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

[Skylar]

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

So when Madison said "The Constitution requires an adoption in toto, and for ever. It has been so adopted by the other States."

....he didn't mean that the constitution requires an adoption in toto and forever? And he didn't mean that it had been so adopted by the other States?

I don't think 'misrepresentation' means what you think it means. What I'm doing is called 'quoting'. And my quote is most definitely in context.

 

[Correll]

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.

Those that fought the War, moved past it, and forgave if not forgot, long ago.

There were joint Union Confederate Army reunions. There is a Confederate Soldiers Memorial at Arlington.

It is you lefties who have/are attempting to reopen long healed wounds by demonizing the Confederacy and the South.

 

[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 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.

The word 'hope' doesn't appear anywhere in the NY ratification document of the Constitution.

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

Is it possible you're referring to a different turn of phrase? I'm genuinely interested in seeing the actual quote that conservatives claim to be alluding to in the NY ratification document. And so far, its just not there.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

"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.

Interesting... Yet where such laws are set upon the people, outside the scope of the enumerated limits upon the power of the US Federal Government, no American is in any way obligated to so much as recognize that law, let alone to comply with such.

Of course the Federal Government will likely disagree... as did the Crown of England, when we informed them of that very principle.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

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.

The fact that secession isn't mentioned in the Constitution doesn't help you because it goes the opposite direction, reinforcing the understanding that the power to secede is not granted by the Constitution, nor can it be taken away by the Constitution. The same power by which the states formed and ratified the Constitution also enables them to withdraw from it and resume their original powers. The power is and always has been with the states, and even the Constitution is enslaved to that power.

 

[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.

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.

I agree, there is no mention of secession in the Constitution. Thank you for admitting that.

I have not claimed that the Constitution granted the Right of Secession.

THe question, IMO, was open to reasonable disagreement.

It is you lefties that seem to need to have it be what it was not, so as to support your attempt to place all onus for slavery and the Civil War on the South.

Which is not called for, IMO.

 

[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:

...

Oh, and check out *this* gem, from your source sinMike:
'
Elliot s Debates Volume 2 Teaching American History

Read at the bottom. What does it say?

 

[paperview]

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.

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

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.

The fact that secession isn't mentioned in the Constitution doesn't help you because it goes the opposite direction, reinforcing the understanding that the power to secede is not granted by the Constitution, nor can it be taken away by the Constitution. ...

You know what doesn't help you?

The Civil War.

Which answered that question.


But good.

 

[Correll]

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.

The fact that secession isn't mentioned in the Constitution doesn't help you because it goes the opposite direction, reinforcing the understanding that the power to secede is not granted by the Constitution, nor can it be taken away by the Constitution. ...

You know what doesn't help you?

The Civil War.

Which answered that question.


But good.

So, MIght makes Right?

And you libs claim to be progressive?!

 

[Skylar]

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.

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

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.

I agree, there is no mention of secession in the Constitution. Thank you for admitting that.

"Admitting' that? I've been the one telling you that. Your argument has so utterly imploded that you're trying to adopt my argument as you own.

And well you should. The evidence overwhelmingly supports my position.

The question, IMO, was open to reasonable disagreement.

Ignoring the history of the ratification of the constitution, the debates on this very issue, and the explicit and repeated rejection of the idea by the 'father of the constitution' isn't what I'd call 'reasonable'.

Reasonable would be following the preponderance of the evidence. And it lines up overwhelmingly on one side of the issue. As even southerners of the era of ratification admitted 'The Union of the States: the Majority must govern; secession is treason."

And this from a leading leading Virginian judge Spencer Roane, and leader of State's rights in the State.

Even the USSC recognized that the status of the State as sovereign changed once they joined under the constitution, as articulated in Gibbon v. Ogden in 1824.

I've provided overwhelming, overlapping, and among the most widely respected sources there are on the matter. You've provided nothing to refute any of it.

 

[Correll]

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.

I agree, there is no mention of secession in the Constitution. Thank you for admitting that.

"Admitting' that? I've been the one telling you that. Your argument has so utterly imploded that you're trying to adopt my argument as you own.

And well you should. The evidence overwhelmingly supports my position.

The question, IMO, was open to reasonable disagreement.

Ignoring the history of the ratification of the constitution, the debates on this very issue, and the explicit and repeated rejection of the idea by the 'father of the constitution' isn't what I'd call 'reasonable'.

Reasonable would be following the preponderance of the evidence. And it lines up overwhelmingly on one side of the issue. As even southerners of the era of ratification admitted 'The Union of the States: the Majority must govern; secession is treason."

And this from a leading leading Virginian judge Spencer Roane, and leader of State's rights in the State.

Even the USSC recognized that the status of the State as sovereign changed once they joined under the constitution, as articulated in Gibbon v. Ogden in 1824.

I've provided overwhelming, overlapping, and among the most widely respected sources there are on the matter. You've provided nothing to refute any of it.

You've admitted that that Constitution does not address the issue of secession.

I agree.

WHatever Madison's personal views on the subject, if they were not included in the draft that was voted on, they are irrelevant.

And we agree they were not.

Do you consider those who signed the Declaration of Independence to be traitors?

 

[paperview]

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

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.

The fact that secession isn't mentioned in the Constitution doesn't help you because it goes the opposite direction, reinforcing the understanding that the power to secede is not granted by the Constitution, nor can it be taken away by the Constitution. ...

You know what doesn't help you?

The Civil War.

Which answered that question.


But good.

So, MIght makes Right?

And you libs claim to be progressive?!

Right makes Might.

 

[Correll]

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.

The fact that secession isn't mentioned in the Constitution doesn't help you because it goes the opposite direction, reinforcing the understanding that the power to secede is not granted by the Constitution, nor can it be taken away by the Constitution. ...

You know what doesn't help you?

The Civil War.

Which answered that question.


But good.

So, MIght makes Right?

And you libs claim to be progressive?!

Right makes Might.

LOL.

IF you are serious, you are harkening back to reasoning the predates Socrates, and has primarily been found sincein totalitarian regimes.

As I have repeatedly said, modern "liberals" instead of being progressive, are actually extremely reactionary.

Ironically, Lincoln spoke on this, and took the opposite view of you.

Just saying.

 

[paperview]

How about some in the South themselves?

Here's a goodun' for ya. Ten years before the war, 1850 - 51, when South Carolina was flouting around with secession and held their Convention - but couldn't get the other states to join them --

Lookie here, Mississippi held a Convention too, and what did they say?

"Resolved, further, 4th, That, in the opinion of this Convention, the asserted right of secession from the Union, on the part of a State or States, is utterly unsanctioned by the Federal Constitution, which was framed to establish, and not destroy, the Union of the States; and that no secession can, in fact, take place, without a subversion of the Union established, and which will not virtually amount, in its effects and consequences, to a civil revolution."

- 1851 Mississippi Secession Convention

Source: the rebellion record a diary of american events with documents narratives ... - frank moore - Google Books

The Congressional Globe Volume 24 Part 1 Thirty-Second Congress First Session Page 35 UNT Digital Library

Ten years earlier they were saying secession was Unconstitutional. Howzabout that?

 

[Correll]

How about some in the South themselves?

Here's a goodun' for ya. Ten years before the war, 1850 - 51, when South Carolina was flouting around with secession and held their Convention - but couldn't get the other states to join them --

Lookie here, Mississippi held a Convention too, and what did they say?

"Resolved, further, 4th, That, in the opinion of this Convention, the asserted right of secession from the Union, on the part of a State or States, is utterly unsanctioned by the Federal Constitution, which was framed to establish, and not destroy, the Union of the States; and that no secession can, in fact, take place, without a subversion of the Union established, and which will not virtually amount, in its effects and consequences, to a civil revolution."

- 1851 Mississippi Secession Convention

Source: the rebellion record a diary of american events with documents narratives ... - frank moore - Google Books

The Congressional Globe Volume 24 Part 1 Thirty-Second Congress First Session Page 35 UNT Digital Library

Ten years earlier they were saying secession was Unconstitutional. Howzabout that?

So, they changed their minds.

Why is that important?

 

[paperview]

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.

The fact that secession isn't mentioned in the Constitution doesn't help you because it goes the opposite direction, reinforcing the understanding that the power to secede is not granted by the Constitution, nor can it be taken away by the Constitution. ...

You know what doesn't help you?

The Civil War.

Which answered that question.


But good.

So, MIght makes Right?

And you libs claim to be progressive?!

Right makes Might.

LOL.

IF you are serious, you are harkening back to reasoning the predates Socrates, and has primarily been found sincein totalitarian regimes.

As I have repeatedly said, modern "liberals" instead of being progressive, are actually extremely reactionary.

Ironically, Lincoln spoke on this, and took the opposite view of you.

Just saying.

Lincoln took the opposite view, did he?

Cooper Union Address ---> "Let us have faith that right makes might, and in that faith, let us, to the end, dare to do our duty as we understand it." - Abraham Lincoln

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

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.

I agree, there is no mention of secession in the Constitution. Thank you for admitting that.

"Admitting' that? I've been the one telling you that. Your argument has so utterly imploded that you're trying to adopt my argument as you own.

And well you should. The evidence overwhelmingly supports my position.

The question, IMO, was open to reasonable disagreement.

Ignoring the history of the ratification of the constitution, the debates on this very issue, and the explicit and repeated rejection of the idea by the 'father of the constitution' isn't what I'd call 'reasonable'.

Reasonable would be following the preponderance of the evidence. And it lines up overwhelmingly on one side of the issue. As even southerners of the era of ratification admitted 'The Union of the States: the Majority must govern; secession is treason."

And this from a leading leading Virginian judge Spencer Roane, and leader of State's rights in the State.

Even the USSC recognized that the status of the State as sovereign changed once they joined under the constitution, as articulated in Gibbon v. Ogden in 1824.

I've provided overwhelming, overlapping, and among the most widely respected sources there are on the matter. You've provided nothing to refute any of it.

The Supreme Court derives its power from the Constitution. The Constitution derives its power from the states. It's more than unseemly to suggest the Supreme Court can weigh in on whether or not states can secede. Even floating that argument betrays an ignorance of the formation of the Union on a fundamental level. The states can, at their leisure, convene an Article 5 convention and do away with the Supreme Court if they so wish. The states have the power and always have.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

IF you are serious, you are harkening back to reasoning the predates Socrates, and has primarily been found sincein totalitarian regimes. As I have repeatedly said, modern "liberals" instead of being progressive, are actually extremely reactionary.

Ironically, Lincoln spoke on this, and took the opposite view of you. Just saying.

Regressives... OKA: Evil.

 

[there4eyeM]

"...the Federal Constitution, which was framed to establish, and not destroy, the Union of the States..."
The Union of States created as perpetual and that was perpetuated in the new document.

 

[Correll]

The fact that secession isn't mentioned in the Constitution doesn't help you because it goes the opposite direction, reinforcing the understanding that the power to secede is not granted by the Constitution, nor can it be taken away by the Constitution. ...

You know what doesn't help you?

The Civil War.

Which answered that question.


But good.

So, MIght makes Right?

And you libs claim to be progressive?!

Right makes Might.

LOL.

IF you are serious, you are harkening back to reasoning the predates Socrates, and has primarily been found sincein totalitarian regimes.

As I have repeatedly said, modern "liberals" instead of being progressive, are actually extremely reactionary.

Ironically, Lincoln spoke on this, and took the opposite view of you.

Just saying.

Lincoln took the opposite view, did he?

Cooper Union Address ---> "Let us have faith that right makes might, and in that faith, let us, to the end, dare to do our duty as we understand it." - Abraham Lincoln

Oops. sorry, I misread your statement.

But, you were just making exactly the opposite point, when your presented the victory of the larger army as proof of the Righteousness of the cause of the Union.

So, why did you do that if you don't really think that way?