When did the States lose their Sovereignty?

larry_cockerham

Southern Gentleman, Lest We Forget, 2011
Honored Fallen Comrade
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Location
Nashville
As much as the diminishment of sovereignty might be viewed as a loss from a state perspective, there is something hopefully to be gained from the union of states. It's obviously worked out that way numerous times in our history. The civil war was one of the rather extreme cases when such was at question. Thank Divine providence the Union prevailed.
 

cw1865

Sergeant Major
Joined
Jun 12, 2007
Location
Riverdale, NJ (Morris County)
Ah, but....

Yet even there it is obvious that the states (or rebellious colonies) had given up many of the aspects of sovereignity:

Ahhh, but we have to remember that the Constitution of 1787 is fixing SOMETHING. I would suggest that under the Articles, the states retained MOST of their sovereignity. Under the Articles, the Congress had limited powers, couldn't tax, couldn't compel compliance to law....The central government acted SUBJECT to the voluntary cooperation of the states.

They're fixing the 13 headed hydra, Four years post revolution, they were already looking to get rid of it....see Pennamite War, Shays Rebellion, highlighting Federal impotence.

For me, passage of time MATTERS. From 1776-1787, the US is looking for a way to continue into the future. Even after 1787, the country still needed 'glue'

So, if you tell me in 1795 that the experiment is failing and a state desires to secede, frankly I don't have much problem with that (It would imply a failure of the 1787 Constitution itself). But don't come back in 1860 after the country is fabulously successful, extending from coast to coast and tell me that some doctrine of sovereignity still applies from the 1776-1787 period.

For me, it like building a brick wall, brick, by brick, by brick. Each brick adds up: 1787 Constitution, assumption, Louisiana Purchase, War of 1812, nullification crisis, National Banks, Mexican War, carving out new states, etc. For me, its additive, and with each year, it becomes increasingly LESS equitable to assert state sovereignity.....
 

trice

Lt. Colonel
Joined
May 2, 2006
Ahhh, but we have to remember that the Constitution of 1787 is fixing SOMETHING. I would suggest that under the Articles, the states retained MOST of their sovereignity. Under the Articles, the Congress had limited powers, couldn't tax, couldn't compel compliance to law....The central government acted SUBJECT to the voluntary cooperation of the states.

They're fixing the 13 headed hydra, Four years post revolution, they were already looking to get rid of it....see Pennamite War, Shays Rebellion, highlighting Federal impotence.

For me, passage of time MATTERS. From 1776-1787, the US is looking for a way to continue into the future. Even after 1787, the country still needed 'glue'

So, if you tell me in 1795 that the experiment is failing and a state desires to secede, frankly I don't have much problem with that (It would imply a failure of the 1787 Constitution itself). But don't come back in 1860 after the country is fabulously successful, extending from coast to coast and tell me that some doctrine of sovereignity still applies from the 1776-1787 period.

For me, it like building a brick wall, brick, by brick, by brick. Each brick adds up: 1787 Constitution, assumption, Louisiana Purchase, War of 1812, nullification crisis, National Banks, Mexican War, carving out new states, etc. For me, its additive, and with each year, it becomes increasingly LESS equitable to assert state sovereignity.....

Oh, I agree that there is a process involved, with the sovereignity of the states becoming less and less obvious, and more limited, over time. But it is clear to me that, from the beginning, the states felt they needed to give/delegate part of their "sovereignity" to the central government. The split seems to have started as an external/internal division, with the central government handling everything to do with foreign affairs and defense, as well as relations among the states, while the individual states managed things within their own borders.

But it was there from the beginning. The rebelling colonies understood they were not able to succeed on their own, that they needed the strength of unity to survive, and they seem to have vested part of their supposed "sovereignity" in the United States to achive that survival and independence.

Then we know that they felt the US government was not strong enough, that the powers needed to be stronger, that the definition needed to be clearer -- and in particular that the ability of a small minority to stop the actions of the whole needed to be reduced. Thus the Constitution as the new set of rules to replace the Articles of Confederation for the Union.

Then over time the needs of building a government and a nation mitigated towards a stronger central government. In addition, time changed the framework of how Americans interacted. Travel and trade became much easier, and the lines between the states became more porous and murky -- also making it necessary for the central government to do more.

So there really isn't much doubt the states had given aspects of their sovereignity to the central government, freely and willingly, in return for perceived benefits in doing so. What is really in question when we speak of secession is whether or not the states can reclaim those aspects. If we were speaking of a power of attorney here, or a trust, we would be speaking of the difference between a revocable and an irrevocable one. The "perpetual Union" supporters argue that the delegation of powers was irrevocable. The secessionists argue that the delegation of powers was not only revocable, but revocable at will, without any necessary cause or conditions.

Tim
 

unionblue

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Member of the Year
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Location
Ocala, FL (as of December, 2015).
And yet,:smile:

Part of the reason the Southern states justified their secession from the Union was the idea the Constitution was just a compact and the States had retained their FULL sovereignty and could resume it at any time.

Why did they think this?

Unionblue
 

trice

Lt. Colonel
Joined
May 2, 2006
And yet,:smile:

Part of the reason the Southern states justified their secession from the Union was the idea the Constitution was just a compact and the States had retained their FULL sovereignty and could resume it at any time.

Why did they think this?

Essentially, this is the "revocable" part.

If you think of those aspects of sovereignity that were clearly given to the Federal government (the delegeted powers) as a power of attorney agreement, it might be more clear. The delegation allows the Federal government to exercise the powers for you.

If you want them back, the question of revocable or irrevocable becomes crucial. If the power of attorney was given irrevocably, no "secession" is possible and you can't get them back. If the power of attorney is revocable, you just cancel it ("secession") and get them back. That's the essential of the argument for secession from both sides. No one really argues that the states never delegated some aspects of sovereignity to the Federal government (or, at least, those who do can be shown to be wrong).

Tim
 

cw1865

Sergeant Major
Joined
Jun 12, 2007
Location
Riverdale, NJ (Morris County)
Simple

And yet,:smile:

Part of the reason the Southern states justified their secession from the Union was the idea the Constitution was just a compact and the States had retained their FULL sovereignty and could resume it at any time.

Why did they think this?

Unionblue

Simply put they thought this for a very simple reason - that is the legal theory that permits them to do what they want to do....

But even staunch Federalists will refer to the Constitution as the 'Compact' - "It is, therefore, a compact between the states, and all the powers which are not expressly relinquished by it" - Marshall in McCulloch v. Maryland

Of course in this quote, Marshall sees a "relinquishment" of powers.
 

tory_loyalist

Banned
Joined
Aug 2, 2008
Location
His Majesty's colonies
I have often ask this question because there are those that say there was no such thing. What do y'all think?

The states did not lose their sovereignty; it was take from them by a Northern coalition who made it illegal.

Of course, the amendments were not made with the uncoerced agreement of all the states, so the legality of this amendment, as well as the anti-slavery amendments, are called into eternal question...

When the states ever agree to give up their sovereignty, then they will have lost it forever.

But until that time, it is still not determined.

This Northern (Blue) look at the Constitution is not the law of the land by WE THE PEOPLE.

It is a military enforcement, only.

Jefferson disagrees with how we run things today.

Davis said that the South lost, but that did not make them also wrong.

I disagree with how the South is remembered, how it is slighted, and how the politics still
hides under the RACISM, TREASON, and VICTOR cloaks. It should be made to step forward and give an account of itself...

That is my axe to grind.

The lack of
sovereignty issue is only a fundamentalist Unionist claim.

We do not all agree with their findings.



Loyalist
 

OpnDownfall

Cadet
Joined
Aug 28, 2006
In fact, the Only sovereignty the states lost, was the right to own slaves.
As pointed out by many on this board, there were many ways of adjudicating the process of secession, including War. But, the South, deliberately, with cool calculation, chose war to decide, not only the rightness of unilateral secession itself, but also, the terms of its success.
The south chose war to determine how secession would be acknowledged, not only by the North, but also, by the world.
It was by the south's own choice as to how it would learn that not only was secession wrong, but also slavery.
Thus the war did determine the fate of slavery And the validity of unilateral secession. The south agreed to both when it surrendered to the North.
 
Joined
Oct 14, 2008
Location
Los Angeles
Its the concept of dual sovereignity.

The states still are sovereign, but not in the way that you're thinking of it.
Nor Jefferson, nor the people of the states who were the sovereigns in question by his very definition from the states' origin.
So guess who is the final authority?
"Dual sovereignty," as indicated in Resolutions, is an amusing but ridiculous oxymoron by simple definition of the terms alone-- and is nowhere mentioned in the Constitution (for this very reason).
Therefore, it is clearly a transparent hoax cobbled by charlatans to convince the ignorant and dim-witted of their proper legal authority-- despite insulting anyone with an ounce of logic.
Is that the best you can manage?
 
Joined
Oct 14, 2008
Location
Los Angeles
In fact, the Only sovereignty the states lost, was the right to own slaves.
AND all the other things that sovereign states may by right do; aside from that, yep they could pretty much carry on as previous.

As pointed out by many on this board, there were many ways of adjudicating the process of secession, including War.

Not for sovereign states-- they don't even need to wave bye-bye or give notice.
But notice WAS given, so tra-la-la.


Thus the war did determine the fate of slavery And the validity of unilateral secession. The south agreed to both when it surrendered to the North.

Then by your defintion, the US government is an imperial brute-force dictatorship that pretenses written law and respect for national sovereignty, only for the pragmatic reasons of controlling the ignorant masses with deliberate falsehoods and legal fictions.

However by that token, every person is equally justified in overthrowing that empire by any effective means-- as Lincoln clearly stated in claiming such right to "Any people being inclined in having the power."
Base minds think alike.
 
Joined
Oct 14, 2008
Location
Los Angeles
As much as the diminishment of sovereignty might be viewed as a loss from a state perspective, there is something hopefully to be gained from the union of states. It's obviously worked out that way numerous times in our history. The civil war was one of the rather extreme cases when such was at question. Thank Divine providence the Union prevailed.

If you embrace such brute-force imperial dictatorship, then I believe the term would be "Heil Lincoln"
Meanwhile, Divine Providence denies such secular pragmatism and moral relativism: in fact such audacity is sacrilege in its arrogance, and only state-imposed compensatory sociopathy can excuse it-- which thus denies the very notion it otherwise dares the gall to spew, and hence condemns itself entirely.
 
Joined
Oct 14, 2008
Location
Los Angeles
The states did not lose their sovereignty; it was take from them by a Northern coalition who made it illegal.
Not by any written law, but simply the law of brute-force imperial pragmatism-- which merely suppresses truth via totalitarian means.

Of course, the amendments were not made with the uncoerced agreement of all the states, so the legality of this amendment, as well as the anti-slavery amendments, are called into eternal question...
No amendment reverses the right of absolute state sovereignty-- indeed, this would contradict the very authorty claimed in order to enact same.

When the states ever agree to give up their sovereignty, then they will have lost it forever.
But until that time, it is still not determined.
And hence they are still nationally sovereign, by the written law.

This Northern (Blue) look at the Constitution is not the law of the land by WE THE PEOPLE.
The only sovereign "people" that existed prior to the Constitution, were those of the states RESPECTIVELY; hence only such could have ratified the Constitution.

It is a military enforcement, only.

Which is NO enforcement, but simply FORCE-- as in BRUTE force.

Jefferson disagrees with how we run things today.

It's not a matter of Jefferson's opinion, but that of the sovereign power in question-- which is, again, the people of the respective states.
They did not ever manifestly express an intent to vest their sovereignty collectively with the other states; and hence, none may validly construe such a manifest claim or inent.

Davis said that the South lost, but that did not make them also wrong.
It also couldn't change the fact of sovereignty pre-dating such, which is all that matters. The war could not change this, since again its claim of valid legal authority depended on such sovereignty, and therefore a shift in such claim to military victory would be outright circular pragmatism.

I disagree with how the South is remembered, how it is slighted, and how the politics still
hides under the RACISM, TREASON, and VICTOR cloaks.

Thus did Samson and Joshua remember the Philistines in the pages of scripture, while Nebuchadnezzar and Hitler likwise therein share twin sulfur-baths in Hades; never forget that history is written by the victors.. which should make one likewise remember to always consider the source, and take it with as many grains of salt as circumstances indicate.

It should be made to step forward and give an account of itself...

That is my axe to grind.

The lack of
sovereignty issue is only a fundamentalist Unionist claim.
But such is the fundamental basis of bias in hagiography, i.e. "vae victus."

We do not all agree with their findings.
Nor does truth; but truth relates only to one's values, whether these be absolute or relative-- and the latter leaves none.
 
Joined
Oct 14, 2008
Location
Los Angeles
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.

The sovereign people of the states manifested no such intent.

Rather, Madison expressly stated in Federalist 39, that
"The proposed Constitution, therefore is, in strictness, neither a national nor a federal Constitution, but a composition of both. In its foundation it is federal, not national; in the sources from which the ordinary powers of the government are drawn, it is partly federal and partly national; in the operation of these powers, it is national, not federal; in the extent of them, again, it is federal, not national; and, finally, in the authoritative mode of introducing amendments, it is neither wholly federal nor wholly national."

However if the federal government wielded national authority, then it WOULD be wholly national; only a complete fool-- or a charlatan-- would claim that the mere written Constitution could do beans to stop it.
And only an even bigger fool or charlatan would trust such an all-powerful government against corruption; however that's exactly what Lincoln claimed, holding that somehow "the American People" held this power, solely by being able to remove officals that violated the Constitution (which pretty much nixes his other claim that "All the vital rights of minorities and of individuals are so plainly assured to them by affirmations and negations, guaranties [sic] and prohibitions, in the Constitution that controversies never arise concerning them."
But since when did a Great Dictator ever let a little thing like logic stop him?
Rather, he precisely claimed that the Constitution was foolproof, stating that "All profess to be content in the Union if all constitutional rights can be maintained. Is it true, then, that any right plainly written in the Constitution has been denied? I think not. Happily, the human mind is so constituted that no party can reach to the audacity of doing this. Think, if you can, of a single instance in which a plainly written provision of the Constitution has ever been denied. If by the mere force of numbers a majority should deprive a minority of any clearly written constitutional right, it might in a moral point of view justify revolution; certainly would if such right were a vital one."

So here Lincoln stated outright, that the Constitution was not an exhaustive list of delegated federal powers, but of mere restrictions on such-- which could likewise be construed meaningless, by that same federal government which he claimed finally authorized in wielding same!

And here he fell: for only a fool would believe such claptrap-- and hence the Constitution was no proof against them.

Also, too bad the Constitution never mentions such a singular "People;" rather the only "People" mentioned, are those of the states respectively who ordained and established it. As Madison likewise states in Federalist 39, that

" the act of the people, as forming so many independent States, not as forming one aggregate nation, is obvious from this single consideration, that it is to result neither from the decision of a majority of the people of the Union, nor from that of a majority of the States. It must result from the unanimous assent of the several States that are parties to it, differing no otherwise from their ordinary assent than in its being expressed, not by the legislative authority, but by that of the people themselves. Were the people regarded in this transaction as forming one nation, the will of the majority of the whole people of the United States would bind the minority, in the same manner as the majority in each State must bind the minority; and the will of the majority must be determined either by a comparison of the individual votes, or by considering the will of the majority of the States as evidence of the will of a majority of the people of the United States. Neither of these rules have been adopted. Each State, in ratifying the Constitution, is considered as a sovereign body, independent of all others, and only to be bound by its own voluntary act. In this relation, then, the new Constitution will, if established, be a federal, and not a national constitution."

I think this pretty much settles the issue.
And you; I can't intelligently converse with a mule.
 

unionblue

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Member of the Year
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Location
Ocala, FL (as of December, 2015).
The states did not lose their sovereignty;

You make it sound as though they placed it somewhere and couldn't remember where they put it.:smile:

it was take from them by a Northern coalition who made it illegal.

Nope, it was freely surrendered in 1787, when the States ratified the US Constitution.

Of course, the amendments were not made with the uncoerced agreement of all the states, so the legality of this amendment, as well as the anti-slavery amendments, are called into eternal question...

I see that you have not read any of the ratification debates held in the various States. The only eternal question is, when will you read some history and stop with the unsupported statements like this one.

When the states ever agree to give up their sovereignty, then they will have lost it forever.

1787. Done deal.

But until that time, it is still not determined.

1787. It's been determined.

This Northern (Blue) look at the Constitution is not the law of the land by WE THE PEOPLE.

"We the People, in order to form a more perfect Union..."

It is a military enforcement, only.

Anyone get the number of that military enforcement truck that hit the states in 1787?

Jefferson disagrees with how we run things today.

How does he disagree? What does he say about how we run things today?

Davis said that the South lost, but that did not make them also wrong.

Davis said a lot of things. What did he accomplish in order to make them not wrong?

I disagree with how the South is remembered, how it is slighted, and how the politics still
hides under the RACISM, TREASON, and VICTOR cloaks. It should be made to step forward and give an account of itself...

A black man has been elected President of the United States. I wonder what Davis would have to say about that? Or is Davis and the South had been the VICTORs, would RACISM and TREASON have led to this point in our history?

That is my axe to grind.

More like choppin' and no chips are flyin'.

The lack of
sovereignty issue is only a fundamentalist Unionist claim.

Now see, here you are just flat out wrong. Andy Jackson said it was wrong, Zachory Taylor said it was wrong. Chief Justice Taney of the Supreme Court said it was wrong, and none of them were "fundamentalist Unionist." Were they?

We do not all agree with their findings.

We? I'm afraid you will find a rather large majority who does agree with their findings, hence the reason State Sovereignty doesn't sell as a good reason/excuse for the war.

Loyalist

And so it goes...

Unionblue
 

tory_loyalist

Banned
Joined
Aug 2, 2008
Location
His Majesty's colonies
And so it goes...

Unionblue

Davis said that the North had said that the states could not exist half slave and half free, or as he put it...

could not longer exist under the conditions which had formed it, or for ' the ends for which it was established...'

With the majority in the North making all these decisions, and enforcing them by votes and by
the Federal military, once in power...

You tell me that THIS is what the founding fathers wanted for their posterity?

I choose England, sir! At least our tyrant was three thousand miles away!

Do show me where in 1787 the states declared openly WE ARE NO LONGER STATES, but wards of the Federal government, and whatever the mob decrees, that will we do!

I would like chapter and verse, since you are so astute with this information, and knowledgeable to that end.

Sir.

Surely, such a statement by any or all of the states would have been flown on the very flags of invasion!

I cannot see the independent Americans from Missouri or Virginia, and certainly not North Carolina going for THAT, at any time!

Loyalist
 

tory_loyalist

Banned
Joined
Aug 2, 2008
Location
His Majesty's colonies
And yet,:smile:

Part of the reason the Southern states justified their secession from the Union was the idea the Constitution was just a compact and the States had retained their FULL sovereignty and could resume it at any time.

Why did they think this?

Unionblue

They got the idea, oriiginally, from the dissatisfied North.

This whole 'experiment' was an attempt to get rid of empire, and kingdoms.

To be the new and improved Britain.

NEW England, so to speak...

But the puritans and the congregationalists just can't stay out of people's lives!

Even after they have become socialists, and forgotten God, entirely!


Loyalist
 

cw1865

Sergeant Major
Joined
Jun 12, 2007
Location
Riverdale, NJ (Morris County)
The People

Do show me where in 1787 the states declared openly WE ARE NO LONGER STATES, but wards of the Federal government, and whatever the mob decrees, that will we do!

The states had no say in the matter, the people did. The people told the states that the [US] 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."

To interpret it in a weaker manner puts the burden on you to demonstrate the shift from the Articles of Confederation to the US Constitution.
 

ole

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Retired Moderator
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Location
Near Kankakee
We're talking about when they lost soverignty, but I'm wondering if they ever had it.

Ole
 
Joined
Oct 14, 2008
Location
Los Angeles
union_blue said:
And yet,

Part of the reason the Southern states justified their secession from the Union was the idea the Constitution was just a compact and the States had retained their FULL sovereignty and could resume it at any time.

Why did they think this?

Unionblue

Because there's no such thing as PARTIAL sovereignty-- and if something is RETAINED, then there's no need to RESUME it; rather, they simply inform their federal DELEGATES that their services are no longer required, having been downsized and reverted to their in-state counterparts.

This notion of "partial sovereignty" is like living with a 900-lb. gorilla... and putting your name on a banana, to "ensure" that he won't eat it, because your "Constitution" agreement said that all food belonged to the person on the label.

You'd REALLY look pretty funny trying to tell him that it wasn't really HIS name on the banana, like he claimed...

jtr0383l.jpg




Expired Image Removed
My banana! MINE!!!!
There needs be no bloodshed, except that forced on the national athority!
 
Top