When did the States lose their Sovereignty?

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

cw1865

Sergeant Major
Joined
Jun 12, 2007
Messages
1,850
Location
Riverdale, NJ (Morris County)
Income Tax

As usual Vareb, its all the South's fault! Technically never, but for practical purpose, you can look at it in two steps: 1. Civil War - first income tax, giving the Federal government the tool necessary to actually possess sufficient resources (couple this with the XVI Amendment of course); 2. Great Depression - greatly expanded interpretation of the Commerce Clause

So, since the South secedes, now we're all stuck with the income tax, thanks for that!
 

Vareb

Banned
Joined
Jul 2, 2008
Messages
1,556
Location
Shenandoah Valle
As usual Vareb, its all the South's fault! Technically never, but for practical purpose, you can look at it in two steps: 1. Civil War - first income tax, giving the Federal government the tool necessary to actually possess sufficient resources (couple this with the XVI Amendment of course); 2. Great Depression - greatly expanded interpretation of the Commerce Clause

So, since the South secedes, now we're all stuck with the income tax, thanks for that!
So you are saying the States had Sovereignty up to the Civil War?
 
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

cw1865

Sergeant Major
Joined
Jun 12, 2007
Messages
1,850
Location
Riverdale, NJ (Morris County)
Dual Sovereignity

Its the concept of dual sovereignity.

The states still are sovereign, but not in the way that you're thinking of it.

The Civil War is the tool, the New Deal is really where the worm turns so to speak.

The expanded interpretation of the Commerce Clause essentially gives Congress the power to regulate anything with dollar signs attached to it.

Wickard vs. Filburn - Filburn was a small farmer in Ohio. The Department of Agriculture had set production quotas. Filburn harvested nearly 12 acres of wheat above his government allotment. He argued that the excess wheat was unrelated to commerce since he grew it for his own use. He was fined anyway. The court reasoned that had he not grown the extra wheat he would have had to purchase wheat -- therefore, he was indirectly affecting interstate commerce.

"It is well established by decisions of this Court that the power to regulate commerce includes the power to regulate the prices at which commodities in that commerce are dealt in and practices affecting such prices. 28 One of the primary purposes of the Act in question was to increase the market price of wheat and to that end to limit the volume thereof that could affect the market. It can hardly be denied that a factor of such volume and variability as home-consumed wheat would have a substantial influence on price and market conditions. This may arise because being in marketable condition such wheat overhangs the market and if induced by rising prices tends to flow into the market and check price increases. But if we assume that it is never marketed, it supplies a need of the man who grew it which would otherwise be reflected by purchases in the open market. Home-grown wheat in this sense competes with wheat in commerce."

Makes you wonder if growing tomatoes at home is legal?
 
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
30,354
Location
Ocala, FL (as of December, 2015).
I have often ask this question because there are those that say there was no such thing. What do y'all think?
Vareb,

To expand a bit on your original question: "When did the States lose their Sovereignty?"

1. Were the States ever sovereign?

2. When in time did they cease being sovereign?

3. Did the States surrender their sovereignty?

4. Did the States surrender all of their sovereignty?

I'll try and come back with some answers shortly.

Unionblue
 

timewalker

Cadet
Joined
Jan 7, 2008
Messages
1,118
Location
Flower Mound, Texas
Vareb,

To expand a bit on your original question: "When did the States lose their Sovereignty?"

1. Were the States ever sovereign?

2. When in time did they cease being sovereign?

3. Did the States surrender their sovereignty?

4. Did the States surrender all of their sovereignty?

I'll try and come back with some answers shortly.

Unionblue
I think you have to answer, first of all, which states. Clearly, Texas sovereignty in that it was a soveriegn nation recognized as such by other nations, including the United States. Vermont may also fall in this category in that it was an independant republic at one point (though I am unsure of international recognition). Hawaii as well (though a kingdom, not a republic). The 13 original colonies? More difficult to say. They certainly had aspects of sovereignty but they rebelled and ended the rebellion as a unity. I am undecided on that issue. As to the other states, they are creations of the Federal government out of United States territories and never were independently sovereign. Any sovereignty they have is derivative of federal sovereignty.

So the states surrender their sovereignty? Yes. Clearly Texas, in requesting annexation surrendered many aspects of sovereignty and could no longer coin its own money, enter into its own treaties, etc. As to the colonies, I would argue that the people of the states removed the sovereignty from those states and conferred that sovereignty on the Federal government when the people of those states ratified the Constitution.

The states, or the people of those states, did not surrender all of the sovereignty of those states in that the United States is a federal system in which the states are sovereign up to the point where their sovereignty is overridden by the sovereignty of the federal government.

As an aside, it is interesting that the United States Constitution was drafted to have a weaker federal government and strong states and the opposite happened, while the Canadian constitution was drafted to have a strong central government and weak states and the opposite happened there, as well.
 

unionblue

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Member of the Year
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Messages
30,354
Location
Ocala, FL (as of December, 2015).
To All,

I tried to post this on another forum to show the history of the concept of state sovereignty in U.S. history. Since they won't allow it to be posted, I thought I should bring it here, so that we may have an honest and open debate about state sovereignty and how it relates to the Civil War.

From Elliot's Debates, Volume I, Political Rights and Sovereignty, pp. 63-67:

"Respecting the political rights and sovereignty of the several colonies, and of the union which was thus spontaneously formed by the people of the United Colonies, by the declaration of independence, Judge [Joseph] Story, in his Commentaries on the Constitution, remarks:--

In the first place, antecedent to the declaration of independence, none of the colonies were, or pretended to be, sovereign states, in the sense in which the term "sovereign" is sometimes applied to the states. The term "sovereign," or "sovereignty," is used in different senses, which often leads to a confusion of ideas, and sometimes to very mischievous and unfounded conclusions. By "sovereignty," in its largest sense, is meant supreme, absolute, uncontrollable power, the jus summi imperii, the absolute right to govern. A state or nation is a body politic, or society of men, united together for the purpose of promoting their mutual safety and advantage by their combined strength. By the very act of civil and political association, each citizen subjects himself to the authority of the whole; and the authority of all over each member essentially belongs to the body politic. A state which possesses this absolute power, without any dependence upon any foreign power or state, is in the largest sense a sovereign state. And it is wholly immaterial what is the form of the government, or by whose hands this absolute authority is exercised. It may be exercised by the people at large, as in a pure democracy; or by a select few, as in an absolute aristocracy; or by a single person, as in an absolute monarchy. But "sovereignty" is often used, in a far more limited sense that that of which we have spoken, to designate such political powers as, in the actual organization of the particular state or nation, are to be exclusively exercised by certain public functionaries, without the control of any superior authority. It is in this sense that Blackstone employs it, when he says that it is of "the very essence of a law, that it is made by the supreme power. Sovereignty and legislature are, indeed, convertible terms; one cannot subsist without the other." Now, in every limited government, the power of legislation is, or at least may be, limited at the will of the nation; and therefore the legislature is not in an absolute sense sovereign. It is in the same sense Blackstone says, "the laws ascribes to the king of England the attribute of sovereignty or preeminence," because, in respect to the powers confided to him, he is dependent on no man, and accountable to no man, and subjected to no superior jurisdiction. Yet the king of England cannot make a law; and his acts, beyond the powers assigned to him by the constitution, are utterly void.

In like manner, the word "state" is used in various senses. In its most enlarged sense, it means the people composing a particular nation or community. In this sense, the "state" means the whole people, united into one body politic; and the state, and the people of the state, are equivalent expressions. Mr. Justice Wilson, in his Law Lectures, uses the word "state" in its broadest sense. "In free states," he says, "the people form an artificial person, or body politic, the highest and noblest that can be known. They form that moral person, which, in one of my former lecutres, I described as a complete body of free, natural persons, united together for their common benefit; as having an understanding and a will; as deliberating, and resolving, and acting; as possessed of interests which it ought to manage; as enjoying rights which it ought to maintain; and as lying under obligations which it ought to perform. To this moral person we assign, by way of eminence, the dignified appelation of STATE." But there is a more limited sense, in which the word is often used, where it expresses merely the positive or actual organization of legislative, executive, or judicial powers. Thus the actual government of a state is frequently designated by the name of the state. We say, the state has power to do this or that; the state has passed a law, or prohibited an act; meaning no more than that the proper functionaries, organized for that purpose , have power to do the act, or have passed the law, or prohibited the particular action. The sovereignty of a nation or state, considered with reference to its association, as a body politic, may be absolute and uncontrollable in all respects, except the limitations which it chooses to impose upon itself. But the sovereignty of the government, organized within the state, may be of a very limited nature. It may extend to a few, or to many objects. It may be unlimited, as to some; it may be restrained, as to others. To the extent of the power given, the government may be sovereign, and its acts may be deemed the sovereign acts of the state. Nay, the state, by which we mean the people composing the state, may divide its sovereign powers among various functionaries, and each, in the limited sense, would be sovereign in respect to the powers confided to each, and dependent in all other cases. Strictly speaking, in our republican forms of government, the absolute sovereignty of the nation is in the people of the nation; and the residuary sovereignty of each state.

There is another mode in which we speak of a state as sovereign, and that is in reference to foreign states. Whatever may be the internal organization of the government of any state, if it has the sole power of governing itself, and is not dependent upon any foreign state, it is called a sovereign state; that is, it is a state having the same rights, privileges, and powers, as other independent states. It is in this sense that the term is generally used in treatises and discussions on the law of nations.

Now, it is apparent that none of the colonies, before the revolution, were, in the most large and general sense, independent or sovereign communities. They were all originally settled under, and subjected to, the British crown. Their powers and authorities were derived from, and limited by, their respective charters. All, or nearly all, of these charters controlled their legislation by prohibiting them from making laws repugnant, or contrary, to those of England. The crown, in many of them, possessed a negative upon their legislation, as well as the exclusive appointment of their superior officers, and a right of revision, by way of appeal, of the judgments of their courts. In their most solemn declarations of rights, they admitted themselves bound, as British subjects, to allegiance to the British crown; and, as such, they claimed to be entitled to all the rights, liberties, and immunities, of free-born British subjects. They denied all power of taxation, except by their own colonial legislatures; but at the same time they admitted themselves bound by acts of the British Parliament for the regulation of external commerce, so as to secure the commercial advantages of the whole empire to the mother country, and the commercial benefits of its respective members. So far as respects foreign states, the colonies were not, in the sense of the law of nations, sovereign states, but mere dependencies of Great Britain. They could make no treaty, declare no war, send no ambassadors, regulate no intercourse or commerce, nor, in any other shape, act as sovereigns, in the negotiations usual between independent states. In respect to each other, they stood in the common relation of British subjects; the legislation of neither could be controlled by any other; but there was a common subjection to the British crown. If in any sense they might claim the attributes of sovereignty, it was only in that subordinate sense to which we have alluded, as exercising within a limited extent certain usual powers of sovereignty. The did not even affect a claim a local allegiance.

In the next place, the colonies did not severally act for themselves, and proclaim their own independence. It is true that some of the states had previously formed incipient governments for themselves; but it was done in compliance with the recommendations of Congress.

(Continued on next post...)

Unionblue
 
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
30,354
Location
Ocala, FL (as of December, 2015).
(Political Rights and Sovereignty, continued from above...)

"Virginia, on the 29th of June, 1776, by a convention of delegates, declared "the govenment of this country, as formerly exercised under the crown of Great Britain, totally dissolved," and proceeded to form a new constitutionof government. New Hampshire also formed a government, in December, 1775, which was manifestly intended to be temporary, "during (as they said) the unhappy and unnatural contest with Great Britain." New Jersey, too, established a frame of government, on the 2d of July, 1776; but it was expressly declared that it should be void upon a reconciliation with Great Britain. And South Carolian, in March, 1776, adopted a constitution of government; but this was, in like manner, "established until an accommodation between Great Britain and America could be obtained." But the declaration of the independence of all the colonies was the united act of all. It was "a declaration by the representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled;" "by the delegates appointed by the good people of the colonies," as in a prior declaration of rights they were called. It was not an act done by the state governments then organized; nor by persons chosen by them. It was emphatically the act of the whole people of the United Colonies, by the instrumentality of their representatives, chosen for that among other purposes. It was an act not competent to the state governments, or any of them, as organized under their charters, to adopt. Those charters neither contemplated the case, nor provided for it. It was an act of original, inherent sovereignty by the people themselves, resulting from their right to change the form of government, and to institute a new government, whenever necessary for their safety and happiness. So the Declaration of Independence treats it. No state had presumed of itself to form a new government, or to provide for the exigencies of the time, without consulting Congress on the subject; and when they acted, it was in pursuance of the recommendation of Congress. It was, therefore, the achievement of the whole for the benefit of the whole. The people of the United Colonies made the United Colonies free and independent states, and absolved them from allegiance to the British crown. The Declaration of Independence has accordingly always been treated as an act of paramount and sovereign authority, complete and perfect per se, and ipso facto working an entire dissolution of all political connection with, and allegiance to, Great Britain; and this, not merely as a practical fact, but in a legal and constitutional view of the matter by courts of justice.

In the debates in the South Carolina legislature, in January, 1788, respecting the propriety of calling a convention of the people to ratify or reject the Constitution, a distinguished statesman used the following language: "This admirable manifesto (i.e. the Declaration of Independence) sufficiently refutes the doctrine of the individual sovereignty and independence of the several states. In that Declaration the several states are not even enumerated; but after reciting, in nervous language, and with convincing arguments, our right to independence, and the tyranny which compelled us to assert it, the Declaration is made in the following words. 'We, therefore, the representatives of the United States &c., do, in the name, &c., of the good people of these colonies, solemnly publish, &c., that these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, free and independent states.' The separate independence and individual sovereignty of the several states were never thought of by the enlightened band of patriots who framed this Declaration. The several states are not even mentioned by name in any part, as if it was intended to impress the maxim on America, that our freedom and independence arose from our union, and that without it we could never be free or independent. 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, whcih can never benefit us, but may bring on us the most serious distresses."

This same section of Elliot's Debates may be found at:

http://lcweb2.loc.gov/ammem/amlaw/lwed.html

When you come to the site, look to the left side of the page and find Volume I/Contents/Index. Click on Contents, and then go to the upper right and type in the number 63 into the Turn to image box and then click to turn to that page.

If you wish some background information on Justice Joseph Story, you can view the following website:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Story

If you would like to read Justice Story's Commentaries on the Constitution, go to this website:

http://www.constitution.org/js/js_000.htm

So, in my view, the states seemed to have NEVER had true sovereignty, in all of their history, not to the extent they could be considered sovereign nations in their own right.

But did they have a degree, or as Justice Story puts it, a sense of sovereignty?

To me, yes. I base this on Akhil Reed Amar's book, America's Constitution, in where he states that under the Articles of Confederation, the States were bound by treaty such as a league, and exercised a type of state sovereignty under this agreement.

BUT, once the Articles were abandoned, and the Constitution ratified, the States gave up individual sovereignty and took upon themselves a consitution ratified by the people.

I invite replies.

Sincerely,
Unionblue
 

cw1865

Sergeant Major
Joined
Jun 12, 2007
Messages
1,850
Location
Riverdale, NJ (Morris County)
Deletions

I watch the History Channel threads (but do not post there), what's the story over there? Do the other posters simply hit 'report abuse' and your thread gets deleted?

I think somebody has been beating the state sovereignity drum over and over and over and over and over.....And....I'm right....don't worry Neil, its just a question of time before he gets picked up for tax evasion while he's screaming that he's a 'state citizen' not subject to Federal tax....:laugh2:

Brian,

I see, again, that the numerous other examples of other views of state sovereignty has once again been deleted.

It is a shame, that once again, you are unable to have an open debate on this topic.
 

trice

Lt. Colonel
Joined
May 2, 2006
Messages
11,951
I think you have to answer, first of all, which states. Clearly, Texas sovereignty in that it was a soveriegn nation recognized as such by other nations, including the United States.
In June of 1845, the emissary of Texas returned from Mexico with a proposed treaty that would recognize the independence of the Republic of Texas. The President of Texas, Anson Jones, then put the question to a vote: should Texas accept the treaty with Mexico and remain an independent and sovereign state, or should they accept annexation to the United States? The people of Texas voted to join the United States.

On February 19, 1846 the Republic of Texas held a formal ceremony to close down the government and become part of the United States. In his last official act, President Jones said: ""The Republic of Texas is no more."

Arguably, the Republic of Texas gave up all or part of its' sovereignity at that time. Certainly it accepted limitations upon it in the process. Assuming the statement of Jones is accurate, the independent Republic of Texas ceased to exist in 1846.

Vermont may also fall in this category in that it was an independant republic at one point (though I am unsure of international recognition).
The very existence of Vermont as an independent republic was denied by other colonies and states right up to the point at which it was admitted as a state. I believe New York finally gave up their claim to the place in that year, and I think New Hampshire had given it up sometime in the 1780s. The Crown courts decided against the Massachusetts claim back in the 1740s, IIRR. Vermont believes they were independent at one time. I think the rest of the world pretty much ignored them.

Hawaii as well (though a kingdom, not a republic).
Hawaii we basically grabbed in a coup. Naked aggression, with the only real justification being that we beat everyone else to it. The British seem to have accepted it because they didn't want the French to grab it.

The 13 original colonies? More difficult to say. They certainly had aspects of sovereignty but they rebelled and ended the rebellion as a unity. I am undecided on that issue.
Even back then, not everyone agreed. The quote from Pinckney I put in my signature here is an example -- and Pinckney was one of the people actually writing the US Constitution.

As to the other states, they are creations of the Federal government out of United States territories and never were independently sovereign. Any sovereignty they have is derivative of federal sovereignty.
This is one of the possible arguments, and has never been resolved to my knowledge. You can say, for example, thatif KY wanted to stop being a state they would revert to their status before they became one. In that case, they would either a) go back to being a US territory or b) revert to being a part of the state of Virginia.

So the states surrender their sovereignty? Yes. Clearly Texas, in requesting annexation surrendered many aspects of sovereignty and could no longer coin its own money, enter into its own treaties, etc. As to the colonies, I would argue that the people of the states removed the sovereignty from those states and conferred that sovereignty on the Federal government when the people of those states ratified the Constitution.
Probably earlier, in the Articles of Confederation and the formation of the United States. The Treaty of Ghent, ending the American Revolution, specifically states it is between two countries, not fourteen (and Vermont is not mentioned even as a part of the United States).

The states, or the people of those states, did not surrender all of the sovereignty of those states in that the United States is a federal system in which the states are sovereign up to the point where their sovereignty is overridden by the sovereignty of the federal government.
Yes, they essentially wanted to give themselves powers appropriate to govern within their own borders, and the central government powers appropriate to govern affairs between the states or relating to the rest of the world outside their nation.

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

larry_cockerham

Southern Gentleman, Lest We Forget, 2011
Honored Fallen Comrade
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Messages
10,166
Location
Nashville
Virginia was sovereign until all them darned English showed up in 1607.
 

OpnDownfall

Cadet
Joined
Aug 28, 2006
Messages
2,871
When did the States lose their soveereignty?

I dunno, was not Powhattan trying to bring independent villages under his Powhattan Confederation (english name, for his suzerain)
 

larry_cockerham

Southern Gentleman, Lest We Forget, 2011
Honored Fallen Comrade
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Messages
10,166
Location
Nashville
I dunno, was not Powhattan trying to bring independent villages under his Powhattan Confederation (english name, for his suzerain)
Yes, I believe that is true. Are you suggesting that their sovereignty was thus challenged or abused before the English showed up? I hadn't thought of that. Powhatan's brother Opechanough was my 12th great grandfather, so I have a passing interest in those folks. He was the dude who followed Powhatan as 'ruler' and carried out the raids on Jamestown. He was not overly impressed with John Smith.
 
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

ole

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Retired Moderator
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Messages
34,322
Location
Near Kankakee
Are you suggesting that their sovereignty was thus challenged or abused before the English showed up?
Most likely. Most tribes that existed pre-European intervention had been shoving each other around and taking and re-taking each others' territories for centuries. Each had as much soverignty as it could keep.

As to Vareb's original post, the state lost whatever soverignty it retained when it started to rely on Federal help. Any state can run its own schools for example, but it will do it without Federal money. The slow and steady growth of reliance was the slow and steady loss of soverignty.

To make a short story longer, I don't see a point at which the states "lost" their soverignty; it just wore away. I lean to the argument that the colonies were subject to English rule, therefore they were not soverign. During the revolution, they might have been soverign if it weren't for the need for cooperation and a body to coordinate the agreements of cooperation: if a colony in revolution had to make commitments to other colonies in revolution, they weren't completely soverign then, either. With the Articles of Confederation they gave up a piece of their soverignty and, with the Constitution, they gave up a bit more. After that came the creeping erosion.

Just a thought.

Ole
 

unionblue

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Member of the Year
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Messages
30,354
Location
Ocala, FL (as of December, 2015).
I watch the History Channel threads (but do not post there), what's the story over there? Do the other posters simply hit 'report abuse' and your thread gets deleted?

I think somebody has been beating the state sovereignity drum over and over and over and over and over.....And....I'm right....don't worry Neil, its just a question of time before he gets picked up for tax evasion while he's screaming that he's a 'state citizen' not subject to Federal tax....:laugh2:

Brian,

I see, again, that the numerous other examples of other views of state sovereignty has once again been deleted.

It is a shame, that once again, you are unable to have an open debate on this topic.
cw1865,

Yes, that's me trying to get past our former friend Joel Henderson/Brian McCandliss/Tom Jefferson, who is the only one permitted to have views on the issue of State Sovereignty over at the History Channel's Civil War forum.

And yes, ANYONE can report your post and have it deleted, as no moderator control exists there. You can save your posts before they are deleted and repost them, only to see them deleted again.

I have opened up a thread there with the title "Some other views of Sovereignty" only to see them deleted time and time again.

So I thought I would bring up Vareb's thread here and see if we could discuss his original question, when did the States lose their sovereignty.

It's my contention that the States/colonies never really had "sovereignty" in the way a nation has one, or in a "pure" state, but they did have some characteristics of sovereignty, but never as a nation state would.

I also believe that it takes a real amount of ignoring history to say that state sovereignty existed after the ratification of the US Constitution, and that there was no way to exercise it as a legal option for secession in 1861.

So, that's my stand. Waiting to see if anyone else has an opinion.

Unionblue
 

cw1865

Sergeant Major
Joined
Jun 12, 2007
Messages
1,850
Location
Riverdale, NJ (Morris County)
Semi-Autonomous

I think the best word to describe the colonies prior to the revolution is semi-autonomous. As a matter of practicality, there really was no other way to do it.

The Articles of Confederation states: Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated."

The 'retention' of sovereignity and the 'delegation' of some portion of it implies that at some point in time the drafters of the Articles believed the states possessed 'full' sovereignity.

The pertinent language in the Declaration:
"solemnly Publish and Declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be, Free and Independent States; that they are absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political Connection between them and the State of Great-Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do."

Its a singular act with quite a bit of plural language.

The ratification of the Constitution is the next act in the saga and its clear, at least to me, that the intent is to form a nation. From this juncture, the US begins to act like a unified country. The first 'great' national act is assumption of state debts by the Federal government.

The Jeffersonians, sitting in opposition to the Federalists finally get their shot in power and once in power, their anti-Federalist objections begin to evaporate, Jefferson buys Louisiana, and when the country goes to war in the War of 1812, the weak compact theory shows serious weakness. By this time, Madison, the former Federalist (now a Democrat/Republican) starts to sway back the other way and you get support for internal improvements and the second national bank.

The states themselves also start acting like states of the Union. Virginia relinquishes/cedes claims to large swaths of land to the central government (an independent republic would be unlikely to voluntarily do such a thing).
 
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
30,354
Location
Ocala, FL (as of December, 2015).
cw1865,

From some of the articles I have researched on the subject, it appears plain to me that state sovereignty was always in flux or change.

The states never seemed to have full nationhood status at any time in their history, but the closest they came was under the Articles of Confederation.

But after that, I do not understand how anyone could concieve that the states had retained complete sovereignty when it came to the Constitution and secession in 1860.

To me, it seems there had to be an almost willful suspension of belief and of historical fact to claim the Constitution was based on state sovereignty vs. the people.

Unionblue
 

trice

Lt. Colonel
Joined
May 2, 2006
Messages
11,951
The states never seemed to have full nationhood status at any time in their history, but the closest they came was under the Articles of Confederation.
Yet even there it is obvious that the states (or rebellious colonies) had given up many of the aspects of sovereignity:
=====
VI.

No State, without the consent of the United States in Congress assembled, shall send any embassy to, or receive any embassy from, or enter into any conference, agreement, alliance or treaty with any King, Prince or State; nor shall any person holding any office of profit or trust under the United States, or any of them, accept any present, emolument, office or title of any kind whatever from any King, Prince or foreign State; nor shall the United States in Congress assembled, or any of them, grant any title of nobility.
No two or more States shall enter into any treaty, confederation or alliance whatever between them, without the consent of the United States in Congress assembled, specifying accurately the purposes for which the same is to be entered into, and how long it shall continue.

No State shall lay any imposts or duties, which may interfere with any stipulations in treaties, entered into by the United States in Congress assembled, with any King, Prince or State, in pursuance of any treaties already proposed by Congress, to the courts of France and Spain.

No vessel of war shall be kept up in time of peace by any State, except such number only, as shall be deemed necessary by the United States in Congress assembled, for the defense of such State, or its trade; nor shall any body of forces be kept up by any State in time of peace, except such number only, as in the judgement of the United States in Congress assembled, shall be deemed requisite to garrison the forts necessary for the defense of such State; but every State shall always keep up a well-regulated and disciplined militia, sufficiently armed and accoutered, and shall provide and constantly have ready for use, in public stores, a due number of filed pieces and tents, and a proper quantity of arms, ammunition and camp equipage.

No State shall engage in any war without the consent of the United States in Congress assembled, unless such State be actually invaded by enemies, or shall have received certain advice of a resolution being formed by some nation of Indians to invade such State, and the danger is so imminent as not to admit of a delay till the United States in Congress assembled can be consulted; nor shall any State grant commissions to any ships or vessels of war, nor letters of marque or reprisal, except it be after a declaration of war by the United States in Congress assembled, and then only against the Kingdom or State and the subjects thereof, against which war has been so declared, and under such regulations as shall be established by the United States in Congress assembled, unless such State be infested by pirates, in which case vessels of war may be fitted out for that occasion, and kept so long as the danger shall continue, or until the United States in Congress assembled shall determine otherwise.
=====
Tim
 
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!
Top