Posted on 07/14/2015 4:30:37 AM PDT by SJackson
The victors of war write its history in order to cast themselves in the most favorable light. That explains the considerable historical ignorance about our war of 1861 and panic over the Confederate flag. To create better understanding, we have to start a bit before the 1787 Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia.
The 1783 Treaty of Paris ended the war between the colonies and Great Britain. Its first article declared the 13 colonies "to be free, sovereign and independent states." These 13 sovereign nations came together in 1787 as principals and created the federal government as their agent. Principals have always held the right to fire agents. In other words, states held a right to withdraw from the pact — secede.
During the 1787 Constitutional Convention, a proposal was made that would allow the federal government to suppress a seceding state. James Madison rejected it, saying, "A union of the states containing such an ingredient seemed to provide for its own destruction. The use of force against a state would look more like a declaration of war than an infliction of punishment and would probably be considered by the party attacked as a dissolution of all previous compacts by which it might be bound."
In fact, the ratification documents of Virginia, New York and Rhode Island explicitly said they held the right to resume powers delegated should the federal government become abusive of those powers. The Constitution never would have been ratified if states thought they could not regain their sovereignty — in a word, secede.
On March 2, 1861, after seven states seceded and two days before Abraham Lincoln's inauguration, Sen. James R. Doolittle of Wisconsin proposed a constitutional amendment that read, "No state or any part thereof, heretofore admitted or hereafter admitted into the union, shall have the power to withdraw from the jurisdiction of the United States."
. Several months earlier, Reps. Daniel E. Sickles of New York, Thomas B. Florence of Pennsylvania and Otis S. Ferry of Connecticut proposed a constitutional amendment to prohibit secession. Here's a question for the reader: Would there have been any point to offering these amendments if secession were already unconstitutional?
On the eve of the War of 1861, even unionist politicians saw secession as a right of states. Rep. Jacob M. Kunkel of Maryland said, "Any attempt to preserve the union between the states of this Confederacy by force would be impractical, and destructive of republican liberty."
Both Northern Democratic and Republican Parties favored allowing the South to secede in peace. Just about every major Northern newspaper editorialized in favor of the South's right to secede. New York Tribune (Feb. 5, 1860): "If tyranny and despotism justified the Revolution of 1776, then we do not see why it would not justify the secession of Five Millions of Southrons from the Federal Union in 1861." Detroit Free Press (Feb. 19, 1861): "An attempt to subjugate the seceded states, even if successful, could produce nothing but evil — evil unmitigated in character and appalling in content." The New York Times (March 21, 1861): "There is growing sentiment throughout the North in favor of letting the Gulf States go."
The War of 1861 settled the issue of secession through brute force that cost 600,000 American lives. We Americans celebrate Abraham Lincoln's Gettysburg Address, but H.L. Mencken correctly evaluated the speech: "It is poetry, not logic; beauty, not sense." Lincoln said the soldiers sacrificed their lives "to the cause of self-determination — that government of the people, by the people, for the people should not perish from the earth." Mencken says: "It is difficult to imagine anything more untrue. The Union soldiers in the battle actually fought against self-determination; it was the Confederates who fought for the right of people to govern themselves."
The War of 1861 brutally established that states could not secede. We are still living with its effects. Because states cannot secede, the federal government can run roughshod over the U.S. Constitution's limitations of the Ninth and Tenth Amendments. States have little or no response.
“The Constitution that formed our present Union does not say it is perpetual...”
It doesn’t need to. It was already agreed to as a perpetual Union. Does it say the Union is no longer perpetual?
“...and the Union formed by it is not the same Union formed by the Articles of Confederation.”
I always thought they were the same states. Which ones were different?
As to the George Washington quote, admittedly there was a period of ambiguity during which some States were deciding whether of not to break the agreement. They decided not to.
“Other perpetual agreements in the past also didn’t last very long.”
We’re discussing whether or not there is a right. Just because perpetual agreements are broken, just because someone does something, doesn’t mean there is a right to do so, except maybe the right of might.
None of those conditions made it to the final document.
No. But while you are playing games with words our federal government - at least the president and congress - have made plans to get Iran the money, time, and equipment to build deliverable nuclear weapons. And there is no one with the power - no check and balance - that can now stop the federal government from doing this.
Many, many millions of people are headed to the slaughter pens. And I don't mean way-out in the distant future.
I asked "What 'God given' right is that?" And I wanted you to more fully describe the "God given right to secede". In order for a right to be included in the "among these" of the DOI, that right has to exist and you haven't shown that it does. Unless of course you are including it within "the pursuit of happiness". How does the right to secede work? If a state secedes, and some of the counties within the states disagree with that, can those counties secede and form their own sovereign state or stay in the Union? What if those counties aren't contiguous? If cities or townships within a county oppose the primary or secondary secession, can they too secede? Picture the patchwork.
Another reads: 'The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.'
In order to be "retained by the people" the right must exist to begin with. Again, "What God given right" is that? (Although if the people do have that right, I guess counties can secede from states, cities and townships from counties, and neighborhoods from whatever.)
See also Amendment X.
What power are you writing about? If it's the power stemming from the "God given right to secede", I ask you again to more fully describe that right, and to show that it is a right given by God.
I assume that you can point to where others of the original 13 states objected back then to NY's, VA's, and RI's resume powers statements? Or did they accept those ratification documents? Forming a Union without New York and Virginia would have made a very impractical Union, IMO.
[Jacquerie]: The Constitution never would have been ratified if states thought they could not regain their sovereignty —; in a word, secede.
[rockrr]: There was much debate over this. In the end they all ratified the US Constitution.
The Charleston (SC) Daily Courier newspaper of May 17, 1861 reported that six delegates to the 1788 Virginia ratification convention who were elected to oppose ratification changed their minds to vote for ratification because the "powers might be resumed" provision was included in their ratification document. That provision made Virginia’s ratification possible, and similar statements in New York's and Rhode Island's ratifications probably did for their states as well.
As I remember, Rhode Island's populace voted ten to one against ratification (the only time the Constitution itself was voted on by a state's voting population rather than by convention delegates). A small RI convention later ratified the Constitution with a "Powers of Government may be reassumed" statement. I believe also, but may be wrong, that New York's ratification convention had more anti-federalists than federalists and that reassume powers statement may have made NY's ratification possible.
Four other states advocated Tenth Amendment like statements in their ratification documents (NC, SC, MA, NH), and Jefferson Davis cited the Tenth Amendment as justification/authority for secession [Link]. Those four states along with VA, NY, and RI, make a majority of the thirteen original states either reserving powers not delegated to the states or specifically reserving the right to resume powers. The Constitution did not give other states the power to block states from seceding from this experimental form of government.
Virginia's resume powers statement and those of New York and Rhode Island get conveniently ignored or dismissed by most secession opponents on these threads. By the way, Virginia cited their resume powers statement in their secession document of 1861. James Madison and John Marshall were on the committee that put together the Virginia ratification document including its resume powers statement.
New York's "Powers of Government may be reassumed" statement was followed by this:
... 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 ... We the said Delegates, in the Name and in the behalf of the People of the State of New York Do by these presents Assent to and Ratify the said Constitution.
That and the NY reassume powers statement were voted for by Alexander Hamilton and John Jay, two of the three authors of "The Federalist Papers" that explained the Constitution.
Let me try to explain it this way: When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them . . .
And . . . That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
It’s no use Kris - these people think that that our Constitution was no more than a magazine subscription that they could abandon any time they feeeeeeeeel like doing so.
New York was the eleventh state to ratify. Do you think that their insertion of unilateral terms and conditions could be binding upon the previous ten states who had already signed?
That says it all.
Before proposing an amendment to forbid secession. Sickles proposed an amendment to allow secession. Source
Would there have been any point in offering that amendment if secession were already constitutional?
That says more, but I'm sure there's more to be said.
Um, that was a different Union with a different founding document. I think I'll stick with what George Washington said.
We’re discussing whether or not there is a right. Just because perpetual agreements are broken, just because someone does something, doesn’t mean there is a right to do so, except maybe the right of might.
Speaking of your "right of might," some states assumed a "right of might" not mentioned in the Constitution to force other states to remain in a Union that no longer suited them. I am reminded of this Hamilton statement during ratification:
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.
Reading this reminds us how intelligent men were at that time and how today . . . never mind.
At least we have TV and the Karcinogen sisters.
Not if the other states objected. They didn't object, did they? They accepted the VA, NY, and RI ratifications. Otherwise, there would have been additional negotiations and re-ratifications. If NY has the power to reassume their governance, then all states do.
In fact, the ratification documents of Virginia, New York and Rhode Island explicitly said they held the right to resume powers delegated should the federal government become abusive of those powers. The Constitution never would have been ratified if states thought they could not regain their sovereignty —; in a word, secede.
______________________________________________________________________________ The key words are "resume powers delegated should the federal government become abusive of those powers".
That does not in and of itself mean "secede". The states in Union could resume power through Constitutional means or the states in Union could abolish the federal government and establish a new one, and I repeat: They could do it in Union, without secession. The people could also start electing better people to positions in government, again without secession.
The "Ratification of the Constitution by the State of Virginia" says "...that the powers granted under the Constitution being derived from the People of the United States may be resumed by them..." (Emphasis added). "People of the United States". "Resumed by them" meaning resumed by the "People of the United States". That doesn't read like they were writing about secession but about the United States taking back powers from the newly created agent of the United States.
Further down, it says "With these impressions with a solemn appeal to the Searcher of hearts for the purity of our intentions and under the conviction that whatsoever imperfections may exist in the Constitution ought rather to be examined in the mode prescribed therein than to bring the Union into danger by a delay with a hope of obtaining Amendments previous to the Ratification, We the said Delegates in the name and in behalf of the People of Virginia do by these presents assent to and ratify the Constitution recommended on the seventeenth day of September one thousand seven hundred and eighty seven by the Federal Convention for the Government of the United States hereby announcing to all those whom it may concern that the said Constitution is binding upon the said People according to an authentic Copy hereto annexed in the Words following;"
They wrote "bring the Union into danger" which reads like they believed in one continuous Union, not the dissolution of one Union and its replacement with another.
The "Ratification of the Constitution by the State of New York" says "That the Powers of Government may be reassumed by the People..." That doesn't read like they were writing about secession from the United States but about taking back powers from any government, which would include the newly created government of the United States.
The "Ratification of the Constitution by the State of Rhode Island" says "That the powers of government may be reassumed by the people..." Again, that doesn't read like they were writing about secession from the United States but about taking back powers from any government, which would include the newly created government of the United States.
No where in these documents do I find the word "secession" in any form.
“...while you are playing games with words...”
I’m not playing games with words. Words have meanings which are important.
As to the rest of your post, I tend to agree. There’s going to be blood.
How convenient. Except that it doesn't work that way. That would be like signing a contract to purchase a car, having the dealer add surcharges and then quickly signing it so you are bound to the new terms.
The document they "signed (ratified) was intact and no additional modifiers or conditions were added by virtue if individual state ratification documents. Sure states can secede - by going through congress.
And . . . That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
"Your" second paragraph only deals with changing government. Secession is not necessary to change a government, be it the Federal Government, a State Government or a Local Government.
As to the first paragraph: Okay. To expand on that a little, it could be said there is a God given right to secede (to dissolve the political bands) when it's necessary and when the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle assumption of separate and equal station among the powers of the earth.
That begs the question "When is that?". An answer to that in regard to secession from the United States and dissolution of the perpetual Union would be: When all other means of resolving the differences have failed. There may be other answers too.
“It’s no use Kris”
I know (sigh). But I’m writing for lurkers and posterity (someone in the distant future may look at this stuff) and hoping to get someone to think rather than just feel.
“Um, that was a different Union with a different founding document.”
Again, I always thought they were the same states. Which ones were different?
“...some states assumed a “right of might” not mentioned in the Constitution...”
Yep. It’s outside the Constitution. The Social Compact by which the States transitioned from a State of Nature to a State of Society (or from one State of Society to another State of Society) with each other is outside the Constitution. So, if one party violates a pact, deal, contract, agreement with another party, may not the other party believe it is due some satisfaction? And if the parties do not share a common State of Society may not the modes of the State of Nature (which may involve force) apply?
As to the Hamilton quote:
“A complying State at war with a non-complying State;”. Well, yes. One party trying to hold another to an agreement.
“Suppose Massachusetts or any large State should refuse, and Congress should attempt to compel them...”
Would not Congress be acting on behalf of the other States, especially at a time when the State Legislatures appointed the Senators?
“...would not they have influence to procure assistance, especially from those States which are in the same situation as themselves?”
Yes, the issue would be between States, with Congress acting as agent for one group of States.
I believe the war from 1861-1865 was a War Between The States and that Lincoln and the rest of the Federal Government would have been nothing without the Northern States.
Oh, good. Done for the night I hope.
It has already been said. You just read it. But 7 of 10 people in the United States probably would not agree with that statement today. They run away from those kind of ideas. That is as foreign a concept to the average resident of the U.S. as buying a lunch for their own children.
Also, think on this. The federal government did not create the states. The states created the federal government. And the states create new states. And states create counties. Counties do not create states.
The only time I know of counties seceding and creating a state was West Virginia. But I think that was ok because Lincoln approved.
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.