Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. Subscriber AThousandYoung
    It's only business
    22 Nov '10 18:50
    http://bigthink.com/ideas/21182

    Is it useful to model US states (or Mexican states I suppose, or any other country's) as countries in themselves?
  2. Standard member Palynka
    Upward Spiral
    22 Nov '10 18:56
    Colonel Sanders has nothing on Nando.
  3. 22 Nov '10 19:01 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by AThousandYoung
    http://bigthink.com/ideas/21182

    Is it useful to model US states (or Mexican states I suppose, or any other country's) as countries in themselves?
    is this what Thomas Jefferson had in mind?
  4. 22 Nov '10 19:02
    Originally posted by AThousandYoung
    http://bigthink.com/ideas/21182

    Is it useful to model US states (or Mexican states I suppose, or any other country's) as countries in themselves?
    No. You wouldn't want the populations of these states to hold the belief they're completely independent from the central government.

    Federalism has it merits, but certain decisions (on certain matters) should ultimately remain with the federal government.
  5. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    22 Nov '10 19:25
    Originally posted by AThousandYoung
    http://bigthink.com/ideas/21182

    Is it useful to model US states (or Mexican states I suppose, or any other country's) as countries in themselves?
    US states have no constitutional authority to implement their own foreign policies.

    It is therefore useless to view them as independent units in a geopolitical discussion.
  6. 22 Nov '10 19:46 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by sh76
    US states have no constitutional authority to implement their own foreign policies.

    It is therefore useless to view them as independent units in a geopolitical discussion.
    We can still think about how things would be had the Supreme Court been dominated by anti-Federalists in the early 1800's, and had interpreted the Constitution as being merely a compact among the sovereign states.
  7. 22 Nov '10 20:04 / 2 edits
    Texas as an example

    Q: Doesn't the Texas Constitution reserve the right of Texas to secede?
    A:
    This heavily popularized bit of Texas folklore finds no corroboration where it counts: No such provision is found in the current Texas Constitution (adopted in 1876) or the terms of annexation. However, it does state (in Article 1, Section 1) that "Texas is a free and independent State, subject only to the Constitution of the United States..." (note that it does not state "...subject to the President of the United States..." or "...subject to the Congress of the United States... " or " ...subject to the collective will of one or more of the other States..." )

    Neither the Texas Constitution, nor the Constitution of the united States, explicitly or implicitly disallows the secession of Texas (or any other "free and independent State" ) from the United States. Joining the "Union" was ever and always voluntary, rendering voluntary withdrawal an equally lawful and viable option (regardless of what any self-appointed academic, media, or government "experts"—including Abraham Lincoln himself—may have ever said).

    Both the original (1836) and the current (1876) Texas Constitutions also state that "All political power is inherent in the people ... they have at all times the inalienable right to alter their government in such manner as they might think proper."

    Likewise, each of the united States is "united" with the others explicitly on the principle that "governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed" and "whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends [i.e., protecting life, liberty, and property], it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government" and "when a long train of abuses and usurpations...evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security."




    Q: Didn’t the outcome of the “Civil War” prove that secession is not an option for any State?
    A:
    No. It only proved that, when allowed to act outside his lawfully limited authority, a U.S. president is capable of unleashing horrendous violence against the lives, liberty, and property of those whom he pretends to serve. The Confederate States (including Texas) withdrew from the Union lawfully, civilly, and peacefully, after enduring several decades of excessive and inequitable federal tariffs (taxes) heavily prejudiced against Southern commerce. Refusing to recognize the Confederate secession, Lincoln called it a "rebellion" and a "threat" to "the government" (without ever explaining exactly how "the government" was "threatened" by a lawful, civil, and peaceful secession) and acted outside the lawfully defined scope of either the office of president or the U.S. government in general, to coerce the South back into subjugation to Northern control.

    The South's rejoining the Union at the point of a bayonet in the late 1860s didn't prove secession is "not an option" or unlawful. It only affirmed that violent coercion can be used—even by governments (if unrestrained)—to rob men of their very lives, liberty, and property.

    It bears repeating that the united States are "united" explicitly on the principle that "governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed" and "whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends [i.e., protecting life, liberty, and property], it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government" and "when a long train of abuses and usurpations...evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security."




    Q: Didn’t the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Texas v. White prove that secession is unconstitutional?
    A:
    No. For space considerations, here are the relevant portions of the Supreme Court's decision in Texas v. White:

    "When Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation. 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.

    "...The obligations of the State, as a member of the Union ...remained perfect and unimpaired. ...the State did not cease to be a State, nor her citizens to be citizens of the Union.

    "...Our conclusion therefore is, that Texas continued to be a State, and a State of the Union."
    — Texas v. White, 74 U.S. 700, 703 (1868)

    It is noteworthy that two years after that decision, President Grant signed an act entitling Texas to U.S. Congressional representation, readmitting Texas to the Union.

    What's wrong with this picture? Either the Supreme Court was wrong in claiming Texas never actually left the Union (they were — see below), or the Executive (President Grant) was wrong in "readmitting" a state that, according to the Supreme Court, had never left. Both can't be logically or legally true.

    To be clear: Within a two year period, two branches of the same government took action with regard to Texas on the basis of two mutually exclusive positions — one, a judicially contrived "interpretation" of the US Constitution, argued essentially from silence, and the other a practical attempt to remedy the historical fact that Texas had indeed left the Union, the very evidence for which was that Texas had recently met the demands imposed by the same federal government as prerequisite conditions for readmission. If the Supreme Court was right, then the very notion of prerequisites for readmission would have been moot — a state cannot logically be readmitted if it never left in the first place.

    This gross logical and legal inconsistency remains unanswered and unresolved to this day.

    Now to the Supreme Court decision in itself...

    The Court, led by Chief Justice Salmon Chase (a Lincoln cabinet member and leading Union figure during the war against the South) pretended to be analyzing the case through the lens of the Constitution, yet not a single element of their logic or line of reasoning came directly from the Constitution — precisely because the Constitution is wholly silent on whether the voluntary association of a plurality of states into a union may be altered by the similarly voluntary withdrawal of one or more states.

    It's no secret that more than once there had been previous rumblings about secession among many U.S. states (and not just in the South), long before the South seceded. These rumblings met with no preemptive quashing of the notion from a "constitutional" argument, precisely because there was (and is) no constitutional basis for either allowing or prohibiting secession.

    An objective reading of the relevant portions of the White decision reveals that it is largely arbitrary, contrived, and crafted to suit the agenda which it served: presumably (but unconstitutionally) to award to the U.S. federal government, under color of law, sovereignty over the states, essentially nullifying their right to self-determination and self-rule, as recognized in the Declaration of Independence, as well as the current Texas Constitution (which stands unchallenged by the federal government).

    Where the Constitution does speak to the issue of powers, they resolve in favor of the states unless expressly granted to the federal government or denied to the states. No power to prevent or reverse secession is granted to the federal government, and the power to secede is not specifically denied to the states; therefore that power is retained by the states, as guaranteed by the 10th Amendment.

    The Texas v. White case is often trotted out to silence secessionist sentiment, but on close and contextual examination, it actually exposes the unconstitutional, despotic, and tyrannical agenda that presumes to award the federal government, under color of law, sovereignty over the people and the states.

    http://www.texassecede.com/faq.htm
  8. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    22 Nov '10 20:21 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by utherpendragon
    [b]Texas as an example

    Q: Doesn't the Texas Constitution reserve the right of Texas to secede?
    A:
    This heavily popularized bit of Texas folklore finds no corroboration where it counts: No such provision is found in the current Texas Constitution (adopted in 1876) or the terms of annexation. However, it does state (in Article 1, S nty over the people and the states.[/b]
    These are ridiculous treasonous arguments. Before the Constitution, the existing states entered into and ratified the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union.(here's a nice picture) http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=rbpe&fileName=rbpe17/rbpe178/17802600/rbpe17802600.db&recNum=0 I repeat "Perpetual Union". The Constitution was meant to and did increase and enhance the power of the central government and no power of secession was ever granted to or contemplated to exist in the States. The Supreme Court in White was clearly correct.

    In the words of Andrew Jackson:

    The Constitution forms a government, not a league.... Each state having expressly parted with so many powers as to constitute jointly with other nations, a single nation, cannot from that period, posses any right to secede, because such succession does not break a league, but destroys the unity of a nation.... To say that any state may at pleasure secede from the union is to say that the United States is not a nation.... Because the union was formed by a compact, it is said that the parties to that compact may, when they feel themselves aggrieved, depart from it; but it is precisely because it is a compact that they may not. A compact is a binding obligation....

    http://www.pinzler.com/ushistory/protoscsupp.html
  9. 22 Nov '10 20:32
    Originally posted by utherpendragon
    [b]Texas as an example

    Q: Doesn't the Texas Constitution reserve the right of Texas to secede?
    A:
    This heavily popularized bit of Texas folklore finds no corroboration where it counts: No such provision is found in the current Texas Constitution (adopted in 1876) or the terms of annexation. However, it does state (in Article 1, S ...[text shortened]... nty over the people and the states.[/b]
    The Confederate States (including Texas) withdrew from the Union lawfully, civilly, and peacefully, after enduring several decades of excessive and inequitable federal tariffs (taxes) heavily prejudiced against Southern commerce. Refusing to recognize the Confederate secession, Lincoln called it a "rebellion" and a "threat" to "the government".


    no mention about the the South's "peculiar institution" -- strange.
  10. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    22 Nov '10 20:38
    Here's a more detailed argument from Andrew Jackson:

    Of this nature appears to be the assumed right of secession. It rests, as we have seen, on the alleged undivided sovereignty of the States, and on their having formed in this sovereign capacity a compact which is called the Constitution, from which, because they made it, they have the right to secede. Both of these positions are erroneous, and some of the arguments to prove them so have been anticipated.

    The States severally have not retained their entire sovereignty. It has been shown that in becoming parts of a nation, not members of a league, they surrendered many of their essential parts of sovereignty. The right to make treaties, declare war, levy taxes, exercise exclusive judicial and legislative powers, were all functions of sovereign power. The States, then, for all these important purposes, were no longer sovereign. The allegiance of their citizens was transferred in the first instance to the government of the United States; they became American citizens, and owed obedience to the Constitution of the United States, and to laws made in conformity with the powers vested in Congress. This last position has not been, and cannot be, denied. How then, can that State be said to be sovereign and independent whose citizens owe obedience to laws not made by it, and whose magistrates are sworn to disregard those laws, when they come in conflict with those passed by another? What shows conclusively that the States cannot be said to have reserved an undivided sovereignty, is that they expressly ceded the right to punish treason�not treason against their separate power, but treason against the United States. Treason is an offense against sovereignty, and sovereignty must reside with the power to punish it. But the reserved rights of the States are not less sacred because they have for their common interest made the general government the depository of these powers. The unity of our political character (as has been shown for another purpose) commenced with its very existence. Under the royal government we had no separate character; our opposition to its oppression began as UNITED COLONIES. We were the UNITED STATES under the Confederation, and the name was perpetuated and the Union rendered more perfect by the federal Constitution. In none of these stages did we consider ourselves in any other light than as forming one nation. Treaties and alliances were made in the name of all. Troops were raised for the joint defense. How, then, with all these proofs, that under all changes of our position we had, for designated purposes and with defined powers, created national governments�how is it that the most perfect of these several modes of union should now be considered as a mere league that may be dissolved at pleasure? It is from an abuse of terms. Compact is used as synonymous with league, although the true term is not employed, because it would at once show the fallacy of the reasoning. It would not do to say that our Constitution was only a league, but it is labored to prove it a compact (which, in one sense, it is), and then to argue that as a league is a compact, every compact between nations must, of course, be a league, and that from such an engagement every sovereign power has a right to recede. But it has been shown that in this sense the States are not sovereign, and that even if they were, and the national Constitution had been formed by compact, there would be no right in any one State to exonerate itself from the obligation.

    So obvious are the reasons which forbid this secession, that it is necessary only to allude to them. The Union was formed for the benefit of all. It was produced by mutual sacrifice of interest and opinions. Can those sacrifices be recalled? Can the States, who magnanimously surrendered their title to the territories of the West, recall the grant? Will the inhabitants of the inland States agree to pay the duties that may be imposed without their assent by those on the Atlantic or the Gulf, for their own benefit? Shall there be a free port in one State, and enormous duties in another? No one believes that any right exists in a single State to involve all the others in these and countless other evils, contrary to engagements solemnly made. Everyone must see that the other States, in self-defense, must oppose it at all hazards.

    http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?document=67
  11. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    22 Nov '10 20:42
    Originally posted by Melanerpes
    The Confederate States (including Texas) withdrew from the Union lawfully, civilly, and peacefully, after enduring several decades of excessive and inequitable federal tariffs (taxes) heavily prejudiced against Southern commerce. Refusing to recognize the Confederate secession, Lincoln called it a "rebellion" and a "threat" to "the government".


    no mention about the the South's "peculiar institution" -- strange.
    There never is by revisionist apologists for secession, but the Texas Ordinance of Secession is almost exclusively concerned with slavery. Here's a sample:

    We hold as undeniable truths that the governments of the various States, and of the confederacy itself, were established exclusively by the white race, for themselves and their posterity; that the African race had no agency in their establishment; that they were rightfully held and regarded as an inferior and dependent race, and in that condition only could their existence in this country be rendered beneficial or tolerable.

    That in this free government all white men are and of right ought to be entitled to equal civil and political rights; that the servitude of the African race, as existing in these States, is mutually beneficial to both bond and free, and is abundantly authorized and justified by the experience of mankind, and the revealed will of the Almighty Creator, as recognized by all Christian nations;

    The whole TOS is at: http://www.lsjunction.com/docs/secesson.htm
    for those with a strong stomach for such racist bile.
  12. 22 Nov '10 20:43
    Originally posted by Melanerpes
    The Confederate States (including Texas) withdrew from the Union lawfully, civilly, and peacefully, after enduring several decades of excessive and inequitable federal tariffs (taxes) heavily prejudiced against Southern commerce. Refusing to recognize the Confederate secession, Lincoln called it a "rebellion" and a "threat" to "the government".


    no mention about the the South's "peculiar institution" -- strange.
    moot point.
  13. Subscriber AThousandYoung
    It's only business
    22 Nov '10 20:47 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by Melanerpes
    no mention about the the South's "peculiar institution" -- strange.
    I think Lincoln once said he would save the Union irrelevant of the slavery issue, emphasizing that he acted as he did ONLY to save the Union.
  14. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    22 Nov '10 20:51
    Originally posted by AThousandYoung
    I think Lincoln once said he would save the Union irrelevant of the slavery issue, emphasizing that he acted as he did ONLY to save the Union.
    Abraham Lincoln in a letter to Horace Greeley August 22, 1862:

    As to the policy I "seem to be pursuing" as you say, I have not meant to leave any one in doubt. I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views.

    I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men everywhere could be free.

    http://www.brotherswar.com/Civil_War_Quotes_4c.htm
  15. 22 Nov '10 20:51
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    These are ridiculous treasonous arguments. Before the Constitution, the existing states entered into and ratified the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union.(here's a nice picture) http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=rbpe&fileName=rbpe17/rbpe178/17802600/rbpe17802600.db&recNum=0 I repeat "Perpetual Union". The Constitution was meant to and ...[text shortened]... A compact is a binding obligation....

    http://www.pinzler.com/ushistory/protoscsupp.html
    Interesting how you quote Andrew Jackson. In most cases he is viewed as some sort of a pariah on this forum.