But isn't the time to negotiate matters like that before the separation? When both sides have a chance to lay out their case and come to an equitable agreement? If one side walks away from obligations and with whatever property it wants then by what means can the other party use to bring the seceding party to the bargaining table? It has not control, no influence left. The seceding party has left, it has what it wants, and is under no obligation to make the remaining party happy.
As you'll recall, the Confederate States of America attempted to send a commission to Washington City for the express purpose of resolving amicably all fees due to the Federal government at the time of secession. This included payment for Federal lands within the Southern states, payment towards the arsenals built up by the Federal government, and the like.
They seized first, and with no mention of compensation. The commission you speak of was sent for the purpose of obtaining recognition of the confederate government. Then, and only then was there a vague offer to discuss matters of disagreement. But let's play that game. Give me your house. Then we can discuss a fair price. I'll pay it, I promise. Deal?
To answer your suggestion that the Confederacy somehow blockaded Northern states, it is clear from the Journals of the Confederate Congress that the Confederate government intended to keep the Mississippi River (and, by their intention, every other inter-state waterway) open to trade without taxes or duties at all times. The notion that somehow the South intended to cripple the North's trade is rediculous, and is completely unsupported by the historic record.
The confederacy launched this continent into the bloodiest war in it's history over a fort. Why should anyone believe that they would have hesitated for a moment to shut off shipping in the Mississippi at any time if they thought it was to their benefit.
But regardless, you have missed the point completely. Your belief that a state may secede at will means that in your opinion a state can walk away from obligations, can seize anything it wants, can take any action it wants at the expense of the remaining states and those states have absolutely no rights in the matter and no say whatsoever. The seceding state is justified in your eyes. The remaining states are in the wrong. All because of some cock-eyed concept that only seceding states are sovereign and remaining states are at their mercy. It is precisely because of issues like these that would have made the founding fathers gag at the idea of secession at will. The remaining states have no recourse except war or force. The seceding states have no obligation to protect the rights of the remaining states. I defy you to come up with a single quote that indicates that such a concept was OK in the eyes of the founding fathers. One quote at all.
I challenge you to do the same, though. Bring forth quotes from the Founders supporting your position that the Constitution trumps state Sovereignty, that States may by force coerce other states to remain in the Union, and the like. The historic record ought to be fairly clear towards the negative on those positions.
"...[t]he separate independence and individual sovereignty of the several states were never thought of by the enlightened band of patriots who framed this Declaration; the several states are not even mentioned by name in any part of it,—as if it was intended to impress this maxim on America, that our freedom and independence arose from our union, and that without it we could neither be free nor independent.” -- Charles Pinkney
"The states were not “sovereigns” in the sense contended for by some. They did not possess the peculiar features of sovereignty,—they could not make war, nor peace, nor alliances, nor treaties. Considering them as political beings, they were dumb, for they could not speak to any foreign sovereign whatever. They were deaf, for they could not hear any propositions from such sovereign. They had not even the organs or faculties of defence or offence, for they could not of themselves raise troops, or equip vessels, for war.... If the states, therefore, retained some portion of their sovereignty [after declaring independence], they had certainly divested themselves of essential portions of it." -- Rufus King.
"...[I]could not admit the doctrine that when the colonies became independent of Great Britain, they became independent also of each other....that the United Colonies were declared free and independent states, and inferring, that they were independent, not individually, but unitedly, and that they were confederated, as they were independent states.” -- James Wilson
"I say, the right of a State to annul a law of Congress, cannot be maintained but on the ground of the unalienable right of man to resist oppression; that is to say, upon the ground of revolution. I admit that there is an ultimate violent remedy, above the Constitution and in defiance of the Constitution, which may be resorted to when a revolution is to be justified. But I do not admit, that, under the Constitution and in conformity with it, there is any mode in which a State government, as a member of the Union, can interfere and stop the progress of the general government, by force of her own laws, under any circumstances whatever.... It is, Sir, the people's Constitution, the people's government, made for the people, made by the people and answerable to the people. The people of the United States have declared that this Constitution shall be the supreme law. But the State legislatures, as political bodies, however sovereign, are not yet sovereign over the people. So far as the people have given power to the general government, so far as the grant is unquestionably good, and the government held of the people, and not of the State governments. We are all agents of the same supreme power, the people. The general government and the State governments derive their authority from the same source.... If there be no power to settle such questions [constitutionality of a federal tariff], independent of either of the States, is not the whole Union a rope of sand? Are we not thrown back again, precisely, upon the old Confederation? It is too plain to be argued. Four-and Twenty interpreters of constitutional law, each with a power to decide for itself, and none with authority to bind any body else, and this constitutional law the only bond of their union!... Some authority must, therefore, necessarily exist, having the ultimate jurisdiction to fix and ascertain the interpretation of these grant, restrictions and prohibitions [with respect to the enumerated powers]. The Constitution has itself pointed out, ordained, and established that authority. How has it accomplished this great and essential end? By declaring, Sir, that "the Constitution, and the laws of the United States made in pursuance thereof, shall be the supreme law of the land, anything in the constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding." This, Sir, was the first great step. By this the supremacy of the Constitution and laws of the United States is declared. The people so will it....But who shall decide this question of interference? To whom lies the last appeal? This, Sir, the Constitution itself decides also, by declaring "that the judicial power shall extend to all cases arising under the constitution and laws of the United States." These two provisions, Sir, cover the whole ground. They are, in truth, the key-stone of the arch! With these, it is a Constitution; without them, it is a confederation." -- Daniel Webster
"But each State, having expressly parted with so many powers as to constitute, jointly with the other States, a single nation, can not, from that period, possess any right to secede, because such secession does not break a league, but destroys the unity of a nation; and any injury to that unity is not only a breach which would result from the contravention of a compact, but it is an offense against the whole Union.... Secession, like any other revolutionary act, may be morally justified by the extremity of oppression; but to call it a constitutional right is confounding the meaning of terms, and can only be done through gross error or to deceive those who are willing to assert a right, but would pause before they made a revolution or incur the penalties consequent on a failure.... Disunion by armed force is treason." -- Andrew Jackson
"The conduct of S. Carolina has called forth not only the question of nullification; but the more formidable one of secession. It is asked whether a State by resuming the sovereign form in which it entered the Union, may not of right withdraw from it at will. As this is a simple question whether a State, more that an individual, has a right to violate its engagements, it would seem that it might be safely left to answer itself. But the countenance given to the claim shows that it cannot be so lightly dismissed. The natural feelings which laudably attach the people composing a State, to its authority and importance, are at present too much excited by the unnatural feelings, with which they have been inspired against their brethren of other States, not to expose them, to the danger of being misled into erroneous views of the nature of the Union and the interest they have in it. One thing at least seems to be too clear to be questioned; that whilst a State remains within the Union it cannot withdraw its citizens from the operation of the Constitution laws of the Union. In the event of an actual secession without the Consent of the Co-States, the course to be pursued by these involves questions painful in the discussion of them. God grant that the menacing appearances, which obtruded it may not be followed by positive occurrences requiring the more painful task of deciding them/" -- James Madison.
Let me post one more Madison quote and ask you to comment on it. Madison said, "An inference from the doctrine that a single State has the right to secede at will from the rest is that the rest would have an equal right to secede from it; in other words, to turn it, against its will, out of its union with them." Is Madison right or wrong. And if you think he is wrong then why?
But isn't the time to negotiate matters like that before the separation? When both sides have a chance to lay out their case and come to an equitable agreement? If one side walks away from obligations and with whatever property it wants then by what means can the other party use to bring the seceding party to the bargaining table? It has not control, no influence left. The seceding party has left, it has what it wants, and is under no obligation to make the remaining party happy.
Even the South did not claim the right to walk away without compensating the other States for their joint liabilities. The North spurned repeated attempts to rectify the imbalance created by the separation.
I would ask you this: Was the North any more right in immediately seizing all of the arms present in the Armories in Springfield, Missouri? Was the North any more right in seizing control of the Navy Yards at Norfolk and using the ships (which, admittedly, the Southern sailors abandoned in an attempt to behave honorably - honor being the highest dictum in antebellum Southern life, as you'll recall!) against the very States which paid to build them?
They seized first, and with no mention of compensation. The commission you speak of was sent for the purpose of obtaining recognition of the confederate government. Then, and only then was there a vague offer to discuss matters of disagreement. But let's play that game. Give me your house. Then we can discuss a fair price. I'll pay it, I promise. Deal?
The Commissions granted to these men specified that their explicit purpose was to treat for the redress of the debts incurred by the South, and they were operating under strict instruction to be as liberal in seeking amends as possible.
For what justifyable reason would Washington not even consider receiving these highly-respected gentlemen?
The confederacy launched this continent into the bloodiest war in it's history over a fort. Why should anyone believe that they would have hesitated for a moment to shut off shipping in the Mississippi at any time if they thought it was to their benefit.
One could argue that the North launched this continent into the civil war, as it repeatedly stalled, lied, and manipulated events such that they could attempt to re-inforce Fort Sumter, to allow it to be used against Charleston - thus threatening to destroy the most prominent port in all of South Carolina. As I also asserted previously, none of the rivers in South Carolina connected it to any other state. Why, then, would the Federal government continue to use the Fort to threaten the city of Charleston by reinforcing that Fort, while suggesting through official channels that they would be withdrawing from it? What possible inter-state authority could the Federal Government even claim to hold over the State at that point?
It is regrettable that the South fired the first shot, yes. The Governor of that State felt sufficiently threatened by the military action coming from New York to do so, so in the minds of he and his electorate, he was justified in doing so.
But regardless, you have missed the point completely. Your belief that a state may secede at will means that in your opinion a state can walk away from obligations, can seize anything it wants, can take any action it wants at the expense of the remaining states and those states have absolutely no rights in the matter and no say whatsoever.
Have I said that? No. It is the duty of the seceeding state to attempt to honorably rectify its debts to the remaining states to the best of its ability. The fact that the States which chose to seceed were spurned in their attempts to do so speaks volumes about the true intentions (i.e., overt conquest) of the Northern states.
Could events have happened without war, had the Southern states gone through the Congress to seceed? Perhaps. I would suggest that the irrational Republicans who had just been elected to Congress and to the Executive had no such intention of working with the South in resolving their sectional dispute at all, and that the end result would still have been the same. I'll see if I can research whether or not the issue of going through the Congress to seceed was considered by the leaders of the Secession movement, but I am not aware of any background on that at the moment.
Have you researched the threats made by the Northern states to seceed in the 1830-1840 timeframe? (I have not, I'm just curious.) Did they attempt to go through the Congress?
The seceding state is justified in your eyes. The remaining states are in the wrong. All because of some cock-eyed concept that only seceding states are sovereign and remaining states are at their mercy.
Wrong. The Seceding state is Justified, in my eyes, if and only if it has suffered extreme grievances at the hands of the other States, via the General government! I would consider our present tax system to be an "extreme grievance" - An absolute horror to our Founders, who revolted against a mere 13% tax. Unfortunately, since the Declaration of Independence has been declared to be Void by the United States Army, I have no hope of EVER having my grievances addressed in my lifetime.
The remaining states have no recourse except war or force.
Why, then, did the Founders openly strike the power of enforcing laws via military force FROM the powers granted to the General government by the States via the Constitution? Why?
I would suggest that they would be more horrified by the use of extreme and brutal force to coerce other sovereign States than they would by the resumption of sovereignty implied by secession.
To alter the highlighting of one of your citations,
"The conduct of S. Carolina has called forth not only the question of nullification; but the more formidable one of secession. It is asked whether a State by resuming the sovereign form in which it entered the Union, may not of right withdraw from it at will..." -- James Madison
Madison, the Father of the Constitution, would rightfully be protective of the Government created by it. However, notice the implication that my highlight has made towards your previous arguments that the "states have no implicit Sovereignty." Do you see what the Father of the Constitution thought of your position?
Let me post one more Madison quote and ask you to comment on it. Madison said, "An inference from the doctrine that a single State has the right to secede at will from the rest is that the rest would have an equal right to secede from it; in other words, to turn it, against its will, out of its union with them." Is Madison right or wrong. And if you think he is wrong then why?
Based on that statement alone, I would suggest that Madison is incorrect (I'd love to see the context: Do you have a link?). Well, rather than being incorrect (he did write it, after all), I would suggest that he may be painting an overly-dramatic picture with the express purpose of subtly scaring the States into remaining under the provisions of the Constitution.
The ability to force a party out of a contract against its will would, by nature, be a violation of that contract, no? At least, unless that contract contained a positive clause giving the consolidated government the authority to do so?
And, by supposition, the continued abuse of one of the signatories of a contract by another signatory would free the first from being bound by that contract, would it not?
Regards,
~dt~
"...[t]he separate independence and individual sovereignty of the several states were never thought of by the enlightened band of patriots who framed this Declaration; the several states are not even mentioned by name in any part of it,—as if it was intended to impress this maxim on America, that our freedom and independence arose from our union, and that without it we could neither be free nor independent.” -- Charles Pinkney"...[I]could not admit the doctrine that when the colonies became independent of Great Britain, they became independent also of each other....that the United Colonies were declared free and independent states, and inferring, that they were independent, not individually, but unitedly, and that they were confederated, as they were independent states.” -- James Wilson
but...
Wilson and Pinkney expressed a radical nationalist vision of the constitutional design that not only deviated from the views that prevailed at the time but, despite the dissent's apparent embrace of the position, remains startling even today, see post, at 18 (quoting with approval Wilson's statement that " `the government of each state ought to be subordinate to the government of the United States' "). Alden v Maine