Posted on 08/05/2010 6:01:30 AM PDT by Michael Zak
Mr. Madison's argument was mooted by the actual facts. The states ratified it unanimously, and the hypothetical never came into play. And, in ratifying it unanimously, the states also ratified the clause stating that the Constitution was the supreme law of the land, to which all state actions contrary to the Constitution and federal law, are explicitly voided....
Add to that the fact that all legislators and officers of the state government are required to provide an oath or affirmation to the effect that they will support and defend the Constitution. Among other things that means, to put it simply, that they cannot suddenly deny at their own convenience the clause of the Constitution that places the states in a subservient position to the Constitution and the Federal government it defines.
Honest people do not enter into binding agreements on the theory that it's only binding on those parties who feel themselves to be bound by them. In surrendering state sovereignty to the Constitution -- and make no mistake, that is EXACTLY what ratification meant -- the individual states entered into a binding contract that could not be abrogated by explicitly unconstitutional acts by the state governments.
States can, of course, try to secede by force; but to argue that they had the right to do so for free, is pure poppycock.
And of course, we cannot avoid the subtext here -- that if a state is going to go to war over its supposed sovereignty, it ought to have a good and moral reason for doing so. Protection of slavery is not a good reason.
Secession does not mean war, it only means the state(s) is leaving the Union. War comes from the fascists who cannot let the departing state(s) go in peace. The violence of the Civil War came from the Unionists who forced the 11 states back into the Union at gunpoint.
WE the People of the States of New-Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode-Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New-York, New-Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North-Carolina, South-Carolina, and Georgia, do ordain, declare and establish the following Constitution for the Government of Ourselves and our Posterity.
To it's current form because they didn't know which States would ratify it.
Bravo!
11 states? Not 13? What about the “secession ordinances” of Kentucky and Missouri? Why don’t you count those states as having seceded?
Your slave-holding heroes fired the first shot, pal.
So you’re saying it wasn’t ratified unanimously....? Name one state that did not ratify the Constitution.
Most of the industries H favored subsidizing were defense and others not import competing.
Hamilton’s death was just political murder. Burr never would specify what Hamilton was supposed to explain. As regards his economics compared to his contemporaries he was Malthus, Adam Smith and John Stewart Mill rolled into one. His policies were consistently directed at building National economic strength and did just that.
Marshall was critical in strengthening the Union and his thwarting of Jefferson was a thing of beauty. Thank God for John Marshall.
We have the government we have today because of Jeffersonian democratization of the electorate.
Secession is not prohibited under any subsection in the Federal Constitution. If so, please specify where this can be found. While Mr. Marxist Michael Zak cheers, this Country slides further into socialism. Whom do we have to thank for this ? Well, we could start with Webster, Clay, Hamilton, and of course, Saint Abraham.
Mr. Zaks's only objective is to increase Federal authority. This disregards the ninth and tenth Amendments, but his Führer, Lincoln has already demonstrated this path, now hasn't he. He doesn't care who the " People" are, or their mouthpiece their "States". He is not only a Yankee, he's a nauseating imitation of Dishonest Abe.
Mr. Zak cheers for the Amendments ( legal or not ) that came after the first Ten. Do we need to wonder why ? As if his life wasn't sick enough, he cheers the 14th, and the murder of the unborn. He then ridicules the tenth.
Mr Zak, if you are a conservative than I'm a unionist.
Jefferson’s reputation with me has suffered from my study of the period and the disclosure of what he truly was about. The more I learn of his policies and methods the less respect I have for the man. Virtually his entire facade is a fraud. A huge hypocrite who does not hesitate to use the most underhanded methods to attain power.
One cannot go by his words which are all honey and cream but must look to his actions. His words about “secession” or “separation” are one thing his actions, say, wrt Aaron Burr’s trial for Treason quit another.
Burr, another typical RAT, became the object of a Jefferson vendetta which spared no means, fair or foul, legal or illegal to bring him to trial. He whipped up the mob to demand Burr’s head even going so far as to announce him guilty prior to trial. Only Marshall’s standing in the path of legalized murder stopped a disgrace on the presidency.
Your last sentence is missing something.
Why don’t you ask Aaron Burr how Jefferson acted toward {alleged} secession. His actions totally contradict his claimed beliefs.
Forrest MacDonald has an interesting theory about Madison. He maintains that he was epileptic and that Jefferson discovered his secret after returning from France.
The South was not self sufficient in armaments. Its production of small arms was a hodge-podge with different calibers and quality. These guns are not comparable to the standardized and high quality Union guns. The South’s best guns were captured.
Ratification of the Constitution, by the Convention of the State of Rhode-Island and Providence Plantations We the Delegates of the People of the State of Rhode-Island, and Providence Plantations, 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 Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (a Copy whereof precedes these presents) and having also seriously and deliberately considered the present situation of this State, do declare and make known In That there are certain natural rights, of which men when they form a social compact, cannot deprive or divest their posterity, among which are the enjoyment of Life and Liberty, with the means of acquiring, possessing and protecting Property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety. 2d That all power is naturally vested in, and consequently derived from the People; that magistrates therefore are their trustees and agents, and at all times amenable to them. 3d That the powers of government may be reassumed by the people, whensoever it shall become necessary to their happiness:-
Every economic action has a multitude of unintended impacts outside the area targeted. I would never deny that.
Hamilton’s economics were the result of practical adaption as much as theory. It wasn’t well developed but there was no one capable of convincing when arrayed against him. Certainly not Jefferson. He did not favor “monopolies” and there were none in the country at the time. It is quite a stretch to claim the tariff led to any claimed technological backwardness. Friedman’s ideology would led to some of his critique of Hamilton and does not convince me of anything other than the danger of monday morning qbing.
And there is no question that Britain’s colonial policies distorted our economic development. It was intended to do just that.
These documents are justifying the modification of the Articles and the creation of the new government as much as any rejection of that new government. Your view is like including a statement of divorce proceedings within a marriage vow.
States could not unilaterally withdraw even under the “compact” theory of the constitution. Every contract is legally enforcible including the supposed contract between the states forming the Union. It can be legally changed by one method only - amendment by the People. New York’s ratification document does not claim otherwise or even demand its wishes received anything beyond “early and mature consideration”.
Given the nature of the document as the creator of UNION disunion was not a subject of interest and there was no need for such a specification as to an ability to withdraw.
Such a “right” would mean ultimate chaos. Resumption of powers by the People is not the same as a state decision to do something. Such resumption would come as an amendment or convention called for the nation as a whole. Anything else is insurrection or rebellion which is constitutionally allowed to put down. As it was.
Hamilton never reacted towards secession with anything but horror. In fact, his murder by Burr was intended to permanently destroy any chance of secession by NE and NY.
It was precisely the danger of NY with Burr as governor joining with NE in secession which led to his working to make sure Burr was defeated. Since he had worked out the deal denying Burr the presidency in 1800 this was the final straw.
Jeffersonians arrested rival newspaper editor as well and prosecuted them for libel when they criticized him. He was notoriously thin-skinned.
And if you would like to examine a real reign of terror look no further than 1807 and Jefferson’s attack on the Burr “Treason” “conspiracy”. How about the actions of his commanding general in breaking up the “conspiracy” allegedly intended to separate the Western states, the illegal arrests, the persecution of the contemptible Burr.
Nothing like that ever happened under the federalists.
Anti-federalists were flimflam men, mediocrities whose power came from state politics comparable to the Chicago Ward Healers of today. Their opposition to the constitution came from their understanding that it would reduce their relative power. Their rhetoric about “liberty” was only that being the forefathers of the democrat party it was just another fraud it has run upon.
Federalists were overwhelmingly those who fought during the Revolution or had a role developing a modern capitalist economy. Their war experience reinforced the understanding that a stronger Union was critical for TRUE liberty. Antis cynically used the Bill of Rights argument as an attempt to derail ratification. It was also a fraud. There were no Bill of Rights in any of the states controlled by Antis or even demands for one. But their demand was accepted cutting the legs out from under the Anti’s argument.
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.