Posted on 02/03/2006 3:38:06 PM PST by churchillbuff
you & the coven just can't get the message that the unionists were NOT "on the right side".
PITY!
free dixie,sw
Regards,
~dt~
In other words, a Natural Right of Revolution. Note the phrase " Laws of Nature and of Nature's God." The Founding Fathers were under no illusion that they weren't committing treason under British law.
That's the thing about revolutions. You have to win them.
I agree with these sentiments, mostly. The only question then becomes: If the States were merely removing their membership in the Confederation, and were acting fully within civil governments, WERE they in revolution? In other words, if the States seceeding were acting through their Constitutions in lawful manners to remove their membership from the federal Union, could the actions of those lawfully-elected civil governments, acting completely in support of their citizens, be considered revolt? (For comparison, consider the Whiskey Rebellion, which was not the action of civil governments, but of individuals acting without the authority of their State.)
The United States was intended to be a confederation created by sovereign States, who give up portions of their sovereignty to the central government in order to allow it (not the other way around) to serve them towards the greater good of each and every other State. When the general government is no longer doing so, do these States, acting as sovereigns, not have the right to withdraw from the Compact which created the confederation and re-assume 100% of their sovereignty? Based on my studies of the origins of our federal Government, I would definintely answer that question in the affirmative.
(Considering that the Federal government proceeded to use massive military force to overthrow the lawful civil governments of these same States, and to re-design the State governments as sub-entities of itself, I would say that Washington, D.C. is now our sovereign, and we, as Federal citizens, are Washington's subjects, no better off than peasants in a monarchy. If the outcome of the Civil War had been different, this may not have been the case, but your notion that you have to win a war for independence is definitely applicable under our new Federal structure.)
That indeed is the crux of the matter.
In other words, if the States seceeding were acting through their Constitutions in lawful manners to remove their membership from the federal Union, could the actions of those lawfully-elected civil governments, acting completely in support of their citizens, be considered revolt?
Ah, here's where we part company. I don't think that the actions of the seceding states were done in a "lawful manner." Sure, there were resolutions and conventions and elections, but all of it was done at a state level. I'm not aware of any attempt by any of the southern states to ask congress to leave the union in the same way they'd asked to be admitted. And the funny thing is, there was probably a good chance that between the bloc of southern states wanting to go and the northern states who would have been happy to be rid of them, they could have gotten such a resolution passed.
could the actions of those lawfully-elected civil governments, acting completely in support of their citizens, be considered revolt?
There mere presence of an elected body acting on the wishes of the electorate doesn't magically absolve allegiance. By that logic, a county could secede from its state, as long as the county board decided to.
When the general government is no longer doing so, do these States, acting as sovereigns, not have the right to withdraw from the Compact which created the confederation and re-assume 100% of their sovereignty?
I'd first say that, by suppressing the rebellion, the US government did serve the greater good of the states. But again we come to the question of unilateralism. Let me ask you this: If it's possible for a state to leave the union without consulting congress, is it possible for congress to expell a state from the union without their approval? In other words, if the contract can be broken by one side, why not the other?
I would say that Washington, D.C. is now our sovereign, and we, as Federal citizens, are Washington's subjects, no better off than peasants in a monarchy?
And how would it be different under your scheme, except to substitute your state capital for Washington DC?
You are channeling Daniel Webster, I see. From 1851:
If the South were to violate any part of the Constitution intentionally and systematically, and persist in so doing, year after year, and no remedy could be had, would the North be any longer bound by the rest of it? And if the North were deliberately, habitually, and of fixed purpose to disregard one part of it, would the South be bound any longer to observe its other obligations? I have not hesitated to say, and I repeat, that if the Northern States refuse, willfully and deliberately, to carry into effect that part of the Constitution which respects the restoration of fugitive slaves, and Congress provide no remedy, the South would no longer be bound to observe the compact. A bargain cannot be broken on one side and still bind the other side.
I agree with you that, had these states sought to exit the Union through Congress, this may potentially have avoided some of the unpleasantness of the War. But once again, did the States owe allegiance to the Federal government, or did the Federal government owe its allegiance to the States? Remember, the Federal government is the creation of the States! (Well, the original States, in the least. The relationship between the Federal government and states which were created from Territories is a more complex argument.)
There mere presence of an elected body acting on the wishes of the electorate doesn't magically absolve allegiance. By that logic, a county could secede from its state, as long as the county board decided to.
The answer to that is that it depends. In the Commonwealth of Virginia, the State government is still Sovereign over the Counties, which are corporate entities created by the State. To take matters further, under the structure of the Virginia government, the County only has limited powers it is allowed to exercise; anything over those powers can only be exercised with the permission of the full Legislature. For a County to attempt to secede from a State, because of this relationship, would be completely illegal unless done with the consent of the lawfully elected Legislature of the State.
For a State to perform any action through the auspices of its lawfully-elected civil government is the ultimate foundation of American governance, up until 1865. These precedents antedate the Constitution by well over 100 years, if you care to look closely enough at the historic record.
States are Republican in form. The Federal government is a Confederacy. These are not the same, and the source of power in each system is different. (Well, it was before 1865. In modern times, I don't think this same statement would still apply.)
I'd first say that, by suppressing the rebellion, the US government did serve the greater good of the states. But again we come to the question of unilateralism. Let me ask you this: If it's possible for a state to leave the union without consulting congress, is it possible for congress to expell a state from the union without their approval? In other words, if the contract can be broken by one side, why not the other?
The first part of this argument hinges on defining whether or not the states in question were truly "in rebellion" or not, but ignoring that for now, I think it's clear that the Founders included no provision in the Constitution which caused the states to either (a) be bound by force to it, or (b) to allow States to eject other States.
I can clearly say (a) due to a fact that the founders DID consider allowing the Federal government to enforce its laws using military force, and explicitly struck that grant of power from the Constitution. By doing so, they denied the Federal government permission to use military force to bring States into compliance with its rules. (This, of course, was ignored by the Federal government of 1861, which was under pressure from radicals in Congress to "do something" about the so-called rebellion.)
(b) is a little bit less obvious, but if you think about it hard enough it becomes abundantly clear. The Federal government cannot vote to remove a State from the Union due to the fact that the States are all admitted on equal terms. The only two factors in dealing with State-to-Federal relations are the State and the Federal government itself. Other States have no say in the relationship between an individual State and the general government, other than to set norms which would apply to all of the States in conjunction. (This, of course, brings us back to the "rebellion" question once again, I'm afraid to say.)
And how would it be different under your scheme, except to substitute your state capital for Washington DC?
My State was first populated by the Royal sovereign in 1609. Our first elected government seated itself, under permission of the Crown, in 1619. We have 400 years of experience in civil governance, and I put considerably more faith in my locally-elected legislators than I do in any representative currently seated in Washington.
Furthermore, I would say that I have far more direct control over my State government, due to the way it is designed, than I could ever hope to exert over the Federal. If you don't believe that's the case, compare the response you'll receive to a query sent to your Federal congressman (a form letter followed by no action) to the one you'll receive from your State delegate (a personally-signed, personally-written reply). It's clear to me that my State government more clearly protects my interests than the Federal does.
I believe enough in my Commonwealth to trust it to stand on its own merits. Obviously, I can't say the same for all 50 states in the confederation, but the relationship between these other states and their populace are really not of any concern of mine.
Does that answer the question to your satisfaction?
Most respectfully yours,
~dt~
Mr. Webster is surely one of the most brilliant minds of his era. Thanks for the quote!
~dt~
By the way, if this were phrased, "That's the thing about wars for independence: You have to win them, I would agree 100% without reservation. I just wanted to put that out on the record.
Warmest regards,
~dt~
free dixie,sw
You're a bit quick to use that term. Please stop.
You will find NO, and I cannot stress this enough, contemporary resources, books, newspaper articles, or other material from the timeframe surrounding the ratification of the Constitution, that would suggest ANYTHING similar to the position you are taking, my friend, and I urge you to go back and look at the DIRECT historical record if you don't believe me. Original sources, original sources, original sources!
OK, how about some sources to support your position? How about the quote from the founding father that says a state may, for any reason, abrogate responsibility for obligations built up by the nation as a whole while that state was a part of it? Please tell me what founder agrees that any state may seize common property at will and without compensation. Point out what federalist paper supports the idea that Maryland or Ohio can be cut off from access to the sea by another state, regardless of the impact this action has on the interest and economic well-being of that state. Please show me where any one supports any of those concepts and I'll agree that they support your concept of secession at will, for any reason or no reason at all, regardless of the consequences.
Seceding states are not the only sovereign one, and are not the only ones with constitutional rights. The remaining states are impacted by secession, and deserve a say in the matter. You may not agree with that, but it is clear in the Constitution that the founders did not feel that once Congress admitted them that the states should have sole say over changes in their status. Splitting or combining with another state or changing borders all could have an impact, positive or negative, on the other states and Congress believed that the other states should at least have a say in the matter before the action took place. That is why Congressional approval is needed. And when a state decides to walk away from the national debt or treaty obligations, when they appropriate commonly held property, or before they cut off access to the Mississippi from the rest of the United States then shouldn't the rest of the states have a say?
The reason for this is not because the Constitution is somehow supreme...
But the Constitution IS supreme, as Article VI, Clause 2 clearly states.
I will still firmly abide by the rules of decorum, Sir. You may not like it, but it won't stop me from doing so.
OK, how about some sources to support your position? How about the quote from the founding father that says a state may, for any reason, abrogate responsibility for obligations built up by the nation as a whole while that state was a part of it?
Sadly, I have no such quote or reference handy. I am still researching the matter, and will hopefully have a more concrete answer for you down the road. Considering the fact that greater minds such as myself have brought forth the exact same allegation that I have, suggests that such quotes do in fact exist. (I challenge you to do the same, though. Bring forth quotes from the Founders supporting your position that the Constitution trumps state Sovereignty, that States may by force coerce other states to remain in the Union, and the like. The historic record ought to be fairly clear towards the negative on those positions.)
Please tell me what founder agrees that any state may seize common property at will and without compensation. Point out what federalist paper supports the idea that Maryland or Ohio can be cut off from access to the sea by another state, regardless of the impact this action has on the interest and economic well-being of that state.
As you'll recall, the Confederate States of America attempted to send a commission to Washington City for the express purpose of resolving amicably all fees due to the Federal government at the time of secession. This included payment for Federal lands within the Southern states, payment towards the arsenals built up by the Federal government, and the like.
Nobody in Washington received these commissioners. Now why, would you suppose, if the South intended to resolve these matters amicably, would there be any possible reason for the Federal Government not to at least receive these gentlemen and hear them out? For what purpose would the Federal government have had in order to turn these Commissioners away?
(I think the historic record answers that question quite soundly.)
To answer your suggestion that the Confederacy somehow blockaded Northern states, it is clear from the Journals of the Confederate Congress that the Confederate government intended to keep the Mississippi River (and, by their intention, every other inter-state waterway) open to trade without taxes or duties at all times. The notion that somehow the South intended to cripple the North's trade is rediculous, and is completely unsupported by the historic record.
Seceding states are not the only sovereign one, and are not the only ones with constitutional rights. The remaining states are impacted by secession, and deserve a say in the matter. You may not agree with that...
But I do agree with that. As I said previously, the South attempted to resolve all of these matters to the North's satisfaction, yet the North refused to allow any discussions of it. Once again I ask: why do you suppose that is?
...but it is clear in the Constitution that the founders did not feel that once Congress admitted them that the states should have sole say over changes in their status. Splitting or combining with another state or changing borders all could have an impact, positive or negative, on the other states and Congress believed that the other states should at least have a say in the matter before the action took place. That is why Congressional approval is needed.
As I explained in a prior post, the reason that Congressional approval is required for border disputes dates back to some of the disputes which held the Continental Congress' attention, particularly around 1787. There were disputes between Connecticut, Pennsylvania, New York, and Virginia over who owned what is now Ohio and the like. Georgia and South Carolina both claimed ownership of counties along their border, and Georgia was infuriated by suggestions that it would lose land to Florida.
In addition to border issues, States were prohibited by the Consitution (which, in reality, means that the States delegated a portion of their sovereignty) from entering treaties with foreign nations, and from entering treaties with each other due to problems between Virginia and some Indian nations which existed in the Ohio Valley. Virginia was arming its militia, preparing to go to war with these tribes - all of whom had signed treaties of amity with the Confederacy at the time. The Continental Congress could only recommend to Virginia that it not go to war with those tribes, as it didn't have the authority to do more than that.
It was because of these disputes, and not some notion of "constitutional superiority", that the Constitution of 1789 demands that Congress examine and approve all treaties.
And when a state decides to walk away from the national debt or treaty obligations, when they appropriate commonly held property, or before they cut off access to the Mississippi from the rest of the United States then shouldn't the rest of the states have a say?
As I said earlier, it is clear from the public record of the Confederate States that they had no such intention. It is the fault of the United States government for not receiving the Commissioners sent by the former that this misconception persisted in the North.
But the Constitution IS supreme, as Article VI, Clause 2 clearly states.
Under the theory of delegated powers, the foundation of American governance, the Constitution can and is only supreme over areas which fall under its jurisdiction. This reason, and this reason alone is why, for example, New Hampshire was fully unchallenged in its right to have a State church up until 1810.
(Due to the Reconstruction Acts, all State constitutions have been rewritten to be inferior to the Constitution, so these statements are not as applicable to our modern nation as they were in 1861.)
As always, I will continue to hold you in the highest,
regards,
~dt~
But isn't the time to negotiate matters like that before the separation? When both sides have a chance to lay out their case and come to an equitable agreement? If one side walks away from obligations and with whatever property it wants then by what means can the other party use to bring the seceding party to the bargaining table? It has not control, no influence left. The seceding party has left, it has what it wants, and is under no obligation to make the remaining party happy.
As you'll recall, the Confederate States of America attempted to send a commission to Washington City for the express purpose of resolving amicably all fees due to the Federal government at the time of secession. This included payment for Federal lands within the Southern states, payment towards the arsenals built up by the Federal government, and the like.
They seized first, and with no mention of compensation. The commission you speak of was sent for the purpose of obtaining recognition of the confederate government. Then, and only then was there a vague offer to discuss matters of disagreement. But let's play that game. Give me your house. Then we can discuss a fair price. I'll pay it, I promise. Deal?
To answer your suggestion that the Confederacy somehow blockaded Northern states, it is clear from the Journals of the Confederate Congress that the Confederate government intended to keep the Mississippi River (and, by their intention, every other inter-state waterway) open to trade without taxes or duties at all times. The notion that somehow the South intended to cripple the North's trade is rediculous, and is completely unsupported by the historic record.
The confederacy launched this continent into the bloodiest war in it's history over a fort. Why should anyone believe that they would have hesitated for a moment to shut off shipping in the Mississippi at any time if they thought it was to their benefit.
But regardless, you have missed the point completely. Your belief that a state may secede at will means that in your opinion a state can walk away from obligations, can seize anything it wants, can take any action it wants at the expense of the remaining states and those states have absolutely no rights in the matter and no say whatsoever. The seceding state is justified in your eyes. The remaining states are in the wrong. All because of some cock-eyed concept that only seceding states are sovereign and remaining states are at their mercy. It is precisely because of issues like these that would have made the founding fathers gag at the idea of secession at will. The remaining states have no recourse except war or force. The seceding states have no obligation to protect the rights of the remaining states. I defy you to come up with a single quote that indicates that such a concept was OK in the eyes of the founding fathers. One quote at all.
I challenge you to do the same, though. Bring forth quotes from the Founders supporting your position that the Constitution trumps state Sovereignty, that States may by force coerce other states to remain in the Union, and the like. The historic record ought to be fairly clear towards the negative on those positions.
"...[t]he separate independence and individual sovereignty of the several states were never thought of by the enlightened band of patriots who framed this Declaration; the several states are not even mentioned by name in any part of it,—as if it was intended to impress this maxim on America, that our freedom and independence arose from our union, and that without it we could neither be free nor independent.” -- Charles Pinkney
"The states were not “sovereigns” in the sense contended for by some. They did not possess the peculiar features of sovereignty,—they could not make war, nor peace, nor alliances, nor treaties. Considering them as political beings, they were dumb, for they could not speak to any foreign sovereign whatever. They were deaf, for they could not hear any propositions from such sovereign. They had not even the organs or faculties of defence or offence, for they could not of themselves raise troops, or equip vessels, for war.... If the states, therefore, retained some portion of their sovereignty [after declaring independence], they had certainly divested themselves of essential portions of it." -- Rufus King.
"...[I]could not admit the doctrine that when the colonies became independent of Great Britain, they became independent also of each other....that the United Colonies were declared free and independent states, and inferring, that they were independent, not individually, but unitedly, and that they were confederated, as they were independent states.” -- James Wilson
"I say, the right of a State to annul a law of Congress, cannot be maintained but on the ground of the unalienable right of man to resist oppression; that is to say, upon the ground of revolution. I admit that there is an ultimate violent remedy, above the Constitution and in defiance of the Constitution, which may be resorted to when a revolution is to be justified. But I do not admit, that, under the Constitution and in conformity with it, there is any mode in which a State government, as a member of the Union, can interfere and stop the progress of the general government, by force of her own laws, under any circumstances whatever.... It is, Sir, the people's Constitution, the people's government, made for the people, made by the people and answerable to the people. The people of the United States have declared that this Constitution shall be the supreme law. But the State legislatures, as political bodies, however sovereign, are not yet sovereign over the people. So far as the people have given power to the general government, so far as the grant is unquestionably good, and the government held of the people, and not of the State governments. We are all agents of the same supreme power, the people. The general government and the State governments derive their authority from the same source.... If there be no power to settle such questions [constitutionality of a federal tariff], independent of either of the States, is not the whole Union a rope of sand? Are we not thrown back again, precisely, upon the old Confederation? It is too plain to be argued. Four-and Twenty interpreters of constitutional law, each with a power to decide for itself, and none with authority to bind any body else, and this constitutional law the only bond of their union!... Some authority must, therefore, necessarily exist, having the ultimate jurisdiction to fix and ascertain the interpretation of these grant, restrictions and prohibitions [with respect to the enumerated powers]. The Constitution has itself pointed out, ordained, and established that authority. How has it accomplished this great and essential end? By declaring, Sir, that "the Constitution, and the laws of the United States made in pursuance thereof, shall be the supreme law of the land, anything in the constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding." This, Sir, was the first great step. By this the supremacy of the Constitution and laws of the United States is declared. The people so will it....But who shall decide this question of interference? To whom lies the last appeal? This, Sir, the Constitution itself decides also, by declaring "that the judicial power shall extend to all cases arising under the constitution and laws of the United States." These two provisions, Sir, cover the whole ground. They are, in truth, the key-stone of the arch! With these, it is a Constitution; without them, it is a confederation." -- Daniel Webster
"But each State, having expressly parted with so many powers as to constitute, jointly with the other States, a single nation, can not, from that period, possess any right to secede, because such secession does not break a league, but destroys the unity of a nation; and any injury to that unity is not only a breach which would result from the contravention of a compact, but it is an offense against the whole Union.... Secession, like any other revolutionary act, may be morally justified by the extremity of oppression; but to call it a constitutional right is confounding the meaning of terms, and can only be done through gross error or to deceive those who are willing to assert a right, but would pause before they made a revolution or incur the penalties consequent on a failure.... Disunion by armed force is treason." -- Andrew Jackson
"The conduct of S. Carolina has called forth not only the question of nullification; but the more formidable one of secession. It is asked whether a State by resuming the sovereign form in which it entered the Union, may not of right withdraw from it at will. As this is a simple question whether a State, more that an individual, has a right to violate its engagements, it would seem that it might be safely left to answer itself. But the countenance given to the claim shows that it cannot be so lightly dismissed. The natural feelings which laudably attach the people composing a State, to its authority and importance, are at present too much excited by the unnatural feelings, with which they have been inspired against their brethren of other States, not to expose them, to the danger of being misled into erroneous views of the nature of the Union and the interest they have in it. One thing at least seems to be too clear to be questioned; that whilst a State remains within the Union it cannot withdraw its citizens from the operation of the Constitution laws of the Union. In the event of an actual secession without the Consent of the Co-States, the course to be pursued by these involves questions painful in the discussion of them. God grant that the menacing appearances, which obtruded it may not be followed by positive occurrences requiring the more painful task of deciding them/" -- James Madison.
Let me post one more Madison quote and ask you to comment on it. Madison said, "An inference from the doctrine that a single State has the right to secede at will from the rest is that the rest would have an equal right to secede from it; in other words, to turn it, against its will, out of its union with them." Is Madison right or wrong. And if you think he is wrong then why?
But isn't the time to negotiate matters like that before the separation? When both sides have a chance to lay out their case and come to an equitable agreement? If one side walks away from obligations and with whatever property it wants then by what means can the other party use to bring the seceding party to the bargaining table? It has not control, no influence left. The seceding party has left, it has what it wants, and is under no obligation to make the remaining party happy.
Even the South did not claim the right to walk away without compensating the other States for their joint liabilities. The North spurned repeated attempts to rectify the imbalance created by the separation.
I would ask you this: Was the North any more right in immediately seizing all of the arms present in the Armories in Springfield, Missouri? Was the North any more right in seizing control of the Navy Yards at Norfolk and using the ships (which, admittedly, the Southern sailors abandoned in an attempt to behave honorably - honor being the highest dictum in antebellum Southern life, as you'll recall!) against the very States which paid to build them?
They seized first, and with no mention of compensation. The commission you speak of was sent for the purpose of obtaining recognition of the confederate government. Then, and only then was there a vague offer to discuss matters of disagreement. But let's play that game. Give me your house. Then we can discuss a fair price. I'll pay it, I promise. Deal?
The Commissions granted to these men specified that their explicit purpose was to treat for the redress of the debts incurred by the South, and they were operating under strict instruction to be as liberal in seeking amends as possible.
For what justifyable reason would Washington not even consider receiving these highly-respected gentlemen?
The confederacy launched this continent into the bloodiest war in it's history over a fort. Why should anyone believe that they would have hesitated for a moment to shut off shipping in the Mississippi at any time if they thought it was to their benefit.
One could argue that the North launched this continent into the civil war, as it repeatedly stalled, lied, and manipulated events such that they could attempt to re-inforce Fort Sumter, to allow it to be used against Charleston - thus threatening to destroy the most prominent port in all of South Carolina. As I also asserted previously, none of the rivers in South Carolina connected it to any other state. Why, then, would the Federal government continue to use the Fort to threaten the city of Charleston by reinforcing that Fort, while suggesting through official channels that they would be withdrawing from it? What possible inter-state authority could the Federal Government even claim to hold over the State at that point?
It is regrettable that the South fired the first shot, yes. The Governor of that State felt sufficiently threatened by the military action coming from New York to do so, so in the minds of he and his electorate, he was justified in doing so.
But regardless, you have missed the point completely. Your belief that a state may secede at will means that in your opinion a state can walk away from obligations, can seize anything it wants, can take any action it wants at the expense of the remaining states and those states have absolutely no rights in the matter and no say whatsoever.
Have I said that? No. It is the duty of the seceeding state to attempt to honorably rectify its debts to the remaining states to the best of its ability. The fact that the States which chose to seceed were spurned in their attempts to do so speaks volumes about the true intentions (i.e., overt conquest) of the Northern states.
Could events have happened without war, had the Southern states gone through the Congress to seceed? Perhaps. I would suggest that the irrational Republicans who had just been elected to Congress and to the Executive had no such intention of working with the South in resolving their sectional dispute at all, and that the end result would still have been the same. I'll see if I can research whether or not the issue of going through the Congress to seceed was considered by the leaders of the Secession movement, but I am not aware of any background on that at the moment.
Have you researched the threats made by the Northern states to seceed in the 1830-1840 timeframe? (I have not, I'm just curious.) Did they attempt to go through the Congress?
The seceding state is justified in your eyes. The remaining states are in the wrong. All because of some cock-eyed concept that only seceding states are sovereign and remaining states are at their mercy.
Wrong. The Seceding state is Justified, in my eyes, if and only if it has suffered extreme grievances at the hands of the other States, via the General government! I would consider our present tax system to be an "extreme grievance" - An absolute horror to our Founders, who revolted against a mere 13% tax. Unfortunately, since the Declaration of Independence has been declared to be Void by the United States Army, I have no hope of EVER having my grievances addressed in my lifetime.
The remaining states have no recourse except war or force.
Why, then, did the Founders openly strike the power of enforcing laws via military force FROM the powers granted to the General government by the States via the Constitution? Why?
I would suggest that they would be more horrified by the use of extreme and brutal force to coerce other sovereign States than they would by the resumption of sovereignty implied by secession.
To alter the highlighting of one of your citations,
"The conduct of S. Carolina has called forth not only the question of nullification; but the more formidable one of secession. It is asked whether a State by resuming the sovereign form in which it entered the Union, may not of right withdraw from it at will..." -- James Madison
Madison, the Father of the Constitution, would rightfully be protective of the Government created by it. However, notice the implication that my highlight has made towards your previous arguments that the "states have no implicit Sovereignty." Do you see what the Father of the Constitution thought of your position?
Let me post one more Madison quote and ask you to comment on it. Madison said, "An inference from the doctrine that a single State has the right to secede at will from the rest is that the rest would have an equal right to secede from it; in other words, to turn it, against its will, out of its union with them." Is Madison right or wrong. And if you think he is wrong then why?
Based on that statement alone, I would suggest that Madison is incorrect (I'd love to see the context: Do you have a link?). Well, rather than being incorrect (he did write it, after all), I would suggest that he may be painting an overly-dramatic picture with the express purpose of subtly scaring the States into remaining under the provisions of the Constitution.
The ability to force a party out of a contract against its will would, by nature, be a violation of that contract, no? At least, unless that contract contained a positive clause giving the consolidated government the authority to do so?
And, by supposition, the continued abuse of one of the signatories of a contract by another signatory would free the first from being bound by that contract, would it not?
Regards,
~dt~
you are right, that kind of anti Lincoln logic always cracks me up as well!
which agreement was that?
""Resolved by the Confederate States of America in Congress Assembled, That it is the sense of this Congress that a commission of three persons be appointed by the President elect, as early as may be convenient after his inauguration, and sent to the government of the United States of America, for the purpose of negotiating friendly relations between that government and the Confederate States of America, and for the settlement of all questions of disagreement between the two governments upon principles of right, justice, equity, and good faith." -- act of congress authorizing the commissioners.
Show me where it explicitly says that they were there to treat for the redress of the debts incurred by the south? For all we know the matter of owing the U.S. for anything wasn't a question of disagreement.
Have I said that? No. It is the duty of the seceeding state to attempt to honorably rectify its debts to the remaining states to the best of its ability.
Where does it say that? You have claimed that the seceding states can walk away, you claim that power lies in the Constitution. Where does the Constitution require them to compensate the remaining states for anything? If you claim that they can walk away then you have to believe that they are under no obligation to do anything about what they walk away from or what they walk away with.
Wrong. The Seceding state is Justified, in my eyes, if and only if it has suffered extreme grievances at the hands of the other States, via the General government!
Ah, now you are placing restrictions on their actions. Before they could walk at will because they were sovereign and part of the deal voluntarily. Now you're claiming that they need justification. Well where does the Constitution place this restriction on them? Where does the Constitution require 'extreme grievance' before they can walk? What constitutes 'extreme grievance' in the first place?
The ability to force a party out of a contract against its will would, by nature, be a violation of that contract, no? At least, unless that contract contained a positive clause giving the consolidated government the authority to do so?
How could it? If one party has the ability to walk out of the contract at will without the agreement of the other parties to the contract, then it stands to reason that the other parties have the ability to end the contract with the one party without that parties agreement. It can't be one way, one logically follows the other. If South Carolina can walk out, at will, from the other states then the other states can, at will, turn South Carolina out from the Union. Madison has to be correct.
And, by supposition, the continued abuse of one of the signatories of a contract by another signatory would free the first from being bound by that contract, would it not?
Show me where the Constitution says anything about abuse. Your contention is that states may withdraw at will. I'm not aware of anything that says they have to have a reason or that places restrictions on what circumstances need to be met before secession is allowed.
I would like to bring this back to your attention, and humbly request your response to it—
To alter the highlighting of one of your citations,"The conduct of S. Carolina has called forth not only the question of nullification; but the more formidable one of secession. It is asked whether a State by resuming the sovereign form in which it entered the Union, may not of right withdraw from it at will..." -- James Madison
Madison, the Father of the Constitution, would rightfully be protective of the Government created by it. However, notice the implication that my highlight has made towards your previous arguments that the "states have no implicit Sovereignty." Do you see what the Father of the Constitution thought of your position?
Humbly re-submitted for your consideration, pending my full reply to your latest post. I hope you have a wonderful evening, wherever you are!
Regards, and good night,
~dt~
I can hardly wait. Hopefully you will address the issue this time of unilateral secession.
Hopefully I will - I need to get some coffee and gather my thoughts before I prepare to reply in detail. I am still eagerly waiting to hear your thoughts on my revelation that the Honorable Mr. Madison admitted the original sovereignty of the States acceding to the Constitution. What do you have to say to that?
Off to get coffee, will be back shortly.
Regards,
~dt~
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.