This Day In Civil War History - May 23rd

[wideawake]

But how did they differ from the Confederates, who essentially followed the same guidelines and principles established a mere 80-90 years earlier?

I explained the difference to you earlier in post 25.

Recall, slavery was Constitutional, so one cannot condemn them for defending their Constitutional rights

The Confederacy did not secede because the federal government threatened their legal privilege of owning slaves. President-elect Lincoln was very clear on this point.

The Confederacy seceded because the South no longer had enough seats in Congress to prevent a Congressional majority from refusing to admit any new slave states.

Some people say that the Civil War was not about slavery - they are only half-right: the Civil War was about the South's frustration at not being electorally able to expand slavery beyond the South's borders.

Which underlines my original point: the colonists were denied their basic right to representation. The King of Great Britain held his throne pursuant to an act of Parliament - an act of Parliament that conditioned the King's jurisdiction upon his agreement to maintain representative government. The King violated his obligation to allow the colonists representative government and when the colonists formally sought redress from King and Parliament, both entities conspired against the colonists to deny them the basic rights that the whole post-1688 government of Great Britain was built upon.

The federal government jealously guarded all of the rights of Southerners and even extended to them special privileges other Americans did not have - the right to count non-citizens as citizens in their territories for electoral purposes, in order to give them almost 50% more Congressional representatives than they would have merited if they had been allotted on the basis of citizen population alone.

The colonists were insisting on their most basic rights.

The Confederates were upset that they were not given their own special privilege of vetoing any constitutionally-passed legislation they didn't like.

[Non-Sequitur]

A legal contract is a legal contract.

The Constitution is more than that.

If you wish, I can make an analogy regarding a marriage contract, a corporate partnership contract, a real estate contract, contracted services or goods contract, another Constitution, etc. etc, .....

You can dredge up any analogy you wish. But the one common feature in all those are that to end it requires legal procedings. The South walked out. So they unilaterally voided the contract, abandonded the marriage, stole the property, repudiated contracted obligations, etc., etc., ....

What did the Constitution say about the Powers not specifically prohibited by the Constitution or prohibited by Federal law?

Nothing. The word 'expressly' or 'specifically' is found nowhere in the Constitution, and nothing in the Constitution says that only those powers explicitly listed are allowed. As the Supreme Court found in McCulloch v. Maryland, "...there is no phrase in the (Constitution) which, like the Articles of Confederation, excludes incidental or implied powers and which requires that everything granted shall be expressly and minutely described." Chief Justice Marshall goes on, "Even the 10th Amendment, which was framed for the purpose of quieting the excessive jealousies which had been excited, omits the word "expressly," and declares only that the powers "not delegated to the United States, nor prohibited to the States, are reserved to the States or to the people," thus leaving the question whether the particular power which may become the subject of contest has been delegated to the one Government, or prohibited to the other, to depend on a fair construction of the whole instrument." And it is for good reason. In your world the entire U.S. Air Force is an illegal organization because the Constitution specifically allows for the funding of an army and a navy only. And the reason for omitting the restriction is clear, "A Constitution, to contain an accurate detail of all the subdivisions of which its great powers will admit, and of all the means by which they may be carried into execution, would partake of the prolixity of a legal code, and could scarcely be embraced by the human mind. It would probably never be understood by the public. Its nature, therefore, requires that only its great outlines should be marked, its important objects designated, and the minor ingredients which compose those objects be deduced from the nature of the objects themselves."

The Constitution gives Congress the sole power to admit a state to the Union. To, in effect, create the state in the first place. Once in Congressional approval is required for any change of status - combining, splitting in two, changing borders by a fraction of an inch. It doesn't take a lot to deduce from all this that Congressional approval is needed to leave entirely. So clearly the ability to leave the Union unilaterally is a power prohibited to the states.

Very true. That was something that was not guaranteed by the Tenth Amendment and the matter of property was handled atrociously by both side. The matter was certainly not worth the lives of 600,000 Americans.

Apparently Jeff Davis thought it was.

For a way to do it without killing hundreds of thousands, refer to the 1997 Partition Treaty of the Soviet Fleet between Ukraine and Russia.

If you wish. I'll begin by pointing out that the treaty was negotiated between two sovereign nations. So I suggest that you back up a bit to the meeting in 1991 when the leaders of Russia, Ukraine, and Belarus all met and negotiated the separation and the creation of the independent states. Note the difference between the creation of the Ukraine and the creation of the confederacy. In the first case there were discussions between all the impacted parties before independence. In the second case the confederacy they just walked out. In the first case the ownership of federal property was negotiated and agreed to ahead of time. In the second case the confederacy took what they wanted. In the first case all issues that had the potential to cause problems were worked out ahead of time. In the second case the confederacy walked out without discussion. So in the first case the separation was done in a manner to ensure a fair, equitable, and peaceful separation. In the second case the confederacy chose a path guaranteed to cause conflict.

[wideawake]

In the second case the confederacy chose a path guaranteed to cause conflict.

Excellent analysis.

One of the myths of the Ciovil War was that the Confederacy simply wanted "to be let alone."

The cause of the split was the refusal of the federal government to allow the expansion of slavery to the federal territories.

If the Confederacy merely wanted peace and to be let alone, then it would have been agreeing to the permanent exclusion of slavery from the federal territories. In other words, secession was pointless unless the South designed to take federal territories by force.

And they moved to do exactly that before the ink was dry on the Confederate Constitution.

The purpose of secession was always war - the decision to seize illegally by force what could not be seized legally through the ballot box.

[rockrr]

Well, since the sports metaphor didn’t work out so well, when do you suppose they’ll trot out the Divorce dodge?

[Non-Sequitur]

Read reply 59 again. He made the offer.

[rockrr]

You’re right of course....I hadn’t read that far along yet...;’}

[Polybius]

The Constitution is not a contract.

Do you notice the pattern?

You will nit-pick about the fact that I used the word "contract" but you avoid, at all costs, the clear wording of the Tenth Amendment.

You don't want analogies between the U.S. Constitution and contracts?

Fine. Let's make an analogy between Constitutions and Constitutions.

Is secession mentioned in the European Union Constitution?

Yes. It is specifically addressed in Article I-60. The European Constitution, unlike the U.S. Constitution in 1860, is NOT SILENT about the issue of secession.

Can you tell us what secession is?,

It is, among other things, a "Power". No matter how much you tap-dance around the motives or intent or justifications or yadda, yadda, yadda, secession is a "Power".

In regards to "Powers", either you have them or you don't.

Does the U.S. Constitution specifically mention "Powers"?

Yes, it does.

Is secession a Power that is even mentioned in the U.S. Constitution or was forbidden by Federal law in 1861?

No.

What does the U.S. Constitution specifically say about Powers not mentioned in the Constitution or forbidden to the States by Federal law?

I have mentioned it several times now: secession is a state's claim of jurisdictional supremacy over its land. Secession has no other purpose - it has no meaning at all - unless it means to assert jurisdictional supremacy. The Constitution plainly says that it is the law of the land. Whether one wants to assign the name of "secession" or "sovereign separation" or "doingourownthingism" or "Fred" to the act of claiming a jurisdictional supremacy which is contrary to the Constitution, it is still unconstitutional.

By your convoluted sophistry, it is impossible for the European Union to now have any jurisdiction over its member States while, at the same time, have the Power of secession specifically reserved as a Power of each member State.

Your sophistry does not meet the test of the Real World.

The fact remains that you can build word castles until the cows come home but you cannot deny that the U.S. Constitution WAS SILENT on the subject of secession in 1860, you cannot deny that no Federal law mentioned secession in 1860 and you cannot deny that the Tenth Amendment reads as follows:

As the pattern of these Civil War threads goes, you will simply re-post your same argument in different words but you will not be able to deny that the U.S. Constitution WAS SILENT on the subject of secession in 1860, you cannot deny that no Federal law mentioned secession in 1860 and you cannot deny that the Tenth Amendment reads as follows:

[Polybius]

Well, since the sports metaphor didn’t work out so well, when do you suppose they’ll trot out the Divorce dodge?

Actually, the sports metaphor worked out just fine and was fully justified in Post 59.

If you prefer the Constitution metaphor, that worked out just fine also and was fully justified in Post 67.

Totally ignoring the clear wording of the Tenth Amendment at all costs does not make the Tenth Amendment go away.

By ignoring the clear language of the Tenth Amendment, you can certainly prove the fact that the plain English of the Constitution can be and frequently is circumvented by sophistry and/or a blind eye but you are doing absolutely nothing else.

[Non-Sequitur]

Totally ignoring the clear wording of the Tenth Amendment at all costs does not make the Tenth Amendment go away.

I ignore nothing. It is you who look at the amendment and find words like 'explicit' and 'specific' where they don;t appear. The amendment merely says that powers not delegated to the United States or prohibited to the states are reserved for the states or the people. Well, the power to admit a state and to approve changes in its status once admitted are powers delegated to the United States. The power to take unilateral action which may impact the interests and well-being of other states are powers prohibited to the states. It's all very clear. Unilateral secession is a power prohibited to the states. As the Supreme Court found.

By ignoring the clear language of the Tenth Amendment, you can certainly prove the fact that the plain English of the Constitution can be and frequently is circumvented by sophistry and/or a blind eye but you are doing absolutely nothing else.

And by inserting words that do not exist into the Constitution you also subvert its meaning.

[Polybius]

Totally ignoring the clear wording of the Tenth Amendment at all costs does not make the Tenth Amendment go away.

I ignore nothing. It is you who look at the amendment and find words like 'explicit' and 'specific' where they don;t appear.

Actually, Non-Sequitur, a "word search" for the word "explicit" shows that you, not I, used that word.

As for the word "specific", if you object to it, it can be removed without any change in meaning:

"What did the Constitution say about the Powers not specifically prohibited by the Constitution or prohibited by Federal law?"

The amendment merely says that powers not delegated to the United States or prohibited to the states are reserved for the states or the people. Well, the power to admit a state and to approve changes in its status once admitted are powers delegated to the United States.

Your search - "approve changes in its status", Constitution - did not match any documents.

In regards to the Tenth Amendment, the only thing you do NOT ignore are your own inventions regarding the English language.

A textbook used at West Point before the Civil War, A View of the Constitution, written by Judge William Rawle, states, "The secession of a State depends on the will of the people of such a State." .

**********

Did you get that?

A constitutional law textbook (published in 1829 by an abolitionist Chancellor of the Philadelphia Bar) used at WEST POINT before the Civil War:

William Rawle (1759-1836) --- Member of the Pennsylvania Assembly --- U.S. District Attorney for Pennsylvania --- Secretary of the Library Company of Philadelphia --- Chancellor of the Philadelphia Bar --- First President of the Historical Society of Pennsylvania --- Abolitionist

************

A View of the Constitution, written by Judge William Rawle ... CHAPTER XXXII. .... OF THE PERMANENCE OF THE UNION. ... The secession of a state from the Union depends on the will of the people of such state. The people alone as we have already seen, bold the power to alter their constitution. The Constitution of the United States is to a certain extent, incorporated into the constitutions or the several states by the act of the people. The state legislatures have only to perform certain organical operations in respect to it. To withdraw from the Union comes not within the general scope of their delegated authority. There must be an express pro- vision to that effect inserted in the state constitutions. This is not at present the case with any of them, and it would perhaps be impolitic to confide it to them. A matter so momentous, ought not to be entrusted to those who would have it in their power to exercise it lightly and precipitately upon sudden dissatisfaction, or causeless jealousy, perhaps against the interests and the wishes of a majority of their constituents. .... But in any manner by which a secession is to take place, nothing is more certain than that the act should be deliberate, clear, and unequivocal. The perspicuity and solemnity of the original obligation require correspondent qualities in its dissolution. The powers of the general government cannot be defeated or impaired by an ambiguous or implied secession on the part of the state, although a secession may perhaps be conditional. The people of the state may have some reasons to complain in respect to acts of the general government, they may in such cases invest some of their own officers with the power of negotiation, and may declare an absolute secession in case of their failure. Still, however, the secession must in such case be distinctly and peremptorily declared to take place on that event, and in such case — as in the case of an unconditional secession, — the previous ligament with the Union, would be legitimately and fairly destroyed. But in either case the people is the only moving power.

*********

The Rawle Reading Room At Temple University Law Library ... The Rawle Reading Room houses a law library created by William Rawle and his descendants from 1783 through 1860, representing the collections of four generations of outstanding Philadelphia lawyers. This library was created at a time when there were no institutional law libraries in this country. .... One such book is A View of the Constitution of the United States of America, authored by William Rawle, an early work in the field of American constitutional law which was adopted as a textbook at West Point and other institutions.

*********

Rawle, William. A View of the Constitution of the United States of America. Second Edition. Philadelphia: Philip H. Nicklin, 1829.

[Michael.SF.]

The Confederates were upset that they were not given their own special privilege of vetoing any constitutionally-passed legislation they didn't like.

So in other words the Confederates felt that the government was no longer responsive to their needs as a people?

[Colonel Kangaroo]

So in other words the Confederates felt that the government was no longer responsive to their needs as a people?

I'm not sure that the need to get one's way in every matter is a legitimate need that a government must fulfill. Republican government presupposes a degree of political maturity and restraint which the Confederates lacked in 1860-61.

[wideawake]

So in other words the Confederates felt that the government was no longer responsive to their needs as a people?

The South "felt the US was no longer responsive to their needs as a people"?

Is this an episode of Oprah?

The Constitution is about law, not feelings.

The US guaranteed the rights of its Southern citizens to the fullest extent of the law.

[wideawake]

you avoid, at all costs, the clear wording of the Tenth Amendment

I have addressed it directly, more than once.

To reiterate: jurisdictional supremacy is expressly reserved to the federal government in Article VI, therefore the states do not have any power under the Tenth Amendment or any other part of the Constitution to assert jurisidictional supremacy in any way.

Is secession mentioned in the European Union Constitution?

Who cares? Secession is forbidden under Article VI of our Constitution - which clearly states that the Constitution, and not acts of the state legislatures, is the supreme law of the land.

It is, among other things, a "Power".

Secession is not a "power" - it is an act. The power that is conferred by the act of secession is that of jurisdictional supremacy - i.e. this particular geography used to be under the jurisdictional authority of one government but is now, following an act of secession, under the jurisdictional authority of another government.

This power of jurisdictional supremacy conferred by secession is not a power the states have reserved under the US Constitution, since supremacy is reserved to the federal government under Article VI.

Is secession a Power that is even mentioned in the U.S. Constitution

The power of supremacy is mentioned, and as long as a government is possessed of the power of supremacy secession cannot be legal. It would be a contradiction in terms.

By your convoluted sophistry, it is impossible for the European Union to now have any jurisdiction over its member States while, at the same time, have the Power of secession specifically reserved as a Power of each member State.

Not at all. The EU - according to its Constitution - has a conditional jurisidiction over its member states, a jurisdiction which is legally revocable.

The US - according to its Constitution - has a supreme jurisdiction which is not revocable.

Your sophistry does not meet the test of the Real World.

In the real world, the illegal insurrection of the so-called Confederacy was put down by the Constitutionally-designated supreme jurisidictional authority - according to the power explicitly granted to it to suppress insurrections.

As the self-styled president of that Confederacy himself admitted, the insurrection he led "died of a theory." Secession was a fantasy that died when it was attempted in the real world.

The fact remains that you can build word castles until the cows come home but you cannot deny that the U.S. Constitution WAS SILENT on the subject of secession in 1860

You keep repeating this over and over. Whether you want to call it "secession" or "self-annexation" or "nullification" or what have you, the supremacy clause of the Constitution forbids any government other than the federal to assert jurisdictional supremacy anywhere in America.

Period.

Giving it a fancy name does not change the fact that it is an unconstitutional derogation from the supremacy of jurisdiction expressly guranteed to the federal government in Article VI of the Constitution.

Because this authority is expressly guaranteed to the federal government, the Tenth Amendment simply does not apply.

you will simply re-post your same argument in different words

As long as you repeat the specious argument that a government can simultaneously possess supremacy and yet not possess supremacy, I will have to rely again and again upon the fundamental building block of all logic: the principle of contradiction.

A government cannot be both supreme and not supreme at the same time.

[Michael.SF.]

The Constitution is about law, not feelings.

You might want to reread the preamble.

[Michael.SF.]

Republican government presupposes a degree of political maturity and restraint which the Confederates lacked

Yup, dem Southern boys just aint ready fur such a sofisticated a thing as that there constatoosion is thay?

[wideawake]

You might want to reread the preamble.

The preamble is a statement of the intent of the people ordaining the Constitution.

None of the enunciated purposes is emotional.

They are:

(1) To form a Union more effective than the one provided by the preceding Articles Of Confederation.

(2) Establish a uniform system of justice.

(3) Put an end to conflicts between one state and its fellow state.

(4) Create an effective military defense.

(5) Promote prosperity.

(6) Ensure that basic rights are guaranteed now and in future.

Nothing in there about feeling loved.

[Michael.SF.]

Nothing in there about feeling loved.

Cut the condescending BS.

You are the one that made the incorrect assumption that my use of the word "felt" equated to Oprahesque type sensitivity.

A more correct definition or a substituted phrase would have been: "were of the opinion". or "believed".

I note that you were selective in your dicussion of the preamble and left one thing out. How convenient to your cause.

[wideawake]

If you meant "beliefs" instead of "feelings" then you should have written "believed."

left one thing out

Which was?

[rockrr]

I would note that this is your characterization. Is that really your perception of southerners?