slavery is at the bottom of everything they were worried about

[JohnTaylor]

Originally Posted by unionblue

Wild Rose,

Every State that joined the Union DID know it was joining and that secession would not be allowed without the consent of all.

The theory that they didn't know is more of a modern-day complaint than it was at the time of the debate on the Constitution.

Sincerely,
Unionblue

Neil, I just can't let this go unchallenged. What in the record from the time leads you to believe this? I suspect this comes from a modern-day historian, but would like to hear from you where you got this idea.
I have read the original source materials (the only ones that really count: the records of the debates at the Philadelphia Convention, and the records of the proceedings of the several State Conventions), and your statement just doesn't accord with that record. Perhaps I am missing something.
Respectfully,
John Taylor

[unionblue]

John Taylor,

This line of argument has been posted before by myself, Cash, Cedarstripper, Hal, and others about the idea that the States would not have knowingly joined a 'Hotel California' type of nation if they thought they were surrendering their 'sovereignty.'

But they did know and they did argue about joining because of the fact they would not be able to 'just leave' on their own hook.

Instead of digging up all my reference material and copying many pages from them, let me first see if I can find the threads on where these debates took place and the source material is already available for you to see.

Until that time,
Unionblue

[Wild_Rose]

Originally Posted by unionblue

John Taylor,

This line of argument has been posted before by myself, Cash, Cedarstripper, Hal, and others about the idea that the States would not have knowingly joined a 'Hotel California' type of nation if they thought they were surrendering their 'sovereignty.'

But they did know and they did argue about joining because of the fact they would not be able to 'just leave' on their own hook.

Unionblue

Neil, I remember this being argued but never resolved to everyone’s satisfaction. A colony would have to be out of their collective minds to be willing to die for independence and then turn right around and make that independence vulnerable to a new and untried form of government without any type of recourse if it failed to work for their best interests. It simply doesn’t make sense.


CONSTITUTION OF NEW YORK -- 1777
IN CONVENTION OF THE REPRESENTATIVES OF THIS STATE OF NEW YORK, Kingston, 20th April, 1777.

And whereas the Delegates of the United American States, in general (Congress convened, did, on the fourth day of July now last past, solemnly publish and declare, in the words following; viz:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to edect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes, and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. 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. Such has been the patient sufferance of these colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former system of government.
I. This convention, therefore, in the name and by the authority of the good people of this State, doth ordain, determine, and declare that no authority shall, on any presence whatever, be exercised over the people or members of this State but such as shall be derived from and granted by them.

(New York incorporated the entire Declaration of Independence into their Constitution)
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/states/ny01.htm

Ratification of the Constitution by the State of New York; July 26, 1788
That the Powers of Government may be reassumed by the People, whensoever it shall become necessary to their Happiness; that every Power, Jurisdiction and right, which is not by the said Constitution clearly delegated to the Congress of the United States, or the departments of the Government thereof, remains to the People of the several States, or to their respective State Governments to whom they may have granted the same; And that those Clauses in the said Constitution, which declare, that Congress shall not have or exercise certain Powers, do not imply that Congress is entitled to any Powers not given by the said Constitution; but such Clauses are to be construed either as exceptions to certain specified Powers, or as inserted merely for greater Caution.
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/const/ratny.htm


Virginia Declaration of Rights, June 12, 1776:
III That government is, or ought to be, instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security of the people, nation or community; of all the various modes and forms of government that is best, which is capable of producing the greatest degree of happiness and safety and is most effectually secured against the danger of maladministration; and that, whenever any government shall be found inadequate or contrary to these purposes, a majority of the community hath an indubitable, unalienable, and indefeasible right to reform, alter or abolish it, in such manner as shall be judged most conducive to the public weal.
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/virginia.htm


Ratification of the Constitution by the State of Virginia; June 26, 1788
…the People of Virginia declare and make known that the powers granted under the Constitution being derived from the People of the United States may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression and that every power not granted thereby remains with them and at their will: that therefore no right of any denomination can be cancelled abridged restrained or modified by the Congress by the Senate or House of Representatives acting in any Capacity by the President or any Department or Officer of the United States except in those instances in which power is given by the Constitution for those purposes: & that among other essential rights the liberty of Conscience and of the Press cannot be cancelled abridged restrained or modified by any authority of the United States.
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/const/ratva.htm

Ratification of the Constitution by the State of Rhode Island; May 29, 1790

3d That the powers of government may be reassumed by the people, whensoever it shall become necessary to their happiness:- That the rights of the States respectively, to nominate and appoint all State Officers, and every other power, jurisdiction and right, which is not by the said constitution clearly delegated to the Congress of the United States or to the departments of government thereof, remain to the people of the several states, or their respective State Governments to whom they may have granted the same; and that those clauses in the said constitution which declare that Congress shall not have or exercise certain powers, do not imply, that Congress is entitled to any powers not given by the said constitution, but such clauses are to be construed as exceptions to certain specified powers, or as inserted merely for greater caution.
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/const/ratri.htm

At least three states plainly declared their right to resume self-government at which time they chose to do so. On the premise that all states are equal, all states are entitled to the same rights. The United States accepted these terms and they were binding. To say it was not binding is to say that these states were deceived into joining the Union.

Regards,
Rose

[william42]

Nice to see you back Rosie!

Terry

[samgrant]

Originally Posted by unionblue

John Taylor,

This line of argument has been posted before by myself, Cash, Cedarstripper, Hal, and others about the idea that the States would not have knowingly joined a 'Hotel California' type of nation if they thought they were surrendering their 'sovereignty.'

But they did know and they did argue about joining because of the fact they would not be able to 'just leave' on their own hook.

Instead of digging up all my reference material and copying many pages from them, let me first see if I can find the threads on where these debates took place and the source material is already available for you to see.

Until that time,
Unionblue

Instead of the 'Hotel California' analogy, I prefer the term 'Roach Motel', but whatever, before the ink was dry on the Confederate Constitution, individual states were protesting to Richmond about the incroachment on States rights by the that central government. This continued till the bitter end. (What a great country!)

[JohnTaylor]

Originally Posted by samgrant

Instead of the 'Hotel California' analogy, I prefer the term 'Roach Motel', but whatever, before the ink was dry on the Confederate Constitution, individual states were protesting to Richmond about the incroachment on States rights by the that central government. This continued till the bitter end. (What a great country!)

Perhaps you believe that any demand from a central government in a federation must be accepted and complied with, and never be opposed in any manner?

[trice]

Originally Posted by Wild_Rose

I remember this being argued but never resolved to everyone’s satisfaction. A colony would have to be out of their collective minds to be willing to die for independence and then turn right around and make that independence vulnerable to a new and untried form of government without any type of recourse if it failed to work for their best interests. It simply doesn’t make sense.

It made sense to them. They had discovered that independence was wonderful, but that the water was filled with sharks. Britain was certainly not going to safe-guard their interests, and the French/Spanish had only assisted them as a means of taking a piece out of the British. Operating independently, the 13 colonies-turned-states were very weak, and the experiment of starting the Union had proven a stronger government was needed for it. Squabbling between states and the difficulty of raising funds, making decisions,a dn actually getting things doen was what they were trying to eliminate.

Originally Posted by Wild_Rose

At least three states plainly declared their right to resume self-government at which time they chose to do so. On the premise that all states are equal, all states are entitled to the same rights. The United States accepted these terms and they were binding. To say it was not binding is to say that these states were deceived into joining the Union.

Clearly they declared it. It is also clear that they had been told no conditional approvals would be accepted, that they had to vote on accepting the document as it was written only.

The Constitution was accepted and went into force before any of these states ratified it. If the acceptance of the later states is different than theirs, then either the 3 you mention have a different agreement, or they are not in the Union at all. They must all be voting for the same agreement or the entire process is corrupt and meaningless.

I have no problem with any state leaving the Union in a peaceful manner, negotiated with her partners. I find the concept that any one party has full control of everything they can lay hands on to be legally unworkable and practically insane. No state would ever have agreed to let another have a "right of secession" such as the Confederate states attempted to practice.

Regards,
Tim

[trice]

Originally Posted by russ_aukerman

Tim -

"Yet when the US finally does something about all this, it is a 'major' act and unjustified?"

FWIW, I'll offer my dividing line. None of the south's acts had the purpose or intent of supplanting the existing gov'ts in the north. In other words, the south was satisfied to leave the northern states and the US to their existing gov'ts. Can you say the same for the north? Of course not.

Absolutely. Lincoln's point was that he was required to guarantee their governments within the Union. The seceding states were the ones trying to make a change outside the legal process established. They were the ones using violent and aggressive means first in all cases.

Regards,
Tim

[william42]

Perhaps you believe that any demand from a central government in a federation must be accepted and complied with, and never be opposed in any manner?

John, I believe any state can protest through the court system all the way up to the US Supreme Court. The process may take a while but it beats wheeling a cannon around and firing on a Federal building.

Terry

[Wild_Rose]

Originally Posted by william42

Nice to see you back Rosie!

Terry

Thanks, Terry. It's nice to hear a friendly voice.

Rose