The Civil War (Constitutional Issues)

[Procrustes Stretched]

There is no constitutional basis for secession, never has been, never could be.

Some of the Framers disagreed with your all knowing pronouncements.

The war settled the opinions

I guess it's just unfortunate that you are unable to point out the relevant passages.

Passages?

You deny some of the framers believed there was a right to secede?

 

[Liminal]

“The states voluntarily joined the Union, I think they had/have the right to voluntarily leave it.”

American citizens residing in the states may not have their citizenship taken from them against their will, nor can they be forced to leave their state of residence against their will, as the right of citizens to live wherever they so desire in the United States is fundamental.

An American is a citizen of the United States first and foremost, a resident of his state subordinate to that; as a consequence of the nature of American citizenship, a state may not leave the Union unilaterally.

It doesn't matter what you think

There is no constitutional basis for secession, never has been, never could be.

Some of the Framers disagreed with your all knowing pronouncements.

The war settled the opinions

I guess it's just unfortunate that you are unable to point out the relevant passages.

Passages?

You deny some of the framers believed there was a right to secede?

Did they write those ideas into the Constitution? If not, they don't matter.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

“The states voluntarily joined the Union, I think they had/have the right to voluntarily leave it.”

American citizens residing in the states may not have their citizenship taken from them against their will, nor can they be forced to leave their state of residence against their will, as the right of citizens to live wherever they so desire in the United States is fundamental.

An American is a citizen of the United States first and foremost, a resident of his state subordinate to that; as a consequence of the nature of American citizenship, a state may not leave the Union unilaterally.

It doesn't matter what you think

There is no constitutional basis for secession, never has been, never could be.

Some of the Framers disagreed with your all knowing pronouncements.

The war settled the opinions

I guess it's just unfortunate that you are unable to point out the relevant passages.

Passages?

You deny some of the framers believed there was a right to secede?

Did they write those ideas into the Constitution? If not, they don't matter.

Really?

Funny, the very men who wrote the Constitution disagree with you

fancy that

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

a history lesson to illuminate Liminal How the Founders Sowed the Seeds of Civil War The Colonial Williamsburg Official History Citizenship Site

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

good questions:
Although the Constitution dictates how a state may join the Union, there is no written provision for secession. Did the Founding Fathers, or even some, ever discuss whether states had the right to secede if they wanted? Did they ever discuss whether the national government or the other states had the duty or power to prevent states from seceding?

If the Founding Fathers did not discuss this, when do we first see political debate in the United States on these questions?

american civil war - Did the Founding Fathers believe that states had the right to secede - History Stack Exchange

 

[Liminal]

“The states voluntarily joined the Union, I think they had/have the right to voluntarily leave it.”

American citizens residing in the states may not have their citizenship taken from them against their will, nor can they be forced to leave their state of residence against their will, as the right of citizens to live wherever they so desire in the United States is fundamental.

An American is a citizen of the United States first and foremost, a resident of his state subordinate to that; as a consequence of the nature of American citizenship, a state may not leave the Union unilaterally.

It doesn't matter what you think

There is no constitutional basis for secession, never has been, never could be.

Some of the Framers disagreed with your all knowing pronouncements.

The war settled the opinions

I guess it's just unfortunate that you are unable to point out the relevant passages.

Passages?

You deny some of the framers believed there was a right to secede?

Did they write those ideas into the Constitution? If not, they don't matter.

Really?

Funny, the very men who wrote the Constitution disagree with you

fancy that

That doesn't even begin to make any sense at all. Who cares what their opinions were if those ideas aren't included in the Constitution. They need to be specified in the Constitution to have any bearing on law.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

“The states voluntarily joined the Union, I think they had/have the right to voluntarily leave it.”

American citizens residing in the states may not have their citizenship taken from them against their will, nor can they be forced to leave their state of residence against their will, as the right of citizens to live wherever they so desire in the United States is fundamental.

An American is a citizen of the United States first and foremost, a resident of his state subordinate to that; as a consequence of the nature of American citizenship, a state may not leave the Union unilaterally.

It doesn't matter what you think

Some of the Framers disagreed with your all knowing pronouncements.

The war settled the opinions

I guess it's just unfortunate that you are unable to point out the relevant passages.

Passages?

You deny some of the framers believed there was a right to secede?

Did they write those ideas into the Constitution? If not, they don't matter.

Really?

Funny, the very men who wrote the Constitution disagree with you

fancy that

That doesn't even begin to make any sense at all. Who cares what their opinions were if those ideas aren't included in the Constitution. They need to be specified in the Constitution to have any bearing on law.

Are you a strict constructionist?

Do you know what you are saying?

 

[Liminal]

“The states voluntarily joined the Union, I think they had/have the right to voluntarily leave it.”

American citizens residing in the states may not have their citizenship taken from them against their will, nor can they be forced to leave their state of residence against their will, as the right of citizens to live wherever they so desire in the United States is fundamental.

An American is a citizen of the United States first and foremost, a resident of his state subordinate to that; as a consequence of the nature of American citizenship, a state may not leave the Union unilaterally.

It doesn't matter what you think

I guess it's just unfortunate that you are unable to point out the relevant passages.

Passages?

You deny some of the framers believed there was a right to secede?

Did they write those ideas into the Constitution? If not, they don't matter.

Really?

Funny, the very men who wrote the Constitution disagree with you

fancy that

That doesn't even begin to make any sense at all. Who cares what their opinions were if those ideas aren't included in the Constitution. They need to be specified in the Constitution to have any bearing on law.

Are you a strict constructionist?

Do you know what you are saying?

I know enough to know that you don't.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

“The states voluntarily joined the Union, I think they had/have the right to voluntarily leave it.”

American citizens residing in the states may not have their citizenship taken from them against their will, nor can they be forced to leave their state of residence against their will, as the right of citizens to live wherever they so desire in the United States is fundamental.

An American is a citizen of the United States first and foremost, a resident of his state subordinate to that; as a consequence of the nature of American citizenship, a state may not leave the Union unilaterally.

It doesn't matter what you think

Passages?

You deny some of the framers believed there was a right to secede?

Did they write those ideas into the Constitution? If not, they don't matter.

Really?

Funny, the very men who wrote the Constitution disagree with you

fancy that

That doesn't even begin to make any sense at all. Who cares what their opinions were if those ideas aren't included in the Constitution. They need to be specified in the Constitution to have any bearing on law.

Are you a strict constructionist?

Do you know what you are saying?

I know enough to know that you don't.

The troll thou protesteth too much. I remember you

 

[paperview]

The question was settled at the Constitutional Convention.

The direct question, when posed, was answered when NY was considering it's ratification of the Constitution. At that time it was proposed:

"there should be reserved to the state of New York a right to withdraw herself from the union after a certain number of years."

A vote was taken, and it was negatived.

http://teachingamericanhistory.org/ratification/elliot/vol2/newyork0723.html

Historian Amar goes on to explain the pivotal moment of agreement:

"But exactly how were these states united? Did a state that said yes in the 1780's retain the right to unilaterally say no later on, and thereby secede? If not, why not?

Once again, it was in New York that the answer emerged most emphatically. At the outset of the Poughkeepsie convention, anti-Federalists held a strong majority. The tide turned when word arrived that New Hampshire and Virginia had said yes to the Constitution, at which point anti-Federalists proposed a compromise: they would vote to ratify, but if the new federal government failed to embrace various reforms that they favored, "there should be reserved to the state of New York a right to withdraw herself from the union after a certain number of years."

At the risk of alienating swing voters and losing on the ultimate ratification vote, Federalists emphatically opposed the compromise.

In doing so, they made clear to everyone - in New York and in the 12 other states where people were following the New York contest with interest - that the Constitution did not permit unilateral state secession.

Alexander Hamilton read aloud a letter at the Poughkeepsie convention that he had received from James Madison stating that "the Constitution requires an adoption in toto, and for ever." Hamilton and John Jay then added their own words, which the New York press promptly reprinted: "a reservation of a right to withdraw" was "inconsistent with the Constitution, and was no ratification."

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Thus, it was New York where the document became an irresistible reality and where its central meaning - one nation, democratic and indivisible - emerged with crystal clarity."

Conventional Wisdom--A Commentary by Prof. Akhil Amar Yale Law Schoo

 

[Liminal]

It doesn't matter what you think
Did they write those ideas into the Constitution? If not, they don't matter.

Really?

Funny, the very men who wrote the Constitution disagree with you

fancy that

That doesn't even begin to make any sense at all. Who cares what their opinions were if those ideas aren't included in the Constitution. They need to be specified in the Constitution to have any bearing on law.

Are you a strict constructionist?

Do you know what you are saying?

I know enough to know that you don't.

The troll thou protesteth too much. I remember you

Very gratifying to know that you remember me. However it might be more instructive if you were able to remember the Constitution.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

The question was settled at the Constitutional Convention.

The direct question, when posed, was answered when NY was considering it's ratification of the Constitution. At that time it was proposed:

"there should be reserved to the state of New York a right to withdraw herself from the union after a certain number of years."

A vote was taken, and it was negatived.

Elliot 8217 s Debates Volume 2 Teaching American History

Historian Amar goes on to explain the pivotal moment of agreement:

"But exactly how were these states united? Did a state that said yes in the 1780's retain the right to unilaterally say no later on, and thereby secede? If not, why not?

Once again, it was in New York that the answer emerged most emphatically. At the outset of the Poughkeepsie convention, anti-Federalists held a strong majority. The tide turned when word arrived that New Hampshire and Virginia had said yes to the Constitution, at which point anti-Federalists proposed a compromise: they would vote to ratify, but if the new federal government failed to embrace various reforms that they favored, "there should be reserved to the state of New York a right to withdraw herself from the union after a certain number of years."

At the risk of alienating swing voters and losing on the ultimate ratification vote, Federalists emphatically opposed the compromise.

In doing so, they made clear to everyone - in New York and in the 12 other states where people were following the New York contest with interest - that the Constitution did not permit unilateral state secession.

Alexander Hamilton read aloud a letter at the Poughkeepsie convention that he had received from James Madison stating that "the Constitution requires an adoption in toto, and for ever." Hamilton and John Jay then added their own words, which the New York press promptly reprinted: "a reservation of a right to withdraw" was "inconsistent with the Constitution, and was no ratification."

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Thus, it was New York where the document became an irresistible reality and where its central meaning - one nation democratic and indivisible - emerged with crystal clarity."

Conventional Wisdom--A Commentary by Prof. Akhil Amar Yale Law Schoo

New York -- of course.

Right of Revolution James Madison to Daniel Webster

James Madison to Daniel Webster

15 Mar. 1833

Writings 9:604--5
I return my thanks for the copy of your late very powerful Speech in the Senate of the United S. It crushes "nullification" and must hasten the abandonment of "Secession." But this dodges the blow by confounding the claim to secede at will, with the right of seceding from intolerable oppression. The former answers itself, being a violation, without cause, of a faith solemnly pledged. The latter is another name only for revolution, about which there is no theoretic controversy. Its double aspect, nevertheless, with the countenance recd from certain quarters, is giving it a popular currency here which may influence the approaching elections both for Congress & for the State Legislature. It has gained some advantage also, by mixing itself with the question whether the Constitution of the U.S. was formed by the people or by the States, now under a theoretic discussion by animated partizans.​

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Really?

Funny, the very men who wrote the Constitution disagree with you

fancy that

That doesn't even begin to make any sense at all. Who cares what their opinions were if those ideas aren't included in the Constitution. They need to be specified in the Constitution to have any bearing on law.

Are you a strict constructionist?

Do you know what you are saying?

I know enough to know that you don't.

The troll thou protesteth too much. I remember you

Very gratifying to know that you remember me. However it might be more instructive if you were able to remember the Constitution.

James Madison says hello

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

The question was settled at the Constitutional Convention.

No. The question was settled by the Civil War

 

[natstew]

The question was settled at the Constitutional Convention.

No. The question was settled by the Civil War

Lincoln did articulate a view of secession that would have been welcomed in 1776: “Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government and form a new one that suits them better. … Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people that can may revolutionize and make their own of so much of the territory as they inhabit.” But that was Lincoln’s 1848 speech in the U.S. House of Representatives regarding the war with Mexico and the secession of Texas.

Why didn’t Lincoln feel the same about Southern secession? Following the money might help with an answer. Throughout most of our history, the only sources of federal revenue were excise taxes and tariffs. During the 1850s, tariffs amounted to 90 percent of federal revenue. Southern ports paid 75 percent of tariffs in 1859. What “responsible” politician would let that much revenue go?

 

[natstew]

The question was settled at the Constitutional Convention.

No. The question was settled by the Civil War

No, the Constitution was shredded by the War Between The States.

 

[RKMBrown]

The question was settled at the Constitutional Convention.

No. The question was settled by the Civil War

No, the Constitution was shredded by the War Between The States.

More specifically, the Constitution was shredded by the victors.

 

[paperview]

The question was settled at the Constitutional Convention.

No. The question was settled by the Civil War

Lincoln did articulate a view of secession that would have been welcomed in 1776: “Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government and form a new one that suits them better. … Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people that can may revolutionize and make their own of so much of the territory as they inhabit.” But that was Lincoln’s 1848 speech in the U.S. House of Representatives regarding the war with Mexico and the secession of Texas.

Why didn’t Lincoln feel the same about Southern secession? Following the money might help with an answer. Throughout most of our history, the only sources of federal revenue were excise taxes and tariffs. During the 1850s, tariffs amounted to 90 percent of federal revenue. Southern ports paid 75 percent of tariffs in 1859. What “responsible” politician would let that much revenue go?

1) What you just stated regarding tariffs is not true. Patently false.

2) Every word you just posted was ripped off from the goofbucket Walter Williams. You have just been discovered to be a plagiarist.

For shame.

 

[natstew]

The question was settled at the Constitutional Convention.

No. The question was settled by the Civil War

Lincoln did articulate a view of secession that would have been welcomed in 1776: “Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government and form a new one that suits them better. … Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people that can may revolutionize and make their own of so much of the territory as they inhabit.” But that was Lincoln’s 1848 speech in the U.S. House of Representatives regarding the war with Mexico and the secession of Texas.

Why didn’t Lincoln feel the same about Southern secession? Following the money might help with an answer. Throughout most of our history, the only sources of federal revenue were excise taxes and tariffs. During the 1850s, tariffs amounted to 90 percent of federal revenue. Southern ports paid 75 percent of tariffs in 1859. What “responsible” politician would let that much revenue go?

1) What you just stated regarding tariffs is not true. Patently false.

2) Every word you just posted in your post was ripped off from the goofbucket Walter Williams. You have just been discovered to be a plagiarist.

For shame.

I never claimed to have created the piece I posted. It was a quote, not an opinion, and Walter Williams is not a goofbucket, that would be Juan Williams, and you.

 

[paperview]

The question was settled at the Constitutional Convention.

No. The question was settled by the Civil War

Lincoln did articulate a view of secession that would have been welcomed in 1776: “Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government and form a new one that suits them better. … Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people that can may revolutionize and make their own of so much of the territory as they inhabit.” But that was Lincoln’s 1848 speech in the U.S. House of Representatives regarding the war with Mexico and the secession of Texas.

Why didn’t Lincoln feel the same about Southern secession? Following the money might help with an answer. Throughout most of our history, the only sources of federal revenue were excise taxes and tariffs. During the 1850s, tariffs amounted to 90 percent of federal revenue. Southern ports paid 75 percent of tariffs in 1859. What “responsible” politician would let that much revenue go?

1) What you just stated regarding tariffs is not true. Patently false.

2) Every word you just posted in your post was ripped off from the goofbucket Walter Williams. You have just been discovered to be a plagiarist.

For shame.

I never claimed to have created the piece I posted. It was a quote, not an opinion, and Walter Williams is not a goofbucket, that would be Juan Williams, and you.

Total bullshit.

You never cited him, nor even placed quotes around your post.

You used Walter Williams words as your own. Anyone can see it here: Walter Williams Was the Civil War about tariff revenue WashingtonExaminer.com

This entire quote of yours:
==============================
Lincoln did articulate a view of secession that would have been welcomed in 1776: “Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government and form a new one that suits them better. … Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people that can may revolutionize and make their own of so much of the territory as they inhabit.” But that was Lincoln’s 1848 speech in the U.S. House of Representatives regarding the war with Mexico and the secession of Texas.

Why didn’t Lincoln feel the same about Southern secession? Following the money might help with an answer. Throughout most of our history, the only sources of federal revenue were excise taxes and tariffs. During the 1850s, tariffs amounted to 90 percent of federal revenue. Southern ports paid 75 percent of tariffs in 1859. What “responsible” politician would let that much revenue go?
==============================

...was ripped off whole from that piece.

And yes, Water Williams (the man you stole from) is not only a goofbucket, he is entirely WRONG.

Admit your dishonesty and move on.