Replies

The Civil War involved two issues that are legally and logically separate, but are generally conflated by most in an effort to cloud the issue. One of these is the issue of slavery. Nobody would argue today about the legal or moral legitimacy of this issue; slavery was wrong, no doubt or qualifications needed. It was tolerated because the economy of one section of the country was totally dependent on it, and the economy of the other was at least partially and indirectly dependent on it (Northern textile manufacturers relied on the supply of Southern cotton, for instance).

Slavery was not 'tolerated' in the South. It was embraced whole-heartedly and was the pillar on which their society as well as their economy rested.

The other issue is less clear cut, namely whether or not states had the right to secede. The legality and morality of this issue is really in doubt, unless you think SCOTUS decisions are the final word on all issues in perpetuity. If you do, then to be consistent you must believe that abortion is legally and morally okay since Roe v Wade said it is.

Supreme Court decisions are judgements on legality; morality is best saved for one's church. Like it or not, because of the Supreme Court abortion is legal and secession as practiced by the Southern states was not.

History is written by the victors.

And myths are written by the losers. If nothing else these Civil War threads have firmly established that.

The North won the war, so secession is illegal as a practical matter.

That is not correct. Secession itself need not be illegal. Unilateral secession as practiced by the Southern states is. Winning the war had nothing to do with that decision.

That does not change the fact that the Constitution does not give the Federal Government the power to force a state to remain in the Union.

It does give the Federal Government to power to enforce the laws and suppress rebellion.

It does state that all powers not specifically granted to the FedGov are reserved to the states or to the people.

All the states. Decisions that impact all the states should be decided by a majority of them and not just one or two.

The Civil War fundamentally changed The US. The US was never really intended to be a true nation. The true nations were Massachusetts, New York, Pennsylvania, Virginia, etc. Today there’s a good analogy to help understand the original formulation that did not exist a half century ago, namely the European Union. The EU is a group of sovereign nations that willingly gave up some of their powers for mutual benefit. The analogy with the US is exact — that was precisely what our founders had in mind. Thirteen small, relatively powerless nations quibbling amongst each other would have been easy prey for British or French domination or conquest. A Union of all cooperating for the survival of all had a chance. Think of the recent Brexit vote. That was completely analogous to the SC secession vote. Would anyone today really argue that France, Germany, Italy, Belgium, et al., would be justified in a military response to prevent the UK from seceding? If you lived in Britain, how would you react if Germany or France sent troops to your country and started seizing and destroying your property?

I've heard that claim made in various forms for years and with all due respect to your opinions I still find it ridiculous.

Then abortion is legal. We should stop debating it and save such talk for church? Are you sure you’re posting on the right website? The SCOTUS says it’s legal and morality doesn’t matter.

Yes, enforcing laws and suppression of rebellion is within the Federal purview, but the question is whether a state can legally secede or not. If so, then there’s no state of rebellion and the laws no longer apply following a secession. The matter was settled by the war as a practical matter, but that doesn’t help us judge the legality of Lincoln’s actions. His predecessor took a different view: secession is illegal, but so is Federal military action to prevent it. Even in the North, there was no widespread consensus. There was certainly a large portion of the population who favored allowing the South to leave peacefully.

That’s a funny interpretation of 10A you got there. “Reserved to the states” does not mean a majority vote. Frankly that’s a ridiculous and dangerous idea. Just about any issue can be construed as effecting all the states. Either a government is sovereign or it isn’t. It either has the authority to do something or not. A sovereign government does not need majority approval of other governments to act. Quite simply, it’s not a sovereign government if it can’t act unilaterally.

The states ARE sovereign governments. The Constitution is a compact between these sovereign governments where they agree to delegate certain powers inherent in that sovereignty to a central government. Some of these they give up entirely (enumerated powers), and some they give to the FedGov but still retain (shared powers). The Temth Amendment concerns the powers of government that are neither enumerated nor shared. Those powers belong to the state. Essentially it means that the FedGov is NOT an inherently higher authority. It is a creation of the states and only has the powers granted to it by the states. (Don’t be misled by the supremacy clause. It exists because of shared powers. Since some powers are shared, there can be conflicting laws. This clause makes Federal law applicable; it is not infdicative that states derive their authority from the Feds — the opposite is in fact true).

Obviously, for better or worse, we’ve moved away from this concept of the FedGov. That in large part occurred during the war. (The transformation was continued during the progressive era and finished by the time of the Depression and the New Deal). That doesn’t change the legal and Constitutional arguments, though. It only means that secession is dead as a practical matter.