Did the South have a right to secede?

[The Cat-Tribe]

First an old post:

Justice Antonin Scalia a few years ago responded to a letter from a screenwriter asking about a hypothetical SCOTUS case in which Maine seceded from the United States and joined Canada. Justice Scalia wrote:

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

I am sure that poetic license can overcome all that — but you do not need legal advice for that. Good luck with your screenplay.

Also, in Kohlhaas v. State, 147 P3d 714 (Alaska 2006), the Alaska Supreme Court held that "secession is clearly unconstitutional" and refused to permit an initiative calling for the secession of Alaska from the United States to be presented to the people of Alaska for a vote. The Kohlhass Court relied on, defended, and expanded upon Texas v. White. Among other things, the Court stated:

Kohlhaas also suggests that Texas v. White should not be taken as black letter law since the decision is tainted by the context, emotions, and political situation immediately following the Civil War, and has not been cited except as dicta by modern cases. This argument not only trivializes the impact of the Civil War on the Nation but also ignores a plenitude of Supreme Court cases holding as completely null the purported acts of secession by other Confederate states.²⁵ Unsurprisingly, the Supreme Court has had little occasion since Reconstruction to address the legality of secession. In 2004 the Supreme Court observed that inclusion of the word indivisible in the Pledge of Allegiance was significant because the question whether a State could secede from the Union had been intensely debated and was unresolved prior to the Civil War.²⁶

...Kohlhaas's attempt to discount the force of Texas v. White is wholly misplaced. In 1960 Justice Frankfurter characterized that decision thus;

"The readjustment of the relationship between the States that had remained in the Union and those that had seceded presented major issues not only for the political branches of the Government, the President and the Congress, but also for this Court. Insofar as the perplexing and recalcitrant problems of Reconstruction involved legal solutions, the evolution of constitutional doctrine was an indispensable element in the process of healing the wounds of the sanguinary conflict. It was in aid of that process that this Court formulated the doctrine expressed in the famous sentence in State of Texas v. White: 'The Constitution, in all its provisions, looks to an indestructible Union, composed of indestructible States.'"^[28]

When the forty-nine-star flag was first raised at Juneau, we Alaskans committed ourselves to that indestructible Union, for good or ill, in perpetuity. To suggest otherwise would disparage the republican character of the National Government.²⁹

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
²⁵ See, e.g., White v. Cannon, 73 U.S. (6 Wall.) 443, 450 (1867) (Louisiana ordinance of secession was an absolute nullity); Taylor v. Thomas, 89 U.S. (22 Wall.) 479, 491 (1874) (issuance of treasury notes following Mississippis ordinance of secession void); White v. Hart, 80 U.S. (13 Wall.) 646, 651 (1871) (Georgia never [be] out of pale of Union); Daniels v. Tearney, 102 U.S. 415, 418 (1880) (That the ordinance of secession was void is a proposition we need not discuss. The affirmative has been settled by the arbitrament of arms and the repeated adjudications of this court.).

²⁶ Elk Grove Unified Sch. Dist. v. Newdow, 542 U.S. 1, 6 n.1 (2004).

²⁸ United States v. Louisiana, 363 U.S.121, 131-32 (1960) (Frankfurter, J., concurring).

²⁹ U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, 514 U.S. 779, 838 (1995) (Kennedy, J., concurring).

Now an update:
In Kohlhaas v. Office of Lt. Governor, 223 P. 3d 105 (Alaska, 2010), the Alaska Supreme Court readressed the questions raised in Kohlhaas I and reaffirmed that any attempt to seceed from the Union was unconstitutional.

[The Cat-Tribe]

No, but calling them nothing but property is close enough:

And? Honestly bud, if you are going to quote pro-slavery rhetoric, it's best not to choose the guy who single-handedly stopped the secession movement in the 1850s and continued to oppose the initiative even after Lincoln won. Stephens was pro-Union. Moreover, you ignore the "cornerstone speech" of Robert Toombs, the man who should have been president:

The basis, the corner-stone of this Government, was the perfect equality of the free, sovereign, and independent States which made it. They were unequal in population, wealth, and territorial extent - they had great diversities of interests, pursuits, institutions, and laws; but they had common interests, mainly exterior, which they proposed to protect by this common agent - a constitutional united government - without in any degree subjecting their inequalities and diversities to Federal control or action

Alexander Stephens gave his Cornerstone Speech when he was Vice-President of the Confederacy. It was given on March 21, 1861, shortly after the adoption of the Constitution of the Confederate States of America. It refers to the "cornerstone" of the Confederacy and discusses the alleged superiority of the Confederacy over the Union.

...

But not to be tedious in enumerating the numerous changes for the better, allow me to allude to one other —though last, not least. The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution—African slavery as it exists amongst us—the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the "rock upon which the old Union would split." He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted. The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old constitution, were that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally, and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with, but the general opinion of the men of that day was that, somehow or other in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away. This idea, though not incorporated in the constitution, was the prevailing idea at that time. The constitution, it is true, secured every essential guarantee to the institution while it should last, and hence no argument can be justly urged against the constitutional guarantees thus secured, because of the common sentiment of the day. Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the government built upon it fell when the "storm came and the wind blew."

Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery—subordination to the superior race—is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth. This truth has been slow in the process of its development, like all other truths in the various departments of science. It has been so even amongst us. Many who hear me, perhaps, can recollect well, that this truth was not generally admitted, even within their day. The errors of the past generation still clung to many as late as twenty years ago. Those at the North, who still cling to these errors, with a zeal above knowledge, we justly denominate fanatics. All fanaticism springs from an aberration of the mind—from a defect in reasoning. It is a species of insanity. One of the most striking characteristics of insanity, in many instances, is forming correct conclusions from fancied or erroneous premises; so with the anti-slavery fanatics. Their conclusions are right if their premises were. They assume that the negro is equal, and hence conclude that he is entitled to equal privileges and rights with the white man. If their premises were correct, their conclusions would be logical and just—but their premise being wrong, their whole argument fails. I recollect once of having heard a gentleman from one of the northern States, of great power and ability, announce in the House of Representatives, with imposing effect, that we of the South would be compelled, ultimately, to yield upon this subject of slavery, that it was as impossible to war successfully against a principle in politics, as it was in physics or mechanics. That the principle would ultimately prevail. That we, in maintaining slavery as it exists with us, were warring against a principle, a principle founded in nature, the principle of the equality of men. The reply I made to him was, that upon his own grounds, we should, ultimately, succeed, and that he and his associates, in this crusade against our institutions, would ultimately fail. The truth announced, that it was as impossible to war successfully against a principle in politics as it was in physics and mechanics, I admitted; but told him that it was he, and those acting with him, who were warring against a principle. They were attempting to make things equal which the Creator had made unequal.

In the conflict thus far, success has been on our side, complete throughout the length and breadth of the Confederate States. It is upon this, as I have stated, our social fabric is firmly planted; and I cannot permit myself to doubt the ultimate success of a full recognition of this principle throughout the civilized and enlightened world.
....
(emphasis added)

The speech by Robert Toombs that you quote was one he gave to the George legislature in arguing for secession on November 13, 1860. This was long before any state seceded from the Union and ever further before the formation of the Confederacy.

When Toombs refers to "the cornerstone of this Government," he is referring to the United States (the UNION). Moreover, the rest of Toombs speech undermines your thesis that secession was not about slavery. It is true he complains that the North has engaged in a long conspiracy to destroy the South and lists many grievances not specific to slavery, but he specifically claims the motivation behind these grievances was abolitionism. Moreover, he gives the primary reason for secession as being that:

Since the promotion of Mr. Lincoln's party, all of them speak with one voice, and speak trumpet-tongued their fixed purpose to outlaw four thousand millions of our property in the Territories, and to put it under the ban of the empire in the States where it exists. They declare their purpose to war against slavery until there shall not be a slave in America, and until the African is elevated to a social and political equality with the white man. Lincoln indorses them and their principles, and in his own speeches declares the conflict irrepressible and enduring, until slavery is everywhere abolished.

[The Cat-Tribe]

Good thing this isn't a philosophical issue, huh?

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).

Beyond your complete and total mischaracterization of the legal, political, and historical issues and context of the secession of the Confederate States and the Civil War, your claims of expertise are most amusing.

I accept at face value that you have an advanced degree in Philosophy. It is true that Political Philosophy and Philosophy of Law (aka Jurisprudence) are areas of philosophy. (I have studied both extensively.) But this no more makes you an expert in law or politics than the existence of Philosophy of Science makes you a qualified microbiologist or nuclear physicist!

I will agree, however, that the appeal to force is not a compelling argument.

[Free Soviets]

I accept at face value that you have an advanced degree in Philosophy.

i might, if not for the way that DK* sounds exactly like the most annoying sort of undergrad phil major. And it would make me sad to think that we offer advanced degrees to those guys. the field is pompous and wrong often enough as it is.


*has it been long enough that we can use DK to refer to somebody else on the forums now?

[Seleucas]

TCT, just out of curiousity, how do you feel about arguments for secession that do not rely upon the Constitution? My stance is in agreement with William Lloyd Garrison (at least in his earlier days) that the Constitution is 'a covenant with death, and agreement with Hell,' and that the North was right in defying the Federal government's enforcement of fugitive slave laws and, furthermore, that they also should have seceded from the Union to avoid any possibility of compromise over said issue.

[Dusk_Kittens]

It is bad enough that the ignorant, obstinate, and/or ideologically motivated feel the need to prop up a mummified equine and attempt to beat it across a "finish line" they have imagined in their own heads.

But the unmitigated gall, blind arrogance, and vehement stupidity with which they do so is beyond the pale.

I start with Dusk Kittens calling me a liar:

Horse hockey. Here's why: Argumentum ad Baculum ("Appeal to Force") is a fallacy.

Rational people do not "decide" a philosophical issue (yes, Politics is a branch of Philosophy, not this partisan soap opera that is misnamed "politics," but actual Political Philosophy, and the issue in question was the question of centralized vs. decentralized government, not slavery as is so often maintained, or, to put in in more familiar terms, the issue was "Federalism vs. Anti-Federalism") by resorting to violence. Your claim that the question was decided by military might is, therefore, illogical.

As for those appealing to "Texas vs. White," I suggest a more thorough reading. The decision of the Supreme Court in The State of Texas vs. White et al ... Well, let me just give a brief excerpt (and yes, it is indeed brief, believe it or not) of a much longer post I've been working on, in reply to certain pro-Federalist critics in two or more previous similar threads:

the relevant portion is here:

[spoiler]

To begin, then, with the first bit of the above-quoted pontifications, we see the Supreme Court admitting that it is not going to consider at length whether a State's supposed right to secede is consistent with the Constitution:
In short, then, the constitutionality of secession was, according to the statement of the Supreme Court just quoted again, not fully considered in this case. Thus, The Cat-Tribe's assertion here:
is entirely without foundation.

*snip*

In their failure to consider the meanings of these terms, the Supreme Court has failed to, as The Cat-Tribe put it, consider the legality of secession, much less clearly settle it. *snip*

1. DK conveniently clipped my post and clipped the link to the original post. What I said was:

This is a flat lie. The legality of secession was addressed by SCOTUS several times and clearly settled, particularly in Texas v. White, 74 U.S. 700, 722, 724-727 (1869). See, e.g., White v. Cannon, 73 U.S. (6 Wall.) 443, 450 (1867) (Louisiana ordinance of secession was an absolute nullity); Taylor v. Thomas, 89 U.S. (22 Wall.) 479, 491 (1874) (issuance of treasury notes following Mississippis ordinance of secession void); White v. Hart, 80 U.S. (13 Wall.) 646, 651 (1871) (Georgia never [be] out of pale of Union); Daniels v. Tearney, 102 U.S. 415, 418 (1880) ("That the ordinance of secession was void is a proposition we need not discuss. The affirmative has been settled by the arbitrament of arms and the repeated adjudications of this court.").

Although there was 1 concurrence-in-part and dissent-in-part and 2 dissenters from the decision in Texas v. White, none of the 8 Justices then on the Court opined that Texas had a valid right to secede from the Union.

No subsequent case has ever questioned, let alone overturned, the decision or reasoning of the majority in Texas v. White. Other cases have, however, relied upon the holding in Texas v. White.

It is you that is chasing unicorns.

2. Even in it's clipped form, my statement was entirely true. "The legality of secession was addressed by SCOTUS several times and clearly settled, particularly in Texas v. White, 74 U.S. 700, 722, 724-727 (1869)" is a true statement -- whether or not DK agrees with SCOTUS's reasoning in Texas v. White or whether or not the Court discussed the issue "at length," the Court clearly reached a holding on the issue. Further, DK purposely ignored the "addressed . . . several times and clearly settled" part of my statement.

After posting some other material I'll return to DK's absurd quibbles against SCOTUS's ruling in Texas v. White.

Excuse me? I called you a liar? Are you completely devoid of reading comprehension? You were the one who accused Distruzio of lying. I don't see anyone anywhere in that calling anyone else a liar, but I do see you referring to a statement by Distruzio as "a flat lie." What I said is that your assertion is entirely without foundation. I stand by that assessment of your assertion, in spite of all the other cases to which you have now appealed, because it was to Texas vs. White et al that you appealed "in particular."

Texas vs. White et al. did NOT settle the case, clearly or otherwise, BECAUSE the Supreme Court did NOT give full consideration to the question, according to their own statement.

As for your subsequent posts referencing other cases, I will reply to those next week in greater depth, but for the moment, I will simply direct your attention to Article II of the Articles of Confederation (that's the one that says that each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence), and quote my previous post on the question of whether or not the Constitution were ever seen as something from which the states could not secede:

of more weight, within the ratification instruments of the States themselves this issue is discussed. These ratification instruments were the States' several conditions for ratifying the Constitution. They would ratify, but with these understandings. What understandings? Let us examine some of them.

"... Virginia ratified the Constitution on the express understanding that 'the powers granted under the Constitution, being derived from the people of the United States, may be resumed by them, whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression.'
"Similar ideas surfaced in New York. Writing as Publius in The Federalist No. 84, Alexander Hamilton explained that 'here, in strictness, the people...retain everything [and] have no need of particular reservations. "WE THE PEOPLE..., to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution...." Here is a [clear] recognition of popular rights.' By 'popular rights' Publius meant rights of the people qua sovereign, including their right to revise what they had created. Following Virginia's lead, New York used its ratification instrument to underscore the understanding of the Preamble's principles: 'All power is vested in, and consequently derived from, the people.... The powers of government may be reassumed by the people whensoever it shall become necessary to their happiness.'
"These assorted speeches, essays, and ratification texts emphasizing the 'popular rights' that 'the people' 'retain' and 'reserve' and may 'resume' and 'reassume' exemplified what the First Congress had centrally in mind in 1789 when it proposed certain amendments as part of a general bill of rights. With its last three words proudly paralleling the Preamble's first three, the sentence that eventually became the Ninth Amendment declared rights implicitly 'retained by the people,' such as their right to alter what they had ordained. Similarly, the Tenth Amendment declared powers 'reserved... to the people,' and the First Amendment guaranteed 'the right of the people peaceably to assemble' in constitutional conventions and elsewhere. In all these places, the phrase 'the people' gestured back to the Constitution's first and most prominent use of these words in the Preamble."
-- Akhil Reed Amar, America's Constitution: A Biography Random House, 2005, p. 11 (italics and ellipses in original)

Mr. Amar will go on, in this book, to argue that the Constitution was not a compact (so I cannot be accused of quoting from a text biased in favor of my contentions), in spite of what he has just written and quoted on page 11 (and in spite of what he omitted on page 11 in reference to the Tenth Amendment, that portion thereof which declares powers "reserved to the States," as I have already quoted multiple times).

I trust I do not need to explain what meaning the ratification instruments of both Virginia and New York unambiguously state.

[Revolutopia]

Texas vs. White et al. did NOT settle the case, clearly or otherwise, BECAUSE the Supreme Court did not give full consideration to the question, according to their own statement.

Even if it is true that they didn't give it full consideration, how is that at all even relevant? The fact is the SCOTUS still made a decision ruling that secession was illegal, just because they didn't feel like going into length on the issue does not change that fact. If the issue is not settled then why has there never been another case where the implied decision by SCOTUS in Texas v. White has been challenged or overturned?

[Dusk_Kittens]

Texas vs. White et al. did NOT settle the case, clearly or otherwise, BECAUSE the Supreme Court did not give full consideration to the question, according to their own statement.

Even if it is true that they didn't give it full consideration, how is that at all even relevant? The fact is the SCOTUS still made a decision ruling that secession was illegal, just because they didn't feel like going into length on the issue does not change that fact. If the issue is not settled then why has there never been another case where the implied decision by SCOTUS in Texas v. White has been challenged or overturned?

Really, instead of relying on the dubious claims of someone like GnI, you ought to read the entirety of my post for yourself:
http://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=145639&p=7497968#p7497968

[Revolutopia]

Even if it is true that they didn't give it full consideration, how is that at all even relevant? The fact is the SCOTUS still made a decision ruling that secession was illegal, just because they didn't feel like going into length on the issue does not change that fact. If the issue is not settled then why has there never been another case where the implied decision by SCOTUS in Texas v. White has been challenged or overturned?

Really, instead of relying on the dubious claims of someone like GnI, you ought to read the entirety of my post for yourself:
http://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=145639&p=7497968#p7497968

'Irrelevant, address my point even if the Supreme Court didn't give it their full consideration, the fact is that they still made a decision on the issue. But, lets assume if not settled why has there never been another case where the implied decision by SCOTUS in Texas v. White has been challenged or overturned?

[GeneralHaNor]

'Irrelevant, address my point even if the Supreme Court didn't give it their full consideration, the fact is that they still made a decision on the issue. But, lets assume if not settled why has there never been another case where the implied decision by SCOTUS in Texas v. White has been challenged or overturned?

Are you listening to yourself?
"Why hasn't the law overturned itself?"

This implies that the Supreme Court is capable of anything over then Legal Positivism "It's true cause it's the Law" They ruled it so and they will not rule it unso, and if we have problem with that, we can fuck ourselves.

Appeal to law...what a crock of shit.

[Revolutopia]

'Irrelevant, address my point even if the Supreme Court didn't give it their full consideration, the fact is that they still made a decision on the issue. But, lets assume if not settled why has there never been another case where the implied decision by SCOTUS in Texas v. White has been challenged or overturned?

Are you listening to yourself?
"Why hasn't the law overturned itself?"

This implies that the Supreme Court is capable of anything over then Legal Positivism "It's true cause it's the Law" They ruled it so and they will not rule it unso, and if we have problem with that, we can fuck ourselves.

Appeal to law...what a crock of shit.

When you are talking about the law, yes I will say it makes full sense for us as individuals to look at the law for the answer. Secondly, even if established by the SCOTUS the court can latter over turn it see Brown v. Board of Education which overturned Plessy v. Ferguson.

[Dusk_Kittens]

As for your subsequent posts referencing other cases, I will reply to those next week in greater depth, but for the moment, I will simply direct your attention to Article II of the Articles of Confederation (that's the one that says that each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence), and quote my previous post on the question of whether or not the Constitution were ever seen as something from which the states could not secede:

of more weight, within the ratification instruments of the States themselves this issue is discussed. These ratification instruments were the States' several conditions for ratifying the Constitution. They would ratify, but with these understandings. What understandings? Let us examine some of them.

"... Virginia ratified the Constitution on the express understanding that 'the powers granted under the Constitution, being derived from the people of the United States, may be resumed by them, whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression.'
"Similar ideas surfaced in New York. Writing as Publius in The Federalist No. 84, Alexander Hamilton explained that 'here, in strictness, the people...retain everything [and] have no need of particular reservations. "WE THE PEOPLE..., to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution...." Here is a [clear] recognition of popular rights.' By 'popular rights' Publius meant rights of the people qua sovereign, including their right to revise what they had created. Following Virginia's lead, New York used its ratification instrument to underscore the understanding of the Preamble's principles: 'All power is vested in, and consequently derived from, the people.... The powers of government may be reassumed by the people whensoever it shall become necessary to their happiness.'
"These assorted speeches, essays, and ratification texts emphasizing the 'popular rights' that 'the people' 'retain' and 'reserve' and may 'resume' and 'reassume' exemplified what the First Congress had centrally in mind in 1789 when it proposed certain amendments as part of a general bill of rights. With its last three words proudly paralleling the Preamble's first three, the sentence that eventually became the Ninth Amendment declared rights implicitly 'retained by the people,' such as their right to alter what they had ordained. Similarly, the Tenth Amendment declared powers 'reserved... to the people,' and the First Amendment guaranteed 'the right of the people peaceably to assemble' in constitutional conventions and elsewhere. In all these places, the phrase 'the people' gestured back to the Constitution's first and most prominent use of these words in the Preamble."
-- Akhil Reed Amar, America's Constitution: A Biography Random House, 2005, p. 11 (italics and ellipses in original)

Mr. Amar will go on, in this book, to argue that the Constitution was not a compact (so I cannot be accused of quoting from a text biased in favor of my contentions), in spite of what he has just written and quoted on page 11 (and in spite of what he omitted on page 11 in reference to the Tenth Amendment, that portion thereof which declares powers "reserved to the States," as I have already quoted multiple times).

I trust I do not need to explain what meaning the ratification instruments of both Virginia and New York unambiguously state.

I'm going to alter my statement above by changing it to:
"As for your subsequent posts referencing other cases, I may reply to those next week in greater depth ..." -- "may" depending on several factors unrelated to anything on these fora. It is my intention presently to do so, but there are certain things which may interfere with my having sufficient time next week in which to undertake such a reply (i.e., a reply "in greater depth").

[Distruzio]

First and foremost, welcome back!

1. Despite obfuscation by some, the Articles of Confederation very clearly forbade secession:

XIII.Every State shall abide by the determination of the United States in Congress assembled, on all questions which by this confederation are submitted to them. And the Articles of this Confederation shall be inviolably observed by every State, and the Union shall be perpetual; nor shall any alteration at any time hereafter be made in any of them; unless such alteration be agreed to in a Congress of the United States, and be afterwards confirmed by the legislatures of every State.

2. No argument whatsover (logical or otherwise) has been given for why we (or SCOTUS) should accept that the Founders replaced the Confederation created by the Articles -- from which secession was forbidden -- with a Federal Republic under the Constitution in which the States were less bound together.

3. Here are, independent of Texas v. White, provisions of the U.S. Constitution that can be said to forbid secession (or at least are evidence against the ability of at state to secede):

Preamble

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Article 1

Section 8.

The Congress shall have Power ...
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
...

Section 10.

No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing its inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress.

No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.

Article IV

Section 1.

Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

Section 2.

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

Section 3.

New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.¹
....

Section 4.

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.

Article VI

...
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any state to the Contrary notwithstanding.

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.

Amendment XIV

Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
...

¹
Although not specifically expressed in this provision, this section of the Constitution has been held to require the Doctrine of Equality of the States: ''Equality of constitutional right and power is the condition of all the States of the Union, old and new.'' Escanaba Co. v. Chicago, 107 U.S. 678, 689 (1883). Thus, a new State enters the Union on an equal footing with the original States in all respects. See, e.g., Mayor of New Orleans v. United States, 35 U.S. (10 Pet.) 662 (1836); Pollard's Lessee v. Hagan, 44 U.S. (3 How.) 212 (1845); Permoli v. First Municipality, 44 U.S. (3 How.) 589, 609 (1845); McCabe v. Atchison, T. & S.F. Ry Co., 235 U.S. 151 (1914); Illinois Central Railroad v. Illinois, 146 U.S. 387, 434 (1892); Knight v. U.S. Land Association, 142 U.S. 161, 183 (1891); Weber v. Harbor Commissioners, 85 U.S. (18 Wall.) 57, 65 (1873); Coyle v. Smith, 221 U.S. 559 (1911); United States v. Texas, 339 U.S. 707, 716 (1950); Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 226 n. 53 (1962); South Carolina v. Katzenbach, 383 U.S. 301, 328 -329 (1966).

*sigh*

I expected better of you TCT. You, of all people, with your superior to most knowledge and your ability to read through ideological BS, should know better than to assume that the states ratifying the Constitution did not have to secede from the Confederation before joining the Union. After all, it took effect with only 9 states ratifying it.

Are you suggesting that the other 4 were part of the Union before they ratified the Constitution, whether they ratified or not?

If this be your assertion, then you evidently haven't read the Articles for yourself,

ARTICLE XIII.
Every State shall abide by the determination of the United States in Congress assembled, on all questions which by this confederation are submitted to them. And the Articles of this Confederation shall be inviolably observed by every State, and the Union shall be perpetual; nor shall any alteration at any time hereafter be made in any of them; unless such alteration be agreed to in a Congress of the United States, and be afterwards confirmed by the legislatures of every State.

If the states had to secede from the Confederation before uniting under the Constitution, then why wouldn't secession be permitted? If they did not secede from the Confederation, then how do you explain the function of the Union without North Carolina and Rhode Island for a time? Were they bound to it even though they operated under a different contract with different Presidents and different congresses?

[Dusk_Kittens]

Really, instead of relying on the dubious claims of someone like GnI, you ought to read the entirety of my post for yourself:
http://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=145639&p=7497968#p7497968

'Irrelevant, address my point even if the Supreme Court didn't give it their full consideration, the fact is that they still made a decision on the issue. But, lets assume if not settled why has there never been another case where the implied decision by SCOTUS in Texas v. White has been challenged or overturned?

Not irrelevant. You have assumed that GnI has in any way refuted anything I said. He didn't. This, by the way, is also my answer to your present contention. The Supreme Court did not make a decision in the case in question on the matter of the legality of secession; what they did was to assume an answer, and then offer some cursory support for the assumption. If they were to issue a judgment ("decision"), then they would need to give the matter full consideration, and consult a number of sources (some of which I have provided in the lengthy post I'm advising you to read for yourself), BEFORE making their decision. You don't assume a conclusion and then go look for evidence in support of it, if you intend to promote Justice; on the contrary, you consult the evidence, weigh it, compare and contrast it with other evidence on the matter, and then after reflection and deliberation, you come to a conclusion and issue a judgment ("decision").

[Revolutopia]

'Irrelevant, address my point even if the Supreme Court didn't give it their full consideration, the fact is that they still made a decision on the issue. But, lets assume if not settled why has there never been another case where the implied decision by SCOTUS in Texas v. White has been challenged or overturned?

Not irrelevant. You have assumed that GnI has in any way refuted anything I said. He didn't. This, by the way, is also my answer to your present contention. The Supreme Court did not make a decision in the case in question on the matter of the legality of secession; what they did was to assume an answer, and then offer some cursory support for the assumption. If they were to issue a judgment ("decision"), then they would need to give the matter full consideration, and consult a number of sources (some of which I have provided in the lengthy post I'm advising you to read for yourself), BEFORE making their decision. You don't assume a conclusion and then go look for evidence in support of it, if you intend to promote Justice; on the contrary, you consult the evidence, weigh it, compare and contrast it with other evidence on the matter, and then after reflection and deliberation, you come to a conclusion and issue a judgment ("decision").

The Supreme Court said(made an assumption) that states could not secede and then provided support for that assumption, that is a decision. There actions of supporting that assumption is no different then any decision by SC. In other cases they make an assumption that said action is addressed in a certain measure according to the constitution they then bring forth the relevant support for their views of how it address the relevant case.
You might say that this is bad philosophy but we are not talking academic philosophy; instead we are talking the law and the law says that the Supreme Court makes the final decision whether something is allowed by the constitution or not. This decision might led to injustice, but that does not mean the decision is not legal until a future court overturns it(Plessy compared to Brown).

[Distruzio]

No one is arguing that point, whatsoever, Rev. Keep up.

Then why did you bring it up?

I did not suggest that the secessions didn't bestow upon the GOP the perfect circumstances necessary to pass the Tariff. In fact, I have, in earlier conversations with YOU expressly called the southern secessions hasty and ill advised (in that they played into the hands of the GOP).

My statement that no one is arguing that point stands, Rev. Keep up.

How did the SCOTUS say the Northern States were wrong on the issue that is not equally true for the South, who went along with the North in passing the law allowing the Feds to restrict slavery in the territories.

SCOTUS upheld the Constitution, which compelled Northern complicity with the maintenance of Slavery.

Next, fun fact people have the right to vote for parties they believe best represent their interests or was the South also legally wrong to vote for a party that loose protectionism threatened the Northern economy?

I've never suggested that sectionalist considerations were not an appropriate perspective for the voters.

Tariffs are not economic warfare

They are.

there was no political coup besides a legitimate election

As far as the South was concerned, there was. The GOP was populated by abolitionists. The Constitution guaranteed slavery and its perpetuity. Abolitionists appealed to a higher law in denying that the institution was legitimate. The South saw the GOP as a party of industrialists and abolitionists who would, where outright abolition were constitutionally impossible, do their best to strangle the southern economy - through containment and central banking. Which, incidentally, was entirely dependent upon slavery. Therefore, a political party rising to influence on sectionalist considerations insisting on a "living document" interpretation of the constitution was viewed, legitimately so, as a threat to the status quo. It was a political coup.

and Lincoln's inaugural had nothing to do with demanding Morrill be passed.

This is an outright lie. The Tariff was the central piece of his Presidential Campaign and of the GOP itself in 1860. Instead, Lincoln only told the nation that he was going to fulfill his constitutional duties in enforcing a legally passed law if the South used their influence to repeal/stop the tariff then Lincoln would have had no standing but that is not what happened.

Moreover, if you were actually read the Inaugural you'd see that Lincoln makes explicit his intent to enforce the Tariff:

The power confided in me will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property, and places belonging to the government, and to collect the duties and imposts; but beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion — no using force against, or among the people anywhere

How does one read this and not discern its meaning to be, "pay up or I'll invade your ass"?

Oh yeah, fun fact the South did not bring forth Dred Scott instead that was abolitionists, so that fails to be an example of the South bringing the North to court.

Doesn't alter the fact that SCOTUS, the legal entity you champion so diligently, was in favor of the Southern interests and was ignored from a states rights perspective by the Northern states.

[Distruzio]

The Morrill Tariff bill did not pass until seven states pulled their Senators out of Congress, giving the Republicans the votes needed. Prior to that the bill was stuck in the Senate Finance Committee and was going nowhere.

Quite true.

...you fail to take into consideration the Presidential campaign and the discussions on the Tariff for the 2 years previous to it's enactment.

Before the war the tariff rates were subsumed into a relatively free trade status quo. This was due to the Walker Tariff of 1846. Southern and western agricultural interests succeeded in lowering the tariff even further in 1857. Unfortunately, due to international agricultural price vibrations, the Panic of 1857 reignited the protectionist racket in Washington and brought a high tariff to the forefront of American political discourse.

Of course, 1857 was also the year of Dred Scott so, needless to say, the frenzy surrounding tariffs, slavery, and territorial integrity was widespread. In fact, Richard Franklin Bensel has shown that southern steadfastness on the tariff combined with the protectionist inclinations of Republican candidate John Sherman kept the Speaker of the House ballot deadlocked for over two months in 1858, after the start of the session. Sherman was replaced by Rep. William Pennington, and was given chairmanship of the Ways and Means Committee as consolation. This brought the tariff issue to the forefront, as Sherman and Vermont Rep. Justin Morrill drafted a new and highly protectionist tariff schedule to replace the 1857 rates. The Morrill Tariff bill was hotly debated for the better part of a year in the House, ultimately passing on strict North-South lines in May 1860 shortly before the summer recess.

Robert Hunter, author of the 1857 Tariff, used his position on the Finance committee to table the measure in the Senate. This postponed the discussion on the Tariff until the presidential election later that year and also pushed the Senate vote until the lame duck session during the winter - of course you've heard of it, "Secession Winter?"

Abraham Lincoln's reputation as an old Tariff Whig contributed directly to his nomination at the Republican Convention in Chicago, particularly in securing the delegates previously pledged to protectionist Pennsylvania Sen. Simon Cameron on the second round of balloting. After securing the nomination, Lincolns campaign manager David Davis delivered a set of pro-tariff speeches to Pennsylvania and New Jersey voters, designed to shore up the protectionist vote in the "swing states." Morrill and Sherman also joined the campaign effort. Thus allowing him to shift his focus to the Midwest, where pro-tariff sentiments were not as strong. Needless to say, Lincoln's fantastic electoral strategy worked.

Congress began in December amidst looming secessionism and the heated rhetoric of the pro-slavery "fire-eaters" faction. These Southern Democrats opened the session by assailing the incoming president's platform - not to abolish slavery but the comparatively mild policy of simply keeping it out of the territories. It was within this political milieu that the Tariff was introduced on the floor for a vote.

Further proofs of the importance of the issue can be found by consulting the invitations sent to other states at South Carolina's secession convention. In Georgia, the issue was even more debated between the aforementioned Alexander Stephens and his friend, Robert Toombs. When reading the Georgia declaration of Causes for Secession, we find the Tariff mentioned explicitly.

It's true that Lincoln said he would make the tariffs a priority in the up-coming Congress, the Senate was almost evenly split between Democrats and Republicans, so a simple filibuster would have prevented passage.

Again true, but after 40 years, they'd had enough.

That and Lemmon v. New York would probably have given the South everything it wanted. Instead, Southern leaders behaved like the hot-heads they were and tried their case on the battlefield.

I don't need to correct an assertion that isn't incorrect. You're right.... only it wasn't tried on the battlefield. The South was still right to secede. They just lost.

[Revolutopia]

Then why did you bring it up?

I did not suggest that the secessions didn't bestow upon the GOP the perfect circumstances necessary to pass the Tariff. In fact, I have, in earlier conversations with YOU expressly called the southern secessions hasty and ill advised (in that they played into the hands of the GOP).

My statement that no one is arguing that point stands, Rev. Keep up.

Yes, I can keep up the discussion is you say that the Tariff was the cause for the secession, Farn and I both disprove this by showing how the act only based after the South left, you refuse to admit you were wrong and shift blame onto me for disproving your shit.

How did the SCOTUS say the Northern States were wrong on the issue that is not equally true for the South, who went along with the North in passing the law allowing the Feds to restrict slavery in the territories.

SCOTUS upheld the Constitution, which compelled Northern complicity with the maintenance of Slavery.

Read your own wikilink, the only area where the SCOTUS ruled on was that the Federal government could not bar slavery in the territories!!!!! Seriously, this repeated effort of trying to lie about the decision falls apart when you post a link listing the decision.

Tariffs are not economic warfare

They are.

And the South was evil, fun fact I can make up ideological statements also. The constitution as approved by the states gives the Federal government the authority to issue tariffs typically people don't permission to individuals to wage warfare on themselves.

there was no political coup besides a legitimate election

As far as the South was concerned, there was. The GOP was populated by abolitionists. The Constitution guaranteed slavery and its perpetuity. Abolitionists appealed to a higher law in denying that the institution was legitimate. The South saw the GOP as a party of industrialists and abolitionists who would, where outright abolition were constitutionally impossible, do their best to strangle the southern economy - through containment and central banking. Which, incidentally, was entirely dependent upon slavery. Therefore, a political party rising to influence on sectionalist considerations insisting on a "living document" interpretation of the constitution was viewed, legitimately so, as a threat to the status quo. It was a political coup.

Try again, all I heard was they lost and did like it so thus it is a coup which is not an argument.

and Lincoln's inaugural had nothing to do with demanding Morrill be passed.

This is an outright lie. The Tariff was the central piece of his Presidential Campaign and of the GOP itself in 1860. Instead, Lincoln only told the nation that he was going to fulfill his constitutional duties in enforcing a legally passed law if the South used their influence to repeal/stop the tariff then Lincoln would have had no standing but that is not what happened.

Moreover, if you were actually read the Inaugural you'd see that Lincoln makes explicit his intent to enforce the Tariff:

The power confided in me will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property, and places belonging to the government, and to collect the duties and imposts; but beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion — no using force against, or among the people anywhere

How does one read this and not discern its meaning to be, "pay up or I'll invade your ass"?

Yes, Lincoln did attend to enforce it because it was the LAW thus it was his duty. If the South had stayed and killed the bill, then Lincoln would not have been able to stand up and demand they pay it, but that was not what happened.

Oh yeah, fun fact the South did not bring forth Dred Scott instead that was abolitionists, so that fails to be an example of the South bringing the North to court.

Doesn't alter the fact that SCOTUS, the legal entity you champion so diligently, was in favor of the Southern interests and was ignored from a states rights perspective by the Northern states.

Besides, the fact it does not address the issue it says it does it also shows that the South never tried to bring the North up on violating the constitution.

[Distruzio]

Alexander Stephens gave his Cornerstone Speech when he was Vice-President of the Confederacy. It was given on March 21, 1861, shortly after the adoption of the Constitution of the Confederate States of America. It refers to the "cornerstone" of the Confederacy and discusses the alleged superiority of the Confederacy over the Union.

...

But not to be tedious in enumerating the numerous changes for the better, allow me to allude to one other —though last, not least. The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution—African slavery as it exists amongst us—the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the "rock upon which the old Union would split." He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted. The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old constitution, were that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally, and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with, but the general opinion of the men of that day was that, somehow or other in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away. This idea, though not incorporated in the constitution, was the prevailing idea at that time. The constitution, it is true, secured every essential guarantee to the institution while it should last, and hence no argument can be justly urged against the constitutional guarantees thus secured, because of the common sentiment of the day. Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the government built upon it fell when the "storm came and the wind blew."

Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery—subordination to the superior race—is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth. This truth has been slow in the process of its development, like all other truths in the various departments of science. It has been so even amongst us. Many who hear me, perhaps, can recollect well, that this truth was not generally admitted, even within their day. The errors of the past generation still clung to many as late as twenty years ago. Those at the North, who still cling to these errors, with a zeal above knowledge, we justly denominate fanatics. All fanaticism springs from an aberration of the mind—from a defect in reasoning. It is a species of insanity. One of the most striking characteristics of insanity, in many instances, is forming correct conclusions from fancied or erroneous premises; so with the anti-slavery fanatics. Their conclusions are right if their premises were. They assume that the negro is equal, and hence conclude that he is entitled to equal privileges and rights with the white man. If their premises were correct, their conclusions would be logical and just—but their premise being wrong, their whole argument fails. I recollect once of having heard a gentleman from one of the northern States, of great power and ability, announce in the House of Representatives, with imposing effect, that we of the South would be compelled, ultimately, to yield upon this subject of slavery, that it was as impossible to war successfully against a principle in politics, as it was in physics or mechanics. That the principle would ultimately prevail. That we, in maintaining slavery as it exists with us, were warring against a principle, a principle founded in nature, the principle of the equality of men. The reply I made to him was, that upon his own grounds, we should, ultimately, succeed, and that he and his associates, in this crusade against our institutions, would ultimately fail. The truth announced, that it was as impossible to war successfully against a principle in politics as it was in physics and mechanics, I admitted; but told him that it was he, and those acting with him, who were warring against a principle. They were attempting to make things equal which the Creator had made unequal.

In the conflict thus far, success has been on our side, complete throughout the length and breadth of the Confederate States. It is upon this, as I have stated, our social fabric is firmly planted; and I cannot permit myself to doubt the ultimate success of a full recognition of this principle throughout the civilized and enlightened world.
....
(emphasis added)

The speech by Robert Toombs that you quote was one he gave to the George legislature in arguing for secession on November 13, 1860. This was long before any state seceded from the Union and ever further before the formation of the Confederacy.

When Toombs refers to "the cornerstone of this Government," he is referring to the United States (the UNION). Moreover, the rest of Toombs speech undermines your thesis that secession was not about slavery. It is true he complains that the North has engaged in a long conspiracy to destroy the South and lists many grievances not specific to slavery, but he specifically claims the motivation behind these grievances was abolitionism. Moreover, he gives the primary reason for secession as being that:

Since the promotion of Mr. Lincoln's party, all of them speak with one voice, and speak trumpet-tongued their fixed purpose to outlaw four thousand millions of our property in the Territories, and to put it under the ban of the empire in the States where it exists. They declare their purpose to war against slavery until there shall not be a slave in America, and until the African is elevated to a social and political equality with the white man. Lincoln indorses them and their principles, and in his own speeches declares the conflict irrepressible and enduring, until slavery is everywhere abolished.

First and foremost, I've NEVER, not as The Southron Nation, nor as Distruzio, claimed that secession was not about slavery. You're making shit up again TCT. Stop it.

Second, I cite the cornerstone speech of Toombs to counter Stephen b/c, ironically, Toombs did speak of the Union in that speech and yet he was anti-Union. Which, from my perspective, makes the speech and the points he raises regarding its cornerstone quite applicable when someone of your pro-Union leanings tends to use the pro-Union Stephens cornerstone speech as if it were the final nail in the anti-Confederacy coffin.

Toombs had been advocating secession for more than a decade by the time of his speech. Stephens had been combatting him just as long. Which makes their respective coernerstone speeches all the more interesting and nuanced, doesn't it. Which would, in the nature of things, suggest that perhaps (as I have ALWAYS said) the War of 1861-1865 was not so black-and-white. The Union was not the "good guy" and the Confederacy was not the "bad guy."

Again, you should know better.

[Distruzio]

Yes, I can keep up the discussion is you say that the Tariff was the cause for the secession, Farn and I both disprove this by showing how the act only based after the South left, you refuse to admit you were wrong and shift blame onto me for disproving your shit.

Show me where.

[Revolutopia]

Yes, I can keep up the discussion is you say that the Tariff was the cause for the secession, Farn and I both disprove this by showing how the act only based after the South left, you refuse to admit you were wrong and shift blame onto me for disproving your shit.

Show me where.

Why did you bring it up then if has no relevancy at all?

[The Cat-Tribe]

Alexander Stephens gave his Cornerstone Speech when he was Vice-President of the Confederacy. It was given on March 21, 1861, shortly after the adoption of the Constitution of the Confederate States of America. It refers to the "cornerstone" of the Confederacy and discusses the alleged superiority of the Confederacy over the Union.

...

But not to be tedious in enumerating the numerous changes for the better, allow me to allude to one other —though last, not least. The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution—African slavery as it exists amongst us—the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the "rock upon which the old Union would split." He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted. The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old constitution, were that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally, and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with, but the general opinion of the men of that day was that, somehow or other in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away. This idea, though not incorporated in the constitution, was the prevailing idea at that time. The constitution, it is true, secured every essential guarantee to the institution while it should last, and hence no argument can be justly urged against the constitutional guarantees thus secured, because of the common sentiment of the day. Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the government built upon it fell when the "storm came and the wind blew."

Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery—subordination to the superior race—is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth. This truth has been slow in the process of its development, like all other truths in the various departments of science. It has been so even amongst us. Many who hear me, perhaps, can recollect well, that this truth was not generally admitted, even within their day. The errors of the past generation still clung to many as late as twenty years ago. Those at the North, who still cling to these errors, with a zeal above knowledge, we justly denominate fanatics. All fanaticism springs from an aberration of the mind—from a defect in reasoning. It is a species of insanity. One of the most striking characteristics of insanity, in many instances, is forming correct conclusions from fancied or erroneous premises; so with the anti-slavery fanatics. Their conclusions are right if their premises were. They assume that the negro is equal, and hence conclude that he is entitled to equal privileges and rights with the white man. If their premises were correct, their conclusions would be logical and just—but their premise being wrong, their whole argument fails. I recollect once of having heard a gentleman from one of the northern States, of great power and ability, announce in the House of Representatives, with imposing effect, that we of the South would be compelled, ultimately, to yield upon this subject of slavery, that it was as impossible to war successfully against a principle in politics, as it was in physics or mechanics. That the principle would ultimately prevail. That we, in maintaining slavery as it exists with us, were warring against a principle, a principle founded in nature, the principle of the equality of men. The reply I made to him was, that upon his own grounds, we should, ultimately, succeed, and that he and his associates, in this crusade against our institutions, would ultimately fail. The truth announced, that it was as impossible to war successfully against a principle in politics as it was in physics and mechanics, I admitted; but told him that it was he, and those acting with him, who were warring against a principle. They were attempting to make things equal which the Creator had made unequal.

In the conflict thus far, success has been on our side, complete throughout the length and breadth of the Confederate States. It is upon this, as I have stated, our social fabric is firmly planted; and I cannot permit myself to doubt the ultimate success of a full recognition of this principle throughout the civilized and enlightened world.
....
(emphasis added)

The speech by Robert Toombs that you quote was one he gave to the George legislature in arguing for secession on November 13, 1860. This was long before any state seceded from the Union and ever further before the formation of the Confederacy.

When Toombs refers to "the cornerstone of this Government," he is referring to the United States (the UNION). Moreover, the rest of Toombs speech undermines your thesis that secession was not about slavery. It is true he complains that the North has engaged in a long conspiracy to destroy the South and lists many grievances not specific to slavery, but he specifically claims the motivation behind these grievances was abolitionism. Moreover, he gives the primary reason for secession as being that:

Since the promotion of Mr. Lincoln's party, all of them speak with one voice, and speak trumpet-tongued their fixed purpose to outlaw four thousand millions of our property in the Territories, and to put it under the ban of the empire in the States where it exists. They declare their purpose to war against slavery until there shall not be a slave in America, and until the African is elevated to a social and political equality with the white man. Lincoln indorses them and their principles, and in his own speeches declares the conflict irrepressible and enduring, until slavery is everywhere abolished.

First and foremost, I've NEVER, not as The Southron Nation, nor as Distruzio, claimed that secession was not about slavery. You're making shit up again TCT. Stop it.

Second, I cite the cornerstone speech of Toombs to counter Stephen b/c, ironically, Toombs did speak of the Union in that speech and yet he was anti-Union. Which, from my perspective, makes the speech and the points he raises regarding its cornerstone quite applicable when someone of your pro-Union leanings tends to use the pro-Union Stephens cornerstone speech as if it were the final nail in the anti-Confederacy coffin.

Toombs had been advocating secession for more than a decade by the time of his speech. Stephens had been combatting him just as long. Which makes their respective coernerstone speeches all the more interesting and nuanced, doesn't it. Which would, in the nature of things, suggest that perhaps (as I have ALWAYS said) the War of 1861-1865 was not so black-and-white. The Union was not the "good guy" and the Confederacy was not the "bad guy."

Again, you should know better.

Um. Your "reasons" for citing Toombs "to counter" Stephens make no fucking sense. They don't disagree on the point in question.

None of what you say above is "interesting" OR "nuanced." Mostly it is bullshit.

[Albrante]

In my opinion the South had the same right to cede from the union that the thirteen colonies had to cede from the British empire, namely none. However its not like that stopped them...

[Great Nepal]

They could leave if they beat us.

Which they couldn't.

Where does it say that in the Constitution? "Beat us and you get to leave."

It doesn't...
But law of nature, which overrules all constitutions states that strongest has natural right to occupy the weak.

[Distruzio]

Um. Your "reasons" for citing Toombs "to counter" Stephens make no fucking sense. They don't disagree on the point in question.

None of what you say above is "interesting" OR "nuanced." Mostly it is bullshit.

I wasn't disagreeing with you, TCT. I was admitting that I knew what I posted, when I posted it, every time, and that I posted it b/c it showed - through the relationship and positions of the individuals in question - how incredibly naive it is to point the finger of blame squarely at one party to the War.