Posted on 03/22/2018 9:00:10 AM PDT by Kaslin
Kudos. I’ve tried making many of the same arguments but not as succinctly. Of course none of it matters to the Invincibly Ignorant ;’}
Any history of the convention makes it clear that what secession proposals there where, and they were a few made by a small minority of the delegates, were not taken seriously and had not chance of being adopted. Confederate supporters love to point to the Harford Convention as acceptance of secession but overlook the fact that no secession was proposed by the convention much less attempted.
2. And I will repeat that Madison did not say that states could not secede, certainly not later in life. The question is how that secession comes about and Madison believed that it must be done with the consent of the states that are staying as well as the states that are leaving. Unilateral secession as advocated by you makes a complete mockery of the Constitution.
No they did not relinquish their right to decide on their own form of government. The Constitution merely stated that a state must have a republican form of government. The Founders did not want states with tyrannical forms of government being in the voluntary union. If a state wanted to adopt a form of government other than a Republican one, they could not stay in the voluntary union.
State Judiciaries were very much supreme. Remember that the federal courts are courts of limited subject mater jurisdiction. State courts are courts of unlimited subject matter jurisdiction. No they did not give up “every other power that makes a sovereign country a sovereign country.
A 1 minute google search turned up a 1996 ruling in which the US Supreme Court affirmed once again that states are sovereign. Seminole Tribe of Florida v. State of Florida, 116 S. Ct. 1114 (1996). In Seminole, the Court held that, in light of the “background principle” of sovereign immunity that underlay the Eleventh Amendment, Congress has no power under the Commerce Clauses of Article I of the Constitution to subject the States to citizen suits in federal court without their consent.
Yet you try to claim states surrendered their sovereignty. Amazing.
Here is the wording of the 10th amendment:
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.
Let’s see.....the power to prevent secession was NOT DELEGATED (notice the word delegated?) to the Uninted States. Therefore it is RESERVED to the states. Your argument of an implied grant of power to the US is null and void.
I would tell you to get an education, but its obvious you’re not smart enough to learn anything anyway.
Unless you have some evidence to support your claim, then yes.
LMAO! He was a member of the Lincoln administration. As Chief Justice he held his own actions as Treasury Secretary to be just fine and dandy. *slight* conflict of interest there. Even you can’t believe the BS you’re trying to peddle here.
Obviously I’ve read his laughable opinion
Foreign powers weren’t interested in legality - only a Realpolitik calculation of their own interests as always. Obviously the Lincoln administration wasn’t concerned with legality either since it acted in unconstitutional fashion numerous times
They did not. Madison and Hamilton said they were not doing so. The states themselves said they were not doing so. The US Supreme Court has ruled right up to the present generation that they are sovereign and thus did not surrender all of their sovereign powers yet you claim in the face of all of that evidence that they did. That is truly amazing.
The treaty making power. Yes. So what?
For example the 1996 US SUpreme Court case I already referenced. Seminole Tribe of Florida v. State of Florida, 116 S. Ct. 1114 (1996). In Seminole, the Court held that, in light of the “background principle” of sovereign immunity that underlay the Eleventh Amendment, Congress has no power under the Commerce Clauses of Article I of the Constitution to subject the States to citizen suits in federal court without their consent.
https://fedsoc.org/commentary/publications/supreme-court-reaffirms-state-sovereignty
Not all. For example among the many others, they reserved the right to secede.
“We, the delegates of the people of Virginia, duly elected in pursuance of a recommendation from the general assembly, and now met in convention, having fully and freely investigated and discussed the proceedings of the Federal Convention, and being prepared as well as the most mature deliberation hath enabled us to decide thereon, Do, in the name and in behalf of the people of Virginia, declare and make known that the powers granted under the Constitution being derived from the people of the United States may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression, and that every power not granted thereby remains with them and at their will....”
“We, the delegates of the people of New York... do declare and make known that the powers of government may be reassumed by the people whenever it shall become necessary to their happiness; that every power, jurisdiction, and right which is not by the said Constitution clearly delegated to the Congress of the United States, or the department of the government thereof, remains to the people of the several States, or to their respective State governments, to whom they may have granted the same; and that those clauses in the said Constitution, which declare that Congress shall not have or exercise certain powers, do not imply that Congress is entitled to any powers not given by the said Constitution; but such clauses are to be construed either as exceptions in certain specified powers or as inserted merely for greater caution.”
“We, the delegates of the people of Rhode Island and Plantations, duly elected... do declare and make known... that the powers of government may be resumed by the people whenever it shall become necessary to their happiness; that every power, jurisdiction, and right which is not by the said Constitution clearly delegated to the Congress of the United States, or the department of the government thereof, remains to the people of the several States, or to their respective State governments, to whom they may have granted the same; that Congress shall guarantee to each State its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Constitution expressly delegated to the United States.”
Madison did not say before or at any time publicly that a state’s ratification was something to be accepted period. He said a conditional ratification was no ratification at all.
Ah so if a conditional ratification was not ratification at all.....and 3 states expressly reserved the right to secede....and he did not claim that their ratifications were defective.....then it was entirely in keeping with the constitution for a state to have the power of unilateral secession.
Otherwise he would have objected and said their ratification was defective and conditional. Yet he did not do so. Ergo.....
The Northern Federalists’ Hartford Convention declared in 1814 that a state had the right to secede in cases of “absolute necessity” (Alan Brinkley, Richard Current, Frank Freidel, and T. Harry Williams, American History: A Survey, Eighth Edition, New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc., 1991, p. 230).
You were saying?
I didn’t expect that you did.
Fortunately I have this one
To the People of the State of New York:
......An entire consolidation of the States into one complete national sovereignty would imply an entire subordination of the parts; and whatever powers might remain in them, would be altogether dependent on the general will. But as the plan of the convention aims only at a partial union or consolidation, the State governments would clearly retain all the rights of sovereignty which they before had, and which were not, by that act, EXCLUSIVELY delegated to the United States. This exclusive delegation, or rather this alienation, of State sovereignty, would only exist in three cases: where the Constitution in express terms granted an exclusive authority to the Union; where it granted in one instance an authority to the Union, and in another prohibited the States from exercising the like authority; and where it granted an authority to the Union, to which a similar authority in the States would be absolutely and totally CONTRADICTORY and REPUGNANT.
.....the rule that all authorities, of which the States are not explicitly divested in favor of the Union, remain with them in full vigor, is not a theoretical consequence of that division, but is clearly admitted by the whole tenor of the instrument which contains the articles of the proposed Constitution.
Which, you will note, the Southern states did NOT do before they left.
and you will note they offered to do that and they sent representatives to Washington DC and they guaranteed free passage of the Mississippi. It was the Lincoln administration that refused to meet with them. They showed good faith and offered to take on their portion of the national debt.
Divorce is a legal proceeding requiring both sides submit their case to a court of law and accept the verdict. How is that in any way like what the Southern states did?
In a divorce there is legal power over both parties. In this case there is not since the states were and are sovereign and retained the right to unilateral secession.
There is no evidence that they even seriously discussed it.
and I will repeat that Madison’s views about this which he expressed decades after ratification are not relevant.
Not to you at least. But I'll refer you, yet again, to his letter to Hamilton.
No they did not relinquish their right to decide on their own form of government. The Constitution merely stated that a state must have a republican form of government.
So no monarchy? No benevolent despotism? No parliamentarian form? Even if the state wanted one? How sovereign of them.
State Judiciaries were very much supreme. Remember that the federal courts are courts of limited subject mater jurisdiction.
But still supreme over state or local courts in matters that fall under their jurisdiction. And don't forget that federal law is supreme if and when state or local laws conflict with it. Subordinate to the federal government.
No they did not give up “every other power that makes a sovereign country a sovereign country.
They certainly did.
A 1 minute google search turned up a 1996 ruling in which the US Supreme Court affirmed once again that states are sovereign. Seminole Tribe of Florida v. State of Florida,
Next time spend more than a minute on your search. Or at least read the decision.
Let’s see.....the power to prevent secession was NOT DELEGATED (notice the word delegated?) to the Uninted States. Therefore it is RESERVED to the states. Your argument of an implied grant of power to the US is null and void.
The power to prevent it is implied in Article I and Article IV. You can continue to repeat your nonsense about not specifically being prohibited and I'll repeat my contention that it is implied. We can do this all night.
That is literally the only word that is different from the test as you would have it. The burden of proof that this power was given to the federal government lies with those who would claim it was - ie you - not with the states which had this power from the start.
And I've given my evidence time and time again.
So in other words, other than your opinion you've got nothing? As I suspected.
Obviously I’ve read his laughable opinion
I haven't seen much evidence that you have.
Obviously the Lincoln administration wasn’t concerned with legality either since it acted in unconstitutional fashion numerous times
For example?
They did not.
They did indeed.
The treaty making power. Yes. So what?
Breezed right by the "laws made under it" part I see.
Not all. For example among the many others, they reserved the right to secede.
No they didn't.
Try again. A conditional ratification is no ratification. Since the state's intent was to ratify and since they clearly state that they ratified the Constitution as passed and agreed to be bound by it, then their ratification was not conditional and their belief that they could walk out at a whim was in error. Regardless of what you or they may have thought.
No they did not. They walked out, walked away from their responsibility for debt, took every piece of federal property they could get their hands on without compensation. You claim that they sent representatives offering compensation. But even if that was their intent, and it was not, why should the Lincoln administration believe that their offer was in good faith? They walked out. They made no offer to resolve issues of disagreement before hand. They took from they want. And Lincoln was supposed to believe that after the fact they wanted to pay up? Regardless, when Davis sent Lincoln a letter introducing the delegation, demanding recognition and making no offer to pay for anything. Your claim that they wanted to pay for anything is a flat out falsehood.
So your divorce analogy is completely inappropriate? Why use it then?
There is no evidence that they even seriously discussed it.
The Northern Federalists’ Hartford Convention declared in 1814 that a state had the right to secede in cases of “absolute necessity” (Alan Brinkley, Richard Current, Frank Freidel, and T. Harry Williams, American History: A Survey, Eighth Edition, New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc., 1991, p. 230).
and I’ll refer you to the Federalist #45
...The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite.
and the Federalist #46
the powers proposed to be lodged in the federal government are as little formidable to those reserved to the individual States
its hilarious watching you continue to try to argue the states were not sovereign once they ratified the constitution in the face of Madison, Hamilton, the wording of the constitution, the express reservations of the states and multiple decisions of the US Supreme Court that they are sovereign.
I’ve already shown you that you are wrong about this multiple times.
No need to. The case and the ruling of the Supreme Court proved you WRONG.
Repeating your BS does not make it any less BS. The 10th amendment makes it clear that a power not delegated to the federal government was reserved to the states. Nowhere does it say this power was delegated. I’m perfectly content to continue this all night and all the next day...hell all year. Fine with me. I enjoy this.
and I’ve proven you wrong time and time again.
So in other words, other than your opinion you’ve got nothing? As I suspected.
I’ve got the facts. You on the other hand have nothing but the opinion of an obviously biased and self interested politician.
I’ve presented quite enough to show you to be wrong.
starting a war without the consent of congress, suspending Habeas Corpus when the civilian courts were functioning, creating a state out of the territory of a state without the state legislature’s consent, censoring newspapers, throwing well over 10,000 citizens in prison without charge or trial or at most trial in front of military kangaroo courts, trying to banish a sitting US Senator, the list goes on and on
Nope
Breezed right by the part about them only having the power to make laws in those areas delegated by the states I see.
Yes they did.
Try again. A conditional ratification is no ratification. Since the state’s intent was to ratify and since they clearly state that they ratified the Constitution as passed and agreed to be bound by it, then their ratification was not conditional and their belief that they could walk out at a whim was in error. Regardless of what you or they may have thought.
No need to try again. If a conditional ratification is no ratification.....and he never claimed their ratifications were defective ie “no ratification” and they reserved the right to secede which obviously they did, then unilateral secession is by even his view at the time not inconsistent with the constitution - not that his view is controlling since they and not he were parties to the compact.
If their reservations were in error, it was incumbent upon the other states to say so. None did. They all accepted ratification with the express reservation of a right to unilateral secession.
So your divorce analogy is completely inappropriate? Why use it then?
no my divorce analogy was quite appropriate.
No they did not. They walked out, walked away from their responsibility for debt, took every piece of federal property they could get their hands on without compensation. You claim that they sent representatives offering compensation. But even if that was their intent, and it was not, why should the Lincoln administration believe that their offer was in good faith? They walked out. They made no offer to resolve issues of disagreement before hand. They took from they want. And Lincoln was supposed to believe that after the fact they wanted to pay up? Regardless, when Davis sent Lincoln a letter introducing the delegation, demanding recognition and making no offer to pay for anything. Your claim that they wanted to pay for anything is a flat out falsehood.
This is simply false. They did send representatives and did offer compensation. They had the right to secede as sovereign states and exercised their right. Your claim that the CSA did not offer compensation or to negotiate is simply false. You obviously don’t know history very well.
And you obviously don't know history at all.
MONTGOMERY, February 27, 1861. The President of the United States: Being animated by an earnest desire to unite and bind together our respective countries by friendly ties, I have appointed M. J. Crawford, one of our most settled and trustworthy citizens, as special commissioner of the Confederate States of America to the Government of the United States; and I have now the honor to introduce him to you, and to ask for him a reception and treatment corresponding to his station and to the purpose for which he is sent. Those purposes he will more particularly explain to you. Hoping that through his agency. &c. [sic.]
JEFF'N DAVIS.For the purpose of establishing friendly relations between the Confederate States and the United States, and reposing special trust, &c., Martin J. Crawford, John Forsyth, and A. B. Roman are appointed special commissioners of the Confederate States to the United States. I have invested them with full and all manner of power and authority for and in the name of the Confederate States to meet and confer with any person or persons duly authorized by the Government of the United States being furnished with like powers and authority, and with them to agree, treat, consult, and negotiate of and concerning all matters and subjects interesting to both nations, and to conclude and sign a treaty or treaties, convention or conventions, touching the premises, transmitting the same to the President of the Confederate States for his final ratification by and with the consent of the Congress of the Confederate States.
Given under my hand at the city of Montgomery this 27th day of February, A.D. 1861, and of the Independence of the Confederate States the eighty-fifth.
JEFF N DAVIS.
ROBERT TOOMBS, Secretary of State.
No mention of compensation - only a Pelosi-esque "You have to sign it to know what's in it" snare. No one would ever be foolish enough to bite on that...well, other than you perhaps.
No mention of compensation - only a Pelosi-esque “You have to sign it to know what’s in it” snare. No one would ever be foolish enough to bite on that...well, other than you perhaps.
Ah so Lincoln could claim he was not specifically offered compensation because he refused to meet with the delegates sent! Pelosi-esque indeed.
Of course one would have to be awfully foolish - like you - to buy into this line of argument.
“Davis sent a commission to Washington with an offer to pay for any federal property on Southern soil, as well as the Southern portion of the national debt, but Lincoln refused to meet with the commissioners.”
Jefferson Davis, American William James Cooper
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.