Which may explain the American Civil War. Remember the 3/5s compromise, slaves not allowed the vote, etc.? There was an ideological rift from the start; they could compromise then, but not 75 years later.
woah there. The 14th amendment has been used to apply the Bill of Rights to the states. Does this not signify a drastic change in favor of the federal government? I don’t mean to sidetrack here but you’re way off.
Or you might say it signifies a drastic change in favor of the individual rights of the people, as against governments local, state, and federal.
They were already protected from the federal government. Either way it gives the federal government more power over the states.
Let’s flesh this scenario out a bit, shall we?
If the Cuban government told the U.S. government, " We consider your occupation of Guantanamo Bay to be compromising our sovereignty. We wish you to vacate. Any attempts to supply will be met with force."
Then the U.S. government attempts to supply Gitmo. According to your “logic” the Cubans wouldn’t be justified in attacking Gitmo. They would be starting a war. Is that a correct assessment of your opinion?
I can’t speak for Steve MB but–of course the Cubans would be starting a war. I mean, we aren’t at war with Cuba–relations between the two countries are (to put it mildly) not great, but we aren’t actually shooting at each other–so if they started shooting at us, boom! They started a war!
(Strictly speaking, the two statements “the Cubans wouldn’t be justified in attacking Gitmo” and “They would be starting a war” are distinct. Traditionally one could argue that a country is starting a war, but that they are justified in doing so. Modern international law tends to presume that self-defense is the only proper justification for waging war, and thus no law-abiding country should ever start a war. But that wasn’t necessarily how people thought in 1861.)
- It wasn’t foreign territory
- It wasn’t a hostile action
- Shelling a fort and starting a war isn’t a defensive action, it’s an offensive one.
The kind of convoluted logic needed to claim that the North started the war is as bad as that used to claim Britain started World War 2. Britain guaranteed Poland’s independence. Germany felt that Danzig belonged to them. Poland’s refusal to give up the city forced Hitler to invade Poland, thus Britain started WW2.*
*I didn’t make this up; it’s the actual belief and logic of Pat Buchannan.
The Cubans of 2012 or the traitors of 1861 can fart any wordlike noises out of their mouths they like, but that doesn’t change the fact that the place is US Government property. Ergo, their utterance or non-utterance of insane illogic doesn’t change the fact that the attack is unjustified aggression.
Cuba is an independent, sovereign nation. The CSA never was nor ever will be. Traitors they remain.
I declare my house, with it’s lands, a sovreign nation. I print some money, pass some laws, etc.
A meter reader attempts to come into my nation and I am forced to shoot him.
According to some posters logic here, it seems I am fully justified in doing so, and also that my nation (I’m thinking Tristania) is as legit as the US itself.
Well, you and your house aren’t a state, and, according to some (Jefferson Davis writes about this) the states are the basic units of sovereignty. The states created the Constitution, etc.
So, no, a city (or part of a state) can’t secede from the state (according to this logic; I want to say, up front, I don’t agree with it!) But a state may secede from any collection of states, abrogate any treaty that obliges it, etc.
I think the Confederacy was chock full of poop, but, to be scrupulously fair, your analogy isn’t completely apt. You, representing your house, never were recognized as part of the U.S.A. to begin with.
(Meanwhile, I break into your kitchen and sub-secede from your house-nation. “Kitchenonia” is now at war with “Tristan’s House.” Figure Great Britain will recognize me?)
Your sovereign nation gets unjustly invaded and conquered by the local S.W.A.T. team. Tristania thus fails the basic test of sovereignty: the ability to defend itself.
And what authority did Davis possess to make any claims? He wasn’t the governor of a state so he didn’t represent any sovereign power.
Bingo. And the CSA failed the exact same test. In essence, that is the acid test of a nation-state. Anyone can declare themselves a nation, but can they make it stick? Either through their own means, or through political maneuvers, or other means.
In my upper example, I fail. Like the CSA. Sucks to be me, and I have learned my lesson. Luckily, as my nation wasn’t built on slavery, reconstruction shouldn’t be an issue. 
example #2: Quebec has tried to separate itself a few times. It has tried to do so via legal means, at the ballot box. It has not succeeded, and it seems the desire to do so has settled down.
example #3 South Sudan broke away from Sudan, and after a long and bloody civil war, managed to get legal recognition from nations and org’s (the UN) that can make it stick.
example #4 : South Ossetia has tried to break away from Georgia and succeeded through the military intervention of the Russian Federation. While legally questionable, it cannot be denied that right now, South Ossetia is functioning as a separate and independent nation from Georgia. They may remain so, or they may become part of Russia. If that is voluntary, then no problem, but if being absorbed by Russia is done via force of arms, then South Ossetia fails the test. (note: I expect option 2, within the next 10 years or so).
Four men ran for president in 1860. Abraham Lincoln only won 39.8 percent of the vote. He ran on a platform of opposing the extension of slavery to free slaves and the territories, but he also said that he was opposed to freeing the slaves in slave states. Even if he wanted to free the slaves, with less than 40 percent of the vote he lacked the power to do so.
Under the circumstances the South was foolish to secede. If calmer heads had prevailed slave owners would have been able to keep their “peculiar institution” until or unless they decided to free the slaves on their own.
Or until they pushed the North too far and were finally told “No,” and wound up seceding and starting a war. By 1860 the situation was probably untenetable since the South was evidently not satisfied with the existing compromises and the Fugutive Slave Act.
In a number of his speeches Lincoln warned about the possibility of “a second Dred Scott decision.” This would have been a Supreme Court decision overturning state laws against slavery. Many who voted for Lincoln opposed the legalization of slavery in their states because they wanted to keep blacks out of their states. These same voters for that same reason did not want to outlaw slavery where it was legal.
I’m sure there were voters in the North as well as the South who wanted to keep things as they were, but I doubt they could have stayed that way very long no matter how much they might have wanted it to. The future CSA wanted more and more assurances that slavery would be protected, and their demands seemed to be increasing because economic and demographic factors were working against them.
IIRC, the slave states refused to even allow Lincoln’s name on their ballots; thus, although it took the split vote mentioned above, Lincoln became president on a platform of limiting (and hoping for the eventual abolition of) slavery despite that fact that not one single southern man voted for him. That that could happen was the immediate cause of the break.
??? Only the governor of a state can state an opinion regarding constitutional law?
Hey, everyone: we all have to drop out of the SDMB now! Only governors can post opinions!
More seriously, Jefferson Davis was writing this in his memoirs, and was stating his opinion on the constitutionality of the secession. He holds that the states are the “atoms” of sovereignty. I thought it was relevant (“goes to state of mind.”)