Was seccession illegal?

[Picaro]

We all know the SC ruled on it AFTER it was all said and done. If you apply the principle of legality, well, the idea it was illegal is shot to hell. But what about the 10th amendment?
"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."
I have never heard anyone discuss this issue.
Thoughts?

Nope, never was, which is why it was such a constant and often used threat by most regions. The first states to use the threat were the New England states, upset over Jefferson's winning the Presidency and for decades after, and for reasons far less justifiable than the southern states had. The 1868 'ruling' wasn't explicitly about secession, it was about the appointed military governor of Texas wanting to steal some Texas state bonds that had matured for his own pocket, and of course the completely corrupt Chase SC gladly handed them to him, most likely for a suitable bribe, of course.

How was it illegal?

Don't know what you mean. Secession wasn't illegal, and still isn't. States can't be forced to remain in the Union. The federal govt. has no power to force them to stay in the union.

The Writings of James Madison, vol. 3 (1787, The Journal of the Constitutional Convention, Part I) - Online Library of Liberty

Thursday May 311

The other clauses giving powers necessary to preserve harmony among the States to negative all State laws contravening in the opinion of the Nat. Leg. the articles of union, down to the last clause, (the words “or any treaties subsisting under the authority of the Union,” being added after the words “contravening &c. the articles of the Union,” on motion of Dr. Franklin) were agreed to witht. debate or dissent.

The last clause of Resolution 6, authorizing an exertion of the force of the whole agst. a delinquent State came next into consideration.

Mr. Madison, observed that the more he reflected [56] on the use of force, the more he doubted, 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 seemed to provide for its own destruction. The use of force agst. 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. He hoped that such a system would be framed as might render this resource unnecessary, and moved that the clause be postponed. This motion was agreed to, nem. con.

The Committee then rose & the House Adjourned.

The clause was rejected, and never came up again. Later on, we see Jefferson and Madison penning the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions in 1797 and 1798, both of which confirm original intent and the 'voluntary union' premise.

 

[danielpalos]

Except for the reasons given that you failed to offer any substantive refutation to.

I asked you to explain how an irrelevant part of the Constitution applied to this particular subject. You have yet to clarify.

The Supremacy Clause makes it illegal for states to make laws in conflict with the Constitution or federal law. Nor can states unilaterally decide to ignore federal laws.

Secession therefore HAS to be illegal because an act of secession would INEVITABLY violate all sorts of federal laws.

I know you don't want to get that because you don't want to lose this argument, but for just a moment use your head and common sense...

What federal laws did it violate?

Well the easiest one would have been denying the citizens of the state their right to be represented in the government of the Union.

In order for that to apply, secession would have to be illegal. I am asking you to show me how it was illegal. If they seceded, they aint citizens of USA

Our Second Amendment clearly states, only well regulated militias of the United States may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union, regardless of any Southern War of Aggression over a more Perfect Union.

 

[TNHarley]

I asked you to explain how an irrelevant part of the Constitution applied to this particular subject. You have yet to clarify.

The Supremacy Clause makes it illegal for states to make laws in conflict with the Constitution or federal law. Nor can states unilaterally decide to ignore federal laws.

Secession therefore HAS to be illegal because an act of secession would INEVITABLY violate all sorts of federal laws.

I know you don't want to get that because you don't want to lose this argument, but for just a moment use your head and common sense...

What federal laws did it violate?

Well the easiest one would have been denying the citizens of the state their right to be represented in the government of the Union.

In order for that to apply, secession would have to be illegal. I am asking you to show me how it was illegal. If they seceded, they aint citizens of USA

You're playing the chicken/egg game, or the circular argument game if you prefer.

There are two sorts of answers. Here's the first one:

The act of secession doesn't occur in a vacuum, the act of secession entails everything that follows from it.

You could declare yourself to have seceded from whatever state you live in, and as a standalone outburst on your part that might not be illegal in and of itself,

but if your secession involved actions such as refusing to pay your state taxes, refusing to license and insure your car, refusing to educate your children according to state law, etc., etc., then your secession is obviously illegal.

The second answer is, there is a legal means to constitutionally secede from the Union. It could occur by amendment.

You know, like how people say, hey, if you don't like gun rights, amend the Constitution. Otherwise, fuck off!!

Completely irrelevant.

 

[NYcarbineer]

We all know the SC ruled on it AFTER it was all said and done. If you apply the principle of legality, well, the idea it was illegal is shot to hell. But what about the 10th amendment?
"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."
I have never heard anyone discuss this issue.
Thoughts?

Nope, never was, which is why it was such a constant and often used threat by most regions. The first states to use the threat were the New England states, upset over Jefferson's winning the Presidency and for decades after, and for reasons far less justifiable than the southern states had. The 1868 'ruling' wasn't explicitly about secession, it was about the appointed military governor of Texas wanting to steal some Texas state bonds that had matured for his own pocket, and of course the completely corrupt Chase SC gladly handed them to him, most likely for a suitable bribe, of course.

How was it illegal?

Don't know what you mean. Secession wasn't illegal, and still isn't. States can't be forced to remain in the Union. The federal govt. has no power to force them to stay in the union.

What's the legal process for secession then?

 

[TNHarley]

We all know the SC ruled on it AFTER it was all said and done. If you apply the principle of legality, well, the idea it was illegal is shot to hell. But what about the 10th amendment?
"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."
I have never heard anyone discuss this issue.
Thoughts?

Nope, never was, which is why it was such a constant and often used threat by most regions. The first states to use the threat were the New England states, upset over Jefferson's winning the Presidency and for decades after, and for reasons far less justifiable than the southern states had. The 1868 'ruling' wasn't explicitly about secession, it was about the appointed military governor of Texas wanting to steal some Texas state bonds that had matured for his own pocket, and of course the completely corrupt Chase SC gladly handed them to him, most likely for a suitable bribe, of course.

How was it illegal?

Don't know what you mean. Secession wasn't illegal, and still isn't.

How wasn't it legal? The COTUS didn't clarify it. There wasn't a previous SC ruling. There were no federal laws..

 

[NYcarbineer]

The Supremacy Clause makes it illegal for states to make laws in conflict with the Constitution or federal law. Nor can states unilaterally decide to ignore federal laws.

Secession therefore HAS to be illegal because an act of secession would INEVITABLY violate all sorts of federal laws.

I know you don't want to get that because you don't want to lose this argument, but for just a moment use your head and common sense...

What federal laws did it violate?

Well the easiest one would have been denying the citizens of the state their right to be represented in the government of the Union.

In order for that to apply, secession would have to be illegal. I am asking you to show me how it was illegal. If they seceded, they aint citizens of USA

You're playing the chicken/egg game, or the circular argument game if you prefer.

There are two sorts of answers. Here's the first one:

The act of secession doesn't occur in a vacuum, the act of secession entails everything that follows from it.

You could declare yourself to have seceded from whatever state you live in, and as a standalone outburst on your part that might not be illegal in and of itself,

but if your secession involved actions such as refusing to pay your state taxes, refusing to license and insure your car, refusing to educate your children according to state law, etc., etc., then your secession is obviously illegal.

The second answer is, there is a legal means to constitutionally secede from the Union. It could occur by amendment.

You know, like how people say, hey, if you don't like gun rights, amend the Constitution. Otherwise, fuck off!!

Completely irrelevant.

lol, see what I mean.

 

[NYcarbineer]

We all know the SC ruled on it AFTER it was all said and done. If you apply the principle of legality, well, the idea it was illegal is shot to hell. But what about the 10th amendment?
"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."
I have never heard anyone discuss this issue.
Thoughts?

Nope, never was, which is why it was such a constant and often used threat by most regions. The first states to use the threat were the New England states, upset over Jefferson's winning the Presidency and for decades after, and for reasons far less justifiable than the southern states had. The 1868 'ruling' wasn't explicitly about secession, it was about the appointed military governor of Texas wanting to steal some Texas state bonds that had matured for his own pocket, and of course the completely corrupt Chase SC gladly handed them to him, most likely for a suitable bribe, of course.

How was it illegal?

Don't know what you mean. Secession wasn't illegal, and still isn't.

How wasn't it legal? The COTUS didn't clarify it. There wasn't a previous SC ruling. There were no federal laws..

It was illegal because the Constitution is a binding document that made the Federal government and its laws supreme.

Secession was illegal because the available legal means to secede were not followed.

 

[TNHarley]

We all know the SC ruled on it AFTER it was all said and done. If you apply the principle of legality, well, the idea it was illegal is shot to hell. But what about the 10th amendment?
"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."
I have never heard anyone discuss this issue.
Thoughts?

Nope, never was, which is why it was such a constant and often used threat by most regions. The first states to use the threat were the New England states, upset over Jefferson's winning the Presidency and for decades after, and for reasons far less justifiable than the southern states had. The 1868 'ruling' wasn't explicitly about secession, it was about the appointed military governor of Texas wanting to steal some Texas state bonds that had matured for his own pocket, and of course the completely corrupt Chase SC gladly handed them to him, most likely for a suitable bribe, of course.

How was it illegal?

Don't know what you mean. Secession wasn't illegal, and still isn't.

How wasn't it legal? The COTUS didn't clarify it. There wasn't a previous SC ruling. There were no federal laws..

It was illegal because the Constitution is a binding document that made the Federal government and its laws supreme.

Secession was illegal because the available legal means to secede were not followed.

So they had legal means for secession? Interesting. Link?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Nope, never was, which is why it was such a constant and often used threat by most regions. The first states to use the threat were the New England states, upset over Jefferson's winning the Presidency and for decades after, and for reasons far less justifiable than the southern states had. The 1868 'ruling' wasn't explicitly about secession, it was about the appointed military governor of Texas wanting to steal some Texas state bonds that had matured for his own pocket, and of course the completely corrupt Chase SC gladly handed them to him, most likely for a suitable bribe, of course.

How was it illegal?

Don't know what you mean. Secession wasn't illegal, and still isn't.

How wasn't it legal? The COTUS didn't clarify it. There wasn't a previous SC ruling. There were no federal laws..

It was illegal because the Constitution is a binding document that made the Federal government and its laws supreme.

Secession was illegal because the available legal means to secede were not followed.

So they had legal means for secession? Interesting. Link?

Link to common sense. A Constitutional amendment providing for states to be allowed to secede.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Oh, btw, specific to the southern states secession, the attack on Ft. Sumter, the act of war to confiscate a federal military installation, was clearly illegal.

 

[TNHarley]

How was it illegal?

Don't know what you mean. Secession wasn't illegal, and still isn't.

How wasn't it legal? The COTUS didn't clarify it. There wasn't a previous SC ruling. There were no federal laws..

It was illegal because the Constitution is a binding document that made the Federal government and its laws supreme.

Secession was illegal because the available legal means to secede were not followed.

So they had legal means for secession? Interesting. Link?

Link to common sense. A Constitutional amendment providing for states to be allowed to secede.

what amendment was that?

 

[TNHarley]

Oh, btw, specific to the southern states secession, the attack on Ft. Sumter, the act of war to confiscate a federal military installation, was clearly illegal.

It was an act of war, that much is true.

 

[yiostheoy]

bump ...

hahaha !!!

 

[Picaro]

We all know the SC ruled on it AFTER it was all said and done. If you apply the principle of legality, well, the idea it was illegal is shot to hell. But what about the 10th amendment?
"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."
I have never heard anyone discuss this issue.
Thoughts?

Nope, never was, which is why it was such a constant and often used threat by most regions. The first states to use the threat were the New England states, upset over Jefferson's winning the Presidency and for decades after, and for reasons far less justifiable than the southern states had. The 1868 'ruling' wasn't explicitly about secession, it was about the appointed military governor of Texas wanting to steal some Texas state bonds that had matured for his own pocket, and of course the completely corrupt Chase SC gladly handed them to him, most likely for a suitable bribe, of course.

How was it illegal?

Don't know what you mean. Secession wasn't illegal, and still isn't. States can't be forced to remain in the Union. The federal govt. has no power to force them to stay in the union.

What's the legal process for secession then?

The state votes itself out, of course. Your silly notion that it requires a national referendum on an Amendment is ridiculous and nowhere in the Constitution or any Supreme Court ruling, and certainly not an 'implied power'.

 

[Picaro]

Oh, btw, specific to the southern states secession, the attack on Ft. Sumter, the act of war to confiscate a federal military installation, was clearly illegal.

nonsense. Blockading a port is an act of war anywhere in the world; nobody has to 'fire first' or any other kind of schoolyard bullshit excuse. Buchanan tried it first, with the result that instead of one state seceding four more joined the first one. Great plan .. Of course that was exactly what Lincoln wanted, a war, and he started one, illegally. The last states seceded over Sumter exactly as Lincoln wanted.

 

[Picaro]

We all know the SC ruled on it AFTER it was all said and done. If you apply the principle of legality, well, the idea it was illegal is shot to hell. But what about the 10th amendment?
"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."
I have never heard anyone discuss this issue.
Thoughts?

Nope, never was, which is why it was such a constant and often used threat by most regions. The first states to use the threat were the New England states, upset over Jefferson's winning the Presidency and for decades after, and for reasons far less justifiable than the southern states had. The 1868 'ruling' wasn't explicitly about secession, it was about the appointed military governor of Texas wanting to steal some Texas state bonds that had matured for his own pocket, and of course the completely corrupt Chase SC gladly handed them to him, most likely for a suitable bribe, of course.

How was it illegal?

Don't know what you mean. Secession wasn't illegal, and still isn't.

How wasn't it legal? The COTUS didn't clarify it. There wasn't a previous SC ruling. There were no federal laws..

Exactly, there were no prohibitions against secession. The document is intended to define and limit Federal powers, which is why it isn't mentioned, and in fact using force against a state seceding was specifically rejected at the Convention. Does your town have any laws covering where Martians can poop in the local park? No, because there is no reason for one to begin with. The union was a voluntary union.

 

[Bruce_T_Laney]

Alaska and Texas are still trying believe it or not! Idiots!

So is California!

 

[NYcarbineer]

We all know the SC ruled on it AFTER it was all said and done. If you apply the principle of legality, well, the idea it was illegal is shot to hell. But what about the 10th amendment?
"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."
I have never heard anyone discuss this issue.
Thoughts?

Nope, never was, which is why it was such a constant and often used threat by most regions. The first states to use the threat were the New England states, upset over Jefferson's winning the Presidency and for decades after, and for reasons far less justifiable than the southern states had. The 1868 'ruling' wasn't explicitly about secession, it was about the appointed military governor of Texas wanting to steal some Texas state bonds that had matured for his own pocket, and of course the completely corrupt Chase SC gladly handed them to him, most likely for a suitable bribe, of course.

How was it illegal?

Don't know what you mean. Secession wasn't illegal, and still isn't. States can't be forced to remain in the Union. The federal govt. has no power to force them to stay in the union.

What's the legal process for secession then?

The state votes itself out, of course. Your silly notion that it requires a national referendum on an Amendment is ridiculous and nowhere in the Constitution or any Supreme Court ruling, and certainly not an 'implied power'.

The state has no such authority. The state agreed to be a part of a nation and in doing so accepted the authority of the national government.

 

[my2¢]

The only reason it hasn't handed over Guantanamo is the fact that the USA can crush Cuba like a bug. If it didn't have that power, then Cuba could repossess it and It would be perfectly within its rights to do so. Anywhere else the host country wanted us to leave, we did. All you're arguing is that might makes right.

My point had nothing at all to do with "might makes right". As I wrote in my original post, South Carolina didn't own Fort Sumter when they attacked it. The fort belonged to the United States. South Carolina ceded the island it sits on to the United States on Dec 21, 1836 and thus the confederacy had no rightful claim to it. I equated that action to John Brown's raid on the federal armory in Harper's Ferry. Both attacked the United States and ended up paying the price.

You bring up the government should simply leave when asked. I responded with Guantanamo as example that the world doesn't operate that way. Another example would be the time it took for the United States to cede the Panama Canal back to Panama.

​

 

[bripat9643]

Oh, btw, specific to the southern states secession, the attack on Ft. Sumter, the act of war to confiscate a federal military installation, was clearly illegal.

It was an act of war, that much is true.

Wrong. Kicking trespassers out of you country is not an act of war.