"Civil War" or "War of Northern Aggression"

[MinuteManMike]

That anyone thinks the 9th and 10th Amendments afford a "right" to secede is a joke. That is revisionist "history".

The Constitution that each and every state agreed to has a mechanism to join the Union and no mechanism to leave. They agreed to that. Claiming some vague right floating out there that no one talked about before they started to think about leaving is ludicrous.

...and the claim that federal overreach is equivalent to the actual enslavement of people is...fanciful...but a necessary position to take to maintain a fantasy view of the past, I guess.

What article of the US Constitution gives the feds the power to prevent secession.

I'll wait.

 

[JettaKnight]

If we're going to invoke legal theories that have nothing to do with Constitutional law, I'm going to apply the "four corners" doctrine to this "ratification document" argument.

What does maritime law have to say about this?

And am I being detained, or can I secede this thread?

 

[MinuteManMike]

This is pretty much the same argument that white supremacists like Trump, so Trump must be a white supremacist.

That's a terrible argument. The Commies loved Lincoln because Commies and Lincoln both worshipped the power of the state.

Trump doesn't / didn't push white supremacy as an agenda. Had he done so, yeah, I would agree with you.

 

[BigRed]

What does maritime law have to say about this?

And am I be detained, or can I leave this thread?

According to the logic of some, once you are in it's forever and ever...no matter what happens.

Now me? If the thread encroaches upon matters not delegated to it, leave.

Hell, I won't even kill 6,000,000+ to make you stay!

Go in peace.

 

[MinuteManMike]

It's absurd to me that it's even a damned discussion.

If 1776 was right, then 1861 had to be as well.

 

[AndreusMaximus]

It's absurd to me that it's even a damned discussion.

If 1776 was right, then 1861 had to be as well.

Okay, there's been some fair points made since last I jumped in, and I will try to go back and consider/address them, but this is the part of the discussion that really gets me, so I just want to address it first.

The discussion of whether or not it was legal for states to secede is interesting and informative, but in my mind it has nothing to do with who was right in the war.

1776 was right, regardless of what the laws of the time said on the subject, because the reasons for declaring independence from Britain were right and just.

1861 was wrong, regardless of what the laws of the time said on the subject, because the reasons for seceding from the Union were immoral and abhorrent.

Because here's the thing, every single one of the Confederate States agreed, when ratifying the Constitution (or applying to enter the Union as a new state) to a Constitution that says, in extremely clear terms, that the federal government can impose tariffs. Tariffs had been around since the USA was founded, and so had people who thought states should leave the Union over it. But nobody actually did. They didn't suddenly decide that they were willing to fight and die over something that had been around forever, with only incremental changes. They decided to fight and die because they saw their livelihood and way of life, which was fundamentally based on slavery, being threatened.

How can we honestly pretend that every one of the Confederate leaders who clearly and bluntly stated that secession was primarily motivated by the desire to maintain slavery, were really playing some kind of mind game where they concealed their true reason, and pretended instead that it was about slavery? And even if this is the case, it proves that they thought slavery was more of a winning argument with the people who they needed to support their secession. How can you believe a modern article that claims to have some special knowledge of there intentions, despite being flatly contradicted by the words that those men themselves wrote at the time?

Before the war, there were tariffs. After the war there were tariffs. Before the war there was a centralizing government, after the war there was too. Nothing about it fundamentally or radically changed, except by a slow increment toward more centralization and higher taxes, which had been going on and continues to go on to this day. The only thing that fundamentally changed after the war was that slavery ended. And I mean actual slavery, not the watered-down definition being peddled that anyone being taxed is a slave, where we'd basically have to consider every single person since the dawn of time who has lived under any sort of government to be a slave.

So I'm happy to continue discussing the legality of secession as an academic point. I will also openly lament the unfortunate twist of history that led the same events that brought about the end of slavery to also put our country on a path to further centralization of power in the hands of the federal government. And to the degree that Lincoln used his power to further the corruption and usurpation of the federal government, I will condemn him for it.

But how can you turn a blind eye to the fact that millions, who had absolutely no rights guaranteed by law, and lived from the moment of birth to the moment of death as the property of another, were freed by the war (the whole thing about buying their own freedom isn't really an argument either; they were not guaranteed any such right by law, it was only if their "master" happened to be so "gracious" as to allow them to even keep and save up money in the first place)? How can you honestly compare your having to pay taxes to that sort of fate? You can still live where you wish, travel freely, work where you wish, and if this country is so darn awful, you can just leave, and you won't even have slave-catchers chasing after you on your way out.

 

[BugI02]

It's absurd to me that it's even a damned discussion.

If 1776 was right, then 1861 had to be as well.

But if the British had won the revolutionary war, we would still have been a part of the British empire

The North won the Civil War, so what would you expect would be the outcome from that?

 

[HoughMade]

It's absurd to me that it's even a damned discussion.

If 1776 was right, then 1861 had to be as well.

What do you mean "right"?

The American Revolution was illegal. However, they won.

I am hearing a lot of legal arguments in here that secession and the 1861 War of Rebellion was legal. It was not. And they lost.

Here's the difference- the colonies had no voice at their inception, no representation to set the conditions of them being colonies. There was no vote, no recourse in courts, no means to change their status within the law.

This was not the case with the States.

The States all voluntarily acceded at least a portion of their sovereignty with the ratification of the Constitution. The States agreed to a Constitution that had an explicit means set forth to become a state, but absolutely no provision that even contemplates secession. People talk about inherent rights, but you don't ratify a document that does not explicitly set forth what you claim is an oh-so-important right like secession. If the founder all believed...or a substantial number believed that secession was a right, it would have been on the Constitution and those who claim it was a right would have refused to ratify it. Is the right to keep and bear arms an inherent right? Is freedom of speech? And they were explicitly reserved because they were so important. I guess the founders just forgot about secession.

...or its complete revisionist history to try to justify treason after the fact as somehow noble and Constitutional. There is just as much explicit mention of secession in the Constitution as there is the "right" to abortion.

And no, the other side having more votes that you is not the same as the position the colonies were in.

 

[BigRed]

What do you mean "right"?

The American Revolution was illegal. However, they won.

I am hearing a lot of legal arguments in here that secession and the 1861 War of Rebellion was legal. It was not. And they lost.

Here's the difference- the colonies had no voice at their inception, no representation to set the conditions of them being colonies. There was no vote, no recourse in courts, no means to change their status within the law.

This was not the case with the States.

The States all voluntarily acceded at least a portion of their sovereignty with the ratification of the Constitution. The States agreed to a Constitution that had an explicit means set forth to become a state, but absolutely no provision that even contemplates secession. People talk about inherent rights, but you don't ratify a document that does not explicitly set forth what you claim is an oh-so-important right like secession. If the founder all believed...or a substantial number believed that secession was a right, it would have been on the Constitution and those who claim it was a right would have refused to ratify it. Is the right to keep and bear arms an inherent right? Is freedom of speech? And they were explicitly reserved because they were so important. I guess the founders just forgot about secession.

...or its complete revisionist history to try to justify treason after the fact as somehow noble and Constitutional. There is just as much explicit mention of secession in the Constitution as there is the "right" to abortion.

And no, the other side having more votes that you is not the same as the position the colonies were in.

Continuing to gloss right over and ignore the Tenth Amendment.

(BTW, the Tenth is exactly why abortion is a matter for the States...because it not a matter delegated to the central state.)

 

[foszoe]

If you choose to secede, then the 10th no longer applies especially if you aren't applying the 1st through the 9th to your citizenry or forced populace and your state deserves to be crushed

 

[BigRed]

If you choose to secede, then the 10th no longer applies especially if you aren't applying the 1st through the 9th to your citizenry or forced populace and you state deserves to be crushed

Bones of rubber right there....LOL

 

[AndreusMaximus]

Continuing to gloss right over and ignore the Tenth Amendment.

(BTW, the Tenth is exactly why abortion is a matter for the States...because it not a matter delegated to the central state.)

But the thing is the 10th amendment doesn't even give states the right to secede; that's something that can only be come up with through word games, giving meaning to things that they never had. If there was actually intended to be a right to secede, there would have been a means specified for doing so.

When the Constitution enumerates the powers of the federal government, it doesn't also have to specify that the states don't have the right to override those powers, because that's inherent in the fact that they are granted as powers. If we follow your logic, then we would need a clause that says that states don't retain the right to ignore tariffs imposed by the federal government. Then another clause to say that they don't retain the right to ignore the clause that says they can't ignore tariffs. Then another clause to say that they don't retain the right to ignore the clause that says they can't ignore the clause that says they can't ignore tariffs. And so on to infinity.

For example, pretend the Constitution had a clause that said the states don't have the right to secede. Would you then accept an argument like: "Well, the Constitution doesn't say that the states don't have a right to ignore the clause that says the don't have the right to secede, so clearly since this isn't listed in the Constiution, it must be a right of the states, per the 10th"?

But none of these word games have any real meaning to someone who understands plain English as it is written, because we understand that enumerating powers of the federal government would be meaningless if that didn't inherently mean that those powers, and ability to enforce those powers, as well as the duty of the State to acknowledge them, are granted to the federal government.

Now, all this aside, I do think there may be some merit to the argument regarding the States whose ratification documents stated that they retained the right to secede, though I think it would make the whole thing a lot clearer if they had given some idea of the process for that (and how to handle federal properties withing their borders, assuming lobbing cannon balls at them isn't the default) but of course that's all coulda woulda shoulda at this point...

But I just honestly don't get this whole argument based on the 10th amendment...

 

[Timjoebillybob]

What article of the US Constitution gives the feds the power to prevent secession.

I'll wait.

I'd say Art 1 Sec 8.
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

Art 1 sec 10 prevented the states from joining together to secede.
No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation;

 

[BigRed]

But the thing is the 10th amendment doesn't even give states the right to secede

The 10th gives nothing...It states that any powers not delegated are retained.

(Much like the 2nd gives nothing, it simply acknowledges that which already was)

 

[AndreusMaximus]

The 10th gives nothing...It states that any powers not delegated are retained.

(Much like the 2nd gives nothing, it simply acknowledges that which already was)

I don't mean "give" in the literal sense; I mean "give" in the figurative sense, as in it doesn't mean that states have the right to secede.

It really feels like you're playing a word game to dodge my point. Unless you are saying that the right to secede is a natural right retained by all people at all times, regardless of their form of government, like the rights acknowledged by the 2nd amendment, in which case why are would you even care whether or not the Constitution actually says anything about it?

 

[BigRed]

I don't mean "give" in the literal sense; I mean "give" in the figurative sense, as in it doesn't mean that states have the right to secede.

It really feels like you're playing a word game to dodge my point. Unless you are saying that the right to secede is a natural right retained by all people at all times, regardless of their form of government, like the rights acknowledged by the 2nd amendment, in which case why are would you even care whether or not the Constitution actually says anything about it?

Not word games...simply what the document literally states.

Regarding your second paragraph, I simply refer you to the text of the Declaration of Independence.

 

[AndreusMaximus]

Not word games...simply what the document literally states.

Regarding your second paragraph, I simply refer you to the text of the Declaration of Independence.

But the document quite literally states that the federal government has many powers, including stopping a rebellion. It does not state anywhere that states retain the right to revoke the powers of the federal government, and as I pointed out above, it is illogical to think that the 10th amendment intends to essentially nullify all the powers delegated to the federal government. Powers delegated to the federal government are just that. Using this sort of double-speak to say "Oh, yes, those powers were delegated, but the power to revoke those powers wasn't" just leads down a illogical rabbit hole that would never end, as I pointed out above, the which argument you have done nothing but dodge and ignore.

As for the second part, the Declaration of Independence does not list secession from an undesired government as an inalienable human right, and for good reason. It does rightly note that governments derive their just power from the consent of the governed, but that is stopping well short of saying that any group of people at any time and any place has the right to break away from a government they don't like.

 

[BigRed]

Here

But the document quite literally states that the federal government has many powers, including stopping a rebellion. It does not state anywhere that states retain the right to revoke the powers of the federal government, and as I pointed out above, it is illogical to think that the 10th amendment intends to essentially nullify all the powers delegated to the federal government. Powers delegated to the federal government are just that. Using this sort of double-speak to say "Oh, yes, those powers were delegated, but the power to revoke those powers wasn't" just leads down a illogical rabbit hole that would never end, as I pointed out above, the which argument you have done nothing but dodge and ignore.

As for the second part, the Declaration of Independence does not list secession from an undesired government as an inalienable human right, and for good reason. It does rightly note that governments derive their just power from the consent of the governed, but that is stopping well short of saying that any group of people at any time and any place has the right to break away from a government they don't like.

Here is the text of the tenth amendment to the constitution of the united 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."

Go ahead and read it and tell me what it says.

 

[rob63]

Here

Here is the text of the tenth amendment to the constitution of the united 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."

Go ahead and read it and tell me what it says.

"Clause 3: No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay."

The above clause makes it quite clear that NO state had the power to act as an independent state without the consent of the Congress. Thus, by default even if not clearly stated, there cannot be a right to secession because the seceded state would not be able to act as an independent state without violating the above clause.

The powers necessary to act as an independent state clearly are delegated to the Congress, so the 10th amendment is irrelevant to the question of secession.

All of this has been stated repeatedly in this thread, by multiple people.

It is not surprising that the Constitution makes no mention of secession. Here is the opening statement of what they were trying to accomplish when the states adopted it, their purpose was quite clear:

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union"

 

[BigRed]

"Clause 3: No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay."

The above clause makes it quite clear that NO state had the power to act as an independent state without the consent of the Congress. Thus, by default even if not clearly stated, there cannot be a right to secession because the seceded state would not be able to act as an independent state without violating the above clause.

The powers necessary to act as an independent state clearly are delegated to the Congress, so the 10th amendment is irrelevant to the question of secession.

All of this has been stated repeatedly in this thread, by multiple people.

It is not surprising that the Constitution makes no mention of secession. Here is the opening statement of what they were trying to accomplish when the states adopted it, their purpose was quite clear:

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union"

Clause 3 would not be applicable to any state that exercised its retained power to walk away. It would have no more applicability to South Carolina than it would to Italy.