"He observed, that wealth excited envy, stimulated avarice, and invited invasions; that, if the Union was dissolved, we could only be protected by our domestic force. He then urged the incapacity of the state to defend itself, from the detached situation of its ports, remarking particularly upon that of Staten Island and Long Island; their vicinity to states, which, in case of a disunion, must be considered as independent, and perhaps unfriendly powers."
Robert R. Livingston, The Debates In The Convention Of The State Of New York, On The Adoption Of The Federal Constitution. 19 Jun 1788."The dangers to which we shall he exposed by a dissolution of the Union, have been represented; but, however much I may wish to preserve the Union, apprehensions of its dissolution ought not to induce us to submit to any measure which may involve in its consequences the loss of civil liberty. Conquest can do no more, in the state of civilization, than to subject us to be ruled by persons in whose appointment we have no agency. This, sir, is the worst we can apprehend at all events; and, as I suppose a government so organized, and possessing the powers mentioned in the proposed Constitution, will unavoidably terminate in the depriving us of that invaluable privilege, I am content to risk a probable, but, on this occasion, a mere possible evil, to avoid a certain one. But if a dissolution of the Union should unfortunately ensue, what have we to apprehend? We are connected, both by interest and affection, with the New England States; we harbor no animosities against each other; we have no interfering territorial claims; our manners are nearly similar, and they are daily assimilating, and mutual advantages will probably prompt to mutual concessions, to enable us to form a union with them. I, however, contemplate the idea of a possible dissolution with pain, and I make these remarks with the most sincere reluctance, only in answer to those which were offered by the honorable gentleman from New York.
John Lansing, The Debates In The Convention Of The State Of New York, On The Adoption Of The Federal Constitution. 20 Jun 1788.
These fine gentleman, among many, certainly didn't agree with you.
Constitutional changes have transformed the nature of the original Union through legal means which the Slaveocrats could have attempted through the amendment process. This is the only legal means of changing the Constitution rather than a method akin to a Moslem divorce.
Articles Of Confederation, Article XIII - Every State shall abide by the determination of the United States in Congress assembled, on all questions which by this confederation are submitted to them. And the Articles of this Confederation shall be inviolably observed by every State, and the Union shall be perpetual; nor shall any alteration at any time hereafter be made in any of them; unless such alteration be agreed to in a Congress of the United States, and be afterwards confirmed by the legislatures of every State.
US Constitution, Article VII, "The ratification of the conventions of nine states, shall be sufficient for the establishment of this Constitution between the states so ratifying the same."
The only LEGAL method of changing the AoC was if all 13 states agreed, yet it was dissolved when only 9 states ratified the Constitution. Other than that you may as well forget about the 7 states that required additional amendments as a condition of ratification, and in particular the three states that expressly retained the right to leave (see New York for one).
Disunion or dissolution was not used in discussions at the convention to mean secession.
See above. The ratification of each state was a secession from the AoC. Or do you mean that "disunion", "disolution", and "secession" mean "perpetual" and convey the idea of permanence?
There was little resemblence to a Republican form of government in the Slaveocracy. Few free whites could vote and political control was in the hands of the aristocracy and of course all blacks were disenfranchised by law.
The North did have a republican government. But you are confused about the term - we are not a democracy where everyone has the right to vote.
This is why the region can only be correctly termed a Slaveocracy- an aristocracy built upon slavery.
I agree. The North made millions and millions of dollars selling slaves.
In fact, it could be argued that the federal government had the right to invade those states to impose a republican form of government as required to be a State within the Union.
Article IV, Section 4 only requires that the states have a republican (representative) form of government. It doesn't give them the power to invade a foreign country and impose one.
Note that much of the power of the federal government was devoted to assisting the Slaveocrats in controlling their property.
Yes, the federal government did protect northern shipping and manufacturing interests from competition. Without it the South could have competed and created manufacturing and shipping jobs. As it were, they were doomed to remain an agrarian society instead.
Note also that the constitutional requirement for a republican form of government does not say only white aristocrats are relevent.
I agree. Nowhere does it say white only, black only, men only, women only, dwarves etc.
But there is no evidence that the south wanted to. No doubt the overwhelming majority of the southern leadership would have agreed with Louis Wigfall when he was speaking to William Howard Russell of The Times shortly after the war began,
"We are an agrarian people; we are a primitive people. We have no cities - we don't want them. We have no literature - we don't need any yet. We have no press - we are glad of it…We have no commercial marine - no navy - we don't want them. We are better without them. Your ships carry our produce and you can protect your own vessels. As long as we have our rice, our sugar, our tobacco, and our cotton, we can command wealth to purchase all we want from those nations with which we are in amity, and to lay up money besides."
In short, the south wanted nothing more that for some foreign power to take on the economic obligations that they had depended on the North to provide prior to the war.
No, the Militia Act of 1792 gives the president the power to do that.
Walt
What about hobbits?
Walt
I think I finally get it. So this is like income tax being illegal because Ohio never properly ratified the Constitution, right?
Walt