Loki Loc: Georgia

You've got to give me a date on this.

Virginia legally declared her independence and they were invaded by a Northern Army to force them back into the Union
******
I have given you a date more than once. In view of your apparent deficiency in paying attention, I will do so again; try to keep up this time.

Virginia's legislature declared independence, contingent on popular vote, on April 17, 1861, Five days after Fort Sumter.
Virginia's citizens voted overwhelmingly for secession on May 24, 1861.
On that same day, Union forces invaded Virginia once the results of the vote became known. The Union Army had been held ready for this invasion.
Union and Virginia forces met at Manassas, (aka Bull Run) where Union forces fired the first shots. The battle resulted in a Union defeat.
Virginia did not fire on Union forces until they had invaded and fired on Virginia's forces first.

You rely exclusively on the words of Lincoln and other Union figures for your repeated characterizations of what should have been a peaceful and lawful separation as a "rebellion." I am currently exercising my First Amendment rights (as are you) in typing these posts. If exercising a right is a "rebellion," then we are both guilty.
Secession does not require the legal procedure you outlined earlier, as it was not contingent on the contractual law you misinterpreted.
Once more, regardless of the reasons, and regardless of the Union's attempts to tar a legal action with the sobriquet of "rebellion;" at the time secession for whatever reason was legal, and the actual secession of these states from the Union was accomplished without violence until it was initiated by Union forces.

Loki Loc: Georgia

"The war was started to keep slavery from expanding into territories were it never existed."

Really? You just said the South started the war, so you are saying that the South started the war to prevent the expansion of slavery into territories where it never existed?
I thought you just said the South went to war to expand slavery. Which is it? I hope the petard you are hoisting yourself on is comfortable.

Homestead

In order to secede peacefully, the issue would have to have come up before congress.

A bill to secede would have been presented, debated and amended, then sent to the Senate and then signed by the president.

You can't enter into agreements and then just decide you don't want to participate and leave.

That doesn't work in in international treatise or Constitutions.

If that was the case the king of England could have nullified the Magna Carta at will.

In fact that's exactly what he tried to do with the Colonists Charter's.

It didn't work out well for him either.
********************************************

What kind of a moron are you?

The South wanted to expand slavery.

The North did not want slavery expanded.

The South decided to rebel and break the union, which would give them the power, as an independent nation, to expand slavery.

The North did not want slavery to expand and reacted to the rebellion to keep the union intact.

As long as the union was intact, the South could not expand slavery.

It's not that complicated.

Loki Loc: Georgia

You know, up until now, I have enjoyed our little debate; but since you have decided to start calling names, perhaps you could tell us how you became such a self-important little shitstain. Your pretensions of legal knowledge are almost laughable.
One. More. Time. I will try and use little words that you can understand.
Secession and rebellion are two entirely different things.
When the South seceded, it exercised a right that is either implied or specified. The matter was debated, in the State Legislatures of the seceding states. It was then put to a referendum vote and only after the majority of citizens had voted in the affirmative was the secession declared in effect. You do NOT present your case to what you ignorantly call "the proper authorities" when those "proper authorities" have a decided conflict of interest and have already shown themselves biased against you. The violence of the War was, in almost every case, initiated by the Union after the seceding states had legally dissolved their bonds.
It is not my fault if you cannot keep your language straight, when you claim that the South started the war and then claim that the war was started to prevent the spread of slavery. One more time...secession does not require a court appearance in the jurisdiction of the government you are seceding from. The right of secession does not require the agreement of the party being seceded FROM, any more than the right of a Free Press requires government approval.

Homestead

Exactly."In the state legislature!"

The trouble you have is that the Constitution was ratified with other states forming a Federal government.

For the state to agree to secession, was reason to bring it before congress and the other states.

The state agreed to join the union and was excepted by the other states, in order to form a strong federal government, that was limited to specific enumerated powers, but was sworn to protect and carry out.
******************************************

It can't just decide to quit and move on without the consent of the other states agreed to through congress.

I can decide that I'm not paying any federal income tax or follow any interstate highway rules, but that doesn't make it law.

I can get a bunch of people to agree to the same thing, but that doesn't make it law.

Because, we can't overthrow the authority of the federal government, just on our say-so we can't just stop obeying federal laws.

With a large support group, we might be able to put together a constituency to petition congress with our petition. But, it would be up to us to get our petition through congress and signed by the president, in order to make it law, by way of the procedures laid out in the Constitution.

What you don't want to recognize is that the country tried having the states sovereign and have a weak federal government with the articles of Confederation. It didn't work and was a disaster.

That's what led to the Constitution and a strong federal government which was ratified by Virginia.

What you want to do is play both sides of the fence.

You want to pretend that the Articles of Confederation exist over and above the Constitution when it suits you.

Loki Loc: Georgia

I am going to post a couple of links for you to peruse; I am tired of trying to penetrate an impenetrable wall of obtuseness. One last time; would you like to shut me up? Would you like to see me with egg on my face? All you have to do is show me where in the Constitution or in Federal Law as it existed in 1861 that secession was illegal. Not quotes from Lincoln or other Unionists. Facts, not opinion. Show me where the Constitution says Thou shalt not secede."
Explain to me why Virginia, New York and Rhode Island all had codicils in their ratification of the Constitution that reserved their right to secede. Explain why they were admitted to the Union with the representatives of the other states fully aware of those conditions?
The Constitution had already been ratified by the necessary nine states before these three states ratified. They ratified with the right of secession enumerated in their ratification. The representatives of the other states knew this, as I said. You don't have to go to court in front of a hostile judiciary to exercise a right that has already been agreed on.

http://www.endusmilitarism.org/secessionlegality.html
http://books.google.com/books?id=hdPExjrkizsC&pg=PA178&lpg=PA178&dq=When+Virginia+ratified+the+constitution+did+they+include+a+right+of+secession&source


Let's review your statement one more time, just to reaffirm it's invalidity;

"The state agreed to join the union and was excepted by the other states, in order to form a strong federal government, that was limited to specific enumerated powers, but was sworn to protect and carry out.
******************************************

"It can't just decide to quit and move on without the consent of the other states agreed to through congress
I can decide that I'm not paying any federal income tax or follow any interstate highway rules, but that doesn't make it law.
I can get a bunch of people to agree to the same thing, but that doesn't make it law.
Because, we can't overthrow the authority of the federal government, just on our say-so we can't just stop obeying federal law."
As I explained, the state most certainly can when the right to "just quit and move on" has ALREADY been agreed to by the representatives of the other states. I noticed in your amateurish explanation of contractual law, you completely ignored the legal requirement of a "meeting of the minds." Several of the seceding states did not even exist at the time the Constitution was ratified. When they became states they agreed to abide by the Constitution and Laws of the US, which did not specifically prohibit secession as set forth in the ratifications of three states and agreed to by the other ten. You are saying that only those parts of the law and Constitution that you agree with are valid. You just said "I can't just decide to quit and move on without the consent of the other states......;" yet these other states had already consented. An agreed on RIGHT of secession is a matter to be decided by the majority vote of the seceding party or parties, not by a consensus of those opposed to the action.
Yes, you CAN just stop obeying Federal law when it does not exist. Once more SHOW ME the Federal Statute or Constitutional authority that prohibited secession in 1861. Put up or shut up.

saltwind 78 Loc: Murrells Inlet, South Carolina

Loki, What is even stranger was the South considered Longstreet a traitor because he joined the Republican Party after the war and Chamberlin a hero of the South because he ordered his men to stop cheering when Lee surrendered and show the Southerners they respected the fight they put up.

Loki Loc: Georgia

Longstreet also was pilloried for arguing against both the unsuccessful attack on Little Round Top, and Pickett's Charge. Had Lee listened to him, the Confederates might have won at Gettysburg.
Chamberlain was quite a guy. He taught nearly every subject at Bowdoin College, and I believe he is supposed to have been able to speak seven languages.
The Twentieth Maine's defense of Little Round Top, under the command of Chamberlain, probably ensured the Union victory at Gettysburg, even without the disastrous assault the third day by Pickett's division.

badbobby Loc: texas

wow
I had no idea the lil thread bout Generals would generate so many knowledgeable stories

of the Civil War
thanks to all of you

Homestead

All right, let's start at the beginning.
You maintain that the session was lawful.
That being the case, then the next question you should ask is:

What is law?
What makes the law, the law.

For the answer to that we go back to ancient Rome and the Greek philosophers who answer that question and their philosophies are what make up the foundation of Western Law.
De Republica (On the Comnmonwealth) by M. Tullius Cicero, Book I.
http://www.constitution.org/rom/republica0.htm

Where he states:

True law is right reason, consonant with nature, spread through all people. It is constant and eternal; it summons to duty by its orders, it deters from crime by its prohibitions. Its orders and prohibitions to good people are never given in vain; but it does not move the wicked by these orders or prohibitions. It is wrong to pass laws obviating this law; it is not permitted to abrogate any of it; it cannot be totally repealed. We cannot be released from this law by the senate or the people, and it needs no exegete or interpreter like Sextus Aelius. There will not be one law at Rome and another at Athens, one now and another later; but all nations at all times will be bound by this one eternal and unchangeable law, and the god will be the one common master and general (so to speak) of all people. He is the author, expounder, and mover of this law; and the person who does not obey it will be in exile from himself. Insofar as he scorns his nature as a human being, by this very fact he will pay the greatest penalty, even if he escapes all the other things that are generally recognized as punishments....
**************************
In his diary, John Adams wrote that, any right you cannot defend, you do not have.
When he wrote the Constitution of Massachusetts, he Declared that the purpose of government is to protect the rights of it's citizens, it has no other purpose.
As an example, the founders declared the right of it's citizens to change their government as an inherent right.
So, if they claimed that right, how did they protect it?
The answer is in Article V of the Constitution, where they spelled out the procedures for changing the Constitution.
Article V, altering the Constitution consists of proposing an amendment or amendments and subsequent ratification. Amendments may be proposed either by the Congress with a two-thirds vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate or by a convention of states called for by two-thirds of the state legislatures.no change could be made without a two thirds majority of all the states.
That's because you can't change the Constitution without affecting the other states.
So they made sure that the other states would have their say.
Otherwise, the North could outlaw slavery and then cram it down the throat of the South.
But, the Constitution made sure that the South, as well as any other state, had their opportunity to veto any such amendment.
*********************************************************************
The very first problem you have is that there was never a bill, amendment or parliamentary procedure to define or explain just how a proper session was to take place.
So how do you claim the session was lawful?
The very first step should have been to introduce a bill that would define and explain how a session would take place. Then have that bill ratified under article V of the Constitution. That was never done.
It is common knowledge that the states retained a right to secede and that any right one state had, every state had.
That doesn't change the fact that at no time was any legislation passed that would explain how that was to be done. What were the responsibilities of the different parties.
**********************************************************************
In the meantime the president has taken an oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.
Not he least of which is to protect from Insurrections.
Insurrection (noun )
1. an act or instance of rising in revolt, rebellion, or resistance against civil authority or an established government.

Article I, Section 8, Clauses 11, 12, 13, 14: War; Military

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

No matter how session is defined, it cannot be synonymous with, Rebellion, Revolt, revolution, mutiny or insurrection. These are violent armed actions of war, not secession.

Article IV, Section 4
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened), against domestic Violence.
The other principal guarantee in Article IV, Section 4, is that the federal government will assure the states "a Republican Form of Government." The guarantee of protection from domestic violence may be treated as part of the republican guarantee. The assurance of a republican form did not appear in the Articles of Confederation. Participants in the Constitutional debate of 1787–1788 expressed varying views over exactly what constituted the "Republican Form" of government. However, there was a consensus as to three criteria of republicanism, the lack of any of which would render a government un-republican.
The first of these criteria was popular rule. The Founders believed that for government to be republican, political decisions had to be made by a majority (or in some cases, a plurality) of voting citizens. The citizenry might act either directly or through elected representatives. Either way, republican government was government accountable to the citizenry. To a generation immersed in Latin learning and looking to pre-imperial Rome for inspiration, a republic was very much res publica—the people's affair.
The second required element of republican government was that there be no monarch. The participants in the constitutional debates believed that monarchy, even constitutional monarchy, was inconsistent with republican government. In fact, when Alexander Hamilton proposed a President with lifetime tenure, the delegates so disagreed that they did not even take the time to respond.
The third criterion for a republic was the rule of law. Ex post facto laws, bills of attainder, extreme debtor-relief measures—most kinds of retroactive legislation, for example, were deemed inconsistent with the rule of law, and therefore un-republican.
http://www.heritage.org/constitution/#!/articles/4/essays/128/guarantee-clause
********************************************************************
Article VI: Supreme Law
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

Any federal system needs a strategy for dealing with potential conflicts between the national and local governments. There are at least three strategies available. First, each government could be given exclusive jurisdiction over its respective sphere, which would, at least in theory, avoid altogether the possibility of direct conflict. Second, the governments could have concurrent jurisdiction, but one government could be given power to veto actions of the other, either in the event of actual conflict or in general classes of cases. Third, both governments could be allowed to act without mutual interference, but one government's acts could be given primacy over the other's acts in the event of actual conflict.
The Supremacy Clause embodies the third strategy. It is a conflict-of-laws rule specifying that certain national acts take priority over any state acts that conflict with national law. In this respect, the Supremacy Clause follows the lead of Article XIII of the Articles of Confederation, which provided that "[e]very state shall abide by the determinations of the united states in congress assembled, on all questions which by this confederation are submitted to them."
http://www.heritage.org/constitution/#!/articles/6/essays/133/supremacy-clause
*****************************************
Determining the Facts
Reading 1: The Civil War in the Pensacola Area
When Abraham Lincoln won the presidential election of 1860, fear swept through the South. Although Lincoln had never called for abolishing slavery altogether, stating only that it should not spread to the territories, few Southerners believed him. They were certain Lincoln did plan to free the slaves, and Southern radicals called for the South to secede from the Union. South Carolina announced its secession in December 1860, even before Lincoln took office. Within six weeks Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, and Texas voted to leave the Union. These states justified their secession on the basis of states’ rights. That doctrine held that if the states had voluntarily joined the Union, they also could leave it whenever they chose.
Pensacola Bay with its safe harbor and adjoining navy yard complete with docking, supply, and shipbuilding facilities would be a valuable prize for either side if war broke out between the Union and the emerging Confederate States of America. Fort Pickens on the western end of Santa Rosa Island, Fort McRee to the west across the ship channel, and Fort Barrancas and its Advanced Redoubt on the mainland.
Stationed at Fort Barrancas, U.S. Army Lieutenant Adam J. Slemmer realized that if war proved inevitable and Southern forces attacked, his small force of 51 men could not possibly defend all four forts. On January 10, 1861, the same day Florida seceded from the Union, he concentrated all his troops in Fort Pickens, which he believed was the key to the defense of Pensacola’s harbor. Two days later, Slemmer’s men watched as Southern soldiers moved into the other forts across the channel, removing the U.S. flags. Then, on January 15, soldiers from Florida and Alabama demanded the surrender of Fort Pickens. Lieutenant Slemmer refused. On January 28, 1861, a truce was reached that stated that the South would not attack and Fort Pickens would not be reinforced.
By the time Lincoln took office in March, both Fort Sumter in the harbor of Charleston, South Carolina, and Fort Pickens, needed supplies. In his inaugural address Lincoln had pledged to continue to occupy federal property in the seceded states. If he withdrew the garrisons at those forts it would mean he officially recognized the Confederacy and its right to occupy those posts; if, on the other hand, he supplied the forts, he risked war.
The Union did send ships filled with supplies and reinforcements from Fort Monroe, Virginia, to Fort Pickens, but under terms of the truce they dared not land. For 10 weeks, the Union’s ships with blue coated soldiers aboard lay at anchor near Fort Pickens, while inside the fort, fearful of a surprise assault on the island, Lieutenant Slemmer kept his command on full alert. The Confederates had in fact planned such a surprise attack, but bad weather delayed them until the 12th of April. Then, before they could get under way, they learned that South Carolina forces had opened fire on Fort Sumter. The civil war so many had feared for so long became a reality.
http://www.nps.gov/nr

Loki Loc: Georgia

I suppose it boils down to when secession was in session.

Homestead

I believe it was Louisiana that fired on Federal Property before they declared secession.

That in itself is treason and an insurrection, which the president is Constitutional required to put down.

That happened before Lincoln was sworn in, but never-the-less, it is what he inherited.

Loki Loc: Georgia

Virginia seceded as an independent republic initially. The same day the results of the statewide vote were published, making Virginia's LEGAL secession official, Lincoln ordered an army into the state to force them back in the Union. This culminated in the Confederate victory at First Manassas.

Homestead

There is no Constitutional amendment dictating how a secession is to be executed.

In that vacuum, you don't get to make up your own rules.

To secede, all parties would have to get together and make that decision, make up a bill and get it passed through congress and singed by the president.

You don't get to mount an insurrection and then call it a secession.
*******************

Article I, Section 8, Clauses 11, 12, 13, 14: War; Military

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
******************************

Supremacy Clause follows the lead of Article XIII of the Articles of Confederation, which provided that "[e]very state shall abide by the determinations of the united states in congress assembled, on all questions which by this confederation are submitted to them."
http://www.heritage.org/constitution/#!/articles/6/essays/133/supremacy-clause
***************************8

Then, by no means was secession unanimous amongst the people of the Southern States.

By bypassing congress and keeping it within the states, those that opposed secession were denied their rights to to gain support and join with others from other states who felt the same way.

The sudden departure of seven states from the Union and the establishment of a southern nation gives an impression of a unanimous popular movement following Lincoln's election. In fact, however, opposition to immediate secession was notable in most of the seceding states, and became quite potent as one proceeded northward towards the border and upper South region. The elections of delegates to secession conventions were close in a number of deep South states, belying the greater majorities for secession at the conventions themselves. In Georgia, for example, the votes for secessionist delegates constituted at best a bare majority and may well have actually been outweighed by voters opposing immediate secession. In Alabama and Louisiana, the vote was also very close. Opposition to immediate secession was not the same as devotion to the Union, but it suggested that some kind of compromise could return most, if not all, of the seceding states back to the Union.
In the upper South, where slavery was less prominent and association with the North more pervasive, opposition to immediate secession was even stronger. States like Virginia, Tennessee, and Arkansas took a wait-and-see attitude, sometimes calling for a convention, sometimes rejecting demands. Even where conventions were called, pro-Union delegates predominated. Thus, Virginians held an election for a convention on February 4, but the secessionists were outpolled about two to one. A few days later, Tennessee voters went even further and rejected a move to call a convention. Thus, after the secession of Texas in the beginning of February 1861, secessionist momentum ran into a wall of resistance. Eight slaveholding states remained in the Union. How to keep them there, especially by avoiding the outbreak of actual fighting, was a matter of considerable urgency to unionists in the days following Lincoln's election. Not surprisingly, the upper South was the main source of compromise initiatives intended to provide for an honorable and peaceable restoration of the Union.
http://www.tulane.edu/~sumter/Background/BackgroundUpperSouth.html

Loki Loc: Georgia

Louisiana seceded in January of 1861. If there were any exchanges of fire before then I have not heard of them, although there might have been. I suppose you have a date for this supposed pre-secession violence.