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.
NJGoat, Granstander, Mike, et. al. you may say whatever you like however
Constitutional scholars of the highest order both contemporary to the situation
and in the decades/generations following its occurence have always disagreed
on the matter. This makes your presumptions and suggestions that your viewpoint
is somehow "better", or "more obvious" than mine entirely moot.
That's all I need to say about it, other than the posts I've already made.
Concerning Abraham Lincoln I have already said, in my estimation he was
one of the worst Presidents. With this I will end my participation in this thread.
NJGoat, Granstander, Mike, et. al. you may say whatever you like however Constitutional scholars of the highest order both contemporary to the situation
and in the decades/generations following its occurence have always disagreed
on the matter.
Except the constitutional scholars who matter the most - those on the Supreme Court. The Court has consistently held that states do not have the right to secede from the Union. Other scholars can argue all they like - and you can always find constitutional scholars who disagree with one another, no matter what the issue - but the highest court in the land interprets the Constitution rather clearly and consistently on this matter.
Oh, well. I think a valid argument can be made that Constitutional scholars of the highest order would have to include the justices that are now or have been members of the Supreme Court.
NJGoat, Granstander, Mike, et. al. you may say whatever you like however
Constitutional scholars of the highest order both contemporary to the situation
and in the decades/generations following its occurence have always disagreed
on the matter. This makes your presumptions and suggestions that your viewpoint
is somehow "better", or "more obvious" than mine entirely moot. .
I refuse to accept such bogus chastisement from you. I have argued from the start that in the absence of specific language in the US Constitution, the legality of secession cannot be determined in any definite way, it can only be subject to legal arguments. That is why a war was required to settle the question.
Further I have argued that as a practical matter, all revolutions, regardless of accompanying declarations of legality, will be illegal in the eyes of the existing government. Successful revolutions result in a new set of people controlling the legal system, and thus they are free to retroactively make their revolt, legal.
Unsuccessful revolts were illegal in the eyes of the existing government when they began, and remained illegal throughout the suppression process. Because the existing government maintained its control of the legal system, their view prevails.
What I have bolded above supports the positions I outlined above, and you must believe it to be true because you wrote it.
So, here you are helping to validate my position while simultaneously declaring it "moot."
Your interpretation is correct. 9 of the 13 had to ratify for the Constitution as drafted to take effect. The United States of America under the Constitution officially began on June 21st, 1788 when New Hampshire became the 9th State to ratify.
June 25th 1788, Virginia ratifies, 10th state.
July 2nd 1788, Congress of the Confederation lays out a plan for putting the new Constitution into action.
July 26th 1788, New York ratifies, 11th state.
September 13th 1788, Congress of the Confederation certifies the ratification and establishes dates for elections and meetings under the new constitution.
March 2nd 1789, Congress of the Confederation meets for the last time.
March 4th 1789, US Congress meets for the first time.
April 1st 1789, US House meets with a quorum and is official.
April 6th 1789, US Senate meets with a quorum and is official.
April 6th 1789, Electoral votes counted, George Washington is elected President.
April 30th 1789, Washington inaugurated, Executive Branch now official.
November 21st 1789, the SOVEREIGN STATE of North Carolina ratifies the constitution and submits its sovereignty to the national government, 12th state.
February 2nd 1790, Supreme Court meets for the first time. The entire national government is now functional.
May 29th 1790, the SOVEREIGN STATE of Rhode Island ratifies the constitution and submits its sovereignty to the national government, 13th state.
North Carolina and Rhode Island both ratified after the new constitution went into effect and the Articles of Confederation had ceased to exist. Electors from those two states had no hand in electing Washington. Rhode Island was ultimately compelled to hold a ratification convention (they had only held public referendums to that point) under the threat that they would be treated as a foreign government if they failed to ratify.
However, none of that changes the fact that the exact process was a submission of the State's sovereignty to the national authority which derived its power from the People.
I said "join the Union", which was a less than accurate choice of words. SC ratified the Constitution. I understand what you're saying as far as the States submitting their sovereignty. Clearly that's what they were doing, although in a very limited capacity. I'm inclined to agree that the southern secession was not legal. I do think there was some ambiguity on the issue. In reading through the writings and speeches from some of the Federalist framers, my sense is that they wanted it that way. To counter this obvious objection from the Antis while being very careful not to actually provide the right to withdraw.
As it regards Lincoln, even if I concede that all of his actions were Constitutional, it remains very difficult for me to to see his course of action as a wise one. A masterful politician he was, but not a great President. He presided over a war designed to coerce half of the nation to submit to a government they didn't want. Hardly an American principle.
NJGoat, Granstander, Mike, et. al. you may say whatever you like however
Constitutional scholars of the highest order both contemporary to the situation
and in the decades/generations following its occurence have always disagreed
on the matter. This makes your presumptions and suggestions that your viewpoint
is somehow "better", or "more obvious" than mine entirely moot.
That's all I need to say about it, other than the posts I've already made.
Concerning Abraham Lincoln I have already said, in my estimation he was
one of the worst Presidents. With this I will end my participation in this thread.
What constitutional scholars would those be? Those writing letters to the editor of Southern Gentleman Quarterly?
Your interpretation is, in my opinion, completely wrong. I, of course, have the weight of history and the Supreme Court on my side. You have a bunch of Lost Cause holdouts whining about "Yankee aggression".
Your opinion of Lincoln is inextricably tied to the question of the legality of secession. Unless you can prove such legality (and you have done a very poor job so far) then you have no standing for your critique of Lincoln.
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Mysterious Benefactor
I said "join the Union", which was a less than accurate choice of words. SC ratified the Constitution. I understand what you're saying as far as the States submitting their sovereignty. Clearly that's what they were doing, although in a very limited capacity. I'm inclined to agree that the southern secession was not legal. I do think there was some ambiguity on the issue. In reading through the writings and speeches from some of the Federalist framers, my sense is that they wanted it that way. To counter this obvious objection from the Antis while being very careful not to actually provide the right to withdraw.
As it regards Lincoln, even if I concede that all of his actions were Constitutional, it remains very difficult for me to to see his course of action as a wise one. A masterful politician he was, but not a great President. He presided over a war designed to coerce half of the nation to submit to a government they didn't want. Hardly an American principle.
What action do you think the POTUS should take when a portion of the nation engages in open rebellion against the government? What were Lincoln's options? What would taking those options mean for the United States?
Quote:
Originally Posted by mco65
You could open your mind a little and get a more accurate interpretation...
Perhaps it would help if you could more clearly state your opinion and support it with fact.
What action do you think the POTUS should take when a portion of the nation engages in open rebellion against the government? What were Lincoln's options? What would taking those options mean for the United States?
All fair questions. And I suppose if I had all of the right answers, I could be remembered as a great president. Though I have the benefit of hindsight, in this case, I personally would have allowed secession rather than a war leaving 600,000 Americans dead and the South destroyed.
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.
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.
