American Civil War, yet again

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

OAR,

Y'all are going to make me thumb type this shit aren't you? Fuck this has been a shitty day.

I need you to consider a question. Had a State refused to ratify the Constitution would it have remained part of the US? Before you answer look at the precise text of Art. VII:

The ratification of the conventions of nine states, shall be sufficient for the establishment of this Constitution between the states so ratifying the same.[empahsis added]

It seems clear that the Consitution and the Federal government created by the Constitution could only exert power over the States that ratified. Now, again, the specific question is what would have happened if North Carolina and Rhode Island had refused ratificaion, would they have been subject to the new Federal Government and part of the US? If you answer yes please give a textual basis for your answer.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

MM,

The bill of rights did not apply to the States until after the 14th amendment was ratified. There is a Supreme Court case (written by Chief Justice Marshall of Marbury v Madison fame) that stands for the proposition that the bill of rights binds only the federal government.

Here it is Barron v. Baltimore:

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barron_v._Baltimore

[Zorral]

Zorral,

It is your cotention that despite Davis' obvious guilt for treason that wealthy interests prevented his trial after indictmemt by paying off the right people?

No. They didn't need to pay off anyone.

Lightsnake,

Is it possible that they didn't want a trial where the legality of secession was actually tested (a seperate issue from the morality of the reason for the choice to secede)? Morally, the South was clearly, in my opinion, wrong to chose to leave when they did. Legally, it's not that clear.

No. At least according to anything I've ever seen in the studies. People were tired. They needed to get on with their lives. White supremacy was the rule of both south and north.

Plus -- the anarchists and trades unions were scaring everyone of wealth in industry, who needed to be put down. This meant particularly keeping free people of color out of the work place in any but the most ill paid or unpaid labor -- see share cropping. (Far few [people of color were in the skilled craft professions such as carpentry in the Jim Crow era than while slaves in the antebellum era, that's how severely the crackdown was on keeping African Americans out of the work force. Also, nobody could any longer rent out that skilled carpenter chattel for income stream, now there was emancipation -- so there was a concerted interest in de-skilling African Americans.) So the nation's wealthy were far more interested in the war on labor, period. And part of their weaponry and strategy, was white supremacy and bigotry, which, of course, the South had down to an art already, from centuries of keeping the poor whites in line by allowing them free violence on the bodies of slaves.

Louisiana staged a coup by violence, effectively ending Reconstruction, which was helping to establish freed people's advancement. Then neo-slavery was effectively instituted -- but, thank the lordessa! -- without the most fundamental aspect of slavery unique to the U.S. - the perpetual enslavement of the African American womb, no matter what the color of her skin by 1860.

It was a political deal.

We had one of the worst economic downturns ever in our constant cycle of boom and bust, the Panic of 1873.

[Mad Monkey]

MM,

The bill of rights did not apply to the States until after the 14th amendment was ratified. There is a Supreme Court case (written by Chief Justice Marshall of Marbury v Madison fame) that stands for the proposition that the bill of rights binds only the federal government.

Here it is Barron v. Baltimore:

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barron_v._Baltimore

I know about that and about incorporation, but people still make that argument today, arguing that people who believe that their state governments are violating (for example) the First Amendment by mandating government-sponsored prayer should not have recourse to the federal government. To me, that suggests that some people believe that state governments are not required to comply with the Bill of Rights (today, not in the pre-Civil War or Reconstruction era) and that each state can basically operate like its own separate country and make laws without even trying to conform to federal law.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

MM,

That's not my point and never has been. My point is than the modern understanding of the relationship between the States and the Federal government is not the same understanding that existed in 1860. Attempting to imply that (I don't believe you are) is disingenuous.

[Zorral]

I think -- perhaps -- what I'm trying to say, is there was no need of payoffs or anything like that. It was all political and yes it was economic equally.

Slavery had been a huge drag on the U.S. economy, and a constant gridlock for the federal government dealing with national improvements in the essential communications and transportation creativity to make the U.S. the most competitive among the emerging capitalist industrial nations.

With slavery out of way -- particularly accounting wealth in the bodies of slave women's wombs and their babies, wealth could be accounted for in something other than perpetual credit that was the economy of half the nation.

With Emancipation we also got our first national currency.

With the Civil War -- even during the war, we had enormous national improvements, because we didn't have a slave power block on the Hill blocking every modern financial innovation (which always undermined the slave economy of credit accounted for in human beings) and understanding in terms of credit and banking. It was in the interest of the emerging monopolist business tycoons to have had slavery out of the way in every way. Once that was accomplished, there was no interest to them in the former slaves, other than as the benchmark of labor payment -- which is what Haitian labor force has been for the entire globe since at least WWI.

Plus, pitting the lowest of the lowest paid worker against the other workers flooding into the U.S. -- along with very sophisticated labor thinkers and activists out of Europe -- it was good to have a target against which to unite all of them too.

[OnionAhaiReborn]

OAR,

Y'all are going to make me thumb type this shit aren't you? Fuck this has been a shitty day.

I need you to consider a question. Had a State refused to ratify the Constitution would it have remained part of the US? Before you answer look at the precise text of Art. VII:

It seems clear that the Consitution and the Federal government created by the Constitution could only exert power over the States that ratified. Now, again, the specific question is what would have happened if North Carolina and Rhode Island had refused ratificaion, would they have been subject to the new Federal Government and part of the US? If you answer yes please give a textual basis for your answer.

I really don't see how that's relevant. I said it makes no sense for the states which agreed to the Constitution (which was all of them) to reserve the right to utterly ignore all the powers they had agreed to grant the Federal government to have over them.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

OAR,

It makes sense when you consider Art. VII in conjuction with the powers reserved to the States under the 10th Amendment. If they had the power to choose not to join the US, as seems obvious, and there is no provision in the Constitution for states ratifying the Constitution to be unable to leave the Union based upon the reservation of powers in the 10th they retain the power to choose to leave for any or no reason.

Each of the States that enacted ordinances of secession did so in manners that matched their ratification of the Constitution. They acted to recind their ratification, a power not denied to the States by the Constitution.

[Zorral]

OAR,

It makes sense when you consider Art. VII in conjuction with the powers reserved to the States under the 10th Amendment. If they had the power to choose not to join the US, as seems obvious, and there is no provision in the Constitution for states ratifying the Constitution to be unable to leave the Union based upon the reservation of powers in the 10th they retain the power to choose to leave for any or no reason.

Each of the States that enacted ordinances of secession did so in manners that matched their ratification of the Constitution. They acted to recind their ratification, a power not denied to the States by the Constitution.

Andrew Jackson believed he'd definitively answered all of these states rights and related issues in the manner in which he resolutely solved the Nullification Crisis of 1830. Whatever South Carolina believed happened, in reality he took federal troops and told Calhoun to sit down and shut up.

Which, while Calhoun and SC formally acceded (with many sweetners provided by Jackson), they did not accede to in their hearts.

As Calhoun supposedly breathed during his death bed days (paraphase here, and I'm not even sure this is anything but SC apocrypha) -- "I was alone and now there are generations of me." Meaning many of what became known in the south as secession philosophers, and in the north as fire eaters.

[OnionAhaiReborn]

OAR,

It makes sense when you consider Art. VII in conjuction with the powers reserved to the States under the 10th Amendment. If they had the power to choose not to join the US, as seems obvious, and there is no provision in the Constitution for states ratifying the Constitution to be unable to leave the Union based upon the reservation of powers in the 10th they retain the power to choose to leave for any or no reason.

Each of the States that enacted ordinances of secession did so in manners that matched their ratification of the Constitution. They acted to recind their ratification, a power not denied to the States by the Constitution.

Except they ratified a document that granted the Federal Government all sorts of powers over them, so it can't be reserved to them to then completely deny all of these powers by seceding. There is no way to secede from the Union without defying powers delegated to the Federal Government, so it isn't reserved to the states to do so.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Zorral,

Right, argument to force. Not a legal resolution of the question

OAR,

Can you please find the provison of the US Constitution that expressly denies States the power to recind their ratification? The 10th Amendment expressly reserves those powers not granted to the Federal government or denied to the States, to the States. As such unless there is an express provision denying them that power, they retain it.

[OnionAhaiReborn]

OAR,

Can you please find the provison of the US Constitution that expressly denies States the power to recind their ratification? The 10th Amendment expressly reserves those powers not granted to the Federal government or denied to the States, to the States. As such unless there is an express provision denying them that power, they retain it.

Any one of the many provisions granting the Federal Government power over the states will do. The Constitution makes exactly zero sense if we're to imagine that all of the powers apparently granted to the Federal Government and agreed to by the states can be shrugged off at the whim of the states. The states are reserved powers not delegated to the Federal Government- if a power is delegated to the Federal Government the states can't very well choose to completely ignore that power, which is what secession attempts.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

OAR,

Under the modern understanding of the relationship between the States and the Federal government, perhaps. That is not the same understanding that existed in 1860 as I pointed out upthread.

Just to be clear I'm not agruing "nullification". The Supremecy clause clearly ment States, who remained in the Union, were subordinate to the Federal Govenrnent. However, the Constitution says absolutely nothing that would prevent a State from choosing to recind ratification and thereby leave the Union. There is nothing in the Constitution that says it is "perpetual" or that prevents a State from choosing to leave.

The Feds could threaten conquest but they were on shaky legal ground, at best, to try to legally force States to remain in the Union, hence the call for milita to forcefully reincorporate seceding States.

[OnionAhaiReborn]

OAR,

Under the modern understanding of the relationship between the States and the Federal government, perhaps. That is not the same understanding that existed in 1860 as I pointed out upthread.

I disagree- by 1860 it clearly was the understanding of a vast swath of the nation which saw secession as treasonous and illegal and was willing to fight on that point. I suspect that had a groups of states seceded in the earlier days of the republic there would not have been the will among the other states to insist that they remained part of the Union (although I maintain the Constitution would have so dictated).

Just to be clear I'm not agruing "nullification". The Supremecy clause clearly ment States, who remained in the Union, were subordinate to the Federal Govenrnent. However, the Constitution says absolutely nothing that would prevent a State from choosing to recind ratification and thereby leave the Union. There is nothing in the Constitution that says it is "perpetual" or that prevents a State from choosing to leave.

The Feds could threaten conquest but they were on shaky legal ground, at best, to try to legally force States to remain in the Union, hence the call for milita to forcefully reincorporate seceding States.

Secession is nullification on steroids. The states couldn't sensibly grant the Federal Government power of them while withholding the right not to respect that power.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

OAR,

I will agree with you, as soon as you provide an express statement in the Constiution that strips from the States the power to recind ratification of the Constitution and thereby act as independent States. I'll wait.

[OnionAhaiReborn]

OAR,

I will agree with you, as soon as you provide an express statement in the Constiution that strips from the States the power to recind ratification of the Constitution and thereby act as independent States. I'll wait.

I've said it repeatedly, once they accept the Federal Government and its powers over them they are denied those powers delegated to the Federal Government, which obviously prohibits utterly defying Federal power by seceding.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

OAR,

You are missing the point that once they've recinded ratification, they are no longer subject to the Federal government. This is not peicemeal picking and choosing what the Feds may and may not do as nullification would require. This is taking their chips and going home. Unless the Constitution expressly denied that power to the States they possessed it as they possessed the power to choose to join the Union or not under Art. VII they possessed the power to choose to leave because that power is not stripped from the States anywhere in the US Constitution.

[OnionAhaiReborn]

I'm not missing the point- I understand that secessionists would have it that they're not longer subject to the Federal Government, I'm saying they are subject to the Federal Government. The 10th Amendment reserves for the states powers not delegated to the Federal Government- a state declaring itself not subject to the Federal Government is claiming for itself all sorts of powers explicitly delegated to the Federal Government and defying explicitly delegated Federal powers and so cannot be a reserved power of the states.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Just for clarities sake none of the discussions of the legality of secession make the choice to exercise a reserved power to recind ratification in any way moral when that power was exercised to preserve the right to own other human beings.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

OAR,

No, a State recinding ratification is not "claiming federal powers" it is removing itself from the ambiant of Federal power and after so removing reasserting the powers an State would normally have.

Regardless, the fact that we can have this debate shows that the summary and dismissive manner that Texas v. White dicta addresses this issue is fundamentally insufficent to settle this question.