Re: Was Secession Legal? Part 8

>Your statement is somewhat incoherent. “Ratification by States” did not say this; the Virginia “form of ratification” said it. This statement does not refer to secession. It refers to the resumption by the people of the United States of particular powers from the federal government, by taking any such powers, previously delegated, from the government… It can mean nothing else? You claim that the statement you quoted from the Virginia form of ratification referred to some right of the “several” states, and not some right theoretically beloning to the people of the United States in some collective capacity.

Nothing else. If I delegate “power of attorney” to you, you are to act on my behalf. If I take back that “power of attorney”, you can no longer represent me. If a State delegates certain listed powers [Art I, Sect 8] to the national government, and then changes it’s mind and withdraws the delegated powers, to be resummed by the State government, that is secession.

>It can mean nothing else? You claim that the statement you quoted from the Virginia form of ratification referred to some right of the “several” states, and not some right theoretically beloning to the people of the United States in some collective capacity…

Nothing “collectively”. As I have said, the Commonwealth of Virginia can not speak for the State of New York, but the Commonwealth of Virginia can and does speak for the people of Virginia. When one State claims the right to decide for itself, based upon the wishes of the people of that State, the same right belongs to all the member States within the compact of union, moderated only by the “supreme law of the land”, the uS Constitution. When a State withdraws from the compact of union, the uS Constitution no longer applies to that State.

>If that is the case, then it would seem to follow quite logically that, if New Yorkers believed that the power allegedly delegated to the federal government to return fugitive slaves from New York to Virginia had been perverted to the injury and oppression of New Yorkers, New York could resume the power to fugitive slaves from the federal government, while remaining in the Union.

Say what? If you are arguing that the State of New York could deny federal law, you would be wrong. It could only ignore or deny federal law if it were no longer within the compact of union.

>t’s probably unnecessary for me to point it out, but “remaining in the Union” is not “secession.” In 1861, did Virginia freely acknowledgre the right of New Yorkers to refure to permit the return of fugitive slaves from New York to Virginia under federal authority?

I do not understand what you are trying to say. Virginia seceded from the compact of union when lincoln ordered 75,000 troops to invade Virginia in order to sugjugate South Carolina.

>Now, if the right of a state to resume some power delegated to the federal government comes into play only if that popwer has been perverted to the injury and oppression of the people of that state, as the Virginia form of ratification plainly applies, had the power to return fugitive slaves, as exercised by the federal government, been perverted to the injury and oppression of Virginians?

I still do not understand what you are trying to say. The federal government was not enforcing the “Fugitive Slave Act” at the northern States. That was a bone of contention with many Southern States. That can be interpreted as an “injury” to the people of that State.

>Remember that, this power, along with all others, was “resumed” by Virginia when it seceded. Did Virginia claim that it had been perverted to the injury and oppression of Virginians? Did Virginia claim that the power to coin money, “resumed” from the federal government, had been perverted to the injury and oppression of Virginians? Dod Virginia claim that the power to grant copyrights and patents, “resumed” from the federal government by secession, had been perverted to the injury and oppression of Virginians?

When Virginia seceded from the compact of union, she was no longer a part of that union, and yes, she did resume all those powers listed in the uS Constitution that had been delegated to the national government. She was in fact a Nation/State and could do all those things that any Nation/State could do. However, her first act was to form a compact with other Southern States into the Confederate States of America, recognizing that it were far better for one agent to act on behalf of many members than each member act on its own.

>Therefore, when New York ratified the Constitution, it delegated the power to return fugitive slaves to Virginia to the federal government… Indeed, it follows inevitably from your argument that New York had the right to the federal government the pwoer to resist the return offugitive slaves from New York to Virgiinia — to make the federal government its agent in the matter of fugitive slaves, by assisting the state of New in refusing their rendition.

Your statement is so convoluted that I can not make heads nor tails of it.

When New York ratified the US Constitution, she, like every other State, delegated a ‘portion’ of her sovereignty, which had been granted to her by the people of New York State, to the federal government. If the federal law, promulgated under the US Constitution, stated that “fugitive slaves, where ever they may be, must be returned to their owners” and the State of New York failed to agree to go along with that law, then the State of New York would be in violation of uS Constitutional law. The State of New York can not pick and choose which federal laws to obey and which to ignore. If the people of New York come to the point where they no longer agree to be ruled by the national government, then they are free to hold conventions or hold a referendum and determine what action should be taken. At the South they decided that it was no longer worth while being a member of this union and elected to withdraw. If memory serves me correctly, when the City of New York learned that the Southern States were seriously considering opening their ports as Freeports, she wanted to do likewise, even threatening to secede from the State of New York. The State of New York responded with vile threats of extermination if she attempted to do so and thus the New York City Secession effort was put down.

>But if you grant that, then you have to abandon any claim that the states are, under the Constitution, soverieign in the sense you say they are.

Why?

>If the people of a state are absolutely sovereign, then they need not acknowledge any law other than the laws of their government as having legal force within the state.

Except that the US Constitution, and laws made pursuent thereto, are the “supreme laws of the land”. The people are still absolutely Soveriegn and can recall and resume those delegated powers from both national and State governments, and form new ones, more to their own liking. The only difference is that they will not be under the US Constitution and laws made there under.

>If, and only if, the people of New York were free to regard the Fugitive Slave Law of 1850 as having no legal force New York, if they wished it to have no legal force in New York, can it be said that the people of New York were sovereign.

Again – that “delegated” sovereignty modifies what New Yorkers can and can not do. Now if New Yorkers don’t like the federal “Fugitive Slave Act”, they can remove themselves from the compact of union. That way they don’t have to obey the federal law. No one, prior to 1861, denied any State the right to withdraw from the compact of union. New England States threatened to do so many times, usually for economic or political reasons. They did not like the Louisiana Purchase, Texas Republic becoming a State, Louisiana becoming a State, but then never acted upon the threats. The Southern States did act. I guess they had bigger gonads. – Johnny Reb 1865

No Comments

No comments yet.

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.