Guess What Folks - Secession Wasn't Treason

The Copperhead Chronicles ^ | August 2007 | Al Benson

[Boiler Plate]

Sure it doesn’t.

[Non-Sequitur]

James Madison:

"An inference from the doctrine that a single State has the right to secede at will from the rest is that the rest would have an equal right to secede from it; in other words, to turn it, against its will, out of its union with them."

Is he right?

[4CJ]

Texas v. White was not a 5-3 decision. It was a 7-1 decision. Five justices joined Chase in his opinion, while two others issued a separate, but concurring decision. Only Justice Grier dissented.

You don't say. Justice Grier dissented I'll agree. Justice Swayne, writing for himself and Justice Miller wrote, I concur with my brother Grier as to the incapacity of the State of Texas, in her present condition, to maintain an original suit in this court. [State of Texas v. White et al 74 Wall. 700, 741, (1869)].

[Non-Sequitur]

Yes, if you are a member of JSTOR.

I'm not, but apparently you are. Can you post the relevent 1859 dollar figures of imports destined for consumers in the 7 original confederate states?

[Boiler Plate]

SW,
Actually I am smash hit with the neighbors, because I own the biggest snowblower on the street. And after I clear a path down the street I do their driveways. Cause, I am a self righteous snow blowing fool and the snow flakes fear me.
Warmest Regards,
Boiler Plate

[NavyCanDo]

Bump for later read. This Yankee with strong Southern family roots (NC, SC, TN, TX, AK) has got to jump in here.

[Non-Sequitur]

The ruling was five to three, with the majority decision issued by Chief Justice Salmon P Chase, a former Lincoln cabinet member (who arguably should have recused himself) whose logic was less than convincing.

It was apparently convincing enough to get 4 other justices to agree with him.

[4CJ]

That ruling was about the repatriation of monies taken from the treasury, not about the right of secession.

BUMP.

[4CJ]

CJ Chase: 'All the obligations of perpetual union'

Non-Sequitur, if 2/3rds of the states ratify a Constitutional amendment dissolving their union, would you agree that the said union was dissolved?

[Non-Sequitur]

Non-Sequitur, if 2/3rds of the states ratify a Constitutional amendment dissolving their union, would you agree that the said union was dissolved?

No. The Constitution requires 3/4ths for ratification.

[Bubba Ho-Tep]

You left out the key line of Swayne’s opinion: “Upon the merits of the case, I agree with the majority of my brethren.” Even if Swayne and Miller didn’t agree with Chase’s reasoning, they agreed with the decision. That makes it 7-1.

[4CJ]

If 3/4ths of the existing states ratify, would the union be dissolved?

[Publius Valerius]

So if the Constitution gives Congress the power to admit states in the first place and to approve any change in their status or border once they're in then I don't think it's any real stretch to conclude that Congressional approval is needed for them to leave.

But I note that you don't address why the Framers mysteriously chose to remain silent on this issue when they had spoken loud and clear in the Articles. Assuming, arguendo, that "it's not a stretch to conclude" that Congressional approval is needed for secession, what possible reason would the Framers have for not explicitly stating that states did not have the power to secede? After all, as you stated, the Framers made a laundry list of powers vis-a-vis state admission, division, and borders. Why would they go silent on secession?

[the OlLine Rebel]

ping

[Bubba Ho-Tep]

For that matter, Grier's decision isn't exactly upholding the right to secession, either. It basically accuses Texas of duplicity:

The contest now is between the State of Texas and her own citizens. She seeks to annul a contract [74 U.S. 700, 740] with the respondents, based on the allegation that there was no authority in Texas competent to enter into an agreement during the rebellion. Having relied upon one fiction, namely, that she is a State in the Union, she now relies upon a second one, which she wishes this court to adopt, that she was not a State at all during the five years that she was in rebellion. She now sets up the plea of insanity, and asks the court to treat all her acts made during the disease as void.

[Non-Sequitur]

If 3/4ths of the existing states ratify, would the union be dissolved?

So if an amendment saying something like "Alabama, Arkansas, Arizona, Mississippi, etc., etc. are no longer part of the United States" was passed and was ratified by 38 or more states would that disolve the Union with those states? I don't see why not.

[Non-Sequitur]

After all, as you stated, the Framers made a laundry list of powers vis-a-vis state admission, division, and borders. Why would they go silent on secession?

I don't know, but nothing says that those were the sole powers. If Marshall is correct and interpretations must be made based on a broad reading of the entire Constitution then it makes more sense to think the authors of the Constitution would explicitly state the exceptions rather than leave them to be assumed.

[cva66snipe]

What automation? The first commercially successful mechanical cotton harvester didn't come along until the 1930's.

It would have likely came sooner as the south was catching up with the north in developing technology if not surpassing it in some ways. CSS Hunley is a good example. The Civil War left the southern states and industries broke.

[PeaRidge]

You stated you had read the book.

However, since he frequently quotes the “OR”, then you would accept his facts, wouldn’t you?

[PeaRidge]

Yes, I can. And what would be the point?