Was the American Civil War constitutionally legal?

[jgoodguy]

Was the American Civil War constitutionally legal?

Answer (1 of 40): Depends on which side you’re referring to. Was secession legal no. Was the Federal government’s fight to suppress insurrection Consitutional? Yes. Article one Section eight. First off, why would a foundation document have in it a mechanism for it's own destruction? More to the...

www.quora.com

Lincoln's waging of the American Civil War was legal even if secession was legal.​

​

There is nothing in the Constitution expressly permitting or forbidding secession. A number of clauses point toward secession being illegal, especially the power of Congress to suppress insurrections and the supremacy clause. The 10th Amendment, though, could be read to imply a right to secede. With respect, I deny that the war itself settled the constitutional question of secession; it merely settled whether one particular secession attempt would succeed. Had the South won, that would hardly prove that the secession was legal, any more than a bank robber getting away with his loot proves that bank robbery is legal; conversely, the fact that the North won no more proves that secession is illegal than the fact that the Army beat up and dispersed the Bonus Marchers proves that protesting is illegal.​

A catch 22 for the budding secession was legal folk.

If secession was illegal, then of course Lincoln had the power to suppress it as he would any other insurrection. If secession was legal, then the Confederacy was a foreign country, which on multiple occasions attacked the United States by bombarding Fort Sumter, attacking the Star of the West, and looting federal arsenals. The war against that foreign power was fully as legal as would be an American invasion of Cuba if Cuba were to attack the American Embassy in Havana and fire on the Guantanamo naval base. Lincoln and the Congress waged the war on the theory that secession was not legal - thus the decision not to formally declare war, and to treat the citizens of Confederate states as American citizens - but if they were wrong, the war would still be a legal war against an attacking foreign power.​

​

The fact of Lincoln's legal power to fight the war is much clearer than the question of whether secession was legal, which will always remain obscure until a constitutional amendment specifically outlaws or allows it.​

 

[5fish]

Is not the question can Congress pass a law allowing secession of a state or does it have to a Constitutional Amendment... You do not need a Constitutional Amendment to bring a territory into the Union... I bet it up to Congress to decide how to handle a rogue state... to let it go or keep it... I said if the Southern state would have use the system I bet they would have been allowed to leave within a decade...

 

[Leftyhunter]

Was the American Civil War constitutionally legal?

Answer (1 of 40): Depends on which side you’re referring to. Was secession legal no. Was the Federal government’s fight to suppress insurrection Consitutional? Yes. Article one Section eight. First off, why would a foundation document have in it a mechanism for it's own destruction? More to the...

www.quora.com

Did

Lincoln's waging of the American Civil War was legal even if secession was legal.​

​

There is nothing in the Constitution expressly permitting or forbidding secession. A number of clauses point toward secession being illegal, especially the power of Congress to suppress insurrections and the supremacy clause. The 10th Amendment, though, could be read to imply a right to secede. With respect, I deny that the war itself settled the constitutional question of secession; it merely settled whether one particular secession attempt would succeed. Had the South won, that would hardly prove that the secession was legal, any more than a bank robber getting away with his loot proves that bank robbery is legal; conversely, the fact that the North won no more proves that secession is illegal than the fact that the Army beat up and dispersed the Bonus Marchers proves that protesting is illegal.​

A catch 22 for the budding secession was legal folk.

If secession was illegal, then of course Lincoln had the power to suppress it as he would any other insurrection. If secession was legal, then the Confederacy was a foreign country, which on multiple occasions attacked the United States by bombarding Fort Sumter, attacking the Star of the West, and looting federal arsenals. The war against that foreign power was fully as legal as would be an American invasion of Cuba if Cuba were to attack the American Embassy in Havana and fire on the Guantanamo naval base. Lincoln and the Congress waged the war on the theory that secession was not legal - thus the decision not to formally declare war, and to treat the citizens of Confederate states as American citizens - but if they were wrong, the war would still be a legal war against an attacking foreign power.​

​

The fact of Lincoln's legal power to fight the war is much clearer than the question of whether secession was legal, which will always remain obscure until a constitutional amendment specifically outlaws or allows it.​

Didn't Texas v.White address this issue in 1869?
Leftyhunter

 

[Joshism]

The war against that foreign power was fully as legal as would be an American invasion of Cuba if Cuba were to attack the American Embassy in Havana and fire on the Guantanamo naval base.

Confederate sympathizers argue Lincoln holding Sumter was an act of war comparable to an invasion. At least some of them are honest enough to admit the legality of the situation didn't really matter. A foreign fort in their harbor was simply intolerable.

Are there any examples of a country breaking off diplomatic relations with another country, but the second country refuses to close up their embassy and leave? Or a military base, especially after a regime change?

Guantanamo seems like the closest comparison. It's a strange situation because the US has a legal lease. The lease is indefinite and doesn't seem to contain any process for Cuba to legally terminate the lease as long as the US keeps making the yearly payment.

Fort Sumter was property of the US government, on an artificial island created by the federal government. Not even a lease; permanent ownership.

Has an actual lawyer ever tried to make a case why the US government had a legal obligation to turn over Sumter to the Confederacy? (Assuming, for the sake of argument, that secession was legal.)

 

[Joshism]

Didn't Texas v. White address this issue in 1869?

That's sort of a philosophical question as well as a legal one.

 

[Leftyhunter]

That's sort of a philosophical question as well as a legal one.

Perhaps but since 1869 the issue has been legally settled. Today there is definitely support especially among whites on the right wing spectrum for Secession of some sort a ND indeed the American Communist Party in the 1930s for a separate Communist AA Republic in the South but obviously it never got anywhere. Today this question can only be achieved by trial by combat. Arguably should an extreme right winger win the presidential election of 2024 which is a distinct possibility as many states have enacted laws to restrict non white voting indeed the state legislatures in many Republican states can simply deny election results then a new Adminstration can appoint right wing justices to overturn Texas v.White.
Leftyhunter

 

[Leftyhunter]

Confederate sympathizers argue Lincoln holding Sumter was an act of war comparable to an invasion. At least some of them are honest enough to admit the legality of the situation didn't really matter. A foreign fort in their harbor was simply intolerable.

Are there any examples of a country breaking off diplomatic relations with another country, but the second country refuses to close up their embassy and leave? Or a military base, especially after a regime change?

Guantanamo seems like the closest comparison. It's a strange situation because the US has a legal lease. The lease is indefinite and doesn't seem to contain any process for Cuba to legally terminate the lease as long as the US keeps making the yearly payment.

Fort Sumter was property of the US government, on an artificial island created by the federal government. Not even a lease; permanent ownership.

Has an actual lawyer ever tried to make a case why the US government had a legal obligation to turn over Sumter to the Confederacy? (Assuming, for the sake of argument, that secession was legal.)

Such an argument would fall flat as the USG and SC already signed an agreement that Ft.Sumter was a federal military base. Cuba actually benefits from Guantanamo since it's nationals even during the Cold War earn Yankee dollars so they can stimulate the Cuban economy. Should relations improve that American servicemen can spend hard currency in Cuba.
Leftyhunter

 

[jgoodguy]

Didn't Texas v.White address this issue in 1869?
Leftyhunter

That's sort of a philosophical question as well as a legal one.

IMHO if a group has the political and military will and methods to succeed at secession then that secession is 'legal'. The question that seems to trip folks up is the morality of it. Who had the moral high ground. Texas v White, IMHO, simply says, we won, we decide.

 

[jgoodguy]

Has an actual lawyer ever tried to make a case why the US government had a legal obligation to turn over Sumter to the Confederacy? (Assuming, for the sake of argument, that secession was legal.)

In the end, the CSA simply militarily occupied Sumter without any legal niceties.

 

[Leftyhunter]

IMHO if a group has the political and military will and methods to succeed at secession then that secession is 'legal'. The question that seems to trip folks up is the morality of it. Who had the moral high ground. Texas v White, IMHO, simply says, we won, we decide.

The US Supreme Court explained why Secession is illegal in great detail. If the question is asked is Secession legal then the simple answer is no it never was and will never be unless the US Supreme Court over turns Texas v.White. If the question is was it morally right to secede in order to creat an independent slave republic the answer is going to depend on ones view of the morality of slavery.
The South practiced slavery in the form of convict leasing at least up to the 1940s. Slavery never exactly ended in the US so the issue of slavery is still relevant today.
Leftyhunter

 

[Jim Klag]

The US Supreme Court explained why Secession is illegal in great detail. If the question is asked is Secession legal then the simple answer is no it never was and will never be unless the US Supreme Court over turns Texas v.White. If the question is was it morally right to secede in order to creat an independent slave republic the answer is going to depend on ones view of the morality of slavery.
The South practiced slavery in the form of convict leasing at least up to the 1940s. Slavery never exactly ended in the US so the issue of slavery is still relevant today.
Leftyhunter

Need I remind you of the 13th Amendment?

 

[Leftyhunter]

Need I remind you of the 13th Amendment?

The 13th Amendment didn't stop the use of convict leasing so that does not negate my point. I am surprised that you aren't aware of this tuck sized loophole. The Documentary " the 13th " covers legal post ACW slavery which lasted well into the 1940s. Slavery still continues in the US today although it's illegal ; the US Department of Homeland Security has " the Blue Campaign" where he public is supposed to notify DHS if they come accross a modern day slave. The Blue Campaign was posted on large posters on public buses and subway stations in Los Angeles County.
Leftyhunter

 

[Leftyhunter]

Need I remind you of the 13th Amendment?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convict_leasing
Convict leasing was often imposed on young Southern AA males arrested on trumpeted up charges.
Leftyhunter

 

[Leftyhunter]

Need I remind you of the 13th Amendment?

https://www.dhs.gov/blue-campaign
Also of course there is much coerced labor in the sex Industry. Unlike many West European countries prostitution is illegal except in certain counties in Nevada and even there woman are exploited. Pumps routinely use violence to coerce woman into working and steal their money.
Leftyhunter

 

[rittmeister]

https://www.dhs.gov/blue-campaign
Also of course there is much coerced labor in the sex Industry. Unlike many West European countries prostitution is illegal except in certain counties in Nevada and even there woman are exploited. Pumps routinely use violence to coerce woman into working and steal their money.
Leftyhunter

fuck puritanism

 

[Leftyhunter]

Need I remind you of the 13th Amendment?

Even the US Department of State as well as the DHS admit that slavery still exists in the US.
https://richmond.com/news/local/mod...cle_3f297244-cc3d-5228-9e0f-9c229af04dea.html
Leftyhunter