Posted on 07/14/2015 4:30:37 AM PDT by SJackson
“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.”
May I quote you on that?
“The ratification documents are artifacts, not legally-binding agreements. They did not, and do not have the force of law.”
Sweet! That means that ratification was meaningless, and thus there was no legal Union!
Those three dudes who wrote up the Federalist Papers were just engaged in verbal masturbation!
And Lincoln’s actions killed over half a million people for nothing!
Thanks rockrr, for your support and insight!
I am not a lawyer, so forgive my ignorance and correct if needed.
I have always heard the Declaration of Independence is not considered a legal document & carries no legal weight in a Court of Law.
No law degree or license to surrender.
That’s what you get for staring directly into the sun for too long.
;’)
Then it could still be said. Anyway, what I wrote is a little different than what I "just read".
The federal government did not create the states. The states created the federal government.
Which I have maintained for a long time.
And the states create new states.
Through Congress under the Constitution.
And states create counties. Counties do not create states.
Meaning what?
The only time I know of counties seceding and creating a state was West Virginia.
Seems like I've read of some counties in California and New York that want to secede from their states.
“May I quote you on that?”
Why would you want to?
“May I quote you on that?”
That was a joke.
Evidently, not a very good one.
Ok, I can understand that :)
“Meaning what?”
The states are the parents. They have offspring. One is the federal government. Other offspring are cities. Other offspring are counties.
The states are the parents. They were supposed to be in charge.
“The states are the parents.”
In your post 80 you wrote that the States create new States. Wouldn’t that make the newer States the offspring of the older States too?
Anyhow, I don’t see that it matters. The words in the DOI, which you quoted in post 66, are “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 I wrote in post 76 “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.”
Neither quote notes an offspring relationship as a limiting factor. And if it were a limiting factor, would that not have been a problem for the signers of the DOI due to colonies being offspring of England based on Grants, Charters and so forth?
Same states; different agreements creating central governments and setting up different rules for two different Unions. As Washington basically said in 1789, North Carolina. which was a member of the Union set up by the Articles, was not a member of the Union set up by the Constitution.
I've owned four houses in my life all at different time periods. Different houses, different mortgages, different HOA rules, different cities (some with zoning, some without zoning). Same person (me) but different legal purchase agreements. I don't claim that my first house is the same as my present house and that the legal document I signed to purchase my first house still applies to my present situation.
"A complying State at war with a non-complying State;". Well, yes. One party trying to hold another to an agreement.
Speaking of trying to hold another to an agreement, the Constitution called for the return of fugitive slaves from Northern States. That was a key agreement/compromise by the Constitutional Convention that helped get the Constitution ratified in all states. Northern states had agreed to the part of the Constitution that said (from Article IV, Section 2):
No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due.
The South had fought through the courts and Congress for almost twenty years to get more fugitive slaves returned from Northern states. Many Northern states responded by passing personal liberty laws, a number of which were unconstitutional. Once Southern states started seceding, some of the Northern states began frantically revising their personal liberty laws. However, it was basically too late. Northern states should have listed to Daniel Webster of Massachusetts in 1851:
If the South were to violate any part of the Constitution intentionally and systematically, and persist in so doing, year after year, and no remedy could be had, would the North be any longer bound by the rest of it? And if the North were deliberately, habitually, and of fixed purpose to disregard one part of it, would the South be bound any longer to observe its other obligations? I have not hesitated to say, and I repeat, that if the Northern States refuse, willfully and deliberately, to carry into effect that part of the Constitution which respects the restoration of fugitive slaves, and Congress provide no remedy, the South would no longer be bound to observe the compact. A bargain cannot be broken on one side and still bind the other side.
The last fugitive slave returned from Massachusetts was in 1854 despite large numbers of fugitive slaves living in parts of Massachusetts (sanctuary cities, anyone?). One of the guards of that 1854 slave was killed by a Massachusetts mob trying to prevent his return.
Here is what the Michigan legislature and the Detroit Free Press said about Michigan's personal liberty law. From the March 2, 1861, issue of the State Gazette of Austin, Texas quoting an article from the Detroit Free Press [italics theirs, paragraph breaks and emphasis mine]:
Absurd and Impudent Action by the Michigan Legislature
We can conceive of nothing more absurd than the passage by either house of the Legislature, at Lansing, of the resolutions which are reported to have passed concerning national affairs, while the personal liberty bill still stands. The personal liberty law -- so the legislature of 1859 construed it, and such is the only construction which it will bear -- "was designed to and if faithfully executed will prevent the delivering up of fugitive slaves." It is therefore plain, palpable, unadulterated nullification of the fugitive slave law.
Michigan, for six years past, has stood in the attitude of open and avowed hostility to the authority of the Constitution of the United States. Until she has changed this attitude -- until she has hauled down the flag of rebellion -- until she is fully within the line of her constitutional duty -- how absurd is it, how impudent is it, in her to pass resolutions that the Constitution of the United States, and all laws in pursuance thereof, "are the supreme law of the land" -- that "there is no method for a State, or the citizens of a State, to escape the obligations imposed by the Constitution except by and through an amendment of that instrument" -- that "Michigan is now, as she has always been, entirely loyal to the Constitution;"
... We know of nothing better calculated to stimulate secession than this action, especially as it is the action of a State whose professions of loyalty to the Constitution are a lie. -- Detroit Free Press
He’s embracing the Constitution and the Constitutional Convention in 1787 you idiot.
“Neither quote notes an offspring relationship as a limiting factor. And if it were a limiting factor, would that not have been a problem for the signers of the DOI due to colonies being offspring of England based on Grants, Charters and so forth?”
I don’t know what you are talking about half the time.
The major problems the signers of the DOI had were avoiding being hanged by the King, winning the Revolution, and creating a revolutionary form of government with checks and balances in a Republic and personal liberty. They did their job.
For some reason, we are not doing ours. We have lost a lot of what they gave us. It really looks like we’ll lose the rest.
But if you don’t think the colonies, then the states, were the basic building blocks of our nation I’ll try to follow your thinking.
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.
Letting the states that might be taking advantage of the state that wants to secede vote on whether the aggrieved state gets to leave is a bad idea. How about a little de Tocqueville? [my bold emphasis below]:
However strong a government may be, it cannot easily escape from the consequences of a principle which it has once admitted as the foundation of its constitution. The Union was formed by the voluntary agreement of the states; and these, in uniting together, have not forfeited their sovereignty, nor have they been reduced to the condition of one and the same people. If one of the states chose to withdraw its name from the contract, it would be difficult to disprove its right of doing so, and the Federal government would have no means of maintaining its claims directly, either by force or by right. In order to enable the Federal government easily to conquer the resistance that may be offered to it by any of its subjects, it would be necessary that one or more of them should be specially interested in the existence of the Union, as has frequently been the case in the history of confederations.
If it be supposed that among the states that are united by the federal tie there are some which exclusively enjoy the principal advantages of union, or whose prosperity entirely depends on the duration of that union, it is unquestionable that they will always be ready to support the central government in enforcing the obedience of the others. But the government would then be exerting a force not derived from itself, but from a principle contrary to its nature. States form confederations in order to derive equal advantages from their union; and in the case just alluded to, the Federal government would derive its power from the unequal distribution of those benefits among the states.
Northern states were extracting money from the South via the tariff and the money basically went to support Northern manufacturers and provide jobs for Northern workers at the expense of the South. They certainly had an incentive to keep the Southern states in the Union.
The resume powers statements were not "conditions." They were statements explaining what the Constitution meant and about as good a statement of original intent as you can get. (Not that original intent or the clear meanings of words mean anything anymore to a majority of the Supreme Court.)
The conditions on ratification that Madison had warned Hamilton about were what New York had proposed doing in its draft ratification, not the final ratification. I don't remember the exact words of the draft (too busy with other things to look them up), but basically they were that if certain amendments weren't passed within a certain period of time, New York rescinded its ratification. After Hamilton received Madison's letter about conditional ratification, New York then took out those proposed amendments and replaced the word "conditional" with "In full confidence, nevertheless, that, until a convention shall be called and convened for proposing amendments to the said Constitution ..."
I believe that Madison wrote his letter to Hamilton saying that conditional ratification is a no-no after Virginia had passed their own ratification including its resume powers statement. Madison had been on the committee that wrote Virginia's ratification document. Apparently, he didn't consider that Virginia resume powers statement as "conditional."
jeffersondem wrote in a post above "how intelligent men were at that time" [the ones who put together and ratified the Constitution]. I share his amazement.
When the Southern states seriously started considering secession, there were amendments to the Constitution proposed by Republicans concerning secession. Here's one from December 17, 1860 by Representative Sickles (the same guy Lincoln sent to Colombia in 1865 to obtain land on which to colonize US blacks). Sickles' proposed amendment called for a vote by the Senate on a state's secession. Apparently the amendment never passed if in fact it was voted on.
Art. 8. Whenever a convention of delegates, chosen in any State by the people thereof, under the recommendation of its Legislature, shall rescind and annul its ratification of this Constitution, the President shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate shall appoint, commissioners, not exceeding three, to confer with the duly appointed agents of such State, and agree upon the disposition of the public property and territory belonging to the United States lying within such State, and upon the proportion of the public debt to be assumed and paid by such State ; and if the President shall approve the settlement agreed upon by the commissioners, he shall thereupon transmit the same to the Senate, and upon the ratification thereof by two thirds of the Senators present, he shall forthwith issue his proclamation declaring the assent of the United States to the withdrawal of such State from the Union.
And here's a proposed amendment from March 2, 1861 voted down by the Senate 28 nays to 18 yeas:
Under this Constitution, as originally adopted and as it now exists, no State has power to withdraw from the jurisdiction of the United States; and this Constitution, and all laws passed in pursuance of its delegated powers, are the supreme law of the land, anything contained in any constitution, ordinance, or act of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.
It was certainly a legal document so far as the Continental Congress, which adopted it, was concerned. But, of course, it had questionable significance so far as other nations were concerned, until the independence of the new States was recognized by the Treaty Of Paris--1783.
Once the crown acknowledged the sovereignty of Virginia & the other new nations, the legal effect of the Declaration was validated--that is the sovereign place among the nations of the world, of the new States was legally accepted. (Of course the recitals of premises & grievances in the Declaration are there to justify the declaration of sovereignty, and do not have legal significance. They are an argument for the declaration, but do not establish anything new.)
If you had entered into a matrimonial union with someone (also known as a marriage) did you, or would you have had to, dissolve the matrimonial union with that someone and enter a new matrimonial union with that same someone in the process of accomplishing the different purchase agreements? I don't believe so.
If you had entered into a matrimonial union with someone did you, or would you have had to, dissolve the matrimonial union with that someone and enter a new matrimonial union with that same someone whenever you replaced one real estate agent with another? I don't believe so.
How about this:
I and my partner in marriage (matrimonial union) have owned two houses during our matrimonial union, both at different time periods. Different houses, different real estate agents (several), different mortgages, different HOA rules(bah), different cities (some with zoning, some without zoning). Same people in matrimonial union (us) but different legal purchase agreements. We didn't have to dissolve our matrimonial union and join in a new matrimonial union in the process. We claim that the matrimonial union we were in when we obtained the services of the first real estate agent and bought the first house is the same as the matrimonial union we were in when we obtained the services of subsequent real estate agents and bought the present house and that same matrimonial union still applies to our present situation.
Speaking of trying to hold another to an agreement, the Constitution called for the return of fugitive slaves from Northern States and so on to the end.
I'm aware there are positions and arguments that the North "cast the first stone" so to speak. I'm not sure how that fits in the present part of the discussion.
...(sanctuary cities, anyone?).
Sanctuary cities for traditional marriage might be in order. That's a throwaway comment. No need to respond to it.
Thank you :)
I don't understand your analogy although it might make sense from your point of view. The states weren't married to other states. They were in a Union with them to accomplish certain goals. When the first Union was not effective at accomplishing those goals, a committee/convention was put together to improve the old agreement. However, instead of tweaking the old agreement to improve it, they basically discarded it and started over. The old agreement said that changes had to be unanimously agreed to by all 13 parties to become effective. But under the entirely new agreement, a new government could be, and was, formed when only nine of the states agreed to the new agreement.
States did not have to join the new government if they didn't want to even though others had ignored the rules of the old agreement and formed the new government with less than 13 states. The old agreement didn't apply any more -- it was a dead letter for the nine states. North Carolina and Rhode Island were the only two states still in the old (by then no longer existing) first Union for a while, and as Washington said, during that period NC and RI were not in the new Union.
Back to my analogy. My latest House is a better House than the first one I owned. Just like the Constitution formed a better Union that the Articles did. As a matter of fact, I did own two houses for four years. I kept one house when my company transferred me to another city. I bought a house in the new city. I sold the house in the new city when I was transferred back to my original city which had been the company plan all along. I moved back into the house I had kept in the original city. In your analogy that would probably make me a bigamist. LOL.
Sanctuary cities for traditional marriage might be in order.
I and my traditional wife (who jointly owned our houses with me) have been in our traditional marriage for more than 50 years. We share your concern. Cheers.
We share that view.
But if you don’t think the colonies, then the states, were the basic building blocks of our nation I’ll try to follow your thinking.
If we think in terms of the colonies, then the states, as the basic building blocks of our nation, you might say I'm thinking in terms of the elements of which those blocks are made and/or maybe the mortar that holds them together.
I don’t know what you are talking about half the time.
Fair enough.
You wrote that in response to what I wrote in post 90, which was:
Neither quote notes an offspring relationship as a limiting factor. And if it were a limiting factor, would that not have been a problem for the signers of the DOI due to colonies being offspring of England based on Grants, Charters and so forth?
Let's start with the quote from the Declaration of Independence (DOI):
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 . ..
I don't see anything in that quote that indicates that when it becomes necessary, people of a county may not dissolve the political bands which have connected them with the people of a state, or with other people of the county, just because the state created the county making the county an offspring of the state. Determining and agreeing to "the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them" could be an issue.
Note that charters and land grants issued under English law created American colonies, thus those colonies were offspring of England in the same way that counties are offspring of a state because they are created under state law.
If the words from the DOI quoted above are not applicable to a county because it is an offspring of a parent state, then they would not be applicable to a colony because it was an offspring of the parent England.
Continuing, I wrote:
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.
I won't repeat all I wrote regarding the quote from the DOI, but I believe the same principle applies.
Yes, the states were in union, not a marriage union but a union all the same.
When the first Union...
We disagree on that there was more than one Union. I believe it was the same Union throughout.
...to improve the old agreement.
Yes, the members of the Union got together to improve the agreement they had, just as you and your wife got together to improve (or at least change) the agreement you had on housing. In and of itself, that doesn't mean they or you dissolved the underlying Union.
But under the entirely new agreement, a new government could be, and was, formed when only nine of the states agreed to the new agreement.
And if the remaining states had not agreed that would have meant the dissolution of the previous Union and the establishment of one or more new Unions. Or, if the remaining states had not agreed they could have got together with the nine who had agreed and developed a more suitable agreement and all remained in Union.
But none of that happened. Eventually, all thirteen agreed.
...as Washington said, during that period NC and RI were not in the new Union.
While Washington may have said that, Rhode Island, the last of the thirteen after North Carolina, to ratify the Constitution, included in in the " Ratification of the Constitution by the State of Rhode Island; May 29, 1790" the words:
Done in Convention, at Newport in the County of Newport, in the State of Rhode-Island and Providence-Plantations, the twenty ninth day of May, in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and ninety, and in the fourteenth year of the Independence of the United States of America.(Emphasis added.)"...in the fourteenth year of the Independence of the United States of America" indicates they believed the States remained in Union and had done so since 1776.
As to your analogy, you and your wife remained in a matrimonial union through all the changes. Theoretically (at least in your case, it does happen) she could have declined to move to another city and you'd have dissolved the matrimonial Union by divorce. You two could have thought about it for awhile before deciding to dissolve the matrimonial Union, in which case your Union would have been endanger but not yet dissolved. When you moved back you two could have remarried and had a second matrimonial union.
But none of that happened. You two agreed.
I and my traditional wife (who jointly owned our houses with me) have been in our traditional marriage for more than 50 years.
Congratulations on that. My wife and I didn't make it. She passed what seems like not too long ago. Sometimes it seems more recent than other times.
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.