I Pledge allegiance to the Confederate Flag

I Pledge allegiance to the Confederate Flag, and to the Southern People and the Culture for which it stands

The Confederate flag is again under attack, as it has always been, and as it always will be. It is under attack because of what it symbolizes. The problem is that to many Southerners have forgotten just what it does symbolize.

The Confederate Nation of 1860 - 1865 was the intellectual, as well as the spiritual, continuation of the United States of America as founded, planned, and formed by Southerners. It was the stated, and often repeated, position of almost all Southerners in the 1860’s that they, and the South, were the heirs of the original political theory embodied in the U. S. Constitution of 1789. In 1860 their attempted to separate from the rest of the states and form their own nation since that was the only way the South could preserve the philosophy and the virtues that had made the United States the magnificent nation it had become.

In both of these contentions, that is, the South was the true repository of the original political theory that made the United States great, and the South was the true home of the people who took the necessary actions to found, make, and preserve the original United States, Southerners have been proven by the passage of time to be correct.

The Southern colonies of Virginia, North and South Carolina and Maryland were where the majority of the original American population resided until the 1700’s despite the fact Massachusetts was settled only 13 years after Virginia and New York was settled 18 years before South Carolina. As the population of the colonies grew, the New England States and the middle Atlantic states, gained population so that by the time of the American Revolutionary War the two general areas of the north and the South were generally equal in size with a small population advantage being shown by Virginia. This slight difference in population by a southern state was to have a profound effect on the development of the United States.

First of all, the New England states managed to start a war with England, which they verbalized as "taxation without representation." In truth the problem from their point of view was the taxes on their trade. Having started the war they then promptly managed to lose it. The British, after conquering the entire north from Maine (then part of Massachusetts) to Boston, to Providence, to New York, to the new nation’s capital, Philadelphia, shifted their military forces to move against the Southern colonies. They secured their foothold in the South by capturing Savannah and Charleston and then proceeded to move inland to subdue the Southern population. They planed to catch the Virginia forces under General Washington in a coordinated attack moving down from the north, which they held, and up from the South that they thought they would also conquer.

The British army that had mastered the north found they could not defeat the Southern people. Once in the backwoods of the South they found themselves to be the beaten Army. The British defeats at Kings Mountain and Cowpens were absolute. Their Pyrrhic victories at Camden and Guilford Courthouse were tantamount to defeat. In both North Carolina and South Carolina they were so weakened they had to retreat from the area of their few "victories" within days. Their defeats at those well-known sites among others, along with their defeat at Yorktown in Virginia, led directly to their surrender.

Having secured the political freedom from England for all the colonists, Southerners then mistakenly sat back and took a smaller role in forming the new American government that operated under an "Articles of Confederation." That first attempt at forming a government fell to the firebrands of New England who has started the war and who still asserted their moral position of leadership despite their poor showing on the field of battle. These Articles of Confederation, the product of the Yankee political mind, gave too much economic self determination to the separate colonies (as the Northern colonies had demanded in an attempt to protect their shipping, trade and manufacturing) and too little power of enforcement to a central government.

After a period of six difficult years, when the Articles of Confederation failed as a form of government, another convention was called and a new form of government was drawn up. This time the convention was under the leadership of Southerners and they brought forth the document we all refer to as the U.S. Constitution. Even northern historians do not try to pretend the Constitution and the ideas embodied therein are anything other than a product of the Southern political mind. (Yankee historians cannot deny it, but they do choose to ignore it so their students grow up ignorant of the fact that the Constitution is Southern.) So, as it turns out, when the new nation found itself in political trouble it was the South which, once again, came to the rescue just as it had when the nation found itself previously in military trouble.

With the slight population advantage it enjoyed over other states, Virginia was able to give to the new nation politicians who are nothing short of demigods. Their names are revered in all areas of the civilized world wherever political theorists converge. Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Randolph, Henry, Taylor and Monroe are just a few, there are many more. These men along with the leading political minds of South Carolina, Rutledge, Heyward, and, most importantly, Pinckney, saw their new nation through its birth and establishment.

The military leadership, as well as the political leadership, of the South saw the nation through its expansion. Under Southern leadership the British were defeated a second time in 1814. Under Southerners, most obviously John Tyler and Andrew Jackson, Florida was added as a state. The defeat of Mexico in 1846, under the Southern leadership of James Polk and numerous Southern military officers, established of the United States as a force to be feared. That was an astonishing accomplishment for so small and so young a nation

Thomas Jefferson, who added the Louisiana Purchase, barely escaped impeachment for his efforts. The north argued continuously against the war with Mexico that added the area from Texas to California just as they had argued against the Louisiana Purchase. One Congressman from Illinois, Abraham Lincoln, was particularly vehement against Texas being made a state. Northerners, having seen Mexico defeated and the United States enlarged all the way to the Pacific Ocean, then objected to the methods and motives of the acquisition of the Washington and Oregon territories in the northwest. Polk, who had added that vast area from Louisiana to California to Colorado to the pacific northwest, served only one term as President due to the constant attacks he sufferer in the Northern press. Left to the people of the north, the French would still control from Minnesota to Louisiana and Mexico would control from Texas to the Pacific while Canada would still include Washington, Oregon Idaho and Montana.

Every square inch of soil that now comprises the continental United States was added under a Southern president, and they did it over the strenuous political objections of the north. The provincial and mercenary Yankee people fought every effort to expand the United States. The expansion of the United States became a regional political disagreement that spread ill feeling north and South. Its accomplishment by Southerners was no small feat. It was accomplished under Southern military leadership and with much Southern blood. (Which is why Tennessee is called "The Volunteer State" and the names of Southerners are almost exclusively the only ones found on memorial tablets and monuments from Texas to California.). The expansion of the original colonies into the continental power it became was completely the results of the Southern mind and Southern leadership.

Having secured the freedom of the United States from England and then having formed and led the successful government into a new political age under a written constitution that is still the envy of the whole world, the South gave the entire military and political leadership that formed the United States into the boundaries it now enjoys. But these magnificent accomplishments were soon to be overshadowed by population shifts and the ensuing results that brings in a representative government. By the early 1820s the north had finally secured just enough additional population that it had achieved enough political clout to start protecting its first love, its money. The unfair and punitive tariffs that were passed in 1828 led to the South’s first half-hearted attempt to form its own separate government with the Nullification movement of 1832. The threat of war that South Carolina held out in 1832 then caused a negotiated modification of those laws to where the South could live with them. For the time being, the political question was settled by compromise.

While those changes pacified the political leaders of the South for the time being, some statesmen could see, even then, that if the North ever became totally dominant politically, the South would be destroyed, not just economically, but philosophically and spiritually as well. Those statesmen, with Calhoun in the lead, then started planting the intellectual seeds that led to the South’s second attempt at political freedom in 1860.

Unfortunately, in the 1840’s Yankee abolitionist introduced the new poison of the "voluntary end" of slavery as a political issue. There were attempts by many Southerners to defuse this situation by offering an economic solution. That is, Southerners offered to end slavery in the South just as England had ended it in the West Indies, by having the slave-holders paid for their losses when the slaves were freed. The abolitionist Yankees would have none of that. Their position was simple, the South could give up it slaves for free and each farmer could absorb the loss personally. There was to be no payment. To the Yankee abolitionists it was either their way or war.

The fact that the abolitionist movement became a dominant presence in the northern part of the United States from the 1840’s on is primarily because a liberal can politicize any subject and enrage any body of people regardless of the level of preexisting good will. (As current liberals have turned the simple good sense argument that one should not litter one’s own environment into the political upheaval of "the ecology movement." The effectiveness of liberal methods can currently be seen in the simple instance that most people believe such nonsense as the chemical cause of "ozone depletion" and "the greenhouse effect" despite any evidence of either. Liberals are absolutely capable, by their strident, activist natures of raising any question to harmful emotional heights.)

Unfortunately, the loss of the War for Southern Independence in 1865 caused the very thing that Southern statesmen had foreseen in the 1830’s; that is, the north became dominant and the cultural, spiritual, and economic base of the South was decimated. The loss of the war was most severely felt in the South, of course, but it has also had political repercussions in the north as well.

Without the South in a position of dominance, the leadership of the United States has gone from Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, Tyler and Polk to the inept, or leftist, Grant, Harding, Arthur, Harrison and Roosevelt, among others. Plus, the ascendancy of the leftist north to national prominence has also caused the rise of leaders in the South who had to be acceptable to the north. Such spectacularly immoral or totally incompetent Southern politicians as Lyndon Johnson, Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton are examples of the quality of the men that the South must now produce to garner northern votes. When these modern day jackals are contrasted with the demigods the South produced when unfettered by the northern voter, that in itself should be enough to make all people reject northern philosophy and northern politics and embrace all things Southern.

As the forces of the left have gained ascendancy in the United States, the pressure intensifies to completely obliterate anything that remains between them and complete leftist victory. That means that the traditional enemy of leftists, the South, must be erased in its every form. That is why leftists always demand that even symbols of the South be eradicated.

We, therefore, now have a coalition of people who want the Southern flag taken down and hidden from public view. This coalition is composed of three main groups. First of all are African-Americans, whose emotional position is totally unmitigated by any knowledge of history. Secondly, there are Yankees who have moved to the South and who, despite their remarkable political failures in their own states, have learned nothing and continue to vote leftist here too. Or either these northern imports have been transferred here to run the newspapers that are owned by the people who live outside the South. And, thirdly, there are leftist Southerners, or Southerners of "politically correct" leaning, who have apparently learned their history from the television and movies and who feel the South is a bad place because it is not egalitarian enough.

But the demands of this coalition of political thinkers need to be put in proper perspective. Before anyone starts to tell someone else how to act and how to think, it is incumbent on him to demonstrate the success of his own ideas and actions. So far the introduction and enforcement of leftist ideas in our world has led to nothing but sorrow and degeneration. The force necessary to make people live under a leftist government has been the direct cause of the murder of over one hundred million people in this century alone. Leftist political theory has enslaved and impoverished billions of people worldwide. Its introduction has weakened even such great nations as England and France and reduced them to the status of third rate nations. Socialism in Scandinavia has reduced it to an economic level even less than that of England. In the United States leftist ideas have turned our country into the increasingly sick society it has become.

So until this coalition of leftist can point to a single successful instance of where their leftist philosophy has improved a country, or a people, rather than to the spectacular political failures the left has precipitated in any place into which its poisonous philosophy has been introduced, they have no right to demand anything of anybody. Leftist, the most spectacular political failures in all of history, have no standing to demand that Southerners accept anything that flows from their false philosophy. And of all people, leftist have the least demand on Southerners, the people who formed, guided, expanded and gave them a great country.

The Confederate flag is a symbol. It stands for the people who had the spirit, the courage, and the intelligence to give the world its greatest governmental entity. As long as the Confederate flag flies there is hope that the terrible scourge leftists have placed on the world will pass. It represents the culture that produced the most wished for, the most just, and the finest political system on earth. And as long as the Confederate flies there is hope that the greatness that was once ours may someday be reestablished.

As Presidenmt [sic] Lincoln pointed out in 1861, the nation was in debt, a debt incurred at the name of all. To say, as you do, that the so-called seceded states can just walk away, la-de-da from that -- that they "exercised there [sic] God-given right to self-government and withdrew peacefully" is insulting to anyone with a shred of fairness about them.

Walt, Mr. Lincoln refused to allow recognition and negotiation with the duly appointed commissioners from the Confederate Government to the Federal Government appointed by President Davis specifically to “agree, treat, consult, and negotiate” the adjustment of all points interest, including the debts and disposition of public property in the States that had left the Union (Davis, Rise and Fall, vol. I, pg. 213). Mr. Lincoln refused to recognize them, so the argument, advanced by yourself here, and Lincoln at the time, that leaving without assuming a fair portion of the public debt, is spurious.

An interesting historical analogy is worth mentioning. In 1790, after more than a year of waiting for Rhode Island to ratify the Constitution, and even refusing to impose tariffs on RI products in an effort to get “the vaut-rien” to ratify, the US Senate debated how best to deal with her refusal to ratify and what to do with RI’s share of the US war debt. On May 10th, 1790, Mr. William Maclay, Senator from Pennsylvania wrote, “Let accounts be settled and Rhode Island has a right to be charged with, and she has a right to pay her proportion of the cost of independence." In other words, the principle at the dawn of the Republic was “pay your share and you're on your own.” Then on May 11th Maclay wrote, "The Rhode Island resolutions were taken up. I was twice up against these resolutions. They (the other Senators) admitted on all hands that Rhode Island was independent, and did not deny that the measures now taken were meant to force her into adoption of the Constitution of the United States." The word “force” is used in no more violent sense than ‘convince’ RI to ratify, or be presented with a bill for $27,000. Knowing what a bunch of cheapskates Rhode Islanders were at teh time, a bill for $27,000 would have the effect of forcing them to ratify. Journal of William Maclay, United States Senator from Pennsylvania, 1789-1791. Edgar S. Maclay, ed., (NY: Appleton, 1890), pg. 259. Even this degree of coercion was denounced by some in Congress. On May 26th, Mr. Page said on the floor of the House, "Should this bill pass, and should Rhode Island adopt the Constitution, she will come with so bad a grace into the Union that she must be ashamed when she enters it." (Annals of Congress, 1st Congress, 2nd Session, pg. 1671.) The Founding Fathers were extremely concerned that this was to be a Union of the willing.

And in fairness to you, I think that over time, if you are exposed to enough on the record on this, you will not be so sure that the secessionists were right; with reflection, you'll come to realize that they were horribly wrong.

With all due respect to you, I would make to opposite argument. If you are exposed to enough of the argument from the other side, you will see that there were two sides to this argument, with elements of merit on both sides. Slavery is wrong, but suppressing the ideal of government by the consent of the governed and violating the provisions of the US Constitution in an effort to overthrow slavery is more so.

Respectfully,

D J White

Your original question in Reply 540 was "...is the Federal government the sole rightful judge of the powers delegated to it?" And the answer to that is no. The Supreme Court is the sole judge of whether the governments actions are legal since the Constitution grants the Supreme Court jurisdiction in this matter. The individual states have no recourse except the Supreme Court and if they disagree with the court's decision then that is that. They all agreed to Article VI, Section II where is says:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

If the individual states choose not to be bound by the Constitution then they have two choices: follow the provisions in Article V and get the required number of states to agree to amend the Constitution and let them withdraw, or enter into rebellion. One path is legal and peaceful, the other is illegal and the state in question must accept responsibility for the consequences if the federal government chooses to contest their actions.

The US Supreme Court is a part of the Federal government, so, I can only deduce that your answer to the question of whether the Federal government is the sole rightful judge of the powers delegated to it is 'yes.' Which leads back to my original question of Walt. According to unconditional Unionists, States have no recourse whatsoever, to opposing Federal usurpations which the States may find insufferable. This doctrine, I believe, would have been astounding to the Founding Fathers.

The individual states have no recourse except the Supreme Court and if they disagree with the court's decision then that is that. They all agreed to Article VI, Section II where is says: This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

Well, with respect, it says, that the Constitution is supreme, not the Federal government, which is a creature of the document.

No, there is another. They can retract their ratifications, and leave the Union to those who find the percieved usurpations tolerable, which is, I believe the point of the matter.

Respectfully,

D J White

They can retract their ratifications, and leave the Union to those who find the percieved usurpations tolerable, which is, I believe the point of the matter.

They tried that 141 years ago and their illegal actions led to four years of civil war. Are you that anxious to go through that again?

The Constitution is the supreme law of the land. And the Constitution gives the Supreme Court the duty to interpret the Constitution and rule on what violates it and what does not. The Supreme Court has that duty, not the states or their legislatures or their agitators. The states knew that when they ratified it in the first place or petitioned for admission as states. The rules haven't changed so there is no reason for them to be surprised. There are no provisions for secession nor are there any provisions for rescinding their ratification other than those provided for amending the Constitution. Sorry, but that's the way it is and the way it will be until a future amendment or Supreme Court ruling changes things.

Jackson would have hanged them outright. And they would have richly deserved it.

Were they going to recompense the US government for the Louisiana Purchase? Maybe assume the public debt of Texas? Pay an amount equal to what it cost to rid Florida of the indians? Or pay for Florida itself?

It is beyond ridiculous. You can do the same thing; just go over to your local military base and fire up one of the five ton trucks. Drive that bad boy off. Why not? You pay taxes don't you? It doesn't work that way. That the national assets would be split up was never considered by the framers and there was no mechanism for it then or now. By the way, that little factoid--the national debt-- is why secession schemes today are totally cracked.

Unless of course you plan to do what the secesh did in 1860-61; take things at the point of the gun.

Walt

They tried that 141 years ago and their illegal actions led to four years of civil war.

Actually, the actions of the secessionists did not lead to war, the refusal of the Federal government to recognize these popular acts led to war.

Jurisdiction over secession is not expressly delegated to the Federal government, so that issue must rest with the States. This was the understanding of the real Founding Fathers, the States Conventions. In each State Convention whose proceedings were recorded and handed down to us (Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Virginia, New York, North Carolina), the Anti-Federalists warned that unspecified powers would be usurped by the Federal government. Federalists countered by stating over and over (I can give references if you like) that this was preposterous. No undelegated powers could possibly be assumed by the Federal government, since all Federal powers were specified in the grant. No Federal powers existed that were not specifically spelled out in the Constitution. Indeed, Federalists argued that a Bill of Rights would not only be unnecessary, but extremely dangerous. Future centralizers would point to the specified rights in the Bill of Rights and say that the list of specified rights in the BoR was all-inclusive and there were not other rights retained by the people, since they were not specified in the Constitution. The Bill of Rights ran the risk of being seen as restrictive, not merely as precaution. The drafters of the Bill of Rights avoided this pitfall with the wording of the IX and X Amendments.

Respectfully,

D J White

Actually, the actions of the secessionists did not lead to war, the refusal of the Federal government to recognize these popular acts led to war.

And why should you expect the Federal government to accept actions it saw as so completely illegal? If you were elected governor of Virginia and then banned future elections and proclaimed yourself governor for life should the Federal government accept that? If you announced that Virginia and South Carolina formed an alliance to prevent imports from New York should the Federal government accept that? Illegal actions are not to be ignored. And while we are on the subject how can you claim that the actions of the southern states in 1861 were 'popular acts' when only Texas of the original 7 states submitted the matter to a referendum?

Jurisdiction over secession is not expressly delegated to the Federal government, so that issue must rest with the States.

Jurisdiction over what was Constitutional and what was not was granted to the Supreme Court and every state knew that when they ratified it or accepted it as condition of statehood. And according to the Supreme Court the Union was permenant and unbreakable except with the agreement of 2/3rds of the parties involved. Chase made that clear in his decision. Nobody is saying that a state or state cannot leave the Union. But it must be done within the framework of the laws that all parties agreed to. And that framework is Article V.

If you were elected governor of Virginia and then banned future elections and proclaimed yourself governor for life should the Federal government accept that?

No, this would violate Article IV, Section 4.

If you announced that Virginia and South Carolina formed an alliance to prevent imports from New York should the Federal government accept that?

No, this would violate Article I, Section 10.

Illegal actions are not to be ignored.

Indeed. And if the Federal government attempts an illegal action, I believe that true patriots should oppose it, peacefully, if it is possible. This is what Virginia did in 1861.

And while we are on the subject how can you claim that the actions of the southern states in 1861 were 'popular acts' when only Texas of the original 7 states submitted the matter to a referendum?

State Conventions represent the embodied sovereignty of the people of that State and are elected for that purpose. Would also claim that the State Conventions that ratified the Constitution were not popular? Wouldn’t you proposition undermine the legitimacy of the Constitution itself?

Jurisdiction over what was Constitutional and what was not was granted to the Supreme Court and every state knew that when they ratified it or accepted it as condition of statehood.

Au contraire, mon ami. Virginia, New York, and Rhode Island declared in their ratification declarations explicitly that the powers delegated could be recalled.

And according to the Supreme Court the Union was permenant and unbreakable except with the agreement of 2/3rds of the parties involved. Chase made that clear in his decision.

You know very well that Chase’s decision was a post-war one and could have no relevance to a discussion of pre-war constitutional debate.

Nobody is saying that a state or state cannot leave the Union. But it must be done within the framework of the laws that all parties agreed to. And that framework is Article V.

If what you say here is true, then why didn‘t the Union become established for all States once nine States had ratified the Constitution?

Two questions for you. When exactly did the Union become perpetual and indivisible? And is it possible for there to be an unconstitutional act if the President, the Congress, and the Supreme Court all say its constitutional?

Respectfully,

D J White

Rhode Island included the following clause in their ratification document:

"That any person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, ought to be exempted, upon payment of an equivalent, to employ another to bear arms in his stead."

I'm not aware of that being granted. New York made the following declaration known:

" That standing Armies in time of Peace are dangerous to Liberty, and ought not to be kept up, except in Cases of necessity; and that at all times, the Military should be under strict Subordination to the civil Power."

That hasn't come to pass, either. Virginia copied New York in the prohibition against standing armies and Rhode Island in the payment of substitutes.

All these clauses were included in the same sections were the states claimed the right to take back power. None are law because the Congress has authorized standing armies and the practice of paying substitutes was not allowed in any recent conscription. And the Supreme Court has upheld these practices as legal.

The ratification documents, the Federalist Papers, the Declaration of Independence are all importent papers in our nation's history and all also share the same thing. None of them trump the Constitution. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land and all the states agreed with that. And the Constitution vests in the Supreme Court the duty to interpret the Constitution and determine what is legal and what is not. Not the states. Not the ratification documents. Not you. Not me.

The decision in Texas v. White is valid because the central issue was whether or not the Texas articles of secession were legal in 1861. The court ruled that they were not and it matters not if the ruling came in 1869, 1879 or 1999. The Supreme Court rules on cases when they come before them regardless of how long it takes.

Your last question makes no sense. "...is it possible for there to be an unconstitutional act if the President, the Congress, and the Supreme Court all say its constitutional?" Who says that it is unconstitutional? If the congress say it's constitutional and the president says it's constitutional then that doesn't matter. If the Supreme Court rules on the Constitutionality of the act then that is the deciding factor. The fact that you believe it to be unconstitutional is irrelevant.

Well, with respect, what you are arguing against is nullification, not secession. I would agree with you that nullification is problematical, in that the Constitution would potentially mean different things in different States. That is why I oppose nullification. For the record, so did Jefferson Davis.

Secession, however, is another matter. The sovereignty of the States was the States to delegate or not. If a States had refused to ratify (e.g. NC and RI up to their respective ratifications), then they were independent of the Union. This was recognized by the States themselves at the time, and by various Federal agents as well. I can provide the documentation if you like.

For one to accept your logic, one must believe that ratification was intended to be irrevocable. I believe that the power to withdraw one’s ratification subsequent to ratification was widely held, as evidenced by the ratification s of VA, NY, and RI. A declaration on the part of the new Federal government that such contingent ratifications were unacceptable and sending the these declarations of ratification back to the States for unconditional and irrevocable ratification would suffice, if you could provide the reference. The only statements I have seen that would contradict this view is a private letter from James Madison to Alexander Hamilton dated July 20th, 1788 (http://www.constitution.org/jm/17880720_hamilton.htm). While I can’t discount this view, given its source, when it conflicts with a declaration from a body elected to embody the sovereignty of States, I believe that the declaration of that body must take precedence. So I respectfully repeat the question, when did the Union become perpetual and indissoluble?

Respectfully,

D J White

I've never suggested that entry into the Union was permenant under any and all circumstances, nor did the Chief Justice in the Texas v. White decision. The problem is with the manner in which the southern states tried to withdraw, arbitrary secession. Your position is that under the constitution a state can decide at any time that they want to leave the Union. But nowhere in the Constitution does a state have the right to act in an arbitrary manner where the rights of the other states are involved. Why should they have the power in this? If a state has the right to secede regardless of what the other states may say then should the other states have a right to expell a single state regardless of what that state may say? They do not.

The power to leave the union lies with Article V of the Constitution. If we think of the Constitution as any other legal partnership then that cannot be disolved with the approval of the majority or all of the people involved. Why should the Constitution be any different. Why would the founding fathers have gone to great lengths to ensure that the people in each state be represented and guaranteed a republican government and protected from government excess only to make it that simple for a state to leave the Union and the people be at the mercy of whoever took them out? That would contradict everything that they set out to do in the first place. Instead, they made it difficult for a state to leave; trusting that, if the state in question could make it's position clear and show the overwhelming support of it's residents, then the overwhelming majority of the other states would see that position and allow them to go their way in peace and harmony, not in bitterness and acrimony. Instead of following the first path, the south chose the second and paid the price.

Madison didn't support secession. He argued against it in several letters and documents. The first quote is from a letter he wrote to Daniel Webster:

"I return my thanks for the copy of your late very powerful Speech in the Senate of the United S. It crushes "nullification" and must hasten the abandonment of "Secession." But this dodges the blow by confounding the claim to secede at will, with the right of seceding from intolerable oppression. The former answers itself, being a violation, without cause, of a faith solemnly pledged. The latter is another name only for revolution, about which there is no theoretic controversy."

During the Constitutional Convention, Madison addressed New York's desire to ratify in part:

"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 New 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 forever. In short, any condition whatever must vitiate the ratification. The idea of reserving a right to withdraw was started at Richmond, and considered as a conditional ratification, which was itself abandoned as worse than a rejection."

There are other quotes from Madison but I don't have them handy right now. But they all make clear his belief that the arbitrary secession was wrong.

In answer to your earlier question on Supreme Court rulings, I asked my counselor and drinking buddy about it. He said that Supreme Court decisions can be retroactive or prospective. Retroactive decisions invalidate convictions made under the law in question. In that case a person punished under the law can petition the local court for a reversal or dismissal. Normally a new trial is not involved. Furman v. Georgia was such a decision. If the decision is identified by the court as prospective then old convictions made under the law are not disturbed. I have no idea which case Miranda v. Arizona falls under, or Roe v. Wade or how the court chooses to decide which category the case falls under. Put it should be in the decision somewhere.

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.