23-01-2002 10:08									#121
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: I'm starting to see that we are going to get into a game of semantics, if I don't get one thing out of the way before I answer this claim. How do you define the term rebellion/insurrection?

I would agree with MtG's definition, but would also add that if the federal government or the state government are acting in a manner wholly inconsistent with the Constitution (state or federal), and are ignoring all attempts to non-violently change, then armed resistance is not only called for, but the responsibility of citizens, and would not be rebellion or insurrection.

quote: I really don't understand what logical hoops you had to jump through in order to apply this example to me arguement. 1) The Federal government is Constitutionally barred from directly setting the drinking age within a State. 2) Opperating within the Constitution, the most the Federal government could legally do is to withhold a portion of thier highway monies. 3) Nothing in the Constitution gives the Federal government either explicit of implied authority to take such an action in the situation you describe anyway. Such is not the case with the case of the CSA.

You're missing the overriding concept.
The federal government has no explicit or implied authority to use the Army to stop a State from legally seceding. Your argument is that they can call that secession rebellion and insurrection, and justify it in that way.
Well, if they can do that for secession, why can't they do it for anything else, that a state tries to do against the wishes of the federal government? Nothing in your argument stops them from doing so.

To address point 3 in particular, you say (imply) that it is within the powers of the federal government to prevent secession. Fine. I'd disagree with you there, and I think you're wrong. If that's the case, then, it is ridiculous also to call it insurrection and rebellion, because it would already be legal for the federal government to prevent secession. Unless you are saying that the federal government has the power to prevent secession because secession is an act of rebellion or insurrection, in which case you're not using logic. If secession is an act of rebellion/insurrection, then why can't any other action be so as well? I mean, those terms can be loosely defined to mean anything, right? No, you have to argue that the federal government has a power to prevent secession by virtue of something OTHER than your claim that it is rebellion or insurrection, otherwise your argument really makes no sense at all. Unless you're saying that the federal government has no checks on it, because it can declare anything an act of rebellion or secession. Is that what you're saying? If you are, we're gonna have problems right there, and if you're not, then placing "secession" within the definition of "rebellion/insurrection" is nothing more than an arbitrary decision on your part, with no Constitutional basis, and opens the floodgates to anything and everything.

quote: 2) Opperating within the Constitution, the most the Federal government could legally do is to withhold a portion of thier highway monies.

By the way, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor would disagree with you there, and I'd tend to agree with her dissent, although I can't remember the case citation right off hand. I imagine Thomas and Scalia would have problems as well, based on what they say about Interstate Commerce. That's three Supreme Court Justices just for starters, and it's within the realm of possibility that two others would join them.

	23-01-2002 10:14									#122
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Originally posted by David Floyd By the way, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor would disagree with you there, and I'd tend to agree with her dissent, although I can't remember the case citation right off hand.

Good. My response to this point was based on what is currently allowed by the Court, not my own personal opinions on the subject.

If there is anything in your post that isn't covered in someway by my responses to MtG, point it out to me.

Edit: BTW, why don't you have ICQ.

	23-01-2002 10:25									#123
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Sorry, Dino, didn't see your last post.
I do have ICQ, but never use it. I don't like it much.
I'm DavidFloydUT on AIM, and civfreak@hotmail.com on MSN.

Anyway,

quote: We're dressing up armed, organized resistance against a duly constituted government that hadn't and wouldn't have taken any agressive actions against the States and thier "peculiar institution" when the wave of secessions started as something romantic.

That's really irrelevant, isn't it? The southern States chose to secede. They had the right to do so. Reasons for secession aren't relevant to this discussion, I don't think.

quote: The main reason for my contention that the preservation of the peculiar institution of slavery was of primary importance to the CSA is that had they freed thier slaves and then petitioned Great Britian for military aid we would likely wishing President Helms luck in his war against Al Qaeda today.

Possibly, but there were other reasons for the preservation of slavery, economic ones, for example, as well as quite frankly pride, in some cases.
But you're actually incorrect. If Lee's Lost Order was never lost, then more than likely we'd be wishing President Helms luck.

quote: You're talking to a born and brred MS boy. I actually hope you can prove me wrong on either the legality of or the justification for rebellion.

Read my last post. There is not a good, logical argument for calling secession rebellion or insurrection. There are certainly cases when rebellion is called for, but secession is not rebellion, and is Constitutional in ANY case.

	23-01-2002 14:40									#124
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by DinoDoc We're dressing up armed, organized resistance against a duly constituted government that hadn't and wouldn't have taken any agressive actions against the States and thier "peculiar institution" when the wave of secessions started as something romantic.

There was no armed, organized resistance until the Yankee government made clear it intended to use force. The Commonwealth of Virginia, for example, did not organize forces for defense until after Lincoln's call for troops to be organized and transferred to Federal control (an act which was unconstitutional in the manner and circumstances in which it was conducted)

We're talking a "duly constituted" government which was duly constituted with clearly limited powers by sovereign states, for their mutual benefit and security. 80 years later, northern politicians found it convenient to make it the dominant form of government, disregarding the limits on those powers to carry out their political aims. (which at the time, for most, did not involve abolition)

29 large caliber guns, 1400 men under arms, and shiploads of shot, powder, smallarms as well as provisions is hadly not taking "agressive action"

The only "resistance" offered by the south was resistance to armed Yankee trespassers.

You also had three prominent states which did not secede, but concluded (until forced to do otherwise) that they had the right to declare neutrality with respect to the Federal actions against sovereign sister states.

The agression came from the Yankee side for many reasons unrelated to the actions of some Charleston hotheads back in December of 1859. The whole California question was a major issue, as were the imperial ambitions of Stanton and others within the cabinet and war department. And Lincoln frankly masterfully outwitted, outlied, outfrauded, outmanipulated, and outmaneuvered the South Carolinians.

quote: These conditions aren't relevent to the definition you originally gave, MtG.

They certainly are. "The people" as a term of law, generally means the body politic of a state or country, namely those enfranchised to participate in it's government. I made an exception for Dorr's rebellion because the Constitution guarantees that each state shall be provided a republican form of government - something clearly lacking in any substantive sense in Rhode Island's charter with it's extremely restricted suffrage requirements hinged on property ownership, when such requirements were far more restrictive than the Federal suffrage standard of the time.

If you don't adopt that condition, you have to conclude no action of any type by the Federal or state governments of that era were "justified" because the definition of suffrage was limited to white males over 21 - a definite minority of the population.

quote: The legality of rebellion is and was already a settled Constitutional question.

Yes it is. The legality of secession is another matter entirely. We weren't rebelling, we were simply telling the Yankees "it's been nice, but the party's over. Good bye"

quote: Now, the question of weather that rebellion was morally justified is another matter altogether and one in which I look foward to seeing your opinions on.

Nothing at all regarding the institution of slavery was morally justified. To the extent that the seven deep south states justified their secession in relation to slavery, any "moral" justification given on that basis was inherently false. It's my position, though, that secession required no moral justification at all, only the consent of the state. The United States of America was created as a voluntary association of sovereign governments, and nothing obligated them to perpetual loyalty to a supergovernment, when they had no other remedy but secession for any violation of their rights by that supergovernment.

The scrapping of the Articles of Confederation was one clear instance of secession, and the Yankees took the position that West Virginia could secede from Virginia, despite the similar silence in the Virginia constitution regarding sucession, and the prohibition in the Federal constitution regarding creation of a state from another state without the consent of the people of the state so affected. Nothing in the Constitution provides for a denial of suffrage or due process to states "in rebellion" or to the people of those states, but the Yankee government rode both sides of the fence when convenient - denying the legality of secession, but undertaking acts which had no constitutional basis or authority within a state, but would be valid in a war against a foreign power.

Where southern revisionists screw up and do the similar fence riding is with respect to reconstruction - despite the corruption, etc., once we renounced the ties of the US Constitution, we sure as hell couldn't claim rights under it. So whatever the Yankees chose to do to the conquered south was within their legal rights as a foreign conqueror. Same thing when we got our state governments back by kissing their asses on reconstruction, the 14th Amendment, and other issues - they had the right to dictate to us the terms under which we'd be allowed to rejoin the union, in lieu of being under a permanent military occupation where we had no rights. They stuck a gun to our ribs, but we made a choice.

With respect to the secession of North Carolina, Virginia, Arkansas and Tennessee, and the declared neutrality of Missouri, Kentucky and Maryland, I have no doubt as to the moral justification (though none is necessary), because those secessions and declarations of neutrality were based on the unconstitutional Federal demand for troops to be raised by the states, turned over to Federal control, and used in an invasion of sovereign states.

quote: The main reason for my contention that the preservation of the peculiar institution of slavery was of primary importance to the CSA is that had they freed thier slaves and then petitioned Great Britian for military aid we would likely wishing President Helms luck in his war against Al Qaeda today.

Well, for the seven deep south states, I agree that preservation of slavery was at least of equal importance to any other notion of states' rights, at least to the elected secession commisioners, legislatures, newspapermen and other hothead loudmouths who served the interests of the feudal lord plantation class. It was not the driving issue for a majority of southerners though - a simply fundamentally different view of the role of government was far more significant for most southerners. We were still for the most part rural states, with small town populations, limited outside industry and commerce, and our political views of the role of government hadn't changed since the revolution and the constitutional convention days. For a majority of the Yankees, there views had changed, and that is largely a result of economics. The notion of an ever more powerful central government, and the development of a national identity, rather than a state one, started their much earlier than it ever did down south.

The issue of how the Yankees handled the political issue down south was of more importance to the latter seven states - Virginia rejected secession soundly the first time around, but Lincoln's call for troops rang loud, and was just a little too close to King George's way of handling things.

And yeah, we elected crappy politicians (Davis and Stephens, God help us in his mercy, because they sure as hell couldn't *shudder*), so Jesse would probably have been president of a modern CSA.

quote: You're talking to a born and brred MS boy. I actually hope you can prove me wrong on either the legality of or the justification for rebellion.

I know you are . I didn't use to think it was either legal or justified, until I studied the source documents, including the constitutional convention delegate's notes and reports. From our modern view of the role of the Federal government, it seems absurd, but in terms of adherence to the views and covenants of 1776 and 1787, I have come to think secession was the clear course of action.

In the long term result up to today, we are clearly better off that our ancestors failed, but there was no way to know that then, and they did what they saw as right, with a clear legal right and capacity to do so.

	23-01-2002 14:43									#125
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Originally posted by David Floyd But you're actually incorrect. If Lee's Lost Order was never lost, then more than likely we'd be wishing President Helms luck.

You can't presuppose such things in military matters. Things **** up, and you have to deal with the results as they happen. One what if always leads to another. If George McClellan had had a single ball, let alone two, he'd have been in Richmond before we ever got up to Sharpsburg.

But he didn't, and the rest, as they say, is history.

	23-01-2002 14:53									#126
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Originally posted by David Floyd I would agree with MtG's definition, but would also add that if the federal government or the state government are acting in a manner wholly inconsistent with the Constitution (state or federal), and are ignoring all attempts to non-violently change, then armed resistance is not only called for, but the responsibility of citizens, and would not be rebellion or insurrection.

It would be a rebellion. It would be a rebellion with good reason but then all rebellion's have probably had good reason.

Rebellion and the like is amoral.

Jon Miller

	23-01-2002 21:47									#127
	Support Apolyton

quote: You can't presuppose such things in military matters. Things **** up, and you have to deal with the results as they happen. One what if always leads to another. If George McClellan had had a single ball, let alone two, he'd have been in Richmond before we ever got up to Sharpsburg.

True, but the point was that all we needed for British/French recognition was a victory on Northern soil. That's all I was trying to say.

	23-01-2002 21:51									#128
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by David Floyd True, but the point was that all we needed for British/French recognition was a victory on Northern soil. That's all I was trying to say.

Not true at all. The abolitionist sentiment among the populace of those countries wouldn't have allowed for such an action.

	23-01-2002 21:59									#129
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

Maybe, maybe not. More than likely, though, if the CSA showed it could defeat the US on the battlefield on US soil, Britain and France would have granted diplomatic recognition.

	23-01-2002 22:35									#130
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

You know Reb, you always crack up up when you go on about "Yankee agression".

The fact is, and we both know it, is that the Southern democrats were p1ssed Lincoln won, and saw the handwriting on the wall for slavery, so tried to lit out of the USA.

You always miss the point, when you say "Yankee tresspassers".

That was USA soil, as was every bit that claimed to be CSA soil in the whole war.
You yourself pointed out that sucession wasn't kosher, so give it up.
The federal government refussed to recognize succession, so they couldn't be tresspassing in a leagal sense.

The southern boys tried to pull a fast one, couldn't pull it off, fought well, but in the end, got their butts kicked by the Blue bellies.

	23-01-2002 22:42									#131
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

Chris, I've never seen MtG say that secession wasn't kosher, as you put it, but even if he did, he's just as wrong as you are on the topic.

The sovereign States of Virginia, Mississippi, etc., were never US soil. They were sovereign States in a union of other sovereign States. Once they seceded, legally, using their 10th Amendment rights, they ceased to be bound by the union, or by any US law.

The US was more than just trespassing - they were invading a sovereign nation.

	23-01-2002 22:44									#132
	Remove this text

AND Texas joined the Union as a Republic, not a territory.

	23-01-2002 22:46									#133
	Get a bigger avatar today!

Indeed.

And Texas is currently the only State with a secession clause built into its Constitution, IIRC - of course every State has the right based on the 10th Amendment, but I think especially in Texas's case not even Chris or any of the others could deny the right.

	23-01-2002 23:16									#134
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by David Floyd Chris, I've never seen MtG say that secession wasn't kosher, as you put it, but even if he did, he's just as wrong as you are on the topic.

This is the second time you interjected into my conversation, just because you don't know where he said it, doesn't mean it isn't so.

quote: The sovereign States of Virginia, Mississippi, etc., were never US soil.

Ah, but they were.

quote: They were sovereign States in a union of other sovereign States.

Semantics argument, just as invalid in the 1860s as today.

quote: Once they seceded, legally, using their 10th Amendment rights, they ceased to be bound by the union, or by any US law.

This is the tenth amendment:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

What does that mean?
The 10th Amendment (1791) is the final amendment in the BILL OF RIGHTS of the U.S. CONSTITUTION. It provides that those powers not delegated to the federal government by the Constitution nor prohibited to the states are reserved to the states or to the people. The main purpose of the amendment was to counter fears that the new national government would trespass on the authority of the states.

Although the amendment does not enumerate these reserved powers, traditionally they have included internal matters such as local government, education, and regulation of commerce, labor, and business within the state, as well as such matters as marriage, divorce, inheritance, and related family concerns. The states also share certain powers with the federal government, such as establishing courts, chartering banks, imposing taxes, and protecting the public health. The 10th Amendment is not seen today as limiting the authority of the federal government where the exercise of its powers might interfere with those of the states.

No where does it provide for the right of sucession.

quote: The US was more than just trespassing - they were invading a sovereign nation.

Non-sense, as you were just shown.
Being in a Texas school, I'm not surprised you got this wrong, or are proud of the South, but they had no leagal leg to stand on to suceed from the union, and that's a fact.

I too am often impressed with the South's performance in the war, but it doesn't mitigate one bit the fact that they were dead wrong to do so.

	23-01-2002 23:34									#135
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

BTW, just cuz Texas' Constitution says it has the right to secede don't make it so. Florida's Constitution could say, "All people in the State of Florida are blue," that doesn't make it so. State constitutions do not supercede the Federal Constitution (or reality).

The question of "right of the states to secede" was settled by force of arms. The secessionists lost. States cannot secede.

	24-01-2002 00:40									#136
	Got spare money?

quote: Originally posted by chegitz guevara BTW, just cuz Texas' Constitution says it has the right to secede don't make it so. Florida's Constitution could say, "All people in the State of Florida are blue," that doesn't make it so. State constitutions do not supercede the Federal Constitution (or reality). The question of "right of the states to secede" was settled by force of arms. The secessionists lost. States cannot secede.

I moat deffinitely agree

Jon Miller

	24-01-2002 00:44									#137
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: Originally posted by Chris 62 The 10th Amendment (1791) is the final amendment in the BILL OF RIGHTS of the U.S. CONSTITUTION. It provides that those powers not delegated to the federal government by the Constitution nor prohibited to the states are reserved to the states or to the people. The main purpose of the amendment was to counter fears that the new national government would trespass on the authority of the states. Although the amendment does not enumerate these reserved powers, traditionally they have included internal matters such as local government, education, and regulation of commerce, labor, and business within the state, as well as such matters as marriage, divorce, inheritance, and related family concerns. The states also share certain powers with the federal government, such as establishing courts, chartering banks, imposing taxes, and protecting the public health. The 10th Amendment is not seen today as limiting the authority of the federal government where the exercise of its powers might interfere with those of the states.

notice the 10th says states or the people

aslo something as important as the ability to op out of the contract is usually put into said contract

it is obvious to me that the 10th ammendment was not meant to allow succession

what the constitution refers to as powers have to do with the governing of the people within the constitution not as op out clause

the oping out of the contract concerns not only the state or individual in question, but all individuals and states

therefore the only way it would be legitement is if everyone wanted it

(note that the southerners thought they were right I just disagree with them)

Jon Miller
would probably be on the other side if I had stated in the state of my birth longer(Alabama)

	24-01-2002 00:50									#138
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: Originally posted by David Floyd Texas ..... with a secession clause built into its Constitution, IIRC .

You don't RC.

	24-01-2002 03:42									#139
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: This is the second time you interjected into my conversation, just because you don't know where he said it, doesn't mean it isn't so

Sorry, didn't mean to imply he didn't say it, just htat I hadn't seen it. And if he did, he's just as wrong as you are about it.

quote: What does that mean? The 10th Amendment (1791) is the final amendment in the BILL OF RIGHTS of the U.S. CONSTITUTION. It provides that those powers not delegated to the federal government by the Constitution nor prohibited to the states are reserved to the states or to the people. The main purpose of the amendment was to counter fears that the new national government would trespass on the authority of the states. Although the amendment does not enumerate these reserved powers, traditionally they have included internal matters such as local government, education, and regulation of commerce, labor, and business within the state, as well as such matters as marriage, divorce, inheritance, and related family concerns. The states also share certain powers with the federal government, such as establishing courts, chartering banks, imposing taxes, and protecting the public health. The 10th Amendment is not seen today as limiting the authority of the federal government where the exercise of its powers might interfere with those of the states

Nice, long post on your opinion. Now let me give mine.

It doesn't matter how the 10th amendment is "traditionally" interpreted, or how it is seen now.

All that matters is that it says all powers not granted to the federal government or denied to the states are reserved to the states and the people.

This clearly includes the power of secession, because secession is not a power denied to the states. Obviously it isn't granted to the federal government, because the federal government can't secede from itself.
The only mitigating factor would be if the federal government had the power to prevent secession.
Nowhere in Article 1 Section 8, or anywhere else, are they given such a power. They DO have the power to act against rebellions and insurrections, but as I've already shown secession is not the same thing.
Therefore, secession is granted to the States by the 10th Amendment.

quote: You don't RC.

I'll take your word for it. I was under the impression that secession was specifically mentioned in the Texas Constitution. Maybe I'm wrong.

	24-01-2002 04:13									#140
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

This thread has gone a tad off topic. If you guys are having fun then go ahead, threadjack away...

	24-01-2002 04:30									#141
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by Chris 62 You know Reb, you always crack up up when you go on about "Yankee agression".

I aim to please.

quote: The fact is, and we both know it, is that the Southern democrats were p1ssed Lincoln won, and saw the handwriting on the wall for slavery, so tried to lit out of the USA.

Never said those deep south state hotheads were the brightest.

quote: You always miss the point, when you say "Yankee tresspassers". That was USA soil, as was every bit that claimed to be CSA soil in the whole war.

Nothing in the Constitution creastes Federal lands or territory from the lands or territories of the several states. Such transfers and and leaseholds were traditionally done by consent of the Federal and state governments.

quote: You yourself pointed out that sucession wasn't kosher, so give it up.

Creation of a state by secession from the territory of another state without the consent of the people of the state affected is forbidden, yes. The reservation of powers in the Tenth Amendment is adequate to grant states the right of secession from the Federal association.

quote: The federal government refussed to recognize succession, so they couldn't be tresspassing in a leagal sense.

It also didn't recognize treaty rights of Indians, and the refusal to recognize the territory of another doesn't create a privilege to enter that territory.

quote: The southern boys tried to pull a fast one, couldn't pull it off, fought well, but in the end, got their butts kicked by the Blue bellies.

Nothing fast about it - we tried to assert our legal rights, got worn down by an aggressive, domineering, central government with three times the manpower and much greater advantages in resources, and we stacked Yankee ass so high, for so long, that it took four years for y'all to conquer our territory.

	24-01-2002 04:33									#142
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by David Floyd Sorry, didn't mean to imply he didn't say it, just htat I hadn't seen it. And if he did, he's just as wrong as you are about it. Nice, long post on your opinion. Now let me give mine. It doesn't matter how the 10th amendment is "traditionally" interpreted, or how it is seen now. All that matters is that it says all powers not granted to the federal government or denied to the states are reserved to the states and the people. This clearly includes the power of secession, because secession is not a power denied to the states. Obviously it isn't granted to the federal government, because the federal government can't secede from itself. The only mitigating factor would be if the federal government had the power to prevent secession. Nowhere in Article 1 Section 8, or anywhere else, are they given such a power. They DO have the power to act against rebellions and insurrections, but as I've already shown secession is not the same thing. Therefore, secession is granted to the States by the 10th Amendment. I'll take your word for it. I was under the impression that secession was specifically mentioned in the Texas Constitution. Maybe I'm wrong.

But Succession is not something someone can go and decide to do by themselves or something a state can go and do bythem selves

it effects all

therefore even if it was a 'power' of the states and the people it is a power of the states and the people and as such needs the agreement of all states per say

its like you and me make an agreement by which we both benifit, I cannot just through the agreement away, we both of throw the agreement away

Jon Miller

	24-01-2002 05:38									#143
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

The Constitution, BTW, also fails to provide any remedy for it's violation by the Federal government. The whole notion of judicial review by Federal courts does not even exist, and the jurisdiction of Federal courts is limited in any event.

The concept of a "contract" which in effect reads "We promise to not do more than we're allowed here, and you agree to surrender your sovereignty to our supergovernment for all time, but if we decide later for our convenience to break our promises here, you're stuck and there isn't a damned thing you can do about it." wouldn't have been ratified by one state, let alone 13.

The Constitution was created by equal and fully sovereign states as a means of setting up and limiting a secondary government of very limited commonly agreed to powers which served the common interest.

It was not created by a ruling central authority to define the rights and duties of subordinate government units (the effective roles of most state constitutions).

If you go back to the expressed intentions of the delegates who negotiated the provisions of the Constitution, you will not find a single reference (at least I've never yet found one) that a state ratifying the Constitution did so irrevocably and regardless of any violations of its terms by other states directly, or through their use of the Federal government.

Coming six years after a six year long war for independence from the so-called absolute authority of the English Crown, the notion that ANY state delegate, even one man, let alone one state delegation, would then vote to irrevocably subordinate his state to another central authority with no means of redress against violation's of that authorities duties and charter is just laughably absurd.

The people who wrote and ratified the US Constitution were revolutionaries who had a very strong distrust of central government, who considered their states sovereign and autonomous, and who reluctantly agreed that they needed to have some sort of standing cooperative arrangement for external trade and defense issues, due to the presence of strong external threats.

	24-01-2002 07:29									#144
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by DinoDoc Not true at all. The abolitionist sentiment among the populace of those countries wouldn't have allowed for such an action.

But Britain wouldn't have minded seeing the US divided in two (or more) parts, as long as these parts were strong enough to resist Continental powers attempting to intercede in the New World.