Modern conservatives sympathizing with The Confederacy... Is this a thing now?

[Where_r_my_Keys]

THey understood it?

Why did they have to "understand it"?

It was explicitly communicated to them. The anti-federalists argued that the the States should remain sovereign. The federalists argued against it.

The Federalists won. With the Constitution largely written by the nation's leading Federalist, in accordance with the Federalist Papers. With a thorough majority of the founders supporting the Federalist vision.

Worse for your argument, in NY, Antifederalist John Lansing Jr tried to put language into their ratification of the Constitution that would grant them the authority to secede if they chose. Madison shut them down, declaring in a letter read by Hamilton to the NY ratification representatives that the the constitution must be adopted in toto and for ever. And that Congress would not consider a conditional ratification to be valid.

Here's the letter:

First, Hamilton's question regarding 'receding', or leaving the union.

"You will understand that the only qualification will be the reservation of a right to recede, in case our amendments have not been decided upon, in one of the modes pointed out by the Constitution, within a certain number of years, perhaps five or seven. If this can, in the first instance, be admitted as a ratification, I do not fear any further consequences. Congress will, I presume, recommend certain amendments to render the structure of the Government more secure. This will satisfy the more considerate and honest opposers of the Constitution, and with the aid of them will break up the party.

The Right of Secession. - NYTimes.com

And now the relevant portion of Madison's reply, which didn't contained the slightest ambiguity:

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 New-York a member of the new Union, and consequently that she should not be received on that plan. Compacts must be reciprocal; this principle would not in such case be preserved. The Constitution requires an adoption in toto and FOREVER. 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 vitiate the ratification.

Madison's letter was read publicly. Lansing's secessionist language was removed. And NY ratified the constitution.

This wasn't a grand secret. This was thoroughly understood, debated, and discussed at the time. The Anti-Federalists took your position. The Federalists, Madison's.

The Federalists won.

I like how strongly you point out that his letter "didn't contained the slightest ambiguity".

To bad the same can't be said of the actual written document that was actually voted on, and enshrined in law.

You lefties seem to like that term, "in toto, and FOREVER".

Can you find it in the Constitution?

ROFLMNAO!

The Cult has found a Right to murder one's own child in one's own WOMB in the Constitution... an this despite the absolute certainty that such a right cannot exist. But only because for such a right to exist, it would require a sustaining responsibility... and that the same right exists in all human life... which would mean that the human life they're taking, is rightfully entitled to its life and that would, axiomatically render the right to take the life... invalid.

Oh Leftist "Rights" are SO complicated.

LOL! In the first amendment which specifically forbids any laws that precludes the free exercise of religion, they found the SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE! Wherein ALL RELIGIOUS EXERCISE MUST BE SHUT DOWN the instant one comes to any position in US government.

Which establishes them as little more than the personification of Evil itself; resting upon the triumvirate of Evil... Deceit, FRAUD and Ignorance.

 

[Skylar]

THey understood it?

Why did they have to "understand it"?

It was explicitly communicated to them. The anti-federalists argued that the the States should remain sovereign. The federalists argued against it.

The Federalists won. With the Constitution largely written by the nation's leading Federalist, in accordance with the Federalist Papers. With a thorough majority of the founders supporting the Federalist vision.

Worse for your argument, in NY, Antifederalist John Lansing Jr tried to put language into their ratification of the Constitution that would grant them the authority to secede if they chose. Madison shut them down, declaring in a letter read by Hamilton to the NY ratification representatives that the the constitution must be adopted in toto and for ever. And that Congress would not consider a conditional ratification to be valid.

Here's the letter:

First, Hamilton's question regarding 'receding', or leaving the union.

"You will understand that the only qualification will be the reservation of a right to recede, in case our amendments have not been decided upon, in one of the modes pointed out by the Constitution, within a certain number of years, perhaps five or seven. If this can, in the first instance, be admitted as a ratification, I do not fear any further consequences. Congress will, I presume, recommend certain amendments to render the structure of the Government more secure. This will satisfy the more considerate and honest opposers of the Constitution, and with the aid of them will break up the party.

The Right of Secession. - NYTimes.com

And now the relevant portion of Madison's reply, which didn't contained the slightest ambiguity:

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 New-York a member of the new Union, and consequently that she should not be received on that plan. Compacts must be reciprocal; this principle would not in such case be preserved. The Constitution requires an adoption in toto and FOREVER. 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 vitiate the ratification.

Madison's letter was read publicly. Lansing's secessionist language was removed. And NY ratified the constitution.

This wasn't a grand secret. This was thoroughly understood, debated, and discussed at the time. The Anti-Federalists took your position. The Federalists, Madison's.

The Federalists won.

I like how strongly you point out that his letter "didn't contained the slightest ambiguity".

To bad the same can't be said of the actual written document that was actually voted on, and enshrined in law.

You lefties seem to like that term, "in toto, and FOREVER".

Can you find it in the Constitution?

ROFLMNAO!

The Cult has found a Right to murder one's own child in one's own WOMB in the Constitution...

LOL! In the first amendment which specifically forbids any laws that precludes the free exercise of religion, they found the SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE! Wherein ALL RELIGIOUS EXERCISE MUST BE SHUT DOWN the instant one comes to any position in US government.

Which establishes them as little more than the personification of Evil itself.

Quoting the Father of the Constitution on the meaning of the Constitution is the 'personification of Evil itself'?

Wow. Decaf for you.

 

[bripat9643]

I just quoted the New York ratification document. It reserves the right of the people to secede from the Union.

New York lost in its attempt to put in a clause about withdrawing if 33 amendments were not allowed to be considered in a later convention. After being shot down, New York still voted to ratify.

I quoted New York's ratification document. It reserves the right to secede.

Here's the NY ratification document:

Avalon Project - Ratification of the Constitution by the State of New York July 26 1788

Show us. Don't tell us.

I already did, numskull. The text has been quote several times already.

Nope. You never did. You've *told* us that the NY ratification doctrine maintains the right to secede. But when pressed to SHOW us where it is, you give us excuses.

Try again: Here's the NY ratification document:

Avalon Project - Ratification of the Constitution by the State of New York July 26 1788

Show us. Don't tell us.

Wrong, numskull. I already posted the document and I highlighted the text where NY reserved the right to secede. Your Komrade paperview admitted that the document contained the language I described but claimed it was "rejected," whatever that is supposed to mean. He offered no evidence of it.

 

[Correll]

THey understood it?

Why did they have to "understand it"?

It was explicitly communicated to them. The anti-federalists argued that the the States should remain sovereign. The federalists argued against it.

The Federalists won. With the Constitution largely written by the nation's leading Federalist, in accordance with the Federalist Papers. With a thorough majority of the founders supporting the Federalist vision.

Worse for your argument, in NY, Antifederalist John Lansing Jr tried to put language into their ratification of the Constitution that would grant them the authority to secede if they chose. Madison shut them down, declaring in a letter read by Hamilton to the NY ratification representatives that the the constitution must be adopted in toto and for ever. And that Congress would not consider a conditional ratification to be valid.

Here's the letter:

First, Hamilton's question regarding 'receding', or leaving the union.

"You will understand that the only qualification will be the reservation of a right to recede, in case our amendments have not been decided upon, in one of the modes pointed out by the Constitution, within a certain number of years, perhaps five or seven. If this can, in the first instance, be admitted as a ratification, I do not fear any further consequences. Congress will, I presume, recommend certain amendments to render the structure of the Government more secure. This will satisfy the more considerate and honest opposers of the Constitution, and with the aid of them will break up the party.

The Right of Secession. - NYTimes.com

And now the relevant portion of Madison's reply, which didn't contained the slightest ambiguity:

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 New-York a member of the new Union, and consequently that she should not be received on that plan. Compacts must be reciprocal; this principle would not in such case be preserved. The Constitution requires an adoption in toto and FOREVER. 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 vitiate the ratification.

Madison's letter was read publicly. Lansing's secessionist language was removed. And NY ratified the constitution.

This wasn't a grand secret. This was thoroughly understood, debated, and discussed at the time. The Anti-Federalists took your position. The Federalists, Madison's.

The Federalists won.

I like how strongly you point out that his letter "didn't contained the slightest ambiguity".

To bad the same can't be said of the actual written document that was actually voted on, and enshrined in law.

The constitution makes no mention of secession. Not one. If you believe it does, show us. Don't tell us.

You lefties seem to like that term, "in toto, and FOREVER".

Actually I like quoting James Madison. He's a far better source on what the constitution meant in the Founder's era than you are.

And Madison explicitly rejects your claims. Why would I ignore Madison and instead believe you?

Because the Constitution is a written document, and despite what Madison wanted it to mean, we can read the actual document and SEE WITH OUR OWN EYES, that the position he held was NOT put in there.

Unless you can show that the meanings of the words have changed with the passage of time, Madison's words do NOT trump the written Constitution.

 

[thanatos144]

Wrong. The states delegated to the federal government supreme power. That included the power to preserve the union.

"But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

What legal and binding document are you quoting?

I am quoting the Declaration of Independence.

Derr. I think he knows that.

The question still applies.

And if you think "The states delegated to the federal government supreme power" is wrong, then you haven't read the one important and legally binding Document you should be paying attention to...

The States ratified a Constitution which specifically limited the power of the Federal Government, specifically to preclude the Federal Government from becoming supremely powerful over the states.

If you lack the intellectual means to understand that FUNDAMENTAL AMERICAN PRINCIPLE... then you simply lack the means to remain a viable contributor to this discussion.

It's not even a debatable point.

True. But that does not give them the right to secede.

 

[paperview]

Wrong. The states delegated to the federal government supreme power. That included the power to preserve the union.

"But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

What legal and binding document are you quoting?

I am quoting the Declaration of Independence.

Derr. I think he knows that.

The question still applies.

And if you think "The states delegated to the federal government supreme power" is wrong, then you haven't read the one important and legally binding Document you should be paying attention to...

The States ratified a Constitution which specifically limited the power of the Federal Government, specifically to preclude the Federal Government from becoming supremely powerful over the states.

If you lack the intellectual means to understand that FUNDAMENTAL AMERICAN PRINCIPLE... then you simply lack the means to remain a viable contributor to this discussion.

It's not even a debatable point.

Eat this:


This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, 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, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.

 

[bripat9643]

Newsflash Brian: People get killed when you start a war.

Dumbfuck rebels thought they could start one to keep and expand their precious slave trade.

Tough titties. They lost. You refighting it 150 years later isn't going to change one White Supremacist ass-loving thing about it.

No, you refighting it 150 years later isn't going to change anything.

WHy are you in this thread? Why are you so hot about this topic?

He's a card carrying member of the Lincoln cult. Liberals are never going to admit the truth about Lincoln because their entire ideology relies on his status as an American saint.

 

[bripat9643]

If a state could secede from the nation, could a county secede from a state, could a city secede from a county and could I secede my house and lot from a city. Hot damn, I'd have my own little country on 59th.street. Think of it, many of us with our own nations.

The states created the union, the states could leave the union, the power was always with the states.

Wrong. The states delegated to the federal government supreme power. That included the power to preserve the union.

Where does the Constitution say that?

 

[bripat9643]

This is a quote I just came across from one of our Founding Father's, from South Carolina -- from 1788 - as the ink was still fresh on our new Constitution...some might find it surprising.

"In that Declaration the several states are not even enumerated; but after reciting, in nervous language, and with convincing arguments, our right to independence, and the tyranny which compelled us to assert it, the declaration is made in the following words:

"We, therefore, the representatives of the United States of America in General Congress assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the name and by the authority of the good people of these colonies, solemnly publish and declare, that these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, FREE AND INDEPENDENT STATES."

The separate independence and individual sovereignty of the several states were never thought of by the enlightened band of patriots who framed this Declaration; the several states are not even mentioned by name in any part of it,-

-as if it was intended to impress this maxim on America, that our freedom and independence arose from our union, and that without it we could neither be free nor independent.

Let us, then, consider all attempts to weaken this Union, by maintaining that each state is separately and individually independent, as a species of political heresy, which can never benefit us, but may bring on us the most serious distresses."
​

Charles Cotesworth Pinckney, South Carolina

]18 Jan. 1788

The Founders' Constitution
Volume 1, Chapter 7, Document 19
Union Charles Cotesworth Pinckney South Carolina House of Representatives
The University of Chicago Press Elliot, Jonathan, ed. The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution as Recommended by the General Convention at Philadelphia in 1787.

Union Charles Cotesworth Pinckney South Carolina House of Representatives

IF that was his opinion, and he felt so strongly about it, he should have advanced a clause spelling that out clearly in the Constitution.

Nowhere in the Constitution does it clearly state that the Union was forever.

James Madison made it ludicrously clear that it was. And the States understood that when they signed.

That's one man's opinion. He later reversed himself and said states had a right to secede.

 

[bripat9643]

This is a quote I just came across from one of our Founding Father's, from South Carolina -- from 1788 - as the ink was still fresh on our new Constitution...some might find it surprising.

"In that Declaration the several states are not even enumerated; but after reciting, in nervous language, and with convincing arguments, our right to independence, and the tyranny which compelled us to assert it, the declaration is made in the following words:

"We, therefore, the representatives of the United States of America in General Congress assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the name and by the authority of the good people of these colonies, solemnly publish and declare, that these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, FREE AND INDEPENDENT STATES."

The separate independence and individual sovereignty of the several states were never thought of by the enlightened band of patriots who framed this Declaration; the several states are not even mentioned by name in any part of it,-

-as if it was intended to impress this maxim on America, that our freedom and independence arose from our union, and that without it we could neither be free nor independent.

Let us, then, consider all attempts to weaken this Union, by maintaining that each state is separately and individually independent, as a species of political heresy, which can never benefit us, but may bring on us the most serious distresses."
​

Charles Cotesworth Pinckney, South Carolina

]18 Jan. 1788

The Founders' Constitution
Volume 1, Chapter 7, Document 19
Union Charles Cotesworth Pinckney South Carolina House of Representatives
The University of Chicago Press Elliot, Jonathan, ed. The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution as Recommended by the General Convention at Philadelphia in 1787.

Union Charles Cotesworth Pinckney South Carolina House of Representatives

IF that was his opinion, and he felt so strongly about it, he should have advanced a clause spelling that out clearly in the Constitution.

Nowhere in the Constitution does it clearly state that the Union was forever.

James Madison made it ludicrously clear that it was. And the States understood that when they signed.

THey understood it?

Why did they have to "understand it"?

Oh, because it wasn't stated anywhere in the written Constitution.

"it was understood" means only a few hardcores believed it.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

If a state could secede from the nation, could a county secede from a state, could a city secede from a county and could I secede my house and lot from a city. Hot damn, I'd have my own little country on 59th.street. Think of it, many of us with our own nations.

The states created the union, the states could leave the union, the power was always with the states.

Wrong. The states delegated to the federal government supreme power. That included the power to preserve the union.

Blimey that was retarded! Not only did the states never sign any pact that relinquished their right to extricate themselves from it, several states, notably Virginia and New York specifically reserved their right to secede. This point is driven even further home by the fact that New England states were the first to threaten secession in protest to the 1812 war. Nobody questioned their right to secede because it was clearly understood.

I don't know how you thought you could pull that out of your cock dilated ass and get away with it.

Here's New York's ratification of the Constitution:

Avalon Project - Ratification of the Constitution by the State of New York July 26 1788

Show us NY 'specifically reserving the right to secede'.

Remember, NY pulled Lansing's rider once Madison made it clear that the Constitution must be adopted in toto and forever.....or it wouldn't count as ratification.

Brought my own link, bitch

[The Recorder: "Debates arose on the motion, and it was carried. The committee then proceeded to consider separately the amendments proposed in this plan of ratification."] The condition was that New York could secede from the Union.

Introduction to the New York Ratifying Convention Teaching American History

Oh, and check out this gem:

Mr. Williams also writes that at the 1787 Constitutional Convention a proposal was made to allow the federal government to suppress a seceding state. James Madison, the acknowledged father of our Constitution, rejected it, saying: “A Union of the States containing such an ingredient seemed to provide for its own destruction. The use of force against a State would look more like a declaration of war than an infliction of punishment and would probably be considered by the party attacked as a dissolution of all previous compacts by which it might be bound.”

States have constitutional right to secede - Letters To The Editor - The News Herald

What you Leftists don't seem to get is that there's a harsh burden of proof you alone bear to prove that the ratifiers believed that states are locked in, that the federal government becomes supreme over them, and that force may be used against a seceding state, contrary to all the evidence to the contrary.

Stop lying, Leftists!

 

[bripat9643]

Perpetual...

Where is that in the Constitution?

 

[paperview]

Newsflash Brian: People get killed when you start a war.

Dumbfuck rebels thought they could start one to keep and expand their precious slave trade.

Tough titties. They lost. You refighting it 150 years later isn't going to change one White Supremacist ass-loving thing about it.

No, you refighting it 150 years later isn't going to change anything.

WHy are you in this thread? Why are you so hot about this topic?

I'm not refighting it. It's the neo-confederates who haven't gotten over the South LOST who are refighting it.

I am a student of history and am compelled to correct bullshit when I see it and point out those who try and revise the factual accounts of history every chance I get.

Call it a quirk.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

THey understood it?

Why did they have to "understand it"?

It was explicitly communicated to them. The anti-federalists argued that the the States should remain sovereign. The federalists argued against it.

The Federalists won. With the Constitution largely written by the nation's leading Federalist, in accordance with the Federalist Papers. With a thorough majority of the founders supporting the Federalist vision.

Worse for your argument, in NY, Antifederalist John Lansing Jr tried to put language into their ratification of the Constitution that would grant them the authority to secede if they chose. Madison shut them down, declaring in a letter read by Hamilton to the NY ratification representatives that the the constitution must be adopted in toto and for ever. And that Congress would not consider a conditional ratification to be valid.

Here's the letter:

First, Hamilton's question regarding 'receding', or leaving the union.

"You will understand that the only qualification will be the reservation of a right to recede, in case our amendments have not been decided upon, in one of the modes pointed out by the Constitution, within a certain number of years, perhaps five or seven. If this can, in the first instance, be admitted as a ratification, I do not fear any further consequences. Congress will, I presume, recommend certain amendments to render the structure of the Government more secure. This will satisfy the more considerate and honest opposers of the Constitution, and with the aid of them will break up the party.

The Right of Secession. - NYTimes.com

And now the relevant portion of Madison's reply, which didn't contained the slightest ambiguity:

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 New-York a member of the new Union, and consequently that she should not be received on that plan. Compacts must be reciprocal; this principle would not in such case be preserved. The Constitution requires an adoption in toto and FOREVER. 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 vitiate the ratification.

Madison's letter was read publicly. Lansing's secessionist language was removed. And NY ratified the constitution.

This wasn't a grand secret. This was thoroughly understood, debated, and discussed at the time. The Anti-Federalists took your position. The Federalists, Madison's.

The Federalists won.

I like how strongly you point out that his letter "didn't contained the slightest ambiguity".

To bad the same can't be said of the actual written document that was actually voted on, and enshrined in law.

You lefties seem to like that term, "in toto, and FOREVER".

Can you find it in the Constitution?

ROFLMNAO!

The Cult has found a Right to murder one's own child in one's own WOMB in the Constitution...

LOL! In the first amendment which specifically forbids any laws that precludes the free exercise of religion, they found the SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE! Wherein ALL RELIGIOUS EXERCISE MUST BE SHUT DOWN the instant one comes to any position in US government.

Which establishes them as little more than the personification of Evil itself.

Quoting the Father of the Constitution on the meaning of the Constitution is the 'personification of Evil itself'?

Wow. Decaf for you.

NOooo... the personification of Evil is in the intentional misrepresentation of the words you quote.

The Consent to be governed by the enumerated and limited powers set forth in the US Constitution, in toto and FOREVER... does not provide any obligation in the way of consent to be governed by powers taken outside the scope of those specifically enumerated power.

(That's sorta the coolest part of republican constitutional government... and why such historically survives well beyond the average span of existence of the feckless democracy.)

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Newsflash Brian: People get killed when you start a war.

Dumbfuck rebels thought they could start one to keep and expand their precious slave trade.

Tough titties. They lost. You refighting it 150 years later isn't going to change one White Supremacist ass-loving thing about it.

No, you refighting it 150 years later isn't going to change anything.

WHy are you in this thread? Why are you so hot about this topic?

I'm not refighting it. It's the neo-confederates who haven't gotten over the South LOST who are refighting it.

In truth, you literally are refighting it... and you're doing so deceitfully.

But in fairness... such is the nature of Relativism and the evil that animates it.

 

[Correll]

The states created the union, the states could leave the union, the power was always with the states.

Wrong. The states delegated to the federal government supreme power. That included the power to preserve the union.

"But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

What legal and binding document are you quoting?

I am quoting the Declaration of Independence.

Derr. I think he knows that.

The question still applies.

And if you think "The states delegated to the federal government supreme power" is wrong, then you haven't read the one important and legally binding Document you should be paying attention to...

Do you disagree with the Declaration of Independence?

 

[paperview]

If a state could secede from the nation, could a county secede from a state, could a city secede from a county and could I secede my house and lot from a city. Hot damn, I'd have my own little country on 59th.street. Think of it, many of us with our own nations.

The states created the union, the states could leave the union, the power was always with the states.

Wrong. The states delegated to the federal government supreme power. That included the power to preserve the union.

Blimey that was retarded! Not only did the states never sign any pact that relinquished their right to extricate themselves from it, several states, notably Virginia and New York specifically reserved their right to secede. This point is driven even further home by the fact that New England states were the first to threaten secession in protest to the 1812 war. Nobody questioned their right to secede because it was clearly understood.

I don't know how you thought you could pull that out of your cock dilated ass and get away with it.

Here's New York's ratification of the Constitution:

Avalon Project - Ratification of the Constitution by the State of New York July 26 1788

Show us NY 'specifically reserving the right to secede'.

Remember, NY pulled Lansing's rider once Madison made it clear that the Constitution must be adopted in toto and forever.....or it wouldn't count as ratification.

Brought my own link, bitch

[The Recorder: "Debates arose on the motion, and it was carried. The committee then proceeded to consider separately the amendments proposed in this plan of ratification."] The condition was that New York could secede from the Union.

Introduction to the New York Ratifying Convention Teaching American History

Oh, and check out this gem:

Mr. Williams also writes that at the 1787 Constitutional Convention a proposal was made to allow the federal government to suppress a seceding state. James Madison, the acknowledged father of our Constitution, rejected it, saying: “A Union of the States containing such an ingredient seemed to provide for its own destruction. The use of force against a State would look more like a declaration of war than an infliction of punishment and would probably be considered by the party attacked as a dissolution of all previous compacts by which it might be bound.”

States have constitutional right to secede - Letters To The Editor - The News Herald

What you Leftists don't seem to get is that there's a harsh burden of proof you alone bear to prove that the ratifiers believed that states are locked in, that the federal government becomes supreme over them, and that force may be used against a seceding state, contrary to all the evidence to the contrary.

Stop lying, Leftists!

An op-ed from Wlater Williams.

Too funny.

 

[Skylar]

THey understood it?

Why did they have to "understand it"?

It was explicitly communicated to them. The anti-federalists argued that the the States should remain sovereign. The federalists argued against it.

The Federalists won. With the Constitution largely written by the nation's leading Federalist, in accordance with the Federalist Papers. With a thorough majority of the founders supporting the Federalist vision.

Worse for your argument, in NY, Antifederalist John Lansing Jr tried to put language into their ratification of the Constitution that would grant them the authority to secede if they chose. Madison shut them down, declaring in a letter read by Hamilton to the NY ratification representatives that the the constitution must be adopted in toto and for ever. And that Congress would not consider a conditional ratification to be valid.

Here's the letter:

First, Hamilton's question regarding 'receding', or leaving the union.

"You will understand that the only qualification will be the reservation of a right to recede, in case our amendments have not been decided upon, in one of the modes pointed out by the Constitution, within a certain number of years, perhaps five or seven. If this can, in the first instance, be admitted as a ratification, I do not fear any further consequences. Congress will, I presume, recommend certain amendments to render the structure of the Government more secure. This will satisfy the more considerate and honest opposers of the Constitution, and with the aid of them will break up the party.

The Right of Secession. - NYTimes.com

And now the relevant portion of Madison's reply, which didn't contained the slightest ambiguity:

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 New-York a member of the new Union, and consequently that she should not be received on that plan. Compacts must be reciprocal; this principle would not in such case be preserved. The Constitution requires an adoption in toto and FOREVER. 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 vitiate the ratification.

Madison's letter was read publicly. Lansing's secessionist language was removed. And NY ratified the constitution.

This wasn't a grand secret. This was thoroughly understood, debated, and discussed at the time. The Anti-Federalists took your position. The Federalists, Madison's.

The Federalists won.

I like how strongly you point out that his letter "didn't contained the slightest ambiguity".

To bad the same can't be said of the actual written document that was actually voted on, and enshrined in law.

The constitution makes no mention of secession. Not one. If you believe it does, show us. Don't tell us.

You lefties seem to like that term, "in toto, and FOREVER".

Actually I like quoting James Madison. He's a far better source on what the constitution meant in the Founder's era than you are.

And Madison explicitly rejects your claims. Why would I ignore Madison and instead believe you?

Because the Constitution is a written document, and despite what Madison wanted it to mean, we can read the actual document and SEE WITH OUR OWN EYES, that the position he held was NOT put in there.

And when folks look at the constitution 'with their own eyes', they find absolutely no mention of secession whatsoever. Not the slightest peep.

So the constitution says absolutely nothing about secession, and the "Father of the Constitution" says no such right exists. With the States that tried to reserve the right to secede pulling such amendments, as the would not have been ratification of the Constitution.

You've given us exactly jack shit to back your claims with. You have absolutely nothing affirming your argument. Nothing in the constitution says what you do. And we have excellent sources from the era of the founding that demmonstrate that the issue was discussed, debated, and your claims refuted.

 

[paperview]

Wrong. The states delegated to the federal government supreme power. That included the power to preserve the union.

"But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

What legal and binding document are you quoting?

I am quoting the Declaration of Independence.

Derr. I think he knows that.

The question still applies.

And if you think "The states delegated to the federal government supreme power" is wrong, then you haven't read the one important and legally binding Document you should be paying attention to...

Do you disagree with the Declaration of Independence?

Disagree with it? It's a great document, sure. Is it a legally binding document?

 

[regent]

THey understood it?

Why did they have to "understand it"?

It was explicitly communicated to them. The anti-federalists argued that the the States should remain sovereign. The federalists argued against it.

The Federalists won. With the Constitution largely written by the nation's leading Federalist, in accordance with the Federalist Papers. With a thorough majority of the founders supporting the Federalist vision.

Worse for your argument, in NY, Antifederalist John Lansing Jr tried to put language into their ratification of the Constitution that would grant them the authority to secede if they chose. Madison shut them down, declaring in a letter read by Hamilton to the NY ratification representatives that the the constitution must be adopted in toto and for ever. And that Congress would not consider a conditional ratification to be valid.

Here's the letter:

First, Hamilton's question regarding 'receding', or leaving the union.

"You will understand that the only qualification will be the reservation of a right to recede, in case our amendments have not been decided upon, in one of the modes pointed out by the Constitution, within a certain number of years, perhaps five or seven. If this can, in the first instance, be admitted as a ratification, I do not fear any further consequences. Congress will, I presume, recommend certain amendments to render the structure of the Government more secure. This will satisfy the more considerate and honest opposers of the Constitution, and with the aid of them will break up the party.

The Right of Secession. - NYTimes.com

And now the relevant portion of Madison's reply, which didn't contained the slightest ambiguity:

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 New-York a member of the new Union, and consequently that she should not be received on that plan. Compacts must be reciprocal; this principle would not in such case be preserved. The Constitution requires an adoption in toto and FOREVER. 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 vitiate the ratification.

Madison's letter was read publicly. Lansing's secessionist language was removed. And NY ratified the constitution.

This wasn't a grand secret. This was thoroughly understood, debated, and discussed at the time. The Anti-Federalists took your position. The Federalists, Madison's.

The Federalists won.

New York lost in its attempt to put in a clause about withdrawing if 33 amendments were not allowed to be considered in a later convention. After being shot down, New York still voted to ratify.

I quoted New York's ratification document. It reserves the right to secede.

Here's the NY ratification document:

Avalon Project - Ratification of the Constitution by the State of New York July 26 1788

Show us. Don't tell us.

I already did, numskull. The text has been quote several times already.

Nope. You never did. You've *told* us that the NY ratification doctrine maintains the right to secede. But when pressed to SHOW us where it is, you give us excuses.

Try again: Here's the NY ratification document:

Avalon Project - Ratification of the Constitution by the State of New York July 26 1788

Show us. Don't tell us.

Wrong, numskull. I already posted the document and I highlighted the text where NY reserved the right to secede. Your Komrade paperview admitted that the document contained the language I described but claimed it was "rejected," whatever that is supposed to mean. He offered no evidence of it.

New York changed the wording in essence from we demand to "we hope". That's why Lansing and a couple of others quit. the "we hope" acceptance won by three votes.