Posted on 06/09/2009 8:47:35 AM PDT by Davy Buck
You will note that "We the People" did not ratify the Constitution, but the individual states did in their separate ratifying conventions. The "lumpen" people did not form the Union or ratify the Constitution.
The "more perfect Union" does not have any prohibition against secession. It wouldn't have been "more perfect" if it had outlawed secession and left states oppressed by a majority of other states with no recourse except to fight their way out. If the Constitution had outlawed secession, it would not have been ratified, as I've said before.
In addition to Va, RI, and NY saying that they understood the Constitution to mean that they could reassume their own governance, the following states insisted on various forms of what eventually became the Tenth Amendment, the basis of the right to secede:
South Carolina: "This Convention doth also declare, that no section or paragraph of the said Constitution warrants a construction that the states do not retain every power not expressly relinquished by them, and vested in the general government of the Union.
North Carolina proposed amendment: "1. That each state in the Union shall respectively retain every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Constitution delegated to the Congress of the United States, or to the departments of the federal government."
Massachusetts proposed amendment: "First, That it be explicitly declared that all Powers not expressly delegated by the aforesaid Constitution are reserved to the several States to be by them exercised."
New Hampshire proposed amendment: "I. That it be explicitly declared that all powers not expressly and particularly delegated by the aforesaid Constitution, are reserved to the several States, to be by them exercised."
That makes a total of seven states, a majority of the then Union. More states than that eventually ratified the Tenth Amendment.
Your contempt for the people is noted, but hardly universal. As Chief Justice Marshall noted:
"In discussing this question, the counsel for the state of Maryland have deemed it of some importance, in the construction of the constitution, to consider that instrument, not as emanating from the people, but as the act of sovereign and independent states. The powers of the general government, it has been said, are delegated by the states, who alone are truly sovereign; and must be exercised in subordination to the states, who alone possess supreme dominion. It would be difficult to sustain this proposition. The convention which framed the constitution was indeed elected by the state legislatures. But the instrument, when it came from their hands, was a mere proposal, without obligation, or pretensions to it. It was reported to the then existing congress of the United States, with a request that it might 'be submitted to a convention of delegates, chosen in each state by the people thereof, under the recommendation of its legislature, for their assent and ratification.' This mode of proceeding was adopted; and by the convention, by congress, and by the state legislatures, the instrument was submitted to the people. They acted upon it in the only manner in which they can act safely, effectively and wisely, on such a subject, by assembling in convention. It is true, they assembled in their several states-and where else should they have assembled? No political dreamer was ever wild enough to think of breaking down the lines which separate the states, and of compounding the American people into one common mass. Of consequence, when they act, they act in their states. But the measures they adopt do not, on that account, cease to be the measures of the people themselves, or become the measures of the state governments."
The "more perfect Union" does not have any prohibition against secession. It wouldn't have been "more perfect" if it had outlawed secession and left states oppressed by a majority of other states with no recourse except to fight their way out. If the Constitution had outlawed secession, it would not have been ratified, as I've said before.
Nothing in it supports the idea of secession without the consent of the other states, either.
In addition to Va, RI, and NY saying that they understood the Constitution to mean that they could reassume their own governance, the following states insisted on various forms of what eventually became the Tenth Amendment, the basis of the right to secede...
Well...they were wrong.
if so, please understand that you will be laughed AT "behind your back" by FR's intelligent members for being clue-LESS, as every member of "the coven" IS. (be sure to ask "N-S", The DAMNyankee Minister of Propaganda, for your very own "secret squirrel number", if you've decided to join the coven.).
free dixie,sw
Oh-oh, now you’ve done it! You’ve invoked the wrath of Squattie and will now feeeeeeel the sting of his deadly wit (snort!).
“Abandon ye all hope who enter here”...
Oh, and watch out for gramps - when you can rouse him from his sleep he’s a cantankerous one as well.
;>)
That and I'll need your shirt size for the official coven teeshirt.
You are right. My contempt is not universal. I only have contempt for certain people.
As Chief Justice Marshall noted: ...The powers of the general government, it has been said, are delegated by the states, who alone are truly sovereign; and must be exercised in subordination to the states, who alone possess supreme dominion. It would be difficult to sustain this proposition. ...
I'm not sure how your Marshall quotation counters my point that the Constitution was not ratified by the lumpen people, but by the individual state ratification conventions. It appears we are to have dueling quotations. To counter your Federalist judge, here are some excerpts from Madison in Federalist 39:
... this assent and ratification is to be given by the people, not as individuals composing one entire nation, but as composing the distinct and independent States to which they respectively belong. It is to be the assent and ratification of the several States, derived from the supreme authority in each State, the authority of the people themselves.
That it will be a federal and not a national act, as these terms are understood by the objectors; the act of the people, as forming so many independent States, not as forming one aggregate nation ...
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. In this relation, then, the new Constitution will, if established, be a federal, and not a national constitution.
Nothing in it supports the idea of secession without the consent of the other states, either.
Have you found anything at the time of ratification that counters what New York's ratification convention said the Constitution meant or that said that New York's ratifiers were wrong? My bold below.
Ratification of the Constitution by the State of New York; July 26, 1788. [Link
WE the Delegates of the People of the State of New York, duly elected and Met in Convention, having maturely considered the Constitution for the United States of America, agreed to on the seventeenth day of September, in the year One thousand Seven hundred and Eighty seven, by the Convention then assembled at Philadelphia in the Common-wealth of Pennsylvania (a Copy whereof precedes these presents) and having also seriously and deliberately considered the present situation of the United States, Do declare and make known. ...
That the Powers of Government may be reassumed by the People, whensoever it shall become necessary to their Happiness; ...
... Under these impressions and declaring that the rights aforesaid cannot be abridged or violated, and that the Explanations aforesaid are consistent with the said Constitution ... We the said Delegates, in the Name and in the behalf of the People of the State of New York Do by these presents Assent to and Ratify the said Constitution.
I've always been impressed by that ratification document. Here are some other things they said the Constitution meant:
... that every Power, Jurisdiction and right, which is not by the said Constitution clearly delegated to the Congress of the United States, or the departments 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 to certain specified Powers, or as inserted merely for greater Caution.
That the People have a right to keep and bear Arms; that a well regulated Militia, including the body of the People capable of bearing Arms, is the proper, natural and safe defence of a free State;
That every Person restrained of his Liberty is entitled to an enquiry into the lawfulness of such restraint, and to a removal thereof if unlawful, and that such enquiry and removal ought not to be denied or delayed, except when on account of Public Danger the Congress shall suspend the privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus.
That the People have a right peaceably to assemble together to consult for their common good, or to instruct their Representatives; and that every person has a right to Petition or apply to the Legislature for redress of Grievances.
That the People have an equal, natural and unalienable right, freely and peaceably to Exercise their Religion according to the dictates of Conscience, and that no Religious Sect or Society ought to be favoured or established by Law in preference of others.
That the Freedom of the Press ought not to be violated or restrained.
That the trial by Jury in the extent that it obtains by the Common Law of England is one of the greatest securities to the rights of a free People, and ought to remain inviolate.
The Federalists of the time argued that we should not put such things in the Constitution or in a Bill of Rights, that they were already naturally protected by the Constitution and wouldn't be violated. I am reminded, however, of what naive Federalist James Wilson said about the Constitution back then:
Hence, it is evident, that in the former case everything which is not reserved is given; but in the latter the reverse of the proposition prevails, and everything which is not given is reserved. This distinction being recognized, will furnish an answer to those who think the omission of a bill of rights a defect in the proposed constitution; for it would have been superfluous and absurd to have stipulated with a federal body of our own creation, that we should enjoy those privileges of which we are not divested, either by the intention or the act that has brought the body into existence. For instance, the liberty of the press, which has been a copious source of declamation and opposition -- what control can proceed from the Federal government to shackle or destroy that sacred palladium of national freedom?
What indeed? After the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were ratified, the Federalists passed the Alien and Sedition acts and started using them to arrest their Democrat/Republican opponents and newspaper editors who said things against the policy of the Federalist president. So much for the guarantee of freedom of the press under the Federalists (or some of their philosophical descendants for that matter).
Your contempt is clear but not univerally shared. In your world the Preamble should have read "We the states of Virginia, Maryland, New York, etc., etc. in order to form a more perfect union..." because in your world there are no people of the United States. Just states. And a lumpen mass.
I'm not sure how your Marshall quotation counters my point that the Constitution was not ratified by the lumpen people, but by the individual state ratification conventions.
Maybe you should have read it all.
Have you found anything at the time of ratification that counters what New York's ratification convention said the Constitution meant or that said that New York's ratifiers were wrong?
Yeah. That part later in the document that says, "We the said Delegates, in the Name and in the behalf of the People of the State of New York Do by these presents Assent to and Ratify the said Constitution." They ratified the Constitution as passed out of Convention, completely and in total. And that Constitution says it is the Supreme law of the land. And any misconceptions on the part of the New Yorkers doesn't overrule that.
I did, and I read this from Marshall too [Link], back when he was part of the Virginia ratification convention, which also by the way said they could resume their own governance.
The state governments did not derive their powers from the general government; but each government derived its powers from the people, and each was to act according to the powers given it. Would any gentleman deny this? He [Marshall] demanded if powers not given were retained by implication. Could any man say so? Could any man say that this power was not retained by the states, as they had not given it away? For, says he, does not a power remain till it is given away? ...
... All the restraints intended to be laid on the state governments (besides where an exclusive power is expressly given to Congress) are contained in the 10th section of the 1st article.
And any misconceptions on the part of the New Yorkers doesn't overrule that.
So, I take it you haven't found anything from the time of ratification that contradicts what they and the Virginia and Rhode Island ratifiers said about reassuming their own governance. If Madison, Marshall, Hamilton, Jay and others felt differently about it, they were outvoted by the other ratifiers or kept quiet.
inasmuch as you actually post anything but RIDICULE to "rockrr, the VULGAR-talking bigot" AND you don't even make an attempt to answer the questions posed to you by other FReepers, should everyone presume that you've joined "The DAMNyankee Coven of REVISIONIST lunatics, FOOLS, antisemites, BIGOTS, south-HATERS, DIMocRATS & LIARS"??? if so, please understand that you will be laughed AT "behind your back" by FR's intelligent members for being clue-LESS, as every member of "the coven" IS. (be sure to ask "N-S", The DAMNyankee Minister of Propaganda, for your very own "secret squirrel number", if you've decided to join the coven.).
free dixie,swti;dr
I think squattie has a time cube. Do you think he’s naturally schizo or became that way?
But it is not only duties paid. The data you give is inflated because of the mixing of reexports, specie, and bond deposits. It is not accurate to compare that data with actual duties paid in any year.
The U S Customs report lists the duties actually paid on imports for the year. That is available in the Historical Statistics of the United States, Department of Commerce section, listing Import Duties paid by calendar year.
Chew on this (I'll make it shorter, because you obviously have trouble with adult concepts):
"I consider the foundation of the Constitution as laid on this ground: That 'all powers not delegated to the United States, by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States or to the people.' To take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specially drawn around the powers of Congress, is to take possession of a boundless field of power, no longer susceptible of any definition."
- Thomas Jefferson, 1791
Thomas Jefferson disagreed with you, RockSmokerr (as usual ;>), and he agreed with stand watie.
;>)
Chew on this (not that you're equipped to understand it - even if I keep short ;>):
"...[W]hether the [constitutional] phrases in question be construed to authorize every measure relating to the common defence and general welfare, as contended by some; or every measure only in which there might be an application of money, as suggested by the caution of others; the effect must substantially be the same, in destroying the import and force of the particular enumeration of powers which follow these general phrases in the Constitution. For it is evident that there is not a single power whatever, which may not have some reference to the common defence, or the general welfare; nor a power of any magnitude, which, in its exercise, does not involve or admit an application of money."
- James Madison, 1799
Once again, James Madison disagrees with you (typical ;>), and - no surprise - he agrees with stand watie.
;>)
You didn’t answer my question, except to spam the thread. Are you obdurate by nature or is the Alzheimer’s kicking in?
Marshall did not say that. The first paragraph of you post is a quote by Marshall, but he was talking about whether states had control of their own militia, not whether states could secede.
... All the restraints intended to be laid on the state governments (besides where an exclusive power is expressly given to Congress) are contained in the 10th section of the 1st article.
Later modified by the 10th Amendment.
So, I take it you haven't found anything from the time of ratification that contradicts what they and the Virginia and Rhode Island ratifiers said about reassuming their own governance.
I have found nothing to support it. Just because they believed they could drop out unilaterally at will does not mean that such a right existed. And as the Supreme Court has pointed out, it doesn't.
And you are, of course, free to cling to any Southron myth you care to create or which strikes your fancy.
That's not what the Statistical Abstract says. It lists it as Revenue derived from Customs collections. Period.
Do you perhaps mean $200,000,000 and would that have been primarily cotton & tobacco? Thanks for an excellent post -- high on credible facts, absent insults, so no complaints from me.
If I understand the point you're trying to make here, it's that the South was still economically vital & prosperous in 1860. And from numbers I've seen, that much is true.
But based on all that, you seem to be making a larger point too, which I'm not at all clear on.
Referring, no doubt to Colonial Charters, Grants and Related Documents?
Thanks too. Just as soon as I work my way down through this thread... ;-)
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.