New Understanding of the Civil War

To: woodpusher; OIFVeteran

woodpusher: "I am the only one in the address line.
Who are "our" and "us"?
Do you have a mouse in your pocket?
Do you fantasize that I am my own new FRiend?
Do you have FRiends like that?
I suspect you may."

Are you just a bit paranoid and is that a recognized handicap for which you receive, say, special parking privileges?
I was actually thinking about the other names on previous address lists, notably OIFVeteran, which I then forgot to add to the post.
But go right ahead, let your imagination run wild, especially regarding the alleged... ah, mouse in my pocket.
If that gets to be too disturbing for you, then call 911.

woodpusher: "It is not a dictum when it is necessary and central to the case. "

Mere common sense would ask, how can a law repealed nearly 40 years earlier be "central" to the 1926 SCOTUS ruling?
The actual central law dated from 1876 and was similar to, but not the same as the 1867 Tenure Act.

woodpusher: "Regarding your claimed precedent of Marbury, the Myers Court stated, that Marbury holds great authority in other matter, but "is not to be regarded as such authority in respect of the power of the President to remove officials appointed by the advice and consent of the Senate, for that question was not before the Court."
In other words, you failed to read and/or understand, Myers or Marbury."

It was Justice Brandeis in dissent who mentioned Marbury and I can add another precedent, the 1820 Tenure of Office Act, also considered unconstitutional by ex-president James Madison, but passed by Jeffersonian Democrats and signed by President Monroe.
And just so we're clear, my point here is not to dispute Chief Justice Taft in 1926, only to show why, in 1867 the Tenure of Office act was thought of as valid.

woodpusher: "Repealing an unconstitutional and void Statute, that, in legal contemplation never became a law, does not convert the void and unconstitutional Statute into a law."

Again quoting woodpusher from previous posts:

post #300: "The other branches treat a statute as law until the Judiciary proclaims otherwise."
post #300: "Statutes are treated by the other branches with a presumption of regularity until the Judiciary decides otherwise."
post #310: "Statutes are treated by the other branches with a presumption of regularity until the Judiciary decides otherwise."
post #312: "Let me clarify for the willfully, legally, incompetent.
The other branches treat a statute as if it were a valid law until the Judiciary proclaims otherwise.
Only the Judicial Branch is vested with the power to establish that a Statute was and is unconstitutional, repugnant to the Constitution, and therefore null and void, and never capable of having become a valid law."

321 posted on 03/28/2020 3:23:41 AM PDT by BroJoeK ((a little historical perspective...))

To: OIFVeteran; DiogenesLamp

It then says “the constitution of the United States is likewise a compact made by the people of the United States”. Notice it doesn’t say the people of Virginia or New York but the people, all the people, of the United States.

You miss the obvious point that the people of the several states are the people of the United States. This is true even if they act seperately state by state. There is no instance in recorded American history where the whole people, as one consolidated group, voted upon and determined anything.

And the Congressional Register, Vol I, II, and III made exquisitely clear what your juvenile intellect cannot comprehend:

The Congressional Register;
or,
History
of the
Proceedings and Debates
of the First
House of Representatives
of the
United States of America:
Namely,
New-Hampshire, Massachusetts, Connecticut,
New-York, New-Jersey, Pennsylvania,
Delaware, Maryland, Virginia,
South-Carolina and Georgia.
Being the Eleven States that have Ratified the Con-
stitution of the Government of the United States.
Containing an Impartial Account of
The Most interesting Speeches and Motions; and accurate Copies of remarkable
Papers laid before and offered to the House.
Taken in short hand,
By Thomas Lloyd
Volume I
New York:
Printed for the Editor, by Harrisson and Purdy
M,DCC,LXXXIX.

The United States of America, the ELEVEN states that had ratified the Constitution.

ALL the people, of ALL THIRTEEN states, ratified, resulting in ELEVEN ratifications. Only in your juvenile world.

Also nice dodge on the Texas v White decision and that decisions use by the Alaskan Supreme Court when they declared secession unconstitutional.

God only knows what you are talking about with your uncited Alaskan Supreme Court decision. State courts are without jurisdiction to interpret the Constitutution or Federal law, just as the Federal courts are without jurisdiction to interpret State laws.

Beyond all doubt, Texas v. White states the law of the land because the Supreme Court stated it. However, in like manner, the Supreme Court has stated that tomatoes are vegetables, and subject to a vegetable tax. The Court has also established the constitutional right of you and BroJoeK to get married.

Of course, the silly nonsense of an indissoluble union of indestructible states is belied by the history of the American union which went from thirteen to eleven states, and then back to twelve and thirteen states over the course of a little more than a year. Indestructible, indissoluble union and states, the things of myth and Texas v. White. Courts can define what the law is, but not even the U.S. Supreme Court can rewrite history.

And, there was the fourteenth state.

Vermont declared herself to be an independent republic on January 15, 1777.

Attempts by the New York authorities after 1764 to interfere with the possession of the holders of the New Hampshire grants made prior to the Order-in-Council led to protest and forcible resistance which assumed the proportions of a revolutionary movement. This movement culminated in 1777 in the Declaration of Independence by the towns comprising the New Hampshire grants on both sides of the Green Mountains, which proclaimed that the jurisdiction granted by the Crown "to New York government over the people of the New Hampshire Grants is totally dissolved," and that a free and independent government is set up within the territory now Vermont, bounded "east on Connecticut River . . . as far as the New Hampshire Grants extends." From that time until the admission of Vermont into the Union in 1791, an independent government was maintained with defined geographical limits extending on the east to the Connecticut River. In view of these facts, it was concluded that the Order-in-Council was nullified by successful revolution, and Vermont was admitted as an independent state with self-constituted boundaries.

The fourteenth state got to be a free and independent republic by secession and successful revolution. It had its own constitution and government, its own currency and postal service.

Vermont formed her own independent government and established her first constitution in 1777.

The first constitution of Vermont was framed by convention which assembled at Windsor, July 2, 1777, and completed its labors July 8, 1777. It was not submitted to the people for ratification. It was affirmed by the legislature at its session in 1779 and 1782, and declared to be a part of the laws of the State.

Benjamin P. Poore, The Federal and State Constitutions, Colonial Charters, and other Organic Laws of the United States, Part II, 2nd ed., Compiled Under an Order of the United States Senate, p. 1857.

- - - - - - - - - -

CONSTITUTION OF VERMONT — 1777

VERMONT.
CONSTITUTION OF VERMONT—1777.
WHEREAS all government ought to be instituted and supported, for the security and protection of the community, as such, and to enable the individuals who compose it, to enjoy their natural rights, and the other blessings which the Author of existence has bestowed upon man; and whenever those great ends of government are not obtained, the people have a right, by common consent, to change it, and take such measures as to them may appear necessary to promote their safety and happiness.
And whereas, the inhabitants of this State have (in consideration of protection only) heretofore acknowledged allegiance to the King of Great Britain, and the said King has not only withdrawn that protection, but commenced, and still continues to carry on, with unabated vengeance, a most cruel and unjust war against them; employing therein, not only the troops of Great Britain, but foreign mercenaries, savages and slaves, for the avowed purpose of reducing them to a total and abject submission to the despotic domination of the British parliament, with many other acts of tyranny, (more fully set forth in the declaration of Congress) whereby all allegiance and fealty to the said King and his successors, are dissolved and at an end; and all power and authority derived from him, ceased in the American Colonies.
And whereas, the territory which now comprehends the State of Vermont, did antecedently, of right, belong to the government of New-Hampshire; and the former Governor thereof, viz. his Excellency Benning Wentworth, Esq., granted many charters of lands and corporations, within this State, to the present inhabitants and others. And whereas, the late Lieutenant Governor Colden, of New York, with others, did, in violation of the tenth command, covet those very lands; and by a false representation made to the court of Great Britain, (in the year 1764, that for the convenience of trade and administration of justice, the inhabitants were desirous of being annexed to that government,) obtained jurisdiction of those very identical lands, ex-parte; which ever was, and is, disagreeable to the inhabitants. And whereas, the legislature of New-York, ever have, and still continue to disown the good people of this State, in their landed property, which will appear in the complaints hereafter inserted, and in the 36th section of their present constitution, in which is established the grants of land made by that government.
They have refused to make regrants of our lands to the original proprietors and occupants, unless at the exorbitant rate of 2300 dollars fees for each township; and did enhance the quit-rent, three fold, and demanded an immediate delivery of the title derived before, from New-Hampshire.
The judges of their supreme court have made a solemn declaration, that the charters, conveyances, &c. of the lands included in the before described premises, were utterly null and void, on which said title was founded: in consequence of which declaration, writs of possession have been by them issued, and the sheriff of the county of Albany sent, at the head of six or seven hundred men, to enforce the execution thereof.
They have passed an act, annexing a penalty thereto, of thirty pounds fine and six months imprisonment, on any person who should refuse assisting the sheriff, after being requested, for the purpose of executing writs of possession.
The Governors, Dunmore, Tryon and Colden, have made re-grants of several tracts of land, included in the premises, to certain favorite land jobbers in the government of New-York, in direct violation of his Britannic majesty’s express prohibition, in the year 1767.
They have issued proclamations, wherein they have offered large sums of money, for the purpose of apprehending those very persons who have dared boldly, and publicly, to appear in defence of their just rights.
They did pass twelve acts of outlawry, on the 9th day of March, A. D. 1774, impowering the respective judges of their supreme court, to award execution of death against those inhabitants in said district, that they should judge to be offenders, without trial.
They have, and still continue, an unjust claim to those lands, which greatly retards emigration into, and the settlement of, this State.
They have hired foreign troops, emigrants from Scotland, at two different times, and armed them, to drive us out of possession.
They have sent the savages on our frontiers, to distress us.
They have proceeded to erect the counties of Cumberland and Glocester, and establish courts of justice there, after they were discountenanced by the authority of Great Britain.
The free convention of the State of New-York, at Harlem, in the year 1776, unan- 1 imously voted, “That all quit-rents, formerly due to the King of Great Britain, are now due and owing to this Convention, or such future government as shall be here-after established in this State.”
In the several stages of the aforesaid oppressions, we have petitioned his Britannic majesty, in the most humble manner, for redress, and have, at very great expense, received several reports in our favor; and, in other instances, wherein we have petitioned the late legislative authority of New-York, those petitions have been treated with neglect.
And whereas, the local situation of this State, from New-York, at the extreme part, is upward of four hundred and fifty miles from the seat of that government, which renders it extreme difficult to continue under the jurisdiction of said State.
Therefore, it is absolutely necessary, for the welfare and safety of the inhabitants of this State, that it should be, henceforth, a free and independent State; and that a just, permanent, and proper form of government, should exist in it, derived from, and founded on, the authority of the people only, agreeable to the direction of the honorable American Congress.
We the representatives of the freemen of Vermont, in General Convention met, for the express purpose of forming such a government,—confessing the goodness of the Great Governor of the universe, (who alone, knows to what degree of earthly happiness, mankind may attain, by perfecting the arts of government,) in permitting the people of this State, by common consent, and without violence, deliberately to form for themselves, such just rules as they shall think best for governing their future society; and being fully convinced that it is our indispensable duty, to establish such original principles of government, as will best promote the general happiness of the people of this State, and their posterity, and provide for future improvements, without partiality for, or prejudice against, any particular class, sect, or denomination of men whatever,—do, by virtue of authority vested in us, by our constituents, ordain, declare, and establish, the following declaration of rights, and frame of government, to be the CONSTITUTION of this COMMONWEALTH, and to remain in force therein, forever, unaltered, except in such articles, as shall, hereafter, on experience, be found to require improvement, and which shall, by the same authority of the people, fairly delegated, as this frame of government directs, be amended or improved, for the more effectual obtaining and securing the great end and design of all government, herein before mentioned.
[snip]

CONSTITUTION OF VERMONT — 1786

The Vermont constitution of 1786 reiterated the above from the 1777 constitution.

ADMISSION OF VERMONT — 1793.
An Act for the admission of the State of Vermont into this Union.
The State of Vermont having petitioned the Congress to be admitted a member of the United States.
Be it enacted by the senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That on the fourth day of March, one thousand seven hundred and ninety-one, the said State, by the name and style of “the State of Vermont,” shall be received and admitted into this Union, as a new and entire member of the United States of America.
Approved, February 18, 1791

And the indestructible, indissoluble state of New Hampshire became two states following the secession and successful revolution of the great state of Vermont.

And Vermont was a frree and independent state when admitted as a new and entire member of the constitutional union.

Abraham Lincoln said:

Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable—a most sacred right—a right, which we hope and believe, is to liberate the world. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people that can, may revolutionize, and make their own, of so much of their territory as they inhabit.

As the great Ronaldus Maximus said:

All of us need to be reminded that the Federal Government did not create the States; the States created the Federal Government.

Big Government autocrats, desirous of a Federalist Hamiltonian autocracy, express a less American viewpoint:

[1] What is a confederation of states? By a confederacy, we mean a group of sovereign states which come together of their own free will and, in virtue of their sovereignty, create a collective entity. In doing so, they assign selective sovereign rights to the national body that will allow it to safeguard the existence of the joint union.
[2] What is the particular sacredness of a State? I speak not of that position which is given to a State in and by the Constitution of the United States, for that all of us agree to—we abide by; but that position assumed, that a State can carry with it out of the Union that which it holds in sacredness by virtue of its connection with the Union. I am speaking of that assumed right of a State, as a primary principle, that the Constitution should rule all that is less than itself, and ruin all that is bigger than itself. But, I ask, wherein does consist that right? If a State, in one instance, and a county in another, should be equal in extent of territory, and equal in the number of people, wherein is that State any better than the county?
[3] These states never possessed any previous sovereignty of their own because that would have been impossible. These states did not come together to create the Union, but it was the Union that created these so-called states.
[4] The States have their status in the Union, and they have no other legal status. If they break from this, they can only do so against law, and by revolution. The Union, and not themselves separately, procured their independence, and their liberty. By conquest, or purchase, the Union gave each of them, whatever of independence, and liberty, it has. The Union is older than any of the States; and, in fact, it created them as States.

That is a collection of some disgusting un-American bilge.

322 posted on 04/04/2020 12:36:47 PM PDT by woodpusher

To: BroJoeK; Bull Snipe; DiogenesLamp; OIFVeteran

Cloture had not yet been adopted as a rule in the Senate, so there was no way to prevent a minuscule minority from holding up business by refusing to surrender the floor..."

I accept your argument that there was no way to stop a filibuster and the bill therefore could not have come to a vote on the same evening it was presented for debate.

Therefore it's only Trumbull's bill which really matters here, and it's interesting to learn that Trumbull called his bill an "indemnity bill" because, as I understand it, the word "indemnity" does not appear in it.

It is impossible to be SENATOR Trumbull’s bill. The bill was HOUSE Resolution 591. As I explained previously, there was a proposed Senate Amendment to a House Bill, much the same as was done with Obamacare, the PPACA. However the Senate proposes to amend it, it remains a House bill, and the proposal goes to the House to accept or reject, or a joint committee to iron out the differences before a vote.

Perhaps Trumbull -- or at least his fellow Republicans -- did not wish to indemnify Lincoln for exercising powers he already had.

The Congress refused to indemnify President Lincoln for his actions regarding habeas corpus. Congress passed an indemnity bill which indemnified those who carried out the Lincoln directives.

Notice first that Lincoln's Attorney General, Edwin Bates, agreed Lincoln's actions were already authorized.

Notice that the Constitution gave such authority to the Legislative Branch and Congress disagreed with the Executive Branch’s unilateral action and refused to ratify it. The Courts placed the authority in the Legislative Branch.

Second, here you've quoted my explanation exactly -- the word "indemnify" was removed....
"Indemnity" does not appear in the final version.
So, despite the name "Indemnity Bill", Trumbull's final Act did not use the word "indemnity"....

The word Indemnity was removed from what? When was the word Indemnity ever in the bill?

Moreover, it is just another example of your Juvenile logic.

Apply your logic to the Constitution. Art. IV, Sec. 2, Cl. 3 does not contain the word fugitive, nor the word slave, nor the term fugitive slave. By your juvenile logic, the fugitive slave clause did not exist.

Furthermore, you adhere to the Great Tricky Dick Defense:

Frost: So, what in a sense you’re saying is that there are certain situations and the Huston plan or that part of it was one of them where the president can decide that it’s in the best interest of the nation or something and do something illegal.
Nixon: Well, when the president does it … that means that it is not illegal.
Frost: By definition –
Nixon: Exactly … exactly… if the president … if, for example, the president approves something … approves an action, ah … because of the national security or in this case because of a threat to internal peace and order of, ah … ah … significant magnitude … then … the president’s decision in that instance is one, ah … that enables those who carry it out to carry it out without violating a law. Otherwise they’re in an impossible position.

As near as I can recall, that defense has not received very favorable reviews and a bunch of law breakers went to prison.

323 posted on 04/04/2020 12:40:00 PM PDT by woodpusher

Thanks, what a swell guy you are.

Admit it. What’s not to like?

324 posted on 04/04/2020 12:40:50 PM PDT by woodpusher

To: woodpusher; Bull Snipe; DiogenesLamp; OIFVeteran

woodpusher: "There is no instance in recorded American history where the whole people, as one consolidated group, voted upon and determined anything."

Irrelevant.
Here's what matters:

"We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States..."

As Lincoln, Chase & others argued, it was colonies which created Congress, but Congress created the states.
Further, the 1787 Convention proposal for, in effect, unlimited states-sovereignty (the "New Jersey Plan") was quickly rejected, by vote of 7 to 3, one state divided.
What the Convention proposed instead was a mixture -- consolidated yet still federal -- government.

woodpusher: "The United States of America, the ELEVEN states that had ratified the Constitution.
ALL the people, of ALL THIRTEEN states, ratified, resulting in ELEVEN ratifications."

It's irrelevant how long it took some states to ratify.
What matters is that New Hampshire became the ninth state ratification on June 21, 1788, and the old Articles of Confederation Congress immediately began to study how to implement the new Constitution.
On September 13, 1788 the Congress of the Confederation certified that the new Constitution was duly ratified and set dates for elections and meetings of new federal government.
The old Congress voted to dissolve itself as of March 4, 1789!

There was no issue as to the legitimacy of the new Constitution by 1789, and there is none, zero, today.
The Articles were dissolved by mutual consent.

woodpusher: "Beyond all doubt, Texas v. White states the law of the land because the Supreme Court stated it.
However, in like manner, the Supreme Court has stated that tomatoes are vegetables, and subject to a vegetable tax.
The Court has also established the constitutional right of you and BroJoeK to get married."

Our brand new FRiend woodpusher is now rapidly setting a pattern of becoming overexcited to the point of needing 911 type resuscitation at the thought of a certain, ah, mouse or unnatural "marriage".
So I would suggest that, to protect his own health, we should gently guide woodpusher away from such topics.

woodpusher: "Of course, the silly nonsense of an indissoluble union of indestructible states is belied by the history of the American union which went from thirteen to eleven states, and then back to twelve and thirteen states over the course of a little more than a year.
Indestructible, indissoluble union and states, the things of myth and Texas v. White.
Courts can define what the law is, but not even the U.S. Supreme Court can rewrite history. "

And so yet again we notice, first, that to woodpusher the US Supreme Court is unquestionable supreme authority whenever he agrees with it, otherwise, not so much.

Second, as Lincoln's Secretary of Treasury, Republican Salmon Chase supported the resupply mission to Fort Sumter, but later opposed trying Jefferson Davis for treason, opposed reconstruction and even ran for President in 1868 as a Democrat!
So Chase was another... ah, complicated figure.

Third and most important, on February 21, 1787 the Congress of the Confederation itself called for a convention to revise the Articles to "render the federal constitution adequate to the exigencies of government and the preservation of the Union".

The new Constitution was intended to preserve the Union, and its adoption did just that.

As for "indestructible" & "indissoluble" -- every Founder understood, their Union could be dissolved or replaced by necessity (as in 1776) or by mutual consent (as in 1788).

woodpusher: "And the indestructible, indissoluble state of New Hampshire became two states following the secession and successful revolution of the great state of Vermont.
And Vermont was a frree and independent state when admitted as a new and entire member of the constitutional union."

Independence of "New Connecticut" from Massachusetts, New York and New Hampshire came many years before the Constitution's ratification in 1788.
But the Constitution does provide for such split-ups of states, provided all parties agree -- disunion by mutual consent.

woodpusher referring to unidentified quotes: "That is a collection of some disgusting un-American bilge."

Obviously like other Lost Causers, our new FRiend woodpusher hates his country, hates his Constitution, hates most especially the Federalists-Whigs-Republicans who founded, wrote, ratified & formed our Constitutional government.
Who woodpusher loves, defends and remains loyal to are all those opposed to the Constitution -- 1787 anti-Federalists, 1788 anti-Washington's administration, 1792 Jeffersonian Democrats & alleged strict-constructionists, 1798 nullifiers, Randolph's Old Republicans, 1820 era slavers, 1850s' Fire Eater secessionists, 1860s' Confederate warriors against the USA, 1860s & 1870s anti-13th, 14th & 15th Amendments, 20th century segregationists, all so called states-righters.

325 posted on 04/05/2020 8:56:03 AM PDT by BroJoeK ((a little historical perspective...))

To: BroJoeK; Bull Snipe; DiogenesLamp; OIFVeteran

[BroJoeK #325] As Lincoln, Chase & others argued, it was colonies which created Congress, but Congress created the states.

Obviously, you have lost your mind. The Congress was created pursuant to the Constitution of 1789. The Constitution provided that, "The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the same. The States created the Constitution before there was ever a Congress.

The States were States before the Articles of Confederation, or the Congress it created, as well. Articles II and III stated:

II. Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled.
III. The said States hereby severally enter into a firm league of friendship with each other, for their common defense, the security of their liberties, and their mutual and general welfare, binding themselves to assist each other, against all force offered to, or attacks made upon them, or any of them, on account of religion, sovereignty, trade, or any other pretense whatever.

BroJoeK #325:

woodpusher: "Of course, the silly nonsense of an indissoluble union of indestructible states is belied by the history of the American union which went from thirteen to eleven states, and then back to twelve and thirteen states over the course of a little more than a year.
Indestructible, indissoluble union and states, the things of myth and Texas v. White.
Courts can define what the law is, but not even the U.S. Supreme Court can rewrite history. "

And so yet again we notice, first, that to woodpusher the US Supreme Court is unquestionable supreme authority whenever he agrees with it, otherwise, not so much.

Au contraire! I said the Supreme Court is the ultimate arbiter of the law. The Supreme Court cannot change history by proclamation. It cannot retroactively create events that did not happen, nor can it erase events that did happen. Just as it cannot really change tomatoes into vegetables, even where it finds a tax on vegetables applies to tomatoes. Nix v. Hedden, 149 U.S. 304 (1893), "Tomatoes are 'vegetables,' and not 'fruit,' within the meaning of the Tariff Act of March 3, 1883, c. 121."

I suppose the Supreme Court could opine that a goblet of water became wine under some statute, and that would make the Chief Justice God. You may think so, but I do not share your opinion that the justices have god-like powers.

BroJoeK #325:

What matters is that New Hampshire became the ninth state ratification on June 21, 1788, and the old Articles of Confederation Congress immediately began to study how to implement the new Constitution.

Do tell more about how the old Articles of Confederation studied. I have never before heard of articles studying.

What matters is that the government of a new union of ELEVEN states was formed on March 4, 1789. Not thirteen, but ELEVEN. Those ELEVEN states seceded from the former union and formed a new union, leaving two States behind. How does that happen to an indestructible, indissoluble union?

Secede. withdraw formally from membership in a federal union, an alliance, or a political or religious organization: the kingdom of Belgium seceded from the Netherlands in 1830.

BroJoeK #325:

woodpusher: "And the indestructible, indissoluble state of New Hampshire became two states following the secession and successful revolution of the great state of Vermont.
And Vermont was a frree and independent state when admitted as a new and entire member of the constitutional union."

Independence of "New Connecticut" from Massachusetts, New York and New Hampshire came many years before the Constitution's ratification in 1788.
But the Constitution does provide for such split-ups of states, provided all parties agree -- disunion by mutual consent.

1788 or 1789 is irrelevant. The mythical indestructible, indissoluble union, which some Radicals and Nazis purport to have created the States, is claimed to have been created in 1776 (four score and seven years ago, eight-seven years before 1863).

The constitutional government was formed in 1789 following the ratifications of ELEVEN states, and formed a new union of ELEVEN states. That is history.

Vermont most certainly did not become a free and independent republic by the mutual consent of New York. Vermont is documented as having achieved independence by successful revolution. As I stated at #321, "the Order-in-Council was nullified by successful revolution, and Vermont was admitted as an independent state with self-constituted boundaries." The Green Mountain boys, fighting and feuding and all that. When Vermont declared, defended and established its independence as a seperate republic, it not only left prior State clutches, but also was beyond the purported indestructible, indissoluble Union purportedly established in 1776.

Whenever history fails you, you just make crap up. It is an amusing habit of yours.

Come on self-proclaimed student of history. Do try to keep up.

woodpusher #322:

As the great Ronaldus Maximus said:

All of us need to be reminded that the Federal Government did not create the States; the States created the Federal Government.

Big Government autocrats, desirous of a Federalist Hamiltonian autocracy, express a less American viewpoint:

[1] What is a confederation of states? By a confederacy, we mean a group of sovereign states which come together of their own free will and, in virtue of their sovereignty, create a collective entity. In doing so, they assign selective sovereign rights to the national body that will allow it to safeguard the existence of the joint union.
[2] What is the particular sacredness of a State? I speak not of that position which is given to a State in and by the Constitution of the United States, for that all of us agree to—we abide by; but that position assumed, that a State can carry with it out of the Union that which it holds in sacredness by virtue of its connection with the Union. I am speaking of that assumed right of a State, as a primary principle, that the Constitution should rule all that is less than itself, and ruin all that is bigger than itself. But, I ask, wherein does consist that right? If a State, in one instance, and a county in another, should be equal in extent of territory, and equal in the number of people, wherein is that State any better than the county?
[3] These states never possessed any previous sovereignty of their own because that would have been impossible. These states did not come together to create the Union, but it was the Union that created these so-called states.
[4] The States have their status in the Union, and they have no other legal status. If they break from this, they can only do so against law, and by revolution. The Union, and not themselves separately, procured their independence, and their liberty. By conquest, or purchase, the Union gave each of them, whatever of independence, and liberty, it has. The Union is older than any of the States; and, in fact, it created them as States.

That is a collection of some disgusting un-American bilge.

BroJoeK #325:

woodpusher referring to unidentified quotes: "That is a collection of some disgusting un-American bilge."

Obviously like other Lost Causers, our new FRiend woodpusher hates his country, hates his Constitution, hates most especially the Federalists-Whigs-Republicans who founded, wrote, ratified & formed our Constitutional government.
Who woodpusher loves, defends and remains loyal to are all those opposed to the Constitution -- 1787 anti-Federalists, 1788 anti-Washington's administration, 1792 Jeffersonian Democrats & alleged strict-constructionists, 1798 nullifiers, Randolph's Old Republicans, 1820 era slavers, 1850s' Fire Eater secessionists, 1860s' Confederate warriors against the USA, 1860s & 1870s anti-13th, 14th & 15th Amendments, 20th century segregationists, all so called states-righters.

Only a card-carrying Nazi could support such ahistoric, un-american bilge. And yet, you worship that crap. Are you a card-carrying Nazi?

You forgot to link and quote me defending your Hillary-like bucket of horribles. It seems you are made of the same stuff as your mentor, Hillary.

I prefer such real Americans as Ronald Reagan and Donald J. Trump, to the ahistoric, un-American bilge you support. You complain that the quotes are unidentified. The words express ideas like minded to your own; therefore, you not only defend and support them, you revere, lionize, idolize, venerate, glorify such words, and put the "obscure" authors of such crap on a pedestal.

326 posted on 04/05/2020 1:37:19 PM PDT by woodpusher

To: woodpusher; Bull Snipe; DiogenesLamp; OIFVeteran

woodpusher: "I accept your argument that there was no way to stop a filibuster and the bill therefore could not have come to a vote on the same evening it was presented for debate."

The Democrats' effort in the Senate on the evening of March 2, to delay "the indemnity bill" has been described as a "filibuster".
You may wish to call it something else.

woodpusher: "It is impossible to be SENATOR Trumbull’s bill.
The bill was HOUSE Resolution 591.
As I explained previously, there was a proposed Senate Amendment to a House Bill, much the same as was done with Obamacare, the PPACA.
However the Senate proposes to amend it, it remains a House bill, and the proposal goes to the House to accept or reject, or a joint committee to iron out the differences before a vote."

Possibly you missed the fact that we're here talking about HR-591, the final March 2 vote on the final product which came out the joint committee.
What came out of committee was a replacement bill engineered by Senator Trumbull, approved by the House (99-44) on March 2, by Senate voice-vote late that night, signed by the President March 3.
According to your own quotes (see, for example, post #295), Trumbull still called his new bill, "the indemnity bill", even though the actual word "indemnity" no longer appeared in it.

woodpusher: "The Congress refused to indemnify President Lincoln for his actions regarding habeas corpus.
Congress passed an indemnity bill which indemnified those who carried out the Lincoln directives."

And yet, according to your own quotes, they still called it "the indemnity bill".
As for Lincoln himself, obviously enough Republicans believed he needed no indemnity from Congress.

woodpusher: "The word Indemnity was removed from what?
When was the word Indemnity ever in the bill?
Moreover, it is just another example of your Juvenile logic."

Juvenile logic and insults are rapidly becoming your specialty here.
According to your own quotes HR-591 was called, "the indemnity bill", and had that word in its title, until removed by Senator Trumbull (who still himself called it "indemnity"), with acquiescence from other Republicans, notably the bill's author, Rep. Stevens.

Given the bill's nearly unanimous Republican support, I conclude they didn't believe Lincoln required Congress' indemnification -- see your own post #306, quote from Randall.

woodpusher: "Apply your logic to the Constitution. Art. IV, Sec. 2, Cl. 3 does not contain the word fugitive, nor the word slave, nor the term fugitive slave.
By your juvenile logic, the fugitive slave clause did not exist. "

I'd call that a good example of woodpusher's own "juvenile logic."

woodpusher: "Furthermore, you adhere to the Great Tricky Dick Defense: "

And yet more "juvenile logic" from woodpusher, truly, it's becoming your trademark.

327 posted on 04/05/2020 4:07:46 PM PDT by BroJoeK ((a little historical perspective...))

To: woodpusher; Bull Snipe; DiogenesLamp; OIFVeteran

woodpusher: "Obviously, you have lost your mind.
The Congress was created pursuant to the Constitution of 1789.
The Constitution provided that, "The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the same.
The States created the Constitution before there was ever a Congress. "

Well, actually there were several American Congresses before 1789:

The Albany Congress met in 1754, attended by seven of 13 British colonies to coordinate relations with Indians and defense in the French & Indian War.
Congress debated Benjamin Franklin's Albany Plan of Union.
The Continental Congress of 1765, representatives from nine of 13 colonies met in NYC to oppose the British Stamp Act and taxation without representation -- it adopted the Declaration of Rights and Grievances.
The First Continental Congress of 1774, delegates from 12 of 13 colonies met in Philadelphia in opposition to the British Intolerable Acts.
Notable delegates included George Washington, Patrick Henry and John Adams.
The Second Continental Congress of 1775-1781 met in Philadelphia, appointed George Washington commander in chief of the Continental Army, declared American independence and wrote the Articles of Confederation.
The Confederation Congress of 1781-1788 met in Philadelphia, Princeton, Anapolis, Trenton and NYC, abolished itself after ratification of the new US Constitution.
First United States Congress, meeting in 1789 under the new Constitution in NYC, later moved to Philadelphia and eventually the new capital of Washington, DC.

The Second Continental Congress in 1776 first declared the 13 colonies to be states of the United States of America.
So, colonies created Congress, Congress created the states of the United States.

Now I'm out of time for today, will stop here.

328 posted on 04/05/2020 5:02:41 PM PDT by BroJoeK ((a little historical perspective...))

To: woodpusher; Bull Snipe; DiogenesLamp; OIFVeteran

woodpusher: "The Supreme Court cannot change history by proclamation.
It cannot retroactively create events that did not happen, nor can it erase events that did happen.
Just as it cannot really change tomatoes into vegetables, even where it finds a tax on vegetables applies to tomatoes.
Nix v. Hedden, 149 U.S. 304 (1893), "Tomatoes are 'vegetables,' and not 'fruit,' within the meaning of the Tariff Act of March 3, 1883, c. 121." "

Actually, in Nix v. Hedden the Supreme Court did not magically "change" anything.
The court acknowledged that tomatoes are biologically fruits, but went with the common, ordinary definitions of fruits & vegetables by which most people consider tomatoes the latter.

woodpusher: "I suppose the Supreme Court could opine that a goblet of water became wine under some statute, and that would make the Chief Justice God.
You may think so, but I do not share your opinion that the justices have god-like powers."

All your distinctions boil down to this: you consider the Supreme Court final authority on everything you agree with, of no authority regarding anything where you disagree.

woodpusher: "Do tell more about how the old Articles of Confederation studied.
I have never before heard of articles studying. "

Obviously you need new glasses, ones with no blind spots.
Here you even quoted me correctly, but then responded inappropriately:

"the old Articles of Confederation Congress immediately began to study how to implement the new Constitution. "

woodpusher: "What matters is that the government of a new union of ELEVEN states was formed on March 4, 1789.
Not thirteen, but ELEVEN.
Those ELEVEN states seceded from the former union and formed a new union, leaving two States behind.
How does that happen to an indestructible, indissoluble union?"

The short answer is: by mutual consent, fully acknowledged as totally adequate justification for any such actions at pleasure.
Indeed, on these threads we post informally about "secession" from the old Articles of Confederation, but technically, that's not what happened.
There were no secession conventions, no votes to secede, no "Declarations of Secession" or "Reasons for Secession" documents.

Instead, each state convention voted to ratify the new Constitution and then the old Articles of Confederation Congress voted to abolish itself.
So the Union itself never ceased to exist, only its form of government changed.
As for those states which delayed ratification, the Constitution did not require their validation.
Indeed, while North Carolina and Rhode Island delayed, neither state formally rejected it and neither ever declared secession from or independence of the United States of America.

woodpusher: "1788 or 1789 is irrelevant.
The mythical indestructible, indissoluble union, which some Radicals and Nazis purport to have created the States, is claimed to have been created in 1776 (four score and seven years ago, eight-seven years before 1863).
The constitutional government was formed in 1789 following the ratifications of ELEVEN states, and formed a new union of ELEVEN states.
That is history."

In 1776 Congress declared the United Colonies to be the independent united States of America.
Congress immediately began work on the United States Articles of Confederation and perpetual Union.
Over the years various forms of government have come & gone, new territories admitted as states, some states split into two or more, etc., but the Union itself has remained both perpetual and indestructible.
That is history.

On a side note, since you are apparently brand new to Free Republic, I'll give you one pass (only) for misappropriate use of the N-word -- "Nazi".
By long standing Free Republic tradition & acknowledged rule, the word "Nazi", when used outside actual historical contexts, implies:

The user admits losing the argument and now has only insults to hurl.
The user was educated, trained or brainwashed by politically correct liberals in how to shut down arguments when all else fails.
The user has nothing serious going on between his ears.
The user is not worthy of participating in Free Republic threads.

woodpusher: "When Vermont declared, defended and established its independence as a seperate republic, it not only left prior State clutches, but also was beyond the purported indestructible, indissoluble Union purportedly established in 1776."

The Articles of Confederation were called "perpetual", not "indestructible, indissoluble".
So the status of Vermont on any particular date had no effect on the perpetual Union.
The fact is at the time, state & territory boundaries were sometimes both ill-defined and fluid, but none of that changed the perpetual United States Union.

woodpusher: "Whenever history fails you, you just make crap up.
It is an amusing habit of yours.
Come on self-proclaimed student of history.
Do try to keep up."

You sound like a typical Democrat, projecting your own mental state onto others.

woodpusher: "Only a card-carrying Nazi could support such ahistoric, un-american bilge.
And yet, you worship that crap.
Are you a card-carrying Nazi? "

Now you've been warned about using the N-word inappropriately on Free Republic.
If your weak brain cannot control its innate urges to act like a woke-liberal, calling whatever you disagree with "Nazi", your welcome here will quickly expire.

woodpusher: "I prefer such real Americans as Ronald Reagan and Donald J. Trump, to the ahistoric, un-American bilge you support.
You complain that the quotes are unidentified.
The words express ideas like minded to your own; therefore, you not only defend and support them, you revere, lionize, idolize, venerate, glorify such words, and put the "obscure" authors of such crap on a pedestal."

And with such total BS words you expose your true nature as a propagandist & liar.
Apparently, there's nothing serious going on between your ears.

329 posted on 04/07/2020 10:50:59 AM PDT by BroJoeK ((a little historical perspective...))

To: BroJoeK; Bull Snipe; DiogenesLamp; OIFVeteran

BroJoeK #316:

Cloture had not yet been adopted as a rule in the Senate, so there was no way to prevent a minuscule minority from holding up business by refusing to surrender the floor..."

BroJoeK #327:

woodpusher: "I accept your argument that there was no way to stop a filibuster and the bill therefore could not have come to a vote on the same evening it was presented for debate."

The Democrats' effort in the Senate on the evening of March 2, to delay "the indemnity bill" has been described as a "filibuster".

I care not how some described it, there is no filibuster in the transcript, the bill passed at the same session it was introduced, and YOU stated "there was no way to prevent a minuscule minority from holding up business by refusing to surrender the floor. I merely chose to agree with your claim that there was no way to prevent a minority from refusing to surrender the floor. As the impossible cannot happen, the mythical filibuster must not have been defeated.

When you are done just making crap up, let me know.

Possibly you missed the fact that we're here talking about HR-591, the final March 2 vote on the final product which came out the joint committee.
What came out of committee was a replacement bill engineered by Senator Trumbull, approved by the House (99-44) on March 2, by Senate voice-vote late that night, signed by the President March 3.

I was a HOUSE RESOLUTION, HR-591. It could not become Senator Trumbull's Senate Resolution by way of amendment. The House accepted the revised text of HOUSE RESOLUTION 591. You apparently cannot understand that the Senate cannot create a HOUSE Resolution. It started as HR-591, and it finished as HR-591. It did not become anything else.

As the PPACA proved, as one of centuries of such proofs, a House appropriation bill, passed with amendments from the Senate, remains a bill originated in the House, as all appropriations bill must originate in the House. Had Senate amendments made it a Senate bill, it would have been unconstitutional as an appropriation bill.

woodpusher: "The Congress refused to indemnify President Lincoln for his actions regarding habeas corpus.
Congress passed an indemnity bill which indemnified those who carried out the Lincoln directives."

And yet, according to your own quotes, they still called it "the indemnity bill".

Duh... that was because it was an indemnity bill. It indemnified the folks who carried out the directives of the Lincoln administration, but not Lincoln himself.

They called it an indemnity bill all night because it indemnified people.

Sec. 4. And be it further enacted, That any order of the President, or under his authority, made at any time during the existence of the present rebellion, shall be a defence in all courts to any action or prosecution, civil or criminal, pending, or to be commenced, for any search, seizure, arrest, or imprisonment, made, done, or committed, or acts omitted to be done, under and by virtue of such order, or under color of any law of Congress, and such defence may be made by special plea, or under the general issue

The fact of an order by Lincoln, or under his authority, was stated to be a defence against a claim of unlawful search, seizure, arrest, or imprisonment by those who acted pursuant to the order, however unlawful or unconstitutional the search, seizure, arrest, or imprisonment may have been.

According to your own quotes (see, for example, post #295), Trumbull still called his new bill, "the indemnity bill", even though the actual word "indemnity" no longer appeared in it. ...
According to your own quotes HR-591 was called, "the indemnity bill", and had that word in its title, until removed by Senator Trumbull (who still himself called it "indemnity"), with acquiescence from other Republicans, notably the bill's author, Rep. Stevens.

No, I did not say the Indemnity Bill had the word in its title until removed by Senator Trumbull. You keep saying the word was removed from the bill by Senator Trumbull. I have challenged you to show, from the transcript, where Senator Trumbull made any such change to the bill.

The guy who published the transcript of the proceedings employed a column heading of Indemnity Bill. The legislators called it an indemnity bill. That is not the text of the bill. I quoted the transcript and gave you links. I cannot read it for you.

I challenged you to show where the word indemnity was ever in the bill, or ever taken out of the bill. The bill was introduced and passed in the same session day with no amendments. Your claim that anything was removed is false.

woodpusher: "Apply your logic to the Constitution. Art. IV, Sec. 2, Cl. 3 does not contain the word fugitive, nor the word slave, nor the term fugitive slave.
By your juvenile logic, the fugitive slave clause did not exist. "

I'd call that a good example of woodpusher's own "juvenile logic."

It is the precise logic of your nonsensical argument. It yields a nonsensical result because you used juvenile logic.

woodpusher: "Furthermore, you adhere to the Great Tricky Dick Defense: "

And yet more "juvenile logic" from woodpusher, truly, it's becoming your trademark.

And yet, the Great Tricky Dick Defense is the precise logic of your Lincoln defense:

Frost: So, what in a sense you’re saying is that there are certain situations and the Huston plan or that part of it was one of them where the president can decide that it’s in the best interest of the nation or something and do something illegal.
Nixon: Well, when the president does it … that means that it is not illegal.
Frost: By definition –
Nixon: Exactly … exactly… if the president … if, for example, the president approves something … approves an action, ah … because of the national security or in this case because of a threat to internal peace and order of, ah … ah … significant magnitude … then … the president’s decision in that instance is one, ah … that enables those who carry it out to carry it out without violating a law. Otherwise they’re in an impossible position.

If the President authorizes or orders an unlawful, unconstitutional act to be carried out, those who carry it out violate no law. They were only following orders. Jawohl!

As near as I can recall, that defense has not received very favorable reviews and a bunch of law breakers went to prison.

When you have no argument, fling poo.

https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docs/v1_rul_rule154

Modern International Humanitarian Law (IHL) directly addresses the issue [footnotes omitted]:

Rule 154. Obedience to Superior Orders
Rule 154. Every combatant has a duty to disobey a manifestly unlawful order. Practice
Volume II, Chapter 43, Section D.
Summary
State practice establishes this rule as a norm of customary international law applicable to orders given in both international and non-international armed conflicts.
Manifestly unlawful orders
This rule flows from the duty to respect international humanitarian law (see Rule 139) and is also a corollary of the rule that obeying a superior order is not a defence of a war crime, if the subordinate should have known that the act ordered was unlawful because of its manifestly unlawful nature (see Rule 155). In finding that superior orders, if manifestly unlawful, cannot be a defence, several courts based their judgements on the fact that such orders must be disobeyed.[1]
Besides the practice related to the defence of superior orders, practice specifying that there is a duty to disobey an order that is manifestly unlawful or that would entail the commission of a war crime is contained in the military manuals, legislation and official statements of numerous States.[2] This rule is confirmed in national case-law.[3]
This practice, together with the fact that a subordinate who commits a war crime pursuant to an order which is manifestly unlawful cannot invoke that order as a defence and remains guilty of that crime (see Rule 155), means that there is a duty to disobey such an order.
Unlawful orders
With respect to the position of a combatant who disobeys an order that is unlawful, but not manifestly so, practice is unclear. Many countries specify in their military law that it is the duty of all subordinates to obey “lawful” or “legitimate” orders and that not to do so is a punishable offence.[4] Although this could be interpreted as implying that subordinates must not obey unlawful orders, no practice was found stating such an obligation. Some practice was found providing for a right to disobey an unlawful order.[5] Disobedience of an unlawful order should not entail criminal responsibility, under domestic law, as subordinates only have a duty to obey lawful orders.[6]
Armed opposition groups
As mentioned above, this rule flows from the duty to respect international humanitarian law (see Rule 139) and is also a corollary to the rule that obeying a superior order is not a defence of a war crime, if the subordinate should have known that the act ordered was unlawful because of its manifestly unlawful nature (see Rule 155), both of which apply equally to State armed forces and to armed opposition groups. However, no specific practice was found to confirm this conclusion, as the military manuals, national legislation and case-law referring to this rule relate essentially to members of State armed forces.

An American case, directly on point, was the William Calley case.

https://trialinternational.org/latest-post/william-calley/

The Court of Military Appeals also judged that Calley could not invoke in his defence that orders were received from his superiors in order to be exonerated from his criminal responsibility. Indeed, an act committed in conformity with an illegal order is not subject to punishment, except:
1. If the accused knew that the order was illegal: in such a case the personal character of the accused must be taken into account (education, hierarchical level, experience in the field, etc.), or
2. If someone of common sense and understanding, would have known, in the same circumstances, that this order was illegal: in such a case, the assessment would no longer be focused on the personality of the accused but on an abstractly defined standard.
In the case in point , the Court judged that the order given to kill children and unarmed civilians who were incapable of offering resistance, was very clearly illegal. Any person “of common sense and understanding” would have realised this. It was even possible to be more demanding of Calley in this respect, in view of his grade and experience.
As a result, Calley’s appeal was rejected.

330 posted on 04/07/2020 2:36:52 PM PDT by woodpusher

To: BroJoeK; Bull Snipe; DiogenesLamp; OIFVeteran

[BroJoeK #325]: As lincoln, Chase & others argued, it was colonies which created Congress, but Congress created the states.

And as the States could have been created only once, in referring to the Congress, you could have referred, at most, to only one of them.

[BroJoeK #328] Well, actually there were several American Congresses before 1789:

The delegates of the colonies created the States by proclamation. Of course they did. And you define success as staggering from one failure to the next without losing your enthusiasm.

The Contintental Congress was not a national government and lacked authority to pass or enforce a law, or to pass or enforce a tax, much less create states. The several States were free and independent States, independent from Britain and each other.

If proclaiming independence created the States, you still forget history. Several states declared independence before the Second Continental Congress got around to saying jack.

- - - - - - - - - -

In North Carolina The Mecklenburgh Resolutions were adopted on May 20, 1775.

THE MECKLENBURGH RESOLUTIONS—1775*
I. Resolved: That whosoever directly or indirectly abets, or in any way, form, or manner countenances the unchartered and dangerous invasion of our rights, as claimed by Great Britain, is an enemy to this country—to America—and to the inherent and inalienable rights of man.
II. Resolved: That we do hereby declare ourselves a free and independent people; are, and of right ought to be a sovereign and self-governing association, under the control of no power, other than that of our God and the General Government of the Congress: To the maintainance of which Independence we solemnly pledge to each other our mutual co-operation, our Lives, our Fortunes, and our most Sacred Honor.
III. Resolved: That as we acknowledge the existence and control of no law or legal officer, civil or military, within this county, we do hereby ordain and adopt as a rule of life, all, each, and every one of our former laws, wherein, nevertheless, the Crown of Great Britain never can be considered as holding rights, privileges, or authorities therein.
IV. Resolved: That all, each, and every Military Officer in this country is hereby reinstated in his former command and authority, he acting conformably to their regulations, and that every Member present of this Delegation, shall henceforth be a Civil Officer, viz: a Justice of the Peace, in the character of a Committee Man, to issue process, hear and determine all matters of controversy, according to said adopted laws, and to preserve Peace, Union, and Harmony in said county, to use every exertion to spread the Love of Country and Fire of Freedom throughout America, until a more general and organized government be established in this Province.
ABRAHAM ALEXANDER, Chairman.
John McKnitt Alexander, Secretary.
* This declaration of independence (with a supplementary set of reslutions establishing a form of government) was adopted by a convention of delegates from different sections of Mecklenburgh County, which assembled at Charlotte May 20, 1775.

- - - - - - - - - -

New Jersey ordered the publication of its constitution on July 3, 1776.

This constitution was framed by a convention which assembled in accordance with the recommendation of the continental Congress that the people of the colonies should form independent State governments, and which was in session, with closed doors, successively, at Burlington, Trenton, and New Brunswick, from May 26, 1776, until July 2, 1776, with intermissions. It was not submitted to the people, but its publication was ordered by the convention, July 3, 1776.

Id., p. 1310, footnote §.

- - - - - - - - - -

Connecticut, at the time of approving the Declaration of Independence, issued "An Act containing an Abstract and Declaration of the Rights and Privileges of the People of this State, and securing the same." It stated in part:

PARAGRAPH 1. Be it enacted and declar3ed by the Governor, and Council, and House of Representatives, in General Court assembled, That the ancient Form of Civil Government, contained in the Charter from Charles the Second, King of England, and adopted by the People of this State, shall be and remain the Civil Constitution of this State, under the sole authority of the People thereof, independent of any King or Prince whatever. And this Republic is, and shall forever be, and remain, a free, sovereign and independent State, by the name of the STATE of CONNECTICUT.

Id., Part I, pp. 257-58

- - - - - - - - - -

The New Hampshire Constitution was adopted January 5, 1776.

The South Carolina Constitution was adopted March 26, 1776.

The Virginia Bill of Rights was adopted on June 12, 1776.

The Virginia Constitution was adopted June 29, 1776.

- - - - - - - - - -

The Articles of Confederation, March 1, 1781, only established a self-described "firm league of friendship" and "binding themselves to assist each other." And, it declared that "Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled."

I.
The Stile of this Confederacy shall be "The United States of America".
II.
Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled.
III.
The said States hereby severally enter into a firm league of friendship with each other, for their common defense, the security of their liberties, and their mutual and general welfare, binding themselves to assist each other, against all force offered to, or attacks made upon them, or any of them, on account of religion, sovereignty, trade, or any other pretense whatever.

It was a league of friendship between independent and sovereign States who each retained their sovereignty, freedom, and independence. It was not a consolidated union which destroyed State sovereignty and independence.

331 posted on 04/07/2020 2:47:49 PM PDT by woodpusher

To: BroJoeK; Bull Snipe; DiogenesLamp; OIFVeteran

Indeed, while North Carolina and Rhode Island delayed, neither state formally rejected it and neither ever declared secession from or independence of the United States of America.

As the great Ronald Reagan would say, there you go again. Just making crap up. When faced with actual history, you just make crap up.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ratification_of_the_United_States_Constitution_by_Rhode_Island

Nearly a dozen conventions failed that had been called in Rhode Island to ratify the constitution, often by wide margins; in one instance, 92 percent of the delegates voted against ratification.

As for secession, the other eleven states seceded from the existing government and union and formed a new constitutional government with eleven members.

The old government and union had only two widely seperated members left, and it was dissolved. RI and NC were not then members of the United States.

Congressional Register, Volume I, 1789,

Page 412, Mr. SHERMAN, June 5, 1789:

But all we are now to consider, I believe, is, that we invite the state of Rhode Island to join our confederacy, what will be the effect of such a measure we cannot tell till we try it.

Page 413, Mr. MADISON, June 5, 1789:

My idea on the subject now before the House is, that it would be improper in this body to expose themselves to have such a proposition rejected by the legislature of the state of Rhode Island

Page 413, Mr. AMES, June 5, 1789:

I should be glad to know if any gentleman contemplates the state of Rhode Island, dissevered from the union; a maritime state, situated in the most convenient manner for the purpose of smuggling and defrauding our revenue. Surely a moment's reflection will induce the house to take measures to secure this object. Do gentlemen imagine that state will join the union? ... If a wish of congress will bring them into the union, why shall we decline to express such a wish?

Page 424, Mr. MADISON, June 8, 1789:

It cannot be a secret to the gentlemen in this house that, notwithstanding the ratification of this system of government by eleven of the thirteen United States, in some cases unanimously, in others by large majorities; yet still there is a great number of our consti6tuents who are dissatisfied with it....

Page 438, Mr. JACKSON, June 8, 1789:

I hold, mr. speaker, that the present is not a proper time for considering of amendments. The States of Rhode-Island and North-Carolina are not in the Union. As to the latter, we have every presumption that they will come in. But in Rhode-Island I think the antifederal interest yet prevails. ...
But to return to my argument. It being the case that those states are not yet come into the Union, when they join us we shall have another list of amendments to consider, and another bill of rights to frame.

Page 441, Mr. GERRY, June 8, 1789:

There are two states not in the union; it would be a very desirable circumstance to gain them. I should therefore be in favor of such amendments as might tend to invite them and gain their confidence; good policy will dictate to use to expedite that event. Gentlemen say, that we shall not obtain the consent of two-thirds of both houses to amendments. Are gentlemen will then to throw Rhode-Island and North-Carolina into the situation of foreign nations. They have told you, that they cannot accede to the union unless certain amendments are made to the constitutyion; if you deny a compliance with their request in this particular, you refuse an accomodation to bring about that desirable event, and leave them detached from the union.

How does that happen to an indestructible, indissoluble union?"

The short answer is: by mutual consent, fully acknowledged as totally adequate justification for any such actions at pleasure.

When faced with the history of Vermont seceding and becoming a free and independent state via successful revolution, you just mindlessly repeat your mantra of mutual consent. A successful revolution is not mutual consent.

It is not just my opinion that Vermont joined the Union as a free and independent State, and that they achieved their free and sovereign status by successful revolution, the it is opinion of the United States Supreme Court in Vermont v. New Hampshire, 289 US 593 (1933). You just make crap up and repeat it as a mantra.

U.S. Supreme Court
Vermont v. New Hampshire, 289 U.S. 593 (1933)
Vermont v. New Hampshire
No. 2, Original
Argued April 20, 21, 1933
Decided May 29, 1933
...
289 U. S. 597
MR. JUSTICE STONE delivered the opinion of the Court.
This is an original suit brought by the State of Vermont December 8, 1915, for the determination of the boundary line between that state and the State of New Hampshire. By the amended bill of complaint, Vermont alleged that the boundary is "the thread of the channel" of the Connecticut River for its entire course, except for that part from the northerly limits of the town of Vernon, Vermont, south to the Massachusetts line where it "is the west bank of Connecticut River at low water mark." In the original bill of complaint, there was an alternative
289 U. S. 596
claim that, if this Court should be of the opinion that the boundary is not the thread, but is "the west bank of the Connecticut River," then
"such line is the westerly edge of the waters of the Connecticut River at its average and mean stage during the entire year without reference to the extraordinary freshets or extreme droughts."
New Hampshire, by its amended answer, asserts that the boundary is "at the top or westerly margin of the westerly bank of the Connecticut River and the east branch thereof."
Vermont's claim of a boundary at the thread of the channel was based upon the following propositions: township grants made by the Governor of the Province of New Hampshire, by royal authority, between 1741 and 1764, on the west side of the Connecticut River in the territory now Vermont, were bounded by the river, which was nontidal, and carried title to its thread by virtue of the common law of England; an order of the King-in-Council of July 20, 1764, fixing the boundary between the Provinces of New York and New Hampshire at the "western banks of the River Connecticut," thus including the territory now Vermont in the Province of New York, was nullified by the successful revolution of the inhabitants of the New Hampshire grants; hence the eastern boundary of the revolutionary State of Vermont was the same as the eastern limits of the township grants -- namely, the thread of the river; Vermont was admitted to the Union as a sovereign independent state with her boundaries those established by her revolution. Her eastern boundary was therefore the thread of the Connecticut River.
The Special Master sustained all these contentions except the last one. With respect to it, he found that Vermont had, by resolution of her Legislature of February 22, 1782, relinquished any claim to jurisdiction east of the west side of the river at low water mark, in conformity
289 U. S. 597
to a Congressional resolution of August 20, 21, 1781, prescribing terms upon which Congress would consider the admission of Vermont to the Union. In addition to the findings already indicated, the Special Master also concluded that the order of the King-in-Council of July 20, 1764, even if not rendered ineffective by the revolution of Vermont, was not intended to recognize any rights of New Hampshire west of the west side of the river at low water; that Vermont's claim of a boundary at the thread of the river would be defeated by her acquiescence in New Hampshire's exercise of dominion over the waters of the river even if it had not been relinquished by acceptance of the resolutions of Congress of August, 1781, and finally that, by practical construction of the two states by long usage and acquiescence, the boundary of Vermont was fixed at the low water mark on the west side of the river.
Accordingly, the Special Master found that:
"The eastern boundary of the State of Vermont upon her admission to the Union was that stated in the resolutions of Congress of August 20, and 21, 1781, and in the resolution of the Vermont Legislature of February 22, 1782, and this I find to be the low water mark on the west side of the Connecticut River."
The line of low water mark thus specified was further defined as "the point to which the river recedes at its lowest stage without reference to extreme droughts," and no exception has been taken to this definition.
...
289 U. S. 607
The Special Master found that attempts by the New York authorities after 1764 to interfere with the possession of the holders of the New Hampshire grants made prior to the Order-in-Council led to protest and forcible resistance which assumed the proportions of a revolutionary movement. This movement culminated in 1777 in the Declaration of Independence by the towns comprising the New Hampshire grants on both sides of the Green Mountains, which proclaimed that the jurisdiction granted by the Crown "to New York government over the people of the New Hampshire Grants is totally dissolved," and that a free and independent government is set up within the territory now Vermont, bounded "east on Connecticut River . . . as far as the New Hampshire Grants extends." From that time until the admission of Vermont into the Union in 1791, an independent government was maintained with defined geographical limits extending on the east to the Connecticut River. In view of these facts, the Special Master concluded that the Order-in-Council was nullified by successful revolution, and Vermont was admitted as an independent state with self-constituted boundaries. But he also found, as we have said, that Vermont's claims of jurisdiction to the thread of the river were restricted to the low water mark on the western side by resolutions of Congress of August 20, 21, 1781, and their acceptance by resolution of the Vermont Legislature, February 22, 1782. In addition, he found that Vermont was not recognized as an independent state by Congress either under
289 U. S. 608
the Articles of Confederation or under the Constitution, but that her independence was recognized by New Hampshire in 1777, by Massachusetts in 1781, and by New York in 1790.

332 posted on 04/07/2020 2:50:55 PM PDT by woodpusher

Thanks for keeping me in the loop. I'm learning more from your posts than I could hope to learn anywhere else.

Excellent material!

333 posted on 04/07/2020 2:55:24 PM PDT by DiogenesLamp ("of parents owing allegiance to no oither sovereignty."/)

To: BroJoeK; Bull Snipe; DiogenesLamp; OIFVeteran

On a side note, since you are apparently brand new to Free Republic, I'll give you one pass (only) for misappropriate use of the N-word -- "Nazi".
By long standing Free Republic tradition & acknowledged rule, the word "Nazi", when used outside actual historical contexts, implies:

The user admits losing the argument and now has only insults to hurl.
The user was educated, trained or brainwashed by politically correct liberals in how to shut down arguments when all else fails.
The user has nothing serious going on between his ears.
The user is not worthy of participating in Free Republic threads.

[...]
Now you've been warned about using the N-word inappropriately on Free Republic.
If your weak brain cannot control its innate urges to act like a woke-liberal, calling whatever you disagree with "Nazi", your welcome here will quickly expire.
[...]

woodpusher: "I prefer such real Americans as Ronald Reagan and Donald J. Trump, to the ahistoric, un-American bilge you support.
You complain that the quotes are unidentified.
The words express ideas like minded to your own; therefore, you not only defend and support them, you revere, lionize, idolize, venerate, glorify such words, and put the "obscure" authors of such crap on a pedestal."

And with such total BS words you expose your true nature as a propagandist & liar.
Apparently, there's nothing serious going on between your ears.

I shall repeat the quotes I supported and quotes YOU SUPPORTED, and identify the quotes YOU SUPPORTED. Considering the unsupported, and unsupportable, nonsense you have directed at me, you doth protest too much.

I supported:

Abraham Lincoln said:

Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable—a most sacred right—a right, which we hope and believe, is to liberate the world. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people that can, may revolutionize, and make their own, of so much of their territory as they inhabit.

As the great Ronaldus Maximus said:

All of us need to be reminded that the Federal Government did not create the States; the States created the Federal Government.

The first was by Congressman Abraham Lincoln, on January 12, 1848, arguing the unlawfulness of the War with Mexico, Collected Works, Vol 1, page 438.

The second sage quote was identified as President Ronald Reagan, Ronaldus Maximus, a great Conservative, and is from his First Inaugural Address, Tuesday, January 20, 1981.

And now for the crazy quotes you support and which your views echo.

Big Government autocrats, desirous of a Federalist Hamiltonian autocracy, express a less American viewpoint:

[1] What is a confederation of states? By a confederacy, we mean a group of sovereign states which come together of their own free will and, in virtue of their sovereignty, create a collective entity. In doing so, they assign selective sovereign rights to the national body that will allow it to safeguard the existence of the joint union.
[2] What is the particular sacredness of a State? I speak not of that position which is given to a State in and by the Constitution of the United States, for that all of us agree to—we abide by; but that position assumed, that a State can carry with it out of the Union that which it holds in sacredness by virtue of its connection with the Union. I am speaking of that assumed right of a State, as a primary principle, that the Constitution should rule all that is less than itself, and ruin all that is bigger than itself. But, I ask, wherein does consist that right? If a State, in one instance, and a county in another, should be equal in extent of territory, and equal in the number of people, wherein is that State any better than the county?
[3] These states never possessed any previous sovereignty of their own because that would have been impossible. These states did not come together to create the Union, but it was the Union that created these so-called states.
[4] The States have their status in the Union, and they have no other legal status. If they break from this, they can only do so against law, and by revolution. The Union, and not themselves separately, procured their independence, and their liberty. By conquest, or purchase, the Union gave each of them, whatever of independence, and liberty, it has. The Union is older than any of the States; and, in fact, it created them as States.

That is a collection of some disgusting un-American bilge.

[1] and [3] Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, Uncensored Version, The Ford Translation, ISBN 978-0-9845361-3-9, p. 460

[2] and [4] President Lincoln's message of July 4, 1861 to the Special Session of Congress.

It's not my fault that you practically plagiarized Adolf Hitler.

Congress did not create the sovereign states. As Ronald Reagan said, "All of us need to be reminded that the Federal Government did not create the States; the States created the Federal Government."

334 posted on 04/07/2020 3:01:12 PM PDT by woodpusher

To: woodpusher; Bull Snipe; DiogenesLamp; OIFVeteran

woodpusher: "I care not how some described it, there is no filibuster in the transcript, the bill passed at the same session it was introduced, and YOU stated "there was no way to prevent a minuscule minority from holding up business by refusing to surrender the floor."
I merely chose to agree with your claim that there was no way to prevent a minority from refusing to surrender the floor.
As the impossible cannot happen, the mythical filibuster must not have been defeated."

Some people called it an attempted filibuster.
You are free to call it whatever you wish.
You can read details of the filibuster here.

woodpusher: "When you are done just making crap up, let me know. "

When you are done misrepresenting the facts, let me know.

woodpusher: "I was a HOUSE RESOLUTION, HR-591.
It could not become Senator Trumbull's Senate Resolution by way of amendment.
The House accepted the revised text of HOUSE RESOLUTION 591.
You apparently cannot understand that the Senate cannot create a HOUSE Resolution.
It started as HR-591, and it finished as HR-591.
It did not become anything else. "

We are told that when HR-591 came out of joint conference committee it resembled neither the original HR-591 nor the Senate modifications to it, but rather was an original creation substituted by Senator Trumbull, with acquiescence by other committee Republicans.

"When it came time for the Senate to consider Stevens' indemnity bill

however, the Committee on the Judiciary's amendment substituted an entirely new bill for it...

On February 27, the [joint] conference committee issued its [HR-591] report.
The result was an entirely new [rewritten HR=591] bill authorizing the explicit suspension of habeas corpus."

woodpusher: "As the PPACA proved, as one of centuries of such proofs, a House appropriation bill, passed with amendments from the Senate, remains a bill originated in the House, as all appropriations bill must originate in the House.
Had Senate amendments made it a Senate bill, it would have been unconstitutional as an appropriation bill. "

I call woodpusher's phrase "centuries of such proofs" itself proof-positive that our new FRiend woodpusher is not a natural born English speaker.
Nobody raised in the English language could ever make such a mistake.

And to the point here: "The Habeas Corpus Suspension, 12 Stat. 755 (1863), entitled An Act relating to Habeas Corpus, and regulating Judicial Proceedings in Certain Cases..." was not an appropriation bill.
Regardless, HR-591 began in the House, was revised by the Senate and then, in effect, rewritten in the joint conference committee.
The rewritten version was then approved 99-44 in the House and, late at night, by voice vote in the Senate.

Now I'm out of time for today.

335 posted on 04/07/2020 4:38:11 PM PDT by BroJoeK ((a little historical perspective...))

woodpusher: "No, I did not say the Indemnity Bill had the word in its title until removed by Senator Trumbull.
You keep saying the word was removed from the bill by Senator Trumbull.
I have challenged you to show, from the transcript, where Senator Trumbull made any such change to the bill. "

I take it now to be that you have full access to various transcripts, but not to the exact language of different versions of HR-591.
So you don't know what the original bill said, as submitted by Rep. Thaddeus Stevens on December 5, 1862, or if it was modified by the House judiciary committee before approval by the full House on December 8, vote: 90-45, or what amendments were added in the Senate before their vote on January 28, 1863, vote: 33-7, or how it was further changed by the joint conference committee before the House's final approval vote March 2, 99-44 and the Senate's voice vote late that night -- you don't know any of that.
And yet you wish to debate endlessly and pointlessly with me about such technicalities.

Both the original bill and final Habeas Corpus Suspension Act were approved overwhelmingly in both houses, singed the next day by President Lincoln, and therefore I conclude that pro-Lincoln Republicans like Thaddeus Stevens were fully satisfied that the final bill provided all the legal protections both Federal authorities and Lincoln himself needed.

woodpusher: "I challenged you to show where the word indemnity was ever in the bill, or ever taken out of the bill.
The bill was introduced and passed in the same session day with no amendments.
Your claim that anything was removed is false. "

I am astonished that, seemingly, you don't grasp the fact that every bill must first pass one house, then the other where it often is amended, then goes to joint conference committee where it may be further changed and finally is voted on again by both houses.
The end result is often quite different from the original.
But in this specific example of HR-591 we know that the bill's originator, Thaddeus Stevens, himself sat on the joint conference committee and so we must presume he was reasonably satisfied with the end result -- even if it didn't say exactly what he originally proposed.

So I am astonished and at a loss to explain why, exactly, you can't grasp all that.

woodpusher: "It is the precise logic of your nonsensical argument.
It yields a nonsensical result because you used juvenile logic. "

No, you are simply fantasizing and projecting your own ideas onto me.

woodpusher: "And yet, the Great Tricky Dick Defense is the precise logic of your Lincoln defense: "

Rubbish, you are just making endless false accusations which are not good for your soul.
You need to stop doing that.

woodpusher: "If the President authorizes or orders an unlawful, unconstitutional act to be carried out, those who carry it out violate no law.
They were only following orders. Jawohl!"

Nonsense, you deliberately misrepresent the 1863 Habeas Corpus Suspension Act (12 Stat. 755) and then claim it has something to do with Watergate.
It doesn't.

woodpusher: "When you have no argument, fling poo."

Those words politely describe your own behavior here.

woodpusher: "Modern International Humanitarian Law (IHL) directly addresses the issue."

And which of these laws applied to the US in 1861?

woodpusher: "An American case, directly on point, was the William Calley case. "

And Calley was an officer in which army of 1861?
</scarasm>

woodpusher: "As a result, Calley’s appeal was rejected. "

I note first that Calley had powerful defenders, including Georgia Governor Jimmy Carter and several other state governors.
So he ended up serving only a few years of his life sentence.

Second, even Calley himself never claimed he was ordered to kill civilians.
Instead, he assumed his orders to "kill the enemy" included unarmed civilians.
But his commanding officer denied that and was acquitted of all charges.

Third, Calley himself recognized he had done wrong and is quoted in 2009 as saying:

"There is not a day that goes by that I do not feel remorse for what happened that day in My Lai...
I feel remorse for the Vietnamese who were killed, for their families, for the American soldiers involved and their families.
I am very sorry."

Finally, and most important, none of this has anything to do with the 1863 Habeas Corpus Suspension Act.

336 posted on 04/09/2020 6:02:51 AM PDT by BroJoeK ((a little historical perspective...))

To: DiogenesLamp

Just ran across this quote. When drafting the Constitution a proposal was made to allow the Federal Government to suppress a seceding state, but the proposal was rejected after James Madison said…

"A Union of the States containing such an ingredient seemed to provide for its own destruction. The use of force against a State, would look more like a declaration of war, than an infliction of punishment, and would probably be considered by the party attacked as a dissolution of all previous compacts by which it might be bound."

And this one too.

""Each State, in ratifying the Constitution, is considered as a sovereign body, independent of all thers, and only to be bound by its own voluntary act . In this relation, then, the new Constitution will, if established, be a FEDERAL, and not a NATIONAL constitution.”

337 posted on 04/12/2020 4:03:51 PM PDT by DiogenesLamp ("of parents owing allegiance to no oither sovereignty."/)

To: BroJoeK; Bull Snipe; DiogenesLamp; OIFVeteran

Some people called it an attempted filibuster.
You are free to call it whatever you wish.
You can read details of the filibuster here.

Your line at here sends the reader to Wikipedia, the source of all your anonymous misinformation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habeas_Corpus_Suspension_Act_(1863)#Legislative_history

My source is the original verbatim transcripts of the proceedings in the Congress. Where your chosen source makes things up or get things wrong, the official record prevails.

We are told that when HR-591 came out of joint conference committee it resembled neither the original HR-591 nor the Senate modifications to it, but rather was an original creation substituted by Senator Trumbull, with acquiescence by other committee Republicans.

"We are told" by an anonymous source (perhaps the voice of Morgan Freeman spoke to BroJoeK and his talking mouse Clyven. Clyven has even come forward and spoken out.) in Wikipedia that the impossible happened and that a Senate committee substituted a Senate bill in place of a House Bill. The bill that went to committee was HR-591. The bill that came out of committee was HR-591. The bill that passed and became law was HR-591.

A committee cannot change a word of a bill. It can offer amendments which then must be voted on by the Congress before any change is actually effected. Strage as it must seem to Jovian history, committees do not vote to adopt amendments or bills as laws.

I call woodpusher's phrase "centuries of such proofs" itself proof-positive that our new FRiend woodpusher is not a natural born English speaker.
Nobody raised in the English language could ever make such a mistake.

I call BroJoeK's brain fart proof-positive that he is a grade school dropout. Nobody who ever made it to high school would ever posit such a stupid argument. This is especially true for one who is getting so thoroughly schooled on American history.

Regardless, HR-591 began in the House, was revised by the Senate and then, in effect, rewritten in the joint conference committee.
The rewritten version was then approved 99-44 in the House and, late at night, by voice vote in the Senate.

HR-591 was still HR-591. It started and remained HOUSE Resolution 591.

338 posted on 04/13/2020 8:21:41 PM PDT by woodpusher

To: BroJoeK; DiogenesLamp

I take it now to be that you have full access to various transcripts, but not to the exact language of different versions of HR-591.

Except apparently for you, the entire world has access to the Congressional Globe, which is the official record of Congress from 1833 to 1873. The proceedings in Congress were taken down in shorthand and reported contemporaneously. The official records are verbatim transcripts and available to all who take the initiative the get off their butt and look at them. They are the official record of what happened in Congress. They include the text and reading of bills and resolutions, and amendments, and all votes.

Every word of every bill read on the floor of either chamber is presented verbatim.

So you don't know what the original bill said, as submitted by Rep. Thaddeus Stevens on December 5, 1862, or if it was modified by the House judiciary committee before approval by the full House on December 8, vote: 90-45, or what amendments were added in the Senate before their vote on January 28, 1863, vote: 33-7, or how it was further changed by the joint conference committee before the House's final approval vote March 2, 99-44 and the Senate's voice vote late that night -- you don't know any of that.

As another example of my use of English, let me introduce you to the term negative pregnant.

NEGATIVE PREGNANT refers to a denial which implies an affirmation of a substantial fact and hence is beneficial to opponent. Thus, when only a qualification or modification is denied while the fact itself remains undenied, the denial is pregnant with the affirmation. See 115 S.W. 2d 330.
Negatives pregnant come in two varieties. One is the literal denial. If the complaint alleges that the defendant was driving his car at 75 miles an hour and the defendant denies that he was driving his car at 75 miles an hour, this would be an admission that he may have been driving it at any other speed, i.e., 74 or 76 miles per hour. The other type of negative pregnant is the CONJUNCTIVE DENIAL. If the complaint alleges that the defendant was careless and negligent and reckless and the defendant denies that he was careless and negligent and reckless this would constitute an admission that he was guilty of any combination less than all three. To avoid this the defendant should have denied the facts in the disjunctive, i.e., denied that he was careless or negligent or reckless.” Green, Civil Procedure 122 (2d ed. 1979).

Thank you for your negatives pregnant affirming that your babbling bullshit does not appear in the Official Record verbatim transcripts of the Congress.

339 posted on 04/13/2020 8:24:38 PM PDT by woodpusher

To: DiogenesLamp

Just ran across this quote. When drafting the Constitution a proposal was made to allow the Federal Government to suppress a seceding state, but the proposal was rejected after James Madison said…

"A Union of the States containing such an ingredient seemed to provide for its own destruction. The use of force against a State, would look more like a declaration of war, than an infliction of punishment, and would probably be considered by the party attacked as a dissolution of all previous compacts by which it might be bound."

And this one too.

"Each State, in ratifying the Constitution, is considered as a sovereign body, independent of all thers, and only to be bound by its own voluntary act . In this relation, then, the new Constitution will, if established, be a FEDERAL, and not a NATIONAL constitution.”

LINK Quote #1: https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/debates_531.asp

LINK Quote #2: https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed39.asp

Of possible further interest:

Early on, the term national government was proposed. It was approved by the votes of six states, not all states being present.

https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/debates_530.asp

Yale Law School

Lillian Goldman Law Library

The AVALON Project, Documents in Law, History and Diplomacy

Madison Debates

Wednesday May 30, 1787

[boldface added]

Roger Sherman (from Connecticut) took his seat.
The House went into Committee of the Whole on the State of the Union. Mr. Gorham was elected to the Chair by Ballot.
The propositions of Mr. RANDOLPH which had been referred to the Committee being taken up. He moved on the suggestion of Mr. G. Morris, that the first of his propositions to wit "Resolved that the articles of Confederation ought to be so corrected & enlarged, as to accomplish the objects proposed by their institution; namely, common defence, security of liberty & general welfare: [FN1] -should be postponed, in order to consider the 3 following:
1. that a Union of the States merely federal will not accomplish the objects proposed by the articles of Confederation, namely common defence, security of liberty, & genl. welfare.
2. that no treaty or treaties among the whole or part of the States, as individual Sovereignties, would be sufficient.
3. that a national Government ought to be established consisting of a supreme Legislative, Executive & Judiciary. The motion for postponing was seconded by Mr. Govr. MORRIS and unanimously agreed to.
Some verbal criticisms were raised agst. the first proposition, and it was agreed on motion of Mr. BUTLER seconded by Mr. RANDOLPH, to pass on to the third, which underwent a discussion, less however on its general merits than on the force and extent of the particular terms national & supreme.
Mr. CHARLES PINKNEY wished to know of Mr. Randolph whether he meant to abolish the State Governts. altogether. Mr. R. replied that he meant by these general propositions merely to introduce the particular ones which explained the outlines of the system he had in view.
Mr. BUTLER said he had not made up his mind on the subject, and was open to the light which discussion might throw on it. After some general observations he concluded with saying that he had opposed the grant of powers to Congs. heretofore, because the whole power was vested in one body. The proposed distribution of the powers into [FN2] different bodies changed the case, and would induce him to go great lengths.
Genl. PINKNEY expressed a doubt whether the act of Congs. recommending the Convention, or the Commissions of the Deputies to it, could [FN3] authorise a discussion of a System founded on different principles from the federal Constitution.
Mr. GERRY seemed to entertain the same doubt.
Mr. Govr. MORRIS explained the distinction between a federal and national, supreme, Govt.; the former being a mere compact resting on the good faith of the parties; the latter having a compleat and compulsive operation. He contended that in all Communities there must be one supreme power, and one only.
Mr. MASON observed that the present confederation was not only [FN4] deficient in not providing for coercion & punishment agst. delinquent States; but argued very cogently that punishment could not in the nature of things be executed on the States collectively, and therefore that such a Govt. was necessary as could directly operate on individuals, and would punish those only whose guilt required it.
Mr. SHERMAN who took his seat today, [FN5] admitted that the Confederation had not given sufficient power to Congs. and that additional powers were necessary; particularly that of raising money which he said would involve many other powers. He admitted also that the General & particular jurisdictions ought in no case to be concurrent. He seemed however not [FN6] be disposed to make too great inroads on the existing system; intimating as one reason that it would be wrong to lose every amendment, by inserting such as would not be agreed to by the States.
It was moved by Mr. READ [FN7] 2ded. by Mr. Chs. COTESWORTH PINKNEY, to postpone the 3d. proposition last offered by Mr. Randolph viz that a national Government ought to be established consisting of a supreme Legislative Executive and Judiciary," in order to take up the following-viz. "Resolved that in order to carry into execution the Design of the States in forming this Convention, and to accomplish the objects proposed by the Confederation a more effective Government consisting of a Legislative, Executive and Judiciary ought to be established."
The motion to postpone for this purpose was lost:
Yeas [FN8] Massachusetts, Connecticut, Delaware, S. Carolina- [FN8] 4 Nays. [FN9] N. Y. Pennsylvania, Virginia, North Carolina- [FN9] 4.
On the question as moved by Mr. Butler, on the third proposition it was resolved in Committee of the whole that a national governt. ought to be established consisting of a supreme Legislative Executive & Judiciary." Massts. being ay-Connect.-no. N. York divided [Col. Hamilton ay Mr. Yates no] Pena. ay. Delaware ay. Virga. ay. N. C. ay. S. C. ay. [FN10]
Resol: 2. of Mr. R's proposition towit-see May 29. [FN11] The following Resolution being the 2d. of those proposed by Mr. Randolph was taken up, viz-"that the rights of suffrage in the National Legislature ought to be proportioned to the quotas of contribution, or to the number of free inhabitants, as the one or the other rule may seem best in different cases." [FN12]
Mr. MADISON observing that the words "or to the number of free inhabitants," might occasion debates which would divert the Committee from the general question whether the principle of representation should be changed, moved that they might be struck out.
Mr. KING observed that the quotas of contribution which would alone remain as the measure of representation, would not answer, because waving every other view of the matter, the revenue might hereafter be so collected by the general Govt. that the sums respectively drawn from the States would not appear; and would besides be continually varying.
Mr. MADISON admitted the propriety of the observation, and that some better rule ought to be found.
Col. HAMILTON moved to alter the resolution so as to read "that the rights of suffrage in the national Legislature ought to be proportioned to the number of free inhabitants. Mr. SPAIGHT 2ded. the motion. It was then moved that the Resolution be postponed, which was agreed to.
Mr. RANDOLPH and Mr. MADISON then moved the following resolution-"that the rights of suffrage in the national Legislature ought to be proportioned." It was moved and 2ded. to amend it by adding "and not according to the present system"-which was agreed to. It was then moved and 2ded. to alter the resolution so as to read "that the rights of suffrage in the national Legislature ought not to be according to the present system." It was then moved & 2ded. to postpone the Resolution moved by Mr. Randolph & Mr. Madison, which being agreed to:
Mr. MADISON, moved, in order to get over the difficulties, the following resolution-"that the equality of suffrage established by the articles of Confederation ought not to prevail in the national Legislature, and that an equitable ratio of representation ought to be substituted." This was 2ded. by Mr. Govr. MORRIS, and being generally relished, would have been agreed to; when,
Mr. REED moved that the whole clause relating to the point of Representation be postponed; reminding the Come. that the deputies from Delaware were restrained by their commission from assenting to any change of the rule of suffrage, and in case such a change should be fixed on, it might become their duty to retire from the Convention.
Mr. Govr. MORRIS observed that the valuable assistance of those members could not be lost without real concern, and that so early a proof of discord in the Convention as a secession of a State, would add much to the regret; that the change proposed was however so fundamental an article in a national Govt. that it could not be dispensed with.
Mr. MADISON observed that whatever reason might have existed for the equality of suffrage when the Union was a federal one among sovereign States, it must cease when a national Govermt. should be put into the place. In the former case, the acts of Congs. depended so much for their efficacy on the cooperation of the States, that these had a weight both within & without Congress, nearly in proportion to their extent and importance. In the latter case, as the acts of the Genl. Govt. would take effect without the intervention of the State legislatures, a vote from a small State wd. have the same efficacy & importance as a vote from a large one, and there was the same reason for different numbers of representatives from different States, as from Counties of different extents within particular States. He suggested as an expedient for at once taking the sense of the members on this point and saving the Delaware deputies from embarrassment, that the question should be taken in Committee, and the clause on report to the House be postponed without a question there. This however did not appear to satisfy Mr. Read. By several it was observed that no just construction of the Act of Delaware, could require or justify a secession of her deputies, even if the resolution were to be carried thro' the House as well as the Committee. It was finally agreed however that the clause should be postponed: it being understood that in the event the proposed change of representation would certainly be agreed to, no objection or difficulty being started from any other quarter than from Delaware.
The motion of Mr. Read to postpone being agreed to, The Committee then rose. The Chairman reported progress, and the House having resolved to resume the subject in Committee tomorrow,
Adjourned to 10 OClock.
FN1 The resolution is italicized in the transcript.
FN2 The word "with" is substituted in the transcript for "into."
FN3 The word "would" is substituted in the transcript for "could."
FN4 The words "not only" are transposed in the transcript, which reads as follows: "Mr. Mason observed, not only that the present Confederation was deficient," . . .
FN5 The phrase "who took his seat today" is omitted in the transcript.
FN6 The word "to" is here inserted in the transcript.
FN7 The word "and" is here inscrted in the transcript.
FN8 The word "Yeas" is omitted in the transcript and the word "aye" inserted before the figure "4."
FN9 The word "Nays" is omitted in the transcript and word "no" inserted before the figure "4."
FN10 In the transcript the vote reads: Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina aye-6; Connecticut, no-I; New York, divided (Colonel Hamilton, aye, Mr. Yates, No)." [Note E] [FN11]
FN11 Madison's direction is omitted in the transcript.
FN12 The resolution is italicized in the transcript.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

The word national was subsequently intentionally dropped and the proper title retained. The vote was unanimous.

https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/debates_620.asp

Yale Law School

Lillian Goldman Law Library

The AVALON Project, Documents in Law, History and Diplomacy

Madison Debates

Wednesday, June 10, 1787

[boldface added]

IN CONVENTION
Mr. William Blount from N. Carolina took his seat.
1st. propos: [FN2] of the Report of Come. of the whole [FN3] before the House.
Mr. ELSEWORTH, 2ded. by Mr. GORHAM, moves to alter it so as to run "that the Government of the United States ought to consist of a supreme legislative, Executive and Judiciary." This alteration he said would drop the word national, and retain the proper title "the United States." He could not admit the doctrine that a breach of any of the federal articles could dissolve the whole. It would be highly dangerous not to consider the Confederation as still subsisting. He wished also the plan of the Convention to go forth as an amendment to [FN4] the articles of [FN5] Confederation, since under this idea the authority of the Legislatures could ratify it. If they are unwilling, the people will be so too. If the plan goes forth to the people for ratification several succeeding Conventions within the States would be unavoidable. He did not like these conventions. They were better fitted to pull down than to build up Constitutions.
Mr. RANDOLPH, did not object to the change of expression, but apprised the gentlemen [FN6] who wished for it that he did not admit it for the reasons assigned; particularly that of getting rid of a reference to the people for ratification. The motion of Mr. Ellsewth. was acquiesced in nem: con: [woodpusher note: nem. con. is an abbreviation for nemine contradicente, which means No one dissenting, no one voting in the negative. A phrase used to indicate unanimous consent of a court or legislative body to a judgment, resolution, vote, or motion.]
The 2d. Resol: "that the national Legislature ought to consist of two branches" [FN7] taken up, the word "national" struck out as of course.
Mr. LANSING, observed that the true question here was, whether the Convention would adhere to or depart from the foundation of the present Confederacy; and moved instead of the 2d. Resolution, "that the powers of Legislation be vested in the U. States in Congress." He had already assigned two reasons agst. such an innovation as was proposed: I [FN8] the want of competent powers in the Convention. -2. [FN8] the state of the public mind. It had been observed by [Mr. Madison] in discussing the first point, that in two States the Delegates to Congs. were chosen by the people. Notwithstanding the first appearance of this remark, it had in fact no weight, as the Delegates however chosen, did not represent the people merely as so many individuals; but as forming a Sovereign State. [Mr. Randolph] put it, he said, on its true footing namely that the public safety superseded the scruple arising from the review of our powers. But in order to feel the force of this consideration, the same impression must be had of the public danger. He had not himself the same impression, and could not therefore dismiss his scruple. [Mr. Wilson] contended that as the Convention were only to recommend, they might recommend what they pleased. He differed much from him. Any act whatever of so respectable a body must have a great effect, and if it does not succeed, will be a source of great dissentions. He admitted that there was no certain criterion of the public mind on the subject. He therefore recurred to the evidence of it given by the opposition in the States to the scheme of an Impost. It could not be expected that those possessing Sovereignty could ever voluntarily part with it. It was not to be expected from any one State, much less from thirteen. He proceeded to make some observations on the plan itself and the argumts. urged in support of it. The point of Representation could receive no elucidation from the case of England. The corruption of the boroughs did not proceed from their comparative smallness: but from the actual fewness of the inhabitants, some of them not having more than one or two. A great inequality existed in the Counties of England. Yet the like complaint of peculiar corruption in the small ones had not been made. It had been said that Congress represent the State prejudices: will not any other body whether chosen by the Legislatures or people of the States, also represent their prejudices? It had been asserted by his colleague [Col. Hamilton] that there was no coincidence of interests among the large States that ought to excite fears of oppression in the smaller. If it were true that such a uniformity of interests existed among the States, there was equal safety for all of them, whether the representation remained as heretofore, or were proportioned as now proposed. It is proposed that the Genl. Legislature shall have a negative on the laws of the States. Is it conceivable that there will be leisure for such a task? there will on the most moderate calculation, be as many Acts sent up from the States as there are days in the year. Will the members of the general Legislature be competent Judges? Will a gentleman from Georgia be a Judge of the expediency of a law which is to operate in N. Hamshire. Such a Negative would be more injurious than that of Great Britain heretofore was. It is said that the National Govt. must have the influence arising from the grant of offices and honors. In order to render such a Government effectual be believed such an influence to be necessary. But if the States will not agree to it, it is in vain, worse than in vain to make the proposition. If this influence is to be attained, the States must be entirely abolished. Will any one say this would ever be agreed to? He doubted whether any Genl. Government equally beneficial to all can be attained. That now under consideration he is sure, must be utterly unattainable. He had another objection. The system was too novel & complex. No man could foresee what its operation will be either with respect to the Genl. Govt. or the State Govts. One or other it has been surmised must absorb the whole.
Col. MASON, did not expect this point would have been reagitated. The essential differences between the two plans, had been clearly stated. The principal objections agst. that of Mr. R. were the want of power & the want of practicability. There can be no weight in the first as the fiat is not to be here, but in the people. He thought with his colleague Mr. R. that there were besides certain crisises, in which all the ordinary cautions yielded to public necessity. He gave as an example, the eventual Treaty with G.B. in forming which the Comrs. of the U. S. had boldly disregarded the improvident shackles of Congs. had given to their Country an honorable & happy peace, and instead of being censured for the transgression of their powers, had raised to themselves a monument more durable than brass. The impracticability of gaining the public concurrence he thought was still more groundless. [Mr. Lansing] had cited the attempts of Congress to gain an enlargement of their powers, and had inferred from the miscarriage of these attempts, the hopelessness of the plan which he [Mr. L] opposed. He thought a very different inference ought to have been drawn; viz that the plan which [Mr. L] espoused, and which proposed to augment the powers of Congress, never could be expected to succeed. He meant not to throw any reflections on Congs. as a body, much less on any particular members of it. He meant however to speak his sentiments without reserve on this subject; it was a privilege of Age, and perhaps the only compensation which nature had given for the privation of so many other enjoyments: and he should not scruple to exercise it freely. Is it to be thought that the people of America, so watchful over their interests; so jealous of their liberties, will give up their all, will surrender both the sword and the purse, to the same body, and that too not chosen immediately by themselves? They never will. They never ought. Will they trust such a body, with the regulation of their trade, with the regulation of their taxes; with all the other great powers, which are in contemplation? Will they give unbounded confidence to a secret Journal-to the intrigues-to the factions which in the nature of things appertain to such an Assembly? If any man doubts the existence of these characters of Congress, let him consult their Journals for the years 78, 79, & 80. -It will be said, that if the people are averse to parting with power, why is it hoped that they will part with it to a National Legislature. The proper answer is that in this case they do not part with power: they only transfer it from one sett of immediate Representatives to another sett. -Much has been said of the unsettled state of the mind of the people, he believed the mind of the people of America, as elsewhere, was unsettled as to some points; but settled as to others. In two points he was sure it was well settled. 1. [FN9] in an attachment to Republican Government. 2. [FN9] in an attachment to more than one branch in the Legislature. Their constitutions accord so generally in both these circumstances, that they seem almost to have been preconcerted. This must either have been a miracle, or have resulted from the genius of the people. The only exceptions to the establishmt. of two branches in the Legislatures are the State of Pa. & Congs. and the latter the only single one not chosen by the people themselves. What has been the consequence? The people have been constantly averse to giving that Body further powers-It was acknowledged by [Mr. Patterson] that his plan could not be enforced without military coertion. Does he consider the force of this concession. The most jarring elements of Nature; fire & water themselves are not more incompatible that [FN10] such a mixture of civil liberty and military execution. Will the militia march from one State to [FN11] another, in order to collect the arrears of taxes from the delinquent members of the Republic? Will they maintain an army for this purpose? Will not the Citizens of the invaded State assist one another till they rise as one Man, and shake off the Union altogether. Rebellion is the only case, in which the military force of the State can be properly exerted agst. its Citizens. In one point of view he was struck with horror at the prospect of recurring to this expedient. To punish the non- payment of taxes with death, was a severity not yet adopted by despotism itself: yet this unexampled cruelty would be mercy compared to a military collection of revenue, in which the bayonet could make no discrimination between the innocent and the guilty. He took this occasion to repeat, that notwithstanding his solicitude to establish a national Government, he never would agree to abolish the State Govts. or render them absolutely insignificant. They were as necessary as the Genl. Govt. and he would be equally careful to preserve them. He was aware of the difficulty of drawing the line between them, but hoped it was not insurmountable. The Convention, tho' comprising so many distinguished characters, could not be expected to make a faultless Govt. And he would prefer trusting to posterity the amendment of its defects, rather than to push the experiment too far.
Mr. LUTHER MARTIN agreed with [Col Mason] as to the importance of the State Govts. he would support them at the expence of the Genl. Govt. which was instituted for the purpose of that support. He saw no necessity for two branches, and if it existed Congress might be organized into two. He considered Congs as representing the people, being chosen by the Legislatures who were chosen by the people. At any rate, Congress represented the Legislatures; and it was the Legislatures not the people who refused to enlarge their powers. Nor could the rule of voting have been the ground of objection, otherwise ten of the States must always have been ready, to place further confidence in Congs. The causes of repugnance must therefore be looked for elsewhere. -At the separation from the British Empire, the people of America preferred the establishment of themselves into thirteen separate sovereignties instead of incorporating themselves into one: to these they look up for the security of their lives, liberties & properties: to these they must look up. The federal Govt. they formed, to defend the whole agst. foreign nations, in case of war, and to defend the lesser States agst. the ambition of the larger: they are afraid of granting powers [FN12] unnecessarily, lest they should defeat the original end of the Union; lest the powers should prove dangerous to the sovereignties of the particular States which the Union was meant to support; and expose the lesser to being swallowed up by the larger. He conceived also that the people of the States having already vested their powers in their respective Legislatures, could not resume them without a dissolution of their governments. He was agst. Conventions in the States: was not agst. assisting States agst. rebellious subjects; thought the federal plan of Mr. Patterson did not require coercion more than the National one, as the latter must depend for the deficiency of its revenues on requisitions & quotas, and that a national Judiciary extended into the States would be ineffectual, and would be viewed with a jealousy inconsistent with its usefulness.
Mr. SHERMAN 2ded & supported Mr. Lansings motion. He admitted two branches to be necessary in the State Legislatures, but saw no necessity for them in a Confederacy of States. The examples were all, of a single Council. Congs. carried us thro' the war, and perhaps as well as any Govt. could have done. The complaints at present are not that the views of Congs. are unwise or unfaithful; but that their powers are insufficient for the execution of their views. The national debt & the want of power somewhere to draw forth the National resources, are the great matters that press. All the States were sensible of the defect of power in Congs. He thought much might be said in apology for the failure of the State Legislatures to comply with the confederation. They were afraid of bearing too hard on the people, by accumulating taxes; no constitutional rule had been or could be observed in the quotas-the accounts also were unsettled & every State supposed itself in advance, rather than in arrears. For want of a general system, taxes to a due amount had not been drawn from trade which was the most convenient resource. As almost all the States had agreed to the recommendation of Congs. on the subject of an impost, it appeared clearly that they were willing to trust Congs. with power to draw revenue from Trade. There is no weight therefore in the argument drawn from a distrust of Congs. for money matters being the most important of all, if the people will trust them with power as to them, they will trust them with any other necessary powers. Congs. indeed by the confederation have in fact the right of saying how much the people shall pay, and to what purpose it shall be applied: and this right was granted to them in the expectation that it would in all cases have its effect. If another branch were to be added to Congs. to be chosen by the people, it would serve to embarrass. The people would not much interest themselves in the elections, a few designing men in the large districts would carry their points, and the people would have no more confidence in their new representatives than in Congs. He saw no reason why the State Legislatures should be unfriendly as had been suggested, to Congs. If they appoint Congs. and approve of their measures, they would be rather favorable and partial to them. The disparity of the States in point of size he perceived was the main difficulty. But the large States had not yet suffered from the equality of votes enjoyed by the small ones. In all great and general points, the interests of all the States were the same. The State of Virga. notwithstanding the equality of votes, ratified the Confederation without, or [FN13] even proposing, any alteration. Massts. also ratified without any material difficulty &c. In none of the ratifications is the want of two branches noticed or complained of. To consolidate the States as some had proposed would dissolve our Treaties with foreign Nations, which had been formed with us, as confederated States. He did not however suppose that the creation of two branches in the Legislature would have such an effect. If the difficulty on the subject of representation can not be otherwise got over, he would agree to have two branches, and a proportional representation in one of them; provided each State had an equal voice in the other. This was necessary to secure the rights of the lesser States; otherwise three or four of the large States would rule the others as they please. Each State like each individual had its peculiar habits usages and manners, which constituted its happiness. It would not therefore give to others a power over this happiness, any more than an individual would do, when he could avoid it. Mr. WILSON, urged the necessity of two branches; observed that if a proper model were [FN14] not to be found in other Confederacies it was not to be wondered at. The number of them was small & the duration of some at least short. The Amphyctionic & Achaean were formed in the infancy of political Science; and appear by their History & fate, to have contained radical defects. The Swiss & Belgic Confederacies were held together not by any vital principle of energy but by the incumbent pressure of formidable neighbouring nations: The German owed its continuance to the influence of the H. of Austria. He appealed to our own experience for the defects of our Confederacy. He had been 6 years in [FN15] the 12 since the commencement of the Revolution, a member of Congress, and had felt all its weaknesses. He appealed to the recollection of others whether on many important occasions, the public interest had not been obstructed by the small members of the Union. The success of the Revolution was owing to other causes, than the Constitution of Congress. In many instances it went on even agst. the difficulties arising from Congs. themselves. He admitted that the large States did accede as had been stated, to the Confederation in its present form. But it was the effect of necessity not of choice. There are other instances of their yielding from the same motive to the unreasonable measures of the small States. The situation of things is now a little altered. He insisted that a jealousy would exist between the State Legislatures & the General Legislature: observing that the members of the former would have views & feelings very distinct in this respect from their constituents. A private Citizen of a State is indifferent whether power be exercised by the Genl. or State Legislatures, provided it be exercised most for his happiness. His representative has an interest in its being exercised by the body to which he belongs. He will therefore view the National Legisl: with the eye of a jealous rival. He observed that the addresses of Congs. to the people at large, had always been better received & produced greater effect, than those made to the Legislatures.
On the question for postponing in order to take up Mr. Lansings proposition "to vest the powers of Legislation in Congs."
Masst. no. Cont. ay. N. Y. ay. N. J. ay. Pa. no. Del. ay. Md. divd. Va. no. N. C. no. S. C. no. Geo. no. [FN16]
On motion of the Deputies from Delaware, the question on the 2d. Resolution in the Report from the Committee of the whole was postponed till tomorrow.
Adjd.
FN1 The year "1787" is omitted in the transcript.
FN2 The words "The first Resolution" are substituted in the transcript for "1st. propos."
FN3 The word "being" is here inserted in the transcript.
FN4 The word "of" is substituted in the transcript for "to."
FN5 The word "the" is here inserted in the transcript.
FN6 The word "gentlemen" is used in the singular in the transcript.
FN7 The word "being" is here inserted in the transcript.
FN8 The figures "1" and "2" are changed to "first" and "secondly" in the transcript.
FN9 The figures "1" and "2" are changed to "first" and "secondly" in the transcript.
FN10 The word "than" is substituted in the transcript for "that."
FN11 The word "into" is substituted in the transcript for "in."
FN12 The transcript uses the word "powers" in the singular.
FN13 The word "or" is stricken out in the transcript.
FN14 The word "was" is substituted in the transcript for "were."
FN15 The word "of" is substituted in the transcript for "in."
FN16 In the transcript the vote reads: "Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Delaware, aye-4; Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, no-6; Maryland divided."

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

The first Resolution passed by the Convention of 1787
A "NATIONAL GOVERNMENT" (?)
Mr. Webster lays great stress on the fact, that the first resolution passed by the Convention of 1787 declared, "That a national government ought to be established, consisting of a supreme legislative, judiciary, and executive." But the fact only shows that the Convention, when it first met, had the desire to establish "a national government," rather than a federal one. This resolution was passed before the Convention was fully assembled, and by the vote of only six States, a minority of the whole number. After the members had arrived, and the Convention was full, the resolution in question was reconsidered and rescinded. The Convention, when filled up, changed the name of their off-spring, calling it "the government of the United States." [1] A fraction of the Convention named it, as Mr. Webster says; but the whole Convention refused to baptise it with that name, and gave it another. Why then resuscitate that discarded name, and place it before the reader, as Mr. Webster does, in capital letters? Is it because "words are things; and things of mighty influence?" or why persist, as Mr. Webster always does, in calling "the government of the United States" a national one? If the Convention had called it a national government, this name would have been so continually rung in our ears that we could neither have listened to the Constitution itself, or to its history, whenever these proclaimed its federal character. Nay, although the Convention positively refused to name it a national government, on the avowed ground that it did not express their views, yet has this name been eternally rung in our ears by the Northern School of politicians, and declaimers; just as if it had been adopted, instead of having been repudiated and rejected, as it was, by the authors of the Constitution.
In like manner Mr. Justice Story, in his "Commentaries, on the Constitution," builds an argument on the name given to the new government "in the first resolution adopted by the convention," without the slightest allusion to the fact that this resolution was afterwards reconsidered, and the name changed to that of "the government of the United States." Is this to reason, or merely to deceive? Is this to build on facts, or merely on exploded names? Is this to follow the Convention in its deliberation, or is it to falsify its decision?
The Convention, by a vote of six States, decided that "a national government ought to be established." But when this resolution was reconsidered, Mr. Ellsworth "objected to the term national government" [2] and it was rejected. The record says: "The first resolution 'that a national government ought to be established' being taken up." .... "Mr. Ellsworth, seconded by Mr. Gorham, moves to alter it, so as to run that the government of the United States ought to consist, &c... This alteration he said, would drop the word national, and retain the proper title "the United States." [3] This motion was unanimously adopted by the Convention. [4] That is, they unanimously rejected "the term national government," and yet both Story and Webster build an argument on this term just as it had been retained by them!
The Madison Papers were not published, it is true, when the first edition of Story's Commentaries made their appearance; but they were published long before subsequent editions of that work. Why, then, was not this gross error corrected? Why has it been repeated in every edition of the Commentaries in question? Indeed, if Mr. Justice Story had desired to ascertain the truth in regard to the first resolution of the Convention, he might very easily have learned it from "Yates' Minutes," which were published before the first edition of his Commentaries? For, in those Minutes, we find the passage: "Ellsworth. I propose, and therefore move, to expunge the word "national," in the first resolve, and to place in the room of it, government of the United States, which was agreed to nem con." [5] Yet, directly in the face of this, Mr. Justice Story builds an argument on the word national used in the first "resolution passed by the Convention! and, in order to give the greater effect to the same argument, Mr. Webster prints that rescinded resolution in capital letters!
"The name "United States of America," says the younger Story, "is an unfortunate one, and has, doubtless, led many minds into error. For it may be said, if the States do not form a confederacy, why are they called "United States?" [6] This name is, indeed, a most unfortunate one for the purpose of his argument, and for that of the whole school of politicians to which he belongs. But then, as we learn from the journal of the convention of 1787, it was deliberately chosen by them as the most suitable name for the work of their own hands; and that too in preference to the very name which the whole Northern school clings to with such astonishing pertinacity. From the same journal, as well as from the other records of the country, I shall hereafter produce many other things which are equally unfortunate for the grand argument of the Storys, the Websters, and the Motleys, of the North.
[1] The Madison Papers, p. 908.
[2] The Madison Papers.
[3] Ibid, p. 908.
[4] Ibid, p. 909.
[5] The Madison Papers, p. 908.
[6] The American Question, by William H. Story.

Albert T. Bledsoe, A.M., LL.D.The War Between the States, J.P. Bell Company, Inc., Lynchberg, VA (1915), pp. 24-25.

Footnotes have been changed to endnotes. All italics in original.

340 posted on 04/13/2020 8:43:31 PM PDT by woodpusher

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794