Posted on 06/04/2025 9:08:26 AM PDT by MosesKnows
I assert that the Constitution is not about what the people can and cannot do; the Constitution is solely about what the government can or cannot do.
The statement challenged is that “the Constitution is solely about how the newly constituted government is to function within the enumerated powers of legislative.”
I also assert that the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments are not law. This assertion includes the 18th, 19th, 23th, 24th, and 26th Amendments.
Secession is almost always controversial and disputed. It certainly was in the case of the colonies seceding from Great Britain; King George said it was invalid and unnecessary.
Lincoln, a regional candidate, became president with 39 percent of the popular vote. He too said secession was invalid and unnecessary.
Neither the King or Lincoln recognized the provision in the DOI that reads “as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.” Per the DOI it is not up to the King to determine when “consent of the governed” can be invoked.
The South was offended by the confiscatory taxes levied on imports - - which was the repatriation of dollars generated largely from cotton state exports. If New England got fighting mad over the taxation of tea at three pennies per pound, think how the cotton states felt when northern states demanded the agrarian South fund a wildly disproportionate share of the federal budget which disproportionately benefited the northern states.
The South was offended when, after the John Brown murder raid, northern states refused to honor Article IV provisions to extradite for trial those involved with the murder raid.
The reason states joined the Union in the first place was because they understood the Constitution was for the benefit of all the states. By 1860 southern states were being denied the benefit of the bargain.
The South was unequally yoked with the northern states in the decades leading up to 1860. It is surprising the rupture didn't occur sooner.
This is known as self-dealing. Kings and dictators do this all the time.
Their actions do not even have to be superficially plausible. If the Wheeling government was the true government of Virginia, then why create something called “West Virginia”?
As an aside, both the CSA and USA had pro-slavery constitutions. Both belligerents had slave states. Before the Gulf of Tonkin Incident - - I mean the Fort Sumter Incident - - the USA had more slave states than the CSA.
After the Emancipation Proclamation one of the two belligerents added an additional slave state.
Do you know which one?
I do not believe you are correct. The first amendment restricts congress’ ability to make laws. It does not enshrine a new god-given right to the people. Where amendments recognize new rights, and we’ll use the 14th as an example, it states that congress may enact legislation supporting and clarifying that right. In the case of the 14th, it means that congress has the explicit ability to overrule the courts in their interpretation.
The amendments that explicitly grant congress the right to clarify the right remove the ability of the judiciary to overule the congress.
However, it does not remove the fact that the supreme law of the land - the constitution - has been amended to explicitly recognize a right.
His conclusory assertion is met and overcome IMO by a very thoughtful and rational justification for secession in the DOI.
Lincoln...too said secession was invalid and unnecessary.
Again, if you take the DOI as a benchmark for valid secession as I do, Lincoln was right.
The South was offended by the confiscatory taxes levied on imports
That "Tariff of Abominations" was later amended to make it more fair to the South.
By 1860 southern states were being denied the benefit of the bargain.
Very debatable. I don't see the long train (29 listed in the DOI) of abuses justifying the South's secession.
And, even though the Constitution winked at it, slavery put the South on low moral ground that was hard to defend especially in a country that was based on and professed valuing life and freedom above all.
Providing sanctuary for terrorists to launch murder raids is, in itself, a cause for war. The northern states did just that for John Brown conspirators.
As recently as 2001 the United States went to war when Afghanistan provided shelter for terrorists. See the Wiki excerpt below:
“Immediately after the 9/11 attacks, the United States National Security Council agreed that military action would probably have to be taken against Al-Qaeda and the Taliban. However, Bush decided to issue an ultimatum to the Taliban first,[120]: 54 demanding that the Taliban hand over Osama bin Laden, “close immediately every terrorist training camp, hand over every terrorist and their supporters, and give the United States full access to terrorist training camps for inspection.”[121] The same day, religious scholars met in Kabul, deciding that bin Laden should be surrendered; however, Mullah Omar decided that “turning over Osama would only be a disgrace for us and Islamic thought and belief would be a weakness”, and that the US would continue making demands after surrendering bin Laden, who he claimed was innocent.[120]: 56 The Taliban refused the ultimatum, saying that Osama bin Laden was protected by the traditional Pashtun laws of hospitality.[122][123]
“In the weeks ahead and at the beginning of the US and NATO invasion of Afghanistan, the Taliban demanded evidence of bin Laden’s guilt but subsequently offered to hand him over to a third country if the US stopped its bombing and provided evidence of his guilt.[124][125] A Bush administration official later stated that their demands were “not subject to negotiation” and that it was “time for the Taliban to act now.”[126] Covert US military action began soon after, and the War started officially on 7 October 2001.”
No state will stand by while its citizens are murdered by terrorists and while the terrorists are provided sanctuary by hostile states.
By eschewing the U.S. Constitution's requirement that fugitives be extradited (Article IV) northern states justified the South going to war.
Instead of going to war, the South invoked the provisions of the Declaration of Independence and seceded.
It is more complicated than that, but northern states providing sanctuary to terrorists in violation of the Constitution - that alone justified southern secession.
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.