Posted on 08/27/2007 1:37:39 PM PDT by BnBlFlag
secession REMAINS an OPTION to deal with the loss of FREEDOM.
free dixie,sw
That's not exactly true...each state decided for itself whether to join the Union...Article VII of the Constitution provided that once a sufficient number of states ratified...the government was formed under Constitution with respect to those states that ratified it
No state was forced to join the Union without its express consent
Moreover, it was a basic Lockean concept of politics that any power granted by a sovereign can be reclaimed...those in the state legislatures that ratified the Constitution would certainly have perceived that they were representatives of a sovereign and were voluntarily delegating some of the state's sovereign powers to a new federal government...had any of teh Federalists come out and declared during the ratification process that ratification would forever bind the states to the Union until such time as the other states permitted it to leave...there is not a chance the Constitution would have been ratified
Even an ardent Federalist like Hamilton saw the irony of a Constitutional Republic existing only through the threat of force against unwilling member states...in discussing why the federal government needed a direct power of taxation during the ratification debate in NY, Hamilton mentioned the "aburdity" of a civil war against recalcitrant states
It has been observed, 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 they not have influence to procure assistance, especially from those states which are in the same situation as themselves? What picture does this idea 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 the 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. But can we believe that one state will ever suffer itself to be used as an instrument of coercion? The thing is a dream; it is impossible.
not in 1861, 1961 or 2061.
THE STATES created the federal government. the several states remain FREE to :
modify
replace
withdraw from and/or
DESTROY that union "at their OWN motion".
the 10th Amendment to the Constitution makes those GOD-given rights perfectly clear to anyone except the most radical of unionists.
free dixie,sw
This especially makes sense when you consider that a state is bound to the Union by its ratification of the Consitution by its state legislature. Nothing anywhere says that ratification can't be revoked by that same legislature.
Which brings up my viewpoint. I agree that the U.S. Constitution's non-mention of secession was by design - that each state has the right to remove themselves from the Union. However, at least as far as Louisiana is concerned, there is nothing in their State Constitution that allows their legislature to bring up a vote for secession.
I don't know about the other 49 states, but it is currently unconstitutional for Louisiana to secede again. The only thing that comes close is Article I, Sec. 26, which reads:
The people of this state have the sole and exclusive right of governing themselves as a free and sovereign state; and do, and forever hereafter shall, exercise and enjoy every power, jurisdiction, and right, pertaining thereto, which is not, or may not hereafter be, by them expressly delegated to the United States of America in congress assembled.
Now, IMHO, this gives the State of Louisiana the right to govern itself in matters not covered by the laws of the Union. However, removal from the Union is not covered.
Anyway, I'm getting the popcorn and enjoying the discussion... :-)
Conclusion: The South would be missed.
would you care for a "do over", as your post is (to put it as non-controversially as possible) FALSE???
free dixie,sw
free dixie,sw
free dixie,sw
Goose and gander thing?
There is no provision that individual states can’t leave, but there is a clause that forbids them from forming a confederacy.
in 2004, a number of "celebrities" & some of the main-SLIME media types said they favored secession.
at that time, i said i would make a "special trip" to the new international border to wish them WELL, "good riddence" & ADIOS!!!
free dixie,sw
free dixie,sw
Article IV says that new states may be admitted only by Congress. It doesn't say that a state may join the Union merely by ratifying the Constitution.
No state was forced to join the Union without its express consent
Constitutionally such a condition could occur, though Congress would be foolish to do so. But I will point out that no state was admitted merely because it asked to be, either. Look at Colorado or Kansas, it took a number of years between the time the territory asked to be admitted and the time Congress admitted it.
Moreover, it was a basic Lockean concept of politics that any power granted by a sovereign can be reclaimed...those in the state legislatures that ratified the Constitution would certainly have perceived that they were representatives of a sovereign and were voluntarily delegating some of the state's sovereign powers to a new federal government...had any of teh Federalists come out and declared during the ratification process that ratification would forever bind the states to the Union until such time as the other states permitted it to leave...there is not a chance the Constitution would have been ratified.
That would depend on one's view of exactly how sovereign the states were in relation to the central government.
In 2003 this was explored in a mockumentary called The Confederate States of America. It's very thought provoking in addition to being hilarious.
lol...you’re good :)
In the 1970s my Algebra II teacher would only refer to it as “The War Between the States” and when questioned would declare “There was nothing civil about it!”
Rather than have the treasonous states of NewEngland/WestCoast/MidAtlantic leave the Union, it would be more useful to turn at least the 9 eastern liberal states into 3.
Maine+NewHampshire+Vermount= 1 state/2Reps & 2Sens
Massachusetts+RhodeIsland+Connetecut= 1 state/2Reps & 2Sens
NewJersey+Maryland+Deleware=1 state/2Reps & 2 Sens.
Then we honorable Americans might be in a better position to deal with the 3 leftCoast traitor states.
“Any discussion of secession which analogizes the Confederacy leaving the Union to the US leaving the British Empire is prima facie worthless.”
You don’t see any parallels? Both were being unfairly exploited economically.
Outstanding reference. Talk about having your sources lined up!
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.