Liminal
Gold Member
The principle cannot ignore the law, While the creation of West Virginia may be based in our a Declaration of Independence, to which I agree, a law was in place in Both Constitutions that.....MMy point remains that for there to be a violation of a law, there must first be a law established to violate. There was, nor is a law stating that secession was or is an unlawful or illegal act.Although I don't really agree with your view about the legality of secession, I appreciate you actually taking the time to review the video. I've devoted a lot of time and energy into researching Civil War history, and I consider myself a pretty solid amateur authority on the Confederacy. Happy to discuss the subject with you any time.
The only thing remotely related comes from the Articles of Confederation which all claim were replaced. If they were replaced then any and all mention of perpetual was replaced as well.
If the perpetual clause was carried over, then it would require its enumeration in the new CONstitution; if perpetuity was carried over without enumeration, then what other portions were carried over without enumeration that one may use at a given time to ones advantage?
Besides even all of that, if the union was still to be perpetual, then the 17th amendment to the U.S. CONstitution ended the perpetual union between the States by removing the States from the equation.
The States governments which form each State, are no longer participants in the central body of "the United States" hence there is no longer a union. The purpose of the central body was to unite the States through a collective body called a congress. Under the Articles the congress only consisted of State legislature appointed representatives, under the 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution, the State legislatures continued to be participants in the union between themselves through a congress containing State appointed Senators as their representatives, maintaining a federal system that existed under the Articles. An addition was made in the form of a national component wherein an addition to the congress was made in the form of a House of Representatives which was made up of districts without regard to State affiliation, that body was/is made up of elected officials to represent the whole of the people, (this is the addition of the national component).
Now was a result of the 17th amendment the State governments do not appoint representatives to represent the State governments, hence the States are no longer participants as the have no representation/no part in a union between States. Now only the people as a whole and the two corporately owned political party,s have representation, as the Senators through election instead of appointment, owe their allegiance political party of their affiliation rather than a State government that appointed them and could re-call them in the event of poor representation of the government which appointed them.
I would never claim to be any kind of expert on Constitutional questions, so you won't hear me argue from a technically legal standpoint. My interests are primary military history and the political and cultural history surrounding that.
However, I can share my personal views about secession. It's a question that seems to have some renewed interest in a modern context, so that's how I'm frame the opinion.
If a group of citizens in Dog Patch, Idaho managed to gain political control over the state government, and subsequently proclaim Idaho to be a separate and sovereign nation; I would say to them: You don't get to break apart my county, you don't have my permission, because that's my country too. Just because some corrupt and self serving politicians get a bug up their asses, doesn't give them the right to tear apart a nation. They didn't build it, they stand on the shoulders of those who did.
Here is my response to not, simply you, but many who have made a similar statement......My point remains that for there to be a violation of a law, there must first be a law established to violate. There was, nor is a law stating that secession was or is an unlawful or illegal act.Although I don't really agree with your view about the legality of secession, I appreciate you actually taking the time to review the video. I've devoted a lot of time and energy into researching Civil War history, and I consider myself a pretty solid amateur authority on the Confederacy. Happy to discuss the subject with you any time.
The only thing remotely related comes from the Articles of Confederation which all claim were replaced. If they were replaced then any and all mention of perpetual was replaced as well.
If the perpetual clause was carried over, then it would require its enumeration in the new CONstitution; if perpetuity was carried over without enumeration, then what other portions were carried over without enumeration that one may use at a given time to ones advantage?
Besides even all of that, if the union was still to be perpetual, then the 17th amendment to the U.S. CONstitution ended the perpetual union between the States by removing the States from the equation.
The States governments which form each State, are no longer participants in the central body of "the United States" hence there is no longer a union. The purpose of the central body was to unite the States through a collective body called a congress. Under the Articles the congress only consisted of State legislature appointed representatives, under the 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution, the State legislatures continued to be participants in the union between themselves through a congress containing State appointed Senators as their representatives, maintaining a federal system that existed under the Articles. An addition was made in the form of a national component wherein an addition to the congress was made in the form of a House of Representatives which was made up of districts without regard to State affiliation, that body was/is made up of elected officials to represent the whole of the people, (this is the addition of the national component).
Now was a result of the 17th amendment the State governments do not appoint representatives to represent the State governments, hence the States are no longer participants as the have no representation/no part in a union between States. Now only the people as a whole and the two corporately owned political party,s have representation, as the Senators through election instead of appointment, owe their allegiance political party of their affiliation rather than a State government that appointed them and could re-call them in the event of poor representation of the government which appointed them.
I would never claim to be any kind of expert on Constitutional questions, so you won't hear me argue from a technically legal standpoint. My interests are primary military history and the political and cultural history surrounding that.
However, I can share my personal views about secession. It's a question that seems to have some renewed interest in a modern context, so that's how I'm frame the opinion.
If a group of citizens in Dog Patch, Idaho managed to gain political control over the state government, and subsequently proclaim Idaho to be a separate and sovereign nation; I would say to them: You don't get to break apart my county, you don't have my permission, because that's my country too. Just because some corrupt and self serving politicians get a bug up their asses, doesn't give them the right to tear apart a nation. They didn't build it, they stand on the shoulders of those who did.
You are looking at the union through a distorted lens.
You statement that......
"You don't get to break apart my county, you don't have my permission, because that's my country
too"
This was before the Lincoln's war of rebellion, and the subsequient 17th amendment as a result thereof, (A UNION OF STATES) ......
As Alexander Hamilton stated in "The Federalist #32.....
"An entire consolidation of the States into one complete national sovereignty would imply an entire subordination of the parts; and whatever powers might remain in them, would be altogether dependent on the general will. "
Point being is that there was NOT suppose to be a consolidation into one complete national sovereignty, yet you view Idaho as YOURS. I never view another State as mine, I view it as a member State in a union/confederacy of States, just as one would view those States united under the United Nations Charter. A Constitution after all is a Charter, between States, it is a treaty between States, it is a compact between States.
Why do you think that another State belongs to you?
Here are a few SCOTUS opinions concerning this municipal jurisdiction that so many think that they hold over a State wherein they do not reside, as if.....
"You don't get to break apart my county, you don't have my permission, because that's my country
too"
Pollard’s Lessee v Hagan, that for the United States, (The States collectively in union) to hold municipal jurisdiction within a State that …….
“Such a power is not only repugnant to the Constitution, but it is inconsistent with the spirit and intention of the deeds of cession.”
“Then to Alabama belong the navigable waters, and soils under them, in controversy in this case, subject to the rights surrendered by the Constitution to the United States, and no compact that might be made between her and the United States could diminish or enlarge these rights.”
The United States never held municipal jurisdiction within a State once a State is formed and admitted to the union: "the soil, the shores, the waters, and land beneath the waters belong to the State respectively:"
We see here that Idaho does NOT belong to you as in.....
"You don't get to break apart my county, you don't have my permission, because that's my country
too"
Also in Harcourt v. Gaillard, 25 U.S. (12 Wheat.) 523, 526, 527 (1827), we find that the U.S. Court stated:
“There was no territory within the United States that was claimed in any other right than that of some one of the confederated states; therefore, there could be no acquisition of territory made by the United States distinct from, or independent of some one of the states.
“Each declared itself sovereign and independent, according to the limits of its territory.
“[T]he soil and sovereignty within their acknowledged limits were as much theirs at the declaration of independence as at this hour.”
Also in M’Ilvaine v. Coxe’s Lessee, 8 U.S. (4 Cranch) 209, 212 (1808), where it was held:
“This opinion is predicated upon a principle which is believed to be undeniable, that the several states which composed this Union, so far at least as regarded their municipal regulations, became entitled, from the time when they declared themselves independent, to all the rights and powers of sovereign states, and that they did not derive them from concessions made by the British king. The treaty of peace contains a recognition of their independence, not a grant of it. From hence it results, that the laws of the several state governments were the laws of sovereign states, and as such were obligatory upon the people of such state, from the time they were enacted.”
Art. I, Sec. 8, Cl. 17 of the U.S. Constitution, which read as follows:
“To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings.”
Here we see that any jurisdiction of the States as a collective in government formation has NO JURISDICTION OUTSIDE OF THE TEN MILES SQUARE THAT IS THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA IS NON-EXISTENT EXCEPT WITHIN A U.S. FORT, AN ARSENAL, A U.S. GOVERNMENT BUILDING, MAGAZINE, OR DOCK YARD, THUS ANY JURISDICTION BEYOND THAT IS THAT OF EACH STATE RESPECTIVELY/INDIVIDUALLY.
What I am pointing out here is that this was intended to be a union of States, not a consolidation of them, I as a Tennessean do not own New YORK, Idaho or any other State, I cannot claim ...
"You don't get to break apart my county, you don't have my permission, because that's my country
too"
They are suppose to be separate States united, NOT CONSOLIDATED.The Confederate States were NOT re-admitted, this was an illusion. The Confederate States were replaces....The Supreme Court ruled on this after the Civil War. It said there was no secession because the Constitution did not define a right to secede.(1) Did the "states in rebellion" have a constitutional right to leave the Union?
Therefore citizens of Texas and other Confederate states were US citizens before, during and after the War between the States.
If that's true, why did the Confederate States have to be re-admitted to the Union, and re-write their State Constitutions to be re- admitted?
A State by definition is "A MODE OF GOVERNMENT"
Example of how the Confederate States were replaced, therefore WERE NOT RE-ADMITTED.....
Isham (I'-sam) G. Harris, of Memphis, was elected governor of Tennessee in 1857, and again in 1859, both times by large majorities.
On February 22 upon the invasion and occupation of Tennessee Grant declared martial law
On March 12, 1862, Andrew Johnson, whom President Lincoln had appointed Military Governor of Tennessee, arrived and took over for the Union. Governor Johnson demanded that all Confederate officers and employees take an oath of allegiance tot he Union, when they refused, he arrested them for treason and appointed his own officers in their place.
Duress any unlawful threat or coercion used by person to induce another to act (or refrain from acting) in a manner he or she otherwise would not (or would). Subjecting person to improper pressure which vercomes his will and coerces him to comply with demand to which he would not yield if acting as free agent [Henry-Campbell: Black, Blacks Law Dictionary®, Sixth Edition, West Publishing Co. St. Paul Minnesota, 1990]
A convention of Unionist met in Nashville January 9, 1865, drafted amendments to the state constitution, nominated candidates for governor and the legislature, and set February 22 and March 4, 1865 for the people to ratify their actions. No Confederates or Confederate sympathizers, were allowed to vote.
According to Military Government and Martial Law [William E. Birkhimer, LL.B., Major General Staff U.S. Army, Third Edition, 1914], ". . . the adoption of a constitution during the war [was] under military orders" (page 110).
Governor Harris was a lame duck governor at the time of the invasion of Tennessee, Robert Caruthers was governor elect, hence the dejure elected governor of Tennessee, yet was NOT allowed to take office.....
William Gannaway Brownlow was elected Governor on March 4.
This election, was limited to only pro-Unionists.
It was under this appointed government/State that this NEW TENNESSEE was admitted, not the de jure Confederate State of Tennessee.
If The Confederate State of Tennessee had been re-admitted, then that would indicate that secession had been accomplished which would NOT be possible if secession was indeed illegal.
So one must answer the question....
Was the Confederate State of Tennessee "re-admitted" or replaced by another State?
New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new States shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.
I'm much more familiar with the battles of Franklin, Shiloh, Stones River and Nashville. I've actually made quite a study of the campaigns in Tennessee. That aside, my answer to your argument is: you don't own Tennessee any more than I do. In any case the proponents of secession have an extremely limited scope and circumstance to their argument, more about fine legal distinctions rather than any actual principles. If you believe secession is an absolute right based on some principle, then you should have no problem when the result is West Virginia.
New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new States shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.
Now, just as in the ratification of the 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution, concerning Article XIII of the 1781 Constitution, the law in place must be repealed following the proper prescribed procedure before any further action can take place concerning that law.
In other words, the law must be followed, amended, or repealed to allow the principle to follow through, otherwise it becomes an act of rebellion to the law.
Again however, there was no law concerning secession, hence no law existed to be amended, or repealed.
Concerning The battles in Tennessee, my ancestors were involved, one of which fought in the 4th Tennessee cavalry in McClemores unit under Starnes and Forrest.\, which were involved in many battles, the most amazing to me was the pursuit of Streights raiders. My great great grandfather was among the 4th Tennessee escort when our President was abducted by the invaders.
This however is not my motivation or any blind dedication to the restoration cause, as the restorations end is at the restoration of a wholly federal system, of the Articles of Confederation, a true Confederacy of States as was intended by the founders.
Hardly that, the secession of West Virginia happened because, unlike other states, Virginia decided the question by having county based referendums. Had that happened in Tennessee, several eastern counties would have seceded from Tennessee.
that is no small feat
