The Second, Ninth & Tenth Amendments

[unionblue]

Cedarstripper,

Thanks for the post and the link. Very interesting to say the least.

Unionblue

[elektratig]

Cedarstripper,

Great find! Thanks.

[JohnTaylor]

Whenever I run across this issue, I always have to ask a few questions.
1. What was the status of North Carolina and Rhode Island on March 4th, 1789? Were they in the Union or out of it?

[elektratig]

Originally Posted by JohnTaylor

Whenever I run across this issue, I always have to ask a few questions.
1. What was the status of North Carolina and Rhode Island on March 4th, 1789? Were they in the Union or out of it?

OK, I'll bite. Article VII of the Constitution provides that "[t]he Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same." As of March 4, 1789, the Constitution had been ratified by the people of more than nine States and was therefore established among the ratifying states. The people of NC and RI, not having ratified the Constitution, did not then form part of the Union created by it.

And the point is?

[JohnTaylor]

Originally Posted by elektratig

OK, I'll bite. Article VII of the Constitution provides that "[t]he Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same." As of March 4, 1789, the Constitution had been ratified by the people of more than nine States and was therefore established among the ratifying states. The people of NC and RI, not having ratified the Constitution, did not then form part of the Union created by it.

You are correct. And the statements by the authorities (State as well as Federal) at the time agree with you.

Originally Posted by elektratig

And the point is?

This is a necessary preliminary, intended to deal with the assertion that, since the Articles of Confederation predate the Constitution, and the AoC declares the Union to be perpetual, that, therefore, the Union under the Constitution inherited the characteristic of perpetuity.

Anyone disagree with elektratig on this point?

[elektratig]

Mr. T,

In my prior post, I failed to welcome you to the forums. Let me belatedly correct my mistake by saying I'm delighted you've joined. I hope you don't mind my confessing that when I first saw your name I did a double take because I thought it had to be either John Tyler or Zachary Taylor, not a combination of the two!

At all events, I figured that you were gearing up to attack Lincoln's assertion that the Union predated the states. I don't agree with that assertion because it isn't true. Nor do I believe that secession was unconstitutional merely because the Constitution speaks of "a more perfect Union." I don't think you can wring perpetuity out of that phrase alone.

My views on why secession was unconstitutional are, at this point, based largely on the analysis made by Akhil Amar in his book "America's Constitution: A Biography." Unionblue has quoted some of the relevant points in his post no. 259 above. Another is discussed in my post about eight posts above.

Others, of course, can speak for themselves; I can tell you only what my thinking is.

[JohnTaylor]

Originally Posted by elektratig

Mr. T,!

Good one. It hadn't occured to me. I don't own any gold chains, however.

Originally Posted by elektratig

In my prior post, I failed to welcome you to the forums. Let me belatedly correct my mistake by saying I'm delighted you've joined. I hope you don't mind my confessing that when I first saw your name I did a double take because I thought it had to be either John Tyler or Zachary Taylor, not a combination of the two!

Thanks for the welcome. Everyone has been very hospitable.
I'm a big fan of Aerosmith, well, old Aerosmith, anyway.
I'll read the Amar bits and make a few comments in a while.

[whitworth]

I wonder if most of the legal amateurs realize that "their" opinion carries little water.
The opinion that counts is the one decided by the U.S. Supreme Court. In a number of instances, that court decided secession was void.

I wonder when many of these legal amateurs will find out they were grifted by the slave oligarchy and the Confederate founding fathers. They were.

The Confederates not only had their army crushed; they had their economy crushed and lost the final battle in the U.S. Supreme Court.

The South paid a hard price for secession.

[Wild_Rose]

Originally Posted by whitworth

I wonder if most of the legal amateurs realize that "their" opinion carries little water.
The opinion that counts is the one decided by the U.S. Supreme Court. In a number of instances, that court decided secession was void.

I believe everyone's opinion "holds water", including yours. We not only have a right to question the U.S. Supreme Court, but I would say it's our duty.

Originally Posted by whitworth

I wonder when many of these legal amateurs will find out they were grifted by the slave oligarchy and the Confederate founding fathers. They were.

I often hear how the Southern people were duped into fighting for the Confederacy. It may be easy for you and others of that opinion to believe, but put to the test it doesn't, as you say, hold water. Southern people were not nearly so ignorant and illiterate as some would make them out to be. They read and kept abreast of current events, particularly during the election year. They were well aware of what they fought for and they claimed it wasn't slavery. Slavery may have been the cause of some certain politicians and large plantation owners, in particular, but they didn't account for the main body of the CSA army, most of whom had little to no interest in slavery.

Originally Posted by whitworth

The Confederates not only had their army crushed; they had their economy crushed and lost the final battle in the U.S. Supreme Court.

Well, what would you expect? Out numbered, out supplied, it shouldn't have even been a four year contest. And what was the "Union" Supreme Court supposed to rule? For the Constitution and the Confederates? Hardly. How could they without admitting wrong doing on the part of the Union? Supreme Court justices are humans with the potential to be influenced, with political agendas and aspirations of a personal nature. Simply because a Supreme Court "says so" doesn't mean it was the right decision. It only means it's the final word and we have to live with it.

Originally Posted by whitworth

The South paid a hard price for secession.

Yes, they did. It's very fortunate for all of us that the American Revolutionists were more sucessful in gaining freedom than the South was. Otherwise we would all have paid a hard price.

Regarding the Confederates, I believe most of them surrendered because their army was conquered, but none of them believed that might makes right and few of them would have disagreed with General Lee:

"We could have pursued no other course without dishonor. And sad as the results have been, if it had all to be done over again, we should be compelled to act in precisely the same manner." --General Robert E. Lee, C.S.A

Regards,
Rose