Was the Confederacy constitutional?

You have the right to a public education...you ought to take advantage of that right.

ASAP
 
"No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress.

No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay."
 
Article VI, Paragraph 1:
All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.
Click to expand...
Emphasis added for clarity

From the Articles of Confederation:
And that the Articles thereof shall be inviolably observed by the States we respectively represent, and that the Union shall be perpetual.
Click to expand...

Conclusion: the states agreed to a PERPETUAL union under the Articles of Confederation, and then agreed that all engagements entered into under the Articles were still valid under the Constitution.

Can not be more clear than that - unless you don't LIKE what the Constitution says, so try to make it complicated and difficult to "interpret". But that fault lies in the one who wants the Constitution to say something different, not in what the Constitution says.
 
Good Luck said:
Article VI, Paragraph 1:

Emphasis added for clarity

From the Articles of Confederation:


Conclusion: the states agreed to a PERPETUAL union under the Articles of Confederation, and then agreed that all engagements entered into under the Articles were still valid under the Constitution.

Can not be more clear than that - unless you don't LIKE what the Constitution says, so try to make it complicated and difficult to "interpret". But that fault lies in the one who wants the Constitution to say something different, not in what the Constitution says.
Click to expand...

So the Confederacy was illegal.
 
Smarter Than All Y'All said:
"No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.
Click to expand...
Read this

Smarter Than All Y'All said:
No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress.
Click to expand...
read this

Smarter Than All Y'All said:
No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay."
Click to expand...
read this
 
Good Luck said:
Article VI, Paragraph 1:

Emphasis added for clarity

From the Articles of Confederation:


Conclusion: the states agreed to a PERPETUAL union under the Articles of Confederation, and then agreed that all engagements entered into under the Articles were still valid under the Constitution.

Can not be more clear than that - unless you don't LIKE what the Constitution says, so try to make it complicated and difficult to "interpret". But that fault lies in the one who wants the Constitution to say something different, not in what the Constitution says.
Click to expand...

You nailed his pathetic pinhead ass on this one! GOOD JOB!
 
Smarter Than All Y'All said:
So the Confederacy was illegal.
Click to expand...

Nope. The states which seceded, did not do this by violating ANY of the provisions you outlined, the CSA was not formed until AFTER they seceded. You will find each state presented an article of secession, autonomous from any foreign entity. If the Southern States had gone and joined Mexico, or collectively declared independence from the US and loyalty to the British, that would have been against the Constitutional provisions you are citing. They each declared individual independence on behalf of the state, and the Constitution doesn't prohibit that. (or didn't at the time.) This changed with a SCOTUS ruling following the Civil War in 1869

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_v._White

So your correct, unbiased, truthful answer is... It was NOT illegal for the states to secede in 1860-61, and it was not "unconstitutional" to do so until 1869.
 
Dixie said:
Nope. The states which seceded, did not do this by violating ANY of the provisions you outlined, the CSA was not formed until AFTER they seceded. You will find each state presented an article of secession, autonomous from any foreign entity. If the Southern States had gone and joined Mexico, or collectively declared independence from the US and loyalty to the British, that would have been against the Constitutional provisions you are citing. They each declared individual independence on behalf of the state, and the Constitution doesn't prohibit that. (or didn't at the time.) This changed with a SCOTUS ruling following the Civil War in 1869

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_v._White

So your correct, unbiased, truthful answer is... It was NOT illegal for the states to secede in 1860-61, and it was not "unconstitutional" to do so until 1869.
Click to expand...

So "perpetual" didn't apply to the Union?
 
Smarter Than All Y'All said:
How'd the government "shut down half"?
Click to expand...

supporting high tariffs on imported goods.

http://www.historycentral.com/CivilWar/AMERICA/Economics.html

The other critical economic issue that divided the North from the South was that of tariffs. Tariffs were taxes placed on imported goods, the money from which would go to the government. Throughout the antebellum period, whenever the federal government wanted to raise tariffs, Southern Congressmen generally opposed it and Northern Congressmen generally supported it. Southerners generally favored low tariffs because this kept the cost of imported goods low, which was important in the South's import-oriented economy. Southern planters and farmers were concerned that high tariffs might make their European trading partners, primarily the British, raise prices on manufactured goods imported by the South in order to maintain a profit on trade.
In the North, however, high tariffs were viewed favorably because such tariffs would make imported goods more expensive. That way, goods produced in the North would seem relatively cheap, and Americans would want to buy American goods instead of European items. Since tariffs would protect domestic industry from foreign competition, business interests and others influenced politicians to support high tariffs.
Americans in the West were divided on the issue. In the Southwest, where cotton was a primary commodity, people generally promoted low tariffs. In the Northwest and parts of Kentucky, where hemp (used for baling cotton) was a big crop, people supported high tariffs.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top