- Jun 22, 2014
No, Mike, it's YOU who keep saying this over and over and OVER AND OVER again. And you have been asked over and over and OVER AND OVER again to back up this statement. And over and over AND OVER AND OVER again you have failed to. You are literally making a mockery of yourself on this forum, on one thread after another AFTER ANOTHER AFTER ANOTHER.
I can't believe you are still getting on a public forum and in all apparent seriousness disputing the fact that the Patriots believed the colonies should be able to peacefully separate from England and that they resented the British attempt to force the colonies to submit to British authority.
I've already provided a couple quotes wherein the Patriots expressed anger over being labeled "traitors" and "rebels." I've quoted Patriots talking about the colonies' natural right to separate, that the colonies were "of right" free and independent states, and that the colonies' argument that they were exempt from Parliament's rule was sanctioned by natural law and the principles of the British constitution (Hamilton said this in 1774, for example).
Naturally, if you have the right to be independent, you should not have to fight to be independent. To say otherwise is to engage in anti-democratic logic. Imagine if we were to apply that Tory logic to the Bill of Rights: "You have the right to worship as you please, provided that you are strong enough to defeat those who don't want you to worship." That's no "right" at all. That's Orwellian, anti-democratic sophistry.
Anyway, I will be glad to supply more Patriot quotes. I am gathering some from the many that could be cited to use in a thread I'm going to post soon on the parallels between the Patriot and Confederate positions and the British and Union positions.
Finally, a word about Texas v. White. This is an absolute joke of a decision to cite on secession. It's worse than the lame one that Taney supported during the war. Texas v. White was, of course, crafted by Salmon P. Chase, who had served in Lincoln's cabinet. So it's no surprise that he would declare that secession was unconstitutional.
Incredibly, as Cory Genelin notes in his American Thinker article on the decision, "Chase makes no statement as to the validity of secession undertaken by a majority vote of a state legislature and enacted by its executive." Genelin notes that Chase's historical arguments were often wrong, that he provided little citation of precedents (because he couldn't), that Chase even mischaracterized how Texas became a state, and that Chase's attempt to use the Articles of Confederation was "confusing." Genelin concludes,
In summary, Texas v. White, even if given the utmost respect, and considered binding precedent, does not stand for the proposition that no state may ever break its bonds with the Federal Government of the United States. At the same time, if it is considered the final word on the Federal Government's right to prohibit a state from seceding, then that right is far from established.Chase couldn't cite a single statement from the Constitution that the federal union was supposed to be perpetual because the Constitution contained no such statement.
Chase couldn't cite a single constitutional statement that a state could not revoke its ratification because no such statement could be found in the Constitution.
The Supremacy Clause is an erroneous argument to use against secession. The clause, needless to say, only applies to states that have ratified the Constitution. But if a state revokes its ratification, then obviously it is no longer bound by the Supremacy Clause. When Madison was asked by Hamilton on behalf of New York if ratification could be revoked, he did not invoke the Supremacy Clause. He merely said, on his own authority alone, that ratification was irrevocable. The New York ratification convention rejected Madison's unsupported opinion and even included a statement in their ratification ordination that indicated that ratification could be revoked. Madison did not protest. And it's worth asking: Why did Hamilton even have to ask Madison this question? One obvious answer is that he saw nothing in the Constitution that addressed it.