Quote:
Originally Posted by rlchurch
Texas v. White
|
TX v White, huh? Written by the most radical anti-secessionist Republican, Salmon Chase, and the commentary on secession is non-binding
dicta. Easily torn to pieces in less than two typed pages of analysis, because his commentary was based entirely on his own views of American history and not on the Constitution or even an accurate view of American history. The Constitution does not prohibit secession therefore it's a power reserved by the states or the people, under the 10th Amendment. Furthermore, Chase's reference to the Articles of COnfederation saying "the Union shall be perpetual" is incorrect because Article II says the following: "
Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled."
Furthermore, the Constitution only applied(s) to those states that consent to it. Article 7 of the Constitution:
"The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution
between the States so ratifying the Same."
The supposed "perpetual union" statement in the Articles of COnfederation that Chase's entire argument relies on was dissolved at the constitutional convention in the 1780's and a new union created, that only applied to those states consenting to the new union. And of course, the 10th Amendment says:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
Secession is not prohibited, therefore, the states and people have a right to secede.
Our founding fathers believed in popular sovereignty, not eternal governments without consent by the governed. From the Declaration of Independence:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights,
Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends,
it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."
Chase's argument fails miserably. Of course it was not based on either an accurate reading of American history nor on the Constitution so that is no surprise. And it should be noted that Chase himself was partly responsible for no Confederate being charged with treason. He stated the following on that subject:
"If you bring these leaders to trial, it will condemn the North, for by the Constitution secession is not rebellion. We cannot convict him of treason."
Texas v. White, though was a safe case for him to rant in non-binding dicta against secession since it merely involved some bonds. He did not want to risk a trial where the feds would lose, as it would have entirely discredited the government and its mass murder (a.k.a., civil war, in which over 600,000 people died) and would have lead to the Southern states re-asserting their independence. But in TX v White it was simply bonds, no big treason trial to worry about losing.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
