New Orleans Begins Process of "Removing History"

[Infected Mushroom]

and how did the Supreme Court justify this (if there was a decision at the time)?

Where did it say explicitly in the Constitution that secession wasn't allowed? If its politically motivated legal wrangling than in my view it must be disregarded. On its face there's nothing to suggest secession was unconstitutional (in fact, the Constitution itself was the result of secession from the Empire).

I wasn't on the Court then, nor am I there now. In fact, I don't want to be, nor would I qualify. Here is their ruling, however, and you can see what they said for yourself.

that's after the Civil War ended though

[Olerand]

I wasn't on the Court then, nor am I there now. In fact, I don't want to be, nor would I qualify. Here is their ruling, however, and you can see what they said for yourself.

that's after the Civil War ended though

Indeed it is. As I said, at the moment, nothing forbade, nor allowed secession. Washington decided that it was forbidden, and acted accordingly. It won the war. The Supreme Court then ruled it was forbidden. The law, sometimes, is quirky that way.

[Infected Mushroom]

that's after the Civil War ended though

Indeed it is. As I said, at the moment, nothing forbade, nor allowed secession. Washington decided that it was forbidden, and acted accordingly. It won the war. The Supreme Court then ruled it was forbidden. The law, sometimes, is quirky that way.

I'm not interested in the victor's interpretation of the law (that is convenient to its own interest and is retroactive). I am talking about actual interpretation of the Constitution.

Since the Constitution came into force as a RESULT of states seceding from an empire and voluntarily comes together, it stands to reason that in the absence of a specific clause in the Constitution directly forbidding secession that states had a right to leave.

Scan the entire Constitution. At the time (and even now I think), there is no article saying secession isn't allowed.

Hence why I consider Confederate secession to be constitutional.

[Hurdergaryp]

And as I've said, that's not an invasion nor an act of war, since its located in the South. Had it been located in the North, you would have a point.

Ownership is irrelevant since the South declared independence. It goes with the entire territory.

The fort was property of the United States government, so the point still stands. The Confederacy had no legal claim to it.

As Infected Mushroom should have known, for he is supposed to be an expert when it comes to the law.

[Olerand]

Indeed it is. As I said, at the moment, nothing forbade, nor allowed secession. Washington decided that it was forbidden, and acted accordingly. It won the war. The Supreme Court then ruled it was forbidden. The law, sometimes, is quirky that way.

I'm not interested in the victor's interpretation of the law (that is convenient to its own interest and is retroactive). I am talking about actual interpretation of the Constitution.

Since the Constitution came into force as a RESULT of states seceding from an empire and voluntarily comes together, it stands to reason that in the absence of a specific clause in the Constitution directly forbidding secession that states had a right to leave.

Scan the entire Constitution. At the time (and even now I think), there is no article saying secession isn't allowed.

Hence why I consider Confederate secession to be constitutional.

There was nothing that permitted secession or forbade it when the war was occurring. The Confederacy said it was permitted, the Union said no. Both were "right". Neither were "wrong".

Then they fought, and the Union devastatingly won, and the Supreme Court then decided 4 years after this total victory that secession is illegal, setting precedent for the future (but not the past, as I believe that the US follows the idea of ex post facto law).
Which does not change the fact that at the time the war was occurring, secession was not explicitly allowed, so the Union and the Confederacy fought it out, and the Union won. That's it. Finito. End of story.

[Infected Mushroom]

I'm not interested in the victor's interpretation of the law (that is convenient to its own interest and is retroactive). I am talking about actual interpretation of the Constitution.

Since the Constitution came into force as a RESULT of states seceding from an empire and voluntarily comes together, it stands to reason that in the absence of a specific clause in the Constitution directly forbidding secession that states had a right to leave.

Scan the entire Constitution. At the time (and even now I think), there is no article saying secession isn't allowed.

Hence why I consider Confederate secession to be constitutional.

There was nothing that permitted secession or forbade it when the war was occurring. The Confederacy said it was permitted, the Union said no. Both were "right". Neither were "wrong".

Then they fought, and the Union devastatingly won, and the Supreme Court then decided 4 years after this total victory that secession is illegal, setting precedent for the future (but not the past, as I believe that the US follows the idea of ex post facto law).
Which does not change the fact that at the time the war was occurring, secession was not explicitly allowed, so the Union and the Confederacy fought it out, and the Union won. That's it. Finito. End of story.

when something isn't clearly not allowed by the Constitution, its allowed until and unless it is validly interpreted to be forbidden

there wasn't such a clause at the time of Southern secession, hence its legitimate

The Union may have settled the law later, but not through the rule of law. Doesn't change the fact that at the time, it was legal.

[Hurdergaryp]

There was nothing that permitted secession or forbade it when the war was occurring. The Confederacy said it was permitted, the Union said no. Both were "right". Neither were "wrong".

Then they fought, and the Union devastatingly won, and the Supreme Court then decided 4 years after this total victory that secession is illegal, setting precedent for the future (but not the past, as I believe that the US follows the idea of ex post facto law).
Which does not change the fact that at the time the war was occurring, secession was not explicitly allowed, so the Union and the Confederacy fought it out, and the Union won. That's it. Finito. End of story.

when something isn't clearly not allowed by the Constitution, its allowed until and unless it is validly interpreted to be forbidden

there wasn't such a clause at the time of Southern secession, hence its legitimate

The Union may have settled the law later, but not through the rule of law. Doesn't change the fact that at the time, it was legal.

Isn't rewriting history grand?

[Infected Mushroom]

when something isn't clearly not allowed by the Constitution, its allowed until and unless it is validly interpreted to be forbidden

there wasn't such a clause at the time of Southern secession, hence its legitimate

The Union may have settled the law later, but not through the rule of law. Doesn't change the fact that at the time, it was legal.

Isn't rewriting history grand?

what do you mean?

[Wallenburg]

Ah, I see. So their intent to commit treason and violently seize federal land justifies their treason and seizing of federal land. That makes so much sense. Thank you for enlightening me.

Actually, the Confederacy marched their troops into all kinds of federal territory in the South, and fired on Fort Sumter for 34 hours before the Union engaged in any kind of attack. Get your facts straight.

No, it doesn't. It claims jurisdiction over all land in the South. If it claimed to own all land, then we would live in a propertyless, communist society.

No, it wasn't. I don't know what part of federal land you do not understand. Does the Canadian government not own land of its own? Is it all divided between the provinces and private citizens?

Yes, it is a prelude in that it was the first battle of the Civil War, in which the Confederate armies attacked federal troops without provocation.

Just one question (and this really decides everything): were those federal lands not located in the South?

Yes? Ok.

Indeed, they were. That's why the Confederates engaged in a war of aggression to remove them from federal hands.

Slavers aren't responsible for slavery.

Wow.

I don't think you really understand which states had slavery.
Here is a map of the free states vs. the slave states. Here is a map of the North vs. the South.

The African tribes were responsible for slavery. Blame them, not the people who bought them for their economy.

If slavers didn't take the slaves from Africa, they wouldn't have been sold as slaves.

That still doesn't mean that the land doesn't belong to the United States.

Embassies and foreign military bases also are presumed under international law to be the same as the territory of the foreign government occupying them, that's why embassies and foreign military bases receive some deference in so far as the lot of land they have decided to reside in.

are you saying Fort Sumter was an embassy?

Bolded for your convenience, since you clearly failed to read it.

[Infected Mushroom]

think of it this way, if there's no law saying I can't have a Nation States account, then presumptively I'm allowed to have one (until and unless the courts validly interpret the law, without using gymnastics, to say its not allowed).

Its the same with secession.

Hence at the time, unless you can point to clear Article in the Constitution clearly saying X is unconstitional, X is allowed until and unless validly ruled otherwise. At the time, didn't happen.

[Wallenburg]

There was nothing that permitted secession or forbade it when the war was occurring. The Confederacy said it was permitted, the Union said no. Both were "right". Neither were "wrong".

Then they fought, and the Union devastatingly won, and the Supreme Court then decided 4 years after this total victory that secession is illegal, setting precedent for the future (but not the past, as I believe that the US follows the idea of ex post facto law).
Which does not change the fact that at the time the war was occurring, secession was not explicitly allowed, so the Union and the Confederacy fought it out, and the Union won. That's it. Finito. End of story.

when something isn't clearly not allowed by the Constitution, its allowed until and unless it is validly interpreted to be forbidden

there wasn't such a clause at the time of Southern secession, hence its legitimate

The Union may have settled the law later, but not through the rule of law. Doesn't change the fact that at the time, it was legal.

I don't see what's legal about firing artillery on federal troops.

[Infected Mushroom]

when something isn't clearly not allowed by the Constitution, its allowed until and unless it is validly interpreted to be forbidden

there wasn't such a clause at the time of Southern secession, hence its legitimate

The Union may have settled the law later, but not through the rule of law. Doesn't change the fact that at the time, it was legal.

I don't see what's legal about firing artillery on federal troops.

After exercising the right to secession, those became foreign troops refusing to leave sovereign soil

[Olerand]

There was nothing that permitted secession or forbade it when the war was occurring. The Confederacy said it was permitted, the Union said no. Both were "right". Neither were "wrong".

Then they fought, and the Union devastatingly won, and the Supreme Court then decided 4 years after this total victory that secession is illegal, setting precedent for the future (but not the past, as I believe that the US follows the idea of ex post facto law).
Which does not change the fact that at the time the war was occurring, secession was not explicitly allowed, so the Union and the Confederacy fought it out, and the Union won. That's it. Finito. End of story.

when something isn't clearly not allowed by the Constitution, its allowed until and unless it is validly interpreted to be forbidden

there wasn't such a clause at the time of Southern secession, hence its legitimate

The Union may have settled the law later, but not through the rule of law. Doesn't change the fact that at the time, it was legal.

Says who? Is this an actual understanding in American law? I know for a fact that in Civil law systems, this is not the case at all. Perhaps it is in Common law systems, I don't know.

[Infected Mushroom]

when something isn't clearly not allowed by the Constitution, its allowed until and unless it is validly interpreted to be forbidden

there wasn't such a clause at the time of Southern secession, hence its legitimate

The Union may have settled the law later, but not through the rule of law. Doesn't change the fact that at the time, it was legal.

Says who? Is this an actual understanding in American law? I know for a fact that in Civil law systems, this is not the case at all. Perhaps it is in Common law systems, I don't know.

if this weren't the case, then the Constitution becomes a completely wild and meaningless package divorced from the contents of its actual text

[Hurdergaryp]

when something isn't clearly not allowed by the Constitution, its allowed until and unless it is validly interpreted to be forbidden

there wasn't such a clause at the time of Southern secession, hence its legitimate

The Union may have settled the law later, but not through the rule of law. Doesn't change the fact that at the time, it was legal.

Says who? Is this an actual understanding in American law? I know for a fact that in Civil law systems, this is not the case at all. Perhaps it is in Common law systems, I don't know.

As said before, Infected Mushroom knows all about the law and how it works. Granted, those are the words of Infected Mushroom, we still have to see convincing proof.

[Olerand]

Says who? Is this an actual understanding in American law? I know for a fact that in Civil law systems, this is not the case at all. Perhaps it is in Common law systems, I don't know.

if this weren't the case, then the Constitution becomes a completely wild and meaningless package divorced from the contents of its actual text

Um... Not sure why that would be the case. We have a Constitution, Germany has a Constitution, Italy has a Constitution, Spain has a Constitution. And none of them are " completely wild and meaningless package[s] divorced from the contents of [their] actual text[s]".

[Olerand]

Says who? Is this an actual understanding in American law? I know for a fact that in Civil law systems, this is not the case at all. Perhaps it is in Common law systems, I don't know.

As said before, Infected Mushroom knows all about the law and how it works. Granted, those are the words of Infected Mushroom, we still have to see convincing proof.

Maybe that is an understanding in Common law, however, I don't know. I don't believe they know either, but I'm confident enough in myself and my knowledge to say that I don't know.

[Infected Mushroom]

if this weren't the case, then the Constitution becomes a completely wild and meaningless package divorced from the contents of its actual text

Um... Not sure why that would be the case. We have a Constitution, Germany has a Constitution, Italy has a Constitution, Spain has a Constitution. And none of them are " completely wild and meaningless package[s] divorced from the contents of [their] actual text[s]".

because they generally follow the rule that all interpretations of the Constitution have to have a reasonable basis based on what the actual text directly states

[Olerand]

Um... Not sure why that would be the case. We have a Constitution, Germany has a Constitution, Italy has a Constitution, Spain has a Constitution. And none of them are " completely wild and meaningless package[s] divorced from the contents of [their] actual text[s]".

because they generally follow the rule that all interpretations of the Constitution have to have a reasonable basis based on what the actual text directly states

Sure. So... How does this mean that everything not forbidden is allowed? That's not the case in Civil law countries, and I don't see our Constitutions being "meaningless" or "completely wild".

[The Greater Ohio Valley]

I don't see what's legal about firing artillery on federal troops.

After exercising the right to secession, those became foreign troops refusing to leave sovereign soil

A secession that wasn't recognized, and thus weren't foreign.

[Hurdergaryp]

As said before, Infected Mushroom knows all about the law and how it works. Granted, those are the words of Infected Mushroom, we still have to see convincing proof.

Maybe that is an understanding in Common law, however, I don't know. I don't believe they know either, but I'm confident enough in myself and my knowledge to say that I don't know.

Whereas Infected Mushroom doesn't seem to have the phrase "I don't know" in his vocabulary.

[Infected Mushroom]

because they generally follow the rule that all interpretations of the Constitution have to have a reasonable basis based on what the actual text directly states

Sure. So... How does this mean that everything not forbidden is allowed? That's not the case in Civil law countries, and I don't see our Constitutions being "meaningless" or "completely wild".

the Constitution exists to restrict the powers of governments (State and Federal), so in the absence of an explicit restriction, it ought to be assumed that the restriction does not exist. Without the Constitution, the power is unrestricted. It is only when reasonable interpretations of specific clauses restrict the powers that the restrictions occur. If we as a society decide we don't like X then the proper approach is to enact a new Article (or amend an existing one), not through legal gymnastics.

[Olerand]

Sure. So... How does this mean that everything not forbidden is allowed? That's not the case in Civil law countries, and I don't see our Constitutions being "meaningless" or "completely wild".

the Constitution exists to restrict the powers of governments (State and Federal), so in the absence of an explicit restriction, it ought to be assumed that the restriction does not exist. Without the Constitution, the power is unrestricted. It is only when reasonable interpretations of specific clauses restrict the powers that the restrictions occur. If we as a society decide we don't like X then the proper approach is to enact a new Article (or amend an existing one), not through legal gymnastics.

It exists simply to restrict? And I thought constitutions empower too. How do constitutions create states if all they deal with is negative rights? How do States do anything if constitutions only explain what they cannot do?

I don't know how Common law systems deal with what is not present in written law. In Civil law countries, what is not explicitly stated as forbidden is in no way automatically allowed.

EDIT: It is forbidden, however, to punish someone in criminal law for breaking a law not already on the books. This does not apply to administrative or civil law.

[The Greater Ohio Valley]

If they didn't want to go to war then they wouldn't have fired upon Fort Sumter.

But Fort Sumter was looking really intimidating and had to pay for all that Northern arrogance and the equally irritating Northern tendency to frown upon slavery.

"Look at that brick bastard out there in the harbor, just sitting there sharpening its knives."

[Nulla Bellum]

This is good. Slavery shouldn't be memorialized. Treason shouldn't be memorialized. And it doesn't matter if the south didn't see it as treason, it was still treason.

As long as you recognize the North were war criminals.