The Real Cause of Secession

Joined
Apr 17, 2020
Right, so you have this theory that Delaware and Mississippi were different independent countries etc.
No theory; it was a fact, as established under the Declaration of Independence.
You're the one presenting the "theory" that they weren't; with no support other than an act of brute violence, which is no support at all regarding an item of preceding history.
 

Eric Calistri

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
May 31, 2012
Location
Austin Texas
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.

The 50 United States are not individually independent, as per the US Constitution. They states have a shared sovereignty with United States, not an absolute sovereignty, which seems to be your argument.
 

Eric Calistri

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
May 31, 2012
Location
Austin Texas
Among independent states.


Because they were independent states.
It seems you're not familiar with the facts.


They may have claimed to be independent states, but claiming something does not make it so. Thus the rather immediate move to the artillery fire.

The Supremacy clause establishes that the federal constitution, and federal law generally, take precedence over state laws, and even state constitutions. It prohibits states from interfering with the federal government's exercise of its constitutional powers, and from assuming any functions that are exclusively entrusted to the federal government.
 
Joined
Apr 17, 2020
They may have claimed to be independent states, but claiming something does not make it so.
No, but successful revolution does; which occurred in 1783, when each state won its independence as 13 independent states.
And this was never abrogated, which means that it remained in effect in perpetuity to date.
As with any independent state.
The Supremacy clause establishes that the federal constitution, and federal law generally, take precedence over state laws, and even state constitutions.

Among independent states, each supremely ruled by its respective people.

Which the Constitution did not take precedence over; since they were the independent state power that ordained and established it as a union among independent states.
And they did not abrogate their existence as an independent state in doing so
 

KSKEY

Private
Joined
Apr 14, 2020
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.
Semantics has its place, and I admit, my disdain for the term "civil war" is a bit weird, especially in a discussion titled CivilWarTalk. But here's why I avoid its use. Civil is an adjective indicating a relationship to ordinary citizens, (military is an antonym by the way,) or describing something courteous and polite. Neither definition fits well with the connotation one gets from the noun, war, which is armed hostile conflict between states or nations, or from the verb form, war, which denotes vigorous conflict in general.

The WBTS was, technically, a war between two distinct nations, a Union of states from the North against a Confederation of states to their South, and moreover, both extended from the founding idea that "These united colonies are, and of a right out to be, free and independent states." So, the title of "War Between the States" is admissible by theory and colloquially as well.
 
Joined
Apr 17, 2020
But it does. Thorough the Granting of supremacy to the United States by the Constitution.
No, to the Constitution by the People of each independent state, over the laws of their own state.
That's the case with all agreements between independent states, to some extent. That does not abrogate their independence; only a specific act could do that.
Can I ask if you are familiar with the case law on the supremacy clause? If you were to argue your point in a court, which cases in US law would you cite?
(SMH) Can we please dispense with all further insinuation that the Supreme Court has any final power over independent states? There's nothing to discuss, it doesn't.
 

Eric Calistri

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
May 31, 2012
Location
Austin Texas
No, but successful revolution does; which occurred in 1783, when each state won its independence as 13 independent states.
And this was never abrogated, which means that it remained in effect in perpetuity to date.
As with any independent state.


Among independent states, each supremely ruled by its respective people.

Which the Constitution did not take precedence over; since they were the independent state power that ordained and established it as a union among independent states.
And they did not abrogate their existence as an independent state in doing so


The power of the sword reigns supreme, no doubt. Not a good argument in favor of the secessionists of 1861, however.

Explicitly, under the Constitution, The People of The United States are sovereign.
 
Joined
Oct 3, 2005
No theory; it was a fact, as established under the Declaration of Independence.
You're the one presenting the "theory" that they weren't; with no support other than an act of brute violence, which is no support at all regarding an item of preceding history.
I'm not presenting any theory. I'm asking you, why did South Carolina, Georgia, Mississippi etc. secede?
 
Joined
Apr 17, 2020
Semantics has its place, and I admit, my disdain for the term "civil war" is a bit weird, especially in a discussion titled CivilWarTalk. But here's why I avoid its use. Civil is an adjective indicating a relationship to ordinary citizens, (military is an antonym by the way,) or describing something courteous and polite. Neither definition fits well with the connotation one gets from the noun, war, which is armed hostile conflict between states or nations, or from the verb form, war, which denotes vigorous conflict in general.

The WBTS was, technically, a war between two distinct nations, a Union of states from the North against a Confederation of states to their South, and moreover, both extended from the founding idea that "These united colonies are, and of a right out to be, free and independent states." So, the title of "War Between the States" is admissible by theory and colloquially as well.
But neither side claimed there were two independent states. Rather, the North claimed that there was only one.
And the South claimed that every state was independent; and that the northern states levied war against them; however again, this was not done under their power as such, but strictly as an illicit act under claim of an independent state that did not exist.
Therefore it was not a war as such, but a false-flag initiative.
Therefore calling it a war, would likewise be false-- particularly since the conclusion claimed that the USA was an independent state from before its initiation, to the present date.
 

Eric Calistri

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
May 31, 2012
Location
Austin Texas
No, to the Constitution by the People of each independent state, over the laws of their own state.
That's the case with all agreements between independent states, to some extent. That does not abrogate their independence; only a specific act could do that.

(SMH) Can we please dispense with all further insinuation that the Supreme Court has any final power over independent states? There's nothing to discuss, it doesn't.

No. Explicitly. The People of the United States.

I can only take that to mean that you are unfamiliar with the Supreme Court operations, and it's rulings that directly contradict positions you have taken here. I understand you wish that all evidence contradicting your beliefs be ignored and erased. Just as you can also wish that the supreme court lacks "final power." I will only note that others have made this argument to the court. They lost.
 
Joined
Apr 17, 2020
The power of the sword reigns supreme, no doubt.
Only in revolution. Not abrogation of state independence.
And definitely not over prior history, in which each state was officially independent from 1776 onward by mutual recognition.. not a very good argument in favor of the Unionists, ever.
Not a good argument in favor of the secessionists of 1861, however. Explicitly, under the Constitution, The People of The United States are sovereign.
You're reading in circles.
The Constitution was written in address to the pre-ratification United States, in which each state retained its sovereignty, freedom and independence.
And therefore, just as each state ratified that document by the power of its respective delegates; each state likewise ratified by the Constitution by the act of its respective people.
The Constitution does not abrogate the independence of any state.

No. Explicitly. The People of the United States.
See above.
 

Eric Calistri

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
May 31, 2012
Location
Austin Texas
Because they were independent states.
Their motives are irrelevant; but I would say that the Union's claim for 30+ years that they were not independent, could have played some small part.

When i read the texts of the Declarations of Causes issued by several of the seceding states in 1861 it is obvious that the actual secessionists felt their motives were very relevant.

"Texas abandoned her separate national existence and consented to become one of the Confederated States to promote her welfare, insure domestic tranquility [sic] and secure more substantially the blessings of peace and liberty to her people. She was received into the confederacy with her own constitution, under the guarantee of the federal constitution and the compact of annexation, that she should enjoy these blessings. She was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery--the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits--a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time. Her institutions and geographical position established the strongest ties between her and other slave-holding States of the confederacy. Those ties have been strengthened by association. But what has been the course of the government of the United States, and of the people and authorities of the non-slave-holding States, since our connection with them?"
 

Eric Calistri

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
May 31, 2012
Location
Austin Texas
Only in revolution.
And definitely not over prior history, in which each state was officially independent from 1776 onward by mutual recognition.. not a very good argument in favor of the Unionists, ever.

You're reading in circles.
The Constitution was written in address to the pre-ratification United States, in which each state retained its sovereignty, freedom and independence.
And therefore, just as each state ratified that document by the power of its respective delegates; each state likewise ratified by the Constitution by the act of its respective people.
The Constitution does not abrogate the independence of any state.


Why then do you think Texas claimed to have "abandoned her separate national existence" in it's declaration of causes.
 

Eric Calistri

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
May 31, 2012
Location
Austin Texas
Only in revolution. Not abrogation of state independence.
And definitely not over prior history, in which each state was officially independent from 1776 onward by mutual recognition.. not a very good argument in favor of the Unionists, ever.

You're reading in circles.
The Constitution was written in address to the pre-ratification United States, in which each state retained its sovereignty, freedom and independence.
And therefore, just as each state ratified that document by the power of its respective delegates; each state likewise ratified by the Constitution by the act of its respective people.
The Constitution does not abrogate the independence of any state.

I am not reading in circles. I am reading the plain text of the US Constitution. It says "We the People ..." According to you it says "We the independent states ... "
 
Joined
Apr 17, 2020
I am not reading in circles. I am reading the plain text of the US Constitution. It says "We the People ..."
And ignoring the context that they ratified the Constitution as the people of independent states; each by the act of its respective people, vs. its legislature as before.
According to you it says "We the independent states ... "
No, the states were already independent, and it wouldn't identify the ratifying body as with the Articles of Confederation (which identified them as the state delegates)
Their people each simply ratified the Constitution, for their state only; thus establishing the people of each state as its final authority.
According to you they ratified it as one group; but that didn't happen.
Each state's people acted to ratify the Constitution for their state,, just as their legislature had done for the Articles of Confederation for their state.
That was the main difference between the two unions... and the sole difference as far as each state's independence or final authority went.

Your conclusion, would require that the states abrogated their independence to form a single independent state; but that didn't happen either.
They only formed a continental union of independent states, like the EU; with the difference that the people of each state were in final authority over their independent state.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Top