I'd be glad too except I'm not sure what you are trying to say. My position has been that the southern acts of secession were illegal. Not that secession itself is necessarily prevented but it can only be accomplished with the consent of all the parties involved, through a majority vote in Congress. That is how the Constitution requires new states be added, that's how the Constitution requires any change in the status of a state be authorized, so that should be the minimum requirement for leaving. Add to the the fact that the Constitution also forbids a number of unilateral actions by states where the interest of other states may be impacted. So it would seem that the 10th Amendment would argue against the southern actions not in favor of them.
Hmm. Ok.
First off we are seem to be essentially in agreement on secession. I think a seceding state needs to get the agreement of the other states, unless the seceding state's complaints rise to the level of the Declaration of Independence.
But I partly went off on a side track.
In post 19 Billbears said in response to your post 17: "It says it in the 10th Amendment. You know that sticky Amendment that states powers not explicitly enumerated in the aforesaid document belong to the states?"
What the Tenth Ammendments say is:
The powers not delegated to the United States by theAnd according to the Ninth::
Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to
the States respectively, or to the people.
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall notHold those thoughts for awhile.
be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
We have a Constitutional Republic in which we the people elect some of our number to represent us in Congress and the Presidencey. (Usta be Senators were appointed by the States, and they represented the States directly and the people within those States indirectly, but that changed.)
Hold that thought for a while too.
Frequently, the question is asked, "by what Constitutional authority is the United States Government doing "something" (take your pick of "something") when the Constitution limits the United States Government, has not delegated the power for that "something" to the United States, and has reserved to the States respectively, or to the people, the powers not delegated to the United States?
Now let me try and bring the thoughts together:
If the people have a riight to do something in accordance with the Ninth Ammendment, and they have the power to do that something in accordance with the Tenth Ammendment, can they not have their representatives in Congress and the Presidency do that "something" on their behalf, even if it is not specifically stated elsewhere in the Constitution?
Are they not reserved the right under the Ninth Ammendment and the power under the Tenth Ammendment to have their representatives do that "something" on their behalf?
Can they not have their representatives do most anything on which they can agree among themselves? At least as long as it doesn't violate a right?
Was not the United States Government acting in accordance with the agreement of the People of the Northern States who at least thought they had the right and power to hold the Southern States in the Union? That seems consistent with your statement: "Not that secession itself is necessarily prevented but it can only be accomplished with the consent of all the parties involved, through a majority vote in Congress." Such a vote by the representatives of the States and the People would have represented the agreement of the States and the People, or at least would have been presumed to do so until the next election or round of Senatorial appointments.
But to carry it further, is not the above rationale grounds for the United States Government doing many of the things it does that give rise to the question: "By what Constitutional authority is the United States Government doing that?" Is not the answer to this question that the people have the right and power to do "that" and they have the right and power to have their representatives do "that" on their behalf? And if the representatives did "that," is it not to be assumed that they had the agreement of the people, at least until the next election proves otherwise?
Would that not explain Social Security, and HUD and the EPA and a host of "thats" some of us don't like?
My questions above are rhetorical, but the request for a counter arguement is not. If the rationale above is solid, we need to take a different tack than saying "It ain't Constitutional," be a lot more careful about who gets elected (we need to do that anyway) and be extra careful of the rights of the social and political minorities of which we may become members,
And if it is solid, we need to use the rationale to our advantage, if we can agree on what that is.