Is the American civil war really over??

[Dreadnought]

"He also fought for the USA twice and was Secretary of War. Apparently he had convictions that those efforts were for naught."

*This statement points out that by him being Secretary of War that he recognized the US government as the soul governing entity of the land. He also would have sworn an oath to protect such lands and thereby commited treason against the US. This is why I state that there was not two different countries only one country and an insurrection against the soul governing entity of the land. Just because some moonbat states the southern states are a different country does'nt mean they actually were. Its only an opinion, not a fact.

[zraver]

Both of those Court decisions were after the war, how could they have any effect on the choices made by the breakaway states in 1861? Those Court decisions reaffirmed what had already been settled on the battlefield.

As mentioned, there is nothing in the Constitution allowing or prohibitting secession. I was asked for justification and I gave it, based on what existed at the time and the mindset of those involved, that the CSA was a seperate country, seeking to expel the military forces of, what was to them, a foreign power. That the remaining states disagreed is obvious and the war was the result.

The Southern states were not the first to discuss secession. Representative from New England states discussed, then proposed, secession in 1815 on grounds similar to those the Southern states used to support their calls for secession in 1861.

Those cases drew on precedent, in some cases going back to the colonies royal charters. What the South did in forming the CSA was expressly forbidden in Article 1 section 10 clause 3

[TopHatter]

Those cases drew on precedent, in some cases going back to the colonies royal charters. What the South did in forming the CSA was expressly forbidden in Article 1 section 10 clause 3

In other words, regardless of whether or not the word "secede" or "succession" are not explictly in the Constituion, the actions taken by the South in the process of succession were clearly unconstitutional.

[zraver]

In other words, regardless of whether or not the word "secede" or "succession" are not explictly in the Constituion, the actions taken by the South in the process of succession were clearly unconstitutional.

Exactly. Now maybe a single state (prior to Texas v White) might have been able to secede. But banding together (entering into a compact) to usurp the power and prerogatives of the national government was expressly forbidden.

Also the secession movement was not very honest, not universal and there was a lot of very shady actions going on.

[Tarek Morgen]

Exactly. Now maybe a single state (prior to Texas v White) might have been able to secede. But banding together (entering into a compact) to usurp the power and prerogatives of the national government was expressly forbidden.

Also the secession movement was not very honest, not universal and there was a lot of very shady actions going on.

but would that not mean that in theory (prior to Texas v White) the states could secede first and THEN form a new state and create treaties since the consitution stops applying to them after they left the union?

[Julie]

I keep saying I'm not going to come back to these secession threads, but yes, here I am again.

The Articles of Confederation that gave rise to the first voluntary Union of the various free and independent American states was written to be perpetual. Such words are clearly used in that document. Centrist and anti-secessionist will point to that and claim that even in the late seventeen hundreds Americans viewed the central government as indivisible.

It is interesting to note that the Articles required a unanimous vote of all thirteen states to modify the terms of the agreement. The abandonment of the government created by the Articles and establishment of the government created by the Constitution was indeed an act of secession. This is of course a point not clearly covered in history classes and seldom understood by Americans.

The Articles themselves were clear on the matter of state sovereignty. Article II states:

Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States in Congress assembled.

Key items from Article II to consider are the terms ?delegated: and ?United States in Congress assembled.? Powers were delegated to the central government by the states; not surrendered. Furthermore the United States in this usage refers to the states assembled by their representatives in congress. The idea that the United States held a position as a viable and separate entity was nebulous at this point. It is impossible to assert that the United States existed as a separate entity since 1776 when this article is read clearly.

The Articles required a unanimous vote to modify the terms and conditions of the compact. Originally only nine of the thirteen states ratified the new constitution. The nine that ratified the Constitution and began operating under a new form of government in fact seceded from the Confederation. The original Union was dissolved and a new association was created. For over a year there existed two forms of central government, one consisting of the states that had joined the Constitutional compact and one of states that remained loyal to the original Confederation.

It is interesting to note that during this period ships entering New York harbor (New York being a state that had joined the Constitutional Union) from Rhode Island (a state that remained in the Confederation) were listed as Foreign vessels.

It is clear that the change from a central government under the Articles of Confederation to one under the Constitution was indeed a change of government; a bloodless revolution really. The Articles were clear in the method allowed for changing the terms; unanimous vote. The Articles also were clear in the expected perpetuity of the compact. Neither of these concepts held much validity when nine of the signatory states determined that it was in their best interest to abandon the agreement and form a new type of government. The very Constitution that the Unionist, centrist and anti-secessionist claim such holy veneration for, was itself a product of secession. So much for the notion of perpetuity.

It is clear that the birth of the United States as a compact of sovereign States was never meant to be perpetual or indivisible. Even under the weak Articles of Confederation with the bold statement of perpetuity this was not the case. The framers of the Constitution were clear and careful not to include any such clause in that document.

The concept that Men can form perfect Unions that in perpetuity might serve the needs of all of mankind so burdened to find their lot that of Citizen is both preposterous and contrary to the historical fact. George Washington described government thusly: "Government is not reason; it is not eloquence; it is force! Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master!" To accept that the Federal Union, once formed, gained superiority and preeminence over the States and People that gave it birth is contrary to sound logic.

[zraver]

but would that not mean that in theory (prior to Texas v White) the states could secede first and THEN form a new state and create treaties since the consitution stops applying to them after they left the union?

Possibly, but that is not the way it happened.

[zraver]

I keep saying I'm not going to come back to these secession threads, but yes, here I am again......

There is a major difference your ignoring, actually several of them.

First, the articles did not require a unanimous vote. This is kind of important do you think. It destroys your argument. In fact here is the actual wording, "ARTICLE XIII. Every State shall abide by the determination of the United States in Congress assembled, on all questions which by this confederation are submitted to them. And the Articles of this Confederation shall be inviolably observed by every State, and the Union shall be perpetual; nor shall any alteration at any time hereafter be made in any of them; unless such alteration be agreed to in a Congress of the United States, and be afterwards confirmed by the legislatures of every State."

That is called the ratification process. More importantly, earlier in the test it only took a vote of nine states to start the process

Secondly, no state ever seceded from the United States as you claim. The Constitutional Convention was a legal entity and new York's wacky actions not withstanding, no state suddenly became not part of the United States and we were not a country other than the USA before the constitutional conventional.

This is from the Treaty of Paris 1783.

It having pleased the Divine Providence to dispose the hearts of the most serene and most potent Prince George the Third, by the grace of God, king of Great Britain, France, and Ireland, defender of the faith, duke of Brunswick and Lunebourg, arch- treasurer and prince elector of the Holy Roman Empire etc., and of the United States of America, to forget all past misunderstandings and differences that have unhappily interrupted the good correspondence and friendship which they mutually wish to restore

[Tarek Morgen]

Possibly, but that is not the way it happened.

was not implying it was, just wondering if I got it right.

[Julie]

There is a major difference your ignoring, actually several of them.

Though they acted together, each state acted as a sovereign nation. The Declaration is very clear at this point. It states that they had to "alter their former systems of government" because of the king's usurpation. The document continues:

[T]hat these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be, FREE AND INDEPENDENT STATES; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connections between them and the state of Great Britain, is, and ought to be, totally dissolved; and that, as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, which Independent States may of right do.

Notice that these are independent states. Each saw itself as a separate nation allied with its sister states in a struggle with a common enemy. The colonies were only united in their desire to be free of a king that was attempting to destroy their constitutional liberties. The Articles of Confederation, which was agreed to by the thirteen states, created the first United States government. It existed from 1781 until 1789.

The Articles put it this way:

Each State retains its sovereignty, freedom and independence, and every Power, Jurisdiction and right, which is not by this confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in congress assembled.

A confederation is when nations unite together in a common purpose. Mutual defense and trade are common reasons for the creation of such systems. The nations in confederation agree to delegate some of their authority to the confederated or federal government to do its limited task. The nations involved retain all of their sovereignty that they have not delegated.

The end of hostilities with Great Britain came after the United States had been formed, yet in the treaty, the United States is recognized as being comprised of independent governments. It reads like this:

His Britannic Majesty acknowledges the said United States, vis. New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantation, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia to be free, sovereign and independent states, that he treats them as such.

Again it's very important that the British crown did not make peace with a single nation called the United States, but with the thirteen states, negotiating for peace with a common enemy, through their confederation government. The treaty recognizes each state as free, sovereign, and independent. Each is acknowledged to be a nation in its own right. This is an important point to remember because the sophist, like Joseph Story and Abe Lincoln, would later claim that the United States existed as a single nation from as early as the Declaration of Independence and even before.

[zraver]

Each State retains its sovereignty, freedom and independence, and every Power, Jurisdiction and right, which is not by this confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in congress assembled....

Even under the articles of confederation the states only enjoyed limited sovereignty much like they have today although broader in scope. They ceased being independent states when they adopted the Article of Confederation.

Article IX. The United States in Congress assembled, shall have the sole and exclusive right and power of determining on peace and war, except in the cases mentioned in the sixth article — of sending and receiving ambassadors — entering into treaties and alliances, provided that no treaty of commerce shall be made whereby the legislative power of the respective States shall be restrained from imposing such imposts and duties on foreigners, as their own people are subjected to, or from prohibiting the exportation or importation of any species of goods or commodities whatsoever — of establishing rules for deciding in all cases, what captures on land or water shall be legal, and in what manner prizes taken by land or naval forces in the service of the United States shall be divided or appropriated — of granting letters of marque and reprisal in times of peace — appointing courts for the trial of piracies and felonies committed on the high seas and establishing courts for receiving and determining finally appeals in all cases of captures, provided that no member of Congress shall be appointed a judge of any of the said courts.

The United States in Congress assembled shall also be the last resort on appeal in all disputes and differences now subsisting or that hereafter may arise between two or more States concerning boundary, jurisdiction or any other causes whatever; which authority shall always be exercised in the manner following

Truly sovereign states can send and receive ambassadors, the several states that make up the United states cannot.

A confederation is when nations unite together in a common purpose. Mutual defense and trade are common reasons for the creation of such systems. The nations in confederation agree to delegate some of their authority to the confederated or federal government to do its limited task. The nations involved retain all of their sovereignty that they have not delegated.

I agree, but they delegated ultimate sovereignty to the national government. Only the US could deal with another sovereign as a co-equal not the individual states.

The end of hostilities with Great Britain came after the United States had been formed, yet in the treaty, the United States is recognized as being comprised of independent governments. It reads like this:

His Britannic Majesty acknowledges the said United States, vis. New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantation, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia to be free, sovereign and independent states, that he treats them as such.

BS Julie, honest discourse requires honesty. Lets look at the opening of the treaty, the part you cite is a clause and deals with the Crown relinquishing all claim to title of the colonies. If you cite it fully,

"His Brittanic Majesty acknowledges the said United States, viz., New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, to be free sovereign and independent states, that he treats with them as such, and for himself, his heirs, and successors, relinquishes all claims to the government, propriety, and territorial rights of the same and every part thereof."

If we look at the opening and who was party to the treaty we find that...

In the name of the most holy and undivided Trinity.

It having pleased the Divine Providence to dispose the hearts of the most serene and most potent Prince George the Third, by the grace of God, king of Great Britain, France, and Ireland, defender of the faith, duke of Brunswick and Lunebourg, arch- treasurer and prince elector of the Holy Roman Empire etc., and of the United States of America, to forget all past misunderstandings and differences that have unhappily interrupted the good correspondence and friendship which they mutually wish to restore, and to establish such a beneficial and satisfactory intercourse , between the two countries upon the ground of reciprocal advantages and mutual convenience as may promote and secure to both perpetual peace and harmony; and having for this desirable end already laid the foundation of peace and reconciliation by the Provisional Articles signed at Paris on the 30th of November 1782, by the commissioners empowered on each part, which articles were agreed to be inserted in and constitute the Treaty of Peace proposed to be concluded between the Crown of Great Britain and the said United States, but which treaty was not to be concluded until terms of peace should be agreed upon between Great Britain and France and his Britannic Majesty should be ready to conclude such treaty accordingly; and the treaty between Great Britain and France having since been concluded, his Britannic Majesty and the United States of America, in order to carry into full effect the Provisional Articles above mentioned, according to the tenor thereof, have constituted and appointed, that is to say his Britannic Majesty on his part, David Hartley, Esqr., member of the Parliament of Great Britain, and the said United States on their part, John Adams, Esqr., late a commissioner of the United States of America at the court of Versailles, late delegate in Congress from the state of Massachusetts, and chief justice of the said state, and minister plenipotentiary of the said United States to their high mightinesses the States General of the United Netherlands; Benjamin Franklin, Esqr., late delegate in Congress from the state of Pennsylvania, president of the convention of the said state, and minister plenipotentiary from the United States of America at the court of Versailles; John Jay, Esqr., late president of Congress and chief justice of the state of New York, and minister plenipotentiary from the said United States at the court of Madrid; to be plenipotentiaries for the concluding and signing the present definitive treaty; who after having reciprocally communicated their respective full powers have agreed upon and confirmed the following articles. [/quote]

The only mention of states is to show where the ministers came from the treaty is between two sovereign parties Great Britain and the United States. And that the peace had to wait on peace between yet another Sovereign namely France.

Again it's very important that the British crown did not make peace with a single nation called the United States, but with the thirteen states, negotiating for peace with a common enemy, through their confederation government. The treaty recognizes each state as free, sovereign, and independent. Each is acknowledged to be a nation in its own right. This is an important point to remember because the sophist, like Joseph Story and Abe Lincoln, would later claim that the United States existed as a single nation from as early as the Declaration of Independence and even before.

I think I jut blew that out of the water.

[Julie]

I think I jut blew that out of the water.

Nope. You fail to see how weak the US central government was formed after that Treaty because the States were granted the most power.

Documents from the Continental Congress and the Constitutional Convention, 1774-1789 - To Form a More Perfect Union: The Work of the Continental Congress & the Constitutional Convention (American Memory from the Library of Congress)

In November 1783, American diplomats sent Congress the final version of the Treaty of Paris, which formally ended America's war with Great Britain. A quorum of nine states had to be present for Congress to ratify the treaty, yet throughout December, scarcely that number was present. Weeks passed, the treaty sat, and Congress remained unable to act upon it. Some desperate congressmen went so far as to contemplate holding Congress in the sickroom of an ailing delegate, to add him to their numbers.

With the passage of time, weaknesses in the Articles of Confederation became apparent; Congress commanded little respect and no support from state governments anxious to maintain their power. Congress could not raise funds, regulate trade, or conduct foreign policy without the voluntary agreement of the states. The weakness of Congress under the Articles of Confederation encouraged many delegates to pay far more attention to politics in their home states and to their personal affairs than to the nation's legislative body.

Under the Articles of Confederation, Congress lacked the authority to regulate commerce, making it unable to protect or standardize trade between foreign nations and the various states. In 1784, Congress requested that the states grant it limited power over commerce for a period of fifteen years, but many of the states did not comply.

On February 16, 1785, the committee recommended amending the Articles of Confederation so that Congress would have power over commerce. Although Congress sent the proposed amendment to the state legislatures, along with a letter urging immediate action, few states responded. Monroe later concluded that the issue was so crucial, and potentially granted so much power to Congress, that the states were afraid to act.

By June of 1786, the situation was desperate. The Board of Treasury submitted a report, warning that unless the states immediately adopted the measures recommended by Congress in 1783, "...nothing...can rescue us from Bankruptcy, or preserve the Union of the several States from Dissolution.”

___________________

With the above shown the government wanted to amend the articles for more power of commerce.

Further, it is an admission that the States could dissolve from the Union under the current Articles. The government could not even collect taxes, much less prompt war with a state within the union.

[Julie]

but would that not mean that in theory (prior to Texas v White) the states could secede first and THEN form a new state and create treaties since the consitution stops applying to them after they left the union?

I would say your theory is legal and is right. The States could dissolve from the Union and form their own perfect union among the states. The original 13 states never wanted a more powerful central government, and this is quite obvious in all documentation in the library of Congress.

[zraver]

Nope. You fail to see how weak the US central government was formed after that Treaty because the States were granted the most power.

Anf that doesn't change the fact that it was the United States that was Sovereign and who Great Britain dealt with. Yes its power was severely limited, King George had limits to but it was the nation of the United States.

I would say your theory is legal and is right. The States could dissolve from the Union and form their own perfect union among the states. The original 13 states never wanted a more powerful central government, and this is quite obvious in all documentation in the library of Congress.

The states have that power today just not individually or in groups less than 2/3rds. The CSA was illegitimate because they did not act via constitutional means and in act acted in defiance of the constitution making a wholly unfounded claim they (each state) were a separate nation unto themselves that could enter or leave the larger nation at will.

[Tarek Morgen]

The states have that power today just not individually or in groups less than 2/3rds. The CSA was illegitimate because they did not act via constitutional means and in act acted in defiance of the constitution making a wholly unfounded claim they (each state) were a separate nation unto themselves that could enter or leave the larger nation at will.

So not the seccession itself was illegal but the way it was done? As it would always require 2/3 of the states approval?