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.
You state that "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." All the people needed was a bigger gun. Why have a Constitution at all.
If you think that's what was intended, nothing I or anyone can say will change your thoughts.
Your position has no basis in constitutional law or doctrine.
You state that "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." All the people needed was a bigger gun. Why have a Constitution at all.
---------------
Haven't you ever read the Constitution, Russ? Look at Article V. If the People of 3/4 of the states want to put anything they want in the Constitution it will be put in. They could amend the Constitution to outlaw state capitals that begin with the letter "L" if they wanted to do so.
Your position has no basis in constitutional law or doctrine.
-----------------
Sorry, Russ, but if you think so then I'm afraid your understanding of constitutional law or doctrine is very weak. Please look at what Article V of the Constitution says. The People of the United States are the only true sovereigns. They reign supreme. They can do what they want with the Constitution and if any single state doesn't like it, that's too bad, because the People rule.
Even a 'cityfied' poodle can dodge in and nip once in a while. Say what you feel and why you feel that way. It sometimes helps settle the dust.
Unionblue
__________________ "The American people and the Government at Washington may refuse to recognize it for a time but the inexorable logic of events will force it upon them in the end; that the war now being waged in this land is a war for and against slavery." Frederick Douglass
"Loyalty to our ancestors does not include loyalty to their mistakes." George Santayana
Have no fear, your questions may be relentless, but not repetitious nor jaded. Not agreeing with my viewpoints is not necessarily a bad thing, as it makes me think and view some of your questions in a different light that I had not considered before.
I am somewhat confused on your reply concerning Howard Cecil Perkin's 'survey' as Cash says there is no such survey in his edition of the book(s) Northern Editorials on Secession. Are you stating the book itself has this survey or said survey is in another publication (The William and Mary Quarterly)? I recently managed to purchase a two-volume set of the Northern Editorials on Secession and am very much looking forward to reviewing it for myself.
I hope you understand that my question concerning the closing of 300 Newspapers during the Lincoln administration was directed to Cash, as I really felt you had not been able to prove such a statement, either on your own or with Prof. DiLorenzo's article. I have also found many of the sources you gave list this number but do not give any source, historical or otherwise, that can back this number up. Hence my request to Cash. And Dawna, yes, I can discredit everything DiLorenzo says, based on my own reading of the man's work and the research done by others on his sayings. My conclusions based on such and my opinion drawn on those conclusions.
The dance is still on, dear, pesky Canadian, because all you did was site a dozen newspapers, while my own research came up with about 20+ more, but nowhere in the historical record can I even come close to a 300 figure. Stating and proving are two very different things.
Thank you for bearing with this stubborn Yankee.
Unionblue
__________________ "The American people and the Government at Washington may refuse to recognize it for a time but the inexorable logic of events will force it upon them in the end; that the war now being waged in this land is a war for and against slavery." Frederick Douglass
"Loyalty to our ancestors does not include loyalty to their mistakes." George Santayana
Thank you for your post #59. Russ, I want very much to make sure that I understand where you are coming from on this question of 'dual sovereignty,' the Tenth Amendment and the legality of secession. I must tell you straight off that Cash pretty much echoes my own views and backs it up with much historical record. I myself do not believe that the 'sovereign power' you describe came from the states. I am of the opinion that the Continential Congress, that is, the people's representatives, created the states and even existed before there were such a thing as states.
I have heard the Tenth Amendment argument for a long time. I would like to hear your own personal statement on what you think this amendment says. But Russ, how do you reconcile the Tenth with the other amendments that specifically state what a State can NOT do (can not coin money, make war, enter into treaties, etc?)?
I also have to admit that I am very uncomfortable with your statement, 'arbitrary majority' and 'the whim of majority rule.' What is democracy if not majority rule? Should one person deny aid or help or rule of law if he does not get what he wants personally? The phrase, 'the greater good' comes to mind for some reason.
You also make use of the word 'assume' a lot. 'Assume for the moment that I'm correct' or simply 'assume the truth of that for discussion.' That is not proof, Russ, that is merely assumption. While I agree with your position that slavery was legal under the Constitution and that it was the poorest of state's rights, I cannot go along with your assumption that the North was against secession because it could not get at slavery any other way. Secession was outside the Constitution and it was the South that was going outside the bounds of the law in order to overturn a legal election. In fact, the North went out of its way to let the South keep slavery, if you read the acts of Congress trying to get through compromises to calm the South down over the issue, just before the firing on Ft. Sumter.
Again, I am curious what you think the Tenth Amendment says and how it gives the right of secession to the States, but you are going to have to lay it out for me in very small words, making it clear why it wasn't also clear to two thirds of the nation in 1861.
Sincerely,
Unionblue
__________________ "The American people and the Government at Washington may refuse to recognize it for a time but the inexorable logic of events will force it upon them in the end; that the war now being waged in this land is a war for and against slavery." Frederick Douglass
"Loyalty to our ancestors does not include loyalty to their mistakes." George Santayana
You state that "If the PEOPLE of 3/4 of the states want to put anything they want in the Constitution it will be put in." (emphasis added). You might want to read Art. V again. Afterwards, point out to me where the actual word "people" appears. You won't find it. It says "states," or conventions of "states" like Art. VII. I know you find that meaningless. But try using the plain meaning of the actual words of the Constitution. You might find they say something different than you think.
I've read your posts. IMO, small words will be unnecessary. Plain ones will be better. :-)
I've also noted that you've been persuaded by Cash. He's a very persuasive and talented writer. But IMO I'd be careful. What I've seen is that he throws a lot of 'record' followed by a one or two liner about what he thinks you ought to believe it says. I've found that what he believes the record says doesn't always follow from the actual words of the record.
You inquire why I used the words 'assume "X" is true,' or words to that effect. As you can probably tell, I'm happy to debate the issue of legality of secession. I believe it is legal. But you asked me why the issue was important, not how I'd resolve the issue. I could only answer why its important to me, and why it is IMO an important issue. To answer that question, I asked you to assume that secession was legal so that my opinion on the issue's importance made sense. If secession is not legal the issue is IMO less important. If you ask Cash, he'd likely tell you its not important; that we've been on the road to big central gov't since ratification and that those who believe in state sovereignty are merely an annoying bump in the road. If my answer to you inquiry on 'assume this or that' is unclear, let me know and I'll try to explain from a different angle.
You state that you don't believe that sovereign power came from the states. I'll respond by asking - Where else could it possibly come from? The crown had the original sovereignty over the colonies; the colonies derived all political power from the crown. By revolting against the crown, and winning, the colonies wrested sovereignty from the crown. The colonies, who then preferred to call themselves states, then possessed all the sovereign powers that the crown had previously had over them. Its important to not that the US didn't even exist at this point, and wouldn't for several years. The US had nothing, not even a name at that point, let alone any sovereign powers of its own. Thus, all that absolute, supreme political power that is called sovereignty resided with the states. To them, the crown represented big central gov't. What the crown represented - central gov't - is what the states (formerly known as colonies) had revolted against. They were not eager to replace one behemoth with another; that would defeat the purpose of having a revolution in the first place. But the states also recognized to value of a central gov't for SOME, BUT NOT ALL purposes. Waging war is perhaps the best example. A war waged by several independent states necessarily begins as uncoordinated; and fails to take advantage of economies of scale. OTOH, the states felt that MOST issues were best legislated on a local, state, level, by legislators closer to the issues and thus having a better knowledge of what legislation was desirable. Then the Articles of Confederation were enacted, but the central gov't created thereby was too weak to support itself or impose its will on the states even in those limited areas where legislation by a central gov't was desirable. The states, with all that sovereign power but wary of central gov'ts, delegated no sovereignty to the central gov't created by the Articles. Thus the Articles central gov't had supreme, absolute soverign power over nothing. It was a skeleton without substance. The states soon learned that a central gov't without any sovereign powers was little better than no central gov't at all. This lesson prompted the call for a constitutional convention. The Revolution not long since passed, the states (still having all that sovereign power) were still wary of central gov'ts, and still believed that MOST issues should be legislated locally by local legislators closer to the issues. The big idea in the Constitution wasn't to give the (to be formed) new central gov't sovereign powers over a broader range of issues, but to give it sovereign power (not afforded by the Articles) over that limited range of issues felt to be best suited for a central gov't; war for example. Thus, FOR THAT LIMITED RANGE OF ISSUES SUITED TO A CENTRAL GOV'T, the states would cede, or delegate, a PART of their soveriegnty to the central gov't. For MOST of the issues, those not delegated to the central gov't, the states would retain the balance of sovereignty. Hence, dual sovereignty. This solution gave the central gov't the power it needed (not afforded by the Articles) while still retaining state control over those issues not felt suited to a central gov't but felt better suited to local, state control. The supremacy clause cured the failing of the Articles, giving the fed sovereign power - but ONLY FOR THAT LIMITED RANGE OF ISSUES SUITED TO A CENTRAL GOV'T. Again, the residuary of sovereign powers, those not delegated to the central gov't, were retained by the states.
The states, having all the sovereign power, thus delegated to the fed sovereign power in a limited range of issues. Still wary of central gov'ts, the state representatives at the constitutional convention - the drafters - were careful to specifically enumerate, or list, in the Constitution those limited areas where sovereign power would be delegated to the fed. They wanted to be sure that the sovereign power exercised by the fed would be exercised ONLY FOR THAT LIMITED RANGE OF ISSUES SUITED TO A CENTRAL GOV'T. At first, it was thought enough that the limited range of issues be listed in the Constitution. Everyone would know the intent of the drafters - that if an issue was not specifically enumerated, or on the list so to speak, that the states had retained sovereignty over that issue. But in the short time between ratification and the bill of rights, there were rumblings. These rumblings said that the fed, now created, would not be satisfied with supreme power on a limited range of issues; that the fed would try to extend its supreme power over a broader range of issues. The states would have none of that. Again, they hadn't broken the chains of the crown just to be bound up again by another crown, or central gov't, of their own making. They wanted to be sure that fed power would be limited to only that list of specifically enumerated issues set forth in the Constitution. So the states proposed an amendment, to become the 10th Amend., to specify that the range of issues over which the fed had power was limited by the list in the Constitution. The states were just not satisfied that, as time went by, everyone would know the intent of the drafters - that if an issue was not specifically enumerated, or on the list, that the states had retained sovereignty over that issue. Those opposed to the 10th Amend. said it was unnecessary; everyone would know where the power came from (the states) and the only power had by the fed was on the list. Those favoring the 10th Amend. said that if that's the case - if everyone knows - what's the harm in making that known in express, written terms. That little piece of common sense won the day, and the 10th Amend. was enacted.
You state that "But Russ, how do you reconcile the Tenth with the other amendments that specifically state what a State can NOT do (can not coin money, make war, enter into treaties, etc?)? I don't, because the other amendments don't provide as you say; those prohibitions are contained in the original Articles in the Constitution. In any event it makes no difference. The Constitution may delegate power for an issue to the fed, or prohibit the states from exercising power over the issue; the same would hold true for any amendment.
You state that "I also have to admit that I am very uncomfortable with your statement, 'arbitrary majority' and 'the whim of majority rule.' What is democracy if not majority rule?" IMO, simple majority rule can be arbitrary in a bad way. It ought to take more than a vote of 50.1% of the people to deprive me of free speech, a fair trial, etc. Many an unpopular criminal would get no trial at all. What legislator would vote against a law requiring that you fly the American flag on July 4. But should it be a crime if you don't? What if you prefer the Canadian flag; should that be punished? I agree that most democracies don't act that way. But that they have the power to do so scares and concerns me. Lucky for me, I live in the US. The US is not a democracy; its a constitutional republic. Nothing in the Constitution or the constitutions of the states prescribes majority rule on all issues. Majority rule is fine most of the time. But not always. I prefer a Constitution that requires more than a simple majority to take my rights away.
Lastly the issue of secession. If you followed my diatribe above, all you have to do is plug the issue of secession (like any other issue) into the Constitution. Is it on the list of powers delegated to the fed? Is it on the list of powers prohibited to the states? No? Then it must be, by constitutional law, a power reserved to the states.
Why, you ask, was the above regarding secession not clear to 2/3 of the people in 1861. To that question I can only offer my opinion. Two-thirds of the people in the nation lived in the industrializing north. They didn't want to see the issue of the legality of secession clearly. They wanted to prohibit secession, and they weren't particularly concerned how that occured. Prohibiting secession, or preserving the Union if you will, was more important to them than the law of the Constitution.
You state that "If the PEOPLE of 3/4 of the states want to put anything they want in the Constitution it will be put in." (emphasis added). You might want to read Art. V again. Afterwards, point out to me where the actual word "people" appears. You won't find it. It says "states," or conventions of "states" like Art. VII. I know you find that meaningless. But try using the plain meaning of the actual words of the Constitution. You might find they say something different than you think.
----------
Russ,
I hadn't expected to have to explain such a basic concept. Conventions are the way the People express their constitutional will. They are conventions of the People of the respective states. That is the basic definition of conventions. So if the people of 3/4 of the states wish to impose a change in the Constitution the other 1/4 of the states oppose, then it is just too bad for the other 1/4 of the states. States have no sovereignty. The only true sovereignty is the People of the United States.
If you ask Cash, he'd likely tell you its not important; that we've been on the road to big central gov't since ratification and that those who believe in state sovereignty are merely an annoying bump in the road.
------------
If you're going to try to quote me, Russ, then perhaps you ought to ask me what I think first before trying to read my mind.
Those who believe in state sovereignty are not an annoying bump in the road. They are people who have bought a fine-looking house from a realtor, but when the realtor leaves and they open the door they see it's one of those Hollywood houses where there is only a facade and nothing at all behind the facade.
There is no state sovereignty. You've been fooled by a mirage. The Constitution can be amended in any way to make any law the people of 3/4 of the states want and the other 1/4 of the states have to suck it up whether they like it or not.
You state that you don't believe that sovereign power came from the states. I'll respond by asking - Where else could it possibly come from?
-------------------
The People, of course.
The crown had the original sovereignty over the colonies; the colonies derived all political power from the crown. By revolting against the crown, and winning, the colonies wrested sovereignty from the crown. The colonies, who then preferred to call themselves states, then possessed all the sovereign powers that the crown had previously had over them. Its important to not that the US didn't even exist at this point, and wouldn't for several years.
---------------------
No, that is not in accordance with the historical record. See the Articles of Confederation.
The US had nothing, not even a name at that point, let alone any sovereign powers of its own.
-------------------
Still wrong. Once again, see the Articles of Confederation.
[remainder snipped]
I'm sorry Russ, but someone has misled you terribly. It seems as though you've swallowed the Kennedy Brothers' line completely. Your post has many basic facts of history completely wrong.
A simple reference to the Declaration of Independence ought to let you know that the People, not the States, are the true sovereigns.
Have you read John Locke? His writings were the basis our Founding Fathers used in forming our country.
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
