Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: CougarGA7
"Even still in that set of 9 resolution is an implicit indication of desire to preserve the Union and a stated dedication to that compact."

You may be aware of the letter that the Continental Congress sent to King George pledging their desire to preserve their union with England and to settle their differences peaceably. The summer of 1775, after Lexington and Concord. King George didn't buy it and declared the Colonials to be rebels and traitors.

I'd put the wording of the Resolves in the same vein. An attempt to smooth over some very real differences when conflict was already baked into the cake. George Washington didn't buy the Resolves desire to preserve the union and could see that the Compact Theory of Jefferson and Madison implied nullification and probably disunion.

341 posted on 12/22/2015 4:38:01 PM PST by Pelham (Muslim immigration...the enemy is inside the wire.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 339 | View Replies ]


To: Pelham

I don’t see those two as equivalent. It was a different set of circumstances. This was a case of trying establish the limits of a new constitutional republic, not try to petition a parliamentary monarch across an ocean for a return of the status quo.

The formation of this new Constitution was a series of compromises in and of itself, and incidents like the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions, McCulloch v. Maryland and other proceedings were all part of the growing pains of trying to establish the limits of the new Constitution. Testing the limits is a far cry from giving up on it which I don’t see the 1798-9 resolutions suggesting.


343 posted on 12/22/2015 6:46:55 PM PST by CougarGA7 ("War is an outcome based activity" - Dr. Robert Citino)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 341 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson