Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > World History Forum > American History
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

American History American History Forum - United States, Canada, Mexico, Central and South America


Closed Thread
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old July 23rd, 2011, 03:34 PM   #1

Alexander H's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Mar 2011
From: Georgia USA
Posts: 1,837
Does the 10th Amendment prove secession legal?


James Madison wrote and offered this amendment up for consideration and inclusion.

10th Amendment....
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

Now, granted... if you look at this in a mirror, while drunk, and standing on your head...
you may find a glimmer of a slight chance in one thousand that this may, perhaps, kinda, possibly, in a way, allow secession...
That is if you rub your gennie-lamb and make wish... while clicking your heals three times... and yet then...only if dreaming.

James Madison himself puts this to rest...

Montpellier, Decr 23, 1832.
Dr. Sir I have received yours of the 19th, inclosing some of the South Carolina papers. There are in one of them some interesting views of the doctrine of secession; one that had occurred to me, and which for the first time I have seen in print; namely that if one State can at will withdraw from the others, the others can at will withdraw from her, and turn her, nolentem, volentem, out of the union. Until of late, there is not a State that would have abhorred such a doctrine more than South Carolina, or more dreaded an application of it to herself. The same may be said of the doctrine of nullification, which she now preaches as the only faith by which the Union can be saved.
I partake of the wonder that the men you name should view secession in the light mentioned. The essential difference between a free Government and Governments not free, is that the former is founded in compact, the parties to which are mutually and equally bound by it. Neither of them therefore can have a greater fight to break off from the bargain, than the other or others have to hold them to it......

It is high time that the claim to secede at will should be put down by the public opinion; and I shall be glad to see the task commenced by one who understands the subject.


* And yet some still choose to just post over and over again that the 10th amendment magically makes it A-OK to seceed... bizarre

Could someone make a clear, thought out, understandable argument that it would possibly allow it ?
Alexander H is offline  
Remove Ads
Old July 23rd, 2011, 04:08 PM   #2

tjadams's Avatar
Epicurean
 
Joined: Mar 2009
From: Texas
Posts: 25,396
Blog Entries: 6

We all know the Constitution has been bent, flattened, pressed, rolled and twisted
to justify any cause. Its like seeing a movie or hearing music.
One person sees it one way and another sees it yet another and no amount
of words can change the way some interpret it.
tjadams is offline  
Old July 23rd, 2011, 06:16 PM   #3

botully's Avatar
With the Ball People
 
Joined: Feb 2011
From: Amelia, Virginia, USA
Posts: 2,975

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alexander H View Post

Could someone make a clear, thought out, understandable argument that it would possibly allow it ?
I'm going to have to say....no, never. You will never get a clear, thought out, understandable argument on this.

Never.
botully is offline  
Old July 23rd, 2011, 07:37 PM   #4

Alexander H's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Mar 2011
From: Georgia USA
Posts: 1,837

Quote:
Originally Posted by tjadams View Post
We all know the Constitution has been bent, flattened, pressed, rolled and twisted
to justify any cause. Its like seeing a movie or hearing music.
One person sees it one way and another sees it yet another and no amount of words can change the way some interpret it.
The Constitution is like music or a movie? ...
let me write that one down...... I was lost and now I see

If you're a strict constructionist...
it doesn't allow secession
If you're a wide open / implied powers / loose interpretationist...
it still doesn't allow secession.

I just assumed that since some on here throw that little "legally seceded" statement out willy nilly that they or someone at least might actually attempt to explain it.
Alexander H is offline  
Old July 24th, 2011, 05:55 AM   #5

diddyriddick's Avatar
Forum Curmudgeon
 
Joined: May 2009
From: A tiny hamlet in the Carolina Sandhills
Posts: 13,587

While I agree with you on the substance of the US Constitution in general and the 10th amendment specifically, I would remind you that Hamilton was not the sole arbiter of that document. In fact, he was frequently out of step with the majority of Americans of the time, being virtually a monarchist.
diddyriddick is online now  
Old July 24th, 2011, 05:58 AM   #6

Viperlord's Avatar
Scalawag
 
Joined: Aug 2010
From: VA
Posts: 6,328
Blog Entries: 12

Quote:
Originally Posted by diddyriddick View Post
While I agree with you on the substance of the US Constitution in general and the 10th amendment specifically, I would remind you that Hamilton was not the sole arbiter of that document. In fact, he was frequently out of step with the majority of Americans of the time, being virtually a monarchist.
I"m a little confused. Where did Alex bring up Hamilton? He was quoting Madison in the OP.
Viperlord is online now  
Old July 24th, 2011, 09:00 AM   #7

Alexander H's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Mar 2011
From: Georgia USA
Posts: 1,837

Quote:
Originally Posted by diddyriddick View Post
While I agree with you on the substance of the US Constitution in general and the 10th amendment specifically, I would remind you that Hamilton was not the sole arbiter of that document. In fact, he was frequently out of step with the majority of Americans of the time, being virtually a monarchist.
a) Why would you feel the need to "remind me" about Alexander Hamilton ?

b) Saying he was a monarchist is so simplistic it isn't even worth discussion.... I will say that he was not one... there, we're even
Do you know what a monarchist is ?... does this relate at all to the OP ?
Did I say Hamilton wrote the 10th ?

c) He was opposed by the leaders of the first opposition party...
and he was not an elected official when Jefferson was elected...
He knew Adams' Alien and Sedition acts were unwise... and said so...
so when you say "out of step... frequently"... you're just regurgitating the views of the oposition party of the time.
Alexander H is offline  
Old July 24th, 2011, 04:37 PM   #8
Citizen
 
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 34

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alexander H View Post
Until of late, there is not a State that would have abhorred such a doctrine more than South Carolina, or more dreaded an application of it to herself.
Pff, S. Carolina is totally the state that would.

From a Yank living in South Carolina for the summer
Rhysbans is offline  
Old July 26th, 2011, 02:13 AM   #9
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Jun 2011
From: Virginia/Maryland USA
Posts: 420
Blog Entries: 1

After the Civil War was over a Union witch-hunt ensued. They were upset that 300,000 of their soldiers were dead and hundreds of thousands were wounded. And their beloved Tyrant President was dead.

They wanted revenge.

So they arrested or indicted several Confederate leaders. Some of them were charged with treason.

They were never found guilty of treason.

They were never even charged with the crime of secession.

The best Constitutional lawyers the US had agreed that secession was certainly not prohibited by the Constitution and was therefore, legal.
Scamp is offline  
Old July 26th, 2011, 04:37 AM   #10

Viperlord's Avatar
Scalawag
 
Joined: Aug 2010
From: VA
Posts: 6,328
Blog Entries: 12

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scamp View Post
After the Civil War was over a Union witch-hunt ensued. They were upset that 300,000 of their soldiers were dead and hundreds of thousands were wounded. And their beloved Tyrant President was dead.

They wanted revenge.

So they arrested or indicted several Confederate leaders. Some of them were charged with treason.

They were never found guilty of treason.

They were never even charged with the crime of secession.

The best Constitutional lawyers the US had agreed that secession was certainly not prohibited by the Constitution and was therefore, legal.
And this concludes your unsupported Lost Cause nonsense of the day.

Quote:
They wanted revenge.
It's quite hilarious how ignorant this statement is. I for one remain rather taken aback at just how forgiving the North was once the South was defeated. Try reading Grant or Sherman's surrender terms to Lee and Johnston. None of the military officers who betrayed their oath to the United States by fighting for the Confederacy were punished. The story of the former political leaders of the Confederacy is a interesting one but not really relevant to the thread.

Now, back to your regularly scheduled programming.
Viperlord is online now  
Closed Thread

  Historum > World History Forum > American History

Tags
10th, amendment, legal, prove, secession


Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Medieval Serbo-Greek Empire: social and legal context, and legal transplants from Byzantine Law Soloviev Medieval and Byzantine History 1 May 30th, 2007 01:46 PM
State Secession MrStoff1989 American History 0 October 11th, 2006 04:40 PM
This Day In History, September 4th-10th Lord_Cronus General History 8 September 10th, 2006 08:37 AM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.