同意楼主的观点，这也是美国南方政府拆掉李将军（Gen. Robert E. Lee）等塑像的原因，南方政府对拆掉塑像做过解释，和楼主说的一样，而非某些华人所说的美国拆掉李将军等塑像，是在搞“文化大革命”。
回复 'sufficient' 的评论 : In Texas v. White, The Supreme Court CLEARLY ruled that the succession of Texas in 1861 was ILLEGAL. The Constitution regarding succession was the same in 1861 and 1869. I agree that there are people who argue that the Supreme Court ruling was wrong. That's their opinion. What I said was that the Supreme Court ruled it was illegal for south to unilaterally succeed. If you don't agree with the Supreme Court, please go and argue with them. Why is such a simple logic so difficult for you to understand?
回复 'sufficient' 的评论 : constitution is constitution, before and after war. supreme Court is only interpretjng the constitution.
回复 '不言有罪' 的评论 :
A historical background that you should also know in regarding to state's right to succeed. During ratification of the constitution by the constituent states in 1788, New York, Virginia and Rhode Island refused to ratify the constitution unless they were allowed to reserve the right to succeed from the union. Compromises were reached so that constitution would not have provision for the nullification of the succession right. Since all states in the continental compact were presumed equal in legal status, it was therefore assumed by most, if not all, that the right to succeed from the Union by individual state was permitted by the constitution until the 1869 Texas ruling 4 year after the end of civil war. A side note, the 1869 ruling on succession right proved to be an embarrassing irony for US foreign policies when US is now persistently preaching to other countries of their local people's right for self determination while itself was against it domestically.
回复 '不言有罪' 的评论 :
By the way, use your common sense, The principle that people should be free from retroactive law has its roots in another principle: that there is no crime or punishment except in accordance with law.
回复 '不言有罪' 的评论 :
I guess you are unfamiliar with US legal system. I am not going to give you a lecture on the non retrospection of law. I just want to cite you this passage:
The principle of legality is the legal ideal that requires all law to be clear, ascertainable and non-retrospective. It requires decision makers to resolve disputes by applying legal rules that have been declared beforehand, and not to alter the legal situation retrospectively by discretionary departures from established law.
No crime can be committed, nor punishment imposed without a pre-existing penal law, nulla poena sine lege. This principle is accepted as just and upheld by the penal codes of constitutional states, including virtually all modern democracies.
in conclusion, tt the time of the Civil War it was not illegal as the ruling by Supreme Court came later in 1869 (after the war) that unilateral secession was unconstitutional.
回复 'sufficient' 的评论 : Just one quote on this topic from the internet:
"I think there's been some confusion about the word "illegal". It commonly refers to an act that is punishable under criminal law, but the question regarding unilateral secession is whether it's authorized by the Constitution. We commonly refer to unconstitutional actions as "illegal"; perhaps that's insufficiently precise.
I'd say the real question here is whether unilateral secession is permitted by the Constitution. Given that question, the principal of nulla poena sine lege is irrelevant, since it's not a matter of a criminal law for which violators may be punished.
For example, there is no punishment specified for passing a law that restricts free speech, but any such law is invalid.
Texas V. White clearly expressed the Supreme Court's opinion that unilateral secession was illegal in 1861, when Texas attempted to secede. There is no ambiguity in the Court's ruling. There are valid arguments that the Court's ruling was incorrect, but any such arguments should start with an acknowledgement of what the ruling actually said."
回复 'sufficient' 的评论 : oh sure. All murderers must be tried before the murder, not afterwards.
回复 '不言有罪' 的评论 :
you mean that court ruling in 1869? I hope that you do realize that in US law is not supposed to and cannot be retroactive. I fail to comprehend your reference to 1869 court ruling has any bearing on legality of events in civil war.
回复 'sufficient' 的评论 : Then what was the Texas vs White ruling about?
"ust tell me, was the succession ruled to be legal or illegal by the Supreme Court.?"
It had never been a supreme court ruling on the constitutionality of state right for succession. However, the initial US constitution implied state's right to succeed. If the supreme court were to rule prior to civil war, it would most likely rule in favor of succession right.
"If you want to discuss state rights vs constitution"
your question is oxymoron. State's right is a important part of the constitution of the United States.
回复 'sufficient' 的评论 : where is the ruling you mentioned by the Supreme Court?
回复 'sufficient' 的评论 : just tell me, was the succession ruled to be legal or illegal by the Supreme Court.? A very simple question. No need for you to teach others to go to library as I don't use libraries. If you want to discuss state rights vs constitution, then go ahead and write an article on it.
不言有罪 发表评论于 2017-08-18 21:28:10
"I just said that the succession by south was ruled by Supreme Court to be illegal. Wasn't this true? What's wrong with this statement?"
When did supreme court ever rule that succession by the southern states was unconstitutional? On the contrary, according to the US constitution of 1861, the state's right to succeed from union was constitutional.
回复 'sufficient' 的评论 : believe me, I am also frustrated with trying to understand what you want to say. It seems that you are saying Lincoln waged the war unconstitutionally. But did I ever talk about Lincoln in my article? I just said that the succession by south was ruled by Supreme Court to be illegal. Wasn't this true? What's wrong with this statement?
不言有罪 发表评论于 2017-08-18 20:09:35
Huh? How did I make your point? It seems that you have completely failed to comprehend my point. We are talking in complete different wavelength here. I suggest you o take a trip to the library to learn a little on the history of American constitution and state's right.
回复 'sufficient' 的评论 : You just stated my point: If the Supreme Court of USA ruled that according to the Constitution, the succession was illegal, then it was and is illegal. Period. Was there a prior ruling before the war from Supreme Court that the succession was legal?
不言有罪 发表评论于 2017-08-18 18:47:10
回复 'sufficient' 的评论 : so the Supreme Court was wrong?
It is funny that you see things this way. Too put it short, constitutionally, supreme court has the final word on interpretation of law, therefore its ruling cannot be wrong legally. Of course, you can slap a moral, social or political judgement on its rulings. In those sense, you can say that it was wrong or right. Would you say that Lincoln, who waged war against the south unconstitutionally, was wrong? Constitutionally, he might be, But, with consideration of national interest of the united States, he was right.
回复 'Sam大树' 的评论 : 去之前，不要吝啬多用些漂白粉，至少戴四个小红帽，也许管用。
回复 'sufficient' 的评论 : so the Supreme Court was wrong?
不言有罪 发表评论于 2017-08-18 14:01:03
回复 'sufficient' 的评论 : Yes, Sir or Madam. Judgement is always issued afterwards, isn't it?
I guess you miss the point. you had stated that "这脱离，美国最高法院的判定是，违法的。", implying that succession was unconstitutional at the time of civil war. That is not historically correct statement. Supreme court had never ruled on the constitutionality of the succession at the time of the civil war. If it were to rule, it would most likely rule in favor of the state's right to succeed from the Union. Lincolin's war on the succeeding states was in legal sense unconstitutional. With that said, it does not mean that Lincoln was not doing the right thing as a president for his perceived country, the Union. Most legal scholars today agree that from legal perspective the constitution of United States at the time of civil war implied state's right to succeed from the union. Even today, there is no clause in the constitution explicitly prohibiting state's right to to succeed from the Union. However, the subsequent amendments particularly those rectified during the Construction implies or, I should say, preempts state's right for succession. With the war to save the Union, this implication is blatantly obvious.
回复 'sufficient' 的评论 : In Texas v. White (1869), the Court held in a 5–3 decision that Texas had remained a state of the United States ever since it first joined the Union, despite its joining the Confederate States of America and its being under military rule at the time of the decision in the case. It further held that the Constitution did not permit states to secede from the United States, and that the ordinances of secession, and all the acts of the legislatures within seceding states intended to give effect to such ordinances, were "absolutely null." However, this decision did allow some possibility of divisibility "through revolution, or through consent of the States."
I have had some trouble with some of the people. Reuben, Parks & Edward, in
the beginning of the previous week, rebelled against my authority—refused
to obey my orders, & said they were as free as I was, etc., etc.—I
succeeded in capturing them & lodging them in jail. They resisted till
overpowered & called upon the other people to rescue them.
In this enlightened age, there are few I believe, but what will acknowledge,
that slavery as an institution, is a moral & political evil in any Country.
It is useless to expatiate on its disadvantages. I think it however a
greater evil to the white man than to the black race, & while my feelings
are strongly enlisted in behalf of the latter, my sympathies are more strong
for the former. The blacks are immeasurably better off here than in Africa,
morally, socially & physically. The painful discipline they are undergoing,
is necessary for their instruction as a race, & I hope will prepare & lead
them to better things. How long their subjugation may be necessary is known
& ordered by a wise Merciful Providence.
I have always observed that wherever you find the neg**, everything is going
down around him, and wherever you find the white man, you see everything
around him improving. 根据我一向观察，哪里有黑人，哪里就更糟，哪里有白人，哪
You will never prosper with blacks, and it is abhorrent to a reflecting mind
to be supporting and cherishing those who are plotting and working for your
injury, and all of whose sympathies and associations are antagonistic to
yours. I wish them no evil in the world—on the contrary, will do them every
good in my power, and know that they are misled by those to whom they have
given their confidence; but our material, social, and political interests
are naturally with the whites.
The neg**es have neither the intelligence nor the other qualifications which
are necessary to make them safe depositories of political power.
Our beloved Chief stands, like some lofty column which rears its head among
the highest, in grandeur, simple, pure and sublime.
“But what is to be gained by putting this statue of Lee on Gettysburg
battlefield? If you want historical accuracy as your excuse, then place upon
this field a statue of Lee holding in his hand the banner under which he
fought, bearing the legend: ‘We wage this war against a government
conceived in liberty and dedicated to humanity.’”
one correction. According to the constitution of the United States at the time of civil war, southern states did have right to succeed from the Union. Lincoln's war to preserve the Union was indeed unconstitutional from legal perspective. This is not to argue on whether he should do it or not. In fact, there were serious disagreements between Lincoln and the then-Chief Justice Roger Taney in regarding to the war for the suppression of the rebellion. Taney deemed Lincoln's granting suspension of Habeas corpus by military personnel in the civil war unconstitutional. Lincoln at point even contemplated to arrest the chief Justice.