BroJoeK
The internet is chock full of fake Jefferson quotes, and on the face of it this appears to be one, else, why the phrase “over ‘union’ “ inserted?
Yes, Jefferson is reported to have spoken kindly of Northern secession at the time of the Hartford Convention (1815) but when faced with real secession of his old Vice President, Aaron Burr, Jefferson had Burr arrested and tried for treason.
So Jefferson himself demonstrated Founders supported disunion by mutual consent but not unilateral unapproved declarations of secession at pleasure.
Pure BS. Jefferson made numerous quotes which all showed he supported the notion that government derives its legitimacy from the consent of the governed. This was after all the author of the declaration of Independence. He said several times that the union was voluntary and a state had the right to unilateral secession as the quotes I posted show. Nowhere did he ever say anything about mutual consent.
No. He never said anything about mutual consent. This is a fantasy you have created which you have no evidence for.
LOL! More spin than a laundry machine. It was taught at West Point. Several presidents held that view. The union was voluntary. There was no requirement of mutual consent expressed by any of them and certainly not by the states who were the parties to the Constitution.
There is no requirement for mutual consent expressed anywhere in the constitution or the Federalist papers. This is entirely your own fantasy creation.
So yet another president who felt states had the right of unilateral secession. You could have just admitted that and saved time.
He did say that...he also said the federal government did not have the right to prevent it by force.
Exactly. Your argument is a joke entirely without historical support. You can find nothing that argues for “mutual consent” nor is there anything that says a state cannot determine necessity but a colony can....especially since the state is sovereign and the colony is not. It was for each state to determine whether it was necessary or not. Several believed it was - as was their right.
There was no clear separation. In fact it was prevent separation ie secession that the Brits sent troops. Your argument is nonsensical.
The sovereign states felt there was such necessity in 1860 and 1861. Since they reserved the right to do so when they ratified the constitution and nowhere gave up that right, it was for them to determine necessity. Several of the states did lay out declarations of causes ranging from refusal to enforce the fugitive slave clause of the constitution to unfair taxation and federal government expenditures to deliberately failing to provide border security as required by treaty.
Here you’re wrong. The Brits did offer seats in Parliament for the Colonies. Its just that it would not have been enough seats to prevent themselves from being economically exploited for the benefit of the mother country. That is perfectly analogous to the situation the Southern states found themselves in in 1861. They had tried nullification of the Tariff of Abominations a generation earlier. Now the demographics had shifted even more against them and the Northern states set about to jacking up the tariff rates to ruinous levels once again. The Morrill Tariff ended up tripling tariff rates.
Imposing taxation without representation.
Revoking Massachusetts’ 1691 Charter of self-government.
Imposing British troops on colonists.
Declaring colonies in rebellion.
Taking military actions against colonial militias.
Through those acts & others Brits lost any claim to legitimate rule.
Nothing remotely resembling that existed in 1860.
Au Contraire. The Brits were still the recognized rulers of the colonies. The Colonies were not sovereign. They never had been. There was no separation. That was something the colonies did themselves. Your attempts at drawing some artificial distinction here fail. Utterly.
Just as I note that you’ve collected many of the PC Revisionist texts and yet are amazingly ignorant about US history and simply come up with your own little fantasy justifications like mutual consent which was nowhere agreed to by the states and nowhere stated in the constitution....or this fanciful notion of necessity which only the non sovereign colonies could determine for themselves but not the sovereign states.
More of your forays into fantasyland. Nowhere did any state agree to having to get a permission slip from other states in order to do exactly what they had done 8 years earlier ie secede unilaterally according to their own determination of necessity.
It didn’t need to be recognized in the US Constitution. It had already been recognize. It was acknowledged by everybody including the biggest proponents of the Constitution. It was nowhere denied in the Constitution. Nowhere in the constitution was the federal government delegated the power to prevent secession. The 10th amendment was added to make sure nobody could claim powers not mentioned in the constitution belonged to the federal government instead of to the sovereign states.
Here is but one example. Federalist #39 There are many more. READ the Federalist papers.
“...the act of the people, as forming so many independent States, not as forming one aggregate nation, is obvious from this single consideration, that it is to result neither from the decision of a majority of the people of the Union, nor from that of a majority of the States.... Each State, in ratifying the Constitution, is considered as a SOVEREIGN body, independent of all others, and only to be bound by its own voluntary act” (Federalist 39).’ James Madison
Oh not at all. The states were sovereign in 1861 while the colonies were not in 1776. The Colonies were offered representation but not enough to protect themselves from being exploited by the tyranny of the majority. The situation was the same for the Southern states in 1861. Sovereign states had if anything, a superior right to determine necessity for themselves vis a vis non sovereign colonies in 1776.
And what’s laughable are your efforts to make an equation of 1776 and 1860.
Oh but they do. Laughable is your attempt to claim secession in 1776 by non sovereign colonies was OK but secession in 1861 by sovereign states which had never agreed to surrender their sovereignty was not OK.
And land in the colonies belonged to the British Crown....until the colonies seceded. Certainly once there has been secession compensation is due, but any property within a sovereign country or sovereign state can be claimed under eminent domain. This is of course a completely different situation to Gitmo in Cuba. There is no dispute that is sovereign Cuban territory. The US holds it under a lease agreement by treaty.
And the Brits evacuated the fort in NY City after the Treaty of Paris. Had they held it and sent a heavily armed flotilla to reinforce it and not agreed to the colonies secession, THEN the situation would have been analogous to 1861 when Lincoln sent a heavily armed flotilla into South Carolina’s sovereign territory to reinforce FT. Sumter.
Davis didn’t start the war. Lincoln did.
Nope! This is what’s rubbish. Lincoln started the war. Anybody who sends a fleet of warships into one of another country’s principle harbors is committing an act of war and is knowingly doing so. The aggressor is one who invades the land of another - not one who fires to drive an invader away.
Did you not read his letter to his naval commander? He was delighted the armed invasion of South Carolina’s territory got a war started. It was all about money.
“But what am I to do in the meantime with those men at Montgomery [meaning the Confederate constitutional convention]? Am I to let them go on... [a]nd open Charleston, etc., as ports of entry, with their ten-percent tariff. What, then, would become of my tariff?” ~ Lincoln to Colonel John B. Baldwin, deputized by the Virginian Commissioners to determine whether Lincoln would use force, April 4, 1861.
And land in the colonies belonged to the British Crown....until the colonies seceded.
Let's toss this one out as crap right off the bat. Final ownership of the property was settled after 8 years of rebellion and the Treaty of Paris. There is no parallel.
Certainly once there has been secession compensation is due, but any property within a sovereign country or sovereign state can be claimed under eminent domain.
Eminent Domain? Really? How many errors can we find in that logic? I can think of two right off the bat.
In the first place eminent domain applies to private property taken by the government for its use. Government cannot use eminent domain to take another government's property. A state cannot use eminent domain to take property belonging to a city nor can the federal government use eminent domain to take property belonging to a state. And it certainly stands to reason that a state cannot use eminent domain to take property belonging to the federal government. Only Congress can dispose of federal property.
The key provision in any eminent domain law is the concept of "just compensation" in that property can't be taken through eminent domain unless it's paid for. And payment must be made before ownership is transferred. So even if South Carolina could use eminent domain to take Sumter it had to be paid for first.
And land in the colonies belonged to the British Crown....until the colonies seceded. Certainly once there has been secession compensation is due, but any property within a sovereign country or sovereign state can be claimed under eminent domain. This is of course a completely different situation to Gitmo in Cuba. There is no dispute that is sovereign Cuban territory. The US holds it under a lease agreement by treaty.
Where to begin with this one? The U.S. did not hold a lease agreement, by "treaty" or anything else. It owned the property free and clear due to act of the South Carolina legislature. And once ownership had been transferred then South Carolina had no claims and no power to resume control. Article I, Section 8 says Congress exercises exclusive legislation over all property owned by the federal government, explicitly mentioning forts. There is no shared ownership between the federal government and the states. Article IV says that Congress has the sole power to dispose of property belonging to the U.S. South Carolina could not resume ownership under the Constitution or any rule of law.
And the Brits evacuated the fort in NY City after the Treaty of Paris. Had they held it and sent a heavily armed flotilla to reinforce it and not agreed to the colonies secession, THEN the situation would have been analogous to 1861 when Lincoln sent a heavily armed flotilla into South Carolina’s sovereign territory to reinforce FT. Sumter.
But they didn't, did they? Ownership was legally transferred to the U.S. through the Treaty of Paris. Negotiated and signed by both sides. Lincoln's actions were not analogous to your scenario because Sumter was the property of the federal government and Lincoln had the right to send supplies there. Even if the Southern secession had been legal. Which it was not.
"Consent of the governed" is one thing, everyone supports that, but secession is something else altogether.
Jefferson did not support "secession" (his word was "scission") except by mutual consent (as in 1788) or absolute necessity (as in 1776).
Here are some of Jefferson's words on the subject:
FLT-bird: "No.
He never said anything about mutual consent.
This is a fantasy you have created which you have no evidence for."
Mutual consent was practiced by Founders in 1788 in ratifying their new Constitution.
They all understood exactly what it meant and Madison expressed it explicitly:
Elsewhere Madison remarks on Jefferson's alleged support for nullification:
And that was only nullification, not secession.
FLT-bird: "LOL!
More spin than a laundry machine.
It was taught at West Point.
Several presidents held that view.
The union was voluntary."
Speaking of spin, that's it entirely.
There's no debate or doubt about the historical fact that secession became widely debated in the generations after our Founders.
But there was no debate amongst Founders who well understood their own minds: disunion from necessity (1776) or mutual consent (1788) were the only reasons acceptable to them.
Everything else was rebellion, insurrection, domestic violence, invasion and/or treason.
FLT-bird: "There is no requirement for mutual consent expressed anywhere in the constitution or the Federalist papers.
This is entirely your own fantasy creation."
Nor is there anywhere authorization for unilateral unapproved declarations of secession at pleasure.
But our Founders knew their own minds on the subject and practiced what James Madison spelled out, see quote above.
FLT-bird: "So yet another president who felt states had the right of unilateral secession.
You could have just admitted that and saved time."
Everyone who knows even a little history (which seemingly does not include FLT-bird) understands that people were threatening secession for decades before 1860 and many people formed opinions pro & con.
After the 1814 Hartford Convention those threatening secession were almost exclusively Southern, so John Tyler's opinion here is not surprising.
But the point remains valid that our Founders believed disunion from necessity or mutual consent were the only two legitimate reasons.
FLT-bird: "John Quincy Adams presented a petition for secession.
He certainly believed in the right of secession by the sovereign states."
And you have a source for this claim?
In fact, John Quincy Adams was a lifelong supporter of Union, opposed to secession.
FLT-bird on Buchanan: "He did say that...he also said the federal government did not have the right to prevent it by force."
Exactly, and that was also Lincoln's opinion as expressed in his First Inaugural Address.
FLT-bird: "Your argument is a joke entirely without historical support.
You can find nothing that argues for 'mutual consent' "
Not true, see my quotes above.
But more important is the example Founders set in 1788 by "seceding" from the old Articles of Confederation peacefully, by mutual consent.
And the clincher is that every Founding President from Washington through Madison faced secession or rebellion issues and responded decisively to quell them.
FLT-bird: "nor is there anything that says a state cannot determine necessity but a colony can....especially since the state is sovereign and the colony is not.
It was for each state to determine whether it was necessary or not.
Several believed it was - as was their right."
"Necessity" in our Founders' minds was defined by their experience in the years around 1776.
"Mutual consent" was defined by their experiences after 1787.
Everything else they considered rebellion, insurrection, domestic violence, invasion and/or treason and they responded appropriately.
FLT-bird: "There was no clear separation.
In fact it was prevent separation ie secession that the Brits sent troops.
Your argument is nonsensical."
Sorry, but the nonsense is all yours because: there could not be anything more separating that putting nooses around our Founders' necks or sending armies to destroy their Congress.
FLT-bird: "The sovereign states felt there was such necessity in 1860 and 1861.
Since they reserved the right to do so when they ratified the constitution and nowhere gave up that right, it was for them to determine necessity.
Several of the states did lay out declarations of causes ranging from refusal to enforce the fugitive slave clause of the constitution..."
You're correct that some (not all) seceding states did appeal to "necessity" in their "Reasons for Secession" document.
But in every case it was a lie.
For example, consider Mississippi's:
In fact, no such actions had been taken in Washington, DC, nor were any contemplated, so it was a Big Lie, meaning the real reason was not "necessity" but secession at pleasure.
FLT-bird: "Here you’re wrong.
The Brits did offer seats in Parliament for the Colonies.
Its just that it would not have been enough seats to prevent themselves from being economically exploited for the benefit of the mother country."
There were only informal discussions, never a formal offer of representation in the British Parliament.
If you fantasize otherwise, present your data.
FLT-bird: "That is perfectly analogous to the situation the Southern states found themselves in in 1861."
There is no analogy whatever -- none, zero, nada analogy -- since in 1860 Southerners effectively ruled in Washington, DC.
It was the opposite of "taxation without representation."
FLT-bird: "They had tried nullification of the Tariff of Abominations a generation earlier."
Which many Southerners, including Vice President John C. Calhoun from South Carolina supported and many Northerners opposed.
But President Jackson threatened to hang anyone he found in rebellion and that ended it.
Then just a few years later Democrats lowered the tariffs and by 1860 US tariffs were among the lowest ever.
FLT-bird: "Now the demographics had shifted even more against them and the Northern states set about to jacking up the tariff rates to ruinous levels once again.
The Morrill Tariff ended up tripling tariff rates."
The original Morrill Tariff of 1860, which Southerners defeated, was a modest increase back to average levels in the past.
Morrill only passed after Southerners seceded & walked out of Congress.
And none of the original "Reasons for Secession" mentioned Morrill.
FLT-bird: "The Brits were still the recognized rulers of the colonies.
The Colonies were not sovereign.
They never had been.
There was no separation.
That was something the colonies did themselves.
Your attempts at drawing some artificial distinction here fail.
Utterly."
Utter failure is your ridiculous defense of Lost Causer mythology.
In fact the 1776 colonies never separated themselves until after Brits revoked their charter, declared them in rebellion and began waging war against them.
That is the opposite of events in 1860.
FLT-bird: "Just as I note that you’ve collected many of the PC Revisionist texts and yet are amazingly ignorant about US history..."
Actually, I've learned quite a bit of your Lost Causer mythology, enough to know about 95% of it is pure nonsense & Big Lies.
FLT-bird: "and simply come up with your own little fantasy justifications like mutual consent which was nowhere agreed to by the states and nowhere stated in the constitution.."
But mutual consent was practiced by all Founders and spelled out by the Father of the Constitution James Madison, as quoted & linked above.
It therefore qualifies as Founders Original Intent, unlike your mythological "right of secession".
FLT-bird: "or this fanciful notion of necessity which only the non sovereign colonies could determine for themselves but not the sovereign states."
Founders clearly understood the difference between absolute necessity (as in 1776) and secession at pleasure as in 1860.
There were simply no material facts in 1860 supporting Deep South Fire Eaters' declarations of secession, ergo at pleasure.
FLT-bird: "More of your forays into fantasyland.
Nowhere did any state agree to having to get a permission slip from other states in order to do exactly what they had done 8 years earlier ie secede unilaterally according to their own determination of necessity."
But, first, there was no necessity -- none, zero, nada necessity -- in 1860, so even pretending otherwise was a Big Lie.
And if you just took a minute to consider, you'd realize that.
Second, as for "permission slips" that's exactly what they did in 1788 so no Founder could be in doubt about the legitimacy of mutual consent.
FLT-bird: "It didn’t need to be recognized in the US Constitution.
It had already been recognize.
It was acknowledged by everybody including the biggest proponents of the Constitution."
So I'll ask again, can you provide data to support that?
FLT-bird quoting Madison: "Each State, in ratifying the Constitution, is considered as a SOVEREIGN body, independent of all others, and only to be bound by its own voluntary act” (Federalist 39).’ James Madison"
"Bound" is the key word, meaning: no longer fully "sovereign".
FLT-bird: "Oh not at all.
The states were sovereign in 1861 while the colonies were not in 1776...
Sovereign states had if anything, a superior right to determine necessity for themselves vis a vis non sovereign colonies in 1776."
As shown by your own quote, states after 1787 were bound and no longer "sovereign".
By contrast, in 1776 our Founders were unbound by the British declaration of rebellion and waging of war against them.
FLT-bird: "Laughable is your attempt to claim secession in 1776 by non sovereign colonies was OK but secession in 1861 by sovereign states which had never agreed to surrender their sovereignty was not OK."
Here you argue against the Declaration's words, which insist separation was "necessary" and against the Federalist which says the states "bound" themselves, meaning no longer sovereign.
FLT-bird: "And land in the colonies belonged to the British Crown....until the colonies seceded."
No, until the Brits revoked colonial self government, declared them in rebellion and began waging war against them.
That's what the Declaration of Independence says.
You should read it someday.
FLT-bird: "Certainly once there has been secession compensation is due, but any property within a sovereign country or sovereign state can be claimed under eminent domain.
This is of course a completely different situation to Gitmo in Cuba.
There is no dispute that is sovereign Cuban territory.
The US holds it under a lease agreement by treaty."
"Eminent domain" implies a legal process which never happened, so there was no claim of "eminent domain" over Fort Sumter in 1861.
There were only demands for immediate Union surrender and threats of war.
FLT-bird: "Brits evacuated the fort in NY City after the Treaty of Paris."
Which took two years to negotiate and even then Brits did not evacuate for another four months after receiving orders to do so.
All the while George Washington was patient.
Unlike Jefferson Davis who refused to wait more than a few weeks before unleashing military assault on Fort Sumter.
Further there were dozens of other British forts & trading posts left in place in upstate NY, Ohio & Michigan, some supporting Native American war against settlers.
But our Founders were patient, for 15 years, until 1796's Jay Treaty.
Unlike Jefferson Davis.
FLT-bird: "Davis didn’t start the war. Lincoln did."
Resupplying troops is not an act of war, but demanding surrender & launching military assault on troops is.
Davis started Civil War.
FLT-bird: "Anybody who sends a fleet of warships into one of another country’s principle harbors is committing an act of war and is knowingly doing so.
The aggressor is one who invades the land of another - not one who fires to drive an invader away."
Now suddenly Lincoln's resupply mission has grown in FLT-bird's description from a "flotilla" to a "fleet of warships".
And in the next telling, will we see Lincoln's naval armada to Fort Sumter??
Again, the proper analogy is Gitmo, deny it all you will.
FLT-bird: "Did you not read his letter to his naval commander?
He was delighted the armed invasion of South Carolina’s territory got a war started. It was all about money."
Your alleged quote on this is a fake quote.