[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
The Convention was sworn to secrecy. Madison took copious notes, some of which were published decades later. I bet they are available and searchable.
“Mr. GERRY urged that we never were independent States, were not such now, & never could be even on the principles of the Confederation. The States & the advocates for them were intoxicated with the idea of their sovereignty. He was a member of Congress at the time the federal articles were formed. The injustice of allowing each State an equal vote was long insisted on. He voted for it, but it was agst. his Judgment, and under the pressure of public danger, and the obstinacy of the lesser States. The present confederation he considered as dissolving. The fate of the Union will be decided by the Convention. If they do not agree on something, few delegates will probably be appointed to Congs. If they do Congs. will probably be kept up till the new System should be adopted. He lamented that instead of coming here like a band of brothers, belonging to the same family, we seemed to have brought with us the spirit of political negociators.”
(Mr. Gerry, it is to be remembered was no Hamiltonian, but a fervent Democrat-Republican, and Madison’s VP, who preferred the Constitution but who did not sign because it did not include a bill of rights.)
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
You may already be aware of this, but I’m pretty sure you can find a copy of Madison’s personal diary somewhere. I believe that he used his diary as a way to record the happenings going on behind closed doors. A primary source if ever there was one. [/quote]
I was not aware of this.
See, I find this amazing. Under the Articles, states could not unilaterall secede. We know this.
[/quote]
Did you already point out where? Are you assuming secession is insurrection?
Stronger how? In all areas? The federal gov’t was to have certain powers, not be stronger in all areas.
It’s conceivable because it was reality before the constitution. Why is it so inconceivable that this was assumed during ratification? In the absence of any other evidence, an unbreakable union would have been a pretty big shift from the norm to that point.
I am not following. If federal power is limited, how could one state run herd over other states? If states chose to make concessions, I don’t see the issue.
The threat of secession would have limited federal power, but certainly would not have crippled it. It would have kept a gang of states from running herd over the minority or weaker states.
I am not sure if you are just arguing why you believe an unbreakable union was agreed to or if you are arguing it was necessary. If you are concerned with anyone running herd over someone else, it would seem an unbreakable union would be a larger threat.
That is the exact opposite of what the Founders were trying to accomplish with the concept of federalism. Secession power - if available - would do nothing to advance the goal the constitutional Union. Stop thinking about theoretics and begin to consider real-world scenarios where this vaunted secession power would lead the nation.
By rise again, do you mean the restoration of slavery? I shudder at the thought.[/quote]
Yes, I want the restoration of slavery but this time I don’t want plantation owners going so easy on the chattel. One meal a day - maximum. 20 hour workday. Ban on all mechanized cotton harvesters.
I also want to nuke Nagasaki again in retaliation for the Toyota gas pedal malfunctions.
Didn’t you see my post where I said I ride a KTM? That’s an Austrian made dirt bike not Japanese. I hate the Japanese.
I hate people born in Dallas that don’t fly the Stars and Bars.
I hate Boothe for not inflicting a more painful wound on Abe. I actually pissed on Abe’s nose on my last visit to Mt. Rushmore.
I hate South Dakota.
I hate people that disagree with me on PWI.
I shudder at the thought of not hating enough.
[/quote]
Aaaahhhhh…the truth comes out. Just kidding, I take that back; it doesn’t further the discussion at all. I half-expected you to call bullshit on me being born in Dallas. Of course, if you had and I posted my birth certificate on here you’d probably reject that as any sort of proof anyways.
See, I find this amazing. Under the Articles, states could not unilaterall secede. We know this.
[/quote]
Did you already point out where? Are you assuming secession is insurrection?
Stronger how? In all areas? The federal gov’t was to have certain powers, not be stronger in all areas.
It’s conceivable because it was reality before the constitution. Why is it so inconceivable that this was assumed during ratification? In the absence of any other evidence, an unbreakable union would have been a pretty big shift from the norm to that point.
I am not following. If federal power is limited, how could one state run herd over other states? If states chose to make concessions, I don’t see the issue.
The threat of secession would have limited federal power, but certainly would not have crippled it. It would have kept a gang of states from running herd over the minority or weaker states.
I am not sure if you are just arguing why you believe an unbreakable union was agreed to or if you are arguing it was necessary. If you are concerned with anyone running herd over someone else, it would seem an unbreakable union would be a larger threat.
That is the exact opposite of what the Founders were trying to accomplish with the concept of federalism. Secession power - if available - would do nothing to advance the goal the constitutional Union. Stop thinking about theoretics and begin to consider real-world scenarios where this vaunted secession power would lead the nation.
It’s simply implausible.[/quote]
[/quote]
Well, let’s look at Article XIII of the Articles of Confederation:
[i]"XIII.
Every State shall abide by the determination of the United States in Congress assembled, on all questions which by this confederation are submitted to them. And the Articles of this Confederation shall be inviolably observed by every State, and the Union shall be perpetual; nor shall any alteration at any time hereafter be made in any of them; unless such alteration be agreed to in a Congress of the United States, and be afterwards confirmed by the legislatures of every State.
And Whereas it hath pleased the Great Governor of the World to incline the hearts of the legislatures we respectively represent in Congress, to approve of, and to authorize us to ratify the said Articles of Confederation and perpetual Union. Know Ye that we the undersigned delegates, by virtue of the power and authority to us given for that purpose, do by these presents, in the name and in behalf of our respective constituents, fully and entirely ratify and confirm each and every of the said Articles of Confederation and perpetual Union, and all and singular the matters and things therein contained: And we do further solemnly plight and engage the faith of our respective constituents, that they shall abide by the determinations of the United States in Congress assembled, on all questions, which by the said Confederation are submitted to them. And that the Articles thereof shall be inviolably observed by the States we respectively represent, and that the Union shall be perpetual."[/i]
Good enough. TB, again, is absolutely correct. The Union was to be perpetual. Is the word used 5 times in 2 paragraphs?
So, even in the AofC, there is no secession, no treaty or free confederation between two (or more) states, none of that. The States are obliged to observe the AofC–inviolably. There is a prescribed manner of amendment, which was used to initiate the Constitutional Convention.
It is by accident that I found the quote by Gerry, dutifully recorded by Madison. Could it be any clearer? Why indeed would the Constitution–which forbids confederation among the States–now allow by silence a “right” that did not then exist and was not debated in the Convention?!
One would have to show me where there was a debate contesting Mr. Gerry, and a resolution that voted in favor of an unwritten right to secede.
Sorry, dhickey, the “right” of secession was most assuredly NOT a reality before the Constitution, or after.
Well, let’s look at Article XIII of the Articles of Confederation:
[i]"XIII.
Every State shall abide by the determination of the United States in Congress assembled, on all questions which by this confederation are submitted to them. And the Articles of this Confederation shall be inviolably observed by every State, and the Union shall be perpetual; nor shall any alteration at any time hereafter be made in any of them; unless such alteration be agreed to in a Congress of the United States, and be afterwards confirmed by the legislatures of every State.
And Whereas it hath pleased the Great Governor of the World to incline the hearts of the legislatures we respectively represent in Congress, to approve of, and to authorize us to ratify the said Articles of Confederation and perpetual Union. Know Ye that we the undersigned delegates, by virtue of the power and authority to us given for that purpose, do by these presents, in the name and in behalf of our respective constituents, fully and entirely ratify and confirm each and every of the said Articles of Confederation and perpetual Union, and all and singular the matters and things therein contained: And we do further solemnly plight and engage the faith of our respective constituents, that they shall abide by the determinations of the United States in Congress assembled, on all questions, which by the said Confederation are submitted to them. And that the Articles thereof shall be inviolably observed by the States we respectively represent, and that the Union shall be perpetual."[/i]
Good enough. TB, again, is absolutely correct. The Union was to be perpetual. Is the word used 5 times in 2 paragraphs?
So, even in the AofC, there is no secession, no treaty or free confederation between two (or more) states, none of that. The States are obliged to observe the AofC–inviolably. There is a prescribed manner of amendment, which was used to initiate the Constitutional Convention.
It is by accident that I found the quote by Gerry, dutifully recorded by Madison. Could it be any clearer? Why indeed would the Constitution–which forbids confederation among the States–now allow by silence a “right” that did not then exist and was not debated in the Convention?!
One would have to show me where there was a debate contesting Mr. Gerry, and a resolution that voted in favor of an unwritten right to secede.
Sorry, dhickey, the “right” of secession was most assuredly NOT a reality before the Constitution, or after.[/quote]
Thanks for this. I’ve learned quite a bit in this thread.
Trivia: the Constitutional Convention was technically formed illegally. I will leave that out there and see who first can come with the answer as to why.
Hint: it has something to do with the A of C.[/quote]
Let me take wild stab at it. Is it because King George 3 ruled somewhere that British colonies had no right to do so?
Every State shall abide by the determination of the United States in Congress assembled, on all questions which by this confederation are submitted to them. And the Articles of this Confederation shall be inviolably observed by every State, and the Union shall be perpetual; nor shall any alteration at any time hereafter be made in any of them; unless such alteration be agreed to in a Congress of the United States, and be afterwards confirmed by the legislatures of every State.
[/quote]
Howard Zinn was right afterall. It WAS just one criminal gang supplanting another.
No wonder this country is going through the same death-cycle that every country goes through, and why our country is dying right now. Its just another criminal gang…
“…I want the restoration of slavery but this time I don’t want plantation owners going so easy on the chattel. One meal a day - maximum. 20 hour workday. Ban on all mechanized cotton harvesters…”
Ah technicalities : ) The constitution was NOT an improvement on the original. The constitutional convention was going to propose changes to the a of c. Instead of amending the document, a new draw was thought to be the best route. The a of c could NOT be changed until every state consented to the proposed changes. The constitution for a short time may have been considered illegal, yet it was accepted by ALL the states. So that isn’t the case today : p
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Trivia: the Constitutional Convention was technically formed illegally. I will leave that out there and see who first can come with the answer as to why.
Hint: it has something to do with the A of C.[/quote]
Why not read a number of sources, as Push mentioned previously? DiLorenzo uses primary sources as well. Why not read his book and come to one’s own conclusions?
I recommended multiple sources, including secessionist principals themselves.
As for DiLorenzo, “using primary sources” has to mean using them in good faith. DiLorenzo has already been discredited on this.
[/quote]
By whom, you? I have the book sitting on the shelf at home. Give me an example of him not using primary sources in “good faith” and I can look it up tonight.
Putting aside your usual condescending attitude, provide me an example of when I make stuff up.
No one is “making shit up”.
You are arguing semantics now, which is the typical route you take in debate. Have fun with that.
???
Totally irrelevant. What does libertarianism have to do with anything discussed here?
Typical of you though, making personal attacks with zero basis in reality.
