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

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

BigTex

Corporal
Joined
May 19, 2019
Messages
259
Thanks for your response and, finally, agreement.
Country is proper but not for the reason you assert. Let's look at the definition of the word;
A country is a region that is identified as a distinct entity in political geography.

What defines a country?
Tract of land inhabited by people of one or several nations. Whereas the term 'country' emphasizes the physical dimensions and boundaries of a geographical area, 'nation' emphasizes a particular community of people with shared history and culture, and 'state' a self-governing legal and political entity.
From Wikipedia

The geographical area of the 13 Free and Independent States, united in a Confederation was what was meant by the use of the word 'country', the plural -'countries' in the treaty refers to both of the parties to the treaty.
In reference to the 'United States' it recognized the distinct entity that was the Confederation.
In reference to 'Great Britain' it recognized the distinct entity that is the Kingdom.
It does not mean that 'country' means 'nation'. Each and every State in the Confederation is a seperate nation, by definition.
Yes, words do have meaning. Problem is, meanings are construed to give credence to one's point of view, incorrect as they are.
 

WJC

Major General
Moderator
Thread Medic
Answered the Call for Reinforcements
Joined
Aug 16, 2015
Messages
12,745
Country is proper but not for the reason you assert. Let's look at the definition of the word;
A country is a region that is identified as a distinct entity in political geography.

What defines a country?
Tract of land inhabited by people of one or several nations. Whereas the term 'country' emphasizes the physical dimensions and boundaries of a geographical area, 'nation' emphasizes a particular community of people with shared history and culture, and 'state' a self-governing legal and political entity.
From Wikipedia

The geographical area of the 13 Free and Independent States, united in a Confederation was what was meant by the use of the word 'country', the plural -'countries' in the treaty refers to both of the parties to the treaty.
In reference to the 'United States' it recognized the distinct entity that was the Confederation.
In reference to 'Great Britain' it recognized the distinct entity that is the Kingdom.
It does not mean that 'country' means 'nation'. Each and every State in the Confederation is a seperate nation, by definition.
Yes, words do have meaning. Problem is, meanings are construed to give credence to one's point of view, incorrect as they are.
Thanks for your response.
Thankfully, the Founders did not have to rely on Wikipedia to define their language.
 

WJC

Major General
Moderator
Thread Medic
Answered the Call for Reinforcements
Joined
Aug 16, 2015
Messages
12,745
I'm also not even sure if you disagree with me on my primary point, that the states were individually sovereign until 1788-1790.
Thanks for your response.
Rest easy: although the States had ceded some of their powers to the national government under the Articles of Confederation, they retained almost full sovereignty. For example, although they could not individually make war on another nation, they had no problem making war on their fellow Confederation members.
Our Constitution tidied up those loose ends.
 
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

BigTex

Corporal
Joined
May 19, 2019
Messages
259
There's a reason why I often specify "fundamental law" when referring to the Constitution as a constitution. The AoCs can only be called a constitution in the most general sense, as a simple plan of government. The Constitution is much, much more than just a plan of government, it is a fundamental law, and refers to itself as such. The AoCs were only a treaty of confederation.

Here here!

"...a Union of the States merely federal will not accomplish the objects proposed by the articles of Confederation. . . . no treaty or treaties among the whole or part of the States, as individual Sovereignties, would be sufficient. . . . a national Government ought to be established consisting of a supreme Legislative, Executive & Judiciary. . . . Mr. Govr. MORRIS explained the distinction between a federal and national, supreme, Govt.; the former being a mere compact resting on the good faith of the parties; the latter having a compleat and compulsive operation. He contended that in all Communities there must be one supreme power, and one only."

Sorry BigTex, but upon hearing "Mr. Govr. MORRIS['s]" explanation, the Convention adopted his proposal for a "national, supreme, Govt.," because the only way a political society can really work is if there is "one supreme power, and one only." National governments, unlike governments that are “merely” federal (those of confederations), are established via fundamental laws (the Constitution works the same for the more perfect Union as the state constitutions did for the states). As the document itself proclaims, it is a fundamental law ("the supreme Law of the Land") established by people ("We the People of the United States of America”), not a treaty between sovereign states ("Articles of Confederation and perpetual Union between the states of …").

As proposed and explained by Morris, and adopted by the Convention, they were NOT going to create another confederation (“a Union of the States merely federal” founded upon a “treaty . . . among the . . . States, as individual Sovereignties”). The Convention would reiterate this in their letter: “It is obviously impracticable in the federal government of these states, to secure all rights of independent sovereignty to each, and yet provide for the interest and safety of all: Individuals entering into society, must give up a share of liberty to preserve the rest.” You would apparently like us to believe they delivered a plan that was exactly what they said was “impracticable” in the very letter they sent with that plan.

the Union consolidated.

By placing the sovereignty associated with all of its delegated powers, old and new, in the hands of the people of the US, rather the hands of the people of the respective states. The Constitution works for the Union the same way the state constitutions did for the states: the people who enact it thereby become sovereign over it. They alone control it, and the Union and Fed it in turn establishes.

I have no idea what you mean by corporations, but it clearly changed it from a union of fully sovereign states into a semi-sovereign Union of semi-sovereign states, which together compose one sovereign nation, a federation, a union of states in which sovereignty is split between the union (the collective states) and the respective states.

The very fact that the Constitution is a fundamental law does exactly that. And the Supremacy Clause confirms that the states are no longer fully sovereign:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

And the Framers indicated that the states had to give up a portion of their independent (full) sovereignty in order to form the more perfect Union:

It is obviously impracticable in the federal government of these states, to secure all rights of independent sovereignty to each, and yet provide for the interest and safety of all: Individuals entering into society, must give up a share of liberty to preserve the rest.

Madison also described the reduced, residual sovereignty of the states under the new system:

The idea of a national government involves in it, not only an authority over the individual citizens, but an indefinite supremacy over all persons and things, so far as they are objects of lawful government. Among a people consolidated into one nation, this supremacy is completely vested in the national legislature. Among communities united for particular purposes, it is vested partly in the general and partly in the municipal legislatures. In the former case, all local authorities are subordinate to the supreme; and may be controlled, directed, or abolished by it at pleasure. In the latter, the local or municipal authorities form distinct and independent portions of the supremacy, no more subject, within their respective spheres, to the general authority, than the general authority is subject to them, within its own sphere. In this relation, then, the proposed government cannot be deemed a NATIONAL one; since its jurisdiction extends to certain enumerated objects only, and leaves to the several States a residuary and inviolable sovereignty over all other objects.

The statement “the local or municipal authorities . . . [are] no more subject, within their respective spheres, to the general authority, than the general authority is subject to them, within its own sphere” is a reciprocal statement. It means neither authority can cancel the other out, which means the states cannot unilaterally secede from the more perfect Union.

As Madison explained throughout the Federalist No. 39, the new system is BOTH national AND federal, not one or the other. As such, it is no surprise that they continued to use both terms to describe the new system, which was something entirely new, a mixture of the then only two types of sovereign systems, federal (confederation) and national (unitary state), what we now call a federation.

There are a number of opinions, but the principal question is whether it be a federal or a consolidated government.... I conceive myself that it is of a mixed nature; it is in a manner unprecedented; we cannot find one express example in the experience of the world. It stands by itself. In some respects it is a government of a federal nature; in others, it is of a consolidated nature. Even if we attend to the manner in which the Constitution is investigated, ratified, and made the act of the people of America, I can say, notwithstanding what the honorable gentleman has alleged, that this government is not completely consolidated, nor is it entirely federal.” – Madison replying to Henry in the VA ratifying convention

Also not, the Constitution is "made the act of the people of America." Not the respective states.

Too true. We agree, at least, on that. :D

I would certainly hope not. No nation is today what it was 230 years ago. The Union has gove from 13 states to 50 states. Our population has grown from 4 million to 327 million. Our nominal GDP has gone from $189,000,000 to $19,000,000,000,000. You expect the Fed to be as small and simple as it was in 1789? What a disaster that would be. I think they call those failed states.

BUT, the Union today is no more than the fulfillment of the potential provided by the original Constitution.

You can try to ignore the evidence all you want, and I’ll just keep posting it. You have Taylor, I have the Framers. The Constitution consolidated the Union in 1788:

In all our deliberations on this subject we kept steadily in our view, that which appears to us the greatest interest of every true American, the consolidation of our Union...”
Slice and dice doesn't change the truth of my statements. The Honorable Mr. John Taylor was correct and furthermore, everything he wrote as being a negative result of the "consolidating school " has occurred and continues to this day.
 

WJC

Major General
Moderator
Thread Medic
Answered the Call for Reinforcements
Joined
Aug 16, 2015
Messages
12,745
It was a negotiated document. But I don't know why you think the Americans would sit idely by and allow the Brits to chose how to refer to them.
Thanks for your response.
We are in full agreement that the final document was the product of negotiations.
I did not suggest that John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, and John Jay sat idly by and let David Hartley decide what language to use in referring to their new nation. The four came to a 'meeting of the minds' that produced the final document. Hartley made sure the document met the requirements of the Crown; Adams, Franklin, and Jay made sure the interests of the nation they represented were met.
What I did say repeatedly is that a basic requirement of the treaty was for the Crown to relinquish all claims on its former colonies who had now become part of the United States. So it was necessary to list each of those former colonies in order to clearly end their relationship with the Crown.
Beyond that, details defining the relationship of the States to the central government was of no interest to the Crown.
 
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

CW Buff

First Sergeant
Joined
Dec 22, 2014
Messages
1,555
Location
Connecticut
So it was necessary to list each of those former colonies in order to clearly end their relationship with the Crown.
And this is still an assumption, correct?

Since I have shown such is exactly how the Uniteed States referred to their confederation, since each state was separately sovereign, and since treaties are between sovereigns, it would be necessary (my assumption) to list out the sovereign parties rather just their alliance/confederation name. In other word, what sovereign states, specifically, constitute "the United States," and are therefor the sovereigns of the one part, treating with the sovereign(s) of the other part.

"The Most Christian King, and the United States of North America, to wit: New-Hampshire, Massachusetts-bay, Rhode-Island, Connecticut, New-York, New-Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North-Carolina, South-Carolina, and Georgia, having this day concluded a treaty of amity and commerce..." – Treaty of Alliance between the US and France, Feb. 6, 1778

Edited to italicize quote.
 
Last edited:

CW Buff

First Sergeant
Joined
Dec 22, 2014
Messages
1,555
Location
Connecticut
Regarding my central point, the separate sovereignty of the states, 1776-1788:

On June 11, 1776, “the Congress voted to appoint a committee ‘to prepare and digest the form of a confederation to be entered into between these colonies’ When such a plan ultimately emerged from the post-independence Congress, it underscored in word and deed the sovereignty of each individual state.” It described an arrangement “in which ‘each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence.’ Legally, the words ‘confederacy’, ‘confederation’, and ‘league’ all connoted the same thing. The 'United States' would be an alliance, a multilateral treaty of sovereign nation-states. Moreover, the word ‘retains’ strongly suggested that each state was already sovereign and had been so since independence. So, too, the words ‘freedom, and independence’ echoed the Lee-Adams motion and Jefferson's Declaration itself while making it clear, as the earlier language had not, that each state was ‘free and independent.’ The 1780 Massachusetts Constitution further reinforced the point in a clause that reworked the language of the Articles: ‘The people of this commonwealth have the sole and exclusive right of governing themselves, as a free, sovereign, and independent state.’ The New Hampshire Constitution of 1784 featured a virtually identical clause.” – Akhil Reed Amar, America's Constitution, A Biography, p. 25
 

OpnCoronet

Lt. Colonel
Joined
Feb 23, 2010
Messages
10,545
Fortunately, Chase did not have to go to the Treaty of Paris, he had only to go to the organic laws(Constitutions) of the Union(not state constitutions or laws)to establish the courts authority to decide the issue of Tx. v. White.

Where exactly does the sovereignty of the states exist, if its operation has been delegated excusively to the federal gov;t?

The Union that fought an international war, before it had a formal gov't, was the same Union that signed the Peace treaty that ended its war for independence and was the same Union of the Constitution,

As witnessed by History, The Union preceded its own Independence. It was the same Union that acquired all the sovereignty and independence for all the states of that same Union. People may argue against this, but, IMO, they argue against the clear evidence of history itself. But, in any even, as already noted the Supreme Court had only to go back to the Organic Law of the Same Union, that declared independence for all its people, no matter their state.
 
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

American87

Private
Joined
Aug 27, 2016
Messages
184
Location
PENNSYLVANIA
Yes, I am referring to the Constitution as THE Organic Law of the united States. Specifically to the fact that organic laws of any nation are those forming the basic laws and authority of its sovereignty, of which there is no higher man made law.

I am afraid that being an integral part of the Union, matters and matters a great lot. as shown by the results of the Civil War and, of course, Tx. v. White.
Being a part of a greater whole, the greater part can decide, whether a smaller part can dictate their decision with impunity. Brute force(revolutionizding) wouuld be met with Brute Force;, much better to negotiate for consent from sister states in comity.

As already noted by Trice, before you exercise the authority or right, of secession, it first must be determined that the right and authority for unilateral secession, even exists before their exercise.

I do not think the anti-federalist backed away from their claim, that once in the Union, that it would be extremely diffiicult, if not impossible, to withdraw, wikthout consent of the Union. Later secessionists convinced themselves that there was some sort of compromise between the Federalists and their opponents, buut, there is little, or no historical evidence of such.
The Constitution is not sovereign. It's a frame of government that was devised and ratified by the sovereigns, i.e. the people of each state. This is the big point "pro-Unionist" don't understand: they don't understand what "sovereign" means, or they don't understand what "state" means.

Imagine if the US, Mexico, and Canada all formed a Union. That is what the original 13 states did. The states are independent countries that formes a strong alliance. The federal government was given some authority, and all other authority was left to the states (countries). So if a state wants to secede, it has that right, because authority over secession was not delegated to the federal government, so it is reserved to the states (countries).

Do you have a source for the rest of your argument? It sounds all made up.
 

American87

Private
Joined
Aug 27, 2016
Messages
184
Location
PENNSYLVANIA
We each have an opinion on what the amendment does, that is plain to see.

My point is, the 10th Amendment does not have, and never did have, a double-secret probationary clause that permitted unilateral secession.
Except my opinion is backed up by the entire country's history on states rights, state legislation, supreme court rulings, and popular acceptance. You have one quote from Taney, which is probably taken from out of context.
 

American87

Private
Joined
Aug 27, 2016
Messages
184
Location
PENNSYLVANIA
The United States of America says that it began on July 4, 1776 and has existed continuously from that date to this. It never dissolved. It never went out of existence. The United States has a treaty today that has been in constant force from before 1789.

The adoption of the Constitution is not an example of "secession" and is not a precedent for the theoretical and unilateral "right of secession" claimed by the South in 1860-61.
The "United States of America," as you understand that term, did not come into existence in 1776. All thirteen colonies declared their independence that year, and they were united in a common cause, but that is the extent of it. They were not one big country Edited. . You are looking back from a skewed viewpoint, with the idea that the US is one big country. It's not, and has never been. The closest thing they became to a country, at least legally, was when they adopted the Constitution. Since then, we have been indoctrinated by post-Civil War public education to believe we are more united than we are, but we are still a collection of states united around a federal government.

There is a major failing in our public education system, and by extenstion, our Civil War historiography. How many Civil War buffs that you know actually study the European treatises on sovereignty? How many actually know that "state" means an independent country? We have been indoctrinated by New England post-Civil War propaganda.
 
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

unionblue

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Member of the Year
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Messages
29,981
Location
Ocala, FL (as of December, 2015).
Except my opinion is backed up by the entire country's history on states rights, state legislation, supreme court rulings, and popular acceptance. You have one quote from Taney, which is probably taken from out of context.
Not so, @American87 , I have the nation's entire history on the topic, to include numerous supreme court rulings, pre and post war, that state unilateral secession is not constitutional. Plus, I have a ruling from the supreme court in Texas v. White that states the same thing and has yet to be overturned by any debate on a civil war forum. :smile:

As for the quote from Chief Justice Taney, it is not taken out of context and can be easily viewed in the book, Lincoln & The Court, by Brian McGinty. It can be checked out at a public library near you, I am sure. Look at it yourself and see if it's out of context.

Sincerely,
Unionblue
 

unionblue

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Member of the Year
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Messages
29,981
Location
Ocala, FL (as of December, 2015).
The "United States of America," as you understand that term, did not come into existence in 1776. All thirteen colonies declared their independence that year, and they were united in a common cause, but that is the extent of it. They were not one big country like "big-government nationlists" of the 21st Century want you to believe. You are looking back from a skewed viewpoint, with the idea that the US is one big country. It's not, and has never been. The closest thing they became to a country, at least legally, was when they adopted the Constitution. Since then, we have been indoctrinated by post-Civil War public education to believe we are more united than we are, but we are still a collection of states united around a federal government.

There is a major failing in our public education system, and by extenstion, our Civil War historiography. How many Civil War buffs that you know actually study the European treatises on sovereignty? How many actually know that "state" means an independent country? We have been indoctrinated by New England post-Civil War propaganda.
Personal opinion and very old news at conspiracy theories.
 

thomas aagaard

1st Lieutenant
Joined
Nov 19, 2013
Messages
3,896
Location
Denmark
Since I have shown such is exactly how the Uniteed States referred to their confederation, since each state was separately sovereign, and since treaties are between sovereigns, it would be necessary (my assumption) to list out the sovereign parties rather just their alliance/confederation name. In other word, what sovereign states, specifically, constitute "the United States," and are therefor the sovereigns of the one part, treating with the sovereign(s) of the other part.

"The Most Christian King, and the United States of North America, to wit: New-Hampshire, Massachusetts-bay, Rhode-Island, Connecticut, New-York, New-Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North-Carolina, South-Carolina, and Georgia, having this day concluded a treaty of amity and commerce..." – Treaty of Alliance between the US and France, Feb. 6, 1778
But if you go to later Treaties like the treaty of Tripoli from 1796 it is simply "the United States of America".
Clearly the deal is between two states the USA and Tripoli. Not between 13+ states and Tripoli.

Something very clearly changed from 1778 to 1796.
 
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

trice

Lt. Colonel
Joined
May 2, 2006
Messages
11,866
The United States of America says that it began on July 4, 1776 and has existed continuously from that date to this. It never dissolved. It never went out of existence. The United States has a treaty today that has been in constant force from before 1789.

The adoption of the Constitution is not an example of "secession" and is not a precedent for the theoretical and unilateral "right of secession" claimed by the South in 1860-61.
The "United States of America," as you understand that term, did not come into existence in 1776. All thirteen colonies declared their independence that year, and they were united in a common cause, but that is the extent of it. They were not one big country like "big-government nationlists" of the 21st Century want you to believe. You are looking back from a skewed viewpoint, with the idea that the US is one big country. It's not, and has never been. The closest thing they became to a country, at least legally, was when they adopted the Constitution. Since then, we have been indoctrinated by post-Civil War public education to believe we are more united than we are, but we are still a collection of states united around a federal government.

There is a major failing in our public education system, and by extenstion, our Civil War historiography. How many Civil War buffs that you know actually study the European treatises on sovereignty? How many actually know that "state" means an independent country? We have been indoctrinated by New England post-Civil War propaganda.
If you look around, you'll see many posts on many threads where I have laid out the timeline of the Declaration of Independence and the Treaty of Paris -- including all the sovereignty issues involved. I would guess you'll find 50+ posts (probably some number much larger than that, but I never actually counted) where I have said that the rebellious colonists needed to win the war to actually establish their independence.

However, from a legal and historical perspective, my statement in the post above is not only true and accurate -- it is long-established and documented.
  • the United States of America actually does date its' independence from July 4, 1776. British law might not agree.
  • the Supreme Court of the United States actually did rule long ago that US citizenship dated from July 4, 1776 (some quibbles about whether a baby born then was in British-controlled or American-controlled territory when born, but definitely possible to be a US citizen if born on July 4, 1776). British law might not agree.
  • The United States actually does have a treaty still in force with Morocco (the Moroccan-American Treaty of Friendship, or Treaty of Marrakesh) that was signed (June 1786) and ratified (July 1786) under the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union.
  • The United States of America under the Constitution of 1789 actually is the same United States of America that existed under the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union. If you read it closely enough, you will see that the Constitution itself actually says so (and needed to say it clearly, since many creditors were worried that this whole "Constitution" thing was a way for the US to skip out on paying their debts).
  • The adoption of the Constitution was actually done in complete compliance with the conditions of the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union (although there is one part of the new Constitution that could have been challenged in the old government of the Constitution Confederation before all 13 States ratified it; once Rhode Island ratified, it is a moot point.)
  • the majority opinion delivered by Chief Justice Chase in Texas v. White, et al also clearly refers to the United States dating back to before the Constitution and says that it is one continuous Perpetual Union.
  • The Supreme Court of the United States actually still rules on the laws, agreements and treaties of the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union government when they apply. The most recent example I recall was about 20 years ago.
In International Law, a State may or may not be an independent country. Some are. Some are not.

The sovereignty of any State in a Federal State system (the US Constitution being the first example of that type of country) is dependent on what the constitution of that particular country itself says. The sovereignty of States in the US is actually limited, shared, and defined by the Constitution. That sovereignty is different than that of a State in Switzerland after their constitution of 1848, or a State in Germany late in the nineteenth century under their constitution.

The sovereignty of a State in the United States of America under the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union is hard to define exactly. States in a "Confederation" are generally independent and sovereign, but they also give up parts of that independence and sovereignty in a bargain when they become part of the Confederation. In the case of the United States, that Confederation is also a Perpetual Union -- and in International Law of that day it probably means they are also part of a "Real Union". The component States of a "Real Union" are not independently sovereign because the "Real Union" is independently sovereign (examples would be places like Austria-Hungary under the Emperor). The United States of America under the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union is probably a bit of a hybrid between the two.

There were certainly lots of different viewpoints about the status of the States in America in those days. One of them is found in the quote in my signature from Charles Cotesworth Pinckney: "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."

As to American public education, there are certainly issues to talk about -- but there probably is a shortage of class time to get down in the weeds to cover the details of sovereignty and 18th-19th century theories from people like Hobbes and Locke and Rousseau. I don't think any of my classes dealt with those in any detail until I was in college.
 
Last edited:

thomas aagaard

1st Lieutenant
Joined
Nov 19, 2013
Messages
3,896
Location
Denmark
The "United States of America," as you understand that term, did not come into existence in 1776. All thirteen colonies declared their independence that year, and they were united in a common cause, but that is the extent of it. They were not one big country like "big-government nationlists" of the 21st Century want you to believe. You are looking back from a skewed viewpoint, with the idea that the US is one big country. It's not, and has never been. The closest thing they became to a country, at least legally, was when they adopted the Constitution. Since then, we have been indoctrinated by post-Civil War public education to believe we are more united than we are, but we are still a collection of states united around a federal government.

There is a major failing in our public education system, and by extenstion, our Civil War historiography. How many Civil War buffs that you know actually study the European treatises on sovereignty? How many actually know that "state" means an independent country? We have been indoctrinated by New England post-Civil War propaganda.
Complete and utter hogwash.
Yes I studied European ideas of sovereignty at university. And it make it completely clear that the US since the rectification of the Constitution have been one single sovereign state. And it got a federal structure. Just like Germany or Switzerland do.

That you call them states is just tradition. The Germans call theirs for "countries" when directly translated to English,
but when German authority write it in English they use the word State. Again tradition.

The Constitution very clearly stop the federal states from doing most of the things that is central to exercising sovereignty.
Entering into treatises with other states.
Entering into alliances with other states.
Making trade deals with other states.
Having a army and navy.
Making war and peace.

All of it mentioned both in the deceleration of Independence and by South Carolina in 1860.

The USA can do this, the federal states can't.
By both 19th century and modern standards the USA is one single sovereign state.
They send ambassadors to other states, and the USA is a member of the UN. Virginia is not.

And all of this is even more clear in the case of Texas. They expressly gave the federal government in Washington the right to give away parts of Texas to Mexico if they wanted to. Any state that give this right some other political entity is no longer sovereign.

And no sovereign state have recognized any state as part of the international community of sovereign states since the rectification of the Constitution. (with the exception of Texas, that was one, until they where annexed by the USA)
---

And you totally misunderstand the theoretical basic of a Union.
A union is a very loose term.
The USA, is not directly comparable to the Soviet union, or the Kalmar Union or the European Union.
But all are unions.
In short Unions work in many different ways.
And in "american" it is also the word used for workers organizing.
(where we in danish use the word union for the political thing and the word fagforening for the worker thing)


But at Trice points out, it is actually very complicated and not a yes or no question. But if it have to be one, then it is very clear. The US federal states are not sovereign.
 

trice

Lt. Colonel
Joined
May 2, 2006
Messages
11,866
But if you go to later Treaties like the treaty of Tripoli from 1796 it is simply "the United States of America".
Clearly the deal is between two states the USA and Tripoli. Not between 13+ states and Tripoli.

Something very clearly changed from 1778 to 1796.
FWIW: Maryland had not yet ratified the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union when the French treaty was signed. Maryland asked the French Ambassador to America for assistance against the British -- and the French Ambassador told them to sign the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union first. Maryland finally signed off in 1781.

The French treaty in 1778 might simply have been an error on the French end, with the Americans not looking to make waves when they desperately needed arms, supplies, ships troops and allies.
 
Last edited:
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

trice

Lt. Colonel
Joined
May 2, 2006
Messages
11,866
And this is still an assumption, correct?

Since I have shown such is exactly how the Uniteed States referred to their confederation, since each state was separately sovereign, and since treaties are between sovereigns, it would be necessary (my assumption) to list out the sovereign parties rather just their alliance/confederation name. In other word, what sovereign states, specifically, constitute "the United States," and are therefor the sovereigns of the one part, treating with the sovereign(s) of the other part.

"The Most Christian King, and the United States of North America, to wit: New-Hampshire, Massachusetts-bay, Rhode-Island, Connecticut, New-York, New-Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North-Carolina, South-Carolina, and Georgia, having this day concluded a treaty of amity and commerce..." – Treaty of Alliance between the US and France, Feb. 6, 1778

Edited to italicize quote.
As a result of having ratified the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union, none of the individual States had the sovereign power or ability to "enter into any conference, agreement, alliance or treaty with any King, Prince or State". This would apply to all the States except three the first three listed here; the rest had not yet ratified; the last, Maryland, did not actually sign off on the Articles until 1781, but usually acted as if she had.
 

CW Buff

First Sergeant
Joined
Dec 22, 2014
Messages
1,555
Location
Connecticut
Slice and dice doesn't change the truth of my statements. The Honorable Mr. John Taylor was correct and furthermore, everything he wrote as being a negative result of the "consolidating school " has occurred and continues to this day.
If just saying/writing something made it so, you, Taylor, and the other secessionists woud be all set. Fortunately, the guys who established our country and constitution left plenty of cold, hard evidence to refute secessionist doctrine.
 
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!
Top