Posted on 12/22/2011 3:04:51 PM PST by Federalist Patriot
Contract law was as well (indeed better) understood in those days as today, and so the obvious did not need to be frequently restated.
But any statements you do find from the Founders -- meaning those who wrote and voted to ratify the Constitution -- fall within the limits set by Madison in my post #236 above:
"...the compact being among individuals as imbodied into States, no State can at pleasure release itself therefrom, and set up for itself.
"The compact can only be dissolved by the consent of the other parties, or by usurpations or abuses of power justly having that effect."It will hardly be contended that there is anything in the terms or nature of the compact, authorizing a party to dissolve it at pleasure."
Virginia's ratification statement says the same thing, in so many words:
"...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..."In other words, in today's language, there must be a material breach of contract for a constitutional secession.
Even the New York ratification statement, that most generalized of all, clearly implies breach of contract in using the word "necessary":
"That the powers of government may be reassumed by the people whensoever it shall become necessary to their happiness... "The word "necessary" is the opposite of "at pleasure".
So let me invite you to re-examine your entire lengthy file of Founders' quotes, and find even one which expresses the understanding that a State could secede from the compact "at pleasure".
Yes, I understand your 10th Amendment argument, but the 10th Amendment refers to normal and lawful powers of government, it does not authorize anyone to commit unlawful acts, such as secession "at pleasure."
So here are the bottom lines:
BJK: Contract law was as well (indeed better) understood in those days as today, and so the obvious did not need to be frequently restated. And so forth and so on.
You sidestepped my question. Please try again.
Correction. Should read: You sidestepped my request. Please try again. I'm asking for documentation from the Philadelphia convention.
In fact, I fully answered your original question, even if you don't like that answer.
Remember, the word "secession" does not appear in the Constitution, or the Federalist Papers or in any other document I know of from that time.
Nor is there explicit discussion of other words which mean "secession", except in the context I've quoted from Madison:
In other words, not just some generalized breach of contract, but specifically, as the Virginia ratification statement says, when Federal powers are:
Again, I would invite you to review all of your vast collection of quotes from Founders -- meaning those who wrote and voted to ratify the Constitution -- to see if any of them answered the secession question as something to be allowed, in Madison's term: "at pleasure".
No, you sidestepped my request. Documentation of Madison's "expression" from the Philadelphia convention, please.
Remember, the word "secession" does not appear in the Constitution...
Nor does Madison's "expression", however, the 10th Amendment does appear in the Bill of Rights.
The 10th Amendment does not authorize secession "at pleasure."
Nor, so far as I can find, did any actual Founder speak in favor of secession "at pleasure."
Again, I invite you to review your vast collection of Founders' quotes to see which ones spoke out specifically for a "right of secession at pleasure."
The crux of the matter is sovereignty. Who are the sovereign?
Excerpt of letter from Shuyler Colfax to Lincoln 02/01/1861(emphasis mine):
...”For myself, I can say that while willing to vote for a Constitutional provision against interfering with Slavery in the States, which is merely declaratory of what I regard as the Constitution now, & to restore the Mo. Compromise by law, (but not to put any lines in the Constitution) I have an insuperable repugnance to making New Mexico a State, when,with this sovereignty, she may secede the next month as she cannot now And I look upon the Convention here next week with great distrust.”
IOW - “with this sovereignty,” (as a state) “...she may secede the next month” (or “at will”) “...as she cannot now” (as a territory).
Indiana Congressman Colfax (1855 - 1869), speaker of the house (1863 - 1869), and 17th VP, unequivocally acknowledges that the states had the right to secede whenever they wanted.
Hat tip, PA:)
A third party interpretation of an offhand comment. Nice, but that and a dollar won’t buy you a cup of coffee.
Who is the third party?
...of an offhand comment.
Schuyler Colfax speaking for himself, in writing, an "offhand comment"? LOL!
First of all, Congressman Schuyler Colfax was not a Founding Father, and did not express their Original Intent.
Second and importantly, note the date: February 1, 1861.
That was the same date Texas, the seventh and last Deep-South state, declared its secession (the last four Confederate states came from the Upper South).
So Schuyler's opinion to Lincoln -- who was not yet President -- merely expresses the reality then happening under President Buchanan, not necessarily Colfax's views on what should happen.
And though he did nothing to stop it, President Buchanan himself did not agree that unilateral secession "at pleasure" was constitutional.
So again I request that you review your extensive file of Founders' quotes, to see if any of them suggest that unilateral secession "at pleasure" is authorized by the new Constitution.
You've corroborated my comments on who Colfax was.
...and did not express their Original Intent.
Documentation of Madison's "expression" from the Philadelphia convention, please. I'm still waiting.
So Schuyler's opinion to Lincoln -- who was not yet President -- merely expresses the reality then happening under President Buchanan, not necessarily Colfax's views on what should happen.
Colfax isn't equivocating here. His written view is explicit:
I have an insuperable repugnance to making New Mexico a State, when,with this sovereignty, she may secede the next month as she cannot now And I look upon the Convention here next week with great distrust.
I've quoted nothing from the Philadelphia convention.
Explain what you think you are waiting for.
I'm still waiting for you to provide quotes from Founders expressing the idea that unilateral secession "at pleasure" is authorized by the new Constitution.
From your post #236:
Founders' expressions of Original Intent regarding secession all reflected Madison's view expressed above -- that it must be by mutual consent or "usurpations or abuses of power" having that same effect. No such condition existed in November 1860.
What you're saying is that Madison's "expression" stripped the People of the right to judge for themselves "usurpations or abuses of power", and the power of the sovereign States to reassume self-governance "by the people whensoever it shall become necessary to their happiness...".
At what point during the Philadelphia Convention was Madison's "expression", to strip the rights of We the People and the powers of the sovereign States, discussed and adopted by the Founders' as their Original Intent?
Sure, I understand your intense desire to put words in my mouth, but you must resist such temptations.
I've said no such thing.
What I've said -- over and over -- is that the law of contracts requires mutual consent, or a serious material breach of contract, to be desolved; and that no such condition existed on November 6, 1860 when Deep-South slave-holders first began the processes to simultaneously declare their secession and committed many acts of increasing rebellion or war.
And the serious breach of contract, as spelled out by Madison, the Virginia ratification statement and others, had to be in the form of Federal "usurpations or abuses of power".
I'm saying: since there was no "mutual consent" and no "usurpations" in November 1860, then Deep-South slave-holders' declarations of secession were not according to Founders' Original Intent, and are therefore unconstitutional.
Further, all their many acts of rebellion and war against the United States are anticipated and responses provided for in the Constitution.
Finally, when the Confederacy declared war on the United States -- on May 6, 1861 -- all questions about an alleged "right" of unilateral secession became irrelevant.
And remember: no Confederate soldier was killed by Union forces until after the Confederacy declared war on the United States.
How can anyone that believes in this above truthfully call himself Conservative?
Believe me when I say, "BroJo, I have no desire to put any more words in your mouth. You have enough of your own." (But you're doing better:)
From your post #241:
Even the New York ratification statement, that most generalized of all, clearly implies breach of contract in using the word "necessary":
"That the powers of government may be reassumed by the people whensoever it shall become necessary to their happiness... "
The word "necessary" is the opposite of "at pleasure".
I don't recall any discussion from the Philadelphia Convention which stripped the States or the People of the rights and the powers to decide what is necessary to their happiness, yet this is what you're saying.
There is no ambiguity in the 9th and 10th Amendments. The People of their respective States have the rights which they retained, and the States or the People reserved powers not granted.
Nothing unconstitutional about the seceding States exercising their rights and powers of self-government.
STOP calling Christianity a pagan religion. It's not.
Definition of "pagan":
heathen 1; especially: a follower of a polytheistic religion (as in ancient Rome) one who has little or no religion and who delights in sensual pleasures and material goods : an irreligious or hedonistic person. Origin of PAGAN: Middle English, from Late Latin paganus, from Latin, civilian, country dweller, from pagus country district; akin to Latin pangere to fix — more at pact First Known Use: 14th century There is no definition of "pagan" that applies to Christianity.
heathen 1; especially: a follower of a polytheistic religion (as in ancient Rome) one who has little or no religion and who delights in sensual pleasures(e.g...marring and having children with ones own first cousin)and material goods : an irreligious or hedonistic person.
Only in the sense that paganus referred to the religion of the country people then, and Christianity refers to the religion of the country people now.
When the two big burgs were Rome and Constantinople, the pagans lived in “boat by” country. Now one might refer to the great between as “fly over” country.
I see a great deal that we have in common such as virtue. You don’t. Guess that is what makes a horse race.
So which is it, the states, or the people?
The People would of course refer to the entire people of the United States. Not the people of, say, South Carolina, unless you would assert that the people of South Carolina alone have the RTKABA, to freedom of the press, to be secure in their persons, effects from search.
Now that would be a hard thing to justify.
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.