AH Challenge- Actual U.S Civil War

It had nothing to do with the New Hampshire constitution
I just brought up New Hampshire because their constitution actually says they can secede, the only state constitution to do so (although this was more likely a "Screw You" gesture towards the Federal government, rather than a serious threat).
 
I just brought up New Hampshire because their constitution actually says they can secede, the only state constitution to do so (although this was more likely a "Screw You" gesture towards the Federal government, rather than a serious threat).

There is actually not anything to be said. That particular clause of the New Hampshire Constitution (and similar ones in various legal documents of a few Southern States) is null and void. Depending on your interpretation of how Supreme Court decisions work, they could have always been null and void. This is due to the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution (Article VI, paragraph 2) which determines that when State and Federal Law (and Constitutions) conflict, it is the Federal that holds. As secession is unconstitutional Federally, it is so for all the states, and thus no law, legal document, or state constitution that gives a right of secession has any legal weight. Thanks to the Supremacy Clause, it is not necessary for the Federal government or Supreme Court to actually strike down the provision, since it is already null.
 
There is actually not anything to be said. That particular clause of the New Hampshire Constitution (and similar ones in various legal documents of a few Southern States) is null and void. Depending on your interpretation of how Supreme Court decisions work, they could have always been null and void. This is due to the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution (Article VI, paragraph 2) which determines that when State and Federal Law (and Constitutions) conflict, it is the Federal that holds. As secession is unconstitutional Federally, it is so for all the states, and thus no law, legal document, or state constitution that gives a right of secession has any legal weight. Thanks to the Supremacy Clause, it is not necessary for the Federal government or Supreme Court to actually strike down the provision, since it is already null.

Logically, however, either the States or the People do have the right to secede given the Tenth Amendment.

Is 'control of a central government' the definition of a civil war, or is it 'violent difference within the population as a whole'?

Anyway, the Southrons weren't fighting for control of the U.S. government anymore than the Continental Army was after control of the British Empire.

Before the South seceded, a civil war was agreed by all to be a battle for control a government. "Violent different within the population" implies nationalism- the CSA had already seceded, so it doesn't apply anyway.

We agree on the Southern point and the Continental army point, so I won't rehash them.
 
There is actually not anything to be said. That particular clause of the New Hampshire Constitution (and similar ones in various legal documents of a few Southern States) is null and void. Depending on your interpretation of how Supreme Court decisions work, they could have always been null and void. This is due to the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution (Article VI, paragraph 2) which determines that when State and Federal Law (and Constitutions) conflict, it is the Federal that holds. As secession is unconstitutional Federally, it is so for all the states, and thus no law, legal document, or state constitution that gives a right of secession has any legal weight. Thanks to the Supremacy Clause, it is not necessary for the Federal government or Supreme Court to actually strike down the provision, since it is already null.

What provision of the Constitution states that secession is illegal?
 
What provision of the Constitution states that secession is illegal?

I was refering to current constitutional law, in which the Constitution, as interpreted by Texas v. White has determined secession to be unconstitutional Federally, and thus renders null and void any articles like the one in the New Hampshire constitution.

Now, I also think that secession was never legal (and thus Southern states that pointed to so called escape clauses back in the 1860s had no argument), but I feel that debating it in this thread is not really meaningful. I've already done so in several others.
 
Can a Contract be backed out of at any time by any party if the contract doesn't explicitly say they can? It was my understanding that they could not. And the USA is a Contract with the States as parties.
 
I was refering to current constitutional law, in which the Constitution, as interpreted by Texas v. White has determined secession to be unconstitutional Federally, and thus renders null and void any articles like the one in the New Hampshire constitution.

Now, I also think that secession was never legal (and thus Southern states that pointed to so called escape clauses back in the 1860s had no argument), but I feel that debating it in this thread is not really meaningful. I've already done so in several others.

If secession was legal in the original Constitution, nothing the judges said would change that. Either they interpret it rightly, or wrongly (although some argue that the Courts are most likely to interpret it rightly- if you believe that, I'll give the coutnerarguement). There are several ways of interpreting law, but none defines a statement's meaning by how people interpret them.

As for your arguments of it never being legal, maybe you could PM me your arguments then? I haven't heard them.

Can a Contract be backed out of at any time by any party if the contract doesn't explicitly say they can? It was my understanding that they could not. And the USA is a Contract with the States as parties.

Yes, but the Constitution also provided for amendment. The Tenth Amendment logically implies secession is legal for somebody.
 
This thread has wandered WAYYY off-subject.:rolleyes:

And to bring it back- my two cents is that the best chance for an ACTUAL Civil War would have been some time in the year 1800 due to it being the first transition of power in the history of the US.

Maybe Adams decides not to hand over the reigns so easily (unlikely, I don't think it was in Adams' character), maybe Adams wins (plausible- if the state of Maryland's assembly had stayed Federalist in the election just before 1800, they planned on going to the state legislature elects the presidential electors system, and thus, instead of a 5-5 tie, it becomes a 10-0 win for Adams, or a swing of 10 electors, meaning the final tally becomes 70-68 Adams. or numerous other examples.) and Jefferson decides that a new revolution is needed, (Again unlikely though considering Jefferson didn't wage war in 1796.) maybe Hamilton doesn't interfere and Burr and Jefferson end up in a Civil War against each other, or maybe Adams declares that due to the deadlock in the Senate caused by Hamilton not interfering, he is going to continue as President, which causes people to view him as a monarch and causes a war between Adams' supporters and Jefferson-Burr's supporters (unlikely because Hamilton would have rallied folks to vote for Jefferson then- he hated Adams at that point).

So I think those are the possibilities
1. Adams v Jefferson in a Jefferson win
2. Jefferson v Adams in an Adams win
3. Jefferson v Burr in a deadlocked Senate
4. Adams v Jefferson (v Burr) in a deadlocked Senate where Adams holds on to power.

And I think option 3 is more likely, just need a why for Hamilton not interfering. Also it's more exciting as it's the same party that has split and that has become different sides in the Civil War.

The other possibility is Jackson declaring war after 1824, but I think that's a 50-50 split between him seceding and forming a new country, and marching on Washington DC to seize the White House since he had the most electoral votes as well as the popular vote. While Jackson doing something hot-headed is a little boring, they are both of the same party, and if Jackson succeeds in his Civil War, I could then see New England seceeding from the Jacksonian America, with Adams as the President.
 
And to bring it back- my two cents is that the best chance for an ACTUAL Civil War would have been some time in the year 1800 due to it being the first transition of power in the history of the US.

Maybe Adams decides not to hand over the reigns so easily (unlikely, I don't think it was in Adams' character), maybe Adams wins (plausible- if the state of Maryland's assembly had stayed Federalist in the election just before 1800, they planned on going to the state legislature elects the presidential electors system, and thus, instead of a 5-5 tie, it becomes a 10-0 win for Adams, or a swing of 10 electors, meaning the final tally becomes 70-68 Adams. or numerous other examples.) and Jefferson decides that a new revolution is needed, (Again unlikely though considering Jefferson didn't wage war in 1796.) maybe Hamilton doesn't interfere and Burr and Jefferson end up in a Civil War against each other, or maybe Adams declares that due to the deadlock in the Senate caused by Hamilton not interfering, he is going to continue as President, which causes people to view him as a monarch and causes a war between Adams' supporters and Jefferson-Burr's supporters (unlikely because Hamilton would have rallied folks to vote for Jefferson then- he hated Adams at that point).

So I think those are the possibilities
1. Adams v Jefferson in a Jefferson win
2. Jefferson v Adams in an Adams win
3. Jefferson v Burr in a deadlocked Senate
4. Adams v Jefferson (v Burr) in a deadlocked Senate where Adams holds on to power.

And I think option 3 is more likely, just need a why for Hamilton not interfering. Also it's more exciting as it's the same party that has split and that has become different sides in the Civil War.

The other possibility is Jackson declaring war after 1824, but I think that's a 50-50 split between him seceding and forming a new country, and marching on Washington DC to seize the White House since he had the most electoral votes as well as the popular vote. While Jackson doing something hot-headed is a little boring, they are both of the same party, and if Jackson succeeds in his Civil War, I could then see New England seceeding from the Jacksonian America, with Adams as the President.

Myself, I consider Jackson to be a more llikely choice (various reasons for the other ones being unlikely are as you have listed). It is somewhat boring, but what the consequences be if his desire not to "break the unity of a nation" (extract from a Jackson quote) lead him to do that?
 
Top