Was the Confederacy constitutional?

Smarter Than All Y'All said:
So "perpetual" didn't apply to the Union?
Click to expand...

You seem to misunderstand the meaning of "perpetual." The point outlined in your source, is that the United States is perpetual, ever-changing. It was intended to mean the 13 states who made up the United States, were not a static, unchangeable body, whereby future 'states' would never be a part of the United 13 Original States, but merely states under their control. It was to establish that United States is a fluid term, it will change over time to include other states, territories, regions, republics, commonwealths, etc. Or, perhaps to dis-include states as well? Perpetual.... look it up!
 
Smarter Than All Y'All said:
Did the states of the Confederacy have the right to secede and form their own national government?
Click to expand...
It was a Federal Government, not a National Government. It wasn't until after the Civil War that it was called a "national" government, and that was after the Constitution was amended taking power away from the states.
 
In order to justify secession as a constitutional remedy, it must be on the principle that the Federal Government is a voluntary association of States, to be dissolved at the pleasure of any of the contracting parties.

The government of the United States of America regarded secession as illegal and refused to recognize the Confederacy.

No foreign nation officially recognized the CSA as an independent country.
 
Smarter Than All Y'All said:
In order to justify secession as a constitutional remedy, it must be on the principle that the Federal Government is a voluntary association of States, to be dissolved at the pleasure of any of the contracting parties.

The government of the United States of America regarded secession as illegal and refused to recognize the Confederacy.

No foreign nation officially recognized the CSA as an independent country.
Click to expand...

The Federal government WAS a voluntary association of states, as was indicated by the previous post, it was understood they retained the same rights as they held under previous articles of confederation, and this was stipulated in the voluntary agreement and condition under which the states joined the union. It is academic whether the U.S. government, or any government recognized the CSA as an independent country. That wasn't your question, nor is that evidence of an answer to your question.

Let me add, even though it is considered "unconstitutional" presently, for a state to secede from the union, the issue had not been settled by the courts in 1860, and we can't apply modern history to the past, it doesn't comport with logic. We have to ask the question in the context and understanding of the Constitution at the time, and the issue of whether states had the "right" to secede, was indeed controversial, and certainly wasn't established as "unconstitutional" at that time.

Furthermore, I would argue that as Americans, we retain not only the RIGHT, but the OBLIGATION to uphold our founding principles of Liberty:

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

Notice it doesn't say "it would be a good idea to declare separation" ...it says it REQUIRES we do this, we are MANDATED to do this, as human beings who believe in the premise that our rights come from a higher power than MAN. This becomes more of an issue of principle than upholding an interpretation of the Constitution. What does the Constitution mean, if the foundational principle is missing? What purpose does upholding it serve, when it contradicts the very principles it is based upon to do so?
 
Smarter Than All Y'All said:
In order to justify secession as a constitutional remedy, it must be on the principle that the Federal Government is a voluntary association of States, to be dissolved at the pleasure of any of the contracting parties.

The government of the United States of America regarded secession as illegal and refused to recognize the Confederacy.
Click to expand...
well whooptee doo. bush considered every aspect of the patriot act as constitutional. nixon said that if the president does it, its not illegal. pffffft.
 
And it was final. The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration or revocation, except through revolution or through consent of the States.
Click to expand...

thus, either through revolution or consent of the states, secession can occur
 
SmarterThanYou said:
well whooptee doo. bush considered every aspect of the patriot act as constitutional. nixon said that if the president does it, its not illegal. pffffft.
Click to expand...

And the Supreme Court ruled the Patriot Act was not unconstitutional, and Richard Nixon was never indicted. The Supreme Court has also decreed slaves were property, and that women do not deserve the right to vote. Because something is unconstitutional today, doesn't mean it was always viewed as unconstitutional. Many things the court has deemed unconstitutional today, were once viewed to be protected by the Constitution. So the entire issue of "constitutionality" rests on fundamental understanding of beliefs during that time, it is patently absurd to attempt applying a modern interpretation that simply didn't exist then.
 
Dixie said:
And the Supreme Court ruled the Patriot Act was not unconstitutional, and Richard Nixon was never indicted. The Supreme Court has also decreed slaves were property, and that women do not deserve the right to vote. Because something is unconstitutional today, doesn't mean it was always viewed as unconstitutional. Many things the court has deemed unconstitutional today, were once viewed to be protected by the Constitution. So the entire issue of "constitutionality" rests on fundamental understanding of beliefs during that time, it is patently absurd to attempt applying a modern interpretation that simply didn't exist then.
Click to expand...

That's correct.
 
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...
That is the most amazing demonstration of reading what one wants to hear I have ever seen.

Again: the CONSTITUTION states that all agreements entered into under the Articles of Confederation were still valid under the Constitution. It's right there in plain straight forward language in Article VI.

In the Articles of Confederation the States agreed to a PERPETUAL UNION.

Perpetual: 1 a : continuing forever : everlasting <perpetual motion> b (1) : valid for all time <a perpetual right> (2) : holding (as an office) for life or for an unlimited time

As such, the agreement to a perpetual union, maintained via Article VI of the Constitution, means it is UNCONSTITUTIONAL for a state to BREAK that agreement unilaterally. A court ruling on constitutionality does not mean it is unconstitutional from the point of the court ruling. That is a ridiculous notion. Does it take a SCOTUS decision to make a law prohibiting open criticism of government unconstitutional? No, making such a law IS unconstitutional with or without a SCOTUS decision. The courts merely VERIFY the unconstitutionality of a law. It is the language of the Constitution itself that makes it unconstitutional for the government to make certain laws or take certain actions.

Secession was unconstitutional from the point of each state ratifying the Constitution because the language that makes it unconstitutional was present from the beginning.


That said, the southern states certainly had a number of very legitimate grievances against the way the federal government was strangling their economy. It does not matter that many of the measures taken by the northern states were designed to make slavery an uneconomical practice. The federal laws that deliberately imbalanced interstate trade were plain, dead wrong. As such, via the principles laid out in our Declaration of Independence, a strong argument can be made that secession was the proper answer to a government which had shown a "a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object..."

However, justification under the wrongs committed by the federal government coupled with the principles under which the Colonies had seceded from the British Empire, still does not make the action legal, nor constitutional.

Neither was our Revolution of 1776 legal if one wants to strictly talk legalities. Necessary, yes, in the opinions of our founding fathers, and with which most today would agree. But legal - no.

Therefore, the debate is not whether secession was unconstitutional, but rather whether violating the States' obligations to the Constitution (inherited via the Articles of Confederation) was justified with respect to the constitutional violations imposed on the states by the federal government.
 
A court ruling on constitutionality does not mean it is unconstitutional from the point of the court ruling. That is a ridiculous notion. Does it take a SCOTUS decision to make a law prohibiting open criticism of government unconstitutional? No, making such a law IS unconstitutional with or without a SCOTUS decision.
Click to expand...

I see what you are saying, but you are forming a philosophical argument rather than having a reality-based understanding. The Supreme Court is charged with determining whether things ARE or ARE NOT Constitutional, and it uses its own interpretations to do so. The Constitution clearly states that every American has rights under the Bill of Rights, did those apply to slaves before the Civil War? Was it "unconstitutional" to consider them property and not people? Certainly it was, AFTER the Civil War, AFTER passage of the 13th and 14th Amendments... was it "unconstitutional" to segregate blacks and whites? Certainly it was, AFTER the 1954 Brown v. Board of Ed decision. We can't claim it was unconstitutional before that, because the court ruled otherwise and upheld the practice. Is it currently "unconstitutional" to have an abortion and deny a living human the Constitutional right to life? According to the court, it is not currently unconstitutional. Does that mean it will always and forever be constitutional to get abortions on demand? Of course it doesn't!

Constitutionality is an ever-changing and evolving process, and it changes with society, culture, and times. The basis for whether something is or isn't constitutional, is found in our interpretations and understandings of subjective terminology, like "equality." While we have a modern interpretation of what "equality" means, that was not always what "equality" meant to society, and future generations might have a completely different view of what "equality" means then.
 
Dixie said:
I see what you are saying, but you are forming a philosophical argument rather than having a reality-based understanding. The Supreme Court is charged with determining whether things ARE or ARE NOT Constitutional, and it uses its own interpretations to do so. The Constitution clearly states that every American has rights under the Bill of Rights, did those apply to slaves before the Civil War? Was it "unconstitutional" to consider them property and not people? Certainly it was, AFTER the Civil War, AFTER passage of the 13th and 14th Amendments... was it "unconstitutional" to segregate blacks and whites? Certainly it was, AFTER the 1954 Brown v. Board of Ed decision. We can't claim it was unconstitutional before that, because the court ruled otherwise and upheld the practice. Is it currently "unconstitutional" to have an abortion and deny a living human the Constitutional right to life? According to the court, it is not currently unconstitutional. Does that mean it will always and forever be constitutional to get abortions on demand? Of course it doesn't!

Constitutionality is an ever-changing and evolving process, and it changes with society, culture, and times. The basis for whether something is or isn't constitutional, is found in our interpretations and understandings of subjective terminology, like "equality." While we have a modern interpretation of what "equality" means, that was not always what "equality" meant to society, and future generations might have a completely different view of what "equality" means then.
Click to expand...

Words are not philosophical, they have real meaning.
 
Words are not philosophical, they have real meaning.
Click to expand...

Well of course words have real meaning, but the real meaning changes with the times. The Constitution clearly states that people have the right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, but did that apply to black people who were slaves? We all had the right to petition government for a redress of our grievances... unless you were a woman! Americans had the Constitutional right to be secure in their property and not have unreasonable search and seizure ...Except NATIVE Americans! For them, it was perfectly acceptable to steal every goddamn inch of their land, and send them all to concentration camps to live out the rest of their lives! All through our history, we've redefined the meaning of "freedom" and "equality" and not just once, but many times. It is not philosophical to point this out, it is honest.
 
T&A said:
Perpetual meant "perpetual" in 1788, not "is."
Click to expand...

Perpetual: 1 a : continuing forever

Word #1: Continuing: Needing no renewal.
Word #2: Forever: for a limitless time.

Statement this is applied to:

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.

The states did NOT agree to a "PERMANENT" union, but a "PERPETUAL" one. It did not require them to renew the arrangement, and this applied for a limitless time.
 
Dixie said:
And the Supreme Court ruled the Patriot Act was not unconstitutional, and Richard Nixon was never indicted. The Supreme Court has also decreed slaves were property, and that women do not deserve the right to vote. Because something is unconstitutional today, doesn't mean it was always viewed as unconstitutional. Many things the court has deemed unconstitutional today, were once viewed to be protected by the Constitution. So the entire issue of "constitutionality" rests on fundamental understanding of beliefs during that time, it is patently absurd to attempt applying a modern interpretation that simply didn't exist then.
Click to expand...

congratulations, dix. you just promoted the living constitution theory. :palm:
 
Dixie said:
Perpetual: 1 a : continuing forever

Word #1: Continuing: Needing no renewal.
Word #2: Forever: for a limitless time.

Statement this is applied to:

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.

The states did NOT agree to a "PERMANENT" union, but a "PERPETUAL" one. It did not require them to renew the arrangement, and this applied for a limitless time.
Click to expand...
A load of bovine cookies. Perpetual means continuing forever - as in the states do NOT have the right to END it. If it is ENDED - especially unilaterally, then it is NOT "continuing forever" is it? You Dixieland patriots can claim wishy-washy crap about the constitutionality/legality of secession all day long. In the end, the FACTS are the states agreed to a perpetual (lasting forever) union under the Articles, and then agreed that their commitment was still valid under the Constitution.

FACT: it is NOT Constitutional. And it was not in 1860 either or the Civil War would not have been fought over the question.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top