U.S. Civil War - Did the South Have the Right to Secede?

[SlowwHand]

I understand that perfectly. Imran's the one. Tell him.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Btw, on an amusing side note, do you know what the official title of the Articles of Confederation were?

"The Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union"

I found that somewhat entertaining, even though those last three words are mostly forgotten by the populace (Hell, simply the words 'Articles of Confederation' are forgotten by most) these days.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Where in the contract did it say states could not withdraw? Not many people would marry under a no divorce contract, are they unreasonable?

At this point in history divorces were pretty darn difficult to obtain. In the Victorian Christian world divorce was considered a rather big no - no. The aggreived party had to do something pretty horrible to persuade a court to grant a divorce. Did South Carolina discover that the United States government had a love child with Canada? I think not. If anything the US was the wronged party in the marriage with the southern states. <>

Thats correct, so where in the Constitution does it say the states cannot withdraw? Your argument requires a constitutional provision authorising Congress to outlaw secession or specifically denying the states this power. First, there is no provision, second, I seriously doubt there was even a federal law at the time the South seceded and any law passed by the Feds after the fact is unconstitutional due to the prohibition on expost facto legislation. Can you imagine the federal government under George Washington passing a law telling the states and the people and their progeny they can't ever leave the union they just joined? They just fought a war to secede from their sovereign...

The Constitution also doesn't give the Federal government the right to tell a state what legally constitutes marriage, yet no one, not even the legislatures of the South for one second entertained the thought of allowing the people of Utah to practice polygamy. Really everyone knows why a number of southern states began the process of secession upon learning of Lincoln's election ot the Presidency. Evidently when a state enters........or leaves..........the Union the circumstances must have some bearing on the legal right to do so.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
I understand that perfectly. Imran's the one. Tell him.

Actually, my dear Sloww, I agree with the poster who said a number of posts ago, that Virginia, the Carolinas, and Georgia had a right to leave based on their signing of the Constitution (though I think there can be an argument made the other way especially based on the what you think of the governance of the Continental Congress). However, the other states, with the exception of Texas, were carved out of US territory and thus did not have the right to leave, as their sovereignty was not acquired by the American Revolution, but through the grace of the federal government.

[Berzerker]

I am

Did the States agree to give up their right to tax certain federal installations? Or is there a part that specifically covers that in the Constitution?

Not sure they ever had the right, but the Constitution says the Feds shall have exclusive jurisdiction over the District and federal facilities.

[Bosh]

People who treat others as property have no standing to complain about others violating their rights.

Cry me a freaking river.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
At this point in history divorces were pretty darn difficult to obtain. In the Victorian Christian world divorce was considered a rather big no - no. The aggreived party had to do something pretty horrible to persuade a court to grant a divorce. Did South Carolina discover that the United States government had a love child with Canada? I think not. If anything the US was the wronged party in the marriage with the southern states. <>

That was pretty brilliant. It had totally slipped my mind. Being married for life at that time really meant something back then . Remember, the King of England 200 years prior had to go through some pretty hairy stuff just to divorce his wife! And not much had changed in the 200 years since then... after all, it's good to be the King.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Not sure they ever had the right, but the Constitution says the Feds shall have exclusive jurisdiction over the District and federal facilities.

Well I'm not speaking of military installations, but things like banks. The clause you are speaking of is:

To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings

It specifically refers to the District and military buildings. A Bank of the US would fall outside of that.


Though, on a side note, do you know that as a result of McCulloch v. Maryland that whenever I go out on an investigation, I am not allowed to be charged state sales tax by the hotel I'm staying at? It's because I'm performing an official government action and therefore the state isn't allowed to touch that.

[Berzerker]

However, the other states, with the exception of Texas, were carved out of US territory and thus did not have the right to leave, as their sovereignty was not acquired by the American Revolution, but through the grace of the federal government.

But once those territories became states the 10th Amendment applies. I dont see any provision that says Congress retains control of the land once a territory becomes a state...

[Imran Siddiqui]

Those states didn't have the same sovereignty powers that non federal territories had prior to their statehood, and I don't think the 10th Amendment grants any new powers to the states, but merely allows them to reserve the powers they already had (which is consistent with what legal scholars have discerned from the history of the amendment).

To take the example of power over foreign affairs (for illustration), you'll note the executive has most of that power (with the exceptions of a few noted powers). The reasoning has been, throughout Supreme Court history (from the 1800s onwards) that the sovereign power over foreign affairs transfered after the war directly from the King of England to the executive branch of the US... which was the Continental Congress at the time, and would be Congress of the Articles of Confederation, and then the executive branch of the Constitution.

Basically there are sovereignty power relationships that precede the Constitution and that the Constitution had not altered. The power to leave the union is an act of complete sovereignty, which the states (may have) possessed prior to the end of the Revolution, but not that the territories of the US possessed even after statehood.

It would be quite silly to have a state say that it has a power reserved to it to have complete sovereignty over its territory when it never had complete sovereignty before or during statehood. Where did that power come from to have been reserved? Those states always had a master.

I dont see any provision that says Congress retains control of the land once a territory becomes a state...

You see the ownership of land in Nevada lately?

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
However, the other states, with the exception of Texas, were carved out of US territory and thus did not have the right to leave, as their sovereignty was not acquired by the American Revolution, but through the grace of the federal government.

Vermont was independent, as was Hawaii and West Florida. Utah claimed to be independent, but no one recognized it. I think California declared independence from Mexico during the Mexican War.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Berzerker
But once those territories became states the 10th Amendment applies. I dont see any provision that says Congress retains control of the land once a territory becomes a state...

Here's the thing, the 10th only grants to states those powers that they have. The amendment is a tautology. If one assumes that states don't have the power to secede, then the 10th did not grant that power. The 10th clearly did not grant the states every power not mentioned.

[Berzerker]

At this point in history divorces were pretty darn difficult to obtain. In the Victorian Christian world divorce was considered a rather big no - no. The aggreived party had to do something pretty horrible to persuade a court to grant a divorce.

My question assumes people are free, not chattle or obligated by authorities. I was comparing free people entering a marriage with no way to get out to the states before ratification. You mis-interpreted that to mean I was comparing marriage 200 years ago in a specific society to the states before ratification.

The Constitution also doesn't give the Federal government the right to tell a state what legally constitutes marriage, yet no one, not even the legislatures of the South for one second entertained the thought of allowing the people of Utah to practice polygamy.

Utah was a territory, not a state. It was allowed to join the Union if it would ban polygamy. That provision was later challenged by Mormons and the SCOTUS said the 1st Amendment guarantees the freedom to religious thought but not action. Can you imagine Congress telling people they cant go to church or read the Bible or pray? Of course not, the SCOTUS effectively "communised" religion by turning our religious liberty over to the whims of the majority. Anyway, the (alleged) hypocrisy of the South is irrelevant...

Really everyone knows why a number of southern states began the process of secession upon learning of Lincoln's election ot the Presidency. Evidently when a state enters........or leaves..........the Union the circumstances must have some bearing on the legal right to do so.

Why must a state even give a reason for leaving the Union? I dont see anything like that in the Constitution. And the South had a valid reason for leaving - the North was using its political muscle to impose high tariffs on Southern commerce with other countries to force the South to trade with the North. This problem came up in the 1820s and it was S Carolina threatening to secede if they didn't stop the unfair trade policies.

It specifically refers to the District and military buildings. A Bank of the US would fall outside of that.

and other needful buildings

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara

Originally posted by Berzerker
But once those territories became states the 10th Amendment applies. I dont see any provision that says Congress retains control of the land once a territory becomes a state...

Here's the thing, the 10th only grants to states those powers that they have. The amendment is a tautology. If one assumes that states don't have the power to secede, then the 10th did not grant that power. The 10th clearly did not grant the states every power not mentioned.

That's more concise than my last point, but that's basically it. The question is whether you think that the former territories of the US that became states had the right to secede prior to statehood. Did they have such a sovereignty right as a territory? I don't think they did. Hence, they can't reserve such power because they didn't have it.

[SlowwHand]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


Actually, my dear Sloww, I agree with the poster who said a number of posts ago, that Virginia, the Carolinas, and Georgia had a right to leave based on their signing of the Constitution (though I think there can be an argument made the other way especially based on the what you think of the governance of the Continental Congress). However, the other states, with the exception of Texas, were carved out of US territory and thus did not have the right to leave, as their sovereignty was not acquired by the American Revolution, but through the grace of the federal government.

That's more admisssion that I expected. I'll accept this, with the other states left to debate.