Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Did the Civil War truly settle the secession question?
C-Pol: Constitutionalist, Conservative Politics ^ | February 17, 2010 | Tim T.

Posted on 02/17/2010 3:43:05 PM PST by Constitutionalist Conservative

Prior to the American Civil War, it was popularly assumed that states which had freely chosen to enter the Union could just as freely withdraw from said union at their own discretion.  Indeed, from time to time individual states or groups of states had threatened to do just that, but until 1860 no state had actually followed through on the threat.

Since then, it has been considered axiomatic that the War “settled the question” of whether or not states had the right to secede.  The central government, backed by force of arms, says the answer is No.  As long as no state or group of states tests the central government’s resolve, we can consider the question to be “settled” from a practical viewpoint.

This assertion has long troubled me from a philosophical and moral viewpoint.  We are supposedly a nation of laws, and the central government is supposedly subservient to the laws that established and empower it.

In a nation of laws, when someone asks, “Do states have a right to secede from the Union?”, a proper answer would have one of two forms:

Here, x would be an explanation of the laws that supported the Yes or No answer. 

With the secession issue, though, we are given the following as a complete and sufficient answer:

“No, because if any state tries to secede, the central government will use force of arms to keep it from succeeding.”

There is no appeal to law in this answer – just brute force.

Based on this premise, the central government can amass to itself whatever right or power it chooses, simply by asserting it.  After all, who has the power to say otherwise?

Come to think of it, that’s exactly how the central government has behaved more often than not since the Civil War.


This issue came to mind today because of an item posted today on a trial lawyer’s blog (found via Politico).  The lawyer’s brother had written to each of the Supreme Court justices, asking for their input on a screenplay he was writing.  In the screenplay, Maine decides to secede from the US and join Canada.  The writer asked for comments regarding how such an issue would play out if it ever reached the Supreme Court.

Justice Antonin Scalia actually replied to the screenwriter’s query.  I have a lot of respect for Scalia regarding constitutional issues, but his answer here is beyond absurd.

I am afraid I cannot be of much help with your problem, principally because I cannot imagine that such a question could ever reach the Supreme Court. To begin with, the answer is clear. If there was any constitutional issue resolved by the Civil War, it is that there is no right to secede. (Hence, in the Pledge of Allegiance, "one Nation, indivisible.")

He actually said that a constitutional issue was settled by military action.  Oh, and by including the word “indivisible” in the Pledge of Allegiance, the issue became even more settled.

What if the president were to send out the troops to prevent the news media from publishing or broadcasting anything critical of his administration?  This is clearly an unconstitutional action, but by Scalia’s logic, if the president succeeds, we must then say that the military action “settled the question” of free speech.

If these scenarios are not comparable, I’d like to hear why.


TOPICS: Government; Politics
KEYWORDS: civilwar; cwii; cwiiping; secession; statesrights
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 651-676 next last
To: ought-six
But, it is. As a young Congressman Lincoln had no problem with the idea of secession, and he said that all that was needed was the will and the power to bring it about. Perhaps he was saying that secession was okay as long as one can pull it off. In which case, the Confederate states were fully within their rights to secede (according to Lincoln’s logic), BUT ONLY AS LONG AS THEY WERE NOT FORCED BACK IN!

But it is not. Lincoln was talking about rebellion, not secession. There is a difference between the two.

51 posted on 02/18/2010 4:16:00 AM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: imjimbo

You people will never learn. The public has rejected your Obamacare nonsense, and now they are rejecting all the other silly ideas you dredged up from the bottom of Lake Michigan.


52 posted on 02/18/2010 4:51:31 AM PST by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: Constitutionalist Conservative
...all of the founding fathers regarded secession as treason. Huh. Were you aware that New England, in particular, was home to secessionist movements from time to time?

Yes, I am well aware of the Hartford Convention during the War of 1812. That is exactly how we know that the Founders regarded secession talk as treasonous. Later, when Vice President John C. Calhoun talked about secession, President Andrew Jackson, himself a Southern slaveowner, threatened to personally hang him.

53 posted on 02/18/2010 5:05:28 AM PST by iowamark
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur

“shake off the existing government” is secession. It is hard to see it through the historical myths the victorious north put forward as history. Perhaps in his heart he knew no state would have the power to exercise their right to secede since the Federal government would unleash all the power of hell to squash the “rebellion” as you see it.


54 posted on 02/18/2010 6:57:08 AM PST by Conservative9
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Conservative9
“shake off the existing government” is secession.

No, leaving the Union through peaceful and legal means is secession. "Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up, and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better" is rebellion or revolution. Which is what Lincoln was referring to when he termed it "a most valuable - a most sacred right..." It is the right of all people to rebel if and when they believe it justified. But it is not strictly legal.

It is hard to see it through the historical myths the victorious north put forward as history.

It is hard to see it by reading his quote in context, too.

Perhaps in his heart he knew no state would have the power to exercise their right to secede since the Federal government would unleash all the power of hell to squash the “rebellion” as you see it.

Perhaps it was because he was talking about Mexico at the time? Here is the quote in full and in context:

"Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up, and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable,— most sacred right—a right, which we hope and believe, is to liberate the world. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government, may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people that can, may revolutionize, and make their own, of so much of the teritory as they inhabit. More than this, a majority of any portion of such people may revolutionize, putting down a minority, intermingled with, or near about them, who may oppose their movement. Such minority, was precisely the case, of the tories of our own revolution. It is a quality of revolutions not to go by old lines, or old laws; but to break up both, and make new ones."

55 posted on 02/18/2010 8:39:30 AM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur

“Perhaps it was because he was talking about Mexico at the time? “

So only Mexicans have the “sacred right”? Do you know what the word “sacred” means?

“No, leaving the Union through peaceful and legal means is secession.”

They did leave through peaceful means. It was the United States that provoked the war. Secession is simply defined as a formal separation, of which the Confederates States did just that. You have never been able to define what you think the Constitution requires as a “legal means” of separation because the Constitution doesn’t. You simply hate southerners and have said so. You think of them as drunken racist rednecks.


56 posted on 02/18/2010 9:40:16 AM PST by CodeToad (If it weren't for physics and law enforcement I'd be unstoppable!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: Constitutionalist Conservative

The Civil War only proved, once again, that Might Is Right.


57 posted on 02/18/2010 9:41:01 AM PST by CodeToad (If it weren't for physics and law enforcement I'd be unstoppable!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur

I am sorry but I am not following your logic or conclusions. Are you using absurdity to support your name, non-sequitur?

The South did secede peacefully- Lincoln made it hell, which you seem to think is a sacred right.

Jefferson said rebellion from time to time, including blood shed, would be useful and necessary to restrain the power of government. I hope we both pray that our current state of affairs does not come to that. But if you think that is more “sacred” than peaceful secession I could be wrong.

I think we are on the same side but have a different understanding of history. We must understand history accurately for to assume the goodness of men is dangerous- whatever kind of god one has been made into.

Here is an accurate definition of rebellion and my appeal:

This is the meaning of Revolution. It is a coming full circle- a revolution- to reset the Covenant that was made between the people and our government to whom our power is lent. Read carefully this definition of revolution by Russell Kirk in Rights and Duties, Spence Publishing Company, 1997, page 48:
“We need first to examine definitions of that ambiguous word revolution. The signification of the word was altered greatly by the catastrophic event so the French Revolution, commencing only two years after the Constitutional Convention of the United States. Before the French explosion of 1789 and 1790, revolution commonly was employed to describe a round of periodic or recurrent changes or events- that is, the process of coming full cycle, or the act of rolling back or moving back, a return to a point previously occupied.”

I pray this current revolution will not require arms. In order for that to be possible every Patriot across this nation must join in rolling back our government to the limits, laws, and liberties established in the Constitution. It will require not a majority of people, but the whole of Patriots who understand history, the nature of man, and the Power of God.

Can we at least agree on that?


58 posted on 02/18/2010 9:48:52 AM PST by Conservative9
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: Conservative9

Not to mention, several nothern States have slavery at the time the Civil War Started. The Emancipation Proclamation did not free those slaves but only freed the slaves of the southern regions. It wasn’t about salvery. It was about the North needing the money of the South and taxing them to death. The North had the population and therefore the votes in Congress and made one nasty tax law after another trying to bleed the South of their wealth.


59 posted on 02/18/2010 9:49:34 AM PST by CodeToad (If it weren't for physics and law enforcement I'd be unstoppable!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: CodeToad
So only Mexicans have the “sacred right”?

No, all people have that right. Didn't you read the quote? "Any people anywhere..." Right there in the beginning. Lincoln happened to be speaking of Texans and Mexico but it's clear he means anyone.

They did leave through peaceful means. It was the United States that provoked the war.

The discussion was whether Lincoln was supporting secession in his 1848 speech. Obviously he was not.

But I'll also point out that neither Buchanan or Lincoln did anything to oppose secession forcibly until such time as the South chose to go to war over Sumter. All hostile actions had been on the part of the South - firing on ships on at least two occasions, trying to starve the fort into surrender, you name it. You can claim that Lincoln tricked them or Lincln forced them and it's all nonsence. The question of peace or war was in the hands of the Davis regime. They could have allowed the fort to be resupplied and let the status quo continue and for Lincoln to lose support for ending secession, but they chose otherwise. Sumter, to them, was worth starting a war over. That war, and all the death and destruction visited upon them as a result, was the South's choice.

Secession is simply defined as a formal separation, of which the Confederates States did just that.

I think that legal separation is implied, and that's what was missing in the South's actions.

You have never been able to define what you think the Constitution requires as a “legal means” of separation because the Constitution doesn’t.

I have on several occasions, the latest with Bigun over the last two days. Go look it up.

You simply hate southerners and have said so.

And of course you can post a link to where I have said that?

60 posted on 02/18/2010 9:53:31 AM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur

“Obviously he was not.”

Only a propagandist could read his words and conclde that.


61 posted on 02/18/2010 9:55:34 AM PST by CodeToad (If it weren't for physics and law enforcement I'd be unstoppable!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: iowamark

Are you also well aware that our founding fathers seceded from Great Britain? Have you read any of Washington’s, Jefferson’s, Adams, or Henry’s words?


62 posted on 02/18/2010 9:56:26 AM PST by Conservative9
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: Constitutionalist Conservative
Based on the responses to Scalia: No to secession I would say that the answer to the question is an emphatic NO!
63 posted on 02/18/2010 10:02:52 AM PST by Bigun ("It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere." Voltaire)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Conservative9
I am sorry but I am not following your logic or conclusions. Are you using absurdity to support your name, non-sequitur?

Then let me try again. The claim was made by you that in his 1848 speech Lincoln was supporting secession when it is obvious he was not. Secession and rebellion are not synonymous, one is a legal course of action and the other is not.

The South did secede peacefully- Lincoln made it hell, which you seem to think is a sacred right.

All governments have the right to suppress rebellion and the U.S. is no different. The power to do so is contained in Article I, Section 8. But any hell that may have fallen on the South was the result of their choosing war to further their aims. No hostile acts had been taken towards the South prior to their bombardment of Sumter. War was their choice, hell was their reward for that choice.

Jefferson said rebellion from time to time, including blood shed, would be useful and necessary to restrain the power of government. I hope we both pray that our current state of affairs does not come to that. But if you think that is more “sacred” than peaceful secession I could be wrong.

As Lincoln pointed out any people any where have the right to rebel. It is not my place to pass judgement on their motivations any more than it would be their place to pass judgement on mine.

Can we at least agree on that?

We can.

64 posted on 02/18/2010 10:04:55 AM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: CodeToad
Only a propagandist could read his words and conclde that.

I can't imagine how anyone can read them and conclude otherwise.

"Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up, and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable,— most sacred right—a right, which we hope and believe, is to liberate the world. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government, may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people that can, may revolutionize, and make their own, of so much of the teritory as they inhabit. More than this, a majority of any portion of such people may revolutionize, putting down a minority, intermingled with, or near about them, who may oppose their movement. Such minority, was precisely the case, of the tories of our own revolution. It is a quality of revolutions not to go by old lines, or old laws; but to break up both, and make new ones."

65 posted on 02/18/2010 10:08:13 AM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: Conservative9

1776 was a revolution, not a secession.


66 posted on 02/18/2010 10:14:46 AM PST by iowamark
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: iowamark
1776 was a revolution, not a secession.

You mean you never learned about how we won our independence after the Secessionary War with Great Britain?

67 posted on 02/18/2010 10:25:18 AM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: trek
That's the point. That is why it is so important to restore the Constitutional balance by repealing the 14th, 15th, 16th and 17th Amendments as a starting point to restoring the Sovereignty of the States.

Hear here!

BRAVO!!!

68 posted on 02/18/2010 10:34:05 AM PST by Bigun ("It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere." Voltaire)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Regulator

Secession is a right of any State.

I disagree.

"The Preamble of The Constitution says:

'We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.'

Formed by the people, the whole people, of the United States, its existence is dependent on them, aud not on the States ; and it can only be dissolved by the power that give it birth; States may pass ordinances of seccession, but they cannot over- throw the fabric created by the source of all political authority in this country — the people." - In Congress, Rep. Edward J. Morris (Penn) January 30, 1861.

The union known as The United States was formed by the people, the whole of the people, and only the whole of the people have the authority to dissolve it.

Requiem æternam dona eis, Domine; In memoria æterna erit justus, ab auditione mala non timebit.

Beauseant!

69 posted on 02/18/2010 10:34:05 AM PST by Lancelot Jones (Non nobis, Domine, non nobis, sed nomini tuo da gloriam.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: iowamark

“1776 was a revolution, not a secession.”

Semantics. The result is the same: A territory decides they no longer will be governed by their current authority and will form their own government.


70 posted on 02/18/2010 10:38:14 AM PST by CodeToad (If it weren't for physics and law enforcement I'd be unstoppable!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: CodeToad
Semantics. The result is the same...

The same can be said about murder and capital punishment.

71 posted on 02/18/2010 10:40:09 AM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur

“legal course of action “

What legal doctrine would that be? Please be specific. Please also state the legal process by which a State may seceed from the United States and your legal reference for the process. You keep saying there is one, yet, you’ve never defined it.


72 posted on 02/18/2010 10:41:28 AM PST by CodeToad (If it weren't for physics and law enforcement I'd be unstoppable!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah

Wrong AGAIN-! Lincoln provoked the south by resupplying a military base in their sovereign territory. Go back and bone up on your history before proving yourself a fool AGAIN-!


73 posted on 02/18/2010 10:42:15 AM PST by imjimbo (The constitution SHOULD be our "gun permit")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
Lincoln happened to be speaking of Texans and Mexico

Was he really? Or is it possible that hes was talking about the failed socialist revolutions which took place in Europe at that time?

74 posted on 02/18/2010 10:46:11 AM PST by Bigun ("It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere." Voltaire)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: nanetteclaret; piroque; manc; GOP_Raider; TenthAmendmentChampion; snuffy smiff; slow5poh; ...

Dixie Ping


75 posted on 02/18/2010 10:49:31 AM PST by stainlessbanner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CodeToad

Semantics.

No, different words with different meanings.

"Seceding" is the act of formally withdrawing from an association, allience, or UNION, that you voluntarily entered into.

A revolution is the (violent) overthrow of one government to be replaced by another.

Requiem æternam dona eis, Domine; In memoria æterna erit justus, ab auditione mala non timebit.

Beauseant!

76 posted on 02/18/2010 10:49:45 AM PST by Lancelot Jones (Non nobis, Domine, non nobis, sed nomini tuo da gloriam.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: Bigun
Was he really? Or is it possible that hes was talking about the failed socialist revolutions which took place in Europe at that time?

Probably not. Lincoln's speech was January 12, 1848. The first of the revolutions that occured in Europe during the 1848-1852 time frame didn't start until March and weren't put down until after that.

77 posted on 02/18/2010 10:53:13 AM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: Constitutionalist Conservative

Any group of people, or individuals for that matter, may choose with whom they affiliate. That is a “natural”- a God granted right. The principle thesis behind the formation of the United States was to help men preserve their God given freedoms.


78 posted on 02/18/2010 10:53:17 AM PST by mo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: stainlessbanner

Ping


79 posted on 02/18/2010 10:57:43 AM PST by EdReform (Oath Keepers - Guardians of the Republic - Honor your oath - Join us: www.oathkeepers.org)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CodeToad
What legal doctrine would that be? Please be specific. Please also state the legal process by which a State may seceed from the United States and your legal reference for the process. You keep saying there is one, yet, you’ve never defined it.

My belief is that the process for leaving should be the same as the process for joining - with the approval of the other states as expressed through a majority vote in both houses of Congress. The process should be: 1) a state demonstrates that it's people want to leave the U.S.; 2) matters concerning debt, obligations, federal property, and the like are negotiated and a fair and equitable settlement is reached; 3) Congess votes to partition; 4) we wave bye-bye. And the idea is not new and it isn't mine. James Madison said that a fair and equitable separation requires the consent of both sides.

80 posted on 02/18/2010 10:59:08 AM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: imjimbo
Lincoln provoked the south by resupplying a military base in their sovereign territory.

It was his military base.

81 posted on 02/18/2010 11:05:11 AM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur

What part of ‘sovereign’ do you not understand-?!


82 posted on 02/18/2010 11:11:48 AM PST by imjimbo (The constitution SHOULD be our "gun permit")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: imjimbo
What part of ‘sovereign’ do you not understand-?!

OK, you don't like "It was his military base?" How about "It did not belong to them. South Carolina had no legal claim to the property." Is that better?

83 posted on 02/18/2010 11:18:09 AM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: Lancelot Jones
"Seceding" is the act of formally withdrawing from an association, alliance, or UNION, that you voluntarily entered into.

Exactly what the free and sovereign states of the Confederacy tried to do!

A revolution is the (violent) overthrow of one government to be replaced by another.

Never happened in the history of OUR country!

The colonies never sought to overthrow the British Crown and replace it with another government. They merely sough, and eventually gained, their independence from that British government and, by your own definition, that is NOT a revolution!

84 posted on 02/18/2010 11:18:19 AM PST by Bigun ("It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere." Voltaire)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
My belief is that the process for leaving should be the same as the process for joining...

We all know what your belief is the problem is that you cannot provide a shred of legal basis for your belief other that what you think is implied!

85 posted on 02/18/2010 11:23:30 AM PST by Bigun ("It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere." Voltaire)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur; Constitutionalist Conservative; stainlessbanner

“It falls apart right there because many political leaders from Webster to Clay to Madison to Jackson to Buchanan to Lincoln..”

His argument does not fall apart. Your use of ‘higher authority’ political leaders is not relevant since the government was a representative republic, not an oligarchy of political personalities.

The Republic was governed by law, not the masses. There was no admonition against secession, nor consequence of enforcement ever vested in the central government.


86 posted on 02/18/2010 11:24:37 AM PST by PeaRidge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Bigun
We all know what your belief is the problem is that you cannot provide a shred of legal basis for your belief other that what you think is implied!

Plus one Supreme Court decision and the writings of James Madison. But hey, what did he know about the Constitution anyway?

So what have you got showing support for secession without consent of the states?

87 posted on 02/18/2010 11:28:34 AM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: x; Regulator; stainlessbanner

“So a state government or convention can’t simply declare on its own that its citizens are no longer a part of the country.”

Two things wrong with that sentence, and you know what they are. First, there was no law against a state withdrawing. They could and they did.

Second, it was the people declaring their independence.

None of that was of critical importance until Union troops started taking lives.


88 posted on 02/18/2010 11:29:10 AM PST by PeaRidge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: PeaRidge
His argument does not fall apart. Your use of ‘higher authority’ political leaders is not relevant since the government was a representative republic, not an oligarchy of political personalities.

OK, would it have been better to say that his claim that "Prior to the American Civil War, it was popularly assumed that states which had freely chosen to enter the Union could just as freely withdraw from said union at their own discretion" is completely false?

The Republic was governed by law, not the masses. There was no admonition against secession, nor consequence of enforcement ever vested in the central government.

Nothing allowing it either.

89 posted on 02/18/2010 11:31:46 AM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur

Amendment IX:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X:

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.


90 posted on 02/18/2010 11:33:31 AM PST by Bigun ("It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere." Voltaire)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: mjp
“The Pledge of Allegiance was written by socialist, statist, Francis Bellamy, who adopted the Story-Webster-Lincoln premise of “ one people, one nation indivisible” and was able to enshrine in the hearts of American school children the unconstitutional principles of a unitary, nationalist, and supreme federal government.”

Amen!!!

N-S If your lurking = Shove it!

91 posted on 02/18/2010 11:35:55 AM PST by Idabilly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur

And there is also this:

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation...

Do you recognize that?


92 posted on 02/18/2010 11:42:58 AM PST by Bigun ("It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere." Voltaire)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: Lancelot Jones
I disagree.

“The Preamble of The Constitution says:
‘We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.’

Formed by the people, the whole people, of the United States, its existence is dependent on them, aud not on the States ; and it can only be dissolved by the power that give it birth; States may pass ordinances of seccession, but they cannot over- throw the fabric created by the source of all political authority in this country — the people.” - In Congress, Rep. Edward J. Morris (Penn) January 30, 1861.

That amounts to tidily squat!

Original version: They didn't know ( which State[s] would ratify ) So they went with your “We the people”

“We the people of the States of New Hampshire, Massachussetts, Rhode-Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New-York, New-Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North-Carolina, South-Carolina, and Georgia, do ordain, declare, and establish the following Constitution for the Government of Ourselves and our Posterity.

Further more 1864 Dictionary

Federal 1. Pertaining to a league or contract; derived from an agreement or covenant between parties, particularly between nations. 2. Consisting in a compact between parties, particularly and chiefly between states or nations; founded on alliance by contract or mutual agreement; as a federal government, such as that of the United States.

93 posted on 02/18/2010 11:54:13 AM PST by Idabilly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
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 ...(emphasis added)

How about this?

94 posted on 02/18/2010 11:54:45 AM PST by Bigun ("It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere." Voltaire)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: Bigun

The power to admit a state and to approve any changes in its status once admitted is a power reserved to the United States. Try again.


95 posted on 02/18/2010 12:00:03 PM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: Bigun
Do you recognize that?

Yeah. So next time the South decides to launch a revolution I suggest they win.

96 posted on 02/18/2010 12:00:55 PM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: Bigun
How about this?

How about this?

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

If the Constitution says it isn't allowed, then it isn't allowed. Regardless of what the ratification document said.

97 posted on 02/18/2010 12:03:01 PM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: Conservative9

exactly

I find it interesting that Lincoln did say succession was lawful back in 1848 but then changed his mind when in power, thought we all knew he used slavery too as a political ploy to keep Europe out of the war and recognizing the confederacy.

Also what if a few states today said that is it for us we’re leaving the union. states like FL,SC,GA,TX,OK,AK,UT,LA,TN could all join and go it alone today quite easily and so what would DC do?
Send troops down here to kill again.

That would not go down too good for up north and lets face it parts of the north east is like going to another country compared to down here.

I find it interesting too that some up north will say traitors etc and yet those who fought the British were classed as traitors but because they won back then it means it was OK to leave but when you loose it is not.

All those saying we do not have a right to leave the union must also have the am view when a breakaway area wants to leave Russia or another country then. So the next time we hear there is no right then I take it those other areas have no right either because of say Russias constitution.


98 posted on 02/18/2010 12:03:05 PM PST by manc (WILL OBAMA EVER GO TO CHURCH ON A SUNDAY OR WILL HE LET THE MEDIA/THE LEFT BE FOOLED FOR EVER)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: ought-six

exactly

I find it interesting that Lincoln did say succession was lawful back in 1848 but then changed his mind when in power, thought we all knew he used slavery too as a political ploy to keep Europe out of the war and recognizing the confederacy.

Also what if a few states today said that is it for us we’re leaving the union. states like FL,SC,GA,TX,OK,AK,UT,LA,TN could all join and go it alone today quite easily and so what would DC do?
Send troops down here to kill again.

That would not go down too good for up north and lets face it parts of the north east is like going to another country compared to down here.

I find it interesting too that some up north will say traitors etc and yet those who fought the British were classed as traitors but because they won back then it means it was OK to leave but when you loose it is not.

All those saying we do not have a right to leave the union must also have the am view when a breakaway area wants to leave Russia or another country then. So the next time we hear there is no right then I take it those other areas have no right either because of say Russias constitution.


99 posted on 02/18/2010 12:03:29 PM PST by manc (WILL OBAMA EVER GO TO CHURCH ON A SUNDAY OR WILL HE LET THE MEDIA/THE LEFT BE FOOLED FOR EVER)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Lancelot Jones; Regulator
I posted this on another thread - I've got to arrive in Montana before four.

The State[s] interred a contract ( The Constitution ) With an Understanding - they could leave.
Look at the Dictionary for the ‘term’ Federal - Prior to 1864

Federal 1. Pertaining to a league or contract; derived from an agreement or covenant between parties, particularly between nations. 2. Consisting in a compact between parties, particularly and chiefly between states or nations; founded on alliance by contract or mutual agreement; as a federal government, such as that of the United States.

Look at these State ratification ordinances.

Rhode Island
We, the delegates of the people of the state of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, duly elected and met in Convention, having maturely considered the Constitution for the United States of America . . . . declare and make known. . . .

That the powers of government may be reassumed by the people whensoever it shall become necessary to their happiness. That the rights of the states respectively to nominate and appoint all state officers, and every other power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by the said Constitution clearly delegated to the Congress of the United States, or to the departments of government thereof, remain to the people of the several states, or their respective state governments, to whom they may have granted the same; and that those clauses in the Constitution which declare that Congress shall not have or exercise certain powers, do not imply that Congress is entitled to any powers not given by the said Constitution; but such clauses are to be construed as exceptions to certain specified powers, or as inserted merely for greater caution. . . . The United States shall guaranty to each state its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Constitution expressly delegated to the United States

New York
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 . . . declare and make known. . . .

That the powers of government may be reassumed by the people whensoever it shall become necessary to their happiness; that every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by the said Constitution clearly delegated to the Congress of the United States, or the departments of the government thereof, remains to the people of the several states, or to their respective state governments, to whom they may have granted the same; and that those clauses in the said Constitution, which declare that Congress shall not have or exercise certain powers, do not imply that Congress is entitled to any powers not given by the said Constitution; but such clauses are to be construed either as exceptions to certain specified powers, or as inserted merely for greater caution

Federalist #46 To the People of the State of New York:

“Were it admitted, however, that the Federal government may feel an equal disposition with the State governments to extend its power beyond the due limits, the latter would still have the advantage in the means of defeating such encroachments. If an act of a particular State, though unfriendly to the national government, be generally popular in that State and should not too grossly violate the oaths of the State officers, it is executed immediately and, of course, by means on the spot and depending on the State alone. The opposition of the federal government, or the interposition of federal officers, would but inflame the zeal of all parties on the side of the State, and the evil could not be prevented or repaired, if at all, without the employment of means which must always be resorted to with reluctance and difficulty. On the other hand, should an unwarrantable measure of the federal government be unpopular in particular States, which would seldom fail to be the case, or even a warrantable measure be so, which may sometimes be the case, the means of opposition to it are powerful and at hand. The disquietude of the people; their repugnance and, perhaps, refusal to co-operate with the officers of the Union; the frowns of the executive magistracy of the State; the embarrassments created by legislative devices, which would often be added on such occasions, would oppose, in any State, difficulties not to be despised; would form, in a large State, very serious impediments; and where the sentiments of several adjoining States happened to be in unison, would present obstructions which the federal government would hardly be willing to encounter.”

Federal #43 To the People of the State of New York:
“The express authority of the people alone could give due validity to the Constitution. To have required the unanimous ratification of the thirteen States, would have subjected the essential interests of the whole to the caprice or corruption of a single member. It would have marked a want of foresight in the convention, which our own experience would have rendered inexcusable. Two questions of a very delicate nature present themselves on this occasion: 1. On what principle the Confederation, which stands in the solemn form of a compact among the States, can be superseded without the unanimous consent of the parties to it? 2. What relation is to subsist between the nine or more States ratifying the Constitution, and the remaining few who do not become parties to it? The first question is answered at once by recurring to the absolute necessity of the case; to the great principle of self-preservation; to the transcendent law of nature and of nature's God, which declares that the safety and happiness of society are the objects at which all political institutions aim, and to which all such institutions must be sacrificed. PERHAPS, also, an answer may be found without searching beyond the principles of the compact itself. It has been heretofore noted among the defects of the Confederation, that in many of the States it had received no higher sanction than a mere legislative ratification. The principle of reciprocality seems to require that its obligation on the other States should be reduced to the same standard. A compact between independent sovereigns, founded on ordinary acts of legislative authority, can pretend to no higher validity than a league or treaty between the parties. It is an established doctrine on the subject of treaties, that all the articles are mutually conditions of each other; that a breach of any one article is a breach of the whole treaty; and that a breach, committed by either of the parties, absolves the others, and authorizes them, if they please, to pronounce the compact violated and void. Should it unhappily be necessary to appeal to these delicate truths for a justification for dispensing with the consent of particular States to a dissolution of the federal pact, will not the complaining parties find it a difficult task to answer the MULTIPLIED and IMPORTANT infractions with which they may be confronted? The time has been when it was incumbent on us all to veil the ideas which this paragraph exhibits. The scene is now changed, and with it the part which the same motives dictate. The second question is not less delicate; and the flattering prospect of its being merely hypothetical forbids an overcurious discussion of it. It is one of those cases which must be left to provide for itself. In general, it may be observed, that although no political relation can subsist between the assenting and dissenting States, yet the moral relations will remain uncancelled. The claims of justice, both on one side and on the other, will be in force, and must be fulfilled; the rights of humanity must in all cases be duly and mutually respected; whilst considerations of a common interest, and, above all, the remembrance of the endearing scenes which are past, and the anticipation of a speedy triumph over the obstacles to reunion, will, it is hoped, not urge in vain MODERATION on one side, and PRUDENCE on the other. “

It was understood by the State[s] and the sales team ( Madison and others ) The Constitution was NOT a suicide pact!

Finally: During Virginia’s ratification

Madison:

Give me leave to say something of the nature of the government.
Who are the parties to it? The people—not the people as composing one great body, but the people as composing thirteen sovereignties.

100 posted on 02/18/2010 12:05:21 PM PST by Idabilly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 651-676 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson