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

[Imran Siddiqui]

Oh, and btw, the 10th Amendment does NOT refer to 'rights', but 'powers'. It may be simply a semantic difference, but then again, it may not.

[Arrian]

Originally posted by Caligastia


It couldn't have done any harm I suppose, but I guess it was one of those things that they thought of as a no-brainer - that states could leave if they wanted to.

If so, clearly an error on their part. It's certainly not a no-brainer.

This was a punt, and that punt (however necessary it might have been) ultimately resulted in civil war.

-Arrian

[Imran Siddiqui]

To expound:

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.


Amendment X

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 seems curious that the 9th talks about rights while the 10th talkes about powers. It seems to me that rights are something that a lower authority holds over a higher authority, while powers are something that a higher authority holds over a lower authority). One wonders if that matters in this debate, but it can indeed cast doubt.

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
You can either think it is allowable because of lack of textual exhortation against it, or not allowable as being implied by the text,

In what way does the text imply that it is not allowable?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Caligastia
In what way does the text imply that it is not allowable?

It can be implied by the text of the document. For example, the rights/powers distinction in the 9th and 10th Amendments. I have heard of a 'right to seceed', but never a 'power to seceed' as they refer to different things.

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Oh, and btw, the 10th Amendment does NOT refer to 'rights', but 'powers'. It may be simply a semantic difference, but then again, it may not.

In what way could a right be different from a power?

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


It can be implied by the text of the document. For example, the rights/powers distinction in the 9th and 10th Amendments. I have heard of a 'right to seceed', but never a 'power to seceed' as they refer to different things.

If the Constitution grants the 'power to seceed' as opposed to the 'right', what would be the practical difference?

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
To expound:

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.


Amendment X

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 seems curious that the 9th talks about rights while the 10th talkes about powers. It seems to me that rights are something that a lower authority holds over a higher authority, while powers are something that a higher authority holds over a lower authority). One wonders if that matters in this debate, but it can indeed cast doubt.

It seems to me that the terms are being used interchangably. Either way you look at it, powers or rights, they are retained by the people.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Caligastia
It seems to me that the terms are being used interchangably. Either way you look at it, powers or rights, they are retained by the people.

Why two seperate amendments... there must be a difference.

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by Arrian


If so, clearly an error on their part. It's certainly not a no-brainer.

This was a punt, and that punt (however necessary it might have been) ultimately resulted in civil war.

-Arrian

It certainly would have paid to put it in. My point was that things like this are easy to overlook if they are widely taken for granted at the time.

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


Why two seperate amendments... there must be a difference.

To me it seems that the 9th is specifically saying that " the fact that we are spelling out certain rights does not mean other rights do not exist", whereas the 10th is spelling out the fact that all the powers not vested in the federal govt are reserved for the states/people. Small distinction, I know, but that's what I get from it.

[Victor Galis]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
If state's had nor have rights, there would be no state laws.

But what does that have to do with secession? Furthermore, as Imran pointed out, states have powers, individuals have rights.

So no group of people that decide to join a larger group should ever be allowed to peacefully separate?

Nations are not like other groups, so no. People should not be allowed to break up nations because they don't agree on matters of policy. If individuals disagree that strongly they can leave... like I did.

Look at it this way: the south has no right to talk about rights because their secession was for the purpose of continuing to abuse the rights of individuals (the slaves).

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Caligastia
To me it seems that the 9th is specifically saying that " the fact that we are spelling out certain rights does not mean other rights do not exist", whereas the 10th is spelling out the fact that all the powers not vested in the federal govt are reserved for the states/people. Small distinction, I know, but that's what I get from it.

And I do consider a power to be distinct from a right. Government power is not the same as a right.

[Elok]

It was sort of like the way the South claimed to be civilizing the black race by enslaving it. The North was teaching you hillbillies to know your place by hurting you and setting fire to your cities. Simple as that.

[Victor Galis]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


And I do consider a power to be distinct from a right. Government power is not the same as a right.

Ooh, I'm starting to remember this now. I actually engaged in this argument much more intelligently back in high school when history/government classes were fresher in my mind.