Southern history and the truth

[BrianH]

Did you even read the section I named? It goes like this:
The clause that prohibits states from entering into treaties, alliances, and confederations without consent of Congress is 1.10.1. The one prohibiting the formation of new states by combining existing states is 4.3.1. 4.3.2 has nothing to do with that and everything to do with the authority of the United States over its territory.

With this same logic, a state in South America cannot enter into any alliance, treaty or confederatin without the approval of Congress.

Again, this is pertaining to states who are members of the UNION. For example, Texas, Oklahoma, and Louisiana (TODAY) cannot enter into a treaty, alliance, or confederation with one another, because they are part of the Union. This cannot happen with states in the UNion, because then you have problems withing the UNion, and rivalry among different Confederations, alliances, etc...within the nation.

In 1861, the states, not prohibited by the Constitution, seceded and no longer were subject to this law. Once they seceded, they were no longer states of the Union...therefore, this article does not apply. Since the Constitution did not forbid the secession, they seceded and were no longer subject to the laws of the U.S. They were not longer U.S. states in Confederation with another, they became a completely separated part of the landmass and were states of the Southern Confederation. You are on the premise that after the states secedeing, they were still part of the U.S., when in fact they weren't....because the Constitution did not prohibit secession, therefore, powers not prohibited to them, were reserved to them. And since secssion was not prohibted in the Constitution as of 1861, then the power was reserved to the states.

 

[Rogue 9]

Are you incapable of reading? Seriously, this isn't hard.

The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.

This has absolutely nothing to do with the states being unable to enter into alliances and confederations; I am at a total loss to explain why you keep saying it does. The clause says that Congress has the power to dispose of the territory of the United States, and that nothing in the Constitution, 10th Amendment included, may be construed to the contrary.

 

[Swamp Fox]

Are you incapable of reading? Seriously, this isn't hard.
This has absolutely nothing to do with the states being unable to enter into alliances and confederations; I am at a total loss to explain why you keep saying it does. The clause says that Congress has the power to dispose of the territory of the United States, and that nothing in the Constitution, 10th Amendment included, may be construed to the contrary.

I still think Amendment 10 trumps that because secession is not clearly spelled out in here.

 

[Rogue 9]

Which is a perfectly legitimate opinion to have; I just happen to disagree. My frustration stemmed from Brian keeping on about the clause banning the states from entering confederations when that's a different clause entirely.

 

[BrianH]

Which is a perfectly legitimate opinion to have; I just happen to disagree. My frustration stemmed from Brian keeping on about the clause banning the states from entering confederations when that's a different clause entirely.

Listen, the only reason I'm "keeping on" is because it's pretty clear-cut. It can't be any more obvious than the 10th Amendment. I took a state social-studies test today, and one of the questions said, "The Tenth Amendment address which of the following?"...and the answer was "powers granted to the state."

I never brought up the clause about states entering into confederations, someone else did as justification that states couldn't secede. When that clause clearly is only addressing states that are (at the time) currently in the Union. My beef with this clause is that it is not relevant to the 1861 secession.

 

[Rogue 9]

Listen, the only reason I'm "keeping on" is because it's pretty clear-cut. It can't be any more obvious than the 10th Amendment. I took a state social-studies test today, and one of the questions said, "The Tenth Amendment address which of the following?"...and the answer was "powers granted to the state."

The 10th Amendment is fairly obvious: What state powers the states are not prohibited from having, or that have not been given to the federal government, they have. There's a lot of state power that falls under that purview.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

However, this presents a problem: You see, the power to regulate and dispose of the territory of the United States is delegated to the United States Congress by Article 4, Section 3, Clause 2, which I have quoted no less than twice on the previous forum page.

It also presents another problem: The thing's so damned open-ended that when read absolutely literally, it means the states and people have the power to do everything the Feds may not. "Everything" includes a lot of things. Like, say, the power to arbitrarily execute citizens. I'm sure you wouldn't argue the states can do that.

I never brought up the clause about states entering into confederations, someone else did as justification that states couldn't secede. When that clause clearly is only addressing states that are (at the time) currently in the Union. My beef with this clause is that it is not relevant to the 1861 secession.

How is this clause not relevant? You can argue that the clause you refer to (which is Article 1, Section 10, Clause 1) is not relevant if you wish, but I am talking about an entirely different clause. 4.3.2 does not bar the states from entering confederations. It gives the Federal Congress the power to regulate the territory of the United States. An ordinance of secession regulates the territory of the United States, and is therefore under the authority of Congress. It also says that nothing in the Constitution may be considered to prejudice the claims of the United States. The Tenth Amendment, being within the Constitution, may therefore not be considered to prejudice the claims of the United States.

 

[BrianH]

The 10th Amendment is fairly obvious: What state powers the states are not prohibited from having, or that have not been given to the federal government, they have. There's a lot of state power that falls under that purview.
However, this presents a problem: You see, the power to regulate and dispose of the territory of the United States is delegated to the United States Congress by Article 4, Section 3, Clause 2, which I have quoted no less than twice on the previous forum page.

It also presents another problem: The thing's so damned open-ended that when read absolutely literally, it means the states and people have the power to do everything the Feds may not. "Everything" includes a lot of things. Like, say, the power to arbitrarily execute citizens. I'm sure you wouldn't argue the states can do that.

How is this clause not relevant? You can argue that the clause you refer to (which is Article 1, Section 10, Clause 1) is not relevant if you wish, but I am talking about an entirely different clause. 4.3.2 does not bar the states from entering confederations. It gives the Federal Congress the power to regulate the territory of the United States. An ordinance of secession regulates the territory of the United States, and is therefore under the authority of Congress. It also says that nothing in the Constitution may be considered to prejudice the claims of the United States. The Tenth Amendment, being within the Constitution, may therefore not be considered to prejudice the claims of the United States.

Ok, I see your point now.....I can't say I agree, but I see what you're talking about. The question becomes: Once the states have seceded, is the territory that belonged to the seceded states, still considered U.S. territory? Or as soon as the states secede, does it now belong to the State, and not U.S. Territory?