Posted on 08/05/2010 6:01:30 AM PDT by Michael Zak
“When setting up an analogy aren’t you supposed to use a hypothetical argument?”
LOL. Maybe I should have used another state as my example. :)
My point was that prior to the Texas v. White decision in 1869 there was no legal imprimatur on the issue of secession.
“In a divorce there is a third party making sure that the interests and rights of both sides of the divorce are protected. What third party would do that in your secession scenario?”
How about the Supreme Court? Unfortunately, it was silent on the issue until years after the War. Be that as it may, the Southern states believed they had the right to secede, and the 10th Amendment would seem to support them.
“An example that all of us should think about. We have many muslims in the Dearborn region of Michighan. What if in the future the muslims there become such a large population that they have the political muscle to get a vote from the residents of the state of Michighan to secede from our country and start their own. Would the southern sympathizers be in favor of that?”
Yeah, they would. Because then they would go Yankee on their sorry asses and invade them and destroy them.
Madison (you know that guy who wrote the Constitution) was President at the time, was against this and would not have allowed them to secede.
Madison actually flip-flopped throughout his career on the whole states rights thing - usually as a matter of political convenience. Jefferson, by contrast, was much more consistent and left this statement in his final months of life as advice for the country's future:
"Take together the decisions of the federal court, the doctrines of the President, and the misconstructions of the constitutional compact acted on by the legislature of the federal branch, and it is but too evident, that the three ruling branches of that department are in combination to strip their colleagues, the State authorities, of the powers reserved by them, and to exercise themselves all functions foreign and domestic. Under the power to regulate commerce, they assume indefinitely that also over agriculture and manufactures, and call it regulation to take the earnings of one of these branches of industry, and that too the most depressed, and put them into the pockets of the other, the most flourishing of all. Under the authority to establish post roads, they claim that of cutting down mountains for the construction of roads, of digging canals, and aided by a little sophistry on the words “general welfare,” a right to do, not only the acts to effect that, which are specifically enumerated and permitted, but whatsoever they shall think, or pretend will be for the general welfare. And what is our resource for the preservation of the constitution? Reason and argument? You might as well reason and argue with the marble columns encircling them. The representatives chosen by ourselves? They are joined in the combination, some from incorrect views of government, some from corrupt ones, sufficient voting together to out-number the sound parts; and with majorities only of one, two, or three, bold enough to go forward in defiance. Are we then to stand to our arms, with the hot-headed Georgian? No. That must be the last resource, not to be thought of until much longer and greater sufferings. If every infraction of a compact of so many parties is to be resisted at once, as a dissolution of it, none can ever be formed which would last one year. We must have patience and longer endurance then with our brethren while under delusion; give them time for reflection and experience of consequences; keep ourselves in a situation to profit by the chapter of accidents; and separate from our companions only when the sole alternatives left, are the dissolution of our Union with them, or submission to a government without limitation of powers. Between these two evils, when we must make a choice, there can be no hesitation." - Thomas Jefferson, December 26, 1825
No secession doesn’t fall under ANY amendment and is NOT legal there is no right to secede. Just check what Washington, Madison and Hamilton said about it. Or any of the major founders.
How about Jefferson. Is he major enough? Cause he indisputably supported the right of secession. He said it should always be a last resort, but one the states should not hesitate to take if conditions become bad enough to justify it.
"Take together the decisions of the federal court, the doctrines of the President, and the misconstructions of the constitutional compact acted on by the legislature of the federal branch, and it is but too evident, that the three ruling branches of that department are in combination to strip their colleagues, the State authorities, of the powers reserved by them, and to exercise themselves all functions foreign and domestic. Under the power to regulate commerce, they assume indefinitely that also over agriculture and manufactures, and call it regulation to take the earnings of one of these branches of industry, and that too the most depressed, and put them into the pockets of the other, the most flourishing of all. Under the authority to establish post roads, they claim that of cutting down mountains for the construction of roads, of digging canals, and aided by a little sophistry on the words “general welfare,” a right to do, not only the acts to effect that, which are specifically enumerated and permitted, but whatsoever they shall think, or pretend will be for the general welfare. And what is our resource for the preservation of the constitution? Reason and argument? You might as well reason and argue with the marble columns encircling them. The representatives chosen by ourselves? They are joined in the combination, some from incorrect views of government, some from corrupt ones, sufficient voting together to out-number the sound parts; and with majorities only of one, two, or three, bold enough to go forward in defiance. Are we then to stand to our arms, with the hot-headed Georgian? No. That must be the last resource, not to be thought of until much longer and greater sufferings. If every infraction of a compact of so many parties is to be resisted at once, as a dissolution of it, none can ever be formed which would last one year. We must have patience and longer endurance then with our brethren while under delusion; give them time for reflection and experience of consequences; keep ourselves in a situation to profit by the chapter of accidents; and separate from our companions only when the sole alternatives left, are the dissolution of our Union with them, or submission to a government without limitation of powers. Between these two evils, when we must make a choice, there can be no hesitation." - Thomas Jefferson, December 26, 1825
The Virginia legislature ended up PASSING the resolution.
"Take together the decisions of the federal court, the doctrines of the President, and the misconstructions of the constitutional compact acted on by the legislature of the federal branch, and it is but too evident, that the three ruling branches of that department are in combination to strip their colleagues, the State authorities, of the powers reserved by them, and to exercise themselves all functions foreign and domestic. Under the power to regulate commerce, they assume indefinitely that also over agriculture and manufactures, and call it regulation to take the earnings of one of these branches of industry, and that too the most depressed, and put them into the pockets of the other, the most flourishing of all. Under the authority to establish post roads, they claim that of cutting down mountains for the construction of roads, of digging canals, and aided by a little sophistry on the words “general welfare,” a right to do, not only the acts to effect that, which are specifically enumerated and permitted, but whatsoever they shall think, or pretend will be for the general welfare. And what is our resource for the preservation of the constitution? Reason and argument? You might as well reason and argue with the marble columns encircling them. The representatives chosen by ourselves? They are joined in the combination, some from incorrect views of government, some from corrupt ones, sufficient voting together to out-number the sound parts; and with majorities only of one, two, or three, bold enough to go forward in defiance. Are we then to stand to our arms, with the hot-headed Georgian? No. That must be the last resource, not to be thought of until much longer and greater sufferings. If every infraction of a compact of so many parties is to be resisted at once, as a dissolution of it, none can ever be formed which would last one year. We must have patience and longer endurance then with our brethren while under delusion; give them time for reflection and experience of consequences; keep ourselves in a situation to profit by the chapter of accidents; and separate from our companions only when the sole alternatives left, are the dissolution of our Union with them, or submission to a government without limitation of powers. Between these two evils, when we must make a choice, there can be no hesitation." - Jefferson to Giles, December 26, 1825
Post 78 describes Madison's view on this. He was the main writer of the constitution
Actually that was Gouvernour Morris, head of the committee on style.
Madison's reputation as the "father of the constitution" comes entirely from his copious note taking and his vocal advocacy of ratification. Otherwise there is nothing which especially commends his word over the other participants in those debates.
In fact, Madison's early record as a constitutional authority is pretty spotty. In 1794 he attempted to organize a Supreme Court challenge to a new federal excise tax on carriages, after months of railing against its alleged unconstitutionality before the House. The court slapped him down unanimously, as it should have - excise taxes are plainly within the powers of Congress, Madison's claim otherwise notwithstanding.
Did they singlehandedly ratify the Constitution or were they perhaps outvoted by their colleagues? Consider the ratification of New York [Link]:
Ratification of the Constitution by the State of New York; July 26, 1788.
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.
What did they know, right? Hamilton and Jay were members of that ratification convention, and Marshall and Madison were members of the Virginia ratification convention that said something similar. If they felt otherwise, they got outvoted.
Hamilton is also on record in that NY Ratification Convention as saying:
It has been well observed, that 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 not they have influence to procure assistance, especially from those States which are in the same situation as themselves? What picture does this 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 its 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.
And the remaining states? They had no voice in the matter? No Constitutional protections? No rights that deserved protection? They had no choice but to sit there and take all the damage the South wanted to inflict?
"By the principles of the American revolution, arbitrary power may and ought to be resisted even by arms if necessary- The time may come when it shall be the duty of a State, in order to preserve itself from the oppression of the general government, to have recourse to the sword." - Luther Martin, Delegate from Maryland, 1788
What damage? South Carolina fired on its own territory. The Confederacy posed NO threat to the North. It did not even enter Northern territory in any force until the Summer of 1863, more than two years after the start of hostilities. You will recall that it was Lincoln who in the Spring of 1861 called for 75,000 troops to be mustered for the invasion of Southern states. No serious historian would refute the fact that it was the North who was the true aggressor in that conflict. If you were honest, you'd admit it. But your hagiographic infatuation with Lincoln and your well-publicized hatred of the South precludes you from any objective thought in the matter.
When the Southern states walked out of the Union they repudiated responsibility for their share of the national debt, walked away from national obligations, stole every bit of federal property they could get their hands on, and were in a position to cut off large sections of the country from access to the sea. All of which caused financial and economic harm to those states who stayed. And in your view all the remaining states could do is sit back and take it.
The Confederacy posed NO threat to the North. It did not even enter Northern territory in any force until the Summer of 1863, more than two years after the start of hostilities.
Hostilities they themselves initiated by firing on Sumter.
You will recall that it was Lincoln who in the Spring of 1861 called for 75,000 troops to be mustered for the invasion of Southern states.
Prior to that the confederate government had authorized an army of 100,000 men, six or seven times the size of the U.S. army at the time.
No serious historian would refute the fact that it was the North who was the true aggressor in that conflict.
Any serious historian would recognize that it was the confederacy who chose war for whatever reason. War got them Sumter...and lost them everything else.
Clearly there is merit in isolating a potential threat like a sharia based govt for example to one small region, than have it infect the entire body politic. So if we are going to let in the dirty night shirt crowd(original sin) then let them be isolated. This is logical.
“When the Southern states walked out of the Union they repudiated responsibility for their share of the national debt, walked away from national obligations, stole every bit of federal property they could get their hands on, and were in a position to cut off large sections of the country from access to the sea. All of which caused financial and economic harm to those states who stayed. And in your view all the remaining states could do is sit back and take it.”
You’re joking, right? Let’s take your comments in order. (1) The South, wih a smaller population, paid more into the fedeal treasury than the North, yet the vast majority of tax revenues were spent on Northern projects and Northern interests; thus the Southern states got screwed. (2) Stole what? They paid for every federal installation except Sumter. (3) Cut off large parts of the country from access to the sea? I know you surely must be joking with that one. What about Philadelphia? New York? The vaunted New England seafaring tradition? The Confederacy’s navy was a pathetic shadow of the Union navy, and hardly made a dent on Northern shipping interests (unlike the Union blockades of Mobile and New Orleans and even Galveston).
The fact of the matter is your hero Lincoln took secession as a personal insult, and being the petty man he was he could not abide such a blow to his ego, and decided to plunge half of the North American continent (sans Canada) into a bloody and costly war. The Confederacy DID NOT want such a war, but when Lincoln over-reacted and called for the invasion of the South it had no choice but TO fight.
“Prior to that the confederate government had authorized an army of 100,000 men, six or seven times the size of the U.S. army at the time.”
Like any sovereign nation, the Confederacy needed a military. But it NEVER said it wanted to raise an army to invade the North. Lincoln called for an army for the specific purpose of invading the South.
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.