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.
It never says it ISN'T allowed, which is where the proponents for secession take all the legality and put it into it. The USC says basically, any right not explicitly denied to a state is implied as legal. It gets much more complicated than that, but that is the gist of it. Article 10 I believe.
__________________ "In mortal combat, a man may and will become so infuriated by the din and dangers of a bloody fight that his heart will turn to stone and his every de sire [be] for blood."
John Hadley, 7th Indiana after the battle at Port Republic
It never says it ISN'T allowed, which is where the proponents for secession take all the legality and put it into it. The USC says basically, any right not explicitly denied to a state is implied as legal. It gets much more complicated than that, but that is the gist of it. Article 10 I believe.
But, Dred, I might back it off a step: Is secession a right or a power? Where might that definition come from? Wasn't all this based on international, intellectual history and a somewhat international understanding of what civilizied persons accepted as a given?
Seems to me that whether separation was or was not allowed was an understanding hidden in the words. Don't remember who wrote it, but it goes something like this: "Has ever any state made provision for its own dissolution?" Insisting on that provision so as to prove that one, not made, is proof that it exists, strikes me as a bit on the far side of reality.
I need a nap.
ole
__________________ I never knew a man who wished to be himself a slave. Consider if you know any good thing that no man desires for himself. A. Lincoln
Seems to me that whether separation was or was not allowed was an understanding hidden in the words.
It was, but this is where the debate lies. I didn't say I backed up the idea, merely that it is there. And as the lost causers LOVE to point out, it isn't whether it was or was not intended, but whether it was or was not strictly disallowed. As far as right or power? Everybody has the right to secede, or rebel, and any government has the right to quell the rebellion or secession. Power? State's have no power to leave the union legally, as is being currently debated in the secession thread. Conversely, governments have the power to compel the states to shut up and get in line. Otherwise, what would be the point of a centralized government?
__________________ "In mortal combat, a man may and will become so infuriated by the din and dangers of a bloody fight that his heart will turn to stone and his every de sire [be] for blood."
John Hadley, 7th Indiana after the battle at Port Republic
Seems to me that whether separation was or was not allowed was an understanding hidden in the words. Don't remember who wrote it, but it goes something like this: "Has ever any state made provision for its own dissolution?" Insisting on that provision so as to prove that one, not made, is proof that it exists, strikes me as a bit on the far side of reality.
Good point right there, and one of the big arguments against secession. No, I do agree, there is no place in the Constitution that says that secession is illegal, only that the federal government cannot make a state out of a part of another state without the existing states approval (which in effect makes W.Va. an illegal state, but that has been debated elsewhere.) But what state would make a provision for its dissolution. George Washington himself extolled the greatness of the Union and its utility and why it should not be dissolved in his Farewell Address. And the man who wrote our Constitution, James Madison, had nothing good to say about secessionists. Those are only a couple of examples. Secession at that point was a true gray area, but many did not see it as legal. Jackson was willing to go to war over it, and some of South Carolina's sister states were not willing to secede along with her at the time of the Nullification Crisis. But I would have to say that no provision is made for the dissolution, and I don't feel that the men who made this nation would have agreed with secession entirely. Some may have, but a vast majority, no.
__________________ "The unity of government which constitutes you one people is also now dear to you. It is justly so, for it is a main pillar in the edifice of your real independence, the support of your tranquility at home, your peace abroad; of your safety; of your prosperity; of that very liberty which you so highly prize." George Washington, Farewell Address, 1796
Wasn't all this based on international, intellectual history and a somewhat international understanding of what civilizied persons accepted as a given?
I'm not sure I agree with this too much. They may have taken examples of WHAT NOT to do from other civilizations and government, but An experiment such as this had never been tried before, and they didn't have much to go off of other than their own intellectualism and ingenuity.
__________________ "In mortal combat, a man may and will become so infuriated by the din and dangers of a bloody fight that his heart will turn to stone and his every de sire [be] for blood."
John Hadley, 7th Indiana after the battle at Port Republic
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Illegal? 
Linear Mode
