 |
PM |  | |
Quote | | |
Reply | | |
Full Topic | |
Member
| Joined: | Sat Jan 27th, 2007 |
| Location: | Texas USA |
| Posts: | 844 |
| Status: |
Online
|
| Mana: |    |
I will repeat my contention that when secession took place in 1860 and 1861, it was legal under the US Constitution. (See 10th Amendment). Whether you are: "Convinced" of this or not is of no importance to me. You can't present any documentation to refute it. All you have done here is to transplant your disagreement on this issue from another thread.
The 1869 USSC decision that addressed the issue was Texas v. White, not: "US v. Texas." In fact, I never cited any USSC decision that said that secession was legal. Perhaps you should reread my postings on the other thread. You seem to be careless with facts as is another poster on this thread who confused Mobile, AL with Columbia, SC.
You continue with all this irrelevant refrain about a : "Working democracy." As I have told you previously, we live in a representative republic, not a democracy. If our system was like that of ancient Athens, then Samuel J. Tilden would have been elected president in 1876, since he got 51% of the vote. The majority does NOT always rule in our system.
The: "Partnership" of the states established the Federal Government (Not the other way around). The governing document was the US Constitution, and nowhere in it does it say that states are required to remain forever in the Union. It might seem: "Logical" to you that they would be so, but I don't see that in the document. In fact, the Constitution would never have been ratified if such a clause had been included in it. Like people in the different regions in 1860 and 1861, we obviously interpret the Constitution differently. I will rely on what the Tenth Amendment actually says. You can rely on your: "Logic."
The states that founded the Federal Government did not give it unlimited powers. They gave it limited and enumerated powers. The Constitution was designed to limit the powers of the new Federal Government, but not to limit the powers of the states. (Except in those limited areas where power is granted to the Federal Government). In promoting the ratification of the new Constitution, James Madison in 1788 stated in The FEDERALIST No. 45: "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the Federal Government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the state governments are numerous and INDEFINITE (my emphasis)." This idea is seen in the Tenth Amendment, which says that if a power is not given to the Federal Government, or prohibited to the states, that the power is retained by the states. The Constitution does not give the Federal Government the authority to forbid the states to leave, nor is that right prohibited to the states.
Federalist No. 45 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The text of the 10th Amendment is included in this source.
As I have said previously, Mr. Lincoln would never have allowed secession, no matter what any court might have decided. For him, the mission of :"Saving" the Union overrode any other legal and political considerations. This is clearly seen by his willingness to usurp or nullify the powers given to other branches of the Government in the Constitution. Mr. Lincoln was not forced to make the choice to fight a war to prevent the southern states from leaving, but that was always going to be his decision.
The only thing we agree on is that the choice of secession did not work out for the CSA. But this does NOT mean that secession was not legal under the Constitution in 1860 or 1861. It only means that the CSA was extinguished by a superior military force.
Last edited on Tue Jan 1st, 2013 08:57 am by Texas Defender