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

[SlowwHand]

It's called the War Between The States.

[Deity Dude]

Actually the official name according the United States Government is "The War of Rebellion"

[SlowwHand]

Has nothing to do with what it's called in the South.
The South seceded, but we're going to call it what the Feds say call it? Ok then.
The whole reason they call it the Civil War is to stress what the South doesn't consider the war to be over.

[Deity Dude]

I agree that the victors of the war erroneously named it, as I pointed out in the last sentence of my post. I am just telling you what the official name of it is. It's not The Civil War and its not The War Between the States.

[DaShi]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
The states which seceeded to form the Confederacy were sovereign at all times, prior to the ratification of the Constitution, while bound under the Constitution as part of the United States, and upon secession.

They weren't completely sovereign upon the ratification of the Constitution. They had given up some of that when they signed it. Later they decided that they didn't like that it had all these rules about human rights so they decided to take their ball and go home. They violated the contract while seceded. The flaw with the Constitution was that it didn't have an exit clause, but if the south was so concerned about it back then, they should have pushed for one. Otherwise, they would be facing war, which is really the only way such legal disputes are really settled between countries. That or boring negotiations, and I don't think anyone was willing to go through that.

[MOBIUS]

Isn't that what the Shia majority in the South is trying to do, secede?

In the US created civil war in Iraq I mean...

Dunno about having a 'right' though...

[DaShi]

I'd secede from that war too.

[MOBIUS]

Not if you're the US - they're not 'succeeding' at all!

"Stay the course, Stay the course, Stay the course..."

"What? We're losing!!?"

"Run Away, Run Away, Run Away..."

[DaShi]

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by Victor Galis
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.

What characteristic of a nation makes you think they are different from other groups with respect to the issue of secession/independence?

[Deity Dude]

Originally posted by DaShi


They weren't completely sovereign upon the ratification of the Constitution. They had given up some of that when they signed it. Later they decided that they didn't like that it had all these rules about human rights so they decided to take their ball and go home. They violated the contract while seceded. The flaw with the Constitution was that it didn't have an exit clause, but if the south was so concerned about it back then, they should have pushed for one. Otherwise, they would be facing war, which is really the only way such legal disputes are really settled between countries. That or boring negotiations, and I don't think anyone was willing to go through that.

It is true that they weren't completely souvreign. But all states were subject to the Constitution. The 10th Amendment was written specifically for this type of issue ie, "something that wasn't covered"

Basically the 10th Amendment says if it is not covered the Power rests with the states. So unless you can show me a portion of the Constitution before the 10th Amendment that specifically covers secession or unless you can produce some other evedence that showed upon entering the Union the individual states explicitly agreed to not secede, the Federal Government has no power constitutionally to stop them.

[Imran Siddiqui]

No where in the Constitution's text are States prohibited from taxing federal government installations. Does that mean that Mcculloch v. Maryland was improperly decided with respect to the 10th Amendment. Should Maryland have the right to tax a federal bank to the extent it wishes to do so?

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?

Question being, are all powers fair game? Or, if not, how do we decide what powers States may have and what powers they may not? Or, is it the case that powers are things which only apply to lesser authority and not higher authority?

[Tattila the Hun]

A question:

Could you people kick a state out of the Union? Really fed up with Utah? Kick them out!

[Deity Dude]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
No where in the Constitution's text are States prohibited from taxing federal government installations. Does that mean that Mcculloch v. Maryland was improperly decided with respect to the 10th Amendment. Should Maryland have the right to tax a federal bank to the extent it wishes to do so?

One of Congress' enumerated powers is to regulate interstate Commerce. Thats power gives it the right to create National Banks. The sole purpose of the tax , in this case, was to impede the National Bank.

The Constitution also states that it is the supreme law of the land and any state law in conflict with it is void.

What Maryland attempted to do here was to create a state law (the tax) to impede one of Congress' enumerated powers.

Secession is different because there is no enumerated power dealing with the issue.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Deity Dude
One of Congress' enumerated powers is to regulate interstate Commerce. Thats power gives it the right to create National Banks. The sole purpose of the tax , in this case, was to impede the National Bank.

The Constitution also states that it is the supreme law of the land and any state law in conflict with it is void.

What Maryland attempted to do here was to create a state law (the tax) to impede one of Congress' enumerated powers.

Secession is different because there is no enumerated power dealing with the issue.

This is all (arguably) implicit prohibition. Simply because Congress has the power to create a bank doesn't mean such bank is exempt fromthe states it is placed in. I mean that property is worth money. Money that is not going into the treasury of the state because the federal government is on it.

Congress can still create a bank, but has to pay a tax on it. No where in the Constitution's explicit provisions does it say the federal government shall not be inconvienienced by the states. This was something implicitly read in by the Supreme Court. Probably necessary, but not particularly supported by the text itself. Interestingly enough people read into the document an implicit prohibition against slavery due to the giving up of soveriegnty in joining in such federation.