Nice 'interpretation'. On the other hand, I took his words in a more literal sense: I'm old, I'm tired, and I'm not sure my memory is what it once was, and other people shouldn't trust it either.
-----
Instead they called it a "compact" and a "union", intended to be even more "perfect" than the "perpetual union" of the old Articles of Confederation.
The names are different, but the concept is the same....they are all agreements between parties.
Please show me the part of the Law of Nations that governs "unions' or 'compacts'.
-----
But none of the necessary conditions applied in November 1860, nor did South Carolina secessionists even pretend they did.
The facts in post #172 & 173 show that the northern states passed legislation contrary to the Fugitive Slave Act of 1793. When challenged, the City of New York, the State of New York, the US Supreme Court and the Appeals Court for the US Supreme Court ALL said the Article and the Act were constitutional....and the northern states proceeded to continue to legislate on it anyway.
Until the decision in Priggs came along a mere 7 years later, and POOF! all of a sudden the already settled law had the ability to be legislated on again by the federal government.
If the fact of unconstitutional actions at both the State and federal level is NOT 'injury or oppression', what IS?
-----
So his opinions are just that -- opinions, not Original Intent
While not, a 'Founder', he served in the Virginia militia and cavalry in the American Revolutionary War, rising to the rank of Colonel.
There are over 100 returns when Searching for his name in the 1774-1875 U.S. Congressional Documents and Debates at the Library of Congress.
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query
He was communicated with quite regularly, so he must have had SOME insight into Original Intent, wouldn't you think?
You continue to identify Tucker as a Supreme Court Justice
I thought I had previously apologized for and corrected that in a later post. He was a Virginia District Court Judge appointed by Madison.
If I have not apologized for the error, then I apologize now.
-----
So you concede my point, that South Carolina's secession had nothing to do with "Big Government" causing a constitutionally valid "injury or oppression" to a state.
No I was questioning the fact you were saying I asserted something I never did.
As far as acts of federal oppression, please see earlier posts concerning Prigg.
-----
States failing to uphold Constitutional provisions
Again, 1834 Jack v. Martin and 1842 Prigg v. Penn
The southern states had no quibble with the Constitutionally SETTLED law, so there was nothing for them to 'contest'.
The northern states had the issue, thus the burden was THEIRS to have it changed.
-----
Our Founders intended that obvious rebellion
Show me:
1) Where the Founders showed ANY justification for armed conflict between the States, and
2) Just where Lincoln adhered to the Constitutional procedures concerning rebellions or insurrections.
-------
South Carolina secessionists took no serious constitutional actions to redress their grievances before declaring secession.
Show me where such an action is required.
Show me where a simple Declaration of Intent is not sufficient.
Show me the word 'succession' in the Constitution....AT ALL!.
-----
My point is just that: the Slave Power ruled Washington almost continuously from the Founding of the Republic until secession in 1861.
The POINT is we are a nation of Laws, or we are not.
Yes the right to own slaves was IN THE CONSTITUION.....this right can't be undone except by CONSTITUTIONAL MEANS.
There is NOTHING in the Constitution that says it can be negated because someone doesn't want to 'perform the promise' that they'd made.
If the Northern states knew they could not deal with the idea of slavery, the should have just made the compact among them selves.
-----
For example, "ensuring equality" is not even one purpose of a "Republican form of government."
That's right. While the word 'ensuring' may have been poorly chosen, I did give a Founders illustration of the concept.
Protecting minority rights certainly is.
That's right....and the slave-owners were the minority.
-----
First of all, the Law of Nations is not the Constitution, and does not supersede it.
I never said it 'superseded it' I SHOWED where it was the blueprint for Constitutional construction and thus provided the rules for the compact.
With all due respect, you continue to make assertions without evidence. Nothing from the Library of Congress, no historical books or writings....nothing.
Just illustrating what happened, telling me I'm wrong, lecturing on history, and explaining your point of view.
Words
are
NOT
evidence!
I don't want it explained, I want it PROVEN by historical documentation that anyone prior to 1850 said secession was unconstitutional.
I've shown it was perfectly acceptable means of withdrawing from the Compact in a previous post where Tucker spoke about the States seceding from the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union.
Not one person on this board has offered a single shred of evidence to prove this was not the case with the exception of 'laws' passed well after the issue was 'settled' by force.
You would think if it was so commonly known that the northern states were so constitutionally correct, and the southern states were so horribly WRONG, that the web would be positively FLOODED with more information supporting that point of view than the mere trickle I've been able to find asserting the contrary one, wouldn't you?
------
I have offered evidence bot for my asserted points as well as in rebuttal. When others offer me that same courtesy, I will respond.
Until that time comes, good day.
_______________________
But each State having expressly parted with so many powers as to constitute jointly with the other States a single nation, cannot 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. To say that any State may at pleasure secede from the Union, is to say that the United States are not a nation because it would be a solecism to contend that any part of a nation might dissolve its connection with the other parts, to their injury or ruin, without committing any offense. 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 upon a failure. -- Andrew Jackson, Proclamation to the People of South Carolina, 1832
___________________
See Joseph Story's Commentaries on the Constitution, John Quincy Adams's "Oration on the 4th of July, 1831," Daniel Webster's "Reply to Calhoun," Feb. 16, 1833.
____________________
"No man, no association of men, no State nor set of States has a right to withdraw itself from this Union, of its own accord. The same power which knit us together can only unknit. The same formality which forged the links of the Union is necessary to dissolve it. The majority of States which form the Union must consent to the withdrawal of any one branch of it. Until that consent has been obtained, any attempt to dissolve the Union, or obstruct the efficiency of its constitutional laws, is treason-treason to all intents and purposes. Any other doctrine, such as that which has been lately held forth by the Federal Republican, that any one State may withdraw itself from the Union, is an abominable heresy -- which strips its author of every possible pretension to the name or character of a Federalist. -- Richmond Enquirer, November 1, 1814.
By 1861 a paper of the same name supported Virginia's secession, but in 1814 the paper clearly believed unilateral secession to be wrong.
____________________
See James Madison's letter to Nicholas P. Trist of December 23, 1832, also his letter to Daniel Webster of March, 15, 1833 and his letter to Alexander Rives, also from 1833.
One of the more interesting cases of secession conveniently ignored by the neo-yankee Lincoln cult is that of the Vermont Republic.
Vermont was disputed territory claimed by both New Hampshire and New York. The people of Vermont, including Ethan Allen and the Green Mountain Boys, didn’t choose to belong to either so they declared their independence of NH and NY and formed their own country. Vermont remained independent from 1777 to 1791, at which point it was admitted into the Union.
“I don’t want it explained, I want it PROVEN by historical documentation that anyone prior to 1850 said secession was unconstitutional.”
In a proclamation in December 1832, Jackson declared that the nullification movement was aimed at the destruction of the Union — that it led “directly to civil war and bloodshed” — and that, therefore, it was
incompatible with the existence of the Union, contradicted expressly by the letter of the Constitution, unauthorized by its spirit, inconsistent with every principle on which it was founded, and destructive of the great object for which it was formed.
Jackson insisted that individual states had no right to invalidate federal laws, or secede from the Union, at their own pleasure. He derided “the strange position that any one State may not only declare an act of Congress void, but prohibit its execution; that they may do this consistently with the Constitution; that the true construction of that instrument permits a State to retain its place in the Union and yet be bound by no other of its laws than those it may choose to consider as constitutional.” “Look for a moment to the consequence” of this position, Jackson admonished. If any state can declare a law oppressive and unjust, and therefore null and void — for any reason, however specious — then “every law operating injuriously upon any local interest will be perhaps thought, and certainly represented, as unconstitutional, and, as has been shown, there is no appeal.”
As for secession, Jackson declared that the Union could not be sundered by any individual State, because the Union pre-dated the States themselves. He pointed out that the “decisive and important steps” to declare America a nation were made jointly, not by the whim of separate states. “Under the royal Government” of Great Britain, Jackson reminded us, “we had no separate character; our opposition to its oppressions began as united colonies. ... Leagues were formed for common defense, and before the Declaration of Independence we were known in our aggregate character as the United Colonies of America.” Even under the weak Articles of Confederation, the States “agreed that they would collectively form one nation ... We were the United States under the Confederation, and the name was perpetuated and the Union rendered more perfect by the Federal Constitution.” Therefore, any State, which constitutes with the other states a Federal Union,
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. To say that any State may at pleasure secede from the Union is to say that the United States are not a nation, because it would be a solecism to contend that any part of a nation might dissolve its connection with the other parts, to their injury or ruin, without committing any offense.
President Jackson went on to warn, in dark and forbidding tones, the citizens of the state of South Carolina — the state in which he was born. “Disunion by armed force is treason,” he declared. “Are you really ready to incur its guilt? If you are, on the heads of the instigators of the act be the dreadful consequences; on their heads be the dishonor, but on yours may fall the punishment. ... The consequence must be fearful for you, distressing to your fellow-citizens here and to the friends of good government throughout the world.”
So the short answer as to one person who asserted that secession was unconstitutional is “Andrew Jackson”.
No, you simply chose just those words you wished to make your point, and ignored those which supplied Madison's context.
Of course, that's not uncommon on these threads, and seriously, I do give you credit for at least trying to use actual historical data, with all the extra effort that requires.
Sadly, some posters here are not disciplined by facts, and feel free to project their Rorschach interpretations unhindered by reality.
But you are not unique in posting actual data -- our old Texas FRiend rustbucket also posted long quotes from original sources, making such exchanges interesting and fun.
Indeed, in my mind at least, old rusty is Madison and young MamaTexan is young Trist, picking up whenever JM leaves off... ;-)
Point being: rusty and I both understand the nature of, ahem, "maturity", perhaps a bit better than youngsters such as yourself, and might even be more willing to give old Madison some benefit of doubt. ;-)
Is that not the point?
You have quoted from the "Law of Nations" regarding treaties, but that "Law," especially in 1788, was quite limited in scope, covering a relatively small number of subjects.
Here is an interesting discussion on how the Law of Nations related to the Founders' new Constitution.
So far as I can tell, the Law of Nations says nothing about "compacts", "unions" or the formation of constitutionally limited republican governments.
And therefore it is impossible for the alleged "Law of Nations" to supercede our Founders Original Intent for their new Constitution.
"If the fact of unconstitutional actions at both the State and federal level is NOT 'injury or oppression', what IS?"
See my post #240 for additional discussion...
The Supreme Court's decisive 1842 action in striking down Pennsylvania's 1788 and 1826 (note the years!) Fugitive Slave Laws (which protected runaway slaves) left some ambiguity.
This lead some Northern states to rewrite laws to forbid their state officials from enforcing those Federal Fugitive Slave laws which required runaways be returned to their owners.
This "problem" was corrected by the Compromise of 1850 after which by law, northern states were required to enforce Federal Fugitive Slave Laws, and return runaways to their owners.
Point is, in both Prigg v Pennsylvania and the Compromise of 1850, the Southern Slave Power demonstrated its control over Washington Federal Government, and through it over those Northern states who wished to protect runaways from Federal Fugitive Slave Laws.
So the Constitution was still being enforced, despite wishes of Northern anti-slavery Republicans.
There is no evidence I'm aware of if any South Carolina fugitive slave was ever protected and refused to be returned on demand by any Northern state.