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.
"With respect to secession, New York and Virginia make it clear that the PEOPLE, of the United States, may REASSUME the powers that they are delegating to the United States."
How are the people to reassume those powers from the United States?
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
And what specific powers might they reassume? Is the power of secession included in that?
ole
__________________ I never knew a man who wished to be himself a slave. Consider if you know any good thing that no man desires for himself. A. Lincoln
I have heard it argued before that before or shortly after the Constitutional conventions that the State of New York and others reserved the right of secession.
What's the story on that?
Sincerely,
Unionblue
Unionblue,
This is really quick -- I've got to run -- so forgive the slapdash nature.
The NY Convention considered ratifying conditionally -- if amendments were not passed within a given period, NY would reserve the right to revoke its ratification.
Hamilton reported this to Madison. Madison responded to Hamilton with the letter quoted in my post no. 16, stating that conditional ratification was no ratification. The Constitution must be ratified "in toto and for ever" or not at all.
In a passage you yourself quoted in another thread (can't find it now), Amar in America's Constitution states that Hamilton read Madison's letter to the NY Convention and argued vigorously that it could not conditionally ratify. The Convention ultimately defeated the motion to ratify conditionally and instead ratified while setting forth proposed amendments that it hoped would be adopted.
How are the people to reassume those powers from the United States?
I honestly hadn't considered it. In a legal sense I suppose they would jointly and severally revoke the sovereignity granted to the government. Ideally it would have to happen through some sort of referendum (I'm really just speculating here now), but it would have to be more than just a simple vote of no confidence, I'm thining that at the very least you need a super-majority. REALISTICALLY it would probably involve muskets and overthrowing a dictator....
As noted by others, the Constitution is supreme, all state laws (and constitutions) must bow to this supremacy. If a state law conflicts with the Constitution, the state law, even those parts oif it's constitution that conflicts with the US Constitution, is null and void.
If New York or any later state thought clever use words in accepting statehood saved it from accepting the supremacy of the Constitution, they soon learned (and accepted) differently.
In a passage you yourself quoted in another thread (can't find it now), Amar in America's Constitution states that Hamilton read Madison's letter to the NY Convention and argued vigorously that it could not conditionally ratify. The Convention ultimately defeated the motion to ratify conditionally and instead ratified while setting forth proposed amendments that it hoped would be adopted. [emphasis supplied]
Virginia's ratification clearly reads in this manner, ie. VA ratifies and would LIKE certain amendments.
New York's language is a little bt different. Yes, there IS the laundry list at the end of it, but the body of the text does appear to be conditional. New York is specifically ratifying and seems to be reserving powers UNTIL an event occurs and while the language is a little convoluted (particularly with respect to the elections), it still seems conditional.
But nevertheless, I concur, conditional ratification is NO ratification (its essentially a counteroffer!). Even if New York technically doesn't ratify, their time to object was in the 1780s....they essentially put forth the ratification and either the conditions were met or they acquiesced to conditions that weren't met.
I have heard it argued before that before or shortly after the Constitutional conventions that the State of New York and others reserved the right of secession.
What's the story on that?
Sincerely,
Unionblue
Neil,
As you and I both know, that is based on a mischaracterization of New York's ratification document. They quite clearly said that the People OF THE UNITED STATES were free to resume their delegated powers, not the people of a single state.
As you and I both know, that is based on a mischaracterization of New York's ratification document. They quite clearly said that the People OF THE UNITED STATES were free to resume their delegated powers, not the people of a single state.
Regards,
Cash
New York ratification of the Constitution-
"...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
__________________ POWER & MONEY
"Your New-York bankers and merchants are shrewd people, but I never gave them credit for so much sagacity as when they took the Government Loan. It was not merely patriotism, it was a high stroke of policy. It has saved the Government, and what they will regard as equally important, saved them from a great financial disaster."
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
