Posted on 07/14/2015 4:30:37 AM PDT by SJackson
Yes, we do disagree.
And if the remaining states had not agreed that would have meant the dissolution of the previous Union and the establishment of one or more new Unions.
The old Union created by the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union in 1781 stopped conducting business once nine states seceded from it and formed a new Union under the Constitution despite the fact that the Articles prohibited that. The Union under the Articles was no more.
The new Congress under the Constitution wanted to treat states that had not joined the new Union as foreign countries. That is consistent with what Washington had said about North Carolina being out of the Union. If NC and RI were in that mythical perpetual Union of yours, why did Congress want to treat them as foreign countries? From Congress on September 12, 1789 [my emphasis below]:
And be it further enacted, That all rum, loaf sugar, and chocolate, manufactured or made in the states of North Carolina, or Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, and imported or brought into the United States, shall be deemed and taken to be subject to the like duties, as goods of the like kinds, imported from any foreign state, kingdom, or country are made subject to.
NC and RI could have gone their own way and not joined the other states in the new Union. They could have remained as separate states or joined each other is some additional new Union.
[You quoting RI's ratification document]:
Done in Convention, at Newport in the County of Newport, in the State of Rhode-Island and Providence-Plantations, the twenty ninth day of May, in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and ninety, and in the fourteenth year of the Independence of the United States of America.(Emphasis added.)
You argue that this indicates "they believed the States remained in Union and had done so since 1776." I don't see it that way. In 1776 they were the united States of America, not the United States of America. The Declaration acknowledged that "as Free and Independent States [plural], they [plural] have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States [plural] may of right do."
The item below is from the letter the Continental Congress sent to the states in 1777 asking that they agree to the Articles of Confederation [my emphasis below]. All of them did by 1781.
...Let them [the Articles] be candidly reviewed under a sense of the difficulty of combining in one general system the various sentiments and interests of a continent divided into so many sovereign and independent communities, under a conviction of the absolute necessity of uniting all our councils and all our strength, to maintain and defend our common liberties . . .
If the states were already your "Union" rather than simply in a wartime alliance, why would the Continental Congress need to plead with them to agree to the first real act of formal Union, the Union under the Articles?
If the states were independent and sovereign as the Continental Congress made clear, then they were not subject to your mythical Union or the Continental Congress itself. Otherwise, they would not have been independent and sovereign.
The fact that all states eventually decided to join the new Union doesn't mean it is the same Union as the one under the Articles that went belly up. They were quite different Unions. A better statement would be that the same states decided to leave one Union and join another one. Forgive me, but I trust George Washington on this matter.
My wife and I didn't make it. She passed what seems like not too long ago. Sometimes it seems more recent than other times.
Sorry to hear that.
I suggest we end this discussion. It's been a good discussion, but I doubt we will convince each other. I have other things I need to be doing, and I'm sure you do too. I've got to be off the board to attend to those other things.
“I suggest we end this discussion. It’s been a good discussion, but I doubt we will convince each other.”
Fair enough and agreed.
The signers of the DOI didn't present their arguments in terms of counties, cities, and neighborhoods. They styled their revolution based on colonies and states.
Read what they wrote: “We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.”
The signers of the DOI never indicated, that I know, that neighborhoods or villages could levy war - it was “Independent States may of right to do.”
For your purpose you may want to stretch the concept of freedom to contend the upper torso can rebel against the lower torso. Fine. But it's misreading the DOI to say that's what the signers intended, or that was what the Confederates were contemplating.
“The signers of the DOI didn’t present their arguments in terms of counties, cities, and neighborhoods. They styled their revolution based on colonies and states.”
In and of itself that does not mean the same arguments could not be presented in terms of counties, cities, and neighborhoods.
“The signers of the DOI never indicated, that I know, that neighborhoods or villages could levy war - it was ‘Independent States may of right to do.’”
But if the people of a neighborhood or village found it necessary to “...dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them . ..”, they could establish or become an Independent State which “may of right to do”.
You left out “cities” this time. There are City States such as Singapore, Monaco, Ancient Athens and Sparta, and Ancient Rome before it became an empire.
“For your purpose you may want to stretch the concept of freedom to contend the upper torso can rebel against the lower torso. Fine. But it’s misreading the DOI to say that’s what the signers intended, or that was what the Confederates were contemplating.”
I’m not trying to stretch the concept of freedom. More like I’m exploring the concept of it becoming “necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them...” and of secession. That embracing those concepts may have unintended consequences, consequences that the DOI signers did not intend or the Confederates contemplate...well, such things happen.
As I wrote previously: “Fine.” Meaning, I agree you can make that case if you want to.
If I wanted to make that case (which I don't) I'd point out that San Bernardino County has a land area of 20,105 square miles but Rhode Island only 1,033 square miles.
Or better yet, the Alaskan borough (county-equivalent) Yukon-Koyukuk has a whopping 147,000 square miles.
You could also fiddle-around with population statistics. Alaska has a population of 736,000 people. Jacksonville,
Florida has more: 842,000 people.
That would set you up to contend the founding fathers intended for Washington D.C. to be a state with two Senators and one or more Representatives.
Again, not to put too fine a point on it, that was NOT the intent of the founders. As to your original intent- I've lost track.
“If I wanted to make that case (which I don’t) I’d point out...”
Yep. We could also look at the size of the economies.
“That would set you up to contend the founding fathers intended for Washington D.C. to be a state with two Senators and one or more Representatives.”
Not me. The Constitution gives Congress the power “To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States...”
I’m not even willing to contend the founding fathers intended for Washington D.C. to become a city in the sense that it is today or the sense that New York, Philadelphia, etc. were at the time. I know there would have to be some similarities, but that doesn’t mean it would have to turn out to be what it is.
“Again, not to put too fine a point on it, that was NOT the intent of the founders.”
Ideas have consequences. They may be unintended consequences.
“As to your original intent- I’ve lost track.”
These discussions do tend to drift.
I believe we’ve gone about as far as we can here. And I’m pleased that the discussion remained civil. Have a happy :)
:)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.