Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: OIFVeteran
Yes, because the founding fathers believed in the natural right of rebellion. The exact same right that they used against the British. However, the founding father that wrote the constitution believed it could be adopted only in toto and forever.

These two ideas contradict each other. One cannot have a right to Independence, and then claim "except for this government we have subsequently created."

85 posted on 01/10/2020 11:31:56 AM PST by DiogenesLamp ("of parents owing allegiance to no oither sovereignty.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies ]


To: DiogenesLamp; BroJoeK
Take it up with George Washington,James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and Charles Pickney then.

“There are four things, which I humbly conceive, are essential to the well being, I may even venture to say, to the existence of the United States as an Independent Power:

1st. An indissoluble Union of the States under one Federal Head.

“That there must be a faithfull and pointed compliance on the part of every State, with the late proposals and demands of Congress, or the most fatal consequences will ensue, That whatever measures have a tendency to dissolve the Union, or contribute to violate or lessen the Sovereign Authority, ought to be considered as hostile to the Liberty and Independency of America, and the Authors of them treated accordingly”

Both quotes from Washington’s Circular Farewell Letter to the Army 1783

From James Madison to Alexander Hamilton

N. York Sunday Evening [20 July 1788]

My Dear Sir

Yours of yesterday is this instant come to hand & I have but a few minutes to answer it. I am sorry that your situation obliges you to listen to propositions of the nature you describe. My opinion is that a reservation of a right to withdraw if amendments be not decided on under the form of the Constitution within a certain time, is a conditional ratification, that it does not make N. York a member of the New Union, and consequently that she could not be received on that plan. Compacts must be reciprocal, this principle would not in such a case be preserved. The Constitution requires an adoption in toto, and for ever. It has been so adopted by the other States. An adoption for a limited time would be as defective as an adoption of some of the articles only. In short any condition whatever must viciate the ratification. What the New Congress by virtue of the power to admit new States, may be able & disposed to do in such case, I do not enquire as I suppose that is not the material point at present. I have not a moment to add more than my fervent wishes for your success & happiness.

James Madison

Alexander Hamilton: “Let the thirteen States, bound together in a strict and indissoluble Union, concur in erecting one great American system” Federalist 11

Charles Cotesworth Pinckney at the South Carolina Ratifying Convention, 1788. On the indivisibility of the United States, Pinckney said:

Let us, then, consider all attempts to weaken this Union, by maintaining that each state is separately and individually independent, as a species of political heresy, which can never benefit us, but may bring on us the most serious distresses.

96 posted on 01/11/2020 5:35:30 AM PST by OIFVeteran
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson