That at least is my reading. I don't think a state can pull a right to secede out out of the air or the "emanations and penumbras" of the 10th Amendment any more than one can pull a right to scoot away from mortgages, debts or contractual obligations of one's back pocket.
People will disagree about this. It's more a matter of readings and interpretations than of black ink on white paper. That's why it came down to war. A people can overthrow a tyrant, and arguably a country would be within its rights to cast off an ruinous treaty imposed on it. But the condition of the slave states in 1860 was very different from these cases. Moderation, prudence, good sense and a committment to processes that involved all parties were required, not emotionalism and a violent break with the Constitution.
The evidence I've seen is that the Framers of the Constitution wanted something more than a mere league of independent states, and that the rise of a national interest wasn't unwanted or unexpected. There was much freedom for the states to run their own affairs. The federal government was quite small, but nationhood was a reality and one cherished by those who had established it. They certainly didn't picture how their child would grow, but they didn't want to throttle it in the cradle. Of course there were Anti-Federalists who opposed such developments and complicated the picture.
Confederates and Unionists seem to be looking through different ends of the telescope. Confederatists seem to view the union or nation in light of today's giant federal bureaucracies. Unionists understand the sentiments of nationhood and their importance to Americans, and consider the dangers of disunity. These were very important concerns in the 19th century, though they might seem trivial now. It's because the union held that the idea of union has little appeal for us. If we were divided into many smaller countries perhaps hostile to each other, we'd have more of a feeling for the consequences of union and disunion. I don't underestimate the dangers and bad effects of bloated goverment, but the other side of the argument tends to get ignored.
ALL powers not explicitedly given to the federal government by the states, remain as powers of those states & the people.
secession was/IS lawful.
no amount of REVISIONIST, statist LIES can change that.<P.free dixie,sw
There is no need for a federal statute banning secession. Secession would violate laws requiring payment of taxes or authorizing the delivery of the mails and other federal acts…
The argument appears to be one regarding the nature of our “federal” government. Some suggest, in essence, that the most critical change embodied in the Constitution was the elimination of a single word found in Article II of the Articles of Confederation:
“Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled.”
The language is quite similar to that of the Tenth Amendment – but the amendment lacks the word “expressly.” Some therefore insist that any conceivable authority related in any way to even the most trivial of federal powers somehow ‘trumps’ any State power, no matter how important – or in effect, that the federal government was essentially delegated all powers not explicitly reserved. The lack of a single word, we are told, somehow magically transformed a federation of States into a national government. In fact, such an interpretation is directly contradicted by the records of the federal and State conventions; the ratification documents of several States; the public writings of men such as Jefferson and Madison; and the most respected legal references of the early republic. Such an interpretation also directly contradicts the language of the Tenth Amendment, and essentially renders that amendment (which was demanded by more States than was any other single element of the Bill of Rights) absolutely meaningless.
If a state can't simply void those laws at its own will, it certainly can't void the Constitution and the whole mass of laws passed pursuant to it.
Mr. Jefferson and Mr. Madison suggested that States could indeed “simply void” federal laws which were considered by the States to be unconstitutional. For example:
”…the several States composing the United States of America, are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their General Government; but that, by a compact under the style and title of a Constitution for the United States, and of amendments thereto, they constituted a General Government for special purposes, -- delegated to that government certain definite powers, reserving, each State to itself, the residuary mass of right to their own self-government; and that whensoever the General Government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force; that to this compact each State acceded as a State, and is an integral party, its co-States forming, as to itself, the other party: that the government created by this compact was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself; since that would have made its discretion, and not the Constitution, the measure of its powers; but that, as in all other cases of compact among powers having no common judge, each party has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions as of the mode and measure of redress.”
Thomas Jefferson, Kentucky Resolutions, 1798
Each State as a “party has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions as of the mode and measure of redress.”
I don't think a state can pull a right to secede out out of the air or the "emanations and penumbras" of the 10th Amendment…
The terms of the Tenth Amendment are clear. They are likely to be referred to as "emanations and penumbras" only by those interested in evading the restrictions the amendment imposes.
…any more than one can pull a right to scoot away from mortgages, debts or contractual obligations of one's back pocket.
It’s always amusing to see an advocate of essentially unlimited federal power offer an argument based on “contractual obligations.” The Constitution itself is a ‘contract,’ which defines certain “obligations:” yet parts of that contract must be completely ignored in order to reach the conclusion they advocate.
A people can overthrow a tyrant, and arguably a country would be within its rights to cast off an ruinous treaty imposed on it. But the condition of the slave states in 1860 was very different from these cases.
The question can be reduced to this: who shall determine whether a “tyrant” exists, or whether an agreement has become “ruinous?” Some insist (comically enough) that only the federal government may determine whether the States have become subject to ‘tyrannical’ or “ruinous” rule – by the same federal government! Mr. Jefferson, Mr. Madison, and others suggested that it was up to the States and their people to make that determination.
Moderation, prudence, good sense and a committment to processes that involved all parties were required, not emotionalism and a violent break with the Constitution.
Two points. First, sending a military expedition to re-supply a useless fort, contrary to the advice of nearly all of one’s advisors, especially when a similar expedition had already ended in violence, hardly qualifies as “moderation, prudence, [or] good sense.” Second, the establishment of the Confederate States of America can hardly be termed a “break with the Constitution:” the United States Constitution nowhere prohibits secession, and the seceding States subsequently adopted a Constitution that was very nearly a copy of the one that was supposedly ‘broken.’
It's more a matter of readings and interpretations than of black ink on white paper. That's why it came down to war.
Some of the “black ink on white paper” is quite explicit. The Constitution nowhere prohibits secession, nor does it claim to establish a “perpetual” union. The States of New York, Rhode Island, and Virginia explicitly reserved the right of secession when they ratified the Constitution, and their ratifications were accepted. The most respected legal references of the early republic, including Tucker’s Blackstone’s Commentaries of 1803, recognized the right of State secession. And men such as Thomas Jefferson recognized the right of secession, in writing, as well.
That is precisely why we are having this discussion. I am not a Southerner: I’ve never lived or worked in the South, nor (to the best of my knowledge) have any of my ancestors come from that region. I am, however, someone who can read – and the only conclusion consistent with the mass of historical documentation is that the secession of the Southern States was not unconstitutional.
The evidence I've seen is that the Framers of the Constitution wanted something more than a mere league of independent states, and that the rise of a national interest wasn't unwanted or unexpected.
The trouble arises when “something more than a mere league of independent states” is mysteriously transmogrified into ‘a national government of unlimited power.’ A national government was specifically debated at the federal convention – and explicitly rejected, indicating that any “national interest” subsequently established by the new Constitution was much more limited than many unionists suggest.
The federal government was quite small, but nationhood was a reality and one cherished by those who had established it. They certainly didn't picture how their child would grow, but they didn't want to throttle it in the cradle. Of course there were Anti-Federalists who opposed such developments and complicated the picture.
The bottom line is this: ratification was not a foregone conclusion, and many States might never have acceded to a Constitution that explicitly prohibited secession. Virginia and New York, as noted previously, both reserved the right of secession, in writing, in their ratification documents. What would the ‘United States’ have been without Virginia and New York? To suggest after ratification that the Constitution somehow prohibits State secession amounts to the most monumental case of ‘bait and switch’ fraud ever perpetrated in (and upon) the United States.
I don't underestimate the dangers and bad effects of bloated goverment, but the other side of the argument tends to get ignored.
As I mentioned previously, I would suggest that a strict (or ‘literal’) interpretation of the Constitution is quite applicable to the political problems we face today (and that such an interpretation is also the most ‘honest’ as well, since it is most consistent with antebellum historical documentation). Compare the liberal and conservative ‘agendas’ – which do you believe would be promoted by a strict interpretation of the Constitution? And which is best advanced by a broad interpretation – offered up by activist political appointees, serving for life, who in essence amend the Constitution at will from the federal bench?
You can't have it both ways: either the Constitution meant what it said in 1798 AND 1998 - or it means whatever federal judges say it means, no matter what the date. Is it a 'living document,' subject to the 'interpretation' of a Justice Clinton or a Justice Schumer - or does it simply mean what it says?
;>)