The Real Cause of Secession

leftyhunter

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
May 27, 2011
Location
los angeles ca
None needed, sir.
No federal official ever claimed that the Supreme Court had the power to alter the sovereign status of independent states where it exists, so your opinion on that point is solely your own.
The Supreme Court simply claimed that the states were not individually independent to begin with; which is patently false.
If you want to prove that Texas v.White is an invalid court decision then the only way to overturn it is to have at least a group of people attempt some kind of effort to have a state secede then see if their lawyers can eventually get the US Supreme Court to reverse Texas v.White .
I wish you good luck on that endevor.
Leftyhunter
 
Joined
Apr 17, 2020
If you want to prove that Texas v.White is an invalid court decision then the only way to overturn it is to have at least a group of people attempt some kind of effort to have a state secede then see if their lawyers can eventually get the US Supreme Court to reverse Texas v.White .
I wish you good luck on that endevor.
Leftyhunter
You've clearly ignored so the facts that I have stated, so there is no point in further discussion.
 
Joined
Apr 17, 2020
You are correct in that Supreme Court does not "alter the status of independent states." US laws do that, for example the 1845 Joint Resolution for annexing Texas to the United States. The Supreme Court is granted Judicial power as per Article III.
You are not correct.
The people of each independent simply state created and delegated power to the federal court via the Constitution; but they did not cede the independence of their states, or their own status as final rulers of their independent state as per their ratifying act.
So the federal court is no more binding on the people of any state, than the UN World Court over any UN state.
The effect of a federal ruling is therefore only as effective as the people of the state determine.
 

Eric Calistri

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
May 31, 2012
Location
Austin Texas
You are not correct.
The people of each independent simply state created and delegated power to the federal court via the Constitution; but they did not cede the independence of their states, or their own status as final rulers of their independent state as per their ratifying act.
So the federal court is no more binding on the people of any state, than the UN World Court over any UN state.
The effect of a federal ruling is therefore only as effective as the people of the state determine.


I don't believe the people in Texas ever ratified the 1845 Joint Resolution for annexing Texas to the United States. They did ratify a treaty which was then rejected by the US. Please correct me if I am wrong. Nonetheless, this 1845 law has been upheld numerous times by the US Supreme Court.

Your view that the US Constitution = UN world Charter appears to be for entertainment purposes only. If you follow the US Constitution, and so far it seems that you do not, the Supreme Court is granted Judicial Review in a specific list of circumstances. In all those circumstances, US laws are supreme.

Nonetheless, this thread being about The Real Cause of Secession, the UN, the EU, World Court etc. are off topic, Whereas the 1845 Joint Resolution is directly on topic.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Apr 17, 2020
I think not. The UK followed article 50 of the Lisbon treaty, and negotiated an agreement with the EU, over a period of several years.
Red herring.
You're missing the point of the UK being an independent state, and therefore the Lisbon Treaty is just that: a treaty among independent states.
The fact of the UK adhering to the treaty, is wholly their own choice; and cannot be construed to deny their independence; nor does Article 50 specifically retain it, since that's the default-position of any treaty among independent states.

Just like the southern states adhering to the Constitution in demanding that Fugitive Slave Laws be enforced in the north, did not deny their independence; and they did not need to specifically retain their independence in the Constitution itself.
 
Last edited:

KSKEY

Private
Joined
Apr 14, 2020
"Northerners largely indifferent toward slavery"
Since they had abolished slavery in their own states, and backed a policy restricting slavery from spreading into the West, or refused to back filibustering or wars of conquest in Central America or the Caribbean to spread slavery, can we say they were "indifferent to slavery?"
Certainly secessionists thought northerners were hostile to slavery, secessionists complained of lack of vigor in enforcing the Fugitive Slave Laws, the horrors of African Americans having the right to vote in some northern states. Secessionists decried the criticism of slavery in northern newspapers.
Southern secessionists were secessionists because they recognized many political powers in the North were overtly hostile to slavery and had them and it boxed in beneath the 36°30′ parallel. Jefferson, by the way, predicted the fissure of states that would lead to the clamity of the WBTS when the Missouri Compromise was passed in 1820. The claim of indifference toward slavery was suggested about the general mood of the people in the North, not the politicians. Most people tended not to be concerned about slavery in the South and certainly not to the point of clamoring for an army to march south and destroy it.
 
Joined
Apr 17, 2020
I don't believe the people in Texas ever ratified the 1845 Joint Resolution for annexing Texas to the United States. They did ratify a treaty which was then rejected by the US. Please correct me if I am wrong. Nonetheless, this 1845 law has been upheld numerous times by the US Supreme Court.

You've already agreed that the Supreme Court cannot alter the independence of states, so it's moot. Texas was simply no more dependent than every American state, which is the sole issue at hand.
Your view that the US Constitution = UN world Charter appears to be for entertainment purposes only.

If you're amused by the fact that unions among independent states, are identical in that regard: i.e. they remain independent unless specifically altered by the individual states themselves in the terms of that union.

If you follow the US Constitution, and so far it seems that you do not, the Supreme Court is granted Judicial in a specific list of circumstances. In all those circumstances, US laws are supreme.

Nonetheless, this thread being about The Real Cause of Secession, the UN, the EU, World Court etc. are off topic, Whereas the 1845 Joint Resolution is directly on topic.
If each state remains independent under the Constitution, then the causes of secession are contextual to that fact.
Just like if the EU were to claim to be an independent state, and that the UK was never independent of it.
Such claims were made by the US long beforehand, and so the causes of secession are quite obvious in that context.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Oct 3, 2005
You've already agreed that the Supreme Court cannot alter the independence of states, so it's moot. Texas was simply no more dependent than every American state, which is the sole issue at hand.


If you're amused by the fact that unions among independent states, are identical in that regard: i.e. they remain independent unless specifically altered by the individual states themselves in the terms of that union.


If each state remains independent under the Constitution, then the causes of secession are contextual to that fact.
Just like if the EU were to claim to be an independent state, and that the UK was never independent of it.
Such claims were made by the US long beforehand, and so the causes of secession are quite obvious in that context.
If I could make this point: what you are arguing with Eric is there was a "right to secession." Such a power existed for whatever reason. Leaving aside whether such a power existed or not, why was it being called on in 1860?
 
Joined
Apr 17, 2020
Jefferson, by the way, predicted the fissure of states that would lead to the clamity of the WBTS
Point of order: only independent states may levy war, as a matter of right.

Therefore there could not be a "war between the states," if the levying states denied their own independence, in favor of a common unified state that did not in truth exist. Rather, it would simply be a false-flag invasion, undertaken outside of any state's right to levy war.

And if such a unified state did in fact exist among them, then it would necessarily be a civil war, since the seceding states would also be thus dependent.

So the notion of a "war between the states" is precluded by circumstance, regardless of anything else.
 
Joined
Apr 17, 2020
If I could make this point: what you are arguing with Eric is there was a "right to secession." Such a power existed for whatever reason. Leaving aside whether such a power existed or not, why was it being called on in 1860?

Because the states were individually independent in 1860; and secession from unions with other independent states, is a right of all independent states, under their full power to negotiate treaties.

This right was specifically declared to each state in 1776; and they afterward did nothing to abrogate any state's sovereign independence, to unite as a single unified independent state.

If anything, each state's independence expanded, in that final authority merely "changed hands" to the individual state's people, from its delegates: as in the plain-as-day difference between the preambles to the Constitution vs. the Articles of Confederation.

Neither did the United States government claim that the states ever abrogated their separate independence; but on the contrary, it simply claimed that they never had it, alleging instead that "the Union" was itself declared a unified independent state from 1776 onward.

And this was patently false. Each state was declared to be free and independent, with the full power of such.
Not any union.
 
Last edited:

Eric Calistri

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
May 31, 2012
Location
Austin Texas
Red herring.
You're missing the point of the UK being an independent state, and therefore the Lisbon Treaty is just that: a treaty among independent states.
The fact of the UK adhering to the treaty, is wholly their own choice; and cannot be construed to deny their independence; nor does Article 50 specifically retain it, since that's the default-position of any treaty among independent states.

Just like the southern states adhering to the Constitution in demanding that Fugitive Slave Laws be enforced in the north, did not deny their independence; and they did not need to specifically retain their independence in the Constitution itself.

The entire thing you started with the UK is a red herring.
 
Joined
Oct 3, 2005
Southern secessionists were secessionists because they recognized many political powers in the North were overtly hostile to slavery and had them and it boxed in beneath the 36°30′ parallel. Jefferson, by the way, predicted the fissure of states that would lead to the clamity of the WBTS when the Missouri Compromise was passed in 1820. The claim of indifference toward slavery was suggested about the general mood of the people in the North, not the politicians. Most people tended not to be concerned about slavery in the South and certainly not to the point of clamoring for an army to march south and destroy it.
The cause of the secessionists was slavery. Which they felt was being, in your words "boxed in." In 1820, I think there was still this idea of compromise meaning equal numbers of free and slave states, as well as the 36 30' line. By 1850 it was clear that slave states were going to be a minority in the United States. The Republican platform restricting slavery from the west was thought to hurt slavery elsewhere and lead to its ultimate extinction. The country couldn't continue half slave and half free.

The cause of the United States was the preservation of the Union. The white US soldiers destroyed slavery as a means to an end( the black US soldiers may have had that the other way around). But that's because the US understood that slavery was the cause of secession, and end slavery and end secession, now and forever.
 
Joined
Apr 17, 2020
The entire thing you started with the UK is a red herring.
Only if you are alleging that the American states are not individually independent, like those of the EU; which would require supporting argument.
The reservation of secession in a treaty, does not either preserve or abrogate that power as an independent state.
It is, like I said; a red herring; i.e. an established custom, like giving 2 weeks notice before terminating employment.
It is voluntary, like everything in a treaty between independent states.
 
Joined
Oct 3, 2005
Because the states were individually independent in 1860; and secession from unions with other independent states, is a right of all independent states, under their full power to negotiate treaties.

This right was specifically declared to each state in 1776; and they afterward did nothing to abrogate any state's sovereign independence, to unite as a single unified independent state.

If anything, each state's independence expanded, in that final authority merely "changed hands" to the individual state's people, from its delegates: as in the plain-as-day difference between the preambles to the Constitution vs. the Articles of Confederation.

Neither did the United States government claim that the states ever abrogated their separate independence; but on the contrary, it simply claimed that they never had it, alleging instead that "the Union" was itself declared a unified independent state from 1776 onward.

And this was patently false. Each state was declared to be free and independent, with the full power of such.
Not any union.
Right, so you have this theory that Delaware and Mississippi were different independent countries etc. So why did the slave states want to secede in 1860?
 

Eric Calistri

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
May 31, 2012
Location
Austin Texas
You've already agreed that the Supreme Court cannot alter the independence of states, so it's moot. Texas was simply no more dependent than every American state, which is the sole issue at hand.


If you're amused by the fact that unions among independent states, are identical in that regard: i.e. they remain independent unless specifically altered by the individual states themselves in the terms of that union.


If each state remains independent under the Constitution, then the causes of secession are contextual to that fact.
Just like if the EU were to claim to be an independent state, and that the UK was never independent of it.
Such claims were made by the US long beforehand, and so the causes of secession are quite obvious in that context.

No. The supreme court upheld the US law under which the Republic of Texas became the state of Texas.

Under the US Constitution, and you should probably review the case law here, US laws are supreme. Texas, acting alone, remains subject to the 1845 Joint resolution annexing Texas to the United States. You opinion, and that is indeed all it is, does not change the US Constitution or the US laws.

But this entire argument is of course, speculative. The CSA never went to court, they lined up the artillery and opened fire.
 

Similar threads

Top