Posted on 06/13/2003 6:22:01 AM PDT by stainlessbanner
I don't think so either. Of course the Constitution started operating in 1790.
But consider this:
From Letters and Other Writings of James Madison,. New York: R. Worthington, 1884. 287-290.
To General Washington
New York, April 16th, 1787
Dear Sir,
--I have been honored with your letter of the 31 March, and find, with much pleasure, that your views of the reform which ought to be pursued by the Convention give a sanction to those I entertained. Temporizing applications will dishonor the councils which propose them, and may foment the internal malignity of the disease, at the same time that they produce an ostensible palliation of it. Radical attempts, although unsuccessful, will at least justify the authors of them.
Having been lately led to revolve the subject which is to undergo the discussion of the Convention, and formed some outlines of a new system, I take the liberty of submitting them without apology to your eye.
Conceiving that an individual independence of the States is utterly irreconcilable with their aggregate sovereignty, and that a consolidation of the whole into one simple republic would be as inexpedient as it is unattainable, I have sought for middle ground, which may at once support a due supremacy of the national authority, and not exclude the local authorities wherever they can be subordinately useful.
I would propose as the groundwork, that a change be made in the principle of representation. According to the present form of the Union, in which the intervention of the States is in all great cases necessary to effectuate the measures of Congress, an equality of suffrage does not destroy the inequality of importance in the several members. No one will deny that Virginia and Massachusetts have more weight and influence, both within and without Congress, than Delaware or Rhode Island. Under a system which would operate in many essential points without the intervention of the State legislatures, the case would be materially altered. A vote in the national Councils from Delaware would then have the same effect and value as one from the largest State in the Union. I am ready to believe that such a change would not be attended with much difficulty. A majority of the States, and those of greatest influence, will regard it as favorable to them. To the northern States it will be recommended by their present populousness; to the Southern, by their expected advantage in this respect. The lesser States must in every event yield to the predominant will. But the consideration which particularly urges a change in the representation is, that it will obviate the principal objections of the larger States to the necessary concessions of power.
I would propose next, that in addition to the present federal powers, the national Government should be armed with positive and complete authority in all cases which require uniformity; such as the regulation of trade, including the right of taxing both exports and imports, the fixing the terms and forms of naturalization, &c., &c.
Over and above this positive power, a negative in all cases whatsoever on the Legislative acts of the States, as heretofore exercised by the Kingly prerogative, appears to me to be absolutely necessary, and to be the least possible encroachment on the State jurisdictions. Without this defensive power, every positive power that can be given on paper will be evaded or defeated. The States will continue to invade the National jurisdiction, to violate treaties, and the law of nations, and to harass each other with rival and spiteful measures dictated by mistaken views of interest. . . .
The national supremacy ought also to be extended, as I conceive, to the Judiciary departments. If those who are to expound and apply the laws are connected by their interests and their oaths with the particular States wholly, and not with the Union, the participation of the Union in the making of the laws may be possibly rendered unavailing. It seems at least necessary that the oaths of the Judges should include a fidelity to the general as well as local Constitution, and that an appeal should lie to some National tribunal in all cases to which foreigners or inhabitants or other States may be parties. The admiralty jurisdiction seems to fall entirely within the purview of the National Government.
The National supremacy in the Executive departments is liable to some difficulty, unless the officers administering them could be made appointable by the Supreme Government. The Militia ought certainly to be placed, in some form or other, under the authority which is entrusted with the general protection and defense.
A Government composed of such extensive powers should be well organized and balanced. The legislative department might be divided into two branches; one of them chosen every. . .years, by the people at large, or by the Legislatures; the other to consist of fewer members, to hold their places for a longer term, and to go out in such rotation as always to leave in office a large majority of old members. Perhaps the negative on the laws might be most conveniently exercised by this branch. As a further check, a Council of revision, including the great ministerial officers, might be superadded.
A National Executive must also be provided. I have scarcely ventured, as yet, to form my own opinion either of the manner in which it ought to be constituted, or of the authorities with which it ought to be clothed. An article should be inserted expressly guaranteeing the tranquility of the States against internal as well as external dangers.
In like manner the right of coercion should be expressly declared. With the resources of commerce in hand, the National administration might always find means of exerting it either by sea or land. But the difficulty and awkwardness of operating by force on the collective will of a State render it particularly desirable that the necessity of it might be precluded. Perhaps the negative on the laws might create such a mutuality of dependence between the general and particular authorities as to answer this purpose. Or, perhaps, some defined objects of taxation might be submitted, along with commerce, to the general authority.
To give a new system its proper validity and energy, a ratification must be obtained from the people, and not merely from the ordination of the Legislatures. This will be the more essential, as inroads on the existing Constitutions of the States will be unavoidable."
The Framers -wanted- to establish a permanent Union; and apparently, they did.
Walt
And as I pointed out it's doubtful that they thought the whole process throught. The handful of black combat soldiers organized into black units in the closing weeks of the war really don't tell us anything.
I don't know about you, but if was armed, I would be a free man (dead or alive), but I would not still be a slave.
I suppose that legally you would be what the authorities say you are. And after you service your master comes and reclaims you then you're a slave in the eyes of the confederate government.
Article IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
You are exactly right.
And per the rebel constitution, no governmental action can ever free you.
Walt
It also put severe restrictions on the states -- no coining money and so forth.
What the Constitution also says is that the laws passed in pursuance are the supreme law of the land.
The 9th and tenth amendments don't even come into play.
Walt
Could this man have something to do with it?
Try again
That is simply not true, Partisan. You may repeat it to your heart's content but that does not make it any less incorrect. As I have informed you previously, there was indeed a black regiment from Richmond that was armed and engaged in combat shortly before the better known battle of Sailor's Creek. It is a few miles away from that site and, if you are interested, I will happily provide you with directions to go there and see it yourself. The on-site US park service markers AND Virginia markers clearly recount the event citing original documents.
Propagators of the silly neo-Confederate myth about black rebel troops, even some government employees in times past, have had incentives to place erroneous markers around, which when false prove nothing.
If you have any evidence whatsoever that the markers there are false, please present it. I am inclined to believe that they are not for several reasons. First, they are new displays (probably less than 10 years old) that are part of the US govt's "civil war heritage trails" system. Second, they quote an account of the battle on them. Third, they depict a sketch from the time of the battle showing the soldiers fighting. Fourth, the reference to the blacks is specific and details rather than a passing "oh, by the way, the confederates who fought here were black." And fifth, an 1865 news account out of nearby Farmville, VA just before the battle reports seeing a regiment of newly raised black confederates taking a defensive position outside of town. This all suggests that the markers are indeed credible and, absent of any specific reason as to why the markers would not be credible, it is an absurd and unsupportable conclusion to assert what you do.
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.