generic North/south confederate thread

[MrFun]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
Feel free to hold forth on any theories you may have on why those sovereign states who voluntarily associated with each other, without waiving their sovereignty, could not later choose to withdraw from that voluntary association.

Perhaps in those sections of the Constitution dealing with the several States' obligation to the United States government? Aw, shucks, there ain't no such section. Oh well, guess you're SOL.

I always thought it went against human logic that leaders would establish a government with ways for its own destruction.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Since there was no waiver or relinquishment of sovereignty, and a reservation of all powers not expressly granted to the Federal government to the states or to the people, I believe that the states had the authority to renounce ties to the United States at any time their governments so chose.

They would of course lose any benefits of that association, but nothing in the Constitution as it existed at the time makes any state subordinate to the United States, or to any collection of states, except in very narrow and precise situations which are expressly described. (Supremacy Clause, Full Faith and Credit Clause, etc.)

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by MrFun


I always thought it went against human logic that leaders would establish a government with ways for its own destruction.

Look at the Articles of Confederation.

No destruction at all. Secession, not destruction. Those states which wanted to remain associated with the Union were all welcome to do so.

[SlowwHand]

Bingo.

And Texas STILL retains the right.

[mrmitchell]

I always thought it went against human logic that leaders would establish a government with ways for its own destruction.

I always thought it was against human logic that leaders would establish a government with ways for the people to control it.

The whole point of the United States is that, unless efficiency is key, it's a national issue, or the preservation of the Union is at stake, rights increase as you go down levels--federal > state > local > citizen, each has an increase over the last (in the ideal setup.)

[mrmitchell]

or the preservation of the Union is at stake

Uh...I meant...well...from a foreign power?

[MrFun]

Originally posted by mrmitchell

I always thought it was against human logic that leaders would establish a government with ways for the people to control it.

The whole point of the United States is that, unless efficiency is key, it's a national issue, or the preservation of the Union is at stake, rights increase as you go down levels--federal > state > local > citizen, each has an increase over the last (in the ideal setup.)

Um -- historically, rights have been stronger from higher levels of government.

Various times after the Civil War, it was the various individual state governments that set up laws to disfranchise citizens -- not the federal government.

[TCO]

Originally posted by MrFun


Um -- historically, rights have been stronger from higher levels of government.

Various times after the Civil War, it was the various individual state governments that set up laws to disfranchise citizens -- not the federal government.

Read the 9th Amendment to the Constitution. It was put there for a reason.

[mrmitchell]

MrFun, I meant (and believe I said) FOR that level. Not the number of rights that level gives.

[Ned]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
Since there was no waiver or relinquishment of sovereignty, and a reservation of all powers not expressly granted to the Federal government to the states or to the people, I believe that the states had the authority to renounce ties to the United States at any time their governments so chose.

They would of course lose any benefits of that association, but nothing in the Constitution as it existed at the time makes any state subordinate to the United States, or to any collection of states, except in very narrow and precise situations which are expressly described. (Supremacy Clause, Full Faith and Credit Clause, etc.)

Your positon would make sense it the US was like an association you could join or quit. In a contract, one party cannot simply quit. There are good reasons for this.

[TCO]

I believe states should be allowed to secede. Military vessels and such should be removeable. But buildings and forts and such stay.

[Odin]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
Bingo.

And Texas STILL retains the right.

GOOD! Get out and take Shrub with you! Don't wine to us when the mexicans come to take thier land back.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by TCO
need to create another state to stay at 50. How about the UP?

How about Canadia

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by MrFun


Um -- historically, rights have been stronger from higher levels of government.

Various times after the Civil War, it was the various individual state governments that set up laws to disfranchise citizens -- not the federal government.

And the Constitution was set up expressly to allow for that, prior to the 14th Amendment, or rather, it's more expansive interpretation.

See the bit about qualification of electors? And I take it you are familiar with Dorr's Rebellion?

Prior to the 14th Amendment, it was standard, and the intent of the Constitution as revealed in the notes and meetings of the state delegations, that the Constitution would ONLY address suffrage for voting for elective Federal offices. The states themselves were free to set whatever more restrictive rules they wanted, or more relaxed rules, for election to state offices. Hence it was a radical notion that any white male of just 21 years of age, regardless of property holdings, could vote for Representatives to the Congress. That is also why the Senate was conceived as the senior body of the Congress, who would consent to treaties and Article II and Article III appointees - because the Senate would consist of more experienced and reasonable members who weren't elected on the basis of their appeal to the common rabble.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Ned


Your positon would make sense it the US was like an association you could join or quit. In a contract, one party cannot simply quit. There are good reasons for this.

The Constitution is not a contract. There are no specified remedies for non-performance of the United States, there is no on-going consideration received, and there is no obligation of the state to the United States.

And yes, one party can quit a contract by rescission.