Replies

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.

rustbucket: "Ah, you are wavering a bit. Good."

Nonsense, my views are the same as they've been.

rustbucket: "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."

And not just my opinion, also that of such Doughfaced Southern sympathizers as President Buchanan.

"In order to justify secession as a constitutional remedy, it must be on the principle that the Federal Government is a mere voluntary association of States, to be dissolved at pleasure by any one of the contracting parties.
If this be so, the Confederacy is a rope of sand, to be penetrated and dissolved by the first adverse wave of public opinion in any of the States...

Secession is neither more nor less than revolution.
It may or it may not be a justifiable revolution, but still it is revolution."

Or, if you prefer Thomas Jefferson, his word for it was "scission":

"...if on a temporary superiority of the one party, the other is to resort to a scission of the union, no federal government can ever exist.
if to rid ourselves of the present rule of Massachusets & Connecticut, we break the union, will the evil stop there?
suppose the N. England states alone cut off, will our natures be changed? are we not men still to the South of that, & with all the passions of men?
immediately we shall see a Pennsylvania & a Virginia party arise in the residuary confederacy, and the public mind will be distracted with the same party spirit.
what a game too will the one party have in their hands by eternally threatening the other that unless they do so & so, they will join their Northern neighbors.
if we reduce our Union to Virginia & N. Carolina, immediately the conflict will be established between the representatives of these two states, and they will end by breaking into their simple units.
seeing therefore that an association of men who will not quarrel with one another is a thing which never yet existed, from the greatest confederacy of nations down to a town meeting or a vestry, seeing that we must have somebody to quarrel with, I had rather keep our New-England associates for that purpose, than to see our bickerings transferred to others....

...it is true that in the mean time we are suffering deeply in spirit, and incurring the horrors of a war, & long oppressions of enormous public debt.
but who can say what would be the evils of a scission and when & where they would end?
better keep together as we are, hawl off from Europe as soon as we can & from all attachments to any portions of it, and if we feel their power just sufficiently to hoop us together, it will be the happiest situation in which we can exist."

Oh, but, but, you might say: what about all the quotes where Jefferson seems to support some theoretical "scission"?
Sure, theoretically, but when faced with his own actual secession crisis -- Aaron Burr's attempt to secede with Louisiana -- Jefferson had Burr arrested and tried for treason.
So much for Jefferson & "scission".

Nor is it simply opinion -- the fact is that Southerners ruled over Washington, DC, almost continuously for 60 years before 1860, it was their capital and they made the rules.
And up to the election in November 1860 they had no remote reason to secede.
So what changed in November 1860?
Answer: absolutely nothing, except the election of Lincoln's Black Republicans.
But they had not yet taken office and had done nothing to change the "happiness" of any Southerner.
In any normal court of law secessionists' case would be thrown out because they lacked standing -- no harm had yet been done to them, nor was there reason to think it might be.

rustbucket: "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."

Come on, rusty, you can do better than that.
Our 1776 Declaration of Independence spoke of events which had already happened, they were the reasons which made separation necessary.
But in November 1860 no such remotely similar events had made Southern secession "necessary".
So by standards of our Founders, and by many as sympathetic as President Buchanan in 1860, Southern Fire Eaters were declaring secession at pleasure, and that was revolution.

rustbucket: "Lincoln said on several occasions to different people that he wouldn't seek peace with the South, he needed the revenue."

None of those quotes are validated, all are reported by people who hated Lincoln and supported the Confederacy, none represent Lincoln's actual written words.
And the fact is that Federal tariff revenues from Confederate ports totaled no more than 10% of total revenues, so a war costing $billions to save a few million dollars per year made no sense.
Which is why such words put into Lincoln's mouth amount to no more than, for example, anti-military words put into President Trump's mouth by Democrats who hate him.

rustbucket: "This all reminds me of what Hamilton... said in the New York ratification convention"

In your quote Hamilton is speaking about a hypothetical situation which, in fact, never arose.
But in historical fact, Hamilton supported President Washington's military actions against the Whiskey Rebellion and against British supported Indians in the Northwest Territories.
He also supported the Alien & Sedition Acts and hoped to command President Adams' armies against the French Quasi War.

Nowhere did Hamilton, or any other Founder, propose or support unilateral unapproved declaration of secession at pleasure.

rustbucket: "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. "

Sorry, but that's just garbage-talk, typical Democrat hate-speech.
The real fact is those "rascally seceding states" first provoked war, then started war, then formally declared war and waged war against the United States for four years, refusing to stop fighting for any terms better than Unconditional Surrender.
That's on them, specifically Jefferson Davis, not Lincoln.

rustbucket: "As you know, the Constitution does not outlaw secession."

But it does make provisions against rebellion, insurrection, "domestic violence", invasion and/or treason.
And it specifically defines "treason" as:

"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort."

Bottom line: no Founder ever supported unilateral unapproved declarations of secession at pleasure.
In November 1860 there was no material change in Federal government that suddenly made unilateral secessions "necessary".
Those secessions were, in fact, at pleasure.