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.
To the unconditional Unionists of the board, I would like to propose a question.
Before I do, however, I would like to emphasize that the following is not a reflection of what actually happened before the outbreak of the Civil War, nor do I consider it a likely event in the future. It is merely a theoretical possibility, and simply used to illustrate the principles involved.
Suppose that the President became concerned that that voters in New Jersey had elected politicians from the other party, and thereby thwarted the good policies that he is trying to enact. Thus, the people of New Jersey are enemies of the Republic, and of humanity, entitled to no rights whatsoever. He asked Congress to pass a law stating that everyone living in New Jersey, as of some date in the past, is an enemy of the Republic, their life and property are forfeit without trial, they are beyond the protection of the laws, and can be killed on sight. Their property will then be sold and the proceeds going to pay off the national debt. Congress obliges, and passes the law, but it is challenged in court, and declared unconstitutional. So Congress passes (by more than ⅔ vote of both houses), and ¾ of the states adopt, a constitutional amendment allowing exactly what the President wanted. New Jerseyans are beyond the protection of the laws, their lives and property forfeit, without trial. New Jersey remonstrates, but the rest of the country is adamant.
Now, in such a case, do the people of New Jersey have no recourse? The courts will rule that the law is constitutional, since the amendment was adopted in the manner prescribed by the Constitution. New Jersey ratified the Constitution in 1787, and agreed to abide by its provisions, including the amendment process. 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?
In closing, I wish to reiterate that I do not say that this case bears any resemblance to that happened in the run-up to the Civil War, nor do I consider this at all likely to happen in the future. I would just like the unconditional Unionists to tell me what recourse they believe the people of New Jersey would have.
I ask this to understand the limits of the views of Tim, and others, as to what the rights of the people of the States might be in extreme situations.
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
First of all, are we that surprised that New Jersey turned out to be enemies of the republic?
In your scenario, the government is seeking to kill all persons from a certain region, so the natural right of revolution would come into play, as people sought to save their own lives and the lives of their loved ones.
The closest analogy in modern times would be either the Nazis or the genocide in Rwanda, although even the compulsive bureaucratic Germans weren't acting within a constitutional framework.
In United States history there are three examples like the ones you mention(unfortunately).
1) When Japanese Americans were imprisoned during the war, an action sanctioned by the Supreme Court, and regretted after the fact.
2) Even closer would be our cruel and squalid treatment of Native Americans, who, while not targeted for genocide, as the Jews in the 1940s were, suffered the closest equivalent in our history. In terms of the Constitutional issues, Native Americans were not considered part of the United States during the first part of the our history. In the Cherokee Removal(Trail of Tears), the Cherokees appealed successfully to the Supreme Court, to have the Court's decision ignored by Andrew Jackson.
3) The third analogy would be the enslaved African Americans of the antebellum South, who lived in the conditions you outline for the people of New Jersey, except they weren't subject to mass murder, unless their owner really felt like it. Their degraded condition was in accordance to the Constitution, before the 13th Amendment anyway.
What rights did these people have in this "extreme situation?"
First of all, are we that surprised that New Jersey turned out to be enemies of the republic?
In your scenario, the government is seeking to kill all persons from a certain region, so the natural right of revolution would come into play, as people sought to save their own lives and the lives of their loved ones.
Matthew, thanks for the response. I do want to clarify one thing, before Tim et al. head off in the wrong direction. In my hypothetical, the people of New Jersey have done nothing wrong, except voting against the President's party, nothing illegal or unconstitutional.
Tim has just said repeatedly that the courts can resolve all situations, including, presumably, this one. Others have said that States can only leave the Union if the majority of the other States say they can. I would like to see the unconditional Unionists comment on this particular situation.
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
I haven't been around in awhile, but if I may wade in on two points.....
The offensive measures called for by the President, Congress and a super-majority of the states are only relevant in my opinion in that they contradict existing constitutional law. Unless one presumes that all amendments automatically void any existing articles that they collide with, I see no reason to conclude that SCOTUS is surely prohibited from ruling on the constitutionality of the foul amendment. After all, in response to some election results, it IS quite a jump to condemn all New Jerseyans to the treatment of.......negro slaves.
If SCOTUS provided no relief for New Jersey, or the federal government simply ignored it, then the recourse for the citizens of New Jersey is revolution. It seems nonsensical to think that a "right of secession" would supply any more safety or preserve any more peace, even if such a right were boldly and unequivocally proclaimed in the Constitution, since this entire hypothetical is based on the voiding of such rights by additional amendment. Would we suppose that a federal government and nation at large that has constitutionally empowered itself to strip the life and liberty of citizens of NJ for its profit would somehow be forced to honor her peaceful secession....because they were somehow prevented from voiding that too?
I have a hard time addressing this thread, as I do not consider myself an 'unconditional unionist.'
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 haven't been around in awhile, but if I may wade in on two points.....
The offensive measures called for by the President, Congress and a super-majority of the states are only relevant in my opinion in that they contradict existing constitutional law. Unless one presumes that all amendments automatically void any existing articles that they collide with, I see no reason to conclude that SCOTUS is surely prohibited from ruling on the constitutionality of the foul amendment.
Hello CS. Thanks for responding. I would say that precedence goes to the latest amendment. For example, if one were to take a bar to court for selling alcohol, citing the XVIII Amendment, the bar could legitimately point to the XXI Amendment as its defense. XXI takes precedence because it came later.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cedarstripper
If SCOTUS provided no relief for New Jersey, or the federal government simply ignored it, then the recourse for the citizens of New Jersey is revolution. It seems nonsensical to think that a "right of secession" would supply any more safety or preserve any more peace, even if such a right were boldly and unequivocally proclaimed in the Constitution, since this entire hypothetical is based on the voiding of such rights by additional amendment. Would we suppose that a federal government and nation at large that has constitutionally empowered itself to strip the life and liberty of citizens of NJ for its profit would somehow be forced to honor her peaceful secession....because they were somehow prevented from voiding that too?
Quote:
Originally Posted by cedarstripper
No, but the nation that oppresses a minority of its population is different from one that invades another country in order to oppress the people of that country. Nowadays, the UN would step in (e.g. East Timor). Even in 1860, such an act would be viewed somewhat askance. Such a campaign of international aggression (assuming some right of revolution did exist) might cause some members of the population at large to reconsider the position, just as the aggressive US action vis-à-vis Mexico did in 1847. And withdrawing from the Union in the New Jersey hypothetical would relieve the people of New Jersey from any charge of having committed treason against the United States, because the State of New Jersey would be interposing its sovereignty to protect her own people.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cedarstripper
What is it you want your hypothetical to expose?
Tim had said that the Federal courts were the arbiters of such a right. Neil (I believe) had said that for a State to leave, it needed the permission of the majority of the States remaining in the Union to get out. I was just trying to determine just how unconditional the Unionism of Unionists actually is. Neil, if I have mis-stated your position, please let me know. And Tim has so far avoided answering the question as to what a right to revolution might look like in a federal system. Must the people of New Jersey destroy the Federal government to enjoy the right of revolution? Must they destroy their own State government to enjoy the right of revolution? 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. If the people have a right of revolution, do the people of a State, in their collective capacity, not have a right of revolution? 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
I have a hard time addressing this thread, as I do not consider myself an 'unconditional unionist.'
Sincerely,
Unionblue
Neil, I understand. Then what, in your view, are the conditions under which a State may dissolve its ties with the Union? If the majority oif the people (or the majority of the States) refuse to let a State out of the Union, is that final?
I am trying to understand the extent of your unionism.
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
Hello CS. Thanks for responding. I would say that precedence goes to the latest amendment. For example, if one were to take a bar to court for selling alcohol, citing the XVIII Amendment, the bar could legitimately point to the XXI Amendment as its defense. XXI takes precedence because it came later.
But the intent of the XXl Amendment was to specifically repeal the XVlll Amendment, and restore a right by removing a government created prohibition. What you have offered though is a scenario in which multiple core principles have been overrun. Surely we can draw a distinction between repealing prohibition and gutting Article lV. In this Twilight Zone declaration of war on New Jersey, I maintain that the Supreme Court would remain New Jersey's civilized hope, and revolution her only other recourse.
Quote:
....And withdrawing from the Union in the New Jersey hypothetical would relieve the people of New Jersey from any charge of having committed treason against the United States, because the State of New Jersey would be interposing its sovereignty to protect her own people.
Open season has been declared on the people of New Jersey by an amendment which has voided their most basic rights. Of what value are terms like "withdraw from the Union" and interposing its sovereignty" against such a nation, or proclaiming a right to unilaterally secede. Good faith has obviously ceased to exist by this time. And how can insisting on such a right of secession provide any defense against a charge of treason, since such a right, if it indeed existed, would also have been voided?
Quote:
Tim had said that the Federal courts were the arbiters of such a right. Neil (I believe) had said that for a State to leave, it needed the permission of the majority of the States remaining in the Union to get out.
As I mentioned, I haven't been around in awhile, but I assume Tim and Neil are in agreement. I presume that Tim is saying that only the federal courts can determine if such a right of secession is contained in the intent of the Constitution, and Neil is saying that in the absence of such a right of unilateral secession, secession is only possible through consent. Presently, I am in agreement with both of those ideas.
Quote:
I was just trying to determine just how unconditional the Unionism of Unionists actually is.
I suppose it depends whether or not you're from New Jersey. I consider a right of unilateral secession can only be established by prior consent of the parties of the Union, while the right of revolution is a natural right existing regardless of that consent. But whether the right is established and recognized or not, it appears moot, as a nation maliciously intent on the elimination of New Jersey has constitutionally voided any and all "rights" which stand in their way. There is no question whether the right of secession will be honored, as there is no longer any such right.
Quote:
Must the people of New Jersey destroy the Federal government to enjoy the right of revolution? Must they destroy their own State government to enjoy the right of revolution?
I don't see why they must.
Quote:
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?
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.
In answer to your post #7, I agree with the following opinion.
"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..."
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
In answer to your post #7, I agree with the following opinion.
"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..."
Sincerely,
Unionblue
Neil, I think I understand you. So, in the case of New Jersey provided above, the people of New Jersey just have to suck it up, I gather?
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. 
Unconditional Unionism 
I consider a right of unilateral secession can only be established by prior consent of the parties of the Union, while the right of revolution is a natural right existing regardless of that consent. But whether the right is established and recognized or not, it appears moot, as a nation maliciously intent on the elimination of New Jersey has constitutionally voided any and all "rights" which stand in their way. There is no question whether the right of secession will be honored, as there is no longer any such right. 
Linear Mode
