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I'm OK with repealed/rescinded; it's "making null and void their entire adherence to the agreement" that I don't see expressed. What I see is that the seceeding states wanted to undo their association with the Union. I don't see that they wanted to undo all that happened during their tenure.
"...implicit acknowledgement that they had not been sovereign beforehand." Where does any seceeding state say that they wrote ordinances of secession with such knowledge? I dare say nowhere. Dual sovereignty is one of the well-recognized tenets of the Constitution. "The States are no less sovereign with respect to each other than they are with respect to the Federal Government. Their powers to undertake criminal prosecutions derive from separate and independent sources of power and authority originally belonging to them before admission to the Union and preserved to them by the Tenth Amendment. See Lanza, supra, at 382. The States are equal to each other "in power, dignity and authority, each competent to exert that residuum of sovereignty not delegated to the United States by the Constitution itself." Coyle v. Oklahoma, 221 U.S. 559, 567 (1911). See Skiriotes v. Florida, 313 U.S. 69, 77 (1941)." Heath v. Alabama, 474 U.S. 82 (1985)(discussing "dual sovereignty doctrine" in the context of the double jeopardy clause).
"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?" I don't think it's a question of picking and choosing. The Constitution does not differentiate between original and added states. Thus, added states would, upon admission, carry the same favor as the original and are thus co-equal. If you can find text in the Constitution creating a separate class of states, please post the same.
"If they want out of the Union, do you think they should pay back?" No. There is no such requirement in the Constitution.
"...all of these are illegal acts by the states." Unkind and perhaps immoral, but by what 'law' do you judge acts of separate, or soon to be separate, countries. Again, point me to the text of the law broken. Did any seceeded state attempt to seize property outside of its borders? Are they to sit back and let the US determine what property to which they are entitled? Are they to sit back and allow foreign soldiers to retain state lands? I'm not saying that I condone the seizures; I told you what I'd personally have done. But I do understand these acts. IMO, the seceeding state's entitlement to a proportionate share of fed assets (and debts) paints these acts with at least some claim of right.
"All acts involved in the rebellion were not." Secession is not, by definition, rebellion. That the USSCt. failed to recognize that is, IMO, wrong and contrary to the Constitution. BTW, the cases following Tx. v. White are its progeny, and would be overuled at the same time as Tx. v. White. All the USSCt. must do is to overule the one, and the others necessarily follow.
"Attack Ft. Sumter -- Lincoln's fault." Lincoln was told that no shots would be fired until the fort was to be resupplied. Was it not Lincoln who ordered resupply of the fort? I'm not saying that Lincoln pulled the lanyard, but he (adept at politics as he was) orchestrated a sequence of events by which he knew that SC would fire the 'first shot.'
"...but I have noticed a tendency of people who wish to argue for secession to never clearly acknowledge prior abuses by the Confederates." Assume that I acknowledge these "prior abuses," are you of the opinion that two wrongs make a right. That violence and illegality are appropriate responses to the same? Do you really think its possible to EQUATE Jackson's brief occupation of Md. heights with the Union's unconstitutional invasion of Va. for 1st Manassas and subsequent forcible occupation and repatriation of all the seceeded states? I think you've pushed you're "prior abuses" point far beyond its natural limits.
"Some see it as going back to 1774, before the Articles, before the Declaration of Independence, and before the Revolution started." You can see it any way you like, but you can never support 'perpetual' by the text of the Constitution. Its only the Constitution that is the supreme law. Its what the Constitution says that counts. Those words are the rules.
"Word by word? Probably not." Then that's not the rules, as you say.
"...since they were already part of a 'Perpetual Union.'" The states are separate sovereigns except insofar as they've chosen to delegate a portion of that sovereignty under the Constitution. The AoC, and its notion of a perpetual nation, didn't make it to the Constitution. The AoC aren't the 'rules.'
"I would be surprised." Me too.
"That 'right of secession' is not a part of 'sovereignity'." I disagree. The right of self-determination - to secede or not - is at the core of sovereignty; without it sovereignty doesn't exist. The dictionary defintions of 'sovereign' agree with me.
"Coward!" I'm comfortable with my sense of priorities. ;-)
"...if there is no 'right of secession', they cannot do it by themselves." The ordinances of secession demonstrate beyond doubt that the right exists. The text of the Constitution shows the right to be legal. They can and did do it by themselves. Don't be fooled into thinking might makes right, that the question can be decided by the bigger gun.
"It is when it affects the other states." No it isn't. The availability of fireworks in Pa. makes it much more likely that Oh. citizens will procure them and bring them, undetected (unless its you) into Oh. That affects Oh. and Oh. citizens. Yet Oh. is powerless to prevent it because a state's (Pa.s)exercise of its own rights is not a 'controversy between the states' for federal jurisdiction to apply.
If one states right is subject to disallowance, all are worthless. But if you said that slavery was the world's worst poster child for that proposition, I'd agree.
Tim - I'm OK with repealed/rescinded; it's "making null and void their entire adherence to the agreement" that I don't see expressed. What I see is that the seceeding states wanted to undo their association with the Union. I don't see that they wanted to undo all that happened during their tenure.
Please explain how the United States fullfills requirements in agreements entered into between the US and foreign governments between 1781 and 1861 now that these states have seceded. For example, there was an agreement for the free entry of wool into the US (including *all* of the states) with Canada. How does the US government fullfill the requirements of that treaty into the seceding states? Or is Canada, essentially, also being damaged by the secession of the states. Or how does the US now fullfill requirements of treaties with other governments on issues such as borders, and access and trade? Or foreign loans?
*ALL* of the states have obligations entered into through the US agreements extending backwards through the decades and forward into time as responsibilities. Secession says the state is not obligated by them and, in fact, that all obligations are abrogated.
This is not just treaty obligations. States like SC said it was everything. Debts, costs of future projects entered into mutually, etc., etc. Basically, what you have is the seceding states saying they are going back on their word and laughing as they leave the rest of the country holding the bag.
They are also walking away from a financial disaster in the making. The tariff of 1857 passed because of a budget surplus. Having cut revenues drastically, the Buchanan administration increased spending at an incredible rate. In early 1861 -- before Lincoln -- government budget deficits and a burgeoning national debt ensured that revenue would have to be raised. Government credit was bad. Bonds that Buchanan tried to float at 8% in the first quarter of 1861 could not be sold (loans were going at 12%). With the Southern states seceding and abrogating their responsibilities, it looked like a US government default was about to occur.
This ongoing budget crunch is why the Morrill Tariff had passed the House in 1860, why the Senate passed it in February 1861, and why Buchanan signed it into law March 2, 1861. Without some such measure to raise cash, the government would be in big trouble. If the seceding states had remained in to shoulder their responsibilities, it would have been much easier to deal with the crisis, and a deal might have been struck on rates or items that would have been more palatable to the South.
Tim -"...implicit acknowledgement that they had not been sovereign beforehand." Where does any seceeding state say that they wrote ordinances of secession with such knowledge? I dare say nowhere. Dual sovereignty is one of the well-recognized tenets of the Constitution. "The States are no less sovereign with respect to each other than they are with respect to the Federal Government. Their powers to undertake criminal prosecutions derive from separate and independent sources of power and authority originally belonging to them before admission to the Union and preserved to them by the Tenth Amendment. See Lanza, supra, at 382. The States are equal to each other "in power, dignity and authority, each competent to exert that residuum of sovereignty not delegated to the United States by the Constitution itself." Coyle v. Oklahoma, 221 U.S. 559, 567 (1911). See Skiriotes v. Florida, 313 U.S. 69, 77 (1941)." Heath v. Alabama, 474 U.S. 82 (1985)(discussing "dual sovereignty doctrine" in the context of the double jeopardy clause).
As I have repeatedly pointed out, many of the seceding states were not sovereign beforehand. There isn't the slightest doubt of this, and there is an audit trail to prove it if you are really having difficulty with the concept.
Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Florida, Arkansas and Tennessee were all formed from territory that belonged to the United States of America. All the land here came from purchases from foreign governments or tribes and land claims transferred to the US government by other states. Kentucky was part of Virginia until statehood, and Missouri was also formed from US territory.
Please explain how *any* of these states had a status as a free, independent, sovereign nation before they became states of the United States. Or simply say that they never were sovereign before they were admitted.
So when they repeal/rescind/abrogate the agreement that gave them sovereignity, why would they still be sovereign?
Tim -
"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?"
I don't think it's a question of picking and choosing. The Constitution does not differentiate between original and added states. Thus, added states would, upon admission, carry the same favor as the original and are thus co-equal. If you can find text in the Constitution creating a separate class of states, please post the same.
Not my issue; merely one you are inventing. You cannot base claims on a "right of secession" (as the secessionists did) on being free sovereign and independent before the US existed if you are a state that was formed out of US territory and never were sovereign.
All these secessionist arguments talk out of both sides of their mouths as it suits the moment, IMHO. They generally state opinions as facts and then demand you show where the opinion is specifically countered by a text that never imagined such an argument would be presented.
Quote:
Originally Posted by russ_aukerman
"If they want out of the Union, do you think they should pay back?"
No. There is no such requirement in the Constitution.
There is also no ability to withdraw from the agreement specified. Maybe that was because no "right of secession" was intended or believed to exist.
Quote:
Originally Posted by russ_aukerman
"...all of these are illegal acts by the states." Unkind and perhaps immoral, but by what 'law' do you judge acts of separate, or soon to be separate, countries. Again, point me to the text of the law broken. Did any seceeded state attempt to seize property outside of its borders? Are they to sit back and let the US determine what property to which they are entitled? Are they to sit back and allow foreign soldiers to retain state lands? I'm not saying that I condone the seizures; I told you what I'd personally have done. But I do understand these acts. IMO, the seceeding state's entitlement to a proportionate share of fed assets (and debts) paints these acts with at least some claim of right.
They make perfect sense if you are planning revolution and armed insurrection. They make no sense if you are maintaining you are acting legally and peacefully.
As I have mentioned repeatedly, many of the acts occurred BEFORE secession by a state. The seceding states rushed to violence and seizures with no proximate cause other than a completely legal election of a man that many of them had purposefully helped elect in order to get the insurrection started.
Here are a few examples. All are clearly illegal acts against the United States government while the states are still legally part of the United States:
Georgia January 3, 1861.--Fort Pulaski seized by State troops.
January 19, 1861.--Ordinance of secession adopted.
Alabama January 4, 1861.--United States Arsenal at Mount Vernon seized by State troops.
January 5, 1861.--Forts Morgan and Gaines seized by State troops
January 11, 1861.--Ordinance of secession adopted in Alabama.
Florida January 6, 1861.--United States Arsenal at Apalachicola seized by State troops.
January 7, 1861.--Fort Marion, Saint Augustine, seized by State troops.
January 10, 1861.--Ordinance of secession adopted.
North Carolina January 9, 1861.--Fort Johnston seized by citizens of Smithville, N. C.
January 10, 1861.--Fort Caswell seized by citizens of Smithville and Wilmington, N.C.
April 15, 1861.--Governor of North Carolina refuses to furnish quota of militia to the United States. Fort Macon seized by State troops.
April 16, 1861.--Forts Caswell and Johnston seized by State troops.
April 22, 1861.--United States Arsenal at Fayetteville seized by State troops.
May 20, 1861.--Ordinance of secession adopted.
Louisiana January 10, 1861.--United States Arsenal and Barracks at Baton Rouge seized.
January 10, 1861.--Forts Jackson and Saint Philip seized.
January 14, 1861.--Fort Pike seized.
January 26, 1861.--Ordinance of secession adopted.
Arkansas February 8, 1861.-- United States Arsenal at Little Rock, Ark., seized.
February 12, 1861.-- United States ordnance stores seized at Napoleon, Ark.(*)
April 16, 1861. -- Fort Wa****a, Ind. T., abandoned.
April 18, 1861. -- United States subsistence stores seized at Pine Bluff, Ark.
April 22, 1861. -- The governor of Arkansas refuses to furnish quota of militia to the United States.
April 23, 1861. -- Fort Smith, Ark., seized.
May 6, 1861. -- Ordinance of secession adopted by Arkansas Convention.
Quote:
Originally Posted by russ_aukerman
"All acts involved in the rebellion were not."
Secession is not, by definition, rebellion. That the USSCt. failed to recognize that is, IMO, wrong and contrary to the Constitution.
Note that the Supreme Court disagreed with you at least in the instance of the secession of Texas (and the other White v. states cases). Again, you and I can have opinions, just like any bystander or fan at a sports event. But the Justices on the Supreme Court have the power to DECIDE the issue. What they say goes.
For example, I have been a Chicago Cubs fan a long time. I wish they had ruled fan interference, somehow, someway, in that playoff game a few years back and that "Eight in the Eighth" never happened. But it is the umpire who gets to make the call, and the fans who have to live with it. That is the way it is with judges and laws as well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by russ_aukerman
BTW, the cases following Tx. v. White are its progeny, and would be overuled at the same time as Tx. v. White. All the USSCt. must do is to overule the one, and the others necessarily follow.
Yes, I understand that. But the decision has stood for almost 140 years now. I am sure a lot of people with Confederate-era-issue bonds would be quite happy to have it happen, but otherwise it doesn't seem likely at the moment.
Quote:
Originally Posted by russ_aukerman
"Attack Ft. Sumter -- Lincoln's fault."
Lincoln was told that no shots would be fired until the fort was to be resupplied. Was it not Lincoln who ordered resupply of the fort? I'm not saying that Lincoln pulled the lanyard, but he (adept at politics as he was) orchestrated a sequence of events by which he knew that SC would fire the 'first shot.'
Yes, here's a prime example of how those apologizing for the secessionists like to argue. Just ignore all the illegal and aggressive acts the secessionists do first and blame it all on Lincoln for not giving in to their pressure. One thing I have noticed about secessionist issues: fairness and impartiality are never in evidence.
At this point, SC had already been violating their own laws since November when they interfered with the US at the Arsenal -- a month before secession. Even after secession they acted against state laws in seizing property (the Arsenal and 3 forts for starters), threatening assault on Ft. Sumter, besieging it and trying to starve it out.
Quote:
Originally Posted by russ_aukerman
""...but I have noticed a tendency of people who wish to argue for secession to never clearly acknowledge prior abuses by the Confederates." Assume that I acknowledge these "prior abuses," are you of the opinion that two wrongs make a right. That violence and illegality are appropriate responses to the same? Do you really think its possible to EQUATE Jackson's brief occupation of Md. heights with the Union's unconstitutional invasion of Va. for 1st Manassas and subsequent forcible occupation and repatriation of all the seceeded states? I think you've pushed you're "prior abuses" point far beyond its natural limits.
I merely mentioned that to counter your claim that the North "invaded" first. We have a clear record of violence and seizure by secessionists that included seizure of nine Federal forts before Ft. Sumter was attacked. Also a number of Arsenals and other posts; Customs facilities, cutters, revenues and money (like the $600,000 in specie and the government payroll LA grabbed); postal facilities; armed threats against Federal employees and troops; firing on US flag vessels (and some seizures); besieging of two Federal forts. Then you have the attack on Ft. Sumter (3000+ rounds of artillery fired at Federal troops); seizure of more Federal posts in VA (Harpers Ferry, Norfolk Navy Yard), NC and AR; internment of 1100 Federal troops in Texas in violation of an existing agreement the Federals were complying with; Confederate attempts to smuggle arms (such as cannon and military smallarms) to secessionist sympathizers in MD and MO; the raising of an Army of 10s of thousands of Confederates; threats to capture Washington; capture of B&O trains; etc.; etc.
But you already know about all this, and you are acting as if it does not exist. Once again, how come nothing the Confederates do counts, and Lincoln attempting to send supplies to his men is supposedly the cause of the war? Or an "invasion" of a state that is either a) in violent insurrection against or b) at war with the US is the cause for the previous six months of Confederate violence?
Tim -"Some see it as going back to 1774, before the Articles, before the Declaration of Independence, and before the Revolution started."
You can see it any way you like, but you can never support 'perpetual' by the text of the Constitution. Its only the Constitution that is the supreme law. Its what the Constitution says that counts. Those words are the rules.
Again, we have a Supreme Court Chief Justice telling us that the "Perpetual Union" of the Articles is necessarily what the "more perfect Union" of the Constitution refers to. This isn't my opinion -- it is what was written as the majority opinion of the Supreme Court in the case. He actually has a say in the matter. You and I do not.
We can disagree and argue about it. The ruling remains the same until someone convinces the Supreme Court to change it, or an amendment is made to the Constitution. Because, you see, what the Supreme Court says counts as well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by russ_aukerman
"Word by word? Probably not." Then that's not the rules, as you say.
We have a long tradition of the Supreme Court (and the other, subordinate Federal courts) interpreting the Constitution for the nation and ruling on the validity of laws. It goes back several decades before the Civil War. They get to decide what the meaning is when necessary. You and I do not.
Now the Constitution would give them jurisdiction in such a matter. That is certain, by agreement of all the parties involved. They might have ruled in lots of ways. But surely you really don't think secession allows the states to walk away from their responsibilities in a unilateral way.
Quote:
Originally Posted by russ_aukerman
"...since they were already part of a 'Perpetual Union.'"
The states are separate sovereigns except insofar as they've chosen to delegate a portion of that sovereignty under the Constitution. The AoC, and its notion of a perpetual nation, didn't make it to the Constitution. The AoC aren't the 'rules.'
Again, we have a majority opinion of the Supreme Court that disagrees specifically with what you are saying here. I think it is possible to argue with the Supreme Justice's opinion; I can see room for disagreement. But until someone actually convinces the Court to change their mind and overturn the 1869 decision, you are on the losing side of this argument. Until that time, all precedents would say that the "Perpetual Union" of the AoC is the "more perfect Union" of the Constitution.
Quote:
Originally Posted by russ_aukerman
"That 'right of secession' is not a part of 'sovereignity'."
I disagree. The right of self-determination - to secede or not - is at the core of sovereignty; without it sovereignty doesn't exist. The dictionary defintions of 'sovereign' agree with me.
I would doubt it. Secession, as attempted by the Confederacy, was a brand-new thing that had never existed before except in theory for a few people. The very existence of it was doubtful in 1860. It is nothing at all like the Roman practice (from which it took the name) 2000 years earlier.
"Sovereign" nations do not have a "right of secession" in their agreements unless it is specifically stated. Such a right, if it existed, would only be possible within the terms of a specific agreement. They can, of course, decide not to abide by the agreements they sign -- but that often results in a war of one sort or another.
Quote:
Originally Posted by russ_aukerman
"...if there is no 'right of secession', they cannot do it by themselves."
The ordinances of secession demonstrate beyond doubt that the right exists.
No, not at all. All the ordinances of the seceding states do is declare what they say they want to do. If they have the "right of secession", they can act as they declare legally. If they don't have the "right of secession", everything they are saying they will do is illegal.
A state legislature certainly has the "right" or "power" to pass any resolution or law they wish. They can say the Sun circles the Earth, or that the Earth is flat, or anything else. Having the power and right to make it so is something else again. Just as God or Nature might overturn their declarations about the universe, so the United States of America might overturn their acts in relation to the Union.
Quote:
Originally Posted by russ_aukerman
The text of the Constitution shows the right to be legal.
I fail to see it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by russ_aukerman
They can and did do it by themselves. Don't be fooled into thinking might makes right, that the question can be decided by the bigger gun.
Actually, this is false. They never actually pursued a legal or legislative solution to this matter. Instead, they resorted to the "natural right of revolution" while claiming that they were acting legally.
The problem for secessionists is that, having chosen trial-by-combat where the answer really is determined by might, they lost. They later discovered the answer from the legal system was no, they did not have the "right of secession" -- and probably (IMHO) precisely because they were arrogant enough to try to take it by force. They lost de facto, then they lost de jure.
From Texas v. White, Chief Justice Chase for the majority:
=====
Did Texas, in consequence of these acts, cease to be a State? Or, if not, did the State cease to be a member of the Union?
It is needless to discuss at length the question whether the right of a State to withdraw from the Union for any cause regarded by herself as sufficient is consistent with the Constitution of the United States.
The Union of the States never was a purely artificial and arbitrary relation. It began among the Colonies, and grew out of common origin, mutual sympathies, kindred principles, similar interests, and geographical relations. It was confirmed and strengthened by the necessities of war, and received definite form and character and sanction from the Articles of Confederation. By these, the Union was solemnly declared to "be perpetual." And when these Articles were found to be inadequate to the exigencies of the country, the Constitution was ordained "to form a more perfect Union." It is difficult to convey the idea of indissoluble unity more clearly than by these words. What can be indissoluble if a perpetual Union, made more perfect, is not?
...
When, therefore, Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation. All the obligations of perpetual union, and all the guaranties of republican government in the Union, attached at once to the State. The act which consummated her admission into the Union was something more than a compact; it was the incorporation of a new member into the political body. And it was final. The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration or revocation, except through revolution or through consent of the States.
Considered therefore as transactions under the Constitution, the ordinance of secession, adopted by the convention and ratified by a majority of the citizens of Texas, and all the acts of her legislature intended to give effect to that ordinance, were absolutely null. They were utterly without operation in law. The obligations of the State, as a member of the Union, and of every citizen of the State, as a citizen of the United States, remained perfect and unimpaired. It certainly follows that the State did not cease to be a State, nor her citizens to be citizens of the Union. If this were otherwise, the State must have become foreign, and her citizens foreigners. The war must have ceased to be a war for the suppression of rebellion, and must have become a war for conquest and subjugation.
Our conclusion therefore is that Texas continued to be a State, and a State of the Union, notwithstanding the transactions to which we have referred. And this conclusion, in our judgment, is not in conflict with any act or declaration of any department of the National government, but entirely in accordance with the whole series of such acts and declarations since the first outbreak of the rebellion.
=====
Lots more, of course. But that is where the matter rests at present.
No it isn't. The availability of fireworks in Pa. makes it much more likely that Oh. citizens will procure them and bring them, undetected (unless its you) into Oh. That affects Oh. and Oh. citizens. Yet Oh. is powerless to prevent it because a state's (Pa.s)exercise of its own rights is not a 'controversy between the states' for federal jurisdiction to apply.
If one states right is subject to disallowance, all are worthless. But if you said that slavery was the world's worst poster child for that proposition, I'd agree.
That would be absolutely at odds with American concepts of law.
The states have *mutual* rights and obligations. Just as a later Supreme Court would tell us we all have the right of free speech but it is subject to limitations. It was Oliver Wendell Holmes, I think who told us that the right of free speech does not allow you to yell fire in a crowded theater for the heck of it.
To make the fireworks example compare to slavery, you would have to give those PA citizen's the right to go in and out of Ohio, carrying fireworks and shooting them off at their pleasure, immune from the laws of the state of Ohio. It wouldn't work there. It also would not work with guns -- try coming through NJ or NY with a gun without a permit and following the regulations. The rights of citizens are respected -- but the laws cannot be ignored by citizens of other states while they are in NJ.
Only the Constitution's mention of slavery made way for the transit rights the South claimed. It is highly debatable whether enforcement of them should or should not have been allowed. It was, however, greatly resented as an imposition upon and violation of "states rights".
A few quotes for you, as you seem to imply that ALL Americans thought secession was an accepted idea.
"In the calm hours of self-possession, the right of a State to nullify an act of Congress, is too absurd for argument, and too odious for discussion. The right of a State to secede from the Union, is equally disowned by the principles of the Declaration of Independence."
John Quincy Adams, April 30, 1839.
"No man, no association of men, no state or set of states has a right to withdraw itself from this Union, of its own accord. The same power which knit us together, can only unknit. The same formality, which forged the links of the Union, is necessary to dissolve it. The majority of States which form the Union must consent to the withdrawal of any one branch of it. Until that consent has been obtained, any attempt to dissolve the Union, or obstruct the efficacy of its constitutional laws, is Treason--Treason to all intents and purposes...This illustrious Union, which has been cemented by the blood of our forefathers, the pride of America and the wonder of the world must not be tamely sacrifced to the heated brains or the aspiring hearts of a few malcontents. The Union must be saved, when any one shall dare to assail it."
From the Richmond Enquirer, November 1, 1814.
Seems like there was a school of thought from way before the Civil War that did not buy the idea/theory/fantasy of secession, for any state, north or south.
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
"For example, there was an agreement for the free entry of wool into the US (including *all* of the states) with Canada." *All* of the states would include those not seceeding, because those seceeding were no longer states.
"How does the US government fullfill the requirements of that treaty into the seceding states? Or how does the US now fullfill requirements of treaties with other governments on issues such as borders, and access and trade?" It doesn't. It doesn't have constitutional authority to do so. The flip-side is true when states are admitted. Sometimes your treaty gets a bonus, sometimes a partial loss. Sometimes you might have to re-negotiate. The US has no constitutional authority to control state secession. I don't know if treaties have 'as amended' clauses for the admission/secession of states, but they should.
"Secession says the state is not obligated by them and, in fact, that all obligations are abrogated." A true statement.
I've already said that seceeding states are as liable for their proportionate share of debts as they are due their proportionate share of assets. What more do you want me to say on the subject?
"...there is an audit trail to prove it if you are really having difficulty with the concept." No need to get testy. I'll let you know if I'm having difficulties.
"Please explain how *any* of these states had a status as a free, independent, sovereign nation before they became states of the United States. Or simply say that they never were sovereign before they were admitted. So when they repeal/rescind/abrogate the agreement that gave them sovereignity, why would they still be sovereign?" We've already discussed this. The Constitution does not provide for separate classes of states. Thus, new states are admitted with the same priviliges and immunties (if I may so borrow the term) as the original and are imbued with sovereignty the same as the original. Again - if you find a textual basis for separate classes of states in the Constitution, please share.
One of the things I've noticed of you anti-secesh folks is an avoidance of referring to the text of the Constitution. Why do you think that is?
"You cannot base claims on a "right of secession" (as the secessionists did) on being free sovereign and independent before the US existed if you are a state that was formed out of US territory and never were sovereign." Sovereign before secession is enough.
"They generally state opinions as facts and then demand you show where the opinion is specifically countered by a text that never imagined such an argument would be presented." I'm not responsible for what 'they' do 'generally.' How can you say that the concept of secession was never imagined when two of the ratifying states mentioned it in their ratification documents? What side of your mouth are you talking out of there? Again - a power exists if you can put it on paper and get your gov't to vote it into law.
"They make no sense if you are maintaining you are acting legally and peacefully." It makes perfect sense if you have a basis to anticipate hostility from the other side.
"But the Justices on the Supreme Court have the power to DECIDE the issue. What they say goes." Until they get it right and reverse themselves. "But until someone actually convinces the Court to change their mind and overturn the 1869 decision, you are on the losing side of this argument. Until that time, all precedents would say that the 'Perpetual Union' of the AoC is the 'more perfect Union' of the Constitution." I agree. I know what the case says, and its impact. I also can see that it has no support in constitutional text. Can't you see that as well? Doesn't that give you at least some reason to pause and question?
"For example, I have been a Chicago Cubs fan a long time." I've been an Indians/Browns/Cavs fan for a long time. I know how you feel, and then some. At least you had Michael and the 85 Bears. ;-)
"That is the way it is with judges and laws as well." Not a perfect analogy. Sporting events cannot be replayed. The opportunity to enforce laws can.
"...it doesn't seem likely at the moment." I agree. The last potential test case I heard of was Hawaii. Someone needs to test a law before a controversy can ripen.
"Yes, here's a prime example of how those apologizing for the secessionists like to argue. Just ignore all the illegal and aggressive acts the secessionists do first and blame it all on Lincoln for not giving in to their pressure." No. I just like to see a fair and partial balance. You're not seeing the aggressive and illegal acts of the north. How about suspending habeas corpus, unwarranted arrests and suppression of First Amend. rights. I think it goes both ways.
"Or an 'invasion' of a state that is either a) in violent insurrection against or b) at war with the US is the cause for the previous six months of Confederate violence?" What I'm arguing for here is a sense of proportionality from you. You seem to think that minor acts justify major ones. Or perhaps that enough minor acts justify one major one. At what point you have enough excuses for Lincoln to act is a matter upon which we'd likely disagree. Upon review of the Constitution, I see no authority there for Lincoln's forcible repatriation of the seceeded states. If you do, please share. BTW, I don't recall a declaration of war against the seceeded states - which at least would be something constitutional - do you. Again - secession is not, by definition, insurrection.
"Again, we have a Supreme Court Chief Justice telling us that the 'Perpetual Union' of the Articles is necessarily what the 'more perfect Union' of the Constitution refers to." He's wrong. The Constitution does NOT say perpetual. "We can disagree and argue about it." We can, but in the end, its what the Constitution says that counts.
"They get to decide what the meaning is when necessary." And they can opine that the sun rises in the west. Then they can get it right and reverse themselves. Don't forget that its the Constitution that created the USSCt., not vice-versa. Ultimately, its the Constitution that is the supreme law of the land and its what it says that counts.
"'Sovereign' nations do not have a 'right of secession' in their agreements unless it is specifically stated. Such a right, if it existed, would only be possible within the terms of a specific agreement." Except that you're ignoring how the Constitution is written. "I fail to see it." Let me show you.
The 10th Amend. provides that "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Secession is not a power delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor is secession prohibited by the Constitution to the states. Therefore, by constitutional text, secession is reserved to the states. Its called a residuary clause. Its common in certain types of legal documents.
"The very existence of it was doubtful in 1860." Its existence was long established - well before NY and Va referenced the concept in their ratification documents. Its constitutionality, OTOH, had not been decided by the courts. There were several schools of thought. There still is. The Constitution supports only one such school.
"All the ordinances of the seceding states do is declare what they say they want to do." No. They were not mere expressions of intent or desire. The seceeding states actually did secede. The set up separate gov'ts and everything necessary to run their own countries. And they did run their own countries for 4 plus years.
"Just as God or Nature might overturn their declarations about the universe, so the United States of America might overturn their acts in relation to the Union." No. The gov't is not God and it is not Nature. Men can limit the powers of gov't, but not God and rarely Nature. We must live by the laws we've enacted, or change them. Secession is lawful under the Constitution until its amended.
"Instead, they resorted to the "natural right of revolution" while claiming that they were acting legally." The Calhoun school of thought would disagree with you.
I've read Tx. v. White. I know what it says. It is wrong. The word 'perpetual' is NOT in the Constitution. I've never seen, and will never see, a dictionary say that the words 'more perfect' mean the same as 'perpetual.' And the USSCt. telling me that the sun rises in the west does not make it so.
"To make the fireworks example compare to slavery...." Actually, I intended no such comparison. I was using fireworks as an example of what does not give rise to a controversy between the states for purposes of fed jurisdiction. Obviously, fireworks don't move by themselves. The fugitive slave laws are another area entirely, and I claim no particular knowledge in that regard.
I was wondering if you were luking out there. Always good to hear from you.
But......I wish your first words weren't an attempt to put words in my mouth.
I never said, nor intended to imply, that "ALL Americans thought secession was an accepted idea." Indeed, I've known for years that there are different opinions and schools of thought. Just as surely, though, secession is a question for the states under the Constitution, regardless of whether you think it ought to be.
I apologize if I brought offense, but my words were 'seem to imply' and you do make it sound as though secession was an accepted point of view by a goodly majority. Perhaps I get that by how well you phrase your views.
And no, I do not, and have not ever, agreed with you that the Constitution makes it the states responsibility to decided to secede or not. You and I both know it makes no such statement or inference.
But I do admire you consistency in your views.
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
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
