r9: Mystic? You're the mystic in this debate, postulating some ethereal "states" that have all the characteristics of eternal entities.
Obviously you didn’t bother to read my post. You insisted that “’the states’ were created by the British.” According to Mr. Madison, the term ‘State’ (as used in reference to the Constitution) means “the people composing those political societies, in their highest sovereign Capacity.” I find Mr. Madison’s definition more appropriate. 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.
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’...
The Articles and the Constitution don't "contradict" my claims at all -- they confirm them.
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? 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? If indeed “the Articles and the Constitution...confirm” your mystical claims, feel free to provide a few examples – quote the documents in question. I will especially enjoy reading any clauses that suggest that the member States are bound by any conditions whatsoever that are not specified, in writing, in the compacts...
Do you think that somebody suddenly, and in the dead of night, decided to just write those documents and present them for ratification? Of course not -- those documents merely formalized the relationship that predated them. The relationship, and not the documents, is what defines the Union.
Your statement can most charitably be described as an interesting opinion. You seem to be suggesting that an ‘informal’ relationship somehow takes precedence over the specific terms of ‘formal’ compacts between member States. Although the ‘formal’ terms of the new Constitution initially produced a union of only nine States, with the non-ratifying States ‘formally’ excluded from that union, you would nevertheless have us believe that some ‘informal’ relationship negated the specific terms of the Constitution, and ‘informally’ kept the non-ratifying States within a constitutional union to which they were not even parties. As I said – certainly an interesting opinion.
As for the rest, I can only say that those quotes do a better job of making my case than they do yours.
In that case, you will not mind if I re-post a few of “those quotes:”
“Mr. Chancellor LIVINGSTON observed, that it would not, perhaps, be altogether impertinent to remind the committee, that, since the intelligence of yesterday [June 21, 1788, when New Hampshire became the ninth State to ratify the new Constitution], 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.”
The Debates in the Convention of the State of New York on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution
“It is indeed true that the term ‘states’ is sometimes used in a vague sense, and sometimes in different senses, according to the subject to which it is applied. Thus it sometimes means...the people composing those political societies, in their highest sovereign Capacity... all will at least concur in that last mentioned; because in that sense the Constitution was submitted to the ‘states;’ 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.”
James Madison, Report of 1800
”When the colonies declared their independence it raised the question of sovereignty; to whom, or what, did the citizens of each of the new states owe their allegiance? This was answered by each of the states after war had begun between each colony and the Crown when allegiance to the state was demanded of each of the inhabitants, and this often as much as a year before the Declaration of Independence. 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...”
R.H. Veal et. al., A Constitutional View of State Sovereignty and Secession, 1994
” "...(I)t is misleading to date the tradition of American liberty from the late 1780s, since the Constitution of the United States was in fact only the culmination of generations of practical self-government on the part of Americans. 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, as in the case of the Confederation of New England, for rejecting a confederation, as in the case of the Albany Plan of Union, and for bringing down a confederation by force, as in the case of the Dominion of New England. It can hardly be surprising, therefore, to learn that at the time of the ratification of the Constitution, three states [Virginia, New York, and Rhode Island] in acceding to the new confederation, explicitly reserved the right to withdraw from the Union at such time as it should become oppressive. In so doing they were only exercising the vigilance and libertarian principle that had animated the American experience during the colonial period.
"Thus when a union of polities becomes an end in itself, as it has in the minds of some since the days of Daniel Webster but certainly since Abraham Lincoln's revolution, the repudiation and indeed perversion of the colonial ideal is complete. Yet today, even self-proclaimed conservatives, whom one might expect to be engaged in preserving their country's tradition of liberty, cavalierly decry attachment to the principles embodied in the Confederate flag as "treason," even though the value of self-government vindicated by the South had been insisted upon since colonial times. The real traitors, however, are not the Confederates, but those who betray the real American tradition of independence and self-government in favor of the principle of unlimited submission to central authority. This is what the colonial period has to teach us."
Thomas Woods, Colonial Origins of American Liberty, 2000
Enjoy!
;>)
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.