Quote:
Originally Posted by John Mercier
That is sort of a rewrite of history. Lee's oath at West Point leading to his commission as an officer would not be the one used today for enlisted volunteers. Lee was indicted for treason by a grand jury. There was debate if his position had resolved oath to allegiance to the US... which today is written into the West Point oath.
Treason is simply defined as providing support or comfort to the enemy. Once they attacked the fort, an act of war, even verbal support was an act of treason.
The Confederate States of America Constitution appeared almost identical to the US Constitution until it reached Article One Section Nine.
As for unilateral secession, the US Constitution specifically places questions of constitutionally under Article Three Section Two... something NH agreed to.
The CACR was not for a unilateral transgression, nor suggested attacking any federal installation in NH or even any violent action. The lessons of history were taken into account... the scope of unintended consequences for an action of little resolve were not.
|
Interesting as I read Article 3 section 2 which basically establishes the jurisdiction of the federal judicial system in particular the US supreme court in that it has the power to settle disputes between states. What does that have to do with secession?
I think the more applicable thing to look at is the 10th amendment which specifically exists to LIMIT the power of the federal government. Nowhere in the constitution is there any language that states the federal government has any right to govern, control or restrict a state's right to for lack of better words sovereignty including participation in the "union" unless explicitly granted by the states either individually or as a whole. "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. "
Now I am no legal mind or heavy weight by any stretch but that seems pretty clear to me.