Originally posted by no1marauder
IF States can leave whenever they please, then the provisions denying the States power to do numerous things are a nullity. This makes the whole Constitutional scheme incoherent.

Andrew Jackson accurately stated the theory of the Union:

The Constitution of the United States, then, forms a government, not a league, and whet ...[text shortened]... the consent of the same body who did the forming i.e. the whole People of the United States.

It's not a bad argument, but let me press a bit more:

In a sense, you are arguing that the states have ceded "the power to secede" TO the Federal government since only that body as a whole can dissolve the union. But did they? Where is that stated? Since "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," the right to secede has to have been specifically mentioned.

Could a state be expelled from the union? The procedure by which states join the union is fairly simple:
- A territory petitions Congress.
- The dependent area drafts a constitution with a republican form of government.
- Congress must approve statehood by a simple majority.
- The President must sign the bill.

Since it takes only a simple act to accept a new state, one could argue that a simple act could expel a state. But given the precarious nature of the relationship, then, it would seem that states must also have the right to leave on a simple vote of their own.

Originally posted by normbenign
Voting to ratify the Constitution was not accomplished with a referendum of "the people" of all the States. It was done by State legislatures, and by two representatives of each State to the Convention.

Wrong.

It was done by popularly elected representatives to State ratifying conventions as required by the Constitution.

Originally posted by spruce112358
It's not a bad argument, but let me press a bit more:

In a sense, you are arguing that the states have ceded "the power to secede" TO the Federal government since only that body as a whole can dissolve the union. But did they? Where is that stated? Since "the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the S ...[text shortened]... it would seem that states must also have the right to leave on a simple vote of their own.

No, the States never had a power to secede. What does the word "Perpetual" mean?

Originally posted by no1marauder
I guess firing on US ships and attacking a US fort is no "indication of aggression".

I see no reason to believe the South would have ever rejected slavery. Moreover, they were intent on expanding it to the Western territories. Conflict was inevitable.

The reasons for slavery dying passively were economic. Slavery was only marginally profitable on large sugar and cotton plantations, and a small minority of slave owners. Manumissions were becoming more common, especially in the border states, those without cotton and/or sugar.

The reasons for expanding slavery to the "territories" was political, not economic. There was not economic incentive for slave ownership in the West. The extra Congressional representation was plenty of political motivation. In this was another reason for the demise of slavery, for freed slaves would count for full persons not 2/3rds, and would therefore increase Southern political clout in Congress.

Originally posted by no1marauder
No, the States never had a power to secede. What does the word "Perpetual" mean?

Well, to me it means nothing -- it's an ornamental adjective or expression of hope, since one of the fundamental strengths of democracy is that by a majority or supermajority vote, anything can be revised and revisited.

Originally posted by no1marauder
I dare say you are extremely ignorant of history. It was Southern forces who started the war by firing on US ships and Fort Sumter.

Your assertions are nonsense.

Actually the Union ordered a fleet to relive and reinforce Fort Sumter in the middle of Charlston harbor and other nearby forts. Jefferson Davis saw the act as the Union invading Confederate waters and amounted to a declaration of war. So one of the soldiers got triggor happy, but to think that the South wished to conquer the North is absurd.

Face it, the North picked a fight, much like LBJ off the shores of Vietnam.

Originally posted by no1marauder
No, the States never had a power to secede. What does the word "Perpetual" mean?

To get back to the point: where does it say that the Fed controls the right to membership in the union -- belonging or not belonging?

Originally posted by no1marauder
Wrong.

It was done by popularly elected representatives to State ratifying conventions as required by the Constitution.

What did I just say. There was no referendum. It was by representatives. The same was true of the CSA voting to secede.

You have repeatedly criticized the Articles of Confederation as too loose, but now you go back to their wording of "perpetual", not carried into the Constitution as proof of no right to secede. The right to secede would grow from the same natural law that supported the DOI.

Originally posted by whodey
Actually the Union ordered a fleet to relive and reinforce Fort Sumter in the middle of Charlston harbor and other nearby forts. Jefferson Davis saw the act as the Union invading Confederate waters and amounted to a declaration of war. So one of the soldiers got triggor happy, but to think that the South wished to conquer the North is absurd.

Face it, the North picked a fight, much like LBJ off the shores of Vietnam.

If the CSA had anticipated hostilities, why would they have located their Capital in Richmond, VA instead of leaving it in the deep South.

Originally posted by no1marauder
So what? Lincoln never agitated for the Federal government to outlaw slavery in the States until well after the war was underway.

The war was about slavery for the South (they hardly mention anything else in the individual States' Ordinances of Secession) but it was to preserve the Union that the people had formed for Lincoln.

My point here is that the North cared more about preserving the Union that they did the issue of slavery. It was all about power and control

And to suggest that the South would have continued to keep slavery as a way of life up until the modern era is absurd. It would have vanished eventually, and not at the price of over half a million men.

Originally posted by whodey
Actually the Union ordered a fleet to relive and reinforce Fort Sumter in the middle of Charlston harbor and other nearby forts. Jefferson Davis saw the act as the Union invading Confederate waters and amounted to a declaration of war. So one of the soldiers got triggor happy, but to think that the South wished to conquer the North is absurd.

Face it, the North picked a fight, much like LBJ off the shores of Vietnam.

Jesus, read a book. The attack on Fort Sumter was hardly the act of one "trigger happy" soldier.

The Constitution clearly gives the Federal government the power to build forts. Fort Sumter was on Federal land; in fact, it was an artificial island. South Carolina had no authority over it under any legal theory I am aware of.

Originally posted by spruce112358
Well, to me it means nothing -- it's an ornamental adjective or expression of hope, since one of the fundamental strengths of democracy is that by a majority or supermajority vote, anything can be revised and revisited.

So when wording is inconvenient to your argument you simply assert its meaninglessness. Got it.

Originally posted by normbenign
What did I just say. There was no referendum. It was by representatives. The same was true of the CSA voting to secede.

You have repeatedly criticized the Articles of Confederation as too loose, but now you go back to their wording of "perpetual", not carried into the Constitution as proof of no right to secede. The right to secede would grow from the same natural law that supported the DOI.

Natural Law hardly supports the creation of a State based on slavery and its expansion.

Originally posted by normbenign
If the CSA had anticipated hostilities, why would they have located their Capital in Richmond, VA instead of leaving it in the deep South.

South Carolina had already attacked Fort Sumter before Virginia seceded. If the CSA did not "anticipate hostilities" after it initiated them, then they were laboring under the delusion that the US government was very timid and weak. The Japanese labored under that same delusion in December 1941.

Originally posted by spruce112358
To get back to the point: where does it say that the Fed controls the right to membership in the union -- belonging or not belonging?

In Article IV, Section 3 of the Constitution.