This is my flag, see if you can figure it out:
Posted on 01/19/2021 4:38:09 PM PST by rfreedom4u
Many people have stated that secession is illegal and not allowed as determined by the American Civil War. But is it really? Throughout the history of the United States our government has supported the independence/secession of states/territories/colonies from various other nations.
Haiti seceded from the French empire through a slave revolt. South Sudan broke from Sudan. Yugoslavia broke into several countries and later Kosovo seceded from Serbia. Czechoslovakia split into two countries. The Soviet split into quite a few countries. The UK left the European Union. And many others….
So why do people say secession is illegal in the United States? There’s nothing in the US Constitution that mentions secession. The Tenth Amendment states “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” Using my logic this means that since the issue of secession is not given to the federal government it is reserved to the states or the people themselves to determine. I’ve read the constitution of my own state (Texas) and secession is not mentioned at all. This even furthers my belief that is should be determined by the people.
If I were to join a club and did not like what the club became, I would be well within my rights to quit that club. If I go to see a movie and don’t like it, I can walk out. So why would anyone believe that the United States is a “once you’re in you can’t leave” type of deal? When someone doesn’t like the state in which they live they are free to move to another state or even another country.
If secession/independence/splitting up is supported for other people in the world why is it not ok for citizens of the United States? And yes, I know that politicians are garbage and want to maintain their power and control. So please give me your opinion on whether it is legal or not and why you think that way? But please spare me the “if it’s broke, we don’t run away, we fix it” argument. At this point I am fairly certain that it is not repairable.
[BroJoeK]: Right, that was the Founder's definition of the kinds of "necessity" which compelled them in 1776 to issue their Declaration of Independence.
Perhaps BroJoeK forgets what ratifiers of the Constitution said about what was necessary to resume their own governance in their ratification documents [my bold below]:
New York: "That the Powers of Government may be resumed by the People, whensoever it shall become necessary to their Happiness;..." [Link 1]Rhode Islands: "That the powers of government may be reassumed by the people, whensoever it shall become necessary to their happiness:" [Link 2]
windsorknot above refers to the Virginia ratification.
Isn't it odd, BroJoeK, that Madison, Hamilton, and Jay, the three authors of the Federalist Papers that explained the Constitution to the public, voted for their state ratifications of the Constitution that said their state could resume or reassume their own governance.
The New York ratification also included a statement very similar to the Tenth Amendment, an amendment that was later proposed to the Congress by Madison (who said that the Constitution already means this, but it doesn't hurt to add it). The Tenth Amendment was ratified by the states and became part of the Constitution. Here is what New York said in their ratification document (the words below weren't a proposed amendment in their ratification document, it was a statement in that ratification of what the Constitution meant):
"that every Power, Jurisdiction and right, which is not by the said Constitution clearly delegated to the Congress of the United States, or the departments of the Government thereof, remains to the People of the several States, or to their respective State Governments to whom they may have granted the same"
South Carolina cited the Tenth Amendment in their causes for secession in 1860. Virginia cited their ratification document in their 1861 secession.
This is my flag, see if you can figure it out:
No, and you quoted exactly what I was referring to, the word "necessary" as in, "When in the course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another..."
Our Declaration of Independence is all about necessity -- the necessity of disunion brought about by a "...long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government."
So our Founders listed a parade of horribles, about two dozen items in their Declaration which had made disunion necessary.
And the Virginia ratification statement specifically referred to that list, saying:
Every other form of disunion, secession or other unilateral breakup they considered nothing but rebellion, insurrection, domestic violence, invasion and/or treason, and any of those they confronted & defeated.
That is exactly what the seceding states did in 1860-61. NY and RI had defined what was necessary under the Constitution for them to resume their own powers of governance, did they not? The other states accepted those ratifications at the time. Or, perhaps you can show me where those particular ratification statements were not accepted by the other states at the time. All states have the same powers in that regard as any other state.
In fact, as I have pointed out a number of times on FR before, a majority of the 13 original colonies either reserved the right to resume/reassume their own governance or proposed a Tenth Amendment like statement that basically meant the same thing.
As Senator Jefferson Davis pointed out in the Senate in January, 1861:
...the tenth amendment of the Constitution declared that all which had not been delegated was reserved to the States or to the people. Now, I ask where among the delegated grants to the Federal Government do you find any power to coerce a state; where among the provisions of the Constitution do you find any prohibition on the part of a State to withdraw; and if you find neither one nor the other, must not this power be in that great depository, the reserved rights of the States? How was it ever taken out of that source of all power to the Federal Government? It was not delegated to the Federal Government; it was not prohibited to the States; it necessarily remains, then, among the reserved powers of the States.
In 1776 the colonies were breaking away from a government whose king did not allow them to break away. The colonies pointed out why they were breaking away. Some of the states did the same in 1860-61 by listing reasons they thought necessary for them to secede. Some of the states put the question of secession directly to their voters, who were the sovereign voice of the state. That clearly showed that the voters of those states were happier out of the Union, than in it, a-la the "necessary" statements of the NY and RI ratifications. But apparently their 1860-61 secessions did not meet your personal supra-constitutional requirements for secession where you get to define what is necessary.
The reasons for separation were different from those of 1776. Different situation. Apparently you think the states were still colonies trying to break away from the Union under the future King Lincoln. Instead, they were doing what their reserved powers under the Constitution allowed them to do. Or don't you believe in the Tenth Amendment?
So our Founders believed in and practiced disunion from necessity as in 1776.
They also believed in "secession" at pleasure if, and only if, by mutual consent, as in 1788.
The Constitution does not, and never did, prohibit secession, but the Tenth Amendment, which is also part of the Constitution, does allow it. The Tenth Amendment was added to the Constitution because a majority of the thirteen original colonies wanted a safeguard to peacefully get out of what was then a new experimental Union if it became oppressive or no longer in their interest to stay in it. They wanted to retain some of the same rights states individually held before the Constitution.
Why did some Republicans, at least twice - in 1860 and 1861 - propose Amendments to the Constitution that would require acceptance by the central government or other states before a state could secede. They knew that without such amendments that states could secede without permission. The seceding states did not need the permission of the states that might be oppressing them by sectional aggrandizement or by nullifications of the Fugitive Slave Act.
We see once again your interpretation that secession from the Union formed by the Constitution had to have a long list of grievances against the government, other states, etc. Madison, the same guy who proposed the Tenth Amendment, had earlier said "Each State, in ratifying the Constitution, is considered as a sovereign body, independent of all others, and only to be bound by its own voluntary act." Federalist Papers #39.
If Texas or any other state secedes, and the US does nothing to stop it, it’s legal.
Sorry, but it's not about me, or even about you, it is about what our Founders intended for their Constitution.
If you claim to be conservative, then it's about their definitions of "necessity" and "mutual consent", not yours, or even Jefferson Davis'.
As you well know, the best explanation I can find is Madison's letter, here.
Parts of that letter have been quoted on these threads many, many times.
In it Madison makes the case against secession at pleasure:
So, when did political conditions more resemble those of 1776 "necessity" (requiring no mutual consent) and when of 1788 "at pleasure" -- which did require mutual consent?
"If a dissolution of the Union must take place, let it be so!
If civil war, which gentlemen so much threaten, must come, I can only say, let it come!"
— Representative James Tallmadge Jr. of New York:"
Nobody in 1820 said there was an unlimited "right to secession" over slavery without civil war.
"John Calhoun, if you secede from my nation, I will secede your head from the rest of your body."
President Jackson's 1832 proclamation on Nullification.
Nor did either of Presidents Buchanan or Lincoln in 1861.
rustbucket: "Why did some Republicans, at least twice - in 1860 and 1861 - propose Amendments to the Constitution that would require acceptance by the central government or other states before a state could secede.
They knew that without such amendments that states could secede without permission.
The seceding states did not need the permission of the states that might be oppressing them by sectional aggrandizement or by nullifications of the Fugitive Slave Act."
The truth is that before the November 1860 election, there were no negative conditions that any Southern state considered "secession-worthy".
It was only with the constitutional election of Lincoln's "Black Republicans" that some Southerners suddenly cried, "OMG, we just can't stand this any more!"
And yet, literally nothing had changed, in November 1860 Southern Democrats still ruled in Washington, DC, as they had for nearly all of the previous 60 years.
That is the very definition of secession "at pleasure".
As for proposed constitutional amendments and "compromises" intended to preserve the Union: there were many such in 1860 & 1861.
None were considered necessary or viable enough to become law.
“The Yankee, and even the Thomas Freeborn has a big cannon on it.”
You have made this assertion many times over the years.
Yet you have never been able to prove the contention that the civilian owned contract steam tugs were armed with cannon. You offered up a photo taken in 1863 of Yankee with a 32 pounder on her deck. That was a long time after Sumter. Once the tugs were purchased by the U.S. Navy, they were armed. But that was after the Fort Sumter mission ended.
I am citing what the ratifiers of the Constitution said was necessary to resume/reassume their own powers of government under the Constitution. You, on the other hand, are applying what was said in 1776 to the Constitution, which did not exist at that point.
1776 was more than 20 years before there was a Constitution, and in the interim the country had seen what worked poorly in the government under the Articles of Confederation. The Articles began to be drafted shortly after the Declaration of Independence. The founders of the 1776 period did a poor job of setting up a central government under the Articles. So, 20 years later a convention in Philadelphia drafted the Constitution to fix the problems the Articles had caused. States then individually and separately ratified the Constitution. In ratifying it, they defined what was necessary to reassume/resume their own governance under the Constitution, which was not what others said or might have intended in 1776.
[You quoting Madison in 1830 in a letter to Trist]: "The compact can only be dissolved by the consent of the other parties, or by usurpations or abuses of power justly having that effect.
It will hardly be contended that there is anything in the terms or nature of the compact, authorizing a party to dissolve it at pleasure."
Who is it that gets to decide if there have been usurpations or abuses of power, the states doing the abusing or the states that have been abused? Your answer would seem to be, 'the states doing the abusing.'
Here, from another 1830 letter by Madison [Madison to Hurlbut], is another Madison statement:
"But whatever respect may be thought due to the intention of the Convention, which prepared & proposed the Constitution, as presumptive evidence of the general understanding at the time of the language used, it must be kept in mind that the only authoritative intentions were those of the people of the States, as expressed thro' the Conventions which ratified the Constitution.
So, here is what Madison said in the 1788 Virginia ratifying convention:
"An observation fell from a gentleman, on the same side with myself, which deserves to be attended to. If we be dissatisfied with the national government, if we should choose to renounce it, this is an additional safeguard to our defence."
What about Jay and Hamilton (Madison's coauthors of the Federalist Papers) and the majority of the other New York ratifiers who voted in their ratification convention for the statement:
"That the Powers of Government may be resumed by the People, whensoever it shall become necessary to their Happiness"
And the New Yorkers followed up such statements by declaring in their ratification document:
Under these impressions and declaring that the rights aforesaid [rustbucket: like the "necessary for their happiness" statement] cannot be abridged or violated, and that the Explanations aforesaid are consistent with the said Constitution, ... We the said Delegates, in the Name and in the behalf of the People of the State of New York Do by these presents Assent to and Ratify the said Constitution.
Madison had earlier made his own statement about happiness in his Federalist Paper #45:
"Were the plan of the [Philadelphia] convention adverse to the public happiness, my voice would be, Reject the plan. Were the Union itself inconsistent with the public happiness, it would be, Abolish the Union.
You contend that after Sumter, they quickly reinforced the decks to carry the weight of a cannon, and maybe this is true, but at this point it is not unreasonable to think the Thomas Freeborn had a cannon on it prior to the Sumter Mission.
You also overlook the fact that the Confederate intel said there would be more ships than this coming, The Brooklyn being one of them, but at the time the Confederates had no real way of knowing exactly what sort of force Lincoln was sending.
What they did know with certainty is that a number of armed warships were coming, and they meant business.
If your read Beauregard's account of the Sumter incident, it is clear he expected not only a larger naval force, but invasions by marines and infantry that never manifested.
Lincoln's goal was to create the illusion of a force attacking the Confederates to goad the Confederates into starting the war, while at the same time convince the people up in the North that it was a "peaceful mission" with no belligerent intent.
It's like the same sort of lying we see today, like in the Keystone pipeline farce. They are claiming "environmentalism", while their intent is to make sure Warren Buffet keeps making that $30.00 per barrel he gets shipping that oil through his railroad.
Sorry to contradict, but 1787-1776 = 11 years.
Ratification in 1789 would be 13 years.
“You contend that after Sumter, they quickly reinforced the decks to carry the weight of a cannon, and maybe this is true, but at this point it is not unreasonable to think the Thomas Freeborn had a cannon on it prior to the Sumter Mission.”
Not only do you have to reinforce the deck to support a 7,000 pound gun, you have to reinforce the bulkheads to absorb the recoil and you have to add a few tons of ballast below the waterline to compensate for the increased weight on the main deck. In addition they would have to construct a magazine for the safe storage of gun powder. The work could be done in a Navy Yard in a week or so. After Sumter, a week in the navy yard then on to operations late in April or early in May.
“Lincoln’s goal was to create the illusion of a force attacking the Confederates to goad the Confederates into starting the war, while at the same time convince the people up in the North that it was a “peaceful mission” with no belligerent intent.”
If Lincoln’s goal was to create an illusion of a force attacking the Confederates, why did he send Pickens a telegram stating that force would be used only if the Confederates resisted the reprovision of the Fort, that no guns or men would be landed. Why did Welles tell Mercer in his orders that if the Confederates allowed the peaceful resupply of the for with provisions, the war ships were to return to their ports. Why did Cameron tell Fox that the objective was to resupply the fort with provisions, force to be used only if the resisted the resupply effort. Strange Confederate intelligence learned an armada with marines and infantry was on the way, but none of the confederate agents in the War or Navy Departments picked up on the orders issued to the officers carrying out the mission.
None of this would make a difference anyway. Davis was not going to allow Sumter to be resupplied by anyone. If a troop of Girl Scouts showed up in open canoes carrying provisions for Sumter he would have ordered Beauregard to reduce the fort before the Girl Scouts could paddle their canoes into Charleston Harbor.
Wait. The gun has wheels on it. Doesn't it roll backwards, and therefore not much recoil is transmitted to the bulkheads? I think they use ropes to keep it from rolling too far, and the ropes have some springiness to them, so I don't know about reinforcing the bulkheads being a needful thing.
Ballast yes, but that ought to be fairly straightforward.
If Lincoln’s goal was to create an illusion of a force attacking the Confederates, why did he send Pickens a telegram stating that force would be used only if the Confederates resisted the reprovision of the Fort, that no guns or men would be landed.
Political cover for his "Peaceful Mission" illusion for the Northern side. The confederates weren't going to believe a d@mn thing he said after that attempted trick with the Brooklyn and the Star of the West.
Also they had been assured over and over that the fort would be turned over peacefully, and they wake up one morning with cannon carriages burning at Fort Moultrie and an apparently hostile force holding the cannons overlooking their city.
They weren't going to trust him, and indeed, Beauregard believed there was going to be an invasion force.
Why did Cameron tell Fox that the objective was to resupply the fort with provisions, force to be used only if the resisted the resupply effort.
You mention Fox, and the Confederates let him consult with Major Anderson only because Fox lied to them. By the time of the Charleston expedition, they had learned that Fox had lied to them, so it was more proof the Washington Government could not be trusted.
Strange Confederate intelligence learned an armada with marines and infantry was on the way, but none of the confederate agents in the War or Navy Departments picked up on the orders issued to the officers carrying out the mission.
They certainly picked up on the official orders, and they probably had some inkling of Lincoln's unofficial orders because they certainly expected a bigger force than what arrived. In my looking up information about the buildup to the civil war, I ran across a telegram message sent in March from Washington DC to the Confederates telling them that a build up of ships was underway, and to expect it.
This was before any official orders of which I have so far seen.
None of this would make a difference anyway. Davis was not going to allow Sumter to be resupplied by anyone.
A quibble here. Sumter was never "supplied" in the first place. There was no official orders to place anyone there, and so there was never any "supplies" there to begin with.
This makes it impossible to "resupply" a place that had never been "supplied". :)
And no, Davis was never going to consent to the placement of a potentially hostile foreign force at the entrance of one of their most important ports, especially after Northern newspapers had already called for the guns of Sumter to be turned on Charleston.
“Wait. The gun has wheels on it. Doesn’t it roll backwards, and therefore not much recoil is transmitted to the bulkheads? I think they use ropes to keep it from rolling too far, and the ropes have some springiness to them, so I don’t know about reinforcing the bulkheads being a needful thing.”
The gun tackle limits recoil using line, blocks & the strength of the gunwales to limit the backward motion of the gun, so that it can be brought back into battery as quickly as possible. Yes, the gunwales have to be strengthened to absorb the recoil of a 32 pounder.
“Ballast yes, but that ought to be fairly straightforward.”
Not really, how much room is available in the bilges & voids for the required weight. Can they use rocks, or does the space require lead ingots. What has to be done to secure the ballast to prevent it from moving with the roll and pitch of the ship. Not really straightforward.”
“Star of the West.” Not Lincoln’s project.
“they had been assured over and over that the fort would be turned over peacefully,”
When did the President of the United States assure the Confederate Government that Sumter would be turned over to them?
“probably had some inkling of Lincoln’s unofficial orders”
What would those orders have been?
“This makes it impossible to “resupply” a place that had never been “supplied”.
The Fort had been supplied when Anderson occupied it. He brought some guns and as much food as he could carry to support the troops in the Fort as long as possible.
After a while most of the provisions had been eaten up.
Lincoln’s plan was to provide rations for some months.
That was the objective of the mission.
Davis would not allow that to happen under any circumstance. He knew Anderson would surrender the fort rather than allow his troops to starve. Hence, Davis would allow absolutely no resupply of the fort. It didn’t make a difference if Lincoln had sent the entire U.S. Navy or a Girl Scout Troop in canoes to Sumter, he would authorize Beauregard to reduce the fort before he would allow any food into Sumter. The political pressure from South Carolina and the other Confederate States pretty much locked him into that action. Even if Davis had allowed the Fort to be reprovisioned, that would only kick the can a little further down the road.
The same porblem would arise in a couple of months. No, it really made not difference what Lincoln did, Davis would allow no resupply of Sumter under any circumstance.
No, I'm simply drawing a clear distinction between "secession" by necessity as in the 1776 Declaration of Independence versus "secession" at pleasure as in 1788, with ratification of the new Constitution and simultaneous "secession" from the old Articles of Confederation.
Our Founders believed in, and practiced "secession", "disunion", "withdrawal" or rebellion-against (under whatever name) by necessity in 1776, when they listed about two dozen different reasons, including:
Our Founders also believed in and practiced "secession", disunion, etc., at pleasure, but then only by mutual consent, such as in their 1788 ratifications for their new Constitution.
In that particular case they defined "mutual consent" as 3/4 approval by state ratifying conventions.
And in every case of "secession", rebellion, etc., which our Founders confronted which did not qualify as either "necessity" or "at pleasure by mutual consent", our Founders opposed & defeated those efforts -- see, for example, my post #286, which lists some of those.
rustbucket: "In ratifying it, they defined what was necessary to reassume/resume their own governance under the Constitution, which was not what others said or might have intended in 1776."
But in every case they referred to what was "necessary" or to the actual conditions of 1776, "injury or oppression".
No Founder ever claimed an unlimited "right of secession" at pleasure.
rustbucket: "Who is it that gets to decide if there have been usurpations or abuses of power, the states doing the abusing or the states that have been abused?
Your answer would seem to be, 'the states doing the abusing.'"
That's nonsense, anybody can claim anything, but if there's no material evidence to support such claims, then they are dismissed out of hand.
And that was the case in all the examples I listed in post #286 above, and I could have listed more -- from the 1794 Whiskey Rebellion to the 1857 Mormon Rebellion.
Our Founders did not tolerate unfounded claims of "injury or oppression".
And what about 1860?
In 1860 Southern Democrats had ruled in Washington almost continuously for 60 years -- since the election of 1800.
As recently as 1856 they had elected majorities in both houses of congress, the Presidency and Supreme Court resulting in: lower tariffs of 1857, the SCOTUS (9-2) Dred Scott ruling protecting slavery, RE Lee sent to defeat "Indian savages" and Mexican "banditti" in Texas, Southern commanders against the Mormon Rebellion and over the US Paraguay Expedition (1858), a majority of Southerners in Buchanan's cabinet and Buchanan administration support for the Kansas pro-slavery Lecompton Constitution.
In short, as of 1860 Southerners had no reasons to complain about Washington, DC, because they ruled it.
And yet in November 1860 they began organizing for secession -- what changed?
Answer -- nothing changed, except the election of Lincoln's "Black Republicans" who had not yet even taken office.
That is the very definition of "at pleasure", and no Founder ever proposed or supported unilateral declarations of secession "at pleasure".
rustbucket: "So, here is what Madison said in the 1788 Virginia ratifying convention: "An observation fell from a gentleman, on the same side with myself, which deserves to be attended to.
I think that alleged quote is disputed and was never later acknowledged by Madison himself.
If we be dissatisfied with the national government, if we should choose to renounce it, this is an additional safeguard to our defence."
The word here used is "dissatisfied", only one step removed from "annoyed by" or "in disagreement with", suggesting any minor dispute might result in secession -- Madison never agreed to that, but maintained the clear distinction between "necessity" and "at pleasure".
rustbucket quoting NY: "That the Powers of Government may be resumed by the People, whensoever it shall become necessary to their Happiness"
Again, the key word here is "necessary", the opposite of "at pleasure".
rustbucket quoting Madison Federalist #46: "Were the plan of the [Philadelphia] convention adverse to the public happiness, my voice would be, Reject the plan.
Were the Union itself inconsistent with the public happiness, it would be, Abolish the Union."
Right, Madison is here talking about voting & mutual consent, not unilateral unapproved declarations of secession at pleasure, which no Founder ever proposed or supported.
I suppose you guys know that, of the three tugs intended for Lincoln's resupply fleet to Fort Sumter, only one, Yankee ever arrived, and that was after the battle was over.
Of the others, Uncle Ben was somehow seized by Confederates in Wilmington -- thus suggesting it was not, after all, armed.
Thomas Freeborn never sailed, thus its status as armed or not-armed is irrelevant.
The only armed Union ship near the mouth of Charleston Harbor when the Confederate assault on Fort Sumter began was the small Revenue Cutter Harriet Lane.
It (she?) was 730 tons, with six naval guns and a crew of 95.
Of course, all that is irrelevant since the Confederate government's decision to assault Fort Sumter was made several days earlier, on receipt of Lincoln's message to SC Gov. Pickens, announcing Lincoln's resupply mission, and advising Pickens that no force would be used if Confederates did not first resist.
So the size & configuration of Lincoln's fleet had nothing to do with it, rather it was Lincoln's message, intended to be peaceful, which triggered Confederates to start Civil War.
The dissenters were Curtis (Massachusetts) and McLean (Ohio), the only two Republicans on the court.
The six concurring justices were all Democrats, two each from from GA & PA, one each from VA & NY.
The two Georgia justices concurred fully with Crazy Roger Taney, while the other four concurrences came with their own (much briefer) opinions.
True, but it still shows a willingness of the Washington DC government to lie and misrepresent their intentions.
When did the President of the United States assure the Confederate Government that Sumter would be turned over to them?
So far as I can tell, the President never did such a thing directly, but people who could presumably speak on the topic of the government's intentions certainly told them this. The Secretary of War under Buchanan had told them they would get the forts. The National Republican newspaper also said they would get the forts and they were considered to be the party mouth organ for that time period.
The official who was speaking to the delegates certainly led them to believe they were going to get the forts.
What would those orders have been?
The order given to Captain Mercer of the Powhatan was revealed and we have a record of it. The secret orders given to Lieutenant Porter have never again seen the light of day, but we can surmise from his behavior after having opened them what his orders were.
His actions had the effect of paralyzing the Charleston mission and insuring that it would never actually engage the confederates to the contradiction of the officially known orders of the expedition.
His belligerent acts upon reaching Pensacola also indicate that he apparently had carte blanche to start a war with the Confederates in Pensacola.
The Fort had been supplied when Anderson occupied it. He brought some guns and as much food as he could carry to support the troops in the Fort as long as possible.
That material was supplied to fort Moultrie. Nothing was supplied to fort Sumter, because the fort was still under construction when Anderson seized it from the workers.
Lincoln’s plan was to provide rations for some months. That was the objective of the mission.
Along with soldiers, munitions and various other capabilities of war. The idea that they loaded up the Baltic with soldiers with the intentions of simply sailing it back to New York is silly.
They loaded it up with soldiers to give the appearance that they intended to place those soldiers in the fort.
The force in Fort Sumter had no actual mission themselves, other than to force a confrontation with the Confederates over a fort which was absolutely useless to the Washington DC government.
Bookmark
Ah, you are wavering a bit. Good.
"... whensoever it shall become necessary to their Happiness" covers a lot of things. When a state seceded in 1860-61 and, in a number of cases, put the question of secession directly to their voters, it was clear that the voters were unhappy with being in the Union. They weren't happy remaining in the Union for the various reasons/causes their state gave. That was all that was necessary for them.
You have been asserting for years that the Southern state's reasons or causes for secession were equivalent to "at pleasure." That is your personal opinion.
You cite a 1776 reason as an example of what you consider necessary: "He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people." The English king did that to America in the 1770s-1783s. Lincoln did that to the South in the 1860s to coerce them back into the Union. Lincoln said on several occasions to different people that he wouldn't seek peace with the South, he needed the revenue.
This all reminds me of what Hamilton, (you know - one of the other authors of the Federalist Papers who voted for New York's "necessary for their happiness" statement) said in the New York ratification convention (my bold below):
It has been well observed, that to coerce the States is one of the maddest projects that was ever devised. A failure of compliance will never be confined to a single State. This being the case, can we suppose it wise to hazard a civil war? Suppose Massachusetts or any large State should refuse, and Congress should attempt to compel them, would not they have influence to procure assistance, especially from those States which are in the same situation as themselves? What picture does this present to our view? A complying State at war with a non-complying State; Congress marching the troops of one State into the bosom of another; this State collecting auxiliaries, and forming, perhaps, a majority against its federal head. Here is a nation at war with itself! Can any reasonable man be well disposed towards a Government which makes war and carnage the only means of supporting itself -- a Government that can exist only by the sword? Every such war must involve the innocent with the guilty. This single consideration should be sufficient to dispose every peaceable citizen against such a Government.
Prescient, that Hamilton. Nice guy, that Lincoln, causing 600,000 to 700,000 deaths in the war so that he could have revenue and protect the Northern economy from those rascally seceding states that in February 1861 had decided to use basically the same tariff as the United States. Except the United States in March 1861 raised their own tariff substantially, the Morrill Tariff. This meant that importers would probably divert a substantial amount of imports to the South, depriving the Lincoln government of needed tariff income.
Why not just rescind the Morrill Tariff, like Lincoln's Treasury Secretary suggested? Couldn't do that. Lincoln had run on a platform of increased tariff protection (Plank 12) for Northern manufacturers.
As you know, the Constitution does not outlaw secession. I have already argued that the Tenth Amendment, which is part of the Constitution, does give the states the rights they had before the Constitution. One of those rights they had before the Constitution was the right to secede, as they did by individually and independently leaving the government under the Articles to join the proposed government under the Constitution. Except two states drug their feet and for a while were treated by the new government as foreign nations.
In Post 281 above, I cited Tenth Amendment-like wording in the New York ratification document. That was not one of the amendments New York proposed. Instead, it was a statement of what the Constitution meant that could not be "abridged or violated" (my post 288). I will provide New York's Tenth Amendment-like statement again so that it and other similar statements can be in this one post:
"that every Power, Jurisdiction and right, which is not by the said Constitution clearly delegated to the Congress of the United States, or the departments of the Government thereof, remains to the People of the several States, or to their respective State Governments to whom they may have granted the same"
And here is Rhode Island's version of the Tenth, which like New York's, was asserted to be, "Under these impressions, and declaring, that the rights aforesaid cannot be abridged or violated, and that the explanations aforesaid, are consistent with the said constitution"
"That the rights of the States respectively, to nominate and appoint all State Officers, and every other power, jurisdiction and right, which is not by the said constitution clearly delegated to the Congress of the United States or to the departments of government thereof, remain to the people of the several states, or their respective State Governments to whom they may have granted the same;"
Here were proposed Tenth Amendment-like statements in the ratifications of four other states and a minority report from a fifth state:
South Carolina: "This Convention doth also declare, that no section or paragraph of the said Constitution warrants a construction that the states do not retain every power not expressly relinquished by them, and vested in the general government of the Union.
North Carolina proposed amendment: "1. That each state in the Union shall respectively retain every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Constitution delegated to the Congress of the United States, or to the departments of the federal government."
Massachusetts proposed amendment: "First, That it be explicitly declared that all Powers not expressly delegated by the aforesaid Constitution are reserved to the several States to be by them exercised."
New Hampshire proposed amendment: "I. That it be explicitly declared that all powers not expressly and particularly delegated by the aforesaid Constitution, are reserved to the several States, to be by them exercised."
And the minority report of the Pennsylvania ratification convention Link”: “That the sovereignty, freedom, and independency of the several states shall be retained, and every power, jurisdiction, and right which is not by this constitution expressly delegated to the United States in Congress assembled.”
There were six states that made Tenth Amendment-like statements; seven if you include Pennsylvania's minority report. Or if you count the three states that included resume/reassume their own powers of governance statements (NY, RI, VA) plus the four other states (SC, MA, NC, NH) that had Tenth Amendment-like statements, that is a majority of the original 13 states.
Interestingly, the states where there were substantial numbers of anti-federalists had long discussions pro and con about the Constitution. These were the states whose minutes of their ratifying conventions were preserved. States that voted unanimously to ratify the Constitution either did not keep minutes or the minutes were lost long ago. Those states had very short ratifying documents that basically said, we ratify the Constitution.
Thank heavens for the anti-federalists – because of them we have the Bill of Rights.
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.