Secession, right or wrong?

[Jonathan Palfrey]

ORIGINAL: Twotribes
You people amaze me... you can not on one hand say the federal Government had Authority and power over the States ( as they CLEARLY do) and in the same breath say "well until the State decides to just leave the Union."

Why not? As I've pointed out, the government also has authority and power over individuals, but they can leave whenever they choose by emigrating.

If you go to work for a company, or join the Army, or whatever, your superiors have authority and power over you, until you leave. Just about any human organization that you can join, you can also choose to leave. If any human organization wants to forbid leaving, it should make that very clear to people before they join.

ORIGINAL: Twotribes
Every State JOINED knowing they gave away rights, powers, authority and control on a host of Issues. The document does not have to say they couldnt leave, it is clearly the intent and implied by the entire list of enumerated powers.

This is not implied. It's merely your own interpretation. And I get the impression that at least some of the states that joined the USA did so in the belief that they were entitled to leave it.

[Twotribes]

And they were WRONG. It has already been posted here that the question came up before the Constitution was even written whether a state could leave or not and the clear answer was NO.

The Bill of Rights was drafted from nearly 200 proposed amendments, yet NOT one was drafted that dealt with documenting this claim that a State could just negate all federal Authority through out the Constitution by simply say " We dont wanna play anymore"

Once again one must completely IGNORE the powers granted to the Federal Government, must IGNORE the statements that Federal law supercedes State law, must IGNORE the 10th Amendment to lay claim to a right of a State to leave the Union any time it felt like it.

One doesnt grant power to some entity and then say "well unless I dont want you to do that today" There is no "ignore the Federal Government" clause in the Constitution.

There is in fact no need for the 10th Amendment if all one need do is leave the Union if the federal Government does something you dont like. Why state the States and the people retain those powers not granted to the Federal Government IF all it takes is to just say " we quit"?

[Jonathan Palfrey]

ORIGINAL: Greyshaft

ORIGINAL: Jonathan Palfrey
I was replying to Twotribes, who keeps claiming that secession is unthinkable because it would 'negate' (his word) all the powers of the US government. Therefore I tried to point out that it is possible for US citizens to quit the USA and leave its jurisdiction -- by emigrating -- without, apparently, negating the powers of the US government. If they can quit the USA in one way, it shouldn't be unthinkable for them to quit in another way.

You are mixing two concepts here.

I agree that a citizen of the USA can renounce his citizenship. However the individual states are not citizens. They have rights which the citizens do not have (and vice versa). The laws which deal with renouncing citizenship are quite different from those which deal with the relationship of the states to the Federal government.

Yes, I appreciate that the legal details are different. I didn't say that secession is the same as emigration. I just pointed out that they're the same in one respect: that the people who do one or the other are choosing not to belong to their original country any more. If they can make this choice by emigrating, without causing any fuss, it seems a little odd to me that making the same choice by way of secession causes such a huge fuss.

The fact that the legal situation is different in the two cases is a secondary issue as far as I'm concerned. Laws can be changed if people decide that they're wrong. I'm talking about the rightness and wrongness of things.

[Murat]

ORIGINAL: RERomine

Half wrong, the offical policy was one of neutrality, with belligerent rights granted to both sides. This policy obviously effected the Confederacy more than it effected the Union. While neither France nor England was willing to go to war with the United States over this issue, although England would have over the Trent Affair.

While England didn't formally support the Confederacy, they did turn a blind eye on occasion (or the activity was just well hidden) to activity that supported them.

They sent ships from the Royal Navy - not exactly a blind eye.

They were required by an internation court (not positive where the case was heard) to pay some reparations to the United States for shipping sunk by vessels built in England.

Treaty negotiated by President Grant.

Was actually directing #1 to Twotribes, you already admitted you did not have a legal background.

[Murat]

ORIGINAL: Twotribes

And they were WRONG. It has already been posted here that the question came up before the Constitution was even written whether a state could leave or not and the clear answer was NO.

Where?

The Bill of Rights was drafted from nearly 200 proposed amendments, yet NOT one was drafted that dealt with documenting this claim that a State could just negate all federal Authority through out the Constitution by simply say " We dont wanna play anymore"

17, reduced to 12 of which 11 so far have been adopted.

Once again one must completely IGNORE the powers granted to the Federal Government, must IGNORE the statements that Federal law supercedes State law, must IGNORE the 10th Amendment to lay claim to a right of a State to leave the Union any time it felt like it.

One doesnt grant power to some entity and then say "well unless I dont want you to do that today" There is no "ignore the Federal Government" clause in the Constitution.

There is in fact no need for the 10th Amendment if all one need do is leave the Union if the federal Government does something you dont like. Why state the States and the people retain those powers not granted to the Federal Government IF all it takes is to just say " we quit"?

Actually Amendment IX tells how the Constitution was meant to be interpreted, if a power is not enumerated (listed) the the government does not have it. Amendment X repeats this and states that anything not listed for the Federal government was left to the States or the People. Regardless you still have no response to the Declaration of Independence.

[Greyshaft]

ORIGINAL: Twotribes

And they were WRONG. It has already been posted here that the question came up before the Constitution was even written whether a state could leave or not and the clear answer was NO.

Please quote the post. I do not recall it. OTOH I did post an extract from Virginia's ratification of the Constitution which stated the opposite ie Virginia declared they were only joining the Union on the condition that they could secede if they so desired.

It seems to me suh, that you are a fabricator of false references [:-]

[Jonathan Palfrey]

ORIGINAL: Greyshaft

ORIGINAL: Twotribes

And they were WRONG. It has already been posted here that the question came up before the Constitution was even written whether a state could leave or not and the clear answer was NO.

Please quote the post. I do not recall it. OTOH I did post an extract from Virginia's ratification of the Constitution which stated the opposite ie Virginia declared they were only joining the Union on the condition that they could secede if they so desired.

It seems to me suh, that you are a fabricator of false references [:-]

I vaguely remember seeing this mentioned earlier on. I believe that someone asked the question before the constitution was written and someone else answered "No." However, this was just one man's opinion at the time and I don't see that it has any importance. If there was any intent to forbid states from leaving (for ever and ever!), that should have been written clearly into the constitution -- both to clarify the situation, and to give states that objected to it the opportunity to say, "Well, in that case we're not joining."

[Jonathan Palfrey]

ORIGINAL: Strelets
For an exhaustive (and exhausting) discussion of the legalities of the matter from the Southern perspective, I strongly recommend the following, written by a Southern lawyer after the war (he evidently had a lot of time on his hands): http://www.civilwarhome.com/secessionjustification.htm

Thanks. I don't have time to read it all now, but I've bookmarked it.

[Twotribes]

ORIGINAL: Greyshaft

ORIGINAL: Twotribes

And they were WRONG. It has already been posted here that the question came up before the Constitution was even written whether a state could leave or not and the clear answer was NO.

Please quote the post. I do not recall it. OTOH I did post an extract from Virginia's ratification of the Constitution which stated the opposite ie Virginia declared they were only joining the Union on the condition that they could secede if they so desired.

It seems to me suh, that you are a fabricator of false references [:-]

Calling me a liar ehh... I suggest before you trot down that path you reread this thread.

Lets see, so far I have been called a liar, told to move from my home and called an idiot for having an opinion. Anyone else care to call me any other names while we are at it?

Meanwhile I have people insist that I write verbattem the Constitution for them cause they cant find any enumerated powers in it ( Again I suggest you try Article I, II and III) and cant grasp that States willingly gave up power when they joined the Union ( the aforementioned Articles plus article IV and of course the 10th amendment)Having informed these people I can not paste or copy on this board I must assume their desire is one of symantics, they want to claim a "victory" because I didnt rewrite the document for them, rather just directed them to the applicable parts.

I keep getting told the Document doesnt STATE " You cant leave the Union" and getting demands to provide such a statement.... Yet when I ask these same people to explain what good is an enumerated power that clearly restricts the "soveriegn" State and that specifically places the federal Government as the senior, superior Government, if all one must do is say " I quit" I get no response or that tired old saw " well as an Individual I can..."

What I really like is those trying to use the 10th Amendment to claim a right that doesnt exsist. While it is true the purpose of the 10th is to place a restriction on the federal Government, it CLEARLY indicates the Federal Government is superior and that the powers granted the Federal Government can NOT be overturned by the States. Yet we have the claim that JUST that can happen if the State just says " I quit"

[Jonathan Palfrey]

ORIGINAL: RERomine
As I've mentioned before, arguing the legality of the situation seems pointless. Even if the Constitution had spelled out in big bold letters SECESSION IS ILLEGAL, I believe it wouldn't have altered events one bit.

You may be right -- though I think the USA might have trouble getting all the original states to sign up to such a constitution in any case.

I point out also that it's a bit absurd for people in the 18th century to sign away the fundamental rights of their children's children's children to the end of time. It may occur to some later generation to say, "We didn't sign this document. We're not bound by it."

[Twotribes]

Well with that logic I guess I can say " damn I didnt vote for these laws( any passed before I was old enough to vote) so they dont apply."

[Greyshaft]

ORIGINAL: Twotribes

Calling me a liar ehh... I suggest before you trot down that path you reread this thread.

No... I called you a fabricator of false references. It may well be that no-one has ever instructed you in the necessity and use of logic and accurate references in argument in which case the failing is not of your making and the problem is that you are simply attempting to punch above your intellectual and academic weight.

ORIGINAL: Twotribes

Lets see, so far I have been called a liar, ...

Does Twotribes fabricate references? Q.E.D.

ORIGINAL: Twotribes

Meanwhile I have people insist that I write verbattem the Constitution for them cause they cant find any enumerated powers in it ...

Yes we do insist on that. I have done that to support my argument as have other people but the best you can do is to offer a vague suggestion that the proof of your statement is somewhere in Articles I, II or III. You really need to do better than that if you want to be taken seriously.

ORIGINAL: Twotribes

I keep getting told the Document doesnt STATE " You cant leave the Union" and getting demands to provide such a statement....

And you keep ignoring those demands. Don't call the tune if you can't pay the Piper [:-]

ORIGINAL: Twotribes

While it is true the purpose of the 10th is to place a restriction on the federal Government, it CLEARLY indicates the Federal Government is superior ...

I have observed that whenever Twotribes uses the capitalized word 'CLEARLY' in a sentence it is an indication that the rest of his statement is an unsupported hypothesis.

[Jonathan Palfrey]

ORIGINAL: RERomine
As I've mentioned before, arguing the legality of the situation seems pointless. Even if the Constitution had spelled out in big bold letters SECESSION IS ILLEGAL, I believe it wouldn't have altered events one bit. The sequence of events probably would have played out pretty much the way it did. On the other hand, if it said in big bold letters SECESSION IS LEGAL, there probably wouldn't have been a war. In fact, the country probably would have splintered long before 1860.

This is not really relevant, but readers of this thread might be interested to read Michael Flynn's novella The Forest of Time (1987), which imagines a world in which the Pennamite Wars (fought between Connecticut and Pennsylvania in the late 18th century) got out of hand, and the states remained disunited and warring amongst each other for ever afterwards.

To be honest, I haven't been really keen on anything else by Flynn, but that one's an excellent story, a classic. It's available in The Forest of Time and Other Stories, and in other places.

[Twotribes]

You cant resist name calling can you Greyshaft? As to your little points, Again the entire Articles apply, why would I type them out for you when all you have to do is go read them? But that isnt the point is it? Your trying through a sham to win a debating point.

We arent in a debating circle and you dont get points by pretending I didnt answer your smarmy little ruse.

Be so kind while we are at it to point out how my claim on the 10th amendment is wrong. Your claiming it is incorrect somehow or was that just another word game to try and twist whats said so you win some debating point?

Your the one playing games and trying to "win" by playing word games. Your not interested in answering my questions I notice.

[AU Tiger_MatrixForum]

AMENDMENT XIV

Passed by Congress June 13, 1866. Ratified July 9, 1868.

Note: Article I, section 2, of the Constitution was modified by section 2 of the 14th amendment.

Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Section 2.
Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age,* and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

Section 3.
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section 4.
The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section 5.
The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

I am hardly a legal scholar, so I ask those who are: Does this amendment imply that prior to this amendment, secession was a valid option?

[Reiryc]

ORIGINAL: Twotribes

Every State JOINED knowing they gave away rights, powers , authority and control on a host of Issues.

This is correct. They knowingly gave away certain rights, powers, authority and control on a host of issues, but not all by any stretch. This includes, the right to leave.

The document does not have to say they couldnt leave, it is clearly the intent and implied by the entire list of enumerated powers.

This is a product of your imagination on what it says. The intent was to create a more 'energetic' government, not one that prevented states from leaving.

And prior to 1860 no insurrection or rebellion was tolerated.

Prior to 1860, no state attempted to leave.

And AFTER the fact we have settled the question.

Exactly, this was settled after the fact, which is not the question being discussed in this thread.

Once again I dont need to cite any specific line or paragraph, the entire Document applies. Every power enumerated in the Articles of I, II and III prevent a State from simply leaving the Union cause they want to. Article IV further clarifies the loss of power for the States.

Actually you don't need to cite any specific line or paragraph because they don't exist and you know it. The entire document applies only where it specifies that it applies.

Article VI provides an Oath of Office that clearly indicates ones loyalty is to the Constitution not ones State.

Last I checked, an oath of office has nothing to do with a state. The state itself did not give an oath of office. So this is irrelevant.

Amendment X clearly states that those powers that are federal can NOT be usurped by the States. Again that would be all the Enumerated powers in Article I, II and III as well as the prohobitions listed in Article IV.

Leaving does not usurp those powers but rather negates them from being applied any further to your state. Those powers, such as making war, negotiating treaties, etc still exist for the federal government. What they prevent is current states of the union from engaging in activities reserved for federal government. They do not imply that once in, always in.

The entire Bill of Rights was to appease the People and States, yet NO where is any mention of a right to leave the Union even brouched. Instead there is Amendment X that states Federal Power is Supreme.

That's right, there is no mention of it. Thus such a power is reserved to the states per that amendment 10.

[Reiryc]

ORIGINAL: Twotribes


Meanwhile I have people insist that I write verbattem the Constitution for them cause they cant find any enumerated powers in it ( Again I suggest you try Article I, II and III) and cant grasp that States willingly gave up power when they joined the Union ( the aforementioned Articles plus article IV and of course the 10th amendment)

That's because what doesn't seem to be penetrating is the reality that giving up some power is not akin to giving up all power.

Having informed these people I can not paste or copy on this board I must assume their desire is one of symantics, they want to claim a "victory" because I didnt rewrite the document for them, rather just directed them to the applicable parts.

Why can't you copy or paste?

Would it help if I copied the constitution for you so that you can quote as necessary?

I keep getting told the Document doesnt STATE " You cant leave the Union" and getting demands to provide such a statement.... Yet when I ask these same people to explain what good is an enumerated power that clearly restricts the "soveriegn" State and that specifically places the federal Government as the senior, superior Government, if all one must do is say " I quit" I get no response or that tired old saw " well as an Individual I can..."

The answer has been given to you. The 10th amendment states that any powers not enumerated to the federal government are reserved to the states. This means that the federal government has superior power in some areas and no control at all in others.

What I really like is those trying to use the 10th Amendment to claim a right that doesnt exsist. While it is true the purpose of the 10th is to place a restriction on the federal Government, it CLEARLY indicates the Federal Government is superior and that the powers granted the Federal Government can NOT be overturned by the States. Yet we have the claim that JUST that can happen if the State just says " I quit"

That's because the power of the federal government extends only to those under it's jurisdiction. Those that joined did so by giving up certain powers but retaining others. What powers did they retain? All powers not specifically given to the federal government. Now one must note that the word used in the 10th amendment was 'enumerated' which means listed. The listed powers given to the federal government. It does not say the assumed or the 'obvious' powers but rather the enumerated powers.

"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."
-- James Madison, Federal No. 45



RESOLVED: That the principle and construction contended for by sundry of the state legislatures, that the general government is the exclusive judge of the extent of the powers delegated to it, stop nothing short of despotism; since the discretion of those who administer the government, and not the constitution, would be the measure of their powers:
That the several states who formed that instrument, being sovereign and independent, have the unquestionable right to judge of its infraction; and that a nullification, by those sovereignties, of all unauthorized acts done under colour of that instrument, is the rightful remedy.
-- Thomas Jefferson, 1799


[T]he powers of the federal government are enumerated; it can only operate in certain cases; it has legislative powers on defined and limited objects, beyond which it cannot extend its jurisdiction.
-- James Madison, Speech in the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 6, 1788


Now to your point about powers not existing, well let's check with Madison, known by his contemporaries as the 'father of the constitution'...



It has been objected also against a bill of rights, that, by enumerating particular exceptions to the grant of power, it would disparage those rights which were not placed in that enumeration, and it might follow by implication, that those rights which were not singled out, were intended to be assigned into the hands of the general government, and were consequently insecure. This is one of the most plausible arguments I have ever heard urged against the admission of a bill of rights into this system; but, I conceive, that may be guarded against. I have attempted it, as gentlemen may see by turning to the last clause of the 4th resolution.
-- James Madison, Proposing Bill of Rights to House, June 8, 1789

[RERomine]

ORIGINAL: Jonathan Palfrey
Yes, I appreciate that the legal details are different. I didn't say that secession is the same as emigration. I just pointed out that they're the same in one respect: that the people who do one or the other are choosing not to belong to their original country any more. If they can make this choice by emigrating, without causing any fuss, it seems a little odd to me that making the same choice by way of secession causes such a huge fuss.

Legal and people aspects aside, I think most countries look at secession as lost of territory, resources and a possible defense risk. They don't seem to care if the people just get up and leave, because they know more people, loyal to the current goverment will just move in.

[RERomine]

ORIGINAL: AU Tiger
I am hardly a legal scholar, so I ask those who are: Does this amendment imply that prior to this amendment, secession was a valid option?

It seems to be more oriented towards clarifying the rights of the freed slaves. I don't think any amendments to the Constitution addressed secession in an explicit manner. The Supreme Court, full of Union justices, essentually put the question of secession to rest in 1869 in the Texas v White ruling based on the Constitution as it was written. It found something to the effect that Texas hadn't ever left the Union:

"Considered therefore as transactions under the Constitution, the ordinance of secession, adopted by the convention and ratified by a majority of the citizens of Texas, and all the acts of her legislature intended to give effect to that ordinance, were absolutely null. They were utterly without operation in law. The obligations of the State, as a member of the Union, and of every citizen of the State, as a citizen of the United States, remained perfect and unimpaired. It certainly follows that the State did not cease to be a State, nor her citizens to be citizens of the Union. If this were otherwise, the State must have become foreign, and her citizens foreigners. The war must have ceased to be a war for the suppression of rebellion, and must have become a war for conquest and subjugation."

It's an interesting ruling and I have to wonder if such a ruling would have been rendered had the case been heard in 1860, with four Northern justices, three Southern justices and one border justice. At this time, the court was one short as a justice had died and not yet been replaced, so I'm not sure what is decided with a 4 to 4 decision.

[Jonathan Palfrey]

ORIGINAL: RERomine
Legal and people aspects aside, I think most countries look at secession as lost of territory, resources and a possible defense risk. They don't seem to care if the people just get up and leave, because they know more people, loyal to the current goverment will just move in.

Governments don't like secession because it reduces their power; that's easy to understand. They feel diminished. They may also feel, "If this goes on, will we have anything left?" It's hard-hearted of me, but I'm afraid the psychological well-being of politicians isn't my prime concern.

The territory and resources aren't lost: they're still in active use and providing the same benefits as they did before. They're just reassigned to different management.

As for the defence risk: in defeating the Confederacy the Northern states suffered hundreds of thousands of casualties and spent a vast amount of money. That's definite, a matter of record. It seems unlikely that they could have suffered any worse from recognizing Confederate independence.

Having said all this, I recognize that ordinary people can also worry about secession in the ways you suggest. It's not a worry I tend to suffer from myself because I'm rootless and don't identify strongly with the country in which I happen to be living -- still less with its government.