MattL
Guest
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2015
- Location
- SF Bay Area
So maybe the answer is obvious, but I wanted to dive down the rabbit hole of a valid argument for secession as a thought exercise. My first speed bump is the Constitution here:
U. S. Constitution Article 1 section 10
The argument I had always hear is that the States after secession were in fact the same States that entered the Union. They simply exited the "Union". Part of their relevance and argument for not being assigned a rebellion or an usurping invalid government seems to hinge on this? Unless I'm mistaking something.
Obviously it's quite clear not state may enter into a Confederation (obviously the Confederacy qualifies). These leads me to some questions, I'm sure the answers are out there, maybe I'm missing something.
If the State who seceded is still a State then how can that State then join a Confederation (without breaking said agreement).. The claim was they were leaving the entire agreement they made in the Constitution when leaving the Union? I could be missing something but that doesn't seem to match up, wouldn't they still be bound by said agreements. The argument is they can secede since it's not specified they can't, hence not illegal... Though it *is* specified they cannot join a Confederation.
So this delves into a realm where maybe there's no clear answer but I'd love to know if there is one, or hear thoughts. Was the idea that seceding removed them from every agreement made in the Constitution? If so then why? What does secession really mean, what did it mean to them I guess is my question.
Is there an argument that they legally could secede though they were still bound be specific clauses in the Constitution they agreed to, such as not joining a Confederation. Hence secession would be legal but joining the Confederacy wasn't? The Constitution says:
"No State shall enter"
It doesn't specifically say that it has to be a State in the Union... it simply says "State"... So after they supposedly seceded were they still technically the same State just no longer in the Union? If so were they still bound by this agreement. If not then were they still the same State at all? In which case does that support a stronger argument to identify them as a Rebellion and invalid government of the "State".
Just thoughts, curious on any answers or additional thoughts
U. S. Constitution Article 1 section 10
The argument I had always hear is that the States after secession were in fact the same States that entered the Union. They simply exited the "Union". Part of their relevance and argument for not being assigned a rebellion or an usurping invalid government seems to hinge on this? Unless I'm mistaking something.
Obviously it's quite clear not state may enter into a Confederation (obviously the Confederacy qualifies). These leads me to some questions, I'm sure the answers are out there, maybe I'm missing something.
If the State who seceded is still a State then how can that State then join a Confederation (without breaking said agreement).. The claim was they were leaving the entire agreement they made in the Constitution when leaving the Union? I could be missing something but that doesn't seem to match up, wouldn't they still be bound by said agreements. The argument is they can secede since it's not specified they can't, hence not illegal... Though it *is* specified they cannot join a Confederation.
So this delves into a realm where maybe there's no clear answer but I'd love to know if there is one, or hear thoughts. Was the idea that seceding removed them from every agreement made in the Constitution? If so then why? What does secession really mean, what did it mean to them I guess is my question.
Is there an argument that they legally could secede though they were still bound be specific clauses in the Constitution they agreed to, such as not joining a Confederation. Hence secession would be legal but joining the Confederacy wasn't? The Constitution says:
"No State shall enter"
It doesn't specifically say that it has to be a State in the Union... it simply says "State"... So after they supposedly seceded were they still technically the same State just no longer in the Union? If so were they still bound by this agreement. If not then were they still the same State at all? In which case does that support a stronger argument to identify them as a Rebellion and invalid government of the "State".
Just thoughts, curious on any answers or additional thoughts
Bringing the