Replies

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.

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.