Southern Secession

The fact that our founders drew from knowledge of western government (and before) does not mean English law wasn't thoroughly and completely ended.

The colonies were no long subject to English law. Period.

They were subject to the US constitution. There are numerous differences in the formation of the US government. The very fact our founders created a constitution binding all people was a major difference. The notion of a judicial branch was novel. The idea of a directly elected president was novel.

But, that is all irrelevant. The relevant part is that the colonies were not subject to English law.

 

The quote is in the 7th paragraph down from "To the People of the State of New York"

...The plan of the convention declares that the power of Congress, or, in other words, of the NATIONAL LEGISLATURE, shall extend to certain enumerated cases. This specification of particulars evidently excludes all pretension to a general legislative authority, because an affirmative grant of special powers would be absurd, as well as useless, if a general authority was intended.

Again, If the Founders wanted to write the federal government a blank check - "general authority" - they wouldn't have bothered to enumerate and thus limit its powers.

 

Okay. Slavery was the predominant theme. Better? It was the predominant theme because people got killed over it. Who got killed over tariffs? Was there a John Brown of tariffs that I am missing?

As for the terrorism of John Brown:

"In 1856, three years before his celebrated raid on Harpers Ferry, John Brown, with four of his sons and three others, dragged five unarmed men and boys from their homes along Kansas's Pottawatomie Creek, and hacked and dismembered their bodies as if they were cattle being butchered in a stockyard. Two years later, Brown led a raid into Missouri, where he and his followers killed a planter and freed eleven slaves. Brown's party also absconded with wagons, mules, harnesses, and horses – a pattern of plunder that Brown followed in other forays. During his 1859 raid on Harpers Ferry, seventeen people died. The first was a black railroad baggage handler; others shot and killed by Brown's men included the town's popular mayor and two townsfolk."

 

Frankly, I'm not so sure killing slave owners to free slaves is unjustified. Sorry, man. And we agree that no one was willing to go to war over tariffs, only slavery. Hence the OP.

 

There were anti-federalists in the north, too.

Your idea that the secession justification was nuanced flies in the face of the statements made by states on why they were seceding. They were very clear that the reason was slavery.

Your idea that it's meaningful that there existed black slave masters is total crap. Slavery is slavery. The VP of the CSA declared that blacks are not human in his "cornerstone" speech, pitching that as a key factor. It's like trying to forgive racist police departments on the grounds that they have a black police officer. Sorry. That is just not the issue.

 

If women and children were being killed, and women were being raped over slavery, and you think that authors of the articles to separate should have given equal treatment for all the reasons for why they were succeeding, then either you are stupid or you are being disingenuous in your reasoning. No women were raped over tariffs. No women and children were killed over tariffs. It wouldn't be human nature to calmly devote one paragraph to the murder and rape of women and the murder of women and children and then another paragraph to tariffs, and then say, "Here are our reasons." It flies in the face of common sense.

 

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on the extent their faith has been rewarded. In too many cases people have interpreted the GWC to mean something it was never intended to mean.

That's why the Founders left the Constitution open to amendment, right?

I agree...or at least it tries. I think there's something to be said for the comment @Grey Matter made in #916: there are no longer any practical Constitutional limits on the power of the US Federal government.

In my mind, this has been reinforced by something Antonin Scalia said shortly before he died (and I paraphrase here), the language in our laws no longer matters, and since then I've learned, most particularly from the Dobbs ruling, that the existence of our legal history and rights traditions doesn't matter anymore, either. The courts cherry-pick what they want to pluck from that history and tradition to arrive at the ruling they desire.

The fact is, we're in arbitrary territory now, more so than we ever have been before.

 

Wow. You agree with butchering white children over slavery. What a statement. I don't think I've ever read such evil on this forum before. So, congratulations, I guess?

In another thread, you also seem to agree with whites being discriminated against in casting.

There appears to be a pattern for how you feel about white people it seems. And I don't think you are the only one on this forum who thinks in such a way.

Do you vote Democrat mostly? Just curious.

 

You've provided no evidence of children being butchered. I don't agree with killing children and have even been in threads arguing against it while Christians defend it. As for the other thread, I've said I don't really care about race in casting for the most part and also defended white people being cast in non-white roles.

 

Did you not read what I quoted. I even emphasized it and cited my source. Here, let's go again:

As for the terrorism of John Brown:

"In 1856, three years before his celebrated raid on Harpers Ferry, John Brown, with four of his sons and three others, dragged five unarmed men and BOYS from their homes along Kansas's Pottawatomie Creek, and hacked and dismembered their bodies as if they were cattle being butchered in a stockyard. Two years later, Brown led a raid into Missouri, where he and his followers killed a planter and freed eleven slaves. Brown's party also absconded with wagons, mules, harnesses, and horses – a pattern of plunder that Brown followed in other forays. During his 1859 raid on Harpers Ferry, seventeen people died. The first was a black railroad baggage handler; others shot and killed by Brown's men included the town's popular mayor and two townsfolk."

See the phrase "men and boys." Boys are male children. Do you agree with John Brown not only killing white children but butchering them? Yes or no?

 

You did not provide the ages or any details about the fight.

 

THEY'RE CHILDREN! Now you want to get into the nuance. When it comes to how the Civil War started? It's slavery, slavery, SLAVERY! When it comes to John Brown killing children, "Well, let's talk about this. What were the ages of the children?" As if that ****ing matters. They're children. When it comes to John Brown's terrorism, suddenly you want to introduce nuance. You're like, "Did John Brown kill children? Well, yes, but it's complicated. See, there's some nuance there." Unbelievable. I think I'm done here. I'm not going to have a conversation on the nuances of killing children, thank you very much.

 

Texas vs. White says states have no right to secede.

Game, set, match.

 

Ah, but you have failed. I said that THE CONSTITUTION contains no prohibition on any state leaving.

 

We have less government that most industrialized countries. I think some of the Founders might like that.

It's too difficult to amend.

Hard to say. I think there are some limits.

If SCOTUS had ruled in 1973 that laws against abortion are unconstitutional, we would be better off today.

 

SCOTUS makes the call on what the Constitution says.

 

Nope, the text of the constitution makes that call.

Try finding any text prohibiting a state from leaving. That was my challenge from the start, and nobody has succeeded.

 

So, you're going to replace SCOTUS? With what?

 

Replace SCOTUS? I never said anything of the sort. I simply pointed out that there is nothing in the constitution that prohibits any of the states from leaving. My assertion had nothing to do with SCOTUS.

And, as I predicted, nobody has been able to show where secession is prohibited in the constitution.

 

Is abortion a constitutional right?

 

Nope, it is not up to me.

You asked where in the C was secession banned and I asked where it was sanctioned and it is at best therefore a draw.

Of Course it is true that States could Secede, it happened, dinnit it!?

And Yes, you are fabulously correct that there is no explicit statement precluding a state from seceding in the C.

Nevertheless, these secessions failed, yes?

 

Oh, you are so wrong, about it being "game, set, match." Let me count the ways.
1) The Court decision was not about secession, in general, but involved the secession, particularly, of Texas. Since, Texas had seceded unilaterally, the decision said that states have no right, to UNILATERALLY secede. This is not the same, as saying that a state could not got through a process, with the federal government, to settle all affairs, both outstanding and those of the foreseeable future, ending in legal secession. (I have made this argument before, and as stark of a difference as it is between seceding, in any possible way, vs. unilaterally seceding, you have nonetheless thought that the ruling on unilateral secession, had been the whole ball of wax; I guess you hadn't seen my earlier argument).

2) Coming not long after the brutal and devastating, four years of Civil War, which cost over 600,000 lives, it should be understood, by anyone who is familiar with human beings, what incredible pressure was on the members of the Court, to confirm, after the fact, that the government had acted correctly. Can you actually imagine, with the horrors of that war still fresh in people's minds, any Court saying, "Actually, the states had the right to secede all along. So all your relatives died, unnecessarily; and, after that great cost to keep those states as part of the Union, the former Confederate States are free to initiate secession
negotiations, any time they like?" Believing then, that the decision had not been reached under duress, would be the truly unpersuasive argument.


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_v._White

<Snip>
In deciding the merits of the bond issue, the court further held that the Constitution did not permit states to unilaterally secede from the United States, and that the ordinances of secession, and all the acts of the legislatures within seceding states intended to give effect to such ordinances, were "absolutely null".[2]
<End Snip>


3) Even with the great incentive to endorse the government's course, the Texas v. White decision, was only 5 to 3. And, among those 5, was a new Chief Justice, who had served as President Lincoln's Treasury Secretary, Salmon P. Chase (R), who had replaced Democratic Chief Justice, Roger B. Taney, who had given us the Dred Scott decision.

3-B) So not only is there a good basis to think that a more likely result, with the Court personnel in 1860- 61, would have been at least a 4 - 4 tie-- and this was only deciding on unilateral secession, I remind you-- but again, from what you know about humans-- or else, from your source, on the topic-- you should realize that the pressure on a pre-war Court, would have been very great, in the opposite direction. That is, realizing that finding a way for states to legally secede would be the difference between a mostly peaceful transition, or else a massive war, if they ruled against it, with untold deaths and other casualties.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_B._Taney

<Snip>
Taney presided over a jurisprudential shift toward states' rights, but the Taney Court did not reject federal authority to the degree that many of Taney's critics had feared. By the early 1850s, he was widely respected, and some elected officials looked to the Supreme Court to settle the national debate over slavery. Despite emancipating his own slaves and giving pensions to those who were too old to work, Taney supported slavery, was outraged by Northern attacks on the institution, and sought to use his Dred Scott decision to permanently end the slavery debate.
<End Snip>


All of those arguments, I have actually already put forth. Now, before I add in the pièce de résistance, let me call in some of the others, who have seemed at times, nearly as obtuse as you, in understanding these straightforward arguments. So @yardmeat , and @WillReadmore , get ready to be corrected. I might as well add in @JohnHamilton , from earlier. And though I haven't had the same misstating of my arguments by you, like I've had from a couple of the others-- yet, since I'm still not sure what point you are trying to make (and because I think you, at least, may appreciate learning information that you hadn't known) @Alwayssa . Hope I didn't forget anybody. Oh, I'll give a heads up on this point, also, to one of the very few in this thread, who has been able to carry on a competent conversation, @Talon .

4) The rationale for the Texas v. White decision, did not come from the CONSTITUTION. Here is the heart of the majority's finding, obviously championed by Chase:


<Snip>
The Union of the States never was a purely artificial and arbitrary relation. It began among the Colonies, and grew out of common origin, mutual sympathies, kindred principles, similar interests, and geographical relations. It was confirmed and strengthened by the necessities of war, and received definite form and character and sanction from the Articles of Confederation. By these, the Union was solemnly declared to "be perpetual". And when these Articles were found to be inadequate to the exigencies of the country, the Constitution was ordained "to form a more perfect Union". It is difficult to convey the idea of indissoluble unity more clearly than by these words. What can be indissoluble if a perpetual Union, made more perfect, is not?[8]
<End Snip>

He mentions no Constitutional text. Instead, he is talking about something that existed prior to the Constitution. A relationship that was fated, in an almost mystical way. And do you know who felt the same way? Does anyone care to guess?

It was President Lincoln! And he used his pre-Constitutional insights-- which would not be valid, even if he had been a Supreme Court Judge-- to justify his all out war with the South, unwilling to settle for any result, short of reunification, regardless of what the Constitution had to say.

https://quod.lib.umich.edu/j/jala/2...of-the-executive-power?rgn=main;view=fulltext

<Snip>
Lincoln appealed to constitutional forms and normative principles: "I hold, that in contemplation of universal law, and of the Constitution, the Union of these States is perpetual. Perpetuity is implied, if not expressed, in the fundamental law of all national governments.... I therefore consider that, in view of the Constitution and the laws, the Union is unbroken." Avoiding extended historical and constitutional analysis of the nature of the Union, Lincoln reiterated that the Union, formed in 1774 and hence older than the Constitution, was "in legal contemplation ... perpetual."[13]
<End Snip>

Did everybody get that? The reason that the Union could not be broken, why secession was off the table, was not because of anything that was agreed to, in the Constitution, but rather because Lincoln viewed the Union which existed, when the American Colonies came together to resist the wrongs of Mother England, to be a forging of this unbreakable bond. So that was the basis of Lincoln's actions: not an act of Congress; no principle that was enshrined in the Constitution, or which had been deemed Constitutional, by our Supreme Court; not even from Lincoln's layman's interpretation (he did not specialize, or have much interest, in Constitutional law) of the Constitution-- just Lincoln's personal feeling, about the "perpetual" state which came into being, as soon as the colonies began to unite in defense against what they saw as England's abuses. And many of you are fine with that, as the basis of a war, killing far more than a half million people? That is called self-justification. That is the stuff of autocrats. And if Trump becomes President again, and just starts making up his own ideas, about the "true nature" of our union, how it should be run, and his role as President-- which he is openly saying that he will do-- then it would be hypocrisy for any of you, to speak against the principle of that.

There are more quotes from this article on the Presidency, focusing on the Civil War period, which I will wish to bring to people's attention, but I think that is good for the moment. I don't want to overtax anyone.

The big takeaway, is that Lincoln did not come to his resolution, for any of the reasons that you all have variously offered, but because he saw the "Union" as something that could not be dissolved, a permanent change in identity. And he found this idea not in the Constitution, but in the act of the colonies working together, in defense against English policies. Lastly, it sounds like, from the Texas v. White opinion, that so many of you have misrepresented, Lincoln's Treasury Secretary, who later wrote that opinion, may have chatted with Lincoln on this subject, because the pre-Constitutional basis that then Chief Justice Chase used for his ruling, sounds rather similar.



One final quote, though, I want to put out there, right now:

<Snip>
The Constitution, in express terms, neither conferred or prohibited the right of a state to secede from the Union, nor authorized or denied the right of the federal government to coerce a state to remain in the Union should it seek to withdraw. Amidst uncertainty as to whether it represented a necessary act of constitutional construction or irrational surrender to a collective suicidal impulse, the secession movement forced the nation to decide this fundamental question.
<End Snip>

Except, change that last line from "the nation to decide," to "Lincoln to decide." Though of course, he did not have to "decide," because he already held a strong view, which dictated the answer to this question.

 

Per the tenth amendment, it's permitted by virtue of not being forbidden

Well, thank you for FINALLY agreeing that there is nothing precluding a state from leaving. That took long enough.

 

Yep, under the 9th.

 

And nothing saying that its permitted.