SCOTUS ruled that “an indestructible union, composed of indestructible states” was the law of the land.
Allan
They made it up. No such statement or anything close exists in our constitution.
SCOTUS does make NOT things up. They interpret the constitution for us. The same way organizations can have first amendment rights.
SCOTUS said so.
Allan
Of course they made it up, it cannot be found in The Constitution anywhere and it is in direct conflict with the 9th and 10th Amendments.
Salmon Chase forgot more about the constitution than most people know.
Allan
By the way, I strongly support removing confederate statues from public property in exactly the manner it was done here. We shouldn’t be praising what was the South’s greatest mistake.
But I also believe in historical accuracy. To say Lee was treasonous is inaccurate. At that time in history, most people’s primary loyalty was to their state. When he was offered command of what would become the Army of the Potomac, he knew very well that this new army would be used to march on Richmond, the Confederate capital.
Being a loyal Virginian, he could not fathom commanding such a force and refused. He could not march on his own home state.
2 Likes
Robert E. Lee was a good strategist and so was General Sherman. Measuring Lee’s morality and personality might be a different story, however.
WuWei
1186
What part of the Constitution did the SCOTUS “interpret” to come to that conclusion?
5 Likes
If people don’t like something, they have every right to separate themselves from it. People, politics, states. It’s all the same. They don’t have to suffer something that is harming them.
Texas’ constitution allows for secession, so it’s technically constitutional. And I wish Oklahoma had it in their Constitution as well.
vaard
1188
Instead he sided with a group that killed americans so they could continue to keep slaves…
And yet as we keep pointing out it can be found nowhere in the US constitution, he made it up.
Not The Constitution imposed on us following the US civil war.
Morality had nothing to do with his being a good general and he was.
He was highly respected by US Troops and leadership both before and after the war.
Our vision of what is The US today is completely different than it existed prior to the war.
We were a true confederated republic before the war and a single nation after.
Before the war people’s first loyalties were to their states and with secession they returned for the most part to their home states and fought on whichever side their states supported.
There was no treason in doing so. The US Army which was very limited at the time in size and scope allowed them to resign their commissions and terms of enlistment to do so.
Even during the war remember most units were not Regular Army they were state militias called up to federal service because we had only a tiny standing army at the time.
Putting down insurrections is the federal government domain.
No need to put interpret in quotation marks.
It’s what SCOTUS is tasked to do.
Allan
Article I, Section 8, Clause 15:
[The Congress shall have Power . . .] To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; . . .
The southern states were in insurrection.
Lincoln put a stop to that.
And America folded the the rebellious states back securely into the fold of the constitution.
Allan
Allan
Aka the SCOTUS pulled it right out of their asses.
A brutal civil war that left 700,000 Americans dead just wrapped up. They were playing politics because for them to say otherwise would have royally screwed the Federal government’s entire justification for waging the war the way it did.
I never said he fought for the right side. I specifically stated he fought for the wrong side, as did millions of southerners.
But to say there is no right to secede is flatly wrong. It’s not mentioned by the constitution and as such it is a matter left up to the states and the people to decide.
They were only in “rebellion” after they fired on a federal fort. And even then, they never planned on taking over the federal government. Only to separate from it.
Until the Fort Sumter fiasco, they were entirely in their right to leave the union. When they fired the first shot, they gave the Union the right to defend itself and wage offensive war against a foreign power.
And when they won the war, the Union dictated terms to the defeated foreign power. The CSA even made it easier for them by completely collapsing and their executive and legislative branches running for the hills.
I wouldn’t be so quick to rely on scotus. I.e. dredd scott
vaard
1198
My point is we should not have statues on government property of military figures that fought against america…
