Restricted Debate Is Texas v. White ironclad proof of secession's illegality?

Joined
Aug 27, 2016
Messages
129
Location
PENNSYLVANIA
Crimes against humanity is a legal concept from the 1940ties. By modern standards slavery is a crime against humanity.
But the concept did not exist in 1860 and slavery was completely legal.
(Just another example of how things like moral change. Another is the question of voting rights for women)

And if a state want out of the union they cango to congress and have them pass a bill saying you are out.
Since this is the procedure for adding new states, it make perfect sense to use the same for removing a state.

Unilateral secession the issue, not secession in it self.
Good point. In the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, the term "Natural Law" was used. So instead of saying "crimes against humanity," they might say "violating Natural Law" or "violating the laws of Nature," or something along those lines. It meant the same thing, but as you pointed out, laws of nature/crimes against humanity are subject to the morals of the period.

I don't agree that Congress is a fail-safe for secession. Some states might not want another to secede, and Congress, by a simple majority in a lame duck session, might expel a state that would otherwise be in the Union.

It was the original 13 states that ratified the Constitution, and the the new states, via their conventions, who applied for statehood. Thus it is up to the states to decide if they want to secede. This is supported by the IX and X Amendments, and Madison's and Hamilton's agreement in the Federalist Papers that states retain all rights of sovereignty except those "delegated" or "alienated" to the federal government. Secession, of course, is not a right delegated to the federal government. That's also a reason for not seceding via Congress: it would be unconstitutional, because it is not a power delegated via the Constitution.
 

Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!
Joined
Aug 27, 2016
Messages
129
Location
PENNSYLVANIA
The concept of a 'Right' to secession by Revolution is by a people is found in the DoI and not in the Organic Law of the Union of American States. In Historical terms, the evidence that a right of a people to overthrow their gov'ts as they saw fit, except as Revolution, was, I think, nonexistent at the time of the writing of the DoI, i.e., it was an unknown concept to the men who wrote and read the DoI, and, thus, cannot be any of the reserved powers of the X Amdnd. The silence of the Constitution is as much poof of its nonexistence as it does the opposite.

In point of fact, the Va. Resolutions advances the concept of 'interposition' of State authority between federal authority and its citizens, not secession. Your cited quote, says nothing about the remedy for growing Federal Consolidationism, by Secession, of any kind.

If you want to believe, Supreme Court decisions do not have the force of Law, that is your right(to disobey the law) but I would not recommennd your trying to take advantage of that belief, to the extent of disobeying any law as interpreted by the Supreme Court.

Even if there actually was a 'Right of Secession' in the reserved powers, how can it be empowered, without violating All the clearly expressed powers of the Constitution?

The Constitution is certainly not silent as to what are the powers of the Nation of all the peoples of all the states in their Union in ref. to when the interests of the Union of all the states in the Union conflict with the interests of any single, or group of states, i.e., in all events the Law must be obeyed., no matter the constitutions or laws of any state.
The federal government is not the government. The government(s) is the government of each state. The federal government (Union) is just a tool used to improve relations between the states. For example, take whatever state you are from. Your state government is your home government. The federal government just regulates commerce between states, makes treaties for all the states, declares war for all the states, and other things that are laid out in the Constitution. It's a small but important list of responsibilities that secure the greater well-being of each and every state.

So if an individual breaks a federal law, he is liable to punishment so long as his state is party to the Constitution. If you break a state law, you are liable, period. That is why people in Russia are not punished if they break U.S. law-because Russia is not in the union. Your state is its own country, but it is currently party to the Constitution, which means it must abide by certain regulations.

So secession is not revolution, unless someone is seceding from their state. But even this is legal if certain provisions are followed. Seceding from the Union is not revolution, but a parliamentary procedure that is left to the discretion of each state.

The Virginia Resolution implies that states have the right to secede. Can you please provide your source that says Madison said the Virginia Resolution had nothing to do with secession? But the reason I posted the Virginia Resolution in the first place, is because it argues that states, and not the Supreme Court, have the power to nullify federal acts. It's not a Southern thing either: Massachusetts supported this idea as well, and it was precedent in this country up to the Civil War.

The Supreme Court does not have any force of law, and there is no Constitutional source to back up this claim. I know, because I have read the Constitution and other relevant materials, and I have provided the sources for you. You can ignore them if you want, but I do not know why you would. You could also provide a source for your claim, but that would be impossible, because none exists. We are just spoon fed the idea that Judicial Review is "law of the land," because "big government nationalists" have always controlled our public education system, and they don't want you to know that states can nullify federal laws just as legally as the Supreme Court can. They especially don't want you to know that State Nullification was precedent in this country until the Civil War, when they (New England "big government nationalists") established our public education system, taught us that BIG GOVERNMENT is the law of the land (lie), and taught us to work on a work-day schedule that would prepare us for jobs in factories. This is the history of U.S. public education, which is relevant, because it shows how false views of U.S. law have been propagated (propaganda-New England Civil War propaganda).

Secession can be empowered, because the states choose to partake in the Constitutional government. The states are sovereign, which means they are free and independent countries, except for the rights they "delegate" or "alienate" to the federal government. They can then back out of the Constitution if they choose. The states created the Constitutiion, which means the federal government is subordinate to them. The federal government is the lowest rung on our political ladder, but "big government nationalists" want to bury this fact and brainwash you into believing that the fed. is some godlike being that generates all authority in this country. That "godlike being" is the people of each state-you and I, in our respective states, and everyone else, in their respective states. This is the true meaning of the founding of this country-not "the federal government has absolute command over everyone."
 
Joined
May 19, 2019
Messages
210
The federal government is not the government. The government(s) is the government of each state. The federal government (Union) is just a tool used to improve relations between the states. For example, take whatever state you are from. Your state government is your home government. The federal government just regulates commerce between states, makes treaties for all the states, declares war for all the states, and other things that are laid out in the Constitution. It's a small but important list of responsibilities that secure
It's a consolidation, governing the States and the people as a whole. There are no checks against the Federal government outside the Constitution but revolution. Within the Constitution there is Article V. Revolution was tried and it failed. Edited.
 

OpnCoronet

Lt. Colonel
Joined
Feb 23, 2010
Messages
10,355
Secession can be empowered, because the states choose to partake in the Constitutional government. The states are sovereign, which means they are free and independent countries, except for the rights they "delegate" or "alienate" to the federal government. They can then back out of the Constitution if they choose. The states created the Constitutiion, which means the federal government is subordinate to them. The federal government is the lowest rung on our political ladder, but "big government nationalists" want to bury this fact and brainwash you into believing that the fed. is some godlike being that generates all authority in this country. That "godlike being" is the people of each state-you and I, in our respective states, and everyone else, in their respective states. This is the true meaning of the founding of this country-not "the federal government has absolute command over everyone."




The theory that the Union can be broken up any time, on the whim of any state(or states) in the Union(except by consent or revolution), was under constant dispute, from almost the very beginnings of Constitutional gov'tbefore the Civil War and is nonexistent after it, or, at least until the Supreme Court reverses itself, or the Congress and/or all the people of all the states change ther minds.
 

OpnCoronet

Lt. Colonel
Joined
Feb 23, 2010
Messages
10,355
It's a consolidation, governing the States and the people as a whole. There are no checks against the Federal government outside the Constitution but revolution. Within the Constitution there is Article V. Revolution was tried and it failed. Edited.



Old News! That the Constitution was consolidationist, was one of the main arguments of the Anti=Federalists in their debates during the states Constitution Conventions. The people made their decision, rightor wrong, and have to live with the consequences of their actions, as do their children today.

There was no provision for backing out of the Uniion of the Constitution, than there was under the permanent Union of
the AoC.

Historiically, the framers of the Constitution did provide safeguards to protect minority rights., i.e., that was the main intent of the 'Checks and Balance' form of government. I learned that many years ago when schools still taught American History.

One may disagree that the Checks and Balance system is not effective or even that it is no good, but, one cannot claim the framers of the Constitution did not provide such protection as they believed was necessarry and Possible. I myself, believe its main goals were achieved, at least as good as any other system the fallible mind of man might conour up, as a replacement. They were, after all, trying to form a practical government, to withstand the very real vicissitudes of the real world of politics and, again, I think they did a very good job indeed.
 
Joined
Aug 27, 2016
Messages
129
Location
PENNSYLVANIA
It's a consolidation, governing the States and the people as a whole. There are no checks against the Federal government outside the Constitution but revolution. Within the Constitution there is Article V. Revolution was tried and it failed. Edited.
The trend since the Civil War has been to treat the states and all the people as one unitary state, i.e. ignoring state sovereignty. There is no Constitutional provision for this-in fact, it is against the Constitution-but the federal government uses other means such as cutting off funding for states that don't adopt federal policy, while public education teaches us that Judicial Review is the law of the land, and it leaves out any mention of the states being sovereign powers in a federated government. So yes, you are correct, the cultural trend has been towards consolidation. But legally-Constitutionally-the states are sovereign powers, and it would be just as legal for them to enforce their rights as it would be for the federal government to enforce its rights. The difference is that culturally, the fed., education, and media all press the "big government nationalist" agenda down our throats.

There is a check on the federal government: the states. In Federalist No. 43, Madison argued how it was possible to nullify the Articles of Confederation without the consent of all the states:

"A compact between independent sovereigns, founded on ordinary acts of legislative authority, can pretend to no higher validity than a league or treaty between the parties. It is an established doctrine on the subject of treaties, that all the articles are mutually conditions of each other; that a breach of any one article is a breach of the whole treaty; and that a breach, committed by either of the parties, absolves the others, and authorizes them, if they please, to pronounce the compact violated and void. Should it unhappily be necessary to appeal to these delicate truths for a justification for dispensing with the consent of particular States to a dissolution of the federal pact, will not the complaining parties find it a difficult task to answer the multiplied and important infractions with which they may be confronted? The time has been when it was incumbent on us all to veil the ideas which this paragraph exhibits. The scene is now changed, and with it the part which the same motives dictate."

In other words, several states had broken the Articles of Confederation, which rendered the pact null and void, even though the Articles of Confederation declared the Union was "perpetual." Madison repeated this logic in the Virginia Resolution, and applied it to the Constitution:

"That this assembly most solemnly declares a warm attachment to the Union of the States, to maintain which it pledges all its powers; and that for this end, it is their duty to watch over and oppose every infraction of those principles which constitute the only basis of that Union, because a faithful observance of them, can alone secure it's existence and the public happiness."

"That the General Assembly doth also express its deep regret, that a spirit has in sundry instances, been manifested by the federal government, to enlarge its powers by forced constructions of the constitutional charter which defines them; and that implications have appeared of a design to expound certain general phrases (which having been copied from the very limited grant of power, in the former articles of confederation were the less liable to be misconstrued) so as to destroy the meaning and effect, of the particular enumeration which necessarily explains and limits the general phrases; and so as to consolidate the states by degrees, into one sovereignty, the obvious tendency and inevitable consequence of which would be, to transform the present republican system of the United States, into an absolute, or at best a mixed monarchy"

"That the good people of this commonwealth, having ever felt, and continuing to feel, the most sincere affection for their brethren of the other states; the truest anxiety for establishing and perpetuating the union of all; and the most scrupulous fidelity to that constitution, which is the pledge of mutual friendship, and the instrument of mutual happiness; the General Assembly doth solemnly appeal to the like dispositions of the other states, in confidence that they will concur with this commonwealth in declaring, as it does hereby declare, that the acts aforesaid, are unconstitutional; and that the necessary and proper measures will be taken by each, for co-operating with this state, in maintaining the Authorities, Rights, and Liberties, referred to the States respectively, or to the people."

-James Madison, Virginia Resolution of 1798

That is, the states have the power to nullify federal acts that they believe are unconstitutional. This is the State Nullification Theory, which was precedent up to the Civil War. Andrew Jackson made a big deal about it during what should be called "The Executive Crisis," but which post-Civil War/public education historians have taken to calling "The Nullification Crisis."
 
Joined
Aug 27, 2016
Messages
129
Location
PENNSYLVANIA
The theory that the Union can be broken up any time, on the whim of any state(or states) in the Union(except by consent or revolution), was under constant dispute, from almost the very beginnings of Constitutional gov'tbefore the Civil War and is nonexistent after it, or, at least until the Supreme Court reverses itself, or the Congress and/or all the people of all the states change ther minds.
The right of secession was never in dispute before the Civil War. The merits of secession were. For example, when the New England states considered seceeding in the War of 1812, no one opposed the right, not even the living Founders. What critics opposed was the merit, i.e. considering New England selfish for putting its own interests before those of the greater Union.

The right still exists, even according to the Supreme Court, which, as sources show, does not have the force of law. The Supreme Court, for what its worth, says secession is legal if the states consent. That is its opinion. The Constitution says, implicitly, that the question of secession is left to the states or to the people:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

-X Amendment

Even Madison debunked the myth that the Articles of Confederation were perpetual. Keep in mind that the states did not dissolve the Articles of Confederation by "consent." They dissolved the AoC because certain parties breached the compact. In Federalist No. 43, Madison argued how it was possible to nullify the Articles of Confederation without the consent of all the states:

"A compact between independent sovereigns, founded on ordinary acts of legislative authority, can pretend to no higher validity than a league or treaty between the parties. It is an established doctrine on the subject of treaties, that all the articles are mutually conditions of each other; that a breach of any one article is a breach of the whole treaty; and that a breach, committed by either of the parties, absolves the others, and authorizes them, if they please, to pronounce the compact violated and void. Should it unhappily be necessary to appeal to these delicate truths for a justification for dispensing with the consent of particular States to a dissolution of the federal pact, will not the complaining parties find it a difficult task to answer the multiplied and important infractions with which they may be confronted? The time has been when it was incumbent on us all to veil the ideas which this paragraph exhibits. The scene is now changed, and with it the part which the same motives dictate."

In other words, several states had broken the Articles of Confederation, which rendered the pact null and void, even though the Articles of Confederation declared the Union was "perpetual."
 

unionblue

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Member of the Year
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Messages
29,377
Location
Ocala, FL (as of December, 2015).
The trend since the Civil War has been to treat the states and all the people as one unitary state, i.e. ignoring state sovereignty. There is no Constitutional provision for this-in fact, it is against the Constitution-but the federal government uses other means such as cutting off funding for states that don't adopt federal policy, while public education teaches us that Judicial Review is the law of the land, and it leaves out any mention of the states being sovereign powers in a federated government. So yes, you are correct, the cultural trend has been towards consolidation. But legally-Constitutionally-the states are sovereign powers, and it would be just as legal for them to enforce their rights as it would be for the federal government to enforce its rights. The difference is that culturally, the fed., education, and media all press the "big government nationalist" agenda down our throats.

There is a check on the federal government: the states. In Federalist No. 43, Madison argued how it was possible to nullify the Articles of Confederation without the consent of all the states:

"A compact between independent sovereigns, founded on ordinary acts of legislative authority, can pretend to no higher validity than a league or treaty between the parties. It is an established doctrine on the subject of treaties, that all the articles are mutually conditions of each other; that a breach of any one article is a breach of the whole treaty; and that a breach, committed by either of the parties, absolves the others, and authorizes them, if they please, to pronounce the compact violated and void. Should it unhappily be necessary to appeal to these delicate truths for a justification for dispensing with the consent of particular States to a dissolution of the federal pact, will not the complaining parties find it a difficult task to answer the multiplied and important infractions with which they may be confronted? The time has been when it was incumbent on us all to veil the ideas which this paragraph exhibits. The scene is now changed, and with it the part which the same motives dictate."

In other words, several states had broken the Articles of Confederation, which rendered the pact null and void, even though the Articles of Confederation declared the Union was "perpetual." Madison repeated this logic in the Virginia Resolution, and applied it to the Constitution:

"That this assembly most solemnly declares a warm attachment to the Union of the States, to maintain which it pledges all its powers; and that for this end, it is their duty to watch over and oppose every infraction of those principles which constitute the only basis of that Union, because a faithful observance of them, can alone secure it's existence and the public happiness."

"That the General Assembly doth also express its deep regret, that a spirit has in sundry instances, been manifested by the federal government, to enlarge its powers by forced constructions of the constitutional charter which defines them; and that implications have appeared of a design to expound certain general phrases (which having been copied from the very limited grant of power, in the former articles of confederation were the less liable to be misconstrued) so as to destroy the meaning and effect, of the particular enumeration which necessarily explains and limits the general phrases; and so as to consolidate the states by degrees, into one sovereignty, the obvious tendency and inevitable consequence of which would be, to transform the present republican system of the United States, into an absolute, or at best a mixed monarchy"

"That the good people of this commonwealth, having ever felt, and continuing to feel, the most sincere affection for their brethren of the other states; the truest anxiety for establishing and perpetuating the union of all; and the most scrupulous fidelity to that constitution, which is the pledge of mutual friendship, and the instrument of mutual happiness; the General Assembly doth solemnly appeal to the like dispositions of the other states, in confidence that they will concur with this commonwealth in declaring, as it does hereby declare, that the acts aforesaid, are unconstitutional; and that the necessary and proper measures will be taken by each, for co-operating with this state, in maintaining the Authorities, Rights, and Liberties, referred to the States respectively, or to the people."

-James Madison, Virginia Resolution of 1798

That is, the states have the power to nullify federal acts that they believe are unconstitutional. This is the State Nullification Theory, which was precedent up to the Civil War. Andrew Jackson made a big deal about it during what should be called "The Executive Crisis," but which post-Civil War/public education historians have taken to calling "The Nullification Crisis."
The right of secession was never in dispute before the Civil War. The merits of secession were. For example, when the New England states considered seceeding in the War of 1812, no one opposed the right, not even the living Founders. What critics opposed was the merit, i.e. considering New England selfish for putting its own interests before those of the greater Union.

The right still exists, even according to the Supreme Court, which, as sources show, does not have the force of law. The Supreme Court, for what its worth, says secession is legal if the states consent. That is its opinion. The Constitution says, implicitly, that the question of secession is left to the states or to the people:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

-X Amendment

Even Madison debunked the myth that the Articles of Confederation were perpetual. Keep in mind that the states did not dissolve the Articles of Confederation by "consent." They dissolved the AoC because certain parties breached the compact. In Federalist No. 43, Madison argued how it was possible to nullify the Articles of Confederation without the consent of all the states:

"A compact between independent sovereigns, founded on ordinary acts of legislative authority, can pretend to no higher validity than a league or treaty between the parties. It is an established doctrine on the subject of treaties, that all the articles are mutually conditions of each other; that a breach of any one article is a breach of the whole treaty; and that a breach, committed by either of the parties, absolves the others, and authorizes them, if they please, to pronounce the compact violated and void. Should it unhappily be necessary to appeal to these delicate truths for a justification for dispensing with the consent of particular States to a dissolution of the federal pact, will not the complaining parties find it a difficult task to answer the multiplied and important infractions with which they may be confronted? The time has been when it was incumbent on us all to veil the ideas which this paragraph exhibits. The scene is now changed, and with it the part which the same motives dictate."

In other words, several states had broken the Articles of Confederation, which rendered the pact null and void, even though the Articles of Confederation declared the Union was "perpetual."
Which is what to the issue of unilateral secession being decided on the battlefield?
 
Joined
Aug 27, 2016
Messages
129
Location
PENNSYLVANIA
The theory that the Union can be broken up any time, on the whim of any state(or states) in the Union(except by consent or revolution), was under constant dispute, from almost the very beginnings of Constitutional gov'tbefore the Civil War and is nonexistent after it, or, at least until the Supreme Court reverses itself, or the Congress and/or all the people of all the states change ther minds.
Here are some excerpts from Federalist No. 78, where Hamilton lays out the purpose of the federal courts, including the Supreme Court (parentheses are my additions):

"the judiciary, from the nature of its functions, will always be the least dangerous to the political rights of the Constitution; because it will be least in a capacity to annoy or injure them. The Executive not only dispenses the honors, but holds the sword of the community. The legislature not only commands the purse, but prescribes the rules by which the duties and rights of every citizen are to be regulated. The judiciary, on the contrary, has no influence over either the sword or the purse; no direction either of the strength or of the wealth of the society; and can take no active resolution whatever. It may truly be said to have neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment; and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm even for the efficacy of its judgments.

"that the judiciary is beyond comparison the weakest of the three departments of power; that it can never attack with success either of the other two

"the general liberty of the people can never be endangered from that quarter (judiciary); I mean so long as the judiciary remains truly distinct from both the legislature and the Executive. For I agree, that 'there is no liberty, if the power of judging be not separated from the legislative and executive powers.'

"whose duty it must be to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void (declare void; not FORCE or WILL)"

The Supreme Court has the ability to opine which federal legislation is unconstitutional. Presumably it has the power to opine which state laws are unconstitutional, if those laws contradict the Constitution, for example, if the state of South Carolina declared war on a country. It may, perhaps, opine on issues like secession, but there is nothing in the Constitution for secession to contradict, and the courts opinion has no force. It is just an opinion. Hamilton believed the executive branch could enforce Supreme Court opinions-if it choosed to do so-but Congress may do this as well in unnofficial ways, e.g. cutting funds to states that oppose Supreme Court opinions.

This is the foundation of Judicial Review Theory in this country, which holds that the Supreme Court decides which laws are valid or not. That is fine and dandy, up to a point. The Supreme Court can offer it's opinion, but it has no force of law. Now let's say Congress and the president pass a law that prohibits certain newspaper publications, and federal agents go into the states to arrest newspaper editors and writers. This is clearly against the First Amendment, but it's what happened with the Alien and Sedition Acts. Now let's say the Supreme Court-part of the Constitutional federal government-opines that these laws are valid. What happens? Do you just go to jail for publicly criticzing the government? The fed. has turned tyrant-what do you do? This is where the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions come in:

"that the government (federal government) created by this compact (the Constitution) was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself; since that would have made its discretion, and not the Constitution, the measure of its powers; but that, as in all other cases of compact among powers (states) having no common judge, each party (state) has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions as of the mode and measure of redress."

-Thomas Jefferson, Kentucky Resolution of 1798

Madison agreed in the Virginia Resolution of 1798, which has already been quoted, and this became State Nullification Theory, which was precedent in this country up to the Civil War, and may still be invoked today. Thank God it exists, in case a modern president tried to enforce unconstitional laws like the Alien and Sedition Acts.

So the Constitution says nothing explicit about secession. Implicitly, however, the right of secession is reserved by the X Amendment, and this is backed up by Hamilton and Madison both saying that states retain all rights of sovereignty not delegated to the federal government. That means states can do whatever they want short of crimes against humanity, which are subjet to the morals of the period. Most Americans in 1861 agreed with slavery or at most wanted gradual emancipation. Only a very few were abolitionists.

I know you will disagree, so I have to ask: where do you get the idea that secession is unconstitutional? Where in the Constitution, Federalist Papers, or later writings by the Founders do you get the impression that Congress or some other federal-Constitutional body has the authority to regulate secession? Texas v. White can say "unilateral secession is illegal," and Congress and the executive branch can try to enforce this opinion, but ultimately it is up to the states to decide.
 
Joined
Nov 19, 2013
Messages
3,643
Location
Denmark
For example, when the New England states considered seceeding in the War of 1812, no one opposed the right, not even the living Founders.
Except that they did not consider secession.
Some people and politicians did debate it in public and a few firebrands apparently did want it, but none of the states had any serious official debate about it.
 
Joined
Feb 23, 2010
Messages
10,355
I know you will disagree, so I have to ask: where do you get the idea that secession is unconstitutional? Where in the Constitution, Federalist Papers, or later writings by the Founders do you get the impression that Congress or some other federal-Constitutional body has the authority to regulate secession? Texas v. White can say "unilateral secession is illegal," and Congress and the executive branch can try to enforce this opinion, but ultimately it is up to the states to decide.[/QUOTE]



My use of the word secession is in the form and understanding of those of the ante-bellum South, which construed the word to mean Unilateral secession, as most on this board. Obviously secession by consent of the Union is, of course, Constitutional.

under the American theory of government, the united States is governed by the authority and consentof all the peoples who choose to be governed by it. All political authority and power to govern reside in the people who chose theiir government(in this case the Union). All states govts(Legislatures) derive all their power and authority to govern from the peoples of that state; similarly the Union's power and authority to govern the Federal gov't of the Union of States is drived from all the peoples of all the States.

All States have an equal interest in the Union of which they are an integral part of its gov't. No single state, or group of states, have the power or auuthority to override the interests of any other state, or group of states, without out their consent.



P.S. The Va. and Ky. Resolutions were sent to all the states of the Union, for their comment. Only three or Four deigned to answer, but, their replies, I think will be of interest to you I believe. With a little effort I think you will be able to find them, I did, and, no one ever accused me of being Computer Literate.
 
Joined
Aug 27, 2016
Messages
129
Location
PENNSYLVANIA
Except that they did not consider secession.
Some people and politicians did debate it in public and a few firebrands apparently did want it, but none of the states had any serious official debate about it.
Some New Englanders discussed secession during the War of 1812, just like some colonists discussed independence before the Revolution. Massachusetts also issued a resolution that nullified federal law, which has been quoted already. The right to conduct these acts was not criticzed, but the merits were. It was not until Andrew Jackson, "King Andrew," was president, that the executive challeneged State Nullification Theory. And it was not until the Civil War that some states made war on other states-treason-for seceding.
 
Joined
Aug 27, 2016
Messages
129
Location
PENNSYLVANIA
I know you will disagree, so I have to ask: where do you get the idea that secession is unconstitutional? Where in the Constitution, Federalist Papers, or later writings by the Founders do you get the impression that Congress or some other federal-Constitutional body has the authority to regulate secession? Texas v. White can say "unilateral secession is illegal," and Congress and the executive branch can try to enforce this opinion, but ultimately it is up to the states to decide.


My use of the word secession is in the form and understanding of those of the ante-bellum South, which construed the word to mean Unilateral secession, as most on this board. Obviously secession by consent of the Union is, of course, Constitutional.

under the American theory of government, the united States is governed by the authority and consentof all the peoples who choose to be governed by it. All political authority and power to govern reside in the people who chose theiir government(in this case the Union). All states govts(Legislatures) derive all their power and authority to govern from the peoples of that state; similarly the Union's power and authority to govern the Federal gov't of the Union of States is drived from all the peoples of all the States.

All States have an equal interest in the Union of which they are an integral part of its gov't. No single state, or group of states, have the power or auuthority to override the interests of any other state, or group of states, without out their consent.



P.S. The Va. and Ky. Resolutions were sent to all the states of the Union, for their comment. Only three or Four deigned to answer, but, their replies, I think will be of interest to you I believe. With a little effort I think you will be able to find them, I did, and, no one ever accused me of being Computer Literate.[/QUOTE]

---- Response Below----


Bold: Exactly, so state have the right to secede, unilaterally or otherwise.

States can not override the interests of other states in areas designated by the Constitution. For example, Pennsylvania can not implement different laws for New Jersians who visit the state and New Yorkers who visit the state. This is explicit in the Privelages and Immunities Clause. However, secession is not one of these clauses.

States reserve all rights of sovereignty not delegated to the federal government. That means they can do whatever they want short of crimes against humanity. Madison, Hamilton (THE Federalist), and the Constitution all agree here. Therefore the right to secede is left to the states, since this right is not delegated to the federal government. Secession is legally no different than states establishing a public school system.

So where is your source that says the right of secession is delegated to the federal government? What source surmounts the Constitution, the Federalist Papers, and the general acceptance of New England's right to secede during the War of 1812? Republicans in 1860 opposed secession because they needed Southern tax dollars, and without a tariff that forced Southernors to buy Northern goods, the Northern economy would collapse. What arguments did Northerners make in the Civil War? None relating to the Constitution, as far as I've read. In Texas v. White, Chase relied on the Articles of Confederation, which was null and void, even though it said the Union was "perpetual." Madison explained how the AoC could be nullified, and states be freed to leave the Union, as has been quoted. The Union under the AoC was in fact dissolved before the Constitution was ratified. So states were free and independent sovereigns before enterting the Constitution, which does not say the Union is perpetual. In fact, the people of all the states reserve all sovereign rights not delegated to the federal government.

Why do you say states "deigned" to answer the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions? They were published in response to the Federalist Alien and Sedition Acts. Massachusetts, a Federalist stronghold, adopted State Nullification Theory in the War of 1812, when it declared federal law unconstitutional and refused to enforce the embargo. You can post the states' responses if you want. No comment is necessary, but their inclusion in the debate would help everyone get to the truth of the matter.
 
Joined
Aug 27, 2016
Messages
129
Location
PENNSYLVANIA
You claimed: "when the New England states considered seceeding"
Now you change your claim to "some New Englanders" discussed it.

So what is it, did some states debate it officially? or Not?
It was mixed: the states of Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Rhode Island officially sent delegates. New Hampshire's legislature was not in session, but two counties sent delegates. Vermont was the only state to officially refuse to send delegates, but one county sent some.

Massachusetts also issued a resolution that nullified federal law, which has been quoted already. The right to conduct these acts was not criticzed, but the merits were. It was not until Andrew Jackson, "King Andrew," was president, that the executive challeneged State Nullification Theory. And it was not until the Civil War that some states made war on other states-which is treason-for seceding.
 
Joined
Feb 23, 2010
Messages
10,355
Bold: Exactly, so state have the right to secede, unilaterally or otherwise.

So where is your source that says the right of secession is delegated to the federal government? What source surmounts the Constitution, the Federalist Papers, and the general acceptance of New England's right to secede during the War of 1812?

Why do you say states "deigned" to answer the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions? They were published in response to the Federalist Alien and Sedition Acts.



Bold: No. repeating my words proving fallacy of your clamis as proof of the opposite, does not fly in either Logic or Reason.

I said nothing about the right of secession being delegated to the Federal Gov't. I have questioned the existence of such a right ever existing in the history of Men and their gov'ts(except by Revolution or agreement) But mainly I have questioned the assumption that even, If, such a right did exist, its implementation could ignore and override the rights and interests of not only the Federal Gov't, but, also, those of all the peoples of all the other states of the Union.

Historically, there were claims that there was such a thing as secession, by various interest groups, that varied in strength and intellect. But, there was little agreement by those groups as to authority or implementation. New England, although suffering much greater economic hardships as the direct result of Federal Policy, than the South ever did, they did not, unlike the South in 1860 - '61, rush foolishly where even Angels feared to tread. The more intelligent New Englanders, knew they were treading the dangerous groundes of Treason, and acted accordingly, keeping their counsels secret, etc and, again unlike the South, cooler heads and wiser counsels, prevailed.

The States who formally answered directly the request for replies by the Va. and Ky. Resolutions, said they saw the threat of disunion, in those documents and promised their resistance to such desins, by any means necessary. So the theory of secession, as it applied to disunion, was not universally accepted or approved of even in the 18th Century America, under its Constitution.
 

unionblue

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Member of the Year
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Messages
29,377
Location
Ocala, FL (as of December, 2015).
@American87 ,

Please, in simpler terms than post #270, as it made little sense to me in a flood of words. Break it down for me what you think you meant in that post.

What does the post you refer to have what to do with unilateral secession being settled on the battlefield?

Please.

Unionblue
 



Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!
Top