View single post by ebg
 Posted: Sat Apr 14th, 2012 04:16 pm
 PM  Quote  Reply  Full Topic 
ebg
Member
 

Joined: Fri Apr 13th, 2012
Location:  
Posts: 22
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Hellcat wrote:
Who was president when Texas seceded? If we argue about the president having to defend the Constitution and thus the union of the states then we have to look at the first wave of session and when every single state in that wave left.

As we have argued in other threads the Southern states were not the only states to consider secedeing, they were the only ones to do so. It's not until after the war does it appear to become unconstitutional to secede.


HELLCAT-

President Buchanan was the 15th President and was before Lincoln. South Carolina was the first to try to secede from the Union in 1860 during his administration

James Buchanan also took the President's Oath which duty bound him to perserve the constitution.

Looking at the the Preamble which is the introduction of what the larger document is about, or in other words ...the scope, purpose, and intent of the constitution document....James Buchanan duty was to perserve the Union (the scope of the preamble) as empowered to him by the President's Oath (Article 2-section 1-paragraph 8).

Did James Buchanan execute his office faithfully when South Carolina tryed to leave the Union? We have to give him the benifit of the doubt that he did. I myself do not know if he did something or not? Could he have done anything anyway because of the short time he had in office before the Lincoln administration?

It is is a misconception, that because the federal goverment got stronger in it's power after the civil war, that secession is unconstitutional? The civil war didn't solve the question of the constitutionality of secession. The civil war is the example that if a state tries to leave the Union under arms...its going to fail.

As I said before, two different views opposite to each other can still both have correct interpretation of constitutional law.

Secessionists interpret the 10th admendment has being "the right to succeed!"

On the other hand, Lincoln had to execute his Oath of Office to perserve the Union (the scope of the preamble) as empowered to him by Article 2-section 1-paragraph 8.

The question becomes "which one will benifit the United States the most?" or most importantly, "which one ensures the soverienty of the United States?"

 Close Window