Not entirely. Section 10 speaks to powers prohibited to states. The fact of the matter remains that the Constitution does not say who may supend it. Since Congress was not in session and since Congress had granted the president the power to act in other areas when they were not in session if the situation required it then it's impossible to make the blanket statement that Lincoln violated the Constitution by his action.
It is a totally different concept of tossing someone out of a lifeboat against their will as opposed to someone who decides to try to swim to shore on their own accord.
Not at all. In both cases Madison refers to, the action is unilateral and without the consent of all parties impacted. Madison believed that all states are equal and are entitled to the same constitutional protections as any other. To say that only the seceding states had rights and the remaining states did not is ridiculous. As ridicuous as turning out a state against its will.
The fact that the Founders believed that the States were independent and sovereign is at the heart of the matter when it comes to secession.
I don't accept that fact because I'm not aware of any quotes from any of the founders that endorse the idea that states could secede in a unilateral manner. But regardless of what I think, wouldn't your claim lend credence to the idea that states could be expelled against their will? If states are independent and sovereign then why should they be forced to accept a state they don't want to?
They declared their independence from England as seperate and free states.
They declared their independence as 13 united colonies.
Well before the south seceded from the Union, there were many in the north who wished to secede, and it was debated over many years. Why was it not made clear by Congress then that it was unconstitutional to do so?
But never seriously and never put into action so we don't know what form their secession would have taken. And it should be noted that when there were discussions about secession in New England during the war of 1812 the most vocal opponents of the idea were the Southern states.
But if the Federal government was so sure that they were in the right, why did Jefferson Davis not get tried in a court of law for treason? If it were in fact treason, he should have been tried and if found guilty, convicted.
And you will remember that Davis was, in fact, arrested and charged with treason. And that his trial was delayed, first by the Congressional investigation into complicity in the Lincoln assasination and then until he was transferred from military to civilian control (and promptly released on bail). In any event progress towards a trial was being made when the 14th Amendment was ratified and Chief Justice Chase stated his opinion that a trial and conviction on treason charges would have violated Davis's 5th Amendment protections against double jeopardy. A few months later Andrew Johnson's Christmas Amnesty made the whole matter moot.
Do you deny categorically that the Federal government may have feared that Lincoln was wrong and that indeed there was nothing prohibiting the states from seceeding?
I do indeed. Especially in light of the 1869 Supreme Court ruling that the Southern secession was unconstitutional.
I say they saw a very strong chance that they could not prove treason, that the argument that the states could secede would possibly be held up. What does that mean for the Federal government? Very bad indeed.
I would say your arguement was flawed.
Why then did Congress grant the suspension in 1863 if Lincoln already had the right to do it himself?
Madison also said the Constitution was a compact and if the Federal government tried to claim powers that the Constitution did not grant it, then the contract was voided.
the united Colonies declared themselves free States: “That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States” The Declaration of Independence never refers to the States as United States or Colonies but as united States and united Colonies.
Davis was charged with treason and arrested for it, so why not charge him? Was there anyone in the Federal government who doubted that he was the President of the States which seceeded? Your argument is flawed, not mine. If the Feds knew they were right, they would have had him convicted in court. If treason was commited against the Constitution then by all means try the person who is being charged. No prosecutor wanted this case because it was a loser. What the Federal government won on the battlefield they could not win in court. What then, the Supreme Court declares that what the Federal government did was illegal? Instead of going down that path, come up with some weak excuse as to why you should not try a treasonous war criminal who was complicit in 600,000 deaths, massive destruction and financial ruin. There is no way you can buy the Federal governments reason for not trying Davis, it makes no sense at all. The Southern states were destroyed, not trying one man was supposed to heal the two sides? Try him, prove that secession was illegal, the debate would be ended for good. But the debate continues.