absurdity

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

"obviously Texas v. White, the SC case ruling secession illegal was only decided after the war, obviously if the South had won the war I am sure Texas v. White would've never been heard or would've reflected the political reality"

Texas v White never enters case law, it was overturned on appeal, the judiciary act 1798 does not give the USSC any jurisdiction to rule as it did and was easily overturned.

"course included the infamous 3/5ths clause essentially counting slaves as .6 of a person for apportionment purposes."

This clause was created to limit the southern representation because of northern fears of it being used as a block vote by whites, southern abolitionists wanted it as it encoureged emancipation, ie free your 1:1 represention, you could look at what the states did when a slave was emancipated, in all southwern except SC states they became citizens and could lawfullt apply for citizenship in any state in the union after living in it for the required time, no northern state would do this for decades, and many mid west and northern states amended the state constition to allow only whites to be citizens.

"Just as a minor point large tracts of land were legitimately owned by the Federal Government."

Depends when you mean, the TOP gave to the 13 states property rights to all the former UK crown lands, those states then through Congress chose to or chose not, give away to the Union its propprty rights, RI did so and giot its RW war debt written off, Va did so on the condition that slavery would not exist in the new states created in the west and so on. Jefferson wrote a reprt on all this and the USSC follwed the Uk mansfield case making the NWT free soil, any salve being there fior a year could apply for freedom under federal law.

"NATURAL RIGHT TO COMPEL THE OTHERS TO OBEDIENCE. This quote is even from the Articles of Confederation era, and the Articles explicitly granted sovereignty to its separate states."

Congress specificly rejected the right of authorising the use of force to compell a state, three times prior to the WBTS, have another try. The AOC do not grant Sovreignty, they afrim where it rests, have another try.

"To recap: The people entered the Federal pact, not the states"

Correct, which was why RI citizens were not allowed to vote to leave the AOC by the state refusing to sanction a convention to do so, and a more perfect union was created that existed side by side with RI and NC still in the AOC for 18 months before they joined the the New Union, without ever leaving the AOC, you know the one with the clause that all states must agree to allow a satte to leave the AOC, but since every other satte had already done so, using the superior right of secesion as excerosed by the people in state convention, which is what madison refered to as being a more perfect union as the right of secesion/ascension was placed firmly with the people, who hold all sov rights to it, ist worth pointing out that 13 states, all sov entered into the AOC, and that when it failed, 9 were required to enter into a newer form that was more perfect, one that came about because they all excerised the seperate sov right of secesion from the AOC that expressly forbid them to do so without all other states agreement btw, and enter into the new union, solely on the right of a sov people assembled in state convention. because that how the US fundamental law books said it worked.

"However, I do believe that the starting the war was justified if, and only if, the main purpose was to reunite the Union"

Written constitions exist to prevent exactly that kind of argument, otherwise no league/union or treaty would ever allow a weaker party to remove itself from it, when the Us and france netered into perment treaty of alliance during the RW, the US postr war simply told them, this no longer suits us the treaty is at an end. By your highly peculiar logic, france then has a right use force to compel them to do otherwise.

" "We, the People", correct?"

Yes correct, "we the people" refers to the people of the seperate individual states, those who individiuly were granted sov independence by the UK crown in the TOP, and haveing seperatly and individualy and at different time claimed and affirmed sov for themsleves in their state and colonial charters amd constions, they did it in 1689 during the GR and sov passed from one UK monatch to another, and again in 1774-4 when they took it for the people of each state. you go onto to mention PH, who objected to the Federal use of we the people, as that implied a national sov, to which madison expalined to him that it was simply legal pratcice to refer back to who that ment, which if you look at the actual document itself, list the states individualy who ratify, ie no one knew who would and who would not, so they used we the people and ommitted the list of states because all the docs needed to be prepared before the signing and no one knew who would and would not, but the actual full document as prepared list all sattes as seperate sov.

"This argument is strongest in the case of the original 13 colonies, followed by all states carved out of the original lands of the US east of the Mississippi; and is weakest in the states carved out of the Louisiana Purchase."

Rubbish.

The constition provides all states citizens with the same rights,if one has a right then all have that right, VA Ri, NY specicly set out the right of secesion in their ratification ordinces, the constion starts with a pre amble, lists its artilces, then comes the states ratification and conditions, that compries the compact, ergo simnce some states wrote into the state ratification the undelgated right of secesion, then all posses it as the main body of the constition grants all citizens equal right, since secesion is a right of the people, then all the states peoples have thios right, at state levl.

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

"Texas v White never enters case law, it was overturned on appeal, the judiciary act 1798 does not give the USSC any jurisdiction to rule as it did and was easily overturned."

A Supreme Court decision cannot be overturned on appeal, so I am not sure where you're getting that from.

The SC specifically has jurisdiction to hear the case, the underlying matter was between Texas and the bond holders who were citizens of another state.

The case still stands for the proposition that a state cannot secede from the United States.

The 3/5ths clause was a compromise. Generally northern states favored that slaves be counted with a ‘0’ whereas southern states generally wanted to count slaves as a full person. So, yes, the 3/5th compromise does limit Southern representation in the Congress inasmuch as counting slaves as a full person, for apportionment purposes, would result in greater political power for southern states.

“The people entered the Federal pact, not the states” – this is a populist strain of thought. Actually most pro-secession theories rely on the fact that indeed it is the states that enter into the Federal pact and as such it is the states which retain the right to secede. Despite the fact that I am pro-north, I actually concur with the southerners on this one, it is indeed the states which enter the Union and while I would state that TODAY, it is clearly prohibited to secede, I do concede that the issue is debatable in 1860 with the Southerner’s typically pointing to the Tenth Amendment and the Northerners pointing to Supremacy Clause, guarantee of a republican form of government and Articles of Confederation referring to a perpetual union with the Constitution ratified as a ‘more perfect’ union.

“Written constitions exist to prevent exactly that kind of argument, otherwise no league/union or treaty would ever allow a weaker party to remove itself from it, when the Us and france netered into perment treaty of alliance during the RW, the US postr war simply told them, this no longer suits us the treaty is at an end. By your highly peculiar logic, france then has a right use force to compel them to do otherwise.”

Comparing constitutions and treaties isn’t particularly helpful. Obviously it is North’s position that the South is in a State of Rebellion and the government obviously has a right to put down rebellions. But, notwithstanding, breaching treaties has, in the past, been considered a legitimate casus belli.

"This argument is strongest in the case of the original 13 colonies, followed by all states carved out of the original lands of the US east of the Mississippi; and is weakest in the states carved out of the Louisiana Purchase."

Rubbish.

The constition provides all states citizens with the same rights,if one has a right then all have that right, VA Ri, NY specicly set out the right of secesion in their ratification ordinces, the constion starts with a pre amble, lists its artilces, then comes the states ratification and conditions, that compries the compact, ergo simnce some states wrote into the state ratification the undelgated right of secesion, then all posses it as the main body of the constition grants all citizens equal right, since secesion is a right of the people, then all the states peoples have thios right, at state levl.

You’re correct but miss my point. You are correct, all citizens have the same rights vis-à-vis the Federal government, but I argue that states which ultimately derive their sovereignity from the US, ie. States carved out of Louisiana Purchase, etc. were made states by the Federal government (Territories applied for statehood). Now, O’B says that there is no such thing as second class states, and he’s correct, and while I still think that secession is abhorrent, EVEN IF IT WAS CONSIDERED LEGAL IN 1860, the Federal government could still assert sovereignity over the states carved out of the Louisiana Purchase, etc. by essentially arguing that, indeed, you may secede from the Union, but guess what? This doesn’t make you an independent state, it merely reverts you to a territory again.

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

[quote="cwalenta999"]

A Supreme Court decision cannot be overturned on appeal, so I am not sure where you're getting that from.[quote]

see ex part Bollman and Swartout, ie first clause section 14 of the Judicairy act, see also SC rulling s of pres orders being outsixde their remit to rule or comment on. Writ of error on jursidction is the way it was overturned, as allowed by the act.

Really?, it happens all the time, look at S Scott for instance, chase rulled on seccesion which the judicaiory act denies him jursidiction to do so, the case was brought by the Texas mil commnder, who was apointed by pres order, not congress and was outside the remit of any US laws to govern his actions, so he had no lawfull right to bring suit, nor did chase have any remit to rule on matters not brought in the suit,stillless argued in teh case!. try a search and you will see texas/white has not nor cane be used as precedent. At best its orbita dicta without weight of force of law.

[quote:cde8de8997]
The SC specifically has jurisdiction to hear the case, the underlying matter was between Texas and the bond holders who were citizens of another state.[/quote:cde8de8997]

And the judiaciary act does not grant the USSC the right to hear suit or rule on the matter of state secesion as they are sov states above the USSC in that respect.

The reservation to the States respectively," says the Supreme Court, "can only mean the reservation of the Sovereignty which they respectively possessed before the adoption of the Constitution of the United States and which they had not parted from by that instrument. And ANY legislation by Congress beyond the limits of the power designated would be trespassing upon the rights of the States or the people, and would not be the supreme law of the land, but null and void."

[quote:cde8de8997]
The case still stands for the proposition that a state cannot secede from the United States.[/quote:cde8de8997]

I think i should clarify, Texaswhite is not case law on secesion as secesion has never been ruled on by the USSC because it has no authority to do do so.

So a case that is not supported by texas/white, the USSC cannot have a rulling on this issue because it is denied the authority to do so by the judiciary Act, otherwise the constion itself would have no meaning, as all rights and provisions in it would change with each USSC rulling.

It also defies historical facts, the US colonies tranfered sov in 1689, and again 1774-76 and no one claims they were acting ilegaly, except the UK crown does so in 76, when the colonial charters for each state are explict that they have such a right, just as Scotland/wales do in Uk law. Fundamental alw for the Uk is blackstone, and was the principle book used in Willam and mary to teach law in the US, it contains the right of secesion.

There are many refernces to the right of secesion in USSC cases, but they are orbita dicata, Vahorne, Lesse v Dorrance, Calder v bull for instance both set out the Courts understanding of state relationship, as also are several more such cases set out in A Stevens view.
[quote:cde8de8997]
The 3/5ths clause was a compromise. Generally northern states favored that slaves be counted with a ‘0’ whereas southern states generally wanted to count slaves as a full person. So, yes, the 3/5th compromise does limit Southern representation in the Congress inasmuch as counting slaves as a full person, for apportionment purposes, would result in greater political power for southern states.[/quote:cde8de8997]

Yep comprimise is good, easier than all that running around shooting at people....

[quote:cde8de8997]
“The people entered the Federal pact, not the states” – this is a populist strain of thought. Actually most pro-secession theories rely on the fact that indeed it is the states that enter into the Federal pact and as such it is the states which retain the right to secede. Despite the fact that I am pro-north, I actually concur with the southerners on this one, it is indeed the states which enter the Union and while I would state that TODAY, it is clearly prohibited to secede, I do concede that the issue is debatable in 1860 with the Southerner’s typically pointing to the Tenth Amendment and the Northerners pointing to Supremacy Clause, guarantee of a republican form of government and Articles of Confederation referring to a perpetual union with the Constitution ratified as a ‘more perfect’ union.[/quote:cde8de8997]

Well yes it was state legisture who entered into union, and only later was this found not to be perfect, and repalced with the people itself, so it depends on when your talking or thinking about.

Supremcy clause only applies to whats in the constition, nothing more, and was inserted because Mason pointed out that "that congress should have the power to provide the general welfare, i grant. but i wish a clause in the Constition with respect to all powers, which are not granted, and that they are retained by the states. otherwise the power of providing the general good will be perverted top its own destruction. we wish to and ammendment to be introduced to remove our aprehension, there was a clause in the AOC that reserving to the states every power,jurisdiction and right not expressly delegated to the US. this clause has never been complained of and approved by all.

Madison sponsered and entered the X to have this effect.

USSC Ware V Hylton,1798 Chase who signed the DOI for maryland rulled.

In June 1776 the convention in Va formaly declared that Va was afree and Sov and independednt state and on the 4th of July following the US in congress asembled and decared taht the 13 united colinies were free and independent etc, and as such had full power to levy war, conclude peace. i consider this declaration, not that the US jointly in a collective capacity were independednt states,but that each of them was soveriegn and independednt state, and that each of themn has the right to govern itself by its own authority and its own law, without any control from any other power on earth.

A bit more exlicit than texas white dont you think?.

Madison on the republcan form of Gov in PA debates( see also the USSC rulling on what this is in Luther v Bordern when RI had a civil war in 1849 and the state government impossed martial law in the state and the other faction appealed to the federal government on the right of Republican form of government being denied to them, the court found it had no authority to interfere with a a ststes internal dispute, but that as a matter of law martial law was lawfull and a form of republcan government when lawfully excerised in pursuit of lawful intent.

If we consider the Union as anologous, not to the social compact between men,but to the conventions between individual states what is the doctrine resulting from these convenstions?.clearly acording to the expositiors of the Laws of nations, that breach by one article by a party, leaves all others at liberty to consider the whole convention dissolved, unless they chose rathwer to compell the deliquent party to repair the breach.

[quote:cde8de8997]

Comparing constitutions and treaties isn’t particularly helpful. [/quote:cde8de8997]Actually it is, as they are all drawn up from books of law, its how the constion was created, and the books it used, cleary set out the right of conditional secesion. currwently in the UN no nation can be a member state without formaly recognising the conditionl right of secesion, thats the current state of paly in international law on secesion. in the Uk scotland is possible going to leav ethe union which provides the backbone of the US constion, no one says hey your all traitors and there is no such thing, only in the Us does this intpretaion appear, only to disapear over Taiwan...

[quote:cde8de8997]
Obviously it is North’s position that the South is in a State of Rebellion and the government obviously has a right to put down rebellions. But, notwithstanding, breaching treaties has, in the past, been considered a legitimate casus belli.[/quote:cde8de8997]

Well you pose an intresting point, ilegal rebelion can be supressed by lawfull means, but reblions that are lawful or not contary to law cannot be lawfully interposed by force.

[quote:cde8de8997]
You’re correct but miss my point. You are correct, all citizens have the same rights vis-à-vis the Federal government, but I argue that states which ultimately derive their sovereignity from the US, ie. States carved out of Louisiana Purchase, etc. were made states by the Federal government (Territories applied for statehood).[/quote:cde8de8997]

Nope, they were sov prior to the purchase only the location of sov changed, in the Us republican form of government thats the people of a state, not the king of France, the federal gov nor the constion is a sov body, except in that it is the highest organic law.

[quote:cde8de8997]
Now, O’B says that there is no such thing as second class states, and he’s correct, and while I still think that secession is abhorrent, EVEN IF IT WAS CONSIDERED LEGAL IN 1860, the Federal government could still assert sovereignity over the states carved out of the Louisiana Purchase, etc. by essentially arguing that, indeed, you may secede from the Union, but guess what? This doesn’t make you an independent state, it merely reverts you to a territory again.[/quote:cde8de8997]

Nope. All states have aserted their sov before entry into the Union, (its in the state constitions and is the only lawfull way to enter into a Union, only Sov states have a legal right vto conclude allainces etc) while in the Union they have equal rights, on leaving they reverty to being sov states.

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

Section 4. The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government,127 and shall protect each of them against Invasion;
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"In the light of the undoubted fact that by the Revolution it was expected and intended to throw off monarchical and aristocratic forms," says Cooley ("Principles of Constitutional Law"), "there could be no question but that by a republican form of government was intended a government in which not only would the people's representatives make the laws and their agents administer them, but the people would also directly or indirectly choose the executive."

Texa white ought to have gon ethe same way as here, but Chase was put under plenty of pressure to do otherwise, Chase is a hard man to understand, when in the ttresury he introduces the greenbacks, when in the Sc he rules it all ilegal, odd man, who in my opinion in nTexas gave the administartion what they wanted, knowing he would be overturned on pppeal as he was rulling on issues not argued in couyrt and not containined in the juduiciary act.
In 1867 the State of Georgia filed a bill for injunction in the Supreme Court of the United States against Edwin M. Stanton, Secretary of War, General Grant, and Major General Pope, to restrain them from carrying out the provisions of the Reconstruction Acts of Congress96 for maintaining order in the southern States and holding elections for the adoption of new constitutions. The bill for injunction recited that Major General Pope had been placed in command of the military district in which Georgia was situated for the purpose of carrying out these Acts of Congress, although at the close of the war military forces had been withdrawn and the civil government of the State had been revived and reorganized with the consent of the President as Commander in Chief of the army, all that was lacking for complete rehabilitation being representation in the Senate and the House of Representatives. The Supreme Court dismissed the bill for want of jurisdiction, saying that its authority related to "the rights of persons or property, not merely political rights, which do not belong to the jurisdiction of a court, either in law or equity." c59

In 1912 a tax-payer in Oregon brought this question again to the attention of the Supreme Court, claiming that the amendment of 1902 to the constitution of Oregon, by which the people reserved to themselves the right to propose amendments to the Constitution and to enact or reject at the polls laws or amendments independent of the legislative assembly, had destroyed the republican form of government which had been guaranteed by this section of the National Constitution. It was contended that such government by the people directly is democracy and not the representative or republican form which the framers of the Constitution had in mind. The Supreme Court said that the questions presented "have long since by this court been definitely determined to be political and governmental and embraced within the scope of the powers conferred upon Congress, and not therefore within the reach of the judicial power."

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

Did you know there is actually a wikipedia article on it. Check it out. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_v._White

Holding
The Court held Texas never left the union during the Civil War. Further, a state cannot secede from the United States.

There is no appeal from the SC, they can overturn their decisions, but seriously anybody I have spoken to regarding the Civil War acknowledges:

Northerners: acknowledge that the case comes after the Civil War and obviously reflects the reality of the military outcome of the conflict.

Southerners: note (but sometimes do not acknowledge), that it is the de facto law of the land that secession has been ruled to be illegal (some of them obviously don't think that SHOULD be the case)

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

[quote:003c1fe3ba="cwalenta999"]Did you know there is actually a wikipedia article on it. Check it out. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_v._White [/quote:003c1fe3ba]

not suprised, yale law does it better though. Teaxas/white is not case law for or against secesion as that was argued in court, chase simply chose to comment on it, if he had said xmas falls on june the 3 it would mean that was so meerly that was what he understood.

[quote:003c1fe3ba]
There is no appeal from the SC, they can overturn their decisions,[/quote:003c1fe3ba]

I think a mentioned thats what happened, writ of error in jurisdiction.

[quote:003c1fe3ba]
but seriously anybody I have spoken to regarding the Civil War acknowledges:

Northerners: acknowledge that the case comes after the Civil War and obviously reflects the reality of the military outcome of the conflict.[/quote:003c1fe3ba]

You dont settle matters of law on the battlefield.

[quote:003c1fe3ba]
Southerners: note (but sometimes do not acknowledge), that it is the de facto law of the land that secession has been ruled to be illegal (some of them obviously don't think that SHOULD be the case)[/quote:003c1fe3ba]

Well TW does not concern itself with secesion, and i can post a dozen of SC cases that plainly say secesion is constionaly and lawfully correct as the court at that time understands, it, but they and TW are all orbita dicta and notthing more than that.

Do you really think the FF created a Union, with a constition detailing what and where the rights of all were placed, that then creates a Court to arbitate between those who created it and were in dispute, and passed the power/authority to that court the ability to tell them they were not allowed to leave or enter that union?, is the uniion a prison and inmate relationship with all power vested in the SC?, of course not, it was one of equal sov styates who recognise no higher authority than themselves but while in a union for the common good needed amechanism (USSC)to arbitrate all disputes while in that Union.

Did they just have bad day?. no they had more good days than bad, and they delegated what the judiciary was allowed to rule on.

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

I've said all I am going to say on Texas v. White. I'm an attorney in the State of New York and State of New Jersey and I had to sit through Con Law for a full semester. About half the course deals with what is essentially the history of Judicial Review, slavery, secession, interstate commerce, Equal Protection Clause, and the other half is more practical dealing with more modern Constitutional issues. You are the FIRST person I have ever spoken to who challenges the premise of Texas v. White.

Notwithstanding, I don't discuss the battlefield here because we are discussing secession. Obviously secession is a threshold issue because assuming arguendo that it is legal, then obviously the entire Union war effort is unlawful, ab initio-the debate need not go further.

But actually yes, I do believe the Federalists were attempting to forge one nation and many Founding Fathers were Federalists. Any union between the states permitting secession creates nothing more than a loose confederation at best, and frankly the name of the country isn't 'The Loosely Affiliated States of America' its 'The United States of America'

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

[quote:482c00d921="cwalenta999"]I've said all I am going to say on Texas v. White. I'm an attorney in the State of New York and State of New Jersey and I had to sit through Con Law for a full semester. About half the course deals with what is essentially the history of Judicial Review, slavery, secession, interstate commerce, Equal Protection Clause, and the other half is more practical dealing with more modern Constitutional issues. You are the FIRST person I have ever spoken to who challenges the premise of Texas v. White.[/quote:482c00d921]

Then you should know that no one has ever used texas/white as legal precedednt for any issue touching on state secesion then right?, and yale law and online cites for precedednt confirm that it does not do so.
you do recal that Texas/white uses the preamble of of the AOC as being the base of its argument right?, which has no legal weight at all!.

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/statutes/judiciary_act.htm is tghe judiciary act, and you note that it denies to the courts the authority to determine political question such as secesion to the court.

But you also mentione D Scot as being a low point in legal rulling, and i pointed out that it was actually meerly the latest in along long of similar rullings, here are some.

Hobbs v. Fogg
a free Black man sued for the right to vote in Pennsylvania. The State supreme court replied:
...[A] free negro or mulatto is not a citizen within the meaning of the Constitution and laws of the United States, and of the State of Pennsylvania, and, therefore, is not entitled to the right of suffrage.... But in addition to interpretation from usage, this antecedent legislation declared that no colored race was party to our social compact. Our ancestors settled the province as a community of white men; and the blacks were introduced into it as a race of slaves; whence an unconquerable prejudice of caste, which has come down to our day.... Consistently with this prejudice, is it to be credited that parity of rank would be allowed to such a race?... I have thought fair to treat the question as it stands affected by our own municipal regulations without illustration from those of other States, where the condition of the race has been still less favored. Yet it is proper to say that the second section of the fourth article of the Federal Constitution, presents an obstacle to the political freedom of the negro, which seems to be insuperable.

The Ohio supreme court Calvin v. Carter
It has always been admitted, that our political institutions embrace the white population only. Persons of color were not recognized as having any political existence. They had no agency in our political organizations, and possessed no political rights under it. Two or three of the States form exceptions. The constitutions of fourteen expressly exclude persons of color by a provision similar to our own; and, in the balance of the States, they are excluded on the ground that they were never recognized as a part of the body politic.... Indeed, it is a matter of history, that the very object of introducing the word white into our constitution, by the convention framing that instrument, was to put this question beyond all cavil or doubt, by, in express terms, excluding all persons from the enjoyment of the elective franchise, except persons of pure white blood.

Thacher v. Hawk Indiana supreme court
This exclusion of persons of color, or, of any degree of colored blood, from all political rights, is not founded upon a mere naked prejudice, but upon natural differences. The two races are placed as wide apart by the hand of nature as white from black, and, to break down the barriers, fixed, as it were, by the Creator himself, in a political and social amalgamation, shocks us, as something unnatural and wrong. It strikes us as a violation of the laws of nature. It would be productive of no good. It would degrade the white, if it could be accomplished, without elevating the black. Indeed, if we gather lessons of wisdom from the history of mankind — walk by the light of our experience, or consult the principles of human nature, we shall be convinced that the two races never can live together upon terms of equality and harmony.

Crandall v. The State Connecticut supreme court
The persons contemplated in this act are not citizens within the obvious meaning of that section of the Constitution of the United States which I have just read. Let me begin by putting this plain question: Are slaves citizens? At the adoption of the Constitution of the United States, every State was a slave State.... We all know that slavery is recognized in that Constitution; it is the duty of this court to take that Constitution as it is, for we have sworn to support it.... Then slaves were not considered citizens by the framers of the Constitution....
Are free blacks citizens?... To my mind it would be a perversion of terms, and the well known rules of construction, to say that slaves, free blacks, or Indians were citizens, within the meaning of that term as used in the Constitution. God forbid that I should add to the degradation of this race of men; but I am bound, by my duty, to say that they are not citizens.

[quote]
Notwithstanding, I don't discuss the battlefield here because we are discussing secession. Obviously secession is a threshold issue because assuming arguendo that it is legal, then obviously the entire Union war effort is unlawful, ab initio-the debate need not go further.[/uote]

Srt off, but since SCOTUS has not now or ever been delegated the authority to determine a staes right to seccede its moot and all the dicta the many cases pre WBTS are only pointers to how the courts believed the situation to be.

Another pointer is Congress, every time a seccesion/nullificion, Congress debatted a set of resoultions on the issue,
secssion was approved or disapoved of by Congress, upto 1860 ebvery vote recognised the right of secesion as being a right a state could excercise, in 1860 when the first wave secceded Congress voted 36:19 to pass the following.

Resolved.

That, that in adopting the federal constition the states adopting the same acting severally as free and independednt sovriegnties, delegated a portion of their powers to be excercised by the federal government for the increased security of each agaianst dangers domestic as well as forgien and that any inter mmeddleling by any one or more states, or combinations of their citizens, with the domestic instituitions of the nothers , on any pretext whatsover, political, moral, or relgous, to a view of disturbing of subversion, is in violition of the Constition, inulting to the states so interfered with and endagers there peace and tranquility, objects for which the Constition was formed, and nby neccessary consequence tends to weaken and destroy the union itself.

[quote:482c00d921]
But actually yes, I do believe the Federalists were attempting to forge one nation and many Founding Fathers were Federalists.[/quote:482c00d921]

Hmilton cried when he signed, because he had failled to do as you suggest, and had been unable to convince enought to form one nation. in fact theyexpressly made clear there were not doing so, nor did they have a mandate to do so,they were authorised to revise the AOC, not create a single nation.

[quote:482c00d921]
Any union between the states permitting secession creates nothing more than a loose confederation at best, and frankly the name of the country isn't 'The Loosely Affiliated States of America' its 'The United States of America'[/quote:482c00d921]

Thats acctly what the FF intended and provided for.

if they wanted onenation you would be the United state, not a United states, as the Uk is the united Kingdom where all sov is vested in one monarch who is the sov off wales/scotland etc, your the United states not aUnited state for exactly the same legal reason, the constion is not sov, the union is not sov, the states are sov. Each with its own passport untill post WBTS for instance, and each witha primall claim on its citizens loyalty in law, able to determine who may or may not be a citizen in it and so on, and if denied to a person thisbars tyhem from citizenship in any other state in the Union as well.

if you were one nation congress would not have had to change the loyalty oath in 61 to include the word domestic, pass new legislation to cover Army oaths and civil servants oaths of allegence to take prxcedence over state loyalty oaths. because untill 65 there was in law no such legal entuity as a united states citizen, untill congress passed this law to prevent secesion in the future (if you have no subject you cannot seccede and no stathas state
citizens any more) to amke all citizens of the United states, where upto this legislation all were citizens of a state who had equal rights gaurenteed to them by membership of the Union, as the constition goes to great lengths to set out that every citizen has the same rights as each other, clearly not one nation was being crafted otherwise all the clauses/articles defining these rights and privaleges would be redundent and superflouse.

odd tidbit from the AOC period, for you, New York, for example, considered herself much aggrieved because the farmers of New Jersey brought chickens and vegetables to New York City and sold them there. This took wealth away from New York, so the New Yorkers said, and transferred it to the foreign state of New Jersey. So they threatened to seccede.

Connecticut people, too, were draining the life-blood from Manhattan. They brought firewood down to the city and sold it from door to door. Then, with New York's money in their pockets, they would go back to the thrifty state of Connecticut, while New Yorkers worried through the sleepless nights wondering how it would all come out in the end. There was a thorough misunderstanding of the principles of trade; and an inordinate value was set on currency.

This narrow provincial sentiment was encouraged by the farmers of New York state. They had produce to sell, and it appeared monstrous to them that the New York state government, which ought to have protected them in their rights, allowed the citizens of other states to get the city trade. They might have got the trade themselves by making their prices lower, but that is exactly what they did not want to do.

After awhile the New York legislature acted. A tariff law was passed. Every chicken that came from New Jersey, every cabbage from Connecticut, had to go through a custom house and pay duty before being allowed to enter the state of New York.

Connecticut and New Jersey applied themselves to ways of retaliation. The Connecticut merchants decided to boycott New York. The New Jersey method was different. On Sandy Hook the state of New York had put up a lighthouse. The New Jersey legislature passed an act for taxing the little scrap of land on which this lighthouse stood, and the tax was made one hundred and fifty dollars a month.

There was another dispute between Connecticut and Pennsylvania which became so bitter that Connecticut was on the verge of declaring war. Long before the Revolution settlers from Connecticut had migrated to lands in northern Pennsylvania. Although they made their homes within the borders of that state they continued to follow the Connecticut laws; and, in fact, considered their communities as a part of the state of Connecticut. After the Revolution Connecticut claimed this Wyoming Valley, notwithstanding the fact that it did not touch the state of Connecticut at any point. In the quarrel that ensued men were killed and the dormant Pennsylvania militia bloomed into uniforms and bayonets. Connecticut was about to send an army to protect the people whom she supposed to be her citizens. Finally the matter came before a special federal court, organized under the Articles of Confederation, and the disputed territory was awarded to Pennsylvania.

this was your one nation?.

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

Let me ask you a question. I note the Union Jack on your posts. As of today, I am assuming that you consider yourself English, Scottish, perhaps Welsh?, maybe even just British. In your consciousness at what level do you consider yourself an European? Most Europeans that I speak to refer to themselves first by the country that they're rom, ie. I am German, French, Spanish, Italian, etc. and then they think of themselves as European. The EU MAY change this concept. I am speculating on the future of course, but it is conceivable that people may begin to think of themselves as European, particularly if inter-marriage between the nation states is high. Of course, I could be wrong and at the end of the day its a European question that I have no political stake in.

It would be surprising for the Declaration of Independence to suddenly transform former subjects of the English crown into Americans. Out of the revolution comes a sense that too much central authority, or authority too far removed is not to be desired and would lead to tyranny. Hence, the federal system is born, and yet when you look at history you find time and time again, that the Founding Fathers underestimated the power of a state to trample the rights of men. As a matter of fact, quite the reverse is true; historically, it has been the Federal government intervening in states to protect citizen rights granted under the Federal Constitution because, and quite forseaably, I might add, the states had legitimate police power, and you find out over the course of time that it is not the size or location of the government, its [usually] the police power.

So, while its true that in 1776 an overwhelming majority of indivduals think of themselves as solely from their colony/state. This concept begins to change over time as immigrants come in, as people from different states inter-marry, etc. And of course there is the concept of being 'Southern' as the case of CSA President Davis tells us (having connections to various Southern states)

In any event the powers of the Federal Government include the power to declare war, make treaties, regulate interstate commerce, regulate foreign commerce and to coin money. These are the powers of a nation state, not a customs union, not an alliance.

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

[quote="cwalenta999"]Let me ask you a question. I note the Union Jack on your posts. As of today, I am assuming that you consider yourself English, Scottish, perhaps Welsh?, maybe even just British. [q/uote]

Well im English by birth, and considere myself British.

[quote:8e15c99642]
In your consciousness at what level do you consider yourself an European? [/quote:8e15c99642]

Meerly by haveing economic and poliotical Union do i have any rights and privaliges in europe and vica versa, we have opted out of many EEC rules and regulations for instance. I can work in any Eurpean country, i can move there for a year and claim unemplyemt benifit from the Uk even.

[quote:8e15c99642]
Most Europeans that I speak to refer to themselves first by the country that they're rom, ie. I am German, French, Spanish, Italian, etc. and then they think of themselves as European.[/quote:8e15c99642]

Yes i think thats probably the majority view.

[quote:8e15c99642]
The EU MAY change this concept.[/quote:8e15c99642]

Been tried in 3 countrys and firmly regected in national referendums, not likl;ey to change in my liftime either, nationlism is strognly on the upswing in the Uk and many other eurpean countrys, of course economic migration from eastern europe is rampant, we have a falling birth rate and simply chose to improt from either eastern europe without restrictions, no one could forsee the scale of them, im a retired mil, and take in lodgers, i have 4 from poalnd who can earn 5/6 time their sallary in the Uk than at home for instance.
[quote:8e15c99642]
I am speculating on the future of course, but it is conceivable that people may begin to think of themselves as European, particularly if inter-marriage between the nation states is high. Of course, I could be wrong and at the end of the day its a European question that I have no political stake in.[/quote:8e15c99642]

After only a few years of massive imigrtion the make up of our schools ahs changed dramticly, just under 10% of primary school children now do not have english as their first langauge, the range of langauges has also changed from what our imigrant pool of nationaltys used to make up as well. Any forgien national born in the uk becomes a UK citizen, anyone here for aperiod can apply for and obtain UK citizenship or remain for as long as they want and there country of birth remains in the EEC, then they are time limted for residence.

[quote:8e15c99642]
It would be surprising for the Declaration of Independence to suddenly transform former subjects of the English crown into Americans.[/quote:8e15c99642]

Actually thats excatly what it did do, i can give you a few USSC cases on that if your intrested. land tiltle transfer also confirs transfer of subject to anothger sov entity, just as french in LA become La citizens insteasd of french citizens in the La purchase.

[quote:8e15c99642]
Out of the revolution comes a sense that too much central authority, or authority too far removed is not to be desired and would lead to tyranny. Hence, the federal system is born, and yet when you look at history you find time and time again, that the Founding Fathers underestimated the power of a state to trample the rights of men.[/quote:8e15c99642]

I would think the reverse was true of the FF, they set in place as many measures they could think off to prevent such an eventuality, and were only subverted when lincoln re wrote history to deny theat States created the Union.

[quote:8e15c99642]
As a matter of fact, quite the reverse is true; historically, it has been the Federal government intervening in states to protect citizen rights granted under the Federal Constitution because, and quite forseaably, I might add, the states had legitimate police power, and you find out over the course of time that it is not the size or location of the government, its [usually] the police power.[/quote:8e15c99642]

There are two issues here, pre WBTS you have a constition that was intreptaed to give freedom from central government by the states, and post war equality for all under the federal government, not at all what the FF intrended, as it sets in place to create exactly teh opposiste of what the intended purpose of the union/constition was for.

Of course they had no crystal ball to see the future, and wind hindsight we can see that western civilization benifited mightly from the way the US went, at the expense whover of rather alot of Americans who only loved America.

[quote:8e15c99642]
So, while its true that in 1776 an overwhelming majority of indivduals think of themselves as solely from their colony/state. This concept begins to change over time as immigrants come in, as people from different states inter-marry, etc. And of course there is the concept of being 'Southern' as the case of CSA President Davis tells us (having connections to various Southern states)[/quote:8e15c99642]

Well those imigrants were leagly transformed into citizens of states, there is no proof either way what they considered themselves, meerly the evidence that they were citizens only of a state who was a member in Union of states.

[quote:8e15c99642]
In any event the powers of the Federal Government include the power to declare war, make treaties, regulate interstate commerce, regulate foreign commerce and to coin money. These are the powers of a nation state, not a customs union, not an alliance.[/quote:8e15c99642]

So what?, every union/league has these rights, they have them because they are Sov entitys who alone posses these atributes, and every union/league/confedercy does so because it contains sov members who act in the highest capacity to do so.
Its the sov members who as members empower the Union/confederacy etc to do these things becase they are the sov entitys taht authorise them, the Union/league itself is not a possesor of sovrienty, it is meerly the mechanism which operates its direction, empowered by the sov of its member states.

the states make the union sov, not the other way around, if it was who signs for Union in the Constiion?.

chief_joseph · Posted: Sat Apr 28, 2007 8:47 am Post subject: comp US >< EU

cwalenta,

I see your intention in this but the example with US EU is far way out.
Of course the Europeans first refer to their country they were born.
A European is no tribe and no nation. The intention of this Union is until now more economic and in some levels common-political, but not to form a European state.
Even if this once should be the case in some centuries it is quite impossible to imagine.
What language should this meanwhile 16 countries ( nations ) speak ?
What kind of government should be chosen ? Like in the US ? - Nearly impossible.
The frontiers of each nation herein has been grown during centuries of history.
A European is someone living in the area Europe....nothing less, nothing more.
And let me say a keened observation, which I hope you will not take as an assault, please.
Even the word United States of America is not a well chosen expression ( admitted - I would not have another another one for it ), because if we would take it very exactly then your frontier would be from the Hudson Bay to Cape Hoorn.
Furthermore US does not state a true nation ( nation-state ) from my point of view but more a nation of will as is more the symptome of a diaspora.
I hope you will see what I wanted to say, 'cause I have lost my track a bit.

THE5ASPECTS · Sergeant Joined: 07 Feb 2008 Posts: 15

There is no right or wrong question! It all depends on your view on the problem. both sides had their rights and wrongs, and arguing only builds tension.