Southern history and the truth

[ReillyT]

Well...
Unless it is prohibited to the states -- that is, the Constitution -says- so -- a right is retained by the states.

Your argument would also apply to the idea that the states could not amend the Constititoin in such a way that it voids and nullifies the Constititon.
Would you argue that the states do not have -that- right?

It is prohibited by the Constitution. It is irrelevant whether it is explicitly stated in the Constitution (quite a few things are not). The USSC determined based on the preamble of the Constitution and the intent of the Articles of Confederation that secession is illegal. Once again, it is irrelevant what you or I think.

The Constitution is the supreme law of the land. Nothing trumps it. Therefore, if a Constitutional Amendment was passed that rendered the Constitution null and void, then I think that this would be sufficient. Of course, how one could even know if it is sufficient since only the USSC could rule on it, and it would have been amended out of existence, is beyond me. Still, I think there is a strong legal argument to be made that the Constitution could be amended to render it null and void (provided the proper procedures were followed).

 

[ReillyT]

Well...
Unless it is prohibited to the states -- that is, the Constitution -says- so -- a right is retained by the states.

As I pointed out in another thread, the purpose of the 10th Amendment was to limit the federal government to those rights enumerated (or implicitly derived from) the Constitution. It did not empower the states to anything not recognized from the Constitution itself. The question becomes: Was dissolutionment a right contained within the Constitution to be divied up between the States and the Federal government. If not, then the 10th Amendment is not relevant. The USSC says it was not.

 

[BrianH]

It is prohibited by the Constitution. It is irrelevant whether it is explicitly stated in the Constitution (quite a few things are not). The USSC determined based on the preamble of the Constitution and the intent of the Articles of Confederation that secession is illegal. Once again, it is irrelevant what you or I think.

The Constitution is the supreme law of the land. Nothing trumps it. Therefore, if a Constitutional Amendment was passed that rendered the Constitution null and void, then I think that this would be sufficient. Of course, how one could even know if it is sufficient since only the USSC could rule on it, and it would have been amended out of existence, is beyond me. Still, I think there is a strong legal argument to be made that the Constitution could be amended to render it null and void (provided the proper procedures were followed).

We'll have to just agree to disagree. IMO, a direct statement regarding states rights is more valid than an implied meaning

 

[ReillyT]

We'll have to just agree to disagree. IMO, a direct statement regarding states rights is more valid than an implied meaning

I don't even think we disagree. I am not sure, were I reading the Constitution irrespective of any USSC decision, that I wouldn't come to the same conclusion. I was merely pointing out that there are arguments that suggest otherwise. The USSC just picked up one of them for its decision.

 

[BrianH]

I don't even think we disagree. I am not sure, were I reading the Constitution irrespective of any USSC decision, that I wouldn't come to the same conclusion. I was merely pointing out that there are arguments that suggest otherwise. The USSC just picked up one of them for its decision.

Oh ok. We may be arguing the same thing then. I'm aware of the USSC decision, and the argument that may have been used, even though I don't agree with it. So, throwing out the USSC descision of 1869. As a southerner or objective reader of the Constitution in 1861, would you have considered it legal for the states to secede?

 

[Gunny]

Actually, that's exactly what they said.
In short: Oh no, the feds are going to take our slaves!!1! The secession was motivated by slavery, first, last, and only.

Most of the declarations of secession state something concering slavery. It still was not "the" reason the Civil War was fought. Most Southerners couldn't afford slaves.

Power and control in the Federal government was "the" reason, if there was "a" reason.

The fact is, the proposed 13th Amendment that passed the House just prior to SC's secession originally guaranteed slavery in Southern states where it existed. What it didn't do was guarantee an equal amount of slave states for every free state that entered the union.

That created an imbalance in Congress the Southern states were unwilling to accept. The North wanted high tariffs to force the South to deal only with them, while the South wanted low tariffs because it made most of its money from England and Europe.

Then there's the fact Abraham Lincoln would have allowed slavery in all Southern states, some Southern states and not others, or whatever it took to preserve the Union, and made a statement to that effect.

The cold hard fact is, NOBODY fought a war because they gave a damn about the black man. The black man was a political pawn in the power game.

 

[Gunny]

It is prohibited by the Constitution. It is irrelevant whether it is explicitly stated in the Constitution (quite a few things are not). The USSC determined based on the preamble of the Constitution and the intent of the Articles of Confederation that secession is illegal. Once again, it is irrelevant what you or I think.

The Constitution is the supreme law of the land. Nothing trumps it. Therefore, if a Constitutional Amendment was passed that rendered the Constitution null and void, then I think that this would be sufficient. Of course, how one could even know if it is sufficient since only the USSC could rule on it, and it would have been amended out of existence, is beyond me. Still, I think there is a strong legal argument to be made that the Constitution could be amended to render it null and void (provided the proper procedures were followed).

You are incorrect. Secession is not prohibited in the Constitution, neither specifically stated nor implied.

And just how far do you think you can get in court with that "Not explicitly stated" argument? THAT is the whole problem with the Consitution today. People demanding explicit statements when it suits them, but willingly accepting implications if it suits them. Either way, the Constitution does not address secession either by explicit language nor by implication.

 

[BrianH]

Most of the declarations of secession state something concering slavery. It still was not "the" reason the Civil War was fought. Most Southerners couldn't afford slaves.

Power and control in the Federal government was "the" reason, if there was "a" reason.

The fact is, the proposed 13th Amendment that passed the House just prior to SC's secession originally guaranteed slavery in Southern states where it existed. What it didn't do was guarantee an equal amount of slave states for every free state that entered the union.

That created an imbalance in Congress the Southern states were unwilling to accept. The North wanted high tariffs to force the South to deal only with them, while the South wanted low tariffs because it made most of its money from England and Europe.

Then there's the fact Abraham Lincoln would have allowed slavery in all Southern states, some Southern states and not others, or whatever it took to preserve the Union, and made a statement to that effect.

The cold hard fact is, NOBODY fought a war because they gave a damn about the black man. The black man was a political pawn in the power game.

WEll put, not to mention that slavery was legal in the North as well until 1865. Alot of people don't realize that the entire war was fought between two-sides that legalized slavery. The tariffs also played a major role, as well as the different economies, and the one-sided money flow to the North.
I've stated several times already that the North was not on this big crusade for black rights and the freedom of the slaves. This is propoganda you learn in a censored 5th grade history class. It was a power struggle between the states' power and federal power until the southern states legally exercised their right to secede using powers delegated to them by the powers not prohibted in the 10th Amendment.

 

[Swamp Fox]

You are saying it's an implied right because it's not specifically stated. However Federal superiority to the states is established and further implied throughout the constitution.

I'm saying that since it is not specifically mention in the constitution as a power granted to the United States or forbidden to the states, Amendment 10 means it is a power belonging to the states and the people.

Bound by oath, ie contract, to support the constitution. You can't reject it. You can't not recognize it. Not recognizing the authority of the constitution is not recognizing the authority of the federal government.

You mean like the Founding Fathers did when they told the British they didn't like the way they were being treated?

There is a difference in one nation not recognizing another nation and a subject territory suddenly not recognizing the government it's under. The establishment of Federal superiority comes with restrictions placed on the states regarding inter-state transactions and treaties, raising and army, doing anything that a country normally does.

So, no state can ever break away from the federal republic it belongs to? How come the Confederation of Independent States have broken up? What about all of the states that have been formed from Yugoslavia? Are you saying they are not entitled to govern themselves in a manner they see fit? Isn't that the main premise behind the Declaration of Independence and the founding of this country in the first place?

I admit as I have before that is not a solid statement that states can not secede, however it is stronger than the argument that they can because the Federal government is sovereign in all the things that nations normally do, form treaties, have armies, etc.

It's a flawed argument because it goes against the very things that formed this country in the first place.

They refused to recognize the authority of a nation that was sovereign to them. That's called rebellion.

So, the British were correct in their attempt to force the colonies to heel?

Please show me where the land upon which the fort sat, belonged to South Carolina.

It's in South Carolina, isn't it????

 

[ReillyT]

You are incorrect. Secession is not prohibited in the Constitution, neither specifically stated nor implied.

You are quite clearly wrong, for all of the previously mentioned reasons.

And just how far do you think you can get in court with that "Not explicitly stated" argument? THAT is the whole problem with the Consitution today. People demanding explicit statements when it suits them, but willingly accepting implications if it suits them. Either way, the Constitution does not address secession either by explicit language nor by implication.

If one is strict constructionist, then that is a problem. However, whole bodies of law rest on things that are only implied by the Constitution.

 

[ReillyT]

Oh ok. We may be arguing the same thing then. I'm aware of the USSC decision, and the argument that may have been used, even though I don't agree with it. So, throwing out the USSC descision of 1869. As a southerner or objective reader of the Constitution in 1861, would you have considered it legal for the states to secede?

I think it is a toss up. I don't have much to go on but my reading of history and the Constitution. The Constitution doesn't forbid it expressly, but my answer would hinge on what the FF's intended when they formed the Union. Ravir made a good point that she doesn't think that at the time, the states would have agreed to form a union if they thought they couldn't break away from the experiment if it failed. On the other hand, the Federalist Papers clearly suggest that at least Hamilton didn't think states should have the right to seceed.

A FIRM Union will be of the utmost moment to the peace and liberty of the States, as a barrier against domestic faction and insurrection. It is impossible to read the history of the petty republics of Greece and Italy without feeling sensations of horror and disgust at the distractions with which they were continually agitated, and at the rapid succession of revolutions by which they were kept in a state of perpetual vibration between the extremes of tyranny and anarchy. If they exhibit occasional calms, these only serve as short-lived contrast to the furious storms that are to succeed. If now and then intervals of felicity open to view, we behold them with a mixture of regret, arising from the reflection that the pleasing scenes before us are soon to be overwhelmed by the tempestuous waves of sedition and party rage.

Federalist Paper #9. http://www.foundingfathers.info/federalistpapers/fed09.htm

Federalist papers 10 also is on this issue, and there are references to it in those papers discussing the defects of the Articles, which were deemed to weak an instrument. On the other hand, Hamilton was the strongest voice in favor of a strong central government and it is not clear that the other FFs agreed with him in this.

In short, I really don't know. It is a 50/50 sort of thing.

 

[Ravi]

Reilly, it wasn't I that made that point, I think it was Manifold.

Gunny - It still was not "the" reason the Civil War was fought. Most Southerners couldn't afford slaves. That's kind of a silly argument. Most wars aren't fought because of what the general population does or does not want. The leaders decide.

 

[ReillyT]

Reilly, it wasn't I that made that point, I think it was Manifold.

Gunny - It still was not "the" reason the Civil War was fought. Most Southerners couldn't afford slaves. That's kind of a silly argument. Most wars aren't fought because of what the general population does or does not want. The leaders decide.

My apologies.

 

[Gunny]

You are quite clearly wrong, for all of the previously mentioned reasons.

I am quite clearly correct as the actual facts support my argument.

If one is strict constructionist, then that is a problem. However, whole bodies of law rest on things that are only implied by the Constitution.

That's all fine and dandy except therre is nothing even implied in the Constitution that supports your argument. Without fabricating, you have no argument.

 

[ReillyT]

That's all fine and dandy except therre is nothing even implied in the Constitution that supports your argument. Without fabricating, you have no argument.

Perhaps you misunderstand my argument. I only argue that secession was illegal because the USSC said so, and Art. III gives the USSC the authority to make that determination. That is the law. It is because of Art. III, more than any other portion of the Constitution, that one can say that the secession was unlawful.

The separate issue of whether I (or you) think the Constitution (irrespective of what the USSC might have said) should be read to prohibit secession is a more difficult one. I think there are good arguments on both sides.

 

[Rogue 9]

Oh for God's sake, do you people care to even read the document?

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions

So if insurrection is legal, why is the federal government empowered to suppress it, hmmm?

The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.

Again, if rebellion is legal, why the injunction against it?

No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

Confederacy is out.

No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.

As is keeping all those troops they were keeping. Following so far?

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States

So, who's running the Army again? Ain't the states.

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

Now then, who was levying war against the United States? Oh, that's right...

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 one's the kicker. When taken in the context of the Supremacy Clause, we see that the states cannot violate the territorial sovereignty of the United States. Secession is such a violation. Here is that Clause, in case you've forgotten:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

There's your constitutional argument for the unconstitutionality of secession. If need be, I can bring forward multiple Federalist papers and letters from the members of the Constitutional Convention clearly spelling out that allowing secession was not their intent. As I pointed out above, James Madison thought the idea was so preposterous that it was a wonder that he should have to point out why it's wrong. He also pointed out that the people agitating for the "states' right" of secession at the time (the Nullification Crisis) would just as surely object to the same principle turned on it's head; a majority of the other states voting to kick one state out. Secessionism was never a stand on principle; it was always merely a political tool of blackmail to force the federal government to pander to the interests of the region threatening it.

 

[Ravi]

My apologies.

I'm sure he'll get over it.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Oh for God's sake, do you people care to even read the document?
So if insurrection is legal, why is the federal government empowered to suppress it, hmmm?
Again, if rebellion is legal, why the injunction against it?

Secession, insurrection and rebellion are not the same things, at least not necessarily.

This one's the kicker. When taken in the context of the Supremacy Clause, we see that the states cannot violate the territorial sovereignty of the United States.

Secession doesnt violate the territorial sovereignty of the US.
It may change it, but it doesn't violate it.

There's your constitutional argument for the unconstitutionality of secession.

If that's it, then it failed.

 

[Rogue 9]

If that's it, then it failed.

Denial: Not just a river in Egypt.

The United States is sovereign over the member states. The member states cannot violate the territorial claims of the United States, which incidentally includes the states. Even if it didn't, it certainly includes all the forts, magazines, and armories the rebels seized.

 

[ReillyT]

Secession, insurrection and rebellion are not the same things, at least not necessarily.

Now you are really stretching.

Main Entry: in·sur·rec·tion
Pronunciation: "in-s&-'rek-sh&n
Function: noun
: the act or an instance of revolting esp. violently against civil or political authority or against an established government; also : the crime of inciting or engaging in such revolt <whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States…shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than ten years —U.S. Code>

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/insurrection

Regardless of whether you feel that secession is different than insurrection, it is clearly a reasonable interpretation to equate the secession with an insurrection. If you want a basis, you have been given one. If you choose to only accept the word "secession," then you are free to stick to that silly standard.