Quote:
Originally posted by Botnst
I understand your argument. Our armed forces have destroyed whole city populations. But we have also prosecuted soldiers for individual acts against civilians and against private property. In fact, soldiers are allowed to destroy things but are never allowed to loot. Why is that? Its partly to keep "freebooters" (guess what that means?) out of the military.
In point of fact, the south did not rebel, they seceded. Recall that the former colonies originally entered union as sovereign states. Some of them specifically wrote that if the union failed, they reserved teh right to secede and nobody disputed that assertion of rights. In fact, in the early years of teh 19th century several New England states threatened secession but were dissuaded by arguments from southern states!
Its certainly a moot point now (no law necessary when military defeat rules), but it would have been interesting for Lincoln to have chosen to pursue his aims through the courts rather than the barrel of a gun.
|
There is no right to secede under the US Constitution. Elaborate articles are dedicated on how to get into the Union, while there is not one single one on how to get out. There are also specific rules on how the Federal Government could respond to rebellion, which means the founders forsaw circumstances where rebellion could occur against the Federal Government and not the separate states.
States have always had a path to legally secede. In order for a state to legally secede, it would require a constitutional amendment allowing it to do so, in other words the assent of three quarters of the other states. This is a simple fact. Any state that wishes to secede may do so legally, if they can overcome this hurdle. A state that cannot and secedes anyway, is rebelling against the law of the land.
In addition the states gave up enormous rights and ceased to be soveriegn states when they entered the Union. Originally, under the Articles of Confederation they entered as soveriegn states, and it was a disaster. Under the Constitution, they entered under a limited soveriegnty arrangement.
In 1861, South Carolina passed an act of the legislature, signed by the governor proclaiming unilateral secession, as noted above something not provided for by the Constitution, which is the official legal contract between the states. Prior attempts at succession mostly were just disguntled talk. SC committed an overt act of secession, and were the first to do so.
There is distinction between rebelling and secession. The South attempted secession, and failed. By shooting at federal troops, they rebelled. As far as Lincoln goes, as Commander in Chief he had unlimited power under the Constitution in a war zone or in any state in rebellion. The South became his personal fiefdom.