The Confederacy and States' Rights

[Kevin_Kennedy]

10th Amendment only applies in the case of a power not delegated the national government by the Constitution. The power at play here would be sovereignty, which the Constitution does vest in the national government.

No, the power at play here is secession, which the Constitution doesn't mention at all. Therefore, under the 10th Amendment, secession is perfectly legal.

Secession is only possible if the states are sovereign, which they are not.

A stretch I'd say, especially since among the powers denied to the states in the Constitution secession is conspicuous only by its absence. But which portion of the Constitution posits that the states are not sovereign, and why would the states vote to ratify a document that destroys their sovereignty? And why were three states under the impression that they would still be sovereign under the Constitution when they reserved the right to exit the Union should it become destructive of their liberty?

 

[Polk]

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

Sovereignty requires supreme authority within your borders. The states lack that, as noted above.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

Sovereignty requires supreme authority within your borders. The states lack that, as noted above.

That doesn't take away the sovereignty of the states, as evidenced by the power of nullification that arose after the Constitution was ratified. The states were able to stop any federal law they felt was unconstitutional from being enforced within their borders. This obviously means they were sovereign.

And you also failed to answer my other questions.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

Sovereignty requires supreme authority within your borders. The states lack that, as noted above.

Not quite. That very same Constitution says that the States posses ultimate authority in all 'powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States'. The right to withdraw their consent to be governed as to secede as a peaceable alternative to open rebellion is not denied in the Constitution (nowhere does it say 'The member states are to be the bitches of the Fed and they are not permitted to leave or exercise their righto self determination'); therefore that power is ' reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.'

 

[☭proletarian☭]

Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[JW Frogen]

Come now Kevin, how are we free men, "We few, we happy few" , how can we enjoy our porn if each Bible belting Southern State regulates it?

I mean there are no more slave women, so were is a good, old fashioned, southern man to go for some extra booty?

 

[☭proletarian☭]

Come now Kevin, how are we free men, "We few, we happy few" , how can we enjoy our porn if each Bible belting Southern State regulate this?

Invoke the 1st and 9th amendments

 

[JW Frogen]

I can use your lawyer when you are done with it.

 

[Polk]

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

Sovereignty requires supreme authority within your borders. The states lack that, as noted above.

That doesn't take away the sovereignty of the states, as evidenced by the power of nullification that arose after the Constitution was ratified. The states were able to stop any federal law they felt was unconstitutional from being enforced within their borders. This obviously means they were sovereign.

And you also failed to answer my other questions.

That does take away the sovereignty of the states. That is a forfeiting of the very thing that defines them as sovereign entities. Furthermore, the Constitution requires that the national government ensure every state a "republican form of government". If a state were to become an independent nation, the national government would no longer be able to do this.

As for your other questions, they don't really address the issue. Why would states vote to ratify a document that destroys their sovereignty? Perhaps because they saw the alternative of being gobbled up by European powers as far worse. It's not like we lack other examples of states which have surrendered all or part of their sovereignty.

As for those three states, I don't know why the felt that way, but their feelings does not change the clear language of the agreement.

 

[Polk]

nowhere does it say 'The member states are to be the bitches of the Fed

Guess you don't understand the meaning of "supreme law of the land".

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

Sovereignty requires supreme authority within your borders. The states lack that, as noted above.

That doesn't take away the sovereignty of the states, as evidenced by the power of nullification that arose after the Constitution was ratified. The states were able to stop any federal law they felt was unconstitutional from being enforced within their borders. This obviously means they were sovereign.

And you also failed to answer my other questions.

That does take away the sovereignty of the states. That is a forfeiting of the very thing that defines them as sovereign entities. Furthermore, the Constitution requires that the national government ensure every state a "republican form of government". If a state were to become an independent nation, the national government would no longer be able to do this.

As for your other questions, they don't really address the issue. Why would states vote to ratify a document that destroys their sovereignty? Perhaps because they saw the alternative of being gobbled up by European powers as far worse. It's not like we lack other examples of states which have surrendered all or part of their sovereignty.

As for those three states, I don't know why the felt that way, but their feelings does not change the clear language of the agreement.

The mandate to ensure a republican form of government only applies to those states that are within the Union. If they seceded then the federal government would have no authority or responsibility to ensure a republican form of government.

Also, what about nullification? If they weren't sovereign how did nullification become the force that it was?

I agree that it doesn't change the clear language of the agreement. But I think we're differing on what that clear language actually says.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

nowhere does it say 'The member states are to be the bitches of the Fed

Guess you don't understand the meaning of "supreme law of the land".

Yes, supreme law of the land while the states are under the Constitution. But since the supreme law of the land does not prohibit them from seceding they are fully within their legal rights to cast off the Constitution as the supreme law of the land.

 

[Polk]

That doesn't take away the sovereignty of the states, as evidenced by the power of nullification that arose after the Constitution was ratified. The states were able to stop any federal law they felt was unconstitutional from being enforced within their borders. This obviously means they were sovereign.

And you also failed to answer my other questions.

That does take away the sovereignty of the states. That is a forfeiting of the very thing that defines them as sovereign entities. Furthermore, the Constitution requires that the national government ensure every state a "republican form of government". If a state were to become an independent nation, the national government would no longer be able to do this.

As for your other questions, they don't really address the issue. Why would states vote to ratify a document that destroys their sovereignty? Perhaps because they saw the alternative of being gobbled up by European powers as far worse. It's not like we lack other examples of states which have surrendered all or part of their sovereignty.

As for those three states, I don't know why the felt that way, but their feelings does not change the clear language of the agreement.

The mandate to ensure a republican form of government only applies to those states that are within the Union. If they seceded then the federal government would have no authority or responsibility to ensure a republican form of government.

Also, what about nullification? If they weren't sovereign how did nullification become the force that it was?

I agree that it doesn't change the clear language of the agreement. But I think we're differing on what that clear language actually says.

And what happened when a state actually tried to nullify a law? Congress gave the President the authority to enforce the law using all necessary force.

 

[Polk]

nowhere does it say 'The member states are to be the bitches of the Fed

Guess you don't understand the meaning of "supreme law of the land".

Yes, supreme law of the land while the states are under the Constitution. But since the supreme law of the land does not prohibit them from seceding they are fully within their legal rights to cast off the Constitution as the supreme law of the land.

Except that to secede, they'd need to be sovereign and if something else is the supreme law over them, they're not sovereign.

 

[Equat]

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

Sovereignty requires supreme authority within your borders. The states lack that, as noted above.

That doesn't take away the sovereignty of the states, as evidenced by the power of nullification that arose after the Constitution was ratified. The states were able to stop any federal law they felt was unconstitutional from being enforced within their borders. This obviously means they were sovereign.

And you also failed to answer my other questions.

That does take away the sovereignty of the states. That is a forfeiting of the very thing that defines them as sovereign entities. Furthermore, the Constitution requires that the national government ensure every state a "republican form of government". If a state were to become an independent nation, the national government would no longer be able to do this.

As for your other questions, they don't really address the issue. Why would states vote to ratify a document that destroys their sovereignty? Perhaps because they saw the alternative of being gobbled up by European powers as far worse. It's not like we lack other examples of states which have surrendered all or part of their sovereignty.

As for those three states, I don't know why the felt that way, but their feelings does not change the clear language of the agreement.

Thanks for adding clear reasoning and substance to this discussion!

 

[Equat]

No, the power at play here is secession, which the Constitution doesn't mention at all. Therefore, under the 10th Amendment, secession is perfectly legal.

Secession is only possible if the states are sovereign, which they are not.

A stretch I'd say, especially since among the powers denied to the states in the Constitution secession is conspicuous only by its absence. But which portion of the Constitution posits that the states are not sovereign, and why would the states vote to ratify a document that destroys their sovereignty? And why were three states under the impression that they would still be sovereign under the Constitution when they reserved the right to exit the Union should it become destructive of their liberty?

States choose to ratify a Constitution that destroyed their sovereignty in order to have a more perfect Union, a stronger Federal government. Otherwise, the US would have remained under its first government under the Articles of Confederation.

 

[Equat]

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

Sovereignty requires supreme authority within your borders. The states lack that, as noted above.

Right on! That is why the Confederates complained that they were unable to exercise authority over the free states in their Declaration of Causes of Secession. The Rebs also complained that new terretories couldn't vote for themselves as to whether they would allow slavery. The Confederates wanted the Federal government to mandate slavery in the terretories.

 

[Equat]

nowhere does it say 'The member states are to be the bitches of the Fed

Guess you don't understand the meaning of "supreme law of the land".

Yes, supreme law of the land while the states are under the Constitution. But since the supreme law of the land does not prohibit them from seceding they are fully within their legal rights to cast off the Constitution as the supreme law of the land.

Do the Hawaiians have the right to secede and bomb Pearl Harbor as the South Carolinians did Sumpter? If so, then the Japs in WWII wouldn't look so bad, would they?

 

[Equat]

I was referring to the fact that the Union had slavery during the Civil War. So if you defend them you're defending slavery. But the case could be made for the Revolutionary War as well. The British offered freedom to any slaves that joined them against the U.S. So maybe they did have the moral high ground?

Wrong! The US didn't secede from England over slavery as the Rebs stated that they did in their Declaration of Causes of Secession .

And yet the British offered freedom to slaves who fought for them, while the colonies would have kept them in servitude. So it would seem the British had the moral high ground, and we never should have been an independent confederation in the first place.

For the third time I agree with you, unless you're being sarcastic (something southerners don't quite get). The British freed slaves in its empire in the 1830s. My Scot ancestors fought the British in the Revolutionary War, though I'm a Tory with no known Tory ancestors and no desire to disparage my ancestors with whom I disagree. The Scots fought the English because of bigotry and sour grapes that dated back to the UK during their civil wars and to William Wallace. I agree with you that the US revolutionaries were treasonous. My beliefs and sentiments don't simiply follow my ancestry and culture. If we were never an independent confederation in the first place via revolution, then the Confederates wouldn't have seceded (without the help of the French that won our Revolution) and no "War of the Rebellion." KK: For once, you actually have sound and uncharectoristicly consistent reasoning here. Our non-rebellious brother Canada was a nation of freedom sought by slaves and by Americans (a land of slaves) who ferried them there because of the Fugitive Slave Act. Rebellious Undeniably, America is founded on a faulty (e.g. genocide of the Indians) and hypocritical foundation. That is precisly why we have had many problems (e.g. Slavery, The Civil War, Civil Rights, & race relations to name a few) after our revolution. Samuel Johnson spoke eloquently reflecting English sentiments toward us "Yankees," by saying, "How is it that we hear the loudest yelps for liberty among the drivers of negroes?" (Note: http://www.samueljohnson.com/freedom.html) That is quite clear as Johnson pointed out. So were the Confederates. The diffrence is one was a winner and the other was a loser.

My primary disagreement with your reasoning is your denial that the central and foremost reason that the Confederate "Slave States" seceded was due to slavery as explicated in their http://sunsite.utk.edu/civil-war/reasons.html. Slavery was not the reason that US fought against slave-supporting (at the time) England. My opposition to you is your support for slavery via support for the Rebs and justifying, minimizing, and denying their evil racist cause.

 

[Equat]

Whether it could be done legally or not makes no difference. If you're opposed to rape then you should condemn it whether it was southern slaveowners or northern soldiers committing the act, not rationalize for one and condemn the other.

If the Rebs didn't want to get raped, then they should have thought about that prior to attacking Sumter. Unfortunately "War is Hell" and the Rebs choose HELL! Notwithstanding, I do condemn rape, whoever comits it. I know many Vietnam Vets who admit to rape, genocide, torture, etc. Although I condemn their evil, I don't condemn them. Do you? I forgive them. It's relatively easy for me since they didn't rape, torture, or commit genocide to me or anyone whom I directly knew.

No, I don't forgive them. They didn't rape me so I have nothing to forgive. What about all the slaves that were raped by northern troops? Did they get what they deserved since the "rebs" "attacked" Fort Sumter? I mean, they lived in the south right? They must be guilty.

Oh please! The slaves didn't attack Sumter, thus they didn't deserve HELL, like the Rebs did.