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.
I am of the opinion you answered this question earlier, but please refresh my memory.
It has been repeatedly brought up by Beowulf and others that somewhere in the debates over the ratification of the Constitution, that certain state conventions reserved the right to leave, i.e., secede, if things didn't work out on down the line.
New York, Virginia, and Rhode Island are given as such examples, I think. Now first off, were such resolutions introduced by these states that permitted them to leave the Union after joining it? Are there any records of these conventions that state such that are available today? If not, why are these often pointed to by those who claim such a right has been reserved by these proceedings?
In other words, since the formation of the United States and by the ratificationn of the Constitution, has there ever been the recognized concept that the idea of secession was ALWAYS a recognized right by the States forming the Union?
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
NOW you are getting to the nut of the thing, sir! The very heart of it!
All that blather by Jackson (who, as Davis would have said, "feeling power, has forgotten what is right!")... and Madison, (whom you know good and well was converted by Mr. Jefferson, as time went on...)... was blather.
Jefferson had the right idea. Give them their error of opinion, and as he allowed it of the 15 yankee nations, as a Southern Conservative president, so should Lincoln have also done so, to avoid massive amounts of deaths.
The UNIONIST LOYALIST COTTON WHIG LIBERALS wanted to save SLAVERY through UNION...
So, how do you blame the Conservative Confederate Southern enemies of these "unionists" with trying to save slavery through secession?
Was it like Lincoln and the Constitution? We must destroy it to save it?
(You guys have a lot of strange beliefs, like that!)
Beowulf
As usual, you have no clue about anything that actually happened. Nothing of what you posted has any accuracy whatsoever.
I am of the opinion you answered this question earlier, but please refresh my memory.
It has been repeatedly brought up by Beowulf and others that somewhere in the debates over the ratification of the Constitution, that certain state conventions reserved the right to leave, i.e., secede, if things didn't work out on down the line.
New York, Virginia, and Rhode Island are given as such examples, I think. Now first off, were such resolutions introduced by these states that permitted them to leave the Union after joining it? Are there any records of these conventions that state such that are available today? If not, why are these often pointed to by those who claim such a right has been reserved by these proceedings?
In other words, since the formation of the United States and by the ratificationn of the Constitution, has there ever been the recognized concept that the idea of secession was ALWAYS a recognized right by the States forming the Union?
Sincerely,
Unionblue
Neil,
Outside of kooks, liars, and people who don't know their history, there has never been a recognized concept that the idea of secession was always a recognized right by the states forming the union.
The ratifications of Virginia, New York, and Rhode Island have been deliberately misrepresented to claim that they reserved such a right.
In the rough-and-tumble New York Ratification Convention, the idea was made that New York could ratify the Constitution conditionally, reserving a right to withdraw in the event certain amendments were not made to the Constitution. Alexander Hamilton communicated this to James Madison. Madison wrote back:
[begin quote]
My Dear Sir
Yours of yesterday is this instant come to hand & I have but a few minutes to answer it. I am sorry that your situation obliges you to listen to propositions of the nature you describe. 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 N. York a member of the New Union, and consequently that she could not be received on that plan. Compacts must be reciprocal, this principle would not in such a case be preserved. The Constitution requires an adoption in toto, and for ever. 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 viciate the ratification. What the New Congress by virtue of the power to admit new States, may be able & disposed to do in such case, I do not enquire as I suppose that is not the material point at present. I have not a moment to add more than my fervent wishes for your success & happiness.
This idea of reserving a right to withdraw was started at Richmd. & considered as a conditional ratification which was itself considered as worse than a rejection.
July 20, 1788
[end quote]
A ratification that was "in toto and for ever" is not one where one reserves a right to withdraw. James Madison, the "Father of the Constitution," who was present and active in the Virginia ratification convention, tells us that any reservation of a right to withdraw was not a ratification. Therefore, how could Virginia's ratification have included a right to withdraw? Madison, during the Nullification Crisis, very clearly stated there was no right to unilaterally secede.
When Hamilton read Madison's letter to his fellow delegates the conditional ratification idea was dropped like a hot potato. New York's ratification was unconditional, "in toto and for ever."
So, whenever I here the oft repeated fantasy that "The Southern States would have NEVER joined the Union if they thought there was no option for secession" or the oft repeated phrase "Hotel California" how should I respond to such?
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
So, whenever I here the oft repeated fantasy that "The Southern States would have NEVER joined the Union if they thought there was no option for secession"
A claim made by the often-wrong Shelby Foote. He's wrong again. They in fact DID join the Union knowing full well there was no option for unilateral secession. Just reading the debates in the ratification conventions of states like Virginia and North Carolina shows they knew.
Quote:
Originally Posted by unionblue
or the oft repeated phrase "Hotel California" how should I respond to such?
Sincerely,
Unionblue
A lame attempt to trivialize the concept which only shows lack of understanding on the part of the person doing the lame attempt to trivialize.
There is still an option for secession with the concurrence of the people of the other states. Such an option has been recognized by the US Supreme Court. So "Hotel California" is not only lame, but it's also inaccurate.
Could you recomend a source, on-line or a book perhaps, that would list the debates on ratification so one could read for themselves what was actually debated at these conventions?
I myself would like to have one for reference.
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
Could you recomend a source, on-line or a book perhaps, that would list the debates on ratification so one could read for themselves what was actually debated at these conventions?
There's also a 2-volume set from the New American Library that's called _The Debate On the Constitution_ which not only gives excerpts from the ratification debates but also provides editorials and letters written by both sides of the ratification debate.
Could you recomend a source, on-line or a book perhaps, that would list the debates on ratification so one could read for themselves what was actually debated at these conventions?
Gen. CHARLES COTESWORTH PINCKNEY
Friday, Jan. 18, 1788
"In that Declaration the several states are not even enumerated; but after reciting, in nervous language, and with convincing arguments, our right to independence, and the tyranny which compelled us to assert it, the declaration is made in the following words: "We, therefore, the representatives of the United States of America in General Congress assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the name and by the authority of the good people of these colonies, solemnly publish and declare, that these United Colonies are, and of fight ought to be, FREE AND INDEPENDENT STATES." The separate independence and individual sovereignty of the several states were never thought of by the enlightened band of patriots who framed this Declaration; the several states are not even mentioned by name in any part of it, as if it was intended to impress this maxim on America, that our freedom and independence arose from our union, and that without it we could neither be free nor independent. Let us, then, consider all attempts to weaken this Union, by maintaining that each state is separately and individually independent, as a species of political heresy, which can never benefit us, but may bring on us the most serious distresses."
Cash, thanks for your sources and I have already placed an order for the book with Amazon. Your help is appreciated.
Thank you both for helping me to learn even more about how our nation came about.
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
Thought I would bump this thread to the top, as Vareb made a reference to the concept of secession BEFORE the Civil War.
Enjoy,
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
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
