On this date in 1864 President Lincoln receives a Christmas gift.

[Bull Snipe]

"I beg to present you as a Christmas gift the City of Savannah, with one hundred and fifty heavy guns and plenty of ammunition and about twenty-five thousand bales of cotton." General William T. Sherman's "March to the Sea" was over. During the campaign General Sherman had made good on his promise d “to make Georgia howl”. Atlanta was a smoldering ruin, Savannah was in Union hands, closing one of the last large ports to Confederate blockade runners. Sherman’s Army wrecked 300 miles of railroad and numerous bridges and miles of telegraph lines. It seized 5,000 horses, 4,000 mules, and 13,000 head of cattle. It confiscated 9.5 million pounds of corn and 10.5 million pounds of fodder, and destroyed uncounted cotton gins and mills. In all, about 100 million dollars of damage was done to Georgia and the Confederate war effort.

[DiogenesLamp]

jdsteel is correct, the term "United Kingdom" was created in 1801.

Still a Union.

United into One Kingdom by the Name of Great Britain

And from whence does the word "Union" come?

[x]

It restricts it to a minimum size to which a reasonable person can recognize as "one people." The boundaries are fuzzy around the edges, but in the case of the Southern states, we are way past the area of fuzzy boundaries on this general principle.

So it's only size that matters. Bad news for Kosovars, Bosnians, East Timorese, and Andorrans.

As they themselves pointed out, they represented four times the population of the original thirteen colonies.

Turn that around. Dissident parts of states in 1860 had the population of whole colonies in 1776. What about their rights.

And I am not going to discuss the bases in California in comparison to a pile of rocks in the middle of an estuary upon which someone put some cannons.

Well, we are all sorry Lincoln didn't have battleships, aircraft carriers and nuclear submarines, but the contradiction is glaring and impossible to ignore.

You put power before the principles you claim to believe?

Your friends would call that Lincolnesque.

But you did answer the question, even in a way that discredits what you have been writing for years.

I imagined you would be like a robot in a Sixties TV series that starts to spark and smoke when confronted with a logical contradiction.

In this case, it's you who have contradicted everything you have claimed to believe.

[Kalamata]

>>Joey from post #439: "based on Confederate "Reasons for Secession" documents, the later revisionist claim is that secession was over something other than the threat to slavery represented by Lincoln's "Black Republicans"."
>>Kalamata wrote: "Lincoln promised in his First Inaugural to protect slavery in the slave states, Joey. Are you insinuating Lincoln was a liar?"
>>Joey wrote: "First, notice Kalamata's denial tactic here. Rather than address the point he is clearly wrong about, he instead goes on the attack against Lincoln."
>>Kalamata wrote: "I have addressed spurious claims of the left-wing, big-government revisionists, many times, Joey."
>>Joey wrote: "Nonsense, you only lied & denied your way through every issue. That's just your nature, it seems like what you were born & raised to do -- typical Democrat."

Joey, the progressive, fake-republican, big-government, Lincoln-apologist is only trying to deceive. Anyone who has even a cursory understanding of Abraham Lincoln knows that Dishonest Abe was a white-supremacist, white-separatist, black-colonizationist, and crony-capitalist his entire political career, up until his death; and neither he, nor the "Republican" Party, nor his defunct Whig Party, EVER proposed an amendment to abolish slavery before the war. To the contrary, his "Republican" Party, with Lincoln's blessing and support, proposed an amendment to permanently enshrine slavery into the Constitution.

This famed Lincoln scholar explained Abe's views on abolition:

"Abraham Lincoln was NOT an abolitionist."

[David Herbert Donald, "Lincoln Reconsidered: Essays on the Civil War Era." Alfred A. Knopf, 1st Ed, 1956, p.19]

Abe himself explained his views on "equal rights":

"I have no purpose directly or indirectly to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so. I have no purpose to introduce political and social equality between the white and the black races. There is a physical difference between the two, which in my judgment will probably forever forbid their living together upon the footing of perfect equality, and inasmuch as it becomes a necessity that there must be a difference, I, as well as Judge Douglas, am in favor of the race to which I belong, having the superior position. I have never said anything to the contrary, but I hold that notwithstanding all this, there is no reason in the world why the negro is not entitled to all the natural rights enumerated in the Declaration of Independence, the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."

[First Debate with Stephen A. Douglas at Ottawa, Illinois, August 21, 1858: Lincoln's reply, in Basler, Roy P., "The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln Vol 3." Rutgers University Press, 1953, p.16]

According to Abe, the black race can have the rights mentioned in the Declaration, including life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, as long as they do not pursue a right to be equal to the white race.

Abe also rejected the right of the black race to vote, become jurors, intermarry with whites, or to live together either socially or politically with whites:

"I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races, [applause]—that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will for ever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race. I say upon this occasion I do not perceive that because the white man is to have the superior position the negro should be denied everything."

[Fourth Debate with Stephen A. Douglas at Charleston, Illinois, September 18, 1858: Lincoln's speech, in Basler, Roy P., "The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln Vol 3." Rutgers University Press, 1953, pp.145-146]

The last sentence reveals the true nature of the beast called Lincoln [paraphrasing]: "The negro should NOT be denied everything; ONLY those things that matter."

Aside from Lincoln's hypocrisy, the train of abuses and usurpations by the Hamiltonites against the Jeffersonians (which included those by Henry Clay) is so long that it is difficult to pin down exactly why the Southern states decided to bolt when Lincoln was nominated. Perhaps they simply found Lincoln detestable.

Mr. Kalamata

[Bull Snipe]

“Anyone who has even a cursory understanding of Abraham Lincoln knows that Dishonest Abe was a white-supremacist, white-separatist, black-colonizationist, and crony-capitalist his entire political career, up until his death”

Be that as it may. By Lincoln’s death 3,600,00 slaves were free persons. Within a year of his death the remaining 800,000 were free persons. Not a bad record for a white-supremacist, white-separatist, black-colonizationist.

[jeffersondem]

“Be that as it may. By Lincoln’s death 3,600,00 slaves were free persons. Within a year of his death the remaining 800,000 were free persons. Not a bad record for a white-supremacist, white-separatist, black-colonizationist.”

Plus the emerging legal mechanism to put to death 61,000,000 children. You spoke of that earlier and remarked we seem to be getting along rather well.

[Kalamata]

>>Kalamata wrote: "The 1828 Tariff was merely an "enhancement" of Clay's 1824 British-mercantilistic-style tariff disguised as part of "The American System." The tyranny that created the 1824 tariff was the precipitator that raised alarm bells, as explained by Jefferson in 1825:"
>>BroJoeK wrote: "Complete nonsense, since the original 1792 tariff averaged 15% and was intended to protect American producers, North and South. By 1810 revenues doubled and the average rate was reduced to 10%, but the War of 1812 -- aka "Mr. Madison's War" -- exposed America's vulnerabilities resulting in protective tariffs averaging 20% in 1820, under President Monroe. Indeed, after the War of 1812, federal spending and national debt both tripled as a percent of GDP. During that time President Madison imposed embargoes on New England exports, driving some New Englanders to threaten secession."

Joey possesses a vast storeroom of useless facts. For something useful, this is Frank Taussig on the protective tariff narrative in those days:

"The South took its stand against the protective system with a promptness and decision characteristic of the political history of the slave states. The opposition of the Southern members to the tariff bill of 1820 is significant of the change in the nature of the protective movement between 1816 and 1820. The Southern leaders had advocated the passage of the act of 1816, but they bitterly opposed the bill of 1820…"

"After the failure of the bill of that year, the movement for higher duties seems for a while to have lost headway. The lowest point of industrial and commercial depression, so far as indicated by the revenue, was reached at the close of 1820, and, as affairs began to mend, protective measures received less vigorous support. Bills to increase duties, similar to the bill of 1820, were introduced in Congress in 1821 and 1822, but they were not pressed and led to no legislation…"

"The tariff of 1824 was passed, the first and the most direct fruit of the early protective movement. The Presidential election of that year undoubtedly had an effect in causing its passage; but the influence of politics and political ambition was in this case hardly a harmful one… It was carried mainly by the votes of the Western and Middle states. The South was in opposition, New England was divided; Rhode Island and Connecticut voted for the bill, Massachusetts and the other New England states were decidedly opposed."

[Frank W. Taussig, "The Tariff History of the United States." G. P. Putnam's Sons, 1892, pp.73-75]

Calhoun understood the [long train of] tyranny to begin with the 1824 tariff:

"To understand the causes which have led to the present state of things, we must go back to the year 1824, when the tariff system triumphed in Congress a system which imposed duties, not for the purpose of revenue, but to encourage the industry of one portion of the Union at the expense of the other. This was followed up by the act of 1828, which consummated the system. It raised the duties so extravagantly, that, out of an annual importation of sixty-four millions, thirty-two passed into the treasury; that is, Government took one-half for the liberty of introducing the other. Countless millions were thus poured into the treasury, beyond the wants of the Government, which became in time the source of the most extravagant expenditures. This vast increase of receipts and expenditures was followed by a corresponding expansion of the business of the banks. They had to discount and issue freely, to enable the merchants to pay their duty bonds, as well as to meet the vastly increased expenditures of the Government. Another effect followed the act of 1828, which gave a still further expansion to the action of the banks, and which is worthy of notice. "

[On the Bill authorizing the issue of Treasury Notes delivered in the Senate, September 19th, 1837, in Richard K. Cralle, "The Works of John C. Calhoun Vol III - Speeches." D. Appleton & Company, 1867, pp.70-71]

There was also this, which mentioned the unconstitutionality of the bill:

"If Congress should limit its legislation to the few great subjects confided to it; so frame its laws as to leave as little as possible to discretion, and take care to see that they are duly and faithfully executed, the administrative powers of the President would be proportionally limited, and divested of all danger… Having now pointed out the cause of the great increase of the Executive power on which the Senator rested his objection to the veto power; and having satisfactorily shown, as I trust I have, that, if it has proved dangerous in fact, the fault is not in the constitution, but in Congress, I would next ask him, in what possible way could the divesting the President of his veto, or modifying it as he proposes, limit his power? Is it not clear that, so far from the veto being the cause of the increase of his power, it would have acted as a limitation on it, if it had been more freely and frequently used? If the President had vetoed the original bank, the connection with the banking system, the tariffs of 1824 and 1828, and the numerous acts appropriating money for roads, canals, harbors, and a long list of other measures not less unconstitutional, would his power have been half as great as it now is? He has grown great and powerful, not because he used his veto, but because lie abstained from using it. In fact, it is difficult to imagine a case in which its application can tend to enlarge his power, except it be the case of an act intended to repeal a law calculated to increase his power, or to restore the authority of one which, by an arbitrary construction of his power, he has set aside."

[Speech on the Veto Power in response to Henry Clay, delivered in the Senate, February 28th, 1842, in Richard K. Cralle, "The Works of John C. Calhoun Vol IV - Speeches." D. Appleton & Company, 1861, pp.97,99]

May as well include this one:

"The tariff of 1828 was as much a political movement as a measure of protection. The protective policy [the tyranny] had triumphed in Congress by the passage of the Tariff Act of 1824, which was followed by the election of Mr. Adams, to the presidency the next year, by which the protective system gained an ascendency in the executive, as it had previously in the legislative department of the Government."

[On the Bill introduced by Mr. Wright, Chairman of the Committee on Finance, to repeal and reduce certain Duties therein mentioned, delivered in the Senate, February 23d, 1837, in Richard K. Cralle, "The Works of John C. Calhoun Vol III - Speeches." D. Appleton & Company, 1867, p.43]

This is by another senator, for good measure:

"I must be permitted while on this topic [the constitutionality of the bill] to declare that, however this bill may be modified, still the system is one against which we feel constrained, in behalf of those we represent, to enter our most solemn protest. Considering this scheme of promoting certain employments at the expense of others as unequal, oppressive, and unjust, viewing prohibition as the means and the destruction of all foreign commerce the end of this policy, I take this occasion to declare that we shall feel ourselves justified in embracing the very first opportunity of repealing all such laws as may be passed for the promotion of these objects. Whatever interests may grow up under this bill, and whatever capital may be invested, I wish it to be distinctly understood that we will not hold ourselves bound to maintain the system; and if capitalists will, in the face of our protests and in defiance of our solemn warnings, invest their fortunes in pursuits made profitable at our expense, on their own heads be the consequences of their folly."

[Speech of Robert Y. Hayne, Senator South Carolina, on the floor of the Senate, April 30, 1824, in Edward Stanwood, "American Tariff Controversies in the Nineteenth Century Vol I." Archibald Constable & Co., 1903, p.236]

Like I said, the 1824 protective tariff was the precipitator that raised alarm bells.

Mr. Kalamata

[DiogenesLamp]

So it's only size that matters. Bad news for Kosovars, Bosnians, East Timorese, and Andorrans.

Size isn't the only defining characteristic of "one people." Do you think the Kosovars or the Bosnians etc are "one people" within context of the Declarations' meaning?

Turn that around. Dissident parts of states in 1860 had the population of whole colonies in 1776. What about their rights.

Did dissident parts of the state have their own governments, governing charters and so forth like the original colonies did? Loyalists in the Colonies were still part of the fundamental makeup of the whole colony. They were outvoted.

Well, we are all sorry Lincoln didn't have battleships, aircraft carriers and nuclear submarines, but the contradiction is glaring and impossible to ignore.

Only as a matter of hairsplitting. When it gets to practicality or realpolitik, the two things aren't even remotely similar.

There is a great difference in terms of both investment and of necessity. Nothing about Ft Sumter was valuable to the larger government. It was built to suppress British attempts to seize Charleston, and was never manned and never of any actual importance. It was supposed to have been completed decades earlier, but it is a measure of how inconsequential it was that they didn't get around to it until 1860, and still had no plans to man it until Anderson took it upon himself to flee into it.

[DiogenesLamp]

Aside from Lincoln's hypocrisy, the train of abuses and usurpations by the Hamiltonites against the Jeffersonians (which included those by Henry Clay) is so long that it is difficult to pin down exactly why the Southern states decided to bolt when Lincoln was nominated. Perhaps they simply found Lincoln detestable.

I have long pointed out that this whole conflict was a clash between the Jeffersonian philosophy and that of Hamilton. And so it remains today.

[Kalamata]

>>BroJoeK the Drama Queen wrote: “Soooooo…. now you’ve read John Quincy’s version of events making Adams the hero and Clay (aka “the Great Compromiser”) the goat? Well, isn’t that... ah... “special”, Danny-child.
Btw, least we forget: Clay (KY), Jackson (TN) and Calhoun (SC) were all slaveholding Southerners.”

I am not sure what that is all about, but it sounds about right. Are you aware that Henry Clay, the slave-master, was Abraham Lincoln’s idol?

Mr. Kalamata

[DiogenesLamp]

“Be that as it may. By Lincoln’s death 3,600,00 slaves were free persons. Within a year of his death the remaining 800,000 were free persons. Not a bad record for a white-supremacist, white-separatist, black-colonizationist.”

I'd give him credit for doing that if that was what he set out to do, but given that it was a subsequent afterthought, done only because of the usefulness of it to both the war effort and his political power, i'll give him credit for being a clever manipulator of the public.

At least John Brown was honest and forthright in what he was doing, and did not try to pretend he did something Noble as cover for advancing his own self interests.

[DiogenesLamp]

Like I said, the 1824 protective tariff was the precipitator that raised alarm bells.

I have learned that the Navigation act of 1817 did a great deal to create Northern monopolies in the shipping industry. It greatly increased Northern power at the expense of the rest of the country. I've had many discussions with people regarding the various ways this particular law caused all the Southern trade to be controlled by New York.

If you are unfamiliar with it, you ought to take a look, because I think this act is as much of a smoking gun as was the 1824 and 1828 tariffs.

http://www.loc.gov/law/help/statutes-at-large/14th-congress/session-2/c14s2ch31.pdf

[x]

Loyalists in the Colonies were still part of the fundamental makeup of the whole colony. They were outvoted.

Like the Democrats in 1860. Majority rule. If it's right to override it in one case, it's not wrong to override it in another, if you can make an argument that what the majority wants is oppressive.

There is a great difference in terms of both investment and of necessity. Nothing about Ft Sumter was valuable to the larger government.

So if a fort is useful to you it's all right to retain it, but if it's not it has to be surrendered.

You make all these pseudo-moralistic condemnations of Lincoln, but you would have behaved in the same way if you thought the stakes were high enough. You might even have gone much further.

If your wrong-headed economics didn't lose you all credibility years ago, you've lost it now.

[Bull Snipe]

“I’d give him credit for doing that if that was what he set out to do, but given that it was a subsequent afterthought, done only because of the usefulness of it to both the war effort and his political power, i’ll give him credit for being a clever manipulator of the public.”

Results count. Little else matters.

[Bull Snipe]

So. Was that Lincoln’s intent.

Where are the Constitutional amendments to make the practice illegal.

[jeffersondem]

“So. Was that (the emerging legal mechanism to put to death 61,000,000 children) Lincoln’s intent.”

A leading Lincolnian authority on this site recently answered your question in this way: “Results count. Little else matters.”

[Kalamata]

>>Kalamata wrote: "Rebellion, Joey, which is localized, and which is not recognized by the state government, is not nullification nor secession. The threats of nullification and secession were powers retained by the states to serve as checks against tyrannical government, such as the tyranny of Lincoln, and that of his hero, Henry Clay."
>>BroJoeK, the Drama Queen, wrote: "Danny-child, you are confused as always because you refuse to look at the whole picture. In post #526, I listed eight different threats of rebellion, insurrection, secession, nullification & treason. All were opposed by our Founders and early presidents, none were tolerated as, in Gen. Scott's words, "depart in peace, wayward sisters."

Joey is constitutionally-challenged, believing, like all "good" progressives, that the Constitution is a living document, rather than a legal document.

The only thing that matters to a supporter/defender of the Constitution is what is written in the Constitution, and the manner in which it was constructed during the debates. This is Scalia:

"My brand of legal interpretation—which today is called, in some quarters derisively, originalism—is not too far removed from the principles that Lincoln articulates in these two speeches. It is the view that the Constitution, like other legal documents, must be interpreted fairly according to its text, in light of the history of its adoption, and the tradition of its application. And that while the Constitution may have to be applied to new phenomena, in its application to phenomena extant when it was adopted, it does not change."

[Antonin Scalia, "Scalia Speaks." Crown Forum, 2017]

Keep in mind that Lincoln spoke out of both sides of his mouth. Scalia was referring to what Lincoln said, not what he meant.

So, what does the Constitution say about secession? It says that all states have the right to secede BECAUSE secession clauses of three of the states were accepted, as follows:

Excerpt from 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: that therefore no right of any denomination, can be cancelled, abridged, restrained or modified, by the Congress, by the Senate or House of Representatives acting in any capacity, by the President or any department or officer of the United States, except in those instances in which power is given by the Constitution for those purposes: and that among other essential rights, the liberty of conscience and of the press cannot be cancelled, abridged, restrained or modified by any authority of the United States."

["Virginia Ratification Convention." Avalon Project, June 26, 1788]

Excerpt from New York Ratification document:

"That the Powers of Government may be reassumed by the People, whensoever it shall become necessary to their Happiness; 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."

["New York Ratification Convention." Avalon Project, July 26, 1788]

Excerpt from Rhode Island Ratification document:

"That the powers of government may be reassumed by the people, whensoever it shall become necessary to their happiness:- That the rights of the States respectively, to nominate and appoint all State Officers, and every other power, jurisdiction and right, which is not by the said constitution clearly delegated to the Congress of the United States or to the departments of government thereof, remain to the people of the several states, or 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 as exceptions to certain specified powers, or as inserted merely for greater caution."

["Rhode Island Ratification Convention." Avalon Project, May 29, 1790, Chap.3]

Secession is not just a right, it is the Supreme Law.

Regarding your list, since secession is a retained right under the Constitution, any opposition to a peaceful succession is an act of tyranny. The first 5 incidents in your list were not peaceful, nor were they secession, so we can discard those. The same could be said for the 6th, the Hartford Convention incident, sorta. But, as usual, Joey removed all historical context to make it appear to fit his narrative. This is the context:

"To be defied by the cities as well as the states of New England was more than the administration could endure. To assert federal authority in both cases, Monroe ordered the 23d and the 25th Infantry regiments into Connecticut for recruiting over the winter. Both these regiments consisted largely of New Englanders who had fought creditably in the last campaign on the Niagara Peninsula. As he did this, Monroe, on November 26, also withdrew part of Izard's army from Plattsburg back to Greenbush in New York. Greenbush was an established army camp, but its location was conveniently close to the western boundaries of both Connecticut and Massachusetts. If the administration should need to intervene in New England or to dissolve the Hartford Convention, the forces were thus near at hand."

"To the commander of the 25th Infantry regiment, Colonel Thomas Jessup, Monroe gave special instructions. The Secretary feared that while the Hartford Convention was meeting, the British forces might attack New York on two fronts—one at Buffalo and the other at Long Island. Such an attack could also be part of a prearranged campaign with the New England Federalists, whose part in it would be to raise the standard of rebellion against the United States. Jessup was therefore ordered to observe closely both the activities of the convention and the British fleet presumed to be hovering off Long Island Sound. If he suspected the slightest intention to disrupt or to invade the Union, he was to seize the federal armory at Springfield, Massachusetts, and to call on General Brown and Governor Tompkins of New York for assistance. Should it be necessary to use force, Monroe advised Jessup to employ it, if possible, only against the enemy and not against American citizens. He was also to keep in constant touch with the Republican leaders of New England, both to assure them that the administration would not allow treason to prosper and to protect them against attack."

[J. C. A. Stagg, "Mr. Madison's War: politics, diplomacy, and warfare in the early American republic, 1783-1830." Princeton University Press, 1983, pp.477-478]

Obviously, there was a lot going on at that time, and a peaceful secession was not one of them.

Regarding the the 7th incident, which occurred in 1832-1833, Jackson abandoned Jeffersonian principles, as well as the Convention adoption of the aforementioned secessions clauses; so he was therefore clearly wrong. Further, there is no authorized power given to the federal government to "preserve the union," nor is there an authorized power given to the federal government to enforce an unconstitutional law. If the federal government can implement and enforce unconstitutional laws under the guise of "preserving the Union," there is no Union, and there is no Constitution. [Note: bullies and thugs everywhere will disagree with that statement.]

Read the authorized powers for yourself in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution:

U. S. Constitution: Article I, Section 8

Only those laws made pursuant to exercising the authorized powers in the Constitution can be classified as "Laws of the Union;" all others are appropriately classified as usurpations of power, which are, in fact, "Laws of Disunion."

South Carolina's patriotism -- their love of the Constitution rather than the glory and patronage of mere men -- forced a compromise.

Regarding the the 8th incident, Utah was not a state in 1857, and therefore could not secede.

Mr. Kalamata

[Kalamata]

>>BroJoeK, the Drama Queen, wrote: “The truth is that Lincoln opposed slavery from his boyhood on...”

Prove it!

Mr. Kalamata

[OIFVeteran]

Except for the fact that those pronouncements had no force of law or any effect.

As James Madison said in replying to Alexander Hamilton when Alexander told him about the conditional ratification that New York was proposing,
“It must be adopted in toto and for ever.” This letter from Madison was read to the ratification convention. So as far as the father of the constitution was concerned that was just fluff.

No, the constitution is clear it is the supreme law of the land, and clearly stars so.
“This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”

And speaking of the constitution, can you show me where it gives the President, or congress, the power to recognize a state is no longer a state? I’d think the founders would have put such a procedure in there for such a momentous act, if they wanted state’s to be able to leave. I can’t seem to find it.

[rockrr]

Signing statements carry no weight of law. Everyone got the same deal - ratification or no ratification. Anything extra is feel-good symbolism - not law.

[DiogenesLamp]

Like the Democrats in 1860. Majority rule. If it's right to override it in one case, it's not wrong to override it in another, if you can make an argument that what the majority wants is oppressive.

Just trying to follow the foundation principle of this country. The Declaration referred to States, or more accurately individual "colonies" because they had not yet become "states."

But the principle remains, so far as the founders were concerned, parts of "states" didn't work. Actual states could leave.

So if a fort is useful to you it's all right to retain it, but if it's not it has to be surrendered.

The equation is more complex than that. You have to weigh a number of factors against each other and then look at the sum.

In both these cases, the residents have a claim on the land, but in one case the land is absolutely essential to the security of the central government, and in the other case it is absolutely useless.

If your wrong-headed economics didn't lose you all credibility years ago, you've lost it now.

And i'm sure you'll inform me in the future that something else i've said has once again lost me all credibility.

Meh.