rustbucket:
"I am citing what the ratifiers of the Constitution said was necessary to resume/reassume their own powers of government under the Constitution.
You, on the other hand, are applying what was said in 1776 to the Constitution, which did not exist at that point." No, I'm simply drawing a clear distinction between "secession" by necessity as in the 1776 Declaration of Independence versus "secession" at pleasure as in 1788, with ratification of the new Constitution and simultaneous "secession" from the old Articles of Confederation.
Our Founders believed in, and practiced "secession", "disunion", "withdrawal" or rebellion-against (under whatever name) by necessity in 1776, when they listed about two dozen different reasons, including:
"He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people."
That is genuine, no-nonsense, no bull-crap
necessity, according to who? BroJoeK? No, according to our Founders.
Our Founders also believed in and practiced "secession", disunion, etc., at pleasure, but then only by mutual consent, such as in their 1788 ratifications for their new Constitution.
In that particular case they defined "mutual consent" as 3/4 approval by state ratifying conventions.
And in every case of "secession", rebellion, etc., which our Founders confronted which did not qualify as either "necessity" or "at pleasure by mutual consent", our Founders opposed & defeated those efforts -- see, for example, my post #286, which lists some of those.
rustbucket: "In ratifying it, they defined what was necessary to reassume/resume their own governance under the Constitution, which was not what others said or might have intended in 1776."
But in every case they referred to what was "necessary" or to the actual conditions of 1776, "injury or oppression".
No Founder ever claimed an unlimited "right of secession" at pleasure.
rustbucket: "Who is it that gets to decide if there have been usurpations or abuses of power, the states doing the abusing or the states that have been abused?
Your answer would seem to be, 'the states doing the abusing.'"
That's nonsense, anybody can claim anything, but if there's no material evidence to support such claims, then they are dismissed out of hand.
And that was the case in all the examples I listed in post #286 above, and I could have listed more -- from the 1794 Whiskey Rebellion to the 1857 Mormon Rebellion.
Our Founders did not tolerate unfounded claims of "injury or oppression".
And what about 1860?
In 1860 Southern Democrats had ruled in Washington almost continuously for 60 years -- since the election of 1800.
As recently as 1856 they had elected majorities in both houses of congress, the Presidency and Supreme Court resulting in: lower tariffs of 1857, the SCOTUS (9-2) Dred Scott ruling protecting slavery, RE Lee sent to defeat "Indian savages" and Mexican "banditti" in Texas, Southern commanders against the Mormon Rebellion and over the US Paraguay Expedition (1858), a majority of Southerners in Buchanan's cabinet and Buchanan administration support for the Kansas pro-slavery Lecompton Constitution.
In short, as of 1860 Southerners had no reasons to complain about Washington, DC, because they ruled it.
And yet in November 1860 they began organizing for secession -- what changed?
Answer -- nothing changed, except the election of Lincoln's "Black Republicans" who had not yet even taken office.
That is the very definition of "at pleasure", and no Founder ever proposed or supported unilateral declarations of secession "at pleasure".
rustbucket: "So, here is what Madison said in the 1788 Virginia ratifying convention: "An observation fell from a gentleman, on the same side with myself, which deserves to be attended to.
If we be dissatisfied with the national government, if we should choose to renounce it, this is an additional safeguard to our defence."
I think that alleged quote is disputed and was never later acknowledged by Madison himself.
The word here used is "dissatisfied", only one step removed from "annoyed by" or "in disagreement with", suggesting any minor dispute might result in secession -- Madison never agreed to that, but maintained the clear distinction between "necessity" and "at pleasure".
rustbucket quoting NY: "That the Powers of Government may be resumed by the People, whensoever it shall become necessary to their Happiness"
Again, the key word here is "necessary", the opposite of "at pleasure".
rustbucket quoting Madison Federalist #46: "Were the plan of the [Philadelphia] convention adverse to the public happiness, my voice would be, Reject the plan.
Were the Union itself inconsistent with the public happiness, it would be, Abolish the Union."
Right, Madison is here talking about voting & mutual consent, not unilateral unapproved declarations of secession at pleasure, which no Founder ever proposed or supported. ![]()
But in every case they [the ratifiers of the Constitution]
referred to what was "necessary" or to the actual conditions of 1776, "injury or oppression".Ah, you are wavering a bit. Good.
"... whensoever it shall become necessary to their Happiness" covers a lot of things. When a state seceded in 1860-61 and, in a number of cases, put the question of secession directly to their voters, it was clear that the voters were unhappy with being in the Union. They weren't happy remaining in the Union for the various reasons/causes their state gave. That was all that was necessary for them.
You have been asserting for years that the Southern state's reasons or causes for secession were equivalent to "at pleasure." That is your personal opinion.
You cite a 1776 reason as an example of what you consider necessary: "He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people." The English king did that to America in the 1770s-1783s. Lincoln did that to the South in the 1860s to coerce them back into the Union. Lincoln said on several occasions to different people that he wouldn't seek peace with the South, he needed the revenue.
This all reminds me of what Hamilton, (you know - one of the other authors of the Federalist Papers who voted for New York's "necessary for their happiness" statement) said in the New York ratification convention (my bold below):
It has been well observed, that to coerce the States is one of the maddest projects that was ever devised. A failure of compliance will never be confined to a single State. This being the case, can we suppose it wise to hazard a civil war? Suppose Massachusetts or any large State should refuse, and Congress should attempt to compel them, would not they have influence to procure assistance, especially from those States which are in the same situation as themselves? What picture does this present to our view? A complying State at war with a non-complying State; Congress marching the troops of one State into the bosom of another; this State collecting auxiliaries, and forming, perhaps, a majority against its federal head. Here is a nation at war with itself! Can any reasonable man be well disposed towards a Government which makes war and carnage the only means of supporting itself -- a Government that can exist only by the sword? Every such war must involve the innocent with the guilty. This single consideration should be sufficient to dispose every peaceable citizen against such a Government.
Prescient, that Hamilton. Nice guy, that Lincoln, causing 600,000 to 700,000 deaths in the war so that he could have revenue and protect the Northern economy from those rascally seceding states that in February 1861 had decided to use basically the same tariff as the United States. Except the United States in March 1861 raised their own tariff substantially, the Morrill Tariff. This meant that importers would probably divert a substantial amount of imports to the South, depriving the Lincoln government of needed tariff income.
Why not just rescind the Morrill Tariff, like Lincoln's Treasury Secretary suggested? Couldn't do that. Lincoln had run on a platform of increased tariff protection (Plank 12) for Northern manufacturers.
As you know, the Constitution does not outlaw secession. I have already argued that the Tenth Amendment, which is part of the Constitution, does give the states the rights they had before the Constitution. One of those rights they had before the Constitution was the right to secede, as they did by individually and independently leaving the government under the Articles to join the proposed government under the Constitution. Except two states drug their feet and for a while were treated by the new government as foreign nations.
In Post 281 above, I cited Tenth Amendment-like wording in the New York ratification document. That was not one of the amendments New York proposed. Instead, it was a statement of what the Constitution meant that could not be "abridged or violated" (my post 288). I will provide New York's Tenth Amendment-like statement again so that it and other similar statements can be in this one post:
"that every Power, Jurisdiction and right, which is not by the said Constitution clearly delegated to the Congress of the United States, or the departments of the Government thereof, remains to the People of the several States, or to their respective State Governments to whom they may have granted the same"
And here is Rhode Island's version of the Tenth, which like New York's, was asserted to be, "Under these impressions, and declaring, that the rights aforesaid cannot be abridged or violated, and that the explanations aforesaid, are consistent with the said constitution"
"That the rights of the States respectively, to nominate and appoint all State Officers, and every other power, jurisdiction and right, which is not by the said constitution clearly delegated to the Congress of the United States or to the departments of government thereof, remain to the people of the several states, or their respective State Governments to whom they may have granted the same;"
Here were proposed Tenth Amendment-like statements in the ratifications of four other states and a minority report from a fifth state:
South Carolina: "This Convention doth also declare, that no section or paragraph of the said Constitution warrants a construction that the states do not retain every power not expressly relinquished by them, and vested in the general government of the Union.
North Carolina proposed amendment: "1. That each state in the Union shall respectively retain every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Constitution delegated to the Congress of the United States, or to the departments of the federal government."
Massachusetts proposed amendment: "First, That it be explicitly declared that all Powers not expressly delegated by the aforesaid Constitution are reserved to the several States to be by them exercised."
New Hampshire proposed amendment: "I. That it be explicitly declared that all powers not expressly and particularly delegated by the aforesaid Constitution, are reserved to the several States, to be by them exercised."
And the minority report of the Pennsylvania ratification convention Link”: “That the sovereignty, freedom, and independency of the several states shall be retained, and every power, jurisdiction, and right which is not by this constitution expressly delegated to the United States in Congress assembled.”
There were six states that made Tenth Amendment-like statements; seven if you include Pennsylvania's minority report. Or if you count the three states that included resume/reassume their own powers of governance statements (NY, RI, VA) plus the four other states (SC, MA, NC, NH) that had Tenth Amendment-like statements, that is a majority of the original 13 states.
Interestingly, the states where there were substantial numbers of anti-federalists had long discussions pro and con about the Constitution. These were the states whose minutes of their ratifying conventions were preserved. States that voted unanimously to ratify the Constitution either did not keep minutes or the minutes were lost long ago. Those states had very short ratifying documents that basically said, we ratify the Constitution.
Thank heavens for the anti-federalists – because of them we have the Bill of Rights.