Posted on 05/01/2002 4:39:27 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur
The notion that Lincoln’s Union preceded the states is a tall tale. Author Tom DiLorenzo, in his celebrated new book, The Real Lincoln, calls it Lincoln’s spectacular lie, as so named by Emory University philosopher, Donald Livingston.
The War Between the States was fought, in Lincoln’s mind, to preserve the sanctity of centralization powered by a strong and unchecked federal government. Only through such an established order could Lincoln do his Whig friends the honor of advancing The American System, a mercantilist arrangement that spawned corporate welfare, a monetary monopoly for the Feds, and a protectionist tariff approach that stymied free traders everywhere.
This power role for the Feds, as envisioned by Lincoln, had no room for the philosophy of the earlier Jeffersonians, who in 1798, were declaring that states’ rights were supreme. Both Madison and Jefferson, in the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions, legitimized the concept of state sovereignty via the policy of nullification, an inherent right for states to declare federal acts invalid if unconstitutional. And before that, let it be duly noted that the right to secede is, as DiLorenzo says, “not expressly prohibited by the Constitution.”
Lincoln, however, believed that secession was basically an act of treason. To him, the glory of the Union was based upon a holier-than-thou view of the core elites who would run the Washington Machine, doling out the federal largesse to its friends and political supporters, those mostly being Northern manufacturers and merchants. Therefore, the Southern secessionist movement and its claim of self-rule violated the Lincolnian principle of nationalization and coercive law in his move toward complete centralization. So what was Lincoln to do?
Lincoln had to stamp out Southern Independence, and would start with a demonization of secession as “an ingenious sophism.” DiLorenzo focuses on the two political arguments Lincoln used against secession, one being that secession inevitably meant anarchy, which therefore violated the principle of majority rule. As DiLorenzo points out, the founders of our system of government “clearly understood that political decisions under majority rule are always more to the liking of the voters in a smaller political unit.” The other Lincoln argument against peaceful secession is that allowing the Southern states to secede would lead to more secession, which in turn leads to anarchy. Clearly, that is a crass argument that would not stand the test of time.
“The advocates of secession”, says DiLorenzo, “always understood that it stood as a powerful check on the expansive proclivities of government and that even the threat of secession or nullification could modify the federal government’s inclination to overstep its constitutional bounds.”
DiLorenzo takes the reader on a summarized journey of secessionist history, from the earliest parting by colonialists from the wrath of King George, to the New England secessionists, who pre-dated the Southern movement by over a half-century. Oddly enough, it was the New England Federalists that had first threatened to dissolve the Union because of an intense hatred of Southern aristocracy. Beginning with the election of Jefferson to the Presidency, an intense battle over individual morality, immigration, trade restrictions, and regional principles sparked a division between the Puritan Northeast and a more freewheeling and influential South. In order to eliminate all political ties, the Northeasterners tried in vain to break the bonds of Union, and the movement lasted until the failed Secessionist Convention in 1814, as the War of 1812 came to a close.
As the author points out, during the entire New England ordeal, there is virtually no literature to be found that supports the view that the inherent right to secession was non-existent. It was, in fact, really never questioned.
Eventually, Lincoln needed a trump card and turned to using the institution of slavery as the emotional taffy-pull to rouse the citizenry for a long and bloody war. Though, indeed, the earliest words of Lincoln defy this purpose as he consistently reveled in the triumph of the all-powerful centralized state that would one day achieve “national greatness.” Even DiLorenzo doesn’t attempt to define what this means, but only describes those words as having some sort of “alleged mystical value.” The Lincoln war machine was thus set in motion, with the ends of an Empire run by chosen elites justifying the means of tyranny.
The states, in a Lincolnian democracy, would be forever underneath the footprint of Union hegemony.
We were discussing the constitutionality of secession, were we not? You appear to be in need of a little rest: your comments are making even less sense than usual...
;>)
“Sovereignty is the highest degree of political power, and the establishment of a form of government, the highest proof which can be given of its existence. The states could not have reserved any rights by the articles of their union, if they had not been sovereign, because they could have no rights, unless they flowed from that source. In the creation of the federal government, the states exercised the highest act of sovereignty, and they may, if they please, repeat the proof of their sovereignty, by its annihilation. But the union possesses no innate sovereignty, like the states; it was not self-constituted; it is conventional, and of course subordinate to the sovereignties by which it was formed. Could the states have imagined, when they entered into a union, and retained the power of diminishing, extending, or destroying the powers of the federal government, that they who "created and could destroy," might have this maxim turned upon themselves, by their own creature; and that this misapplication of words was able both to deprive them of sovereignty, and bestow it upon a union subordinate to their will, even for existence[?] I have no idea of a sovereignty constituted upon better ground than that of each state, nor of one which can be pretended to on worse, than that claimed for the federal government, or some portion of it. Conquest or force would give a much better title to sovereignty, than a limited deputation or delegation of authority. The deputations by sovereignties, far from being considered as killing the sovereignties from which they have derived limited powers, are evidences of their existence; and leagues between states demonstrate their vitality. The sovereignties which imposed the limitations upon the federal government, far from supposing that they perished by the exercise of a part of their faculties, were vindicated, by reserving powers in which their deputy, the federal government, could not participate; and the usual right of sovereigns to alter or revoke its commissions.”
John Taylor of Caroline, New Views of the Constitution of the United States, 1823
The title of Mr. Taylor’s book, by the way, refers to the views of those who (like you ;>) attempted to ‘reinterpret’ the Constitution after its adoption...
;>)
But I want to get to the more interesting part of your post. In response to my suggestion that, in order to possibly avoid a war which claimed hundreds of thousands of American lives, South Carolina might have submitted its "secession" theory to either the Congress or the Supreme Court, you replied:
Are you suggesting that every time a State considers an action that is nowhere mentioned in the Constitution, and that is not even prohibited by federal law, that the State should ‘submit’ the matter to Congress? Or are you suggesting the State should ‘submit’ such matters to the Supreme Court? Which is it? It’s not surprising that you seem unable to decide between the two, given the fact that neither process is mentioned in the Constitution itself - quite the contrary, in fact, given the words of the Tenth Amendment. In any case, I guess we should not be surprised that both of your proposals represent extra-constitutional expansions of federal power...
Given the horrendous consequences that followed quickly upon the declarations of "secession," that is really a remarkable answer. Once again, we differ. I think that the southern politicians should have set aside their paranoia about the imminent loss of slavery and invested some time in presenting their "secession" theory to the Congress and/or the Supreme Court. President Jefferson found a way to purchase Louisiana and I suspect that the political branches of our Federal government would have likewise been able to consider possible ways for a state to withdraw from the Union, even it required a constitutional amendment pursuant to Article V. As either an alternative or as a supplement to those efforts, South Carolina might have attempted to present its "secession" theory to the Supreme Court pursuant to Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution. Nothing but some time would have been lost by these efforts and they might very well have saved hundreds of thousands of lives.
The southern politicians must have considered these alternatives, but instead they chose to act unilaterally and to disregard the interests of the people of the United States, the other states and the government of the United States. I think it's pretty clear that they chose the unilateral route because they knew that they couldn't even sell their "secession" theory to a Supreme Court which had just recently proven itself to be friendly to their interests.
I have no doubt that history will continue to condemn these southern politicians for their total incompetency. And, to make it all the worse, they took every possible opportunity to make it very clear (so that no one would ever forget) that it was all to protect the institution of slavery, an institution that any competent politician would have known was, in the long run, on the wrong side of history.
And in that regard these southern politicians did succeed. Most of us will never forget either the ends that they sought or the crackpot means by which they attempted to achieve those ends.
Actually, it's you who didn't bother to read my post. If you had, you'd seen that my true statement about how the geographical borders of the states were almost exactly those set down by the British, was followed by this: "there's obviously more to a state than people, borders, and a British governor. One must also consider culture, econonmy, and methods of government."
If you prefer a definition that must ultimately be derived from the authority of the British monarchy and ‘the divine right of kings,’ you are certainly welcome to it.
No point in responding except to note that you apparently were not reading for comprehension before you responded.
In any case, your reference to “something more than paper and ink” as a basis for a political union certainly qualifies you for the term ‘mystic’...
Oh, please. You cannot possibly be so dense as to claim that the sole basis of Union is the paper and ink upon which the Constitution or Articles were written. Nor can you plausibly argue that the bonds of Union were created only after the documents were signed. I can think of only only one reason that you would even pretend to hold such an opinion: to admit that the basic roots of Union preceded the creation of the documents, would be to concede that the states did not consider themselves to be as sovereign as you'd have them be.
For creation of the Union, there is only one possible order: the need, desire, and basic agreement to form a Union came even before the formation of a Convention to draw up the rules for its operation. And the documents themselves obviously come only after long months of debate and many votes and compromises. The Union itself long preceded the documentation laying out how that union would operate.
Including your claim that “the states considered themselves to be bound together by something more than paper and ink?” If so, why bother with written compacts?
Well, the primary reason they wanted a written compact is because the British Constitution was not written down -- a fact that allowed the British to inflict some serious judicial abuses on the Colonies. The historical fact of an unwritten British constitution poses a rather large problem for you, as it clearly demonstrates that documents are not requirements for a union; instead, it is the spirit behind the creation of those documents that matters.
If so, then why did the terms of the compacts contradict each other? If so, why was unanimous agreement required to alter the first compact, but the agreement of only nine States proved sufficient to establish the second?
Good heavens, man! Won't you please read Federalist 40 (to which I've twice linked, once specifically for your benefit)? Read the document, and see what Madison had to say about it. He answers the questions in full.
As to your quotes, they once again fail to make your case, but are rather helpful to mine.
It had become evident that the circumstances of the country were greatly altered, and the ground of the present debate changed. The Confederation, he said, was now dissolved.”
Read this carefully. Indeed, the government defined by the Articles was dissolved. But look at this: the circumstances of the country were greatly altered. That word "country" is important -- it means that Union was not dissolved, and that New Hampshire's ratification simply changed the nature of the government under which the Union operated. Note also that Livingston clearly believed that the Confederation was still operative up to the moment of NH's decision to ratify.
in that sense the ‘states’ ratified it; and in that sense of the term states, they are consequently, parties to the compact from which the powers of the federal government result
All this really says is that there are "states," and there is "the union." State by state ratification was required, of course, but that says nothing about the circumstances of the Union itself, other than to recognize that it was a union of states, and not people. (Once again, see Federalist 40.)
Sovereignty of each of the states was recognized as the end result of freedom from the Crown as was so noted in all of the early state constitutions, Declaration of Independence, and the Articles of Confederation...”
Which is all well and good, except that it brushes aside the fact that those "sovereign states" nevertheless formed a Congress to draft the Declaration, Articles of Confederation, and Constitution. They were a group of men elected and empowered to act on behalf of the colonies/states as a group -- a UNION -- even before the Revolution. In case you missed it, Congress is a manifestation of Union -- if it were not, there would be no need or desire to form such a body, and the decisions of such a body would be without meaning.
At the time of the framing of the Constitution and the formation of an allegedly ‘more perfect union,’ the colonists had precedents for challenging the powers of a confederation....
Well, the wording itself marks this as a partisanscreed, a conclusion that is reinforced by this: but certainly since Abraham Lincoln's revolution, the repudiation and indeed perversion of the colonial ideal is complete.
But aside from that, the quote you've provided implicitly acknowledges the existence of a Union even in colonial times. Those "precedents" were for states and groups acting against (you guessed it) the Union.
That is hardly an accurate representation of the majority opinion. The opinion was based on the extra-Constitutional doctrine of the perpetual and indissoluble nature of the federal union which was in turn based on the absurd Lincolnian dogma that the federal union preceded the Constitution and was older than the states. Whatever the standing of the decision, its foundation is crap.
I hope you had your money on War Emblem.
Let’s see – Article VII declares that ratification shall be by “the Conventions of nine States” (not a national convention), James Madison states unequivocally that the Constitution would be ratified by “the people, as forming so many independent States, not as forming one aggregate nation,” and one of the current high court justices goes so far as to observe that:
“ The ultimate source of the Constitution's authority is the consent of the people of each individual State, not the consent of the undifferentiated people of the Nation as a whole... it [makes] no sense to speak of powers as being reserved to the undifferentiated people of the Nation as a whole, because the Constitution does not contemplate that those people will either exercise power or delegate it. The Constitution simply does not recognize any mechanism for action by the undifferentiated people of the Nation...”
If you don't begin to recognize simple historical fact, “you'll remain hopelessly lost.”
Given the horrendous consequences that followed quickly upon the declarations of "secession," that is really a remarkable answer. Once again, we differ. I think that the southern politicians should have set aside their paranoia about the imminent loss of slavery and invested some time in presenting their "secession" theory to the Congress and/or the Supreme Court.
I repeat: “Which is it?... Are you suggesting that every time a State considers an action that is nowhere mentioned in the Constitution, and that is not even prohibited by federal law, that the State should ‘submit’ the matter to Congress? Or are you suggesting the State should ‘submit’ such matters to the Supreme Court? It’s not surprising that you seem unable to decide between the two, given the fact that neither process is mentioned in the Constitution itself...”
You argue that secession is unconstitutional – if so, that would make the non-seceding States, or perhaps (on their behalf) the federal government, the injured party in the event of secession. Can you tell us why not even one of the supposedly injured parties took your advice, and presented their ‘secession-is-unconstitutional’ “theory to the Congress and/or the Supreme Court?” Hmm? You complain of “the horrendous consequences:” care to tell us how many Americans were killed during the eviction of federal troops from Fort Sumter? In short, why didn’t the supposedly injured parties seek peaceful resolution before hostilities had produced even a single casualty?
The recent comments of Professor William Gienapp of Harvard University provide one likely answer:
”The proponents of secession had a strong constitutional argument, probably a stronger argument than the nationalists advanced.”
...South Carolina might have attempted to present its "secession" theory to the Supreme Court pursuant to Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution. Nothing but some time would have been lost by these efforts and they might very well have saved hundreds of thousands of lives.
Apparently you really are “suggesting that every time a State considers an action that is nowhere mentioned in the Constitution, and that is not even prohibited by federal law, that the State should ‘submit’ the matter to Congress” or the federal Court! How nice! Once again, can you tell us why not a single one of the supposedly injured parties pursued a peaceful resolution? Perhaps you should review the history of the Confederate peace commission in Washington...
The southern politicians must have considered these alternatives, but instead they chose to act unilaterally and to disregard the interests of the people of the United States, the other states and the government of the United States.
Actually, “[federal] politicians [briefly, if not seriously] considered [peaceful] alternatives, but instead they chose to act [militarily] and to disregard the [Constitution and the] interests of the people of the United States, the other states and the government of the United States.”
I think it's pretty clear that they chose the unilateral route because they knew that they couldn't even sell their "secession" theory to a Supreme Court which had just recently proven itself to be friendly to their interests. I have no doubt that history will continue to condemn these southern politicians for their total incompetency.
“I think it’s pretty clear?” “I have no doubt?” Undocumented opinions such as yours are really quite amusing...
;>)
And, to make it all the worse, they took every possible opportunity to make it very clear (so that no one would ever forget) that it was all to protect the institution of slavery, an institution that any competent politician would have known was, in the long run, on the wrong side of history.
As I previously observed:
”Those who find themselves unable to prove secession unconstitutional inevitably play the ‘slavery card.’”
What you can not justify legally, you apparently attempt to justify morally. Since you are determined to discuss the matter, perhaps you will answer a few questions:
1) Which Congress, North or South, passed a proposed constitutional amendment in March, 1861, that would have permanently enshrined slavery within that country’s Constitution?
2) Which President, North or South, literally endorsed (signed) that amendment?
3) Which President, North or South, proposed a constitutional amendment in December, 1862, that would have protected the institution of slavery until the end of the century?
4) Which Congress, North or South, defeated a proposed abolition amendment in June, 1864 – less than a year before the end of the war?
5) When was the federal Constitution finally amended to abolish slavery – before, or after, the war ended?
Even your moral arguments are grounded in hypocrisy...
And in that regard these southern politicians did succeed. Most of us will never forget either the ends that they sought or the crackpot means by which they attempted to achieve those ends.
Here’s a simple question for you:
”Should our government be bound by law, or by morality?”
I suspect those who read your response (assuming you provide one) will judge for themselves whether it is “crackpot” – or simply hypocritical...
;>)
That's a new one on me. I've read the entire Constitution front to back and I haven't found where it says that the Preamble can't be used to form the basis for the court's decision. You've shown that you can make up new paramaters for guiding Supreme Court decisions, and you've shown where you do not disagree with Texas v. White, but you haven't shown where the decision is invalid or illegal and you havent shown where anything has come along to overrule or modify the decision. And unless you can then the simple fact of the matter is that unilateral secession as practiced by Texas in particular and the southern states in general was illegal.
There is nowhere in the preamble to the Constitution any reference to the perpetuity or indissolubility of the union.
"You've shown that you can make up new paramaters for guiding Supreme Court decisions,.."
I have done nothing of the sort. What I have done is to show that the decision in Texas v. White is based on doctrines not contained in nor implied by the Constitution. As a result the decision was contingent and could not have been anticipated prior to its issuance. Whatever Constitutional law may be regarding such a situation, and I no more claim expertize in Constitutional law than I would presume to "set up new parameters for guiding Supreme Court decisions" I have to opine (strictly personally that is) that to make a contingent decision retroactive is unjust for exactly the same reason that making an ex post facto law is unjust.
The decision in Texas v. White is not that much different than the decision in Furman v. Georgia in 1972. The Constitution outlaws cruel and unusual punishment but nowhere does it define what that means. The majority of the court decided that if the sentencing guidlines for imposing capital punishment were not clearly defined and fairly administered then that violated the 8th, as well as the 14th, Amendment. By your definition this constitutes using 'doctrines not expressed or implied by the Constitution'. The court threw out every death penalty sentence across the country. By your definition that no doubt constitutes 'set(ing) up new parameters for guiding Supreme Court decisions'. Undoubtably you would say that was another example of a 'contingent decision' (whatever that means) and that such a decision would be unjust ...'for exactly the same reason that making an ex post facto law is unjust'. And regardless of all that, the verdict held, the sentences were thrown out and life went on. You may not agree with the opinion of the justices that this was an example of cruel and unusual punishment any more that you agree with Chief Justice Chase's opinion that a permenant union formed a more perfect union but it doesn't really matter in either case, does it. Unilateral secession as practiced by the south is not legal and never has been legal, the Supreme Court ruled that it is not.
Did you suggest that “’the states’ were created by the British” – or did you not? Is that your belief, or is it not? As for “culture, econonmy, and methods of government:” are you actually suggesting that such factors were uniform throughout the States? What degree of uniformity of “culture, econonmy, and methods of government" is sufficient to produce a “union," as you understand the term? Please be specific: your continual semantic ‘hand waving’ is of benefit only to you.
No point in responding except to note that you apparently were not reading for comprehension before you responded.
And apparently you ‘were not thinking for comprehension’ when you chose to ignore the fact that the British government (which you cite as the original ‘creator’ of the States) was monarchical in nature.
Oh, please. You cannot possibly be so dense as to claim that the sole basis of Union is the paper and ink upon which the Constitution or Articles were written.
I merely suggest that written law is a necessary requirement for a free society, specifically including our union of States. “You cannot possibly be so dense as to” suggest otherwise, can you?
Nor can you plausibly argue that the bonds of Union were created only after the documents were signed.
“Bonds of Union?” Your use of the phrase seems to preclude any political content. Perhaps you would care to address the failure of “the bonds of Union” described in The Articles of Confederation of the United Colonies of New England? Or the rejection of “the bonds of Union” proposed in William Penn’s Plan of Union, and Franklin’s Albany Plan of Union? Or will you insist that political considerations are irrelevant to your definition of “union?”
I can think of only only one reason that you would even pretend to hold such an opinion: to admit that the basic roots of Union preceded the creation of the documents, would be to concede that the states did not consider themselves to be as sovereign as you'd have them be.
And “I can think of only...one reason that you would even pretend” that your amorphous “bonds of Union” must exclude (or devalue to the point of irrelevancy) written political compacts: such written compacts provide no support for your arguments.
For creation of the Union, there is only one possible order: the need, desire, and basic agreement to form a Union came even before the formation of a Convention to draw up the rules for its operation. And the documents themselves obviously come only after long months of debate and many votes and compromises. The Union itself long preceded the documentation laying out how that union would operate.
“Long preceded?” How long, precisely? Are you absolutely certain that “need” is necessary – or would “desire” and “agreement” be sufficient? What of “need” and “agreement” in the absence of “desire?” Is “agreement” necessary – and if so, how do you define it? Your statements are disgustingly ambiguous – no doubt in keeping with your definition of “union.”
Well, the primary reason they wanted a written compact is because the British Constitution was not written down -- a fact that allowed the British to inflict some serious judicial abuses on the Colonies. The historical fact of an unwritten British constitution poses a rather large problem for you, as it clearly demonstrates that documents are not requirements for a union...
"Good heavens, man! You cannot possibly be so dense as to claim” that the British government constituted the same type of “union” established between the American States, can you? As John Taylor noted:
The word union is inexplicit. It may imply either a perfect consolidation; or an association for special purposes, reaching only stated objects, and limited by positive restrictions... The union of England and Scotland, effected by compact, contains stipulations beyond the power of the united government to alter, especially that in relation to the religion of the latter kingdom. That between England and Ireland is a political consolidation. The latter kingdom did not obtain an establishment of the Roman Catholick religion. Had the majority of the people possessed free will, they would have reserved this local right; and the Roman Catholick religion, like the Presbyterian, would have been placed beyond the reach of the united representation in parliament; just as the reserved rights of the states are placed beyond the reach of our united representation in Congress; because political unions for special purposes, cannot be defeated by inferences from the form adopted for their execution. In order to determine whether the United States meant by the term union, to establish a supreme power or a limited association, we must commence our inquiry at their political birth, and accommodate our arguments with the principles they avowed in proclaiming their political existence. These are stated in the declaration of independence: "We the representatives of the United States of America, in general Congress assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world, for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the name and by the authority of the good people of these colonies, solemnly publish and declare, that these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, free and independent states; and that as free and independent states, they have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and do all other acts and things, which independent states may of right do." Such is the origin of our liberty, and the foundation of our form of government. The consolidating project ingeniously leaves unexamined the arguments suggested by this declaration, and commences its lectures at the end of the subject to be considered. If the declaration of independence is not obligatory, our intire political fabrick has lost its magna charta, and is without any solid foundation. But if it is the basis of our form of government, it is the true expositor of the principles and terms we have adopted.
“Read the documents:” your analogy is completely inapplicable.
...it is the spirit behind the creation of those documents that matters.
“The spirit behind the creation?” Care to define that “spirit” - in writing? Hmm? See if you can do it without reference to political “union,” something which seems to be excluded from your definition of the term. (“Spirit?”And you deny you are a mystic. How nice.)
Good heavens, man! Won't you please read Federalist 40 (to which I've twice linked, once specifically for your benefit)? Read the document, and see what Madison had to say about it. He answers the questions in full.
I have “read the document,” and many others: your use of the words “State” and “union” seem to conflict with Mr. Madison’s use of those same terms. You have suggested in the past that the States were somehow formed by the “union.” Perhaps you should have continued on to Federalist No. 43:
A compact between independent sovereigns [i.e., the Articles of Confederation], founded on ordinary acts of legislative authority, can pretend to no higher validity than a league or treaty between the parties. It is an established doctrine on the subject of treaties that all the articles are mutually conditions of each other; that a breach of any one article is a breach of the whole treaty; and that a breach, committed by either of the parties, absolves the others, and authorizes them, if they please, to pronounce the compact violated and void. Should it unhappily be necessary to appeal to these delicate truths for a justification for dispensing with the consent of particular States to a dissolution of the federal pact, will not the complaining parties find it difficult to answer the multiplied and important infractions with which they may be confronted?
Here we see Mr. Madison suggesting that “these delicate truths” justify “a dissolution of the federal pact” between “independent sovereigns.” Tell us: how can “independent sovereigns” be created by a non-sovereign – your amorphous and still-undefined “union?” And there’s another reference to “dissolution,” as well, which would pose “a rather large problem for you” – if your definition of “union” resembled in any way that used by Mr. Madison. Specifically:
“...(N)o political relation can subsist between the assenting and dissenting States, yet the moral relations will remain uncanceled. The claims of justice, both on one side and on the other, will be in force, and must be fulfilled; the rights of humanity must in all cases be duly and mutually respected; whilst considerations of a common interest, and, above all, the remembrance of the endearing scenes which are past, and the anticipation of a speedy triumph over the obstacles to reunion, will, it is hoped, not urge in vain moderation on one side, and prudence on the other.”
Note the reference to “the moral relations [that] will remain uncancelled.” It is difficult to ascertain from your nauseatingly vague use of the term, but one might guess that you include such “moral relations” as a basis for “union.” Next, please note Mr. Madison’s use of the specific term “reunion” in reference to his comment that “no political relation can subsist between the assenting and dissenting States.” Tell us: if, as you insist, the “dissenting” States remained within the “union,” how on earth could there be a “reunion” with those same States? Hmm? It is quite obvious that your use of the word “union” fails to coincide with that of Mr. Madison.
As to your quotes, they once again fail to make your case, but are rather helpful to mine.
Actually, the quotes I provided highlight your absolute dependence upon a definition of the term “union" that apparently excludes any serious real connotations. How else can you possibly suggest that a political "union" that is “dissolved” may somehow continue to live on past its own dissolution?
Read this carefully. Indeed, the government defined by the Articles was dissolved. But look at this: the circumstances of the country were greatly altered. That word "country" is important -- it means that Union was not dissolved, and that New Hampshire's ratification simply changed the nature of the government under which the Union operated. Note also that Livingston clearly believed that the Confederation was still operative up to the moment of NH's decision to ratify.
“Read this carefully:”
”That the following articles, agreed upon by the freemen of this State, now met in general assembly, be deemed and held the constitution and form of government of the said State, unless altered by the legislative authority thereof, which constitution or form of government shall immediately take place and be in force from the passing of this act, excepting such parts as are hereafter mentioned and specified.
I. That the style of this country be hereafter the State of South Carolina.”
Now, you may claim that the “word ‘country’ is important” because you believe it necessarily refers to the “union” (and only you and God know what you mean by that term), but there were quite obviously exceptions to your beliefs. Here we see the term "country" used to describe a single, sovereign, independent State. Perhaps you can tell us how the “union” formed the State of South Carolina: the “freemen” thereof would seem to have disagreed with you – in writing. Shall we pull up the constitutions of the other independent and sovereign States as well? How many of the State constitutions will we find that cite the “union” as the source of the State’s sovereignty? Give us an estimate – plus or minus 2 States.
;>)
As a footnote, your statement (“the government defined by the Articles was dissolved [but the] Union was not dissolved”) effectively confirms that your use of the term “union” has no required political connotations whatsoever. Lest you forget, I will remind you that such a unique interpretation is completely at odds with Mr. Madison’s statements in Federalist No. 43.
WIJG: 'in that sense the ‘states’ ratified it; and in that sense of the term states, they are consequently, parties to the compact from which the powers of the federal government result'
r9: All this really says is that there are "states," and there is "the union."
Yet another assumption on your part. Mr. Madison’s references to union, as noted above, contain distinct political connotations (“...if, as you insist, the ‘dissenting’ States remained within the ‘union,’ how on earth could there be a ‘reunion’ with those same States?”). Your use of the term apparently involves no important political connotations whatsoever. Put simply (for your benefit), you are comparing ‘apples’ with ‘non-apples.’
State by state ratification was required, of course, but that says nothing about the circumstances of the Union itself, other than to recognize that it was a union of states, and not people.
“Of course.” And once again you confirm that your use of the term “union” involves no important political aspects whatsoever.
Which is all well and good, except that it brushes aside the fact that those "sovereign states" nevertheless formed a Congress to draft the Declaration, Articles of Confederation, and Constitution. They were a group of men elected and empowered to act on behalf of the colonies/states as a group -- a UNION -- even before the Revolution. In case you missed it, Congress is a manifestation of Union -- if it were not, there would be no need or desire to form such a body, and the decisions of such a body would be without meaning.
“In case you missed it,” my ignorant friend, “Congress” did not “draft the... Constitution.” No doubt a minor point for you, given your apparent disdain for written political agreements. And once again you confirm that your ‘apolitical’ definition of the term “union” is completely at odds with common usage.
But aside from that, the quote you've provided implicitly acknowledges the existence of a Union even in colonial times. Those "precedents" were for states and groups acting against (you guessed it) the Union.
“(A)cting against...the Union?” To which “union” are you referring? The self-described “perpetual” political “union” formed under the terms of The Articles of Confederation of the United Colonies of New England – which ceased to exist after a few decades? Or to your own unique (and – “you guessed it” - conveniently vague) concept of “union?”
Perhaps you should provide written definitions of the terms you have been using. As I noted previously, your use of the term “State” appeared to conflict with Mr. Madison’s understanding of the term, and it has become painfully apparent that your use of the word “union” is entirely at odds with common usage of the term in political discourse.
But all is not lost - your understanding of the terms would be highly appropriate in a discussion of the current “union” between the “State” of ‘Aztlan’ and the Federal Republic of Mexico...
;>)
I have no doubt that the southern leaders were convinced that they were in the right and unilateral secession was legal. It turns out that they were wrong. That doesn’t mean that they were committing some criminal conspiracy by their actions. It just means that they were wrong. Secession as practiced by Texas and the other southern states was not legal when they did it, it was not legal in 1869, and it is not legal now.
You keep avoiding the question by altering it. I did not ask if they thought that their action was illegal, I asked if a jurist, expert in the Constitution and Constitutional law, could have anticipated or predicted the Texas v. White decision. That is a different question. Your position seems to be that, in Constitutional law, alone among all areas of human experience, a contingent act can affect the past - i.e. a legal standing in the past.
Care to answer a simple question?
“Is the court supreme over the constitution, or the constitution supreme over the court?”
Your refusal to answer is really quite amusing. Our Friend Walt refuses to discuss the secession of the ratifying States from the union formed under the Articles of Confederation, and he refuses to discuss the high court’s response to the “palpably unconstitutional” Alien & Sedition Acts as well. You refuse to answer this simple question, and those John Taylor posed with it:
The word supreme is used twice in the constitution, once in reference to the superiority of the highest federal court over the inferior federal courts, and again in declaring "that the constitution, and laws made in pursuance thereof, shall be the supreme law of the land, and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby." Did it mean to create two supremacies, one in the court, and another in the constitution? Are they colateral, or is one superior to the other? Is the court supreme over the constitution, or the constitution supreme over the court? Are "the judges in every state" to obey the articles of the union, or the construction of these articles by the supreme federal court?
Yes – quite amusing!
;>)
Could the Sovereign State of California exercise its rights under the Tenth Amendment to just purchase Baja California and make it another California county?
(Hint: I don't think it ever specifically promised that it wouldn't, and it's really very nice down there.)
You certainly “responded” – but you utterly failed to answer the question. Allow me to repost the question for your personal edification:
”Is the court supreme over the constitution, or the constitution supreme over the court?”
Now let’s review your ‘response:’
“I don't think my arguement undermines the Constituion at all.”
Were you ‘responding ‘ to little voices that only you can hear – or perhaps to a bad case of indigestion? Whatever the case, your post can in no way be described as a ‘response’ to the question at hand.
But feel free to continue your mental gymnastics – they are as humorous as always...
;>)
PS:
”Is the court supreme over the constitution, or the constitution supreme over the court?”
;>)
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.