Talk:Secession in the United States/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Texas as latino country & "speculation"

While I don't think this point is very relevant in this article (i.e., WP:UNDUE), it would be in any article on future Texas secession. It definitely is wrong to say that verified speculation per se is banned by wikipedia. Especially the kind easily verified by statistics; either they indicate the majority of population is Latino (legal or illegal) or they don't. (And many more Latinos probably would move in if it became it's own country.) It would have to be done quoting the source, Fox News. And considering Fox probably thinks that's a bad idea, if there is a ref that thinks it's a good idea, that should be quoted to. That's called NPOV editing :-) CarolMooreDC (talk) 18:50, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm a little confused as to why this comment if it is not relevant here. In the unlikely event that Texas secedes, you could surely make the point then. It's also confusing that you talk about statistics either verifying or not that Hispanics are a majority. It sounds as though you are answering an argument, but where it is it? Anyway, Hispanics are less than 40% of Texas's population, while non-Hispanic Whites are approximately half the population. Is your point that eventually Texas will have a plurality- and then a majority-Hispanic population? It would be helpful if you set out your argument instead of just anticipating the arguments to be marshalled against you. -Rrius (talk) 19:15, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I confess I got confused and thought this was the Secession article. So it might be more relevant here after all! However, whether the WP:RS were good enough, etc. debatable, though I won't debate them. The person who deleted it has to come here and debate it. CarolMooreDC (talk) 04:42, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Ah! Posting at the wrong talk page—we've all done that. -Rrius (talk) 04:50, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it's the most important thing that could be written since the section is more historical than speculative. However, the larger context of "Fox news commentator so and so criticized the idea Texas secession saying a) b) c)." would make it more appropriate. Plus, again, So and So of La Raza said "they stole it from Latinos and now we are taking it back" also might be appropriate. And then a libertarian saying "we believe in individual rights, not states rights, so we believe individuals and their communities have a right to secede from Texas." But then again you get into something that belongs in Texas Secession Movement. CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:51, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

• Comment - If the source does not specifically say that Texas would become a latin American country if it seceded, then it is clearly original research to speculate that it would. Taking bits and pieces from various citations to draw conclusions that are not specifically in those citations is WP:OR and "OR" is one of wikipedias 3 core content policies (The big three) and should be adhered to in all cases. Its not saying that we can't speculate as to what may occur in the future, but only as far as the what the source claims. And besides while we are "Speculating", who is to say that Hispanics will move into Texas in droves if Texas Seceded? If any state left the Union it would be because of the Federal Government's lack of respect of states rights, and this normally counters "minority" view of entitlement to government resources. So it may go the other way around.--Jojhutton (talk) 17:16, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Ideology of Secession

This article deals far more with the ideology and theory of secession than it does secession itself. I've read it three times now, and I believe it has a pro-secession bias. Since secession has only occurred once in American history, this article should focus more on developments between December, 1860 and April, 1865. This is not to say that the Virginia & Kentucky Resolves, the Hartford Convention, the Nullification Crisis, etc., shouldn't be mentioned. But since none of those actually resulted in secession, they should be minimized in favor of the secession movement that began after Lincoln's election. To dwell too much on previous "proto-secession" developments could have but one purpose: to argue that the states of the supposed CSA were justified in their secession. That may be true, or it may not be true, but an encyclopedia article should not promote on or the other. I believe this one does.

Prof. Todd Carney / Southern Oregon University 00:13, 9 March 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tcarney57 (talk • contribs)

The article could be reorganized somewhat more systemmatically, but using existing material with no change:

(A) Ideology, philosophy, law, (B) Belligerent secession, (C) political secession, or movements.

• Secession in the United States

Natural right of revolution versus right of secession

Secession and the United States Constitution

Antebellum American political and legal views

Supreme Court Rulings

• Belligerent secession (sustained, admitted armed presence)

American Revolution -

Texas secession from Mexico -

California secession from Mexico

Confederate States of America

West Virginia from Virginia

East Tennessee-East Kentucky from CSA

Philippines Insurrection

• Political secession (or movements, including low level violence)

Regional secession (6 items, add Whiskey Rebellion, perhaps Burr's filibuster)

State secession (2 19th C., 6 20th C.)

Local secession (consolidate city, and portions 2 19th C. 6 20th C.)

Ethnic and national secession (Hawaii, Lakota, etc.)

TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 16:50, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

ProfCarney wrote: This article deals far more with the ideology and theory of secession than it does secession itself. I've read it three times now, and I believe it has a pro-secession bias. Since secession has only occurred once in American history, this article should focus more on developments between December, 1860 and April, 1865.

As you can see in the Confederate States section one is redirected to these articles for more details on that period.

See main articles Origins of the American Civil War, Confederate States of America and American Civil War.

This article is about the various ways in which the topic has been addressed (for existing states, thus I removed Phillipines). The current secession sections can have less notable and/or unreferenced cases removed; but other material more recent notable material can be added. Something to put on my do list.

User:TheVirginiaHistorian proposal was rejected last years as WP:Original research, among other things. See archives. CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:52, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

and the rejection was answered by citations from scholars which say that sustained military operations, recognized by the central government as administering populations in its own territory, is a “belligerent”. Follow the link - belligerent - for six additional references on WP.

Belligerent status was a major goal of Jefferson Davis government, which it won only from Spain and Brazil, see - Confederate States of America. The Confederate assertion of 600,000 dead in belligerent secession is not equivalent to someone recently reading a press release for the Key West Citizen. “Less notable” deletion makes sense. We can use conventional categories in the subject area to make distinctions and deletions.

Ah, the Philippines, like Virginia, peopled by those who would become US citizens but not living in a US state following its belligerent secessionist movement. Virginia was for five years “Military District #1” to the US Government, without representation in Congress. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 03:47, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

In response to User:TheVirginiaHistorian saying: "and the rejection was answered by citations from scholars: - I note my response at the time was: "I didn't see the names of the relevant books, page numbers, or quotations to verify what you say. And are they of sufficient stature or their analysis so important that it really should dictate how to organize this article?" I didn't see proof they call it "belligerent secession" as some sort of special theory, view, historical description, etc. So it seems to me your chosen phrase which you are advancing as WP:Original research. CarolMooreDC (talk) 05:56, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

"Belligerent" in scholarly conventions.

One start can begin with [“Secession: international law perspectives”] (2006) by Marcelo G. Kohen The term applies predominantly in the 19th Century. Current International Law and UN resolutions do not recognize a right to secession due to international policy tension between the principles of self-determination and territorial integrity. (Kohen, p. 356) on territorial integrity. All of the proposed outline places “belligerent” examples in the 19th Century.

Lets look at a basic survey of the term “belligerent status”. Look at [“Encyclopedia of war crimes and genocide”] by Leslie Alan Horvitz and Christopher Catherwood (2006) recommended by the American Library Association (ALA) in “Booklist”. To achieve belligerent status, would ‘even the playing field’ by 19th C. international law. (Horvitch, p.41)

Its objective had to be secession, not overthrow of the central government. Its military forces had to be well organized. It had to have initiated hostilities against the government, and the government in turn recognized it as a belligerent (which the Union would not the Confederacy). The last time that was formally recognized was the Boer War. It is not used at all since World War II. (Horvitch, p.41)

Failure to invoke belligerent status does not excuse obligations for humanitarian conduct under international law. The status is implied when it is an internal armed conflict without outside powers, troops are organized, and the conflict is protracted. (Horvitch, p.41-2)

Belligerency does not affect the rights of a people to self-determination. [“International Law and the Use of Force by National Liberation Movements”] (1988) by Heather A. Wilson. Self determination, more than political thought, has become an international law. (Wilson, p.74) But secession is not the only alternative. A particular group may be advanced by greater integration into society, without separation. (Horvitz, p.42) TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 00:54, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Your references weren't helpful. However, you did finally make it clear you are talking about a term of international law and not some vague concept of your own. So it is relevant to add any WP:RS that explicitly says any of these specific incidents resulted in "belligerent status." However, I see the article Belligerent has only the example below for the biggest American secession, so I doubt you'll find evidence from WP:RS that "belligerent" status has been applied to the other minor examples. And you can't just decide yourself that they belong in the category, which again would be Original Research.

An interesting use of the term arose during the American Civil War, when the Confederate States of America, though not recognized as a sovereign state, was recognized as a belligerent power, and thus Confederate warships were given the same rights as United States warships in foreign ports.

CarolMooreDC (talk) 01:51, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Reliable sources for 'belligerents'

I’m not sure we can use Wikipedia articles like belligerent to argue sources in articles. What we can do is look for reliable sources. Three outside references are made from Kohen, Horvitz & White, and Wilson. Each explains another aspect of “belligerents”. They are dismissed in discussion here as “Not Helpful”.
If they are “not helpful”, editors will find alternative reliable sources. Each would, in some way, overturn the judgment of (1) WP’s main article on secession, (2) the American Library Association, and (3) the International Red Cross.

• (1) Kohen is helpful in the more comprehensive Wikipedia article, Secession. He is a source under “Further Reading”, on the faculty of the Graduate Institute of International Studies (HEI), Geneva. The author was awarded the Paul Guggenheim Award for a previous title.
• (2) The Horvitz and Catherwood citation is helpful in libraries for general reference. It is recommended by the American Library Association. This source is used in four WP articles, see: Kenji Doihara, Mukden Incident, Milorad Ulemek, and Reinhard Heydrich.
• (3) H.A. Wilson is helpful in understanding the rights of civilian populations among belligerents. This reference won a prize from the International Red Cross. The biography at Heather A. Wilson notes her objection to warrantless wiretapping by the NSC. But that had to do with her service as a US Representative and US Senator. Regardless of one’s partisan preference, What disqualifies this work as a reliable source for editors here?

One rule says that we should read one another’s sources. I miscopied the link for Wilson's “International Law” and the use of force by national liberation movements”. I can’t re-find the Googlebooks page just now. Apologies. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 16:39, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

"secession" in good faith

“Secession” is a movement to form a nation out of another’s territory. If successful, it is recognized under international law. The article treats rebellions in America, Texas and Confederacy. All sought “belligerent status” from established nations: French, American or British. But, in good faith, something else could be meant.

CMDC can be helpful. Point us to a scholar to read for an understanding of “secession” as it is to be used in this article. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:17, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

You don't give refs that America, Texas and Confederacy sought “belligerent status." I don't know what CMDC means. Please define terms. If you have a specific problem with current text or references, please detail it. CarolMooreDC (talk) 00:09, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

CarolMooredc, I think that your idea for an article about "secession in the US", one that goes beyond the listings for secession and partition on the other WP pages, is a really good idea. Please tell me what authors you read about secession, so I can read them too. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 03:55, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't have such an idea. I merely asked you to clarify your previous post. CarolMooreDC (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 05:01, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

First, you have a better command of WP conventions than I do. I am what you call, a “newbie”. I defer to your judgment here.

Second, the article we are logged into is “Secession in the United States”. Don’t you have some "such an idea" about it that you can share?

Third, I would like to read the same things about this topic that you do. I literally want to be on the same page. Otherwise, how can I be helpful?

So, again, Please tell me what you read on this article’s topic, so I can read it too. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:29, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I can't figure out offhand what policy page to refer you to to explain why these discussions are not appropriate unless I am proposing specific changes/references like you are. So I've put the question elsewhere and get back to you. However, note that under Wikipedia:PROVEIT#cite_note-1 those who make or propose new changes have to defend them. Other policies known to me have been explained above and I'm not going to repeat them. CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:17, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Maine from Massachusetts

According to the article Maine, "Maine was an exclave of Massachusetts until 1820, when as a result of the growing population and a political deal regarding slavery, it became the 23rd state on March 15 under the Missouri Compromise." My understanding is that this resulted not just from national considerations but also from a secessionist movement in Maine. Shouldn't this get a brief, maybe one- or two-sentence, section in chronological order before the section on the Confederacy? Duoduoduo (talk) 20:41, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I like it. We could have a category of "states out of states" which would include (a) Maine out of Massachusetts, (b) Kentucky out of Virginia and (c) Tennessee out of North Carolina with original state legislative consent in conventional order ...

In the Judiciary Act of 1789 under the Constitution for the eleven participating states, there were thirteen federal judicial districts: eleven states, Maine and Kentucky. So the impulse for separation / secession was not new at the Missouri Compromise ...

I'm not sure how to treat WV ... that needs a review the history of the WV - Va debt settlement before taking a stand ... politics in the state legislature split for several years between "Funders" who caucused with national Democrats in Congress, versus "Readjusters" who caucused with Republicans ... TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 01:54, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

And wasn't there a land swap between Michigan and Wisconsin where locals still want an independent state from both? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 15:22, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Article IV, Section. 3, Clause 1 of US Constitution says states may split with consent of state legislature and U.S. Congress So the move to divide states may not necessarily be secessionist. They only should be described as such if some WP:Reliable sources say that some organized efforts to split the states called themselves or were called "Secessionist." CarolMooreDC (talk) 19:13, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

There was a long-standing secessionist movement in Maine to leave Massachusetts. I found the following quote at [1], which probably isn't a good source for Wikipedia, but the quote gives a flavor for the situation:

Indeed, the squatter rebellion is one of the principle reasons Mainers voted to secede from Massachusetts in 1820. (The other: Boston's refusal to help the U.S. military liberate eastern Maine from British occupation in the War of 1812.) The State of Maine was born out of a long, unpleasant colonial experience.

Any history of Maine should have the details (though surprisingly the Wikipedia article Maine doesn't address it). Duoduoduo (talk) 22:04, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

good source for wikipedia

Woodard is an okay authority. You have a great newspaper article of local history with a (Penguin) published author. Wikipedia requires that the reference is not self-published, not a web page only. Otherwise, it’s kind of like Thomas Jefferson, be unafraid to pursue truth wherever reason leads …

-(1) You Google search on the title of Woodard’s book mentioned at the bottom of the newspaper article. Sometimes you have to add the author. The top result happens to be here on “Amazon”.

-(2) You hit the “look inside” button, click “title page” and scroll down to get the footnote reference information. Author, title, date, publisher, ISBN number. Woodard, Colin. “The Lobster Coast: Rebels, Rusticators and the forgotten frontier” (2004) Penguin Books. ISBN: 0-670-03324-3. We use ISBN so we don’t inadvertently leave out alternate publishers, like a follow-on paperback, or distributors, such as Amazon, Nookbooks, etc. Now you can make a footnote for whatever you find using the citation convention < … > cite p. -- </ … >.

-(3) Then, you “search inside this book” for ‘secession’ to test whether the phrase is used. You get two results listed directly below: page 31 and page 150. As it happens, the two citations back up your initiative and my supplementary, supportive comment.

• Page 31. “later, these same (Scotch Irish) families would lead eighty years of violent resistance to the land speculators … helped prompt Maine’s secession from Massachusetts in 1820.”

• Page 150. Dunbar settlements laid the ground work for Maine’s secession from Massachusetts. “They had brought down the Federalists within the District of Maine and given the Democrat Republicans enough strength in the Massachusetts assembly to force the 1807 referendum on secession” which ultimately failed.

• Page 150. Massachusetts pro-British merchants opposed “Mister Madison’s War” of 1812. They would not defend Maine, instead, they supplied the enemy’s troops in their invasion and annexation of eastern settlements. Downeasters and Democrats would not forget.

An editor unsure of your contribution must find another source of greater prestige AND build an editor’s consensus on the discussion page to make a deletion stick. Wikipedia rule for editors: be bold. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 01:17, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Moving material added by IP

Valuable new material was added by a new IP editor, but it was plopped into the middle of the existing text w/o any transition or context. I have moved the quotes from Taylor into a section behind the American Revolution since they specifically refer to events (i.e. the adoption of the Constitution and rejection of the Articles of Confederation) after the Revolution.

Similarly, I moved a paragraph out of the introduction to the section on "Antebellum American political and legal views on secession" and into a subsection "Alien and Sedition Acts." I also clarified for the introduction what Historian Forrest McDonald had writen on the general subject. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 12:34, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

---

As a new Wikipedian, I am happy to have experienced editorial assistance. When ones moves views of secession, expressed by Gouv. Morris in 1814 and Thomas Jefferson's general view on the subject under the heading "Alien and Sedition Acts," along with John Taylor of Caroline's response to the Alien and Sedition Acts, my faith in the editor is shaken. These references were intended to provided examples, and balance, to the introduction of "Antebellum American political and legal views on secession." While I like the idea of sub-headings very much (shouldn't the sub-headings be chronological?), I find the isolated "contemporary views" of Klein, et al., that are left behind (post-edit) in prominent isolation, to be highly misleading and clearly inconsistent with a NPOV.

I have attempted to balance these modern opinions with historical facts from the era itself; but apparently (according to Duoduoduo) even a reference to the Tenth Amendment of the United States Constitution violates NPOV. Yet, an isolated and unsupported contemporary historian's opinion which ignores the Tenth Amendment, and other sound, reasonable and verifiable history, does not. I am baffled. It would appear, gentlemen, from your edits, that verifiable modern opinions trump verifiable historical facts derived from primary sources of the eras in question, and only the former will be allowed. I urge you to reconsider this questionable approach, intended or not. Best wishes. 74.192.7.135 (talk) 22:29, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, a reference to the Tenth Amendment does not per se violate neutrality. But the statement "Klein's first question [about whether the union can be dissolved] is answered by the very wording of the Constitution's Tenth Amendment which reads: '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.'" obviously expresses a point of view, which others certainly disagree with. If you want to get a point of view like that into the article, the way to do it is to quote or paraphrase (with source given) a scholar who has expressed that point of view, and to do the same with the opposite point of view. Here's a source on Justice Scalia having the opposite point of view: "If there was any constitutional issue resolved by the Civil War, it is that there is no right to secede." [2]Duoduoduo (talk) 23:13, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

You write, "It would appear, gentlemen, from your edits, that verifiable modern opinions trump verifiable historical facts derived from primary sources of the eras in question, and only the former will be allowed." In fact, that is pretty much what wikipedia policy is. You need to become familiar with Wikipedia:No original research, in particular WP:PRIMARY. In this POLICY it states regarding primary sources:

"Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify are supported by the source."

Regarding secondary sources, the POLICY makes it clear that these are the main source for wikipedia articles:

Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from secondary sources. Articles may make analytic or evaluative claims only if these have been published by a reliable secondary source.

The entire section which is really one long quote from Tucker is a violation as it stands. There is no secondary source provided that places any of the text in context or explains its significance. I had left it in because, in my opinion, it can be supported from secondary sources on the basic issue that there was a change in the nature of the Union after the adoption of the Constitution. I will be adding context to that section in the near future and trimming the extent of the quotes from Tucker at the same time. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 00:48, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

---

Duoduoduo: I agree that the predicate wording was not absolutely neutral; but "Klein's first question [might be] answered by reading the very wording of the Tenth Amendment . . . ." is a neutral statement. Why obliterate the entire statement, rather than tweak it? The simple point is: Klein's view is proven to be nonsense, simply by reading the Tenth Amendment. Who is Klein anyway? The Klein citations are incomplete, and unverifiable in their current form. Thanks for the Scalia quote; but, the issue here is balance and adding another quote to the dominant POV here does not help it. Scalia is wrong anyway, since the Reconstruction Congress left the Tenth Amendment intact, the federal government is still one of limited powers granted by the States and the people. Actually, Scalia (and anyone sharing his opinion) is being coy, the war actually proved that the entire Constitution did not matter. Lincoln violated it hundreds of times, going so far as to threaten Chief Justice Taney with imprisonment and deporting Congressman Vallandigham. As a practical matter, secession was widely accepted, North and South, antebellum; but the Wikipedia article that I first read earlier this week did not even hint at that fact.74.192.7.135 (talk) 01:04, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Tom: My St. George Tucker source is a secondary source quoting a primary source. I would not have added more to the St. George Tucker material except that you edited it out of context. Tucker wrote one of our country's first constitutional law books and he discusses secession at length for the benefit of his law students (and many others). Check the source, it is in context. Short, partial and edited quotes, such as the one you inserted, from Forrest McDonald's Novus Ordo Seclorum, is out of context. I am considering quoting that page more fully, like the St. George Tucker material, so that it will not mislead the reader. (talk) 01:20, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

You apparently don't understand the differences between primary and secondary sources. Certainly the intro by Wilson would be a secondary source, but the bulk of the work (and the material you quoted) is political opinion written by a political player of the time -- making it a primary source. More on this below. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 16:01, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Again, you're injecting your opinions ("Scalia is wrong", "Scalia is being coy", "the war actually proved that...."). Wikipedia is not the place to make statements of opinion using wording that implies the opinions are fact.

A good rule of thumb is this: The reader should not be able to figure out an editor's opinion based on what the editor has inserted. Duoduoduo (talk) 02:22, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Duoduoduo: Thanks for your advice. During "discussion" I strive to be honest; while "editing" I strive to be accurate and fair. You will note that I have not deleted the contributions of others, even though I find a few to be highly dubious--even laughable. My first advice, from a Wiki pro, was "teach the controversy." I thought that was good advice also. Have a good night! (talk) 02:47, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

One must be careful of WP:Original research. You can write "Klein says X" and "Smith says 10th amendment says so and so" and let readers draw own conclusion, unless Smith specifically disagrees with Kelin. You can't say "Klein says X" and "He's wrong cause 10th amendment says so and so." However, there can be consensus that the "primary source" - the 10th amendment- can be used under some circumstances, though evidently that's not the case here. Now if it's something really obvious like "First amendment says we have freedom to be polygamous" and that's not in there, then you can just delete it. CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:46, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Changes in article structure by IP

The status quo before the IP started editing is represented by this version [3] of the article. This was the structure:

2 Antebellum American political and legal views on secession

   2.1 Secession and the United States Constitution
   2.2 Natural right of revolution versus right of secession
   2.3 New England Federalists and Hartford Convention
   2.4 Abolitionists
   2.5 South Carolina

There was a one paragraph intro relating to the entire section directly under the main section and before the subsections started.

The IP has eliminated the intro (with no explanation) and made the following illogical groupings:

2 Antebellum American political and legal views on secession

3 Articles of Confederation Abandoned

   3.1 Secession and the United States Constitution
   3.2 Natural right of revolution versus right of secession
   3.3 Alien and Sedition Acts
   3.4 New England Federalists and Hartford Convention
   3.5 Abolitionists
   3.6 South Carolina

Section 2 is totally empty (the IP moved everything out of the intro without explanation) and everything else is suddenly and inexplicably a subsection under Section 3.

I am shifting the material back into a logical order and restoring the introduction (including a paragraph based on material added originally by the IP) and labeling it as "Overview" so that there is no mistaking the intent (i.e. providing a general description of the issues regarding secession that cover the entire antebellum period and not just one of the subsections.

I am asking the IP to quit reverting and obtain consensus for any change from this order. I don't know how much this is inexperience and how much is a deliberate attempt to overemphasize a particular POV. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 16:01, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

---

The groupings are illogical and your numbering of the headings is deceptive; but I am not the creator of them (except the Articles of Confederation which was an attempt to regain the loss of context created by your editing). You, Tom (North Shoreman), created the "Alien and Sedition Acts" category just two days ago, presumably as an excuse for moving my material farther (and illogically) down the page. (Why did you not take that opportunity to correct the headings?) Never mind that some of it has nothing to do with the Alien and Sedition Acts, "just get it out of the way" seems to be your rationale. When I attempted to correct the "illogical" groupings last night (hours after suggesting, to you, a chronological sequencing) you had your buddy Haymaker revert and block me. I agree the groupings are very poor. Anyone can see that!

Your attempt to blame me for them, shows how far you will go to besmirch me and protect your biased and territorial approach. It seems you are preoccupied with a crusade against "neo-confederates" which it would seem is anyone that takes the study of history more seriously than you. You are the self-appointed guardian of the modern orthodoxy. Too bad for Wikipedia. 74.192.7.135 (talk) 23:52, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

You're not telling the truth, are you?

With this edit [4] you,not me, placed six unrelated subsections under the section "Articles of Confederation Abandoned" and left the section "Antebellum American political and legal views on secession" totally empty.

You claim that "you had your buddy Haymaker revert and block me." This is total nonsense. Please provide ANY EVIDENCE at all that shows I had any communication with Haymaker. Also, I can't see where you have ever been blocked. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 01:09, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

As stated above, I simply added Articles of Confederation and you added Alien and Sedition Acts. Other than that, I do not, and never claimed to, know who created the others. If you are unsatisfied with the categories, as I am, please feel free to arrange them in a logical pattern. I just wonder why you are making an issue of it now. Enjoy your evening! 74.192.7.135 (talk) 01:59, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

You're still not telling the truth -- pay attention to what I've written. And where is your evidence concerning your charges against both me and Haymaker? Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 02:05, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

St. George Tucker and John Marshall

I cannot overstate my admiration for native sons St. George Tucker and John Marshall. But let me say that St. George Tucker wrote in 1803 without the benefit of Marshall's jurisprudence. That, for the first years of the 'Marshall Court' it passed down unanimous decisions from the Supreme Court, until the Jefferson-Madison-Monroe appointees began to reflect the American people's changing views over six presidential terms stretching over 24 years. Supreme Court panels had ridings into the Eastern, Central and Southern states. Federal case law was made in such a way that members of the bar in each state were persuaded. This took close reasoning across several legal traditions.

But in 1803, Tucker was speaking out of a colonial tradition which saw the representatives of the people, the legislature, as the sovereign, just as the Parliament was and is for the British constitution. See "Blackstone's Commentaries" online. In a democratic republic, the people apart from any government is seen as the soveriegn. During the Articles, we learned that the legislature, making up the constitutions as they went along, and voting down the previous session's "constitution" as majorities changed, was not a successful pattern of governance. Jefferson observed at the time that tyranny could come from a "set of men" just as well as from a king.

In legal history, there is no gainsaying Tucker's achievement authoring a commentary on Blackstone, but there are several instances of Blackstone that are not applicable to a democratic republic, in that the people's representatives make law that overrides county customary law and common (king's) law. The Virginia Assembly has passed a statute that women should be able to inherit a husband's estate, for instance.

We've got to have a scholar, perhaps using Clyde Wilson's good work in preserving Tucker's legacy, to weave the narrative of how the law of Virginia and Maryland, North Carolina and South Carolina and Georgia, were melded in the southern riding, then how those transformed and consolidated traditions influenced the US Supreme Court from 1801 to 1835.

But we can't use the Tucker material without a scholar's interpretation of the historical context and his subsequent influence. As I say, Tucker's view will be superceded by Marshall's not by ancient legal authority, but by law made from living men, representatives elected in their communities every two years. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 17:48, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, what is the significance of Tucker's opinions with respect to this article? The IP in question, quoting Clyde Wilson, says the work referenced was used for "much of the first half of the nineteenth century" but can only establish that it was "used extensively in Virginia, Pennsylvania and South Carolina." Well, by 1850 there were 30 states in the Union so three doesn't seem like a lot.

Wilson also says, "Though nearly forgotten since, Tucker’s work remains an important piece of constitutional history and a key document of Jeffersonian republicanism." It seems like if he is in fact "largely forgotten", then we are very much guilty of giving undue weight to his opinions. I have done a quick check of books from my personal library where it might be appropriate to cite him and have failed to find him indexed. What scholars writing about secession are quoting Tucker? Is there any indication that he was influential with those folks who ultimately did secede? Certainly the most influential was John Calhoun and I do not find Tucker indexed in John Niven's biography of Calhoun? Was Tucker an influence on Calhoun? It seems since Tucker supported a natural rights interpretation of the nation's founding, a concept that Calhoun rejects, that he had very little influence on secessionist thought in the 1850s.

Of the quotes from Tucker added, the single point that is relevant and interesting to this article is treating the transition from the AofC to the Constitution as secession. However by simply quoting a paragraph from Tucker, w/o any explanation or background, I have my doubts that very many readers will understand what he is talking about.

Akhil Reed Amar, who is already quoted elsewhere in the article, in "America's Constitution" describes the situation in a balanced manner and puts it in a proper perspective. I intend to include his interpretation in the section and believe it will make the use of Tucker both unnecessary and redundant.

The IP, or someone else, needs to make the case for including Tucker -- the case has to, as you make clear, include a demonstration of how reliable, secondary sources interpret Tucker. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 19:33, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Please accept my apologies for not addressing each and every point raised. Those familiar with early U.S. history, as I assume all posting here are, know that St George Tucker was an Jeffersonian anti-Federalist and John Marshall was a Hamiltonian Federalist and from the very beginning of this country these political factions disagreed, sometimes bitterly. The Federalist positions have been fairly well addressed by Amar, Klein and others quoted. A well written article on secession in the U.S. would, in my opinion, start by explaining the political tensions and differing philosophies of these groups. For younger readers, or those unfamiliar, the Federalist's general preference for a centralized state of mercantilism and the Anti-Federalist's vision of a decentralized agrarian republic should be the starting point. I don't know why the "American Revolution" or the Declaration of Independence are relevant, unless one is prepared to concede that the revolution was a successful secession from the British crown (contrary to the claim made at the top of the page). The Declaration is a political document and while it is contained in the U.S. Code, no court considers it to be substantive law. Some have found the egalitarian ideals within the preamble to be politically useful from time to time; but the rest of the document is ignored--even here.

The primary importance of Tucker, on this subject, is that he convincingly points out, in an early American legal textbook, that nine States seceded from the "perpetual union" of the Articles of Confederation. His words do not need to be filtered through a scholar, they are not written in Latin. Tucker did not argue; he taught. His view was widely taught and accepted, albeit not universally. Tucker's Views of the United States Constitution are separate and distinct from Blackstone's commentaries. Tucker believed Marshall's jurisprudence was a betrayal of republicanism. He criticized Marshall's jurisprudence. If Tucker is over-represented, then surely no one would object to the views of John C. Calhoun, John Taylor of Caroline and many more. It is also important to note that the Framers did not place the "perpetual union" wording in the U.S. Constitution. If they had, the Constitution would not have been ratified. If reference to Tucker, Taylor of Caroline, Jefferson and Morris were removed from the present version, as I found it earlier this week, a one-sided ("Federalist") presentation remains.

A one line, or--worse--a partial quote, is far more likely to lead to mischief. A lengthy quote is sometimes necessary to adequately explain a concept and a snippet can be cleverly used to deceive. The "Overview," created this very morning, well demonstrates the bias I found throughout the entry, just a few days ago. If a "scholar" declares that cats are dogs, should it be posted? Of course, not--it flies in the face of reason. I am prepared to work with all--in good faith--to improve the article; but if one point of view, which ignores antebellum reality, continues to be forced--and emphasized--to the exclusion of other perspectives, the resulting entry will substantially suffer if the objective is to educate. 74.192.7.135 (talk) 21:42, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Update: The changes made to the new "Overview" are an improvement in balance. I maintain that a Federalist/Anti-Federalist background creates a better starting point for, an overview, if one is required. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.192.7.135 (talk) 21:50, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Back up your charge. Following is the language that you claim "demonstrates the bias I found throughout the entry":

The issue of secession was discussed in many forums in the years before the American Civil War. With origins in the question of states' rights, preceding the Nullification Crisis, historian Maury Klein describes the contemporary debate: "Was the Republic a unified nation in which the individual states had merged their sovereign rights and identities forever, or was it a federation of sovereign states joined together for specific purposes from which they could withdraw at any time?"[11] He observes that "the case can be made that no result of the war was more important than the destruction, once and for all ... of the idea of secession".[12]

Historian Forrest McDonald argues that after the adoption of the Constitution "there were no guidelines, either in theory or in history, as to whether the compact could be dissolved and, if so, on what conditions". However during "the founding era, many a public figure . . . declared that the states could interpose their powers between their citizens and the power of the federal government, and talk of secession was not unknown." However in order to avoid the resort to violence that was necessary in the Revoulution, the Constitution intended, according to McDonald, to establish "legitimate means for constitutional change in the future." in effect, the Constitution "completed and perfected the Revolution." [13]

It's impossible to work cooperatively when you make broad charges without providing specifics. So what specifically is biased in the above?

You state, "It is also important to note that the Framers did not place the "perpetual union" wording in the U.S. Constitution. If they had, the Constitution would not have been ratified." I agree with the first part and will add it when I add to the section. I don't believe your second sentence is true -- please provide a reliable source that makes that claim.

You state, "If reference to Tucker, Taylor of Caroline, Jefferson and Morris were removed from the present version, as I found it earlier this week, a one-sided ("Federalist") presentation remains." I don't believe your charge is true. The material was moved to appropriate chronological sections since they had nothing to do with the transition from the Articles to the Constitution, but was not removed.

Your continued insistence on ignoring Wikipedia policy on primary and secondary sources (three editors have now pointed this out to you) makes me question the sincerity of your claim that you areprepared to work with all--in good faith--to improve the article. Who knows -- maybe you'll at least prove me wrong here. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 01:46, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Tom: I am beginning to believe that we might be able to work together. We are communicating, at least. As previously, stated the preponderance of Federalist viewpoints (primarily contemporary ones), illogically placed at the top of the article made for a biased presentation, intended or not. I don't know if you were the contributor; but I do know that your edits defended that status quo. That was then, this is now. Please note my "Update" in response to changes you made to the Overview. I question the need for an Overview, but if there is to be one--it should begin with the Federalist and Anti-Federalist perspective which is the historical foundation for this subject matter.

Whether secession is allowed or prohibited is the question and there are, certainly, differing opinions, even among some of the Framers. Unless, the American Revolution is a "secession" (currently the issue is muddled), why do you think it should be mentioned and what is the point of mentioning the Declaration of Independence which preceded both the Articles of Confederation and the U.S. Constitution? I do not believe they are pertinent. How do you feel about these categories?

I am not suggesting inclusion of my observation on "perpetual union" in the Articles or its lack in the U.S. Constitution. I am simply trying to demonstrate here, in the discussion area, that the Founders were capable of duplicating that language if that is what they had intended. As you know, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were products of compromise needed to win ratification of the new government. If you really want a source, though, I can find one for you.

If the article, prior to my edits, represented the decentralized anti-federalist (or a pro-secession) view; please tell me how many cited "scholars" presented a pro-secession viewpoint and how many presented a anti-secession viewpoint, or alternatively how many sources, supporting each, did so.

I am new to Wikipedia. If any of my contributions clearly violate a rule, I am unaware of it. Does Wikipedia really mandate that I must find a scholar's words to reference, for instance, the United States Constitution? That would be a pretty strange rule, but one I will follow if it is actually the rule. Citing to a political website, or to a court case, would seem to equally questionable, if that is the rule.

I'll kick back for a few days, and let you do what you think is best for the article. I think we both agree that the general outline is poor. Sincerely, 74.192.7.135 (talk) 03:02, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

---

UPDATE for TOM: In a letter from Madison to Washington on the eve of the Constitutional Convention (April 16, 1787), Madison conceded that the "consolidation of the whole into one simplistic republic would be" both "inexpedient" and "unattainable." While not conclusive, I believe this lends some support to my contention that an explicitly "perpetual" U.S. Constitution would not have been ratified. Madison's most explicit statement on the division of power between the Federal government and the States is contained in Federalist No. 45 (Federal powers are "few and defined," State powers are "numerous and indefinite"). Madison also, rather cryptically, referred to "inviolable" sovereignty of the States and "auxiliary precautions" against government abuse. The Webster-Hayne Debate on the Nature of the Union (1830) is another source of relevant antebellum thought (e.g., Hayne argued that the question of secession lies with the people of South Carolina).74.192.7.135 (talk) 06:42, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

the problem is not Tucker’s law, it's his history

Where to begin. Let us posit the values of a democratic republic, where there is majority rule. Here I am relying primarily on Pauline Maier’s “Ratification: the People Debate”.

• (1) The Articles Congress debated amendments to the Constitution as laid before it, the amendments were voted down, and the Constitution was ‘unanimously’ sent to the state legislatures to be considered there by the Constitutional procedure. The Articles Congress did not propose to use the Articles procedure. Tucker implies that it did. It did not.
• (2) Those like the Anti’s in New York, independent of the Articles Congress, circulated a proposal for another national Convention to propose amendments before the new government began operation. This proposal died in the state legislatures. If Tucker’s sovereignties did NOT want to stop the Constitution, how does Tucker’s philosophy account for it? He does not, there is only high dudgeon at playing false. It may be the People wanted something other than Tucker did.
• (3)The Articles Congress certified the Constitution ratified by eleven states, and the Articles Congress then appointed the place and time of the Constitutional government inauguration. Tucker imagines the Constitutional minimum of nine began the new regime. It was not, there were eleven, and not before.
• (4) The framers used the wording “more perfect Union” than the ‘perpetual’ one before it. The real sticking point was “We, the People”, the Federalist minorities won in state conventions of Ma, Va and NY, only with the promise of the Bill of Rights. Tucker does not take cognizance of “the People”, nor majority rule. There are only constituent states in confederacy, each equal to every other one big or small, and equal to all others combined.

Tucker could only see sovereignty was indivisible, and it lay with the states. Those with the votes said the people were sovereign, and they delegated different powers to different agencies, state and federal, to effect their safety and happiness. The people let the state legislatures choose US Senators until they prove so corrupt over time that a super-super majority of the people in 3/4 of the states took the privilege away, to directely elect their own US Senators (17th Amendment).

• (5) To suppose an equivalence for those who (a) lose votes in the Articles Congress, (b) lose votes in eleven, then thirteen state legislatures, and (c) lose votes in eleven then thirteen ratification conventions, means we cannot take cognizance of majority rule during the formation period. This is bad history.

And we have no scholar to put Tucker forward. In Maier’s account, Tucker's point of view is included in her describing Maryland’s Luther Martin, because he is a floor leader in Congress. But Martin is outvoted early in the Articles Congress, so his view is not of much consequence ... TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 02:49, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Virginia Historian: You just laid out an outline for a dissertation. Even a feeble response will take some research and time. With regard to the "We, the People" sticking point, the wording of the Tenth Amendment (1791) would seem to represent Tucker's view. In other words, "The powers not delegated . . . , are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." tends to indicate a hierarchy with the States in primacy and the people bringing up the rear. I think it is safe to say, that the aristocracy (such as Tucker) found that division, and order of power, very comforting. I know of no founders who were keen on direct democracy. Thanks for your contribution and the food for thought. 74.192.7.135 (talk) 03:33, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I moved the "states prohibited" section because the discussion is running too fast for me to keep up. I hate getting old. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:03, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

The short answer is James Wilson of Pennsylvania. Pennsylvanians were often the most libertarian and democratic. Philadelphia and colonial urban labor history generally is a favorite for American 'little d'-democracy research.

Here are two cites from two complete online copies of Madison’s Notes. I like Yale's Law School "Avalon Project" because of its breadth and depth of primary sources across all US eras.

-- Mr. WILSON said … at least that in theory he was for an election (of US President) by the people. Experience, particularly in N. York & Massts., shewed that an election of the first magistrate (governor) by the people at large, was both a convenient & successful mode. The objects of choice in such cases must be persons whose merits have general notoriety. “Friday, June 1, 1777”. ... later,

-- Mr. WILSON renewed his declarations in favor of an appointment by the people. He wished to derive not only both branches of the Legislature from the people, without the intervention of the State Legislatures but the Executive also; in order to make them as independent as possible of each other, as well as of the States; “Friday, June 1, 1777”.

more on the Ninth and Tenth amendment below. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 14:07, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

What's prohibited to the states?

(1) While we must be careful to faithfully represent the thought of those who believe(d) in secession, editors on this site occasionally misrepresent the meaning of the Tenth Amendment, asserting that states may do whatever they choose without reference to the Constitution or the US Congress.

We can discuss and write this article with more precision if we read both Article I and the Tenth Amendment together. We can do a better job if we are alert to the rationales used to motivate resistance to US Constitutional government on each of these points.

• Amendment Ten says, “The powers not delegated to the U.S. ..., nor prohibited ... to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

(2) So, lets look at what is prohibited to the states. In Article I, sections 8 and 10, paraphrased:

All references below are to “Analysis and Interpretation of the Constitution” (Abbreviated 'AIC') Sen. Doc. 108-17, 2002.

Most citations are governing law. They contain historical discussion of earlier cases, Supreme Court rulings, and their changes over time.

• States may not enter any 'Alliance or Confederation'. In the eyes of the US Courts, "The Confederacy...could never have a legal existence." (AIC p.326 Note 1894 Williams v. Bruffy)
• States may not keep (standing) 'troops or ships' without Congressional permission. (AIC p.370 N. 2134 Luther V. Borden)
• Congress will 'exclusively' control DC (AIC p.298 1678 3 J. Story Commentaries)
• Congress will 'exclusively' control US forts, arsenals, equipages (AIC p.301 1708 James v. Dravo Contracting Co., 1716 Western Union Tel. Co., v. Chiles)
• States may not “impair … contracts” (AIC p.332 N.1944 Carmell v. Texas) or “make … money to pay debts”. (AIC p.326 N.1906 Woodruff v. Trapnall).
• States may not lay duties “without … Congress”, any (existing) state laws are under Congressional control and all such collections are “for … the US Treasury.” (AIC p.365 2098 Hooven & Allison Co. v. Evatt)

Each of these seven citations demonstrate The Tenth Amendment cannot be interpreted to make states sovereign. “It added nothing to the instrument as originally ratified." AIC Tenth amendment, p.3 Note 1. US v. Sprague) TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 17:05, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

The above is what is known as WP:Original research or even WP:Soapbox. Please discuss issues with reference to WP:Reliable sources. At the very least move it to whatever discussion you are attempting to reply. Thanks. CarolMooreDC (talk) 18:09, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

References provided on request. As you can see, there is no original research, only summaries of each provision prohibiting state action cited in ruling Supreme Court case law.

Let's look at WP:Soapbox in its five aspects here. “Soapbox” is

1. advocacy, propaganda ... A restatement of the Tenth Amendment is not propaganda, influencing a community to benefit oneself.

2. opinion pieces. This is not a discussion of current events. 3. scandal mongering. This is not about living people.

4. self-promotion. I did not write the Constitution. 5. advertising. This is not about a commercial or public service commodity.

But, just in case, I reworked the introductory remarks to move away from any soapboxing to focus on our task here. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 04:17, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Everything that is listed in this discussion as prohibiting secession are things that occur post-secession. Once the secession has occurred, no restrictions based on U.S. law apply as that act of secession creates a sovereign foreign state outside of U.S. jurisdiction. However, I recommend adding a section on the subject of the constitution and secession to this article, in which both views are illustrated for the reader so that they are aware of both schools of thought.Blcklbl (talk) 19:34, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Frankly, I can't remember if any version of what he talks about made it into the article. So are you proposing reorganizing any existing material or only adding new material, including that he refers to but doesn't ref here? And from what sources? Also, of course, re-reading this section it occurs to me there is the issue of what if it is "the people" organized into cities or joined parts of one or more states, and not existing state structures, who secede? ;-) CarolMooreDC 00:07, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

People's rights v. governments' power.

I found a wonderful volume to help us put Tucker in the context of the secessionist intellectual tradition. It’s a little dated for use as a source, but I think it will serve as a general introduction so we can all be on the same page. It is John Brown Dillon”s “Notes on historical evidence … adverse theories … of the government of the United States” We got “state sovereignty” from Tucker’s Blackstone or Sharrswood’s Blackstone, Luther Martin, Samuel Chase, John Taylor, Robert Hayne, John Calhoun, Justice Taney, Jefferson Davis and more, also adverse examples.
(heh, heh).

So, on the other hand, let’s look at the inalienable rights of people and derived powers of government as it is found in American Lockean libertarian tradition. The Declaration says, “… (people) are created …with certain unalienable 'Rights' … to secure these rights, Governments … deriv(e) … 'powers' from the consent of the governed (people) …

• The Tenth Amendment says, “The 'powers' not delegated to the U.S. … are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” Powers are delegated by the people, first to the US, then leftovers to their states. If the people have made no delegation of their power, it resides in the people. (The people are sovereign.)
• The Ninth Amendment says, “... enumeration of certain 'rights' (in the Constitution) ... shall not be construed to deny or disparage (other rights) retained by the people." That would leave states out of the rights question; rights are for people alone. States’ rights are not found in the Constitution, states have only delegated powers as does any government.

Mr. Pendleton in the Virginia ratification convention, (From Dillon, p. 43, quoting his edition of Elliot’s “Debates”, Vol. III, p. 37.)

“The expression, ‘We, the People,’ is thought improper. Permit me to ask the gentleman who made this objection (that would be Patrick Henry), Who but the People can delegate powers? Who but the People have a right to form government? … “If the objection be that the Union ought to be not of 'the people', but of the 'State governments', then I think the choice of (We, the People) very happy and proper. What have the 'State governments' to do with it?”

However, here we are writing an article on 'Secession in the United States'. Important historical figures have thought and persuaded others and acted on the idea that states had rights using sources such as Blackstone (the triumph of Saxon customary law over the oppressive centralizing government of the Norman tyrant, as you may recall). So we rely on scholars to place their words and deeds in context to write a great encyclopedia article. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 16:17, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

---

Thank you! The material is fascinating and Edmund Pendleton does support your point rather well. Your Ninth Amendment argument is a compelling counter to my supposition on the Tenth. Unfortunately for all of us who love the subject, it seems the Founders tried to keep some aspects of our "more perfect Union" perfectly ambiguous, so that future generations could fight about it. I will not be editing this article for a while. In the meantime, I am looking for the rule forbidding primary sources. Impressive research, Virginia Historian. Thanks again, for your help 74.192.7.135 (talk) 18:04, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, sir. It is an 'ol shame the founder folk were politicians and although clearly more polished in their elocution, they were guilty of propagating the same sort of double-speak that those of their ilk craft in our time. Tom Paine was right, we gotta watch 'em. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 20:13, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Primary sources as references

Earlierr, Editor IP*135 was looking for the rule concerning using primary sources to support a narrative contribution...this is out of another discussion section.TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 15:55, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:No_original_research#Primary.2C_secondary_and_tertiary_sources. Primary sources are not forbidden but are not to be used instead of secondary sources, unless those can't be found and it's some important point that needs to be made and there's a consensus (IE most editors agree) it is acceptable. They also can be used in addition to secondary sources. Or when it's so obvious, like: "Article IV, Section. 3, Clause 1 of the United States Constitutions reads:" where only purpose is to state what it is. CarolMooreDC (talk) 21:57, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Carol. Is there a list of acceptable primary sources, or do the sources always have to be arbitrated each and every time they are used? For example, if one wishes to make reference to a dissenting court opinion, must one locate a law review article, in order to: distinguish the case; demonstrate a conflict with another source; show a court's inconsistency; or expose a legal fiction? Any further guidance would be most appreciated. 74.192.7.135 (talk) 22:34, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:No_original_research#Primary.2C_secondary_and_tertiary_sources reads: Policy: Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify are supported by the source.

Since any primary source can have all sorts of facts/opinions/etc. we use secondary sources to establish what is notable, relevant, etc. While I only half read the various discussions above, I think you are trying to argue that the 10th Amendment infers right to secession, or some such point. But you can't insert your own interpretation. However, this kind of interpretation has been made by lots of writers, high profile individuals/groups and I think even academics. So find them through research. I assume you've used books.google; scholar.google; news.google (especially archives). They are the best places to get straight to the most credible sources. CarolMooreDC (talk) 02:22, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

---

Actually, the Tenth Amendment was not on my mind--but I appreciate the fact that you have followed the course of discussion closely. I have seen numerous references to case law, (e.g., Texas v. White on this topic) which are primary sources. Those sources are frequently summarized here without scholarly input, or for all I know, without legal training. It is often useful to point out discrepancies for a fuller understanding. For example, in Texas v. White the Supreme Court claims that states cannot secede, yet as Justice Grier, a Pennsylvanian, writes in his dissent, Texas was not a part of the Union when the case was decided. In fact, Texas was not readmitted into the Union until President Grant signed the congressional act in March of 1870. Am I allowed to quote the dissenting opinion in that case? I have already gathered that some apply the rules only when it suits them. I do not wish to be one of those. Thanks for your thoughts and for the viable links. 74.192.7.135 (talk) 05:02, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Whether or not it is part of the narrative, I think that all cited court cases should be described in the notes, as unanimous or split, naming writers for the majority, concurrent opinions and dissenting. Especially over the scope of time this article covers, dissenting arguments in one case can become the basis for a decision at a later time or in another circumstance. Documenting that change would be very interesting. Also, if that information is not included in some jurist's biography pages, the dissenting votes might be of some interest there.

Mostly when I have looked for scholarly context and interpretation, early on I would hit a wall at JSTOR. But now, there is more and more free online volumes in their entirety ...

Also, Carolmooredc gave us "Wikipedia:No_original_research#Primary.2C_secondary_and_tertiary_sources. Primary sources are not forbidden but are not to be used instead of secondary sources, unless those can't be found and it's some important point that needs to be made and there's a consensus (IE most editors agree) it is acceptable. They also can be used in addition to secondary sources."

That sounds as though if we have a reliable Encyclopedia with an article that says "Texas v. White" was important as addressing secession, then that citation gives an editor leave to read the case to present more detail relative to the facts, the issues, the reasoning to the decision and the dissent.

That would leverage the accessible scholars for determining relevance and importance, and editors would then pursue reading the primary source to elaborate. Notice of the posting could go on the discussion page with a call for any scholarly expansion by another editor. Other editors would know to read the case if they were interested in critiquing the editor's paraphrasing to protect the article from POV in good faith. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 15:55, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I haven't been following that closely, but assuming he has not already, the AnonIP#135 should just preview what he wants to put in where on this talk page. And then we can talk specifics instead of generalities. CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:59, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

---

Thank you Virginia Historian and Carol for your thoughts. Having read the information that Carol provided, I do not think the Tucker material qualifies as a primary source. The material comes from a reprint of a substantial portion of Tucker's legal textbook (a tertiary source) that pertains to the U.S. Constitution. Tucker did not participate in the Articles of Confederation or the constitutional conventions. He was simply a legal scholar (and judge) writing for the purpose of teaching the law to his students. The modern reprint was published by a very reliable source and was edited by a well recognized scholar.

With regard to case law, every published U.S. case is readily available; but finding a law review article, or other source, to make a simple educational point, is time consuming. All too frequently it is a futile exercise; because scholars are generally punished for pointing out inconvenient facts, yet rewarded for reinforcing legal fallacies that buttress the accepted institutional views of legal history. An excellent example of this, is the treatment of Raoul Berger, who's "niche in the liberal pantheon came tumbling down in 1977" after he pointed out that the Supreme Court had been willfully misinterpreting the Fourteenth Amendment for decades. See Raoul Berger, Government by Judiciary: The Transformation of the Fourteenth Amendmentp. xvii (Indianapolis: Liberty Fund 1999) (foreword by Forrest McDonald); see also: Clyde N. Wilson labeled a Neo-Confederate, a term creatively propagated by the pseudo-academic SPLC (a primary source) with its Wikipedia advocates. Interestingly, an editor complaining that Tucker was a "primary source" (above), also claims to have created the Neo-Confederate and Texas v. White pages). Please draw your own conclusions. The same price paid by Berger and Wilson are more pronounced, and potentially more severe, for university academics in other fields. So, confinement to scholarly secondary sources is a severe handicap, and frustration, in some disciplines, like the law. Oh well. 74.192.7.135 (talk) 23:50, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I must turn my attention elsewhere for now. I'll return when I can with my suggested inclusion. Thank you. 74.192.7.135 (talk) 23:54, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

First, it helps to point out to editors just what specifically you are talking about. Looking back, I get impression VAHistorian reverted something you included from Tucker? Anyway, it seems to be a bit too much of an abstruse reference for this article, especially since it's not in his article. Perhaps put it there first.

Also, search engines can be helpful if you type in the right phrases to help you find scholars who dealing with the subject in some way. In my previous example, tenth amendment supports secession and variations on "support" might bring up something of interest. CarolMooreDC (talk) 02:46, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Carol: My first paragraph refers to the Tucker material that was challenged by Tom (North Shoreman) and then Duoduoduo on a primary source objection. Virginian Historian joined, later, with the opinion that the Tucker material needed another source. Virginia Historian produced another source (something I would not have found) and I am grateful for his help. Nevertheless, I respectfully maintain the the Tucker material is not a primary source. My second paragraph has absolutely nothing to do with Virginia Historian. It is an anticipatory defense against those with a peculiar POV. I will edit in the near future and see what happens. 74.192.7.135 (talk) 03:39, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

The Tucker work is clearly a primary source. It is a series of essays that put forth Tucker's original political beliefs on issues that he was involved with. You misstate the full context in which the works were produced. The forward to the book, which is available here [5] makes this context clear. While the entire forward should be read, the following is the most concise explanation of Tucker's purpose:

In addition to View of the Constitution of the United States, this book includes seven other essays lifted from Tucker’s edition of Blackstone. These are the most important writings in regard to Tucker’s political and constitutional thought.

In no way can the essays be deemed, as you state elsewhere above, "a tertiary source." Tertiary sources are based entirely on secondary sources.

Like wise, secondary sources are based on primary sources. If his works had been a summary of OTHER PEOPLE'S OPINIONS it would be secondary. In fact, however, the material is Tucker's opinions. While he was not a major player such as Madison or Jefferson, his opinions were based on HIS EXPERIENCES. Once again, from the Forward:

After the war, Tucker’s law practice flourished. He was appointed one of the committee to revise the laws of Virginia, and he served with James Madison and Edmund Randolph as Virginia commissioners to the Annapolis Convention. Tucker’s career as an expounder of the new constitutions of Virginia and of the United States began in 1790 when he succeeded Wythe as professor of law at William and Mary.

The views expressed in the work are totally consistent with his political and professional activities. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 11:26, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

PS You also need to know that Wikipedia operates based on consensus. The fact that only you believe that it is a primary source is noted. Three editors, however, have said otherwise. You may want to look at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution for your other options. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 11:37, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

---

Tom: First, thank you for the link to consensus, your direct quote, and the link to the book in question, for the benefit of others. Apart from the foreword, I cited to pages 84-86. I mistakenly thought that those pages were from "Views of the Constitution of the United States." I was wrong. Those pages correspond with "Of the Several Forms of Government." If you will look at page 21, it reads: "This was Tucker's Appendix B to Volume 1 of his edition of Blackstone's Commentaries. . .[he] considered it a necessary introduction to his lengthy treatment, in the next two appendices, of the constitutions of Virginia and of the United States." Wilson, ed., Views of the Constitution, p. 21.

"While the use of Tucker's work cannot be quantified, all authorities agree that it was influential." (Wilson's foreword at ix). You know the rest; you quoted from this page. It is the earliest constitutional textbook and the quoted material is clearly written for classroom instruction. Otherwise, how do you explain that it was appended to Blackstone's Commentaries which "expanded Blackstone's four volumes to five." (Wilson's foreword at ix). One only has to look at pages 21, and 84-86, to confirm my veracity.

Finally: "Tertiary Sources are publications such as encyclopedias or other compendia that mainly summarize secondary sources" (quoting Wikipedia rules). "A compendium is a concise, yet comprehensive compilation of a body of knowledge" (quoting Wikipedia definition). It is a tertiary source and may also be a secondary source (e.g. from Wikipedia rules: "A book by a military historian about the Second World War might be a secondary source about the war, but if it includes details of the author's own war experiences, it would be a primary source about those experiences.") Tucker was expounding on the Constitution, and he was not a first hand participant--unless being a Judge means that all the legal books you write are primary sources. Are Richard Posner's books primary sources? Why, or why not? Are all legal textbooks, written by a judge or lawyer, primary sources? Why, or why not? Sincerely, 74.192.33.39 (talk) 04:08, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Texas v. White

I have added material to Texas v. White and performed factual corrections and housekeeping on the citations. The holding is misrepresented and is without citation. Rather than change it, boldly and proactively, I wanted to give others a chance to respond. I have no secondary authority; neither my 1750 page constitutional law textbook, nor my hornbook even mention the case. In other words, we need a consensus.

In this case, the question presented and the holding is easy to spot. The question presented, relative to the status of Texas, as framed by the court is: "Did Texas, in consecuence [sic] of these acts, cease to be a State? Or, if not, did the State cease to be a member of the Union?" Texas v. White, 74 U.S. 700, 724 (1868). The holding (i.e., the Court's decision on the question) is: "Our conclusion therefore is, that Texas continued to be a State, and a State of the Union, notwithstanding the transactions to which we have referred. And this conclusion, in our judgment, is not in conflict with any act or declaration of any department of the National government, but entirely in accordance with the whole series of such acts and declarations since the first outbreak of the rebellion." 74 U.S. 700 at 726. By the way, the majority's opinion scrupulously avoids reference to "secession" in its reasoning on this question. The majority fancies "insurrection" or "rebellion." Read it for yourself. I suggest that the holding be corrected.

This is merely "cocktail" knowledge. The most interesting part of all this is that: if, the Supreme Court was correct in 1869 and Texas was a State all along, then why did Congress need to pass an act granting Texas readmission into the Union in 1870? Somebody was wrong. By the way, as a matter of law, the Legislature always trumps the Supreme Court, unless the Supreme Court (after Marbury vs. Madison) declares the congressional act unconstitutional. So, as a technical matter, an argument could be made that the Court was wrong (superseded by the Congress), it never had jurisdiction and therefore, its decision is void (i.e, a nullity).74.192.7.135 (talk) 09:33, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

---

Just because you couldn't find secondary sources doesn't mean they don't exist. In fact, despite your false claims to the contrary, the entire Texas v. White article is based on secondary sources. Have you even looked at the article? If so, how did you manage to miss the footnotes? While there are quotes from the case, they are provided only after a secondary source has explained the context and significance. Also you appear to have missed the fact that the brief mention of the case in the Secession article is supported by a secondary source -- the footnote (#50) that you again apparently missed even provides a link directly to the page.

I have deleted the following material that you added:

"The original jurisdiction of this court can be invoked only by one of the United States" (Justice Grier, joined by Swayne and Miller, dissenting). [52] "If I regard the truth of history for the last eight years, I cannot discover the State of Texas as one of these United States" (Justice Grier, joined by Swayne and Miller, dissenting).[53] On February 8, 1870, the elected members of the Legislature assembled at Austin at the order of the military commander to adopt the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments and select United States Senators in preparation for readmission to the Union.[54] On March 30, 1870, President Grant signed the congressional act that readmitted Texas to the Union.[55]

If you have a reliable secondary source that says the events of Reconstruction meant that secession was legal, then present them. There were several interpretations presented at the time (and covered adequately by secondary sources) that provide interpretations of the legal status of the states that declared secession within the context of Reconstruction -- none of them based on the supposition that secession was legal. Your unsupported opinion about what was implied is irrelevant.

If there is a consensus on this page to restore your material, so be it. Carol advised you to bring your proposals here first and you ignored her. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 10:56, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

---

I agree with you, Tom, that there should be consensus on the two direct quotations from the dissenting opinion and the unsubstantiated and incorrect description of the holding of the case, now that both have been challenged. I disagree, that the material from the Handbook of Texas pertaining to Reconstruction and readmission was appropriately reverted. It must have been an oversight. That information is from a reliable scholarly source. Intelligent people can draw their own conclusions.

I found no citation, or quotation marks, following the sentence addressing the holding. I assume that is your contribution, Tom. If so, please provide a citation for that sentence, if possible, so that the claim is verifiable and accurate, as you see it. I would be shocked to learned that any legal academic has described the holding in the manner it is currently presented, but it is possible as they are mere mortals, too. I did notice two citations, one being a primary source w/o page reference, following the last sentence of that paragraph, but it is not clear whether either pertain to the holding. I did not ignore Carol; I delivered my proposal. I honestly did not think that rest of my edits would be objectionable, especially since I have provided absolutely no synthesis, commentary, spin or analysis.

Here is my question to you: if the Court's majority opinion does not even use the word "secession" in its opinion about the status of Texas, how can anyone conclude that it is about secession? On this basis alone, I could challenge inclusion of the whole case (even with a secondary source); but I have not done so, because my goal is not to silence another view. My goal is to educate! Of course, I realize that inferences can be made, but even a solid inference is not a holding. Please provide any quoted language from the majority opinion that supports you proposition regarding the holding of the Court. Sincerely, 74.192.7.135 (talk) 16:53, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

The material from the Handbook of Texas (a tertiary source but generally a good one) was removed on purpose. As a factual matter, VirginiaHistorian explains the situation below. I removed it because as it stands it is irrelevant to this article in general and the section on the Supreme Court in particular. It would take several paragraphs at least to relate post war reconstruction policy with legal theories advanced at the time. Obviously none of these theories argue that secession was legal since they were implemented by the victors who very clearly considered secession illegal (see [[6]] for an overview of the issue). Such a discussion may be relevant in an article on Reconstruction but is only very loosely related to this article.

I had to laugh when I read "I found no citation, or quotation marks, following the sentence addressing the holding. In fact, I gave you the exact footnote number and told you that all you needed to do was hit the link to find exactly what the source says. Are you really unaware that footnotes more often than not refer to several sentences rather than the single sentence after which the number is listed? BTW the source was provided by Carol, not me and an exact quote from the article is "Chase CJ ruled in favor of Texas on the ground that the Confederate state government in Texas had no legal existence on the basis that the secession of Texas from the United States was illegal."

If you are going to continue to insist that YOUR OPINIONS justify ignoring RELIABLE SECONDARY SOURCES, then you really have no business editing wikipedia. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 18:24, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

---

Tom: Actually, Virginia Historian only responded to my "cocktail" knowledge. He has not addressed the holding and neither have you! If the material is Carol's contribution then perhaps, she can properly cite the source. You can't just write your own selective interpretation and then cite to something that generally covers the subject matter. The only secondary source referenced for the whole ball of wax, as you desire it, is the Creating New States: Theory and Practice book which states: "In practical terms, this meant that Texas had never seceded from the United States."Pavkovic, p. 222. My...what selective editors we are, and with imprecise, or no, attribution. So how does this support a holding about secession--if as your source, and the Court's majority, states: there was no secession? What are you trying to hide? 74.192.33.39 (talk) 19:25, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

The cite is on point. Anybody actually familiar with the subject matter would realize that there is nothing controversial about what the article says. A holding that says secession is illegal is certainly a "holding about secession." Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 12:24, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

As it stands now, the holding in Texas v. White is not verifiable (and wrong), no matter how much you protest. Proper citation should follow every sentence. Once again, there is no citation following that line.74.192.33.39 (talk) 06:08, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh really? This would suggest to me that (a) you've never read a book with footnotes and (b) you've never written in school or elsewhere a paper requiring footnotes. For wikipedia purposes see WP:INCITE which states, "If a word or phrase is particularly contentious, an inline citation may be added next to that word or phrase within the sentence, but it is usually sufficient to add the citation to the end of the sentence or paragraph, so long as it's clear which source supports which part of the text." Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 12:24, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I am not going to argue with you Tom, it is too easy and tedious to repeatedly expose your fallacious arguments. Your cites are unclear, frequently false, and generally misleading. From what I have read of your work you seem to violate NPOV every time you post; but what is worse you censor valuable contributions made by others, simply because it does not conform to your viewpoint.

I have edited the unsupported misrepresentations out of the Texas v. White case until we can arrive at a consensus. The purported holding is demonstrably false, as already discussed. I replaced the deleted material with a primary source reference; because unlike others, I am not trying to hide information from public view.74.192.33.39 (talk) 15:22, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Delete Texas v. White, if it suits you Tom.74.192.33.39 (talk) 15:26, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Your response is long on personal invective and very short on substance.

The material you deleted is properly sourced and has been in the article for a long time. You are the one that stands the burden of showing there is a consensus to change it.

The source is clear about the findings of the court. Let me repeat the quote that I provided before from that source, "Chase CJ ruled in favor of Texas on the ground that the Confederate state government in Texas had no legal existence on the basis that the secession of Texas from the United States was illegal."

What can be clearer than that? The fact that you don't want it to be true is not justification for deleting the material. If you have a RELIABLE SECONDARY SOURCE that says something different, add that material. — Preceding unsigned comment added by North Shoreman (talk • contribs) 16:30, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Tom: There is no source for the deleted sentence. "Any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by a reliable source. Material for which no reliable source can be found is considered original research." Wikipedia Rules. The source is cited to the last sentence only! And that material violates: "Best practice is to research the most reliable sources on the topic and summarize what they say in your own words, with each statement in the article attributable to a source that makes that statement explicitly. Id. You are presenting a summation that no source supports. "Source material should be carefully summarized or rephrased without changing its meaning or implication. Id. "Take care not to go beyond what is expressed in the sources, or to use them in ways inconsistent with the intention of the source, such as using material out of context." Id. "In short, stick to the sources." Id

Why not this quote from your source: In practical terms, this meant that Texas had never seceded from the United States."(Pavkovic, p. 222,)? I have no objection to Texas v. White. I object to the misrepresentation contained in the present form w/o attribution, and your attempts block all contrary views. In other words, you are presenting a grossly exaggerated presentation of a fairly insignificant court decision which embraced a "legal fiction," not a historical fact. But you object to the historical record being presented, or any critique of the court decision you have misrepresented. I don't object to your reference to Texas v. White, I object to a biased (and inaccurate) presentation of the material. As I said, fair inferences about the case can be presented, so long as there is context; but you won't allow the context that make the article interesting and truly informative.

There is plenty of room for all viewpoints. Allow the reader to decide. On a related note, a Pew poll released April 8, 2011 revealed that 48% of people, polled, believed that the Civil War was fought over states' rights, and another 9% believe it was fought over both slavery and states' rights. CNN conducted a similar poll just announced finding that 42% of the public think the War was a power struggle between the States and Federal government. These are not radical or extreme views and you and I would get along very well if you stop blocking information, just because you don't agree with it. Just be reasonable. 74.192.7.135 (talk) 17:48, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Well done Tom--now how about a little historical context? I have suggested material that you do not approve of. What do you suggest?74.192.7.135 (talk) 18:11, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

---

I've explained above the problems with your reliance on primary sources unsupported by secondary sources. I suggest you paraphrase ON THIS DISCUSSION PAGE what you believe needs to be said and we can then discuss what sourcing is needed.

BTW, your recent reverts appear to be nothing but Edit warring. Perhaps you should also check out WP:POINT. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 01:05, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

---

Tom [North Shoreman]: Perhaps you should check out tendentious editing. Why should anyone bother finding other sources, when you will continue to delete the contributions. You have deleted secondary sources and highly reliable quotes from the U.S. Supreme Court Reporter. There is no rule that requires anyone to let you screen contributions in advance. That is disruptive74.192.7.135 (talk) 06:56, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

There is a serious problem with lay unfamiliarity with the subject-matter at hand. No court can render judgments that are valid against a sovereign state-- or make a state sovereign or not; however Texas v White and other variuos rulings--and even court dicta by various justices-- are freely bandied about as valid binding law as with regard to such.BradAnderson (talk) 02:19, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Texas was readmitted to representation, not statehood

Point of order. Texas representatives were re-admitted to the Congress. Texas was not re-admitted to statehood. I wonder if that's a Lost Cause (my cousin Ludwell's) deliberate misrepresentation. No, we must assume good faith. See "Public Acts of the Forty-First Congress of the United States", using all references in the Index, p.1301.

• April 10, 1869. (p.40-41, First Session). Chap. XVII. an act for submitting the constitutions of Va, Missippi and Texas to a vote of the people, elections for state officers and Congress.
• July 15, 1869. (p.1129, Appendix). President Grant's Proclamation No. 6. Authorizes referendum on Texas Constitution for November 30, 1869.
• March 30, 1870. (Second Session, p. 80-81)

Chap XXXIX. "An Act to admit the State of Texas to Representation in the Congress of the United States". The people of Texas by referendum adopted a constitution which is republican, and the legislature ratified the 14th and 15th Amendments as a condition of Congressional representation … Provided legilators have not held US office and rebelled, unless they've been permitted office-holding by act of Congress. And representation may continue, as long as (1) no one is excluded from voting by race in the Texas constitution, or (2) deprived the right to hold office, or (3) denied access to schools or other privileges.

• April 10, 1870. (Second Session, p. 96). Congress extends time for oath taking to April 30, 1870.

The title re-admitting Texas representation is a convoluted seventeen-word sentence of pompus legalese. I regret any misunderstanding for folks who stopped at eight words and did not read the entire text of the statute. "First thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers." Henry VI (Act IV, Scene ii). TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 16:09, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

---

Virginia Historian: I did not claim to read the statute. In the words, of Justice Grier: "This is to be decided as a political fact, not as a legal fiction. This court is bound to know and notice the public history of the nation." Texas v. White, 74 U.S. 700, 737 (1868) (dissenting, joined by Swayne and Miller)74.192.7.135 (talk) 17:04, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

"People separated from their history are easily persuaded." Vladimir I. Lenin 74.192.7.135 (talk) 17:22, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

no, no, please, you are okay, it's the sources. The April 30 date is generally used. I was not kidding. cousin Ludwell and his buds did some serious work in the early 20th Century. If you assume there is a direct relationship between the Congress and the people in every state (like "dual citizenship" in poli-sci class), then when Congress said the people in Texas could be represented there again, March 30 is the date for the end of Texas Reconstruction (also an entry in the Index above for Texas).

If you are like Tucker, and do as he did, apply the prinicples of British constitutions and Parliament from Blackstone to US state legislatures, then Texas is not re-admitted to the Union until the state legislature that took Texas out of the Union in secession declares it back in, April 30 is then the date. But US courts hold that there is no secession.

Love the quotes. The same marvelous Blackstone who said "It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer." which I endlessly recall and admire, also said, "That the king can do no wrong is a necessary and fundamental principle of the English constitution.", with which I am fundamentally and everlastingly disagreed. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 19:00, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

The take-away from my discussion should be, Congress said that the people in the state of Texas could have representation again. There was no re-admission of the state. The date for Texas on the ground is what most scholars choose. Congress acted March 30.

The rebellion was put down. Reconstruction in Texas was over. It may be that there were other points of view of interest. But they did not have the votes in the House and the Senate. At some point, those who believe in a democratic republic allow the majority to rule. Editors should represent the majority, even if a neutral position allows a voice to the minority.

A dissenting Supreme Court Justice is hardly a "fringe" opinion, even though they were not persuasive at the time of the case or now. They should be included in a note at the end of the article. I will spend a little more time looking at the case, but in general, I like the balance to be found in the WP main article on White v. Texas.

lesser, legal inquiry: did Texas allow the bonds to be floated before or after the CSA Congress enacted a law requiring all foreign US citizen monies and property confiscated? The answer might speak to the intent of the selling agent in New York. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 02:19, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

---

Thank you, Virginia Historian. I am glad you enjoyed the quotes. I like the Blackstone quote as well. I only read the threshold inquiry, in Texas v. White, about the Court's jurisdiction (i.e., Texas' status), so I regret than I am unable to answer your question. There is only so much time in a day. Best wishes,74.192.33.39 (talk) 05:56, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Interesting. You have determined that the secondary sources are wrong about their interpretation of the opinion (your quote -- I would be shocked to learned that any legal academic has described the holding in the manner it is currently presented, but it is possible as they are mere mortals, too.) yet you admit you haven't even read the entire opinion. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 12:34, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I demonstrated that the holding was misrepresented and unsupported and I did not have to read the entire case to do it.74.192.33.39 (talk) 15:52, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

---

You guys are both still running way too fast for me. I am looking at secondary sources, just as fast as I can.

Maybe something by tomorrow.

Besides Pierson out of UNC being one of Dunnings Lost Cause grad students, any commentary on these sources before I spend a lot more time on it?

• Hall, Kermit L. “The Oxford guide to United States Supreme Court decisions”, 2001, Nieman, Donald C., contributed article [“Texas V. White”.
• Johnson, John W., “Historic US court cases” (2001), contributed chapter by Thomas D. Morris, “Indestructible Union, Indestructible States”;
• Jackson, Percival E., “Dissent in the Supreme Court: a chronology” 1969’
• Pierson, William Whatley, “Texas versus White: a study in legal history”. 1916

And, my ever trusty Fehrenbach, “Lone Star”. Got a surprise cooking from THE Texas historian. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 00:06, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Frivolous Revert

The following was reverted with no explanation by the IP as to why it was not appropriate:

"Historian Forrest McDonald wrote that the case was decided in favor of Texas "because secession was unconstitutional, the pretended government was itself illegal, being nothing more than a band of rebels" and that "Chase disposed of, once and for all time, the question that had vexed the Republic for more than six decades. Secession was not a constitutional possibility."

I have issued a 3RR warning, but would still like an explanation -- especially since it contains information which the IP has requested. In the meantime I will add additional information that addresses the issues raised. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 00:10, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

The sourced material I've added is by historian Kenneth m. Stampp. It is just one of many sources that indicate that secession was illegal/unconstitutional. It is very hypocritical for the IP to ask for quotes and citations verifying that the White decision declared secession illegal and then revert them when they are added. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 00:37, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

---

I know something of Stampp’s work, and it is highly regarded; I had at least two of his books assigned in grad school, and I have read more. Don’t miss Ira Berlin’s “Many Thousands Gone”.

I think that earlier, IP*135 searched on the case text and did not find “secession”, so he is unhappy with the “secessionist” usage he did not find in the source document. But at least two secondary sources said that was what was under discussion in Texas v. White. Check out the two ‘’’secession’’’ references below.

• Johnson, John W., “Historic US court cases” (2001) p.253.

Working paraphrase. -- Following the chief justice’s reasoning in Texas v. White, secession was legally or constitutionally void, and Republican congressional Reconstruction was valid. … blacks … were part of the ‘people’ who made up the state, and indestructible Texas was a state transformed within an indestructible union. Too close to a quote to publish yet.

• Hall, Kermit L. , “The Oxford guide to United States Supreme Court decisions” 2001, p.305.

Working paraphrase. Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase held that secession was illegal, so Texas could not leave the Union. Participation in the rebellion left the state without a lawful government; that suspended the state’s rights as a member of the Union. Congress had the authority to re-establish state government. Too close to a quote to publish yet.

Speaking of IP*135’s interest in the political reality versus legal fictions, there were still Indian Wars to fight – according to Fehrenbach, Texas is the only former Confederate state which considers Sherman and Sheridan heroes due to their post-War service on the frontier….

On the merits, even the dissenting judges wanted the US Treasury to pay the bond money to the re-represented Texas government. Politically, I don’t believe the gold was ever going to be transferred to New York and British speculators trying to job 1850 US bonds for Texas in the last year of the Civil War. Well, lest we degenerate into soapbox, back to business:

I'm not going to leave out Greir. Could you guys just call a 12 hour truce or something? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 01:09, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

---

The recent reverts have pretty much convinced me that AGF with this IP has outlived its shelf life. As far as Grier, you can find on JSTOR a very good analysis of Grier's dissent In "Texas versus White, II" by William Whatley Pierson in the Southwestern Historical Quarterly (July 1915). I found, however, that Grier avoids addressing the legality of secession while emphasizing jurisdictional issues. I don't think there is anything relevant to this article, although maybe you could find stuff to augment the Texas v. White article.

A paragraph or so on the Prize Cases could probably be added to the start of this section. In this, as you probably know, Grier made the case that the war was a rebellion rather than a war between two sovereign nations. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 01:44, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

---

Virginia Historian: Whatever you decide on all the outstanding matters, you will have my support. You are the only person who has not been accused of improper motives. I defer to your judgment.74.192.7.135 (talk) 06:56, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

---

Tom: [North Shoreman]: How does one determine that a revert is "frivolous "with no explanation"? According to you, Carol told me to post everything here on the discussion page first. Carol's not here; but you have repeated the dictate and reverted my reasonable contributions to enforce it. Your most recent actions (below) indicate that the Carol and Tom rule applies only to me. Within this section's sub-heading, and the next, lies the sad and unmistakable evidence. You continue to obstruct and destroy all my contributions for the sake of enforcing your own POV, even after Virginia Historian requested a twelve hour truce (which I have honored). There can be no doubt what is really going on here.74.192.7.135 (talk) 17:37, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

---

I determined it was frivolous because you had not provided any explanation of why you deleted the material. Please explain what is wrong with this material that you deleted:

''Historian Forrest McDonald wrote that the case was decided in favor of Texas "because secession was unconstitutional, the pretended government was itself illegal, being nothing more than a band of rebels" and that "Chase disposed of, once and for all time, the question that had vexed the Republic for more than six decades. Secession was not a constitutional possibility."

Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 16:16, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

---

If I thought you were stupid, I would explain it to you again. You understand perfectly.74.192.7.135 (talk) 17:56, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

---

Articles of Confederation

As discussed above, this section presents only one version of the secession issues as it relates to the articles. This POV is presented largely with quotes from St. George Tucker with very little effort to provide context. To get us off the discussion of whether Tucker represents a primary or secondary source, I have rewritten the section to include secondary sources such as Ferling, Stampp, and Amar. I have incorporated much of the Tucker quotes into the article, both in the main text and footnotes -- I believe that the substance of anything moved to the footnotes is still addressed in the main text. For example, Tucker's explanation of the situation with RI and NC is paraphrased with Tucker's actual quote placed in the footnotes. I have also included quotes from other sources in the footnotes rather than the main text.

As it stands, there are still way too many quotes in this section. Due to the revert war that went on elsewhere, I felt it was better to start with the quotes and paraphrase once the substance has been debated.

I have removed one long quote from Clyde Wilson which has nothing to do with this time period. Editors may wish to find a more appropriate section to add it. I have also removed the puffery over who Tucker was and his significance. Every individual mentioned and quoted has credentials -- there is no need to present them in this article.

There was some discussion of secession related events during the ratification debates. These should be discussed in either this section of the aticle or the following. The debate in New York on conditional ratification and its rejection (covered in good detail by Maier in a work recommended by VirginiaHistorian) should be covered, especially since it is frequently distorted by non-reliable sources. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 13:22, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

---

Tom [North Shoreman}: This, after you accuse me on my talk page of engaging in an edit war? It takes two to have a war, Tom. So, by accusing me, you implicate yourself. Assuming, arguendo, that we are at war--who fired the first shots? Your view must prevail, it seems, or you will take hostages and burn the house. Thanks for demonstrating just how unreliable the product of this enterprise can be.74.192.7.135 (talk) 17:52, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Tom [North Shoreman}: After giving me so much grief, insisting that St. George Tucker's early American legal textbook was a primary source, a position later proven, above, to be false; you proceed to delete the material anyway and replace it with, inter alia, reference to the Federalist Papers (a primary source if there ever was one). But the Anti-Federalist Papers are a primary source. Right? Isn't that how your game is played? The SPLC is another primary source that you conveniently favor. Are you employed by that organization? You apply rules unilaterally, to protect your POV. It seems Wikipedia approves of your methods, because you have done this to so many people, for so long, without suffering any serious consequences.74.192.7.135 (talk) 22:15, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Tom [North Shoreman]: I believe you complained that there were too many cites to St. George Tucker's law school text (4 or 5?), yet with your latest revisions to this page there are 9 citations to "Amar."74.192.7.135 (talk) 07:13, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Why do you wish to hide the fact that St. George Tucker was a law professor (who taught many Southern boys and Northern boys too) that they had a right to secede under the Constitution? Too much truth for you Tom?74.192.7.135 (talk) 00:18, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Tom {North Shoreman] The change under the Alien and Sedition Acts is wrong. It was perfectly correct until you pigeon-holed it under your new heading. There never was a Jeffersonian Republican political party and as previously pointed out Gouv. Morris' 1814 Address has nothing to do with the Alien and Sedition Acts.74.192.7.135 (talk) 01:50, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

---

More personal insults. The net result of the above is that you've made sixteen edits to this discussion without anybody else participating and STILL have not addressed anything regarding the substance of the edits I made yesterday.

If you want to be constructive, you need to provide SPECIFIC DETAIL on:

1. Material removed that shouldn't have been and your justification, and

2. Material added that shouldn't have been and your justification. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 16:10, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

---

You're a tendentious editor, uncompromising and dishonest. Why should anyone, ever have to answer to you?74.192.7.135 (talk) 17:32, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Individual secession?

Why is there no mention of indivuals attempting to secede? even if it never occurred, there should still be some hypothetical law for it. 98.24.154.187 (talk) 23:31, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't deal with hypotheticals. Though if you can find such information in reliable sources you can add it. Also, how would it be different from Renunciation of citizenship? Hot Stop (c) 03:19, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

See WP:RS at Books google and Scholar google, if someone wants to do the work of putting in article. CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:06, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

You can drop U.S. citizenship, you just have to have somewhere to go. This is THE issue in the War of 1812, when the U.S. made permanent its secession from the British Empire. The British said that to be born English meant you were a Britsh citizen, altered only by specific leave of the King. When a British warship boarded a U.S. ship, the sailors lined up and spoke their name. If an accent was British, the man became a sailor on a British warship. Service lasted until the ship was decommissioned, or one was lost at sea. Common seamen were not permitted liberty off ship; they were paid with scrip to pay contractors who came out to the ship at mooring selling sewing kits, etc. Americans, on the other hand, thought an individual had a right to renounce one citizenship and take up another by its laws. The Treaty of Ghent conceded that those the U.S. called its citizens would be left alone, "People of every degree without exception of places or persons." | Treaty of Ghent, Article the First TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:21, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

If you find WP:RS about notable U.S. organizations or individuals talk about it (and they may), it could be put in as a sentence or two in an appropriate spot under theory. But it probably belongs in the Secession article. CarolMooreDC 23:11, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Proposed sentence change

"The Supreme Court would hold to this view of the Constitution in its definitive ruling on the subject of secession attempts in the run-up to the American Civil War, Texas v. White."

The court held that Texas could not vote itself out of the union (secede) since the Union was perpetual under the Articles and the Union was made more perfect under the Constitution. It also held that the acts of the state government in the furtherance of rebellion were null and void. So the court's view was on the nature of Union among the several states and the rights of the state's citizens as citizens of the republic of the United States.

While the sentence does not explicitly say that Texas v White was decided during the "run-up" to the American Civil War (it was decided in 1869) it could leave that impression with a casual reader, since "in the run-up ... " might be thought to pertain to the time of the definitive ruling rather than to the time of secession attempts.

So I would suggest substituting:

"The Supreme Court would hold to this view on the perpetual union of the states under the Constitution in its definitive ruling on the subject of secession in, Texas v. White." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.169.61.150 (talk) 20:19, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

As I said when I deleted the sentence, putting an unreferenced sentence out of chrono order and context is argumentative and WP:POV. I guess I should read through this one of these day and see what other dubious things have slipped in. CarolMooreDC 21:14, 18 November 2011 (UTC)