quote:

You put forth that the absence of an amendment after the war is proof of the right to secede

quote:

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.

quote:

ORIGINAL: celticlord2112

quote:

You put forth that the absence of an amendment after the war is proof of the right to secede

The Tenth Amendment is the proof of the right.

quote:

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.

Only the Constitution can deny rights to the states or the people.  The only rights and powers of the federal government are those granted by the Constitution.  What the Constitution does not give the federal government by definition remains with the states/people.

Thus, the right to secede must be presumed to exist because the Constitution does not say otherwise.  That is the meaning of the Tenth Amendment.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Irishknight

quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice

<fast reply>

Fwiw, Article I, Section 10 of the Constitution expressly forbids states from entering into alliances or confederations.

If they seceded first then that article would not matter.  They would no longer be bound by it.  Then they could join in such a group.

quote:

Again I am confused by your statement's..The first thing that jumps out at me is your assertion that only the Constitution can deny rights to the states or the people...and thus because the Constitution does not explicitly deny the right to secede it is presumed to grant it....The Constitution as a suicide pact,with its own little trap drawer for any state that feels disaffected...it's a novel viewpoint but it is fallacy

quote:

Only if we have first recognized the right to secede ,which is pretty much what this thread is boiling down to.In the original posting i had asked that Lincolns second inaugral be read (that along with any number of his speechs,letters and commutations of execution's I thought would open up a discussion of Lincoln's worth and standing)instead we seem to be arguing the rather moot point of the unqualified right of any dissafected section or state to secede from the union.

quote:

ORIGINAL: celticlord2112

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

So the heart of your argument is the re admittance of the states after the cessation of hostilities,and than you go on to state that since no amendment to the Constitution has been added since the Civil War that right still exists.A large semi truck can be driven through the holes in your argument....first off why pass an amendment that clearly wasn't needed when the right to secede was never there..second The Federalist Paper 39 was a position paper and does not hold the rule of law .As for Jefferson he is famously quoted as suggesting something along the lines that a little rebellion every twenty years or so is a good thing....Now I don't know about You but I'll take Lincoln's more permanent UNION over Jefferson's revolution every twenty year thing.Than you quote The New York Tribune...what papers in those days weren't incredibly slanted and give to vitriol...You have not and I don't believe can convince me with these arguments

If there is no right of secession, re-admittance is a legal impossibility.

If there is no right of secession, those individuals within the state governments would be guilty of rebellion, insurrection, and arguably treason.  However, such acts by individuals would not--indeed could not possibly--invalidate the structures of government within the seceded states.  The Reconstruction Act of 1867 stated there were no legal governments within the seceded states.  There is not to this day Constitutional authority for the federal government to dissolve a state government--but that is exactly what the Act accomplished.

The only way this could be is if the southern states were not portions of the Union but in fact conquered territories, just like territories acquired from Mexico after 1848.  For the states to be conquered territories, the Confederate States of America had to be a valid and sovereign nation--which necessarily requires the states have the right to secede from the Union.

quote:

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.

If there were no right of secession, the Constitution would make a mockery of the American Revolution.  Fortunately, the right remains, and the Constitution thus was the culmination of the American Revolution.  So it remained until the Civil War.

quote:

The structures of those state governments were invalidated by the very act of REBELLION

quote:

ORIGINAL: celticlord2112

quote:

Again I am confused by your statement's..The first thing that jumps out at me is your assertion that only the Constitution can deny rights to the states or the people...and thus because the Constitution does not explicitly deny the right to secede it is presumed to grant it....The Constitution as a suicide pact,with its own little trap drawer for any state that feels disaffected...it's a novel viewpoint but it is fallacy

The text of the Tenth Amendment leaves no room for any other interpretation.   It is not my assertion per se, but the assertion of the Constitution itself.

The dilemma in your position is that because you do not believe the states ought to have the right to secede, a lack of textual reference within the Constitution is sufficient to preclude the possibility.

Whether or not the states should have the right of secession is itself a fascinating question,  but it is not germane to the matter of the Constitution permitting or denying that right.  What is germane to the matter is how rights and powers are to be balanced under the Constitution between the states and the federal government. 

Consider:  where in the Constitution are the rights of states fully and exhaustively ennumerated?  Nowhere.  How then, are rights to be determined?

The boundary between state and federal government drawn by the 10th Amendment is a circumscription of federal authority, not state authority.  Wherever state authority is not explicitly limited by the Constitution, either by granting a power to the federal government or denying a power to the states, state authority trumps federal authority.

The right of secession, like all rights, exists until there is competent law to deny it.  For states, the only competent law to regulate their membership in the United States is the Constitution.  Where does the Constitution specifically deny the right of secession?  It does not, and because it does not, the right absolutely must be presumed to exist; so sayeth the Tenth Amendment.

quote:

..I believe the Constitution is a sacred document and along with the Bill of Rights great gifts the revolution has handed to mankind...a more perfect government and all that....

quote:

I am irish and we have been known to be stubborn in the past

quote:

..I believe the Constitution is a sacred document and along with the Bill of Rights great gifts the revolution has handed to mankind...a more perfect government and all that....

quote:

ORIGINAL: Irishknight

slvmike, Ithink you saw my point in my last post.  If secession was legal, then those seceding need merely follow steps in the right order.  If not they were doubly bad. 
I do believe that the area of the right of secession is left open for debate in all but one case.  Texas came in as a soveriegn country and, if I am remembering correctly how it was shown to me, they retain the right to return to being an independant republic if their people so choose.  California was a republic at one time too, I believe, but I have never heard of them retaining that right.  
The constitution shares one thing with the bible.  It is written in such a way that each man/woman can read it and get a different interpretation of it.  Add that to each human's natural inclination to see things how they want and it creates arguments which have no correct answer.

quote:

I have heard his suspension of habeas corpus cited,when in fact in time of war and or rebellion the President is vested with that very power.

quote:

Now if you agree the South would have fared bettor under Lincoln what does this make Lincoln a BENIGN tyrant....

quote:

ORIGINAL: celticlord2112

quote:

Now if you agree the South would have fared bettor under Lincoln what does this make Lincoln a BENIGN tyrant....

The argument can be made, quite persuasively I think, that a tyrant, regardless of his or her intentions, by definition is never benign. 

A President in the style of Buchanan would have likely allowed the southern states to secede, and the Civil War would never have been fought--extending your rationale suggests that Lincoln was a presidential mistake.

Lincoln was an historic President, of that there can be no doubt.  The Union might very well have lost the Civil War were it not for his leadership, and I am quite at ease acknowledging that. However, to proceed from decent respect for his powers of articulation and leadership to a near-canonization of him--especially for something he did not do (namely, free black slaves)--ignores large portions of the historical record of his Presidency and the Civil War.