Replies

“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.”

Sorry I'm late, on the road again...

FLT-bird quoting Va signing statement: "...may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression..."

New York: "...powers of government may be reassumed by the people whenever it shall become necessary..."

Like all Lost Causers, our FRiend FLT-bird discards actual history in favor of a philosophical debate over his alleged "right to secede" and the equation of 1861 with 1776.
If we could "secede" in 1776 then why not in 1861 or, indeed, today, say our Lost Causers.

FLT-bird post #153: "The main difference between 1776 and 1861 is that in 1861 there wasn’t a rival superpower willing to shovel money and supplies and guns at the secessionists and lend them troops and lend them their navy.
The other main difference is that the states were sovereign and had the right to secede while the colonies were not and did not have a legal right to secede."

So, did our Founders "secede" in 1776?
Of course not, certainly not in the sense of 1861 secessions.
Instead, by 1776 the Brits had already revoked colonies self-government, declared them in rebellion and begun to wage war against them.
In the Declaration's words:

"He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny..."

In other words, the Brits had already declared "secession" on our Founders, there were already figurative nooses around their necks and as Franklin famously quipped:

"Now we must all hang together, gentlemen, or most assuredly we shall all hang separately."

That was the first condition required for legitimate disunion in our Founders' minds: necessity.
And the second condition they made in 1788 -- mutual consent.
Necessity or mutual consent were needed for legitimate disunion in our Founders' minds and no Founder ever proposed what happened in 1861: unilateral unapproved declarations of secession at pleasure.

Note above in the quote from Virginia & New York ratifications, that FLT-bird provides us, it does not claim "at pleasure secession" is legitimate, but only when necessary from "injury or oppression".

The VA & NY model here is clearly conditions in 1776 not those of 1861.
Nothing remotely resembling 1776 existed in 1861 so Confederates declared their secessions "at pleasure" which no Founder ever approved of.

So that's the first point: legitimate disunion from mutual consent (1788) or necessity (1776) is one thing, unilateral unapproved declarations of secession at pleasure is something very different.

Second point, regardless of the philosophical right or wrong of secession, secession did not cause Civil War.
Neither did forming a new Confederacy, nor ratifying a new Confederate constitution, nor declaring their new capital city, nor calling up a new 100,000 man army to oppose the Union's 16,000 men (most scattered out west).
What caused war was, in short: Fort Sumter.

Of course our Lost Causers argue Lincoln started war at Fort Sumter, but the fact remains there would have been no war had Jefferson Davis not ordered a military assault on Federal troops in the fort.
And they all knew it:

"Mr. President, at this time it is suicide, murder, and will lose us every friend at the North.
You will wantonly strike a hornet's nest which extends from mountain to ocean, and legions now quiet will swarm out and sting us to death.
It is unnecessary; it puts us in the wrong; it is fatal."[15]

So the right or wrong of secession was irrelevant to the start of Civil War.
War started because Davis ordered it.