I will still firmly abide by the rules of decorum, Sir. You may not like it, but it won't stop me from doing so.
OK, how about some sources to support your position? How about the quote from the founding father that says a state may, for any reason, abrogate responsibility for obligations built up by the nation as a whole while that state was a part of it?
Sadly, I have no such quote or reference handy. I am still researching the matter, and will hopefully have a more concrete answer for you down the road. Considering the fact that greater minds such as myself have brought forth the exact same allegation that I have, suggests that such quotes do in fact exist. (I challenge you to do the same, though. Bring forth quotes from the Founders supporting your position that the Constitution trumps state Sovereignty, that States may by force coerce other states to remain in the Union, and the like. The historic record ought to be fairly clear towards the negative on those positions.)
Please tell me what founder agrees that any state may seize common property at will and without compensation. Point out what federalist paper supports the idea that Maryland or Ohio can be cut off from access to the sea by another state, regardless of the impact this action has on the interest and economic well-being of that state.
As you'll recall, the Confederate States of America attempted to send a commission to Washington City for the express purpose of resolving amicably all fees due to the Federal government at the time of secession. This included payment for Federal lands within the Southern states, payment towards the arsenals built up by the Federal government, and the like.
Nobody in Washington received these commissioners. Now why, would you suppose, if the South intended to resolve these matters amicably, would there be any possible reason for the Federal Government not to at least receive these gentlemen and hear them out? For what purpose would the Federal government have had in order to turn these Commissioners away?
(I think the historic record answers that question quite soundly.)
To answer your suggestion that the Confederacy somehow blockaded Northern states, it is clear from the Journals of the Confederate Congress that the Confederate government intended to keep the Mississippi River (and, by their intention, every other inter-state waterway) open to trade without taxes or duties at all times. The notion that somehow the South intended to cripple the North's trade is rediculous, and is completely unsupported by the historic record.
Seceding states are not the only sovereign one, and are not the only ones with constitutional rights. The remaining states are impacted by secession, and deserve a say in the matter. You may not agree with that...
But I do agree with that. As I said previously, the South attempted to resolve all of these matters to the North's satisfaction, yet the North refused to allow any discussions of it. Once again I ask: why do you suppose that is?
...but it is clear in the Constitution that the founders did not feel that once Congress admitted them that the states should have sole say over changes in their status. Splitting or combining with another state or changing borders all could have an impact, positive or negative, on the other states and Congress believed that the other states should at least have a say in the matter before the action took place. That is why Congressional approval is needed.
As I explained in a prior post, the reason that Congressional approval is required for border disputes dates back to some of the disputes which held the Continental Congress' attention, particularly around 1787. There were disputes between Connecticut, Pennsylvania, New York, and Virginia over who owned what is now Ohio and the like. Georgia and South Carolina both claimed ownership of counties along their border, and Georgia was infuriated by suggestions that it would lose land to Florida.
In addition to border issues, States were prohibited by the Consitution (which, in reality, means that the States delegated a portion of their sovereignty) from entering treaties with foreign nations, and from entering treaties with each other due to problems between Virginia and some Indian nations which existed in the Ohio Valley. Virginia was arming its militia, preparing to go to war with these tribes - all of whom had signed treaties of amity with the Confederacy at the time. The Continental Congress could only recommend to Virginia that it not go to war with those tribes, as it didn't have the authority to do more than that.
It was because of these disputes, and not some notion of "constitutional superiority", that the Constitution of 1789 demands that Congress examine and approve all treaties.
And when a state decides to walk away from the national debt or treaty obligations, when they appropriate commonly held property, or before they cut off access to the Mississippi from the rest of the United States then shouldn't the rest of the states have a say?
As I said earlier, it is clear from the public record of the Confederate States that they had no such intention. It is the fault of the United States government for not receiving the Commissioners sent by the former that this misconception persisted in the North.
But the Constitution IS supreme, as Article VI, Clause 2 clearly states.
Under the theory of delegated powers, the foundation of American governance, the Constitution can and is only supreme over areas which fall under its jurisdiction. This reason, and this reason alone is why, for example, New Hampshire was fully unchallenged in its right to have a State church up until 1810.
(Due to the Reconstruction Acts, all State constitutions have been rewritten to be inferior to the Constitution, so these statements are not as applicable to our modern nation as they were in 1861.)
As always, I will continue to hold you in the highest,
regards,
~dt~
But isn't the time to negotiate matters like that before the separation? When both sides have a chance to lay out their case and come to an equitable agreement? If one side walks away from obligations and with whatever property it wants then by what means can the other party use to bring the seceding party to the bargaining table? It has not control, no influence left. The seceding party has left, it has what it wants, and is under no obligation to make the remaining party happy.
As you'll recall, the Confederate States of America attempted to send a commission to Washington City for the express purpose of resolving amicably all fees due to the Federal government at the time of secession. This included payment for Federal lands within the Southern states, payment towards the arsenals built up by the Federal government, and the like.
They seized first, and with no mention of compensation. The commission you speak of was sent for the purpose of obtaining recognition of the confederate government. Then, and only then was there a vague offer to discuss matters of disagreement. But let's play that game. Give me your house. Then we can discuss a fair price. I'll pay it, I promise. Deal?
To answer your suggestion that the Confederacy somehow blockaded Northern states, it is clear from the Journals of the Confederate Congress that the Confederate government intended to keep the Mississippi River (and, by their intention, every other inter-state waterway) open to trade without taxes or duties at all times. The notion that somehow the South intended to cripple the North's trade is rediculous, and is completely unsupported by the historic record.
The confederacy launched this continent into the bloodiest war in it's history over a fort. Why should anyone believe that they would have hesitated for a moment to shut off shipping in the Mississippi at any time if they thought it was to their benefit.
But regardless, you have missed the point completely. Your belief that a state may secede at will means that in your opinion a state can walk away from obligations, can seize anything it wants, can take any action it wants at the expense of the remaining states and those states have absolutely no rights in the matter and no say whatsoever. The seceding state is justified in your eyes. The remaining states are in the wrong. All because of some cock-eyed concept that only seceding states are sovereign and remaining states are at their mercy. It is precisely because of issues like these that would have made the founding fathers gag at the idea of secession at will. The remaining states have no recourse except war or force. The seceding states have no obligation to protect the rights of the remaining states. I defy you to come up with a single quote that indicates that such a concept was OK in the eyes of the founding fathers. One quote at all.
I challenge you to do the same, though. Bring forth quotes from the Founders supporting your position that the Constitution trumps state Sovereignty, that States may by force coerce other states to remain in the Union, and the like. The historic record ought to be fairly clear towards the negative on those positions.
"...[t]he separate independence and individual sovereignty of the several states were never thought of by the enlightened band of patriots who framed this Declaration; the several states are not even mentioned by name in any part of it,—as if it was intended to impress this maxim on America, that our freedom and independence arose from our union, and that without it we could neither be free nor independent.” -- Charles Pinkney
"The states were not “sovereigns” in the sense contended for by some. They did not possess the peculiar features of sovereignty,—they could not make war, nor peace, nor alliances, nor treaties. Considering them as political beings, they were dumb, for they could not speak to any foreign sovereign whatever. They were deaf, for they could not hear any propositions from such sovereign. They had not even the organs or faculties of defence or offence, for they could not of themselves raise troops, or equip vessels, for war.... If the states, therefore, retained some portion of their sovereignty [after declaring independence], they had certainly divested themselves of essential portions of it." -- Rufus King.
"...[I]could not admit the doctrine that when the colonies became independent of Great Britain, they became independent also of each other....that the United Colonies were declared free and independent states, and inferring, that they were independent, not individually, but unitedly, and that they were confederated, as they were independent states.” -- James Wilson
"I say, the right of a State to annul a law of Congress, cannot be maintained but on the ground of the unalienable right of man to resist oppression; that is to say, upon the ground of revolution. I admit that there is an ultimate violent remedy, above the Constitution and in defiance of the Constitution, which may be resorted to when a revolution is to be justified. But I do not admit, that, under the Constitution and in conformity with it, there is any mode in which a State government, as a member of the Union, can interfere and stop the progress of the general government, by force of her own laws, under any circumstances whatever.... It is, Sir, the people's Constitution, the people's government, made for the people, made by the people and answerable to the people. The people of the United States have declared that this Constitution shall be the supreme law. But the State legislatures, as political bodies, however sovereign, are not yet sovereign over the people. So far as the people have given power to the general government, so far as the grant is unquestionably good, and the government held of the people, and not of the State governments. We are all agents of the same supreme power, the people. The general government and the State governments derive their authority from the same source.... If there be no power to settle such questions [constitutionality of a federal tariff], independent of either of the States, is not the whole Union a rope of sand? Are we not thrown back again, precisely, upon the old Confederation? It is too plain to be argued. Four-and Twenty interpreters of constitutional law, each with a power to decide for itself, and none with authority to bind any body else, and this constitutional law the only bond of their union!... Some authority must, therefore, necessarily exist, having the ultimate jurisdiction to fix and ascertain the interpretation of these grant, restrictions and prohibitions [with respect to the enumerated powers]. The Constitution has itself pointed out, ordained, and established that authority. How has it accomplished this great and essential end? By declaring, Sir, that "the Constitution, and the laws of the United States made in pursuance thereof, shall be the supreme law of the land, anything in the constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding." This, Sir, was the first great step. By this the supremacy of the Constitution and laws of the United States is declared. The people so will it....But who shall decide this question of interference? To whom lies the last appeal? This, Sir, the Constitution itself decides also, by declaring "that the judicial power shall extend to all cases arising under the constitution and laws of the United States." These two provisions, Sir, cover the whole ground. They are, in truth, the key-stone of the arch! With these, it is a Constitution; without them, it is a confederation." -- Daniel Webster
"But each State, having expressly parted with so many powers as to constitute, jointly with the other States, a single nation, can not, from that period, possess any right to secede, because such secession does not break a league, but destroys the unity of a nation; and any injury to that unity is not only a breach which would result from the contravention of a compact, but it is an offense against the whole Union.... Secession, like any other revolutionary act, may be morally justified by the extremity of oppression; but to call it a constitutional right is confounding the meaning of terms, and can only be done through gross error or to deceive those who are willing to assert a right, but would pause before they made a revolution or incur the penalties consequent on a failure.... Disunion by armed force is treason." -- Andrew Jackson
"The conduct of S. Carolina has called forth not only the question of nullification; but the more formidable one of secession. It is asked whether a State by resuming the sovereign form in which it entered the Union, may not of right withdraw from it at will. As this is a simple question whether a State, more that an individual, has a right to violate its engagements, it would seem that it might be safely left to answer itself. But the countenance given to the claim shows that it cannot be so lightly dismissed. The natural feelings which laudably attach the people composing a State, to its authority and importance, are at present too much excited by the unnatural feelings, with which they have been inspired against their brethren of other States, not to expose them, to the danger of being misled into erroneous views of the nature of the Union and the interest they have in it. One thing at least seems to be too clear to be questioned; that whilst a State remains within the Union it cannot withdraw its citizens from the operation of the Constitution laws of the Union. In the event of an actual secession without the Consent of the Co-States, the course to be pursued by these involves questions painful in the discussion of them. God grant that the menacing appearances, which obtruded it may not be followed by positive occurrences requiring the more painful task of deciding them/" -- James Madison.
Let me post one more Madison quote and ask you to comment on it. Madison said, "An inference from the doctrine that a single State has the right to secede at will from the rest is that the rest would have an equal right to secede from it; in other words, to turn it, against its will, out of its union with them." Is Madison right or wrong. And if you think he is wrong then why?