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.
My information on Howard Cecil Perkin's survey comes from Northern Editorials on Secession by Howard Perkins (The William and Mary Quarterly)
--------------------
I wasn't aware Dr. Perkins published an article on it in the W&M Q. Do you have the volume number?
and also the same book that Cash mentioned.
---------------------
My copy does not agree with what you wrote, though.
You will also find an article written on this subject by none other than Mr. DiLorenzo (Rewriting History, American Style) and before you prepare to tighten my noose, please understand that although you despise his works, I don't, and you simply can't discredit everything that Thomas DiLorenzo has to say.
-------------------------
Now I see where you got that statement. It is from DiLorenzo. The article is aptly named. He makes a number of false statements in this article as he attempts to rewrite history.
"Like all the founding fathers Jefferson wanted the Union to thrive, but he also agreed with his colleague Timothy Pickering that secession was a fundamental right. In his First Inaugural Address he declared, 'If there be any among us who would wish to dissolve this union . . . let them stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it.' He was championing the right of free speech here, but also the right of secession."
False statement. Jefferson said to John Taylor, "But if on a temporary superiority of the one party, the other is to resort to a scission of the Union, no federal government can ever exist." [Thomas Jefferson to John Taylor, 4 Jun 1798]
In his First Inaugural, Jefferson said very clearly that the idea of secession was an "error of opinion" that should be combated by reason. It was very clearly an argument for free speech and in no way can anyone honestly say it was a statement in favor of secession. In his usual modus operendi, DiLorenzo cherrypicks a portion of what Jefferson said to lie to you about what he was talking about. Here's Jefferson's statement in broader context:
"We have called by different names brethren of the same principle. We are all Republicans, we are all Federalists. If there be any among us who would wish to dissolve this Union or to change its republican form, let them stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it. I know, indeed, that some honest men fear that a republican government can not be strong, that this Government is not strong enough; but would the honest patriot, in the full tide of successful experiment, abandon a government which has so far kept us free and firm on the theoretic and visionary fear that this Government, the world's best hope, may by possibility want energy to preserve itself? I trust not."
Note that he includes "change its republican form" with secession. Jefferson is obviously not making an argument in favor of changing the republican form of government in the United States because that is an unconstitutional act. By DiLorenzo's argument we could say with equal [lack of] legitimacy that he was making a speech supporting changing the republican form of government in the United States. But that's laughable. Same with DiLorenzo's dishonest claim that Jefferson was speaking in favor of secession. It's just another DiLorenzo lie, like so many others.
As President, Jefferson wanted Aaron Burr tried for treason when Burr tried to get the Louisiana Territory to secede from the United States.
How can anyone honestly believe someone who did and said all that was in favor of unilateral secession?
"In a letter to James Madison in 1816 Jefferson reiterated his support of the right of secession by saying, 'If any state in the Union will declare that it prefers separation . . . to a continuance in union . . . I have no hesitation in saying, let us separate.' "
--------
This is more of DiLorenzo's lying by taking things out of context, in addition to absolutely incompetent scholarship on DiLorenzo's part. It was a letter not to James Madison but to Thomas Crawford:
"In your letter to Fisk, you have fairly stated the alternatives between which we are to choose: 1, licentious commerce and gambling speculations for a few, with eternal war for the many; or, 2, restricted commerce, peace, and steady occupations for all. If any State in the Union will declare that it prefers separation with the first alternative, to a continuance in union without it, I have no hesitation in saying, "let us separate." I would rather the States should withdraw, which are for unlimited commerce and war, and confederate with those alone which are for peace and agriculture. I know that every nation in Europe would join in sincere amity with the latter, and hold the former at arm's length, by jealousies, prohibitions, restrictions, vexations and war." [Thomas Jefferson to William H. Crawford, 20 June 1816]
Note well what Jefferson is saying. He is not making an argument for unilateral secession. He is saying that if any state wanted to secede in order to pursue licentious commerce and gambling speculations for a few with eternal war for the many, he would vote to let them go. None of that even remotely resembled what the secessionist states of 1860 and 1861 did.
Again, nothing here shows support for unilateral secession.
"Alexis de Tocqueville, whom everyone regards as a brilliant observer and chronicler of the American system of government, wrote in Democracy in America that 'The Union was formed by the voluntary agreement of the States; and in uniting together they have not forfeited their nationality . . . . If one of the states chooses to withdraw from the compact . . . the Federal Government would have no means of maintaining its claims directly either by force or right.' "
---------------------
De Tocqueville was smart, but not perfect. In this statement he is absolutely wrong, as I've shown with the Supreme Court's rulings in McCullough v. Maryland, Fletcher v. Peck, and Cohens v. Virginia.
"(Tocqueville could never have imagined that barely thirty years later an American president would commit the barbaric act of having his armies murder 300,000 fellow citizens and destroy their economy to deny them the right of secession). "
---------------------
Another DiLorenzo lie. There was no murder involved. The confederates started the war. They sowed the wind and they reaped the whirlwind.
"Even Abraham Lincoln voiced support for the right of secession when it served his political purposes. He enthusiastically embraced (and orchestrated) the secession of western Virginia (a slave state) when it joined the Union."
-----------------------
As I've shown, this was not a secession but the creation of one state from another in accordance with the Constitution.
"And on January 12, 1848, he announced that 'any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. . . . Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people, that can, may revolutionize, and make their own of so much of the territory as they inhabit.' "
-----------------------
Another DiLorenzo lie. As I pointed out, he is very clearly talking about revolution, not secession. A revolution is not a legal act. It is a natural right, not a constitutional right. Secession is being put forward as a mythical constitutional right.
"As of 1860 most Northerners and Southerners believed in the Jeffersonian right of secession as enshrined in the Declaration of Independence. In Northern Editorials on Secession Howard Cecil Perkins surveyed about 1,000 Northern newspapers and found that the majority of them agreed basically with what the Bangor Daily Union wrote on November 13, 1860: 'The Union depends for its continuance on the free consent and will of the sovereign people of each state, and when that consent and will is withdrawn on either part, their Union is gone.' A state that is coerced to remain in the Union becomes a 'subject province' and can never be 'a co-equal member of the American Union.' "
---------
An egregious DiLorenzo lie, as Perkins makes no such statement whatsoever, and in fact the majority of the editorials he presents are opposed to it. The dominant newspapers in the North were Republican, followed by Douglas papers. Both Lincoln and Douglas denied any right to secession. Perkins tells us that Northern editors did discuss the possibility that secession might be a constitutional right, but as he says, at the end of about a six-week time, between the election and the secession of South Carolina, "they concluded by denying the right in toto." [Howard C. Perkins, _Northern Editorials on Secession,_ Vol 1, p. 19]
The rest of the article consists of more DiLorenzo lies. He uses half-truths, comments taken out of context, and outright fabrication.
What DiLorenzo says can easily be dismissed because it is made up of falsehood.
Thanks for the interesting post on DiLorenzo. Everybody's a critic. :-) I do respect the consistency of your position.
While I may believe that Jefferson favored a right of secession, its not necessary to debate that point. What's important is what made it to the Constitution; not what any one drafter said on the issue.
A couple of questions if I may:
1. If the drafters intended to prohibit state secession, do you think they could have done so in clear and unambiguos langwage - something like "Secession from the United States or this Constitution by any State is prohibited?
2. If so, and if you believe that the Constitution was intended to prohibit secession (which it seems you do), why didn't the drafters use clear and unambiguous language along the lines of what I propose in No. 1?
3. How does secession of one or more states change the U.S.'s republican form of gov't? (Since I know your intelligent, you'll see where I'm going here. Thus I hope you'll refrain from the easy stuff like it changes boundaries or population. What I'm looking for is how it would change the form of gov't. As I've said in another post, IMO, it wouldn't. The states choosing to remain in the Union would be bound in the same manner as before any secession.)
4. Whether Perkins said that which is attributed to him or not, why would it not be true that "A state that is coerced to remain in the Union becomes a 'subject province' and can never be 'a co-equal member of the American Union?' "
5. Do you believe that the ACW (and/or Texas v. White) shifted the balance of power between the states and the fed?
6. If so, do you believe that that is a result the drafters would intend.?
1. I've read it four times. It just doesn't say what you think it says.
-----
No, it says exactly what I said it says.
I never said a state in the union is not connected through the Constitution to the other states. It is, through the central gov't. But that does not say that a "state is not sovereign." It just says its not an unconnected sovereign. By that, it is acknowledging that, while connected, it is still sovereign. BTW, as to the quote in McCulloch about "bound the state sovereignties," it clearly refes to the states as sovereign.
-----
"Sovereignties" is a noun. It means in this case, territories existing as independent states, which is what the states were prior to ratification. Ratification of the Constitution bound them so that they were no longer independent states. That's what it means by "complete obligation."
As to Fletcher v. Peck, you have not read through it carefully enough.
"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]
This clearly says a state is not a sovereign entity, because a sovereign entity has complete control over itself. No state in the United States can claim that. If states were sovereign their legislatures would not be limited by some outside rules. In the United States they are clearly limited by the Constitution and US Laws.
2. As I've said, of course people voted at the state conventions. But ratification was required by nine "states."
-----
Ratification was required, as I have shown repeatedly, by the conventions of nine states. That is, by the people of nine states. The ratification was not accomplished by the states but rather by the people acting within their geographical areas known as states.
I'm sorry if Mr. Madison can't read. But what he says didn't count.
-----
Please don't begin using DiLorenzo's tactics. He would take up the dishonorable tactic of smearing our Founding Fathers. I hope you will disregard this ignoble action. James Madison is justly known as the Father of the Constitution. He knew the Constitution better than anyone. Not only was he a member of the Constitutional Convention, but he was also a leading member of the Virginia Ratification Convention and a principal author of the Federalist Papers, as well as a member of Congress and our Fourth President.
Unfortunately, what you are claiming is completely wrong, as reference to what was actually said in the Constitutional Convention of 1787 tells us:
[begin quote] Resol: 19. "referring the new Constitution to Assemblies to be chosen by the people for the express purpose of ratifying it" was next taken into consideration.
Mr. ELSEWORTH moved that it be referred to the Legislatures of the States for ratification. Mr. PATTERSON 2ded. the motion.
Col. MASON considered a reference of the plan to the authority of the people as one of the most important and essential of the Resolutions. The Legislatures have no power to ratify it. They are the mere creatures of the State Constitutions, and can not be greater than their creators. And he knew of no power in any of the Constitutions, he knew there was no power in some of them, that could be competent to this object. Whither then must we resort? To the people with whom all power remains that has not been given up in the Constitutions derived from them. It was of great moment he observed that this doctrine should be cherished as the basis of free Government. Another strong reason was that admitting the Legislatures to have a competent authority, it would be wrong to refer the plan to them, because succeeding Legislatures having equal authority could undo the acts of their predecessors; and the National Govt. would stand in each State on the weak and tottering foundation of an Act of Assembly. There was a remaining consideration of some weight. In some of the States the Govts. were not derived from the clear & undisputed authority of the people. This was the case in Virginia Some of the best & wisest citizens considered the Constitution as established by an assumed authority. A National Constitution derived from such a source would be exposed to the severest criticisms.
Mr. RANDOLPH. One idea has pervaded all our proceedings, to wit, that opposition as well from the States as from individuals, will be made to the System to be proposed. Will it not then be highly imprudent, to furnish any unnecessary pretext by the mode of ratifying it. Added to other objections agst. a ratification by Legislative authority only, it may be remarked that there have been instances in which the authority of the Common law has been set up in particular States agst. that of the Confederation which has had no higher sanction than Legislative ratification. Whose opposition will be most likely to be excited agst. the System? That of the local demagogues who will be degraded by it from the importance they now hold. These will spare no efforts to impede that progress in the popular mind which will be necessary to the adoption of the plan, and which every member will find to have taken place in his own, if he will compare his present opinions with those brought with him into the Convention. It is of great importance therefore that the consideration of this subject should be transferred from the Legislatures where this class of men, have their full influence to a field in which their efforts can be less mischeivous. It is moreover worthy of consideration that some of the States are averse to any change in their Constitution, and will not take the requisite steps, unless expressly called upon to refer the question to the people.
Mr. GERRY. The arguments of Col. Mason & Mr. Randolph prove too much. they prove an unconstitutionality in the present federal system even in some of the State Govts. Inferences drawn from such a source must be inadmissible. Both the State Govts. & the federal Govt. have been too long acquiesced in, to be now shaken. He considered the Confederation to be paramount to any State Constitution. The last article of it authorizing alterations must consequently be so as well as the others, and every thing done in pursuance of the article must have the same high authority with the article. -Great confusion he was confident would result from a recurrence to the people. They would never agree on any thing. He could not see any ground to suppose that the people will do what their rulers will not. The rulers will either conform to, or influence the sense of the people.
Mr. GHORUM was agst. referring the plan to the Legislatures.
1. Men chosen by the people for the particular purpose, will discuss the subject more candidly than members of the Legislature who are to lose the power which is to be given up to the Genl. Govt.
2. Some of the Legislatures are composed of several branches. It will consequently be more difficult in these cases to get the plan through the Legislatures, than thro' a Convention.
3. in the States many of the ablest men are excluded from the Legislatures, but may be elected into a Convention. Among these may be ranked many of the Clergy who are generally friends to good Government. Their services were found to be valuable in the formation & establishment of the Constitution of Massachts.
4. the Legislatures will be interrupted with a variety of little business, by artfully pressing which, designing men will find means to delay from year to year, if not to frustrate altogether, the national system.
5. If the last art: of the Confederation is to be pursued the unanimous concurrence of the States will be necessary. But will any one say, that all the States are to suffer themselves to be ruined, if Rho. Island should persist in her opposition to general measures. Some other States might also tread in her steps. The present advantage which N. York seems to be so much attached to, of taxing her neighbours by the regulation of her trade, makes it very probable, that she will be of the number. It would therefore deserve serious consideration whether provision ought not to be made for giving effect to the System without waiting for the unanimous concurrence of the States.
Mr. ELSEWORTH. If there be any Legislatures who should find themselves incompetent to the ratification, he should be content to let them advise with their constituents and pursue such a mode as wd. be competent. He thought more was to be expected from the Legislatures than from the people. The prevailing wish of the people in the Eastern States is to get rid of the public debt; and the idea of strengthening the Natl. Govt. carries with it that of strengthening the public debt. It was said by Col. Mason
1. that the Legislatures have no authority in this case.
2. that their successors having equal authority could rescind their acts.
As to the 2d. point he could not admit it to be well founded. An Act to which the States by their Legislatures, make themselves parties, becomes a compact from which no one of the parties can recede of itself. As to the 1st. point, he observed that a new sett of ideas seemed to have crept in since the articles of Confederation were established. Conventions of the people, or with power derived expressly from the people, were not then thought of. The Legislatures were considered as competent. Their ratification has been acquiesced in without complaint. To whom have Congs. applied on subsequent occasions for further powers? To the Legislatures; not to the people. The fact is that we exist at present, and we need not enquire how, as a federal Society, united by a charter one article of which is that alterations therein may be made by the Legislative authority of the States. It has been said that if the confederation is to be observed, the States must unanimously concur in the proposed innovations. He would answer that if such were the urgency & necessity of our situation as to warrant a new compact among a part of the States, founded on the consent of the people; the same pleas would be equally valid in favor of a partial compact, founded on the consent of the Legislatures.
Mr. WILLIAMSON thought the Resoln.: [19] so expressed as that it might be submitted either to the Legislatures or to Conventions recommended by the Legislatures. He observed that some Legislatures were evidently unauthorized to ratify the system. He thought too that Conventions were to be preferred as more likely to be composed of the ablest men in the States.
Mr. Govr. MORRIS considered the inference of Mr. Elseworth from the plea of necessity as applied to the establishment of a new System on ye. consent of the people of a part of the States, in favor of a like establishment. on the consent of a part of the Legislatures as a non sequitur. If the Confederation is to be pursued no alteration can be made without the unanimous consent of the Legislatures: Legislative alterations not conformable to the federal compact, would clearly not be valid. The Judges would consider them as null & void. Whereas in case of an appeal to the people of the U. S., the supreme authority, the federal compact may be altered by a majority of them; in like manner as the Constitution of a particular State may be altered by a majority of the people of the State. The amendmt. moved by Mr. Elseworth erroneously supposes that we are proceeding on the basis of the Confederation. This Convention is unknown to the Confederation.
Mr. KING thought with Mr. Elseworth that the Legislatures had a competent authority, the acquiescence of the people of America in the Confederation, being equivalent to a formal ratification by the people. He thought with Mr. E-also that the plea of necessity was as valid in the one case as in the other. At the same time he preferred a reference to the authority of the people expressly delegated to Conventions, as the most certain means of obviating all disputes & doubts concerning the legitimacy of the new Constitution; as well as the most likely means of drawing forth the best men in the States to decide on it. He remarked that among other objections made in the State of N. York to granting powers to Congs. one had been that such powers as would operate within the State, could not be reconciled to the Constitution; and therefore were not grantible by the Legislative authority. He considered it as of some consequence also to get rid of the scruples which some members of the State Legislatures might derive from their oaths to support & maintain the existing Constitutions.
Mr. MADISON thought it clear that the Legislatures were incompetent to the proposed changes. These changes would make essential inroads on the State Constitutions, and it would be a novel & dangerous doctrine that a Legislature could change the constitution under which it held its existence. There might indeed be some Constitutions within the Union, which had given a power to the Legislature to concur in alterations of the federal Compact. But there were certainly some which had not; and in the case of these, a ratification must of necessity be obtained from the people. He considered the difference between a system founded on the Legislatures only, and one founded on the people, 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 political operation, there were two important distinctions in favor of the latter. 1. A law violating a treaty ratified by a pre-existing law, might be respected by the Judges as a law, though an unwise or perfidious 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. Comparing the two modes in point of expediency he thought all the considerations which recommended this Convention in preference to Congress for proposing the reform were in favor of State Conventions in preference to the Legislatures for examining and adopting it.
On question on Mr. Elseworth's motion to refer the plan to the Legislatures of the States
N. H. no. Mas. no. Ct. ay. no. Pa. no. Del. ay. Md. ay. Va. no. N. C. no. S. C. no. Geo. no.
Mr. Govr. MORRIS moved that the reference of the plan be made to one general Convention, chosen & authorized by the people to consider, amend, & establish the same. -Not seconded . On question for agreeing to Resolution 19. touching the mode of Ratification as reported from the Committee of the Whole; viz, to refer the Constn. after the approbation of Congs. to assemblies chosen by the people:
N. H. ay. Mas. ay. Ct. ay. Pa. ay. Del. no. Md. ay. Va. ay. N. C. ay. S. C. ay. Geo. ay.
[end quote]
["Notes of Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787" Monday, July 23 1787]
It was not the entities known as states who ratified the Constitution. It was the People of the United States, acting within their geographic areas known as states.
What the Constitution says counted. The people alone could not give due validity to the Constitution, because the Constitution calls for a different ratification process.
-----
This is absolutely wrong. Only the people could give validity to the Constitution because only the People of the United States are the true sovereigns.
Mr. Madison and I don't agree on a lot of things,
-----
Which should cause you to rethink your opinion, because Madison is correct.
You state that "This includes the Federal Law that says Louisiana is a state in the Union" and that "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." Louisiana didn't become a state by fed law.
-----
It sure did, my friend. I suggest you look into how states are admitted into the Union.
Nor did any other state; they became states by ratifying (in the case of the original 13) or application by the constitutional process. Fed law could not make Puerto Rico a state unless Puerto Rico asked to become a state (or if we could get a guy like Lincoln to tell them their a state at the point of a gun).
-----
I'm sorry, Russ, but you are unaware of what the process of admission is. The final step is a Federal Law admitting the state into the Union and declaring it a state in the Union. For Louisiana, see Statutes at Large, Vol 2, pp. 701-704. On page 703 we find the following: "Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the said state shall be one, and is hereby declared to be one of the United States of America and admitted into the Union on an equal footing with the original states, in all respects whatever, by the name and title of the state of Louisiana."
That is a Federal Law passed in pursuance of the Constitution and thus supreme law of the land. There is nothing the state of Louisiana can do, on its own, to claim it is no longer valid.
I keep reading, but "Constituent parts" does not mean "political subdivisions." States were and are sovereigns who've decided to cede a PART of their sovereignty to the fed. Political subdivisions are not sovereigns, and exist at the whim of the sovereign from which they draw all their power.
-----
Constituent parts make up a whole. Take the whole apart and you see its constituent parts strewn about. The states are no longer sovereign because they no longer have control over what happens to them and what they can do. They lost their sovereignty when they ratified the Constitution. Let's say New Jersey had a law that said its drivers licenses did not need pictures on them. Now, suppose the Department of Homeland Security says we need pictures on all drivers licenses. A constitutional amendment is then passed by the Congress and sent to the states for ratification. 3/4 of the states ratify it, but 1/4 of the states, including New Jersey, reject it. Guess what? Every state from now on is required to have a picture on their drivers licenses no matter what they think. They have no sovereignty.
You stated that "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." I think you've misconstrued the doctrine of retrospective application as it applies to this discussion.
-----
I have not. Read the decision. The Court had to decide if Texas continued to be a state in the Union in order to have jurisdiction. If secession were constitutional in 1861, then Texas was out of the Union. The Court ruled that secession was unconstitutional and Texas remained a state in the Union.
[snip for brevity]
----------------------------
You are confusing yourself here, Russ. If you read the decision it becomes clear. If secession were a constitutional act when Texas attempted it in 1861, then the Court would not have jurisdiction in the case. But the Court ruled that secession was unconstitutional in 1861. That means the Court had jurisdiction in the case and the actions of Texas and the other seceding states was unconstitutional and legally null. That means that any ordinance of secession had no legal operation and none of the states were ever out of the Union. It doesn't matter if the seceding states could have predicted Texas v. White or not. Their actions were without legal foundation and unconstitutional.
You state that "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." Wrong.
-----
No, you're the one who is wrong. Show me where the Constitution says a state can claim any law no longer applies to it. Show me where the Constitution says a state can claim the Constitution no longer applies to it.
I can show you, in Article VI, Clause 2, where the Constitution and US Laws remain supreme over a state, anything in the constitution or laws of that state to the contrary notwithstanding.
First, secession is not a power delegated to the fed by the states in the Constitution, nor does the Constitution forbid the power of secession to the states.
-----
Wrong again. By the Supremacy Clause, no state can claim any part of the Constitution, or the entire Constitution itself, no longer applies.
Show me where the Constitution says a state can override a Federal Law passed in pursuance of the Constitution.
Show me where the Constitution says a state can claim the restrictions in Article I, Section 10 no longer apply to it.
Those who worship at the altar of dual sovereignty are worshipping a false god. It is a mirage. There is really no such thing. There is only one true sovereignty in the United States, and that is the People of the United States. All else is smoke and mirrors. A state can legislate on driving and on criminal laws only so far as the People of the United States will allow it to do so. Once they decide to take over, there is nothing the State can do about it. The state has no real sovereignty.
1. If the drafters intended to prohibit state secession, do you think they could have done so in clear and unambiguos langwage - something like "Secession from the United States or this Constitution by any State is prohibited?
------------------
If they intended for states to secede, they could provided a process for it in clear, unambiguous language. As it is, their purpose was to make the Union stronger and to prevent its dissolution. They didn't need to prohibit secession in the text because the Supremacy Clause already did that.
As Gov. Samuel Johnston said in the North Carolina Ratification Debates, concerning the Supremacy Clause: "The Constitution must be the supreme law of the land; otherwise, it would be in the power of any one state to counteract the other states, and withdraw itself from the Union. The laws made in pursuance thereof by Congress ought to be the supreme law of the land; otherwise, anyone state might repeal the laws of the Union at large. Without this clause, the whole Constitution would be a piece of blank paper." [_Elliot's Debates,_ Vol IV, pp. 187-188]
3. How does secession of one or more states change the U.S.'s republican form of gov't?
---------------------
I never said it would.
4. Whether Perkins said that which is attributed to him or not, why would it not be true that "A state that is coerced to remain in the Union becomes a 'subject province' and can never be 'a co-equal member of the American Union?' "
----------------------
The People of the state entered the Union and obligated themselves to the Constitution by their own actions. They weren't forced to be in the Union; however, once in they incurred a constitutional obligation to the other parties to the compact, i.e., the People of the other States. They do not have the power to free themselves from that obligation but must be released from it by the other parties.
For example, let's say you go to a bank and get a loan for $1,000. You incur an obligation to repay the bank that $1,000 plus whatever interest is part of the contract. You do not have the power to release yourself from that obligation. You have to ask the bank to forgive the loan, and you are not released until the bank consents to release you from that obligation.
5. Do you believe that the ACW (and/or Texas v. White) shifted the balance of power between the states and the fed?
--------------------
No. Not in any way. The ratification of the Constitution shifted the balance of power between the states and the central government.
Let's not devolve to a 'yes it does, no it doesn't' thing.
You seem to be of the opinion that dual sovereignty cannot exist. I don't know why you believe that. Perhaps you've come to that conclusion to justify your position on secession. It's not true. I can and does exist in our gov't.
You've also shown adeptness at reading between the lines. IMO, you're finding things in those cases that aren't what is said, but what you'd prefer it to say. For example, it shouldn't take an exercise in grammar to find a S.Ct. opinion that says, or has words containing the meaning, that "states are not sovereigns." You'll lose no respect here by just admitting that you can't find one. It doesn't exist. Even today, the fed gives lip service to state sovereignty. That's why the fed didn't enact a law that 18 was the drinking age; it threatened to withhold highway funds from the states instead. That's why there are uniform laws where uniformity makes sense, but the fed lacks constitutional authority to enact a nationwide law. Can you explain these things absent dual sovereignty?
Were going in circles as to ratification. No matter how many people voted to ratify, its tissue paper until ratified by nine states.
Cherry picking came along well before DiLorenzo. I tend not to adopt any position - Madison, Jefferson or whomever - in total. I try to stick to a specific issue. For example, I think Madison wrong on his view of secession and I think Jefferson wrong in his advocacy for a constitutional convention every few years. I try to distill through the rhetoric and the person to find what is correct. But when I look to see what's constitutional, I look first to the Constitution. I only look elsewhere when the Constitution does not itself answer the question.
You may have gotten the last step right in the state admittance (only post-ratification) process. You do us both a disservice by ignoring my point that a fed law, standing alone, cannot make a state.
The amendment process speaks for itself. Ratification (or the request to become a state) meant agreement to the process. There's nothing new here. Rather, ask yourself why the Dept. of HS doesn't simply introduce a bill to have the fed enact a law to put pictures on driver's licences. The answer is that (interstate commerce assumed aside - I don't intend to discuss whether those pics involve interstate commerce) the Constitution does not give authority to the fed to legislate in the area. That is a residuary, sovereign power retained by the states.
You miss my point on retroactive application of S.Ct. decisions. And you didn't answer my question - Do you really think that the seceeding stated should somehow have divined that Texas v White would be a future S.Ct. decision. Of course not.
I'm not fooled by those 'show me in the Constitution where a state can do this or that' comments. We both know that its fed powers that are required to be enumerated. The states retained all residuary powers not so enumerated, including secession. The Constitution doesn't contain a clause empowering the states to enact criminal laws or traffic laws. It doesn't have to; its in the residuary of sovereign powers retained by the states.
I'll say it one more time. The supremacy clause only applies to the Constitution and fed laws pursuant thereto; it does not apply to the states exercise of its retained sovereign powers.
You seem to be of the opinion that dual sovereignty cannot exist.
------------------
It doesn't exist. There is only one true sovereignty--the People of the United States. What they say goes.
I don't know why you believe that.
------------------
Because it's true. The People of the United States can do anything they want, and no single state can do anything about it. See Article V of the Constitution.
"The people made the constitution, and the people can unmake it. It is the
creature of their will, and lives only by their will. But this supreme and
irresistible power to make or to unmake, resides only in the whole body of
the people; not in any sub-division of them. The attempt of any of the parts
to exercise it is usurpation, and ought to be repelled by those to whom the
people have delegated their power of repelling it." [US Supreme Court,
Cohens v. Virginia, 19 US 264, 389]
A single state has no sovereignty at all beyond what the People of the United States allow it to think it has. The moment they want to disabuse it of that notion, they can. You can name any issue you think is an issue that a state has sovereignty over and the People of the United States can trump it. All they need to do is pass and ratify a constitutional amendment.
You've also shown adeptness at reading between the lines. IMO, you're finding things in those cases that aren't what is said, but what you'd prefer it to say. For example, it shouldn't take an exercise in grammar to find a S.Ct. opinion that says, or has words containing the meaning, that "states are not sovereigns." You'll lose no respect here by just admitting that you can't find one. It doesn't exist.
-------------------------
Do I really need to post them a seventh time?
Even today, the fed gives lip service to state sovereignty.
------------------------
Exactly my point. They give lip service to it, but it doesn't really exist. It's a mirage.
That's why the fed didn't enact a law that 18 was the drinking age; it threatened to withhold highway funds from the states instead.
-------------------------
You mean 21.
The People of the United States didn't want a Federal drinking law. If the People of the United States wanted the national drinking age to be 21 there would be a constitutional amendment and the national drinking age would be 21, and if any state didn't like it, too bad. States have no sovereignty. The People only allow the states to think they might have some sovereignty.
Were going in circles as to ratification. No matter how many people voted to ratify, its tissue paper until ratified by nine states.
--------------------
The conventions of nine states, as it says in the Constitution. That means it was ratified by the People of nine states, not by the state itself.
Cherry picking came along well before DiLorenzo.
------------------
Never said it didn't. But it's his M.O. and he's attempting to elevate it to an art form.
You may have gotten the last step right in the state admittance (only post-ratification) process. You do us both a disservice by ignoring my point that a fed law, standing alone, cannot make a state.
-------------------
That's irrelevant to the conversation. The fact is that there are Federal Laws that specify these states are states in the Union and by the Constitution there is nothing a state can do, on its own, to overturn a Federal Law passed in pursuance of the Constitution.
The amendment process speaks for itself. Ratification (or the request to become a state) meant agreement to the process. There's nothing new here. Rather, ask yourself why the Dept. of HS doesn't simply introduce a bill to have the fed enact a law to put pictures on driver's licences.
--------------------
I specified a Constitutional Amendment, and that's what I'm using. As you said, the amendment process speaks for itself and ratification of that amendment means that a single state or even two states that don't agree get it rammed down their throats. They have no sovereignty. The only true sovereigns are the People of the United States.
I'm not fooled by those 'show me in the Constitution where a state can do this or that' comments. We both know that its fed powers that are required to be enumerated.
--------------------
Can a state overturn a constitutional Federal Law?
Can a state claim the restrictions in Article I, Section 10 no longer apply to it?
The states retained all residuary powers not so enumerated, including secession.
---------------------
Secession is not a residuary power because the Supremacy Clause prevents it from occurring.
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
