Slavery Museum - Bad Idea?

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
BTW, just cuz Texas' Constitution says it has the right to secede don't make it so. Florida's Constitution could say, "All people in the State of Florida are blue," that doesn't make it so. State constitutions do not supercede the Federal Constitution (or reality).

The question of "right of the states to secede" was settled by force of arms. The secessionists lost. States cannot secede.

I moat deffinitely agree

Jon Miller

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Chris 62
The 10th Amendment (1791) is the final amendment in the BILL OF RIGHTS of the U.S. CONSTITUTION. It provides that those powers not delegated to the federal government by the Constitution nor prohibited to the states are reserved to the states or to the people. The main purpose of the amendment was to counter fears that the new national government would trespass on the authority of the states.

Although the amendment does not enumerate these reserved powers, traditionally they have included internal matters such as local government, education, and regulation of commerce, labor, and business within the state, as well as such matters as marriage, divorce, inheritance, and related family concerns. The states also share certain powers with the federal government, such as establishing courts, chartering banks, imposing taxes, and protecting the public health. The 10th Amendment is not seen today as limiting the authority of the federal government where the exercise of its powers might interfere with those of the states.

notice the 10th says states or the people

aslo something as important as the ability to op out of the contract is usually put into said contract

it is obvious to me that the 10th ammendment was not meant to allow succession

what the constitution refers to as powers have to do with the governing of the people within the constitution not as op out clause

the oping out of the contract concerns not only the state or individual in question, but all individuals and states

therefore the only way it would be legitement is if everyone wanted it

(note that the southerners thought they were right I just disagree with them)

Jon Miller
would probably be on the other side if I had stated in the state of my birth longer(Alabama)

[Lefty Scaevola]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Texas ..... with a secession clause built into its Constitution, IIRC .

You don't RC.

[David Floyd]

This is the second time you interjected into my conversation, just because you don't know where he said it, doesn't mean it isn't so

Sorry, didn't mean to imply he didn't say it, just htat I hadn't seen it. And if he did, he's just as wrong as you are about it.

What does that mean?
The 10th Amendment (1791) is the final amendment in the BILL OF RIGHTS of the U.S. CONSTITUTION. It provides that those powers not delegated to the federal government by the Constitution nor prohibited to the states are reserved to the states or to the people. The main purpose of the amendment was to counter fears that the new national government would trespass on the authority of the states.

Although the amendment does not enumerate these reserved powers, traditionally they have included internal matters such as local government, education, and regulation of commerce, labor, and business within the state, as well as such matters as marriage, divorce, inheritance, and related family concerns. The states also share certain powers with the federal government, such as establishing courts, chartering banks, imposing taxes, and protecting the public health. The 10th Amendment is not seen today as limiting the authority of the federal government where the exercise of its powers might interfere with those of the states

Nice, long post on your opinion. Now let me give mine.

It doesn't matter how the 10th amendment is "traditionally" interpreted, or how it is seen now.

All that matters is that it says all powers not granted to the federal government or denied to the states are reserved to the states and the people.

This clearly includes the power of secession, because secession is not a power denied to the states. Obviously it isn't granted to the federal government, because the federal government can't secede from itself.
The only mitigating factor would be if the federal government had the power to prevent secession.
Nowhere in Article 1 Section 8, or anywhere else, are they given such a power. They DO have the power to act against rebellions and insurrections, but as I've already shown secession is not the same thing.
Therefore, secession is granted to the States by the 10th Amendment.

You don't RC.

I'll take your word for it. I was under the impression that secession was specifically mentioned in the Texas Constitution. Maybe I'm wrong.

[Caligastia]

This thread has gone a tad off topic. If you guys are having fun then go ahead, threadjack away...

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Chris 62
You know Reb, you always crack up up when you go on about "Yankee agression".

I aim to please.

The fact is, and we both know it, is that the Southern democrats were p1ssed Lincoln won, and saw the handwriting on the wall for slavery, so tried to lit out of the USA.

Never said those deep south state hotheads were the brightest.

You always miss the point, when you say "Yankee tresspassers".

That was USA soil, as was every bit that claimed to be CSA soil in the whole war.

Nothing in the Constitution creastes Federal lands or territory from the lands or territories of the several states. Such transfers and and leaseholds were traditionally done by consent of the Federal and state governments.

You yourself pointed out that sucession wasn't kosher, so give it up.

Creation of a state by secession from the territory of another state without the consent of the people of the state affected is forbidden, yes. The reservation of powers in the Tenth Amendment is adequate to grant states the right of secession from the Federal association.

The federal government refussed to recognize succession, so they couldn't be tresspassing in a leagal sense.

It also didn't recognize treaty rights of Indians, and the refusal to recognize the territory of another doesn't create a privilege to enter that territory.

The southern boys tried to pull a fast one, couldn't pull it off, fought well, but in the end, got their butts kicked by the Blue bellies.

Nothing fast about it - we tried to assert our legal rights, got worn down by an aggressive, domineering, central government with three times the manpower and much greater advantages in resources, and we stacked Yankee ass so high, for so long, that it took four years for y'all to conquer our territory.

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by David Floyd


Sorry, didn't mean to imply he didn't say it, just htat I hadn't seen it. And if he did, he's just as wrong as you are about it.



Nice, long post on your opinion. Now let me give mine.

It doesn't matter how the 10th amendment is "traditionally" interpreted, or how it is seen now.

All that matters is that it says all powers not granted to the federal government or denied to the states are reserved to the states and the people.

This clearly includes the power of secession, because secession is not a power denied to the states. Obviously it isn't granted to the federal government, because the federal government can't secede from itself.
The only mitigating factor would be if the federal government had the power to prevent secession.
Nowhere in Article 1 Section 8, or anywhere else, are they given such a power. They DO have the power to act against rebellions and insurrections, but as I've already shown secession is not the same thing.
Therefore, secession is granted to the States by the 10th Amendment.



I'll take your word for it. I was under the impression that secession was specifically mentioned in the Texas Constitution. Maybe I'm wrong.

But Succession is not something someone can go and decide to do by themselves or something a state can go and do bythem selves

it effects all

therefore even if it was a 'power' of the states and the people it is a power of the states and the people and as such needs the agreement of all states per say

its like you and me make an agreement by which we both benifit, I cannot just through the agreement away, we both of throw the agreement away

Jon Miller

[MichaeltheGreat]

The Constitution, BTW, also fails to provide any remedy for it's violation by the Federal government. The whole notion of judicial review by Federal courts does not even exist, and the jurisdiction of Federal courts is limited in any event.

The concept of a "contract" which in effect reads "We promise to not do more than we're allowed here, and you agree to surrender your sovereignty to our supergovernment for all time, but if we decide later for our convenience to break our promises here, you're stuck and there isn't a damned thing you can do about it." wouldn't have been ratified by one state, let alone 13.

The Constitution was created by equal and fully sovereign states as a means of setting up and limiting a secondary government of very limited commonly agreed to powers which served the common interest.

It was not created by a ruling central authority to define the rights and duties of subordinate government units (the effective roles of most state constitutions).

If you go back to the expressed intentions of the delegates who negotiated the provisions of the Constitution, you will not find a single reference (at least I've never yet found one) that a state ratifying the Constitution did so irrevocably and regardless of any violations of its terms by other states directly, or through their use of the Federal government.

Coming six years after a six year long war for independence from the so-called absolute authority of the English Crown, the notion that ANY state delegate, even one man, let alone one state delegation, would then vote to irrevocably subordinate his state to another central authority with no means of redress against violation's of that authorities duties and charter is just laughably absurd.

The people who wrote and ratified the US Constitution were revolutionaries who had a very strong distrust of central government, who considered their states sovereign and autonomous, and who reluctantly agreed that they needed to have some sort of standing cooperative arrangement for external trade and defense issues, due to the presence of strong external threats.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by DinoDoc


Not true at all. The abolitionist sentiment among the populace of those countries wouldn't have allowed for such an action.

But Britain wouldn't have minded seeing the US divided in two (or more) parts, as long as these parts were strong enough to resist Continental powers attempting to intercede in the New World.