Posted on 07/22/2020 3:14:43 AM PDT by Kaslin
The Confederacy has been the excuse for some of today's rioting, property destruction and grossly uninformed statements. Among the latter is the testimony before the House Armed Services Committee by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Mark Milley in favor of renaming Confederate-named military bases. He said: "The Confederacy, the American Civil War, was fought, and it was an act of rebellion. It was an act of treason, at the time, against the Union, against the Stars and Stripes, against the U.S. Constitution."
There are a few facts about our founding that should be acknowledged. Let's start at the beginning, namely the American War of Independence (1775-1783), a war between Great Britain and its 13 colonies, which declared independence in July 1776. The peace agreement that ended the war is known as the Treaty of Paris signed by Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, John Jay, and Henry Laurens and by British Commissioner Richard Oswald on Sept. 3, 1783. Article I of the Treaty held that "New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, to be free sovereign and Independent States."
Delegates from these states met in Philadelphia in 1787 to form a union. During the Philadelphia convention, a proposal was made to permit the federal government to suppress a seceding state. James Madison, the Father of the Constitution, rejected it. Minutes from the debate paraphrased his opinion: "A union of the states containing such an ingredient [would] 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."
During the ratification debates, Virginia's delegates said, "The powers granted under the Constitution being derived from the people of the United States may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression." The ratification documents of New York and Rhode Island expressed similar sentiments; namely, they held the right to dissolve their relationship with the United States. Ratification of the Constitution was by no means certain. States feared federal usurpation of their powers. If there were a provision to suppress a seceding state, the Constitution would never have been ratified. The ratification votes were close with Virginia, New York, and Massachusetts voting in favor by the slimmest of margins. Rhode Island initially rejected it in a popular referendum and finally voted to ratify -- 34 for, 32 against.
Most Americans do not know that the first secessionist movement started in New England. Many New Englanders were infuriated by President Thomas Jefferson's Louisiana Purchase in 1803, which they saw as an unconstitutional act. Timothy Pickering of Massachusetts, who was George Washington's secretary of war and secretary of state, led the movement. He said, "The Eastern states must and will dissolve the union and form a separate government." Other prominent Americans such as John Quincy Adams, Elbridge Gerry, Fisher Ames, Josiah Quincy III, and Joseph Story shared his call for secession. While the New England secessionist movement was strong, it failed to garner support at the 1814-15 Hartford Convention.
Even on the eve of the War of 1861, unionist politicians saw secession as a state's right. 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." 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." The 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 extent." The New-York Times (March 21, 1861): "There is a growing sentiment throughout the North in favor of letting the Gulf States go."
Confederate generals fought for independence from the Union just as George Washington fought for independence from Great Britain. Those who label Robert E. Lee and other Confederate generals as traitors might also label George Washington a traitor. Great Britain's King George III and the British parliament would have agreed.
Speaking for myself only, I understand the condemnation in the term. I just think the statement is dumb.
“The constitution must be adopted in toto and for ever. It has so been adopted by the other states.” James Madison letter to Alexander Hamilton. Hamilton then read this letter to the New York ratification convention.
“Would you have preferred the Victors hold treason trials and executions.”
Treason trials and executions are the embodiment of Victor’s Justice; along with disenfranchisement, carpetbag rule; confiscatory taxation; discriminatory freight rates . . .
I’m not advocating Victor’s Justice because it is a bad thing.
I don’t think you fully understand the condemnation associated with the term. Look it up and read the definition.
For the first time.
“Their own God damned Confederate Constitution spelled it out.”
Both the CSA and USA had constitutions that enshrined slavery. Both sides fought to preserve their constitutions.
Arguably, Lincoln took up arms to violently overthrow the pro-slavery U.S. Constitution. It is sometimes said, “Lincoln fought to free the slaves.”
Your claim that President Eisenhower provided “defense of a traitor” raises the specter that he provided, retroactively, aid and comfort to a traitor.
That is just as vulgar as your earlier attack on President Eisenhower.
Would you classify the war crimes trials after World War II as "victor's justice" as well? Crimes were committed. unspeakable crimes in many cases, but had the Allied powers not won then those crimes would have gone unpunished. So was having those who committed those crimes forced to answer for their actions also "victor's justice"? Also a bad thing in your eyes?
“Would you classify the war crimes trials after World War II as “victor’s justice” as well?”
Ah, the old General Eisenhower loved General Lee; General Lee was the same as a Nazi; therefore General Eisenhower was a Nazi argument.
That is where you are headed and I’m not buying it.
Really could care less.
You missed my point. America IS a league of sovereign nations. Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, Virginia, etc. WERE nations in precisely the same way that France, the UK, Germany , etc. are. Technically that’s still true although our legal and political systems have evolved in a way that pretty much has rendered that status null and void. The states are the sovereign entities, not the FedGov. The states have voluntarily delegated some of their inherent powers as sovereign states to a central government. Haven’t you ever wondered why we have “states” rather than districts, provinces, departments, etc. as our subdivisions? The term “state” is synonymous with “nation”, France is a state. Belgium is a state. Technically Pennsylvania and Kentucky have the same political status as France and Belgium— all are sovereign states. If a sovereign state agrees to voluntarily enter a league such as the EU, does it not have the right, by virtue of its sovereign status, to leave that league?
I understand that this conception of the US seems just wrong today. It IS wrong based on how our political system has evolved. The point is that in 1860 this conception was 100% accurate. The FedGov played very little role in most people’s lives. (Mail delivery was about the only thing most people would have seen from the Feds). Even armed forces, while authorized by the Feds were mostly recruited and governed at the state level. When Lincoln called for troops to put down the rebellion, STATES actually raised the troops. A person volunteering for service did not enroll in the US Army, as he would today. He enrolled in a state regiment, which was subsequently sent to the battlefield and integrated into a brigade in the larger army. If you had a time machine and asked a Civil War soldier where he was from, he’d never say America or the Confederacy. He’d tell you what state he was from.
In much the same way, it’s highly doubtful that if you asked a random person in Paris where he’s from that he’d say Europe or the EU. He’d say France. Who knows what will happen? Maybe 150 years from now the idea that France, Germany, etc. were independent governments at one time will seem just as incomprehensible to people as the notion that Virginia and South Carolina once were independent nations. That was the original concept of our Constitution though. States were to maintain their sovereign status and voluntarily delegate some powers to a central government. The fact that we’ve lost that concept doesn’t change anything. That was in fact one of the two fundamental changes caused by the war (the other obviously being abolition of slavery). Before the war, the US was not really a nation, but something very much like the modern EU.
No, just trying to clarify. Your concern about "victor's justice" extends to what happened to the rebels after the rebellion and no further. So it's not so much a matter of justice but just the same old Lost Cause whine, vintage 1865.
You contradict yourself: we should debate issues like abortion and segregation even though SCOTUS has ruled, but debating the legality of secession is off the table because SCOTUS has ruled? I’m not arguing that based on current law and jurisprudence, that secession is legal. Clearly not. I’m debating two points: 1. The SCOTUS handed down the decision on secession AFTER the war. Before the war, there was no law, court decision, or Constitutional language forbidding secession. Further the states were sovereign entities that voluntarily entered an agreement to delegate some of their sovereign powers to a central government. By what legal rationale can we conclude the the Southern sTate’s lacked the power to leave that compact?
2. I think we can agree that a SCOTUS decision, while carrying the weight of law, can be in error. Dred Scott, Plessy v Ferguson, and Roe v Wade are some examples. Does Texas v White fall into that category?
Don’t try to tell me that SCOTUS has decided secession is illegal. I know that. I also know that there’s no clause in any article or amendment in the Constitution that either allows or prohibits secession. The SCOTUS seems to have created law in this case, as it often does. The default of the Constitution would seem to be given by the Tenth Amendment, which says that when the Constitution is silent on an issue, it’s up to the sovereign states to make a decision on the matter.
And yes, the states are the legally sovereign entities, at least in the original conception of the FedGov. The FedGov derives it’s powers from the voluntary delegation of those powers to it. For example, the state of Virginia, prior to the ratification of the Constitution, had the power to negotiate treaties with foreign governments. The other newly independent states had the same power. These states agreed that it would be beneficial to yield that power to the Feds. The Feds only have said power because the states gave it to them. Thus, the state governments are a higher power than the Fed.
I said “in the original conception” above because I realize that our political system has evolved away from this concept. The real point is that by 1860, this had not yet occurred. In 1860, the states truly were the higher authority. The question of secession truly was open at the time. When I posted earlier of a fundamental transformation of America as a result of the war, that’s what I meant. The war transformed America from a union of multiple independent and sovereign states into a true nation. (And obviously the war also effected another fundamental transformation in the abolition of slavery).
Oh dry up you pearl clutching moron. I disagree with his defense of Lee. Get a life.
You can plainly see this difference expressed in the preambles of the Articles of Confederation and the Preamble to the Constitution.
Articles of Confederation
To all to whom these Presents shall come, we the undersigned Delegates of the States affixed to our Names send greeting.
Whereas the Delegates of the United States of America in Congress assembled did on the fifteenth day of November in the Year of our Lord One Thousand Seven Hundred and Seventy seven, and in the Second Year of the Independence of America, agree to certain articles of Confederation and perpetual Union between the States of New Hampshire, Massachusetts-bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, in the words following, viz:
Articles of Confederation and perpetual Union between the States of New Hampshire, Massachusetts-bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia.
The Constitution
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Notice there is no mention of the states in the constitution preamble. It is the People of the United States. The people of one country.
If that isn't proof enough for you. Here is the debate that ensued at the constitutional convention when a motion was passed to have the states (through their legislatures) ratify the constitution instead of the People (through state conventions) ratify the constitution.
Notes on the Constitutional Convention
Resol: 19. "referring the new Constitution to Assemblies to be chosen by the people for the express purpose of ratifying it" was next taken into consideration.
Mr. ELSEWORTH moved that it be referred to the Legislatures of the States for ratification. Mr. PATTERSON 2ded. the motion.
Col. MASON considered a reference of the plan to the authority of the people as one of the most important and essential of the Resolutions. The Legislatures have no power to ratify it. They are the mere creatures of the State Constitutions, and can not be greater than their creators. And he knew of no power in any of the Constitutions, he knew there was no power in some of them, that could be competent to this object. Whither then must we resort? To the people with whom all power remains that has not been given up in the Constitutions derived from them. It was of great moment he observed that this doctrine should be cherished as the basis of free Government. Another strong reason was that admitting the Legislatures to have a competent authority, it would be wrong to refer the plan to them, because succeeding Legislatures having equal authority could undo the acts of their predecessors; and the National Govt. would stand in each State on the weak and tottering foundation of an Act of Assembly. There was a remaining consideration of some weight. In some of the States the Govts. were not derived from the clear & undisputed authority of the people. This was the case in Virginia Some of the best & wisest citizens considered the Constitution as established by an assumed authority. A National Constitution derived from such a source would be exposed to the severest criticisms.
Mr. RANDOLPH. One idea has pervaded all our proceedings, to wit, that opposition as well from the States as from individuals, will be made to the System to be proposed. Will it not then be highly imprudent, to furnish any unnecessary pretext by the mode of ratifying it. Added to other objections agst. a ratification by Legislative authority only, it may be remarked that there have been instances in which the authority of the Common law has been set up in particular States agst. that of the Confederation which has had no higher sanction than Legislative ratification. Whose opposition will be most likely to be excited agst. the System? That of the local demagogues who will be degraded by it from the importance they now hold. These will spare no efforts to impede that progress in the popular mind which will be necessary to the adoption of the plan, and which every member will find to have taken place in his own, if he will compare his present opinions with those brought with him into the Convention. It is of great importance therefore that the consideration of this subject should be transferred from the Legislatures where this class of men, have their full influence to a field in which their efforts can be less mischeivous. It is moreover worthy of consideration that some of the States are averse to any change in their Constitution, and will not take the requisite steps, unless expressly called upon to refer the question to the people.
Mr. GERRY. The arguments of Col. Mason & Mr. Randolph prove too much. they prove an unconstitutionality in the present federal system even in some of the State Govts. Inferences drawn from such a source must be inadmissible. Both the State Govts. & the federal Govt. have been too long acquiesced in, to be now shaken. He considered the Confederation to be paramount to any State Constitution. The last article of it authorizing alterations must consequently be so as well as the others, and every thing done in pursuance of the article must have the same high authority with the article. -Great confusion he was confident would result from a recurrence to the people. They would never agree on any thing. He could not see any ground to suppose that the people will do what their rulers will not. The rulers will either conform to, or influence the sense of the people.
Mr. GHORUM was agst. referring the plan to the Legislatures.
1. Men chosen by the people for the particular purpose, will discuss the subject more candidly than members of the Legislature who are to lose the power which is to be given up to the Genl. Govt.
2. Some of the Legislatures are composed of several branches. It will consequently be more difficult in these cases to get the plan through the Legislatures, than thro' a Convention.
3. in the States many of the ablest men are excluded from the Legislatures, but may be elected into a Convention. Among these may be ranked many of the Clergy who are generally friends to good Government. Their services were found to be valuable in the formation & establishment of the Constitution of Massachts.
4. the Legislatures will be interrupted with a variety of little business, by artfully pressing which, designing men will find means to delay from year to year, if not to frustrate altogether, the national system.
5. If the last art: of the Confederation is to be pursued the unanimous concurrence of the States will be necessary. But will any one say, that all the States are to suffer themselves to be ruined, if Rho. Island should persist in her opposition to general measures. Some other States might also tread in her steps. The present advantage which N. York seems to be so much attached to, of taxing her neighbours by the regulation of her trade, makes it very probable, that she will be of the number. It would therefore deserve serious consideration whether provision ought not to be made for giving effect to the System without waiting for the unanimous concurrence of the States.
Mr. ELSEWORTH. If there be any Legislatures who should find themselves incompetent to the ratification, he should be content to let them advise with their constituents and pursue such a mode as wd. be competent. He thought more was to be expected from the Legislatures than from the people. The prevailing wish of the people in the Eastern States is to get rid of the public debt; and the idea of strengthening the Natl. Govt. carries with it that of strengthening the public debt. It was said by Col. Mason
1. that the Legislatures have no authority in this case.
2. that their successors having equal authority could rescind their acts.
As to the 2d. point he could not admit it to be well founded. An Act to which the States by their Legislatures, make themselves parties, becomes a compact from which no one of the parties can recede of itself. As to the 1st. point, he observed that a new sett of ideas seemed to have crept in since the articles of Confederation were established. Conventions of the people, or with power derived expressly from the people, were not then thought of. The Legislatures were considered as competent. Their ratification has been acquiesced in without complaint. To whom have Congs. applied on subsequent occasions for further powers? To the Legislatures; not to the people. The fact is that we exist at present, and we need not enquire how, as a federal Society, united by a charter one article of which is that alterations therein may be made by the Legislative authority of the States. It has been said that if the confederation is to be observed, the States must unanimously concur in the proposed innovations. He would answer that if such were the urgency & necessity of our situation as to warrant a new compact among a part of the States, founded on the consent of the people; the same pleas would be equally valid in favor of a partial compact, founded on the consent of the Legislatures.
Mr. WILLIAMSON thought the Resoln.: so expressed as that it might be submitted either to the Legislatures or to Conventions recommended by the Legislatures. He observed that some Legislatures were evidently unauthorized to ratify the system. He thought too that Conventions were to be preferred as more likely to be composed of the ablest men in the States.
Mr. Govr. MORRIS considered the inference of Mr. Elseworth from the plea of necessity as applied to the establishment of a new System on ye. consent of the people of a part of the States, in favor of a like establishment. on the consent of a part of the Legislatures as a non sequitur. If the Confederation is to be pursued no alteration can be made without the unanimous consent of the Legislatures: Legislative alterations not conformable to the federal compact, would clearly not be valid. The Judges would consider them as null & void. Whereas in case of an appeal to the people of the U. S., the supreme authority, the federal compact may be altered by a majority of them; in like manner as the Constitution of a particular State may be altered by a majority of the people of the State. The amendmt. moved by Mr. Elseworth erroneously supposes that we are proceeding on the basis of the Confederation. This Convention is unknown to the Confederation.
Mr. KING thought with Mr. Elseworth that the Legislatures had a competent authority, the acquiescence of the people of America in the Confederation, being equivalent to a formal ratification by the people. He thought with Mr. E-also that the plea of necessity was as valid in the one case as in [FN10] the other. At the same time he preferred a reference to the authority of the people expressly delegated to Conventions, as the most certain means of obviating all disputes & doubts concerning the legitimacy of the new Constitution; as well as the most likely means of drawing forth the best men in the States to decide on it. He remarked that among other objections made in the State of N. York to granting powers to Congs. one had been that such powers as would operate within the State, [FN11] could not be reconciled to the Constitution; and therefore were not grantible by the Legislative authority. He considered it as of some consequence also to get rid of the scruples which some members of the State Legislatures might derive from their oaths to support & maintain the existing Constitutions.
Mr. MADISON thought it clear that the Legislatures were incompetent to the proposed changes. These changes would make essential inroads on the State Constitutions, and it would be a novel & dangerous doctrine that a Legislature could change the constitution under which it held its existence. There might indeed be some Constitutions within the Union, which had given a power to the Legislature to concur in alterations of the federal Compact. But there were certainly some which had not; and in the case of these, a ratification must of necessity be obtained from the people. He considered the difference between a system founded on the Legislatures only, and one founded on the people, to be the true difference between a league or treaty, and a Constitution. The former in point of moral obligation might be as inviolable as the latter. In point of political operation, there were two important distinctions in favor of the latter. 1. [FN12] A law violating a treaty ratified by a pre-existing law, might be respected by the Judges as a law, though an unwise or perfidious one. A law violating a constitution established by the people themselves, would be considered by the Judges as null & void. 2. [FN12] The doctrine laid down by the law of Nations in the case of treaties is that a breach of any one article by any of the parties, frees the other parties from their engagements. In the case of a union of people under one Constitution, the nature of the pact has always been understood to exclude such an interpretation. Comparing the two modes in point of expediency he thought all the considerations which recommended this Convention in preference to Congress for proposing the reform were in favor of State Conventions in preference to the Legislatures for examining and adopting it.
On the question on Mr. Elseworth's motion to refer the plan to the Legislatures of the States
N. H. no. Mas. no. Ct. ay. no. Pa. no. Del. ay. Md. ay. Va. no. N. C. no. S. C. no. Geo. no.
Notes on the constitutional convention July 23, 1787
As you can see from the notes there was much debate on whether the states or the people should ratify the constitution. In the end it was decided that the people would.
Just as the Green Mountain boys of Vermont fought for independence from New York and the AoC union. Vermont waged a successful revolution, and the Supreme Court has recognized that Vermont was not admitted as a new state formed out of territory from New York, but that it had waged a successful revolution, and had been an independent state from 1777 to 1791 when it was admitted as an independent state with self-constituted boundaries.
Was the state of New York dissoluble? Did Vermont secede? Were the Green Mountain Boys and the Vermont political officials guilty of treason? Should Vermont tear down its monuments to treasonous traitors?
Vermont v. New Hampshire, 289 U.S. 593, 607-608 (1933)
Our conclusion as to the meaning and effect of the Order-in-Council of 1764 would be decisive of the boundary of Vermont upon her admission to the Union were it not for the history of Vermont as a revolutionary government and the consequent uncertainty whether she was admitted under the second clause of Art. IV, § 3, of the Constitution as a new state formed out of the territory of New York, with her boundary accordingly determined by that of New York, or whether she was admitted under the first clause of Art. IV, § 3, as an independent revolutionary state with self-constituted boundaries.The Special Master found that attempts by the New York authorities after 1764 to interfere with the possession of the holders of the New Hampshire grants made prior to the Order-in-Council led to protest and forcible resistance which assumed the proportions of a revolutionary movement. This movement culminated in 1777 in the Declaration of Independence by the towns comprising the New Hampshire grants on both sides of the Green Mountains, which proclaimed that the jurisdiction granted by the Crown "to New York government over the people of the New Hampshire Grants is totally dissolved," and that a free and independent government is set up within the territory now Vermont, bounded "east on Connecticut River . . . as far as the New Hampshire Grants extends." From that time until the admission of Vermont into the Union in 1791, an independent government was maintained with defined geographical limits extending on the east to the Connecticut River. In view of these facts, the Special Master concluded that the Order-in-Council was nullified by successful revolution, and Vermont was admitted as an independent state with self-constituted boundaries. But he also found, as we have said, that Vermont's claims of jurisdiction to the thread of the river were restricted to the low water mark on the western side by resolutions of Congress of August 20, 21, 1781, and their acceptance by resolution of the Vermont Legislature, February 22, 1782. In addition, he found that Vermont was not recognized as an independent state by Congress either under the Articles of Confederation or under the Constitution, but that her independence was recognized by New Hampshire in 1777, by Massachusetts in 1781, and by New York in 1790.
[Walter E. Williams] Rhode Island initially rejected it in a popular referendum and finally voted to ratify -- 34 for, 32 against.
George Washington was inaugurated on March 4, 1789. North Carolina ratified on November 21, 1789. On May 18, 1790 the U.S. Congress passed a bill to impose an embargo on Rhode Island. After having rejected the Constitution eleven times, Rhode Island finally capitulated and, under said coercion, ratified the Constitution on May 29, 1790.
See Congressional Register, Volume I, 1789, title page,
The Congressional Register; or, History of the Proceedings and Debates of the First House of Representatives of the United States of America, namely, New-Hampshire, Massachusetts, Connecticut, New-York, New-Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, South-Carolina, and Georgia,Being the Eleven States that have Ratified the Constitution of the Government of the United States.
Congressional Register, Volume I, 1789,
Page 412, Mr. SHERMAN, June 5, 1789:
But all we are now to consider, I believe, is, that we invite the state of Rhode Island to join our confederacy, what will be the effect of such a measure we cannot tell till we try it.
Page 413, Mr. MADISON, June 5, 1789:
My idea on the subject now before the House is, that it would be improper in this body to expose themselves to have such a proposition rejected by the legislature of the state of Rhode Island
Page 413, Mr. AMES, June 5, 1789:
I should be glad to know if any gentleman contemplates the state of Rhode Island, dissevered from the union; a maritime state, situated in the most convenient manner for the purpose of smuggling and defrauding our revenue. Surely a moment's reflection will induce the house to take measures to secure this object. Do gentlemen imagine that state will join the union? ... If a wish of congress will bring them into the union, why shall we decline to express such a wish?
Page 424, Mr. MADISON, June 8, 1789:
It cannot be a secret to the gentlemen in this house that, notwithstanding the ratification of this system of government by eleven of the thirteen United States, in some cases unanimously, in others by large majorities; yet still there is a great number of our constituents who are dissatisfied with it....
Page 438, Mr. JACKSON, June 8, 1789:
I hold, mr. speaker, that the present is not a proper time for considering of amendments. The States of Rhode-Island and North-Carolina are not in the Union. As to the latter, we have every presumption that they will come in. But in Rhode-Island I think the antifederal interest yet prevails. ...But to return to my argument. It being the case that those states are not yet come into the Union, when they join us we shall have another list of amendments to consider, and another bill of rights to frame.
Page 441, Mr. GERRY, June 8, 1789:
There are two states not in the union; it would be a very desirable circumstance to gain them. I should therefore be in favor of such amendments as might tend to invite them and gain their confidence; good policy will dictate to use to expedite that event. Gentlemen say, that we shall not obtain the consent of two-thirds of both houses to amendments. Are gentlemen willing then to throw Rhode-Island and North-Carolina into the situation of foreign nations. They have told you, that they cannot accede to the union unless certain amendments are made to the constitution; if you deny a compliance with their request in this particular, you refuse an accomodation to bring about that desirable event, and leave them detached from the union.
It may cause some consternation that two states were out of the union, while it was impossible for any state to have ever left the indestructible, indissoluble union. And then there was Vermont who up and formed an independent state from 1777-1791.
Debate it all you want. Secession as practiced by the southern states violated the Constitution. What are you planning on doing about it? People are challenging Roe v. Wade all the time, without success so far but that doesn't stop them from continuing to try. So how will you challenge Texas v. White.
I think we can agree that a SCOTUS decision, while carrying the weight of law, can be in error. Dred Scott, Plessy v Ferguson, and Roe v Wade are some examples. Does Texas v White fall into that category?
I agree with your contention that Supreme Court decisions can be in error. I disagree with your belief that Texas v. White falls into that category.
Don’t try to tell me that SCOTUS has decided secession is illegal.
As I believe I have stated several times, the Supreme Court has not decided secession is illegal. Secession with the agreement of the states is completely legal. Secession as practiced by the southern states, i.e. walking out without discussion, is not.
And yes, the states are the legally sovereign entities, at least in the original conception of the FedGov.
Only if you make up your own definition of 'sovereign'. States are separate political entities. The Constitution vests in them many powers, specific and implied. They can pretty much run their own show within their own borders and the federal government, for the most part, can't interfere. But they are not sovereign in the generally accepted political definition of the word.
For example, the state of Virginia, prior to the ratification of the Constitution, had the power to negotiate treaties with foreign governments.
Not without consent of Congress they didn't.
The Feds only have said power because the states gave it to them. Thus, the state governments are a higher power than the Fed.
The Supremacy clause would dispute that.
I said “in the original conception” above because I realize that our political system has evolved away from this concept.
Or at least in your opinion.
You misunderstand. I'm referring to your use of the word "treason", itself, as though it were emotionally defined rather than legally defined. Whether an act should have been considered treason in 1860 can only be determined by prior law as developed up to that point in time. A negotiated surrender in 1865 does not retroactively change the law. Your argument is perfectly consistent with my First Rule of Arguing With Yankees: All pro-union arguments eventually defy the rules of causation and will usually require sort of time travel.
Take that statement with the following grain of salt: The Articles of Confederation contained a perpetuity clause and then the very people who wrote it almost immediately replaced it with a constitution for which they couldn't be bothered to include another such clause. This is consistent with their positioning between the Hobbesian/Lockean poles.
Contrary to common belief, Hobbes and Locke mostly agreed that power was accumulated by means of consent and delegation. Where the disagreed was on the perpetual nature of the arrangement. Hobbes believed that The People, having given consent ONCE, were forever bound by that act of delegation because he believed in the continuity of identity of "The People" from one generation to the next, whereas Locke believed that no one generation had the authority to forever bind future generations without their consent. The Founders VERY definitely sided with Locke against Hobbes on this issue. Their use of a "Perpetual Union" clause in the Articles was, as demonstrated by both their words and deeds, an "until further notice" sort of instruction, one meant to deny the central government the power to end or alter ITSELF. It put the government under the operation of an autopilot rather than a deadman's switch.
Dwight Eisenhower was a five-star General in WWII and the Supreme Commander of the Allied Expeditionary Forces in Europe. That mean he was kind-of an important soldier.
Later the retired General was actually the 34th President of the United States. Look it up.
The John Birch Society claimed General Eisenhower was a communist. You claim to know: “Ike had his head up his ass . . .”
You have made yourself irrelevant with your irreverent and vulgar attack on General Eisenhower.
“It may cause some consternation that two states were out of the union, while it was impossible for any state to have ever left the indestructible, indissoluble union. And then there was Vermont who up and formed an independent state from 1777-1791.”
Your constant presentation of facts, facts, facts will cause some here to eventually cry out - “Is there a revolver in the house?”
What you are doing with the presentation of facts is beyond brutal. Sir, you are mean.
Challenge it as Victor's Justice.
Fact is, Texas v. White is becoming meaningless as you can see nightly in Portland.
What had meaning in Bismarck's day (probably coined by the ole rail-splitter) still has relevance for you today: any argument is adequate if one has the majority of bayonets.
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.