Civil War History - Secession and PoliticsWas it Slavery, or was it States Rights? Perhaps it was the election of Lincoln? What were the real reasons for Southern Secession and what were the political issues in this time of war? Find your answers here in the Secession and Politics Disussion.
You can argue, as you have, that a trivial error of when the colonies chose to call themselves states makes everything I've said untrue.
---------------------
It is symptomatic of the massive error in your posts.
The point is that that no sovereignty is delegated to a central gov't by the Articles.
-----------------------
Since you haven't read them, how do you know this? Please prove this statement.
You may ask how I know you haven't read them. Since the very first article names the United States as the United States, if you had read them you would have known that and would not have made the false statement that the United States didn't even have a name. The fact that you were unaware of what is in the articles shows that you haven't read them but in fact are relying on some spurious source for your information rather than the primary source.
I have not argued against the People, as a group, possessing sovereignty.
------------------------
This is false. You have been arguing from the first that it was the states, not the people, who had sovereignty, and you challenged my statements that the people were the ultimate sovereigns.
I have argued that its irrelevant to a discussion of political entities
-----------------------------
And that is completely wrong. It is the most relevant fact when discussing political entities, because these entities derive their powers only from the People. That is a fundamental fact. See John Locke's Two Treatises on Government.
The proof is your statement that the People "delegated such powers to the states that they were commonly referred to as being sovereign." You might ask yourself why it took you so long to acknowledge the obvious. The point is that the states, in turn, delegated only PART of that sovereignty to the fed.
------------------------
And you're still wrong. You aren't reading my posts completely. That they were commonly referred to as sovereign doesn't mean they were sovereign. They aren't. States have no sovereignty under the Constitution. They may be commonly referred to as sovereign, but as I've been saying from the start that is only a facade.
You ask me to "Show me where a state has the power to declare war or make a peace treaty under the Constitution." In the Constitution, the power to declare war is on the list of sovereign powers delegated by the states to the fed. That necessarily proves that, prior to ratification, that was a power held by the states.
---------------------------
Wrong again. The states delegated nothing because the states have no power to delegate anything. The People are the only ones who can delegate power because the People are the only true sovereigns.
Declaring war and making peace are sovereign acts. The power to do so was delegated by the People to the central government. The states did not have that power, and your claim that they did shows more evidence of a poor grasp of history.
As to defining sovereignty, I told you in an earlier post that I was using those definitions set out in aphillbilly's post. If you don't like those, Webster defines it as "a ruler with supreme power...; possessing supreme jurisdiction or authority." If you don't like that one, I guess you'll have to look elsewhere. I'm not sure what your point is here, so I hope you'll explain. If its "the People" thing again, I've addressed that above.
----------------------
I would like you, in your own words, to please tell me what your conception of sovereignty is. It's a simple request.
The meaning of your 'whole' Martin quote is clear recognition of constitutional dual sovereignty; not the facade you'd prefer it to be. I invite you to read your own quote.
-----------------------
It is not at all. It says the Constitution was not ordained and established by states in sovereign capacities, but rather by the People. It says the People, not the states as you've been saying, vested the central government with its powers. It says the People restricted powers from the State governments. It says the People subordinated the State governments to the central government.
Where your confusion comes is the part that says sovereign powers granted the State governments by their constitutions remained unimpaired except as granted to the central government, but we will deal with this in a future post. For now, let me just say this is part of the facade of dual sovereignty.
Hunter v. Martin's Lessee says the Constitution is crowded with provisions that restrict or annul state sovereignty. The Constitution takes away essential parts of state sovereignty. If so, how can a state be sovereign?
Do you really need proof that some drafters wanted strong state gov'ts and that others (like Madison) preferred a strong central gov't; and that the Constitution represents a compromise on that issue?
----------------------
I'd like you to start supporting your assertions for a change. I'd like to see proof that the Framers feared a strong central government as you claimed.
I think my constitutional law professor, and the authors of the text I used, would object to being called "spurious." No, I don't have a copy of the Articles handy. I just recall that they delegated no sovereignty to a central gov't. That's the point, but I guess there's nothing I can say to get you to stick to the issue.
If there is massive fact errors in my posts, you've yet to find them. So far, you've found 1 - regarding when the colonies chose to call themselves states.
What one person calls a facade is what constitutional doctrine calls the law. Your opinion of the law doesn't change that.
You state that "You have been arguing from the first that it was the states, not the people, who had sovereignty." That's true for the relevant time. By the time of the Articles and the Constitution, the real topics of discussion, the People had already delegated their sovereign powers to the states. Going backwards in time, before that occurred, is irrelevant to a discussion of the political entities to whom the people had delegated those powers and the balance of power between those entities. If you want to go backwards to the Magna Carta or John Locke, I think that's another thread for another board. Please review the topic of this thread and, if I may so humbly ask, let's stick to the issue.
You state that "the People are the only true sovereigns." Is it your position that the fed has no sovereignty? It seems like it must be. The People have all the sovereignty and they never delegated any of it to any political entity, right? Come on. Let's stick to the topic.
You state that "I would like you, in your own words, to please tell me what your conception of sovereignty is. It's a simple request." Indeed it is. Absolute, supreme authority, including the right of self-determination. There you go.
You state that "Hunter v. Martin's Lessee says the Constitution is crowded with provisions that restrict or annul state sovereignty. The Constitution takes away essential parts of state sovereignty. If so, how can a state be sovereign?" Because the states retained other essential parts of their sovereignty, like the right to secede.
Your Martin quote says what it says. The plain language of it to me is a recognition of dual sovereignty. We disagree as to which of us is confused.
You state that "I'd like to see proof that the Framers feared a strong central government as you claimed." I never said that "that the Framers feared a strong central government." I said that "SOME drafters wanted strong state gov'ts and that others (like Madison) preferred a strong central gov't." (emphasis added) Now that you see what I actually said, do you disagree? Or do you really believe that ALL of the drafters preferred a "strong" central gov't, as opposed to one "stronger" that that of the Articles?
I think my constitutional law professor, and the authors of the text I used, would object to being called "spurious."
---------------------
Perhaps you should demand your money back, then.
No, I don't have a copy of the Articles handy. I just recall that they delegated no sovereignty to a central gov't. That's the point, but I guess there's nothing I can say to get you to stick to the issue.
----------------------
You ought to read the Articles of Confederation one of these days, because you're wrong, and your making assertions about it without having read it is not a good idea.
Did we not agree that the power to declare war and peace was a sovereign power?
Article IX of the Articles of Confederation says, "The United States in Congress assembled, shall have the sole and exclusive right and power of determining on peace and war, except in the cases mentioned in the sixth article -- of sending and receiving ambassadors -- entering into treaties and alliances, provided that no treaty of commerce shall be made whereby the legislative power of the respective States shall be restrained from imposing such imposts and duties on foreigners, as their own people are subjected to, or from prohibiting the exportation or importation of any species of goods or commodities whatsoever -- of establishing rules for deciding in all cases, what captures on land or water shall be legal, and in what manner prizes taken by land or naval forces in the service of the United States shall be divided or appropriated -- of granting letters of marque and reprisal in times of peace -- appointing courts for the trial of piracies and felonies commited on the high seas and establishing courts for receiving and determining finally appeals in all cases of captures, provided that no member of Congress shall be appointed a judge of any of the said courts."
What one person calls a facade is what constitutional doctrine calls the law.
---------
Perhaps I can prevail on you to prove that statement?
And, may I ask again, what is, in your own words, your definition of sovereign?
You state that "You have been arguing from the first that it was the states, not the people, who had sovereignty." That's true for the relevant time. By the time of the Articles and the Constitution, the real topics of discussion, the People had already delegated their sovereign powers to the states.
--------------------
Again, please provide the evidence that justifies your saying this.
Going backwards in time, before that occurred, is irrelevant to a discussion of the political entities to whom the people had delegated those powers and the balance of power between those entities. If you want to go backwards to the Magna Carta or John Locke, I think that's another thread for another board. Please review the topic of this thread and, if I may so humbly ask, let's stick to the issue.
-------------------
I'm sticking to the issue. You're the one falsely claiming I'm talking about before the AoC and the Constitution. You're the one who just brought up the Magna Carta. If you are unaware our Founding Fathers used John Locke's writings as their blueprint, then that's a failing of your teachers. Locke was, as I said, the philosophical grandfather of our Constitution. You can't truly understand our government's philosophical underpinnings without understanding what Locke said. If you don't understand Locke, you don't understand what the Framers were talking about.
You state that "the People are the only true sovereigns." Is it your position that the fed has no sovereignty? It seems like it must be. The People have all the sovereignty and they never delegated any of it to any political entity, right? Come on. Let's stick to the topic.
---------------------
I'd appreciate it if you would stop falsely claiming I'm going off topic. The fact that only the People are the true sovereigns is very much on topic. The People delegated powers to the Federal Government. But how sovereign really is the Federal Government? What the People delegate, the People can take away. So to the extent we can speak of the Federal Government being sovereign, we are only talking about whatever powers of sovereignty the People have delegated to it, and if the People, who are the true sovereigns, decide to rescind that delegation of powers, then they will do so. I maintain that because this is so, the sovereignty of the Federal Government is another false front, as the Federal Government is really nothing more than the agent of the People, doing their will and representing them to the rest of the world.
You state that "I would like you, in your own words, to please tell me what your conception of sovereignty is. It's a simple request." Indeed it is. Absolute, supreme authority, including the right of self-determination. There you go.
--------------------------
Thank you.
If a state is sovereign, then, it would have absolute, supreme authority over everything that happens within its borders, would it not?
You state that "Hunter v. Martin's Lessee says the Constitution is crowded with provisions that restrict or annul state sovereignty. The Constitution takes away essential parts of state sovereignty. If so, how can a state be sovereign?" Because the states retained other essential parts of their sovereignty, like the right to secede.
--------------------
They have no right to secede, since by Article VI, Clause 2 any attempt to declare that the US Constitution and US Laws no longer apply to them is a legal nullity.
But if they have had their sovereignty restricted or annulled by an outside instrument, the Constitution, how can they exercise "absolute, supreme authority?"
You state that "I'd like to see proof that the Framers feared a strong central government as you claimed." I never said that "that the Framers feared a strong central government." I said that "SOME drafters wanted strong state gov'ts and that others (like Madison) preferred a strong central gov't." (emphasis added) Now that you see what I actually said, do you disagree?
------------------------
If you don't know what you said, this is going to be even more tedious. See your Post #86, in which you said, "Many of the drafters (Madison not among them) did fear "strong" central gov'ts."
Or do you really believe that ALL of the drafters preferred a "strong" central gov't, as opposed to one "stronger" that that of the Articles?
--------------------------
I simply would like to see proof that "many" of the framers feared strong central governments.
I got my moneys worth. Keep an open mind and you may benefit from it.
Save me some time, if you will. Tell me where in the Articles is there a delegation of sovereignty to the central gov't. I'm sure that the Articles are on the net somewhere.
"Did we not agree that the power to declare war and peace was a sovereign power?" Yes, we did. First the people had the power, which they delegated to the states, which in turn was delegated to the fed.
"If a state is sovereign, then, it would have absolute, supreme authority over everything that happens within its borders, would it not?" Yes, unless and until the state delegate that authority to, say, a central gov't.
We're going in circles on the supremacy clause. I'm not going to repeat what I said I'd say one last time in an earlier post. Please read the clause carefully to determine its scope.
There are several reasons why I don't leap out to a library to do your research. But I'll stick to one. I'll not do the reseach on the number of drafters who felt one way or another, just to have you say that the number doesn't constitute "many" or "some." I'd prefer a more defined issue than we have yet.
Previously I inquired whether "you really believe that ALL of the drafters preferred a "strong" central gov't, as opposed to one "stronger" that that of the Articles?" It's a simple question. I'd appreciate a direct answer.
Save me some time, if you will. Tell me where in the Articles is there a delegation of sovereignty to the central gov't. I'm sure that the Articles are on the net somewhere.
---------------------
They are indeed. I already quoted Article IX for you.
"Did we not agree that the power to declare war and peace was a sovereign power?" Yes, we did. First the people had the power, which they delegated to the states, which in turn was delegated to the fed.
-----------------------
Please show me where the People delegated that power to the states.
"If a state is sovereign, then, it would have absolute, supreme authority over everything that happens within its borders, would it not?" Yes, unless and until the state delegate that authority to, say, a central gov't.
------------------------
Okay, then, let's pose a hypothetical. It's 1800.
The United States [ignoring territories] consists of the following states:
1. Delaware
2. Pennsylvania
3. New Jersey
4. Georgia
5. Connecticut
6. Massachusetts
7. Maryland
8. South Carolina
9. New Hampshire
10. Virginia
11. New York
12. North Carolina
13. Rhode Island
14. Vermont
15. Kentucky
16. Tennessee
Congress p***** a Constitutional Amendment outlawing slavery in the United States and sends it to the states for ratification.
Hypothetically, the following states vote to ratify:
Delaware
Pennsylvania
New Jersey
Connecticut
Massachusetts
Maryland
New Hampshire
Virginia
New York
North Carolina
Rhode Island
Vermont
Tennessee
The following states oppose ratification:
Georgia
South Carolina
Kentucky
Because more than 3/4 of the states voted to ratify the amendment, it is ratified and becomes part of the Constitution.
What happens to slavery in Georgia, South Carolina, and Kentucky?
We're going in circles on the supremacy clause. I'm not going to repeat what I said I'd say one last time in an earlier post. Please read the clause carefully to determine its scope.
-----------------------
I have, and its scope is exactly what I said it was.
There are several reasons why I don't leap out to a library to do your research. But I'll stick to one. I'll not do the reseach on the number of drafters who felt one way or another, just to have you say that the number doesn't constitute "many" or "some." I'd prefer a more defined issue than we have yet.
------------------------
As you have provided no support for your assertions, I will simply disregard them until such time as they can be supported, then.
Previously I inquired whether "you really believe that ALL of the drafters preferred a "strong" central gov't, as opposed to one "stronger" that that of the Articles?" It's a simple question. I'd appreciate a direct answer.
---------------------------
I'm not sure. I haven't read the statements of ALL of the Framers, so I can't really give an answer to that. I can make a conjecture that it is possible not all of them preferred a strong central government, but right now I'm agnostic on the issue because I have no evidence to back it up.
If you promise not to toss a banana peel onto the dance floor, I would be pleased to meet you half way, under the disco ball. You can swirl me around to the latest rendition of "Three Hundred Newspapers That Were Shut Down" (sung to the tune of When Johnny Comes Marching Home). I misquoted myself in my last posting, and I apologize for this - I had actually given you twenty-five newspapers that were shut down during the Lincoln administration, and also the reason (s) for this occurance.
I would be more than happy to spend the next few months (or however long it takes) in tracking down every single one of these newspapers for you - it will become my Personal Manifesto. But in the meantime, I cling to the ideal that it is unacceptable, and an act of tyranny, to destroy, censor, or edit what a person can read...for any reason.
If I should fail in my mission, I will be the first to humbly apologize, and should you make it to Shane's event in Iowa, I will seek out your stubborn Yankee soul and deliver you up a case of ice cold Canadian beer.
Shall I fetch us some punch...or is your dance card full?
"Please show me where the People delegated that power to the states." Through their duly elected representatives and delegates; some of whom show up in state gov'ts and some of whom, for example, show up at constitutional conventions.
Gee, I love story problemes:
What happens to slavery in Georgia, South Carolina, and Kentucky?
Because more than 3/4 of the states voted to ratify the amendment, it is ratified and becomes part of the Constitution. And your point would be? And what to slavery if Tennessee, Virginia and N.C. vote against? A majority of states vote to abolish and its still there.
"I have, and its scope is exactly what I said it was." Try that 'hooked on phonics' thing; it might help. :-) Seriously, we're just going in circles on this one. I stand by my prior comments on the issue.
"I will simply disregard the..." You've been disregarding facts you don't like all along. Nothing new here.
"I can make a conjecture that it is possible not all of them preferred a strong central government." I can live with that for now. You'd be right, BTW. In the meantime, I'll borrow from Dawna (Thanks Dawna) "I would be more than happy to spend the next few months (or however long it takes) in tracking down every single one of these [drafters] for you - it will become my Personal Manifesto. But in the meantime, I cling to the ideal" that your conjecture is correct.
In our next class, we'll work on - 'What is a direct answer?'
I would be honored to meet you on the dance floor, the debating floor and in any pub with cold beer you name.
I would also be honored in informing you that I have joined you in your search for the names of the 300 newspapers and have made it a personal quest of my own. I will keep you informed of my progress, in which ever manner it turns out to be true.
And Dawna, you have every right to your opinion what you consider an act of tyranny when it comes to the written word. But to use freedom of the press as a shield to falsely profit, or to cause the deaths of soldiers and citizens or to put your nation at a severe disadvantage, one should look at the motives of invoking 'freedom of the press' if it is used to take the natural right to life.
As much as we want our world to be perfect, there are times when silence is not only desired, but desperately needed to ensure survival or to protect life. I am sure no soldier in Iraq, persons in the Witness Protection Program or an undercover policeman would like to see their schedules, pictures or patrol routes listed in the front page of a newspaper or splashed on the inter net.
I have made mention of the fact that I was involved in Military Intelligence and had to deal with secret and top secret information daily in my work. Do you remember the story from a long time ago about a man hired to go into Laos and Vietnam to look for American POW's? He was backed by famous people, to include some very famous TV stars. His name was Bo Gritz and his attempt got out into the press. At the time this information got out, it was reported to me an actual attempt by the US Armed Forces was going to be attempted in the same region, but because NVA troops got wind of this 'private' attempt by Gritz & Co., American POWs were moved from the area the US was going to make their rescue attempt. The POWs were relocated to a much more secure area and no further intelligence could be provided to make a successful plan. The POWs were never located again.
Sorry, Dawna, but I firmly believe there are times when 'freedom of the press' should take a back seat when it comes to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. A headline isn't always the best of all worlds.
Sincerely,
Unionblue
__________________ "The American people and the Government at Washington may refuse to recognize it for a time but the inexorable logic of events will force it upon them in the end; that the war now being waged in this land is a war for and against slavery." Frederick Douglass
"Loyalty to our ancestors does not include loyalty to their mistakes." George Santayana
I looked up Art. IX of the Art. of Confed. and found this interesting little blurb:
"The United States in Congress assembled shall have authority to appoint a committee, to sit in the recess of Congress, to be denominated 'A Committee of the States', and to consist of one delegate from each State; and to appoint such other committees and civil officers as may be necessary for managing the general affairs of the United States under their direction -- to appoint one of their members to preside, provided that no person be allowed to serve in the office of president more than one year in any term of three years; to ascertain the necessary sums of money to be raised for the service of the United States,...
Thus, if I read correctly (and I admit it was a quick read), states would have to "ascertain the necessary sums of money to be raised for the service of the United States..." Thus from my quick read, any power to declare war in the Articles is tied to the states (or more properly a "Committee of the States") to fund the power. Do I read correctly? If so, I conclude that a power was delegated by the states to the central gov't in the Articles, but it was not a sovereign power; the central gov't lacked the necessary power to impose its will.
I don't know the Articles like I know the Constitution. So I'd appreciate your feedback here. Thanks
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
