Posted on 03/03/2006 11:37:56 AM PST by Rebeleye
The removal of the Confederate flag from Amherst County's official seal has upset Southern heritage groups, who contend residents weren't told of the change. County officials acknowledge the image was quietly removed in August 2004 to avoid an uproar.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailypress.com ...
With the ratification of the ninth state, a NEW union was formed. The non-aceding members were no longer united with those ratifying the Constitution. It's a very simple concept, either the nine states seceded from the AoC or they didn't. Madison says they did in the Federalist Papers. If they didn't - as you claim - then the Constitution was never legally ratified - since in your view a state cannot secede from the union. You waver back and forth with LEGAL and metaphysical concepts, again, it's quite simple. Union, or the state of being united, is a concept, and there is nothing on God's green earth that can force those once united by come common bond to remain so .
LG hinted at it above, perpetual does NOT mean permanent - it means "without a stated/delineated end", and that entire concept of a perpetual union of 13 members was tossed to the wayside in order to craft a NEW union of those more willing to work together for their MUTUAL benefit - Rhode Island and Providence Plantations had repeatedly refused to agreements, and refused to send delegates to Philadelphia. By the terms of the AoC, that made the convention illegal, but it didn't stop Madison, Hamilton, Chase, Morris, Pinckney or anyone else. Of the 70 invitees, only 54 attended, and then 11 delegates left for various reasons - notably New York delegates Yates and Lansing, 4 others refused to sign (Mason, Gerry , Randolph and and Luther Martin), leaving 39 delegates to sign. Two states, New York and Rhode Island were left without a vote in convention (RI because they refused to send delegates).
Not treated any differently? They had no representation in Congress did they? Congress debated legislation that would enact tariffs against her, threatened to blockade her ports, Hamilton wanted to coerce (wink wink) her to join. Representative John Page of Virginia, on 26 May 1790 spoke in protest against a bill passed by the Senate designed to coerce Rhode Island into submission:
"[S]he [England], in her rage, to answer her revenge, and to extend her despotic power over America, shut up the port of Boston, hoping to starve into submission her virtuous citizens. Must not Rhode Islanders, like the Bostonians, detest the cruel attempt? ... [G]o on with the bill, and you force her to smuggle, nay, perhaps to be your enemy forever. ... It would be thought madness there to interdict all commercial intercourse ... It would I believe too, be looked upon as equal to a declaration of war."
John Collins, Governor of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations wrote President Washington, "[w]e are induced to hope that we shall not be altogether considered as foreigners having no particular affinity or connection with the United States."
It is typical of you to take a temporary anomaly and build your case on it. No one believed North Carolina and Rhode Island would not soon take part in the new governmental structure of the Union.
That's why they provided for a union of NINE states, because they were sure that all 13 would join </sarcasm>
And the five states at the Founding did not independently act wrt military matters or diplomatic. They NEVER considered themselves to be independent nations or outside the newly forming Union.
Sure they did. Five - 5 - states declared independence separately from all others. In debates ALL considered themselves independent. The Supreme Court held them to be independent. Hamilton and congress were going to blockade RI (see above). That's NOT how you treat a member of your union.
States WITHIN the union, those remaining, those not seceded. Get a grip, or buy a vowel and a clue.
In the American context, sovereignty often seems to function as an almost metaphysical concept -- some secret essence of legal potency that cannot be detected directly, but only as a kind of normative aura. One hotly debated question, for example, is whether the populations of the various states existed (or still exist) as separate entities acting together as a conglomeration, or rather as a single entity acting through the agency of multiple subgroups. This is reminiscent of medieval disputes about the nature of the Trinity. It is not in any real sense a question of fact or even one of law.SOURCE: Lincoln's Constitution, Daniel Farber, 2003, p. 29
My normative aura is starting to hurt just listening to you.
Because of its virtually metaphysical nature, it is hard to answer the theoretical question of whether the state peoples wholly retained their separate identity, or whether adoption of the Constitution signified the existence of unified "People of the United States." To the extent that the Framers had any shared understanding on this point, which is itself somewhat dubious, they probably leaned toward the view that ratification signified the emergence of a national People. On the whole, however, the best conclusion seems to be Madison's -- that the United States was unique and could not be considered either a consolidated nation or a compact of sovereign states.SOURCE: Lincoln's Constitution, Daniel Farber, 2003, pp. 82-83
(bump for more Farber humor)
Somehow Lincoln's Monument doesn't get as much respect as the Sage of Monticello's does it?
My favorite Jefferson is William Jefferson Blythe. He is a real peach and just as much a phony.
Actually Hamilton would look much better on Mount Rushmore but the Class Warfare brigade has had a 200+ yr jihad against him.
He was much handsomer than TJ too.
I enjoy toying with the delusional.
Most Freepers can't understand how anyone like me can tolerate trying to communicate with crackpots.
Careful... now you're contradicting yourself.
It was not South Carolina that backed down.
Your forgot "extraconstitutionally" and "illegally."
By your and Farber's definition, Washington could have marched troops into RI and NC and forced them to ratify at gunpoint (them being members of the "union" and all).
It's lunacy at it's finest. Keep posting.
Presumably you enjoy arguing with yourself and creating cute little philosophical puzzles without bearing on political realities. Since most of your expectoration has no bearing on my statements that is the only reason I can see for spewing them.
Maybe your confusion about these issues can be resolved by looking up the definition of "metamorphosis" it is especially relevant to organic processes such as the establishment and growth of Nations and their political evolution.
Those elements of the Nation which evolved a bit more slowly were not less organic parts of the Nation for that. Bringing the entire Union up to speed was not without some starts and stops. New York didn't have Senators appointed for the first Congress for example. But it was still part of the Union though not represented in the "states" portion of Congress.
Congress called forth a Constitutional Convention to establish a new government for the Union not to create a new Union. The Constitution expressly says that it is to "form a more perfect Union". Not "we hereby create a new Union".
Much of the language of the new Constitution is the same as or almost as that of the Articles.
However given the Articles requirement of nine state votes for all exercise of fundamental powers it merely stated the new government would start with the ratification by nine states. It was a new way of making laws for the Nation not a new Nation. The two states were not forced into the new governmental form until they had also consented since this was an amendment of the Articles.
The Constitution grew out of the Articles it was not an overthrow or a completely different thing any more than a law which changes another law is a completely different thing than the law it modifies.
There are legal means of dissolving a Union and wrt our Union it takes a constitutional amendment. The Constitution is merely the Ultimate amendment of the Articles.
Perpetual does not mean unchanging. And that concept was in no way "tossed aside" but legally and cautiously amended to meet the exigicies of the Union.
Farrand says "the Articles of Confederation represented the first essay in united government that the newly independent states had made."
That document was not adopted by all states for THREE years.
These states were not out of the Union nevertheless and did not consider themselves so in spite of this glich. Such an anomally did not keep the states from ALL contributing to the Revolution's victory.
Congress made the call for the Convention and no state vetoed that call.
States refusal to send delegates in no way negates the legality of the convention. It was Rhode Island's mistake but without real importance except to quibblers.
And No they were not treated differently NY had no Senators either and States did not have to send Congressmen if they chose not to.
You are aware that Rhode Island encouraged and protected smugglers evading the US tariffs and that is what drew the ire of some in Congress more than obstinate stupidity?
Nine was the number required for important Congressional legislation and was merely recognition that there would be delays which could slow the adherence to the new governmental form.
I have no idea what your last paragraph intends to mean.
There was no way of seceding without an amendment.
Since citizenship was granted through the federal government it did create a new people, the America people. One could not even be a citizen of a state without first being an American. States were subordinate in ALL important matters to the federal constitution.
Jackson's threat to hang them sent them cowering back into their lunacy.
Not at all. The Articles were not even fully ratified for three years. This formality had no real impact on the reality of the Union. It still won independence.
Lincoln had every constitutional right to put down insurrections and rebellions. His defense of the Union was not just legal it was mandatory in the oath presidents take.
Please stick to disinformation and avoid the outright LIES. YOu have NEVER seen me say anything of the kind.
My hat's off to you and M.Espinola: you both manage to engage the savants who make up the Lost Cause Squad around here with equanimity, poise, and, most importantly, consistently presented facts.
They continue to bray and howl.
There is, of course, very little difference between your average America-hating leftist posting venom-dripping rants at DU and the simpering specimens of the Lost Cause Squad whom routinely trash the country they live in here, in these Civil War threads--and what difference there is actually reflects poorly on the Lost Cause Squad, not the denizens of DUmmyland.
Your average DUmmy is, after all, honest about his or her contempt for this nation: they despise the United States, its people, its history, and its traditions. They genuinely believe that the entire effort we as a people have undertaken since 1776 has been one BIG MISTAKE, and that the world would be better off without the entity they disdain as "Amerika." That is a silly, contemptible viewpoint, in my estimation, but one can respect its forthrightness as an opinion honestly expressed and fervently believed. They are, after all, deluded, ignorant Leftists, and no decent person expects any better from them.
Our Lost Cause Squad has no such ideological fig leafs to cower behind while they shriek what amounts to vile anti-Americanism in these CW threads: indeed, the bulk of them pose as great "patriots" who love their country, as long as the issue of how their country was preserved AS A COUNTRY, circa 1861-65, is not brought up.
Then they snarl filth at not only those who preserved the Union they live in, but the Union itself. At least the DUmmies aren't hypocritical: they hate the United States across the board. The Lost Cause Squad pretends to only hate it in retrospect. In truth, they both share a disdain & contempt for the United States, though for admittedly different reasons and widely varying reasons.
Bravo to both of you for being willing to engage these hypocritical anti-Americans daily. You've got more patience, persistence--and robust enough stomachs--to wade through their regularly proffered bilge than me, and I salute you.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.