When the southern politicians declared their "secessions," they intended to deprive the U.S. government of all powers within the territorial limits of the seceding states, including those powers (e.g., the power to operate a postal service) that are delegated to the United States. And that is why their declarations of secession could find no support in the Tenth Amendment.
As regards your quote from Mr. Rawles (a U.S. Attorney in Pennsylvania) I am not surprised that someone in the 1820's should have such a view. As I mentioned in post 247, the seeds for this notion of a "disunion" or "scission" (later called "secession") were being sowed as early as the 1790's. In that regard, you might look into the Thomas Jefferson (then Vice-President) - John Taylor correspondence in the summer and fall of 1798 regarding what could be done about the excesses of the Federalists then controlling Congress. And look into Jefferson's then secret role in the preparation of the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions.
But the long and the short of it is that none of these writings or conversations serve as a substitute for the terms of the Constitution itself. My understanding is that there were also numerous Northern newspaper editors who found no constitutional problem with secession. And if you're just looking for people who will say that the constitution does not forbid a state from unilaterally seceding from the Union, you don't have to look any further than some of the posts on this thread. The problem is that none of this is a substitution for the Constitution itself.
And I say that neither slavery nor "secession" has any current following in this country is because it just doesn't. Not in the north, not in the south, not in the east and not in the west.
You better look to the Southwest then. There's rumblings out there from the Hispanic population about setting up the Northern Republic or something. A couple of professors have written some papers about it and done a study or two. They have less of an argument than the Essex boys in the 1810s did, but hey I'd be curious to see if they try it in the next 40 years (at least that's their plan)
Your argument is simple: it is also nonsensical. You insist that a State may not leave the union, simply because such action would interfere with federal powers that are applicable only within States that are within the union. If your irrational argument were true, then the very establishment of the United States Constitution was invalid, simply because such action interfered “with the United State's power to operate a postal service.” Or are you unfamiliar with the following clause from the Articles of Confederation?
“The United States in Congress assembled shall also have the sole and exclusive right and power of ... establishing or regulating post offices from one State to another, throughout all the United States...”
Note the language: “all the United States.” How many States were there – 9 or 13? Establishing a new Constitution between only nine ratifying States would “interfere with the United State's power” to establish “post offices...throughout all [13 of] the United States,” would it not? Will you insist that the establishment of the Constitution in 1788 invalid? Or will you admit that States may ‘formally withdraw’ from a union of States (becoming ex-member States ;>), even if such withdrawal ‘interferes’ with the ability of the central government to exercise its delegated ‘powers’ within member States?
Thank you for the post, by the way – I enjoy highlighting the many contradictions inherent in the ‘secession-is-unconstitutional’ argument...
;>)
As regards your quote from Mr. Rawles (a U.S. Attorney in Pennsylvania) I am not surprised that someone in the 1820's should have such a view. As I mentioned in post 247, the seeds for this notion of a "disunion" or "scission" (later called "secession") were being sowed as early as the 1790's.
“Not surprised?” Let’s review your words:
“...(I)t was the desire to protect slavery that motivated the southern politicians to invent the ‘secession’ argument.”
Congratulations – you have proved you know how to ‘backpedal’...
In that regard, you might look into the Thomas Jefferson (then Vice-President) - John Taylor correspondence in the summer and fall of 1798 regarding what could be done about the excesses of the Federalists then controlling Congress. And look into Jefferson's then secret role in the preparation of the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions.
I quote Mr. Jefferson and Mr. Taylor repeatedly, and at length. Their statements do not appear to support your position.
;>)
But the long and the short of it is that none of these writings or conversations serve as a substitute for the terms of the Constitution itself. My understanding is that there were also numerous Northern newspaper editors who found no constitutional problem with secession. And if you're just looking for people who will say that the constitution does not forbid a state from unilaterally seceding from the Union, you don't have to look any further than some of the posts on this thread. The problem is that none of this is a substitution for the Constitution itself.
Actually, I would suggest that your fallacious arguments are no “substitution for the Constitution itself” – which, despite your pleadings, nowhere prohibits secession.
And I say that neither slavery nor "secession" has any current following in this country is because it just doesn't. Not in the north, not in the south, not in the east and not in the west.
I have addressed these points previously, in Post #278. Allow me to refresh your memory:
Those who find themselves unable to prove secession unconstitutional inevitably play the ‘slavery card.’
And:
Are you suggesting that the meaning of the Constitution is determined by popular opinion? Hmm?
;>)