Secession (1 Viewer)

[H. Lee White]

Section 10. expressly forbids it.

"No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Control of the Congress.

No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay."

Um.... where?

 

[Bigfoot 88]

Yes he did. It was to prevent the collapse of the Union, and to prevent the democratic and republican experiment from being tarnished and discredited in the eyes of the rest of the world.

A forced union doesn't look legitimate.

It was to prevent the United States from fracturing into its constituent pieces. It was to keep America bound together, strong enough to yield the benefits of a fully united continental power.

Or keep the power in Washington D.C.

It was to underscore that rebellion and secession must come at a high price and must have a sincere and high purpose behind them, states rights as a vehicle for retaining slavery is not one of them.

Lincoln didn't care about slavery. He supported the secession of West Virginia from Virginia so as to help his election. Not really a higher purpose.

It was a worthwhile expenditure of moral capital and physical resources. The outcome was superior to all other possible outcomes, for the United States, and for the world.

I don't agree with the morality of ends justifying the means.

And who nows how things actually would have turned out. The EU brought the European nations together, and look how they are doing.

 

[rocket88]

That last statement is close to accurate, but the first? No. Lincoln threw the Constitution out the window for the Civil War. He even suspended Habeus. Even a pro-Lincoln court said so, they just conveniently waited until AFTER the war to do so.

I'm not necessarily defending all of what Lincoln did. He was a "Republican" as they were then. That's different from today. If one were to say Lincoln was no conservative, I'd agree, but he was certainly a Republican.

 

[Sherman123]

A forced union doesn't look legitimate.


Or keep the power in Washington D.C.

Lincoln didn't care about slavery. He supported the secession of West Virginia from Virginia so as to help his election. Not really a higher purpose.

I don't agree with the morality of ends justifying the means.

And who nows how things actually would have turned out. The EU brought the European nations together, and look how they are doing.

A forced Union looks perfectly legitimate, and the majority of common people at the time in Europe and elsewhere saw this as a struggle between democracy and the only extant republican government, and an aristocratic insurgency that would tarnish the entire principle of self-rule in its discordant victory. The war kept the principle of democracy strong and undamaged, with victory giving it a little bit of sheen even. It also as mentioned before prevented the US from becoming a weakened or denuded power, prevented further secession's or break-ups, and laid the ground work for the United States of the 20th Century, in all its might, power, and prosperity.

As for Lincoln he had well documented evolving views on slavery that culminated in a genuine belief and push for emancipation. Furthermore Lincoln was not the sole arbiter of this war, it was a conflict born from slavery, and perpetuated to defend it. States rights being sought after vehicle to defend slave rights. The rebellion was about slavery, and the Confederate constitution enshrined it. It deserved to be crushed, and it is better that it was.

 

[Running_Riot]

Um.... where?

"No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation;..."

 

[clownboy]

Right. But, a "state revolution" would not be a revolution in the same way the American Revolution was. The states have representation, whereas the American colonies did not.

Yes, they did, at least consistent with the level other British of the time did. According to the wiki, only 3% of the British men could vote. And the Royal governors and officers in the Americas were landholders in England and could/did vote.

 

[H. Lee White]

"No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation;..."

That is a prohibition on a state that is part of the union.
How does that prohibit a state from leaving the union?

 

[Running_Riot]

I suppose it doesn't, but I'm sure levying war against the United States is also generally a bad idea.

 

[clownboy]

The rebellion was about slavery, and the Confederate constitution enshrined it. It deserved to be crushed, and it is better that it was.

No, the so-called rebellion was about commerce, and the North/South rift on commerce was with us from the very beginning of the nation.

 

[Sherman123]

No, the so-called rebellion was about commerce, and the North/South rift on commerce was with us from the very beginning of the nation.

No it wasn't.

 

[zstep18]

And, as previously noted, this means nothing as no such provision, as you admit, is found in the text of the constitution.

Should the power of judicial review be reserved to the states as well, since the power of judicial review is not expressly granted to the Supreme Court?

 

[H. Lee White]

Should the power of judicial review be reserved to the states as well, since the power of judicial review is not expressly granted to the Supreme Court?

Off topic, red herring.
When you find the text I asked for, please let me know.

 

[rocket88]

Again:
I'm not sure if you deliberately misunderstood the point, or had no choice.

I understand your point. Your point is wrong. When you give up sovereign rights, you give up sovereignty. Sovereignty, as it was, had 3 basic criteria: ability to act independently with other nations, control of your own currency, and not being sublimated to another power. In the Constitution, the States gave up 2, possibly all 3 of those things. The only one you can really make a case for is being sublimated to another power. Treaties and currency were both powers granted to the Federal Government under the Constitution.

Since the States did not retain those powers, they're not sovereign.

 

[H. Lee White]

I suppose it doesn't, but I'm sure levying war against the United States is also generally a bad idea.

Simple secession in no way necessitates war aganst the states.

 

[rocket88]

No, the so-called rebellion was about commerce, and the North/South rift on commerce was with us from the very beginning of the nation.

The economy of the South was dependent upon slavery. You can say it was about commerce, but commerce in the South was based on the existence of slavery. so there's not really as big of a difference as you'd like there to be.

 

[Federalist]

Should the power of judicial review be reserved to the states as well, since the power of judicial review is not expressly granted to the Supreme Court?

Of course. Per article 6, all government officials are required to support the constitution, which necessarily requires determining whether any act is consistent with it.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

 

[H. Lee White]

I understand your point. Your point is wrong. When you give up sovereign rights, you give up sovereignty.

The point you fail to understand is that the states only give up -some- of those sovereign rights, those specified by the constitution.
They retain the remainder of those rights, under the 10th amendment.
One of those rights, not prohibited by the Constitution, is the right to self-determination.

 

[rocket88]

Simple secession in no way necessitates war aganst the states.

Yes it does. No nation has ever been born without violence. I know that the nice little myth that you're taught by secessionists, but it's simply not true.

 

[zstep18]

Of course. Per article 6, all government officials are required to support the constitution, which necessarily requires determining whether any act is consistent with it.

So the power to decide the constitutionality of law should be reserved to the states and the people, based upon the Tenth Amendment of the Bill of Rights?

 

[H. Lee White]

Yes it does.

Explain why a state must resort to violence to seceed; explain why the union must oppose the secession of a state.

 

[rocket88]

The point you fail to understand is that the states only give up -some- of those sovereign rights, those specified by the constitution.
They retain the remainder of those rights, under the 10th amendment.
One of those rights, not prohibited by the Constitution, is the right to self-determination.

When you're not sovereign, you're not sovereign. Today we have "official sovereignty" as defined by the UN, but they didn't then. When you gave up sovereignty, you gave it up. If something only has one wheel, it's not a bicycle, no matter what you want to call it.

 

[rocket88]

Explain why a state must resort to violence to seceed; explain why the union must oppose the secession of a state.

Secession essentially involves theft of all property of the Federal Government. Military bases, Post offices, etc. Those things don't exist in a vacuum, they are the property of the government. The Union must oppose theft of its property.

 

[H. Lee White]

Secession essentially involves theft of all property of the Federal Government. Military bases, Post offices, etc. Those things don't exist in a vacuum, they are the property of the government. The Union must oppose theft of its property.

Nothing necessitates that the secessionist state lay claim on these things or not compensate the union for same.
So, again:
Explain why a state must resort to violence to seceed; explain why the union must oppose the secession of a state.

 

[clownboy]

No it wasn't.

Yes, it was.

Here's and except to a paid article regarding just that subject:

From the earliest beginnings of the colonization in America through the Revolutionary War and the antebellum period, the disparity between the colonies of the North and South was as evident in their reasons for immigration and settlement as it was in their development culturally, economically, geographically, and politically. The first impetus for colonization in the south was the search for gold and fortunes by companies, which had received charters from the King of England. The colonists populating the southern areas began their agrarian economy with John Rolfe's cultivation of tobacco and the trade that followed in 1612. The Virginia Company used the head right system to encourage settlement by granting land and acreage for the immigration and indentured service. Cargo shops were starting to bring in slaves to further help cultivate the land. Following the Virginia Company example, Lord Baltimore who had established the city...

And here are a number of free articles that will disabuse you of the notion that the conflict between the two regions was unique to the Civil War and was solely about slavery.

 

[H. Lee White]

When you're not sovereign, you're not sovereign. Today we have "official sovereignty" as defined by the UN, but they didn't then. When you gave up sovereignty, you gave it up. If something only has one wheel, it's not a bicycle, no matter what you want to call it.

Your concern has been addressed and shown ineffective.
The states retain sovereignty in all areas not specifically prohibited by the constitution, and retain ultimate sovereignty over the federal government in that they may dissolve it.