Not the only reason given, but since its the only one you know...
They had their own elected parliaments, established by royal charter.
The Virginia House of Burgesses is perhaps the most famous of these, but each of the Thirteen Colonies had its own General Assembly. Their government represented a microcosm of the English system: the Governor represented the Crown, his Council played the role of the House of Lords, and the elected Assembly took the place of the House of Commons.
The colonial assemblies had the same powers as the Parliament in Great Britain: they could raise taxes, pass laws, and regulate the militia. The governor could veto the colony's laws - just as, the king could veto Parliament's laws - but since the assembly controlled the colony's budget, it had the advantage in any political struggle.
The Westminster Parliament wanted to raise taxes from the American colonies. It believed this was justified by the cost of defending them from the French and others — an expense to which the colonists should, it was felt, contribute. The colonists were reluctant to pay out, especially since they felt that the British government engaged in extravagant foreign wars which were not in their own interests.
The Crown as soveriegn had the constitutional right* in extremis, ie in time of warn for example to overide the colonies veto by Royal perogative, which is did, but Parliment could overturn this, Townshend Acts were repealed for the colonies in 1770 by F North.
* In 1764-75, the average total taxation levied on the 2 million American colonists was £100,000 per year. In Britain, the 8.5 million inhabitants paid £10.7 million in taxes over the same period. In other words, people in Britain paid 25 times more taxes, per capita, than those in America.
(RABUSHKA, Alvin. Taxation in Colonial America. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2008.)
Second since secession was undertaken by the first wave in 1861 was in response to the government declared intention to prevent any Terr or State from being a slave state, they refer to being in the same posistion as when under the Crowns soveignty an unfairly taxed without representation. They were already paying (Tariff) more per head, than any other region and recieveing back less ( in internal impovments) per head from government than any other region.Because laws on the tariff were passed by the house, and the slave states were outvoted by the free States voting block bvya wide margin, S C like it did in nullification secedded over in large part economic threats, just like texas it citied this economic reason for secession. Lincoln did not coerce theem back in over slavery but for not paying the Tarriff.
On Dec. 25, 1860, South Carolina declared unfair taxes to be a cause of secession: "The people of the Southern States are not only taxed for the benefit of the Northern States, but after the taxes are collected, three-fourths (75%) of them are expended at the North."Lincoln expained his reason for calling up teh militia "Whereas an insurrection against the Government of the United States has broken out and the laws of the United States for the collection of the revenue cannot be effectually executed therein."
"My policy sought only to collect the Revenue (a 40 percent federal sales tax on imports to Southern States under the Morrill Tariff Act of 1861)."
On calling up the militia Lincoln expaline it as "as a fit and necessary war measure for suppressing said (tax) rebellion."
25 December 1860, the South Carolina Convention summarized the South's complaint against the North as follows:
Discontent and contention have moved in the bosom of the Confederacy for the last thirty-five years. During this time, South Carolina has twice called her people together in solemn convention, to take into consideration the aggressions and unconstitutional wrongs perpetrated by the people of the North on the people of the South. These wrongs were submitted to by the people of the South, under the hope and expectation that they would be final. But these hopes and expectations have proved to be void.
The one great evil, from which all the other evils have flowed, is the overthrow of the Constitution. The Government is no longer the government of a Confederate Republic, but of a consolidated democracy. It is no longer a free government, but a despotism. The Revolution of 1776 turned upon one great principle — self-government and self-taxation — the criterion of self-government.
The Southern States now stand in the same relation towards the Northern States, in the vital matter of taxation, that our ancestors stood toward the people of Great Britain. They are in a minority in Congress. Their representation in Congress is useless to protect them against unjust taxation; and they are taxed by the people of the North for their benefit, exactly as the people of Great Britain taxed our ancestors, in the British Parliament, for their benefit. For the last forty years, the taxes laid by the Congress of the United States, have been laid with a view of subserving the interests of the North. The people of the South have been taxed by duties on imports, not for revenue, but for an object inconsistent with revenue — to promote, by prohibitions, Northern interests in the productions of their mines and manufactures. The people of the Southern States are not only taxed for the benefit of the people of the Northern States, but, after the taxes are collected, three-fourths of them are expended in the North.
This 40% more than doubled the duty, and was enacacted in HOR and Senate despite a solid Southern vote against it, it passed because the South was a voting monirity already in the HoR and could only stop things in the senate if the balance of free and slave states remained, and even then it was tough maths to get enough slave states to prevent it in the senate.
Madison
The Articles of Confederation were a binding perpetual form of government on the states that ratified it. It is similar to the Constitution in that it outlines a federal government with certain enumerated powers. The AoC contained no exit clause, and in terms of pure language, is more persuasuve than the Constitution in its absoluteness and inviolability. How then, were the states able to withdraw from the Articles of Confederation to ratify the Constitution if no right of withdrawl existed for them? Where did the states get this power to leave from? It is an inherent power of a state. Regardless where it came from, the right was exercised and legitimized by the ratification of the Constitution and the continued international recognition of the United States government.
The AoC itself required all to consent
AoC Article 13
Article 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.
Your ignoring then of the fact 2 States did not agree, RI and NC never in fact left the AoC, but instead 18 months after averyone lese had secedded from it, joined directly from, state convention to join the newer union that existed along side the older union. You cannot have a body calling itself the United states of america under the AoC with 2 members states, for 18 months in existance with a sperarate Union of the United states of America with its members and except anyone with one brain to spot that A) there are two Union of states in existance both calling thmselves the same thing, B) that the one with RI and NC in it requires all states to agree to disolve it, and they never did but secded at will from the perpetual union, C) that NC ratification of joining was contingent on the adoption of the Bill of rights with a right of secesion in that bill or rights, D) that a single sov in a Union, like the King of England is the sov of the countrys of England ireland wales and scotland and the Union is called the United Kingdom, not the United Kingdoms, because all sov is vested in one place, the English king, and the the ToP passed sov from that location to 13 seperate states in a Union of States of America, not to the congress or the Union, or anywhere else, but to the states, who entered into the AoC and did not call themselves the United state of America, but put the s on to show that sov was not being vested in a single location but rested in the seperate states, and changes not in the new more perfect Union, which as Madison who coined the phrase exlianed, ment, that the sov was correctly placed with the seperate people of the state, not its legilsture.
As i mentioned the first ratifications listed the same things, once madison inserted the 10th Amendment it was no longer needed for other states to cite the same provision for itself for as long as one had aserted it already then it was redundent to repet it by later joining states as the 10th covers all that as long as one meber has aserted it asa right and been acepted in then you dont have to repeat 5the same for each newer state.
10Th
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.
"The reservation to the States respectively," says the Supreme Court, "can only mean the reservation of the Sovereignty which they respectively possessed before the adoption of the Constitution of the United States and which they had not parted from by that instrument. And ANY legislation by Congress beyond the limits of the power designated would be trespassing upon the rights of the States or the people, and would not be the supreme law of the land, but null and void."
Last thing first, Congess in the 1830 acepted the right of secesion, based on the Union being composed of a compact of seperate sovriegns, its only the with rise of the republican party that secesion is wrong even occurs.
Haynes best retort.
"Sir, I will put the case home to the gentleman. Is there any violation of the constitutional rights of the States, and the liberties of citizens, which, if sanctioned by Congress and the Supreme Court, he would believe to be the right and duty of a State to resist? Does he contend for the doctrine of passive obedience and non-resistance? Would he justify an open resistance to an act of Congress, sanctioned by the courts, which would abolish trial by jury, or destroy freedom of religion, or freedom of the press? Yes, sir, he would advocate resistance in such case, and so would I, and so would all of us. But
such resistance would, according to his doctrine, be revolution: it would be rebellion. According to my opinion, it would be just, legal, and constitutional resistance.
Calhoun offered a set of resolutions in the Senate on January 22, 1833, of which the first two read,
"Resolved, That the people of the several States, composing these United States, are united as parties to a constitutional compact, to which the people of each State acceded as a separate sovereign community, each binding itself by its own particular ratification, and that the Union, of which the said compact is the bond, is between the States ratifying the same; and
"Resolved, That the people of the several States, thus united by the constitutional compact, in forming that instrument, and in creating a general government to carry into effect the objects for which they were formed, delegated to that government, for that purpose, certain definite powers, to be exercised jointly, reserving, at the same time, each State to itself, the residuary mass of powers to be exercised by it own separate government; and that, whenever the general government assumes the exercise of powers not delegated by the compact, its acts are unauthorized, and are of no effect; and that the same government is not made the final judge of the powers delegated to it, since that would make its discretion, and not the constitution, the measure of its powers; but that, as in all other cases of compact among sovereign parties, without any common judge, each has an equal right to judge for itself,
as well of the infraction as of the mode and measure of redress.,
D Webster argued thus
"1. That the constitution is not a league, confederacy, or compact, between the people of the several States in their sovereign capacities, but a government proper, founded on the adoption of the people, and creating direct relations between itself and individuals.
"2. That no State authority has power to dissolve these relations; that nothing can dissolve them but revolution; and that, consequently, there can be no such thing as secession without revolution.
"3. That there is a supreme law, consisting of one constitution ofthe United States, and acts of Congress, passed in pursuance of it, and treaties; and that, in cases not capable of assuming the character of a suit in law or equity, Congress must judge of, and finally interpret the supreme law, so often as it has occasion to pass acts oflegislation; and, in cases capable of assuming and actually assuming the character of a suit, the supreme court of the United States is the final interpreter.
"4. That an attempt by a State to abrogate, annul, or nullify an act of Congress, or to arrest its operation within her limits, on the ground that, in her opinion, such law is unconstitutional, is a direct usurpation on the just powers of the general government, and on the equalrights of other States, a plain violation of the constitution, and a proceeding essentially revolutionary in its character and tendency.
Webster stipulated that the whole dispute, with its many minute ramifications, reduced in the end to but one question: - whether, as his adversary
maintained, the constitution of the Union was a compact between the peoples of the several States, each acting in her sovereign capacity, and retaining her sovereign attributes, or, on the other hand, as he maintained, an irrevocable charter of permanent government for a single and unified whole consisting of one people of the United States and considered as an indivisible Nation. Calhoun agreed that the whole debate revolved around this sole issue.
Calhoun won by congressional vote, and adopted the following "That, in the adoption of the Federal Constitution, the States
adopting the same acted severally as free, sovereign, and independent States".
In 1855, Senator Benjamin F. Wade, said in a speech delivered in the United States Senate, "Who is the judge in the last resort of the violation of the Constitution of the United States by the enactment of a law? Who is the final arbiter, the General Government or the States in their sovereignty? Why, sir, to yield that point is to yield up all the rights of the States to protect their own citizens, and to consolidate this government into a miserable despotism." And he further said on the 18th of December, 1860, "I do not so much blame the people of the South, because I think they have been led to believe that we to-day, the dominant party, who are about to take the reins of government, are their mortal foes, and stand ready to trample their institutions under foot."
And again:Ben wade
If they [the Southern people] do not feel interested in upholding this Union — if it really entrenches on their rights — if it endangers their institutions to such an extent that they cannot feel secure under it — if their interests are violently assailed by the means of this Union, I am not one of those who expect that they will long continue under it. I am not one of those who ask them to continue in such a Union. It would be doing violence to the platform of the party to which I belong. We have adopted the old Declaration of Independence as the basis of our political movements, which declares that any people, when their Government ceases to protect their rights, when it is so subverted from the true purposes of government as to oppress them, have the right to recur to fundamental principles, and if need be, to destroy the Government under which they live, and to erect upon its ruins another conducive to their welfare. I hold that they have this right. I will not blame any people for exercising it, whenever they think the contingency has come. I certainly shall be an advocate of that same doctrine whenever I find that the principles of this Government have become so oppressive to the section to which I belong, that a free people ought not longer to endure it.... I hope the Union will continue forever. I believe it may continue forever. I see nothing at present which I think should dissolve it; but if other gentlemen see it, I say again that they have the same interest in maintaining this Union, in my judgment, as we of the North have. If they think they have not, be it so. You cannot forcibly hold men in the Union; for the attempt to do so, it seems to me, would subvert the first principles of the Government under which we live.
Note this is B Wade on the side of secession, Tanney in USSC Supreme Court said (1858): https://archive.org/stream/judicials...1unit_djvu.txt
"Nor is there anything in this supremacy of the general government, or the jurisdiction of its judicial tribunals, to awaken the jealousy or offend the natural and just pride of State sovereignty. Neither this government, nor the powers of which we are speaking, were forced upon the States. The Constitution of the United States, with all the powers conferred by it on the general government, and surrendered by the States, was the voluntary act of the people of the several States, deliberately done, for their own protection and safety against injustice from one another."
May 24 1860 J Davis of Miss 7 in congress offered a resolutions, the first of which:-
Resolved, That, in the adoption of the Federal Constitution, the States adopting the same acted severally as free and independent Sovereignties, delegating a portion of their powers to be exercised by the Federal Government for the increased security of each against dangers, domestic and as well as foreign; and that any intermeddling by anyone or more States, or by a combination oftheir citizens, with the domestic institutions of the others, on any pretext whatever, political, moral, or religious, with a view to their disturbance or subversion, is in violation of the Constitution, insulting to the States so interfered with, endangers their peace and tranquility - objects for which the Constitution was formed --;-, and, by necessary consequence, tends to weaken and destroy the Union itself."
This language was adopted on vote of thirty-six against nineteen in the United States Senate. Voting in favor, as might be expected, were both senators from most of the Southern States, but also both senators from California, Indiana, Minnesota, Oregon, and Pennsylvania, as well as one senator from Ohio and one from New Jersey. Both senators from Delaware and both senators from Illinois abstained.
Not a problem if you had an eductaion, the Uk passed sovriegnty to the seperate people of each colony, in treaty, its where we the peope get their sovreinty from, ie whom had it prior to then.
Here are Justices Marshal and Pendelton explained who We the people is.
John Marshall, Chief Justice, said in the Va debates in respect of the proposed Constituition: "We are threatened with the loss of our liberties by the possible abuse of power, notwithstanding the maxim, that those who give may take away. It is the people that give power, and can take it back. What shall restrain them? They are the masters who give it, and of whom their servants hold it."
Justice Pendelton said:-
"We the people, possessing all power form a government, such as we think to secure our hapiness. And in supposing in adopting this plan we find we are mistaken in the end. Where is the cause for alarm?. In the same plan we point out an easy and peacfull mthod of reforming what may be amiss. No but say you gentelmen, we have put the introduction of that system into hands of our sevents , who will interupt it for motives of self intrest. What then?, we will resist did my friend say convying the use of force? Who shall resist the people?, No we will reasemble in convention wholey recall our delgated powers, reform them to prevent such abuse and puish those servents who have perverted powers designed for our hapiness to their own emoulment."
Yes they were concerned about undelagated use of power using the general welfare clause, at apoint in time in the future, to prevent that occurence they put their right to secede into the constitution ratification. madison went further in the 10th top set out further safegaurds for new states.
"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; that, therefore, no right, of any denomination, can be cancelled, abridged, restrained, or modified, by the Congress, by the Senate or House of Representatives, acting in any capacity, by the President, or any department or officer of the United States, except in those instances in which power is given by the Constitution for those purposes; and that, among other essential rights, the liberty of conscience, and of the press, cannot be cancelled, abridged, restrained, or modified, by any authority of the United States. With these impressions, with a solemn appeal to the Searcher of all hearts for the purity of our intentions, and under the conviction that whatsoever imperfections may exist in the Constitution ought rather to be examined in the mode. prescribed therein, than to bring the Union into danger by a delay with a hope of obtaining amendments previous to the ratifications, — We, the said Delegates, in the name and in behalf of the people of Virginia, do, by these presents, assent to and ratify the Constitution recommended, on the 17th day of September, 1787, by the Federal Convention, for the Government of the United States, hereby announcing to all those whom it may concern, that the said Constitution is binding upon the said people, according to an authentic copy hereto annexed, in the words following.
"Done in Convention, this 26th day of June, 1788."
NY does the same
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.
http://www.constitution.org/rc/rat_decl-ny.htm
RI does the same
III. 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 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.
http://www.usconstitution.net/rat_ri.html
Others did it differntly
"We, the Deputies of the People of the Delaware State, in Convention met, having taken into our serious consideration the Federal Constitution, proposed and agreed upon by the Deputies of the United States, in a General Convention, held at the City of Philadelphia, on the seventeenth day of September, in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty-seven, have approved, assented to, ratified, and confirmed, and by these presents do, in virtue of the power and authority to us given, for and in behalf of ourselves and our constituents, fully, freely, and entirely approve of, assent to, ratify, and confirm, the said Constitution.
"In the Name of the People of Pennsylvania.
"Be it known unto all men, that we, the Delegates of the people of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, in General Convention assembled, have assented to and ratified, and by these presents do, in the name and by the authority of the same people, and for ourselves, assent to and ratify the foregoing Constitution for the United States of America. Done in Convention at Philadelphia, the twelfth day of December, in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty-seven, and of the independence of the United States of America the twelfth. In witness whereof, we have hereunto subscribed our names."
Notice how your unable to read and comprehend the words? who is reasuming what and from whom if they refer to the people in the agregate?
In the seperate state conventions, just like in the seperate State Consitutions, they assert in their ratifications they are the people who are soverign, and in this capacity acede to the Union, this Union is not a party to the compact and has no sovriegnty that is not delegated to it by its creators who posses soverignty.
Lastly each seperate states peoploe do vote and acede to the ratification and attach their conditionsn for doing so, this makes up the legal compact between the parties.
Rebellion is an act against lawfull authority, secession is not contary to any US stutue in 1861, so there was no rebellion. You may mean Revolution asa right, being as your rather uniformed. There never was anything like equal army sizes between the two parties. Casus Belli are acts which justify a declaratrion and or usage of war against a soveriegn power. Fort sumpter was Fedarl propertry, jointly owned by all the states, siezure of it commits no Casus Belli from POTUS viepoint andn besides thats not why he said he called up the Militia, he said he did so becaasue states were refusing to collect the tariff claimingb to have secceded.
QUOTE=Elfdude;15594240]
The rest of your posts are garbage. Although I find your statement about curricular requirements quite frightening. Considering every major historian and college recognizes that slavery was the central issue and progenitor of all others issues which led to the war itself.[/QUOTE]
Frightning because your whole paragraph is fact free, and you have no idea that there is no such consensus in the USA of centres of education of its historians or indeed in the seperate educations boards of each state. Still less that there is no such concensus in ROTW either.
If your growing up in Main your taught states can declare war http://www.maine.gov/sos/kids/about/historytime.htm its in their museums http://www.mainememory.net/timeline/1800.shtml
1839 — Governor Fairfield declares war on England over a boundary dispute between New Brunswick and northern Maine. This is the first and only time a state has declared war on a foreign power. The dispute was settled, however, before any blood was shed.
The same events in canadian teaching tex,t Canada and the United States - Some Aspects of Their Historical Relations, Hugh Keenleyside deny war was declared.
United Nations gets all the members to craft laws, Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. Ratified by USA 24 Ap 1970
Article 56
Denunciation of or withdrawal from a treaty containing no provision regarding termination, denunciation or withdrawal
1. A treaty which contains no provision regarding its termination and which does not provide for denunciation or withdrawal is not subject to denunciation or withdrawal unless:
(a)
it is established that the parties intended to admit the possibility of denunciation or withdrawal; or
(b)
a right of denunciation or withdrawal may be implied by the nature of the treaty.
Constitution is party to a treaty and we are applying Vienna to the Constitution, 56(b) would be the operating point of law. That when a treaty is silent on the withdrawl of parties, parties may withdraw if there is an implication on the treaty that the right of withdrawl is present. In the Constitution, amendment 9 and 10 make clear that all powers not specifically delegeted to the federal government are retained by the states/people. As such, the power to leave resides as recognized by the Constitution. By implication, the states can leave under 56(b).
PS i asked you 2 questions, others also asked , nothing from you.