Civil War History - Secession and PoliticsWas it Slavery, or was it States Rights? Perhaps it was the election of Lincoln? What were the real reasons for Southern Secession and what were the political issues in this time of war? Find your answers here in the Secession and Politics Disussion.
Your post doesn't contain a reply button. It may be that there is a way to try and prevent replies;
-------------------
No. The format for this board is a bit different from others. At the bottom of the posts are two buttons, one that says "Quote" and another that is unlabeled. The unlabeled button is the quick reply button and can be used to reply to a post without quoting any of the material in it. The Quote button can be used to reply to a post by first quoting the post to which you are replying.
IIRC, Texas v. White is the first time the issue of secession was presented to the S.Ct. None of your citations (which I appreciate, BTW) alter my thoughts there.
------------------
As I stated before, I never claimed secession was presented to the SCOTUS before Texas v. White; however, if you look at what the Court had ruled in previous cases, that the power to unmake belongs to the People of the United States as a whole and not to any subdivision of them; that the states are not independent sovereignties but are in fact constituent parts of the United States, a single nation; that the Constitution was of complete obligation and bound the states, then you see how the ruling that secession is unconstitutional is completely consistent with the body of case law.
Personally, I find T v W internally inconsistent, results-oriented, and without textual support in the Constitution.
------------------
I'm not aware of any requirement that the Supreme Court's reasoning has to be accepted by everyone in order for their rulings to be valid and the law of the land. It has the support, however, of Article VI, Clause 2, as I've explained.
IMO, there is nothing in the phrase "a more perfect Union" that even arguably leads to the conclusion that secession is prohibited. Had the drafters intended such, they could simply have said that "secession by any state is prohibited." I find no substitute for that language intended or implied in the Constitution.
----------------------
John Lothrop Motley, US Minister to Austria, wrote in a letter to the editor of the London Times which answers this: "The constitution is perpetual, not provisional or temporary. It is made for all time--'for ourselves and our posterity.' It is absolute within its sphere. 'This constitution shall be the supreme law of the land, anything in the constitution or laws of a state to the contrary notwithstanding.' Of what value, then, is a law of a state declaring its connection with the Union dissolved? The constitution remains supreme, and is bound to assert its supremacy till overpowered by force. ... It would have been puerile for the constitution to say formally to each state, 'Thou shalt not secede.' The constitution, being the supreme law, being perpetual, and having expressly forbidden to the states those acts without which secession is an impossibility, would have been wanting in dignity had it used such superfuous phraseology. This constitution is supreme, whatever laws a state may enact, says the organic law. Was it necessary to add, 'and no state shall enact a law of secession.' To add to a great statute, in which the sovereign authority of the land declares its will, a phrase such as 'and be it further enacted that the said law shall not be violated,' would scarcely seem to strengthen the statute. It was accordingly enacted that new states might be admitted; but no permission was given for a state to secede. Provisions were made for the amendment of the constitution from time to time, and it was intended that those provisions should be stringent. A two-thirds vote in both Houses of Congress, and a ratification in three quarters of the whole number of states, are conditions only to be complied with in grave emergencies. But the constitution made no provision for its own dissolution; and if it had done so, it would have been a proceeding quite without example in history. A constitution can only be subverted by revolution, or by foreign conquest of the land. ... The reserved and unnamed powers are many and important, but the state is closely cir****cribed.
"Thus, a state is forbidden to alter its form of government. 'Thou shalt forever remain a republic,' says the United States constitution to each individual state. A state is forbidden, above all, to pass any law conflicting with the United States constitution or laws. Moreover, every member of Congress, every member of a state legislature, every executive or judicial officer in the service of the Union or of a separate state, is bound by solemn oath to maintain the United States constitution. This alone would seem to settle the question of secession ordinances. So long as the constitution
endures, such an ordinance is merely the act of conspiring and combining individuals, with whom the general government may deal. When it falls in the struggle, and becomes powerless to cope with them, the constitution has been destroyed by violence." [John Lothrop Motley, "The Causes of the American Civil War: To the Editor of the _London Times,_ May 23-24, 1861]
I think consultation of a timeline unecessary. In that regard, I'll simply ask whether it is your opinion that none of the drafters ever considered the secession issue?
----------------------
I find no evidence the Framers considered it during the Constituitonal Convention. Do you have evidence they considered it?
The Constitution provides us with dual fed/state sovereignty. The states are sovereign in all areas where such sovereignty is not specifically ceded to the fed. Under the Constitution, the powers not specifically enumerated to the fed remain with the states. Do you really disagree?
-------------------------
You're diverging away from my point.
Let's consider what sovereignty means. Wouldn't a sovereign state have control over all its internal rules? Does it really matter, from the standpoint of sovereignty, that the Constitution in 1799 gave the Federal government no power over slavery, yet in my hypothetical in 1800 the states, with the exception of Kentucky, ratified an amendment outlawing slavery everywhere in the United States, including Kentucky? Whatever sovereignty states possess on their own is an illusion. 3/4 of the states can ratify an amendment to the Constitution to make the other 1/4 do anything at all.
This is a fundamental tenet of the Constitution. The powers you mention - declaring war, signing treaties, etc. - are powers specifically ceded by the states to the fed in the Constitution. There is a laundry list of such in Art. 1, Section 8. Secession is not a power ceded by the states to the fed; therefore, it remains a power of the state.
---------------------
To use Motley's term, it is peurile to think that a nation would secede. From what would it secede? It cannot secede from itself, because no matter how many ordinances of secession it p*****, it is still the nation it started out being. So your last sentence lacks any logical basis. The fact that there is a list of things states are prohibited from doing shows the states gave up their sovereignty. The fact that 3/4 of the states can ratify a constitutional amendment forcing the remaining 1/4 to do anything at all shows the states gave up their sovereignty. The only true sovereignty that exists under the Constitution is the sovereignty of the American people acting as a whole, embodied in their states.
Because the Constitution prohibits a state from having a thing in its constitution or laws that is contrary to the US Constitution and US Laws passed in pursuance of the Constitution being supreme, the Constitution therefore prohibits an ordinance of secession from ever taking effect and such power is denied the states individually.
Additionally, just as no state on its own can overturn a Federal law, the state of Louisiana, for example, has no power to overturn the Federal Law that says Louisiana is a state in the Union.
"Let's consider what sovereignty means." Indeed. How about let us instead consider what state means. Especially with the formation of this country.
The supreme public power within a sovereign political entity.
or in other words
The supreme public power within a sovereign political entity.
i.e.
A body politic, especially one constituting a nation: the states of Eastern Europe
The founding fathers did not name the colonies "States" without a reason. They did not call them counties, provinces, territories, or districts when they formed the union. They called them States. As in the phrase "Heads of State"....or "Statesmen." These men were generally pretty specific in what they wanted to say and worded things carefully. States....yet today the states are nothing more than counties or provinces. There is no independence. Nothing to distinguish one from another. We are mere counties. Much the way Hampshire or Berkshire is to England. And to me my friend, that used to be distressing but now merely makes me sad. Because it seems there are some who seem to think we are not states
Thanks for the info on the buttons. I'll get it eventually.
Mr. Motley is arguing the northern position at the beginning of the ACW. I respectfully submit that he is wrong. To show this, I'll approach it from another perspective - that of the balance of power at the time of ratification. For the moment, I'll adopt aphillbiilly's definitions of sovereignty, which I believe to be correct.
During the time just prior to ratification, there was no fed and it had no powers. All sovereignty resided in the several states, or colonies, which had achieved independence from the crown. (At this point the Articles of Confederation have been deemed inadequate and had been abolished; the states having not ceded any soverignty in that document in any event; that being one of the perceived inadequacies of the Articles leading to the constitutional conventions). In creating the Constitution, much of the debates centered on just how much power the new central gov't should have. The states were wary of having too strong a central gov't; having just won their sovereignty, they were cautious not to create another crown. At the same time, they understood that the new central gov't needed to have greater power than that afforded by the Articles. The compromise resulted in the Constitution. In the Constitution, the states gave to the fed only certain attributes of their sovereignty - those enumerated powers I referred to in my previous post - retaining for themselves all sovereignty not specifically ceded to the fed. This is the basis for dual sovereignty. It is a partial ceding of sovereign powers to the fed in those specific areas where - like war - the authority of a central gov't was thought most appropriate. For example, there is nothing in the Constitution giving the fed the authority to legislate for the general health, safety and morals of the people. All state constitutions retain that right for themselves. The supremacy clause applies only to the Constitution and fed laws pursuant thereto; it thus applies only to those sovereign powers the states ceded to the fed. The supremacy clause does not apply to the sovereign powers retained by the states. Again, the power of secession is not a sovereign power ceded to the fed by the states in the Constitution; thus it is a sovereign power retained by the states.
aphillbilly refers to counties, territories, etc., which I will refer to as political subdivisions. Using the county as an example, a county cannot secede from a state because it is not a sovereign. A county is created by the state, can be abolished by the state, and draws all of its powers from the state. On the contrary, the state was not created by the fed. (Rather, the states created the fed.) The fed has only those sovereign powers ceded to it by the states. That is the difference between the political subdivision, which has no sovereign powers, and the states, which retained those sovereign powers not ceded to the fed. The states retain absolute, supreme authority over all those sovereign powers not specifically enumerated as having been ceded by them to the fed; i.e., like secession. Thus, the states retained supreme power to legislate on secession, and the fed had no power to interfere; the power to interfere not having been ceded to the fed by the states. The fed's interference - forcible repatriation - was unconstitutional.
I agree that, through the power of an amendment, the states (who'd have to approve the amendment) could have ceded to the fed the authority to prohibit secession. No such amendment has ever been passed. I believe that dual sovereignty, and the sovereign powers retained by the states (including secession) is at the heart of our disagreement. In other words, I think it is the point. You state that my point diverges from your point. Please explain how I have done so, and if I agree, I'll address the related point you are trying to make.
As to whether secession was considered by the drafters, an inference as evidence. Secession is a topic known to be considered by at least some during the ratification process. From that I infer that it was considered by them in the months preceeding. If it becomes a critical issue, I'll do more research to document my inference.
Originally Posted by aphillbillyHow about let us instead consider what state means. Especially with the formation of this country.
The [i
supreme[/i] public power within a sovereign political entity.
or in other words
The supreme public power within a sovereign political entity.
i.e.
A body politic, especially one constituting a nation: the states of Eastern Europe
Well, let's consider ALL the definitions of the word, Tommy, not just an artificially limited listing:
Main Entry: state
Function: noun
often attrib
1 a : a politically organized body of people usually occupying a definite territory; especially : one that is sovereign
b : the political organization that has supreme civil authority and political power and serves as the basis of government —see also compelling state interest at INTEREST 3a, SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
c : a government or politically organized society having a particular character <a police state>
2 : the operations or concerns of the government of a country : the sphere of administration and supreme political power of a country (as in international relations) <secrets of state> <affairs of state>
3 a : one of the constituent units of a nation having a federal government; specifically : one of the fifty such units comprising the great part of the U.S. —see also STATE LAW
b : the territory of a state
Note definition 3a: "one of the constituent units of a nation having a federal government; specifically : one of the fifty such units comprising the great part of the U.S."
The founding fathers did not name the colonies "States" without a reason. They did not call them counties, provinces, territories, or districts when they formed the union. They called them States. As in the phrase "Heads of State"....or "Statesmen." These men were generally pretty specific in what they wanted to say and worded things carefully. States....yet today the states are nothing more than counties or provinces. There is no independence. Nothing to distinguish one from another. We are mere counties. Much the way Hampshire or Berkshire is to England. And to me my friend, that used to be distressing but now merely makes me sad. Because it seems there are some who seem to think we are not states.
-----------------------------
Tommy, The Articles of Confederation specified the states retained their sovereignty and independence. This was a defect in the functioning of the national government, so under the Constitution, forming a more perfect union, states no longer had their independence and full sovereignty. Instead, the definition of a "state" was broadened to include a part of a nation.
During the time just prior to ratification, there was no fed and it had no powers. All sovereignty resided in the several states, or colonies, which had achieved independence from the crown. (At this point the Articles of Confederation have been deemed inadequate and had been abolished; the states having not ceded any soverignty in that document in any event; that being one of the perceived inadequacies of the Articles leading to the constitutional conventions).
-----------------------
Russ, I'm sorry to say you're wrong in the above statement. The Articles of Confederation were not abolished. There was a weak federal government in the form of the Confederation Congress. You are right that the states retained their sovereignty and independence under the AoC, and that this was one of the inadequacies of the Articles which led to the Constitutional Convention of 1787.
In his report to Thomas Jefferson on the progress of the Convention, James Madison wrote, "It was generally agreed that the objects of the Union could not be secured by any system founded on the principle of a confederation of sovereign states. A voluntary observance of the federal law by all the members, could never be hoped for. A compulsive one could evidently never be reduced to practice, and if it could, involved equal calamities to the innocent & the guilty, the necessity of a military force both obnoxious & dangerous, and in general, a scene resembling much more a civil war, than the administration of a regular government.
"Hence was embraced the alternative of a Government which instead of operating on the States, should operate without their intervention on the individuals composing them; and hence the change in the principle and proportion of representation."
[James Madison to Thomas Jefferson, 24 Oct 1787]
The supremacy clause applies only to the Constitution and fed laws pursuant thereto;
----------------
And to treaties made under the authority of the United States.
it thus applies only to those sovereign powers the states ceded to the fed. The supremacy clause does not apply to the sovereign powers retained by the states. Again, the power of secession is not a sovereign power ceded to the fed by the states in the Constitution; thus it is a sovereign power retained by the states.
------------------------
No, that is wrong. The Supremacy Clause prevents any state from having anything in its constitution or laws that denies the supremacy of the US Constitution, US Laws, and the treaties. Unless you can show me an ordinance of secession that still allows the US Constitution, US Laws, and the treaties signed by the US to be supreme law within the seceding state's boundaries, then secession is a power that is prohibited to any state by the Constitution.
(Rather, the states created the fed.)
--------------------
No, this is wrong. The People of the United States created the Federal Government.
You are completely ignoring Supreme Court rulings in this area:
"But Georgia cannot be viewed as a single, unconnected, sovereign power, on whose legislature no other restrictions are imposed than may be found in its own constitution. She is a part of a large empire; she is a member of the American union; and that union has a constitution the supremacy of which all acknowledge, and which imposes limits to the legislatures of the several states, which none claim a right to pass." [Fletcher v. Peck, 10 U.S. 87, 136]
"In discusing this question, the counsel for the state of Maryland have deemed it of some importance, in the construction of the constitution, to consider that instrument, not as emanating from the people, but as the act of sovereign and independent states. The powers of the general government, it has been said, are delegated by the states, who alone are truly sovereign; and must be exercised in subordination to the states, who alone possess supreme dominion. **It would be difficult to sustain this proposition.** The convention which framed the constitution was indeed elected by the state legislatures. But the instrument, when it came from their hands, was a mere
proposal, without obligations, or pretenses to it. It was reported to the then existing congress of the United States, with a request that it might 'be submitted to a convention of delegates, chosen in each state by the people thereof, under the recommendation of its legislature, for their assent and ratification.' this mode of proceeding was adopted; and by the convention, by congress, and by the state legislatures, the instrument was submitted to the people. They acted upon it in the only manner in which they can act savely, effectively and wisely, on such a subject, by assembling in convention. It is true, they assembled in their several states--and where else should they have assembled? No political dreamer was ever wild enough to think of breaking down the lines which separate the states, and of compounding the American people into one common mass. Of consequence, when they act, they act in their states. But the measures they adopt do not, on that account, cease to be the measures of the people themselves, or become the measures of the state governments.
"From these conventions, the constitution derives its whole authority. The government proceeds directly from the people. . . . **The constitution, when thus adopted, was of complete obligation, and bound the state sovereignties.**" [McCullough v. Maryland, 17 U.S. 316, 402-404]
"That the United States form, for many, and for most important purposes, a single nation, has not yet been denied. In war, we are one people. In making peace, we are one people. In all commercial regulations, we are one and the same people. . .. America has chosen to be, in many respects, and to many purposes, a nation; and for all these purposes, her government is complete; to all these objects it is competent. The people have declared, that in the exercise of all the powers given for these objects, it is supreme. . . . The constitution and laws of a State, so far as they are repugnant to the constitution and laws of the United States, are absolutely void. These States are constituent parts of the United States. They are members of one great
empire." [Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. 264, 413-414]
"When these allied sovereigns converted their league into a government, when they converted their Congress of Ambassadors, deputed to deliberate on their common concerns, the whole character in which the States appear, underwent a change." [Gibbons v. Ogden, 22 U.S. 1, 187]
Your position is completely opposed to the Law of the Land.
I'm ignoring the S.Ct. rulings because not a one of them addressed secession before the ACW. Therefore, IMO, they're irrelevant to the legality of secession at the time it occured. (For the reasons I've stated, I think the post-war decisions are an impediment to the legality of secession, but find no textual support in the Constitution itself.)
Is the status of the Articles really relevant? We agree that they were inadequate. If you think their status is important, please let me know why.
The Constitution calls upon the "states" to ratify it. I'm sure they intended the state's citizens to have a part in that. But the important distinction is that ratification could not be had by a mere majority of the national electorate. The fed powers to be had by ratification would be from the sovereign states.
I think you've misread the supremacy clause. I've quoted it in another post to you on a different thread. In sum, the clause only applies to the Constitution, U.S. laws passed pursuant to the Constitution, and treaties. Secession is ignored by the Constitution, and thus no U.S. law could be passed 'pursuant thereto.'
With due respect, my position IS the law of the land. (I know that must sound pretty arrogant. But really it's just confidence. I've tried to avoid the question of propriety of secession, and stick to legality. I've tried to avoid my opinion, and stick to the four corners of the Constitution.)
I'm ignoring the S.Ct. rulings because not a one of them addressed secession before the ACW. Therefore, IMO, they're irrelevant to the legality of secession at the time it occured.
------------------------
Prior to the Civil War, the Supreme Court said:
1. States are not sovereign. The Federal Constitution and US Laws are supreme and limit what those state legislatures can do.
2. The People of the United States created the Federal Government.
3. The obligation to the Constitution is a complete obligation that binds the state governments.
4. The United States is a single country and the states are constituent parts of it.
5. Any part of a constitution or law of any state that is repugnant to the US Constitution and US Laws is utterly void.
6. With the ratification of the Constitution the entire character of the states was changed.
That is the Law of the Land.
After the Civil War, the Supreme Court said secession was unconstitutional and all ordinances of secession are null and void.
That is the Law of the Land.
Is the status of the Articles really relevant? We agree that they were inadequate. If you think their status is important, please let me know why.
----------------
I think truth in history is important. It is important they were not abolished because that is truth in history.
The Constitution calls upon the "states" to ratify it.
-------------------
No, it calls upon conventions of states to ratify it. Conventions are the form used when the People of the State speak constitutionally.
I think you've misread the supremacy clause.
----------------------
I have not. I have used a literal reading of the clause. Anything in the constitution or laws of any state contrary to the US Constitution and US Laws passed in pursuance of the Constitution is unconstitutional.
I've quoted it in another post to you on a different thread. In sum, the clause only applies to the Constitution, U.S. laws passed pursuant to the Constitution, and treaties. Secession is ignored by the Constitution, and thus no U.S. law could be passed 'pursuant thereto.'
-------------------------
No, you're ignoring what secession does. If you can show me an ordinance of secession that retains the US Constitution and US Laws passed in pursuance of the Constitution as the supreme law of the seceding state, then that would be a constitutional act. But it would also NOT be a secession. The very essence of secession is that US Laws and the US Constitution no longer apply to the seceding state. That is contrary to the supremacy of the Constitution and US Laws. Therefore, any ordinance of secession is unconstitutional and legally null.
With due respect, my position IS the law of the land.
-----------------
Which land? Not the United States, because the US Supreme Court is directly opposed to you. So is the Constitution, unless you can show me an ordinance of secession that maintains the supremacy of the US Constitution and US Laws in the state attempting to secede.
1. Can you quote from a pre-ACW S.Ct. opinion that says "states are not sovereign?" The Constitution and U.S. laws pursuant thereto are supreme only for those areas specifically enumerated in the Constitution. That's what the supremacy clause is. I agree that the states ceded to the fed those areas of sovereignty specifically enumerated in the Constitution. The residuary, by constitutional structure and doctrine, affirmed by the 10th Amend., are retained by the states. Secession is such a residuary power.
2. The states had conventions so that they could determine if their state would be one of the nine states necessary to ratify. Of course people are involved. States are entities; not people. But the states were called on to ratify; not a majority or any amount of people were designated.
3. See No. 1. Again, the Constitution and U.S. laws pursuant thereto are supreme only in specifically enumerated areas. Secession is not so enumerated.
4. Geographically, but not politically, correct. States are not political subdivisions of the U.S. States don't derive their sovereignty from the fed. They won it from the crown and chose to give PART of it to the fed.
5. Correct, if repugnant to those areas so enumerated. Basic constitutional law.
6. Correct; they'd ceded a PART of their sovereignty to the fed.
You know my opinion of Texas v. White. But that is post-war and obviously irrelevant to the legality of secession when it ocurred.
You stated "Anything in the constitution or laws of any state contrary to the US Constitution and US Laws passed in pursuance of the Constitution is unconstitutional." That's closer than you got before, but the quoted clause is best. Even under your current paraphrase of the supremacy clause, secession is not contrary to the US Constitution and US Laws passed in pursuance of the Constitution.
I don't think I'm ignoring secession does. It weakens the central gov't., but ensures that the states of the Union are there by free choice. But I'm not focusing on the effects of secession or whether those effects are good or bad. I'm focusing on legality, and its legal for those seceeding states. Every secession leaves the non-seceeding states in their exact same place in relation to the fed. and the Constitution. As I've said, secession is ignored in the Constitution. Nothing in the Constitution requires that seceeded, separate sovereigns must retain the U.S. Constitution or the fed laws pursuant thereto. You state that "The very essence of secession is that US Laws and the US Constitution no longer apply to the seceding state." I agree; it is also the essence of sovereignty.
Note definition 3a: "one of the constituent units of a nation having a federal government; specifically : one of the fifty such units comprising the great part of the U.S."
Cash,
That is cute. But that definition would not count as it is a modern interpretation created because of the war between the states. Or in spite of it. Find a pre-US definition and see what it says.
1. Can you quote from a pre-ACW S.Ct. opinion that says "states are not sovereign?"
------------------
How many times do I have to post it? I've already posted it at least three times. Here we go with Number Four:
"But Georgia cannot be viewed as a single, unconnected, sovereign power, on whose legislature no other restrictions are imposed than may be found in its own constitution. She is a part of a large empire; she is a member of the American union; and that union has a constitution the supremacy of which all acknowledge, and which imposes limits to the legislatures of the several states, which none claim a right to pass." [Fletcher v. Peck, 10 U.S. 87, 136]
It would save time if you would read it this time.
The residuary, by constitutional structure and doctrine, affirmed by the 10th Amend., are retained by the states. Secession is such a residuary power.
-------------------
Unless you can show me an ordinance of secession which specifies that the US Constitution and US Laws remain supreme over that state, there is no constitutional power of unilateral secession.
2. The states had conventions so that they could determine if their state would be one of the nine states necessary to ratify. Of course people are involved. States are entities; not people. But the states were called on to ratify; not a majority or any amount of people were designated.
-----------------
No, the states were not called on to ratify. It was the People of the United States as embodied in the states.
"In discusing this question, the counsel for the state of Maryland have deemed it of some importance, in the construction of the constitution, to consider that instrument, not as emanating from the people, but as the act of sovereign and independent states. The powers of the general government, it has been said, are delegated by the states, who alone are truly sovereign; and must be exercised in subordination to the states, who alone possess supreme dominion. **It would be difficult to sustain this proposition.** The convention which framed the constitution was indeed elected by the state legislatures. But the instrument, when it came from their hands, was a mere
proposal, without obligations, or pretenses to it. It was reported to the then existing congress of the United States, with a request that it might 'be submitted to a convention of delegates, chosen in each state by the people thereof, under the recommendation of its legislature, for their assent and ratification.' this mode of proceeding was adopted; and by the convention, by congress, and by the state legislatures, the instrument was submitted to the people. They acted upon it in the only manner in which they can act savely, effectively and wisely, on such a subject, by assembling in convention. It is true, they assembled in their several states--and where else should they have assembled? No political dreamer was ever wild enough to think of breaking down the lines which separate the states, and of compounding the American people into one common mass. Of consequence, when they act, they act in their states. But the measures they adopt do not, on that account, cease to be the measures of the people themselves, or become the measures of the state governments.
"From these conventions, the constitution derives its whole authority. The government proceeds directly from the people. . . . **The constitution, when thus adopted, was of complete obligation, and bound the state sovereignties.**" [McCullough v. Maryland, 17 U.S. 316, 402-404]
Again, it would save time if you would read it this time, as it is the law of the land.
Also,
" 'The ratification of the conventions of nine States shall be sufficient for the establishment of this Constitution between the States, ratifying the same.' This article speaks for itself. The express authority of the people alone could give due validity to the Constitution." [James Madison, "The Federalist" No. 43]
And
"He considered the difference between a system founded on the Legislatures only, and one founded on the PEOPLE [my emphasis], to be the true difference between a league or treaty, and a Constitution. The former in point of moral obligation might be as inviolable as the latter. In point of poiltical operation, there were two important distinctions in favor of the latter. 1. A law violating a treaty by a pre-existing law, might be respected by the Judges as a law, though an unwise or pefidious one. A law violating a constitution established by the people themselves, would be considered by the Judges as null & void. 2. The doctrine laid down by the law of Nations in the case of treaties is that a breach of any one article by any of the parties, frees the other parties from their engagements. In the case of a union of people under one Constitution, the nature of the pact has always been understood to exclude such an interpretation." [James Madison, "Speech in the Federal Convention on Ratification," 23 July 1787]
3. See No. 1. Again, the Constitution and U.S. laws pursuant thereto are supreme only in specifically enumerated areas. Secession is not so enumerated.
-----------------
You don't seem to realize what I'm saying. Let's try a different approach:
Take the entire body of US Laws passed in pursuance of the Constitution that apply to a particular state, for example, Louisiana. This includes the Federal Law that says Louisiana is a state in the Union.
Louisiana, by the Supremacy Clause, does not have the power to declare any or all of these laws no longer apply to it. Louisiana, by the Supremacy Clause, does not have the power to declare the Constitution no longer applies to it.
The claim of an ordinance of secession, though, is that the US Constitution in its entirety and every US Law passed in pursuance of the Constitution no longer applies to that state. That is a clear violation of the Supremacy Clause and completely unconstitutional.
4. Geographically, but not politically, correct. States are not political subdivisions of the U.S.
-----------------
You're wrong, and the US Supreme Court says you are.
Again, here's the fourth time I've posted this. I would appreciate it if you would read it this time:
"That the United States form, for many, and for most important purposes, a single nation, has not yet been denied. In war, we are one people. In making peace, we are one people. In all commercial regulations, we are one and the same people. . .. America has chosen to be, in many respects, and to many purposes, a nation; and for all these purposes, her government is complete; to all these objects it is competent. The people have declared, that in the exercise of all the powers given for these objects, it is supreme. . . . The constitution and laws of a State, so far as they are repugnant to the constitution and laws of the United States, are absolutely void. These States are constituent parts of the United States. They are members of one great
empire." [Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. 264, 413-414]
Once again, this is the law of the land.
You know my opinion of Texas v. White. But that is post-war and obviously irrelevant to the legality of secession when it ocurred.
----------------
Absolutely wrong. That's not the way Constitutional Law works. The US Supreme Court made its ruling based on what the Constitutional Law was **at the time of Texas' secession!!** It is completely authoritative regarding the legality of secession when it occurred.
Even under your current paraphrase of the supremacy clause, secession is not contrary to the US Constitution and US Laws passed in pursuance of the Constitution.
-------------------
It most certainly is. Louisiana, Mississippi, Texas, Arkansas, Florida, et al, are all States in the Union and each has a Federal Law proclaiming it as a state in the Union. The Constitution itself has clauses that apply directly to states. And there are other laws that apply to the various states. No state, on its own, can claim that these laws and the US Constitution no longer apply to it. That would be contrary to the US Constitution and US Law, and completely unconstitutional.
You state that "The very essence of secession is that US Laws and the US Constitution no longer apply to the seceding state." I agree; it is also the essence of sovereignty.
-------------------
And thus it is incontrovertably unconstitutional because it violates the Supremacy Clause.
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
