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

To: Non-Sequitur
Only if you accept the southern acts of unilateral secession to be legal.

Yes, I accept the US Constitution, as ratified.

That's why the 1787 proposal to allow Federal suppression of secession was explicitly rejected by Madison during the Constitutional debates. That's why "perpetual union" was dropped from the final version of the Constitution. It was not supposed to be indissoluble.

Too, the Hartford Convention never seriously debated secession.

Interesting that you know that, considering no records were kept of the proceedings, owing to their arguably treasonous nature....or are you saying it wasn't treason?

If you read the declaration issued by the convention you would find that nowhere does it threaten secession.

Of course it doesn't, but that doesn't mean it wasn't discussed. In fact, were not representatives dispatched to Washington to negotiate such, in addition to the declaration/proposed amendments to the Constitution?

Heck, the Federalists were so out of the mainstream they didn't run a presidential candidate in 1820!

Besides, Aaron Burr was part of a secession attempt nearly a decade before Hartford, as a result of the Louisiana Purchase. It wasn't the South...it was New York and New England.

"It is safe to say that there was not a man in the country, from Washington and Hamilton to Clinton and Mason, who did not regard the new system as an experiment from which each and every State had a right to peaceably withdraw."

"The People of Virginia declare and make known that 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 and that every power not granted thereby remains with them and at their will." --Virginia's ratification conditions for the Constitution, 1788.
245 posted on 01/19/2005 3:27:18 PM PST by Gondring (They can have my Bill of Rights when they pry it from my cold, dead hands!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 220 | View Replies ]


To: Gondring
It was not supposed to be indissoluble.

No there is no reason why secession should not be possible, with the consent of the people. The southern acts of secession failed to take that into consideration.

Interesting that you know that, considering no records were kept of the proceedings, owing to their arguably treasonous nature....or are you saying it wasn't treason?

On the contrary, records were kept. The Hartford Declaration is available on line, and any reasonable study of the convention will confirm that those desiring a separation from the United States were a minority, and were voted down very early on.

In fact, were not representatives dispatched to Washington to negotiate such, in addition to the declaration/proposed amendments to the Constitution?

No.

Besides, Aaron Burr was part of a secession attempt nearly a decade before Hartford, as a result of the Louisiana Purchase.

And he stood trial for it.

"The People of Virginia declare and make known that 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 and that every power not granted thereby remains with them and at their will." --Virginia's ratification conditions for the Constitution, 1788.

But when they choose to act outside the bounds of the Constitution then they are entering into rebellion. And that only works if you win.

272 posted on 01/19/2005 4:39:08 PM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 245 | 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