Replies

The Constitution is the law of the land. States rights are circumscribed by Constitutional bounds, and subordinate to the Constitution in the powers over which the Constitution enumerates as in the federal government's sphere.

Article VI, Clause 2
"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"

You are resorting to an extra-Constitutional means of justifying the South's illegal acts. Then you try to cloak the South's resort to arms over the law, as legal. Sorry, you can't have it both ways.

If the South wanted out, they should have stayed within the bounds of the Constitution to do so. No doubt they didn't think the North would be able to stop them, for a variety of reasons, so they took a different path.

NO! You must go back to the ORIGINAL INTENT of the Founding Fathers.

This phrase ' The Constitution is the law of the land. States rights are circumscribed by Constitutional bounds, and subordinate to the Constitution in the powers over which the Constitution enumerates as in the federal government's sphere.M/b>'

7. 'The Federal government is a delegated-power Republic which possesses only the comparatively few and limited powers granted to it by the people as enumerated in the United States Constitution, as amended--chiefly the powers concerned with "war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce" (quoting The Federalist, number 45 by Madison. It is in sharpest contrast that each State government is a full-power Republic which possesses the vast and varied powers needed to administer intra-State affairs--"all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State" (again quoting number 45). The full-power Republic of each State is subject to the State Constitution, as well as to the united States Constitution as the "supreme Law of the Land." Neither the Federal, nor any State, government therefore possesses legal sovereignty--the unlimited power of sovereignty--while the people's political sovereignty is limited in favor of preserving inviolate the God-given, unalienable rights of each Individual. (See Par. 3, Principle 4.)

IMG SRC="http://www.confederate-flags.com/national/confederacy.jpg">

You say that the South went outside of the Constitution to Secede, and I still maintain that they seceded under the (key word here Yankee) original principles of liberty as were expressed in the Declaration of Independence, and that we still hold as inviolate!

If you are of the belief that the Declaration of Independence is not valid as a cornerstone of our principles of American liberty, then you must be saying that the States should have petitioned the Federal Government to leave. The Federal Government (overstepping its bounds) would never have let them do so. This would directly affect the individual liberties and pursuit of happiness within each State. 'The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State. Federalist papers No. 45 - Madison

So now you are telling me that the North was justified in invading the South, BUT if you read the Federalist Papers you would find that you are wrong again. 'The American philosophy and system of constitutionally limited government contemplates that the people of the several States--acting through their State governments--will, in last resort, use force to oppose any force employed by the Federal usurpers, that they will use military force (Militia of the States) to oppose any military force used by such usurpers; as Hamilton and Madison explained in detail in The Federalist, numbers 28 and 46.

Power being almost always the rival of power, the general government will at all times stand ready to check the usurpations of the state governments, and these will have the same disposition towards the general government. The people, by throwing themselves into either scale, will infallibly make it preponderate. If their rights are invaded by either, they can make use of the other as the instrument of redress. ' Federalist Paper #28 - Hamilton

'Were it admitted, however, that the Federal government may feel an equal disposition with the State governments to extend its power beyond the due limits, the latter would still have the advantage in the means of defeating such encroachments. If an act of a particular State, though unfriendly to the national government, be generally popular in that State and should not too grossly violate the oaths of the State officers, it is executed immediately and, of course, by means on the spot and depending on the State alone. The opposition of the federal government, or the interposition of federal officers, would but inflame the zeal of all parties on the side of the State, and the evil could not be prevented or repaired, if at all, without the employment of means which must always be resorted to with reluctance and difficulty. On the other hand, should an unwarrantable measure of the federal government be unpopular in particular States, which would seldom fail to be the case, or even a warrantable measure be so, which may sometimes be the case, the means of opposition to it are powerful and at hand. The disquietude of the people; their repugnance and, perhaps, refusal to co-operate with the officers of the Union; the frowns of the executive magistracy of the State; the embarrassments created by legislative devices, which would often be added on such occasions, would oppose, in any State, difficulties not to be despised; would form, in a large State, very serious impediments; and where the sentiments of several adjoining States happened to be in unison, would present obstructions which the federal government would hardly be willing to encounter.' Federalist Papers #46 - Madison

Virginia & Kentucky resolutions, as well as other state constitutions, have already been pointed out this thread. These state constitutions specified joining the compact in no way abrogated their ability to decide to leave said compact. For article6, clause2 to be read as trumping those state constitutions requires the oleaginous ethics of a bottom-feeding lawyer (like your pal Lincoln was, for instance...). At any rate, you have way too much regard for mere legality (or perhaps it serves your interests to pretend to, in this case). Laws uniformed by morality have no standing, are no litmus to right or wrong. Even if the federalists had executed legal trickery that resulted in states being compelled to indentured servitude, rather than merely deciding to force states into indentured servitude, the 'legality' of it would be irrelevant. A good title to a good book fits here..."Freeing Slaves, Enslaving Free Men", by Jeffrey Rogers (?) Hummel.