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

Skip to comments.

An Analysis of President Lincoln's Legal Arguments Against Secession
Apollo3 ^ | April 9, 1994 | James Ostrowski

Posted on 03/31/2014 10:24:31 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet

INTRODUCTION

On May 27, 1861, the army of the United States of America (the "Union")--a nation formed by consecutive secessions, first from Great Britain in 1776, and then from itself in 17881--invaded the State of Virginia,2 which had recently seceded from the Union, in an effort to negate that secession by violent force.

The historical result of the effort begun that day is well known and indisputable: after four years of brutal warfare, which killed 620,000 Americans, the United States negated the secession of the Confederate States of America, and forcibly re-enrolled them into the Union. The Civil War ended slavery, left the South in economic ruins, and set the stage for twelve years of military rule there.

Beyond its immediate effects, the Civil War made drastic changes in politics and law that continue to shape our world 130 years later. Arthur Ekirch writes: "Along with the terrible destruction of life and property suffered in four long years of fighting went tremendous changes in American life and thought, especially a decline in [classical] liberalism on all questions save that of slavery. * * * Through a policy of arbitrary arrests made possible by Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus, persons were seized and confined on the suspicion of disloyalty or of sympathy with the southern cause. Thus, in the course of the Civil War, a total of thirteen thousand civilians was estimated to have been held as political prisoners, often without any sort of trial or after only cursory hearings before a military tribunal."3The Civil War caused and allowed a tremendous expansion of the size and power of the federal government. It gave us our first federal conscription law...

(Excerpt) Read more at apollo3.com ...


TOPICS: Conspiracy; Government; History; Military/Veterans
KEYWORDS: civilwar; confederacy; constitution; secession
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-173 next last

1 posted on 03/31/2014 10:24:31 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

The problem was there was not a framework in the constitution for peaceful state succession.

Something that laid down a procedural process in where a state may petition and successfully leave the unio9n on it’s own should it see fit and how to re-distribute the federal property back tot he other states and what portion stays with the state that is leaving.

In some way we could use an amendment that would lay out a process for a state leaving that would be an orderly framework with built in checks and balances to prevent a wat breaking out by a reckless succession.


2 posted on 03/31/2014 10:35:08 PM PDT by GraceG
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GraceG; 2ndDivisionVet
The problem was there was not a framework in the constitution for peaceful state succession.

Not quite; the problem is that if a state cannot legally secede then the civil war was Treason because they were still states if the union.

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

It is interesting that no confederate officers (or the governors, or confederate president) was convicted of treason; see wikipedia for the list of people convicted of treason.

3 posted on 03/31/2014 10:51:42 PM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

The power of the federal government shall not be challenged.


4 posted on 03/31/2014 11:11:01 PM PDT by Organic Panic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Organic Panic

Since, the power of the US Federal Government, relies upon US the people, you are correct.


5 posted on 03/31/2014 11:14:33 PM PDT by RedHeeler
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: RedHeeler

A woman enters into marriage with a man who becomes increasingly controlling and tyrannical. She says she wants a divorce, and leaves. He hunts her down, beats her almost to death, drags her back home in chains, and hobbles her so she can never leave again.

And the Northerners wonder why we will never forgive or forget.

The greatest among the Founders were from Virginia: Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Mason. They would cry to see what the Federal government has become, and it started with the Civil War.


6 posted on 03/31/2014 11:31:25 PM PDT by dagogo redux
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: GraceG

“The problem was there was not a framework in the constitution for peaceful state succession.”

This is a false statement. The procedure for the secession of a state was the same procedure used for the accession of a state. The secession or the alienation of a state or its territory required the same legislative acts in Congress and the states as were used for the accession of a state to the Union.


7 posted on 03/31/2014 11:47:11 PM PDT by WhiskeyX
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: dagogo redux

My empathy is well lost- by your sadly misplaced core understanding, of true human nature. Unless, you are a pimp? Right, redone?


8 posted on 03/31/2014 11:49:51 PM PDT by RedHeeler
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: dagogo redux

“A woman enters into marriage with a man who becomes increasingly controlling and tyrannical. She says she wants a divorce, and leaves. He hunts her down, beats her almost to death, drags her back home in chains, and hobbles her so she can never leave again.”

All of which is a totally false and self-serving analogy. To secede from the Union, a state was obligated by the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution to obtain the consent of Congress and each of the States in the Union in the same manner as was used for accession of that State to the Union.


9 posted on 03/31/2014 11:51:39 PM PDT by WhiskeyX
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyX

I don’t remember reading the procedure for leaving the union mentioned in the copy of the Constitution I read. Perhaps you could point me to the article that specifically says what you stated, or are you just making it up?


10 posted on 04/01/2014 12:28:53 AM PDT by jospehm20
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: jospehm20

The following excerpt from the U.S. Constitution provides the authorization to add a new state and to “make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States....”, and the secession of a State from the Union is a direct disposition of the Territory of the United States that required the consent of the Congress assembled and the States upon accession or annexation of the same State.

Constitution of the United States

Article. IV.

Section. 3.

New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.

The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.


11 posted on 04/01/2014 12:44:40 AM PDT by WhiskeyX
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: jospehm20

Doesn’t matter. Civil War gave rise to military industrial complex.
Which now runs US government.


12 posted on 04/01/2014 12:47:04 AM PDT by jonose
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyX

There is nothing there that prevents secession or even addresses it, only accession of states or changes within a state.


13 posted on 04/01/2014 1:11:10 AM PDT by AlmaKing
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyX

“and the secession of a State from the Union is a direct disposition of the Territory of the United States”

That is the part you made up. If a state leaves the union it is no longer the territory of the United States. I see it differently than you do. I think it is ludicrous to expect a state that wants to leave the union to have to get everybody else’s permission to go their own way. Since the constitution does not mention secession, and since the 10th Amendment says powers not granted to the federal government by the Constitution, nor prohibited to the States, are reserved to the States or the people, I believe that is where the power to secede lies and states should be able to leave the union as they wish with or without the federal government’s blessing.


14 posted on 04/01/2014 1:13:09 AM PDT by jospehm20
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: jonose

It looks to me like bankers have been running it lately, military not so much.


15 posted on 04/01/2014 1:15:28 AM PDT by jospehm20
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark

There is good reason why it was called a war of northern aggression.

Both sides committed treason if you stick strictly to the definition.

If Lincoln had not opposed the secession and offered a peaceful separation, there would be no reason to call anyone a traitor.


16 posted on 04/01/2014 1:17:58 AM PDT by AlmaKing
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyX; jospehm20
“make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States....”

Not applicable to sovereign states as it presupposes that the state is Territory or other Property belonging to the United States.

17 posted on 04/01/2014 1:53:08 AM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: AlmaKing
There is good reason why it was called a war of northern aggression.

I like to call it The War for Federal Supremacy.

Both sides committed treason if you stick strictly to the definition.

I notice the plurality in the definition of treason, namely them, in reference to the United States; the federal government is a single entity and it could therefore be argued that attacking it is not treason.

18 posted on 04/01/2014 1:58:30 AM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

It will all get sorted in the wash.


19 posted on 04/01/2014 2:57:42 AM PDT by Psalm 144 (FIGHT! FIGHT! SEVERE CONSERVATIVE AND THE WILD RIGHT!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AlmaKing
“There is nothing there that prevents secession or even addresses it, only accession of states or changes within a state.”

That is a false statement. Secession without the consent of Congress was prohibited by:

The Articles of Confederation

Article I. The Stile of this Confederacy shall be “The United States of America.”

Article II. 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.

Article XIII. Every State shall abide by the determination of the united States in congress assembled, on all questions which by this confederation are submitted to them. And the Articles of this confederation shall be inviolably observed by every State, and the union shall be perpetual; nor shall any alteration at any time hereafter be made in any of them; unless such alteration be agreed to in a congress of the united States, and be afterwards confirmed by the legislatures of every State.

And Whereas it hath pleased the Great Governor of the World to incline the hearts of the legislatures we respectively represent in Congress, to approve of, and to authorize us to ratify the said articles of confederation and perpetual union. Know Ye that we the undersigned delegates, by virtue of the power and authority to us given for that purpose, do by these presents, in the name and in behalf of our respective constituents, fully and entirely ratify and confirm each and every of the said articles of confederation and perpetual union, and all and singular the matters and things therein contained: And we do further solemnly plight and engage the faith of our respective constituents, that they shall abide by the determinations of the united States in congress assembled, on all questions, which by the said confederation are submitted to them. And that the articles thereof shall be inviolably observed by the States we respectively represent, and that the union shall be perpetual.

As the above excerpt states, “Every State shall abide by the determination of the united States in congress assembled, on all questions which by this confederation are submitted to them. And the Articles of this confederation shall be inviolably observed by every State, and the union shall be perpetual; nor shall any alteration at any time hereafter be made in any of them; unless such alteration be agreed to in a congress of the united States, and be afterwards confirmed by the legislatures of every State.” Under the authority of the Articles of Confederation the States engaged “in the name and in behalf of our respective constituents, fully and entirely ratify and confirm each and every of the said articles of confederation and perpetual union” and committed the same to the oath “And we do further solemnly plight and engage the faith of our respective constituents, that they shall abide by the determinations of the united States in congress assembled, on all questions, which by the said confederation are submitted to them. And that the articles thereof shall be inviolably observed by the States we respectively represent, and that the union shall be perpetual.”

The legal definition of “perpetual” is never ceasing, continuous, enduring, lasting, unlimited in respect of time, continuing without intermission or interval (Black's Law Dictionary). A Union is a joinder of separate entities (Black's Law Dictionary). A perpetual Union is therefore “expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled “ as a (federal) joinder of separate entities (States) never ceasing, continuous, enduring, lasting, and unlimited in respect of time; unless such alteration be agreed to in a congress of the united States, and be afterwards confirmed by the legislatures of every State.”

The proponents of unilateral secession then proceed to raise objections to the authority of the Articles of Confederation, but such objections are invalidated by the Constitution and the general principles of the law of nations.

Constitution of the United States

Article. VI.

All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.

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.

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.

The legal definition of an “Engagement” is “a contract or agreement characterized by an exchange of mutual promises; e.g. engagement to marry (Black's Law Dictionary).

As seen above in the Articles of Confederation, the States entered into an agreement giving their mutual promises: “we do further solemnly plight and engage the faith of our respective constituents, that they shall abide by the determinations of the united States in congress assembled, on all questions, which by the said confederation are submitted to them. And that the articles thereof shall be inviolably observed by the States we respectively represent, and that the union shall be perpetual.” The Constitution then confirmed “All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.” Consequently, the Constitution is very explicit in stating the Union shall be as perpetual as it was with the Engagement of the States under the Articles of Confederation. Any alteration of this perpetual Union therefore requires the consent of the Congress assembled as stated in the Articles of Confederation: And the Articles of this confederation shall be inviolably observed by every State, and the union shall be perpetual; nor shall any alteration at any time hereafter be made in any of them; unless such alteration be agreed to in a congress of the united States, and be afterwards confirmed by the legislatures of every State.”

While the “Constitution Article. VI. All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation,” states the Engagement in a perpetual Union “shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation,” it furthermore states, “Constitution of the United States, Article. I.,
Section. 8. The Congress shall have Power [....] To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; [....] To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.”

One of those powers delegated by the Constitution to Congress is:

“Constitution of the United States. Article. IV.
Section. 3. The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.”

The unilateral secession of a State whose Engagement in the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution faithfully promised “the union shall be perpetual” constitutes the “Prejudice any Claims of the United States” had with respect to “rights and privileges” the perpetual Union of the United States to exercise the “Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States.”

Such a unilateral secession of a State from its Engagement in the perpetual Union of the United States also constitutes a Prejudice of a number of other powers delegated to the United States and the other States in the Union by the Constitution, not the least of which is:

Constitution of the United States.

Section. 8.
The Congress shall have Power

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; [....]

So, the Constitution contains numerous powers delegated to the United States which are Prejudiced by a State acting to unilaterally secede in rebellion and thereby Prejudice the rights, duties, and obligations of the United States and its member States.

20 posted on 04/01/2014 3:00:55 AM PDT by WhiskeyX
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: AlmaKing

I dislike the term “civil war.” The South did not want to take over the government (example: English civil war), they wanted only to withdraw from the Union. I’d prefer the term “Second American Revolution.”


21 posted on 04/01/2014 3:18:22 AM PDT by R. Scott (Humanity i love you because when you're hard up you pawn your Intelligence to buy a drink)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark

If they were still states in the Union then West Virginia should still be a part of Virginia.


22 posted on 04/01/2014 3:27:42 AM PDT by rfreedom4u (Your feelings don't trump my free speech!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark
“Not applicable to sovereign states as it presupposes that the state is “Territory or other Property belonging to the United States”.”

The State ratified the agreement or Engagement whereby the State delegated its sovereign powers enumerated in the Constitution to a perpetual Union subject to the “consent of the Congress assembled.” This delegation of the State's powers included the power to alienate territories of the State with the consent of Congress and the State by treaties with foreign states and a variety of other powers not limited “To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions.” To secede a State must obtain the consent of Congress assembled and the other States of the Union with whom there is a joinder in a mutual and perpetual Union to recover the sovereign powers previously delegated to the perpetual Union of the United States. Anything else constitutes a unilateral and unconstitutional rebellion against the perpetual Union that Prejudices the sovereign rights and duties previously delegated by agreement of the seceding State to the member States of the perpetual Union. The member States of the perpetual Union had the right and the obligation of the Constitution to “To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections.”

The mythical assertion that the seceding sovereign State has not previously delegated the Constitution's enumerated power to “dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States” until and unless the consent of Congress assembled has been obtained is without any shred of a valid basis, as the words written in the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution clearly attest.

23 posted on 04/01/2014 3:34:12 AM PDT by WhiskeyX
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: rockrr

Rally the troops. You know where this one is heading.


24 posted on 04/01/2014 3:36:27 AM PDT by DoodleDawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jonose
Doesn’t matter. Civil War gave rise to military industrial complex.

Um, wouldn't that be World War 2?

25 posted on 04/01/2014 3:39:14 AM PDT by DoodleDawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: AlmaKing
There is good reason why it was called a war of northern aggression.

Why is that?

26 posted on 04/01/2014 3:40:50 AM PDT by DoodleDawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

Through a policy of arbitrary arrests made possible by Lincoln’s suspension of habeas corpus, persons were seized and confined on the suspicion of disloyalty or of sympathy with the southern cause.
_________________________________________

This also happened during the first civil war AKA as the American Revolution or the War of Independence..

Civilians, non-combatant men, grandmothers and children were arrested and imprisoned for suspicion of sympathy and loyalty to the king of England and the colonies...

Fort Dayton near Albany, NY was built to house dozens and hundreds of ordinary American civilians like grandmother Sarah Kast McGinnis aged in her 60s and her 10 yo granddaughter Hannah De Forest...

Mrs McGinnis never fired a shot at any of the rebels..

Why was she even arrested by men claiming to want freedom from tyranny ???


27 posted on 04/01/2014 3:45:37 AM PDT by Tennessee Nana
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jospehm20

“If a state leaves the union it is no longer the territory of the United States.”

That is pure nonsense. You cannot just unilaterally, arbitrarily, and prejudicially abrogate the Engagement the State with its ratification entered into the joinder of territories with the other States in the perpetual Union. Proposing such a state of affairs involving unilateral secession of the State is nothing less than lawlessness, alienation of the State, and treasonous rebellion prejudicing the rights and duties of the member States of the perpetual Union. To regain or recover the sovereign powers the State previously delegated to the perpetual Union of the United States, the State must obtain the consent of the Congress assembled and the member States of the perpetual Union. Only when the State has lawfully recovered the sovereign power it delegated to the perpetual Union can the State lawfully withdraw from the Engagement it previously made and proceed on to secede as a sovereign state with all of its sovereign powers recovered from the former joinder with the other States of the perpetual Union. Until that occurs, the territory of the State is cojoined with the Territory of the perpetual Union of the United States as with any delegation of sovereign powers to the joint sovereign nation.


28 posted on 04/01/2014 3:49:26 AM PDT by WhiskeyX
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark

After the war President Davis asked for a trial but was not granted one because to put him on trial would put secession on trial and it was deemed a losing proposition.


29 posted on 04/01/2014 3:58:58 AM PDT by central_va (I won't be reconstructed and I do not give a damn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyX
The mythical assertion that the seceding sovereign State has not previously delegated the Constitution's enumerated power to “dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States” until and unless the consent of Congress assembled has been obtained is without any shred of a valid basis, as the words written in the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution clearly attest.

That ratification of the Constitution made the States themselves property of the national government seems inconsistent with reference to the sovereignty of the States. There is no sovereignty under those circumstances, and if that is how the Constitution were understood and intended at the time, there would have been no reference to it. They would have understood that they were relinquishing all claim to it.

30 posted on 04/01/2014 4:03:29 AM PDT by tacticalogic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyX

Perpetual union? I didn’t see that in the Constitution either. You must have a different copy than I am looking at.


31 posted on 04/01/2014 4:08:17 AM PDT by jospehm20
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Tennessee Nana

“Why was she even arrested by men claiming to want freedom from tyranny ???”

She and her husband were closely associated with the Mohawk Indians on the frontier during the Franch and Indian wars. With her husband deceased and the American Revolutionary War underway, she remained a Loyalist and used her position with the Mohawk, other Indians, Loyalists, and British on the frontier to conduct hostilities against the rebel settlers. Suffering cruel massacres at the hands of the Indians and the Loyalists, the rebels replied in kind. To keep her from using her influence with the Indians to conduct further raids and massacres, she and her Loyalist family members were imprisoned, but oftern cruelly so in the same manner being suffered by many Patriot families.


32 posted on 04/01/2014 4:14:40 AM PDT by WhiskeyX
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: jospehm20

“Perpetual union? I didn’t see that in the Constitution either. You must have a different copy than I am looking at.”

Obviously you did not read and/or failed to comprehend what I wrote and what the Founding Fathers so clearly wrote.


33 posted on 04/01/2014 4:17:11 AM PDT by WhiskeyX
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyX

My reading comprehension is pretty good. I just don’t agree with what you wrote. Where in the US Constitution does it mention a “perpetual” union?


34 posted on 04/01/2014 4:23:34 AM PDT by jospehm20
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic

“That ratification of the Constitution made the States themselves property of the national government seems inconsistent with reference to the sovereignty of the States. There is no sovereignty under those circumstances, and if that is how the Constitution were understood and intended at the time, there would have been no reference to it. They would have understood that they were relinquishing all claim to it.”

You fail to understand the legal concept of delegation of authority used for millenia. Sovereignty has very rarely been entirely unified in the control of just one entity. You can see this when you study any political history and observe how sovereignty is distributed in the society.

In the case of the perpetual Union of the United States, the citizens of the United States has delegated personal sovereignty not reserved to themselves to their delegates or representatives to the State government, and the State Government has delegated certain enumerated powers and authority to the perpetual Union of the United States: Congress, the Executive, and the Supreme Court of the United States. The Founding Fathers in this case delegated certain limited powers of sovereignty to the perpetual Union of the United States through the Continental Congresses, the Congress, the Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation, the Constitution, and the Amendments to the Constitution. In particular, the Constitution was very explicit in reconfirming the delegation of certain sovereign powers of a State to the perpetual Union of the United States in: “Constitution of the United States. Article. VI. All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.” When the State ratified the Congressional act making the State a member of the perpetual Union of the United States as set forth in the Articles of Confederation, the ratification served to delegate those limited sovereign powers of the citizens and the State to the Union of the United States, subjecting them to the duty of obtaining the consent of Congress to alter the Engagement and agreements. The State nonetheless retains all sovereingn powers and sovereignty not delegated to the perpetual Union of the United States and not reserved by the citizens of the United States.

So, yes, the States are sovereign governments, but exercise that sovereignty in union with the States who share the same delegated powers of sovereignty through their mutual Union in the United States. Consequently, the State is no relinquishing the sovereign powers, but the State is sharing the delegated sovereign powers with the other States. This is why the consent of the other states must be obtained through the consent of Congress to alter their mutual agreement and Engagement to participate in a perpetual Union of enumerated powers and shared co-sovereignty over the Federal Territory and domain.


35 posted on 04/01/2014 4:45:44 AM PDT by WhiskeyX
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: jospehm20

“My reading comprehension is pretty good. I just don’t agree with what you wrote. Where in the US Constitution does it mention a “perpetual” union?”

See Post 20


36 posted on 04/01/2014 4:47:06 AM PDT by WhiskeyX
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet
A good reply to this kind of KKK nonsense is Hillsdale professor Thomas Krannawitter's book Vindicating Lincoln.

Also Rich Lowry's article Lincoln Defended.

37 posted on 04/01/2014 4:52:08 AM PDT by iowamark (I must study politics and war that my sons may have liberty to study mathematics and philosophy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rfreedom4u

“If they were still states in the Union then West Virginia should still be a part of Virginia.”

That is incorrect, because the pro-Union Virginia representatives seated in the U.S. Congress during the war undertook the Constitutional steps necessary to obtain the consent of Congress for the secession of West Virginia. The postwar State of Virginia sought to revoke its agreement and resorted to a lawsuit that went to the Supereme Court f the United States, but lost the case and confirmed the consent of Congress for West Virginia to secede with certain counties from Virginia.

Virginia v. West Virginia, 78 U.S. 39 (1871),
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_v._West_Virginia


38 posted on 04/01/2014 5:03:17 AM PDT by WhiskeyX
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: jospehm20

“I think it is ludicrous to expect a state that wants to leave the union to have to get everybody else’s permission to go their own way.”

Actually, the coastal states could secede and land lock the remaining states eventually destroying them with a trade/travel embargo.

This is why russian is not allowing Ukraine to secede. It is because russia would be landlocked except for the Pacific ocean route.

For example, CA, OR and WA plus TX, OK MO, IL, WI, and MN could pretty much completly land lock a bunch of state via secession.


39 posted on 04/01/2014 5:13:55 AM PDT by staytrue
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

Bookmark.


40 posted on 04/01/2014 5:28:53 AM PDT by OldPossum ("It's" is the contraction of "it" and "is"; think about ITS implications.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: central_va

“After the war President Davis asked for a trial but was not granted one because to put him on trial would put secession on trial and it was deemed a losing proposition.”

That is an untrue statement, because Jefferson Davis was ultimately indicted in the case of The United States v. Jefferson Davis. Davis was released from custody on $100,000 bail with the assistance of Horace Greeley. The case was ultimately dismissed, nolle prosequi, for a variety of reasons. The principal reason, however, was the passage of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution and its punishment of former officers and officials of the rebel Confederate States of America. Davis’ defense attorneys persuaded Davis to abandon his efforts to go on trial to argue his case for secession, because the punishments provided by the 14th Amendment gave them an opportunity to escape trial for treason of some 34 other CSA officers on the grounds doing so would constitute disallowed double jeapordy.


41 posted on 04/01/2014 5:40:45 AM PDT by WhiskeyX
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyX
Article. VI. All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.” When the State ratified the Congressional act making the State a member of the perpetual Union of the United States as set forth in the Articles of Confederation, the ratification served to delegate those limited sovereign powers of the citizens and the State to the Union of the United States, subjecting them to the duty of obtaining the consent of Congress to alter the Engagement and agreements. The State nonetheless retains all sovereingn powers and sovereignty not delegated to the perpetual Union of the United States and not reserved by the citizens of the United States.

What happens when the perpetual Union of the United States lays claim to sovereign powers and sovereignty not delegated to them?

42 posted on 04/01/2014 5:43:06 AM PDT by tacticalogic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: DoodleDawg

More accurately, the Second War for Independence.

It wasn’t a “civil war” as the southern states had no designs on controlling the central government. Their design was to be independent of it.


43 posted on 04/01/2014 5:45:53 AM PDT by MrB (The difference between a Humanist and a Satanist - the latter admits whom he's working for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: staytrue

If ND, SD, Nebraska, Kansas, OK and Texas seceded all at once they could cut the country in half. So what? Ukraine does not have to secede from Russia, it is already its own country. Russia is trying to get it back by force.


44 posted on 04/01/2014 5:46:26 AM PDT by jospehm20
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: jospehm20

The Constitution was a contract between the states to form a federal government for common defense, as a foreign representative, and to arbitrate any conflict between the states.

The created entity has long since violated both the spirit and the letter of that contract.


45 posted on 04/01/2014 5:47:58 AM PDT by MrB (The difference between a Humanist and a Satanist - the latter admits whom he's working for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyX
WhiskeyX: "Secession without the consent of Congress was prohibited by: The Articles of Confederation..."

FRiend, some very FRiendly advice: when you're posting lengthy excerpts, use some kind of emphasis such as this to show us the specific words which make your point.
For italics, it's simply: < I > then < /I >.
For stronger points: use < b > < u > to start your emphasis, then < /b > < /u > to end it.
Please, give us a fighting chance to see what you're trying to say.

For more, here is an old HTML sandbox.

46 posted on 04/01/2014 5:56:11 AM PDT by BroJoeK (a little historical perspective....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic

“What happens when the perpetual Union of the United States lays claim to sovereign powers and sovereignty not delegated to them?”

There are a variety of methods of confronting that problem, enough to fill one or more books, depending on the nature of the transgressions. One of those methods is currently underway at the present time with the Convention of States. Oterh methods include using parliamentary law at the local level to replace representatives and governments until some of the powers lost to the citizens are restored, particularly the powr of presentment for a Grand Jury.


47 posted on 04/01/2014 5:59:41 AM PDT by WhiskeyX
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyX
There are a variety of methods of confronting that problem, enough to fill one or more books, depending on the nature of the transgressions. One of those methods is currently underway at the present time with the Convention of States. Oterh methods include using parliamentary law at the local level to replace representatives and governments until some of the powers lost to the citizens are restored, particularly the powr of presentment for a Grand Jury.

So only one side of this contract is entitled to use force against the other to effect compliance?

48 posted on 04/01/2014 6:03:10 AM PDT by tacticalogic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: MrB
More accurately, the Second War for Independence

I suppose you could call it that with accuracy. But to call it "War of Northern Aggression" doesn't make sense. Do we call the Revolutionary War the "War of British Aggression"?

49 posted on 04/01/2014 6:05:22 AM PDT by DoodleDawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: DoodleDawg

1812 was the “War of British Aggression”...


50 posted on 04/01/2014 6:06:55 AM PDT by MrB (The difference between a Humanist and a Satanist - the latter admits whom he's working for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-173 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