Posted on 03/21/2009 6:26:13 AM PDT by cowboyway
War
As long as she [the state of New Hampshire] continued to be one of the federal states, it must have been on equal terms. If she would not submit to the exercise of the act of sovereignty contended for by Congress, and the other states, she should have withdrawn herself from the confederacy.
Justice William Paterson, Penhallow, et al. v. Doane's Administrators, 3 Dall. 54, 82 (1795).
Two principles appear to me to be clear. 1. The authority was not possessed by Congress, unless given by all the states. 2. If once given, no state could, by any act of its own, disavow and recall the authority previously given, without withdrawing from the confederation.
Justice James Iredell, Penhallow, et al. v. Doane's Administrators, 3 Dall. 54, 92 (1795).
[I]t was said that New Hampshire had a right to revoke any authority she may have consented to give to Congress, and that by her acts of assembly she did in fact revoke it, if it were ever given. To this a very satisfactory answer was made: if she had such a right, there was but one way of exercising it, that is, by withdrawing herself from the confederacy.
Justice John Blair, Penhallow, et al. v. Doane's Administrators, 3 Dall. 54, 112-113 (1795).
Justices Blair and Patterson were both framers, cognizant of what was debated and agreed to in convention. Justice William Cushing was vice president of the Massachusetts convention.
In fact not a single hostile action was made by the Sumter garrison or Lincoln prior to the confederacy initiating hostilities.
Spiking guns, sending armed warships and troops, training the Sumter guns on the city ...
The New Hampshire act in question was passed in 1775. The Articles of Confederation was ratified in 1781, What Justices Paterson, Iredell, and Blair are obviously saying is that if New Hampshire was not willing to submit the the supremacy of Congress then she shouldn't have ratified the Articles of Confederation. She should have withdrawn from the confederacy before ratification, when there was nothing to prevent her, and not after ratification, when the Articles made it impossible.
Spiking guns, sending armed warships and troops, training the Sumter guns on the city ...
In response to threats of violence, firing on unarmed ships on several occasion, and attempts to starve the garrison into surrender?
Concurring bump.
I'd also note that the 'chief' has been trotting out this old Prize law case repeatedly over the years despite having been shown its invalidity as precedent support for legal secession. Speaks volumes about the overall shakiness of their position that this tired old chestnut keeps reemerging.
You're not strong in the reading comprehension department are you. A state cannot withdraw 'herself from the confederacy' from something she hasn't joined now can she? And since a state can withdraw herself, then that's UNILATERAL secession. Which means that the 'perpetual union', being made more perfect, also perfected unilateral secession.
Another attempted slur on my native American ancestry? So predictable.
And just what does the phrase 'she should have withdrawn herself' mean? Paterson et al certainly do not hold that a state must beg for permission.
Dang typos! Justice Iredell’s quote is on page 95, not 92.
The Colonies had formed a confederacy back in 1776 or before. They had been meeting in Congress for years and working together during the Revolution. You'll note that in all the quotes you posted, the justices use the terms confederation or cofederacy interchangably. And the word is not capitalized, obviously indicating a less than formal relationship.
Really your comprehension of history leaves much to be desired.
And since a state can withdraw herself, then that's UNILATERAL secession. Which means that the 'perpetual union', being made more perfect, also perfected unilateral secession.
Complete nonsense.
Non-Sequitur,
I hope this finds you in fine spirits after the victory in Iowa Court today!What a proud Northerner you must be..
Only a complete idiot would make the connection. But hey, we're talking about you.
At least you admit to the connection..
No I don't. I leave that to you.
Nonsense, the justices refer to the confederacy as existing after the Constitution was ratified,
But as the act of Congress obviously uses the word "State" in reference to the term as used in the Constitution, it becomes necessary to inquire whether Columbia is a State in the sense of that instrument. The result of that examination is a conviction that the members of the American confederacy only are the states contemplated in the Constitution. [emphasis mine]
Chief Justice John Marshall, Hepburn & Dundas v. Ellzey, 2 Cran. 445 (1805)
Complete nonsense.
Complete nonsense. The legality of unilateral secession existed, as held by 3 of the 4 justices in the case. The Constitution nowhere prohibits the right.
I didn't mean to slight you. You are a five star reb also.
Five stars!! Wow..........
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.