Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > History
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 11-28-2014, 11:55 AM
 
Location: Parts Unknown, Northern California
48,564 posts, read 23,997,344 times
Reputation: 21237

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowball7 View Post
None of which are valid or address the issue of State's Rights, nor the intent of the
Constitution, nor of what constitutes a Republic of the willing. Good Day.
You have this notion, one shared by religious people, that all that is required to generate a truth is a declaration. The facts are irrelevant, only the declaration is needed.

You write that none of the points I presented are valid, but offer no explanation as to how this can possibly be, very much akin to your idea that simply declaring yourself no longer under the duly constituted legal authority is all that must be done to eliminate that authority.

It does not work that way, as explained to you you previously. There is no such thing as a legal rebellion against a government because no government has ever passed any laws which describe the conditions under which their authority may be ignored. To be legal you must win. Why do you not understand this? Because you do not wish to understand?

 
Old 11-28-2014, 12:03 PM
 
9,981 posts, read 8,546,163 times
Reputation: 5664
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grandstander View Post
You have this notion, one shared by religious people, that all that is required to generate a truth is a declaration. The facts are irrelevant, only the declaration is needed.

You write that none of the points I presented are valid, but offer no explanation as to how this can possibly be, very much akin to your idea that simply declaring yourself no longer under the duly constituted legal authority is all that must be done to eliminate that authority.

It does not work that way, as explained to you you previously. There is no such thing as a legal rebellion against a government because no government has ever passed any laws which describe the conditions under which their authority may be ignored. To be legal you must win. Why do you not understand this? Because you do not wish to understand?
Nope, I just think that States can leave and form their own country if they want,
that it's not prohibited in the Constitution. What part of that don't YOU understand ?
You're the one twisting the facts, and denying the truth. The Confederate States of America
was not part of the United States of America anymore. Get over it.

When they originally ratified the U.S. Constitution, at least three states – New York, Virginia, and Rhode Island - included clauses asserting the right too secede from the Union at a future time.

Third, many lawyers believe that the acceptance of these three ratifications (New York, Virginia, and Rhode Island) as valid guarantees all states the right to secede.
The Legality of Secession
 
Old 11-28-2014, 12:15 PM
 
Location: Parts Unknown, Northern California
48,564 posts, read 23,997,344 times
Reputation: 21237
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowball7 View Post

Third, many lawyers believe that the acceptance of these three ratifications (New York, Virginia, and Rhode Island) as valid guarantees all states the right to secede.
The Legality of Secession
No state had any sort of legal right to unilaterally redefine the conditions of accepting or rejecting the Constitution. That was determined by a group vote in Philadelphia when the national ratification process was instituted. And it was a national process. It was set up so that if eleven of the thirteen states voted to ratify, the US Constitution came into force and was the law of the land. As it turned out, the vote was unanimous, but even if two states had voted to reject the Constitution, it would still have come into force, even for those two states which voted no.

Do you see? It was not a "Join if you like" dynamic, it was "We all do this, or none of us do it, but if eleven of the thirteen vote to do it, it will have force of law over all thirteen, including dissenters." And all 13 states agreed to abide by this process.

Therefore legally unmaking the government would at the very least, also require a national process with all of the states voting. A unilateral process by one state? Please find the language in the Constitution upon which you are relying when you say that individual secession by states is permitted.
 
Old 11-28-2014, 02:20 PM
 
Location: In a happy, quieter home now! :)
16,893 posts, read 16,021,568 times
Reputation: 75481
Quote:
Originally Posted by -thomass View Post
So I take it that you rate Lincoln highly? Psychology at work. Feel free to merge the thread. I scanned down the first page of the forum, but didn't seen any threads that referenced Lincoln's place amount the nation's best presidents.


Well you sure did your research. This website is not run that way. You need to properly look for your topic through the search tool and then, if you do not find it, post your thread.
Any questions you may have about this should be posted in the, "About the Forum" forum. You will get your answers there.
 
Old 11-28-2014, 05:31 PM
 
1,562 posts, read 1,483,140 times
Reputation: 2686
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grandstander View Post
No state had any sort of legal right to unilaterally redefine the conditions of accepting or rejecting the Constitution. That was determined by a group vote in Philadelphia when the national ratification process was instituted. And it was a national process. It was set up so that if eleven of the thirteen states voted to ratify, the US Constitution came into force and was the law of the land. As it turned out, the vote was unanimous, but even if two states had voted to reject the Constitution, it would still have come into force, even for those two states which voted no.

Do you see? It was not a "Join if you like" dynamic, it was "We all do this, or none of us do it, but if eleven of the thirteen vote to do it, it will have force of law over all thirteen, including dissenters." And all 13 states agreed to abide by this process.

Therefore legally unmaking the government would at the very least, also require a national process with all of the states voting. A unilateral process by one state? Please find the language in the Constitution upon which you are relying when you say that individual secession by states is permitted.
It's not enumerated specifically in the Constitution that States are permitted to secede, nor is it enumerated that the federal government is empowered to prevent it, but we do have the Tenth Amendment. Powers not delegated to the federal government are reserved for the State. I think the link he provided offers some valid points that you are going to have to explain. You do agree that the ratifications of NY, RI, and VA were valid, no?
 
Old 11-28-2014, 06:00 PM
 
Location: Parts Unknown, Northern California
48,564 posts, read 23,997,344 times
Reputation: 21237
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Mysterious Benefactor View Post
Powers not delegated to the federal government are reserved for the State.
And it is your conclusion that the Constitutional authors intended that one of those reserved powers of the states was the ability of any state for any reason, to break up the nation and declare itself outside the authority of the national government?

Seriously, you think that is what they had in mind with that clause? Sanctioning rebellion?
 
Old 11-28-2014, 07:38 PM
 
2,687 posts, read 2,175,996 times
Reputation: 1478
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Mysterious Benefactor View Post
It's not enumerated specifically in the Constitution that States are permitted to secede, nor is it enumerated that the federal government is empowered to prevent it, but we do have the Tenth Amendment. Powers not delegated to the federal government are reserved for the State. I think the link he provided offers some valid points that you are going to have to explain. You do agree that the ratifications of NY, RI, and VA were valid, no?
Madison responding to Hamilton on the subject of New York's secession "condition":

“My opinion is that a reservation of a right to withdraw if amendments be not decided on under the form of the Constitution within a certain time, is a conditional ratification, that it does not make N. York a member of the New Union, and consequently that she could not be received on that plan. Compacts must be reciprocal, this principle would not in such a case be preserved. The Constitution requires an adoption in toto and for ever. It has been so adopted by the other States. An adoption for a limited time would be as defective as an adoption of some of the articles only. In short any condition whatever must viciate [sic] the ratification. What the New Congress by virtue of the power to admit new States, may be able & disposed to do in such case, I do not enquire as I suppose that is not the material point at present."


The secession proposal was defeated in the New York convention. New York's was defeated after Hamilton personally read aloud, to the convention, the letter which I quoted in part above.

Virginia's reads:

“Do in the name and in behalf of the People of Virginia declare and make known that the powers granted under the Constitution being derived from the People of the United States may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression and that every power not granted thereby remains with them and at their will”

That is not a secession clause. In fact, Edmund Pendleton, James Madison and John Marshall made absolutely sure it was worded that was precisely so it could not be seen as a secession clause.

Pendleton (who was President of the convention) in his response to Patrick Henry during the convention for ratification, talking about the clause:

“There is no quarrel between government and liberty; the former is the shield and protector of the latter. The war is between government and licentiousness, faction, turbulence, and other violations of the rules of society, to preserve liberty. Where is the cause of alarm? We, the people, possessing all power, form a government, such as we think will secure happiness: and suppose, in adopting this plan, we should be mistaken in the end; where is the cause of alarm on that quarter? In the same plan we point out an easy and quiet method of reforming what may be found amiss. No, but, say gentlemen, we have put the introduction of that method in the hands of our servants, who will interrupt it from motives of self-interest. What then? We will resist, did my friend say? conveying an idea of force. Who shall dare to resist the people? No, we will assemble in Convention; wholly recall our delegated powers, or reform them so as to prevent such abuse; and punish those servants who have perverted powers, designed for our happiness, to their own emolument. We ought to be extremely cautious not to be drawn into dispute with regular government, by faction and turbulence, its natural enemies. Here, then, sir, there is no cause of alarm on this side; but on the other side, rejecting of government, and dissolving of the Union, produce confusion and despotism.

“But an objection is made to the form: the expression, We, the people, is thought improper. Permit me to ask the gentleman who made this objection, who but the people can delegate powers? Who but the people have a right to form government? The expression is a common one, and a favorite one with me. The representatives of the people, by their authority, is a mode wholly inessential. If the objection be, that the Union ought to be not of the people, but of the state governments, then I think the choice of the former very happy and proper. What have the state governments to do with it? Were they to determine, the people would not, in that case, be the judges upon what terms it was adopted.”



Rhode Island did not add a secession clause at all. They added a statement of opinion which reads in its entirety:

“That the powers of government may be reassumed by the people, whensoever it shall become necessary to their happiness:- That the rights of the States respectively, to nominate and appoint all State Officers, and every other power, jurisdiction and right, which is not by the said constitution clearly delegated to the Congress of the United States or to the departments of government thereof, remain to the people of the several states, or their respective State Governments to whom they may have granted the same; and that those clauses in the said constitution which declare that Congress shall not have or exercise certain powers, do not imply, that Congress is entitled to any powers not given by the said constitution, but such clauses are to be construed as exceptions to certain specified powers, or as inserted merely for greater caution.”
 
Old 11-28-2014, 07:55 PM
 
1,562 posts, read 1,483,140 times
Reputation: 2686
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grandstander View Post
And it is your conclusion that the Constitutional authors intended that one of those reserved powers of the states was the ability of any state for any reason, to break up the nation and declare itself outside the authority of the national government?

Seriously, you think that is what they had in mind with that clause? Sanctioning rebellion?
Honestly, I haven't actually drawn a conclusion yet. You've articulated your position very well, and it's strong one, but the link poses some very valid questions. I think the Tenth was written to strictly narrow federal powers and ensure the States their sovereignty. The language is unequivocal and this is no accident. Unless it's enumerated, the power belongs to the State. Included in the ratification of NY, RI and VA was the understanding that these States had a right to secession. It would be hard to argue that this right belongs only to those three.
I also think we have to keep in mind how this "rebellion", if it's even fair to call it that, came about. With the stroke of a pen, Lincoln took billions of dollars worth of property from southern landowners. It would be difficult from their standpoint to view that as anything less than tyranny.
 
Old 11-28-2014, 08:12 PM
 
Location: Parts Unknown, Northern California
48,564 posts, read 23,997,344 times
Reputation: 21237
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Mysterious Benefactor View Post
With the stroke of a pen, Lincoln took billions of dollars worth of property from southern landowners. It would be difficult from their standpoint to view that as anything less than tyranny.
That happened after the war was a year and a half old, you cannot argue that secession was justified by something that did not take place until two years after the first state had seceded.

Had there been no secession, there would have been no war. Had there been no war there would have been no legal authority for the emergency war measure which was used to free the slaves.
 
Old 11-29-2014, 11:07 AM
 
1,562 posts, read 1,483,140 times
Reputation: 2686
Quote:
Originally Posted by Votre_Chef View Post
Madison responding to Hamilton on the subject of New York's secession "condition":

“My opinion is that a reservation of a right to withdraw if amendments be not decided on under the form of the Constitution within a certain time, is a conditional ratification, that it does not make N. York a member of the New Union, and consequently that she could not be received on that plan. Compacts must be reciprocal, this principle would not in such a case be preserved. The Constitution requires an adoption in toto and for ever. It has been so adopted by the other States. An adoption for a limited time would be as defective as an adoption of some of the articles only. In short any condition whatever must viciate [sic] the ratification. What the New Congress by virtue of the power to admit new States, may be able & disposed to do in such case, I do not enquire as I suppose that is not the material point at present."


The secession proposal was defeated in the New York convention. New York's was defeated after Hamilton personally read aloud, to the convention, the letter which I quoted in part above.

Virginia's reads:

“Do in the name and in behalf of the People of Virginia declare and make known that the powers granted under the Constitution being derived from the People of the United States may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression and that every power not granted thereby remains with them and at their will”

That is not a secession clause. In fact, Edmund Pendleton, James Madison and John Marshall made absolutely sure it was worded that was precisely so it could not be seen as a secession clause.

Pendleton (who was President of the convention) in his response to Patrick Henry during the convention for ratification, talking about the clause:

“There is no quarrel between government and liberty; the former is the shield and protector of the latter. The war is between government and licentiousness, faction, turbulence, and other violations of the rules of society, to preserve liberty. Where is the cause of alarm? We, the people, possessing all power, form a government, such as we think will secure happiness: and suppose, in adopting this plan, we should be mistaken in the end; where is the cause of alarm on that quarter? In the same plan we point out an easy and quiet method of reforming what may be found amiss. No, but, say gentlemen, we have put the introduction of that method in the hands of our servants, who will interrupt it from motives of self-interest. What then? We will resist, did my friend say? conveying an idea of force. Who shall dare to resist the people? No, we will assemble in Convention; wholly recall our delegated powers, or reform them so as to prevent such abuse; and punish those servants who have perverted powers, designed for our happiness, to their own emolument. We ought to be extremely cautious not to be drawn into dispute with regular government, by faction and turbulence, its natural enemies. Here, then, sir, there is no cause of alarm on this side; but on the other side, rejecting of government, and dissolving of the Union, produce confusion and despotism.

“But an objection is made to the form: the expression, We, the people, is thought improper. Permit me to ask the gentleman who made this objection, who but the people can delegate powers? Who but the people have a right to form government? The expression is a common one, and a favorite one with me. The representatives of the people, by their authority, is a mode wholly inessential. If the objection be, that the Union ought to be not of the people, but of the state governments, then I think the choice of the former very happy and proper. What have the state governments to do with it? Were they to determine, the people would not, in that case, be the judges upon what terms it was adopted.”



Rhode Island did not add a secession clause at all. They added a statement of opinion which reads in its entirety:

“That the powers of government may be reassumed by the people, whensoever it shall become necessary to their happiness:- That the rights of the States respectively, to nominate and appoint all State Officers, and every other power, jurisdiction and right, which is not by the said constitution clearly delegated to the Congress of the United States or to the departments of government thereof, remain to the people of the several states, or their respective State Governments to whom they may have granted the same; and that those clauses in the said constitution which declare that Congress shall not have or exercise certain powers, do not imply, that Congress is entitled to any powers not given by the said constitution, but such clauses are to be construed as exceptions to certain specified powers, or as inserted merely for greater caution.”
Clearly from what you've quoted there's no specific mention of a right to secession. Thank you for clarifying. I guess the question comes down to whether or not the ratification of the Constitution was in fact creating a consolidated nation. That is, one in which the States were compelled to remain in perpetually. Is there a mechanism in the Constitution that allowed Lincoln to wage war against the Confederate States in order to keep them as part of the Union? It's hard to see how that was within his power, or even that of the federal government, to do.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Closed Thread


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > History

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top