Did the southern states have the a Constitutional right to secede in 1861?

[Ajay]

According to his argument, he cannot do this until there is a DoW.

Is this true? What does he (The_Patriot) say?

 

[Goobieman]

Pure opinion with no backing, so I'll disregard your argument.

Wow. You clearly recognize how piss-poor your position is.

Your supporting arguments have been criticized as not supporting your premise. The responsibility falls on YOU to show how they do.

To wit:

I said:

In fact, NONE of the quotes you put up - including the snippet of case law that I will look up to see if actually relevant - lead to the conclusion that the constitution mandates that the CinC wait for a DoW from Congress before ordering a retalliatory strike, and NONE of the cites you put up illustrate a constitutionally-specifed limit on the power of the CinC to order any such strike.

This is where you show that the statements DO lead to the conclusion that the constitution mandates that the CinC wait for a DoW from Congress before ordering a retalliatory strike, and that the cites you put up illustrate a constitutionally-specifed limit on the power of the CinC to order any such strike.

I said:

It also does nothing to address the argument that there is no constitional way to countermand an order from the CinC - no one has the auhtority to do so.

This is where you show that what you posted DOES address the argument that there is no constitional way to countermand an order from the CinC - and specified who DOES has the auhtority to do so.

 

[Ajay]

Pure opinion with no backing, so I'll disregard your argument. Present proof please.

THE PRESIDENT'S CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY TO CONDUCT MILITARY OPERATIONS AGAINST TERRORISTS AND NATIONS SUPPORTING THEM

...and does the President as CinC need the approval of Congress before he uses the authorization codes for the order to launch a nuclear strike?

According to his argument, he cannot do this until there is a DoW.

Is th above true? If not please explain?

 

[Paschendale]

To the OP, yes. Keeping a state within the union is not one of the powers delegated to the federal government under the enumerated powers. Thomas Jefferson wrote many times that he expected violent revolution and secession, though from new, western states, not from the south. Honestly, we might be better off splitting the US into several countries.

To the above posts, every single major military action after WW2 has technically been unconstitutional. Presidents have enacted military campaigns without congressional approval for sixty years.

 

[American]

Amendment X states, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Since the Commander in Chief lacks the authority to enter into a warzone or initiate hostilities without Congress's consent under Article II then Article I Section VIII Clause XI's provisions kicks in. He can only move to war when Congress says that he can. Amendment X kicks in due to their not being a delegated provision to the President to do such action.

Sounds plausible, but not flawless. I'll have to think on this.

 

[American]

According to his argument, he cannot do this until there is a DoW.

First of all, a declaration of war is not a form filled out by Congress. It can come in any form approved by Congress. The war in Iraq was totally legal, because Congress voted to support it and funded it year after year. Just because it wasn't like when FDR stood before Congress in WWII, people want to say it was illegal. Total bull****.

 

[Goobieman]

First of all, a declaration of war is not a form filled out by Congress. It can come in any form approved by Congress. The war in Iraq was totally legal, because Congress voted to support it and funded it year after year. Just because it wasn't like when FDR stood before Congress in WWII, people want to say it was illegal. Total bull****.

Agree completely.

 

[American]

Notice what they're riding.

 

[Shooterman]

I suggest a reading of "Is Secession Treason?" by Albert Bledsoe, edited by Paul Dennis Sporer. The writing of the book by Mr Bledsoe probably was the deciding factor for the eventual freeing by the Yankees of Jefferson Davis and the consequential refusal to even attempt to hold Robert E Lee in prison.

One must also ask what exactly is the Constitution but a contract between sovereign states, willing to give up a partial portion of their sovereignty, but certainly not all of it, for certain perceived benefits. The ratification process was by the states meeting in convention to decide if the union was for them. The union was the creation of the states, not the other way around, and the created can never be greater than the creator/s. The Tenth Amendment makes this abundantly clear, the naysayers not withstanding.

Secession was not a new phenomenon of the period leading up to the Civil War; it had been considered by some of the New England states during the period of the War of 1812, because they were forbidden to trade with the Redcoats t the time and their business interests were severely hampered.

I would also suggest secession was not a new word in the lexicon of the Founders, they had bloodily seceded from England, but seceded completely voluntarily from the Confederation of States. It might also be noted that as the states that seceded from the Confederation did so, it only required 9 of 13 to form the new union. A simple question is even though eventually all states did join the new union, what would have happened if only the nine had ratified? Would they in turn have forced their will on the other four? I think not, and we would have had two different United States of Americas in the mix.

My past kith and kin fought in the Revolution, fought the Redcoats again during the War of 1812 and fought even again on the side of the Confederacy. Jesse fought at New Orleans, James, his son, fought with Hood's Brigade out of Texas during the War Between the States. Was James less a patriot than his father and great grandfather? I think not. He fought to be free and to protect his kith and kin.

We lost 620000+ American soldiers on both sides of the issue. That doesn't include the thousands that were maimed for life, nor does it include the untold thousands of civilians that were murdered, raped, and maimed on both sides. I will pay homage to all of the fallen and maimed, except the Hessian mercenaries that fought with the Yankess.

 

[Harshaw]

The Tenth Amendment reserves powers not prohibited by the Constitution to the States, sure. The powers considered legitimately held by governments. Secession is not one of those. That's clear enough in the Declaration where they say breaking away from mother country is huge honkin' deal, a break from the normal course of things, so huge that they have to justify it to the world.

The states didn't unite by virtue of the Constitution; they were already united well before that. The Union pre-existed the Constitution; the Constitution didn't create the Union. The Union was understood to be perpetual before the Constitution was ever conceived. And in any case, secession is rebellion which is forbidden by the Constitution -- power is overtly granted to the United States to put down rebellions.

 

[Shooterman]

The Tenth Amendment reserves powers not prohibited by the Constitution to the States, sure. The powers considered legitimately held by governments. Secession is not one of those. That's clear enough in the Declaration where they say breaking away from mother country is huge honkin' deal, a break from the normal course of things, so huge that they have to justify it to the world.

The DOI, of course, is not law. It was a political document designed to appeal to the masses of the French people. Jefferson, whom I admire immensely bastardized certain parts of the writings of Mason and others, in trying to get help, militarily and financial from the French who were sworn enemies at the time of the British.

The states didn't unite by virtue of the Constitution; they were already united well before that. The Union pre-existed the Constitution; the Constitution didn't create the Union. The Union was understood to be perpetual before the Constitution was ever conceived.

When was the Union created? What created it, and who created it?

And in any case, secession is rebellion which is forbidden by the Constitution -- power is overtly granted to the United States to put down rebellions.

Actually, secession is separation, not rebellion. Did the Founders not separate form the Confederation, a union they had created just a few years before? Did they rebel against the Confederation, or was it voluntarily? Again, what would have happened to the 4 remaining states if they had never ratified the new Constitution?

Texas was a free and independent nation at the time they joined the union. How did they join the union? Was it not by ratifying the contract? ( the Constitution ) Were they forced to do so, or was it voluntary?

Why would Jefferson say about any wishing to leave the union to go with God and do as they wished? ( I'm paraphrasing here )

 

[Harshaw]

The DOI, of course, is not law. It was a political document designed to appeal to the masses of the French people. Jefferson, whom I admire immensely bastardized certain parts of the writings of Mason and others, in trying to get help, militarily and financial from the French who were sworn enemies at the time of the British.

No, it's not law. But it's a reflection of what was considered a legitimate "power" at the time.

When was the Union created? What created it, and who created it?

Ceremonially, 1776. Recognized officially in the Articles of Confederation that year. Recognized internationally in 1783. Constitution: 1787.

Actually, secession is separation, not rebellion.

Not when done unilaterally. You may have an argument if done with consent.

Did the Founders not separate form the Confederation, a union they had created just a few years before? Did they rebel against the Confederation, or was it voluntarily?

No. The Articles of Confederation were a constitution, not the Union. The Union exists without it.

Again, what would have happened to the 4 remaining states if they had never ratified the new Constitution?

They would have been subject to it, under the terms of both the Constitution and the Articles of Confederation.

Texas was a free and independent nation at the time they joined the union. How did they join the union? Was it not by ratifying the contract? ( the Constitution ) Were they forced to do so, or was it voluntary?

It was voluntary. But it has no bearing on the question. By joining the Union, they accepted perpetual Union, just as all the other states did.

Why would Jefferson say about any wishing to leave the union to go with God and do as they wished? ( I'm paraphrasing here )

You'll have to ask him.

 

[American]

The DOI, of course, is not law. It was a political document designed to appeal to the masses of the French people. Jefferson, whom I admire immensely bastardized certain parts of the writings of Mason and others, in trying to get help, militarily and financial from the French who were sworn enemies at the time of the British.



When was the Union created? What created it, and who created it?



Actually, secession is separation, not rebellion. Did the Founders not separate form the Confederation, a union they had created just a few years before? Did they rebel against the Confederation, or was it voluntarily? Again, what would have happened to the 4 remaining states if they had never ratified the new Constitution?

Texas was a free and independent nation at the time they joined the union. How did they join the union? Was it not by ratifying the contract? ( the Constitution ) Were they forced to do so, or was it voluntary?

Why would Jefferson say about any wishing to leave the union to go with God and do as they wished? ( I'm paraphrasing here )

Read the Preamble, it says to form a more perfect union. You are hardly the man to stand there and judge what Jefferson did and did not bastardize. First I want to see a level of scholarship from you that would qualify you to even stand in the same state as Thomas Jefferson. Partisan hackery doesn't qualify. Succession is not a black and white discussion. It depends on how it is done, and why?

 

[Shooterman]

Read the Preamble, it says to form a more perfect union. You are hardly the man to stand there and judge what Jefferson did and did not bastardize. First I want to see a level of scholarship from you that would qualify you to even stand in the same state as Thomas Jefferson. Partisan hackery doesn't qualify. Succession is not a black and white discussion. It depends on how it is done, and why?

Let's get one thing straight. While admittedly, I'm just an old dumbass and incapable of judging what Jefferson did, by your lights, I was in mo way disparaging Jefferson. I always and still think, he was one of the best Founders we had. That doesn't mean that he did not write the Preamble to the DOI, in an attempt, while in France, to appeal to the unwashed masses of the French people. That is actually why he wrote the DOI, after being charged to do so.

Equality Versus Liberty: The Eternal Conflict

excerpt

The preamble for the proposed Virginia Declaration of Rights as published stated that it was "the basis and foundation" of government in Virginia. Its first paragraph was:

That all men are born equally free and independent and have certain inherent natural Rights, of which they cannot, by any Compact, deprive, or divest their Posterity; among which are the Enjoyment of Life and Liberty, with the Means of acquiring and possessing Property, and pursuing and Obtaining Happiness and Safety.

The Virginia Convention, before officially adopting Mason's original or the committee draft, changed the first paragraph to read5)

That all Men are by Nature equally free and independent and have certain inherent Rights of which when they enter into a State of Society, they cannot, by any Compact, deprive or divest their Posterity; namely, the Enjoyment of Life and Liberty with the Means of acquiring and possessing Property, and pursuing and obtaining Happiness and Safety.

Jefferson never saw that version until he returned to Virginia long after the Declaration of Independence was adopted. Jefferson's rendition from the Mason original was:

That all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.

Equality Ends at Birth

So the "basis and foundation" of the first free government in America was equality of freedom and independence, while the Jefferson perversion was equality at creation. The Declaration of Independence does not say that all men are equal. It says that they were created equal. There equality ends.

So I contend, Mr Jefferson, a first cousin of mine, seven generations removed, changed the language to appeal to the French, whom he was trying to get a commitment of help against the British. ( sworn enemies of the French ) It was a political document designed to lay the reasons for the secession of the colonies from the Crown. It was eloquent, and has become, of course one of our most revered documents.

As to what you may mean by partisan hackery, I presume you must be referring to yourself. I am partisan, of course, but on the side of the Constitution and the ratifiers, more so than the writers in the Constitutional Convention of the Constitution. Jeffersonian democracy won the day in the Convention and then, of course in the state ratifying conventions. Hamilton's ideas were mostly put down, only to be raised again as the Whigs became more dominant until their demise. Then, they became the dominant power under the PUBS and Lincoln.

I am not exactly sure whatever you mean by the phrase and I quote "Succession is not a black and white discussion." Presuming you mean secession, I really have to disagree, because it truly is a black and white discussion. It is either constitutional or not. It is either treason or not.

 

[American]

Let's get one thing straight. While admittedly, I'm just an old dumbass and incapable of judging what Jefferson did, by your lights, I was in mo way disparaging Jefferson. I always and still think, he was one of the best Founders we had. That doesn't mean that he did not write the Preamble to the DOI, in an attempt, while in France, to appeal to the unwashed masses of the French people. That is actually why he wrote the DOI, after being charged to do so.

Equality Versus Liberty: The Eternal Conflict

excerpt

The preamble for the proposed Virginia Declaration of Rights as published stated that it was "the basis and foundation" of government in Virginia. Its first paragraph was:

That all men are born equally free and independent and have certain inherent natural Rights, of which they cannot, by any Compact, deprive, or divest their Posterity; among which are the Enjoyment of Life and Liberty, with the Means of acquiring and possessing Property, and pursuing and Obtaining Happiness and Safety.

The Virginia Convention, before officially adopting Mason's original or the committee draft, changed the first paragraph to read5)

That all Men are by Nature equally free and independent and have certain inherent Rights of which when they enter into a State of Society, they cannot, by any Compact, deprive or divest their Posterity; namely, the Enjoyment of Life and Liberty with the Means of acquiring and possessing Property, and pursuing and obtaining Happiness and Safety.

Jefferson never saw that version until he returned to Virginia long after the Declaration of Independence was adopted. Jefferson's rendition from the Mason original was:

That all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.

Equality Ends at Birth

So the "basis and foundation" of the first free government in America was equality of freedom and independence, while the Jefferson perversion was equality at creation. The Declaration of Independence does not say that all men are equal. It says that they were created equal. There equality ends.

So I contend, Mr Jefferson, a first cousin of mine, seven generations removed, changed the language to appeal to the French, whom he was trying to get a commitment of help against the British. ( sworn enemies of the French ) It was a political document designed to lay the reasons for the secession of the colonies from the Crown. It was eloquent, and has become, of course one of our most revered documents.

As to what you may mean by partisan hackery, I presume you must be referring to yourself. I am partisan, of course, but on the side of the Constitution and the ratifiers, more so than the writers in the Constitutional Convention of the Constitution. Jeffersonian democracy won the day in the Convention and then, of course in the state ratifying conventions. Hamilton's ideas were mostly put down, only to be raised again as the Whigs became more dominant until their demise. Then, they became the dominant power under the PUBS and Lincoln.

I am not exactly sure whatever you mean by the phrase and I quote "Succession is not a black and white discussion." Presuming you mean secession, I really have to disagree, because it truly is a black and white discussion. It is either constitutional or not. It is either treason or not.

I contend that being a first cousin 200 times removed means diddlysquat. What Jefferson wrote was correct, and what Mason wrote was incorrect. You stay equal on your own accord, not by decree. Jefferson didn't pervert anything, you just want to read it that way. You are born with the same rights and opportunity. And when rights come from God, they are permanent. Imagine if we had Mason's language in the DoI or any other place. We'd have been a welfare state before Jefferson died.

When the People find their government unable to meet their requirements they may throw it off [paraphrasing]. The People can change the government, but the government cannot change itself. The union was created for the states, not the states for the union. It doesn't matter who you think he was writing to, the truth is uneffected.

BTW, yes I mean secession, so please excuse the hell out of my spelling, and I might give you a break one day too.

 

[Harshaw]

If you're talking strictly about the Constitutionality of secession, then what Jefferson had to say about that issue is largely irrelevant. He didn't have any part of creating the Constitution, he didn't like it and sought to undermine it as much as he could (until, of course, he was in charge), so he's not particularly credible on the topic.

The Treaty of Paris was not between England and 13 separate states; it was between England and the whole of the United States. Despite what Jefferson may have said, the Constitution did not create the Union.

 

[Shooterman]

If you're talking strictly about the Constitutionality of secession, then what Jefferson had to say about that issue is largely irrelevant. He didn't have any part of creating the Constitution, he didn't like it and sought to undermine it as much as he could (until, of course, he was in charge), so he's not particularly credible on the topic.

The Treaty of Paris was not between England and 13 separate states; it was between England and the whole of the United States. Despite what Jefferson may have said, the Constitution did not create the Union.

That is interesting. I have been led to believe the Treaty recognized the thirteen colonies as free, sovereign, and independent states.

Article One

His Brittanic Majesty acknowledges the said United States, viz., New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, to be free sovereign and independent states, that he treats with them as such, and for himself, his heirs, and successors, relinquishes all claims to the government, propriety, and territorial rights of the same and every part thereof.

Don't guess he did.

 

[Harshaw]

That is interesting. I have been led to believe the Treaty recognized the thirteen colonies as free, sovereign, and independent states.

Article One

His Brittanic Majesty acknowledges the said United States, viz., New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, to be free sovereign and independent states, that he treats with them as such, and for himself, his heirs, and successors, relinquishes all claims to the government, propriety, and territorial rights of the same and every part thereof.

Don't guess he did.

That was description. The treaty was signed by representatives of the United States, not representatives of the individual colonies/states. It was ratified by the Congress of the Confederation, not the invidiual colonies/states.

 

[Shooterman]

That was description.

I see. It says it, but doesn't say it or mean it. You can present, I presume, a link I can read confirming your assertion. Of course it is for my edification I am asking.

The treaty was signed by representatives of the United States, not representatives of the individual colonies/states. It was ratified by the Congress of the Confederation, not the invidiual colonies/states.

So the three gentlemen that were representing the interest of the United States were not acting for all of the free, sovereign, and independent states.

 

[Harshaw]

I see. It says it, but doesn't say it or mean it. You can present, I presume, a link I can read confirming your assertion. Of course it is for my edification I am asking.

I told you what it was. Your snark doesn't change it.

So the three gentlemen that were representing the interest of the United States were not acting for all of the free, sovereign, and independent states.

They were acting on behalf of the United States -- the Union. How is that so hard to understand? They weren't representing individual, independent states.

The Constitution did not create the Union.