Via Horace
VERBATIM
In response to the article involving the constitutionality of secession, a
few other points to consider to perhaps gain a clearer view of the
secession situation. Understanding the individual states sovereignty in
relation to the United states government is crucial.
1. Abraham Lincoln claimed that the Union preceded the states which
gave the Federal government authority over the states. This view
is incorrect as the original 13 colonies adopted the Articles of
Confederation in which each state retained its freedom, independence,
and sovereignty. Each state delegated a portion of its sovereignty to
the Union, thereby making the Union a creature of the state, not the
other way around. Further each state was by name acknowledged as free,
independent, and sovereign in the Treaty of Paris in 1783.
2. Sovereignty is indivisible. A portion of a states authority, or
power may be delegated as is seen in the 9th and 10th amendments to the
Constitution. But the sovereign state retains the right to recall its
authority otherwise it is no longer sovereign. "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."- 10th amendment. In Chisholm v. Georgia (1793) the court found
"To the Constitution of the United States the term sovereign, is totally
unknown. There is but one place where it could have been used with
propriety. But, even in that place it would not, perhaps, have
comported with the delicacy of those, who ordained and established that
Constitution. They might have announced themselves "sovereign" people
of the United States: But serenely conscious of the fact, they avoided
the ostentatious declaration....Let a State be considered as subordinate
to the People: But let every thing else be subordinate to the State".-
Chisolm v. Georgia, 2 US 419
3. Shortly after the ratification of the Constitution, the federal
government began its encroachment upon the states. With the passage of
the Sedition Act in 1798, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, (creator
of the Virginia plan which evolved into the Constitution), were asked by
the state of Kentucky and Virginia to author the "Kentucky and
Virginia Resolves of 1798" which nullified the enforcement of the
Sedition Act within their states. All three branches of the Federal
government had conspired against the people of the states in violating
their right to freedom of speech and press. The sovereign authority of
the states of Kentucky and Virginia interposed between the citizens of
these states and the Federal government.
4. For those states which were admitted into the Union who were not
participants in the ratification, the equal footing doctrine would apply
basically stating that all states shared the same powers and
sovereignty as the original thirteen. See: Pollard v. Hagan, and
Permoli v. First Municipality of New Orleans.
5. This now brings us to Texas v. White. This case was decided on a
5-3 vote. The 5 who voted as a majority were Lincoln appointees. One
of the three dissenters Justice Robert Cooper Grier, an appointee to the
court by President Polk in 1846, called Chief Justice Chases opinion a
"legal fiction" as he considered Texas to not be a state in the union at
the time this case was being decided. Further Chief Justice Chase
should have recused himself from this case do to himself being involved
in the case in 1862 as secretary of the treasury. There are many more
details involved in this case in which one who is interested in further
details should consult John Avery Emison, Ph.D. book called
Lincoln Über Alles: Dictatorship Comes to America.
In conclusion, as one searches out the true history of the formation
of our Federal government through the eyes of the anti-federalists who
foretold with incredible accuracy the results of adopting this contract
known as the Constitution with its inherent flaws, one of which would be
a supreme court which could interpret its own actions and laws within
itself. A court which eventually saw its actions as sovereign having no
higher authority to hold them in check. Is it any wonder that we
should have such absurd decisions as that found in Texas v. White, which
become the foundation for the premise of secession as being
unconstitutional or at the very least, the supreme court being accepted
as having jurisdiction in this area which has not been delegated to them
by the states? I would think that we have been swindled into the
notion of thinking of secession as a "rebellion" and should rather view
it as a God given right which is protected under the 9th and 10th
amendment to our Constitution. In contrast the terms and
phraseology used to characterize the actions of the Federal government
over the past 150 years I'll leave for the reader to decide. - C.L. from
Montana
