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 have to admit that I hadn't really thought much about the NW Ordinance, but despite the language in the statute I still feel that you have to look at the Constitution itself as the first and best argument against secession.
Statutes are always subject to constitutional scrutiny (Perhaps this is why Taney is attempting to chip away at the NW Ordinance by declaring portions of it unconstitutional?)
The pro-secessionist arguments usually turn around the 9th and 10th Amendments. So, since they're relying on constitutional authority to support their position, you absolutely have to point at the Constitution itself to counter the argument because if you're first argument is the NW Ordinance and the secesh is pointing at Amendments, clearly you're going to lose that one.
If you look at Texas v. White they seem to look at the language 'perpetual union' in AOC and 'more perfect union' as well as relying on the republican guarantee clause. If you ask me they should've written more in their about the Supremacy Clause, but I didn't draft the opinion.
I do believe that the NW Ordinance is clearly anecdotal evidence that the founders and legislators of the 18th century were clearly intending to forge a nation and not govern a come and go as you please customs union.
I have to admit that I hadn't really thought much about the NW Ordinance, but despite the language in the statute I still feel that you have to look at the Constitution itself as the first and best argument against secession.
Statutes are always subject to constitutional scrutiny (Perhaps this is why Taney is attempting to chip away at the NW Ordinance by declaring portions of it unconstitutional?)
The pro-secessionist arguments usually turn around the 9th and 10th Amendments. So, since they're relying on constitutional authority to support their position, you absolutely have to point at the Constitution itself to counter the argument because if you're first argument is the NW Ordinance and the secesh is pointing at Amendments, clearly you're going to lose that one.
If you look at Texas v. White they seem to look at the language 'perpetual union' in AOC and 'more perfect union' as well as relying on the republican guarantee clause. If you ask me they should've written more in their about the Supremacy Clause, but I didn't draft the opinion.
I do believe that the NW Ordinance is clearly anecdotal evidence that the founders and legislators of the 18th century were clearly intending to forge a nation and not govern a come and go as you please customs union.
Well another "potential" flaw with the 9th and 10th amendments is the fact that inherent powers do exist with the federal government. For instance, a lot of people didn't want the Bill of Rights added, simply because they assumed that it was obvious that people held onto those rights and that by writing them down in the constitution it would in fact diminish those rights. Those rights were just something that people (inherently) had so you didn't need to write it down.
Much in the same way the federal government has inherent rights. Nowhere in the constitution does it say that the federal government can enforce its decisions, restrict immigration, put down a rebellion, and etc. Does this mean that according to the 9th and 10th amendments that states have the right to enforce federal laws not the federal government? Of course not, and it is obvious that the founding fathers would say no as well. There is evidence that the thinking at the time is that it is obvious that all national governments have those powers, because they are a sovereign nation in the world community and need them to exist and therefore it is inherent that our national government would have those powers whether we write them down or not. They wanted to make a framework to build a flexible government that can bend with times of stress not an encyclopedia constitution that is very rigid and breaks under stress. Inherent powers have been upheld by the courts and they've always been accepted since before the Civil War.
I do think that Lincoln had legitimate legal grounds to try and stop secession, regardless of whether or not secession was legal. Even Jackson set a precedent when South Carolina first talked of secession and no one challeneged it. You could even argue in someway Washington putting down the rebellion was a precursor to this.
That's an interesting thought, and one I haven't worked my way through before. Thanks for bringing it up.
BTW, Thomas Jefferson had been a prime mover behind the idea of a Northwest Ordinance to create new states, starting in 1784. Much of what you see may be based on his thought. I am not certain, however, how much involvement he had with the 1787 act.
Regards,
Tim
Thomas Jefferson authored the Northwest Ordinance and helped pass it under both the Articles of Confederation (1787) and the US Constitution (1789). So I would say that he was involved with it more than anyone else!
Just to bring this old thread back to the front for those who haven't seen it.
Tim
__________________ "Let us, then, consider all attempts to weaken this Union, by maintaining that each state is separately and individually independent, as a species of political heresy, which can never benefit us, but may bring on us the most serious distresses."
Charles Cotesworth Pinckney of South Carolina, 1740-1824, Revolutionary War soldier, one of the authors of the US Constitution in 1787, speaking at the South Carolina Ratifying Convention in 1788.
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Constitution not a statute 
Linear Mode
