• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Do we need to hold another Constitutional Convention?

States’ Rights and the Right of Secession​
There is has been debates over how much power should be given to the States and how much should be given to the Federal Government. This argument was one the most important arguments that this country has ever faced. Unfortunately States’ right is one of the leading causes for the American Civil War. A State’s sovereignty relies heavily on two principles, Nullification and Secession. Secession is considered by many to be the last great check that the people have against their government. Nullification is a legal theory that a U.S. State has the right to nullify, or invalidate, any federal law which that state has deemed unconstitutional.
Secession is the act of withdrawing from an organization, union, or especially a political entity. Threats of secession can be a strategy for achieving more limited goals. Secessions have come in several forms and the right of secession has come into question over the years. That question has shaped the course of America for its entire existence. It was secession from England that created this country. The founders no longer wanted to live under the rule of Tyranny by King George. It was over-taxation and lack of representation along with the trampling of personal liberties that led to the American Revolution. Secession was the tool of the founders to gain the freedom they sought. They declared their independence from England in 1776 and it was this tool, this right, which the founders believed in.
After the Revolution, but prior to the Civil war, the right of secession was not highly contested. Thomas Jefferson once said, "If any state in the Union will declare that it prefers separation...to a continuance in union... I have no hesitation in saying, 'let us separate.” Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence, he clearly understood this right of the States to secede. It was Jefferson who believed strongly in states’ rights. While serving as Vice President under John Adams, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison wrote the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions. Jefferson and Madison wrote the resolutions in response to the Alien and Sedition acts, which extended the powers of the federal government. They argued that the Constitution was a “compact” between the states that created the Union and therefore the federal government could not exercise powers not specifically delegated to it.
James Madison is often times called “the father of the constitution” and also understood the right of secession. During Madison’s Presidency secession came into play once again. During the War of 1812, the New England states were opposed to the war. They relied on trade with England for much of their commerce. They met in secret for nearly three weeks at the end of December of 1814 and discussed secession. There were no records made, but one report did say that the New England delegates said that Madison’s actions were unconstitutional and infringed on their state sovereignty.
During Andrew Jackson’s Presidency, South Carolina asserted its sovereignty during the Nullification Crisis of 1832. In this crisis the Tariffs of 1828 and 1832 or “Tariff of Abominations” were nullified by South Carolina. The Tariffs were imposed mostly on the South and were too high for most Southerners. Jackson failed to respond to the concerns of the South in time and South Carolina threatened to secede. Jackson’s own Vice President, John C. Calhoun resigned to run for state senate. Calhoun was able to stop the crisis by getting the tariff lower and secession was avoided.
As the nation expanded and new territories opened up, the rights of the Southern states came into question. Southerners began to move westward, bringing their slaves with them. The Northern states began to industrialize in the 1830s and slavery was running its course. The abolitionists in the North wanted to secede from the Union early on leaving the South to its own devices. They had no use for slaves as they wanted to push west with the railroads and internal improvements. It became cheaper for Northern businessmen to just pay workers in the factories and they did not have to house them, feed them or give them clothes. This created a rift between the North and the South that split the country in two. The North and the South began to fight over whether or not slavery should be allowed in the new territories. Slaves at that time were considered by the 3/5 compromise as property. The Southern states believed it was their right to bring their property into the territories. The Northern states did not agree and by the late 1850s laws were passed that would no longer protect the institution of slavery and slave owners. One such law was the Kansas-Nebraska act of 1854. This act allowed for each state to decide whether or not to allow slavery in that state. This idea of “popular sovereignty” flew in the face of states’ rights. The constitution guaranteed people their property under the tenth amendment. Congress could not take away a person’s property without compensating them. Slaves being property, this new act violated the constitution. The North did not care; they felt that the South was standing in the way of progress.
While slavery was the back drop throughout the war it was the high tariff that the North imposed on the South that was the main issue. The South’s way of life and rights were being threatened and high tariffs were being imposed on the South. The South was paying the tariffs while the North reaped all the benefits. In 1860 when Abraham Lincoln was elected the tensions that had been building up finally came to a hilt. On December 20, 1860 South Carolina seceded from the Union. It was their belief that Lincoln would abolish slavery in the South and nullification was not an option. After South Carolina, seven other states followed. Following the attack on Fort Sumter, Lincoln called for 75,000 more Troops. This caused the remaining Southern states to secede. The Confederate States of America was inaugurated on February 22, 1861.
Before being elected President, Lincoln was a career lawyer and served as a legislature in Illinois. He understood the law and the constitution, yet he was against secession and believed it was illegal. Lincoln refused to recognize the Confederacy as a legitimate country. He labeled the Confederacy as rebels in hopes that the European nations would not intervene in the war in favor of the Cofederacy. Lincoln was a member of the Whig Party which eventually evolved into the Republican Party. It was the Whig agenda that Lincoln was pushing throughout his Presidency. The Whig agenda was known as the “American System.” The Whigs wanted to create a centralized government that would focus on high tariffs for internal improvements. This would expand the federal government and decrease state sovereignty. In his book “When in the Course of Human Events: Arguing the Case for Southern Secession”, Charles Adams discusses this “American System” saying, ”A free and independent South would be an economic dagger to the Nation.”(25) Adams is displaying what Lincoln knew, secession could not be allowed because the North would lose the majority of their revenue. Lincoln had no legal grounds to support his anti-secessionist views, he needed something that would make sense to the Northerners. The idea of losing revenue for the rail roads was enough for Northern businessmen to push Lincoln and the country into going to war.
Once the war began the question of secession continued to play important roles not only in the South, but the North as well. As the rest of the South began to secede, some of the Border States began to discuss secession. Maryland and Delaware were among those who were more agricultural and had close ties to the South. Lincoln could not afford to lose anymore states to the confederacy. With the support of the governor, the Maryland Democratic legislatures were arrested and thrown into prison and Maryland was ruled with marshal law throughout the course of the war. The Maryland legislature was not even allowed to vote on whether or not to secede. Delaware was also taken over federal control. In the Western portion of Virginia there were no close ties to the South. People lived in the Appalachian Mountains where farming was not viable. They mostly worked in mining of raw materials and had closer ties to the Western territories. By this time Virginia had become part of the Confederacy and the people of Western Virginia wanted to support the Union. Two different conventions were held to discuss secession and essentially two governments existed in Virginia. On December 31, 1862 by a strange twist of irony, West Virginia was admitted into the Union. West Virginia was the first and only state to secede from the Confederacy. It is ironic because the Confederacy did not want to allow West Virginia from seceding, but Lincoln was fine with it. Lincoln was going against his original stance on secession being illegal and the Confederacy was now reversing its position.
State’s rights played key roles in some of Lincoln’s decision making throughout the war. In the North there were still people with close ties to the South and sympathized with the South. These sympathizers or “copperheads” as they were called caused problems for Lincoln. They resisted the war and wanted it to end quickly. They wanted to win control over the state governments in order achieve peace. The copperheads did things to disrupt the war effort; they discouraged enlistment and the draft, burnt military depots, and several Marylanders smuggled supplies. These actions led Lincoln suspend the Writ of Habeas Corpus and rig elections. Lincoln had control over the newspapers, but Lincoln could not hide the casualties as the states continued to pay, equip and care for soldiers coming home from the war. All of this began to weigh on the people as they got weary of the war. Most states, however still continued to support the Union except in New York. New York City originally threatened to secede when South Carolina did because they felt it was unfair that South Carolina did not pay the tariff and they did. Secession was averted, but on July 13th-16th, 1863 there were draft riots. New York was one state that was not happy with Lincoln enacting a draft and troops had to be diverted from Gettysburg to control the riots.
One of the final nails on the coffin of states’ rights in the North was the appointment of Salmon P. Chase. Salmon P. Chase was the Secretary of the Treasury from 1861 to 1864. Before, state’s had issued their own currency in the form of bank notes. Chase decided to create the first national paper currency. With this new paper currency called “greenbacks” congress was able to issue war bonds. Congress passed a law that forced the states to invest in the bonds. Congress also instituted the first income tax, excise tax and licensing taxes which ended up accounting for twenty percent of the cost of the war. With the instituting of the greenbacks, the Federal government had full control over the currency. Chase essentially took the last power that the states had.
Even though the North suffered from residual believers in states’ rights, the South suffered even worse. The Confederacy had seceded with the belief that they should be able to peacefully separate from the Union, but yet it was states’ rights that hindered them the most. Early in the war the governors of each state wanted control over the regiments they sent to war. Some of the Confederate Generals had troubles when more troops were needed for battles. The lines could not be replenished because governors were keeping garrisons elsewhere. President Jefferson Davis had issues with this because he was supposed to be the Commander in Chief, yet that would centralize the government. This goes against everything that the Confederacy was fighting for. The Confederacy also turned towards an income tax and excise tax to help pay for the war. It was to only be adopted for the war. The states began printing up too much money which caused inflation, the Confederacy was going broke. As initial support for the war waned, the South also instituted a draft, but the draft was unpopular and some soldiers would desert. The Confederacy constantly had to balance states’ rights and a centralized government which could effectively execute the war. The South could not be the war machine that the North was. The diverted resources and the broke down rail road’s had caused the soldiers to suffer from lack of supplies and food. The governor’s horded troops and even if they did not, the troops could not get to crucial battles in time. States’ rights got in the Confederacy’s way, individual liberty and decentralization trumped most war efforts.
In my research I have found that prior to the War Between the States, secession was a legal and excepted way for a state to exercise its sovereignty. If a state wanted to leave the Union, then it was entitled to do so. The founding generation understood that as well as the following generations. It was the intentions of the founders that the power lies in the people and not that the government that had the power. The Northern businessmen wanted a different type of country and they did not want to wait. They never attempted to follow the amendment process; they knew that the South would not go along with it. Lincoln could have allowed the South its independence, but he wanted to advance his agenda. For the South it was their belief in states’ rights that was their downfall. With all they were fighting for, a temporary centralized government was necessary in order to win the war. During the reconstruction period the Republican Supreme court ruled secession illegal and the South was admitted back into the Union. In his book “The Real Lincoln: A New Look at Abraham Lincoln: His agenda and an Unnecessary War” author Thomas J. DiLorenzo talks about Alexander Hamilton. Hamilton believed in a centralized government. DeLorenzo says about Hamilton, “Even to Alexander Hamilton using, military force to keep a state from seceding was unthinkable.”(171) in reality, secession was not a very wise thing to do. The truth is that The United States is the only country to successfully secede from another country.
 
If you need more proof than that, that I am a history major and know what the fuck i'm talking about, let me know, I'll photocopy some other work of mine.
It would help if you got the actual date of the vote of independence right. July 2. Not 4. I sort of ignored your "timeline of US History as reported on Wikipedia" after that.

Also: No professor would give you an A on that paper simply because the grammar is atrocious.
 
This is not a historical paper: this is a shopping list.

I don't doubt you are knowledgeable about American history (even if from a definitively skewed perspective). But knowing the dates is not the same thing as understanding the issues. You wanted to show off your professional competence, yet you used wikipedia as a reference, for heaven's sake. Don't take me wrong: I love wiki, but if a student tried to cite it in his paper, I would eat his liver with a nice bottle of Chianti. And let's take a look at the books you cited: An American Illiad; When in the Course of Human Events, Arguing the Case for Secession; The Real Lincoln: A New Look at Abraham Lincoln, His Agenda, and an Unnecessary War. Biased much? If I were you, I wouldn't bother with the second (or third, or fourth) part.

I have no ill feelings against you, and I have no interest in being anything less than polite. But as far as this debate is concerned, I can't say I'm impressed with your perspective.
 
If you need more proof than that, that I am a history major and know what the fuck i'm talking about, let me know, I'll photocopy some other work of mine.
It would help if you got the actual date of the vote of independence right. July 2. Not 4. I sort of ignored your "timeline of US History as reported on Wikipedia" after that.
Ok, it seems you just want to be a fucking asshole, for assholes sakes. I wasent talking about the vote asshole, you know and everyone knows the date was on the 4th and then they read it on the 5th and so on. I provided the proof you asked for. Now you want to be a condecending fuck. You want to ignore my post over a date which is not wrong your chooising to be ignorant. I gave it my best fucking sot at prooving to you I am who I say I am. My timeline is fact, I put the wikipedea shit up so you could look it up youself as what I was talking about.
 
This is not a historical paper: this is a shopping list.

I don't doubt you are knowledgeable about American history (even if from a definitively skewed perspective). But knowing the dates is not the same thing as understanding the issues. You wanted to show off your professional competence, yet you used wikipedia as a reference, for heaven's sake. Don't take me wrong: I love wiki, but if a student tried to cite it in his paper, I would eat his liver with a nice bottle of Chianti. And let's take a look at the books you cited: An American Illiad; When in the Course of Human Events, Arguing the Case for Secession; The Real Lincoln: A New Look at Abraham Lincoln, His Agenda, and an Unnecessary War. Biased much? If I were you, I wouldn't bother with the second (or third, or fourth) part.

I have no ill feelings against you, and I have no interest in being anything less than polite. But as far as this debate is concerned, I can't say I'm impressed with your perspective.
Don't believe me, look it up, i'm through trying to prove myself. If you cgoose not to axcept facts when they are presented to you, then go agead. It's flat earth society. I was using wikipedia as an easy way to look up what I was talking about. Look it up somwhere else if you doubt me.
 
They voted on the 2th. That's when it was "declared". The wording of said declaration was finalized on the 4th.
 
If you need more proof than that, that I am a history major and know what the fuck i'm talking about, let me know, I'll photocopy some other work of mine.
It would help if you got the actual date of the vote of independence right. July 2. Not 4. I sort of ignored your "timeline of US History as reported on Wikipedia" after that.
Ok, it seems you just want to be a fucking asshole, for assholes sakes. I wasent talking about the vote asshole, you know and everyone knows the date was on the 4th and then they read it on the 5th and so on. I provided the proof you asked for. Now you want to be a condecending fuck. You want to ignore my post over a date which is not wrong your chooising to be ignorant. I gave it my best fucking sot at prooving to you I am who I say I am. My timeline is fact, I put the wikipedea shit up so you could look it up youself as what I was talking about.
Okay, this takes it way over the line. Warning for Flaming. Comments to PM.

And it's "moot" point.
 
Whatever, I give up. I'm wrong you guys are right. I have been studying this shit for two years in school, but I have no clue what I'm talking about. Apartment I can't get my point across. I don't even care anymore. I still believe this country is fracked and I was just trying to find some answers, you guys have made up your minds. I'll be sure to photocopy mi diploma when I get it and post it. This is my last post on this thread, live long and prosper. Sorry squiggy, love tha avatar.
 
Whatever, I give up. I'm wrong you guys are right. I have been studying this shit for two years in school, but I have no clue what I'm talking about. Apartment I can't get my point across. I don't even care anymore. I still believe this country is fracked and I was just trying to find some answers, you guys have made up your minds. I'll be sure to photocopy mi diploma when I get it and post it. This is my last post on this thread, live long and prosper. Sorry squiggy, love tha avatar.

Just because we don't agree with your theories doesn't mean that you need to throw a hissy fit and leave. You did get your point across, several times. The simple matter is, we don't agree, and in the end, that's what's great about a democracy; we can have a debate, disagree, and move on.

I personally feel that your theories are flawed. However, i also applaud the passion that you clearly have. Don't lose that; not a lot of people tend to have that much passion.
 
Now, I don't mean to pile on the guy, but what's up with spelling and grammar? Is that how kids write in college now?

I have no idea if my professors were strict about grammar or not, simply because I didn't make many grammatical mistakes. I was a history major too.

BTW, one could argue that some of what Lincoln did was unconstitutional, but to argue it's an unconstitutional war is just absurd. I have no idea who Dilorenzo is, but my guess is he's still fighting the Civil War.

As Mark Twain said, "In the South the war is what AD is elsewhere; they date from it." He was shocked to find people still reliving the war 20 years later. If only he were alive today to find people generations removed from the War still think they're fighting it.

EDIT: Thomas Dilorenzo is a member of the League of the South (a Confederate apologist and Southern Nationalist organization). He consistently defends the Confederacy and their right to secede. He wrote two books about how bad Lincoln was, one about how bad Alexander Hamilton was, and a couple taking shots at the Food and Drug Administration and Cancer research.

Hunter, you weren't taught by him, by any chance, were you?
 
I agree about the line-item veto. We should have one.
It's not the presidents job to write legislation.
But he should be able to veto portions of a bill that obviously do not belong. That way, only the parts that deserve to be passed actually do.
That would make it a lot easier for him to abuse his veto powers, though. He can veto the parts of a bill he doesn't support for political reasons and keep stuff he likes because he might want to push an agenda. It should be either or. The whole point of the United States' system of government is to find a workable compromise between all the disparate points of view.
 
It's not the presidents job to write legislation.
But he should be able to veto portions of a bill that obviously do not belong. That way, only the parts that deserve to be passed actually do.
That would make it a lot easier for him to abuse his veto powers, though. He can veto the parts of a bill he doesn't support for political reasons

Not according to the 2006 Legislative Line-Item Veto Act. That would have given the President the power of a LIV, but subject to Congressional approval.
 
Bah, this is why I try to stay out of these arguments. I always get pwned. :lol:

I didn't know about that act, thanks for the info. :techman:
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top