Did the South have a right to secede?

[Farnhamia]

And? The secession certainly was influenced by slavery. It is my opinion that if they wanted to secede, they should have outlawed slavery.

Most people during that time weather from the North or South were more loyal to their state than the United States. People like Robert E. Lee did not agree with slavery or secession but they were loyal to their states. And slavery was not a goal to end the civil war until Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation that only freed the slaves from the CSA and not the whole US because the four slave states that remained in the Union would of joined the CSA if it affected them. The slave states that stayed in the union were Maryland, Delaware, Missouri, and Kentucky, and slavery was more of a Northen reason to raise moral to fight the Confederacy. Plus Lincoln said himself if he didn't have to free a signal slave in the south to win the war he wouldn't of freed them until after... if at all. And the Emancipation Proclamation was really the only reason that European nations like England or France didn't send troops or more supplies to the south. It was more of poiltical thing than a moral thing.

Why didn't the British and the French send troops and supplies in 1861 or 1862? The Emancipation Proclamation was issued in late 1862 and went into effect on January 1, 1863. Plenty of time for those nations to intervene, don't you know, and yet they didn't. Can you explain that?

[Revolutopia]

And the Emancipation Proclamation was really the only reason that European nations like England or France didn't send troops or more supplies to the south. It was more of poiltical thing than a moral thing.

Northern grain exports that feed Europe, had more of an effect of keeping the UK and France from intervening in any major sense along with realization that the South was likely to lose.

[Demphor]

Yes, they did, they believed in states rights, so therefore, they were fighting to preserve them

[Farnhamia]

Yes, they did, they believed in states rights, so therefore, they were fighting to preserve them

Which rights are those?

[Farnhamia]

And the Emancipation Proclamation was really the only reason that European nations like England or France didn't send troops or more supplies to the south. It was more of poiltical thing than a moral thing.

Northern grain exports that feed Europe, had more of an effect of keeping the UK and France from intervening in any major sense along with realization that the South was likely to lose.

And then there was the stopping of cotton exports. Brilliant move, that. "Let's stop trying to ship cotton, y'all, that'll force the Brits and the French to ... what? get it from Egypt?"

[Revolutopia]

Northern grain exports that feed Europe, had more of an effect of keeping the UK and France from intervening in any major sense along with realization that the South was likely to lose.

And then there was the stopping of cotton exports. Brilliant move, that. "Let's stop trying to ship cotton, y'all, that'll force the Brits and the French to ... what? get it from Egypt?"

It is extremely amusing, that directly during the time when the South needed its cotton exports the most is when the UK found it could produce it cheaper in their colonies and protectorates.

[GeneralHaNor]

A contract that doesn't have to be written, delivered or signed.....can be valid?

So you sold my your house yesterday right?
I'm coming to pick up my keys

Go buy a clue. If I actually explain the law to you, you'll just moan about an "appeal to law" and "legal positivism."

But, I am curious: in your dimension, are oral contracts nonexistent?

I place Oral Contracts in the same category I place as "My Word is my Bond"
I tend to respect it, but when it's violated I'm not particularly surprised, Lesson Learned, when dealing with a known dishonest entity, get it on paper.

I certainly wouldn't except an Oral Contract for an exchange of any significant property beyond a base consumable. To be held to a contract I never signed, and never consented to is frankly a first rate oppression of the highest order. What Party A and Party B does or agrees to is of no business of Party C unless it affects him. Nor is it right for Party A or Party B to hold others to their contract without their consent.

[GeneralHaNor]

Such a statement implies that the southern secession was in any way similar to the American secession.

Yeah they were.

Identical really, both were wars fought over the concept of representation and taxes, The war of "Southern Secession" being just a tad bit more complex with it's issues, and being a much darker shade of grey on the whole "ethical and moral" end

[Azania and All Africa]

Naturally, it is the right of any group of people who dislikes its current governance to establish for itself its own state. This principle of International Law was upheld by the International Court of Justice in its advisory opinion Accordance with International Law of the Unilateral Declaration of Independence In Respect of Kosovo.

[GeneralHaNor]

South where the money was? On what source do you make that argument?

You know what? Because I pity you, I'll cite my source.

They didn't call it "King Cotton" for nothing

[Greed and Death]

Go buy a clue. If I actually explain the law to you, you'll just moan about an "appeal to law" and "legal positivism."

But, I am curious: in your dimension, are oral contracts nonexistent?

I place Oral Contracts in the same category I place as "My Word is my Bond"
I tend to respect it, but when it's violated I'm not particularly surprised, Lesson Learned, when dealing with a known dishonest entity, get it on paper.

I certainly wouldn't except an Oral Contract for an exchange of any significant property beyond a base consumable. To be held to a contract I never signed, and never consented to is frankly a first rate oppression of the highest order. What Party A and Party B does or agrees to is of no business of Party C unless it affects him. Nor is it right for Party A or Party B to hold others to their contract without their consent.

Oral contracts are enforceable, unless covered under the statute of frauds.

[The Cat-Tribe]

Before I drift into unconciousness from beating my head against my desk, I should actually thank members of this thread for reminding me of some of the reasons I left NSG and should soon leave again: Few posters really what others post. Almost no one does any research. Mostly people just pontificate from their pre-set ideas without regard for facts or reason.

A simple review of even my posts on the last few pages of this thread (let alone some of the better posts made on this forum on this subject) would have preempted most of the garbage recently regurgitated:

• End the lies: The Confederacy was about slavery
  
• SCOTUS: Confederate secession was illegal
  
• More caselaw re secession
  
• More re secession was illegal
  
• Further arguments from the Artices and Constitution
  
• On the whole cause/slavery/white supremacy issue

I will fully grant this is a one-sided list. There has been some back and forth and some salient points made by "the other side." And both sides have left some issues hanging over the last few days, but that doesn't mean we need to re-invent the wheel with each new post or poster.

[Greed and Death]

Before I drift into unconciousness from beating my head against my desk, I should actually thank members of this thread for reminding me of some of the reasons I left NSG and should soon leave again: Few posters really what others post. Almost no one does any research. Mostly people just pontificate from their pre-set ideas without regard for facts or reason.

A simple review of even my posts on the last few pages of this thread (let alone some of the better posts made on this forum on this subject) would have preempted most of the garbage recently regurgitated:

• End the lies: The Confederacy was about slavery
  
• SCOTUS: Confederate secession was illegal
  
• More caselaw re secession
  
• More re secession was illegal
  
• Further arguments from the Artices and Constitution
  
• On the whole cause/slavery/white supremacy issue

I will fully grant this is a one-sided list. There has been some back and forth and some salient points made by "the other side." And both sides have left some issues hanging over the last few days, but that doesn't mean we need to re-invent the wheel with each new post or poster.

TCT, it is one of the reasons I refuse to be exact on legal issues here.
You work 30 minutes to explain a point of law, only to have it ignored and deal with the same arguments again.
Another being I like to play devils advocate or satirist and argue a point I know to be wrong for fun.

[The Cat-Tribe]

Go buy a clue. If I actually explain the law to you, you'll just moan about an "appeal to law" and "legal positivism."

But, I am curious: in your dimension, are oral contracts nonexistent?

I place Oral Contracts in the same category I place as "My Word is my Bond"
I tend to respect it, but when it's violated I'm not particularly surprised, Lesson Learned, when dealing with a known dishonest entity, get it on paper.

I certainly wouldn't except an Oral Contract for an exchange of any significant property beyond a base consumable. To be held to a contract I never signed, and never consented to is frankly a first rate oppression of the highest order. What Party A and Party B does or agrees to is of no business of Party C unless it affects him. Nor is it right for Party A or Party B to hold others to their contract without their consent.

Try to follow along: I'm not talking about "social contract theory." (And nice attempt at bait-and-switch with the "contract I never signed and never consented to." Of course, no one could enforce an ordinary contract without proof their was a contract -- oral or otherwise.)

If you buy the "the Constitution was a compact among the States" theory, then the Constitution was a contract to which they were directly parties -- regardless of who signed it. And they did formally (by ratification) consent to it. Whether it was or was not "physically sealed and delivered" is moot.

Moreover, how is the authority of a State legislature (or Secession convention) to withdraw from the Union and deprive one of U.S. citizenship any more valid in terms of your concern of "lack of consent" than one's citizenship in the U.S. to begin with?

In other words, quit spouting knee-jerk nonsense and think this through.

[Greed and Death]

I place Oral Contracts in the same category I place as "My Word is my Bond"
I tend to respect it, but when it's violated I'm not particularly surprised, Lesson Learned, when dealing with a known dishonest entity, get it on paper.

I certainly wouldn't except an Oral Contract for an exchange of any significant property beyond a base consumable. To be held to a contract I never signed, and never consented to is frankly a first rate oppression of the highest order. What Party A and Party B does or agrees to is of no business of Party C unless it affects him. Nor is it right for Party A or Party B to hold others to their contract without their consent.

Moreover, how is the authority of a State legislature (or Secession convention) to withdraw from the Union and deprive one of U.S. citizenship any more valid in terms of your concern of "lack of consent" than one's citizenship in the U.S. to begin with?

I think, in a hypothetical a secession case, I do not think a seceding state would be capable of stripping someone of US citizenship. I think it would either take Federal action, or an action of the individual ( renunciation, taking up arms against the US). It is after all a status granted and recognized by the federal government.

[GeneralHaNor]

I place Oral Contracts in the same category I place as "My Word is my Bond"
I tend to respect it, but when it's violated I'm not particularly surprised, Lesson Learned, when dealing with a known dishonest entity, get it on paper.

I certainly wouldn't except an Oral Contract for an exchange of any significant property beyond a base consumable. To be held to a contract I never signed, and never consented to is frankly a first rate oppression of the highest order. What Party A and Party B does or agrees to is of no business of Party C unless it affects him. Nor is it right for Party A or Party B to hold others to their contract without their consent.

Oral contracts are enforceable, unless covered under the statute of frauds.

"Prove I said anything of the sort"
Is a pretty damm good defense unless you record all conversations

[The Cat-Tribe]

Yeah they were.

Identical really, both were wars fought over the concept of representation and taxes, The war of "Southern Secession" being just a tad bit more complex with it's issues, and being a much darker shade of grey on the whole "ethical and moral" end

How was the South denied representation?

Were the colonies part of a government to which they had mutually consented was the "supreme law of the land" and was indissoluble?

And, again, what of that pesky 39% of the population of the Confederate States that were slaves? Are they without rights?

[GeneralHaNor]

Moreover, how is the authority of a State legislature (or Secession convention) to withdraw from the Union and deprive one of U.S. citizenship any more valid in terms of your concern of "lack of consent" than one's citizenship in the U.S. to begin with?

In other words, quit spouting knee-jerk nonsense and think this through.

You got me there, the only thing that rectifies that crisis is dual citizenship...wait, we have a mechanism for that? you don't say.

I love "Lack of Consent" in scare quotes,
Consent; To agree to.
Lack; to not have
"Lack of Consent"; To not agree to.

[The Cat-Tribe]

Oral contracts are enforceable, unless covered under the statute of frauds.

"Prove I said anything of the sort"
Is a pretty damm good defense unless you record all conversations

No duh. The burden of proof would be on anyone seeking to enforce an oral contract to prove the existence of the contract.

Are you asserting their is a lack of proof the U.S. Constitution existed in 1860 or that the states had ratified by 1789?

You seem to be arguing for the sake of arguing without any idea of the context.

[The Cat-Tribe]

Moreover, how is the authority of a State legislature (or Secession convention) to withdraw from the Union and deprive one of U.S. citizenship any more valid in terms of your concern of "lack of consent" than one's citizenship in the U.S. to begin with?

In other words, quit spouting knee-jerk nonsense and think this through.

You got me there, the only thing that rectifies that crisis is dual citizenship...wait, we have a mechanism for that? you don't say.

I love "Lack of Consent" in scare quotes,
Consent; To agree to.
Lack; to not have
"Lack of Consent"; To not agree to.

Excellent job of not answering a simple question.

Interesting assertion that the population of the Confederacy were still citizens of the United States. You might want to think that through.

[GeneralHaNor]

"Prove I said anything of the sort"
Is a pretty damm good defense unless you record all conversations

No duh. The burden of proof would be on anyone seeking to enforce an oral contract to prove the existence of the contract.

Are you asserting their is a lack of proof the U.S. Constitution existed in 1860 or that the states had ratified by 1789?

You seem to be arguing for the sake of arguing without any idea of the context.

That would be a pretty big conspiracy and nearly impossible to pull off, all though I suppose you could just rewrite the history books so the constitution says what you want it to say.

I tend to favor the whole, "9th and 10th amendment doesn't say I can't secede....so there..jerk" argument myself. I mean there was obviously no official mechanism for dissolution of the compact, but like all contracts I find the one that has no exit clause to be Unenforcable and frankly Unethical. I liken this a Slaves right to bash in the skull of his owner and escape, If you give me no out, I'll simply make one.

[Greed and Death]

Identical really, both were wars fought over the concept of representation and taxes, The war of "Southern Secession" being just a tad bit more complex with it's issues, and being a much darker shade of grey on the whole "ethical and moral" end

How was the South denied representation?

I hate to nitpick, but the Continental congress was not willing to accept seats in parliament for for the taxes collected.
The proposed compromise was for there to be a 2nd north American Parliament but under the same King (something the Brits later adopted elsewhere ).

[GeneralHaNor]

You got me there, the only thing that rectifies that crisis is dual citizenship...wait, we have a mechanism for that? you don't say.

I love "Lack of Consent" in scare quotes,
Consent; To agree to.
Lack; to not have
"Lack of Consent"; To not agree to.

Excellent job of not answering a simple question.

Interesting assertion that the population of the Confederacy were still citizens of the United States. You might want to think that through.

I'm pretty sure that was my answer...unless you think "They are now dual citizens" doesn't answer your question.

Validity? is that the thing you want addressed, okay...Consent of the Governed, as the States are directly responsible for Governing their Citizens, and Secession was a Democratic Process that was consent to by the Citizens of their respective states, then it was most certainly valid.
(Devils Advocacy, as I view all impositions of law and "democracy" to be invalid by their very design)

The ones that voted no, were merely on the losing side of the Democratic Process. And Slaves aren't citizens, both sides agreed on that notion.

[Nightkill the Emperor]

No. The Union is a federation. Unlike a confederation, membership in a federation is not voluntary.

This.

[ZellDincht]

I view the South as at the time they believed they needed slavery to survive. The North began to develop a middle class with those working in industry and as manufacturing came about. The south had the wealthy plantation owners and the way of life they were used to was being challenged by the North. Morally... No the South did not have the right to keep up slavery. But technically the South had a right to secede although it was a bit extreme.