Did the Secessionists of 1860-61 use the Treaty of Paris to Justify their actions?

Joined
Jan 12, 2010
Messages
221
#61
The short answer to op is no. SC did not use the Treaty to justify secession, but rather to show what powers it possessed before delegating some of those powers to the "US." IMO, they "justified" it, by claiming northern States were violating the compact to the detriment of SC.

IMO, the wording of the treaty does denote individual sovereignty, but it doesn't matter for the question of secession legality. At some juncture, whether that was on the effective date of the DOI, after Yorktown, whenever, the States where as sovereign nations. The critical issue is whether the delegated powers can be reclaimed unilaterally.

It doesn't matter, as someone suggested, that SC did not send an individual delegate in Paris. George didn't sign the treaty either, but also authorized a delegate with power of attorney.
Note: George delegated a power, but did not lose his kingly sovereignty to the delegate.

There is a cute irony. The DOI was issued on the idea that George was malfeasant in his legal opinions. And here, both sides are trying to get George's opinion on their side.
 

(Membership has it privileges! To remove this ad: Register NOW!)
Joined
Jan 12, 2010
Messages
221
#63
What is quite clear is that had RI not ratified it, it would have been severed in all respects from the 12 other states. How could this be if RI was part of "one nation" in 1776 or 1783?

Given that, the only remaining question is, in what provision of the Constitution does a state expressly and permanently surrender its sovereignty? Because if it's not in there, then per the Tenth Amendment the state retained it.
You bring up a significant legal defect in the ratification process.

IMO, the strongest argument against secession is "perpetual union" as in Texas v White. However, since the Constitution ratification process violated the AOC, it is not so easy to assess what kind of critter this is. Is it still a perpetual union, lawlessly made "more perfect?" Or is it a new and non-perpetual union?

Another consideration is the method of ratification by unilateral state enactment. As the SC Ordinance indicates, they simply repealed their ratification statute, ending its compact with the other states. Kind of hard to find in the Constitution where it says they can't repeal their own statute, and three state ratification conventions passed resolutions at the time saying they could do exactly that.
 
Joined
Oct 26, 2012
Messages
9,687
#64
You bring up a significant legal defect in the ratification process.

IMO, the strongest argument against secession is "perpetual union" as in Texas v White. However, since the Constitution ratification process violated the AOC, it is not so easy to assess what kind of critter this is. Is it still a perpetual union, lawlessly made "more perfect?" Or is it a new and non-perpetual union?

Another consideration is the method of ratification by unilateral state enactment. As the SC Ordinance indicates, they simply repealed their ratification statute, ending its compact with the other states. Kind of hard to find in the Constitution where it says they can't repeal their own statute, and three state ratification conventions passed resolutions at the time saying they could do exactly that.
Where does it say in the Constitution there is a “perpetual Union”?
 

OpnCoronet

Lt. Colonel
Joined
Feb 23, 2010
Messages
10,100
#68
Ref. to the Treaty of Paris by secession apologists, seems to have been used only in passing on to other more important items of interest. concerning state sovereignties.

Secessionists seem to have set great store in the enumeration of the individual States when mentioned in the description of the Independence and sovereignty of the United States., as if they were more than descriptions of what, exactly, composed the United States of America and where, exactly, it was located.
 

jgoodguy

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Retired Moderator
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Messages
35,293
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
#69
Ref. to the Treaty of Paris by secession apologists, seems to have been used only in passing on to other more important items of interest. concerning state sovereignties.

Secessionists seem to have set great store in the enumeration of the individual States when mentioned in the description of the Independence and sovereignty of the United States., as if they were more than descriptions of what, exactly, composed the United States of America and where, exactly, it was located.
IMHO a good case can be made that the exact nature of the sovereignty expressed in the pre Constitution days is unknowable because it was never tested and was so unpleasant that whatever if it was got rejected in favor of limited sovereignty in a consolidated constitutional government. That makes for good sounding political rhetoric.
 

OpnCoronet

Lt. Colonel
Joined
Feb 23, 2010
Messages
10,100
#70
True, but, in ref. to the Treaty of Paris, the listing of the states of the union, the use of the adverb, (viz) has little or no reference to any authority or sovereignty of the states listed in that particular document?
 



(Membership has it privileges! To remove this ad: Register NOW!)
Top