Posted on 09/07/2010 12:43:35 PM PDT by gjmerits
“”No state has the authority to secede unilaterally.”
Which state has authority to deny secession?”
If not State has the authority to secede Unilaterally how is it that the 13 colonies manage to secede from the British empire?
You can’t support the existents of the United States and not support the causes of the Confederacy in 1861.
Just because Lincoln wanted to be the new King George and the northern States wanted to be the new British Empire doesn’t mean they had the right to. They nearly had the might to eventually(after 4 bloody years) overwhelm and enslave an independent nation less then half their size.
All Lincoln wished to do was perform his Constitutional duties. What's so oppressive about the US Constitution that it led to several states seceding even before Lincoln took office.
“I never suspected your great great great grandmother as being the Confederate who murdered my Southern ancestor in Northwest Georgia.”
It’s not murder your ancestor had invaded their home and was ransacking and raping their people. They do have the basic right to defend themselves.
Just because you had the strength to enslave a population less then half your size after 4 bloody years of war, doesn’t give you the right to declare their noble resistant to your tyranny wrong.
Face it your ancestor and My ancestor(who also fought for the union) were fighting for a tyrant.
They did terrible things in the service of that Tyrant betraying everything our country stood for.
My mom's side of the family was from Georgia, Texas, Kentucky, and West Virginia. The Georgians and Texans fought for the South, while the Kentuckians and West Virginians (except for one rather humorous exception) fought for the North.
My dad's family was still back in Germany and Russia talking about those crazy Americans fighting each other.
The humorous exception on my mom's side was my great-great-great-grandfather, William Wallace Campbell, a giant of a man who stood six feet ten inches tall and weighed around four hundred pounds. He attempted to join the Union Army alongside his brothers and cousins, but the recruiting officer told him that he'd just be shot in his first engagement, so he spent the war carrying mail back and forth between the lines. In early 1863, Confederate General John Hunt Morgan and his troopers confiscated his horse (part-Morgan, part-draft horse)for "The Cause" and gave him a mule in its place.
Jeez, not this one again. The Founding Fathers did not secede from the British Empire. They rebelled against it and had no illusions that what they were doing was illegal under British law and that they would have been hanged for it had they lost.
But one of the things about rebelling is that you roll the dice and you take your chances. Southerners won't admit that they rebelled because then they'd have to stop bitching about how unfair it was that they lost. I have no doubt that, had they won, they'd be proudly crowing about their revolution.
The constitution of the United States, then being that instrument by which the federal government hath been created; its powers defined, and limited; and the duties, and functions of its several departments prescribed; the government, thus established, may be pronounced to be a confederate republic, composed of several independent, and sovereign democratic states, united for their common defence, and security against foreign nations, and for the purposes of harmony, and mutual intercourse between each other; each state retaining an entire liberty of exercising, as it thinks proper, all those parts of its sovereignty, which are not mentioned in the constitution, or act of union, as parts that ought to be exercised in common. It is the supreme law of the land 32, and as such binding upon the federal government; the several states; and finally upon all the citizens of the United States.... It can not be controlled, or altered without the express consent of the body politic of three fourths of the states in the union, or, of the people, of an equal number of the states. To prevent the necessity of an immediate appeal to the latter, a method is pointed out, by which amendments may be proposed and ratified by the concurrent act of two thirds of both houses of congress, and three fourths of the state legislatures: but if congress should neglect to propose amendments in this way, when they may be deemed necessary, the concurrent sense of two thirds of the state legislatures may enforce congress to call a convention, the amendments proposed by which, when ratified by the conventions of three fourths of the states, become valid, as a part of the constitution. In either mode, the assent of the body politic of the states, is necessary, either to complete, or to originate the measure 33.
Excerpted from:
Which was THE book that every student at every school of law in the country studied to learn their craft until the late 1850's
Is there any wonder why so few today have ever even heard of St. George Tucker?
Thank you!
Thanks for the personal story. I love to hear such family stories. They add a lot to the discussion as "big history" is just the summation of a lot of personal stories. And I think this connection with and respect for the past gives even heated discussions over here a much higher plane than the PC broad brush Civil War rantings one might read on a site like Democratic Underground.
Couldn't agree w/you more:) Every time a poster indicates unilateral secession isn't authorized, I wonder....what entity are they thinking has supreme authority over any of the sovereign states?! Do they think a particular state, or group of states, has the right to direct the affairs of another sovereign state? I think not!
Just because Lincoln wanted to be the new King George and the northern States wanted to be the new British Empire doesn’t mean they had the right to.
I applaud your statement! And since Lincoln accomplished his diabolical goal, look what we have now.
My great-uncle Gordon used to have the original letter that Mogan had left with the mule in the stable, but I’m not sure what has happened to it now that he has passed away (about two years ago). I don’t know his side of the family too well, so I’m not sure who to ask.
“All Lincoln wished to do was perform his Constitutional duties. What’s so oppressive about the US Constitution that it led to several states seceding even before Lincoln took office.”
I don’t know perhaps you should ask Lincoln when he couldn’t bring himself to allow the south to leave in peace but instead had to insist upon his right to rule them without their consent to be governed.
No where in the Constitution does it mention secession or revolution, and technically that fact alone should be enough for you to know its a right reserved to the people and their states.
The Constitution but the reason why it is unmentioned is because as the 13 colonies declared and demonstrated on July the 4th 1776 such is an inalterable and unceedable right of the people.
To place it in the constitution is to imply that you could amend the document as to give up such a basic right. But such a right cannot be given up no matter what because such a right is so intrinsically to the very existents of any free people!
The Union, like any government, exist only for the mutually shared benefit of its members. So its members have not a reason to leave until such time that it is no longer mutually beneficial and has in fact become abusive to them.
This is something only they(each minority individually and separately) can decide. For in a union where the majority be the abuser what reason does the majority have to give up their subject? Why would they with power admit to their own abuses of power to justification the loss of their own power?
Unilateral secession, is the only useful form of secession which protects the rights of the individual and the minority.
There are many things that are funny about the north’s arguement that the south was mearly attempying to protect slavery. Just as there are things that are a bit funny about the argument that secession was the only way to preserve slavery.
Indeed secession would only accomplish one thing for the south, separate themselves from the taxation, law making, and spending powers welded by the northern majorities.
It would not and could not preserve slavery, it would only firmly relieved the north of their (ignored and resisted) constitutional obligation to return escaped slaves. Thus accelerating the death of slavery in the south.
Where does the Constitution say that? If not in the Constitution, under what precedent of common law could you say that? The Constitution contains within it a process for expansion to additional states, amendment of itself, and even the wholesale replacement of itself... but none for secession. Does a governor have the right to secede? Do the legislatures? 50%+1? What state Constitution discusses the means of secession?
The federalist papers sought to allay fears of an oppressive, federal government, even discussing the 2nd amendment as a failsafe against tyranny. Yet do any of them mention an ability to secede, or incorporate the right to bear arms to a state as against the union?
Now, many neoconfederates claim the Virginia and New York constitutions specifically allow for secession.:
[W]hen any government shall be found inadequate or contrary to these purposes, a majority of the community hath an indubitable, inalienable, and indefeasible right to reform, alter, or abolish it, in such manner as shall be judged most conducive to the public weal.But this Constitution was passed prior to the U.S. Constitution. This passage has nothing to do with secession at all; nor has it anything to do with the principle of secession, for the same state Constitution prohibits the establishment of any other law, independent from the Commonwealth, within the territory of the Commonwealth.
Also note the inherent contradiction of citing this passage for secession: The passage states that when the government is contrary to just purposes, the community has the right to reform, alter or abolish it. There's no mention of the community severing itself, because, indeed, the government to which it refers is that of the entire community; any severable smaller division of government is a minority of that community.
Spot on, Bigun! Another excerpt from St. George Tucker:
The federal government, then, appears to be the organ through which the united republics communicate with foreign nations, and with each other. Their submission to its operation is voluntary: its councils, its sovereignty is an emanation from theirs, not a flame by which they have been consumed, nor a vortex in which they are swallowed up. Each is still a perfect state, still sovereign, still independent, and still capable, should the occasion require, to resume the exercise of its functions, as such, in the most unlimited extent.
dangus - To what entity does the Constitution grant the authority to force a sovereign state to remain in the Union?
>> The question is if consent of the Governed is a basic requirement of a government then how is it that a mere 3/4th of the States can impose new government upon the remaining 1/4th unless that 1/4th had reserved the right to leave should the choice of 3/4th be so unpalatable to them as to warrant sacrifice the benefits of union. The same benefits which drove them to join the union in the first place <<
Is it a plausible assertion that 3/4ths of the nation could impose a constitutional amendment so odious to the inframinority (the opposite of a supermajority), aware of just how odious it was, that the inframinority might have no recourse other than severing themselves from that tyrannical supermajority, but yet would recognize an implied right of secession by such a people to whom they’ve chosen such tyranny over? If there had been a constitutional right to secession, plainly spelled out, would not the supermajority not also rescind that right, over the opposition of the inframinority?
The founding fathers considered the difficulty in getting a 2/3rds supermajority in both houses, and a 3/4ths majority of the states ample defense against capricious alterations to the Constitution that would be so unfair to an inframinority as to justify secession.
“It’s not a core principle of democracy...it’s a core principle of freedom.”
LOL Yankees aren’t concerned with anything so trivial as freedom - They want a nanny state government to provide for their every need.
Great post.
I have to say that this entire debate has been fascinating me. It is very similar to the typical libertarian vs. conservative debate in many ways.
I would place those defending the confederate democrats as the libertarians and those defending the union republicans as the conservatives.
Those arguing for secession rights claim to not be arguing for democracy but claim instead that they stand for freedom but I do not see it that way at all. The confederate democrats were arguing for ‘mob rules’ over the ‘rule of law’. They seem to think that it is a right to overthrow the Constitution by simply gaining a majority in a state. (Yet it was already agreed that it took ¾ of the states to amend the Constitution) They even argue that this state right gave them the right to enslave human beings.
Arguments like this are typical to libertarians. They think that the definition of freedom includes the right to trample upon the rights of others through backhanded moral methods when they can gain mob rules in a state. They preach for their right to make legal prostitution, drug addiction, and a host of other activity to enslave human beings.
The successors of the confederate democrats were the progressive democrats. The common link between these two was the KKK. But it also known that libertarians have no problem marching hand in hand with the Marxist progressive democrats, as they have done since they officially founded the libertarian party in the early 70’s. Libertarians and progressive Marxists may not be completely aligned in ideology but morally they are two peas in pod.
So it is no surprise to me that it is a libertarian argument that defends the confederacy and slavery still today.
No it is the confederate democrat that is arguing for a ‘mob rules’ form of demcoracy and not for freedom. You ignore the ‘rule of law’ (the Constitution) in favor of some sort of ‘outlaw’ style fantasy of freedom.
You are not arguing for the Constitution but for your right to do away with it.
>> To what entity does the Constitution grant the authority to force a sovereign state to remain in the Union? <<
Oh come on, that’s easy. Article 1, Section 8:
“The Congress shall have Power ... to provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, [and] suppress Insurrections...”
So, if some unilateral secessions are legal, how does Congress distinguish between legitimate secessions, and insurrections? Does the state legislature have to act? If so, is a simple majority enough? Two thirds? Or must the secession be ratified by a majority of the public? Can the governor just announce a secession? What if the legislature secedes, misreading the public mood, and is thrown out in the next election? Is the state SOL? What if the vast majority of part of the state votes for secession, but other parts don’t want to secede? Can the state be split? Is the standards for secession uniform, or do they vary from state to state? What if opposing factions within a state come to different conclusions as to whether secession took place? Can the federal government step in? Would its courts have any jurisdiction? Must it permit any insurrection that claims legitimacy, or can it lend its force to the faction which would remain the union?
Believe me they are just making it up as they go along. There are no legal standards for their claims of secession rights. This is the typical libertarian attitude towards rights. They always seem to believe that they can invent rights out of thin air.
That doesn't answer my question. To what entity does the Constitution grant the authority to force a sovereign state to remain in the Union? Secession is not a declaration of war nor does it constitute insurrection. Secession is the act of withdrawing from an organization, union, or a political entity.
“The Congress shall have Power ... to provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, [and] suppress Insurrections...”
Problem with A1S8 in this context is that Congress didn't call forth the Militia, Lincoln did. The constitution grants that power to the legislative branch, not the executive, thus Lincoln's acts were unconstitutional.
You raise several valid questions and I'll be happy to answer them, as best I can, but have got to head to bed for tonight.
Look forward to chatting tomorrow:)
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.