Secession, right or wrong?

[RERomine]

ORIGINAL: Greyshaft

Yes, North Carolina was and still is a sovereign state, not a nation. They are obligated to follow Federal laws.

True again... while they are part of the Union they are obligated to follow those laws. I do not defend the illegal actions of the individual states prior to their separate ordinances of secession. Classifying the legality of the events after secession is a whole 'nother thread. eg what process that would be involved in peacefully handing back land in the southern states that had previously been ceded to Federal authority? Would compensation be required?

Since it never has been done, I can only speculate. The U.S. Supreme Court rule a state may not unilateral secede. That seems to mean they just can't decide to leave and go.

The more appropriate way seems to just reverse the process. First the population of the state would have to vote to leave the Union. That process had been completed at one point or another in all of the Southern states. Since Congress had to vote to admit a state into the Union, it would seem appropriate that a similar vote would be required if they wanted to leave.

One can only speculate on how that would be received in the North. Some might have been content to let them go. Others might have resisted. This speculative process would have been easier on the first state to try it, because the vote in Congress would have required a simple major. For each Southern state to go, it would have been that much more difficult to achieve a majority.

Compensation? Who knows, but offering compensation might have made Northern states more respective to the idea. They might feel they are getting rid of a burdensome state and getting paid in the process.

Oh well, that's one process we could "what if" to death.

[Jonathan Palfrey]

ORIGINAL: Twotribes
A country is NOT some golf club or shooting club or poker club, where in you just take your stuff and go home when you decide the majority are wrong.

Historically, in most times and places people seem to have agreed with you -- or rather, governments seem to have agreed with you.

However, what is the difference in principle between a country and any other kind of human association? To hold people by force (i.e. to govern without the consent of the governed) is morally wrong, and I see no justification for it.

Furthermore, I think public opinion is gradually shifting my way. If you look at news coverage of events in the Balkans in recent times, the idea of self-determination and secession has got a generally favourable response -- first, regions seceding from Yugoslavia, and second regions wishing to secede from Serbia.

The idea of countries seceding from the USSR also got a favourable response when it happened, although the Russian government remains rather grumbly about it.

I think most people in the world would have little objection to the idea of an independent Kurdistan, but Turkey's objections are holding up the idea.

British public opinion is already relatively favourable. In Spain it's still mostly quite hostile, probably because the murders and extortions of ETA have given the idea of Basque independence a very bad press. Basques would probably have done better to campaign peacefully.

Of course these are all modern developments. Lincoln and his merry men had 19th-century attitudes, naturally enough in the 19th century.

[AU Tiger_MatrixForum]

ORIGINAL: Jonathan Palfrey
Lincoln and his merry men had 19th-century attitudes, naturally enough in the 19th century.

How backwards of them!

[RERomine]

I think the club analogies go back to something you mentioned in the past where people can just pick up and leave. If you quit a club, it is quite likely, people who remain with the club will no longer see you any more.

With respect to nations and groups within nations, separating from the parent country doesn't change the fact that the group will still remain where they are. In the past, it seems territory was more important than the people who lived there. Differences were not tolerated like they are today. The people were expected to adhear to the norms the government expected. It was the age of empires.

Now, with societal standards requiring tolerance of differences, it becomes easier and more acceptable to allow a dissatistfied section to just go their separate way. There are exceptions. Turkey's refusal to allow an autonomous Kurdish nation adjacent to theirs and the United States is opposed to a fracturing of Iraq into Kurdish, Shiite and Sunni nations. Obviously, once the United States is out of Iraq, we won't be able to stop such fracturing if it occurs, but are openly opposed because the balance of power will dramatically shift to Iran. Turkey is another story altogether. There have been Kurdish rebellions within Turkey and they view an independent Kurdistan as a potential threat.

[Jonathan Palfrey]

If you live in a small town and you quit a club, you will very likely continue to see club members around the place and perhaps even meet them socially.

In the case of a region leaving a country, they will probably continue to have dealings with each other, but I suppose less frequently and less intimately.

I'd have thought Kurds would be less of a threat to Turkey from the outside. The problem at the moment is that there are so many of them in Turkey. But Turkey doesn't seem to see it that way.

[Oldguard]

ORIGINAL: Twotribes

You still havent answerer ONE simple question.

Actually, I have established quite clearly that your original assertions were inaccurate and unfounded. And FYI quotebacks would help maintain the train of thought, here.

What does the Federal Government do when the rebellion is lead by the Governor and State legislature? Are you saying that since they have chosen to rebel the Federal Government has no right to act simply because ( according to you) only those two entities can call fopr assistance from the federal Government.

In the historical event, the Federal government asserted its right to restore the Union by force of arms and, upon winning that conflict, settled the issue. Settling it by force of arms is far far different than having the legal right to do so.

Lest you think I'm accusing Lincoln of breaking the law, I am not - and mainly because there was no law forbidding OR sanctioning secession. There still isn't. I think he did exactly what the duties of his office called for him to do - that is, to preserve a Union that was stronger while together than split asunder. However, the fact remains that the States acted as sovereigns when they consented to join the Union. I fail to see how anyone could claim their soveriegnty was ever signed away. It wasn't. It was ripped from them with the cold steel of Federal bayonets.

Once again this is akin to claiming unless a criminal agrees to be arrested the government cant arrest them because it violates their rights.

Non sequitur.

Next , as to your claim Lincoln kept "his" Armies in the field past the 30 days... humm did you read what you wrote? Congress approved of his action and WENT farther.

You must be referring to someone else. I haven't argued about Lincoln's right to conscript - only that he communicated with his commanders.

[Greyshaft]

The current process of Scottish devolution is an interesting study. Since the British have an unwritten constitution it is difficult to make a direct comparison.

[RERomine]

ORIGINAL: Oldguard


Lest you think I'm accusing Lincoln of breaking the law, I am not - and mainly because there was no law forbidding OR sanctioning secession. There still isn't.

Technically, now there is a law. In the Texas v. White (1869) case I referenced before, it ruled unilateral secession was illegal. The main part of the case involved money of some sort due somebody. Didn't bother to go too far into it, but I believe one side contended the money wasn't due because Texas ceased to be part of the Union. The Supreme Court ruled that Texas never left the Union because unilateral secession wasn't permitted by the Constitution.

This is just conjecture, but I believe what the Supreme Court meant by unilateral, they meant they can't just say they aren't part of the Union anymore. Congress has to vote a state in, so I assume the Supreme Court believes Congress has to vote them out. This all presupposes the preliminary step of the people of a state votes their desire to leave the Union. This keeps Congress from throwing out a state that doesn't want to go. This is all guess work, however.

[Greyshaft]

ORIGINAL: RERomine

ORIGINAL: Oldguard
Lest you think I'm accusing Lincoln of breaking the law, I am not - and mainly because there was no law forbidding OR sanctioning secession. There still isn't.

Technically, now there is a law. In the Texas v. White (1869) case I referenced before, it ruled unilateral secession was illegal.

Courts do not make laws. They enforce them. Laws are made by legislatures or (in the case of the Constitution) by sovereign states making an agreement.

Texas v. White (1869) is not a law. It was a court case and it ended in a judgment. Along the way the judges made some observations about how they interpreted the existing law. Therefore the law expounded in Texas v. White was in existence since the ratification of the constitution, but since no-one had raised that specific question before, the courts had not needed to clarify that law.

Of course, clarification of the law is always subject to the personal interpretation of the judge who is never influenced by the person who appointed them to that position. [:D]

[Twotribes]

You keep ignoring the fact your whole premise is wrong. Someone provides why and you pretend that somehow it doesn't apply. In this particular case your pretending that because you personally dont like the outcome of the war and the sitting Judges on the Supreme Court at the time, that this nullifies their obvious decision.

As usual you take a word or phrase and try to twist it to make your supposed point.

PS this response and the previous one were directed at Greyshaft. Oldguard may want to actually read what Greyshaft has been saying if he cant seem to place why I reply to him with the responses I have.

[RERomine]

ORIGINAL: Greyshaft
Courts do not make laws. They enforce them. Laws are made by legislatures or (in the case of the Constitution) by sovereign states making an agreement.

Texas v. White (1869) is not a law. It was a court case and it ended in a judgment. Along the way the judges made some observations about how they interpreted the existing law. Therefore the law expounded in Texas v. White was in existence since the ratification of the constitution, but since no-one had raised that specific question before, the courts had not needed to clarify that law.

Quite correct.

Of course, clarification of the law is always subject to the personal interpretation of the judge who is never influenced by the person who appointed them to that position. [:D]

You couldn't possibly be implying the justices appointed by Lincoln had some sort of bias related to the issue, now could you? [:D]

[Twotribes]

Whether the Justices had a bias or not is neither here nor there. The final arbitor is the Supreme Court. They made a ruling, that is the final decision on the matter UNTIL such time as Congress passes a law changing the decision ( and it is not challanged and defeated in the supreme court OR the Congress or people create and pass an amendment that nullifies the decision.

Of course I am suprised grey isnt argueing this isnt true either, I mean actually the Constitution does NOT say the Supreme Court is the final arbitor on the Constitution, that was decided by precedent, Jefferson refused to appoint people from the previous President, they took it to court. The Supreme Court Chief Justice at the time used it to establish the supremecy of the Court. Jefferson felt it was better to let that stand then risk any further action since the decision didnt hurt him. Prior to that and even after the opinion was that each House of the legislature was responsible for determining the meaning of the Constitution in regards THEIR bills and decisions. Senate was responsible for Senate passed bills and those unpassed, the House was responsible for their bills and those not passed.

[Twotribes]

Article III of the Constitution deals with the Judiciary. Since Greyshaft INSISTS the federal Government has no implied powers and that States DO have implied power to leave the Union, be so kind as to point out WHERE in Article III it STATES that the Supreme Court or any Federal Court has the right to adjudge an act of Congress Unconstitutional OR for that matter ANY law Unconstitutional , any action by the Executive Unconstitutional, ect ect.

The Article talks about Ambassadors and Ministers and other minor fuctionaries BUT it does NOT talk about the Courts having power to supercede the other two branches of the Government ( it Implies it, but doesnt say it) Since the federal Government has no power except that which is clearly spelled out ( and according to Greyshaft, no implied powers) where does the Supreme Court get its power to be final arbitor on what the Constitution means?

Of course Article III does clearly state that ANY dispute between States is decided by the Federal Courts, which would in fact mean that States trying to leave the Union could be stopped by a court decision, thus empowering the supposed helpless worthless federal Government with the power Greyshaft claims it didnt already have.

BUT if the Courts have that power then so does Congress and the President since the other articles clearly give such power to them. The claim that the States can simply Ignore the Federal Government or leave anytime they wants is simply not true. Each branch of the federal Government is clearly indicated to take power from and supercede the Authority of the Individual States in all manner of issues.

[Oldguard]

ORIGINAL: Twotribes

Once again the Constitution is worthless and was a waste of time and effort if one believes the States could simply quit if they didnt get their way.

It's no more worthy than any other contract if one or the other parties wants out. You make it sound like the Constitution is some kind of irrevocable divine obligation - it's not. It's a contract between the government and the people. As such, it is vulnerable to being breached by either party.

The Document gives power to the Federal Government AT the expense of the States. It CLEARLY places the Federal Government as Supreme in any dispute with the States UNLESS the courts disagree or an amendment is proffered and adopted.

As I thought, your view of history is badly skewed toward seeing everything through the lens of modern Federalism. There were three phases to the history of the Constitution: in the 18th century it was designed as more of a group protection contract but there were no Federal entitlement programs and no Federal aid that could be used as leverage to force states in line. In the 19th century things heated up and 650,000 Americans died trying to decide if states had the right to break away from the Union -- that issue was decided on the side of a strong central Federal government and decided at the point of a bayonet. The 20th century saw the birth of the modern welfare state, which more accurately fits your modernist viewpoints.

What most of us are saying, though, is that it wasn't always this way. I'd wager if you suggested to Madison and Jefferson that some states might want to form their own nation apart one day, they'd be saddened but would not necessarily think a destructive major war would result. I'd also wager that if the Confederate states had waged their war in courtrooms and Congress rather than firing on Fort Sumter, they might actually have made a legitimate case for their own freedom.

You make the claim that because the document doesnt include the words ( can not leave the Union) it is therefore a power resting with the States. This is aimply erroneous.

Hardly. Secession is neither implicitly allowed nor implicitly forbidden - a fact I've demonstrated on multiple occasions. I'm not sure how I can impress that upon you - it's not in the Constitution and never has been. The issue was decided on the battlefield.

The specific powers of the Federal Governmetn CLEARLY indicate that whether a State likes them or not, they WILL obey.

Your interpretations are not the only allowable viewpoint around here. I realize that may be hard for you to accept but you do need to deal with it. This thread is full of some great input, knowledgable viewpoints and thought-provoking discussion on a topic that was put to rest 140 years ago. Your continued insistence that you're the only one who's right is not contributing much.

[regularbird]

ORIGINAL: Greyshaft

ORIGINAL: RERomine

ORIGINAL: Oldguard
Lest you think I'm accusing Lincoln of breaking the law, I am not - and mainly because there was no law forbidding OR sanctioning secession. There still isn't.

Technically, now there is a law. In the Texas v. White (1869) case I referenced before, it ruled unilateral secession was illegal.

Courts do not make laws. They enforce them. Laws are made by legislatures or (in the case of the Constitution) by sovereign states making an agreement.

Just a note, the courts do not enforce laws, they interpret. The executive is charged with enforcement.

Texas v. White (1869) is not a law. It was a court case and it ended in a judgment. Along the way the judges made some observations about how they interpreted the existing law. Therefore the law expounded in Texas v. White was in existence since the ratification of the constitution, but since no-one had raised that specific question before, the courts had not needed to clarify that law.

Of course, clarification of the law is always subject to the personal interpretation of the judge who is never influenced by the person who appointed them to that position. [:D]

[Greyshaft]

ORIGINAL: regularbird

ORIGINAL: Greyshaft
Courts do not make laws. They enforce them. Laws are made by legislatures or (in the case of the Constitution) by sovereign states making an agreement.

Just a note, the courts do not enforce laws, they interpret. The executive is charged with enforcement.

True

ORIGINAL: Oldguard
You make it sound like the Constitution is some kind of irrevocable divine obligation - it's not. It's a contract between the government and the people.

I would say a contract between the Federal Government and the states in their capacity as the representatives of the people. After all, no individual signed the constitution in a private capacity - they were all representing their states.

[Twotribes]

Now someone is trying to twist the arguement into entitlements. What a crock. Either the Federal Government has the powers enumerated in the Constitution or they dont. IF they have those powers then those poweres were freely given to them by the States and the People. And the federal Government has the DUTY and RESPONSIBILITY to safeguard and enforce said powers.

To claim that the original States didnt understand they surrendered power and authority to the Federal Government is to claim those people could not READ. Or that they could not comprehend what they read.

The document is clear. The majority rules ( within the restrictions and allowances of the base document)and if one no longer wants to participate one must gain permission, either through an amendment or the acts of the Federal Government to leave. Anything else nullifies the entire document to the whims of the States or local Governments.

The federal Governemt HAS overstepped their power in the last 150 years, BUT that was expected by the founders. It is the PEOPLES fault for allowing it to happen. The foolishness of the Civil War didnt help in that regard.

If it ever comes time for us to rebel again, it will be because we , the PEOPLE, failed to control our Government through the election process and through the proper use of the Courts. And if such a rebellion fails, the victor will be able to point to the Constitution ( most likely) and proclaim they were right and we were wrong.

[Oldguard]

ORIGINAL: Twotribes

Now someone is trying to twist the arguement into entitlements. What a crock.

Your use of inflammatory verbiage throughout this thread is noted as a symptom of a weak argument. I suggest less coffee and more wine.

Either the Federal Government has the powers enumerated in the Constitution or they dont. IF they have those powers then those poweres were freely given to them by the States and the People. And the federal Government has the DUTY and RESPONSIBILITY to safeguard and enforce said powers.

Ok so far. Where we differ is in your insistence that, once given, those powers cannot ever be revoked. That implies that the original Constitution was tantamount to irrevocable bondage.

To claim that the original States didnt understand they surrendered power and authority to the Federal Government is to claim those people could not READ. Or that they could not comprehend what they read.

reducto ad absurdium

The document is clear. The majority rules ( within the restrictions and allowances of the base document)and if one no longer wants to participate one must gain permission, either through an amendment or the acts of the Federal Government to leave. Anything else nullifies the entire document to the whims of the States or local Governments.

Here we go again. Simply because you assert that the "document is clear" does not make it so. Cite article and clause that requires permission before secession, or that forbids secession at all. And, as a matter of fact, technically the US Goverment does exist at the whim of the states.

If it ever comes time for us to rebel again, it will be because we , the PEOPLE, failed to control our Government through the election process and through the proper use of the Courts. And if such a rebellion fails, the victor will be able to point to the Constitution ( most likely) and proclaim they were right and we were wrong.

Kinda like you're doing in this thread. And if that's your position, you'll get little argument from me. The government settled the issue of secession through victory at arms. Not through Constitutional amendment.

[Twotribes]

Oldguard you completely ignore the process for amendment and for the legislature and Executive ( and even the Judiciary) when you make the claim no one can do anything about leaving. That is not my position at all. But do keep claiming it is.

The key facts are simple. The South made a claim that SIMPLY because they didnt get their man in as President, and even before the new President was sworn in, they abandoned the Union. That you claim they had this right completely nullifies the entire Constitution and the concept of a Central ( Federal Government).

The South had no standing to make the claims they made and no compelling reason to leave the Union by force. They claimed their rights were violated. HOW? By a free and legal election that had been held in accordance with their own laws and that of the Federal Government?

The specifc claims they made hold no water. The President does NOT have now, nor then, the power to do the things they claimed would happen and forceing them to leave. Congress would have to have acted and the Courts would have had to aquiese to any of the "dire" changes the South claimed forced them to leave. Every step involved the South if they had not resorted to Rebellion, it would have included every southern Senator and Congressman as well as every southern Judge sitting on the bench.

The Senate back then was solely made up of Senators selected and approved by the States not the people of the States. This alone would have allowed the "slave" States to block ANY attempt to change the law and rules on how and why a territory ( for example) could or could not be admitted into the Union as a State. The States that rebelled were not the Only States that had slaves, thus the reason that the Emancipation included the wording that it applied ONLY to States in Rebellion.

Back to why the States couldnt just leave on a whim.... Every article of the Constitution clearly provides specific powers to the Federal Government, and the only way to CHANGE, regain or add/subtract powers is through the Amendment process, clearly indicated in the Document. There would be NO need for amendment if one could simply nullify the Union at any time one chose by leaving.

The implication is clear. The right to leave the Union is not inherient in the document. It would require the amendment process or the approval of the Federal Government. WHY, because the Federal Government would have to AGREE to no longer have the enumerated powers in the Constitution in the lands under the control of the State or States leaving.

A State can not simply ignore federal authority or power by saying, "we dont want to" Each State freely agreed to this document when admitted into the Union. The recourse for leaving requires acceptance and permission of the federal Government or an Amendment to the Constitution allowing the State or States to usurp the given powers of the Federal Government by simplyleaving. Failing that any attempt to leave in ANY other manner violates the powers given to the Federal Government. This then would be called rebellion or Insurection.

No STATE Government is superior to the Federal Government. NOT any. The Document SPELLS this out clearly. One can not simply take their ball and go home with out permission or an amendment since that action would usurp the enumerated powers of the Federal Government, CLEARLY spelled out in the Constitution.

[Reiryc]

ORIGINAL: Twotribes

BUT they dont have a leg to stand on, in the case of the Civil War, for the claims they made as to why they seperated.

They did not have an inherient right to leave, and the US Government had done NOTHING to obstruct or prevent the States from exersizing their power and rights under the Constitution. In fact the US Government had ENFORCED the rights of the Southern States over the rights of the Northern States.

This is from the declaration of independence:


When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, 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. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.



Questions must be asked:

Was jefferson incorrect about his assertion that people have the natural right to disband the political bands the bind people together?