Replies

No, the constitution as it was originally established was a voluntary union between former English colonies known as "States". There were no sovereigns in these states, as they were comprised of free men, each his own 'sovereign'.

Good point, and partially correct so far as it goes. Thank you for raising that point.

The Constitution may be said, as southerners argued, to be a voluntary union between states. But it was also just as much a union between the men of those states. To the extent that it was the latter, secession becomes a difficult issue. What of those southerners who still felt that allegiance to that union to which they were, in a real sense, also parties to? And there were no few of those during the war, especially in Appalachia.

All of this is reflected in the structure of the Constitution itself. The Senate reflects the state understanding of the union. The House reflects the popular understanding.

Iguana wrote:

What of those southerners who still felt that allegiance to that union to which they were, in a real sense, also parties to?
And there were no few of those during the war, especially in Appalachia.

Exactly.. -- By voting to secede, the Souths legislators were admittedly violating their oaths of office to defend the US Constitution.
They had the option of fighting unconstitutional federal laws in court or by massive civil disobedience.

They chose war, and in so doing violated the rights of their dissenting fellow state citizens to live in peace.

The Constitution may be said, as southerners argued, to be a voluntary union between states. But it was also just as much a union between the men of those states. To the extent that it was the latter, secession becomes a difficult issue.

Actually, the Constitution itself notes that it was established “between the States so ratifying the same” (Article VII), and can only be lawfully amended by “three fourths” of the States (which might one day actually be inhabited by a minority of the ‘national’ population ;>). As Mr. Justice Thomas so astutely noted only a few short years ago:

“…[I]t would make no sense to speak of powers as being reserved to the undifferentiated people of the Nation as a whole, because the Constitution does not contemplate that those people will either exercise power or delegate it. The Constitution simply does not recognize any mechanism for action by the undifferentiated people of the Nation.”

Clearly, the federal union is much less a union of the undifferentiated ‘American people’ than it is a union of the several States.

;>)