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.
I've developed too much respect for you to believe that you miss my point. At first blush I'm constrained to believe that you're purposely avoiding it because it doesn't fit your paradigm. But I'll not be a cynic - today - and explain my point. Let's look at the math. If people were sovereigns, a simple majority would be sufficient to amend the Constitution. But Art. V requires 3/4 of the states. So, for example, let's say the US had 4 states each with 100 people. In 2 of the states, 80 vote for the amendment and in the other 2 states 40 people vote for the amendment. 220 for; 180 against. If the people were the sovereigns, you'd have an amendment. But you don't have an amendment because you didn't get 3/4 of the STATES. If the people were the sovereigns, having supreme power, the simple majority would override any mere law requiring 3/4 of the states, right? What was that about a basic concept? :-)
If people were sovereigns, a simple majority would be sufficient to amend the Constitution.
-----------------------
Russ,
The People are indeed sovereign, and the process they have set up thus far is to ratify the Constitution as embodied in states. I have consistently said that if the People of 3/4 of the states want to change the Constitution, they can do so. If at some point the people of 3/4 of the states want to amend the amendment process so as to require a simple majority of the entire population, then they can do so. And if 1/4 of the states don't like it, that's tough because they will have to live with it. This is because the states are not sovereign.
Have you read the Preamble to the Constitution? It does say "We the People of the United States," does it not?
Style without substance, huh? Well, to achieve that you'd have to write out several portions of the Constitution, not the least of which would be the 10th Amend. What about that part of Art. I, Section 1 that says "All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in Congress..." Why have the words 'herein granted?' Why not just grant all legislative power to Congress. Gee, was there something held back? Why have jurisdictional disputes between state and fed courts? Why not just have no state courts and a bunch of fed courts? Why have governors? Why have stated gov'ts at all? Don't you think you might just be missing something here.
Did the Art. of Confed. refer to the nation as the US? If so, I apologize. Can you point to a substantial, instead of trivial, error of fact. Clearly, the US as we know it under the Constitution didn't exist until ratification. We've already agreed that no sovereignty was vested in a central gov't until ratification.
To which Kennedy brothers do you refer? THE Kennedy brothers? What did they have to say about constitutional law? I haven't bought anyone's line, including your's. I come to constitutional law as a lawyer, not a historian. But I know that from either perspective, you start the analysis from the text of the Constitution, not from what any one person would have it say.
People are not sovereigns in and of themselves. Unless your the King. Sovereignty resides in political entities. People can create gov'ts, disband a gov't, or revolt from one gov't and create another. But no one individual has sovereign authority over anyone or anything but themselves, until as a group they create some form of political entity to govern them. Unless you count brute force of one individual over another.
I'm eager to learn. Please itemize the many basic facts of history which my previous post has completely wrong.
I guess you have one point. Without people we'd have no need for gov't. But how is that relevant to whether secession is constitutionally legal? How is it relevant at all unless you want me to acknowledge that people are the building blocks of civilization?
Style without substance, huh?
---------------
On the contrary, I've dealt in nothing but substance.
Well, to achieve that you'd have to write out several portions of the Constitution, not the least of which would be the 10th Amend. What about that part of Art. I, Section 1 that says "All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in Congress..." Why have the words 'herein granted?' Why not just grant all legislative power to Congress.
-----------------
Granted by the People, not the states. It's an historical fallacy to claim the states granted any power to the Federal Government.
Gee, was there something held back? Why have jurisdictional disputes between state and fed courts? Why not just have no state courts and a bunch of fed courts? Why have governors? Why have stated gov'ts at all? Don't you think you might just be missing something here.
-------------------
Nope. States are competent to handle issues that solely affect them. But the idea that a single state may be sovereign is laughable. What if the people of 3/4 of the states pass and ratify a Constitutional Amendment saying no state capital can begin with the letter "L?" Guess what? Arkansas is going to either find a new capital or change the name of the one it has, whether it likes it or not.
Did the Art. of Confed. refer to the nation as the US? If so, I apologize.
-------------------------
In the very first article, in fact.
Can you point to a substantial, instead of trivial, error of fact.
--------------------------
Nearly the entire post was built on historical error.
Clearly, the US as we know it under the Constitution didn't exist until ratification. We've already agreed that no sovereignty was vested in a central gov't until ratification.
----------------------------
But that's not what you said. The United States most certainly existed prior to the ratification of the Constitution.
To which Kennedy brothers do you refer? THE Kennedy brothers? What did they have to say about constitutional law?
-----------------------------
They are the authors of a pack of historical lies brought together in a book called _The South Was Right._ They pretty much say what you're saying.
People are not sovereigns in and of themselves.
------------------------------
Read John Locke, who is, so to speak, the philosophical grandfather of the Constitution.
I'm eager to learn. Please itemize the many basic facts of history which my previous post has completely wrong.
------------------------------
By revolting against the crown, and winning, the colonies wrested sovereignty from the crown.
----------------------
See the Declaration of Independence.
The colonies, who then preferred to call themselves states,
------------------------
They called themselves states well prior to then.
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 United States did indeed exist. The Articles of Confederation had already been ratified by all 13 states during the Revolution.
The US had nothing, not even a name at that point, let alone any sovereign powers of its own.
---------------------------
False again. See the Articles of Confederation.
Thus, all that absolute, supreme political power that is called sovereignty resided with the states.
----------------------------
No. It resided with the People of the States. See the Declaration of Independence.
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.
-----------------------
False when referring to the Constitution because it ignores the experience of the Confederation Period and the recognized need for a strong central government.
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.
---------------------
See John Locke. Making war and peace is a fundamental characteristic of sovereignty.
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,
------------------------
False. They were ratified by all 13 states during the Revolutionary War.
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.
--------------------
Essentially right.
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.
----------------------------
Completely wrong.
It was the PEOPLE, not the states, who delegated powers to the central government. The central government is popularly called "sovereign," but in reality it isn't. Neither are the state governments. The only true sovereignty in the United States is the People of the United States. They can do anything they want with the government and with the nation as a whole.
For MOST of the issues, those not delegated to the central gov't, the states would retain the balance of sovereignty. Hence, dual sovereignty.
---------------------------
A mirage. Dual sovereignty is a creature of mythology, like Pegasus. The People of 3/4 of the states can ratify the Constitution to make the other 1/4 of the states do anything they want.
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.
---------------------
More of the mythical creature. Anytime they want, the People of 3/4 of the states can delegate as much more power to the central government as they like.
The states, having all the sovereign power,
--------------------------
Completely false. The states had no sovereign power. Only the People have sovereign power.
thus delegated to the fed sovereign power in a limited range of issues.
------------------------------
False again. It was the PEOPLE who delegated power, not the states. "We the People of the United States ... "
I think you get the idea by now. Nearly the entire post is fraught with historical inaccuracy.
"The Constitution of the United States was ordained and established not by the States in their sovereign capacities, but emphatically, as the preamble of the Constitution declares, by 'the people of the United States.' There can be no doubt that it was competent to the people to invest the general government with all the powers which they might deem proper and necessary, to extend or restrain these powers according to their own good pleasure, and to give them a paramount and supreme authority. As little doubt can there be that the people had a right to prohibit to the States the exercise of any powers which were, in their judgment, incompatible with the objects of the general compact, to make the powers of the State governments, in given cases, subordinate to those of the nation, or to reserve to themselves those sovereign authorities which they might not choose to delegate to either. The Constitution was not, therefore, necessarily carved out of existing State sovereignties, nor a surrender of powers already existing in State institutions, for the powers of the States depend upon their own Constitutions, and the people of every State had the right to modify and restrain them according to their own views of the policy or principle. On the other hand, it is perfectly clear that the sovereign powers vested in the State governments by their respective Constitutions remained unaltered and unimpaired except so far as they were granted to the Government of the United States." [Martin v. Hunter's Lessee, 14 US 304 (1816), 324-325]
"It [the Constitution] is crowded with provisions which restrain or annul the sovereignty of the States in some of the highest branches of their prerogatives. The tenth section of the first article contains a long list of disabilities and prohibitions imposed upon the States. Surely, when such essential portions of State sovereignty are taken away or prohibited to be exercised, it cannot be correctly asserted that the Constitution does not act upon the States. The language of the Constitution is also imperative upon the States as to the performance of many duties. It is imperative upon the State legislatures to make laws prescribing the time, places, and manner of holding elections for senators and representatives, and for electors of President and Vice-President. And in these as well as some other cases, Congress have a right to revise, amend, or supersede the laws which may be passed by State legislatures." [Ibid., p. 343]
Actually, the style without substance comment was directed to your realtor comment.
But I disagree that you've dealt with only substance. The name US, and when created, is more style that substance. The substance is whether the Articles delegated sovereignty to the central gov't created by them. The Articles didn't.
You're obsessing on this 'People' thing. Even if I were to concede it, it doesn't change a thing. Let's assume that the People as a group possessed all sovereignty after the Revolution. Is it not true that, at least de facto, the people delegated that sovereignty to the colonies. If not, then to whom? Let's assume that "We the people" took some sovereignty back from the colonies and delegated some sovereignty to the fed. Not all of it was delegated to the fed; the rest stayed with the colonies/states.
I stated earlier that "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." You responded that the Articles were ratified, not enacted. No substance to that response. Further then, you apparantly agree that "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." That's the substance.
You state that sovereignty "resided with the People of the States" instead of the states. As I stated earlier, adding the people as a pre-layer before delegating that power to a political entity doesn't change a thing. Instead of saying that some sovereignty was delegated by the states to the fed, I'll say delegated by the people to the states to the fed. It adds nothing of substance to the debate.
You state that "Making war and peace is a fundamental characteristic of sovereignty." That's true whether that sovereign is a state or the fed. Its just done better when control is centralized.
You state that the drafters "recognized [the] need for a strong central government." IMO, you're partially wrong. I think it would be fair to say that the drafters recognized the need for a central gov't stronger than that created by the Art. of Confed. Many of the drafters (Madison not among them) did fear "strong" central gov'ts. It is not inconsistent to fear strong central gov'ts and at the same time see the need for a central gov't stronger than the weakling one of the Articles.
You state that "...3/4 of the states can ratify the Constitution to make the other 1/4 of the states do anything they want." So what? They can get together and abolish the Constitution entirely. This argument to the extreme adds no substance to the discussion of dual sovereignty, or the legality of secession, under the currently ratified Constitution. Should an amendment require state capitols to begin their name with the letter 'L,' or abolish the Constitution altogether, I cross that bridge then.
I get the idea. Adding layers of form does nothing to alter the substance of my analysis. Calling something mythical shows me that you disagree; more is required to show me that something is wrong. Adding the pre-layer of the people to delegate to the respective political entities doesn't alter the substance of dual sovereignty in the Constitution. Aside from when the name US was adopted, there are no errors of historical accuracy; just someone who wants to disagree. That's OK, but I have to point it out.
BTW, like Unionblue, I'd appreciate it if you'd add the dates to your case citations. Sometimes its helpful. I noticed you did that for the Martin case in this post, and its appreciated. Thanks.
More on the Martin quote; I'll cherry pick the part saying "it is perfectly clear that the sovereign powers vested in the State governments by their respective Constitutions remained unaltered and unimpaired except so far as they were granted to the Government of the United States." Looks like dual sovereignty to me. Am I missing something? If I were to resort to case law, I'd cite this one to you. But I'm sure you agree that resort to interpretation is unnecessary when the plain language of a document answers the debate.
Actually, the style without substance comment was directed to your realtor comment.
-------------------
It's a false front. People who believe in dual sovereignty have been sold a bill of goods. They see what sounds good on the outside but when they enter it to actually use it they find that there's really nothing to it at all.
But I disagree that you've dealt with only substance. The name US, and when created, is more style that substance.
--------------------
It's historical truth. It seemed important to you because you felt the need to make and then repeat the false assertions. Your case was built on a series of historical untruths.
The substance is whether the Articles delegated sovereignty to the central gov't created by them. The Articles didn't.
----------------------
The Articles don't delegate anything. They are an instrument. The People delegate, for they are the true sovereigns.
You're obsessing on this 'People' thing.
------------------------
Because it's the truth, it's historically accurate, and it's the Law of the Land.
Even if I were to concede it, it doesn't change a thing. Let's assume that the People as a group possessed all sovereignty after the Revolution. Is it not true that, at least de facto, the people delegated that sovereignty to the colonies.
--------------------------
The states. Once again, if you don't have the history right, how can anyone trust that you have anything else right? This is, after all, a history group. They delegated such powers to the states that they were commonly referred to as being sovereign. But the people were still the ultimate sovereigns.
If not, then to whom?
--------------------------
The states.
Let's assume that "We the people" took some sovereignty back from the colonies and delegated some sovereignty to the fed.
-------------------------
Once again, the states. The People reallocated their delegation of powers. With the ratification of the Constitution, the states had no real sovereignty. They had the facade of dual sovereignty, but that was a mirage, because the People are the true sovereigns. As Chief Justice Marshall wrote,
"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]
I stated earlier that "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." You responded that the Articles were ratified, not enacted. No substance to that response.
-----------------
I said they were ratified WELL BEFORE THEN. Again, you're basing your argument on poor history.
Further then, you apparantly agree that "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." That's the substance.
----------------
Actually, that's a problematic statement. It was not an issue in the ratification of the Articles of Confederation, so it's just your assertion. I'd like to see you prove it.
You state that sovereignty "resided with the People of the States" instead of the states. As I stated earlier, adding the people as a pre-layer before delegating that power to a political entity doesn't change a thing.
------------------
And you're wrong. It changes everything because you've been arguing against the self-evident fact that the true sovereignty lies with the people.
Instead of saying that some sovereignty was delegated by the states to the fed, I'll say delegated by the people to the states to the fed. It adds nothing of substance to the debate.
-------------------
Wrong again. You're the one who's been arguing against the fact that the People are the true sovereigns. The states have no sovereignty.
You state that "Making war and peace is a fundamental characteristic of sovereignty." That's true whether that sovereign is a state or the fed. Its just done better when control is centralized.
--------------------
Show me where a state has the power to declare war or make a peace treaty under the Constitution.
You state that the drafters "recognized [the] need for a strong central government." IMO, you're partially wrong.
----------------------
No, I'm completely right about that.
I think it would be fair to say that the drafters recognized the need for a central gov't stronger than that created by the Art. of Confed.
-----------------------
Why don't you show me what they said?
Many of the drafters (Madison not among them) did fear "strong" central gov'ts.
-------------------------
Prove it.
You state that "...3/4 of the states can ratify the Constitution to make the other 1/4 of the states do anything they want." So what?
---------------------------
Define for me, please, what sovereignty means.
They can get together and abolish the Constitution entirely. This argument to the extreme adds no substance to the discussion of dual sovereignty, or the legality of secession, under the currently ratified Constitution.
-------------------------------
I'm sorry you don't recognize it. Please define for me what sovereignty means, then.
More on the Martin quote; I'll cherry pick the part saying "it is perfectly clear that the sovereign powers vested in the State governments by their respective Constitutions remained unaltered and unimpaired except so far as they were granted to the Government of the United States." Looks like dual sovereignty to me. Am I missing something?
--------------------
Yes, you are, which is why it's usually a bad idea to cherrypick small parts of the larger. You lose the context. I provided the whole section for a reason. The meaning is gotten from reading the whole context, not from cherrypicking a small part out.
Thank you for your reply in post #78 and the simple answers are much appreciated.
Before I go much further, I would like to make clear your statement 'you have been persuaded by Cash.' I would rather say I am much impressed with Cash, but I already abscribed to his conclusions long before he recently posted them here. And I myself find, upon checking and verifying his sources and quotes that he lists in his posts, to be accurate and they do follow the actual words of the record if one reads them in their in entirety.
I am very willing to concede the fact that the legality of secession is important to you as you make it very plain in all of your posts here that this unnamed and unspoken legal right is somewhere in the Constitution. It is just that you have been unable to convince me that this legal right is anywhere in the said document.
I, on the other hand, can find specific things listed in the Constitution that a State cannot do, right there, in black and white, no guesswork or theory needed:
Article I, Section X, Clause 1: No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.
This clearly shows the Southern states were violating the Constitution by forming the CSA, per the document itself.
Clause 3: No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.
Now Russ, the way it looks to me, when reading the above, the Southern states were again violating the Constitution by entering into an Agreement or Compact with another State, and if you add the attempt to get England and France (foreign Powers) into the war, another big violation of the Constitution. Unless you are going with the worn out theory that the Constitution no longer applied to those states in secession, are you?
Clause 15: To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions.
Again, it seems the Constitution is very clear that if a state violates any of the above conditions it is clearly, in black and white, no guesswork or interpretation needed, it has violated the Law of the Land. When you add the fact that Southern states began siezing federal property in the form of forts, ships, mints, arsenals, custom houses, federal court buildings and then finally attacking a federal fort, Lincoln had all the authority he needed under the Constitution to correct those clear violations listed in the document as given above.
President Jackson, a southern president as I recall, said, "secession, like any other revolutionary act, may be morally justified by the extremity of oppression; but to call it a constitutional right is confounding the meaning of terms..." In other words, a constitutional right it ain't.
I also have problems with your continued objection to the idea that the people of the United States are the ultimate sovereign power. You claim it was the colonies that threw off the central government of the English Crown, therefore when the colonies became states that power reverted to them. In my own view, this is not correct and I am afraid I have a very simple view to explain that. It took individuals from each colony to make that overthrow of the crown happen. Individual soldiers, men and militia from all over the colonies, who had to decide on their own and stay in the fight to make it happen, when no state or Congress could supply them, pay them, even feed and clothe them. It took a 'national effort' one might say, on a very personal level. Citizen soldiers, individuals from all the states/colonies, coming together, putting aside their regional differences and prejudices, made this country happen, in my own view. The phrase, "We shall all hang together or hang seperately" comes to mind.
I also wonder at the argument that the states, or the people for that matter, did not realize they were surrendering their sovereignty during the ratification of the Constitution, not after following up on Cash's and others research.
The first quote I give also addresses your concern about the majority versus the minority. I tend to agree wholeheartedly with it.
"The great principle which lies at the fondation of all free government is that the majority must govern; from which there is or can be no appeal but to the sword. That majority ought to govern wisely, equitably, moderately, and consititutionally, but govern it must, subject only to that terrible appeal. If ever one or several States being a minority can, by menacing a dissolution of the Union, succeed in forming an abandonment of great measures deemed essential to the interests and prosperity of the whole, the Union, from that moment, is practically gone. It may linger on in form and name, but its vital spirit has fled forever!" Henry Clay of Kentucky, 1832.
"The government proceeds directly from the people; is ordained and established in the name of the people; and it is declared to be ordained in order to form a more perfect union,..." Chief Justice John Marshall, 1821.
"The powers delegated to the state sovereignties were to be exercised by themselves, not by a distinct and independent sovereignty created by themselves. To the formation of a league, such as was the Confederation, the state sovereignties were certainly competent. But when, in order to form a more perfect union, it was deemed necessary to change this alliance into an effective government, possessing great and sovereign powers, and acting directly on the people, the necessity of referring it to the people, and of deriving its powers directly from them, it was flet and acknowledged by all." Chief Justice John Marshall, 1819.
"In short, consolidation pervades the whole constitution. It begins with an annunciation that such was the intention. The main pillars of the fabric correspond with it, and the concluding paragraph is a confirmation of it. The preamble begins with the words, "We the people of the United States," which is the style of a compact between individuals entering into a state of society, and not that of a confederation of states..." From the minority report of the Pennsylvania ratification assembly, December 1787.
As you can see, Russ, I do not buy into the concept that the founders were making the states sovereign, but were deriving their power from that of the people of the United States.
In the last part of your post Russ, you state, "Is it [secession] on the list of powers delegated to the fed? Is it on the list of powers phohibited to the states? No? Then it must be, by constitutional law, a power reserved to the states." Now you see it, now you don't? That's your argument, Russ? When the Constitution clearly presents with no guesswork on what a state can not do? Doesn't fly for me, dear friend, the historical record and words above lean toward the other side, in a very pronounced way, that secession was never acknowledged as a consitutional or peaceable solution to the South's problem with slavery.
As for your final statement, that two thirds of the people in the nation lived in the industrial North, I assume you have seen the census of 1860 that states more people lived on farms and rural areas than in the cities in the North and most were farmers. And that they weren't concerned about how to prevent secession or see the issue of the legality of secession clearly? I submit to you that once Ft. Sumter was fired on they saw pretty clearly and it was that, as you say, that preserving the Union in the face of an unlawful rebellion that violated the Constitution became their top concern.
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 can argue, as you have, that a trivial error of when the colonies chose to call themselves states makes everything I've said untrue. Maybe the gullible will believe your smokescreen. But you'd still be wrong. The point is that that no sovereignty is delegated to a central gov't by the Articles.
I have not argued against the People, as a group, possessing sovereignty. I have argued that its irrelevant to a discussion of political entities - and it is. The proof is your statement that the People "delegated such powers to the states that they were commonly referred to as being sovereign." You might ask yourself why it took you so long to acknowledge the obvious. The point is that the states, in turn, delegated only PART of that sovereignty to the fed.
You ask me to "Show me where a state has the power to declare war or make a peace treaty under the Constitution." In the Constitution, the power to declare war is on the list of sovereign powers delegated by the states to the fed. That necessarily proves that, prior to ratification, that was a power held by the states. If the states did not have the sovereign power to declare war before that time, they could not have delegated it to the fed. Therefore, my earlier statement, that the power to declare war is a sovereign power is "true whether that sovereign is a state or the fed." is true.
As to defining sovereignty, I told you in an earlier post that I was using those definitions set out in aphillbilly's post. If you don't like those, Webster defines it as "a ruler with supreme power...; possessing supreme jurisdiction or authority." If you don't like that one, I guess you'll have to look elsewhere. I'm not sure what your point is here, so I hope you'll explain. If its "the People" thing again, I've addressed that above.
The meaning of your 'whole' Martin quote is clear recognition of constitutional dual sovereignty; not the facade you'd prefer it to be. I invite you to read your own quote. I'll concede, in the meantime, that my attempt at humor fell on deaf ears.
Do you really need proof that some drafters wanted strong state gov'ts and that others (like Madison) preferred a strong central gov't; and that the Constitution represents a compromise on that issue?
How do you get all that different kind of emphasis in your posts. Bolds, italics; cool stuff.
You state that "I, on the other hand, can find specific things listed in the Constitution that a State cannot do, right there, in black and white, no guesswork or theory needed." (That good emphasis stuff won't even copy over). As I said earlier, the Constitution can give power to the fed to do things and can also take a specific power away from the states. I'm not sure what the issue is here.
But, now that your in the Constitution, and can find all the things listed that the states cannot do, I invite you to find that clause that prohibits the states from seceeding from the Union. (The clause prohibiting the coinage by the states is clear; any clause prohibiting secession should be equally clear) Or you can take my word for it that you won't. However you arrive, you have to agree that there's no clause prohibiting secession. Thus it is a power retained by the states.
Secession, by definition, severs any connection. Here, it severs the partial delegation of sovereignty to the fed by the states. Therefore, a seceeded state regained any sovereign powers previously delegated to the fed, including the right to coin money or enter into compacts or agreements with whomever they wanted. A seceeded state has chosen to no longer be bound by the Constitution. Thus, the Constitution is no longer the law of a seceeded state's land, and a seceeded state, by definition, cannot violate the Constitution.
You state that "I also have problems with your continued objection to the idea that the people of the United States are the ultimate sovereign power." Please see my post to Cash on the issue. I'm not objecting; the People are the "ultimate" sovereign power. Its irrelevant to this discussion because, by the time of the Articles or the Constitution, the People "delegated such powers to the states that they were commonly referred to as being sovereign." (quoted portion attributable to Cash) I mean no derogation to the People or their "ultimate" sovereignty; I was just beginning the discussion with the political entity to whom the People had delegated that sovereignty - the states. I agree with your points on the individual soldiers, etc., in that regard.
You state that "I also wonder at the argument that the states, or the people for that matter, did not realize they were surrendering their sovereignty during the ratification of the Constitution, not after following up on Cash's and others research." Your statement suggests that I believe that the states were duped, fooled or defrauded into delegating sovereignty to the fed. I believe no such thing. To the contrary, I believe the states were very cognizant of precisely what sovereign powers they were delegating to the fed. (they specifically enumerated, or listed, them), and which ones (the residuary) they were not. As I found in a factopia article on the net, "On the other hand, in establishing the line of division between the authority of the national government and that of the states, it gave to the national government only certain enumerated powers, reserving all others to the states."
My preference for a constitutional republic over majority rule is just that - my opinion. I respect that you disagree. I didn't really think that you'd roll over and die on the issue. :-)
You quote me as follows and then inquire: "Is it [secession] 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." Now you see it, now you don't? That's your argument, Russ? (I'm sorry I'm unable to copy over with your emphasis) I think your 'now you see it' comment is unfair. Moreover, you failed to recognize that what you quoted is actually the 10th Amend. test at issue. I'll spell it out:
My statement: "Is it [secession] on the list of powers delegated to the fed?"
10th Amend.: "The powers [in this case the issue of secession] not delegated
to the United States by the Constitution..."
My statement: "Is it on the list of powers prohibited to the states?"
10th Amend.: "nor prohibited by it to the States,..."
My statement: "Then it must be, by constitutional law, a power reserved to the
states."
10th Amend.: "are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
As you can see, I was paraphrasing the 10th Amend., and applying it to the the issue of secession. The 10th Amend., as much a part of the Constitution as any other, deserves more respect that I believe you've afforded it. Now I hope you see it. The starting place for finding out what the Constitution says is not the opinion of any one person in the historical record; the starting place for finding out what the Constitution says is looking to see what the Constitution says. Its the Constitution, not what one person says about it, that's the supreme law of the land.
Not "industrial" north; industrialIZING north. (I hope I said industrializing; that's what I meant.) I agree that much, even most, of the north at the time was rural. That was changing in the north because of the industrial revolution. That's what I meant by industrializing. The south was even more rural, and the industrial revolution had taken root much less in the south than in the north. But I'm not going to argue whose opinion is right. That's a loser for all concerned. I gave you my opinion why the north failed to recognize the legality of secession. That's all.
BTW, IMO, lawful secession is not unlawful rebellion. I believe the Union faced the former; I trust you believe the Union faced the latter. If secession is lawful, as I maintain, then the fed could not rely on its authority to "suppress insurrections." Add that to my opinion as to why the legality of secession is important.
Has this board had Ft. Sumter thread? If so, is there a way to access it?
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
