Posted on 06/04/2015 12:25:12 AM PDT by iowamark
The most obvious constitutional result of the Civil War was the adoption of three landmark constitutional amendments. The 13th ended slavery forever in the United States, while the 14th made all persons born in the United States (including the former slaves) citizens of the nation and prohibited the states from denying anyone the privileges and immunities of American citizenship, due process or law, or equal protection of the law. Finally, the 15th Amendment, ratified in 1870, prohibited the states from denying the franchise to anyone based on “race, color, or previous condition of servitude.”
Secession and Nullification Since the beginning of the nation, claims that states could nullify federal law or even secede had destabilized American politics and constitutional law. Sometimes Northerners made these claims, such as the disgruntled New Englanders who organized the Hartford Convention to oppose the War of 1812. But most claims of nullification came from the slave South...
Money and National Power From the beginning of the nation there had been debates over whether the United States government could issue currency. Indeed, before the Civil War there was no national currency, only “bank notes” issued by private banks or state banks. For two periods (1791-1811 and 1816-1836) the federally chartered Bank of the United States circulated bank notes that functioned as a national currency. But Andrew Jackson vetoed the bank’s recharter on the grounds that it was unconstitutional, and for the next 25 years the nation’s economy was hampered by the lack of a stable, national currency...
(Excerpt) Read more at opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com ...
Amendment XIII (Ratified December 6, 1865)
Section 1
Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
Section 2
Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
Amendment XIV (Ratified July 9, 1868)
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 power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
Amendment XV (Ratified February 3, 1870)
Section 1
The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.
Section 2
The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
Texas v. White (1869) in which the Supreme Court defined secession as unconstitutional:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/74/700
Full Text:
https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1134912565671891096&q=74+us+700&hl=en&as_sdt=2,14
The back of my head says the civil war proved that if you do something the federal government doesn’t like they kill you. Oversimplification? Perhaps.
In that the three amendments noted were passed while the former confederate states were under martial law of re-construciton, were they properly ratified by the state legislatures or simply agreed to by the federal military controlling each state?
The essay is interesting, but of course written from the northern point of view. From the point of view of southerners there were quite a different set of take-aways that can be summarized in one, maybe two sentences. The most important being might makes right, and to the victor go the spoils. And of course history and law are written by the winners.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/after-148-years-mississippi-finally-ratifies-13th-amendment-which-banned-slavery/
“After 148 years, Mississippi finally ratifies 13th Amendment, which banned slavery”
That presupposes that the winning side is never the right side. What made the South right and the North wrong?
Got that right.
Lincoln destroyed the Constitution by declaring war on his POLITICAL foes and killing US Citizens.
Kind of like what Obambi is doing now . . .?
There is nothing in the Constitution regarding secession, either for or against. The USC is silent on the issue.
Do you think they’ll have the Constitutional Convention and repeal the 14th?
No, that’s a good summary. What the civil war did was establish the precedent that the Federal government is not under any obligation to obey the US Constitution.
The Civil War established that concept of “states” has no meaning, other than the execution of small administrative matters on behalf of the Federal Government. The notion of the 10th Amendment died with the Civil War.
Lincoln never initiated, instigated, or declared war against anyone. His was a defensive fight against insurrectionists.
Oh yay, another thread that will bring out the neo-confederates, who will bitch about losing and claim their vile rebellion was on the side of the angels and if you disagree with them you “hate the Constitution like Obama”.
Federalist/Anti-Federalist ping. A fascinating article.
Nope, that’s pretty much it...
That’s what governments do. They “bear the sword”. If they are legitimate, they punish the wicked and protect the righteous.
Now, there was another aspect of this as well.
Prior to the CW, the fedgov recognized that it was the created entity, and the states were the creator entities,
and the authority was in the states, or the people (as the 10th states).
After, the states were forced to an inferior role.
Yep. The upshot is the states gave up their independence when they joined the gang of 12.
I believe in the states having those rights that are not given to the federal government.
I also think a state making a decision that affects its population cannot prevent said population from being part of the process.
I agree with secession as a necessary way for a state to leave an evil national regime (look in the mirror Obama), as long as any vote by state legislature represent a majority of ALL the people.
Dad, who hailed from Vermont, always did say "Get in with the government." I always assumed he meant I should get a government job for the security and benefits (I never did). Mom, a border state belle who claimed Thos. J. Jackson and other Southron notables in her family tree, was somewhat less sanguine when it came to the Federals however.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.