Posted on 06/09/2009 8:47:35 AM PDT by Davy Buck
My oh my, what would the critics, the Civil War publications, publishers, and bloggers do if it weren't for the bad boys of the Confederacy and those who study them and also those who wish to honor their ancestors who fought for the Confederacy?
(Excerpt) Read more at oldvirginiablog.blogspot.com ...
Graduating any time soon, swattie?
Read further down:
When South Carolina began her resistance to the tariff in 1830, times had changed, and with them the popular conception of the government established by the Constitution. It was now a much more serious thing to threaten the existence of the Federal government than it had been in 1799, or even in 1814. The great fabric which had been gradually built up made an overthrow of the government look very terrible; it made peaceable secession a mockery, and a withdrawal from the Union equivalent to civil war. ...
... [W]hen [Webster] replied to Hayne he stated what the Union and the government had come to be at that moment. He defined the character of the Union as it existed in 1830, and that definition so magnificently stated, and with such grand eloquence, went home to the hearts of the people, and put into noble words the sentiment which they felt but had not expressed. This was the significance of the reply to Hayne. It mattered not what men thought of the Constitution in 1789. The government which was then established might have degenerated into a confederation little stronger than its predecessor. But the Constitution did its work better, and converted a confederacy into a nation. Mr. Webster set forth the national conception of the Union. He expressed what many men were vaguely thinking and believing, and the principles which he made clear and definite went on broadening and deepening until, thirty years afterwards, they had a force sufficient to sustain the North and enable her to triumph in the terrible struggle which resulted in the preservation of national life. ...
... Yet after all is said, the meaning of Mr. Webster's speech in our history and its significance to us are, that it set forth with every attribute of eloquence the nature of the Union as it had developed under the Constitution. He took the vague popular conception and gave it life and form and character. He said, as he alone could say, the people of the United States are a nation, they are the masters of an empire, their union is indivisible, and the words which then rang out in the senate chamber have come down through long years of political conflict and of civil war, until at last they are part of the political creed of every one of his fellow-countrymen.
When the ink was drying on the Declaration of Independence, it's just possible that Franklin or Jefferson or Adams could have changed his mind, and maybe convinced the other delegates that independence was a bad idea. They could have torn up the declaration and written the king a nice letter of apology.
A week, or a month, or a year later that wouldn't have worked. It might seem unfair, but over time people and countries incur other obligations that they can't always just walk away from.
The bulk of your post sounds like an apologia for the ‘Living Constitution’ faction of the D@mocrat party...
Thank you, sir...
That's not because there's some "right" to secession that's lost over time. There wasn't one to begin with.
It's because governments can collapse in their early days before the Constitution truly becomes functional -- before people truly accept it as the real law of the land.
If half the states hadn't ratified and one decided to withdraw its ratification, just in practical terms it would have been easier to do so, than it would be after 70 or 220 years.
That would have meant, of course, that the US as we know it wouldn't have come into existence.
When you've got a history and a large national debt and national institutions already established, it's a lot harder for a state to opt out (which they didn't have an explicit right to do in the first place).
Thanks, sir - your posts are always educational!
Your comments do not appear to disagree (in any substantive way) with the 'Living Constitution' crowd.
That's not because there's some "right" to secession that's lost over time. There wasn't one to begin with.
Read the Tenth Amendment - and produce a specific delegation of federal power to prevent the formal withdrawal of a member State using military force, or a specific prohibition of the reserved rights of the States to do so. Can't do it? No surprise - you've made the same claim on any number of these threads, over the years, and have never been able to do it...
It's because governments can collapse in their early days before the Constitution truly becomes functional -- before people truly accept it as the real law of the land.
That seems to be your problem - a failure to accept the Constitution as the specific, written "real law of the land."
If half the states hadn't ratified and one decided to withdraw its ratification, just in practical terms it would have been easier to do so, than it would be after 70 or 220 years.
Actually, several of the ratifying States reserved the right to "withdraw," in their ratification documents. Secession therefore would not have been a problem, "in practical terms," as long as the constitutional contract [i.e., "compact] was honored. You apparently think that time magically alters the terms of contracts, and constitutions. Congratulations.
That would have meant, of course, that the US as we know it wouldn't have come into existence.
Glad to see that you are omniscient - that's an excellent fit with your 'Living Constitution' argument. All we have to do, to get things right, is listen to people (primarily D@mocrats) like you.
When you've got a history and a large national debt and national institutions already established, it's a lot harder for a state to opt out...
Sure - and in other words, 'when you've got a business relationship and a large corporate debt and subsidiary institutions already established, it's a lot harder for a party to a business contract to opt out.' Bull crap - a contract is a contract. Either it means what it says - precisely - or it means nothing. You would apparently suggest that it means nothing.
(which they didn't have an explicit right to do in the first place).
Your point is completely irrelevant - please see my Post 1523. Please note that even Mr. Hamilton disagreed with you - and that's a major accomplishment for a 'government power freak'...
Read the Tenth Amendment - and produce a specific delegation of federal power to prevent the formal withdrawal of a member State using military force, or a specific prohibition of the reserved rights of the States to do so. Can't do it?
According to Article VI the Constitution is the supreme law of the land. A state ordinance denying the authority of the Constitution would be invalid. One assumes that the federal government could take measures against a state denial of legitimate federal authority.
State "reservations" of a "right to secede" don't count if they're not written into the Constitution. Moreover, as we've seen, many of these "reservations" involved the right of the "people" to reassume their rights if they constitutional compact were violated not the "right" of states to break with the Constitution when they thought fit.
It's unfortunate that you don't see the point I was making about the practical side of things. There is no constitutional "right" to secession. A state could have gotten away with leaving the union in the early days. Not because it had a right to do so, but because the union was so weak and the meaning and validity of the Constitution so likely to be questioned or challenged. Once the Constitution was truly accepted as the law of the land, coups like that (at least on the part of a state) became harder to pull off.
A contract is a contract. Either it means what it says - precisely - or it means nothing.
Exactly. But you are reading things into the Constitution that aren't there -- things that Madison and other founders didn't see or put into the document.
Any way, in a world where so much is changing so quickly, it is comforting to see that talking to you is as pointless as it always was.
With all the discussion about Madison, I've forgot about Mr Hamilton.
“When the sword is once drawn the passions of men observe no bounds of moderation. The suggestions of wounded pride, the instigations of resentment, would be apt to carry the States against which the arms of the Union were exerted, to any extreme to avenge the affront, or to avoid the disgrace of submission. The first war of this kind would probably terminate in a dissolution of the Union.”
“It has been observed, to coerce the states is one of the maddest projects that was ever devised. A failure of compliance will never be confined to a single state. This being the case, can we suppose it wise to hazard a civil war?
“Suppose Massachusetts, or any large state, should refuse, and Congress should attempt to compel them, would they not have influence to procure assistance, especially from those states which are in the same situation as themselves? What picture does this idea present to our view? A complying state at war with a non-complying state; Congress marching the troops of one state into the bosom of another; this state collecting auxiliaries, and forming, perhaps, a majority against the federal head.
“Here is a nation at war with itself. Can any reasonable man be well disposed towards a government which makes war and carnage the only means of supporting itself — a government that can exist only by the sword? Every such war must involve the innocent with the guilty. This single consideration should be sufficient to dispose every peaceable citizen against such a government. But can we believe that one state will ever suffer itself to be used as an instrument of coercion? The thing is a dream; it is impossible.”[. Jonathan Elliot, “The Debates of the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution.” Philadelphia: J.B. Lippincott & Co., 1876, vol. II, p.232-233.
Furthermore— James Wilson of Pennsylvania {Ratification Convention}
“The states should resign to the national government that part, and that part only, of their political liberty, which, placed in that government, will produce more good to the whole than if it had remained in the several states.”
And this implied the ability to take it back again. In the proposed Constitution, the citizens of the various states “appear dispensing a part of their original power in what manner and what proportion they think fit. They never part with the whole; and they retain the right of recalling what they part with.”
And thank you for another one of your standard, irrelevant replies. Apparently, in your world, you do not change, but the Constitution magically does.
According to Article VI the Constitution is the supreme law of the land. A state ordinance denying the authority of the Constitution would be invalid. One assumes that the federal government could take measures against a state denial of legitimate federal authority.
Thanks for a 'straw man' argument. "The supreme law of the land" includes the Tenth Amendment (cited specifically by the seceding States) as "the authority of the Constitution" reserving their right to secede. Your argument assumes that no such right exists, and that the federal government was somehow delegated the right to use military force against a State withdrawing from the union.
Allow me to ask again (so you can ignore the issue, yet again): can you produce a specific, written delegation of federal power to prevent the formal withdrawal of a member State using military force; or a specific, written prohibition of the reserved rights of the States to do so?
Of course not.
State "reservations" of a "right to secede" don't count if they're not written into the Constitution.
Gosh - that's not true of any other contract: the signature page, with even handwritten reservations of rights, is part of the contract. Why is it different with the Constitution? The other parties to the constitutional compact could have objected, or refused to accept the subject ratifications - and did not. And as your Post 1565 suggests, there is no prohibition against State reservations of rights in their ratification documents, because "[t]here wasn't one to begin with."
;>)
Moreover, as we've seen, many of these "reservations" involved the right of the "people" to reassume their rights if they constitutional compact were violated not the "right" of states to break with the Constitution when they thought fit.
Actually, as Thomas Jefferson observed:
"...the [federal] government created by this compact was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself; since that would have made its discretion, and not the Constitution, the measure of its powers; but that, as in all other cases of compact among powers having no common judge, each [State as a] party has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions as of the mode and measure of redress."
But, of course, you would no doubt suggest that the federal government is the proper 'judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself, as well of infractions commited against the States by the federal government, and also of the mode and measure of redress available to the States.'
X, aka "Mr. Living Constitution," strikes again...
It's unfortunate that you don't see the point I was making about the practical side of things. There is no constitutional "right" to secession.
Oh, I saw your point perfectly - which is why I cited Amendment X:
"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."
You, of course, can point to no delegation of power to prevent secession to the federal government, nor to a prohibition of secession applied to the States - the right to secede, is therefore, reserved to the States under the specific written terms of the Constitution itself.
You disagree with the written Constitution - citing 'practicality.' How nice.
A state could have gotten away with leaving the union in the early days. Not because it had a right to do so...
Once again - care to cite for us the specific constitutional clause prohibiting State secession? Of course not. The lack of "a right to do so" exists only in your personal, 'Living Constitution'...
Once the Constitution was truly accepted as the law of the land, coups like that (at least on the part of a state) became harder to pull off.
"[C]oups like" what? Are you referring to the 'Living Constitution' crowd (including yourself, obviously) denying the rights reserved to the parties to the Constitution (the States)? That has a more solid basis in historical fact, than does your ridiculous fantasy...
...you are reading things into the Constitution that aren't there -- things that Madison and other founders didn't see or put into the document.
Wrong - I am basing my arguments on the actual language of the written Constitution (not your 'living' version), and the written comments of the writers of the time (including Mr. Madison). As noted above, please see my Post 1523:
"The right of sovereignty, therefore, in all cases not expressly ceded to the United States by the constitution, or prohibited by it to the several states, remains inviolably, with the states; respectively."
Address the facts - or provide further entertainment (you're an excellent 'dancer,' when it comes to avoiding historical documentation).
Any way, in a world where so much is changing so quickly, it is comforting to see that talking to you is as pointless as it always was.
Ditto; you 'Living Constitution' types are among the most senseless I've ever encountered - and among the most worthless, when it comes to preserving liberty "in a world where so much is changing so quickly"...
How is a State in the wrong for reassuming delegated powers?
I can delegate authority to my Son {take charge of the lawnmower}or{placing him in charge of our fence line}That doesn't make him my master!
I answered that already: the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, "anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding" and can take appropriate action when the Constitution is violated. That's as specific as your 10th Amendment mumbo-jumbo, if not more so.
But of course, you're changing the subject. A lot of constitutionally trained lawyers and scholars in 1861 didn't know whether the Constitution authorized the federal government to procede militarily against a state whose convention had adopted a secession ordinance. That was an open question. But many or most of those same scholars believed secession was not constitutional. Those are perhaps related questions, but there is a difference.
Gosh - that's not true of any other contract: the signature page, with even handwritten reservations of rights, is part of the contract. Why is it different with the Constitution?
Because if you pencil in reservations and amendments when you sign a contract, I can refuse to sign. In the case of ratification, the Constitution was submitted to state conventions for an up or down vote. Congress couldn't say, "Virginia is part of the union only under these conditions and New Hampshire only under those."
Actually, as Thomas Jefferson observed: "...the [federal] government created by this compact was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself; since that would have made its discretion, and not the Constitution, the measure of its powers; but that, as in all other cases of compact among powers having no common judge, each [State as a] party has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions as of the mode and measure of redress."
Nice opinion, but only an opinion. Jefferson wasn't around when the Constitution was written and adopted, and a lot of what he says has more to do with his role as a factional leader, rather than a legal scholar.
But you haven't dealt with my original point: the fact that a state might possibly have gotten away with secession in the early years of the Republic doesn't mean that the Constitution allowed unilateral secession.
Republics, federations, and constitutions are weak in their early years. Many die soon after they're born. It takes time for respect for constitutions to develop and for factions to learn to put the constitution above their own will and interest.
John Adams could have refused to hold elections in 1800 or to turn over the White House to Jefferson afterwards. It would have been unconstitutional, but he could have done it and if he had, he would have been more likely to get away with it, than Clinton or Bush would have been.
Thomas Jefferson didn't have to live with laws the Federalists made. Of course he could have worked to repeal them constitutionally. But he might have refused to fill offices and pay out funds. He could have sent his followers to lock up buildings and turn out employees. He didn't, and our country's better off for it. But if he tried, it wouldn't have been as hard for him to do as it would have been for later Presidents.
John Marshall could have asserted the Supreme Court's power to rule laws unconstitional, even though there's no explicit warrant for that in the Constition itself. If he did that, his ruling would be more likely to stick than a later justice's ruling would be. And he did just that. And it did stick.
So if South Carolina or Massachusetts or New York had wanted to withdraw its assent to the Constition in 1789 and leave the union, it probably could have done so. Especially if Washington hadn't been inagurated, Rhode Island and North Carolina hadn't yet ratified, and Vermont wanted its independent recognized.
That wouldn't have meant that secession was a right enshrined in the Constition -- all the more so, since the 10th Amendment hadn't even been ratified. It would only have meant that the new union was weak enough and the Constitution new enough that no one would stop a state that seceded.
Ditto; you 'Living Constitution' types are among the most senseless I've ever encountered - and among the most worthless, when it comes to preserving liberty "in a world where so much is changing so quickly"...
Your problem is attaching dismissive labels to people, rather than dealing with honest arguments that run counter to your own. If I heard that many constitutional experts in 1861 didn't share my view of whether secession was constitutional or not, I'd want to find out what their arguments were and take them seriously. I wouldn't simply assume that they were liars or idiots. But that's just me.
If liberty's at risk, the thing to do is to speak directly to the present danger. Not to get lost in historical disputes that simply divide people of like minds about current issues.
The idea that one can go back to some Point At Which Everything Went Wrong and put history on the right track is mistaken. There are a lot of wrong tracks that make freedom and responsible governance less likely and people are only too willing to take those paths. The Confederacy was an example of such a wrong path.
I can delegate authority to my Son {take charge of the lawnmower}or{placing him in charge of our fence line}That doesn't make him my master!
The idea that a constitution filled with checks and balances and delineated powers could contain a secret reserved right to break with and repudiate it at will is one that many legal scholars have a problem with.
I don't know if it adds anything to the controversy. But logicians might also have a problem with the idea of secession as a delegated power that a state can reassume.
From a strictly logical point of view, what could it mean for a state to "delegate" the right to secede to the federal government?
In your warped, statist, brainwashed mind it was a wrong path.
laughing AT you, as MOST FReepers do.
free dixie,sw
the Constitution SAYS what the authors meant. nothing more;nothing less.
note: it is frequently true that the members of "The DAMNyankee Coven" are TOO IGNORANT & DIMWITTED to read & UNDERSTAND the PLAIN words of the BOR. for example, they just cannot seem to "get" the meaning of the TENTH Amendment to the BOR, which plainly means that the RIGHT OF SECESSION was NEVER ceded to the federal government. thus unilateral secession remains LAWFUL & CONSTITUTIONAL!
free dixie,sw
121 days.
furthermore, about HALF of the DAMNyankee minority (perhaps 10-15% of the total population "up there".) of northerners are TOO DUMB to understand what they have "bought into". that too is FACT!!!
free dixie,sw
(note just to you: HUMILIATING a DAMNyankee LIAR, by rubbing his nose IN his KNOWING LIE, is MUCH less important than the family business affairs.)
free dixie,sw
thus "checks & balances" must be a FICTION, if any POTUS can violate them, at his whim, without penalty.
laughing AT you.
free dixie,sw
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.