Constitutional Con Men

LewRockwell.com ^ | May 15, 2002 | Thomas DiLorenzo

[WhiskeyPapa]

If he disregarded the Constitution and acted like a dictator, no matter how noble his ends might have been, then the sanctity-of-the-Constitution argument against secession goes out the window.

The thing with Davis is that he said the power was IN the Constitution for Congress to coerce the states, and he acted on that.

But these jerks come on FR to blast President Lincoln for doing the same thing.

If they would just say,"okay, Davis WAS a jerk, but Lincoln was a jerk too. But they can't bring themselves to do blame Davis.

Walt

[Ditto]

Notice the use of the plural "States" and notice the last statement. Seems pretty obvious that the States were to retain their sovereignty.

Then why didn't they make their own individual Declarations?

Why did the British name each of the colonies in the Treaty? To differentiate them for their other American processions such as Canada and the West Indies that were not part of the United States. You will note that after the war, the British only sent one ambassador to the US... not thirteen. We only sent one to London, not thirteen.

[4CJ]

I have never seen anything that explains how something in a state-authored ratification document can dictate terms to a Constitution which was agreed upon in a Convention of delegates who set the terms for ratification.

If they couldn't, then the ratifications could not legally be accepted.  It's a common practice - one side makes an offer, the other parties either accept the terms or counter with changes.   Three states choose to do so, among them New York, Virginia and Rhode Island.  

We the Delegates of the People of the State of Rhode-Island, and Providence Plantations ... having also seriously and deliberately considered the present situation of this State, do declare and make known

In That there are certain natural rights, of which men when they form a social compact [an agreement between parties; a covenant or contract], cannot deprive or divest their posterity, among which are the enjoyment of Life and Liberty, with the means of acquiring, possessing and protecting Property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.

2d That all power is naturally vested in, and consequently derived from the People; that magistrates [public civil officers invested with authority] therefore are their trustees and agents, and at all times amenable [accountable, responsible] to them.

3d That the powers of government may be reassumed by the people, whensoever it shall become necessary to their happiness ...

Under these impressions, and declaring, that the rights aforesaid cannot be abridged or violated, and that the explanations aforesaid, are consistent with the said constitution, and in confidence that the amendments hereafter mentioned, will receive an early and mature consideration, and conformably to the fifth article of said constitution, speedily become a part thereof; We the said delegates, in the name, and in the behalf of the People, of the State of Rhode-Island and Providence-Plantations, do by these Presents [this document, under these terms and conditions], assent to, and ratify the said Constitution.

These were not proposed amendments - those were noted after this ratification.   Their ratification was accepted by all parties to the Constitutuon.  New York's ratification is similarly constructed, as is that of Virginia.

[WhiskeyPapa]

You will note that after the war, the British only sent one ambassador to the US... not thirteen. We only sent one to London, not thirteen.

You know better than to try common sense with the neo-rebs.

Walt

[4CJ]

You were right to begin with - WE had the right to leave. Otherwise "We the people" are not bound to the Constitution.

[Huck]

If they couldn't, then the ratifications could not legally be accepted.

Show me, don't tell me. I am not saying you are wrong, but just you saying so doesn't make it so. Neither does the Virginia legislature saying so necessarily make it so. As for the parsing of the document, I am familiar with its stipulations. What I would like to see is something which shows what legal force these statements had or didn't have. You say that the ratification couldn't be accepted. I am just saying that that hasn't been shown. For starters, if we could see the text of the Virginia debate on the subject of the language used in their ratification, it would be helpful for this discussion, otherwise we are just going back and forth with "I think X" and "I think Z".

[Huck]

I thought we sent 3 ambassadors. (Ain't I a big help?)

[Ditto]

I'm just always amazed with how heavly invested the neo-confederate psyche is in the Lost Cause myths. So many completly internalize it and that tendency always sneeks out in the "we and you" accusations. You weren't there and neither was I and if your "ancestors" were in the South 140 years ago, there is anywhere from a 30%-70% chance, depending on which part of the south they were in, that they were loyal Unionists who had no use for the slaveocrat thugs.

And what about this?

I am from their blood and I consider their fight for freedom from the tyranny of Washington to be just as important, if not more important, today than it was then

Are you saying that you now support disunion and are prepared for violent overthrow of Federal authority if necessary? If it's worse than what your "ancestors" faced, and you consider them to have done the right thing, where stand you today?

[Ditto]

I thought we sent 3 ambassadors.

To the treaty negotiations. When that was done, we sent one, John Adams, to London.

[Huck]

Here is a link to the place where it appears the subject of conditional ratification comes up. I don't have time to get into it myself, but have at it: Virginia Debates

[Ditto]

You will also notice the difference between the 1775 session where they referred to themselves as Colonies and the 1776 session where they called themselves States How did that happen? Could it have been the act of Congress a few months before the Declaration that called for all the "Colonies" to form State Governments with new officers and new constitutions?

Congress predates the States and therefore, the Nation predates the States.

I'll ask again. If the States were sovereign entities as the Lost Cause Myth claims, why didn't each state send its own diplomats and representatives to Europe? Why didn’t the CSA do that? That is what the Colonies did before 1776. Each appointed their own representatives to lobby for them, but after 1776, ony one was chosen to represent all. Where’s the “state sovereignty” in that?

[ned]

It's a common practice - one side makes an offer, the other parties either accept the terms or counter with changes.

Hold on, there! Common practice? What historical precedents would there have been for what you are suggesting happened here? These people were ratifying a Constitution, not haggling over a used car.

Article VII of the Constitution provided state ratifying conventions with the option to ratify the Constitution as written. And each of the states did ratify the Constitution as written.

Do you see the term "counter-offer" in any of the states' ratification documents? Did you know how hard Mr. Madison worked to make sure that the state conventions framed their ratification proposals for bills of rights as "recommendations" rather than qualifications?

[Ditto]

Do you see the term "counter-offer" in any of the states' ratification documents? Did you know how hard Mr. Madison worked to make sure that the state conventions framed their ratification proposals for bills of rights as "recommendations" rather than qualifications?

And in the first Congress, Madison worked tirelessly craft and pass a Bill of Rights to address the recommendations that the states made even though he felt personally the BoR was not necessary and could possible be dangerous. He did not accomplishing all that they asked for, (New York had a list of about 20 recommendations, including term limits on the President) but he accomplished enough that no state complained.

[shuckmaster]

Spread the word. The truth about lincoln and his tiny handful of braindead apologizers isn't a little Southern secret anymore.

[4CJ]

Show me, don't tell me.

Your position is that the founders - among them Patrick Henry, George Mason, John Marshall, George Wythe, James Madison, James Monroe, John Tyler, Edmund Randolph, Benjamin Harrison, Henry Lee and Edmund Pendleton - didn't understand the law, and wasted almost a month of their time crafting their conditional agreement if it was simply a yes/no decision and such conditions were superfluous?

[4CJ]

Hold on, there! Common practice? What historical precedents would there have been for what you are suggesting happened here? These people were ratifying a Constitution, not haggling over a used car.

Did they invent some new legal system just for the Constitution? Where is it written in the Constitution that non-traditional methods were to be employed?

Article VII of the Constitution provided state ratifying conventions with the option to ratify the Constitution as written. And each of the states did ratify the Constitution as written.

The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same.

It does? Where?

[4CJ]

Do you see the term "counter-offer" in any of the states' ratification documents?

"Do by these Presents".

[davidjquackenbush]

I don't understand why we take this business of the articles of ratification seriously in the secession debate. Is it not the case that every one of the reservations of the people's powers read like paraphrases of the Declaration? Of course the people of the states, in establishing a national government, would put on record that they intended to be zealous in preserving the natural rights that are the reasons for establishing any government. I think it is reasonable to interpret their reservations as notice that they might well invoke their rights of revolution as a united body -- as a state. Well and good.

The only reason this looks relevant at all to the secession debate is because the rebs still deny the distinction between revolution and secession.

[Huck]

Your position is that the founders - among them Patrick Henry, George Mason, John Marshall, George Wythe, James Madison, James Monroe, John Tyler, Edmund Randolph, Benjamin Harrison, Henry Lee and Edmund Pendleton - didn't understand the law, and wasted almost a month of their time crafting their conditional agreement if it was simply a yes/no decision and such conditions were superfluous?

Not at all. My position is that we haven't established here what their position was. I provided a link. Is it too much to ask for you to provide actual evidence to support your view? You may be right. You just don't seem willing to put any work into demonstrating it.

I skimmed the pertinent part of the debate, and it appeared that they recognized that they could submit a conditional ratification, and I think they even voted on it. But at first glance it appears they voted against a conditional ratification, and chose instead to ratify the Constitution unconditionally. They drafted a resolution whereby they ratified the Constitution (I believe you quoted that portion above), and then they also passed resolutions recommending several amendments to the Constitution.

Maybe I am in error. We won't know until we look at the actual text of the debate. It would be nice if you would bother to do so, but don't worry. I intend to get around to it sooner or later. If there was a vote in the Virginia legislature on whether or not the ratification should be conditional, and if they voted it down, that would seem to be the end of that discussion, wouldn't it? But guess what, even if they voted in favor of a conditional ratification, it still remains unclear to me if such a ratification was binding on the Constitution itself. It seems to me the Virginia legislature took conditional ratificaion, but that only speaks for one state. Anyway, how about doing some research, and building some support for your argument?