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.
Tim -"State legislatures are also limited by their membership in the Union and have been ever since they became states..."
Not so. After the Revolution and before the Articles of Confederation, there was no 'union' or agreement between the states. In fact, each of the states insisted that England surrender to EACH of the colonies sepatately. Until the Articles of Confederation, the colonies were each ENTIRELY separate sovereign countries. These colonies delegated SOME BUT NOT ALL of their sovereign powers to a central gov't, first under the Articles of Confederation and then under the Constitution. Those powers not delegated remained with the states.
So? Since the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union are what establish the Union, what exactly is it you are objecting to? From the moment they signed and it went into force, they were limited by it.
One of the items agreed to in the Articles was that the individual states would abide by the decision of all the states in Congress assembled on any question submitted to them. Another was that the Union would be perpetual.
Quote:
Originally Posted by russ_aukerman
"I have never been able to grasp why secessionist arguments assume that the states are not bound by the agreements they sign."
No such assumption has been made by me. First, the Constitution is silent on secession. Thus, secession is NOT one of those sovereign state powers delegated to the fed under the Constitution. Accordingly, a state can fully live up to its agreements under the Constitution and still decide to secede.
Well, no, not in the way the seceding states chose to do things in 1860-61 they can't. Even if a "right of secession" exists, they have ongoing responsibilites as to debts and commitments that are not being considered by them or by you. These need to be worked out in advance of secession, or they are not free of them. But then, that would require consultation and negotiation with the other states -- which you insist they would not do.
Your position, of course, assumes a fact not in evidence: that a unilateral secession right or power existed. Can you name any other example of such a "right" being exercised prior to 1860?
Quote:
Originally Posted by russ_aukerman
Once seceeded, reciprocal obligations between the seceeded states and the Union are severed.
Oh? Debts? Treaty obligations? Ongoing expenses that the seceding states approved and committed to? Nice deal if you can get away with it, but have you ever tried it with someone you had a mutual agreement with?
Or are you really saying that the seceding states have a license to take what they want and stick the rest of the nation for all they can? That seems to be the gist of whay you are arguing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by russ_aukerman
There is nothing in the Constitution which says the Union is perpetual; i.e., that once you join you can never quit. Lincoln believed and said that the Union was perpetual; the Constitution does NOT say that. Its what the Constitution says that counts.
Let's clear that up, then. This very issue is at the heart of the Chief Justice's opinion for the majority in the post-Civil-War case White v. Texas in 1869 so often cited in reference to the legality of secession. He said that the "perpetual Union" of the Articles was necessarily the "more perfect Union" of the Constitution.
Tim - "If you look at my opinions posted frequently on this board, you will see that I have said repeatedly that the existence of any "right of secession" was very debatable in 1860. You will also see that I think there was about a 50% chance the Supreme Court would have recognized it as existing."
You've touched two different subjects here.
Nope. Those are the same issue.
Quote:
Originally Posted by russ_aukerman
Any political power exists if a state or fed law can be passed on it.
Hmm. Make it up as you go along? State and federal laws are passed and overturned by the courts with at least a recognizable amount of frequency. The Constitution created the Supreme Court as a protection against that sort of re-engineering, among other things. I don't think I agree with you in the way you mean, at least in the Federal government.
OTOH, my old State and Local Government professor (Gary P. Brazier, who passed away within the last year) told me once that there was one state where the constitution consisted in a legal sense of every act ever passed by the state legislature and approved by the Governor added on to the original document. I think that might have been Louisiana, where everything is just a bit different than in the other 49. If so, it must make the study of the state constitution very ... interesting and challenging.
Quote:
Originally Posted by russ_aukerman
The power of state secession exists if any state can pass an ordinance of secession.
Well, no. That is like saying King Canute had the power to reverse the tide because he told it to turn. The power may or may not exist, but it does not exist because the state passes the ordinance.
Quote:
Originally Posted by russ_aukerman
Whether that ordinance is constitutional is a different question.
If it is not constitutional, the seceding states did not have it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by russ_aukerman
On your second issue, I still don't know what chance the issue would have had before the Court, assuming the Court had jurisdiction to rule on the issue - which it didn't. I found your post on the various justices interesting. You may be right on the chances.
It changes with time. Odds are better in early 1860, before Daniels of Virginia dies. After Daniels dies, I would guess at 4-4 until the Justice from Ohio dies on April 4, 1861 -- which means one or two swing Justices probably decide the whole thing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by russ_aukerman
"But all your arguments flow from your insistence that the state does have a right or power of secession (and apparently with no participation or voice for the other parties to the agreement -- the unilateral kind) and you will resent any attempt to seriously consider that they might not."
You're correct that I think that states have a power or right to secede. That is not my insistence, but constitutional law by the terms of the document itself.
Yet current belief is that the Court ruled in White v. Texas that secession as attempted by the states in 1860-61 was not constitutional. Please explain why you believe it is when the Court said it was not (or so it is implied/inferred).
Quote:
Originally Posted by russ_aukerman
I don't resent the suggestion that they do not have the power; having seen the ordinances of secession I know that the power exists.
If they had declared the law of gravity repealed, would you also believe that things no longer fell? If they passed an ordinance that the Sun rose in the West and set in the East, would you declare the evidence of your eyes wrong? Would you say they had the right and power to do it no matter how it turned out?
Quote:
Originally Posted by russ_aukerman
Again, whether that power is constitutional is a separate issue - and I think that the issue that deserves debate. Anyone with a pen and a piece of paper can draft an ordinance on any subject, and it becomes law if passed by a legislature and signed by a governor. Whether that 'any subject' ordinance is constitutional, under fed or state constitutions, is answered by reference to that constitution itself.
Since the whole issue is whether they have the power or right to do this under the Constitution of the US -- they asserted they did -- it really does not matter what law they pass. They are obligated to obey the Constitution.
Quote:
Originally Posted by russ_aukerman
"So who gets to DECIDE? One state cannot decide such an issue about an agreement between many states: self-interest alone disqualifies them."
Yes, the issue can and is left by the Constitution to the states. There's nothing in the Constitution preventing a state from exercising its own powers because of self-interest.
Again, no. The Supreme Court is specifically given jurisdiction over ALL controversies between the states, or with the United States. Not the states.
Quote:
Originally Posted by russ_aukerman
OTOH, it is presumed that states WILL pass laws based on their own self-interest - the self-interest of best serving thier own citizenry.
Sure. The states (and the legislators, and all officials of the states) are specifically required to obey the Constitution. That means the laws they pass may not violate it.
Doesn't always happen in practice, of course. That is why we have courts to protect us from such things.
Quote:
Originally Posted by russ_aukerman
The 'agreement' between the states that you refer to is the Constitution, and that agreement tells us who can decide what. If its not an enumerated fed power, nor an enumerated state prohibition, then its a power for the states by the 10th Amend. That's what the Constitution says about who decides. Taking a power away from the states is what would require an amendment, assuming the Constitution is silent on the particular power.
Russ, you cannot take away a "power" that never existed. The Supreme Court is the only body with jurisdiction in this matter.
Quote:
Originally Posted by russ_aukerman
I agree that revolution would be insurrection. Do you agree that secession is not?
Men like Jefferson Davis insisted they were not engaging in revolution. I do not believe the "right of secession" they insisted on exists in the United States. I do not believe the states have a right to unilaterally void the Constitution. I do believe the exit of a state could be arranged, legally and peacefully, through amendment or agreement.
Quote:
Originally Posted by russ_aukerman
"The only problem is that you can't present the fiction of acting peacefully and legally if you try the other methods first."
Its not fiction for the seceeding states other than SC; aside from the seizure issue we've discussed. State militias existed in all states, but southerners did not combine them into an army until Lincoln called for troops to mount an invasion.
That is simply wrong. Using the power voted by the Confederate Congress, Jefferson Davis had already issued two different calls for troops before Ft. Sumter was attacked and before Lincoln had called for a single man. I believe the first one is on or about the day Lincoln was inaugurated.
Depending upon source, that is either 30,000 Confederates in the Provisional Army or 37,000. There were also a few men and officers in the Regular Army of the Confederacy at that point (such as Beauregard, commanding the force at Charleston, and Bragg, commanding the force at Pensacola). Davis increased the call to 64,000 when Lincoln issued his call for 75,000 after Ft. Sumter surrendered.
"All seceeding states acted legally in seceeding. If you believe otherwise, please point me to the precise TEXT of the law you maintain was broken." I'm still waiting on this one. "Balderdash," though expressive, doesn't qualify. ;-)
"BTW, the first invasion of another state in the Civil War was by a Virginian, the soon-to-be-Stonewall Jackson, crossing the Potomac into Maryland at Harpers Ferry to occupy the high ground on the other side." I don't think Stonewall's foray preceeded June, 1861. Have you forgotten Big Bethel?
"You seem to be saying they were either inept or afraid their case was not strong enough to prosper in the light of open negotiation and debate." No, that's not what I'm saying. I simply opined that they weren't inclined to negotiate. I further said that they were under no constitutional obligation to do so. If you believe otherwise, please point me to the TEXT within the Constitution which requires a state to negotiate with the fed or the other states prior to seceeding.
"...they were just arrogant and determined to force their will onto others." I think that there was a lot of that going around on both sides at the time.
"Note that the seceding states chose to avoid all legal means and to merely seize what they wished by armed force, often in advance of even the passing of a secession ordinance by their own legislature." I agree. I don't condone it. I think it was likely borne of pragmatism. I do believe that seceeding states were entitled to their proportionate share of fed property accumulated while they were in the Union.
"...but what makes you think any such power existed?" Because they had pens and paper. Its that simple. I know this because I know what it takes to get laws originated and passed. It exists when its put on paper and becomes law when duly passed and/or signed. I submit that arguing the "existence" of a power is beside the point; arguing against the constitutionality of exercising such a power is the only way to acheive your agenda of unconstitutionality and vice-versa for myself. You can argue 'existance' with others but, IMO and no offense intended, its a meaningless discussion in which I think its pointless to engage. As for examples, state regulation of railroads and steam power.
"You think that means that they are not bound by the agreements they sign?" I don't think that and didn't say that. You believe that secession breaches the agreement; I don't. I don't because the agreement - the Constitution - has no term of duration and therefore may be dissolved by any state, for itself, at will.
"That when the states pledged to join a Perpetual Union...." Ratification didn't involve joining a perpetual Union. You will not find the word perpetual in the Constitution.
"That all commitments and responsibilities vanished whenever they felt like it, requiring no consultation or agreement with the partners to the Union for anything? Yes. That is so because the Constitution does not provide otherwise.
"No, I don't agree with that." Is it that you don't agree that that is what the Constitution says, or is it that you agree that that is what the Constitution says but you think it a bad idea?
Are you saying that the Articles of Confederation are still good law? They are not, by the way. As I said, the Constitution does not say perpetual. You can't add words just because you think they ought to be there.
"The "more perfect Union" of the Constitution is the already existing "perpetual Union" of the "Articles of Confederation." Not true. It's not true because the Constitution does NOT say that. I've compared the dictionary definitions and common usage of the terms 'more perfect' and 'perpetual,' and they are not the same at all. Its clear enough to me that if the framers had intended the Constitution to be perpetual, they could have included the words "The Constitution and the Union are Perpetual." They didn't.
"Or perhaps they simply believed that they were already part of a Perpetual Union where they had declared limitations on what could be done." There would be no reason to believe that as the Constitution does not say that.
On your La. customs house example, remember that La. helped pay for, and had a proportionate interest in, capital improvements in all parts of the country. The value may not, ar may have been, a building and 600k. As I said, I'm not condoning pre-secession seizures. I still believe that the seceeding states were entitled to their proportionate share of fed property accumulated while they were in the Union. Therefore, I don't believe that the term 'theft' applies.
"I think it would more likely be that if no specific term is mentioned, the presumption is that it is forever." Not true. A contract without a term of duration is terminable at will. Let's say I agree to sell you 100 widgets for $100. Next year am I bound to sell you widgets at the same price? I don't think so.
There is a difference between what I would have done and what the states are obligated to do under the Constitution. What I might think to be the morally correct think isn't necessarily legally required. When they make me king.............
"That won't work. Seceding states were rescinding/repealing their original agreement to the Constitution, making null and void their entire adherence to the agreement." Where does it say that?
"At least in some views, although you can argue she was gifted with sovereignity by the rest of the United States upon admitance." Gifted or granted, I would say that all states, original and admitted later, are co-equal under the Constitution.
What we did to indian tribes is another discussion altogether.
Tim -"BTW, the first invasion of another state in the Civil War was by a Virginian, the soon-to-be-Stonewall Jackson, crossing the Potomac into Maryland at Harpers Ferry to occupy the high ground on the other side."
I don't think Stonewall's foray preceeded June, 1861. Have you forgotten Big Bethel?
No, you are wrong on this.
Big Bethel is on June 10, 1861. There are a number of other incidents or actions before that, including what is commonly regarded as the first battle of the Civil War at Philippi, now in West Virginia. The Confederates also seem to have seized a train at the Harpers Ferry bridge on May 14. The first Union foray across the Potomac is at Alexandria on May 24.
But before that, T. J. Jackson had been assigned to the command of Harpers Ferry and in the very first report he sends to Richmond on May 6, 1861 (more than a month before Big Bethel) he mentions that he has already occupied the Maryland Heights on the north side of the Potomac River in the state of Maryland:
DIVISION HEADQUARTERS,
Harper's Ferry, Va., May 6, 1861.
General LEE, Commander-in-Chief:
GENERAL: I assumed command of this post on Monday last, soon after my arrival here. Since that time I have been busily Occupied organizing the command and mustering the troops into service. I send herewith a report of the strength for May 4.(*) To-morrow I will give you a more detailed account of the forces, equipments, &c. All the troops have been mustered into service, except some companies on detached service. I have occupied the Virginia and Maryland Heights, and I am about fortifying the former with block-houses of sufficient strength to resist an attempt to carry them by storm. Whenever the emergency calls for it, I shall construct similar works on the Maryland Heights. Thus far I have been deterred from doing so by a desire to avoid giving offense to the latter State. ...
I am, general, very respectfully, your obedient servant,
T. J. JACKSON,
Virginia Volunteers, Commanding.
I can not find any instance of Federal troops "invading" any seceding state before that. I can find many instances of them being threatened, assaulted, and interned at existing installations within the seceding states. Some 1100 troops peacefully withdrawing according to the terms of their forcibly imposed February agreement with Texas were interned by the Confederacy (Davis ordered this at the same time he ordered the attack on Ft. Sumter). Ft. Pickens at Pensacola was under siege. Virginia troops had been ordered against the Norfolk Navy Yard and Harpers Ferry before this. Arkansas seceded on May 6, but US forces there were already withdrawing, and the installations had either been abandoned or seized.
Given all that, just what are you talking about here? Nothing could have happened in KY or TN at this time -- both were part of the Union. The only other stretch of border is the Ohio side of Virginia. I don't think any troops (volunteers or militia -- no Regulars available) crossed there, but maybe you know something I don't.
Or is the answer simply that I am right and the first "invasion" of another state was by Stonewall Jackson and his Virginia Volunteers in the first week of May, 1861?
Since my earlier response was eaten, here's a summary.
The AoC were superceded by the Constitution. They are no longer of any force or effect. That includes 'perpetual' (which the AoC obviously weren't).
I agree that there were debts. There's nothing in the Constitution which requires that these be worked out prior to secession.
I believe Tx. v. White to be wrongly decided. It wasn't decided until after secession was decided by the bigger gun. 'More perfect' doesn't mean 'perpetual' in any dictionary I've ever seen. They are simply different words with different meanings. Had the framers intended the Constitution to be perpetual, they could easily have said so like in the AoC. They didn't. Could you imagine a USSCt. saying, after 600k dead, that secession was constitutional after all.
'Existence' and 'constitutionality' are two different issues. A power does 'exist' until declared unconstitutional. Even then, its still on the books, just not enforced by the courts.
If there were the death penalty for saying the sun rose in the east, I'd say it rose in the west. ;-)
"Since the whole issue is whether they have the power or right to do this under the Constitution of the US -- they asserted they did -- it really does not matter what law they pass. They are obligated to obey the Constitution." True. "Under the Constitution" are the key words.
One state's exercise of its own powers is not a 'controversy between the states.' Let's say Ohio forbids fireworks but Pa. allows them. Ohioans cross the border and buy fireworks in Pa. Ohio can't go to court and have the sale of fireworks prohibited in Pa. Its Pa.'s right to decide for itself if it will allow the sale of fireworks in its state.
Tim -"That won't work. Seceding states were rescinding/repealing their original agreement to the Constitution, making null and void their entire adherence to the agreement."
Where does it say that?
Generally, in the ordinances of secession of the individual states. They are the ones tossing around words like repealed, rescinded, and abrogated. For example:
South Carolina: We, the people of the State of South Carolina, in convention assembled, do declare and ordain, and it is hereby declared and ordained, That the ordinance adopted by us in convention on the twenty-third day of May, in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty-eight, whereby the Constitution of the United States of America was ratified, and also all acts and parts of acts of the General Assembly of this State ratifying amendments of the said Constitution, are hereby repealed; and that the union now subsisting between South Carolina and other States, under the name of the "United States of America," is hereby dissolved.
Georgia: We the people of the State of Georgia in Convention assembled do declare and ordain and it is hereby declared and ordained that the ordinance adopted by the State of Georgia in convention on the 2nd day of Jany. in the year of our Lord seventeen hundred and eighty-eight, whereby the constitution of the United States of America was assented to, ratified and adopted, and also all acts and parts of acts of the general assembly of this State, ratifying and adopting amendments to said constitution, are hereby repealed, rescinded and abrogated.
Texas: SECTION 1.-- We, the people of the State of Texas, by delegates in convention assembled, do declare and ordain that the ordinance adopted by our convention of delegates on the 4th day of July, A.D. 1845, and afterwards ratified by us, under which the Republic of Texas was admitted into the Union with other States, and became a party to the compact styled "The Constitution of the United States of America," be, and is hereby, repealed and annulled; that all the powers which, by the said compact, were delegated by Texas to the Federal Government are revoked and resumed; that Texas is of right absolved from all restraints and obligations incurred by said compact, and is a separate sovereign State, and that her citizens and people are absolved from all allegiance to the United States or the government thereof.
Virginia: Now, therefore, we, the people of Virginia, do declare and ordain, That the ordinance adopted by the people of this State in convention on the twenty-fifth day of June, in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty-eight, whereby the Constitution of the United States of America was ratified, and all acts of the General Assembly of this State ratifying and adopting amendments to said Constitution, are hereby repealed and abrogated; that the union between the State of Virginia and the other States under the Constitution aforesaid is hereby dissolved, and that the State of Virginia is in the full possession and exercise of all the rights of sovereignty which belong and appertain to a free and independent State.
North Carolina: We, the people of the State of North Carolina in convention assembled, do declare and ordain, and it is hereby declared and ordained, That the ordinance adopted by the State of North Carolina in the convention of 1789, whereby the Constitution of the United States was ratified and adopted, and also all acts and parts of acts of the General Assembly ratifying and adopting amendments to the said Constitution, are hereby repealed, rescinded, and abrogated.
The states that had been US Territories before becoming states (FL, AL, MS, LA, AR, TN) worded their ordinances differently in implicit acknowledgement that they had not been sovereign beforehand.
Quote:
Originally Posted by russ_aukerman
"At least in some views, although you can argue she was gifted with sovereignity by the rest of the United States upon admitance."
Gifted or granted, I would say that all states, original and admitted later, are co-equal under the Constitution.
As I said, you can argue it. People have argued it. However, the truth is they never were before they became states in the United States by permission, and that no other nation in the world had ever recognized them as sovereign and independent nations before they tried to secede. If they only became sovereign by agreeing to the US Constitution and joining the Union, what happens when they repeal, rescind, and abrogate that agreement? Why is it that secessionists get to pick and choose what they want, and no one else gets a say in the matter?
Quote:
Originally Posted by russ_aukerman
What we did to indian tribes is another discussion altogether.
Certainly. I wasn't introducing it here. I was merely pointing out that states like FL, AL, MS, LA, AR, TN had been purchased at great cost in either blood or treasure by the other states. If they want out of the Union, do you think they should pay back?
"All seceeding states acted legally in seceeding. If you believe otherwise, please point me to the precise TEXT of the law you maintain was broken." I'm still waiting on this one.
"Balderdash," though expressive, doesn't qualify. ;-)
Violence, the threat and use of armed force, seizures of property, money and revenue, the siege of Federal posts ... all of these are illegal acts by the states. In many cases they are before any ordinance of secession by the states, and so can not use that shield even if such a "right of secession" had been found to exist. Both before and after secession, they would be violations of the states' own laws and due process without getting into Federal law and the Constitution.
As to Federal law, the US Supreme Court did eventually rule on the acts of state legislatures that seceded. This is the basis of Texas v. White & related cases. The ruling comes down to this: normal acts not part of rebellion against the Federal government were upheld (such as appropriations for roads and normal public activity in times of peace, etc.) were upheld. All acts involved in the rebellion were not.
Tim - I had a real nice response to your other posts on this page but the computer ate it. I'll have to try again.
On the Stonewall thing, I applaud your diligence on the dates. My only thought is whether Md. was a state for the North, or the South, to "invade."
No offense, and I am just blowing off steam, but I have noticed a tendency of people who wish to argue for secession to never clearly acknowledge prior abuses by the Confederates. It doesn't matter what they did. Attack Ft. Sumter -- Lincoln's fault. Lincoln's call for troops a cause for war -- what about the earlier calls by Jefferson Davis? Anything they seize or grab is justified, but the Federals hanging onto what they own called a provocation. After ten years or so of this online, I simply expect that an even-handed approach to timelines is not to be expected.
There were a few thousand Confederate troops headed into Virginia at this time. The Confederate government had been discussing a quick seizure of Washington for two weeks. Harper's Ferry is within a few hours (2 or 3?) of Washington DC by train at that time. Weapons had already been sent into Virginia for secessionists by the Confederacy. Why would anyone think that Virginia troops crossing the river into Maryland without permission from the state government to occupy a strategic point was not an invasion? The local Maryland sheriff thought it was.
Tim -Since my earlier response was eaten, here's a summary.
Don't you hate it when that happens?
Quote:
Originally Posted by russ_aukerman
The AoC were superceded by the Constitution. They are no longer of any force or effect. That includes 'perpetual' (which the AoC obviously weren't).
The rules were changed. However, the Union of the United States did not cease to exist on the day the Constitution went into force. The Union existed before that and continued after that. The "more perfect Union" of the Constitution is the "Perpetual Union" of the Articles. Some see it as going back to 1774, before the Articles, before the Declaration of Independence, and before the Revolution started.
Quote:
Originally Posted by russ_aukerman
I agree that there were debts. There's nothing in the Constitution which requires that these be worked out prior to secession.
Word by word? Probably not. It is just what would be expected in any peaceful and legal settlement. Using armed force to seize the assets without provocation or a prior attempt at negotiation just puts the seceding states in the wrong. Any court should find it that way if they are deciding on the law.
Quote:
Originally Posted by russ_aukerman
I believe Tx. v. White to be wrongly decided.
Hmm, maybe. But the point, unless you are a judge, is that you and I have the same relationship to the law on this that fans in the seats have to an umpire's decision at a baseball game. We get to have an opinion, even a strong one. The umpire gets to DECIDE. In this matter, the US Supreme Court has already decided.
[quote=russ_aukerman]It wasn't decided until after secession was decided by the bigger gun. 'More perfect' doesn't mean 'perpetual' in any dictionary I've ever seen. They are simply different words with different meanings.
Quote:
Originally Posted by russ_aukerman
Had the framers intended the Constitution to be perpetual, they could easily have said so like in the AoC. They didn't.
Again, since they were already part of a "Perpetual Union", they might have been astounded that the rest of us would think something else.
Quote:
Originally Posted by russ_aukerman
Could you imagine a USSCt. saying, after 600k dead, that secession was constitutional after all.
I would be surprised. But the reluctance of the Republican administration to proceed on cases like Jefferson Davis after the war indicates they weren't 100% sure and didn't want to chance it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by russ_aukerman
'Existence' and 'constitutionality' are two different issues. A power does 'exist' until declared unconstitutional. Even then, its still on the books, just not enforced by the courts.
The "power" to make a declaration about something, the power of free speech? Sure, that exists, with the same limitations there are on that. The "power" to actually take action on your statement, legally, as the seceding states did, to seize property, abrogate existing agreements, etc.? Nope.
But there may well have never been a "power" or "right" of secession here. The states may never have had it, so they could not have delegated it or retained it. That "right of secession" is not a part of "sovereignity". It exists or does not exist only in relation to the agreement under discussion, the US Constitution, whether you wish to call it a covenant, a compact, an agreement, a contract, a treaty, or anything else.
Quote:
Originally Posted by russ_aukerman
If there were the death penalty for saying the sun rose in the east, I'd say it rose in the west. ;-)
Coward!
Quote:
Originally Posted by russ_aukerman
Tim - "Since the whole issue is whether they have the power or right to do this under the Constitution of the US -- they asserted they did -- it really does not matter what law they pass. They are obligated to obey the Constitution."
True. "Under the Constitution" are the key words.
They need to have the "right of secession" exist under the Constitution in order to exercise it. They ARE part of the Union until they leave it and if there is no "right of secession", they cannot do it by themselves.
Quote:
Originally Posted by russ_aukerman
One state's exercise of its own powers is not a 'controversy between the states.'
It is when it affects the other states. Everyone has the right of free speech here, but (as the Supreme Court put it), that doesn't give you the "right" to shout "Fire!" in a crowded theater to see what will happen.
Quote:
Originally Posted by russ_aukerman
Let's say Ohio forbids fireworks but Pa. allows them. Ohioans cross the border and buy fireworks in Pa. Ohio can't go to court and have the sale of fireworks prohibited in Pa. Its Pa.'s right to decide for itself if it will allow the sale of fireworks in its state.
A real life situation. I live in NJ. Fireworks sales are illegal/regulated here. If I went to PA and purchased them, they could be confiscated in NJ and I could be fined/arrested for having them. But you note that the Federal government is not involved, except for regulations involving transport, etc. across state lines. This is not at all analogous to the secession issue.
It is actually a close analogy of slavery and the Southern Fugitive Slave issue. If you equate the slave to the fireworks, a state should be able to declare a slave free when he crosses the border. The slave states objected to this, claiming that the Constitution guaranteed their property and superceded "states' rights" on the issue.
Following your logic, the state has the "power" to declare that slave free. The secessionists disagreed violently with that, and were quite willing to toss the issue of "states' rights" out with the bathwater over it.
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
