(in before the zombies!)
Posted on 01/05/2011 2:05:12 PM PST by Sherman Logan
Edited on 01/05/2011 2:07:00 PM PST by Admin Moderator. [history]
ON JAN. 16, 1861, delegates to a Georgia state convention gathered to consider whether to secede from the United States. Three days later, voting 208-89, the convention adopted an
Is the Boston Globe referring to Edward Kennedy?
Yea, that raises the level of discourse.
I am as as strong a supporter of States Rights as anybody here. I am also a strong believer that the Confederate states had every right to secede. However, I am somewhat troubled by Article 10 of the US Constitution:
“No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or COMFEDERATION(emphasis mine); grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.”
Article 10 SEEMS to negate a state’s right to rescind its ratification of the US Constitution. Yet, it allows states to accept ONLY gold and silver in payment of debts. And if these powers are denied to the states; who has the power? All in all, Article 10 is most confusing.
Once a State had given its Declaration of Intent to leave it was no longer a part of the Union, and thus no longer bound by the terms of the Compact.
-----
And if these powers are denied to the states; who has the power?
The power to grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, coin Money and emit Bills of Credit are given to the federal government in Article I, Section 8 clauses 11, 5, and 2, respectively.
Bills of Attainder, ex post facto Laws, or Laws impairing the Obligation of Contracts, and granting any Title of Nobility are denied to any State... which includes the federal government -
Bills of attainder, ex post facto laws, and laws impairing the obligation of contracts, are contrary to the first principles of the social compact
Federalist, #44, James Madison
The usual neo-Confederate response is that the states seceded, rejecting the Constitution, before they formed the Confederacy. So there was, by this line of thought, no violation of Article 10.
If you accept that secession was valid, then this line of reasoning is also valid. If not, it’s not.
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.