Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Original Secessionists
the tea party tribune ^ | 2/18/12 | jim funkhouser

Posted on 02/18/2012 11:09:23 AM PST by HMS Surprise

There is nothing more irritating to a warrior-poet than an unwillingness to debate. If speech is troubling, or blatantly false, or amateurish, then it will fall of its own weight. I don’t need, and I suspect a majority of truthseekers don’t want, an administrator hovering above the public forum deciding which issues are too controversial for polite company.

The Civil War has become untouchable, unless you agree with the standard arguments. 1. Lincoln was a god among men. 2. The South was evil. 3. Union is the ultimate goal of the American experiment. 4. The Federal government’s design trumps the rights of the People, and the States. 5. Political bands are eternal, and must be preserved at all costs. 6. The ends justify the means.

The arguments for the necessity of the War between the States are considered unassailable, and I have noticed lately that the political-correctness has reached such a high level that even purportedly conservative blogs are beginning to remove threads that stray into pro-rebellion territory.

I understand the temptation to ignore this issue for political expediency, but the goal of individual liberty (personal freedom), as well as State sovereignty (political freedom), can never be accomplished unless we acknowledge and understand that the Civil War planted the seeds of the eventual unconstitutional federal takeover of every aspect of American life.

Some basics that are undeniable, albiet censorable, follows.

(Excerpt) Read more at teapartytribune.com ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: civilwar; lincoln; teaparty; washington
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 151-200201-250251-300301-303 next last
To: MamaTexan

All states since Vermont were created by the Federal Government. The states did not leave the Confederation, rather the UNION transformed from the form of the Confederation to the form of our current Constitution. States petitioned the US Government from Vermont on for permission to join the Union.
When Washington was inaugurated, the outgoing president of the United States, Cyrus Griffin stood next to him. the Union transformed, the Confederation transferred its powers to the new Union by statute. There was no secession of any state. Rhode Island joined the New transformed union last, not liking the tariff status of being outside the new Union, but still retaining ts status as part of the Confederation, they realized the greater perfection of the new form.


251 posted on 02/23/2012 7:34:41 AM PST by donmeaker (Blunderbuss: A short weapon, ... now superceded in civilized countries by more advanced weaponry.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 250 | View Replies]

To: donmeaker
There was no secession of any state.

I've posted this before, but in case you missed it;

But the seceding states were certainly justified upon that principle; and from the duty which every state is acknowledged to owe to itself, and its own citizens by doing whatsoever may best contribute to advance its own happiness and prosperity; and much more, what may be necessary to the preservation of its existence as a state.
Of the Several Forms of Government, St. George Tucker, View of the Constitution of the United States, Section XIII

The States seceded from the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union.

-----

You've yet to answer any question and continually refuse to source anything to substantiate your assertions.

Just blah, blah, blah. This is the way it is because I say so.

Have a nice day.

252 posted on 02/23/2012 8:40:22 AM PST by MamaTexan (I am a ~Person~ as created by the Law of Nature, not a 'person' as created by the laws of Man)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 251 | View Replies]

To: MamaTexan

Donmaeker is a fascist at heart, he hates states rights and the republic. For him it is Union uber alles.


253 posted on 02/25/2012 12:11:52 PM PST by central_va ( I won't be reconstructed and I do not give a damn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 252 | View Replies]

To: MamaTexan

Really, you can Google this stuff. I don’t see why I need to teach you elementary history.

“According to their own terms for modification (Article XIII), the Articles would still have been in effect until 1790, the year in which the last of the 13 states ratified the new Constitution. The Congress under the Articles continued to sit until November 1788, overseeing the adoption of the new Constitution by the states, and setting elections. By that date, 11 of the 13 states had ratified the new Constitution. On September 13, 1788, it published an announcement that the new Constitution had been ratified by the necessary nine states, set the first Wednesday in February 1789 for the presidential electors to meet and select a new president, and set the first Wednesday of March 1789 as the day the new government would take over and the government under the Articles of Confederation would come to an end. On that same September 13, it determined that New York would remain the national capital.

So lets review: The states adopted the new constitution. The Congress of the confederation itself decided on the day that the new government would take over. There was no secession of the various states.


254 posted on 02/26/2012 9:25:45 AM PST by donmeaker (Blunderbuss: A short weapon, ... now superceded in civilized countries by more advanced weaponry.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 252 | View Replies]

To: central_va

Actually, I am quite amazed as how good the Republic is. Rather than being a collection of sovereign states, or a central national government it is, as Madison wrote in Federalist Papers 39 neither one thing or the other, and a new thing entirely.

Traitors wouldn’t like me, that is true.


255 posted on 02/26/2012 9:28:51 AM PST by donmeaker (Blunderbuss: A short weapon, ... now superceded in civilized countries by more advanced weaponry.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 253 | View Replies]

To: donmeaker
I post a verifiable and historically acknowledged legal source and your reply is 'Google it'?

Blah, blah, blah.

256 posted on 02/26/2012 9:51:59 AM PST by MamaTexan (I am a ~Person~ as created by the Law of Nature, not a 'person' as created by the laws of Man)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 254 | View Replies]

To: MamaTexan

The right of the majority to bind the minority, results from a due regard to the peace of society; and the little chance of unanimity in large societies or assemblies, which, if obtainable, would certainly be very desirable; but inasmuch as that is not to be expected, whilst the passions, interests, and powers of reason remain upon their present footing among mankind, in all matters relating to the society in general, some mode must be adopted to supply the want of unanimity. The most reasonable and convenient seems to be, that the will of the majority should supply this defect; for if the will of the majority is not permitted to prevail in questions where the whole society is interested, that of the minority necessarily must. The society therefore, in such a case, would be under the influence of a minority of its members, which, generally speaking, can on no principle be justified.

If you like, that is a paragraph from St. George Tucker’s writings that you quoted.


257 posted on 02/26/2012 9:53:32 AM PST by donmeaker (Blunderbuss: A short weapon, ... now superceded in civilized countries by more advanced weaponry.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 256 | View Replies]

To: donmeaker

You posts only prove one thing. You have no concept of the original intent of the USC to create a republic. The concept is totally lost on you. Unfortunately you are not alone.


258 posted on 02/26/2012 9:59:48 AM PST by central_va ( I won't be reconstructed and I do not give a damn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 257 | View Replies]

To: donmeaker
If you like, that is a paragraph from St. George Tucker’s writings that you quoted.

Cherry-picker.

If you read the whole thing, you might actually understand it.

The constitution of the United States, then being that instrument by which the federal government hath been created; its powers defined, and limited; and the duties, and functions of its several departments prescribed; the government, thus established, may be pronounced to be a confederate republic, composed of several independent, and sovereign democratic states, united for their common defence, and security against foreign nations, and for the purposes of harmony, and mutual intercourse between each other; each state retaining an entire liberty of exercising, as it thinks proper, all those parts of its sovereignty, which are not mentioned in the constitution, or act of union, as parts that ought to be exercised in common.

Oh. The emphasis on retaining an entire liberty part.......

was HIS!

259 posted on 02/26/2012 10:35:49 AM PST by MamaTexan (I am a ~Person~ as created by the Law of Nature, not a 'person' as created by the laws of Man)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 257 | View Replies]

To: MamaTexan

I suppose the point is that people differ on their interpretation of the law.

Therefore, persons of good will submit issues to the properly instituted legal authorities, and abide by the result. Of course if they are not persons of good will they may start shooting, as the rebels did at Ft. Sumter.

After the war was over, Mr White asked to have his Confederate bonds issued by repaid. His request was denied, as the authority of Texas to issue bonds had be vacated by their insurrection. Texas v. White.


260 posted on 02/26/2012 5:35:02 PM PST by donmeaker (Blunderbuss: A short weapon, ... now superceded in civilized countries by more advanced weaponry.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 259 | View Replies]

To: MamaTexan

Retaining their entire liberty in your quote did not mean retaining their entire liberty. Of course the liberty of the various states was restricted by the Constitution.

One provision of that restriction was the duty to submit certain classes of controversies to, and to submit to the result of decisions by the Supreme Court.

The people of the states retained their ‘right of revolution’ but the Federal government had a ‘duty to suppress insurrection’ that counterbalanced the right of revolution.

And so it proved.


261 posted on 02/26/2012 5:39:40 PM PST by donmeaker (Blunderbuss: A short weapon, ... now superceded in civilized countries by more advanced weaponry.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 259 | View Replies]

To: central_va

Oh, I agree that the Constitution created a republic, or if you prefer a “res publica” a public creation. Such a republic could no more exist with ‘at pleasure’ secession than a corporation could exist with ‘at pleasure’ dissolution by any of the stock holders.

Since the a supermajority of the states was required to create the republic, simple symmetry would require a similar supermajority of the states to dissolve it. That could be done by constitutional amendment.

Because the constitution has provisions that describe limitations on Treason, then treason must be possible. No defense against treason along the lines of ‘I decided to dissolve the republic, and thus treason does not apply’ is applicable.


262 posted on 02/26/2012 5:47:05 PM PST by donmeaker (Blunderbuss: A short weapon, ... now superceded in civilized countries by more advanced weaponry.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 258 | View Replies]

To: rustbucket
With regard to the Constitutional compact, you must remember that three states specifically reserved the right to reassume their own governance if necessary for their happiness or if they were oppressed.

If you mean New York, Rhode Island and Virginia, as I wrote in post 75:

They don't say that "they (the STATES) reserved the right to “resume” the powers of government". They say that the people (in one case referring to the people of the United States and in another referring to the people of the several states) may resume or reassume the "powers". They're not saying the States can leave the Union. They're saying the people can replace the Federal (or for that matter the State) government.

I know you responded in post 111, and I didn't respond to that. Perhaps I should have but as you wrote, there is that thing about "time".

Similarly, if a group of states gained power and started oppressing other, weaker states, the weaker states had a way out through withdrawing from the compact.

If a group of states gained sufficient power to oppress other, weaker states and did so, I doubt they would have simply allowed the weaker states to simply withdraw, or that the weaker states would have been able to simply do so in the face of opposition given that they were weaker.

As to the words of Jefferson Davis who brought up the Tenth Amendment argument supporting secession on the floor of the Senate on January 10, 1861, per the quote he said "...the tenth amendment of the Constitution declared that all which had not been delegated was reserved to the States or to the people."

The Tenth Amendment actually states: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

As food for further thought:

The powers delegated to the United States by the Constitution are thought of as relatively clear, though disputed by some. In question are the powers "reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Part of that question is "What is meant by 'powers'?". To answer that I'll turn to Webster's 1828 dictionary:

POWER, n.

11. Command; the right of governing, or actual government; dominion; rule, sway; authority. A large portion of Asia is under the power of the Russian emperor. The power of the British monarch is limited by law. The powers of government are legislative, executive, judicial, and ministerial.

And of course "power" can mean "force" of varying sorts, but I don't think that's what they had in mind. If you disagree with this definition of power it would be helpful for me to know it.

Another part of the question is "What are the powers 'reserved to the States respectively, or to the people'?" The quick answer is "Everything not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States" or as Jefferson Davis put it "all which had not been delegated was reserved to the States or to the people."

But is that answer too quick? For it to be true, all that can be listed under "everything" and everything that can be listed under "all" would have to be a power. How about ejecting a State from the Union? Can a State be ejected from the Union? I say "be ejected" to clarify that this doesn't address whether a State can eject itself by secession. So far as I am aware, there is no power by which a State can be ejected from the Union. So far as I know, such a power has not been established or constituted or anything. So far as I know, such a power was "not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States" in any enumeration of power in the Constitution, as it could not have been if it was not established or constituted. (The only thing that comes remotely close is admitting new states to the Union that are formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State, and that's not very close at all as it requires the "consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress".) So far as I know, given it has not been established or constituted, such a power was not reserved to the people. Ejection of a State from the Union could be in a list of "Everything" or a list of "All", but there is no power to do so that could be "reserved to the States respectively, or to the people", therefore the answer to the question at the beginning of this paragraph is "yes" and Jefferson Davis was wrong in the quote noted above.

Davis continues: "Now, I ask where among the delegated grants to the Federal Government do you find any power to coerce a state where among the provisions of the Constitution do you find any prohibition on the part of a State to withdraw; and if you find neither one nor the other, must not this power be in that great depository, the reserved rights of the States? How was it ever taken out of that source of all power to the Federal Government? " It was not delegated to the Federal Government; it was not prohibited to the States; it necessarily remains, then, among the reserved powers of the States."

I don't see the relevance of any of that. The Constitutional Argument supporting secession is not relevant. The Union predates the Constitution and is not dependent upon it for the Union's existence or it's dissolution.

In any case, I don't see how any of this negates my statement which was:

If one party to a contract can unilaterally breach it at will without fear of penalty I see no point to even having a contract and I don’t see that the terms of the contract, whatever they may be, matter. I doubt society as we know it can exist if we can’t have contracts or compacts or agreements to which the involved parties can be held, which likely involves some sort of possible penalty for breach.

263 posted on 02/26/2012 6:02:33 PM PST by KrisKrinkle (Blessed be those who know the depth and breadth of their ignorance. Cursed be those who don't.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 227 | View Replies]

To: rustbucket
Where exactly is that agreement to remain in the Union? Perhaps you are thinking of the perpetual Union of the Articles of Confederation. That didn't last very long, and the word perpetual was left out of the Constitution.

Yes.

From the Preamble to the Articles of Confederation:

First sentence, second paragraph: “Whereas the Delegates of the United States of America in Congress assembled did on the fifteenth day of November in the Year of our Lord One Thousand Seven Hundred and Seventy seven, and in the Second Year of the Independence of America, agree to certain articles of Confederation and perpetual Union between the States...”

Later, they expressly changed the agreement on Confederation, I know of nothing (authoritative or otherwise) from the time by the parties involved expressly stating a change to the agreement on perpetual Union.

Let's define "perpetual". For that I'll turn to Webster's 1828 dictionary:

PERPETUAL, a.

1. Never ceasing; continuing forever in future time; destined to be eternal; as a perpetual covenant; a perpetual statute.

2. Continuing or continued without intermission; uninterrupted; as a perpetual stream; the perpetual action of the heart and arteries.

3. Permanent; fixed; not temporary; as a perpetual law or edict; perpetual love or amity, perpetual incense. Ex.30.

4. Everlasting; endless.

If you disagree with this definition let me know.

...President George Washington appeared before the First Congress and refused to take action on some matters pertaining to Indians in North Carolina because, as he said, North Carolina was not a member of the Union.

I'd be very interested in a source for that. It raises some questions. Did Congress agree with him? Who else agreed with him? Did North Carolina agree? Was it possibly a ploy to persuade North Carolina to ratify?

I think of other official documents that said something was perpetual that did not turn out to be.

That somebody else does or doesn't do something, or that everybody else does or doesn't do something, does not mean that the something is the thing to do.

From your quote of Hamilton: "This single consideration should be sufficient to dispose every peaceable citizen against such a Government."

And you wrote: The Constitution did not give the government the power to coerce states.

Okay. If we're discussing secession, I don't think the States secede from the government, they secede from the Union, from the other States.

Food for further thought:

From Webster's 1828 dictionary (emphasis added):

COERCE,

1. To restrain by force; to keep from acting, or transgressing, particularly by moral force, as by law or authority; to repress.

2. To compel; to constrain.

From the Constitution, Article I, Section 8, last clause (emphasis added):

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

Does a seceding state need the permission of other states in order to secede?

Should the oppressing states get to decide whether the oppressed state gets to secede?

Who gets to decide what is sufficient to justify secession?

Those are the questions, or at least some of them.

Secession is the supra-Constitutional action of a state to protect itself.

Agreed that it is supra-Constitutional Which is why I think the Constitutional arguments, at least the ones I recall, are not relevant.

Regarding the John Taylor quote on the Constitution: Where does it address secession from the Union? I see where it addresses the relation of the States the federal government, and their right to alter it or revoke its commissions. It hints at the States relationship with each other, but I see nothing about secession.

Sorry for going on so long.

After what I've done, you have no reason to be sorry. It is difficult to respond to everything in something long though.

264 posted on 02/26/2012 6:04:45 PM PST by KrisKrinkle (Blessed be those who know the depth and breadth of their ignorance. Cursed be those who don't.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 232 | View Replies]

To: MamaTexan

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-jwBpgluzSuQ/T0o0aCyZjlI/AAAAAAAABqs/VGUaVl2P45E/s1600/churchsign.jpg


265 posted on 02/26/2012 6:57:12 PM PST by donmeaker (Blunderbuss: A short weapon, ... now superceded in civilized countries by more advanced weaponry.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 256 | View Replies]

To: donmeaker
Retaining their entire liberty in your quote did not mean retaining their entire liberty.

That's a rather ridiculous statement. 'It really didn't mean what it said it did?' LOL!

Tucker was quite clear on his opinion of the sovereign States.

-----

One provision of that restriction was the duty to submit certain classes of controversies to, and to submit to the result of decisions by the Supreme Court.

this resort must necessarily be deemed the last in relation to the authorities of the other departments of the government; not in relation to the rights of the parties to the constitutional compact,
James Madison, Report on the Virginia Resolutions
[emphasis mine]

The other department of the federal government, NOT the parties to the compact...the States.

The federal government never had the authority to judge whether a State has a right to do anything unless it was specifically forbidden by the Constitution....like coining money.

-----

but the Federal government had a ‘duty to suppress insurrection’ that counterbalanced the right of revolution.

There was no 'insurrection'. States, in their sovereign capacity, notified the federal government that they were withdrawing from the Constitutional Compact.

They were not attempting to overthrow the lawful authority.... they ARE the lawful authority.

-----

Oh... and before you start jumping on this:

Article 6, Clause 2
........under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

or Laws of any State to the Contrary

THE TEXAS CONSTITUTION
Article 1 - BILL OF RIGHTS
Section 24 - MILITARY SUBORDINATE TO CIVIL AUTHORITY
The military shall at all times be subordinate to the civil authority

***

CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF KANSAS
BILL OF RIGHTS
Sec. 4. The people have the right to bear arms for their defense and security; but standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and shall not be tolerated, and the military shall be in strict subordination to the civil power.

***

CONSTITUTION OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
PART THE FIRST A Declaration of the Rights of the Inhabitants of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
Article XVII. The people have a right to keep and to bear arms for the common defence. And as, in time of peace, armies are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be maintained without the consent of the legislature; and the military power shall always be held in an exact subordination to the civil authority, and be governed by it.

***

THE CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF NEVADA
ARTICLE. 1. Declaration of Rights
Sec. 11. Right to keep and bear arms; civil power supreme.
2. The military shall be subordinate to the civil power; No standing army shall be maintained by this State in time of peace, and in time of War, no appropriation for a standing army shall be for a longer time than two years.

This is one of the oldest provisions and it appears in every State Constitution. The military is subordinate to the civil power.

Therefore, it is an unconstitutional act for the federal power to use military force and usurp the civil authority of a State by attacking ANY one of the States that created it. Always has been, always will be.

------

This has all been quite entertaining, but you obviously have no interest in historical truth or the concept of Original Intent.

That being the case, I have no interest in you.

266 posted on 02/26/2012 7:48:10 PM PST by MamaTexan (I am a ~Person~ as created by the Law of Nature, not a 'person' as created by the laws of Man)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 261 | View Replies]

To: donmeaker
LOL! Whats the matter?

Don't have enough guts to actually post it? Are you afraid the mods would pull it? Are you SO insecure that you not only refuse to debate, but don't even have the fortitude to insult me to my face?

If you think accurate history, Original Intent and Constitutional Law are 'shit', sir, you're on the wrong forum

267 posted on 02/26/2012 8:12:44 PM PST by MamaTexan (I am a ~Person~ as created by the Law of Nature, not a 'person' as created by the laws of Man)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 265 | View Replies]

To: KrisKrinkle
I do mean New York, Rhode Island, and Virginia. As I pointed out in post 112, Bledsoe argued in 1866 that it made no sense for the people of the United States to "reassume" or "resume" powers that they did not delegate. You can only reassume or resume something you had. The powers they had included the power to govern themselves, some of which they had delegated to the Federal Government in the Constitution. What other powers could they have meant? They already had all the powers they did not delegate.

Bledsoe made the arguments for the right of secession better than I can, so I'll quote more of his arguments (Link, see pages 158-162; paragraph breaks mine for readability; emphasis mine):

the evil intended to be remedied shows the true meaning of the words in question. The Virginia people did not fear, that the people of the United States might pervert the powers of the Federal Government for their own oppression. Their fears were for the weak, not for the strong; not for the people of the United States in the aggregate, but for the Southern States in the minority; and especially the State of Virginia.

They feared, as the burning eloquence of Henry, and Mason, and Monroe, and Grayson evinced, that the new Government would "operate as a faction of seven States to oppress six;" that the Northern majority would "operate as a faction of seven States to oppress six;" that the Northern majority would, sooner or later, trample on the Southern minority.

They feared in the language of Grayson, that the new Union would be made "to exchange the poverty of the North for the riches of the South." In the words of Henry, "This Government subjects everything to the Northern majority. Is there not, then, a settled purpose to check the Southern interest? We thus put unbounded power over our property in hands not having a common interest with us. How can the Southern members, prevent the adoption of the most oppressive mode of taxation in the Southern States, as there is a majority in favor of the Northern States? Sir, this is a picture so horrid, so wretched, so dreadful, that I need no longer dwell upon it."*

Did the Convention of Virginia, then, seek to quiet these dreadful apprehensions, by declaring, that the people of the United States "as one great society," might resume the powers of the Federal Government whensoever they should be perverted to their oppression? By declaring, that this one great society, or rather the majority of this society, might resume the powers of the Federal Government whensoever they should be pleased to use them for the oppression of the minority? Could any possible interpretation render any legislation more absolutely ridiculous? It puts the remedy in the hands of those from whom the evil is expected to proceed! It gives the shield of defence to the very power which holds the terrible sword of destruction!

The Convention of Virginia spoke "in behalf of the people of Virginia;" and not in behalf of the overbearing majority, by whom it was feared these people might be crushed. They sought to protect, not the people of America, who needed no protection, but the people of Virginia. Hence, as the people of Virginia had delegated powers to the Federal Government, they reserved "in behalf of the people of Virginia," the right to resume those powers whensoever they should be perverted to their injury or oppression.

* Elliot's Debates, Vol. iii, p. 312.

Now this reservation enures to the benefit of all the parties to the Constitutional compact; for as all such compacts are mutual, so no one party can be under any greater obligation than another. Hence, a condition in favor of one is a condition in favor of all. This well-known principle was asserted by Mr. Calhoun in the great debate of 1833, with the remark that he presumed it would not be denied by Mr. Webster; and it was not denied by him. Hence any State, as well as Virginia, had the express right to resume the powers delegated by her to the Federal Government, in case they should be perverted to her injury or oppression.

But, it may be asked, were the powers of the Federal Government perverted to the injury or oppression of any Southern State? It might be easily shown, that they were indeed perverted to the injury and oppression of more States than one; but this is unnecessary, since the parties to the compact, the sovereign States by whom it was ratified, are the judges of this question.*

* See Virginia Resolutions of *98; Kentucky Resolutions of '98 and ‘99; the Virginia Report of 1800, &c., &c.

Bledsoe was a lawyer in Springfield, Illinois. He met and bested Lincoln in court cases more than Lincoln bested him, although such outcomes are also dependent on the merits of the individual cases, of course. I've read somewhere that some people say that the arguments in Bledsoe's book were the reason why the Federal Government did not pursue a treason trial for Jefferson Davis because the government would have a hard time proving that a right of secession did not exist.

Here's what Virginia said when they seceded. I'll include the entire Virginia Ordinance of Secession (Link; emphasis mine):

AN ORDINANCE

To Repeal the ratification of the Constitution of the United States of America, by the State of Virginia, and to resume all the rights and powers granted under said Constitution:

The people of Virginia, in their ratification of the Constitution of the United States of America, adopted by them in Convention, on the 25th day of June, in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eight-eight, having declared that the powers granted them under the said Constitution were derived from the people of the United States, and might be resumed whensoever the same should be perverted to their injury and oppression, and the Federal Government having perverted said powers, not only to the injury of the people of Virginia, but to the oppression of the Southern slaveholding States.

Now, therefore, we, the people of Virginia, do declare and ordain that the Ordinance adopted by the people of this State in Convention, on the twenty-fifth day of June, in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and seventy-eight, whereby the Constitution of the United States of America was ratified, and all acts of the General Assembly of this State, ratifying or adopting amendments to said Constitution, are hereby repealed and abrogated; that the union between the State of Virginia and the other States under the Constitution aforesaid, is hereby dissolved, and that the State of Virginia is in the full possession and exercise of all the rights of sovereignty which belong to a free and independent State. And they do further declare that the said Constitution of the United State of America is no longer binding on any of the citizens of this State.

This Ordinance shall take effect and be an act of this day when ratified by a majority of the votes of the people of this State, cast at a poll to be taken thereon on the fourth Thursday in May next, in pursuance of a schedule hereafter to be enacted.

Done in Convention, in the city of Richmond, on the seventeenth day of April, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-one, and in the eighty-fifth year of the Commonwealth of Virginia

JNO. L. EUBANK,
Sec'y of Convention.

There is no role under the Constitution for the people of the United States en masse to have a role in government. The people of the United States acting as one unit did not create the Constitution and have no powers under the Constitution. Here are some comments from Supreme Court cases (emphasis mine; originally posted by 4CJ):

They acted upon it in the only manner in which they can act safely, effectively and wisely, on such a subject — by assembling in convention. It is true, they assembled in their several States — and where else should they have assembled? No political dreamer was ever wild enough to think of breaking down the lines which separate the States, and of compounding the American people into one common mass. Of consequence, when they act, they act in their States. But the measures they adopt do not, on that account, cease to be the measures of the people themselves, or become the measures of the State governments.
[Chief Justice John Marshall, McCullough v Maryland, 4 Wheat. 316, (1819)]

When the American people created a national legislature, with certain enumerated powers, it was neither necessary nor proper to define the powers retained by the States. These powers proceed, not from the people of America, but from the people of the several States; and remain, after the adoption of the constitution, what they were before, except so far as they may be abridged by that instrument.
[Chief Justice John Marshall, Sturges v. Crowninshield, 4 Wheat. 122 (1819)]

The ultimate source of the Constitution's authority is the consent of the people of each individual State, not the consent of the undifferentiated people of the Nation as a whole. The ratification procedure erected by Article VII makes this point clear. The Constitution took effect once it had been ratified by the people gathered in convention in nine different States. But the Constitution went into effect only "between the States so ratifying the same," Art. VII; it did not bind the people of North Carolina until they had accepted it.
[Justice Clarence Thomas, US Term Limits v Thornton, 514 US 779, (1995)]

In addition, it would make no sense to speak of powers as being reserved to the undifferentiated people of the Nation as a whole, because the Constitution does not contemplate that those people will either exercise power or delegate it. The Constitution simply does not recognize any mechanism for action by the undifferentiated people of the Nation.
[Justice Clarence Thomas, US Term Limits v Thornton, 514 US 779, (1995)]

More later.

268 posted on 02/27/2012 8:46:02 AM PST by rustbucket
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 263 | View Replies]

To: KrisKrinkle
The Tenth Amendment actually states: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

"Respectively" means individually. James Madison commented on the meaning of the term "states" in the Report of 1799 to the Virginia House of Delegates (my emphasis):

The other position involved in this branch of the resolution, namely, "that the states are parties to the Constitution or compact," is, in the judgment of the committee, equally free from objection. 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 separate sections of territory occupied by the political societies within each; sometimes the particular governments, established by those societies; sometimes those societies as organized into those particular governments; and, lastly, it means the people composing those political societies, in their highest sovereign capacity. Although it might be wished that the perfection of language admitted less diversity in the signification of the same words, yet little inconveniency is produced by it, where the true sense can be collected with certainty from the different applications. In the present instance, whatever different constructions of the term "states," in the resolution, may have been entertained, 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.

If you disagree with this definition of power it would be helpful for me to know it.

I agree with the part about the right of governing. Virginia ratification delegates were concerned about possible future dominance and oppression by the Northern States, as Bledsoe pointed out. Why would they want the people of the oppressing states, who might be a majority of the people of the United States, to have the right of voting on whether a state or group of states could secede?

You might take a look at de Tocqueville’s statement in my post 230 above. It points out the basic reason why some states might not want other states to secede. If those states or the people in those states form a majority of the Union, there would be no hope for a state that was being oppressed or taken economic advantage of. Given that, why would states join such a Union unless they had an escape clause?

How about ejecting a State from the Union? Can a State be ejected from the Union?

Not without the state's permission, according to the Constitution. The Constitution doesn't say anything outlawing secession. If it had, it wouldn't have been ratified, IMO. The Constitution did not give the power to other states or the central government to block secession.

The Union predates the Constitution and is not dependent upon it for the Union's existence or it's dissolution.

You are channeling Lincoln. He argued that the Union predates the states.

Now perhaps is the time to provide the source you asked about in your next post for George Washington's statement about North Carolina not being in the Union. The source of my George Washington quote was "Gales and Seaton’s History of Debates in Congress" for August 22, 1789. See Link. My emphasis below.

The President of the United States came into the Senate Chamber, attended by General Knox, and laid before the Senate the following state of facts, with the questions thereto annexed, for their advice and consent:

... "As the Cherokees reside principally within the territory claimed by North Carolina, and as that State is not a member of the present Union, it may be doubted whether any efficient measures in favor of the Cherokees could be immediately adopted by the general government ..."

Here Washington referred to "the present Union." He recognized that the present Union was not the same Union that existed under the Articles. How can anyone contend that the present Union extends back to 1774 or that the "perpetual" Union formed under the Articles was the same Union as that formed under the Constitution?

Had North Carolina continued to not ratify the Constitution, I believe it would have peacefully remained outside of the Union formed under the Constitution. Thus, it was possible to leave the "Union" that preceded the states. The other states had withdrewn from the Union under the Articles and formed a new Union under the Constitution.

An association (the Continental Congress) did exist in 1774. It was formed to speak and act to England in a united way, something more powerful than 13 separate entities acting and speaking alone. But it was an association in which the independent and sovereign states did not have to do what the association said. The states were sovereign and independent, so the Continental Congress said.

We joined with Britain, Canada, Australia, etc. to fight World War II. We were the Allies, an association fighting against the Axis powers. Does this association, formed to fight a war, mean that we are bound to them in a future government from which we cannot leave? Does the fact that we are members of the UN and a signatory to the UN charter mean that we can't withdraw from that organization if we so desire? If not, one world government here we come.

If one party to a contract can unilaterally breach it at will without fear of penalty I see no point to even having a contract …

If one group of states can violate a contract with impunity and transfer large sums of wealth from the other states to themselves because they outvoted the other states, then I don't see that as a very desirable contract to have entered without an escape clause. As long as the Union formed by the Constitution provided sufficient benefit to the Southern states for them to remain, they did not take the major step of secession.

The majority of Republican congressmen (68 of them including the 1859 Republican nominee for Speaker of the House, Sherman of Ohio [Union General Sherman's brother]) endorsed statements like the following in Helper's book, thus threatening the foundation of the Southern economy. [See Link to Helper’s book]

... our purpose is as fixed as the eternal pillars of heaven; we have determined to abolish slavery, and -- so help us God -- abolish it we will! [page 187]

We believe it is, as it ought to be, the desire, the determination, and the destiny of this party [Republican] to give the death-blow to slavery; ... [page 234]

We are determined to abolish slavery at all hazards ... [page 149]

269 posted on 02/27/2012 11:01:46 AM PST by rustbucket
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 263 | View Replies]

To: KrisKrinkle
From the Constitution, Article I, Section 8, last clause (emphasis added):

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

Once a state withdrew from the Union formed by the Constitution, the Constitution no longer applied to it. Otherwise it would possibly be trapped in a Union with other states that might be taking advantage of it in major ways.

The Constitution of the Confederacy was largely based on the 1787 US Constitution. Alexander Stephens, Vice President of the Confederate States, said the following in an August 29, 1863 letter, addressee unknown.

Constitutional liberty can be achieved and secured only by maintaining and defending written and well defined limitations on the powers of all who are in authority. Such are the limitations in our constitution. That chart of our liberties was made for war as well as peace. Our first, chief and controlling object in every "plan" or act, should be to maintain the constitution. Secession was resorted to as the only means to preserve the principles of the constitution inviolate.

270 posted on 02/27/2012 11:24:54 AM PST by rustbucket
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 264 | View Replies]

To: MamaTexan

Notwithstanding...

Federal military is subordinate to federal civil authority, with the President as commander in chief. State constitutions, notwithstanding. State militias are subordinate to state civil authority, unless federalized, as the Virginia militia was federalized by George Washington in response to the Whiskey Rebellion.

I know, you choose to cherry-pick (Your phrase) and dishonestly represent the constitution. So sorry you can not find a country where down is up, and where crazy is normal. Good luck with that.


271 posted on 02/27/2012 12:25:44 PM PST by donmeaker (Blunderbuss: A short weapon, ... now superceded in civilized countries by more advanced weaponry.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 266 | View Replies]

To: MamaTexan
Tucker was quite clear on his opinion of the sovereign States.

And that is precisely what it was - an opinion, having no force of law. Tucker's opinions were overrun by the occasion of the Civil War and some of them rendered moot.

272 posted on 02/27/2012 12:38:36 PM PST by rockrr (Everything is different now...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 266 | View Replies]

To: rustbucket

But the states did not withdraw from the union, which is not to say that they might not have wanted to. They had no legal authority to break the union unilaterally. Rather they sought to break the union by other than legal means, and were defeated.


273 posted on 02/27/2012 12:42:58 PM PST by donmeaker (Blunderbuss: A short weapon, ... now superceded in civilized countries by more advanced weaponry.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 270 | View Replies]

To: MamaTexan

I submit the argument is with the facts, so rather than admit that the facts are against you, you argue that the problem is with the source.

So after sorting through ten thousand legal documents you find a reference to secession, and pretend that is the one that counts.

If the states had seceded from the Union of the Articles of Confederation to join the ‘new union’ then the acts of the congress of the Union of the Articles of Confederation would have no meaning or effect. Since all parties, to include the states selecting their electors, the outgoing president, and the incoming president acted in exact accordance with the legislation of the congress of the Articles of Confederation, that shows that no secession took place.

Even as Confederates asserted that they had the extra-constitutional power to secede, they also argued that the US government had no power to resist their military threats and movements, calling for the adherence to the constitution as their protection from the government against which they were in insurrection.

Ironic I call that.


274 posted on 02/27/2012 12:58:03 PM PST by donmeaker (Blunderbuss: A short weapon, ... now superceded in civilized countries by more advanced weaponry.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 256 | View Replies]

To: donmeaker
State militias are subordinate to state civil authority, unless federalized, as the Virginia militia was federalized by George Washington in response to the Whiskey Rebellion.

Washington could not override the Sovereign authority of the State. In this case is was Governor Mifflin of Pennsylvania.

A proclamation was issued by the President, commanding the insurgents to disperse, while quotas of militia were called for from Pennsylvania, Virginia, Maryland, and New Jersey. These Governor Mifflin, of Pennsylvania, who seemed to be in sympathy with the insurgents, hesitated to call out. He was, however, forced either to do so, or to break with the central government, and the militia volunteered in greater numbers than were wanted, even members of the "Society of Friends" joining the force.
The Whisky Rebellion of 1794

Mifflin could have notified President Washington to his face that the State withdrew from the Union...and there is nothing Washington could have done about it.

-----

Article 4 section 4
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.

And on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive means the STATE authority, not the federal one.

At the same time it is properly provided, in order that such interference may not wantonly or arbitrarily take place; that it shall only be on the request of the state authorities:otherwise the self-government of the state might be encroached upon at the pleasure of the Union, and a small state might fear or feel the effects of a combination of larger states against it under colour of constitutional authority;
William Rawle

275 posted on 02/27/2012 5:06:54 PM PST by MamaTexan (I am a ~Person~ as created by the Law of Nature, not a 'person' as created by the laws of Man)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 271 | View Replies]

To: MamaTexan

Except that Washington did do more. The militia of Virginia was called out and led by one General Lee.


276 posted on 02/27/2012 5:31:54 PM PST by donmeaker (Blunderbuss: A short weapon, ... now superceded in civilized countries by more advanced weaponry.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 275 | View Replies]

To: MamaTexan

Washington actually got a ruling from a supreme court justice to permit his actions.


277 posted on 02/28/2012 7:48:57 PM PST by donmeaker (Blunderbuss: A short weapon, ... now superceded in civilized countries by more advanced weaponry.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 275 | View Replies]

To: MamaTexan

Washington applied to a justice of the supreme court to get permission to send an army to quell the Whiskey Rebellion, in accordance with the Militia Act of 1792.

So that is the precedent. The 1795 Militia act increased the president’s powers, not requiring application to the court. That was the law under which Lincoln acted.


278 posted on 03/01/2012 10:51:33 PM PST by donmeaker (Blunderbuss: A short weapon, ... now superceded in civilized countries by more advanced weaponry.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 275 | View Replies]

To: donmeaker
Washington applied to a justice of the supreme court to get permission to send an army to quell the Whiskey Rebellion

Source, please.

-----

So that is the precedent.

ROFLMAO!

Boy, do you have a lot to learn about Law.

precedent
1) n. a prior reported opinion of an appeals court which establishes the legal rule (authority) in the future on the same legal question decided in the prior judgment.

"Precedent" is not just something that happens, it's a documented legal procedure.

279 posted on 03/02/2012 4:42:56 AM PST by MamaTexan (I am a ~Person~ as created by the Law of Nature, not a 'person' as created by the laws of Man)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 278 | View Replies]

To: KrisKrinkle; MamaTexan
They don't say that "they (the STATES) reserved the right to “resume” the powers of government".

The people and their States never relinquished the natural right of self government. If someone delegates authority that doesn't equal any ambandament of their personal sovereignty. To say it another way -- just because your employer let you use the company condo on the beach - that doesn't promote you into condo ownership.

Perhaps Federalist 43 can shed some light:

On what principle the Confederation, which stands in the solemn form of a compact among the States, can be superseded without the unanimous consent of the parties to it? 2. What relation is to subsist between the nine or more States ratifying the Constitution, and the remaining few who do not become parties to it? The first question is answered at once by recurring to the absolute necessity of the case; to the great principle of self-preservation; to the transcendent law of nature and of nature's God, which declares that the safety and happiness of society are the objects at which all political institutions aim, and to which all such institutions must be sacrificed.

A compact between independent sovereigns, founded on ordinary acts of legislative authority, can pretend to no higher validity than a league or treaty between the parties. It is an established doctrine on the subject of treaties, that all the articles are mutually conditions of each other; that a breach of any one article is a breach of the whole treaty; and that a breach, committed by either of the parties, absolves the others, and authorizes them, if they please, to pronounce the compact violated and void.

----

Gotta love that Thomas Jefferson!:

"I had written to Mr. Madison, as I had before informed you, and had stated to him some general ideas for consideration and consultation when we should meet. I thought something essentially necessary to be said, in order to avoid the inference of acquiescence; that a resolution or declaration should be passed, 1. answering the reasonings of such of the States as have ventured into the field of reason, and that of the committee of Congress, taking some notice, too, of those States who have either not answered at all, or answered without reasoning. 2. Making firm protestation against the precedent and principle, and reserving the right to make this palpable violation of the federal compact the ground of doing in future whatever we might now rightfully do, should repetitions of these and other violations of the compact render it expedient. 3. Expressing in affectionate and conciliatory language our warm attachment to union with our sister States, and to the instrument and principles by which we are united; that we are willing to sacrifice to this every thing but the rights of self-government in those important points which we have never yielded, and in which alone we see liberty, safety, and happiness; that not at all disposed to make every measure of error or of wrong, a cause of scission, we are willing to look on with indulgence, and to wait with patience, till those passions and delusions shall have passed over, which the federal government have artfully excited to cover its own abuses and conceal its designs, fully confident that the good sense of the American people, and their attachment to those very rights which we are now vindicating, will, before it shall be too late, rally with us round the true principles of our federal compact. This was only meant to give a general idea of the complexion and topics of such an instrument. Mr. M. who came, as had been proposed, does not concur in the reservation proposed above; and from this I recede readily, not only in deference to his judgment, but because, as we should never think of separation but for repeated and enormous violations, so these, when they occur, will be cause enough of themselves."

This letter by Thomas Jefferson would be viewed by many small r's on this forum as treason. Just goes to show ya how successful brainwashing can be:

Dear Sir,—I wrote you a letter yesterday, of which you will be free to make what use you please. This will contain matters not intended for the public eye. I see, as you do, and with the deepest affliction, the rapid strides with which the federal branch of our government is advancing towards the usurpation of all the rights reserved to the States, and the consolidation in itself of all powers, foreign and domestic; and that too, by constructions which, if legitimate, leave no limits to their power. Take together the decisions of the federal court, the doctrines of the President, and the misconstructions of the constitutional compact acted on by the legislature of the federal branch, and it is but too evident, that the three ruling branches of that department are in combination to strip their colleagues, the State authorities, of the powers reserved by them, and to exercise themselves all functions foreign and domestic

Are we then to stand to our arms, with the hot-headed Georgian? No. That must be the last resource, not to be thought of until much longer and greater sufferings. If every infraction of a compact of so many parties is to be resisted at once, as a dissolution of it, none can ever be formed which would last one year. We must have patience and longer endurance then with our brethren while under delusion; give them time for reflection and experience of consequences; keep ourselves in a situation to profit by the chapter of accidents; and separate from our companions only when the sole alternatives left, are the dissolution of our Union with them, or submission to a government without limitation of powers. Between these two evils, when we must make a choice, there can be no hesitation.

280 posted on 03/02/2012 3:13:25 PM PST by Idabilly (Tailpipes poppin, radios rockin, Country Boy Can Survive.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 263 | View Replies]

To: donmeaker
All states since Vermont were created by the Federal Government. The states did not leave the Confederation, rather the UNION transformed from the form of the Confederation to the form of our current Constitution. States petitioned the US Government from Vermont on for permission to join the Union.

You're truly confused.

The PEOPLE created the States. Furthermore, every State that was born after the Constitution was adopted has the same rights and privileges as the original thirteen Nation States.

--------------------

These speculative notions may be regarded as having received the most solemn sanction in the United States of America; the supreme national council of which hath, on the most important occasion, which hath ever occured since the first settlement of these states by the present race of men, declared, "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 abolish it, and to institute a new government, laying its foundations upon such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most "likely to effect their safety and happiness."[9] Such is the language of that congress which dissolved the union between Great Britain and America. Few are the governments of the world, antient or modern, whose foundations have been laid upon these principles. Fraud, usurpation, and conquest have been, generally, substituted in their stead.

When a government is founded upon the voluntary consent, and agreement of a people uniting themselves together for their common benefit, the people, or nation, collectively taken, is free, although the administration of the government should happen to be oppressive, and to a certain degree, even tyrannical; since it is in the power of the people to alter, or abolish it, whenever they shall think proper; and to institute such new government as may seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. But if the government be founded in fear, constraint, or force, although the administration should happen to be mild, the people, being deprived of the sovereignty, are reduced to a state of civil slavery. Should the administration, in this case, become tyrannical, they are without redress. Submission, punishment, or a successful revolt, are the only alternatives.

http://www.constitution.org/tb/t1b.htm

281 posted on 03/02/2012 4:04:28 PM PST by Idabilly (Tailpipes poppin, radios rockin, Country Boy Can Survive.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 251 | View Replies]

To: Idabilly

No doubt the people created the states, but the forms through which the people created the states were those of the Federal Government, which thus, created the states, set the boundaries, and set the date for their admission to the Union, and guaranteed from then on a republican form of government.

No doubt that our government depends on the consent of the governed, but that consent is expressed through elections of various officials, such as the president, and the powers of those officials are limited, even if the people would consent to giving them more power, such powers would have to be granted by amendment, legislation, or by court case. If the people would like to remove powers from any official position, such removal would have to take place by amendment, by legislation, or by court case. Of course the person occupying a position could be removed by impeachment, or by expiration of his term.


282 posted on 03/02/2012 4:20:44 PM PST by donmeaker (Blunderbuss: A short weapon, ... now superceded in civilized countries by more advanced weaponry.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 281 | View Replies]

To: MamaTexan

The documented legal procedure used in the Whiskey Rebellion was to apply (IAW the Militia act of 1792) to a supreme court justice. The justice was James Wilson, who delivered his opinion on August 4, and Washington issued a presidential proclamation on August 7th that the militia would be called out to suppress the insurrection. General ‘Light Horse Harry’ Lee was put in charge of the 12,000+ man army.

In response to the widespread perception that waiting for a supreme court justice was a weakness, the Militia Act of 1795 removed that requirement.


283 posted on 03/02/2012 4:36:54 PM PST by donmeaker (Blunderbuss: A short weapon, ... now superceded in civilized countries by more advanced weaponry.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 279 | View Replies]

To: donmeaker

As amended:
Sec. 2. “And be it further enacted, That whenever the laws of the United States shall be opposed or the execution thereof obstructed, in any state, by combinations too powerful to be suppressed by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, or by the powers vested in the marshals by this act,.........it shall be lawful for the President of the United States to call forth the militia of such state to suppress such combinations, and to cause the laws to be duly executed. And if the militia of a state, where such combinations may happen, shall refuse, or be insufficient to suppress the same, it shall be lawful for the President, if the legislature of the United States be not in session, to call forth and employ such numbers of the militia of any other state or states most convenient thereto, as may be necessary, and the use of militia, so to be called forth, may be continued, if necessary, until the expiration of thirty days after the commencement of the ensuing session.”


284 posted on 03/02/2012 4:43:21 PM PST by donmeaker (Blunderbuss: A short weapon, ... now superceded in civilized countries by more advanced weaponry.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 283 | View Replies]

To: donmeaker

http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Emergency+power+and+the+Militia+Acts.-a0124790220


285 posted on 03/02/2012 4:49:59 PM PST by donmeaker (Blunderbuss: A short weapon, ... now superceded in civilized countries by more advanced weaponry.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 283 | View Replies]

To: donmeaker
No doubt that our government depends on the consent of the governed, but that consent is expressed through elections of various officials, such as the president, and the powers of those officials are limited, even if the people would consent to giving them more power, such powers would have to be granted by amendment, legislation, or by court case.

I think you're missing the point. The federal government has no sovereignty of it's own - all the sovereign authority resides in the people and their respective States.

Federalist #81

It is inherent in the nature of sovereignty not to be amenable to the suit of an individual without its consent. This is the general sense, and the general practice of mankind; and the exemption, as one of the attributes of sovereignty, is now enjoyed by the government of every State in the Union

286 posted on 03/02/2012 4:52:26 PM PST by Idabilly (Tailpipes poppin, radios rockin, Country Boy Can Survive.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 282 | View Replies]

To: donmeaker
The people of the states retained their ‘right of revolution’ but the Federal government had a ‘duty to suppress insurrection’ that counterbalanced the right of revolution.

Sovereigns don't retain the 'right of revolution' - since that is their basic natural right - they retain their sovereign right to 'alter or revoke its commission'..without asking 'Mother May I?' ...

John Taylor of Caroline:

Sovereignty is the highest degree of political power, and the establishment of a form of government, the highest proof which can be given of its existence. The states could not have reserved any rights by the articles of their union, if they had not been sovereign, because they could have no rights, unless they flowed from that source. In the creation of the federal government, the states exercised the highest act of sovereignty, and they may, if they please, repeat the proof of their sovereignty, by its annihilation.

And so it proved.

Augh...And any government that may exercise to do whatever it professes to be necessary and proper to promote whatever it professes to be the general welfare is, by definition, a government of unlimited powers.

"Nullification and Secession are both rights; and the difference between them is simply this: Nullification proposes to preserve the Constitution, by annulling every act of the Federal Government, which the Constitution does not authorize; it proposes to preserve the Union, by annulling those usurpations in some mode which shall not withdraw the State from the Union, nor embarrass the regular action of the Government within the Constitution. Secession withdraws the State out of the reach of the usurped powers, when all other means of redress have failed. Nullification, therefore, is the primary right and the primary duty of the State; Secession is the ultimate right, when Nullification has failed.----Abel P. Upshur

Sic semper tyrannis!!

287 posted on 03/02/2012 5:51:28 PM PST by Idabilly (Tailpipes poppin, radios rockin, Country Boy Can Survive.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 261 | View Replies]

To: donmeaker
Blah, blah , blah.

--------

Source, please.

288 posted on 03/03/2012 4:00:43 AM PST by MamaTexan (I am a ~Person~ as created by the Law of Nature, not a 'person' as created by the laws of Man)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 283 | View Replies]

To: MamaTexan
I can't tell if you doubt the validity of donmeaker's claim or if you're simply sending him on a snipe hunt. So I'll help it along by providing a few links to a piece of commonly known history.

Before troops could be raised, the Militia Act of 1792 required a justice of the United States Supreme Court to certify that law enforcement was beyond the control of local authorities. On August 4, 1794, Justice James Wilson delivered his opinion that western Pennsylvania was in a state of rebellion.[80] On August 7, Washington issued a presidential proclamation announcing, with "the deepest regret", that the militia would be called out to suppress the rebellion. He commanded insurgents in western Pennsylvania to disperse by September 1.[81]

Here is Washington's Proclamation upon receiving certification from the Supreme Court's Justice James Wilson: Washington's Proclamation - August 7, 1794

I hope that helps.

289 posted on 03/03/2012 11:34:03 AM PST by rockrr (Everything is different now...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 288 | View Replies]

To: rustbucket
Reference 1, from my post 194:

If one party to a contract can unilaterally breach it at will without fear of penalty I see no point to even having a contract and I don’t see that the terms of the contract, whatever they may be, matter. I doubt society as we know it can exist if we can’t have contracts or compacts or agreements to which the involved parties can be held, which likely involves some sort of possible penalty for breach.

Reference 2, from my post 194:

My disagreement is with the position that a state or states have the unilateral right to secede from the Union at mere will and that the states remaining in the Union have no right to try and penalize the secession or hold them to the agreement to remain in Union.

It may be that actions by the Northern States were sufficient to breach the agreement forming the Union, justifying secession by the Southern States. Or it may not be. As I wrote: “Which side eventually had a legitimate grievance is up for debate.”

If actions by the Northern States were sufficient to breach the agreement forming the Union, thereby justifying secession by the Southern States, the Northern States were in the wrong to wage war.

If actions by the Northern States were not sufficient to breach the agreement forming the Union and secession by the Southern States was unjustified, the Northern States had some right to try and hold the seceding States to the agreement or penalize them.

Reference 3, from my post 203:

The United States predates the Constitution, established it, and could replace it. It’s relevance to the States as a Union is limited.

I was asked for a source on that and I responded in post 220, which is long enough that I’m not going to repeat it here.

Reference 4, from my post 75 in regard to New York, Rhode Island and Virginia reserving in their ratifications to the Constitution, the right to reassume their own governance if necessary for their happiness or if they were oppressed:

They don't say that "they (the STATES) reserved the right to “resume” the powers of government". They say that the people (in one case referring to the people of the United States and in another referring to the people of the several states) may resume or reassume the "powers". They're not saying the States can leave the Union. They're saying the people can replace the Federal (or for that matter the State) government.

I do mean New York, Rhode Island, and Virginia.

Then I stand by Reference 4 above. In post 75 I quoted what I thought were the relevant words from the documents in question. When you wrote “three states specifically reserved the right to reassume their own governance”, if you mean they reserved it to the people, then I don’t disagree that they did so. That they reserved the right to the individual state in question, as a state, may be implied or inferred but is not stated outright. Or did I quote the wrong parts of the relevant documents?

As to Bledsoe:

In the last paragraph, he does write about the people of Virginia, not the State of Virginia, which kind of supports my position noted above.

He seems to attach too much relevance to the Constitution and the Federal Government in his argument. I stand by Reference 3 above, and believe such relevance is limited.

Bledsoe was a lawyer in Springfield, Illinois, but he was also an officer in the Confederate Army and an official in the Confederate Government. In and of itself that does not invalidate any argument he made, but his point of view was not neutral.

In the Preface to "Is Davis a Traitor or Was Secession a Constitutional Right Previous to the War of 1861?", Bledsoe writes:

“The subjugation of the Southern States, and their acceptance of the terms dictated by the North, may, if the reader please, be considered as having shifted the Federal Government from the basis of compact to that of conquest; and thereby extinguished every claim to the right of secession for the future.”

I fail to see how “every claim to the right of secession for the future” could be extinguished by conquest, which was involuntary, but not be extinguished by agreement to perpetual union which was voluntary.

As to the Virginia Ordinance of Secession, particularly the part you emphasized, but leaving the references to the Constitution and Federal Government aside, I stand by Reference 2 above.

And nowhere in the post do I see a reason to be swayed from the position I took in Reference 1 above.

290 posted on 03/04/2012 6:50:26 PM PST by KrisKrinkle (Blessed be those who know the depth and breadth of their ignorance. Cursed be those who don't.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 268 | View Replies]

To: rustbucket
"Respectively" means individually. James Madison commented on the meaning of the term "states" in the Report of 1799 to the Virginia House of Delegates (my emphasis):

I don’t have a problem with what Madison wrote there. In that part of my post 263, I was concerned with Davis’ “all” versus the Tenth Amendment’s “powers”.

Why would they want the people of the oppressing states, who might be a majority of the people of the United States, to have the right of voting on whether a state or group of states could secede?

Because it might lead to a parting of the ways without conflict.

Or

Because the shoe might have been on the other foot and they would have had the right of voting on whether some other state or group of states could secede.

Or

Because the honorable thing to do would be to get agreement from other parties to an agreement rather than unilaterally breach it.

I’m not that interested in this right now, but you asked and those answers came to mind quickly.

Given that, why would states join such a Union unless they had an escape clause?

One reason might be that they perceived the advantages to outweigh the disadvantages. Why did people used to promise “till death do us part, etc.” without an escape clause?

Why do people have children and thus form a family without having an escape clause?

You might take a look at de Tocqueville’s statement…

His last paragraph was:

If one of the federated states acquires a preponderance sufficiently great to enable it to take exclusive possession of the central authority, it will consider the other states as subject provinces and will cause its own supremacy to be respected under the borrowed name of the sovereignty of the Union. Great things may then be done in the name of the Federal government, but in reality that government will have ceased to exist.

Limiting my response to his scenario, I’d say that if one of the federated states had done as he writes, it would have been in the wrong and the other federated states would have been justified in taking appropriate action if they could.

Not without the state's permission, according to the Constitution.

Bearing in mind that I think the Constitution is of limited importance in this, out of curiosity I have to ask: What part of the Constitution are you writing about?

You quoted George Washington: “…as that State is not a member of the present Union…”

That does give me some pause, though it’s not the equivalent of an Ordinance of Secession or formal declaration stating dissolution of one Union and formation of another Union which are the kinds of things I would like to see as proof that one Union ended and a new one began. I’ll have to think about it.

We joined with Britain, Canada, Australia, etc. to fight World War II. We were the Allies, an association fighting against the Axis powers. Does this association, formed to fight a war, mean that we are bound to them in a future government from which we cannot leave?

And:

Does the fact that we are members of the UN and a signatory to the UN charter mean that we can't withdraw from that organization if we so desire?

Did we sign up to that?

In any case, where have I said that a party to an agreement (whether it be a simple agreement, a compact, a contract, a treaty) may not under any circumstances withdraw, secede or whatever, particularly if another party to it breached the agreement? My disagreement has been with the position that the Northern States had no right to take action against the Southern States for seceding. If the Southern States breached the “agreement”, the Northern States had just as much right to take action as the Southern States had right to take action if the Northern States breached the “agreement.” As an extension, I see little point in entering an agreement if one party can unilaterally breach it at will and the other parties have no recourse.

You begin: If one group of states can violate a contract with impunity…

And I finish with: …I see no point to even having a contract and I don’t see that the terms of the contract, whatever they may be, matter. I doubt society as we know it can exist if we can’t have contracts or compacts or agreements to which the involved parties can be held, which likely involves some sort of possible penalty for breach.

291 posted on 03/04/2012 6:54:07 PM PST by KrisKrinkle (Blessed be those who know the depth and breadth of their ignorance. Cursed be those who don't.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 269 | View Replies]

To: rustbucket
Once a state withdrew from the Union formed by the Constitution, the Constitution no longer applied to it.

That's neither here nor there for my purpose. My purpose was to respond to your statement in post 232 that "The Constitution did not give the government the power to coerce states", by providing a definition of "coerce" and as food for thought a quote from the Constitution where that power might be given. Or might not. I just meant it as something to think further about.

292 posted on 03/04/2012 7:05:01 PM PST by KrisKrinkle (Blessed be those who know the depth and breadth of their ignorance. Cursed be those who don't.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 270 | View Replies]

To: Idabilly; mek1959

In regard to your post 280, I don’t care to dispute any of that.

My words were in opposition to the contention that as States, New York, Rhode Island and Virginia reserved in their ratifications to the Constitution, the right to reassume their own governance. That they reserved the right to the individual state in question, as a state, may be implied or inferred but is not stated outright. They reserved the right to the people. Or perhaps there is an outright statement of reservation that I missed in the ratification documents of these three States.

In tracing this back through the thread, I noted my original response was to post 63 in which mek1959 wrote “They make it CRYSTAL clear that they (the STATES) reserved the right to “resume” the powers of government to their citizens if...”.

I misread that the first time, missing the part about “reserved...to...their citizens”. I find that equivalent to reserving the right to the people, and if I’d read it that way the first time I wouldn’t have commented.


293 posted on 03/04/2012 7:41:07 PM PST by KrisKrinkle (Blessed be those who know the depth and breadth of their ignorance. Cursed be those who don't.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 280 | View Replies]

To: rockrr; donmeaker
I can't tell if you doubt the validity of donmeaker's claim or if you're simply sending him on a snipe hunt.

I'm trying to get him to show me where he's getting his information instead of regurgitating his interpretation as if they WERE facts.

------

Your post is a perfect example of how large a role 'interpretation' plays in what we read.

Before troops could be raised, the Militia Act of 1792 required a justice of the United States Supreme Court to certify that law enforcement was beyond the control of local authorities.

Now some might read that sentence to read that Justice Wilson certified that, due to the rebellion, federal forces were superior to local ones.

I, however, interpret it within its proper Constitutional confines [Article 4 section 4] and see it as Justice Wilson certifying that the local authorities had lost control of the situation and required assistance.

But the State hadn't ASKED for assitance, so Governor Mifflin met President Washington at the State border.

Fearing the secession of western territories - and an even greater threat to the nation's western borders - President Washington ordered Governor Mifflin to send the Pennsylvania militia to enforce the law. But Mifflin declined, asserting that a president in peacetime and in the absence of any local request for help had no authority to direct a state governor to use a state militia for any purpose. In the process, he established a precedent that is still honored today.
The Whiskey Rebellion

294 posted on 03/05/2012 6:52:11 AM PST by MamaTexan (I am a ~Person~ as created by the Law of Nature, not a 'person' as created by the laws of Man)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 289 | View Replies]

To: rockrr; donmeaker
I can't tell if you doubt the validity of donmeaker's claim

Ah, I just read the thread and discovered the confusion.

He posted 284 & 285 to himself, so I never got pinged.

295 posted on 03/05/2012 7:21:51 AM PST by MamaTexan (I am a ~Person~ as created by the Law of Nature, not a 'person' as created by the laws of Man)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 289 | View Replies]

To: Idabilly
Sorry. Meant to ping you to #294 as well!
296 posted on 03/05/2012 7:28:30 AM PST by MamaTexan (I am a ~Person~ as created by the Law of Nature, not a 'person' as created by the laws of Man)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 280 | View Replies]

To: KrisKrinkle; MamaTexan; rustbucket
They don't say that "they (the STATES) reserved the right to “resume” the powers of government". They say that the people (in one case referring to the people of the United States and in another referring to the people of the several states) may resume or reassume the "powers". They're not saying the States can leave the Union. They're saying the people can replace the Federal (or for that matter the State) government.

When the States ratified the Constitution they never intended it to be any sort of national government. It was an agreement between individual sovereign's - united by compact. Most of the great legal minds ( before that ambulance chaser from Illinois changed the nature of government from "consent of the governed" into "consent or be shot" ) agree that the State government is/was government proper.

---------------------------

The federal government then, appears to be the organ through which the united republics communicate with foreign nations, and with each other. Their submission to it's operation is voluntary: it's councils, it's engagements, it's authority are theirs, modified, and united. It's sovereignty is an emanation from theirs, not a flame by which they have been consumed, nor a vortex in which they are swallowed up. Each is still a perfect state, still sovereign, still independent 52, and still capable, should the occasion require, to resume the exercise of it's functions, as such, in the most unlimited extent.

http://www.constitution.org/tb/t1d03000.htm

----------

Chief Justice Ellsworth:

"I want domestic happiness as well as general security. A General Government will never grant me this, as it cannot know my wants, nor relieve my distress. My State is only as one out of thirteen. Can they, the General Government, gratify my wishes? My happiness depends as much on the existence of my State Government as a new-born infant depends upon its mother for nourishment."

Fisher Ames:

"A consolidation of the States would subvert the new Constitution, and against which this article is our best security. Too much provision cannot be made against consolidation. The State Governments represent the wishes and feelings, and local interests of the people. They are the safeguard and ornament of the Constitution; they will protract the period of our liberties; they will afford a shelter against the abuse of power, and will be the natural avengers of our violated rights."

Judge Iredell:

"If Congress, previous to the Articles of Confederation, possessed any authority, it was an authority, as I have shown, derived from the people of each province, in the first instance." "The authority was not possessed by Congress, unless given by all the States." "I conclude, therefore, that every particle of authority, which originally resided either in Congress or in any branch of the State governments, was derived from the people who were permanent inhabitants of each province, in the first instance, and afterwards became citizens of each State; that this authority was conveyed by each body separately, and not by all the people in the several provinces or States jointly."

---------------------------

Of the Virginia Resolutions of 1798, in a series of Essays, addressed to Thomas Ritchie, by a distinguished citizen of Virginia, under the signature of "Locke," in February, 1833:

You all say, that it is absurd to pretend that a State can be in the Union and out of the Union at the same time; and that it is monstrous in a State to contend for all the advantages of the Union, as to certain laws, while she refuses to submit to the burthens imposed by other laws. Nothing in nature can be more perfectly self-evident than all this. It is not surprising that a man of General Jackson's measure of intellect and information should be deceived by such a superficial view of the subject: but we had a right to expect better things from a veteran in politics, like yourself. Remember, sir, that a law beyond the Constitution is no law at all, and there is no right any where to enforce it. A State which refuses to submit to such a pretended law, is strictly within the Union — because she is in strict obedience to the Constitution; and it is strange to say that she "refuses to submit to the burthens" imposed by any law which is not law at all. Here, then, you have a picture of Nullification. It secures to the State the right to remain in the Union, and to enjoy all the advantages which the Constitution and laws can afford — submitting, at the same time, to all which that Constitution and laws rightfully enjoin; while it "arrests the progress" of usurped power, by destroying the obligation of every pretended law which the Constitution does not authorise, and which, therefore, is not law. If this is not the meaning of the resolutions of 1798, I have much misunderstood them. It is precisely upon this point that the public mind of Virginia has been most strangely misled by the authority of the President's name, and the speciousness of your paragraphs. — You owe the people a heavy debt of reparation, which I hope you will live to pay.

This leads us to the second object of the resolutions of 1798, which is "to maintain within the limits of the respective States, the authorities, rights and liberties appertaining to them." I have already shown, in my second letter, that these authorities, rights, and liberties are not merely those which belong to every sovereign State, and which may be enjoyed as well in a state of separation as in league with others, but also all the authorities, rights, and liberties which the States are entitled to, under the Constitution, and as members of the Union. No State, therefore, can possibly effect this object of the resolutions of 1798, by any proceeding which either withdraws her from the Union, or weakens her just influence in it.

South Carolina says that an unconstitutional law is void, and so say the Virginia Resolutions — South Carolina says that each State has a right to decide for itself whether a law is constitutional or not, and so say the Virginia Resolutions — South Carolina, in the exercise of this right, has declared that the Tariff Laws are unconstitutional and so say the Virginia Resolutions of 1828 and 1829 (I have forgotten the date) and so, Mr. Ritchie, say you. How, then, can you countenance the President, in subjecting the citizens of South Carolina to the sword, for not submitting to what you yourself believe to be a sheer usurpation on the part of the Federal Government? Do, sir, in pity to our oppressed spirits, answer this question. You will not answer it, sir — because you cannot answer it without convicting yourself of inconsistency. This I will prove — for I do not mean to allow you any refuge from this dilemma. South Carolina is either right in her proceedings, (principles and all,) or else she is wrong. If she is right, then, there can be no pretence whatever for making war upon her: if she is wrong, how does that fact appear? It is admitted that the other States, co-parties with her to the Constitution have not said so. — Congress alone, and the President, or rather the Federal Government, has said it. Do you, sir, acknowledge any such right in the Federal Government? Is it not perfectly clear, that if such right exists the Federal Government is an appellate tribunal, with power to decide, in the last resort, upon the constitutionality of its own acts? Of what avail is the right of a State to pronounce that an unconstitutional act of Congress is really so, if Congress may overrule that decision? Is not this, sir, the very essence of that consolidation against which the Virginia Resolutions, Madison's Report, and your own valuable labours, have so long contended? It is impossible, then, for you to justify Congress and the President, except by asserting, either that Congress may overrule the decision of South Carolina, upon a question touching their own powers, and, by the same rule, may overrule the decision of every other State, and thus become the sole judges of the extent of their own powers; or by asserting that they may constitutionally enforce an unconstitutional law. Can you, sir, escape this difficulty, without abandoning every principle for which you have professed to contend for thirty years? I am exceedingly anxious to know in what manner you will do it. For myself, I can discover but one possible loop-hole of retreat, and even that I will endeavour to close upon you. — I reserve this, however, for a succeeding letter.

297 posted on 03/05/2012 8:57:36 AM PST by Idabilly (Tailpipes poppin, radios rockin, Country Boy Can Survive.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 290 | View Replies]

To: MamaTexan
Your post is a perfect example of how large a role 'interpretation' plays in what we read.

Ah, I begin to see where you're going with this. Mifflin told Washington "You're not the boss of me" and because Washington didn't crush him it must be true.

Except that Washington did obtain certification from SCOTUS, did raise a militia from Pennsylvania's neighboring states, and did invade Pennsylvania, which caused the rebels to abandon their insurrection.

In the process, he established a precedent that is still honored today.

Quite so.

Mifflin could have notified President Washington to his face that the State withdrew from the Union...and there is nothing Washington could have done about it.

Maybe yes, maybe no.

298 posted on 03/05/2012 10:27:28 AM PST by rockrr (Everything is different now...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 294 | View Replies]

To: Idabilly
The federal government then, appears to be the organ through which the united republics communicate with foreign nations, and with each other. (Your quote from "Tucker's Blackstone".)

Each is still a perfect state, still sovereign, still independent, and still capable, should the occasion require, to resume the exercise of it's functions, as such, in the most unlimited extent. (Your quote from "Tucker's Blackstone".)

Me in post 194:

My disagreement is with the position that a state or states have the unilateral right to secede from the Union at mere will and that the states remaining in the Union have no right to try and penalize the secession or hold them to the agreement to remain in Union.

It may be that actions by the Northern States were sufficient to breach the agreement forming the Union, justifying secession by the Southern States. Or it may not be. As I wrote: “Which side eventually had a legitimate grievance is up for debate.”

If actions by the Northern States were sufficient to breach the agreement forming the Union, thereby justifying secession by the Southern States, the Northern States were in the wrong to wage war.

If actions by the Northern States were not sufficient to breach the agreement forming the Union and secession by the Southern States was unjustified, the Northern States had some right to try and hold the seceding States to the agreement or penalize them.

If it pleased me to do so, and it doesn't right now, I could take much of your post, including the quote at the top of this post, and use it to support the last paragraph above.

...(before that ambulance chaser from Illinois changed the nature of government from "consent of the governed" into "consent or be shot")...

I don’t agree that Lincoln matters that much except as someone who succeeded in doing the will of the Northern States and people. I don’t think he could have done what he did if it wasn't what the Northern States and people wanted done. I wonder whether or not there would have been an effort to impeach him if he had not tried to hold the Union together.

299 posted on 03/05/2012 12:18:21 PM PST by KrisKrinkle (Blessed be those who know the depth and breadth of their ignorance. Cursed be those who don't.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 297 | View Replies]

To: donmeaker
The south wouldn't lose again. You couldn't find enough military recruits in New York, LA, Chicago, Tampa, Miami, etc. (where all the Democrat Populace is) to enlist or even be conscripted....we'd kick their ass. It wouldn't be a NORTH/SOUTH thing either. More like an American/Heathen thing.....
300 posted on 03/05/2012 12:27:41 PM PST by Gaffer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 151-200201-250251-300301-303 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson