Was seccession illegal?

[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?

The only way it could have been legal is if the State's (colonies) reserved some right. In the Artlcles of Confederation, the Union was described as in perpetuity. The constitution says "in order to form a more perfect union."

I go with the view that the states had no reason to think they were free to leave once in. There were restrictions on the ability of the feds to militarily coerce states. There was provision for states to divide. The whole notion of the revolution is that we must all hang together because we shall surely hang separately.

But the compromise on slavery fell apart. There would be more free than slave states. So, imo, war was inevitable. The economies of slavery would not be protected, and tariffs would have killed the cotton trade.

That said, I'm still waiting for the Yankee thieving bastards to pay for the propery. Just a foreshadowing of the cheating of the Focking Cheat NE Patriots

Good post.
Their thinking doesn't matter. I am question the legality. Nothing else.

 

[bendog]

The colonies did not have the bill of rights or the limits on federal (or the Crown's) power prior to the revolution.

The question is what sovereignty did the states give up to secure individual rights and the BoR. It's argued either way. But D of Indep is irrelevant.

 

[TNHarley]

Article VII (Article 7 - Ratification)
The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same.

relevance?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

That ruling could not hold precedence over something done beforehand without a law that already made secession illegal, a previous SC ruling or clear text in the COTUS.

Wrong as usual the The Text is clear the Federal Government must have a say in any action by a State in regards joining or leaving the Union.

 

[TNHarley]

That ruling could not hold precedence over something done beforehand without a law that already made secession illegal, a previous SC ruling or clear text in the COTUS.

Wrong as usual the The Text is clear the Federal Government must have a say in any action by a State in regards joining or leaving the Union.

Please quote it. Thanks.

 

[there4eyeM]

This has been discussed to death here. A search should show you plenty of vituperative inexactitude and vehement insistence on various points.

Secession could only have been legally achieved by the assent of the entire country through Constitutional processes.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

That ruling could not hold precedence over something done beforehand without a law that already made secession illegal, a previous SC ruling or clear text in the COTUS.

Wrong as usual the The Text is clear the Federal Government must have a say in any action by a State in regards joining or leaving the Union.

Please quote it. Thanks.

You already did thanks for playing.

 

[bendog]

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?

The only way it could have been legal is if the State's (colonies) reserved some right. In the Artlcles of Confederation, the Union was described as in perpetuity. The constitution says "in order to form a more perfect union."

I go with the view that the states had no reason to think they were free to leave once in. There were restrictions on the ability of the feds to militarily coerce states. There was provision for states to divide. The whole notion of the revolution is that we must all hang together because we shall surely hang separately.

But the compromise on slavery fell apart. There would be more free than slave states. So, imo, war was inevitable. The economies of slavery would not be protected, and tariffs would have killed the cotton trade.

That said, I'm still waiting for the Yankee thieving bastards to pay for the propery. Just a foreshadowing of the cheating of the Focking Cheat NE Patriots

Good post.
Their thinking doesn't matter. I am question the legality. Nothing else.

Well, it would have been legal if they reserved the right to leave. There's no smoking gun that they did not reserve the power, but I think overall it's clear they did.

 

[Correll]

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?

The only way it could have been legal is if the State's (colonies) reserved some right. In the Artlcles of Confederation, the Union was described as in perpetuity. The constitution says "in order to form a more perfect union."

I go with the view that the states had no reason to think they were free to leave once in. There were restrictions on the ability of the feds to militarily coerce states. There was provision for states to divide. The whole notion of the revolution is that we must all hang together because we shall surely hang separately.

But the compromise on slavery fell apart. There would be more free than slave states. So, imo, war was inevitable. The economies of slavery would not be protected, and tariffs would have killed the cotton trade.

That said, I'm still waiting for the Yankee thieving bastards to pay for the propery. Just a foreshadowing of the cheating of the Focking Cheat NE Patriots

The idea that a voluntary joining requires explicit wording to all voluntary individual leaving, is something that I am not aware of any other group requiring.


Every example I can think of, when you give up your right to leave voluntarily, the military for example, they explicitly state that you are not permitted to leave until the agreed upon time is done.

 

[bendog]

This has been discussed to death here. A search should show you plenty of vituperative inexactitude and vehement insistence on various points.

Secession could only have been legally achieved by the assent of the entire country through Constitutional processes.

Yeah, but there's no rule about "revisting." I don't want to play, but why bother others who do. It's an interesting topic.

 

[yiostheoy]

Nothing at all about seceding is in the U.S. Constitution.

That leaves the issue itself to the SCOTUS to decide upon.

Lincoln however did not wait for a SCOTUS ruling on the matter.

He just ordered Union Gen. McDowell to attack at the First Battle Of Bull Run, which was repulsed by Confederate Generals Beauregard and J.E. Johnston, which was the first major battle of the U.S. Civil War.

 

[bendog]

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?

The only way it could have been legal is if the State's (colonies) reserved some right. In the Artlcles of Confederation, the Union was described as in perpetuity. The constitution says "in order to form a more perfect union."

I go with the view that the states had no reason to think they were free to leave once in. There were restrictions on the ability of the feds to militarily coerce states. There was provision for states to divide. The whole notion of the revolution is that we must all hang together because we shall surely hang separately.

But the compromise on slavery fell apart. There would be more free than slave states. So, imo, war was inevitable. The economies of slavery would not be protected, and tariffs would have killed the cotton trade.

That said, I'm still waiting for the Yankee thieving bastards to pay for the propery. Just a foreshadowing of the cheating of the Focking Cheat NE Patriots

The idea that a voluntary joining requires explicit wording to all voluntary individual leaving, is something that I am not aware of any other group requiring.


Every example I can think of, when you give up your right to leave voluntarily, the military for example, they explicitly state that you are not permitted to leave until the agreed upon time is done.

The articles of confederation stated they gave up the right to leave "in perpetuity."

 

[Correll]

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?

The only way it could have been legal is if the State's (colonies) reserved some right. In the Artlcles of Confederation, the Union was described as in perpetuity. The constitution says "in order to form a more perfect union."

I go with the view that the states had no reason to think they were free to leave once in. There were restrictions on the ability of the feds to militarily coerce states. There was provision for states to divide. The whole notion of the revolution is that we must all hang together because we shall surely hang separately.

But the compromise on slavery fell apart. There would be more free than slave states. So, imo, war was inevitable. The economies of slavery would not be protected, and tariffs would have killed the cotton trade.

That said, I'm still waiting for the Yankee thieving bastards to pay for the propery. Just a foreshadowing of the cheating of the Focking Cheat NE Patriots

The idea that a voluntary joining requires explicit wording to all voluntary individual leaving, is something that I am not aware of any other group requiring.


Every example I can think of, when you give up your right to leave voluntarily, the military for example, they explicitly state that you are not permitted to leave until the agreed upon time is done.

The articles of confederation stated they gave up the right to leave "in perpetuity."

Link?

 

[TNHarley]

That ruling could not hold precedence over something done beforehand without a law that already made secession illegal, a previous SC ruling or clear text in the COTUS.

Wrong as usual the The Text is clear the Federal Government must have a say in any action by a State in regards joining or leaving the Union.

Please quote it. Thanks.

You already did thanks for playing.

That's called a GRAY area. It didn't have anything to do with a state seceding on its own. Re-read it and think about it.

 

[Bush92]

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. The Founders were adamant about states rights. Southern states would have never entered the Union if they did not think they had the right to leave if federal government began moving them in directions they did not want to go. But that was then. Argument has been settled.

 

[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?

The only way it could have been legal is if the State's (colonies) reserved some right. In the Artlcles of Confederation, the Union was described as in perpetuity. The constitution says "in order to form a more perfect union."

I go with the view that the states had no reason to think they were free to leave once in. There were restrictions on the ability of the feds to militarily coerce states. There was provision for states to divide. The whole notion of the revolution is that we must all hang together because we shall surely hang separately.

But the compromise on slavery fell apart. There would be more free than slave states. So, imo, war was inevitable. The economies of slavery would not be protected, and tariffs would have killed the cotton trade.

That said, I'm still waiting for the Yankee thieving bastards to pay for the propery. Just a foreshadowing of the cheating of the Focking Cheat NE Patriots

Good post.
Their thinking doesn't matter. I am question the legality. Nothing else.

Well, it would have been legal if they reserved the right to leave. There's no smoking gun that they did not reserve the power, but I think overall it's clear they did.

I just don't agree.

 

[Bush92]

California is stupid enough to think they can vote to leave.

I thought they were all going to Canada?

 

[yiostheoy]

Seems like Lincoln did the right thing, to me.

Time was critical and "of the essence".

No time to wait for a long drawn out legal battle in Federal court and then before the SCOTUS. That would have been time allowed for the Confederates to dig in, reinforce, and get help from England.

 

[bripat9643]

You're going to use the constitution to says you are no longer part of the constitution?

I'd say at best you would have to pass an amendment to let state X out of the union . That would require 3/4ths approval .

Wrong.

Sent from my SM-G935P using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

 

[TNHarley]

Nothing at all about seceding is in the U.S. Constitution.

That leaves the issue itself to the SCOTUS to decide upon.

Lincoln however did not wait for a SCOTUS ruling on the matter.

He just ordered Union Gen. McDowell to attack at the First Battle Of Bull Run, which was repulsed by Confederate Generals Beauregard and J.E. Johnston, which was the first major battle of the U.S. Civil War.

I agree