[The Burgundy Plains]

If you think the war was about slavery, you're wrong. Northern politicians wanted more power than southern politicians and they were about to get it. That is why the South seceded. Slavery was on its way out, most politicians in the south recognized that slavery was not economically sustainable, but they wanted to abolish it in a way that did not give northern states like seven eighths of Congress, which is what the North wanted. So they seceded. And yes they had a right to, they ratified it, they can "un"ratify it.

Nope, that arguement has been completely demolished by ASG back in February

The terms upon which that confederation was agreed to had been broken, therefore the South no longer had to be answerable to it. What was that about the consent of the governed?

[Revolutopia]

Nope, that arguement has been completely demolished by ASG back in February

The terms upon which that confederation was agreed to had been broken, therefore the South no longer had to be answerable to it. What was that about the consent of the governed?

When some one alleges that a contract is being broken they have to prove it, before just storming of in a hissy fit.

[The Burgundy Plains]

The terms upon which that confederation was agreed to had been broken, therefore the South no longer had to be answerable to it. What was that about the consent of the governed?

When some one alleges that a contract is being broken they have to prove it, before just storming of in a hissy fit.

They were going to be taken advantage of. The reasons for breaking a contract like that are only ever subjective. Were the Americans being oppressed?

Americans: We are paying taxes but have no representation in Parliament.
British: Uhm we fought an entire fucking war against the French and Indians for you, gotta pay that shit back somehow.
Americans: What? You fought a war? No, WE fought that war! You sent us like three thousand soldiers and the rest of the army was colonials!
British: Oh yeah?
Americans: Yeah!
British: Well fine!
Americans: Fine!

[Dusk_Kittens]

If you think the war was about slavery, you're wrong. Northern politicians wanted more power than southern politicians and they were about to get it. That is why the South seceded. Slavery was on its way out, most politicians in the south recognized that slavery was not economically sustainable, but they wanted to abolish it in a way that did not give northern states like seven eighths of Congress, which is what the North wanted. So they seceded. And yes they had a right to, they ratified it, they can "un"ratify it.

Nope, that arguement has been completely demolished by ASG back in February

Nope, that supposed demolition was completely refuted by TSN back in February. Just scroll down a bit on the page you linked.

[Dusk_Kittens]

Oh, I see we've come back to the fallacy of Argumentum ad Baculum again.

It's a fallacy to point out that a right which cannot be enforced is not a right at all? You crack me up.

No, it's a fallacy to claim that a question of Political Philosophy, Philosophy of Law, or any other branch of Philosophy can be settled by resorting to violence. Might does NOT make right.

[Dusk_Kittens]

Are you familiar with the term "doublethink," by any chance?

Do you even know what "The State of Texas vs. White et al." was about? Here's a hint: It wasn't about secession. Their "discussion" of the constitutionality of secession was only undertaken in an effort to come to a verdict on the actual issue under consideration in the case, which had to do with monies that the State of Texas claimed belonged to it.

When Texas joined the Union they were given Federal bonds in exchange for settling a boundary dispute.
When Texas was in the Confederacy they sold the bonds.
When Texas was back in the Union Texas argued that because of illegality, the selling of the bonds was void.
The court ruled because any act furthering secession was illegal the selling of the bonds was void.

Go back and re-read my first post in this thread, and pay attention this time.

[Seleucas]

Britain nearly went to war on the part of the CSA, I don't think that's telling it to go fuck itself. Only when a Northern victory was a foregone conclusion did Britain decide not to support the CSA (which was after it was defeated at Gettysburg,) which makes sense TBH to not support a side that it almost certain to lose and antagonize the winner. If anything, the Union would want to get back at France and the UK, while if the Confederacy had won it would have likely maintained its relationships with the two nations to keep the Union from attacking again.

Britain was never all that close to going to war with the CSA, at most they might have recognized it if it seemed like it was going to win. However, in reality it was never in their political interests to support the CSA as they relied more on Union grain then they did Southern Cotton along with their working population being strongly against supporting the slave owning South.

Actually, with the Trent Affair, they did almost come to war, and the British did actively support Southern blockade running (for the cotton.) The Union was also a threat to their goals in the Western Hemisphere, with their being next to Canada and the Monroe Doctrine, and while the working class was in support of the North, the same could not be said of the rest of their society.

[Revolutopia]

Britain was never all that close to going to war with the CSA, at most they might have recognized it if it seemed like it was going to win. However, in reality it was never in their political interests to support the CSA as they relied more on Union grain then they did Southern Cotton along with their working population being strongly against supporting the slave owning South.

Actually, with the Trent Affair, they did almost come to war, and the British did actively support Southern blockade running (for the cotton.) The Union was also a threat to their goals in the Western Hemisphere, with their being next to Canada and the Monroe Doctrine, and while the working class was in support of the North, the same could not be said of the rest of their society.

The Trent Affair was the closet they came as it was seen as an insult to British honor, also the British supported the Monroe Doctrine as it screwed over the Spanish and French will they were able to keep their colonies.

[Senestrum]

It's a fallacy to point out that a right which cannot be enforced is not a right at all? You crack me up.

No, it's a fallacy to claim that a question of Political Philosophy, Philosophy of Law, or any other branch of Philosophy can be settled by resorting to violence. Might does NOT make right.

It doesn't? I always thought it did (you know, since it follows directly from "an unenforceable right does not exist"). Or is might not making right supposed to be one of those self-evident things that totally frees you from needing to actually support your claim?