I don't think it's complicated at all. The seceeding states grossly miscalculated, tried to bust up the union so they could continue theiir dispicable practice of slavery, and got their heads handed to them on a platter. My college history text concurs by saying that slavery was what led up to the civil war, but that the war itself was precipitated by secession. Verdict? The north won! Secession from the union was and remains illegal.

CigarPrimate,

Why the states tried to secede isn't relevant. The question is whether or not it is legal.

You have stated that it is illegal so where does the US Constitution declare that states may not secede?

Keep in mind, just because it may be legal to secede doesn't mean you won't get attacked, get your a$$ kicked, and dragged back in while kicking and screaming. Military defeat does not make secession illegal.

(By the way, it is the blue states that now want to secede from the union! Try a google search on 'blue state secession' if you want to have some fun reading.)

there are however two questions unanswered...

1. was the question to THL as to what made him bring up this Thread... which has been a good discussion and

2. my hypothetical question which has merit, since the discussion of a possible Sucession in the future of the States after post Civil War...

Hog

Now you're opening up the whole can of worms of what's legal and what's not, which is a good thing in my opinion. When I 1st came on these boards the issue of legality over cuban cigars came up, whereby I claimed purchasing and smoking them may be considered illegal for some, but it sure as hell weren't for me. Needless to say some became very agitated over this claim, assuring me that I was wrong and that rectitude was their exclusive property. I had to break down some Searlean categories on ontology and epistemology to show precisely that law is epistemiic (made up in the noggin), even though it can have drastic affects (like over half a million dead in the civil war).

This isn't a thread jack, but an application of what defines law and legality, etc. Law is epistemic, i.e., people make up laws. Is secession legal or illegal according to the constitution? It doesn't say anymore than it says whether abortions are legal, illegal, or a federally or state determined social event. Abortion was tested in Roe v. Wade, and is now determined by the federal courts. Similarly, secession was tested in the civil war. By this criterion, precedent, abortion is legal and secession illegal.

Now, can a state still secede if they so choose to put this to the test again? Legality is largely determined by who holds the power, so probably another test of the legality of secession would have the same outcome; the feds would kick the state or states' asses and secession would remain illegal. In this context military defeat does render secession illegal.

States' rights have been steadily losing ground since the Constitution supplanted the Articles of the Confederation, since the south was defeated in the civil war, since woman's sufferage, since Roosevelt's new deal and social security act of 1935, since Johnson's great society and the 1965 title 18 & 19 amendments to the social security act, and since Roe v. Wade. I think with these considerations in mind blue state voters are still strongly federalist, meaning they support social progress, something states' rightists and red state voter types seem set against. Indeed, most pro-states' rights arguments seem no more than lingering bitterness over the losers in the civil war of the mid-19th century, the southern slave states, who often seem motivated by forces too bizarre for me to understand, which seek the return of America to an era of white supremacy, the degradation of women, and some theocracy similar to Iran's, except with Pat Robertson at the helm.

Now in an ideal world, Bush finishes his current term, returns to Texas and regains the governorship, continues his maniacal ways and secedes from the union, and the fed comes in, led by former ACLU and NOW operatives, and claps him in irons by powers vested in them under the US constitution. Now that's what I'm talking about!

I for one have to beg to differ in the assumption off the feds kicking the States A$$'s... if by chance the hypothetical question I asked ever surfaced and each individual States Rights did surface to whereas these States and Citizens of these States said hell no or else to the federal Gov. then the downfall would result in another civil war... only at this such time would you have military members from these States leaving the Union as Robert E. Lee did during the first civil war and joining with their natural States all over this Land... Keep in mind the Governement is made up of People for the People... and many would take up arms in their own States to guard against the whole Federal System going after the one State.. the resources and the States Constitution would then take full effect to self govern such States... the once known Federal Military would become the ever growing States Militia... and the only way something of this magnitude could take effect here on US Soil is by the President of these United States Declairing Marshal Law Abolishing the Constitution of these United States... and that would take something as a very large terrorist act in the nature of the above mentioned to creat enough panic across the land to cause the fall of the US as a whole...

Hog

hog,

I think THL has found a mistake in the constitution, and we have to do the Civil War thing over!!!
LOL!
Great work guys...now I'm going to get a drink and a
smoke!

To me, and I don't want to "stir the pot" unnecessarily, while the Consitution prohibited acts considered detrimental to the United States as a whole, it did provide a protective measure and took steps to ensure "states rights" were inviolate. I believe that much of the contention arose out of interpretation of the statutes, which necessarily involves subjectivity, which immediately invites a challenge(s) as to the varacity of the interpereter.

In essence I think usahog's argument is ultimately correct but it had to be unacceptable to the Union as, by definition, acknowledging it spelled the demise of a union.

BTW, when you delve through all of the pontifications of that period, you find, as you usually do, that the bottom-line of contention is economic in nature.....which has been the case in all wars, despite the noble, patriotic, ephemeral platitudes, (insert your own favorite phrase here) etc., even up until present day. I am perfectly agreeable with the war in Irag, but although no one is overtly addressing it, obviously it is in the best interest on the United Stats for there to be a democratic form of government in that area of the world which would presumably be more empathetic with the U.S.

Just my thoughts............

CigarPrimate,

You appear to agree that the US Constitution does not state that it is illegal for a state to secede.

Your only argument that made it illegal to secede is that the war was lost. Although the war was lost, that does not manufacture a law. Roe vs Wade involves laws that were written and tested in court. In absence of specific constitutional language, those laws may still be subject to further testing. Courts are very different from battlefields.

There is no need to get sidetracked with an essay on state's rights, federalism, red states, blue states, bitterness over the civil war, theocracy, Bush's current term, ACLU, NOW or anything else too bizarre for you to understand.

Getting back to the question at hand which was whether it was legal in 1861....well it wasn't illegal but nothing said it was legal either and a great many people died.

Secessionist states were occupied by the US army until they drafted new constitutions and ratified the 13th and 14th amendments. Since there was enough doubt about the legality of secession, this process of re-admission to the union was developed. The 14th amendment specifically defines who is a US citizen and declares:

"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."

As a result of the 14th amendment, ratified in 1868, any state that tried to secede from the union would now be making a law which would abridge the privileges of a US citizen, thus rendering the secession unconstitutional. They could have made the 14th amendment a little more clear by adding "Thou shall not secede" but it is good enough and the hole in the US Constitution is plugged.

In summary, in 1861 the ability to secede was unclear.
In 1868 the 14th Amendment fixed the problem. CigarPrimate doesn't like George W Bush!

good thread.

and the red states will ensure we keep our arms.

HD, you're twisting around the issues a bit it seems. I said "Law is epistemic ... legality is largely determined by who holds the power." So law is determined either in courts, or battlefields, or any other venue where one group can dominate (stick it to) another. Those factors determine law far more than yours or my opinion on a cigar chat room.

Next you claim "There is no need to get sidetracked with an essay on state's rights, federalism, red states, blue states, bitterness over the civil war, [etc.]." Well by all means, let's not get side-tracked with debate. Just present your lecture while I thoughtfully take notes. Here, have a plastic laurel.

In summary, in 1861 the ability to secede was unclear, but the Union made it painfully real enough to the recalcitrant southern slave masters so that legal clarity took a back seat to empirical ass whooping. If you want no debate from me your wish is granted.

I was trying to do several things with this thread.
1. Have a civil, (no pun), discussion about a major watermark in our history.
2. Talk about how we've survived constitutional crises in the past, but that's no guarantee for the future.
3. Discuss the fact that history is the one subject where you often have to throw out what you learned earlier rather than build on a foundation.

Now back to the discussion.
Lincoln did violate the Constitution when he suspended habeas corpus. There's no provision for that power in the Executive Branch. As a matter of fact he was ordered by the Supreme Court, Justice Taney of Taneytown, MD fame, to release several prisoners. He refused and the military backed him up by also refusing to carry out those orders. Fade to cut and paste;

Here's the story:

As the Civil War started, in the very beginning of Lincoln's presidential term, a group of "Peace Democrats" proposed a peaceful resolution to the developing Civil War by offering a truce with the South, and forming a constitutional convention to amend the U.S. Constitution to protect States' rights. The proposal was ignored by the Unionists of the North and not taken seriously by the South. However, the Peace Democrats, also called copperheads by their enemies, publicly criticized Lincoln's belief that violating the U.S. Constitution was required to save it as a whole. With Congress not in session until July, Lincoln assumed all powers not delegated in the Constitution, including the power to suspend habeas corpus. In 1861, Lincoln had already suspended civil law in territories where resistance to the North's military power would be dangerous. In 1862, when copperhead democrats began criticizing Lincoln's violation of the Constitution, Lincoln suspended habeas corpus throughout the nation and had many copperhead democrats arrested under military authority because he felt that the State Courts in the north west would not convict war protesters such as the copperheads. He proclaimed that all persons who discouraged enlistments or engaged in disloyal practices would come under Martial Law.

Among the 13,000 people arrested under martial law was a Maryland Secessionist, John Merryman. Immediately, Hon. Roger B. Taney, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States issued a writ of habeas corpus commanding the military to bring Merryman before him. The military refused to follow the writ. Justice Taney, in Ex parte MERRYMAN, then ruled the suspension of habeas corpus unconstitutional because the writ could not be suspended without an Act of Congress. President Lincoln and the military ignored Justice Taney's ruling.

Finally, in 1866, after the war, the Supreme Court officially restored habeas corpus in Ex-parte Milligan, ruling that military trials in areas where the civil courts were capable of functioning were illegal.

CigarPrimate writes that the US constitution prohibits the states printing (coining) money. I disagree. Anyone is allowed to print their own money - script - and make use of it. The money you and I print CANNOT be UNITED STATES DOLLARS, that would be counterfeiting, but the money we print can be called anything else. In 1991 the Ithaca Hour was issued in Ithaca /Tompkins County, New York, which businesses and individuals agreed to take and spend among themselves throughout Tomkins County, New York.

For more informtion click here:
http://www.ithacahours.com/ 

The bottom line is this: if you and I agree that somthing is money, then its money. If more people agree to the same thing, then we have an economy.

A picture of an Ithaca 1/8 Hour can be seen here:

http://www.cigarbid.com/auction/forum/forum.cfm?action=list&forumID=7&messageDisplay=0000000031279 

...so they really do exist.

EI and USAHOG

the southern states seceded from the union because they didn't want to pay tax to the federal government that they felt was not collecting taxes and returning the tax money proportionately to them. they wanted their own government to collect the taxes.

slavery was a peripheral issue, state's rights was part of the reason they seceded.

when lincoln submitted the emancipation proclamation it was a bit of propoganda. the southern states had declared themselves a confederacy, a seperate country and would not be subject to any laws of the united states.

it was only after the confederate states were defeated and brought back into the united states the the slaves would be free.

the right to secede or not is unimportant, we seceded from england. it didn't matter one iota whether it was legal to break from england. if arizona or any other state or group of states want to secede from the united states tomorrow and has the power to fend off the united states military, they will be whatever they want to be.

Everyone knows all there is to know about the bible, Freud, and the US constitution, but hardly anyone has read them. Section 10 of article I of the constitution outlines what states may and may not do. Among other things, states may not ..."coin money"...It doesn't say they may not coin 'US dollars,' it says they may not 'coin money.' Personally, I couldn't care less if you draw pictures of Gumby on toilet paper rolls, call it money, and trade them for copies of the video Alien Autopsy; I'm just refering that what the actual document says. It might help to actually read the blasted thing before going off about it. It's about 6 pages long.

LMAO @ CP... good point and one taken... LOL

Hog

A friend of mine swears he saw this bumpersticker on a car while driving through the south:

"If we had known you were going to be this much trouble we would have picked our own damn cotton."

Holy Crap,
I agreed with every one of Rick's points. He hit every point right on.

CigarPrimate

are you trying to ruin our pontificating be suggesting anyone that says something wise and astute, should have some idea what he is talking about?

what a party pooper.