Posted on 08/27/2007 1:37:39 PM PDT by BnBlFlag
Because it’s not mentioned in the Constitution. And the disposition of things not mentioned, is mentioned. Very specifically and very clearly.
The Constitution was silent on secession, yet our secession from Britain was based on that right. Some will opine that secession is limited to when events create an oppressive or intolerable situation. The South was fighting for states rights, however, if you read the ordinances of secession, they cite the primary and proximate cause of the dispute that was going on in the USA. That dispute was over slavery. Many Southern leaders wanted to phase out slavery, and Virginia has almost voted to do so, but there were too many Southerners in denial about the pernicious nature of the institution.
Legally, I agree with this article. Furthermore, I agree that after the Civil War, with the passage of the 14th Amendment and rise in the power of the Federal Government, that States Rights and the 10th Amendment became almost null. However, Southerners have a huge share of responsibility for this loss of States Rights by failing to do away with Slavery. Had the War not taken place, God knows when Slavery would have ended, perhaps into the 20th Century.
Constitutionally a president plays no role in the admission of a state so I see no role for him in allowing states to leave. A presidential veto wouldn't be an issue.
Please, chapter and verse that proves that secession is illegal. In the US Constitution.
That was after-the fact.
How about before hand?
Hardly. Chief Justice Marshall pointed out in McCulloch v. Maryland that implied powers existed: "Among the enumerated powers, we do not find that of establishing a bank or creating a corporation. But there is no phrase in the instrument which, like the articles of confederation, excludes incidental or implied powers; and which requires that everything granted shall be expressly and minutely described. Even the 10th amendment, which was framed for the purpose of quieting the excessive jealousies which had been excited, omits the word 'expressly,' and declares only, that the powers 'not delegated to the United States, nor prohibited to the states, are reserved to the states or to the people;' thus leaving the question, whether the particular power which may become the subject of contest, has been delegated to the one government, or prohibited to the other, to depend on a fair construction of the whole instrument."
Show me WHERE the Constitution forbids secession.
(You can’t!)
Yes because we know Congress will willingly vote to lose part of their tax source...hmmm, what was it the 16th President said was one of the most important issues to him in his First Inaugural Address?
In his Texas v. White decision, Chief Justice Chase seemed to hold out that possibility
The man who gave us fiat money to finance internal improvements and was chosen by a worthless man to sit on SCOTUS. Yes let's listen to his opinion...
All judicial decisions are made after-the-fact. Courts cannot rule on something that hadn't happened yet.
Delivering the mail?
Yes let's listen to his opinion...
Why not? Benson did. Or didn't you bother reading the article that started this thread?
That's not what the south said at the time:
"No man, no association of men, no state or set of states has a right to withdraw itself from this Union, of its own accord. The same power which knit us together, can only unknit. The same formality, which forged the links of the Union, is necessary to dissolve it. The majority of States which form the Union must consent to the withdrawal of any one branch of it. Until that consent has been obtained, any attempt to dissolve the Union, or obstruct the efficacy of its constitutional laws, is Treason--Treason to all intents and purposes. . . . This illustrious Union, which has been cemented by the blood of our forefathers, the pride of America and the wonder of the world must not be tamely sacrificed to the heated brains or the aspiring hearts of a few malcontents. The Union must be saved, when any one shall dare to assail it." [Richmond Enquirer, 1 November 1814]
The fact is that the Hartford Convention grumbled about secession among themselves, but the final report of the convention says nothing about it. Despite that, though, the Democratic party used it to bludgeon the Federalists, driving them out of existence within a few years. ""Democratic politicians, seeking a foil to their own mismanagement of the war and to discredit the still formidable Federalist party, caressed and fed this infant myth until it became so tough and lusty as to defy both solemn denials and documentary proof."--Samuel Eliot Morison
Wow! While I realize that most of the government revenue came from tariffs in those day, I had no idea it was so lopsided and would love to see documentation of the same.
I'm also told by relatives (Texans) that Texas specifically retained their right to leave and/or break themselves up in up to five smaller states in the deal which admitted them to the union? Does anyone else have more details to confirm or quell this?
I would think the rest of you would have seceded from us a long time ago...
The break-up thing is true, the right to leave is false.
You would look in vain because no such documentation exists. The overwhelming majority of tariff revenue was collected in Northern ports. Prior to the rebellion, the man who would become the confederate vice-president was putting the amount of tariff revenued generated in the North at over 75%. And I think he was being conservative.
I'm also told by relatives (Texans) that Texas specifically retained their right to leave and/or break themselves up in up to five smaller states in the deal which admitted them to the union? Does anyone else have more details to confirm or quell this?
The article incorporating Texas as a territory did contain that clause, but once Texas was a state they didn't have any rights that any other state didn't have. And that included walking out of the Union or splitting without congressional approval.
>>War of Northern Aggression<<
I once made the error of using that phrase at a party at the Dean of Student’s house at a Boston University.
For the next two hours he brought various visitors over to ask me to repeat the4 phrase so they could discuss it.
That was already weird enough that I didn’t tell them the story of how our Baptist family was limited one swear word by Grand Daddy. He said “damnyankee” was alright to say because it wasn’t really two different words.
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.