True, but it was understood until the WPA of 1973 to be a presidential power. Congress has a check on that with the power of the purse, they can defund any wars they deem to be frivolous, and should actually.The power to declare war could easily be interpreted as Congress authorizing a war. What's the point of a declaration if the President is going to take military action with or without Congressional approval?
I see your point. The problem was that the Cotton gin was still labor dependent, and small enough to justify further slave ownership. However there were other machines following, and remember, the more workers you have as a responsibility the more resources you must expend on them, food, clothing, housing, other necessities. The idea behind scholars who gave slavery another maybe 20 years was that economic laws would have caught up to new advances, making the expenditures on slave labor less economically efficient.It's important to remember that other advances in farm technology, like the cotton gin - which Whitney hoped would reduce slavery - only serve to make cotton production more efficient, and therefore created a boom in the slave industry. The only way I could foresee slavery ending on its own would be British India becoming "King Cotton" rather than the southern states, therefore making the whole plantation system obsolete. I highly doubt that racism would have been tamer after slavery ended, because an apathetic policy from the North would only serve to encourage discrimination.
The end of slavery was the only good to come out of the end of the Civil War, but remember that there were unintended consequences to follow. The federal declaring secession to be illegal took a very important tool away from the states, race relations actually degraded after the Reconstruction, southern states never forgave the north for percieved(and some real) abuses. A lot of the economic disagreements were never solved, and to this day the northern and southern states often have open contempt for each other. Matter of fact, southern agricultural plantation owners found yet another way to screw former slaves, the sharecropping model was almost as bad, with southern former slaves being seldom well educated, many were shorted in those deals.But if it were to come down to slavery ending on its own due to economic reasons, or a military conflict that would end it abruptly, I'd take the latter in a heartbeat. Who knows how long it would take for slavery to die out on its own? Twenty years? Fifty years? A hundred? In the meantime thousands upon thousands of children would be born into slavery, and adults would die never knowing a life beyond the lash. Even though a great deal of Americans died during the Civil War, their deaths ensured freedom for a greater number of people.
Still, there is no denying the constitutional facts at hand. The power to enforce the Union was never stated in the legally binding Acts of the constitution, and secession was never prohibited the states. That is the part SCOTUS never tried to reconcile.Tyranny is subjective, but I'd hardly consider slight economic marginalization to fit under even the loosest definition of the word. Here's just an outline of why secession isn't constitutional:
1. Madison's aforementioned opinion on secession - that it binds every state to it, and that only through the consent of the other states or abject tyranny may a state leave the Union
The Constitution was meant to close a few gaps that the federal needed when the Articles of Confederation failed. It wasn't meant to create a federal government that was more powerful than the states, only to give the federal just enough power to "play referee". Main focuses were on a common defense, a common currency, and the ability to settle interstate economic disputes.2. The Articles, more decentralizing than even the Constitution, openly stated that the US could not be dissolved. Maybe this was implied when carried on to the Constitution, since it was designed to place greater controls upon the states, not less.
Not exactly. The states were considered sovereigns, and most of the signatories of the Constitution alluded to that.3. States cannot not form "confederations" and do not have the sovereignty that independent nations have. This suggests that, unlike the leagues set up by the EU and UN, the Constitution was not intended to set up a league of countries but instead a whole, sovereign nation.
I disagree to an extent. If a federal government asserts that states surrender powers and to the effect no longer represent that state's best interests, it can be more than effective to threaten secession. Either the federal reigns itself in and respects it's bounds, or finds itself at the mercy of the new trade rules from that former state, this can be a very powerful threat. Imagine Vermont maple syrup now having a higher trade value to the U.S. as an imported good, or Maine Lobster now being an imported luxury. Even more pressing, say Louisiana and Texas secede because the federal encroachment is overbearing, we have the oil, and Louisiana specifically has quite a bit of the nations seafood business, and is a popular tourism destination. Sure, seceeding states risk losing business from the U.S. at large for retaliation, but the economic damage would be mutual. Under a secession talk though, both sides are supposed to talk, when they break down it becomes a big game of "chicken", but it can be good for the discourse on proper law and rights.4. Being a manner that affects the entire nation rather than just that state alone, secession would be a federal manner rather than a state manner - similar to the admission of new states.
Absolutely right. The thing about not shouting fire is not so much about the speech, or the words, much like firing into a crowd with a weapon, it is about dangerous actions that endanger the lives(natural rights) of others. IOW, we cannot abuse our rights by crossing a boundary that would hinder the rights of others.There are limits to every right. The First Amendment does not permit shouting fire in a theater, the Second does not permit one to fire their guns into the air or point them at people. The Preamble isn't legally binding like the rest of the Constitution, but it does give insight into what kind of a government the Framers intended to set up.
I've come to a different conclusion based on war powers readings, I'll have to do some reviewing. Because the president is the commander in chief it would preclude that he can suspend HC, but it is specifically mentioned for Congress iirc.I don't see anything in the Constitution that would permit the President to suspend habeas corpus; on the contrary, it blandly states that suspending habeas corpus may be used in a time of war by Congress. Only they would have the legal right to do so.
Some of those were abolitionist tools, but many of those precluded even a major abolition movement. The thing is even though slavery was obviously wrong and hypocritical compared to the constitution the constitution still allowed for no trade discrepencies amongst the states.I'm pretty sure that those policies began under the previous administrations and that Congress was mostly to blame. The slave states could cry me a river over their economic woes, but I digress :p
The Union could have asked for payment rather than daring the south to attack. It's not black and white as an issue. I'll just leave you with this, daring a southerner is not the best of ideas.It wasn't up to the Union to kowtow to the Confederacy. Again, whether secession was legal or not, Sumter was US military property and therefore would not belong to the Confederacy. They had a lot of gall to secede in the first place, but to attempt to coerce the US into giving up lawful property was adding insult to injury. It was their fault for attacking, not the Union's fault for not bowing down to their every whim.
Eh, not exactly. We were an agricultural society, there are many writings of the time that show the north wanted the south to industrialize at the south's expense. It's not as simple as school history makes it out to be.I wouldn't consider slavery a last straw issue, everything political in the South was at least indirectly tied to slavery.
It's not a simple issue. It's easy to blame the south based upon the simplified history of the issue, but realistically the north was just as guilty. As well, the war was not as much about slavery as forcing the Confederacy back into the Union, Lincoln's own accounts pretty much spelled that out.Even if secession was totally legal, and if the Confederacy never aggressively attacked the Union, I would be totally fine with the Union invading the Confederacy and the Civil War happening the way it did. I agree with Henry David Thoreau's belief: that if violence, breaking the law, and even treason are necessary to end an institution as evil as slavery, then they should be carried out to their fullest extent. What bothers me is revisionists who try to whitewash the Confederate side of history by portraying them as victims who had every right to do everything they did. Even though a lot of their claims are irrelevant, for truth's sake they must be countered.
Had nothing to do with the war, he was openly anti-constitution prior to his presidency when he was a college professor at Princeton. In fact, people who hate the Federal Reserve can thank him and that Congress directly.Oh well. Opinions do change over time. He also presided over a nation at war, so civil liberties are bound to be restricted.
Ah, but Robert's ruling expanded the taxation powers. The government doesn't even have to prove it has regulatory or enumerated powers over something now. That's the problem, Roberts said Obamacare was unconstitutional, except for the tax. This opens the door for other powers not found to just "be taxed".Taxation powers can only be used to an extent. It's similar to how the commerce clause was used to expand the government right up until it was used to further gun control. Certain things have nothing to do with either commerce or taxation.
And much of that was created by his administration, exluding the World War and the Depression obviously. FDR's expansions though are largely regarded as power grabs that accomplished nothing of real value.There was a lot of other stuff going on at the time for anything else constitutionally-speaking to be at the forefront of his mind.
Oh you don't want to get me started.The New Deal and ACA aren't bad laws, from my point of view as an economic liberal
Well. The good news is there are protocols to fix whatever needs fixing, the bad news is it takes a populace so furious that a lot of lousy politicians need to update their resumes.He did his best.
God damn it, it took me over an hour to respond to your post