New York EXPLICITLY rejected the “conditional ratification” in its convention that was the occasion of Madison’s letter to Hamilton on the subject. So stop using that lie. The statements of other states do not say what you claim either.
In any case states could say anything they wished but the only thing that had any legal standing was the answer to the question of “do we ratify or not?” And the answer could not be “Yes, but...”.
The only minds the 10th amendment provides a legal basis for secession for are weak ones. No authority believes that.
States NEVER had “their own governance” to resume. They went from being colonies to being part of the USA. Most did not even have constitutions until Independence was declared. All realized that without Union they would have little chance of survival.
A constitution is the basis of the Union and like the foundation of a house cannot have part of it removed without endangering the whole structure. It weaves the states into a nation AND WAS INTENDED TO. It is a fundamental law. There are strictures within it dealing with the powers of the federal government to put down rebellion and insurrection even in states taken over by rebels against the constituted authority.
There was no need for a constitutional amendment to anyone understanding (or caring) what a constitution is.
I know about that. The ratification documents state what the Constitution meant to the people who actually ratified them. You ignore them; I don't.
The statements of other states do not say what you claim either.
The New York ratification document said exactly what I said it did. Here's the link again to that document : Link to New York's ratification of the Constitution. If the words are not correct, I suggest you take it up with Yale Law School. They run the web site.
In their ratification document, the New York ratifiers said what the Constitution meant about their right to resume their own governance and a number of other things. If Hamilton thought the Constitution meant that states couldn't reassume their own governance, he either got outvoted at the convention or went along with the majority, Madison's letter notwithstanding.
Cite for me, if you would, any rejections of New York's ratification document by other states. I'm not aware of any. We would have had an ineffective, discontinuous country without New York and Virginia.
Now let's look the state of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations. From Yale Law School again: Link to Rhode Island ratification document:
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 ...
... That the powers of government may be reassumed by the people, whensoever it shall become necessary to their happiness [my bold] ...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, and in confidence that the amendments hereafter mentioned, will receive an early and mature consideration, and conformably to the fifth article of said constitution, speedily become a part thereof; We the said delegates, in the name, and in the behalf of the People, of the State of Rhode-Island and Providence-Plantations, do by these Presents, assent to, and ratify the said Constitution.
If the Rhode Island document I linked to is not the correct one, I'm sure you will let me know and supply the correct one.
Now Virginia. From Yale Law School again: Link to Virginia ratification document
We the Delegates of the People of Virginia duly elected in pursuance of a recommendation from the General Assembly and now met in Convention having fully and freely investigated and discussed the proceedings of the Federal Convention and being prepared as well as the most mature deliberation hath enabled us to decide thereon Do in the name and in behalf of the People of Virginia declare and make known that the 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 and that every power not granted thereby remains with them and at their will [my bold] ...
The Tenth Amendment basically says the same thing. As "one of the greatest legal minds ever created" (to use your own description of him) said, "does not a power remain till it is given away?"
Other states proposed various versions of the Tenth Amendment in their ratification documents:
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 in their ratification documents, a majority of the original 13. The Tenth Amendment became part of the Constitution, being ratified by even more of the original 13. It took 10 states of the 13 to ratify the Amendment.
The only minds the 10th amendment provides a legal basis for secession for are weak ones.
LOL. I will match wits with you anytime.
States NEVER had “their own governance” to resume. They went from being colonies to being part of the USA. Most did not even have constitutions until Independence was declared.
Actually the Declaration of Independence called them states (actually "the thirteen united States of America," lower case letter "u"), the 1777 version of the Articles of Confederation called them states, some states minted their own coins, states regulated their own commerce, raised and funded their own armies, Virginia declared its independence before the Continental Congress did, King George called them states, France made a treaty with the 13 United States of America, etc.
A constitution is the basis of the Union and like the foundation of a house cannot have part of it removed without endangering the whole structure. It weaves the states into a nation AND WAS INTENDED TO. It is a fundamental law.
And nowhere did this "fundamental law" prohibit states from withdrawing from it. If secession was not permitted by the Constitution, why didn't it say so? Seems pretty important. Why isn't it there? You know as well as I that it wouldn't have been ratified if it contained such a restriction.
As Madison himself said:
The compact can only be dissolved by the consent of the other parties, or by usurpations or abuses of power justly having that effect. [my bold]
Here are some more comments in response to your comment above. The New York ratification convention did remove the words "on condition" from the approval of its proposed amendments. They replaced "on condition" with "in full confidence." The "in full confidence" part of the text comes right after the part of the NY ratification document I quoted to you in the post above. The sentence containing it says [my bold below]:
In full Confidence nevertheless that until a Convention shall be called and convened for proposing Amendments to the said Constitution, the Militia of this State will not be continued in Service out of this State for a longer term than six weeks without the Consent of the Legislature thereof;-that the Congress will not make or alter any Regulation in this State respecting the times places and manner of holding Elections for Senators or Representatives unless the Legislature of this State shall neglect or refuse to make Laws or regulations for the purpose, or from any circumstance be incapable of making the same, and that in those cases such power will only be exercised until the Legislature of this State shall make provision in the Premises;-that no Excise will be imposed on any Article of the Growth production or Manufacture of the United States, or any of them within this State, Ardent Spirits excepted; And that the Congress will not lay direct Taxes within this State, but when the Monies arising from the Impost and Excise shall be insufficient for the public Exigencies, nor then, until Congress shall first have made a Requisition upon this State to assess levy and pay the Amount of such Requisition made agreably to the Census fixed in the said Constitution in such way and manner as the Legislature of this State shall judge best, but that in such case, if the State shall neglect or refuse to pay its proportion pursuant to such Requisition, then the Congress may assess and levy this States proportion together with Interest at the Rate of six per Centum per Annum from the time at which the same was required to be paid.
Then the document attached a list of the many amendments they proposed. The ratification was no longer on condition of passing those amendments. The removal of "on condition" only affects the proposed amendments, not the convention's clarifying statements about what the Constitution meant.
It also turns out that Hamilton ("one of the greatest legal minds ever created" to use your description) voted to issue the ratification document that I've linked to on the Yale Law Department site. Thus, he voted for issuing the statement that "the Powers of Government may be reassumed by the People, whensoever it shall become necessary to their Happiness."
I never realized before tonight that Hamilton had actually voted for that ratification document. Thank you for helping me find that. I knew Hamilton had later flirted with joining those in New York and the New England states who wanted to secede in the early 1800s, but he finally decided not come out in favor of actually doing it.