Was the South justified in firing on Ft Sumpter

Cool, this could be interesting

Looking forward to your argument to that effect.

Agreed so far.

Actually, the original Constitution did no such thing. These are found in the Amendments to the Constitution not the body of the Constitution itself. In fact, there was considerable disagreement over whether to include these amendments or not as some (Madison for one) felt that explicitly specifying rights which already existed as a matter of naturae would tend to degrade those rights in the long run. However, since several states placed an explicit bill of rights as condition to joining, it was promised that they would be included.

Yes, both views existed side by side. In fact, several from both parties argued that the Constitution was in fact a consolidated government and not a government of the states. A notable example from the Anti-federalist side was Patrick Henry.

So to say 'this is what the Founders believed' is misleading as the Founders were split on the issue. There was no clear consensus either way. In the end, very few actually asserted that the states were party to the Constitution - some anti-federalists did and some didn't, most federalists argued pragmatically and simply avoided addressing the issue (notice that the Federalist Papers never address the issue at all). The best that can be said is that some thought one way, and some another and still more simply didn't care because of the pragmatic issues at stake.

And many claimed the opposite. Hence, one must examine the actual document in question and examine what exactly was formed.

As to Washington, thats a new one for me. Do you have a quote with respective source?

That the states powers/rights were recognized does not at all argue for their being parties to the Constitution. In fact, the fact that the Constitution required that the states form Constitutional conventions and did NOT leave the ratification of the Constitution to the state legislatures argues strongly that the states were not the parties to the Constution. The people may have joined state by state, and the states may have retained their own identities, but this does mean that the states were the actual parties to the Constitution, merely that they retained their identitied within the Constitution.

Again, the preamble makes clear who the parties are to the Constitution. It is the People as a whole (who joined state by state...which couldn't have been otherwise since the state retained its own individual sovereignty up till the point it ratified the Constitution.

Actually, the Bill of Rights does not guarentee any rights at all to the states. It guarentees rights to the People, but none to the state. Instead, the Tenth guarentees powers to the states not reserved by the Constitution. A very important distinction to keep in mind.

Secondly, this guarentee of powers does nothing to argue that the states were parties to the Constitution - it merely affirms their individual identities within the Constitution. It is not the states which confered power to the states (recognized by the fact that it was not the state legislatures who ratified it) but the people as a whole (even though they did join state by state).

But none of this really addresses my original point. The article claims that the states joined with the knowledge they could leave again. This knowledge is nowhere present in the Constitution. Since it was the people who were party to the Constitution, the states could not individually dissolve the bond. Sure, the people within the states retained the natural right to rebell against tryranny, but this is a natural right, not a Constitutional one.

I do not argue that the states had *no* right to secede, merely that this right was not a matter of law, but of nature. But resorting to natural right when no legal right existed, they automatically threw themselves in a situation where their claims to independence *had* to be contested by a properly constituted legal body. Their secession being outside of legal bounds, it was inevitable that it would be contested by force of arms...ESPECIALLY since they showed their preemptive willingness to contest *legal* actions by force of arms.

Because of this questions of conspiracy (which existed more in their minds than in actual fact) by the Federal Government are largely moot. The Federal government had a legal right to dispose of their forces and ceded property as they saw fit. Without actual (rather than suspected) evidence that the Fed government sought to abuse this legal right, the South had no right by any known law, other than that of war, to fire on Ft. Sumter.

 

Hello dwmoeller1,
Sorry so slow in replying, just very busy.

First, I am not in total disagreement with you. I simply took issue with your statement that the States are not party to the Constitution. This is a completely erroneous assertion and quite honestly nothing to debate. You could not convince me otherwise as nor could you the State and Federal governments, for that matter.

Whether the South was right or wrong in the Civil War is debatable. It is debatable because there is much more to it, including events which lead up to it, than what is simply taught in School. I think my comment on the OP was that it was “interesting and informative”.




In Regards to the Former:

Again your last sentence is grossly mistaken and the Preamble opens as "We the People of the United States...." It doesn’t say “We the People of America”. The emphasis was on the People, their respective States, and then the Federal Gov. Though in the modern era it seems they get it back wards.

Yes the Constitution, which formed our new Government, was written for the People by the People; but not at the exclusion of their States! Delegates were sent from the various States in order to forge the new Constitution and then ratify it. This took a majority of States to do so and was voluntary. A referendum was not submitted directly to the People of America in forming or ratifying the Constitution. This was done through their respective Representatives.

James Madison, who is the father of the Constitution, stated the new Constitution would be subject to ratification by “the People” stating "not as individuals composing one entire nation, but as composing the distinct and independent States to which they respectively belong." Federalist Paper 39.


The following is unnecessary but does offer some points on these various subjects. http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL30315.pdf
Congressional Research Service/Library of Congress, “Federalism, State Sovereignty, and the Constitution…The ratification of the Constitution was, to a significant extent, a defining of the lines of authority between the state and federal governments................." . Now try to convince the State and Federal Gov., that the States are not party to the Constitution.

This is another completely false notion. My statement that the Bill of Rights was a guarantee of Rights to the People and the States, against the Federal Gov. is factual. Such is noted and partly explained in the above CRS document. In addition, the Bill or Rights is part of the Constitution. It is an intricate part of the Constitution. After all it is the Amendments or modifications to the Constitution. Yes, some Founders argued against or saw no reason in having to add individual rights as such. However, another great concern with the new Constitution was there was no mention of State sovereignty, which the Articles of Confederation contained. Therefore the addition of the Bill of Rights also helped address this for some. Had not the sovereign nature of the States been recognized or better stated, had the Constitution completely abolished such; the Constitution would have never been written much less ratified.

Again Amendment II “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed”. This is a guarantee to the People to keep and bear arms. In addition it is a guarantee to the States, people thereof, in having the right to raise a militia. The importance of this, or one, is that it acted against any possible monarchy arising. After all, an armed Populace with States rights is more secure against such, than an un-armed populace with no State recognition/sovereignty.
Do note the Federal Gov. was already compelled to “..insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, ..” as stated in the Preamble to the Constitution. Amendment II was directly a Right of the People and the State’s.

Again Amendment X “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.” This is a powerful Amendment and pretty much says it all in these regards. There is no getting around it, but the CRS article does note the historical power struggle between the States and Federal Gov.
In Federalist Paper 45, Madison states "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."





In Regards to the Later:
It may be difficult to know exactly how the Founders would have fallen in regards to the Civil War. I think had it been a small uprising the question would be clearer, but with a significant number of States and population seeking change? Jefferson stated in regards to the New England Federalist uprising, “If any state in the Union will declare that it prefers separation…to a continuance in the Union… I have no hesitation in saying, ‘Let us separate.”

The Virginia ratification Delegates stated “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.”

Our Founders stated in The Declaration of Independence “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights…….to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles….as to them shall most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness…”

Obviously the Southern States felt they had become unfairly represented, burdened and suppressed in many instances. It is possible, even today; that it was not to the standard the Founders had sought. Again, I am glad the Union was spared though. It is the greatest Nation and the Constitution is one of the greatest documents conceived by man and I think inspired by God.

But to ask a question. What if Hawaii today decided to split from the Union? What in the Constitution would compel it to stay in the Union as its admission was voluntary?



Take care and have a great week. God Bless!:jesus:

 

Interesting thread; another interesting question for me is "would there still have been a civil war if SC hadn't fired on Ft Sumter?" After all, this was before Virginia had seceded and Lincoln had called for volunteers, both of which flowed from the events of April 12-14 1861. Any opinions on this one?