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

[Deity Dude]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


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.

OK if we are gonna go back and forth on this one you tell at what point my logoic is wrong

1. Congress has as one of its enumerated powers the right to regulate commerce. (commonly referred to as the Commerce Clause)

2. Another of Congress' enumerated powers states that if a state law is in conflict with the Constitution or a Constitutional Federal Law, the state law is null and void. (commonly referred to as the Supremacy Clause)

3. Thus Congress' right to regulate Commerce is supreme to any state law, especially a state law thats only purpose was to impede Congress' right to regulate commerce.

Tell me whats implied here.

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Interestingly enough people read into the document an implicit prohibition against slavery due to the giving up of soveriegnty in joining in such federation.

No this is absolutely false and supports my 10th Ammendment argument. Since slavery was not specifically covered in the original constitution, under the 10th Amendment, that decision was left to the states.

It wasn't until the passage of the 13th Amendment that it became unconstitutional.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Thus Congress' right to regulate Commerce is supreme to any state law, especially a state law thats only purpose was to impede Congress' right to regulate commerce.

Eh... that's a bit of a streach as it applies here (first part is totally true, though). Congress can create a bank due to the Necessary and Proper Clause combined with the Commerce Clause. And yes, states cannot intrude on the Commerce Clause; that is what it is what is refered to as the Dormant Commerce Clause (Philadelphia v. New Jersey for a good write up of the DCC).

Congress' law is supreme, therefore it can create a bank and a state cannot deny the federal bank. However, the reasoning for why the state cannot tax said bank was, as Justice Marshall put it, "the power to tax is the power to destroy". That isn't found in the Constitution and a state tax may impead the bank, but it doesn't conflict with the act to create a bank. A law like "There shall be no federal banks" would conflict (and this direct conflict was probably what was intended if you are an intentionalist type of fellow).

So, yes, there IS an implication here. That laws that impead on Congress' declarations while not conflicting them directly are considered violative is an implication from the text. Since then it has been interpreted to mean any state law that even touches on a federal law goes. Note that it doesn't have to be a specific tax on federal property, it can be any generally applicable tax which the federal government is exempt from.... so the intent of the law needent be to inhibit Congress, yet it would still be struck (at least to the minor part).

2. Another of Congress' enumerated powers states that if a state law is in conflict with the Constitution or a Constitutional Federal Law, the state law is null and void. (commonly referred to as the Supremacy Clause)

Oh, and slight nitpick. This is not an enumerated power, but Article VI of the Constitution.

No this is absolutely false and supports my 10th Ammendment argument. Since slavery was not specifically covered in the original constitution, under the 10th Amendment, that decision was left to the states.

Aside from the fact that slavery is not directly impacted by giving up of one's soveriegnty (it is indirectly impacted as it gives the federal government power over interstate commercial activity). Secession, however, is directly impacted by the release of soveriegnty to join a whole. After all, what is to stop a state from giving up their 'soveriegnty' in order to have the United States take over all the debt from the Revolution, and then after that is done to simply leave? By sharing in the benefits, you are assuming the costs and one of them would be your leaving has an impact on the whole; thereby it is and should not be your decision alone.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
What's that next line say, Imran? Don't stop, read on.



In other words, you're not part of the Confederacy, so vacate.

Yep. It seems pretty clear to me that the cession was conditional, not permanent, and subject to any legal process of the State. The findings regarding the land claims were that there was no valid private claim to the Sumter site.

This resolution was also adopted more than six years after the start of construction.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Secession, however, is directly impacted by the release of soveriegnty to join a whole. After all, what is to stop a state from giving up their 'soveriegnty' in order to have the United States take over all the debt from the Revolution, and then after that is done to simply leave? By sharing in the benefits, you are assuming the costs and one of them would be your leaving has an impact on the whole; thereby it is and should not be your decision alone.

Assuming that there was a release of sovereignty. If any state had done that, the remedy was simple - levy duties on any commerce with that state until the transferred debts were recovered.

The same remedy applied when South Carolina seceded - as a foreign state, it was subject to taxation on its trade with any other part of the United States.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
Assuming that there was a release of sovereignty. If any state had done that, the remedy was simple - levy duties on any commerce with that state until the transferred debts were recovered.

The same remedy applied when South Carolina seceded - as a foreign state, it was subject to taxation on its trade with any other part of the United States.

Understable, however, I'm just saying there is an argument that has been made (and reasonably can be made) of losing that right to seceed after deciding to give up soveriegnty in joining the whole.

Basically, it isn't cut and dried as DD wants to believe. Some people actually did believe the secession was not allowed anymore.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Yeah, Yankees.

[TheStinger]

If and I know its a big if, 90% of the populationof a current US state voted for independence would the federal govt really stop them.

Given the supposed US support for self determination.

[Berzerker]

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

Of course, some of the states even had secession clauses in their own Constitutions at the time. I believe Texas has one too and it formed a 1/2 century after the Founding.

I'm just saying there is an argument that has been made (and reasonably can be made) of losing that right to seceed after deciding to give up soveriegnty in joining the whole.

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

2. Another of Congress' enumerated powers states that if a state law is in conflict with the Constitution or a Constitutional Federal Law, the state law is null and void. (commonly referred to as the Supremacy Clause)

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...

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.

That wasn't a flaw, the right of secession was assumed - they had just fought a war of secession. If the Constitution is silent on a matter, it means the matter is left to the states and the people (check the 10th amendment).

[SlowwHand]

Early Statehood

From annexation in 1845 to secession from the Union in 1861, early Texas statehood was marked by some of the mightiest issues of any age. Click the links below to learn about:

Annexation

The annexation of Texas to the United States was a matter of not only national, but international concern. After years of controversy, Texas was finally annexed by the United State in 1845.

The 1850 Boundary Act

Annexation spawned war with Mexico. When the smoke cleared, Texas and the national government were in conflict over the state's claim to a large portion of New Mexico. Some Texans advocated military force to claim the territory or even secession from the Union. In 1850, the U.S. Congress made a monetary settlement with Texas in exchange for the state relinquishing all claim to New Mexico. This act, along with several others that aimed to resolve sectional differences, was part of what was known as the Compromise of 1850.

Texas was a country that was annexed with conditions into the United States. It wasn't a territory that was aquired. It wasn't a part of any land purchase.
Texas was it's own free-standing country. Texas had the right.

As far as the other states, it would seem if by nothing else, that it wasn't prohibited is enough to say the idea was feasible.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Another point is that when the Constitution was debated, negotiated and ultimately ratified, it was to replace and supersede the Articles of Confederation, on the same general principles, but with a more clear delineation of the powers and duties of the United States.

When the Second Continental Congress submitted the original Articles of Confederation for ratification, it urged that it "be candidly reviewed under a sense of the difficulty of combining in one general system the various sentiments and interests of a continent divided into so many sovereign and independent communities..."

Nothing indicates an intent by the states to surrender any part of their sovereignty.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
Yep. It seems pretty clear to me that the cession was conditional, not permanent, and subject to any legal process of the State. The findings regarding the land claims were that there was no valid private claim to the Sumter site.

This resolution was also adopted more than six years after the start of construction.

That's not what it says. It granted the land to the US, considered to be a transfer of title in fee simple with the only condition that civil or criminal processes be allowed to be served upon the property. That means a permanent transfer with only one kind of easement (for those types of law enforcement - service of process & capturing fugitives) allowed upon it.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
Another point is that when the Constitution was debated, negotiated and ultimately ratified, it was to replace and supersede the Articles of Confederation, on the same general principles, but with a more clear delineation of the powers and duties of the United States.

When the Second Continental Congress submitted the original Articles of Confederation for ratification, it urged that it "be candidly reviewed under a sense of the difficulty of combining in one general system the various sentiments and interests of a continent divided into so many sovereign and independent communities..."

Nothing indicates an intent by the states to surrender any part of their sovereignty.

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.

[Berzerker]

was there even a law prohibiting secession at the time? I thought the North just called it a rebellion and ignored the 10th Amendment.

[SlowwHand]

That's the argument.

South said No.

[Berzerker]

the point is the states weren't giving up the power to secede, that defies the logic behind the revolution.