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.
The typical argument I read in these forums is that if an individual state decides that they are no longer satisfied by the purposes for which the Union was created, they, and they alone can make that judgement, declare their independence, and expect the Union to honor it as an unenumerated power which the Union reserved to them.
CS: Yes, exactly, you're on point, nail on the head, and all that. The various threads that begin with other words, actually state exactly that argument, eventually, which you posted above. They all pretty much come down to that very assertion. Thank you for nailing it down so well. And as I have done in some of those other threads, I'll just go ahead and voice my opinion to the above claim: It is nonsense. The states, after having agreed to be part of the Union, cannot, on a whim, or for any reason, legally secede from that Union. There exist other avenues for them to express their dissatisfaction, and to seek redress for their grievances.
Since this seems to be the most popular subject for debate on the board, I expect I will see more postings and arguments against the claims made in my post, and that's fine. It's interesting reading. But it's nice to see someone cut through all the verbiage, from time to time, and summarize the entire argument in one sentence. Thanks.
Terry
__________________ "In this great struggle, this form of Government and every form of human right is endangered if our enemies succeed. There is more involved in this contest than is realized by every one." Abraham Lincoln - August 18, 1864 Speech to the 164th Ohio Regiment
"...the people of New Jersey just have to suck it up,...?"
Did I say that, John?
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
"...the people of New Jersey just have to suck it up,...?"
Did I say that, John?
Unionblue
Neil, that would seem to be the inescapable implication of the quote you provided. Perhaps you could explain to me how the quote you provided, which expresses your opinion, does not mean that. You stated:
"The majority of States which form the Union must consent to the withdrawal of any one branch of it." If that majority deny consent to New Jersey to withdraw, and at the same time express the intention to deny the people of New Jersey their natural rights, then the people of New Jersey, in your understanding, must simply accept their fate. If I have mis-stated your view, please explain it to me.
Respectfully,
John Taylor
__________________ "In this Constitution, the citizens of the United States appear dispensing a part of their original power in what manner and what proportion they think fit. They never part with the whole; and they retain the right of recalling what they part with." James Wilson of Pennsylvania, October 28th, 1787
New Jersey still has an option left to it, if it wants to exercise it, one that I agree with completely.
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
I believe that a State withdrawing from a Union which no longer satisfies the purposes for which the Union was created, (but retaining the State Government which has done nothing wrong, and may be the last best hope of the people of New Jersey to defend themselves, in this case), is an act of revolution in a federal political system. I guess I have no problem with the above statement. There is nothing in it which expects the Union to honor the judgement of the state. Could you save me much back reading and offer an explanation of why Neil or Tim would disagree with it?
Tim has said that the US Supreme Court is the sole legitimate arbiter of Federal issues, including the power of the people of the States to resume the powers they have delegated to the Federal government. I am not entirely sure what Neil’s opinion is. He seems to believe that the consent of the other States is required for a State to withdraw from the Union, although I am not sure where in the Constitution this power comes from.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cedarstripper
The typical argument I read in these forums is that if an individual state decides that they are no longer satisfied by the purposes for which the Union was created, they, and they alone can make that judgement, declare their independence, and expect the Union to honor it as an unenumerated power which the Union reserved to them. Obviously I am not up to speed in these discussions, as this is not the argument here.
CS, you engaged in a subtle change in the wording. The people of South Carolina did not declare that “they are no longer satisfied by the purposes for which the Union was created.” They stilled desired the purposes for which the Union was created: “in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.” They declared that the Union was no longer fulfilling this purpose. There is a substantive difference between the position of secession by any State any time for any reason (say, “because it’s Monday”) and no secession at any time for any reason (the New Jersey case I cited as the extreme example on the other end of the spectrum). The shades of gray between those two positions might include, for example, the question of whether the Union was in fact meeting its purposes. Or, whether the Constitutions were being complied with. Or whether the natural rights (“among which are life liberty and the pursuit of happiness”) were being threatened. In the case I provided, the Union was obviously not fulfilling its purposes (at least not for the people of New Jersey). In addition, the natural rights of the people of New Jersey were not being respected. The provisions of the Constitution (as amended), however, were complied with. Any serious discussion of the issue of secession, I feel has to address these issues. Otherwise, the debate devolves into an unfortunate “my country right or wrong” kind of jingoism, which is neither enlightening, nor helpful. Not everything the Federal Government does is, by definition, right. And what if it's not? This is a key question that addresses the nature of dissent and government in a federal system. Respectfully, John Taylor
__________________ "In this Constitution, the citizens of the United States appear dispensing a part of their original power in what manner and what proportion they think fit. They never part with the whole; and they retain the right of recalling what they part with." James Wilson of Pennsylvania, October 28th, 1787
"Likewise, since the rest of the States are going to benefit financially from this new provision, they refuse to let New Jersey go her own way. So, in this extreme case, what recourse doe the people of New Jersey have?"
I see three options:
1. Secede. Under the Constitution, secession is lawful. Nothing in the new amendment alters that.
2. If the rest refuse to let NJ go peacefully, NJ could suck it up and take it.
3. NJ citizens could go to court and declare that the new amendment constitutes a taking. Since the eminent domain clause remains good law, the fed must pay NJ citizens fair market value for all property taken.
If secession had been legal in 1861, there would not have been that little dust-up we call the Civil War.
No matter how much you wish to ignore Supreme Court history on states rights and secession, it was not then, nor is it permitted now, option 1 (secession) is not permisable under the Constitution, now or then.
New Jersey has one option that you and John Taylor have failed to mention, and I wonder why?
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
If secession had been legal in 1861, there would not have been that little dust-up we call the Civil War.
No matter how much you wish to ignore Supreme Court history on states rights and secession, it was not then, nor is it permitted now, option 1 (secession) is not permisable under the Constitution, now or then.
New Jersey has one option that you and John Taylor have failed to mention, and I wonder why?
Neil, what is it? Seriously, if there is another option that I missed, please let me know what it is.
Respectfully,
John Taylor
__________________ "In this Constitution, the citizens of the United States appear dispensing a part of their original power in what manner and what proportion they think fit. They never part with the whole; and they retain the right of recalling what they part with." James Wilson of Pennsylvania, October 28th, 1787
The people of New Jersey can exercise their God-given right, their natural right, of rebellion.
When there comes a time when you, or a people, have done all they can to address their grievences within the system, be it government, the law, popular opinion, the church, petition, amendment, polls, peaceful civil disobedience, hunger strikes, sit-ins, etc., if after all they have tried by peaceful means have failed, they can rebel.
If a cause becomes so important, so vital, so desperate, so desired, so needed, as to call for the killing of your fellow human beings, the people of New Jersey can begin the taking up of arms and weapons and try to take by force of arms those rights they deem worth dying for. And that's about the only time a people should decide to take others lives, when they feel they have nothing else to live for, that freedom for their children is worth their own lives.
You don't win freedom in a courtroom, you pay for it in blood and sacrifice. You maintain it by constant vigilence and by being jealous of it every day of your life.
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
Neil, thanks for clarifying. I wasn't trying to be dense or contrary, just wanted to be clear. I agree with you.
Respectfully,
John Taylor
__________________ "In this Constitution, the citizens of the United States appear dispensing a part of their original power in what manner and what proportion they think fit. They never part with the whole; and they retain the right of recalling what they part with." James Wilson of Pennsylvania, October 28th, 1787
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
