Southern Secession

Already, here is a huge misunderstanding, on your part. This thread is about something that happened in 1861. The federal property which was seized by "Confederate" militias (though I don't know how coordinated they were, within the new, Confederate "army," rather than operating more independently) was a number of forts, and a couple of armories. So my referring to this-- since, at the time, these constituted a major part of the land in any state, which was federally owned-- suggests that I am paying attention to the thread, and commenting based on the time period, in question. Your taking my mention of "forts and armories," to be "out of date" thinking, only shows that it is you, who is not in synch with the thread. Small wonder, you should believe that you win every debate, when you create your own personal idea, in your mind, of what you are debating, which is shared by no one else.

I am arguing, and have only been arguing, about what I feel was the path untaken, in the Civil War. I have been crystal clear on that point. The fact that you apparently believe I am talking about a state, today, seceding, once again shows how completely lost you are, in this debate. I had even specifically mentioned, that the complexity of a secession, at this point, makes it a practical improbability. Yet this thread is about a simpler time. So, I guess that makes all your earlier replies-- based on your misunderstanding of the thread's mid 19th century focus, and so your misinterpretation of my comments-- moot?

You don't know why I don't get it. After all, you have told it to me. And you were a SCOTUS Judge for-- how many years, was it? Of course, I kid. I know you hadn't yourself, been on the High Court-- but you did clerk for a number of years, for a Justice, right? If not, I'm wondering why you would think that your telling me how the Justices would feel about a case, is something I should regard as a fact, that I could take to the bank. When has the Supreme Court ever said about a case, "sorry, this is just too complicated?" Your suggestion, is absurd! They took a case, in which they had to decide at what point in gestation, a fetus acquires the law's protection from abortion-- do you think that was a snap, for any of them?

The Court is charged with resolving disputes between states, which the desire to secede could not be regarded otherwise, than as being. Therefore, the Court has a duty, to "wade through" it. And it really wasn't, back then, as complicated as you paint it, relative to other issues they had decided. Regardless of the subject of any case-- it is always, strictly just a matter of law.

"Too complicated." As if. Your explanation is only, "too funny."

Look at the current voting district case, playing out, in Alabama. Did the Justices have to draw all of the lines? No, they only laid down the criteria, that the finished map, would need have 2 of the 7 Congressional districts, with a black majority, or at least close to a majority. The state came up with one black majority, and one district that would be 40% black. If the Court rejects this, they just tell the legislators to do it over. If the Justices tire of the stalling, they can appoint someone else, to draw up the map, in lieu of the state representatives. They do not need do the technical things, themselves.

The main point, with secession, would be does a state have the right. If, Constitutionally, it did, they would simply ask the government, what tangent issues were of concern. If the government had not brought these up during their case, they would then list things, like the disposition on Federal property (which did not, at that time, include federal forests, and the like; was mostly military installations and the railroad; the post offices, and other Federal buildings); shipping, transportation, and border issues (recall, the Mississippi River, which ran through Confederate states, was a main shipping artery, and I imagine still is).

Once it was determined that the states must be allowed to leave, under whatever conditions, then the two parties would negotiate to find an agreeable settlement-- much like in a divorce proceeding. If no agreement could be reached, on any given issue-- say the valuation of federal property-- that's when the SCOTUS would step in (just like in a divorce settlement) and make the call. This doesn't mean, though, they would rely on their personal knowledge of real estate values; they would, of course, commission professional estimates, and then study those reports, submitted.

The end of your comment, is the first intelligent argument, I can ever recall seeing you making. But it is more persuasive sounding, than it is a valid argument. You are conflating a land's sovereignty, with its ownership. I believe, and argued, earlier in the thread, that nearly all the land in each of the Secessionist States, belonged to individual citizens, and to the state, itself. Now, if you find anything in the Constitution, supporting the federal government having some greater claim upon a state's land, then let us know-- and you wouldn't have to be the only one, claiming that you'd won the debate. I am not aware, though, of any such stipulation, and even in the post-war, 1869 decision, former Lincoln Treasury Secretary Salmon Chase, who was then Chief Justice, did not cite any Constitutional text which plainly spoke to this issue. He made a very contrived argument, based on the words "to form a more perfect union." I went over this in detail, not long ago, in a post which I addressed to you, so I will not go over it all again, now.

You have nothing to support this contention (other than your internal sense of certainty, that whatever your impression of a situation, must be correct). It would have been an uncomfortable position, for the Court, but that, also, is not a valid excuse for them to punt. The Court makes tough decisions. Again, I don't see this one, as especially complex, from a legal perspective. The details, would be negotiated by the litigants, and any unresolved issues would come with arguments from each side, and Court commissioned professional evaluations, whenever necessary. Lastly, back at that time, the interconnectedness of every state was exponentially less, than in our current world. It was not, too "difficult" for the Court to rule on.

 

You're only advancing the secessionist argument. It had no constitutional validity then, either.

"What if" history. Speculation.

This is no debate. I wouldn't let you hop from idea to idea if this was a serious discussion.

Egads. I told you I don't think SCOTUS would have ever touched it. If they hold the Constitution permits secession without Congressional legislation, they're put in a position of having to dictate a solution.

Right--and I'm telling you they won't hold a state has the right to secede and put themselves in the position of having to craft the dissolution.

It's all apparently too complicated for you.

Secession could involve international treaties, rights of other U.S. states, etc.

What about relations and treaties with other countries? What about the rights of other states? If New York secedes, New England is cut off from the rest of the country. If CA, OR and WA secede, many states lose important access to Asia.

So, eastern California wants to stay in the United States, California says it wants to leave and is unwilling to give up territory. SCOTUS just ignores the pleas of eastern Californians to stay in the country? Why would state boundaries take precedence over regional requests to secede or stay? The Court is going to sort this out? I don't think so.

So sayeth the Legend in His Own Mind.

The federal government owns large areas of the West. They have sovereignty and ownership.

Doesn't this tell you they were prepared to tell you there is no right to secede? I suggest you plan to get control of Congress and the White House and then try to get out by passing federal legislation.

Excuse? Perhaps not. Reason? Yes. The Court is the weakest branch of the government and they're careful not to get ahead of the consensus. All it would take is an act of Congress to flood the Court with new justices.

A secession by several states could be huge. Getting it wrong could be the Court's undoing.

You're advancing a view of history consistent with a position of some rightwingers that secession is constitutional. They're still upset they lost the Civil War.

This is not a debate. I don't think you had then, or have now, a hope in hell of SCOTUS holding you have a right to secede.

 

That's right-- congratulations, on understanding that, finally, so late in the day. However, you are wrong, if you believe that this is not something that real historians ever think about. Also, since you are apparently only focused on the modern day (which was not really the thread topic), how are your statements about what the Supreme Court would do, not also "speculation?" Or do you believe that the Court is compelled to follow your dictates? Or perhaps, only, that you can unerringly predict future events; that you are, always, infallibly correct, even about things which are literally impossible to know in advance?

Non sequitur and irrelevant. I am advancing a Constitutionally sound argument; the fact that it overlaps with the argument of "some rightwingers," is neither here nor there. It does not make me a right winger. It does not mean that I condone slavery, or the South's use of slave labor. But apparently, this is all you've got, rather than any textual references you can quote, to contest my argument.

You are only stating your personal opinion-- which had no constitutional validity then, and has none, now, as I have already explained that the only ruling we have that even touched on secession, speaks of unilateral secession, which I have already gone to great lengths, explaining to you that this is not the only option. Your reply, then, only shows what a hopeless case it is, expecting you to incorporate any new information, to correct any of your erroneous ideas.

I've already explained this, at least three times, including directly to you: at the time in question, and for the states in question, in this thread, your statement is false. Why don't you try to find some evidence, to support it?

LOL-- accused of idea "hopping," by the person who was not aware of the century which this thread is discussing!

Also, it is a funny comment, when I have had to regroup your arguments, which bounce back and forth, repeating the same ideas over and again, but not in tandem quotes. Your two attempts, above, to label me as pro-slavery or some such, for example, were in totally different parts of your reply.

BTW-- do you consider your quote, above, one of your brilliant arguments? In a debate ("serious discussion) that comment would count for nothing-- my quote does not even justify it. And it certainly advances no argument. It only indicates that, apparently, you are lost, once more.

I've already answered this point for you, as well. There is no "solution" necessary, if states were permitted, by the Constitution, to secede. That would be, the solution. Then there would only be left the details. I've also explained this to you, at length.

Again-- you think that saying, on your word alone, that Congress would refuse to take up the issue, because it is too tough of a decision, is a strong argument? Guess again. When, btw, did the Supreme Court ever duck an issue that was explicitly in their "original" jurisdiction, because it put them in too much of a hot seat? Your argument remains as ludicrous, and as baseless, as when you first made it.

Again, there is nothing in my quote, that corroborates your assertion.
Again, you put forth no argument or explanation, as to why there is any validity, to your statement.
Again, this does not either refute my argument, or advance your own.
And I bet you think, at this point, you are presenting another one of your, supposed Arguments for the Ages.

So? Hence, the reason it could not be unilateral, but would need be negotiated. FYI, that has been my argument, all along.

LOL-- you are trying to contest my arguments-- after having none of your own, credible points, initially-- by reading back to me, after the fact, the things which I posted, in explaining the need to you, for a negotiated secession. Here is the quote you are answering; note that it does mention transportation and shipping:

DEFinning said: ↑
The main point, with secession, would be does a state have the right. If, Constitutionally, it did, they would simply ask the government, what tangent issues were of concern. If the government had not brought these up during their case, they would then list things, like the disposition on Federal property (which did not, at that time, include federal forests, and the like; was mostly military installations and the railroad; the post offices, and other Federal buildings); shipping, transportation, and border issues (recall, the Mississippi River, which ran through Confederate states, was a main shipping artery, and I imagine still is).
<End Quote>

As I have already informed you: this is one of the likely areas which would need be negotiated. Just because addressing this idea, is overly taxing to your own mental faculties, does not mean it could not be settled.

You should have left out the final word, of this post quote. Your idea of the Court's reasons for rejecting cases, is laughable. Are you trying to imply that in the states which brought cases to the Court, to limit abortion, everyone in those states, agreed with that stance? You seem to not have the slightest idea, how the Court operates.

A case of a state wanting to secede, falls in the SCOTUS jurisdiction, as I have already quoted, from Article 3, Section 2, of the Constitution. I also told you, if you had trouble using the internet, I would requote the section, for you; you responded by bragging about your computer skills, saying that this was the area in which you'd taught. Yet, you are still putting forth the ridiculous contention, that the Court would just take a pass. That idea is not only baseless, but wrong. In such an impacting, contentious dispute, if the Court has jurisdiction-- and even, in the past, when it didn't necessarily have it, such as in Bush v. Gore-- it will handle the case, not just drop it like a hot potato, and hope that Congress can work it out. What part of "disputes between states," are you having all the trouble, understanding? That means, these are the Court's responsibility, not Congress's. And, unlike cases that the SCOTUS can refuse to hear, because they can be heard by lower courts, in disputes between states, the High Court has the original jurisdiction. That means they do not have the luxury of passing the buck.

LOL. Again, you are not quoting text, as I have done, but resting your silly argument on nothing but your own opinion of what the Justices would have done. I have got news for you: this is not a strong argument; yet it is the only one you have put forth, so far.

Non sequitur, and illogical. To speak to your suggestion: no, the fact that the new Chief Justice had used a bogus argument, not strictly drawn from the Constitution, in 1869, in no way tells me that the Justices who'd been there 8 years earlier, were "prepared to (say) there is no right to secede." I have also already explained the math of this 5 to 3 decision, under the very different circumstance of not only having not Lincoln's Treasury Secretary as Chief Justice, but Taney, who'd written the Dred Scott decision, but also of a pre-war decision, versus a post-war one. I suggest you actually read my post, that went over this in detail, and had been addressed to you.

That's the best that you can do? Again, your impression of SCOTUS Justices, living in fear of making a mistake, so not wanting to take any tough cases, is blatantly out of synch with reality. Cite me the cases, which demonstrate the Court cowardice, upon which you seem to be resting your entire argument. There were certainly many controversial and weighty cases-- like Dred Scott, for instance-- back at that time, which the Court did not shy away from. Maybe that's how you operate, but the SCOTUS recognizes these cases as a required part of its job. Even in the current day-- Bush v. Gore; Obamacare; Citizens United-- what makes you think the SCOTUS is afraid of big cases?

LOL, once more, because that is the whole of your argument-- and you purport yourself to be such a superior debater.

 

Think about? Sure. It's not part of history, however.

Of course, they're speculation. I'm suggesting SCOTUS won't declare a state has a right to secede.

I'm not Donald John Trump.

I see. You speculate on what SCOTUS might have done in 1861 if the CSA hotheads had taken a case to the Court and then reject anyone else speculating on why the Justices wouldn't have found states had a right to secede.

The historian is interested in why the South opted for insurrection and treason over a SCOTUS case. What the people pulling the levers of power in slave states thought about what SCOTUS might rule may have influenced the secessionists.

There is no reason to assume states have a right to secede. You might read this:

https://www.historians.org/teaching-and-learning/teaching-resources-for-historians/sixteen-months-to-sumter/newspaper-index/new-york-daily-news/the-right-of-states-to-secede

And I told you SCOTUS is unlikely to bite off something as big as an implied right to secede.

You're wrong.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_lands

So, all the difficulties just resolve themselves. You'll just say adios to the millions of Americans living mostly in eastern California, Oregon and Washington if those states vote secede?

I said the matter would fall to Congress. Your way out of this country is through federal legislation, perhaps following negotiations between the government and peoples wanting out.

They ducked the abortion issue in 1973. They should have said the 14th Amendment establishes the right of women to have an abortion.

This makes no sense.

This computer advice from a guy whose posts look like ransom notes.

I told you the Court would hold that states have no right to secede.

Good grief. The Court goes back to documents like the Federalist Papers to ascertain the Founders' intent.

You didn't have a hope in hell of getting SCOTUS to say states can secede without federal legislation.

Off topic.

 

No, you see nothing at all, because you are blind to your own conceits. I'd been answering your argument, which had replied to me, of my argument, that I was only speculating-- as if you were holding that against my argument:

LangleyMan said: ↑
"What if" history. Speculation.


*So all I had answered, was that, so are you speculating. IOW, you had no cause to hold this against my argument, as you had done. I was pointing to the even field, on which we both were speculating. And your reaction is to allege that I am "rejecting" your speculating, based in the fact that it was only speculation-- LOL!! That is the exact opposite, of what just happened. You were the speculator, dismissing my argument, as mere "speculation." I did no such thing, of your argument, such as it is. Rather, I argued against your assumptions, and pointed to your lack of any cited facts-- unlike me-- to support your speculations.

This reply of yours, shows that your pathetic attempts at debate, are not even worth my time.

You still don't even know what year we are talking about, or else fail to recognize the difference between a map from today, and one from 1861; despite my explaining this to you, multiple times.

Hopeless.