Yet Again Republicans Fight Grassroot Conservatives Harder Than They Fight The Democrats

[Bigun]

That's what they say about every significant decision made since the SCOTUS let Jefferson know it was a legitimate and equal third part of the government.  But just because almost all of the members of the Court were appointed by Republicans, they weren't all together on the issue.  The conservative Republicans believed that secession was illegal therefore the state in question never left the Union.  The Radical Republicans believed the state in question did leave (illegally or not) and was then a conquered territory and not a state per se.

Still the majority decision based on the logic contained in the Constitution is hard to argue with.  The Constitution's Preamble sets one of its goals as "a more perfect Union" following the Articles of Confederation which declared the United States as a perpetual union.  That would make the United States a perpetual, thus "indivisible" union, as most of us have said numerous times in the Pledge of Allegiance.

States no longer had the same freedoms or powers they had under the Articles or before when they voluntarily supported the revolution.  The amount of powers they retained as we all know continue to be debated today.  But surely one of them wasn't to come and go as they pleased.  Still, the Constitution did provide for amendments to it, and if a large enough majority of states decide to meet and ratify an amendment to permit secession, that power does exist.

The fact that there were no specific words in the Constitution to prevent secession, the framers no doubt understood the meaning of the words "more perfect" and "perpetual".    The Constitution was written and ratified as the means to strengthen the union created from the earlier Articles, not to weaken it.

I respectfully beg to differ! In fact the 'logic" you site is quite easy to refute in view of the FACT that there would have been on ratification of the Constitution had not every single one of those states beleived that they had the right to leave if the time came when their membership in that union was no longer in their best interests.

The very first state to consider secession, and very nearly followed through with it, was Massachusetts.

And BTW: You would do well to learn what actually went on in that room in Philadelphia as the subject of "perpetual Union"  was discussed at length and rejected! 

The whole thing was in fact a rump convention from which many fled when they went outside the bounds of their charter including all the members of the New York delegation except Hamilton.

[MACVSOG68]

Well! I'll give you one thing! You have the dogma down pat!

That's the third time you've gone after me personally rather than the argument.  Please don't do it again.

I've already partially addressed Texas Vs White in part but will add that a fellow by the name of St. George Tucker -  a man most people these days have never heard of because the revisionists have made every effort to erase his name from history

If the revisionists have made every effort to erase his name, how is it that many Supreme Court decisions reference him?  Yes he was a great legal scholar, who BTW was an abolitionist before it became popular.  As to whether he thought states could resume their sovereignty if they wished, Mr. Tucker also wrote this exactly following your quote.  You may have missed it.

But until the time shall arrive when the occasion requires a resumption of the rights of sovereignty by the several states (and far be that period removed when it shall happen) the exercise of the rights of sovereignty by the states individually, is wholly suspended, or discontinued, in the cases before mentioned: nor can that suspension ever be removed, so long as the present constitution remains unchanged, but by the dissolution of the bonds of union. An event which no good citizen can wish, and which no good, or wise administration will ever hazard.

Tucker, Amendment X of the Constitution.

He believed that states could reclaim their sovereignty, but only after changing the Constitution.

And then we have this from a former Secretary of State:

"The Federal Government is the creature of the States..."

Not a good start.  As stated in the Preamble, it is a creature of "We the People".

[MACVSOG68]

I respectfully beg to differ! In fact the 'logic" you site is quite easy to refute in view of the FACT that there would have been on ratification of the Constitution had not every single one of those states beleived that they had the right to leave if the time came when their membership in that union was no longer in their best interests.

The very first state to consider secession, and very nearly followed through with it, was Massachusetts.

And BTW: You would do well to learn what actually went on in that room in Philadelphia as the subject of "perpetual Union"  was discussed at length and rejected! 

The whole thing was in fact a rump convention from which many fled when they went outside the bounds of their charter including all the members of the New York delegation except Hamilton.

The workings of the Convention have made for some great reading including one of my favorites "The Summer of 1787".  But regardless of what came out of the debates, the Constitution was ratified and stands today.  States have talked about secession, but according to your man Tucker, without an amendment permitting it, it's unconstitutional.  Another good read is "The Anti-Federalist Papers" which illustrate the many divergent opinions on what the Constitution should contain.  And I have always argued against the idea that the Founding Fathers were of one mind on almost any issue.  In fact Madison submitted an article which would have given Congress the power to void any state law.  Thank goodness it was tabled.

But that doesn't change my opinion of what came out of the debates as to the indissolubility of the Union.

We again simply disagree.

[aligncare]

And thank you MAC for your invaluable perspective, as well as Bigun.

Reading and processing info all ....

[MACVSOG68]

And thank you MAC for your invaluable perspective, as well as Bigun.

Reading and processing info all ....

Appreciate that AC. 

[Bigun]

That's the third time you've gone after me personally rather than the argument.  Please don't do it again.

I have no wish or intent to attack you personally Mac and I'm sorry you took my remarks as such.  I have heard these argument so many times over the years they have in fact become dogma to me.

Yes we do disagree and that is likely to continue.  I believe that  "dissolution of the bonds of union" was exactly what the states that made up the Confederacy were trying to do and also that they had, and still have to this day, every legal right to do so!

[Bigun]

And thank you MAC for your invaluable perspective, as well as Bigun.

Reading and processing info all ....

I hope the discussion has been informative and that you will look further into the matter yourself.

[Bigun]

For anyone interested in further study I highly recommend A Constitutional History of Secession by John Remington Graham and Donald Livingston (Oct 31, 2002), States' Rights and the Union: Imperium in Imperio, 1776-1876 by Forrest McDonald (Oct 24, 2000), and When in the Course of Human Events: Arguing the Case for Southern Secession by Charles Adams (2000)

[MACVSOG68]

I have no wish or intent to attack you personally Mac and I'm sorry you took my remarks as such.  I have heard these argument so many times over the years they have in fact become dogma to me.

Nonetheless Bigun, I am not just a victim of public school bs, as you delicately put it earlier.  And what is dogma to one is truth to another.

Yes we do disagree and that is likely to continue.  I believe that  "dissolution of the bonds of union" was exactly what the states that made up the Confederacy were trying to do and also that they had, and still have to this day, every legal right to do so!

You see, we can agree on something.  Yes, the slave-holding states wanted to dissolve the Union, and yes they have every legal right to attempt do so.  They simply failed to go about it legally.  Even today they can pass an amendment through Congress, or call a convention of the states.  Until then, as your legal scholar emphasized, they are bound into a union they ratified.

But I occasionally take on issues not completely appreciated on forums such as this.  I don't think you were here when I took on the issue of natural born citizen.  I managed to make fewer friends than enemies, lol.

Will you please cite, chapter and verse please, the portion of the Constitution which gives the fed gov. the authority to prevent by force of arms or any other method a state from leaving the union?

[MACVSOG68]

For anyone interested in further study I highly recommend A Constitutional History of Secession by John Remington Graham and Donald Livingston (Oct 31, 2002), States' Rights and the Union: Imperium in Imperio, 1776-1876 by Forrest McDonald (Oct 24, 2000), and When in the Course of Human Events: Arguing the Case for Southern Secession by Charles Adams (2000)

I'm only somewhat familiar with the latter book.  And we've been over the basis for the author's argument for the reasons leading to the Civil War.  The author says it wasn't about slavery but economics.  Unfortunately it was about slave-based economics, and slavery was so important an issue leading to the Confederacy that freedom of choice was unconstitutional in their constitution.  Again, the years leading up to the war wasn't about slavery within the slave-holding states, but expansion of the Nation, as the record of debates and compromises for a decade more than illustrate.

As for the second book, I'm sure you understand that in our Constitution, it was made clear that states have no rights, only powers.   If a state had rights, they could not be limited by a nation or its constitution.  That's why only humans have rights.  Even in the Confederate constitution, it was made clear that their constitution was the supreme law of the land and every officer of the Confederacy and individual states was required to abide by an oath of allegiance to the Confederacy.  Do you believe they would have had no problem with a state seceding from the Confederacy? Given their history of secession in the light of an "assumed right" to do so, you would think the framers of the Confederate constitution would have made sure an article emphasized that.

[GourmetDan]

But I occasionally take on issues not completely appreciated on forums such as this.

                                                                         

[Bigun]

I don't think you were here when I took on the issue of natural born citizen.

I wasn't but I'm guessing that we would disagree on that as well! 

[MACVSOG68]

I wasn't but I'm guessing that we would disagree on that as well! 

Tis very likely my friend.