The constitution merely changed the form of government of the union declared “perpetual” by the Articles.
Conditional ratification (the ability to rescind a ratification) was widely discussed at the state ratification conventions for the Constitution. The most direct comment came from the letter Madison wrote to Hamilton on the occasion of the NY state convention where the antis had Hamilton momentarily stymied. The constitution had already been written.
The Revolution was against the Royal government within which there was no representation and which our people had never given its consent and were not treated as “Englishmen”. You are advocating a revolution against a government which is of our own making and within which we have representation. It is silly to believe that anyone today could come up with something better without a massive restriction of the number of people who could vote.
Had the Union been split by the RAT Rebellion of 1861 you would probably be speaking German and saluting Hitler’s successor. There was nothing good or principled about the South’s stupidity, it was an IGnoble Cause from start to finish. That was what Washington warned about in his Farewell Address.
Your position appears indefensible on both counts... but 'perilous times' for sure.
“The constitution merely changed the form of government of the union declared ‘perpetual’ by the Articles.”
Huh? No it didn’t. It replaced the Articles wholly, and illegally at that. Yeah, okay, so preamble says “a more perfect union,” but not I notice a more perfect perpetual union. If it wanted to remain perpetual, why didn’t it say so? What other phantom passages from the Articles are incorporated by the Constitution without it saying so? You and I know that the union that was supposed to be perpetual was specifically the union as outlined by the Articles.
This other union, the one we live in now, was not envisioned by the states when they agreed to the Articles. I know it was a new union because they had to agree again. Why go through the process of ratification if the states had sacrificed their sovereignty to the Articles and it was perpetual? Becuase for a new government to supercede the Articles the states had to agree, because they were still sovereign. In the exact same manner, they could agree to another new union different from the one according to the Constitution if they saw fit, because they are still sovereign.
To think they could shuck off one constitution, the Articles—and use their sovereignty to do so—and not another, the Constitution, is bonkers. I suppose you’ll say it was different than a seperate state or a group of states that isn’t all the states forming a new union because it’s all the states together as a union that’s the perpetual thing. You can organize them, shuffle them back and forth, make left right and up down, and change the form of government all you want, so long as they’re all still one union? That’s bunk. Know why? Because you resorted to asking the states’ permission on the pretext that they are sovereign. And you still call them sovereign. If by their sovereign power they can change the form of government of the union, then they can choose to be independent or link up with any number of states within or without the union.
The states came before the union. The union did not make the states. This whole idea that the union is the thing, that it is forever, and that the states can mold it any way they want but can’t escape it is Lincolnian nonsense. It is after the fact rationalization because you’ve lived within the union all your life, think it’s natural, and can’t imagine the states without it. But they didn’t have to link up, didn’t have to seek independence together, and don’t have to stay united. That they did is an accident of history. It does not have to stay that way.
By the way, even if the Articles said they were for a perpetual union, it still says, and it also says in the Constition, that the states are sovereign, no? The Articles created a confederation of sovereign states, as I understand it. What does it mean to be sovereign except that the states reserve the right to leave the union? You can’t be sovereign if you’ve given up your sovereignty. That makes no sense.
“Conditional ratification (the ability to rescind a ratification) was widely discussed at the state ratification conventions for the Constitution. The most direct comment came from the letter Madison wrote to Hamilton on the occasion of the NY state convention where the antis had Hamilton momentarily stymied. The constitution had already been written.”
I don’t really understand your point here. But let me say, conditional ratification wouldn’t have to be written into the Constitution. The tenth amendment didn’t have to be written, either, but it makes clear that all powers not granted to the federal government by the Constitution are reserved by the states or the people. The Constitution therefor did not have to tell the states they still had the right to leave after ratification.
Ratification was de jure conditional, even if that wasn’t made explicit. It didn’t have to be explicit. You have the Constitution backwards.
You keep referencing Madison, and I’ll just assume you’re right about him. What about the scores of people then and later, Northern, Souther, and Western, who explicitly asserted or acted as if they believed in retained sovereignty and the right of secession? Do they not count?
“The Revolution was against the Royal government within which there was no representation and which our people had never given its consent and were not treated as ‘Englishmen’”
So? What is the point, here? You’re talking about the reasons for seperation, whereas I thought the argument was over its legality. Much rides on your point about consent, though not so much as you seem to think. So they never gave consent. I’m not sure it matters, since the colonies can be seen as creations of the crown instead of the states as creators of the union. But nevermind, what does it mean to consent? Consent once and that’s it? You can never take it back? Does that represent sovereignty to you?
The colonies revolted as corporate agents of the people against their having been denied the rights of Englishmen. They can do so again against the U.S. under the Constitution, for denying the people their rights or for any old reason. That’s what sovereignty actually means.
“You are advocating a revolution against a government which is of our own making and within which we have representation”
So? Governments properly formed and constituted can become destructive of the ends of liberty. Anywa, the states are still sovereign. They can secede for good or bad reasons; it doesn’t matter. I don’t recall the Declaration declaring:
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Unless at some time in the past they agreed to it, and they have representation of some sort. Then they’re screwed and have to stick with whatever government.”
Pretending as if onloy the War for Indepence was justified and the states revolting against anything else out of bounds is ex post rationalizing and cherry-picking. Your argument is the exact same anyone arguing for the colonial system or the Articles of Confederation as perpetual.
“It is silly to believe that anyone today could come up with something better without a massive restriction of the number of people who could vote.”
So? I still fail to see your point. Could you form a coherent argument, please? So it’d be silly, or undemocratic, or whatever. What does that have to do with its legality? What does that have to do with, if it’s illegal, being different than the illegal revolution or usurpation of the Articles?
“Had the Union been split by the RAT Rebellion of 1861 you would probably be speaking German and saluting Hitler’s successor”
There is no basis for this in fact or whimsy. If the nazis couldn’t invade across the Channel, certainly they couldn’t across the Atlantic. Whence this notion that the U.S. was in any direct danger from nazi Germany? I don’t get it. Must be because people cling to the illusion that we only fight wars of existential self-defense.
“Had the Union been split by the RAT Rebellion of 1861 you would probably be speaking German and saluting Hitler’s successor. There was nothing good or principled about the South’s stupidity, it was an IGnoble Cause from start to finish.”
Are we talking about the legality of secession as such, or beating up on the South? Let me join in: damn rebel redneck hillbilly racist human rights abusing jerkfaces. That being said, they had every right to leave the union.