The Real Cause of Secession

Eric Calistri

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
May 31, 2012
Location
Austin Texas
No, you're recognizing your need to ignore context... as usual.

Fact: The people of each independent state, ratified the Constitution for their own state: independently.

They did not do so as a single group, with any stipulated intention of uniting them as dependent states of a new independent unified state named "The United States of America."

Therefore your insinuation that the Constitution altered any state's independence, is not supported by any evidence.
And again: it wasn't even claimed by the federal government, because of that very fact.

On the contrary, the federal government claimed that the Constitution did not form a new union among the states; but that it continued the same one formed in 1774.
Which did not happen, and was never an independent state.
Ever.


You're
the one who has trouble, providing citation... you know, for context.


The context of the relationship between the states and the United States IS the US Constitution. That the United States existed in prior forms ie the Continental Congress and the Articles of Confederation, does not change the plain text of the US constitution.

The projection you employ is mildly entertaining though.
 
Joined
Apr 17, 2020
The context of the relationship between the states and the United States IS the US Constitution. That the United States existed in prior forms ie the Continental Congress and the Articles of Confederation, does not change the plain text of the US constitution.
Which does not change the context... which I now realize that you are simply incapable of comprehending.
 

Eric Calistri

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
May 31, 2012
Location
Austin Texas
No, you refuse to consider the context...as always, it seems.
As I explained, the 1707 Articles of Union set recognized precedent for independent states uniting as a single independent state.
But it also demonstrates how this requires explicit stipulation of such contained in the agreement, by which the independent states agree to relinquish their separate independence via ratifying it.

The Constitution contains none... and no, the words "We the people of the United States" is not such an express stipulation of relinquishing sovereignty by independent states, and it's frivolous and ignorant to suggest such.
Read on:


Don't believe every Story you read; plain history shows that didn't happen.
The Constitution was ratified by state convention, for the particular state only.
Each convention was comprised of deputies specially elected by the people of the particular state, for their state only-- or not.

This is why Article VII of the Constitution requires the conventions of only nine states or more to ratify it, in order to carry it into effect between the ratifying states.

And therefore the phrase "the people of the United States" refers to the people of whatever independent states did ratify it; since clearly the Framers had no way of knowing which states would ratify.

If it required ratification of all 13 states, then clearly they would be named; but as James Madison explained in Federalist No. 40, "the forbearance can only have proceeded from an irresistible conviction of the absurdity of subjecting the fate of twelve States to the
perverseness or corruption of a thirteenth."

And since they were independent states before the Constitution, then they ratified it as such; and the people of each independent state became the sovereign power over their independent state.


And there's no need to quote you saying anything about dependent states.
Your entire argument claims, with zero supporting facts, that the USA is an independent state, and that the individual states are dependent states thereof.

This was not the case in 1776, as the federal government once claimed; and it wasn't the case anytime afterward.


The 1707 acts which United England and Scotland do not supercede the US Constitution. This is one story not to believe.

You can, and apparently do, believe whatever it is you want to believe about the ratification process. I'll take Justice Story's majority opinion in Martin vs Hunter's Lesee. It has stood for 200 years and is directly on point here. If I am not mistaken, some of your arguments here were also made by the losing side in that case.

And Texas. What about Texas? Will you ever consider, in all your histrionics about context, the declaration of the causes which impel Texas to secede for from the federal Union.
 
Joined
Apr 17, 2020
Federation : A group of states with a central government but independence in internal affairs; a federation.

Confederation : A confederation is a union of sovereign groups or states, united for purposes of common action.

The war settled which the United States was.
War cannot change prior facts of history, which prove beyond all question that the the states were always independent.
If you think that war can change what came before it, you've no grip on reality.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Apr 17, 2020
The 1707 acts which United England and Scotland do not supercede the US Constitution.
I was citing precedent to demonstrate the concept of independent states explicitly stipulating the act of uniting as a single independent state: which the American states clearly did not.
However clearly that is a concept beyond your comprehension, and I was simply explaining it for other readers.
I'll take Justice Story's majority opinion in Martin vs Hunter's Lesee.
Blindly, over the plain facts of history.
You need not read further; I will post no further to you, since it's clearly out of your league.
 

Eric Calistri

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
May 31, 2012
Location
Austin Texas
I was citing precedent to demonstrate the concept of independent states explicitly stipulating the act of uniting as a single independent state: which the American states clearly did not.
However clearly that is a concept beyond your comprehension, and I was simply explaining it for other readers.

Over the plain facts of history.
You need not read further; I will post no further to you.

I know what you were trying to say. You are just wrong that Acts of Parliament supercede the US Constitution. If anything is beyond anyone's comprehension here, it is this simple fact that is beyond yours.

Quoting a Supreme court decision from 1816 is a plain fact of history.
 

Eric Calistri

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
May 31, 2012
Location
Austin Texas
I was citing precedent to demonstrate the concept of independent states explicitly stipulating the act of uniting as a single independent state: which the American states clearly did not.
However clearly that is a concept beyond your comprehension, and I was simply explaining it for other readers.

Blindly, over the plain facts of history.
You need not read further; I will post no further to you, since it's clearly out of your league.


Being you are kinda new here, I should ask if you aware that this site allows hotlinks. I have quoted several documents, and assumed you were navigating to the entire document via the provided link. I am wondering if you missed that.
 

KSKEY

Private
Joined
Apr 14, 2020
So if if it was a war between the states how does that explain the fact that 104k white Southeners in the eleven Confederate States fought for the Union has well documented in the book " Lincoln's Loyalists Union soldiers from the Confederacy" Richard Current North East University Press.
How does one say it was a war between the states if well over 150k Southern men of color joined the United States Coloured Troops fought for the Union?
The American Civil War was not a war between the states but between those who supported the an independent slave republic vs those who supported the United States.
By the same token a small amount of Northern whites fought for the Confederacy vs many Southern whites fought against the Confederacy as Unionist guerrillas.
Leftyhunter
Not everyone who lived in the Antebellum South agreed with slavery or that state’s rights was justification for legitimizing the institution. Neither did every Northerner agree slavery or a state’s right to use it should be destroyed. Men of color fought for the Confederacy as well as the Union. It seems, though, that men of color who joined the Union effort represented a minuscule portion of their community considering there were some three and a half million slaves in the combatant South.

No question, the war was about supporting divergent ideas. Most are. And in them, similar cross allegiances are common as they were with Tories and Patriots in the American Revolutionary War. Some call that conflict a “civil” war in the broad thought that Americans were fighting against Americans. But I find nothing civil about war. And so, what you call the Civil War I prefer to call the War Between the States. Perhaps, I would agree to call it the Uncivil War. But it is a generally irrelevant dispute. War, by any name, smells the same.
 

Similar threads

Top