the civil war was not about slavery. it was about states rights, which I am very sorry to say lost out.

some "slave" states had already abolished slavery but still fought for the south.

You mean the states' right to own slaves. I hate how Southern revisionists try to color their motive as a constitutional one without acknowledging what those rights entailed. I'm curious, Sicarius, which of those Confederate states you're talking about that already abolished slavery by the outbreak of war? I'd really like to know.

The tragicomic reality is that the Confederacy violated many of those states rights they had previously enjoyed, namely the forced draft of men in the later stages of the war and the arrest of those suspected of colluding with the Union. Granted, the Union had their own issues with the suspension of habeas corpus and the draft riots but my point is that the level of rights was not nearly as different as one might have imagined for a group that seceded on the principle of states' rights. Of course, there is the grand irony that certain portions of the Confederacy tried to secede themselves e.g. West Virginia, East Tennessee. Were they allowed to on the basis of a state's right to secede? No, of course not.

The Texas Revolution is another matter entirely though so I acknowledge my digression. Possibly the only state that had to carve its way in a baptism of fire to become a state in the first place before it was subsumed by the U.S.

its also Dr. Suess' birthday today

I live in Canada, so I have nothing to say but happy sort-of independence Texas!

I seem to remember hearing that Texas has been under five governments: French, Spanish, Independent, US, Confederacy, I think.

I also think states have a right to succeed, considering that "state" is synonymous with "nation," making it clear that this is a union between separate nations.

About the Civil War, keep in mind that the North could have simply let the South succeed, so the war was really about the Union violating Popular Sovereignty. The North didn't want to free the slaves at the start of the war.

@ aum, you'll note that there is actually a state of West Virginia. The Union seemed to be kind of inconsistent about whether the southern states actually succeeded. Officially, they didn't, because they don't have a right to, but at the same time, West Virginia was allowed to separate from Virginia despite not being a state. And what about all the legislation that was passed without representing part of the US?

But really, isn't the Mexican American War more relevant? The one where we started a war for no reason but that we wanted land?

@zuzak
Confusing "secede" with "succeed" is not a spelling error; that's just ignorance. But to your brilliant point, yes, I believe all states have the right to "succeed".
There's a state of West Virginia?! Yes, while the secession was in a gray area legally, it was accepted as was the separation of the Confederate states albeit only de facto.

Also, if you pronounce "secede" like "succeed" then you have some issues to work out with your regional accent in English.

Ah, instead of countering my points, you counter my spelling.

zuzak,

Texas has had 6 governments
you forgot Mexico

the easiest way to remember the number of flags for Texas is by using the theme park name "Six Flags"

"some "slave" states had already abolished slavery but still fought for the south."

Well, that's just wrong. Delaware almost fits that description of abolishing slavery but it didn't secede or raise any troops for the South.

There is no legal right to secession. The United States is a perpetual union. It doesn't matter what your personal views are, the Supreme Court ruled secession is unconstitutional.

"Possibly the only state that had to carve its way in a baptism of fire to become a state in the first place before it was subsumed by the U.S."

Vermont and Hawaii, plus the original Thirteen Colonies acted with varying degrees of independence. Virginia ratified the alliance with France by itself.

Yeah lol I was about to say that... Mexico is kind of a big one. The iffy one is France lol there was like one fort.

The Supreme Court can do nothing but interperate the Constitution, and I don't see anything in the Constitution that says that a state cannot secede. Why force a state to be part of a union they don't want to be in? We dissolved Austria-Hungary and the Ottoman Empire because people in them wanted to secede, didn't we? Popular sovereignty, fourteen points, all that? Isn't that a little hypocritical?

The Supreme Court did interpret the Constitution, and found secession unconstitutional in Texas v. White.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=74&invol=700

States can't secede legally.

Thucydides,
France took over almost all of Mexico for 6 years and that includes Texas. So even though its only it was "like one fort" it was still a fairly decent amount of time under French rule

dont forget the battle of san jacinto
not only were the texans not supposed to win(they used guerilla tactics in the early morning to catch the Mexicans off guard)
they also discovered "chicle" or gum because Santa Anna was chewing it during a short boat ride to Houston

who knows how long it would have taken chicle to reach Americans if it hadnt have been for Santa Anna's ambitious/arrogant attitude

oh yes i forgot about the Napoleonic years my bad.

in my 7th grade texas history classes they traditionally point to de La Salle as the reason for including the French nation as a ruler but you bring up a good point

de La Salle though, was truly "like one fort" lol

"France took over almost all of Mexico for 6 years and that includes Texas."

The France claim comes from when Texas was kind of included in Louisiana, before the Revolutionary War, even. You're thinking of the French intervention in Mexico during 1861 to 1867, well after Texas was annexed.

@Invictus, Forgive me for just skimming over the article, as it was pretty long and not entirely relevant. But from what I saw, the justification was that the Union is indissoluble, and therefore the states could not secede. If you can show me where it says that in the Constitution, I'll accept that the Union was somewhat justified for refusing to recognize the Confederacy. Otherwise, the Supreme Court is making stuff up, and the Union wasn't at all justified.

There's no specific Right to Privacy in the Constitution, but would you say that's being made up?

The Confederacy was an act of rebellion. You show me a country that just lays down and allows itself to be torn asunder.

It's not an article, it's a Supreme Court ruling and is completely relevant because it is what the illegality of secession is based upon. You mush have been sleeping in civics class and have no idea whatsoever of how our legal system works to say that the Supreme court is just "making up" the indivisibility of the Union. It's there. It's precedent. That's what come from living in a common law country. States CAN'T secede!

Dude, your wrong. States are states are states and can't unilaterally leave the Union, short of a successful revolution.

Look, there is no provision against secession in the consitution. After the Civil War there really should have been an Amendment to clear that up.... can you not write an amendment when that sort of things comes up instead of having one particular court from whenever decide? Especially since the Supreme Court overturns itself a lot...

The same thing could be said about a right to privacy amendment... though I don't really agree with the right to privacy...

It actually overturns itself rarely. Precedence is very important.

What the Supreme Court says the Constitution says is what it says. It doesn't just pull stuff out of thin air, these people analyze and study the case very carefully and reach the most judicially sound conclusion. Interpretation does not mean activism.

A Constitutional Amendment would have legitimized the rebellion's actions after the fact.

I also think the Right to Privacy is fuzzy, but it keeps the government out of a lot of things so I'll leave well enough alone thank you very much.

Still an Amendment can't hurt.

Let's be honest, if you lived in the South in 1860 and had read the Constitution you'd be in full favor of secession and say that nothing in the Constitution prevents states from leaving as they will. Nothing does. I mean... it's sort of hard to interpret that away. They could have said somewhere in the preamble or have something in the Northwest Ordinance or whatever controls admittance of states about how entry into the Union represents a binding and infinite committment to remain a member. What's the harm in it. Why not do it today for god's sake? You never know what problems there would be in the future.

Along with Thucydides, I do find it interesting that there is no specific legal proviso attached to the Constitution regarding the Union. Although I think most states, apart from Texas of course, consider being in the Union to their benefit, the reaction toward a state declaring secession today would probably warrant overwhelming force from the federal government, which has only grown in power in the time since the Civil War.

A point about the Texan notion of independence: Why do Texans feel so driven to assert their supremacy and independence over the other states? I find it both amusing and annoying. Case in point, I had a class where the professor asked about international students in the room from foreign countries. A Texan actually had the nerve to stand up and say "Texas" as a foreign nation. Humorous, but inexplicable. California was formerly a republic too, no? And that state even has the word emblazoned on the flag.

@zuzak
If you don't think your "spelling mistake" made you look like an idiot, then you're wrong. I'm not going to waste my breath discussing history or constitutional law with someone who displays such ignorance. And I have yet to hear a single state that abolished slavery before the war, as YOU claim.

lol most of those guys are just uneducated but you have to say though that the Texas Republic was much longer lived and effective than the Bear Republic in California.

one thing you can't deny is that the texas flag is allowed to fly at the same height as the US flag, unlike other state flags. we do have some amount of pride that we had to fight for independence before we could join the union whereas other states went from territory to state. the fact that texas almost was not admitted because it would require a treaty with a foreign power, that power being Texas, is definitely something we're proud of.

All state flags can fly at the same height as US flags if they're on separate poles.

Texas wasn't almost admitted because it required a treaty with a foreign power, it almost wasn't admitted because it was a huge slave state and Northern Congressmen and Senators didn't want another slave state in the Union.

As for there being not specific part of the Constitution which prohibits states from leaving, there's no legal method for them to do it either. By leaving the Union, the Confederate states entered into rebellion against the federal government, and it is well within the government's power to maintain order. Don't forget it was South Carolina that attacked Fort Sumter.

"Let's be honest, if you lived in the South in 1860 and had read the Constitution you'd be in full favor of secession and say that nothing in the Constitution prevents states from leaving as they will."

In 1860 half the country disagreed with that interpretation, and probably more since the secessionist conventions weren't unanimous.

The fact remains that the Supreme Court ruled secession illegal, and for all intents and purposes the Constitution says what the Supreme Court says it says.

@Thucydides
Interesting how both CA and TX were both independent republics at one point, both are two of the largest states in the Union in terms of both geographical area and population, and are two of the most important states in the country economically! Both share part of a common history under the rule of Spain/Mexico too and both were "born" within arguably the same extended conflict. I've spent part of my life in both too (Austin, TX). Of course today, one hears much more about tongue-in-cheek secessionist rumblings in California, whose GDP would rank it 8th in the world.

@Invictus
Yes, the Supreme Court interprets the Constitution but it is far from infallible. There have been plenty of instances throughout history where their decisions have been later reversed. An incorrigible Southern revisionist might potentially make that argument against the weight of the Supreme Court's ruling. Personally, I agree with you but I'm just playing devil's advocate.

The lack of a specific clause addressing the issue of secession summarily categorizes any act of rebellion against the central government as treason, open rebellion, etc. You're absolutely correct in saying that. Although the secessionists may not have violated a law against their act specifically, their actions fell under the general violation of acting against the nation at the federal level. If you want to take an even finer viewpoint, the federal government was attacked at Fort Sumter, leaving it no choice but to take military action against the belligerents. Further resistance from the Confederacy would just deepen the perceived need to not allow a dangerous precedent to be set of permitting open rebellion. Of course, the fact that some call the American Civil War the Second War of Independence reflects the blurred distinction between the rebellion of the Colonies against their own central government but I digress...

@Thucydides
"lol most of those guys are just uneducated"
That's the thing though... I'm consistently surprised and happy with the depth of some members here. It makes threads actually worthwhile to post in as opposed to the clusterf--k that usually occurs elsewhere online. YouTube would be the most egregious example.

How is the Supreme Court not infallible, from a legal point of view? Its decisions can't be challenged.

There have been horribly decided cases in the Court's history (Dred Scott comes to mind) but there's nothing above them. The buck has to stop somewhere and in our system that's the Supreme Court. Once they decide, that's it, and overturning precedence is very hard to justify.

I'm glad to hear someone agrees with me because, well, I'm completely right.

Hah! Invictus, your horse is pretty high. Maybe you should come off it. While it is true that there is no real check against the Supreme Court and its members, what you propose sounds judicial nightmare. Upholding an improper or unconstitutional decision simply because a previous Supreme Court ruling says otherwise undermines the entire purpose of the judicial system.

The reason behind there being no significant checks on the judicial branch is so that they can make impartial, fair decisions in each case as it arises. You meanwhile revel in the fact that the Supreme Court holds legal standing over everything else. Shouldn't we be more concerned that the highest court in the land acts along rational and sensible grounds, not firstly in legalistic terms?

The Supreme Court is not always right. How do I know? Because the Supreme Court has said that it's not always right. How do I know? Because on a few specific occasions (one of which Invictus just mentioned), the Supreme Court has said that it was once wrong.

For practical purposes of law, yes, whatever the Supreme Court last said is right. But if you ever disagree with it, then you can always say that it was wrong, and hope that it will be overturned later. With good fortune, you may even get the chance to argue before the Supreme Court that they were wrong, and even convince them. So it's obviously not true that they're always right.

Even if you take a purely practical approach to the law, where whatever the Court says is true for practical purposes until they overturn themselves (if ever), it's STILL not true that the Court is always right, since sometimes legal authorities break the law and get away with it. So there really is no perspective from which the Supreme Court is always right.

Someone asked for an example of a country that rolled over and let itself fall to pieces. One recent example is the Soviet Union.

The real nightmare is a situation where the decisions of the Court can be disregarded. A nightmare is when the rule or law can be flouted, and that is the result of your line of thinking.

Improper decisions are overturned when there is legal grounds to do so. Precedence is inextricably bound to the law since it is precedence which allows for cases to be tried by the same standard rather than the whims of individuals judges.

The Court has to act in legalistic terms. We have Congress and the President to make policy, the Courts make sure its constitutional. They need to be impartial.

Even if you disagree this is the reality.

Let me put it this way: If someone with legal authority ACTS in violation with what the Supreme Court has said, then they're breaking the law, even if they disagree with the Court's decision. But if somebody THINKS that what the Supreme Court said is wrong, then they have every right to say that the Court was wrong, and they could give arguments such as those that might later be the basis for overturning the decision. And these people are sometimes later agreed to be right.