But I want to get to the more interesting part of your post. In response to my suggestion that, in order to possibly avoid a war which claimed hundreds of thousands of American lives, South Carolina might have submitted its "secession" theory to either the Congress or the Supreme Court, you replied:
Are you suggesting that every time a State considers an action that is nowhere mentioned in the Constitution, and that is not even prohibited by federal law, that the State should ‘submit’ the matter to Congress? Or are you suggesting the State should ‘submit’ such matters to the Supreme Court? Which is it? It’s not surprising that you seem unable to decide between the two, given the fact that neither process is mentioned in the Constitution itself - quite the contrary, in fact, given the words of the Tenth Amendment. In any case, I guess we should not be surprised that both of your proposals represent extra-constitutional expansions of federal power...
Given the horrendous consequences that followed quickly upon the declarations of "secession," that is really a remarkable answer. Once again, we differ. I think that the southern politicians should have set aside their paranoia about the imminent loss of slavery and invested some time in presenting their "secession" theory to the Congress and/or the Supreme Court. President Jefferson found a way to purchase Louisiana and I suspect that the political branches of our Federal government would have likewise been able to consider possible ways for a state to withdraw from the Union, even it required a constitutional amendment pursuant to Article V. As either an alternative or as a supplement to those efforts, South Carolina might have attempted to present its "secession" theory to the Supreme Court pursuant to Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution. Nothing but some time would have been lost by these efforts and they might very well have saved hundreds of thousands of lives.
The southern politicians must have considered these alternatives, but instead they chose to act unilaterally and to disregard the interests of the people of the United States, the other states and the government of the United States. I think it's pretty clear that they chose the unilateral route because they knew that they couldn't even sell their "secession" theory to a Supreme Court which had just recently proven itself to be friendly to their interests.
I have no doubt that history will continue to condemn these southern politicians for their total incompetency. And, to make it all the worse, they took every possible opportunity to make it very clear (so that no one would ever forget) that it was all to protect the institution of slavery, an institution that any competent politician would have known was, in the long run, on the wrong side of history.
And in that regard these southern politicians did succeed. Most of us will never forget either the ends that they sought or the crackpot means by which they attempted to achieve those ends.
Let’s see – Article VII declares that ratification shall be by “the Conventions of nine States” (not a national convention), James Madison states unequivocally that the Constitution would be ratified by “the people, as forming so many independent States, not as forming one aggregate nation,” and one of the current high court justices goes so far as to observe that:
“ The ultimate source of the Constitution's authority is the consent of the people of each individual State, not the consent of the undifferentiated people of the Nation as a whole... it [makes] no sense to speak of powers as being reserved to the undifferentiated people of the Nation as a whole, because the Constitution does not contemplate that those people will either exercise power or delegate it. The Constitution simply does not recognize any mechanism for action by the undifferentiated people of the Nation...”
If you don't begin to recognize simple historical fact, “you'll remain hopelessly lost.”
Given the horrendous consequences that followed quickly upon the declarations of "secession," that is really a remarkable answer. Once again, we differ. I think that the southern politicians should have set aside their paranoia about the imminent loss of slavery and invested some time in presenting their "secession" theory to the Congress and/or the Supreme Court.
I repeat: “Which is it?... Are you suggesting that every time a State considers an action that is nowhere mentioned in the Constitution, and that is not even prohibited by federal law, that the State should ‘submit’ the matter to Congress? Or are you suggesting the State should ‘submit’ such matters to the Supreme Court? It’s not surprising that you seem unable to decide between the two, given the fact that neither process is mentioned in the Constitution itself...”
You argue that secession is unconstitutional – if so, that would make the non-seceding States, or perhaps (on their behalf) the federal government, the injured party in the event of secession. Can you tell us why not even one of the supposedly injured parties took your advice, and presented their ‘secession-is-unconstitutional’ “theory to the Congress and/or the Supreme Court?” Hmm? You complain of “the horrendous consequences:” care to tell us how many Americans were killed during the eviction of federal troops from Fort Sumter? In short, why didn’t the supposedly injured parties seek peaceful resolution before hostilities had produced even a single casualty?
The recent comments of Professor William Gienapp of Harvard University provide one likely answer:
”The proponents of secession had a strong constitutional argument, probably a stronger argument than the nationalists advanced.”
...South Carolina might have attempted to present its "secession" theory to the Supreme Court pursuant to Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution. Nothing but some time would have been lost by these efforts and they might very well have saved hundreds of thousands of lives.
Apparently you really are “suggesting that every time a State considers an action that is nowhere mentioned in the Constitution, and that is not even prohibited by federal law, that the State should ‘submit’ the matter to Congress” or the federal Court! How nice! Once again, can you tell us why not a single one of the supposedly injured parties pursued a peaceful resolution? Perhaps you should review the history of the Confederate peace commission in Washington...
The southern politicians must have considered these alternatives, but instead they chose to act unilaterally and to disregard the interests of the people of the United States, the other states and the government of the United States.
Actually, “[federal] politicians [briefly, if not seriously] considered [peaceful] alternatives, but instead they chose to act [militarily] and to disregard the [Constitution and the] interests of the people of the United States, the other states and the government of the United States.”
I think it's pretty clear that they chose the unilateral route because they knew that they couldn't even sell their "secession" theory to a Supreme Court which had just recently proven itself to be friendly to their interests. I have no doubt that history will continue to condemn these southern politicians for their total incompetency.
“I think it’s pretty clear?” “I have no doubt?” Undocumented opinions such as yours are really quite amusing...
;>)
And, to make it all the worse, they took every possible opportunity to make it very clear (so that no one would ever forget) that it was all to protect the institution of slavery, an institution that any competent politician would have known was, in the long run, on the wrong side of history.
As I previously observed:
”Those who find themselves unable to prove secession unconstitutional inevitably play the ‘slavery card.’”
What you can not justify legally, you apparently attempt to justify morally. Since you are determined to discuss the matter, perhaps you will answer a few questions:
1) Which Congress, North or South, passed a proposed constitutional amendment in March, 1861, that would have permanently enshrined slavery within that country’s Constitution?
2) Which President, North or South, literally endorsed (signed) that amendment?
3) Which President, North or South, proposed a constitutional amendment in December, 1862, that would have protected the institution of slavery until the end of the century?
4) Which Congress, North or South, defeated a proposed abolition amendment in June, 1864 – less than a year before the end of the war?
5) When was the federal Constitution finally amended to abolish slavery – before, or after, the war ended?
Even your moral arguments are grounded in hypocrisy...
And in that regard these southern politicians did succeed. Most of us will never forget either the ends that they sought or the crackpot means by which they attempted to achieve those ends.
Here’s a simple question for you:
”Should our government be bound by law, or by morality?”
I suspect those who read your response (assuming you provide one) will judge for themselves whether it is “crackpot” – or simply hypocritical...
;>)