Resolutions of Secession

cwalenta999 · Sergeant Major Joined: 17 Mar 2007 Posts: 60

For all those who still maintain that slavery wasn't the primary cause of Southern secession, I suggest that you read the various resolutions of secessions that were prepared by various Southern states. What is particularly illuminating about these resolutions it that the resolutions SPECIFICALLY mention slavery. So, yes, was the war about states' rights? YES, however, it was about the states' rights to maintain the institution of slavery. The ONLY reason the South seceeded was because the South had recently lost the balance of power in the Senate when California became a state and were fearful that the North would jam anti-slavery legislation down its throat.

Below is an excerpt from Mississippi's resolution. You can do a google search on virtually every state's resolution of secession.

Whereas, the constitutional Union was formed by the several states in their separate soverign capacity for the purpose of mutual advantage and protection;

That the several states are distinct sovereignities, whose supremacy is limited so far only as the same has been delegated by voluntary compact to a federal government, and, when it fails to accomplish the ends for which it was established, the parties to the compact have the right to resume, each state for itself, such delegated powers;

That the institution of slavery existed prior to the formation of the federal Constitution, and is recognized by its letter, and all efforts to impair its value or lessen its duration by Congress, or any of the free states, is a violation of the compact of Union and is destructive of the ends for which it was ordained, but in defiance of the principles of the Union thus established, the people of the Northern states have assumed a revolutionary position toward the Southern states;

civilwarbuff17 · Posted: Fri Apr 20, 2007 4:48 pm Post subject:

Also, the Confederacy's first vice president said, "We create this new government on the fact that the white is superior to the negro." I know that's not the exact phrase, but the implication is that the South had succedded to keep slavery, thus, one of the factors was slavery. Not the reason, but one of them.

Nick · Sergeant Major Joined: 25 Apr 2007 Posts: 51

Miss declaration of cause of secesion is legal declaration of State sov, and excerising it when a clear breach of Union has been shown. Miss exceerised its sov right of secesion as allowed under the provisions of te Constition, when a party, such as the Republicans came into existence and was elected to office, with a party manifesto that said that secesion was treason and anyojne practising it would be treated as a traitor/insurectionlist, Miss and the deep south saw this as breach of contract and left the Union. The causes for doing this are not the same as listed in the state debates however, which if you read them you obtain fuller understanding of the poloitical process of conventions and resolution sthat distell down from a host of issues to a core concern. The core concern for the first wave of secesionist was the right of secesion itself, and its denial to exist by the Republican party.

Miss was simple stating it, not the federal government had the lawfull and moral right to determine the freedom or lack of, its state slaves, not that the federal Union had this right/power, which the republican party said it stood for and had been elected. the upper south simply did not seccede because of the toned down republican party stance of slavery from its 56 platform, this helped it get elected, and softened upper southern attitude, ie they thought that they could do buissiness with republicans. So many months after the first wave seccded, after claiming the republicans were not to be trusted and were a clear and direct threat to state sov and proprty ownership being determined at state level, the President, without any legal right to do so, called up the militia to coerce, and that ilegal and unconstitional usurption caused the second wave of secesion, and initiated the WBTS, and no state cites slavery, they cite coercion.

civilwarbuff17 you seem unaware that lincoln and almost every cabinet member were also white supremacists, and held the same views of negros as did the CSA vice pres, who if you look at his speech was commenting on the fact that the US colonies were founded on the same principle taht the CSA was founded, that the negro was inferior to the white.

cwalenta999 you answer your own question"You can do a google search on virtually every state's resolution of secession". What you find is that coercion was the cause of the upper souths secesion, as this is clear from the causes of secesion debtes held in convention, that produce a resoultion that cites a legal reason that allows the excercise of the right of secesion.

Now a simple question, the Constition gives every individual the right to own proprty and not have it taken from them without due process of law, so when a party, lets call them the commies, gets elected and passes a law tht all homes are now the property of all, as private ownership is immoral and were not haveing it anymore, the only answer is to rebel and be treated as a traitor committing treason, or each state could seccede, which one seems the idea the FF had in mind eh?.

If you want fight for your constitional rightsor your property rights what will you fight for?.

cwalenta999 · Sergeant Major Joined: 17 Mar 2007 Posts: 60

The 'breach' of the Constitution? Name the breach. There is none. In 1860, the Federal government was spending 2.5% of GNP with a minimal standing army. The Federal government was a virtual non-entity.

The problem is that the Federal government never acted in a manner that breached the Constitution in 1860 prior to secession, so if you're saying that secession is justified because of this; that argument is simply without merit.

Nick · Sergeant Major Joined: 25 Apr 2007 Posts: 51

[quote:2c0761f68f="cwalenta999"]The 'breach' of the Constitution? Name the breach. There is none. In 1860, the Federal government was spending 2.5% of GNP with a minimal standing army. The Federal government was a virtual non-entity.

The problem is that the Federal government never acted in a manner that breached the Constitution in 1860 prior to secession, so if you're saying that secession is justified because of this; that argument is simply without merit.[/quote:2c0761f68f]

Lincoln called up the state militia for service,to supress insurection, under the constition this is a function of congress, and no insurection can exist till the judiciary rules it to do so, and US law states that only a part of state against the state itself can be in insurection and aplication by the state gov or legilsture to Federal authorityys is required for federal troops to enter the state to put down the insurection, the upper southern states then seccedded on this breach of the constition.

SC and others were very clear what they considered the breaches taht merited their seccesions, now you can calim they had no such right to believe as they did, but then you have that pesky Republican form of government gaurenteed to all states by the constition, telling you that all governments govern by consent of teh governed, not that all must do as you tell them, your know, dictorships.

The more I reflect on the use of force, the more I doubt the practicability, the justice, and the efficacy of it, when applied to people collectively, and not individually. A Union of the States containing such an ingredient seems to provide for its own destruction. The use of force against a State would look more like a declaration of war than an infliction of punishment, and would probably be considered by the party attacked as a dissolution of all previous compacts by which it might be bound. I hope that such a system will be framed as might render this resource unnecessary.

madison

It has been observed, to coerce States is one of the maddest projects ever devised. A failure of compliance will never be confined to a single State. This being the case, can we suppose it wise to hazard a civil war? Suppose Massachusetts or any large State should refuse, and Congress should attempt to compel them, would they not have influence to procure assistance, especially from those States which are in the same situation as themselves? What picture does this idea present to our view? A complying State at war with a non-complying State, Congress marching the troops of one State into the bosom of another — this State collecting auxiliaries, and forming, perhaps, a majority against its Federal head. Here is a nation at war with itself. Can any reasonable man be well-disposed towards a Government which makes war and carnage the only means of supporting itself — a Government that can exist only by the sword

hamilton.

Whether Congress has the constitutional right to make war against one or more States, and require the Executive of the Federal Government to carry it on by means of force to be drawn from the other States, is a question for Congress itself to consider. It must be admitted that no such power is expressly given; nor are there any words in the Constitution which imply it. Among the powers enumerated in Article I, section 8, is that, "to declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and to make rules concerning captures on land and water." This certainly means nothing more than the power to commence and carry on hostilities against the foreign enemies of the nation. Another clause in the same section gives Congress the power "to provide for calling forth the militia," and to use them within the limits of a State. But this power is so restricted by the words which immediately follow, that it can be exercised only for one of the following purposes: 1. To execute the laws of the Union, that is, to aid the Federal officers in the performance of their regular duties. 2. To suppress insurrection against the States, but this is confined by Article IV, section 4, to cases in which the State herself shall apply for assistance against her own people. 3. To repel invasion of a State by enemies who come from abroad to assail her in her own territory. All these provisions are to protect the States, not to authorize an attack by one part of the country upon another; to preserve their peace, and not lunge them into civil war. Our forefathers do not seem to have thought that war was calculated to "form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity." There was undoubtedly a strong and universal conviction among the men who framed and ratified the Constitution that military force would not only be useless but pernicious as a means of holding the States (Union) together.
If it be true that war cannot be declared, nor a system of general hostilities carried on by the Central Government against a State, then it seems to follow that an attempt to do so would ipso facto be an expulsion of such State from the Union. And if Congress shall break up the Union by unconstitutionally putting strife and enmity and armed hostility between different sections of the country, instead of the "domestic tranquility" which the Constitution was meant to insure, will not all the States be absolved from their Federal obligations? Is any portion of the people bound to contribute their money or their blood to carry on a contest like that?
The right of the Central Government to preserve itself in its whole constitutional vigor by repelling a direct and positive aggression upon its property or its officers cannot be denied. But this is a totally different thing from an offensive war to punish the people for the political misdeeds of their State government, or to prevent a threatened violation of the Constitution, or to enforce an acknowledgment that the Government of the United States is supreme. The States are colleagues of one another, and if some of them shall conquer the rest and hold them as subjugated provinces, it would totally destroy the whole theory upon which they are now connected.(

US AG opion to the president on the use of force against the states that had left.

"How absurd it is to suppose that, when different parties enter into a compact for certain purposes, either can disregard any one provision, and expect, nevertheless, the other to observe the rest! ...[I]f the Northern States refuse, willfully and deliberately, to carry into effect [a] part of the Constitution... and Congress provides no remedy, the South would no longer be bound to observe the compact. A bargain can not be broken on one side, and still bind the other side." D Webster.

See SC by Northern states breaches, now you can say that the people of SC cannot for themselves determine if they are upset enough over these breaches, but they voted to secceded on these argumnets put to them, on a scale any modern political leader would be pleased as punch with, buty i put it to you that byou cannot tell them what they can or cannot detrmine for themselves were breaches. you know, government by consent and all that, who am i to tell you tyhe extent of hwo agrieved you should be over an issue?.

Nick · Sergeant Major Joined: 25 Apr 2007 Posts: 51

Who are parties to it? The people — but not the people as composing one great body; but the people as composing thirteen sovereignties: were it, as the gentleman [Henry] asserts, a consolidated government, the assent of a majority of the people would be sufficient for its establishment, and as a majority have adopted it already, the remaining States would be bound by the act of the majority, even if they unanimously reprobated it: were it such a government as is suggested, it would be now binding on the people of this State [Virginia], without having had the privilege of deliberating upon it; but, sir, no State is bound by it, as it is, without its own consent. Should all the States adopt it, it will be then a government established by the thirteen States of America, not through the intervention of the Legislatures, but by the people at large. In this particular respect the distinction between the existing and proposed governments is very material. The existing system has been derived from the dependent, derivative authority of the Legislatures of the States, whereas this is derived from the superior power of the people.

Madison expalining who we the people was/ment and what they were doing when they entered into the constitional compact. he goes on.

The Constitution is to be founded on the assent and ratification of the people of America, given by deputies elected for the special purpose; but this assent and ratification is to be given by the people, not as individuals comprising one entire nation, but as composing the distinct and independent States to which they respectively belong. It is to be the assent and ratification of the several States, derived from the supreme authority in each State — the authority of the people themselves. The act, therefore, establishing the Constitution will not be a national, but a federal act.
That it will be a federal, and not a national act, as these terms are understood by objectors, the act of the people, as forming so many independent States, not as forming one aggregate nation, is obvious from this single consideration, that it is to result neither from the decision of a majority of the people of the Union, nor from that of a majority of the States. It must result from the unanimous assent of the several States that are parties to it, differing no otherwise from their ordinary assent than in its being expressed, not by the legislative authority, but by that of the people themselves. Were the people regarded in this transaction as forming one nation, the will of the majority of the whole people of the United States would bind the minority; in the same manner as the majority in each State must bind the minority; and the will of the majority must be determined either by a comparison of the individual votes, or by considering the will of the majority of the States, as evidences of the will of a majority of the people of the United States. Neither of these has been adopted. Each State, in ratifying the Constitution, is considered as a sovereign body, independent of all others, and only to be bound by its voluntary act

cwalenta999 · Sergeant Major Joined: 17 Mar 2007 Posts: 60

You're out of context. You had posted that the states had the right to secede because the Federal government had breached the Constitution. Pointing to unconsitutional acts after secession is not dispositive; you need to show a breach prior to South Carolina's secession which you can't do.

Nick · Sergeant Major Joined: 25 Apr 2007 Posts: 51

[quote:fe1b504d74="cwalenta999"]You're out of context. You had posted that the states had the right to secede because the Federal government had breached the Constitution. Pointing to unconsitutional acts after secession is not dispositive; you need to show a breach prior to South Carolina's secession which you can't do.[/quote:fe1b504d74]

No i am not. Your just not very well read on the subject, so ill help you out somwhat. See end of post for summation of causes and declaration by SC. You do know how many states voted ordinces of seccesion in 56, called up their miliia to enforce them, on the simple premise of a Republican electin win right?.

Your contextual grasp of secesion is rather weak to say the least.

There was no dispute or use of forece when the first wave secceded,(B Wade (Republican )had to say in Congress "the States in their sovereignty" to be "the judge in the last resort of the violation of the Constitution of the United States," asserted "the rights of the States to protect their own citizens" against efforts "to consolidate this government into a miserable despotism." On 4 December 1856, he had this to say on the floor of the Senate:
If they [the Southern people] do not feel interested in upholding this Union — if it really entrenches on their rights — if it endangers their institutions to such an extent that they cannot feel secure under it — if their interests are violently assailed by the means of this Union, I am not one of those who expect that they will long continue under it. I am not one of those who ask them to continue in such a Union. It would be doing violence to the platform of the party to which I belong. We have adopted the old Declaration of Independence as the basis of our political movements, which declares that any people, when their Government ceases to protect their rights, when it is so subverted from the true purposes of government as to oppress them, have the right to recur to fundamental principles, and if need be, to destroy the Government under which they live, and to erect upon its ruins another conducive to their welfare. I hold that they have this right. I will not blame any people for exercising it, whenever they think the contingency has come. I certainly shall be an advocate of that same doctrine whenever I find that the principles of this Government have become so oppressive to the section to which I belong, that a free people ought not longer to endure it.... I hope the Union will continue forever. I believe it may continue forever. I see nothing at present which I think should dissolve it; but if other gentlemen see it, I say again that they have the same interest in maintaining this Union, in my judgment, as we of the North have. If they think they have not, be it so. You cannot forcibly hold men in the Union; for the attempt to do so, it seems to me, would subvert the first principles of the Government under which we live.

In Chicago 1860 the Republican party adopted this resolution,Resolved, 1. That the maintenance inviolate of the rights of the States, and especially the right of each State to order and control its own domestic institutions, according to its own judgment exclusively, is essential to that balance of power on which the perfection and endurance of our political fabric depends, and we denounce the lawless invasion by armed force of the soil of any State or Territory, no matter what pretext, as among the gravest of crimes.

On his way to Washington, D.C. to be inaugurated as President of the United States, Lincoln further elaborated on his party's platform in an address before the Indiana State legislature on 12 February 1861: "What is 'invasion'? Would the marching of an army into South Carolina, without the consent of her people, and with hostile intent toward them be 'invasion'? I certainly think it would, and it would be 'coercion' also if South Carolinians were forced to submit."

Sounds like Lincoln knew a duck when he saw one, he just chose to call it not one) only when a Radical party attempted to subvert the union into one in which a party would not be bound by the Constition took office as the controlling party, reaplcing the vol Union with one of involuntary Union.

When SC and the deep South secceded they gave a range of legal reasons ( two simple said they were Sov nations and therfore were required to give any reasons meerly exceised a right of sovrienty and secceded becausue the will of the people was the only legal requirement in law they needed) and the Federal government did nothing, the USA Atorney General wrote a legal opinion for the president (which i posted for you but youve cleary nevertaken the time to read) that the use of force was unlawfull to compel any state to return to the Union, and had been expressly denied to congress and the president. Months pass, and a new president comes into office, sacks the US AG and apoints a new one, months pass, and he then calls up the states militia to subdue insurection, with SC use of forece to regain fort Sumpter (Fort Sumpter was SC sov territory since the fort was not a Federal post, and the land title to it, legal change of land title started in 1812 still gave it to SC as the Federal government had yet to pay for the land/creation of the fort and take posesion and turn it into a federal post, the title deed requires that the Federal government within 20 years erect and maintain a garrison, in fact it is not untill 1896 that the federal government aquires and lawfull owns Fort sumpter acording to the US war Dept becomae federal property,) never mind that insurection in US law only exist for part of state agianst the state itself, and does not include a state against the Union, and that the Federal troops in it were there not only without Federal orders to do so but against express orders not to be there, issued by the president through the war Dept.( Martin v. Mott, 1827 is prcedent for what purpose the pres can call forth the miltia, it was afirmed that the pres can judge for himself what constitutes insurection or invasion and call forth the militia, when applied for by a stse legislture or gov but that this act requires constitional purposes, for which the act exist to cover.

It is both unconstitutional and murderous to kill even the enemies of the Government except by authority of law, and in the manner which the law prescribes. If a man who is not an enlisted soldier or sailor in the service of the United States, should kill even a rebel, that man would commit by the act, a murder, just as much as he would do who would kill a felon under sentence of death, if the person performing the act had not the authority and command of the proper Court to do it. Hence to kill even an enemy legitimately, it must be done by authority of law; and hence too the making of war by mere Executive edict, instead of by the authority of Congress, is a crimainal act.

The president cant just stop you in the street and tell another to kill you and take your property because he says your in insurection, and he and you claim to be doing so lawfully.)

In law Federal troops found in any state without lawful orders to be there are guilty of a range of criminal acts, and subject to a range of sanctions, and the use of force to remove them is and was warranted and sanctioned by US law, so SC was acting withing the law to expell ilegal trespass into the state (and thats without even touching on it now being a state outside the Union)

So Lincoln replaces the constition with party doctrine, ie secesion is treason and insurection as set out in the 61 Republican party manifesto, despite the law not supporting this, calls up the militia ( April 61 Lincoln declares a blockade blockades are acts of war and the pres has not this right under the consttition, secondly blockades grant the right of beligerant status as only forgien nations can be beligerants, and th USC later in the Prize case says that " "The objection made to this ratificastion, that it is ex post facto and therfore unconstitional and void, might possible have some weight in criminal inditement in court", thats impeachment for high criomes and misdemeners btw) to enforce party doctrine, whehn he has no constional authority to do so, and this causes the upper southern states to seccede and that brings on full scale mil conflict.

The Militia Act certainly gave the President authority to call out the militia, even with the Congress out of session, for up to 90 days. It did so under three conditions:

1. Actuality or eminent threat of foreign invasion.

2. A "rebellion inside a state against the government thereof" and on the application of the legislature or governor of the state. Massachusetts, under Shays rebellion had refused offers of help, while Pennsylvania, under the Whiskey Rebellion, had asked for federal help.

3. The second part of the Militia Act covered the responsibility of the US marshals and in that, a US marshal could call upon militia to support his efforts to conduct his duties. It is this part that talks about "combinations." But, it also says that the US marshals in their districts had the same authorities that the state in question gave its sheriffs inside their counties. Marshals, although appointed by the President with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, did not serve at the pleasure of the President and once appointed, there was very little anybody in Washington to do to get them to do anything.

Lincoln commenting on th USSC rullings on his actions.

"I do not forget the posistion assumed by some that constitional questions are to be decided by the Supreme courts, nor do i deny such that such descisions are binding in the case upon the parties to the suit, as to the object to the suit, while they are also entitiled to a very high respect and consideration in all parralle casses by all other depts of the government.And while it is possible that a descision may be eroneous in any given suit, still the efect of following it, being limited to that particular case, with the chance that it may be ocerulled and never become precedent for other cases, can better be born than could be the evils of a different practice. At the same time, the citizen must confess that if the policy of the government, upon vital questions affecting the whole people, is irevocable fixed by decions of the Supreme court, the people will have ceased to be there own masters, having resgned their government to the hands of the tribunal."

In other words, he would ignore them because he knew what was best for the people and would as he saw do what he saw as the best for them.

Almost lastly, i dont to have do what the first wave of states already set out as the breaches,its already known by anyone who can read that they set out the breachs and defined them and how long they existed and that the Republican party was one such that was no bound to uphold or be constarined by the constition and left, with the mandate of the people of each state.

Lastly Madison again.
Madison in1798
That this Assembly doth explicitly and peremptorily declare, that it views the powers of the federal government, as resulting from the compact, to which the states are parties; as limited by the plain sense and intention of the instrument constitutiong the compact; as no further valid that they are authorized by the grants enumerated in that compact; and that in case of a deliberate, palpable, and dangerous exercise of other powers, not granted by the said compact, the states who are parties thereto, have the right, and are in duty bound, to interpose for arresting the progress of the evil, and for maintaining within their respective limits, the authorities, rights and liberties appertaining to them.

"Our governmental system is established by a compact, not between the Government of the United States and the State Governments, but between the States as sovereign communities, stipulating each with the other a surrender of certain portions of their respective authorities, to be exercised by a common Government, and a reservation for their own exercise, of all the other authorities."

Number XL, Madison wrote that, under the new system of government, "the States, in all unenumerated cases, are left in the enjoyment of their sovereign and independent jurisdiction," and -- the authority of the people themselves. The act, therefore, establishing the Constitution will not be a national but a federal act . . . Each State, in ratifying the Constitution, is considered as a sovereign body independent of all others, and only to be bound by its own voluntary act.
"But it is objected, that the judicial authority is to be regarded as the sole expositor of the Constitution in the last resort; and it may be asked for what reason the declaration by the General Assembly, supposing it to be theoretically true, could be required at the present day, and in so solemn a manner.
On this objection it might be observed, first, that there may be instances of usurped power, which the forms of the Constitution would never draw within the control of the Judicial department; secondly, that, if the decision of the judiciary be raised above the authority of the Sovereign parties to the Constitution, the decisions of the other departments, not carried by the forms of the Constitution before the judiciary, must be equally authoritative and final as the decisions of this department. But the proper answer to this objection is, that the Resolution of the General Assembly relates to those great and extraordinary cases in which all the forms of the Constitution may prove ineffectual against infractions dangerous to the essential rights of the parties to it. The Resolution supposes that dangerous powers, not delegated, may not only be usurped and executed by the other departments, but that the Judicial department, also, may exercise or sanction dangerous powers beyond the grant of the Constitution; and, consequently, that the ultimate right of the parties to the Constitution to judge whether the Compact was dangerously violated, must extend to violations by one delegated authority as well as by another; by the judiciary as well as by the executive or the Legislature.
But why should I waste words in reply to these or any other authorities, when it has been so clearly established that the rights of the States are reserved against each and every department of the Government, and no authority in opposition can possibly shake a position so well established? Nor do I think it necessary to repeat the argument which I offered when the bill was under discussion, to show that the clause in the Constitution which provides that the judicial power shall extend to all cases in law or equity arising under this Constitution, and to the laws and treaties made under its authority, has no bearing on the point in controversy; and that even the boasted power of the Supreme Court to decide a law to be unconstitutional, so far from being derived from this or any other portion of the Constitution, results from the necessity of the case — where two rules of unequal authority come in conflict — and is a power belonging to all courts, superior and inferior, State and General, Domestic, and Foreign.
I have now, I trust, shown satisfactorily, that there is no provision in the Constitution to authorize the General Government, through any of its departments, to control the action of a State within the sphere of its reserved powers; and that, of course, according to the principle laid down by the Senator from Massachusetts himself, the Government of the States, as well as the General Government, has the right to determine the extent of their respective powers, without the right on the part of either to control the other. The necessary result is the veto, to which he so much objects; and to get clear of which, he informed us, was the object for which the present Constitution was formed. I know not whence he has derived his information, but my impression is very different, as to the immediate motives which led to the formation of that instrument. I have always understood that the principle was, to give to Congress the power to regulate commerce, to lay impost duties, and to raise a revenue for the payment of the public debt and the expenses of the Government; and to subject the action of the citizens, individually, to the operation of the laws, as a substitute for force. If the object had been to get clear of the veto of the States, as the Senator states, the Convention, certainly, performed their work in a most bungling manner. There was, unquestionably, a large party in that body, headed by men of distinguished talents and influence, who commenced early and worked earnestly to the last, to deprive the States — not directly, for that would have been too bold an attempt, but indirectly — of the veto. The good sense of the Convention, however, put down every effort, however disguised and perseveringly made. I do not deem it necessary to give, from the journals, the history of these various and unsuccessful attempts — though it would afford a very instructive lesson. It is sufficient to say that it was attempted, by proposing to give to Congress power to annul the acts of the States which they might deem inconsistent with the Constitution; to give to the President the power of appointing the Governors of the States, with a view of vetoing State laws through his authority; and, finally, to give the judiciary the power to decide controversies between the States and the General Government; all of which failed — fortunately for the liberty of the country — utterly and entirely failed; and in this failure we have the strongest evidence, that it was not the intention of the Convention to deprive the States of the veto power. Had the attempt to deprive them of this power been directly made, and failed, every one would have seen and felt, that it would furnish conclusive evidence in favor of its existence. Now, I would ask, what possible difference can it make in what form this attempt was made? Whether by attempting to confer on the General Government a power incompatible with the exercise of the veto on the part of the States, or by attempting directly to deprive them of the right to exercise it? We have thus direct and strong proof that, in the opinion of the Convention, the States, unless deprived of it, possess the veto power — or, what is another name for the same thing, the right of nullification. I know that there is a diversity of opinion among the friends of State Rights in regard to this power, which I regret, as I cannot but consider it as a power essential to the protection of the minor and local interests of the community, and the liberty and the Union of the country. It is the very shield of State Rights, and the only power by which that system of injustice against which we have contended for more than thirteen years can be arrested: a system of hostile Legislation — of plundering by law, which must necessarily lead to a conflict of arms, if not prevented.
But I rest the right of a State to judge of the extent of its reserved powers, in the last resort, on higher grounds — that the Constitution is a compact, to which the States are parties in their Sovereign capacity; and that, as in all other cases of compact between parties having no common umpire, each has a right to judge for itself. To the truth of this proposition, the Senator from Massachusetts has himself assented, if the Constitution itself be a compact — and that it is, I have shown, I trust, beyond the possibility of a doubt. Having established this point, I now claim, as I stated I would do, in the course of the discussion, the admissions of the Senator, and, among them, the right of secession and nullification, which he conceded would necessarily follow if the Constitution be, indeed, a Compact.

Here he is explaining where sov is to be found, as oposed to paramnout obiedence in law.

"It will be worth while, Mr. President, to consider this objection at large. When I had the honor of speaking formerly on this subject, I stated, in as concise a manner as possible, the leading ideas that occurred to me, to ascertain where the Supreme and Sovereign power resides. It has not been, nor, I presume, will it be denied, that somewhere there is, and of necessity must be, a Supreme, absolute, and uncontrollable authority. This, I believe, may justly be termed the Sovereign power; for, from that gentleman's (Mr. Findley) account of the matter, it cannot be Sovereign unless it is Supreme; for, says he a subordinate Sovereignty is no Sovereignty at all. I had the honor of observing, that, if the question was asked, where the Supreme power resided, different answers would be given by different writers. I mentioned that Blackstone would tell you that, in Britain, it is lodged in the British Parliament; and I believe there is no writer, on this subject, on the other side of the Atlantic, but supposed it to be vested in that body. I stated, further, that, if the question was asked of some politician, who had not considered the subject with sufficient accuracy, where the Supreme power resided in our Government, he would answer, that it was vested in the State Constitutions. This opinion approaches near the truth, but does not reach it; for the truth is, that the Supreme, absolute, and uncontrollable authority remains with the people. I mentioned, also, that the practical recognition of this truth was reserved for the honor of this country. I recollect no Constitution founded on this principle; but we have witnessed the improvement, and enjoy the happiness of seeing it carried into practice. The great and penetrating mind of Locke seems to be the only one that pointed towards even the theory of this great truth.

"When I made the observation that some politicians would say the Supreme power was lodged in our State Constitutions, I did not suspect that the honorable gentleman from Westmoreland (Mr. Findley) was included in that description; but I find myself disappointed; for I imagined his opposition would arise from another consideration. His position is, that the Supreme power resides in the States, as Governments; and mine is, that it resides in the people, as the fountain of Government; that the people have not — that the people meant not_ — and _that the people ought not — to part with it to any Government whatsoever_. In their hands it remains secure. They can delegate it in such proportions, to such bodies, on such terms, and under such limitations, as they think proper. I agree with the members in opposition, that there cannot be two Sovereign powers on the same subject. This, I say, is the inherent and unalienable right of the people; and as an illustration of it, I beg to read a few words from the Declaration of Independence, made by the Representatives of the United States, and recognised by the whole Union.

I gather history is not your thing so ill brifly cover aother chapter in seccesion. in the nulliciation crises D Webster told Congress

"The President has no authority to blockade Charleston; the President has no authority to employ military force, till he shall be required to do so by civil authorities. His duty is to cause the laws to be executed. His duty is to support the civil authority."

Oddly the same situation existed agin in 61, heres is what the next US AG wrote for lincoln, and was acked for doing so and another way apointed, intrestingh way to get the *right* intrpretation of law dont you think?.

"Whether Congress has the constitutional right to make war against one or more States, and require the Executive of the Federal Government to carry it on by means of force to be drawn from the other States, is a question for Congress itself to consider. It must be admitted that no such power is expressly given; nor are there any words in the Constitution which imply it. Among the powers enumerated in Article I, section 8, is that, "to declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and to make rules concerning captures on land and water." This certainly means nothing more than the power to commence and carry on hostilities against the foreign enemies of the nation. Another clause in the same section gives Congress the power "to provide for calling forth the militia," and to use them within the limits of a State. But this power is so restricted by the words which immediately follow, that it can be exercised only for one of the following purposes: 1. To execute the laws of the Union, that is, to aid the Federal officers in the performance of their regular duties. 2. To suppress insurrection against the States, but this is confined by Article IV, section 4, to cases in which the State herself shall apply for assistance against her own people. 3. To repel invasion of a State by enemies who come from abroad to assail her in her own territory. All these provisions are to protect the States, not to authorize an attack by one part of the country upon another; to preserve their peace, and not lunge them into civil war. Our forefathers do not seem to have thought that war was calculated to "form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity." There was undoubtedly a strong and universal conviction among the men who framed and ratified the Constitution that military force would not only be useless but pernicious as a means of holding the States (Union) together.
If it be true that war cannot be declared, nor a system of general hostilities carried on by the Central Government against a State, then it seems to follow that an attempt to do so would ipso facto be an expulsion of such State from the Union. And if Congress shall break up the Union by unconstitutionally putting strife and enmity and armed hostility between different sections of the country, instead of the "domestic tranquility" which the Constitution was meant to insure, will not all the States be absolved from their Federal obligations? Is any portion of the people bound to contribute their money or their blood to carry on a contest like that?
The right of the Central Government to preserve itself in its whole constitutional vigor by repelling a direct and positive aggression upon its property or its officers cannot be denied. But this is a totally different thing from an offensive war to punish the people for the political misdeeds of their State government, or to prevent a threatened violation of the Constitution, or to enforce an acknowledgment that the Government of the United States is supreme. The States are colleagues of one another, and if some of them shall conquer the rest and hold them as subjugated provinces, it would totally destroy the whole theory upon which they are now connected."

your probaly sick of Madison so here is some hamilton as well.

Hamilton argueing what this means in PA.
"it is said that the laws of the Union are to be the supreme law of the land. But what inference is to be drawn from this, or what would they amount to, if they were not supreme? It is evident that they would amount to nothing. A law, by the very meaning of the term, includes supremacy. It is a rule which those, to whom it is prescribed, are bound to observe. If individuals enter a state of society, the laws of that society must be the supreme regulator of their conduct. If a number of political societies enter into a larger political society, the laws which the latter may enact, pursuant to the powers intrusted to it by its Constitution, must necessarily be supreme over those societies, and the individuals of whom they are composed."

"But it will not follow from this doctrine that acts of the larger societies, which are not pursuant to its constitutional powers, but which are invasions of the residuary authorities of the smaller societies, will become the supreme law of the Land. These will be merely acts of usurpation, and will deserve to be treated as such. Hence we perceive that the clause which declares the supremacy of the laws of the Union, like the one we have just before considered, only declares a truth which flows immediately and necessarily from the institution of a Federal government. It will not, I presume, have escaped observation, that it expressly confines this supremacy to the laws made pursuant to the Constitution, which I mentioned merely as an instance of caution in the Convention, since that limitation would have been to be understood, though it had not been expressed."

"It has been observed, to coerce the states is one of the maddest projects that was ever devised. A failure of compliance will never be confined to a single state. This being the case, can we suppose it wise to hazard a civil war?

Suppose Massachusetts, or any large state, should refuse, and Congress should attempt to compel them, would they not have influence to procure assistance, especially from those states which are in the same situation as themselves? What picture does this idea present to our view? A complying state at war with a non-complying state; Congress marching the troops of one state into the bosom of another; this state collecting auxiliaries, and forming, perhaps, a majority against the federal head.

Here is a nation at war with itself. Can any reasonable man be well disposed towards a government which makes war and carnage the only means of supporting itself -- a government that can exist only by the sword? Every such war must involve the innocent with the guilty. This single consideration should be sufficient to dispose every peaceable citizen against such a government. But can we believe that one state will ever suffer itself to be used as an instrument of coercion? The thing is a dream; it is impossible."

South Carolina

Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union

The people of the State of South Carolina, in Convention assembled, on the 26th day of April, A.D., 1852, declared that the frequent violations of the Constitution of the United States, by the Federal Government, and its encroachments upon the reserved rights of the States, fully justified this State in then withdrawing from the Federal Union; but in deference to the opinions and wishes of the other slaveholding States, she forbore at that time to exercise this right. Since that time, these encroachments have continued to increase, and further forbearance ceases to be a virtue.
And now the State of South Carolina having resumed her separate and equal place among nations, deems it due to herself, to the remaining United States of America, and to the nations of the world, that she should declare the immediate causes which have led to this act.
In the year 1765, that portion of the British Empire embracing Great Britain, undertook to make laws for the government of that portion composed of the thirteen American Colonies. A struggle for the right of self-government ensued, which resulted, on the 4th of July, 1776, in a Declaration, by the Colonies, "that they are, and of right ought to be, Free and Independent States; and that, as free and independent States, they have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent States may of right do."
They further solemnly declared that whenever any "form of government becomes destructive of the ends for which it was established, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute a new government." Deeming the Government of Great Britain to have become destructive of these ends, they declared that the Colonies "are absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain is, and ought to be, totally dissolved."
In pursuance of this Declaration of Independence, each of the thirteen States proceeded to exercise its separate sovereignty; adopted for itself a Constitution, and appointed officers for the administration of government in all its departments -- Legislative, Executive and Judicial. For purposes of defense, they united their arms and their counsels; and, in 1778, they entered into a League known as the Articles of Confederation, whereby they agreed to entrust the administration of their external relations to a common agent, known as the Congress of the United States, expressly declaring, in the first Article "that each State retains its sovereignty, freedom and independence, and every power, jurisdiction and right which is not, by this Confederation, expressly delegated to the United States in Congress assembled."
Under this Confederation the war of the Revolution was carried on, and on the 3rd of September, 1783, the contest ended, and a definite Treaty was signed by Great Britain, in which she acknowledged the independence of the Colonies in the following terms: "Article 1 -- His Britannic Majesty acknowledges the said United States, viz: New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, to be Free, Sovereign, and Independent States; that he treats with them as such; and for himself, his heirs and successors, relinquishes all claims to the government, propriety and territorial rights of the same and every part thereof."
Thus were established the two great principles asserted by the Colonies, namely: the right of a State to govern itself; and the right of a people to abolish a Government when it becomes destructive of the ends for which it was instituted. And concurrent with the establishment of these principles, was the fact, that each Colony became and was recognized by the mother Country a Free, Sovereign, and Independent State.
In 1787, Deputies were appointed by the States to revise the Articles of Confederation, and on 17th September, 1787, these Deputies recommended for the adoption of the States, the Articles of Union, known as the Constitution of the United States.
The parties to whom this Constitution was submitted, were the several sovereign States; they were to agree or disagree, and when nine of them agreed the compact was to take effect among those concurring; and the General Government, as the common agent, was then invested with their authority.
If only nine of the thirteen States had concurred, the other four would have remained as they then were -- separate, sovereign States, independent of any of the provisions of the Constitution. In fact, two of the States did not accede to the Constitution until long after it had gone into operation among the other eleven; and during that interval, they each exercised the functions of an independent nation.
By this Constitution, certain duties were imposed upon the several States, and the exercise of certain of their powers was restrained, which necessarily implied their continued existence as sovereign States. But to remove all doubt, an amendment was added, which declared that 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. On the 23d May, 1788, South Carolina, by a Convention of her People, passed an Ordinance assenting to this Constitution, and afterwards altered her own Constitution, to conform herself to the obligations she had undertaken.
Thus was established, by compact between the States, a Government with definite objects and powers, limited to the express words of the grant. This limitation left the whole remaining mass of power subject to the clause reserving it to the States or to the people, and rendered unnecessary any specification of reserved rights.
We hold that the Government thus established is subject to the two great principles asserted in the Declaration of Independence; and we hold further, that the mode of its formation subjects it to a third fundamental principle, namely: the law of compact. We maintain that in every compact between two or more parties, the obligation is mutual; that the failure of one of the contracting parties to perform a material part of the agreement, entirely releases the obligation of the other; and that where no arbiter is provided, each party is remitted to his own judgment to determine the fact of failure, with all its consequences.
In the present case, that fact is established with certainty. We assert that fourteen of the States have deliberately refused, for years past, to fulfill their constitutional obligations, and we refer to their own Statutes for the proof.
The Constitution of the United States, in its fourth Article, provides as follows: "No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up, on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due."
This stipulation was so material to the compact, that without it that compact would not have been made. The greater number of the contracting parties held slaves, and they had previously evinced their estimate of the value of such a stipulation by making it a condition in the Ordinance for the government of the territory ceded by Virginia, which now composes the States north of the Ohio River.
The same article of the Constitution stipulates also for rendition by the several States of fugitives from justice from the other States.
The General Government, as the common agent, passed laws to carry into effect these stipulations of the States. For many years these laws were executed. But an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution. The States of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin and Iowa, have enacted laws which either nullify the Acts of Congress or render useless any attempt to execute them. In many of these States the fugitive is discharged from service or labor claimed, and in none of them has the State Government complied with the stipulation made in the Constitution. The State of New Jersey, at an early day, passed a law in conformity with her constitutional obligation; but the current of anti-slavery feeling has led her more recently to enact laws which render inoperative the remedies provided by her own law and by the laws of Congress. In the State of New York even the right of transit for a slave has been denied by her tribunals; and the States of Ohio and Iowa have refused to surrender to justice fugitives charged with murder, and with inciting servile insurrection in the State of Virginia. Thus the constituted compact has been deliberately broken and disregarded by the non-slaveholding States, and the consequence follows that South Carolina is released from her obligation.
The ends for which the Constitution was framed are declared by itself to be "to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity." These ends it endeavored to accomplish by a Federal Government, in which each State was recognized as an equal, and had separate control over its own institutions. The right of property in slaves was recognized by giving to free persons distinct political rights, by giving them the right to represent, and burthening them with direct taxes for three-fifths of their slaves; by authorizing the importation of slaves for twenty years; and by stipulating for the rendition of fugitives from labor.
We affirm that these ends for which this Government was instituted have been defeated, and the Government itself has been made destructive of them by the action of the non-slaveholding States. Those States have assumed the right of deciding upon the propriety of our domestic institutions; and have denied the rights of property established in fifteen of the States and recognized by the Constitution; they have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery; they have permitted open establishment among them of societies, whose avowed object is to disturb the peace and to eloign the property of the citizens of other States. They have encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to leave their homes; and those who remain, have been incited by emissaries, books and pictures to servile insurrection.
For twenty-five years this agitation has been steadily increasing, until it has now secured to its aid the power of the common Government. Observing the forms of the Constitution, a sectional party has found within that Article establishing the Executive Department, the means of subverting the Constitution itself. A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States, whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery. He is to be entrusted with the administration of the common Government, because he has declared that that "Government cannot endure permanently half slave, half free," and that the public mind must rest in the belief that slavery is in the course of ultimate extinction.
This sectional combination for the subversion of the Constitution, has been aided in some of the States by elevating to citizenship, persons who, by the supreme law of the land, are incapable of becoming citizens; and their votes have been used to inaugurate a new policy, hostile to the South, and destructive of its beliefs and safety.
On the 4th day of March next, this party will take possession of the Government. It has announced that the South shall be excluded from the common territory, that the judicial tribunals shall be made sectional, and that a war must be waged against slavery until it shall cease throughout the United States.
The guaranties of the Constitution will then no longer exist; the equal rights of the States will be lost. The slaveholding States will no longer have the power of self-government, or self-protection, and the Federal Government will have become their enemy.
Sectional interest and animosity will deepen the irritation, and all hope of remedy is rendered vain, by the fact that public opinion at the North has invested a great political error with the sanction of more erroneous religious belief.
We, therefore, the People of South Carolina, by our delegates in Convention assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, have solemnly declared that the Union heretofore existing between this State and the other States of North America, is dissolved, and that the State of South Carolina has resumed her position among the nations of the world, as a separate and independent State; with full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent States may of right do.

Adopted 24 December 1860
[Committee signatures]

Ordince of secesion.

South Carolina

An Ordinance to dissolve the union between the State of South Carolina and other States united with her under the compact entitled "The Constitution of the United States of America";
We, the people of the State of South Carolina, in convention assembled, do declare and ordain, and it is hereby declared and ordained, That the ordinance adopted by us in convention on the twenty-third day of May, in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty-eight, whereby the Constitution of the United States of America was ratified, and also all acts and parts of acts of the General Assembly of this State ratifying amendments of the said Constitution, are hereby repealed; and that the union now subsisting between South Carolina and other States, under the name of the "United States of America," is hereby dissolved.
Done at Charleston the twentieth day of December, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty.

cwalenta999 · Sergeant Major Joined: 17 Mar 2007 Posts: 60

Miss declaration of cause of secesion is legal declaration of State sov, and excerising it when a clear breach of Union has been shown. [In this post I thought you were arguing along the contract theory of the Constitution, ie. South may secede if Feds breach the contract]

In response I pick up on that language:

The 'breach' of the Constitution? Name the breach. There is none. In 1860, the Federal government was spending 2.5% of GNP with a minimal standing army. The Federal government was a virtual non-entity.

The problem is that the Federal government never acted in a manner that breached the Constitution in 1860 prior to secession, so if you're saying that secession is justified because of this; that argument is simply without merit.

Your answer to this post is referring to a Lincoln action which obviously occurs after SC’s secession.

“Lincoln called up the state militia for service,to supress insurection, under the constition this is a function of congress, and no insurection can exist till the judiciary rules it to do so, and US law states that only a part of state against the state itself can be in insurection and aplication by the state gov or legilsture to Federal authorityys is required for federal troops to enter the state to put down the insurection, the upper southern states then seccedded on this breach of the constition.”

You're out of context. You had posted that the states had the right to secede because the Federal government had breached the Constitution. Pointing to unconsitutional acts after secession is not dispositive; you need to show a breach prior to South Carolina's secession which you can't do. [South Carolina secedes before Lincoln takes office]

“SC and others were very clear what they considered the breaches taht merited their seccesions, now you can calim they had no such right to believe as they did, but then you have that pesky Republican form of government gaurenteed to all states by the constition, telling you that all governments govern by consent of teh governed, not that all must do as you tell them, your know, dictorships. “ [Sorry, but the republican guarantee in the Constitution is actually pro-Union fodder under the premise that the Feds obviously can’t guarantee a republican form of government in states that have seceded, ie. secession voids the guarantee]

You’re better off just arguing that states have a unilateral/unconditional right to secede because the only action the Feds were taking which upset the South was expansion and the fact that those states were coming in as ‘free-states’ upsetting the balance of power in the Senate. At the end of the day, it always comes back to slavery.

“No i am not.” [You’re writing this in response to my ‘you’re out of context quote’]

“Your just not very well read on the subject, so ill help you out somwhat.” [OK, thanks, but while you can call me many things, not well-read is not one of them and frankly you know better than that.]

Nick · Sergeant Major Joined: 25 Apr 2007 Posts: 51

[quote:f6238e696c]
The 'breach' of the Constitution? Name the breach. There is none. In 1860, the Federal government was spending 2.5% of GNP with a minimal standing army. The Federal government was a virtual non-entity.

The problem is that the Federal government never acted in a manner that breached the Constitution in 1860 prior to secession, so if you're saying that secession is justified because of this; that argument is simply without merit. [/quote:f6238e696c]

Miss was one of the States that understood a breech was required to excerise the right of secesion, its people determined for themselves if such a breech had occured, as they and they alone can do this, when they agreed that it had the state secceded and citeied the breach, your comments have nothing to do with what Miss said, other states understood seceession slightly diffireent, they did not require a breach, as Sov states do what they want when they want and convincing the people of a course of action was the only required measure to seccede.

If you acept that Miss was a sov state, then by default you also must acept that they and they alone have the right to determine the extent of action for any breach they consider to have occured, as madison already poiunted out, this was how it worked.

[quote:f6238e696c]
You’re better off just arguing that states have a unilateral/unconditional right to secede because the only action the Feds were taking which upset the South was expansion and the fact that those states were coming in as ‘free-states’ upsetting the balance of power in the Senate. At the end of the day, it always comes back to slavery.[/quote:f6238e696c]

Yes there is that as well. Secesion and ascensiion are atributes only a sov entity can perform in law.

Equal represnetaion in the house of reps was already lost to the southern states, they only lawfull/constitional remedy was to retain eaqual represnation in the other house, as many states said, the Republicans have attempted to pervert the intention of the constition by refusing to allow represntation of all sections and replace the balance and checks built into the sytem to prevent simple majority rule, the Republicans said what was wrong with poitical system is states rights, and simply denied they had any as they were not sov states, while the states said thats whats right with the sytem as prevents usurption of powers.

[quote:f6238e696c]

“Your just not very well read on the subject, so ill help you out somwhat.” [OK, thanks, but while you can call me many things, not well-read is not one of them and frankly you know better than that.][/quote:f6238e696c]

Actualy i dont, i only know what you post, and ive only been here a short time and have little idea what you know or dont know, and you think me posting something that you disagree with means its out of context. As a lawyer you already know that Sov cannot be implied away, it can be taken by force of arms untill re aserted later, or expressly surrenderd, since its a matter of historical record and fact that no states surrenderd their sov in forming the Union of the Aoc or later in the Constition that they are sov entitys and had every constitional right to excercise one of the atributes of sovriegnty. Thats all the legal context you need to know.

Ollie439 · Sergeant Joined: 02 May 2007 Posts: 17 Location: Alabama

Times change, if constitution says you can own slaves then its wrong and needs to change, if it says a state's got rights to hold slaves, its wrong. I don't care what any of that *beep* says the Confederacy was going down.

Nick · Sergeant Major Joined: 25 Apr 2007 Posts: 51

[quote:dd295a6e91="Ollie439"]Times change, if constitution says you can own slaves then its wrong and needs to change, if it says a state's got rights to hold slaves, its wrong. I don't care what any of that *beep* says the Confederacy was going down.[/quote:dd295a6e91]

I am starled by your intelect, under the Constition slavery was protected since the US become a Union, and an amendemt by all states reomved it, whoever it is an open amdment an able to re rescinded, as happened in the early 60s when two senators attempted to do so in their state.

CSA has nothing to do with the 13 amendment, which was passed by all states in the Union.