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

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Berzerker
and other needful buildings

Read the rest of the list... they are all military buildings. Do you REALLY think that the phrase was put in there to refer to any other building the government decides is 'needful'? Obvious, 'other needful buildings' refers to other military buildings not named in the list.

Of course, the interesting thing would be a lawsuit over whether a building was 'needful' .

[Imran Siddiqui]

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

Though, of course, Sloww... I also subscribe to the theory that might makes right... not as a moral principle, but just as the way things are. And, as you are quite aware, I'm sure, the North was the mightier.

[SlowwHand]

Absolutely were. It's just tha I subscribe to the moral principle.
The North was manufacturing. The South was agriculture. Not hard to figure this one out if it went any time, which it did.

[chequita guevara]

The South also had plenty of manufacturing. What they didn't have was rails and people. They also needed to reserve a portion of their military to watch over the property that they were revolting over, lest said property decide to support the Union in a material fashion.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
It's just tha I subscribe to the moral principle.

Tell me another one!

[SlowwHand]

A) The South in no manner matched the North in manufacturing.

B) Reword it how you want to hear it. I don't think might makes right.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


Of come on... when you give up more of your power, you are giving up part of your sovereignty. You are saying that you will allow the federal government to be sovereign in these particular areas which it was not before... that sovereign right is taken from, of course, the states that held it beforehand.

You're not "giving up" your power - you're assigning its exercise to a common body, which is supposed to be under your control, jointly, with other sovereign states, to accomplish purposes for the common benefit of all. An alliance, so to speak... a "Confederacy" if you will.

If my neighbor and I agree to build a fence jointly along the common boundary of our land, I am not giving up sovereignty over my land. I am agreeing it would be cheaper and more effective to share the cost and have a single fence. The er, um, confederation of sovereign states was formed for two reasons - mutual defense against a common set of enemies, and trade. It was not set up to allow one cabal of states to gain advantage over other states by use of economic, tax and trade policies, or to allow the Federal government itself to redefine sovereignty at its whim by demanding other states provide troops to be placed under Federal control to forcibly impose its will on a sovereign state.

[Imran Siddiqui]

What power or right are you giving up by helping each other out to build a fence on the border? Does it adversely affect you to have him build the fence himself (as long as he does adhere to the border)? The 13 states gave up a decent amount of power in the signing of the Constitution over to the federal government, which, yes, was partially, indirectly controlled by them, but only indirectly, through a Senator elected by the State Senate.

After all, the powers delegated to Congress were those the states had. The Supremacy Clause and its interaction with the Commerce Clause is the most apparent example (as a state now must adhere to federal regulation of commerce where before, they didn't have to). An example would be that they couldn't set tariffs on goods from the state next door. A power they are giving up to the government.

[Dr Strangelove]

One might also point out that the states did not secede from England individually, but instead did so as a group forming its own entity.

[SlowwHand]

Like the Confederacy, only the Confederacy was doing it as a right to the State. The whole concept of secession.

I know, I know. Tell me I'm wrong again.

[Imran Siddiqui]

You're wrong again .

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat


You're not "giving up" your power - you're assigning its exercise to a common body, which is supposed to be under your control, jointly, with other sovereign states, to accomplish purposes for the common benefit of all. An alliance, so to speak... a "Confederacy" if you will.

Coming in late to this but you argue a matter of efficiency over absolute control.

Giving up ultimate power and assigning it to a body larger than your own for joint cotnrol is much different than having complete and total autonomy and control to decide what is in your states best interests (and not having to take into account common benefit for all compromises.)

If my neighbor and I agree to build a fence jointly along the common boundary of our land, I am not giving up sovereignty over my land. I am agreeing it would be cheaper and more effective to share the cost and have a single fence. The er, um, confederation of sovereign states was formed for two reasons - mutual defense against a common set of enemies, and trade. It was not set up to allow one cabal of states to gain advantage over other states by use of economic, tax and trade policies, or to allow the Federal government itself to redefine sovereignty at its whim by demanding other states provide troops to be placed under Federal control to forcibly impose its will on a sovereign state.

If given the choice to build a gated area on your property you might have chosen to make a perimeter all around your property and the choice of gate in the fence would have been closest to your driveway for own convenience sake.

By pooling your resources with your neighbor, you instead saved on the costs of construction of the fence but decided to be equitable and place a gate at the border of you and your neighbors property. The end result you have to drive a half mile to the border everytime you want to leave or enter your property.

By virtue of the compromise you changed what you normally would have considered (your sovereignty) and have set in motion a permanent situation not agreeable (or optimal) to the MtG household. An agreement that you have surrendered until such time as the agreement is modified. (i.e you install a second gate more appropriately placed for your egress)

[Deity Dude]

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.

Where do you come up with that. How can this be worded any clearer than it is.

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

IT doesnt say the states have powers that they have. It says they have all powers not specified to the Fed Govt in the Constitution. That was the who;e point of the Amendment.

[Imran Siddiqui]

IT doesnt say the states have powers that they have. It says they have all powers not specified to the Fed Govt in the Constitution. That was the who;e point of the Amendment.

"are reserved to the States". Seems to indicate not a granting of new powers, but rather that States have unenumerated powers reserved to them, ie, ones they had already that the federal government didn't take from them or prohibit to them (you can't 'reserve' new powers after all).

That reading that che has stated is also the consensus of legal scholars, many of whom have studied the debates on the Bill of Rights in coming to such conclusion.

[Deity Dude]

There is debate on both sides of this issue amongst scholars. Those for a strong federal government tend to "read into" the amendment. Those that stand on the state's rights side of this issue tend to read the amendment straight forward.

My only point is that the way it is written is extremely clear. How it has become interpreted on the other hand has become very distorted.

There are 3 clauses that specify with extreme clarity that:

1) unless the Constitution gives a power to the Federal Government or

2) prohibits it from the states

3) it remains where it was - with the states or the people.

"Reserved" simply clarifies that the states at one time had all the powers because they were sovreign. By entering the union they gave up those powers that they specifically spelled out in the document. All others they and the people kept.