From slide 2:How about "The Civil War of Northern Aggression?"
OK I'll shut up.
this is true, as it was not a civil war. a civil war is when two armies are fighting over the same government. the south seceded legally under the constitution and then was invaded by a foreign power. but the victors write the history books and that is that. you can say what you want about the morals and politics of the war, but that does not change the fact that that is what happened. over 600,000 americans were sent to the grave because the industrial tyrants in the north would rather whoop the a$$ of an archaic agriculturalist economy than provide diplomatic business solutions.How about "The Civil War of Northern Aggression?"
Nowhere in the constitution does it state a state can secede. Nowhere. Ratification is not conditional. It states in fact Congress maythe south seceded legally under the constitution
If states or localities could simply remove themselves from the conditional Constitution at will, it would be rather worthless. It could be held hostage at every turn by wealthy states or states with sudden "rushes" (oil, gold, natural gas, silver, etc.In New York's convention, for instance, on July 24, 1788, Antifederalist John Lansing Jr. moved that a resolution be adopted giving New York the right to secede from the Union if certain amendments were not adopted within a certain number of years. Alexander Hamilton, who had anticipated such a proposal, had written to James Madison several days earlier and posed the question to him. Madison, in his capacity as a Congressman, had replied, indicating that Congress would not consider a conditional ratification to be valid. Hamilton read the letter to the convention, and Lansing's motion was defeated on the 25th by a vote of 31 to 28.
So the right of secession claimed by Virginia and New York cannot be seen as "conditions" or amendments to the Constitutional proposal. If they were, those states' ratifications would have been rejected, as per Madison's letter. The other conditions listed as presumed in the preamble to the Virginia ratification -- the inability of the federal government to interfere in free exercise of religion and the press -- were agreed by all, federalists included, to be beyond the power of the federal government.
the people of the several states consented to the Constitution not as a once-and-for-all commitment to eternal obedience, but with a right of withdrawal that is their right as the true sovereign of the nation. That view is affirmed by the nature of the Constitution itself and in the principles enshrined in the Declaration of Independence.
"The federal government, then, appears to be the organ through which the united republics communicate with foreign nations, and with each other. Their submission to its operation is voluntary: its councils, its sovereignty is an emanation from theirs, not a flame by which they have been consumed, nor a vortex in which they are swallowed up. Each is still a perfect state, still sovereign, still independent, and still capable, should the occasion require, to resume the exercise of its functions, as such, in the most unlimited extent.
"But until the time shall arive when the occasion requires a resumption of the rights of sovereignty by the several states (and far be that period removed when it should happen) the exercise of the rights of sovereignty by the states, individually, is wholly suspended, or discontinued, in the cases before mentioned: nor can that suspension ever be removed, so long as the present constitution remains unchanged, but by the dissolution of the bonds of union. An event which no good citizen can wish, and which no good, or wise administration will ever hazard."
Charlene32, I was saving that argument, but I concur that succession would have a valid 10th Admendment claim.nice find Hgunner. thanks for posting.
i think the 10th amendment illustrates my point well:
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") affirms the sovereignty of the states and makes it clear that the federal government's powers are limited to those granted in the Constitution -- that is, the states may exercise its authority even in areas where the federal government may not.