Did states have the Constutional right to secede from the Union of those states?

do you mean pre Civil War, States?

Yes...

Hog

BTW every State in the Union and in their own Constitution have this very same right today...

Hog

another question.

Do you think the states that seceded from the union did so over states rights?

or because they just wanted to keep their slaves?

Guess which reason is only one taught in school these days

well the true answer is over States Rights... but to hear it told from youth of today it was over Slavery...

Hog

So then to preserve the Union, Lincoln had to violate the very document that authorized the union of those states in the 1st place?

EI, I'm not ignoring your post, you just jumped ahead.

THL I see where your going with this

No Lincoln had to Honor that very document that allowed these States to Succeed (sp) what Document are you refering to?? I hope the Constitution and the articles there of?? Each State and of it's own has a Right to Succeed from the Union... I think Texas is as of the most part one of the States I could see doing so in this time...

Colorado was considering this back during the Clinton Admin. when the EPA was going to force the State of Co. to move a Mountian that contained Lead in it and the cost considerations to such a feat was astronomical 1997 era?? and I cannot recall how close they came??

Hog

Ok now I gotta brush up on my history LOL

I don't see where your going with this one??

Hog

No state had, nor do they have today, the Constutional right to secede from the Union as of 1788, which was when the Constitution became law. The Constitution spells out the powers and responsibilities of both the federal government and states. For example, states cannot declare war or coin money or do many other things that would be precipitated by an act of secession. Section ten specifically says that no state shall enter into a confederation, which is exactly what South Carolina, Alabama, Mississippi, Florida, Georgia, Louisianna, Texas, and South Carolina did, and this was why the civil war was fought. Check it out, section 10 of the US constitution: "No state shall enter into any ... confederation." Any dissolution of states from the union immediately obviates the United States, which is what Lincoln fought to preserve. The issue started out as one over slavery, but became one over secession in 1860 when those southern states left the union after having lost a fair election.

But would the Union have gone to war with the confederation had not Edmund Ruffin pulled the lanyard on the cannon that fired on Ft. Sumter?

Was the intent of the Union to respond to the south's actions with military force?

Or did the south provoke the Union into war by firing the first volley?

As with complex dynamics, many factors evolved that resulted in the civil war. The north was struggling to compromise with the south both before and after secession, but conceptually and legally, the second any state pulls out of the union there is no longer a union, and that is one of the crowning acheivements of the constitution; to create a more perfect union and prevent war among the states. If we had absolute states rights we'd be like Africa; a bunch of on again off again warring states. In America, big brother's gonna work to not let that happen.

SECESSION AND CIVIL WAR

http://www.usconstitution.com/AmericanHistoryStorych6.htm 

good reading...

although CP I do recall reading in the Constitution and or Ammendments the right or States to Succeed from the Union?? I will continue to look this up

what article 10 are you refering to?

Hog

Let's split some hairs which is exactly what was done in 1861. CigarPrimate is almost right. The Const. does prohibit confederation but does NOT prohibit secession.

The 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."

This can be and was interpreted as the "States' Right" to secede. And once seceded the State is longer bound by the Const. and free to confederate if it so chooses.

this is what had me thrown... there are only 7 articles to the constitution followed by Amendments and the very same ammendment X, states what THL pointed out although I was still trying to find the remander of CP's post and will continue.. it's always nice to freshen up...

Hog

THL I'm still wondering why you made this original thread??

this could become a very interesting thread and discussion...

do you see something coming in the future??

Hog

"So then to preserve the Union, Lincoln had to violate the very document that authorized the union of those states in the 1st place?"

to answer your question on above I retract my previous reply and say Yes... Lincoln did in fact violate the very document...

AMENDMENT XI

Passed by Congress March 4, 1794. Ratified February 7, 1795. The judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by citizens of another State, or by citizens or subjects of any foreign state.

Hog

Lol. It could also be interpreted that Elvis lives on Saturn based on that criterion. I base my interpretation on whether or not a state can secede based on #1) precedent. Look what happened last time states seceeded, then, project how fast federal troops will be on the spot when a similar occurance happens in the future. Like Washington's going to let that happen. And #2) the constitution itself, where the preamble states "we the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union ... erstablish this constitution of the United States of America." Seems pretty clear that any effort to dissolve the 'perfect union' or undermine the "United States" is explicitly unconstitutional.

I was referring to 1861 as the thread heading indicates. Certainly, precedent does dictate that the Union be preserved now even if the letter of the law does not. It didn't then as there was no precedent. The rest of your statement is your,(and many others'), interpretation and subject to debate. As interpretation it is implicit and not explicit. Such are the arguments that started/justified this war.

Another question, was Lincoln within the law when he suspended "Habeas Corpus"?

In times of war the commander & chief may suspend habeus corpus. Again, I use precedent, because Washington did it, Lincoln did it, FD Roosevelt did it, and GW Bush has done it, therefore, it must be legal, no?