Did the South have a right to secede?

[Distruzio]

The Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union provide an argument as to why no right to secede exists - to trump that, you're going to have to provide something more than wishful thinking and theology.

We've addressed this time and again, GnI. It is this particular argument that holds the least water of all the Federalist Pro-Union arguments.

The Continental Association was not the Confederation was not the Union. The states comprising the Confederation had to secede from the Confederation in order to join the Union. To suggest otherwise is to ignore the very real fact that the Constitution creating the Union took effect after only 9 states ratified it. Meaning that there were a few that weren't yet in the Union.

Bah, I'll just quote myself from a couple of pages back in response to Farn:

Nope. The Articles of Confederation were a "perpetual union," and the first state to ratify them was South Carolina, in 1777. Here's the preamble to that document:

I see you failed to actually read my responses to ASB in that so often cited thread in which I utterly demolish his assertion that the word 'perpetual' means anything beyond continuing.

If a league between sovereign powers have no limitation as to the time of its duration, and contain nothing making it perpetual, it subsists only during the good pleasure of the parties, although no violation be complained of. If, in the opinion of either party, it be violated, such party may say that he will no longer fulfill its obligations on his part, but will consider the whole league or compact at an end, although it might be one of its stipulations that it should be perpetual. Upon this principle, the Congress of the United States, in 1798, declared null and void the treaty of alliance between the United States and France, though it professed to be a perpetual alliance.

Daniel Webster 1798

It can hardly be said that Daniel Webster was an anti-federalist sort. What is more interesting is that you, and ASB, along with others seem to forget that the Association was not the Confederation was not the Union. Each had to secede from the preceding in order to form the new gov't. Hell, the Confederation had its own Presidents.

[Distruzio]

Not bothering looking for the previous post, but in what way did the Buchanan administration violate the constitutional rights of the South, as any hypothetical violations that Lincoln might perform is not adequate justification for leaving.

Do you retain nothing you read? DK already addressed this:

This quote from the Declaration of Independence leads me to think they did. However, the perpetuation of slavery and the attacks on Union forces cannot be justified.

The perpetuation of slavery was enshrined in the Constitution itself! It was the attempts by non-slaveholding states to IGNORE those portions of the Constitution which the State of South Carolina judged to be sufficient to render the entire Constitution null and void -- yes, on this occasion, South Carolina resorted to the question of slavery, because it was how the Constitution was being flaunted by the non-slaveholding states, but South Carolina had previously threatened to secede over the tariffs; South Carolina was, as I have maintained in two previous threads, looking for any excuse to secede, because they were dissatisfied with the way the new government was turning out. In this particular, they thought they had finally found one, as, under their understanding of the Constitution, it was a "compact," and could be regarded as null and void if any portion of it were violated by any party to it. This was in fact what had been occurring, by virtue of certain non-slaveholding states' flagrant violation of Article IV, Section 2, paragraph 3 of the Constitution. The trouble with me pointing this out is that, every time I do so, people seem to focus on the word "slave" and ignore the part about violation of the Constitution. I'm not defending slavery. I'm not defending racism. I'm pointing out that the Constitution was being violated, which was considered justification for secession by South Carolina, who, as I have shown before, had already threatened to secede over another issue entirely, because they preferred decentralized (confederate) government over centralized (federal) government.

Behold:

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

A Person charged in any State with Treason, Felony, or other Crime, who shall flee from Justice, and be found in another State, shall on Demand of the executive Authority of the State from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the State having Jurisdiction of the Crime.

No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due.

The question of whether they had a right to secede or not, I have addressed in my first post in this thread, by criticizing the Supreme Court's decision on logical and legal grounds.

To summarize, the South, and in particular, South Carolina (recall our conversation regarding the importance of South Carolina to the legitimacy of the secessions of the other states?) was looking for any excuse to leave by 1850. Stephens talked them out of it then, and Buchanan was non-confrontational enough not to warrant it under his administration. Secession had been under consideration since 1832 and perhaps, the argument can be made, even before all the way back to 1798 itself.

[Distruzio]

Slavery was only a very little reason for Confederate separatism.

Regardless of whether you believe it was the primary reason or not, slavery was one of the main reasons for the Civil War.

Slavery was a significant reason for the secession, it had nothing to do with the War.

[Revolutopia]

Not bothering looking for the previous post, but in what way did the Buchanan administration violate the constitutional rights of the South, as any hypothetical violations that Lincoln might perform is not adequate justification for leaving.

Do you retain nothing you read? DK already addressed this:

-snip-

To summarize, the South, and in particular, South Carolina (recall our conversation regarding the importance of South Carolina to the legitimacy of the secessions of the other states?) was looking for any excuse to leave by 1850. Stephens talked them out of it then, and Buchanan was non-confrontational enough not to warrant it under his administration. Secession had been under consideration since 1832 and perhaps, the argument can be made, even before all the way back to 1798 itself.

All of that was about SC being opposed to the other states not the federal government, thus if SC thought those states were not following the Constitution then they should have brought them to the Supreme Court. You said they thought the Federal Government was breaking the Constitution, now prove that Congress, the President, and Supreme Court were in cohorts in violating the constitution that they had no option but seceding.

[Revolutopia]

The Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union provide an argument as to why no right to secede exists - to trump that, you're going to have to provide something more than wishful thinking and theology.

We've addressed this time and again, GnI. It is this particular argument that holds the least water of all the Federalist Pro-Union arguments.

The Continental Association was not the Confederation was not the Union. The states comprising the Confederation had to secede from the Confederation in order to join the Union. To suggest otherwise is to ignore the very real fact that the Constitution creating the Union took effect after only 9 states ratified it. Meaning that there were a few that weren't yet in the Union.

Bah, I'll just quote myself from a couple of pages back in response to Farn:

I see you failed to actually read my responses to ASB in that so often cited thread in which I utterly demolish his assertion that the word 'perpetual' means anything beyond continuing.

If a league between sovereign powers have no limitation as to the time of its duration, and contain nothing making it perpetual, it subsists only during the good pleasure of the parties, although no violation be complained of. If, in the opinion of either party, it be violated, such party may say that he will no longer fulfill its obligations on his part, but will consider the whole league or compact at an end, although it might be one of its stipulations that it should be perpetual. Upon this principle, the Congress of the United States, in 1798, declared null and void the treaty of alliance between the United States and France, though it professed to be a perpetual alliance.

Daniel Webster 1798

It can hardly be said that Daniel Webster was an anti-federalist sort. What is more interesting is that you, and ASB, along with others seem to forget that the Association was not the Confederation was not the Union. Each had to secede from the preceding in order to form the new gov't. Hell, the Confederation had its own Presidents.

All of that was not found to be the case by the Supreme Court, who ruled that by perpetual meant the inviolability of the Union. And best of all their words have the full legal weight under them unlike Daniel Webster, thus until it is overturned that its the legal precedent and rule. Saying that their argument is wrong and that the Constitution was secession from the Articles might be fine and dandy but has no relevancy to the law as that argument has be fully demised by the individuals given the privilege to make the final say on both legal and constitutional matters.

[Distruzio]

All of that was not found to be the case by the Supreme Court, who ruled that by perpetual meant the inviolability of the Union. And best of all their words have the full legal weight under them unlike Daniel Webster, thus until it is overturned that its the legal precedent and rule. Saying that their argument is wrong and that the Constitution was secession from the Articles might be fine and dandy but has no relevancy to the law as that argument has be fully demised by the individuals given the privilege to make the final say on both legal and constitutional matters.

DK already demolished this.... what is the best word(?)... stubborn(?)... naive(?)... ah, pathetic argument in favor of the SCOTUS decision. Why? B/c SCOTUS made no decision on the matter. They opted not to discuss it.

Aside from that, the legality is not the perspective of the thread at hand, the right is.

[Revolutopia]

All of that was not found to be the case by the Supreme Court, who ruled that by perpetual meant the inviolability of the Union. And best of all their words have the full legal weight under them unlike Daniel Webster, thus until it is overturned that its the legal precedent and rule. Saying that their argument is wrong and that the Constitution was secession from the Articles might be fine and dandy but has no relevancy to the law as that argument has be fully demised by the individuals given the privilege to make the final say on both legal and constitutional matters.

DK already demolished this.... what is the best word(?)... stubborn(?)... naive(?)... ah, pathetic argument in favor of the SCOTUS decision. Why? B/c SCOTUS made no decision on the matter. They opted not to discuss it.

Aside from that, the legality is not the perspective of the thread at hand, the right is.

The SCOTUS did make a decision on the case, as Greed and Death mentioned. The only thing they didn't do was feel the need to discuss the issue at length. Rights can be established and limited by contracts, the Southern States entered into a contract with the Union which took away the right to unilateral secession as ruled on by the decision making apparatus meant to determine what rights the parties in question was to hold.

[Distruzio]

All of that was about SC being opposed to the other states not the federal government, thus if SC thought those states were not following the Constitution then they should have brought them to the Supreme Court. You said they thought the Federal Government was breaking the Constitution, now prove that Congress, the President, and Supreme Court were in cohorts in violating the constitution that they had no option but seceding.

They did and won in 1854. The Northern States refused to obey the Federal Gov't and, upon seizing control of the Presidency on a platform of the strangulation of the southern economy, essentially declared economic warfare upon the South by attempting to enact the Morrill Tariff.

I think you are intentionally misunderstanding the nature of the federal gov't.

[Distruzio]

The SCOTUS did make a decision on the case, as Greed and Death mentioned. The only thing they didn't do was feel the need to discuss the issue at length. Rights can be established and limited by contracts, the Southern States entered into a contract with the Union which took away the right to unilateral secession as ruled on by the decision making apparatus meant to determine what rights the parties in question was to hold.

They did not.

[Revolutopia]

All of that was about SC being opposed to the other states not the federal government, thus if SC thought those states were not following the Constitution then they should have brought them to the Supreme Court. You said they thought the Federal Government was breaking the Constitution, now prove that Congress, the President, and Supreme Court were in cohorts in violating the constitution that they had no option but seceding.

They did and won in 1854. The Northern States refused to obey the Federal Gov't and, upon seizing control of the Presidency on a platform of the strangulation of the southern economy, essentially declared economic warfare upon the South by attempting to enact the Morrill Tariff.

I think you are intentionally misunderstanding the nature of the federal gov't.

Tariffs are not unconstitutional or economic warfare, nor was Morrill passed until after the secession of the Southern States thus both are irrelevant to case at hand. You cannot declare a contract void just because you think your partner might break the rules in the future, thus they shoot their load early. Also Dred Scott was about territories not the states, and if anything proved the Feds were not violating their rights.

[Revolutopia]

The SCOTUS did make a decision on the case, as Greed and Death mentioned. The only thing they didn't do was feel the need to discuss the issue at length. Rights can be established and limited by contracts, the Southern States entered into a contract with the Union which took away the right to unilateral secession as ruled on by the decision making apparatus meant to determine what rights the parties in question was to hold.

They did not.

So they did not ratify the constitution and then have a vote by their state of approving said action?

[Distruzio]

They did not.

So they did not ratify the constitution and then have a vote by their state of approving said action?

I'll quote myself from everyones favorite thread and, since you cannot seem to retain what you read for more than a second, I'll highlight the most relevant parts:

The compact theory of the Union was never valid; it ended in 1777, with the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union, as Lincoln stated in his First Inaugural Address:

The Union is much older than the Constitution. It was formed, in fact, by the Articles of Association in 1774. It was matured and continued by the Declaration of Independence in 1776. It was further matured, and the faith of all the then thirteen States expressly plighted and engaged that it should be perpetual, by the Articles of Confederation in 1778. And finally, in 1787, one of the declared objects for ordaining and establishing the Constitution was to form a more perfect Union.

Lest you doubt this, look at the Articles themselves - specifically, Article XII:

Every State shall abide by the determination of the United States in Congress assembled, on all questions which by this confederation are submitted to them. And the Articles of this Confederation shall be inviolably observed by every State, and the Union shall be perpetual; nor shall any alteration at any time hereafter be made in any of them; unless such alteration be agreed to in a Congress of the United States, and be afterwards confirmed by the legislatures of every State.

You can't get much clearer than that; without the Constitution explicitly inserting a right to secede in Article IV, wherein the powers of the States were defined and/or limited, or otherwise indicating anywhere in its text that the Union was no longer "perpetual", they could not assert a Tenth Amendment right to a power they had already surrendered years earlier.

*sigh*

The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the Federal Government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State Governments are numerous and indefinite.

Federalist #45, James Madison

… the government created by this compact was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself; since that would have made its discretion, and not the Constitution, the measure of its powers; but that, as in all other cases of compact among powers having no common judge, each party has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions as of the mode and measure of redress.

Kentucky Resolutions, Thomas Jefferson

All powers granted by the Constitution are derived from the people of the United States; and may be resumed by them when perverted to their injury or oppression; and that every power not granted, remains with them, and at their will; and that no right of any description can be canceled, abridged, restrained, or modified by Congress, the Senate, the House of Representatives, the President, or any department or office of the United States.

John C. Calhoun in a speech to congress

The Union was formed by the voluntary agreement of the states; and these, in uniting together, have not forfeited their nationality, nor have they been reduced to the condition of one and the same people will stop if one of the states chose to withdraw its name from the contract, it would be difficult to disapprove its right of doing so, and the Federal Government would have no means of maintaining its claims directly either by force or right.

Democracy in America, Alexis de Toqueville

We the Delegates of the People of Virginia duly elected in pursuance of a recommendation from the General Assembly and now met in Convention having fully and freely investigated and discussed the proceedings of the Federal Convention and being prepared as well as the most mature deliberation hath enabled us to decide thereon Do in the name and in behalf of the People of Virginia declare and make known that the powers granted under the Constitution being derived from the People of the United States may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression and that every power not granted thereby remains with them and at their will:

Virginia ratification decree

That the Powers of Government may be reassumed by the People, whensoever it shall become necessary to their Happiness; that every Power, Jurisdiction and right, which is not by the said Constitution clearly delegated to the Congress of the United States, or the departments of the Government thereof, remains to the People of the several States, or to their respective State Governments to whom they may have granted the same; And that those Clauses in the said Constitution, which declare, that Congress shall not have or exercise certain Powers, do not imply that Congress is entitled to any Powers not given by the said Constitution; but such Clauses are to be construed either as exceptions to certain specified Powers, or as inserted merely for greater Caution.

New York ratification decree

That the powers of government may be reassumed by the people, whensoever it shall become necessary to their happiness: That the rights of the States respectively, to nominate and appoint all State Officers, and every other power, jurisdiction and right, which is not by the said constitution clearly delegated to the Congress of the United States or to the departments of government thereof, remain to the people of the several States, or their respective State Governments to whom they may have granted the same; and that those clauses in the said constitution which declare that Congress shall not have or exercise certain powers, do not imply, that Congress is entitled to any powers not given by the said constitution, but such clauses are to be construed as exceptions to certain specified powers, or as inserted merely for greater caution.

Rhode Island ratification decree

[Ohio has]...an equal right to interpret the Constitution for themselves.

Ohio legislature in 1819

Each State, in ratifying the Constitution, is considered as a sovereign body, independent of all others, and only to be bound by its own voluntary act. In this relation, then, the new Constitution will, if established, be a FEDERAL, and not a NATIONAL constitution.

Federalist #39, James Madison

But as the plan of the convention aims only at a partial union or consolidation, the State governments would clearly retain all the rights of sovereignty which they before had, and which were not, by that act, EXCLUSIVELY delegated to the United States.

Federalist #32, Alexander Hamilton

Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every Power, Jurisdiction and right, which is not by this confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled.

Article 2 of the Articles of Confederation

His Brittanic Majesty acknowledges the said United States, viz., New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, to be free sovereign and independent states, that he treats with them as such, and for himself, his heirs, and successors, relinquishes all claims to the government, propriety, and territorial rights of the same and every part thereof.

Paris Treaty

The people inhabiting the territory formerly called the province of New Hampshire, do hereby solemnly and mutually agree with each other, to form themselves into a free, sovereign and independent body-politic, or state, by the name of the State of New Hampshire.

Constitution of New Hampshire

The people, inhabiting the territory formerly called the Province of Massachusetts Bay, do hereby solemnly and mutually agree with each other, to form themselves into a free, sovereign, and independent body politic, or state by the name of “THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS”

Constitution of Massachusetts

But it must not be forgotten, that the state of Connecticut is a FREE SOVEREIGN and INDEPENDENT state; that the United States are a confederacy of states; that we are a confederated and not a consolidated republic.

Connecticut legislature in a letter of protest to President Madison

If a league between sovereign powers have no limitation as to the time of its duration, and contain nothing making it perpetual, it subsists only during the good pleasure of the parties, although no violation be complained of. If, in the opinion of either party, it be violated, such party may say that he will no longer fulfill its obligations on his part, but will consider the whole league or compact at an end, although it might be one of its stipulations that it should be perpetual. Upon this principle, the Congress of the United States, in 1798, declared null and void the treaty of alliance between the United States and France, though it professed to be a perpetual alliance.

Daniel Webster 1798

I can go on and on and on and on and on and on. You are absolutely wrong.

[Distruzio]

Tariffs are not unconstitutional or economic warfare, nor was Morrill passed until after the secession of the Southern States thus both are irrelevant to chase at the hand.

We already addressed this in the other thread, Rev. You should really read the responses to your posts.

And where does he dismiss the tariff as a reason for the secession? It seems you make the same mistake Marx did - you fail to take into consideration the Presidential campaign and the discussions on the Tariff for the 2 years previous to it's enactment.

Before the war the tariff rates were subsumed into a relatively free trade status quo. This was due to the Walker Tariff of 1846. Southern and western agricultural interests succeeded in lowering the tariff even further in 1857. Unfortunately, due to international agricultural price vibrations, the Panic of 1857 reignited the protectionist racket in Washington and brought a high tariff to the forefront of American political discourse.

Of course, 1857 was also the year of Dred Scott so, needless to say, the frenzy surrounding tariffs, slavery, and territorial integrity was widespread. In fact, Richard Franklin Bensel has shown that southern steadfastness on the tariff combined with the protectionist inclinations of Republican candidate John Sherman kept the Speaker of the House ballot deadlocked for over two months in 1858, after the start of the session. Sherman was replaced by Rep. William Pennington, and was given chairmanship of the Ways and Means Committee as consolation. This brought the tariff issue to the forefront, as Sherman and Vermont Rep. Justin Morrill drafted a new and highly protectionist tariff schedule to replace the 1857 rates. The Morrill Tariff bill was hotly debated for the better part of a year in the House, ultimately passing on strict North-South lines in May 1860 shortly before the summer recess.

Robert Hunter, author of the 1857 Tariff, used his position on the Finance committee to table the measure in the Senate. This postponed the discussion on the Tariff until the presidential election later that year and also pushed the Senate vote until the lame duck session during the winter - of course you've heard of it, "Secession Winter?"

Abraham Lincoln's reputation as an old Tariff Whig contributed directly to his nomination at the Republican Convention in Chicago, particularly in securing the delegates previously pledged to protectionist Pennsylvania Sen. Simon Cameron on the second round of balloting. After securing the nomination, Lincolns campaign manager David Davis delivered a set of pro-tariff speeches to Pennsylvania and New Jersey voters, designed to shore up the protectionist vote in the "swing states." Morrill and Sherman also joined the campaign effort. Thus allowing him to shift his focus to the Midwest, where pro-tariff sentiments were not as strong. Needless to say, Lincoln's fantastic electoral strategy worked.

Congress began in December amidst looming secessionism and the heated rhetoric of the pro-slavery "fire-eaters" faction. These Southern Democrats opened the session by assailing the incoming president's platform - not to abolish slavery but the comparatively mild policy of simply keeping it out of the territories. It was within this political milieu that the Tariff was introduced on the floor for a vote.

Further proofs of the importance of the issue can be found by consulting the invitations sent to other states at South Carolina's secession convention. In Georgia, the issue was even more debated between the aforementioned Alexander Stephens and his friend, Robert Toombs. When reading the Georgia declaration of Causes for Secession, we find the Tariff mentioned explicitly.

You'll note that I never make the erroneous claim that secession was due to the Tariff alone. I merely asked where Marx made the claim that it was never an issue to begin with.

You cannot declare a contract void just because you think your partner might break the rules in the future

The Confederates thought and proved that the North already had violated the Constitution.

Also Dred Scott was about territories not the states, and if anything proved the Feds were not violating their rights.

Dred Scott was about Northern States flouting Constitutional and Federal authority. Once more, I think you intentionally misunderstand the nature of the federal gov't.

[Revolutopia]

So they did not ratify the constitution and then have a vote by their state of approving said action?

I'll quote myself from everyones favorite thread:

*sigh*

The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the Federal Government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State Governments are numerous and indefinite.

Federalist #45, James Madison

… the government created by this compact was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself; since that would have made its discretion, and not the Constitution, the measure of its powers; but that, as in all other cases of compact among powers having no common judge, each party has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions as of the mode and measure of redress.

Kentucky Resolutions, Thomas Jefferson

All powers granted by the Constitution are derived from the people of the United States; and may be resumed by them when perverted to their injury or oppression; and that every power not granted, remains with them, and at their will; and that no right of any description can be canceled, abridged, restrained, or modified by Congress, the Senate, the House of Representatives, the President, or any department or office of the United States.

John C. Calhoun in a speech to congress

The Union was formed by the voluntary agreement of the states; and these, in uniting together, have not forfeited their nationality, nor have they been reduced to the condition of one and the same people will stop if one of the states chose to withdraw its name from the contract, it would be difficult to disapprove its right of doing so, and the Federal Government would have no means of maintaining its claims directly either by force or right.

Democracy in America, Alexis de Toqueville

We the Delegates of the People of Virginia duly elected in pursuance of a recommendation from the General Assembly and now met in Convention having fully and freely investigated and discussed the proceedings of the Federal Convention and being prepared as well as the most mature deliberation hath enabled us to decide thereon Do in the name and in behalf of the People of Virginia declare and make known that the powers granted under the Constitution being derived from the People of the United States may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression and that every power not granted thereby remains with them and at their will:

Virginia ratification decree

That the Powers of Government may be reassumed by the People, whensoever it shall become necessary to their Happiness; that every Power, Jurisdiction and right, which is not by the said Constitution clearly delegated to the Congress of the United States, or the departments of the Government thereof, remains to the People of the several States, or to their respective State Governments to whom they may have granted the same; And that those Clauses in the said Constitution, which declare, that Congress shall not have or exercise certain Powers, do not imply that Congress is entitled to any Powers not given by the said Constitution; but such Clauses are to be construed either as exceptions to certain specified Powers, or as inserted merely for greater Caution.

New York ratification decree

That the powers of government may be reassumed by the people, whensoever it shall become necessary to their happiness: That the rights of the States respectively, to nominate and appoint all State Officers, and every other power, jurisdiction and right, which is not by the said constitution clearly delegated to the Congress of the United States or to the departments of government thereof, remain to the people of the several States, or their respective State Governments to whom they may have granted the same; and that those clauses in the said constitution which declare that Congress shall not have or exercise certain powers, do not imply, that Congress is entitled to any powers not given by the said constitution, but such clauses are to be construed as exceptions to certain specified powers, or as inserted merely for greater caution.

Rhode Island ratification decree

[Ohio has]...an equal right to interpret the Constitution for themselves.

Ohio legislature in 1819

Each State, in ratifying the Constitution, is considered as a sovereign body, independent of all others, and only to be bound by its own voluntary act. In this relation, then, the new Constitution will, if established, be a FEDERAL, and not a NATIONAL constitution.

Federalist #39, James Madison

But as the plan of the convention aims only at a partial union or consolidation, the State governments would clearly retain all the rights of sovereignty which they before had, and which were not, by that act, EXCLUSIVELY delegated to the United States.

Federalist #32, Alexander Hamilton

Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every Power, Jurisdiction and right, which is not by this confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled.

Article 2 of the Articles of Confederation

His Brittanic Majesty acknowledges the said United States, viz., New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, to be free sovereign and independent states, that he treats with them as such, and for himself, his heirs, and successors, relinquishes all claims to the government, propriety, and territorial rights of the same and every part thereof.

Paris Treaty

The people inhabiting the territory formerly called the province of New Hampshire, do hereby solemnly and mutually agree with each other, to form themselves into a free, sovereign and independent body-politic, or state, by the name of the State of New Hampshire.

Constitution of New Hampshire

The people, inhabiting the territory formerly called the Province of Massachusetts Bay, do hereby solemnly and mutually agree with each other, to form themselves into a free, sovereign, and independent body politic, or state by the name of “THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS”

Constitution of Massachusetts

But it must not be forgotten, that the state of Connecticut is a FREE SOVEREIGN and INDEPENDENT state; that the United States are a confederacy of states; that we are a confederated and not a consolidated republic.

Connecticut legislature in a letter of protest to President Madison

If a league between sovereign powers have no limitation as to the time of its duration, and contain nothing making it perpetual, it subsists only during the good pleasure of the parties, although no violation be complained of. If, in the opinion of either party, it be violated, such party may say that he will no longer fulfill its obligations on his part, but will consider the whole league or compact at an end, although it might be one of its stipulations that it should be perpetual. Upon this principle, the Congress of the United States, in 1798, declared null and void the treaty of alliance between the United States and France, though it professed to be a perpetual alliance.

Daniel Webster 1798

I can go on and on and on and on and on and on. You are absolutely wrong.

[Distruzio]

All fun and games, but none of those have the legal weight of the Constitution. The Supreme Court directly ruled(as within in their authority to determine the boundaries of the constitution) that the constitution was not an compact but a contact.

Out of curiosity, are you referring to Lochner?

And you should read my edit. I changed the color so you could more easily pick out the bits you so often seem to miss.

[Revolutopia]

Tariffs are not unconstitutional or economic warfare, nor was Morrill passed until after the secession of the Southern States thus both are irrelevant to chase at the hand.

We already addressed this in the other thread, Rev. You should really read the responses to your posts.

And where does he dismiss the tariff as a reason for the secession? It seems you make the same mistake Marx did - you fail to take into consideration the Presidential campaign and the discussions on the Tariff for the 2 years previous to it's enactment.

Before the war the tariff rates were subsumed into a relatively free trade status quo. This was due to the Walker Tariff of 1846. Southern and western agricultural interests succeeded in lowering the tariff even further in 1857. Unfortunately, due to international agricultural price vibrations, the Panic of 1857 reignited the protectionist racket in Washington and brought a high tariff to the forefront of American political discourse.

Of course, 1857 was also the year of Dred Scott so, needless to say, the frenzy surrounding tariffs, slavery, and territorial integrity was widespread. In fact, Richard Franklin Bensel has shown that southern steadfastness on the tariff combined with the protectionist inclinations of Republican candidate John Sherman kept the Speaker of the House ballot deadlocked for over two months in 1858, after the start of the session. Sherman was replaced by Rep. William Pennington, and was given chairmanship of the Ways and Means Committee as consolation. This brought the tariff issue to the forefront, as Sherman and Vermont Rep. Justin Morrill drafted a new and highly protectionist tariff schedule to replace the 1857 rates. The Morrill Tariff bill was hotly debated for the better part of a year in the House, ultimately passing on strict North-South lines in May 1860 shortly before the summer recess.

Robert Hunter, author of the 1857 Tariff, used his position on the Finance committee to table the measure in the Senate. This postponed the discussion on the Tariff until the presidential election later that year and also pushed the Senate vote until the lame duck session during the winter - of course you've heard of it, "Secession Winter?"

Abraham Lincoln's reputation as an old Tariff Whig contributed directly to his nomination at the Republican Convention in Chicago, particularly in securing the delegates previously pledged to protectionist Pennsylvania Sen. Simon Cameron on the second round of balloting. After securing the nomination, Lincolns campaign manager David Davis delivered a set of pro-tariff speeches to Pennsylvania and New Jersey voters, designed to shore up the protectionist vote in the "swing states." Morrill and Sherman also joined the campaign effort. Thus allowing him to shift his focus to the Midwest, where pro-tariff sentiments were not as strong. Needless to say, Lincoln's fantastic electoral strategy worked.

Congress began in December amidst looming secessionism and the heated rhetoric of the pro-slavery "fire-eaters" faction. These Southern Democrats opened the session by assailing the incoming president's platform - not to abolish slavery but the comparatively mild policy of simply keeping it out of the territories. It was within this political milieu that the Tariff was introduced on the floor for a vote.

Further proofs of the importance of the issue can be found by consulting the invitations sent to other states at South Carolina's secession convention. In Georgia, the issue was even more debated between the aforementioned Alexander Stephens and his friend, Robert Toombs. When reading the Georgia declaration of Causes for Secession, we find the Tariff mentioned explicitly.

You'll note that I never make the erroneous claim that secession was due to the Tariff alone. I merely asked where Marx made the claim that it was never an issue to begin with.

You cannot declare a contract void just because you think your partner might break the rules in the future

The Confederates thought and proved that the North already had violated the Constitution.

Also Dred Scott was about territories not the states, and if anything proved the Feds were not violating their rights.

Dred Scott was about Northern States flouting Constitutional and Federal authority. Once more, I think you intentionally misunderstand the nature of the federal gov't.

1.I ignore what you say, because you keep repeating the same unrelated statements. Simply,the fact is the tariff was not passed and was likely never going to be passed thus its presence has little to do with the facts. I can think my friend is going to kill me, but that does not give me the right to assault him in "self-defense" until he makes a move. Nor was again the tariff unconstitutional thus even if it was implemented it is not valid criteria for secession as it is a right given to the Federal government as approved originally by SC.
2.Who cares what they thought, and they didn't prove it.
3.Dred Scott was only about the issue of Federal policy related to Slavery in the territories nothing about the Northern States actions, once again you make shit up related to the case.

[Distruzio]

1.I ignore what you say, because you keep repeating the same unrelated statements. Simply,the fact is the tariff was not passed and was likely never going to be passed thus its presence has little to do with the facts. I can think my friend is going to kill me, but that does not give me the right to assault him in "self-defense" until he makes a move. Nor was again the tariff unconstitutional thus even if it was implemented it is not valid criteria for secession as it is a right given to the Federal government as approved originally by SC.

When someone says for 2 years before that they will take your shit, do you wait until they take your shit before you respond? Or do you take action to do what you can to protect your shit before hand? The Tariff was being considered for 2 years before the first secession and on the Presidential campaign trail. The South knew for a fact that Lincoln and the GOP were angling for the Tariff. Sure, they would have defeated the Tariff once. But the GOP had already proven how effective it was at garnering favor for follow up victories. The South intended to avoid prolonging a 40 year old debate any further.

2.Who cares what they thought, and they didn't prove it.

Who cares? That is the entire point of the thread, Rev.

3.Dred Scott was only about the issue of Federal policy related to Slavery in the territories nothing about the Northern States actions, once again you make shit up related to the case.

You present legal precedence suggesting secession was illegal. DK proves you didn't actually read the case in question. You dismiss her with a "did too, you're a racist." Then you ask for proof the South sought federal redress for grievances. I provide it. You dismiss it with a "but that wasn't the Northern States fault!"

You're arguments are amazing, Rev. With reasoning like this, I'm surprised I haven't been convinced of the errors in my logic before.

[Revolutopia]

1.I ignore what you say, because you keep repeating the same unrelated statements. Simply,the fact is the tariff was not passed and was likely never going to be passed thus its presence has little to do with the facts. I can think my friend is going to kill me, but that does not give me the right to assault him in "self-defense" until he makes a move. Nor was again the tariff unconstitutional thus even if it was implemented it is not valid criteria for secession as it is a right given to the Federal government as approved originally by SC.

When someone says for 2 years before that they will take your shit, do you wait until they take your shit before you respond? Or do you take action to do what you can to protect your shit before hand? The Tariff was being considered for 2 years before the first secession and on the Presidential campaign trail. The South knew for a fact that Lincoln and the GOP were angling for the Tariff. Sure, they would have defeated the Tariff once. But the GOP had already proven how effective it was at garnering favor for follow up victories. The South intended to avoid prolonging a 40 year old debate any further.

And the Democrats had effectively killed any tariff action in the past, something they would continue to have the right to do with their senators and representatives. The only reason it was able to pass was because of their own stupidity and leaving the Union instead of using their political clout to kill the bill. Nor was it taking their stuff, it was a completely legal action of implementing a tax that the South agreed to be the right for the Federal government to implement.



Never called DK racist, and Greed and Death proved DK's statement was wrong related to that case that they did not address the issue. Dred Scott had nothing to do with the Northern States violating their rights, instead the fact related to the issue that the Federal government cannot ban slavery in the territories. While, this was supported by the Northern States the issue the law overturned still was one that the Southern states had also approved before hand.

[Distruzio]

And the Democrats had effectively killed any tariff action in the past, something they would continue to have the right to do with their senators and representatives. The only reason it was able to pass was because of their own stupidity and leaving the Union instead of using their political clout to kill the bill. Nor was it taking their stuff, it was a completely legal action of implementing a tax that the South agreed to be the right for the Federal government to implement.

No one is arguing that point, whatsoever, Rev. Keep up.

Never called DK racist, and Greed and Death proved DK's statement was wrong related to that case that they did not address the issue. Dred Scott had nothing to do with the Northern States violating their rights, instead the fact related to the issue that the Federal government cannot ban slavery in the territories. While, this was supported by the Northern States the issue the law overturned still was one that the Southern states had also approved before hand.

The point you seem to miss, Rev, is that the Constitution was clear, and SCOTUS declared the Northern States in the wrong about it. The South sought redress for perceived Constitutional violation with SCOTUS, were vindicated, and the North responded by electing a Party to Presidential office with the promise to strangle the Southern economy. That is a threat of economic warfare, a political coup, and, with Lincoln's inaugural, a declaration of intention for invasion unless the newly passed Morrill Tariff be passed.

Even were the South tempted to abandon the secession, they couldn't with the Tariff now law.

[Revolutopia]

And the Democrats had effectively killed any tariff action in the past, something they would continue to have the right to do with their senators and representatives. The only reason it was able to pass was because of their own stupidity and leaving the Union instead of using their political clout to kill the bill. Nor was it taking their stuff, it was a completely legal action of implementing a tax that the South agreed to be the right for the Federal government to implement.

No one is arguing that point, whatsoever, Rev. Keep up.

Then why did you bring it up?

Never called DK racist, and Greed and Death proved DK's statement was wrong related to that case that they did not address the issue. Dred Scott had nothing to do with the Northern States violating their rights, instead the fact related to the issue that the Federal government cannot ban slavery in the territories. While, this was supported by the Northern States the issue the law overturned still was one that the Southern states had also approved before hand.

The point you seem to miss, Rev, is that the Constitution was clear, and SCOTUS declared the Northern States in the wrong about it. The South sought redress for perceived Constitutional violation with SCOTUS, were vindicated, and the North responded by electing a Party to Presidential office with the promise to strangle the Southern economy. That is a threat of economic warfare, a political coup, and, with Lincoln's inaugural, a declaration of intention for invasion unless the newly passed Morrill Tariff be passed.

Even were the South tempted to abandon the secession, they couldn't with the Tariff now law.

How did the SCOTUS say the Northern States were wrong on the issue that is not equally true for the South, who went along with the North in passing the law allowing the Feds to restrict slavery in the territories. Next, fun fact people have the right to vote for parties they believe best represent their interests or was the South also legally wrong to vote for a party that loose protectionism threatened the Northern economy? Tariffs are not economic warfare, there was no political coup besides a legitimate election, and Lincoln's inaugural had nothing to do with demanding Morrill be passed. Instead, Lincoln only told the nation that he was going to fulfill his constitutional duties in enforcing a legally passed law if the South used their influence to repeal/stop the tariff then Lincoln would have had no standing but that is not what happened.

Oh yeah, fun fact the South did not bring forth Dred Scott instead that was abolitionists, so that fails to be an example of the South bringing the North to court.

[Farnhamia]

And the Democrats had effectively killed any tariff action in the past, something they would continue to have the right to do with their senators and representatives. The only reason it was able to pass was because of their own stupidity and leaving the Union instead of using their political clout to kill the bill. Nor was it taking their stuff, it was a completely legal action of implementing a tax that the South agreed to be the right for the Federal government to implement.

No one is arguing that point, whatsoever, Rev. Keep up.

Never called DK racist, and Greed and Death proved DK's statement was wrong related to that case that they did not address the issue. Dred Scott had nothing to do with the Northern States violating their rights, instead the fact related to the issue that the Federal government cannot ban slavery in the territories. While, this was supported by the Northern States the issue the law overturned still was one that the Southern states had also approved before hand.

The point you seem to miss, Rev, is that the Constitution was clear, and SCOTUS declared the Northern States in the wrong about it. The South sought redress for perceived Constitutional violation with SCOTUS, were vindicated, and the North responded by electing a Party to Presidential office with the promise to strangle the Southern economy. That is a threat of economic warfare, a political coup, and, with Lincoln's inaugural, a declaration of intention for invasion unless the newly passed Morrill Tariff be passed.

Even were the South tempted to abandon the secession, they couldn't with the Tariff now law.

The Morrill Tariff bill did not pass until seven states pulled their Senators out of Congress, giving the Republicans the votes needed. Prior to that the bill was stuck in the Senate Finance Committee and was going nowhere. It's true that Lincoln said he would make the tariffs a priority in the up-coming Congress, the Senate was almost evenly split between Democrats and Republicans, so a simple filibuster would have prevented passage. That and Lemmon v. New York would probably have given the South everything it wanted. Instead, Southern leaders behaved like the hot-heads they were and tried their case on the battlefield.

[Grave_n_idle]

The Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union provide an argument as to why no right to secede exists - to trump that, you're going to have to provide something more than wishful thinking and theology.

We've addressed this time and again, GnI. It is this particular argument that holds the least water of all the Federalist Pro-Union arguments.

...not even worth quoting the post, since you're missing or denying the obvious - no matter how good you think this particular argument is... even if it's the worst argument ever... it's better than anything that's been bought to the table to contradict it.

[The Cat-Tribe]

It is bad enough that the ignorant, obstinate, and/or ideologically motivated feel the need to prop up a mummified equine and attempt to beat it across a "finish line" they have imagined in their own heads.

But the unmitigated gall, blind arrogance, and vehement stupidity with which they do so is beyond the pale.

I start with Dusk Kittens calling me a liar:

Nope. Decided in 1865, even if some people have a romantic notion that it hasn't been.

Horse hockey. Here's why: Argumentum ad Baculum ("Appeal to Force") is a fallacy.

Rational people do not "decide" a philosophical issue (yes, Politics is a branch of Philosophy, not this partisan soap opera that is misnamed "politics," but actual Political Philosophy, and the issue in question was the question of centralized vs. decentralized government, not slavery as is so often maintained, or, to put in in more familiar terms, the issue was "Federalism vs. Anti-Federalism") by resorting to violence. Your claim that the question was decided by military might is, therefore, illogical.

As for those appealing to "Texas vs. White," I suggest a more thorough reading. The decision of the Supreme Court in The State of Texas vs. White et al ... Well, let me just give a brief excerpt (and yes, it is indeed brief, believe it or not) of a much longer post I've been working on, in reply to certain pro-Federalist critics in two or more previous similar threads:

the relevant portion is here:

[spoiler]

It is needless to discuss, at length, the question whether the right of a State to withdraw from the Union for any cause, regarded by herself as sufficient, is consistent with the Constitution of the United States.

The Union of the States never was a purely artificial and [74 U.S. 700, 725] arbitrary relation. It began among the Colonies, and grew out of common origin, mutual sympathies, kindred principles, similar interests, and geographical relations. It was confirmed and strengthened by the necessities of war, and received definite form, and character, and sanction from the Articles of Confederation. By these the Union was solemnly declared to 'be perpetual.' And when these Articles were found to be inadequate to the exigencies of the country, the Constitution was ordained 'to form a more perfect Union.' It is difficult to convey the idea of indissoluble unity more clearly than by these words. What can be indissoluble if a perpetual Union, made more perfect, is not?

But the perpetuity and indissolubility of the Union, by no means implies the loss of distinct and individual existence, or of the right of self-government by the States. Under the Articles of Confederation each State retained its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right not expressly delegated to the United States. Under the Constitution, though the powers of the States were much restricted, still, all powers not delegated to the United States, nor prohibited to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. And we have already had occasion to remark at this term, that cthe people of each State compose a State, having its own government, and endowed with all the functions essential to separate and independent existence,' and that 'without the States in union, there could be no such political body as the United States.' 12 Not only, therefore, can there be no loss of separate and independent autonomy to the States, through their union under the Constitution, but it may be not unreasonably said that the preservation of the States, and the maintenance of their governments, are as much within the design and care of the Constitution as the preservation of the Union and the maintenance of the National government. The Constitution, in all its provisions, looks to an indestructible Union, composed of indestructible States. [74 U.S. 700, 726] When, therefore, Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation. All the obligations of perpetual union, and all the guaranties of republican government in the Union, attached at once to the State. The act which consummated her admission into the Union was something more than a compact; it was the incorporation of a new member into the political body. And it was final. 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.

Considered therefore as transactions under the Constitution, the ordinance of secession, adopted by the convention and ratified by a majority of the citizens of Texas, and all the acts of her legislature intended to give effect to that ordinance, were absolutely null. They were utterly without operation in law. The obligations of the State, as a member of the Union, and of every citizen of the State, as a citizen of the United States, remained perfect and unimpaired. It certainly follows that the State did not cease to be a State, nor her citizens to be citizens of the Union. If this were otherwise, the State must have become foreign, and her citizens foreigners. The war must have ceased to be a war for the suppression of rebellion, and must have become a war for conquest and subjugation.

Our conclusion therefore is, that Texas continued to be a State, and a State of the Union, notwithstanding the transactions to which we have referred. And this conclusion, in our judgment, is not in conflict with any act or declaration of any department of the National government, but entirely in accordance with the whole series of such acts and declarations since the first outbreak of the rebellion.

To begin, then, with the first bit of the above-quoted pontifications, we see the Supreme Court admitting that it is not going to consider at length whether a State's supposed right to secede is consistent with the Constitution:

It is needless to discuss, at length, the question whether the right of a State to withdraw from the Union for any cause, regarded by herself as sufficient, is consistent with the Constitution of the United States.

In short, then, the constitutionality of secession was, according to the statement of the Supreme Court just quoted again, not fully considered in this case. Thus, The Cat-Tribe's assertion here:

This is a flat lie. The legality of secession was addressed by SCOTUS several times and clearly settled, particularly in Texas v. White, 74 U.S. 700, 722, 724-727 (1869).

is entirely without foundation.

*snip*

In their failure to consider the meanings of these terms, the Supreme Court has failed to, as The Cat-Tribe put it, consider the legality of secession, much less clearly settle it. *snip*

1. DK conveniently clipped my post and clipped the link to the original post. What I said was:

As a matter of undeniable fact, there has been absolutely no attempt to settle this issue legally. Historically, politically, and culturally settled is not legally settled.

This is a flat lie. The legality of secession was addressed by SCOTUS several times and clearly settled, particularly in Texas v. White, 74 U.S. 700, 722, 724-727 (1869). See, e.g., White v. Cannon, 73 U.S. (6 Wall.) 443, 450 (1867) (Louisiana ordinance of secession was an absolute nullity); Taylor v. Thomas, 89 U.S. (22 Wall.) 479, 491 (1874) (issuance of treasury notes following Mississippis ordinance of secession void); White v. Hart, 80 U.S. (13 Wall.) 646, 651 (1871) (Georgia never [be] out of pale of Union); Daniels v. Tearney, 102 U.S. 415, 418 (1880) ("That the ordinance of secession was void is a proposition we need not discuss. The affirmative has been settled by the arbitrament of arms and the repeated adjudications of this court.").

Although there was 1 concurrence-in-part and dissent-in-part and 2 dissenters from the decision in Texas v. White, none of the 8 Justices then on the Court opined that Texas had a valid right to secede from the Union.

No subsequent case has ever questioned, let alone overturned, the decision or reasoning of the majority in Texas v. White. Other cases have, however, relied upon the holding in Texas v. White.

It is you that is chasing unicorns.

2. Even in it's clipped form, my statement was entirely true. "The legality of secession was addressed by SCOTUS several times and clearly settled, particularly in Texas v. White, 74 U.S. 700, 722, 724-727 (1869)" is a true statement -- whether or not DK agrees with SCOTUS's reasoning in Texas v. White or whether or not the Court discussed the issue "at length," the Court clearly reached a holding on the issue. Further, DK purposely ignored the "addressed . . . several times and clearly settled" part of my statement.

After posting some other material I'll return to DK's absurd quibbles against SCOTUS's ruling in Texas v. White.

[The Cat-Tribe]

1. Here is a non-exhaustive list of other cases in which SCOTUS held that secession was illegal:

Hickman v. Jones, 76 U.S. 197, 200 (1870):

The rebellion out of which the war grew was without any legal sanction. In the eye of the law, it had the same properties as if it had been the insurrection of a county or smaller municipal territory against the State to which it belonged. The proportions and duration of the struggle did not affect its character. Nor was there a rebel government de facto in such a sense as to give any legal efficacy to its acts. It was not recognized by the National, nor by any foreign government. It was not at any time in possession of the capital of the nation. It did not for a moment displace the rightful government. That government was always in existence, always in the regular discharge of its functions, and constantly exercising all its military power to put down the resistance to its authority in the insurrectionary States. The union of the States, for all the purposes of the Constitution, is as perfect and indissoluble as the union of the integral parts of the States themselves; and nothing but revolutionary violence can, in either case, destroy the ties which hold the parts together. For the sake of humanity, certain belligerent rights were conceded to the insurgents in arms. But the recognition did not extend to the pretended government of the Confederacy. The intercourse was confined to its military authorities. In no instance was there intercourse otherwise than of this character. The rebellion was simply an armed resistance to the rightful authority of the sovereign.

White v. Hart, 80 US 646, 650-51 (1872):

The National Constitution was, as its preamble recites, ordained and established by the people of the United States. It created not a confederacy of States, but a government of individuals. It assumed that the government and the Union which it created, and the States which were incorporated into the Union, would be indestructible and perpetual; and as far as human means could accomplish such a work, it intended to make them so. The government of the Nation and the government of the States are each alike absolute and independent of each other in their respective spheres of action; but the former is as much a part of the government of the people of each State, and as much entitled to their allegiance and obedience as their own local State governments — "the Constitution of the United States and the laws made in pursuance thereof," being in all cases where they apply, the supreme law of the land. For all the purposes of the National government, the people of the United States are an integral, and not a composite mass, and their unity and identity, in this view of the subject, are not affected by their segregation by State lines for the purposes of State government and local administration. Considered in this connection, the States are organisms for the performance of their appropriate functions in the vital system of the larger polity, of which, in this aspect of the subject, they form a part, and which would perish if they were all stricken from existence or ceased to perform their allotted work. The doctrine of secession is a doctrine of treason, and practical secession is practical treason, seeking to give itself triumph by revolutionary violence. The late rebellion was without any element of right or sanction of law. The duration and magnitude of the war did not change its character. In some respects it was not unlike the insurrection of a county or other municipal subdivision of territory against the State to which it belongs. In such cases the State has inherently the right to use all the means necessary to put down the resistance to its authority, and restore peace, order, and obedience to law. . . . At no time were the rebellious States out of the pale of the Union. Their rights under the Constitution were suspended, but not destroyed. Their constitutional duties and obligations were unaffected and remained the same. A citizen is still a citizen, though guilty of crime and visited with punishment. His political rights may be put in abeyance or forfeited. The result depends upon the rule, as defined in the law, of the sovereign against whom he has offended. If he lose his rights he escapes none of his disabilities and liabilities which before subsisted. Certainly he can have no new rights or immunities arising from his crime. These analogies of the county and the citizen are not inapplicable, by way of illustration, to the condition of the rebel States during their rebellion. The legislation of Congress shows that these were the views entertained by that department of the government.

Sprott v. United States, 87 U.S. 459, 465-466 (1874):

The government of the Confederate States can receive no aid from this course of reasoning. It had no existence, except as a conspiracy to overthrow lawful authority. Its foundation was treason against the existing Federal government. Its single purpose, so long as it lasted, was to make that treason successful. So far from being necessary to the organization of civil government, or to its maintenance and support, it was inimical to social order, destructive to the best interests of society, and its primary object was to overthrow the government on which these so largely depended. Its existence and temporary power were an enormous evil, which the whole force of the government and the people of the United States was engaged for years in destroying.

Dewing v. Perdicaries, 96 U.S. 193, 195 (1878):

Nothing is better settled in the jurisprudence of this court than that all acts done in aid of the rebellion were illegal and of no validity. The principle has become axiomatic. It would be a mere waste of time to linger upon the point for the purpose of discussing it. Texas v. White, 7 Wall. 700; Hickman v. Jones, 9 id. 197; Hanauer v. Doane, 12 id. 342; Knox v. Lee, id. 457; Hanauer v. Woodruff, 15 id. 439; Cornet v. Williams, 20 id. 226; Sprott v. United States, id. 459.

Daniels v. Tearney, 102 US 415, 418 (1880):

That the ordinance of secession was void is a proposition we need not discuss. The affirmative has been settled by the arbitrament of arms and the repeated adjudications of this court. Texas v. White, 7 Wall. 700; Hickman v. Jones, 9 id. 197; Dewing v. Perdicaries, 96 U.S. 193.

Knox v. Lee, 79 U.S. 457, 554-556 (1871) (Bradley, J., concurring):

The Constitution of the United States established a government, and not a league, compact, or partnership. It was constituted by the people. It is called a government. In the eighth section of Article I it is declared that Congress shall have power to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or office thereof. As a government it was invested with all the attributes of sovereignty. It is expressly declared in Article VI that the Constitution, and the laws of the United States made in pursuance thereof, and all treaties made under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land.

The doctrine so long contended for, that the Federal Union was a mere compact of States, and that the States, if they chose, might annul or disregard the acts of the National legislature, or might secede from the Union at their pleasure, and that the General government had no power to coerce them into submission to the Constitution, should be regarded as definitely and forever overthrown. This has been finally effected by the National power, as it had often been before, by overwhelming argument.

The United States is not only a government, but it is a National government, and the only government in this country that has the character of nationality. It is invested with power over all the foreign relations of the country, war, peace, and negotiations and intercourse with other nations; all which are forbidden to the State governments. It has jurisdiction over all those general subjects of legislation and sovereignty which affect the interests of the whole people equally and alike, and which require uniformity of regulations and laws, such as the coinage, weights and measures, bankruptcies, the postal system, patent and copyright laws, the public lands, and interstate commerce; all which subjects are expressly or impliedly prohibited to the State governments. It has power to suppress insurrections, as well as to repel invasions, and to organize, arm, discipline, and call into service the militia of the whole country. The President is charged with the duty and invested with the power to take care that the laws be faithfully executed. The judiciary has jurisdiction to decide controversies between the States, and between their respective citizens, as well as questions of National concern; and the government is clothed with power to guarantee to every State a republican form of government, and to protect each of them against invasion and domestic violence. For the purpose of carrying into effect and executing these and the other powers conferred, and of providing for the common defence and general welfare, Congress is further invested with the taxing power in all its forms, except that of laying duties on exports, with the power to borrow money on the National credit, to punish crimes against the laws of the United States and of nations, to constitute courts, and to make all laws necessary and proper for carrying into execution the various powers vested in the government or any department or officer thereof.

Hanauer v. Doane, 79 U.S. 342 (1871):

We have already decided, in the case of Texas v. White, that a contract made in aid of the late rebellion, or in furtherance and support thereof, is void. The same doctrine has been laid down in most of the circuits, and in many of the State courts, and must be regarded as the settled law of the land. . . . No crime is greater than treason. He who, being bound by his allegiance to a government, sells goods to the agent of an armed combination to overthrow that government, knowing that the purchaser buys them for that treasonable purpose, is himself guilty of treason or a misprision thereof. He voluntarily aids the treason. He cannot be permitted to stand on the nice metaphysical distinction that, although he knows that the purchaser buys the goods for the purpose of aiding the rebellion, he does not sell them for that purpose.

Hanauer v. Woodruff, 82 U.S. 439 (1873) (holding that war bonds issued by the secession ordinance of Alabama were invalid):

The first question presented is embraced within the second, for if the consideration of the note was illegal under the Constitution of the United States and the laws of Congress, there can be no inquiry whether it was void for reasons of public policy. There can be no public policy in this country which contravenes the law of the land. And that the consideration was illegal and void under the Constitution and laws of the United States, does not admit of a doubt. If the Constitution be, as it declares on its face it is, the supreme law of the land, a contract or undertaking of any kind to destroy or impair its supremacy, or to aid or encourage any attempt to that end, must necessarily be unlawful, and can never be treated in a court sitting under that Constitution and exercising authority by virtue of its provisions, as a meritorious consideration for the promise of any one. The obligations of a traitorous combination, issued expressly to make war against and overthrow the government of the United States, can never give validity to any transaction which must seek the courts of that government for enforcement.

Keith v. Clark, 97 U.S. 454 (1878)

The political society which in 1796 became a State of the Union, by the name of the State of Tennessee, is the same which is now represented as one of those States in the Congress of the United States. Not only is it the same body politic now, but it has always been the same. There has been perpetual succession and perpetual identity. There has from that time always been a State of Tennessee, and the same State of Tennessee. Its executive, its legislative, its judicial departments have continued without interruption and in regular order. It has changed, modified, and reconstructed its organic law, or State Constitution, more than once. It has done this before the rebellion, during the rebellion, and since the rebellion. And it was always done by the collective authority and in the name of the same body of people constituting the political society known as the State of Tennessee.

This political body has not only been all this time a State, and the same State, but it has always been one of the United States, — a State of the Union. Under the Constitution of the United States, by virtue of which Tennessee was born into the family of States, she had no lawful power to depart from that Union. The effort which she made to do so, if it had been successful, would have been so in spite of the Constitution, by reason of that force which in many other instances establishes for itself a status, which must be recognized as a fact, without reference to any question of right, and which in this case would have been, to the extent of its success, a destruction of that Constitution. Failing to do this, the State remained a State of the Union. She never escaped the obligations of that Constitution, though for a while she may have evaded their enforcement.

Poindexter v. Greenhow, 114 U.S. 270 (1885):

It was upon the ground of this important distinction that this court proceeded in the case of Texas v. White, 7 Wall. 700, when it adjudged that the acts of secession, which constituted the civil war of 1861, were the unlawful acts of usurping State governments, and not the acts of the States themselves, inasmuch as "the Constitution, in all its provisions, looks to an indestructible Union, composed of indestructible States;" and that, consequently, the war itself was not a war between the States, nor a war of the United States against States, but a war of the United States against unlawful and usurping governments, representing not the States, but a rebellion against the United States. This is, in substance, what was said by Chief Justice Chase, delivering the opinion of the court in Thorington v. Smith, 8 Wall. 1, 9, when he declared, speaking of the Confederate government, that "it was regarded as simply the military representative of the insurrection against the authority of the United States." The same distinction was declared and enforced in Williams v. Bruffy, 96 U.S. 176, 192, and in Horn v. Lockhart, 17 Wall. 570, both of which were referred to and approved in Keith v. Clark, 97 U.S. 454, 465.

2. Here is a non-exhaustive list of other cases that have relied upon Texas v. White's holding regarding the indestructibility of the Union:
Northwest Austin Mun. Utility Dist. v. Holder, 129 S. Ct. 2504 (2009) (mere citation)
New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144, 162 (1992) ("'The Constitution, in all its provisions, looks to an indestructible Union, composed of indestructible States.' Texas v. White, 7 Wall. 700, 725 (1869)."
Gregory v. Ashcroft, 501 U.S. 452, 457 (1991) ("'The Constitution, in all its provisions, looks to an indestructible Union, composed of indestructible States.' Texas v. White, 7 Wall. 700, 725 (1869), quoting Lane County v. Oregon, 7 Wall. 71, 76 (1869).")
Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397, 423-424 (1989) (Rehnquist, c.J., dissenting) ("The American flag played a central role in our Nation's most tragic conflict, when the North fought against the South. The lowering of the American flag at Fort Sumter was viewed as the start of the war. G. Preble, History of the Flag of the United States of America 453 (1880). The Southern States, to formalize their separation from the Union, adopted the 'Stars and Bars' of the Confederacy. The Union troops marched to the sound of 'Yes We'll Rally Round The Flag Boys, We'll Rally Once Again.' President Abraham Lincoln refused proposals to remove from the American flag the stars representing the rebel States, because he considered the conflict not a war between two nations but an attack by 11 States against the National Government. Id., at 411. By war's end, the American flag again flew over 'an indestructible union, composed of indestructible states.' Texas v. White, 7 Wall. 700, 725 (1869).")
National League of Cities v. Usery, 426 U.S. 833, 844 (1976) ("Mr. Chief Justice Chase, perhaps because of the particular time at which he occupied that office, had occasion more than once to speak for the Court on this point. In Texas v. White, 7 Wall. 700, 725 (1869), he declared that "[t]he Constitution, in all its provisions, looks to an indestructible Union, composed of indestructible States.'")
United States v. Florida, 363 U.S. 121, 131-132 (1960) ( Frankfurter, J., concurring) ("It was in aid of that process that this Court formulated the doctrine expressed in the famous sentence in Texas v. White: 'The Constitution, in all its provisions, looks to an indestructible Union, composed of indestructible States.' 7 Wall. 700, 725.")
Coyle v. Smith, 221 U.S. 559, 580 (1911) ("In Texas v. White, 7 Wall. 700, 725, Chief Justice Chase said in strong and memorable language that, 'the Constitution, in all of its provisions looks to an indestructible Union, composed of indestructible States.'")
Merritt v. Jones, 533 SW 2d 497, 502 (Ark. 1976) ("[T]he [U.S.] Supreme Court has ruled that the Confederate states were never out of the Union and, hence, there was no necessity for readmission. State of Texas v. White, 7 Wall. 700, 74 U.S. 700, 19 L.Ed. 227.")
Dyett v. Turner, 439 P. 2d 266 (Utah, 1968) ("[W]hether the Union was indissoluble and whether any state could secede or withdraw therefrom . . . was settled first on the field of battle by force of arms, and second by the pronouncement of the highest court of the land [by] the case of State of Texas v. White, 7 Wall. 700, 19 L.Ed. 227.")
Hoff v. Nueces County, 153 SW 3d 45, 48 (Tex. 2004) ("This aspect of federalism is evident in the structure of the Constitution which 'in all its provisions, looks to an indestructible Union, composed of indestructible States.' Texas v. White, 74 U.S. (7 Wall.) 700, 725, 19 L.Ed. 227 (1869).")

[The Cat-Tribe]

1. Despite obfuscation by some, the Articles of Confederation very clearly forbade secession:

XIII.Every State shall abide by the determination of the United States in Congress assembled, on all questions which by this confederation are submitted to them. And the Articles of this Confederation shall be inviolably observed by every State, and the Union shall be perpetual; nor shall any alteration at any time hereafter be made in any of them; unless such alteration be agreed to in a Congress of the United States, and be afterwards confirmed by the legislatures of every State.

2. No argument whatsover (logical or otherwise) has been given for why we (or SCOTUS) should accept that the Founders replaced the Confederation created by the Articles -- from which secession was forbidden -- with a Federal Republic under the Constitution in which the States were less bound together.

3. Here are, independent of Texas v. White, provisions of the U.S. Constitution that can be said to forbid secession (or at least are evidence against the ability of at state to secede):

Preamble

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Article 1

Section 8.

The Congress shall have Power ...
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
...

Section 10.

No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing its inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress.

No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.

Article IV

Section 1.

Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

Section 2.

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
....

Section 3.

New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.¹
....

Section 4.

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.

Article VI

...
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any state to the Contrary notwithstanding.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

Amendment XIV

Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
...

¹
Although not specifically expressed in this provision, this section of the Constitution has been held to require the Doctrine of Equality of the States: ''Equality of constitutional right and power is the condition of all the States of the Union, old and new.'' Escanaba Co. v. Chicago, 107 U.S. 678, 689 (1883). Thus, a new State enters the Union on an equal footing with the original States in all respects. See, e.g., Mayor of New Orleans v. United States, 35 U.S. (10 Pet.) 662 (1836); Pollard's Lessee v. Hagan, 44 U.S. (3 How.) 212 (1845); Permoli v. First Municipality, 44 U.S. (3 How.) 589, 609 (1845); McCabe v. Atchison, T. & S.F. Ry Co., 235 U.S. 151 (1914); Illinois Central Railroad v. Illinois, 146 U.S. 387, 434 (1892); Knight v. U.S. Land Association, 142 U.S. 161, 183 (1891); Weber v. Harbor Commissioners, 85 U.S. (18 Wall.) 57, 65 (1873); Coyle v. Smith, 221 U.S. 559 (1911); United States v. Texas, 339 U.S. 707, 716 (1950); Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 226 n. 53 (1962); South Carolina v. Katzenbach, 383 U.S. 301, 328 -329 (1966).