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.
That happened after the war was a year and a half old, you cannot argue that secession was justified by something that did not take place until two years after the first state had seceded.
Had there been no secession, there would have been no war. Had there been no war there would have been no legal authority for the emergency war measure which was used to free the slaves.
That's a fair point. It was well after the war had begun. What if I were to argue instead that the inevitability of such an act might justify secession?
I'd also like to explore your thoughts on the Tenth a bit more. Wouldn't it be fair to say, absent any specific mention in the Constitution, which we agree does not exist, the power to withdraw is by default, a question for each State to answer? As I mentioned, and as you well know, the purpose of the Tenth was to ensure that the States retain their sovereignty, with the only exceptions clearly enumerated. The question of State sovereignty was paramount during the ratification process. It's hard to imagine that the framers omitted specific reference to a "coercive power" of some sort that would allow the federal government to compel the States(up to and including the waging of war) to remain as part of the Union, if this was their understanding.
That's a fair point. It was well after the war had begun. What if I were to argue instead that the inevitability of such an act might justify secession?
Then you would still not be making a sensible argument. Lincoln did not run on a platform of eliminating slavery where it existed, only in curbing its expansion to new territories. No threats of slave liberation of any sort were made, Lincoln specifically stated that he did not believe the power to free the slaves rested in the executive branch nor with Congress.
No secession = no war. No war and there is no power in Washington to free any slaves where slavery existed. Do you not see the circular nature of your supposed logic?
Quote:
I'd also like to explore your thoughts on the Tenth a bit more. Wouldn't it be fair to say, absent any specific mention in the Constitution, which we agree does not exist, the power to withdraw is by default, a question for each State to answer? As I mentioned, and as you well know, the purpose of the Tenth was to ensure that the States retain their sovereignty, with the only exceptions clearly enumerated. The question of State sovereignty was paramount during the ratification process. It's hard to imagine that the framers omitted specific reference to a "coercive power" of some sort that would allow the federal government to compel the States(up to and including the waging of war) to remain as part of the Union, if this was their understanding.
I do not think that the power to break up the nation, vested in individual states, was what any of the authors of the 10th had in mind, do you? I think rather obviously the clause was meant to reference a state regulating matters within that state, not regulating its relationship to the rest of the nation.
I explained in an earlier post that the making of the nation was a national process, not an individual state process. The ratification process, to which all 13 states agreed in Philadelphia, was not "Join or do not join", it was "All of will join, or none of us will join." They agreed that if eleven of the thirteen states voted to ratify the Constitution, it became the law of the land for all thirteen, not just the ones who voted "yea." If three states had voted no, then the Articles of Confederation would still have been in place as the law of the land, it would not have been ten states under the Constitution and three still under the Articles.
So, does it not logically follow that if the Constitution did permit the unmaking of the nation, it would also require a national process, not a unilateral declaration by individual states? Neither South Carolina, nor any of the other southern states, made any sort of attempt to take the question of secession to the national level. They did not petition Congress, they sought no ruling from the Federal courts, they simply announced that they were leaving and required no one's permission.
And why? Because they did not like the outcome of a fairly conducted election, one which they agreed to respect when they ratified the Constitution. They knocked over the chessboard once they started losing. How noble.
The Southern Confederacy was a terrible, terrible cause. Had they prevailed we would have had a fragmented nation and a precedent in place for further fragmentation. We would have had an extended life for the immoral institution of slavery, and ongoing conflict between the separated sections, leading to perhaps more wars on the North American continent. Is any of that good? Why does anyone still try and argue on its behalf?
Last edited by Grandstander; 11-29-2014 at 03:00 PM..
Resumption of the powers of government back to the people (away from the government)
as written in those clauses is indeed an indirect reference not only to secession but also to
rebellion. See this link. There's a lot of important words here: Legality of Secession
Secession of states was not prohibited in the Constitution, and no amount of verbiage
can ever make it so. Nowhere is there the right of the Federal government to compel
a State to stay in the union of Republics against its will.
I believe war could have been avoided (or at the very least, severely limited)
even after secession took place and expanded to 11 states.
These are my views and the views of others also.
One may disagree, of course, but it is only a matter of opinion.
Resumption of the powers of government back to the people (away from the government)
as written in those clauses is indeed an indirect reference not only to secession but also to
rebellion. See this link. There's a lot of important words here: Legality of Secession
Wow. Reading the linked article was a total waste of my time. A list of misinterpretations, some outright lies, and actual contradictions to the initial premise of the supposed legality of secession.
The Mysterious Benefactor
Then you would still not be making a sensible argument. Lincoln did not run on a platform of eliminating slavery where it existed, only in curbing its expansion to new territories. No threats of slave liberation of any sort were made, Lincoln specifically stated that he did not believe the power to free the slaves rested in the executive branch nor with Congress.
No secession = no war. No war and there is no power in Washington to free any slaves where slavery existed. Do you not see the circular nature of your supposed logic?
Bear with me here, Grandstander. Please. I'm not trying to engage in circular reasoning. I don't claim to be equally well-versed in the Constitution as you are. I'm not. I've read the thread and I respect your opinion and your perspective, as it's based on logic. I really want to understand it. I can only do that by challenging it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grandstander
I do not think that the power to break up the nation, vested in individual states, was what any of the authors of the 10th had in mind, do you? I think rather obviously the clause was meant to reference a state regulating matters within that state, not regulating its relationship to the rest of the nation.
I think the issue of State sovereignty was a huge one. That being so, how each individual State is regarded in relation to one another and particularly how they are regarded in relation to the federal government was paramount. The restrictions on the federal government were clearly enumerated. Everything else, everything else, was to be left to the States. One has to assume that this includes the right to withdraw.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grandstander
I explained in an earlier post that the making of the nation was a national process, not an individual state process. The ratification process, to which all 13 states agreed in Philadelphia, was not "Join or do not join", it was "All of will join, or none of us will join." They agreed that if eleven of the thirteen states voted to ratify the Constitution, it became the law of the land for all thirteen, not just the ones who voted "yea." If three states had voted no, then the Articles of Confederation would still have been in place as the law of the land, it would not have been ten states under the Constitution and three still under the Articles.
So, does it not logically follow that if the Constitution did permit the unmaking of the nation, it would also require a national process, not a unilateral declaration by individual states? Neither South Carolina, nor any of the other southern states, made any sort of attempt to take the question of secession to the national level. They did not petition Congress, they sought no ruling from the Federal courts, they simply announced that they were leaving and required no one's permission.
But it was not a "national process". It was decided by each individual State. There was no national consensus on the matter, nor was it ever considered. The people of South Carolina agreed to join the Union. Equally, the people of South Carolina decided to withdraw from it. It's that simple, isn't it? They are a sovereign State. From where does Lincoln draw the right to wage war against them for deciding this?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grandstander
And why? Because they did not like the outcome of a fairly conducted election, one which they agreed to respect when they ratified the Constitution. They knocked over the chessboard once they started losing. How noble.
The Southern Confederacy was a terrible, terrible cause. Had they prevailed we would have had a fragmented nation and a precedent in place for further fragmentation. We would have had an extended life for the immoral institution of slavery, and ongoing conflict between the separated sections, leading to perhaps more wars on the North American continent. Is any of that good? Why does anyone still try and argue on its behalf?
We could argue all day about whether the Southern cause was noble or not. That's not the question before us. Was Lincoln a great President? Well, were his actions right? Were they Constitutional? We need to understand the latter before we can answer the former. Bearing in mind, of course, that 600K men lay dead as a result.
But it was not a "national process". It was decided by each individual State. There was no national consensus on the matter, nor was it ever considered.
I just explained the making of the nation was a national process and how it was a national process. Your "no it wasn't" without explanation is not a useful or welcome response. If I am wrong in any of the particulars of my explanation, please be specific in your objections.
I just explained the making of the nation was a national process and how it was a national process. Your "no it wasn't" without explanation is not a useful or welcome response. If I am wrong in any of the particulars of my explanation, please be specific in your objections.
You're trivializing and mischaracterizing my response. Let's be clear. I didn't simply say, "no it wasn't". I'm not sure who you're quoting, but I never said that. What I said was: "it was not a "national process". It was decided by each individual State. There was no national consensus on the matter, nor was it ever considered. The people of South Carolina agreed to join the Union. Equally, the people of South Carolina decided to withdraw from it. It's that simple, isn't it? They are a sovereign State. From where does Lincoln draw the right to wage war against them for deciding this?
I offered a clear objection. You've ignored this and a number of other points that I raised. No reason to be snarky, man. I'm just trying to understand your position.
You're trivializing and mischaracterizing my response. Let's be clear. I didn't simply say, "no it wasn't". I'm not sure who you're quoting, but I never said that. What I said was: "it was not a "national process". It was decided by each individual State. There was no national consensus on the matter, nor was it ever considered. The people of South Carolina agreed to join the Union. Equally, the people of South Carolina decided to withdraw from it. It's that simple, isn't it? They are a sovereign State. From where does Lincoln draw the right to wage war against them for deciding this?
I offered a clear objection. You've ignored this and a number of other points that I raised. No reason to be snarky, man. I'm just trying to understand your position.
Those are just assertions on your part, more declarations backed by neither clear law, or argument on behalf by you.
I explained why making the nation was a national process. You have repeated your unsupported "No" and taken offense that I am not impressed by this. I requested your specific objection to any of my explanation and none has been provided. If it offends you that this also does not impress me, too bad.
Equally, the people of South Carolina decided to withdraw from it. It's that simple, isn't it? They are a sovereign State. From where does Lincoln draw the right to wage war against them for deciding this?
From the fact that he believed this to be in the interest of the United States, and Congress did not tell him to stop. There would have been a constitutional issue had he been waging war against the wishes of Congress, but he wasn't.
From the fact that he believed this to be in the interest of the United States, and Congress did not tell him to stop. There would have been a constitutional issue had he been waging war against the wishes of Congress, but he wasn't.
On April 15th, the Union congress voted to support Lincoln's call for 75,000 troops and
90 days of provisions to quell the "insurrection". Doesn't this sound a lot like the blueprint
for what the United States has done many times since, when stumbling into wars without
Constitutionally prescribed methods ? Be sure that Lincoln and the Union congress never
acknowledged the legitimacy of the Confederate States for a reason. Regardless of their
refusal to acknowledge, the Confederacy was a sovereign power; no longer part of the
Union. Jefferson Davis's final speech in the Senate proved to be a prophecy which
should have been taken more seriously.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.