• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Celebrate the 151st Anniversary of Lee's Surrender

apdst said:
Are The Federalist Papers the law of the land? They're not? I didn't think so.

But, since you brought it up, I like to pay particular attention to where the judiciary has neither force, nor will. Hence, they can't interpret The Constitution. It doesn't have that power.
Click to expand...

The Federalist Papers outline the meanings behind the Constitution and how it is to be used.
 
Jack Hays said:
Please feel free to deem as a concession anything you wish. I'll not be keeping score.

I believe slavery was the primary cause of our Civil War. There were other sectional disagreements to be sure, but only slavery had the power to cause war. The secession crisis of 1832, to which slavery was not central, was resolved without war.

In 1861 the South rebelled to overturn the legitimate election result of 1860, which the South's leadership viewed as a threat to slavery. There was no Constitutional basis for secession, which was always illegitimate. In Texas v White in 1869, SCOTUS rejected the premise that there had ever been a "compact" under the Constitution which states were free to join or leave, and instead found a perpetual and indissoluble Union. Everyone is free to decide whether they agree or disagree with that verdict, but as a matter of Constitutional law it doesn't matter; SCOTUS has settled the question.
Click to expand...
First, I apologize for the tardy response, a sweet vacationing to Colombia, nice long break from all tasks important and sundry.

Next, your initial statement seems of sour grapes...it is simply debate. Winning the point being an indicator, not necessarily of truth, perhaps at least the better argument... hopefully leading to clarity of issue. Obfuscation should never be a goal.

This last was a much better post, yes, thanks.

Until this post , you have been adamant slavery was the ONLY cause. Now adjusted to the primary cause. As expressed by the #2 man of the Confederacy, Steven's extemporaneous speech, somehow totally absent from #1 man, Davis' inaugural, Stevens felt it to be the immediate cause of the war. Being a part of the Declarations of Cause by the Seceding states, I never disagreed that slavery was not a major cause of the war... argued it was not the ONLY cause. As their documents expressed, as many speeches on the topic made by primary players that side, a significant cause was a matter of a Federal government asserting itself more than originally intentioned or ever agreed upon.

Understood there is overlap.

As to the fight, earlier they prepared to actually go to blows. The South, especially SC, was so poised 1830s-1850s for reasons other than only slavery. Of our Fed Government stepping in, threatening to step, siding with Northern regional interests where it had no Constitutional basis. Placing one region over another is not a legitimate interest of national government. Protective tariffs impacting Southerners detrimentally versus promoting the North, advantaging shipping/manufacturing was an example that almost brought the two, federal & state, previously to blows. That they did not was not due to a final resolution of the problem, it was like always, band-aide affixed and kick that problem can on down the road.

With Colonial secession, 1776, attempting to bow out, in the South's case of a voluntary association, should well be considered consistent, being more a time honored American tradition rather than “always illegitimate”.
 
Gaugingcatenate said:
First, I apologize for the tardy response, a sweet vacationing to Colombia, nice long break from all tasks important and sundry.

Next, your initial statement seems of sour grapes...it is simply debate. Winning the point being an indicator, not necessarily of truth, perhaps at least the better argument... hopefully leading to clarity of issue. Obfuscation should never be a goal.

This last was a much better post, yes, thanks.

Until this post , you have been adamant slavery was the ONLY cause. Now adjusted to the primary cause. As expressed by the #2 man of the Confederacy, Steven's extemporaneous speech, somehow totally absent from #1 man, Davis' inaugural, Stevens felt it to be the immediate cause of the war. Being a part of the Declarations of Cause by the Seceding states, I never disagreed that slavery was not a major cause of the war... argued it was not the ONLY cause. As their documents expressed, as many speeches on the topic made by primary players that side, a significant cause was a matter of a Federal government asserting itself more than originally intentioned or ever agreed upon.

Understood there is overlap.

As to the fight, earlier they prepared to actually go to blows. The South, especially SC, was so poised 1830s-1850s for reasons other than only slavery. Of our Fed Government stepping in, threatening to step, siding with Northern regional interests where it had no Constitutional basis. Placing one region over another is not a legitimate interest of national government. Protective tariffs impacting Southerners detrimentally versus promoting the North, advantaging shipping/manufacturing was an example that almost brought the two, federal & state, previously to blows. That they did not was not due to a final resolution of the problem, it was like always, band-aide affixed and kick that problem can on down the road.

With Colonial secession, 1776, attempting to bow out, in the South's case of a voluntary association, should well be considered consistent, being more a time honored American tradition rather than “always illegitimate”.
Click to expand...

No apology necessary. We all have lives outside DP. Besides, it may have been salutary for us to stand down for a while.
I don't recall saying slavery was the only cause but I may have been imprecise at some point. I believe slavery was the overwhelmingly primary cause, along the lines of lightning (slavery) vs a lightning bug (all other causes). As you noted, there was causal overlap; I believe most of the commonly cited non-slavery causes were in fact rooted in slavery and/or the economy that slavery created.
Texas v White was definitive in rejecting the "compact theory" of the Constitution. As far as I'm concerned that question is closed.
Be well.
 
Jack Hays said:
...Again, under Texas v White, SCOTUS held that the seceding states had never been outside the Union. That is consistent with the extraordinary post-war leniency demonstrated by the North. I personally might have favored harsher measures, including dissolution of the seceded states, redrawn state boundaries, new state names and deportation to Australia of Confederate leaders. Might that have been inconsistent with the SCOTUS holding in Texas v White? Perhaps, but it's just a personal fantasy anyway.

Lee was an excellent soldier and, by all accounts, a good man. He nonetheless made a disastrous decision in 1861 when he sided with the South, and may bear more personal responsibility for the length and lethality of the war than anyone else...

:2usflag:
Click to expand...

An utter absence of true logic. What with the Supreme Court's self-declared infallibility, in the face of provable massive errors of past courts... and then that of the Federal Government, SCOTUS being a coequal reigning branch, able to determine/authorize, without recourse, its own increasing scope and power...?? The idea that they have unchallengeable authority is, and should be, ludicrous. Understood the anti-slavery passion of Lincoln with a house divided, yet nowhere does the Constitution give the Federal Government any such powers so stated/threatened. Either we are a nation of laws, of the Constitution, or we are not.

And if we are not, then there is occasion, and reason, to leave.

Had no dog in the Lee vs Grant fight. Did read with interest the views expressed on both sides, fascinated with the expertise, description of locations/battles, the strategies/tactics utilized. Wonderfully executed in that portion of this debate.

Myself, I consider myself 110% patriotic American, born a Michigan Yankee, attending elementary school in Richmond, Va where we, young kids, still physically fought those old Civil War battles [was a staunch young Yankee back then...]. Have since studied our founding, now disagree completely on the concept of the illegitimacy of secession, be it North or South.

Perpetuity of the Union? As strongly as you perceive? Which historical document made that the unbreakable rule? Certainly not the Constitution which, after tossing almost every aspect of the Articles, those in which that phrase is found, the Constitution specifically made no mention of anything about being perpetual/indissoluble. Fact, three states, Virginia, Lee's state, being one, included in their ratification language that permitted withdrawal should they deem themselves ever harmed by union.

Blame on Lee's shoulders? Even more to be placed on Lincoln's. Over 600K dead of a total population of about 33 million. Mention should also be made to those maimed, the untold misery left to the living, the massive destruction of much of the South, the entire US economy disrupted. What opportunities were missed had we, together and/or separately, concentrated efforts/finances on something other than a destructive war against ourselves?

For a practice, slavery, horizontal on its deathbed and yet killing, maiming over a million. During/after, the forcing, the actual military forcing, of some of our parts to fall in line with what the other parts demand? It took another hundred or so years to right that which would have, little doubt, rapidly have withered away as it did with all other Western nations.

This forcing simply going against all that for which we stand.
 
Gaugingcatenate said:
An utter absence of true logic. What with the Supreme Court's self-declared infallibility, in the face of provable massive errors of past courts... and then that of the Federal Government, SCOTUS being a coequal reigning branch, able to determine/authorize, without recourse, its own increasing scope and power...?? The idea that they have unchallengeable authority is, and should be, ludicrous. Understood the anti-slavery passion of Lincoln with a house divided, yet nowhere does the Constitution give the Federal Government any such powers so stated/threatened. Either we are a nation of laws, of the Constitution, or we are not.

And if we are not, then there is occasion, and reason, to leave.

Had no dog in the Lee vs Grant fight. Did read with interest the views expressed on both sides, fascinated with the expertise, description of locations/battles, the strategies/tactics utilized. Wonderfully executed in that portion of this debate.

Myself, I consider myself 110% patriotic American, born a Michigan Yankee, attending elementary school in Richmond, Va where we, young kids, still physically fought those old Civil War battles [was a staunch young Yankee back then...]. Have since studied our founding, now disagree completely on the concept of the illegitimacy of secession, be it North or South.

Perpetuity of the Union? As strongly as you perceive? Which historical document made that the unbreakable rule? Certainly not the Constitution which, after tossing almost every aspect of the Articles, those in which that phrase is found, the Constitution specifically made no mention of anything about being perpetual/indissoluble. Fact, three states, Virginia, Lee's state, being one, included in their ratification language that permitted withdrawal should they deem themselves ever harmed by union.

Blame on Lee's shoulders? Even more to be placed on Lincoln's. Over 600K dead of a total population of about 33 million. Mention should also be made to those maimed, the untold misery left to the living, the massive destruction of much of the South, the entire US economy disrupted. What opportunities were missed had we, together and/or separately, concentrated efforts/finances on something other than a destructive war against ourselves?

For a practice, slavery, horizontal on its deathbed and yet killing, maiming over a million. During/after, the forcing, the actual military forcing, of some of our parts to fall in line with what the other parts demand? It took another hundred or so years to right that which would have, little doubt, rapidly have withered away as it did with all other Western nations.

This forcing simply going against all that for which we stand.
Click to expand...

An absence of logic? Yes. As I said, it was a personal fantasy.

SCOTUS does not claim infallibility, only unchallengeability on the Constitution. That's why it's "Supreme."

Texas v White is excellent on the indissoluble union. What could be more indissoluble than a perpetual union (Articles) made more perfect (Constitution)?

Lincoln did not seek the war; Confederates did that all by themselves.
 
Jack Hays said:
An absence of logic? Yes. As I said, it was a personal fantasy.

SCOTUS does not claim infallibility, only unchallengeability on the Constitution. That's why it's "Supreme."

Texas v White is excellent on the indissoluble union. What could be more indissoluble than a perpetual union (Articles) made more perfect (Constitution)?

Lincoln did not seek the war; Confederates did that all by themselves.
Click to expand...
If the Supreme Court does not claim infallibility, you do for them. The Supremes, btw, can be challenged in myriad ways, not the least of which is by a subsequent SC.

A more perfect union does not require that all parts of the union be forced to be in union, that would not convey the message of more perfect. That borders on what amounts to false imprisonment to any of those no longer desiring to be in a national partnership. Force, at least in my opinion, is not a well founded, reasonable or just part of heading towards perfection.

I also disagree with you on Lincoln and his willingness to let bygones be bygones. You are implying that he would have allowed the South to leave voluntarily; had the Confederates not fired on Sumter he would have just let them go, set them free?
 
Gaugingcatenate said:
If the Supreme Court does not claim infallibility, you do for them. The Supremes, btw, can be challenged in myriad ways, not the least of which is by a subsequent SC.

A more perfect union does not require that all parts of the union be forced to be in union, that would not convey the message of more perfect. That borders on what amounts to false imprisonment to any of those no longer desiring to be in a national partnership. Force, at least in my opinion, is not a well founded, reasonable or just part of heading towards perfection.

I also disagree with you on Lincoln and his willingness to let bygones be bygones. You are implying that he would have allowed the South to leave voluntarily; had the Confederates not fired on Sumter he would have just let them go, set them free?
Click to expand...

Lincoln was determined to preserve the Union, as was his Constitutional duty. And I don't claim infallibility for anyone. Force? That was only a last resort when the Confederates persisted in illegitimate secession. What would be legitimate secession? How about the Constitutional Amendment process?
 
Jack Hays said:
Lincoln was determined to preserve the Union, as was his Constitutional duty. And I don't claim infallibility for anyone. Force? That was only a last resort when the Confederates persisted in illegitimate secession. What would be legitimate secession? How about the Constitutional Amendment process?
Click to expand...
There is no Constitutional duty to "preserve the Union", the oath only states that the executive "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." The perpetuity was a Lincoln construction, as the Constitution does not allow, or disallow, secession. Simple as that.

Voluntary membership in a group comes with, in a free country, the liberty to disassociate with that group should they see fit. Illegitimate secession is in the eyes of the beholder. Had the South won this war they would not have conquered the North, they would simply have left the Union... and it would now be considered legitimate, as was our break with Great Britain. You are admitting only that might makes right, when we all know that is just not necessarily so.

In the Texas v White decision, we, at least minimally, agreed that the union is indeed dissoluble "...through revolution or through consent of the States." The amendment process would be an expression of consent of States, but there are no Constitutional guidelines on for any of this...11 states were specifically in agreement with allowing secession. The border states may well have agreed with the South on its capacity to secede.

Remember Virginia, New York and RI all had verbiage in their ratification of the Constitution which allowed them to part ways... and if those three we able, so were the rest. The thing that stopped them was Lincoln forcing them.
 
Gaugingcatenate said:
There is no Constitutional duty to "preserve the Union", the oath only states that the executive "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." The perpetuity was a Lincoln construction, as the Constitution does not allow, or disallow, secession. Simple as that.

Voluntary membership in a group comes with, in a free country, the liberty to disassociate with that group should they see fit. Illegitimate secession is in the eyes of the beholder. Had the South won this war they would not have conquered the North, they would simply have left the Union... and it would now be considered legitimate, as was our break with Great Britain. You are admitting only that might makes right, when we all know that is just not necessarily so.

In the Texas v White decision, we, at least minimally, agreed that the union is indeed dissoluble "...through revolution or through consent of the States." The amendment process would be an expression of consent of States, but there are no Constitutional guidelines on for any of this...11 states were specifically in agreement with allowing secession. The border states may well have agreed with the South on its capacity to secede.

Remember Virginia, New York and RI all had verbiage in their ratification of the Constitution which allowed them to part ways... and if those three we able, so were the rest. The thing that stopped them was Lincoln forcing them.
Click to expand...

The clauses in Virginia, New York and RI ratifications were of no Constitutional significance whatsoever.
 
Jack Hays said:
The clauses in Virginia, New York and RI ratifications were of no Constitutional significance whatsoever.
Click to expand...
How so?

I am no attorney, but believe any party to any agreement can make stipulations. And if not specifically rejected those same become a part of that contract. I would have to believe there were a lot of very smart attorneys in Virginia at the time of ratification, many who were intimately involved with the creation of/attending the Constitutional Convention... that they would not put efforts into and submit such if it were of absolutely no consequence.

What is your basis for that statement?
 
Gaugingcatenate said:
How so?

I am no attorney, but believe any party to any agreement can make stipulations. And if not specifically rejected those same become a part of that contract. I would have to believe there were a lot of very smart attorneys in Virginia at the time of ratification, many who were intimately involved with the creation of/attending the Constitutional Convention... that they would not put efforts into and submit such if it were of absolutely no consequence.

What is your basis for that statement?
Click to expand...

When the Constitution took effect its Supremacy Clause would render invalid any state action in conflict with the Constitution. Once the Constitution was in effect the Union was indissoluble.
 
Jack Hays said:
When the Constitution took effect its Supremacy Clause would render invalid any state action in conflict with the Constitution. Once the Constitution was in effect the Union was indissoluble.
Click to expand...
Yes, you keep saying that, but based on what? Its not in the document itself, the idea of a more perfect union does not mandatorily preclude the voluntary removal of some parts to make it more perfect, especially if those parts should want out... but we will just have to disagree on what should and should not be. Force in any relationship is not good, in my opinion.

But I must disagree still, as the Supremacy Clause states that federal laws have jurisdictional authority over state laws only in the event there is conflict where there is overlapping jurisdictions of the laws established by two governing bodies. There is supposed to be, and there is, a line of demarcation between the two as a power sharing agreement, as stipulated in the Constitution. There are no Constitutional guidelines or any authority expressed in the Constitution to disallow self determination should a state and its peoples, those who voluntarily agreed to join the union, wherein it gives a national government the power to interfere with a state retaining its original sovereignty, sovereignty which was only delegated to the national government, never abandoned nor totally relinquished.
 
Gaugingcatenate said:
Yes, you keep saying that, but based on what? Its not in the document itself, the idea of a more perfect union does not mandatorily preclude the voluntary removal of some parts to make it more perfect, especially if those parts should want out... but we will just have to disagree on what should and should not be. Force in any relationship is not good, in my opinion.

But I must disagree still, as the Supremacy Clause states that federal laws have jurisdictional authority over state laws only in the event there is conflict where there is overlapping jurisdictions of the laws established by two governing bodies. There is supposed to be, and there is, a line of demarcation between the two as a power sharing agreement, as stipulated in the Constitution. There are no Constitutional guidelines or any authority expressed in the Constitution to disallow self determination should a state and its peoples, those who voluntarily agreed to join the union, wherein it gives a national government the power to interfere with a state retaining its original sovereignty, sovereignty which was only delegated to the national government, never abandoned nor totally relinquished.
Click to expand...

This was all settled by Texas v White. The matter is closed.
Now, as to some mechanism to leave the Union, I already suggested the Constitutional Amendment path. Two thirds in House and Senate, Presidential signature, ratification by three fourths of the states. Eminently reasonable, I'd say.
 
Jack Hays said:
This was all settled by Texas v White. The matter is closed.
Now, as to some mechanism to leave the Union, I already suggested the Constitutional Amendment path. Two thirds in House and Senate, Presidential signature, ratification by three fourths of the states. Eminently reasonable, I'd say.
Click to expand...
Matters that are not expressed in no uncertain terms are always open for reinterpretation... the matter is only closed until it is reopened again.

But yeah...
 
Gaugingcatenate said:
How so?

I am no attorney, but believe any party to any agreement can make stipulations. And if not specifically rejected those same become a part of that contract. I would have to believe there were a lot of very smart attorneys in Virginia at the time of ratification, many who were intimately involved with the creation of/attending the Constitutional Convention... that they would not put efforts into and submit such if it were of absolutely no consequence.

What is your basis for that statement?
Click to expand...

The matter was settled at the Convention.

"In toto and forever."

James Madison made it clear at the NY convention, when NY asked explicitly for a right to secede. He and Hamilton said: NO. No right exist.

A vote was taken. It was agreed.

Similarly, it had been proposed and rejected by the Virginia ratifying convention.
 
From an earlier post, with a little more detail:

The direct question, when posed, was answered when NY was considering it's ratification of the Constitution. At that time it was proposed:

"there should be reserved to the state of New York a right to withdraw herself from the union after a certain number of years."

A vote was taken, and it was negatived.

Elliot’s Debates: Volume 2 | Teaching American History

Historian Amar goes on to explain the pivotal moment of agreement:

"But exactly how were these states united? Did a state that said yes in the 1780's retain the right to unilaterally say no later on, and thereby secede? If not, why not?

Once again, it was in New York that the answer emerged most emphatically. At the outset of the Poughkeepsie convention, anti-Federalists held a strong majority. The tide turned when word arrived that New Hampshire and Virginia had said yes to the Constitution, at which point anti-Federalists proposed a compromise: they would vote to ratify, but if the new federal government failed to embrace various reforms that they favored, "there should be reserved to the state of New York a right to withdraw herself from the union after a certain number of years."

At the risk of alienating swing voters and losing on the ultimate ratification vote, Federalists emphatically opposed the compromise.

In doing so, they made clear to everyone - in New York and in the 12 other states where people were following the New York contest with interest - that the Constitution did not permit unilateral state secession.

[TABLE="class: cms_table_brtb_item_table"]
[TR]
[TD]Alexander Hamilton read aloud a letter at the Poughkeepsie convention that he had received from James Madison stating that "the Constitution requires an adoption in toto, and for ever."

Hamilton and John Jay then added their own words, which the New York press promptly reprinted: "a reservation of a right to withdraw" was "inconsistent with the Constitution, and was no ratification."[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]


Thus, it was New York where the document became an irresistible reality and where its central meaning - one nation, democratic and indivisible - emerged with crystal clarity."

Conventional Wisdom--A Commentary by Prof. Akhil Amar Yale Law School

Yes. "In toto and forever."
 
Paperview said:
From an earlier post, with a little more detail:

The direct question, when posed, was answered when NY was considering it's ratification of the Constitution. At that time it was proposed:

"there should be reserved to the state of New York a right to withdraw herself from the union after a certain number of years."

A vote was taken, and it was negatived.
"In toto and forever."
Click to expand...
While I applaud the actual attempt at research, supplying other than just a rambling off of some opinion, how do you account for these words in the Ratification document of Virginia:

Avalon Project - Ratification of the Constitution by the State of Virginia; June 26, 1788

"We the Delegates of the People of Virginia duly elected in pursuance of a recommendation from the General Assembly and now met in Convention having fully and freely investigated and discussed the proceedings of the Federal Convention and being prepared as well as the most mature deliberation hath enabled us to decide thereon Do in the name and in behalf of the People of Virginia declare and make known that the powers granted under the Constitution being derived from the People of the United States may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression and that every power not granted thereby remains with them and at their will: that therefore no right of any denomination can be cancelled abridged restrained or modified by the Congress by the Senate or House of Representatives acting in any Capacity by the President or any Department or Officer of the United States except in those instances in which power is given by the Constitution for those purposes: & that among other essential rights the liberty of Conscience and of the Press cannot be cancelled abridged restrained or modified by any authority of the United States."

Those are the opening sentences of the Ratification of the Constitution by the State of Virginia; June 26, 1788 and therefore should hardly be missed if one is actually looking to find them. You in turn have provided two Federalists stating what they most certainly believed, Hamilton and Madison, two of the famous trio writing as advocates the Federalists Papers, but you do not show any of the actual ratification documents to verify.

And NY, not quite as clear, but still there:

Avalon Project - Ratification of the Constitution by the State of New York; July 26, 1788

"WE the Delegates of the People of the State of New York, duly elected and Met in Convention, having maturely considered the Constitution for the United States of America, agreed to on the seventeenth day of September, in the year One thousand Seven hundred and Eighty seven, by the Convention then assembled at Philadelphia in the Common-wealth of Pennsylvania (a Copy whereof precedes these presents) and having also seriously and deliberately considered the present situation of the United States, Do declare and make known...

That the Powers of Government may be reassumed by the People, whensoever it shall become necessary to their Happiness"

That seems in direct contradiction of your statements of evidence.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom