26 Nov 12
Originally posted by spruce112358The provisions in the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union were in front of them. They agreed to them 8 years before the Constitution. The Constitutional Convention itself was called to amend the ACPU. It was determined that an entirely new document was required but it greatly expanded central government power, not negated it as you are claiming.
John Brown was free to leave the union if he chose -- freer than New York in that regard.
The other things you mention are prohibited acts which States agreed not to do when they signed on. So they knew about those. The States could not remain IN the union and defy its provisions -- we agree there.
But since a penalty for leaving is nowhere mentio ...[text shortened]... ed, that that language did NOT apply because it had been removed.
See where I am coming from?
Not a single Federalist ever made the claim that "you should vote for the Constitution; after all if you ever decide you don't like it, you can freely leave it unlike the stupid ACPU." The concept of secession at the States' whim was never discussed or contemplated at the Convention. The historical evidence is beyond clear that secession was not an option.
26 Nov 12
Originally posted by spruce112358If the Framers had meant that as the meaning of a "Perpetual Union" they could have said "the Union is perpetual ........... so long as any State chooses to remain in it".
Well, I'm sure that if Texas were to leave, they would assume that the remaining States would remain in a "perpetual" union as long as they liked -- Texas's actions would not affect the others.
But can the people of Arkansas and Oklahoma and New Mexico prevent the people of Texas from doing as they please?
But since they didn't write gibberish, they passed on including it in the founding documents.
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
26 Nov 12
Originally posted by spruce112358This thread seems to bounce back and forth between two topics: whether the generally understood intention was irrevokability, and whether the intention should have been irrevokability. I believe the intention was irrevokability by any state except by first passing a constitutional amendment. (Which would specify the process.) And I believe that was the right way to begin a federal system. Which of these are you disputing if either?
But that's contradictory to the notions of liberty that we all hold dear. Our union is a voluntary association of free, democratic states. Since a state joins voluntarily and since no penalty for leaving was stated - why would a state not be allowed to leave? Where is the precedent or custom for such an arrangement? It is not at all obvious to me.
26 Nov 12
Originally posted by JS357I don't think there was a 'generally understood intention' at the time. The Founders were very canny in many ways, and so with other things that urgently needed settling, they wisely kicked the can down the road. That allowed everyone to agree to the documentt. Only when secession became a real possibility did the debates heat up.
This thread seems to bounce back and forth between two topics: whether the generally understood intention was irrevokability, and whether the intention should have been irrevokability. I believe the intention was irrevokability by any state except by first passing a constitutional amendment. (Which would specify the process.) And I believe that was the right way to begin a federal system. Which of these are you disputing if either?
Even Jefferson, who was not in favor of secession, said: "If any State in the Union will declare that it prefers separation…to a continuance in union…I have no hesitation in saying,' let us separate.'" So much for a unanimous understanding.
Then we have the technical question of whether secession is allowable 'under the Constitution as written'. Well, since the Constitution doesn't say that the Federal government can prevent it, secession has to be a power that devolves to 'the States or the people'. And since the Constitution was ratified by State conventions, not legislatures, that probably means the people of a state can vote to secede from the union and that should be legal under the Constitution.
Finally as to whether or not secession is desirable - no, I don't think it is. IF there were an actual World Government with elected representatives guaranteeing the rights of every human being and arbitrating differences between states and ensuring freedom of movement among states -- then secession might be OK. It might even be desirable. But until then, no.
26 Nov 12
Originally posted by spruce112358These are bogus arguments rejected two centuries ago. The Federal system is utterly meaningless if any States can withdrew for any reason at any time. The Tenth Amendment is beside the point; it only says that the State retain non-enumerated police powers - the "power" of secession never existed.
I don't think there was a 'generally understood intention' at the time. The Founders were very canny in many ways, and so with other things that urgently needed settling, they wisely kicked the can down the road. That allowed everyone to agree to the documentt. Only when secession became a real possibility did the debates heat up.
Even Jefferson, who ...[text shortened]... ates -- then secession might be OK. It might even be desirable. But until then, no.
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
26 Nov 12
Originally posted by spruce112358Constitutions and similar foundational instruments contain provisions for their amendment and for the entry and exit of members. If no provision for exit is specified I would expect it to be added if desired, by the amendment process. Otherwise, exits could occur chaotically which could destroy the entire structure. I believe all the signatories were aware of this or should have been, and had the opportunity to demand it either at the start or in the early amendments.
I don't think there was a 'generally understood intention' at the time. The Founders were very canny in many ways, and so with other things that urgently needed settling, they wisely kicked the can down the road. That allowed everyone to agree to the documentt. Only when secession became a real possibility did the debates heat up.
Even Jefferson, who ...[text shortened]... ates -- then secession might be OK. It might even be desirable. But until then, no.
26 Nov 12
1 edit
Originally posted by spruce112358Neither Madison nor Jefferson accepted that the Constitution allowed secession:
I don't think there was a 'generally understood intention' at the time. The Founders were very canny in many ways, and so with other things that urgently needed settling, they wisely kicked the can down the road. That allowed everyone to agree to the documentt. Only when secession became a real possibility did the debates heat up.
Even Jefferson, who ates -- then secession might be OK. It might even be desirable. But until then, no.
Dr. Sir I have received yours of the 19th, inclosing some of the South Carolina papers. There are in one of them some interesting views of the doctrine of secession; one that had occurred to me, and which for the first time I have seen in print; namely that if one State can at will withdraw from the others, the others can at will withdraw from her, and turn her, nolentem, volentem, out of the union. Until of late, there is not a State that would have abhorred such a doctrine more than South Carolina, or more dreaded an application of it to herself. The same may be said of the doctrine of nullification, which she now preaches as the only faith by which the Union can be saved.
I partake of the wonder that the men you name should view secession in the light mentioned. The essential difference between a free Government and Governments not free, is that the former is founded in compact, the parties to which are mutually and equally bound by it. Neither of them therefore can have a greater fight to break off from the bargain, than the other or others have to hold them to it. And certainly there is nothing in the Virginia resolutions of –98, adverse to this principle, which is that of common sense and common justice. The fallacy which draws a different conclusion from them lies in confounding a single party, with the parties to the Constitutional compact of the United States. The latter having made the compact may do what they will with it. The former as one only of the parties, owes fidelity to it, till released by consent, or absolved by an intolerable abuse of the power created. In the Virginia Resolutions and Report the plural number, States, is in every instance used where reference is made to the authority which presided over the Government. As I am now known to have drawn those documents, I may say as I do with a distinct recollection, that the distinction was intentional. It was in fact required by the course of reasoning employed on the occasion. The Kentucky resolutions being less guarded have been more easily perverted. The pretext for the liberty taken with those of Virginia is the word respective, prefixed to the “rights” &c to be secured within the States. Could the abuse of the expression have been foreseen or suspected, the form of it would doubtless have been varied. But what can be more consistent with common sense, than that all having the same rights &c, should unite in contending for the security of them to each.
It is remarkable how closely the nullifiers who make the name of Mr. Jefferson the pedestal for their colossal heresy, shut their eyes and lips, whenever his authority is ever so clearly and emphatically against them. You have noticed what he says in his letters to Monroe & Carrington Pages 43 & 203, vol. 2,1 with respect to the powers of the old Congress to coerce delinquent States, and his reasons for preferring for the purpose a naval to a military force; and moreover that it was not necessary to find a right to coerce in the Federal Articles, that being inherent in the nature of a compact. It is high time that the claim to secede at will should be put down by the public opinion; and I shall be glad to see the task commenced by one who understands the subject
http://almostchosenpeople.wordpress.com/2010/02/26/james-madison-on-secession/
I am always leery of quotes from the Founders given without attribution and the Jefferson one you gave also makes liberal uses of ellipsis . Many bogus ones have been used on this site and many others have been taken out of context. But even if the Jefferson quote is authentic, it fails to show that there is any legitimate Constitutional power for a State to secede. At most, it shows that Jefferson may have felt that compelling them to remain by force wasn't worth the price. That, of course, depends upon factors extraneous to the Constitution.
26 Nov 12
1 edit
George Washington in his Farewell Address:
The basis of our political systems is the right of the people to make and to alter their Constitutions of Government. But the Constitution which at any time exists, 'til changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole People, is sacredly obligatory upon all. The very idea of the power and the right of the People to establish Government presupposes the duty of every Individual to obey the established Government.
http://www.constitutionreader.com/reader.engz?doc=constitution&chapter=OEBPS/Text/ch25.xhtml
"An explicit and authentic act of the whole People".
27 Nov 12
Originally posted by no1marauderYou are perfectly right to be cautious. Here is the quote from a letter to William H. Crawford (1816):
Neither Madison nor Jefferson accepted that the Constitution allowed secession:
Dr. Sir I have received yours of the 19th, inclosing some of the South Carolina papers. There are in one of them some interesting views of the doctrine of secession; one that had occurred to me, and which for the first time I have seen in print; namely that if one State ca ...[text shortened]... e wasn't worth the price. That, of course, depends upon factors extraneous to the Constitution.
"The exercise, by our own citizens, of so much commerce as may suffice to exchange our superfluities for our wants, may be advantageous for the whole. But it does not follow, that with a territory so boundless, it is the interest of the whole to become a mere city of London, to carry on the business of one half the world at the expense of eternal war with the other half. The agricultural capacities of our country constitute its distinguishing feature; and the adapting our policy and pursuits to that, is more likely to make us a numerous and happy people, than the mimicry of an Amsterdam, a Hamburgh, or a city of London. Every society has a right to fix the fundamental principles of its association, and to say to all individuals, that, if they contemplate pursuits beyond the limits of these principles, and involving dangers which the society chooses to avoid, they must go somewhere else for their exercise; that we want no citizens, and still less ephemeral and pseudo-citizens, on such terms. We may exclude them from our territory, as we do persons infected with disease. Such is the situation of our country. We have most abundant resources of happiness within ourselves, which we may enjoy in peace and safety, without permitting a few citizens, infected with the mania of rambling and gambling, to bring danger on the great mass engaged in innocent and safe pursuits at home. In your letter to Fisk, you have fairly stated the alternatives between which we are to choose: 1, licentious commerce and gambling speculations for a few, with eternal war for the many; or, 2, restricted commerce, peace, and steady occupations for all. If any State in the Union will declare that it prefers separation with the first alternative, to a continuance in union without it, I have no hesitation in saying, “let us separate.” I would rather the States should withdraw, which are for unlimited commerce and war, and confederate with those alone which are for peace and agriculture. I know that every nation in Europe would join in sincere amity with the latter, and hold the former at arm’s length, by jealousies, prohibitions, restrictions, vexations and war."
Jefferson loves the union -- but heaven help the government which starts a war and upsets the routine of farming chores!
27 Nov 12
Originally posted by FMFI have one better for ya. If you had the same scenerio but the union soldiers had unborn fetus' in limbo in jars in front of them to be used as targets with their mothers watching in horror, who would you support? 😛
OK, well then, if your own citing China had no relationship with the actual event you seemed to me referencing and no other discernible meaning of any kind, fair enough.
If, say, the Confederate States of America's military had had tanks, and slaves had been standing in front of a line of them, protesting against their slavery, would you have backed the protesters or would you have backed the CSA and its tanks?
27 Nov 12
1 edit
Originally posted by whodeyWell how about mine? It was a direct response to a comment you made about protesters and China, which you seemed unable to explain. And you seem to have been sidestepping the issue of slavery on this thread. Do you have a response?
I have one better for ya.
27 Nov 12
Originally posted by FMFYour response was ludicrous. The South did not invade the North nor would have.
Well how about mine? It was a direct response to a comment you made about protesters and China, which you seemed unable to explain. Do you have a response?
My question to you involves reality. Was it worth 600,000 lives of "good" guys and "bad" guys to overturn slavery in the South?
27 Nov 12
Originally posted by whodeyYes. If I had lived at that time I would have supported the U.S.A. against the C.S.A. and would have mourned the huge loss of life like every other American did. I think it was worth it, and not senseless.
My question to you involves reality. Was it worth 600,000 lives of "good" guys and "bad" guys to overturn slavery in the South?