Replies

. . . he denied the constitutional right of the Southern states to secede. But there never was such a right.

While there is no clearly-defined "right to secede" in the U.S. Constitution, it seems as if the author has forgotten the very first sentence of the Declaration of Independence.

Section 10 - Powers prohibited of States

No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation

BTW, the thing that made us right in the Revolutionary war.............. WE WON!!!!! The Confederacy lost, so they were wrong.

The one about all men being created equal? The one that says that blacks were created equal? That line?

That's backwards anyway. Under enumerated power within the Constitution, the government has no right to prevent states from seceding.

WHETHER THEY JOINED A CONFEDERATION AS PART OF THAT SECESSION OR OTHERWISE.

Even if the author "forgot" what was said in the Declaration of Independence, when did the DoI ever have the force of law?

. . . he denied the constitutional right of the Southern states to secede. But there never was such a right.

The power to secede is not prohibited anywhere in the Constitution. Since it is not specifically prohibited it would appear that it would be reserved to the States or the people as stated in the 10th Amendment.

Its interesting that the Chinese leadership has stated that they consider their position on Taiwan to be the same as Lincoln's toward the Southern States and that they are only attempting to "preserve their Union". The choices, dreams, and aspirations of the people of Taiwan are unimportant when placed beside the Chinese "Union".

One also has to wonder if the States seriously intended to ratify a government that removed self-determination for their citizens forever. Especially based on some of the language used during ratification.

The Articles of Confederation specifically stated in plain English that they created a "perpetual" government under the Articles. But only a few years later the founding fathers themselves created the instrument that would allow 9 of the 13 States to go off an form a new one leaving up to 4 dissenting States behind to go it alone (in other words, seceding from the Articles). The word "perpetual" is rather obviously missing from the Articles of Confederation's replacement which seems like a good idea based on what they had just done to the government of the Articles (de-perpetualizing it you know).

One also wonders if the founding fathers, and more importantly the States that actually ratified the Constitution, intended to forever prohibit their descendants from determining for themselves whether the Union continued to provide the benefits for which they joined it...or not. If this is so, then the ratifiers of Massachussetts for instance decided to weld themselves and their descendants to the Union forever regardless of whether it failed, succeeded, became tyrannous, failed to provide the benefits intended, or became something they abhorred. I find that an unlikely decision for our friends in Massachussetts to have made.

For instance, would you really say that the people of Massachussetts would have had NO right to leave the Union if it had become completely dominated by slaveholders? If the slave trade had been reopened with its point of entry at Boston? If the slaveholders had rammed through a huge tax on the goods produced by Massachussetts to subsidize railroads to carry slaves to market in the South? I think not. The ratifiers of Massachussetts would not have intended their descendants to be forever bound to a government that no longer provided the benefits intended and became something that they determined was opposed to all they believed.

Likewise, we today could all get together and decide that Federal land in Nevada will become our national trash dump. That all prisons will be located on that land in Nevada. That all military bombing practice will take place on that land in Nevada. That all nuclear waste will go to that land in Nevada. If this passed the Senate 98-2 and was signed into law do we really believe that they intended for the people of Nevada just to shrug and accept continued membership in a Union, without recourse, that had become completely inimical to their general welfare and well-being? Even though their interests had been trampled by legal means and was good for every other State in the Union? I can't bring myself to think so.

I like Lincoln. He was a very humorous man. He pardoned many soldiers who had seen to much battle. He appointed a good reconstruction governor of my State who left more money than he found in the State treasury and tried to help all (as opposed to the reconstruction governments appointed by others after his death who stole). But his view of the nature of the Union lacks some logical wholeness and has more than its share of contradictions.

At one point, Madison was asked about what he would do about States that chose to remain under the Articles of Confederation and not join a new government under the Constitution. He said that it would be best to let them go as brothers and hope for, and work for, the day of reunion. That outlook seems to make more sense and be more American to me.

While there is no clearly-defined "right to secede" in the U.S. Constitution, it seems as if the author has forgotten the very first sentence of the Declaration of Independence.

No, he covered that. Here's what he said.

There was a revolutionary right to rebel against a tyrannical government, of course. But this right rested ultimately on individual natural rights, first among them the right to life and liberty. But the slave states did not, because they could not, secede in the name of human liberty.

If you care to make a individual natural rights case for Southern secession, I'd be interested in reading your argument.