I think that most scholars will say that under the Articles, each state was sovereign except for those specific rights that it perpetually assigned to the Union.The word secession is thrown around TOOOO much. DoI was REVOLUTION. It was armed conflict. Colonists were enacting their natural right to revolution as they had no means to change anything in the British govt.
It would seem rather silly for people too keep saying it would be rather silly while ignoring the actual words of the actual govt documents these men signed. The DoI is NOT a govt document btw. It is our intent to revolt against British rule and why.
Articles of Confederation WAS a govt document. The 2nd govt was the ratification of the Constitution which replaced it. The latter is the CURRENT govt document.
Let us look at the AoR.
View the original text of history's most important documents, including the Articles of Confederationwww.ushistory.org
To all to whom these Presents shall come, we the undersigned Delegates of the States affixed to our Names, send greeting.
Whereas the Delegates of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, did, on the 15th day of November, in the Year of Our Lord One thousand Seven Hundred and Seventy seven, and in the Second Year of the Independence of America, agree to certain articles of Confederation and perpetual Union between the States of New-hampshire, Massachusetts-bay, Rhodeisland and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North-Carolina, South-Carolina, and Georgia in the words following, viz. "Articles of Confederation and perpetual Union between the states of New-hampshire, Massachusetts-bay, Rhodeisland and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New-York, New-Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North-Carolina, South-Carolina and Georgia".
Silly silly men must not know what the word perpetual means as they signed this document. As I have said twice before they argued over the legality of leaving the AoR for the Constitution over that ONE word. Instead they punted the legality of it over necessity to create a more PERFECT union.
Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every Power, Jurisdiction and right, which is not by this confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled.
Well which is it? Are the states sovereign or subordinate to the Confederation? It reads more like they were sovereign only WITHIN their own states and to NOT what was delegated to the national authority.
The better to secure and perpetuate mutual friendship and intercourse among the people of the different states in this union, the free inhabitants of each of these states, paupers, vagabonds and fugitives from justice excepted, shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of free citizens in the several states; and the people of each state shall have free ingress and regress to and from any other state, and shall enjoy therein all the privileges of trade and commerce, subject to the same duties impositions and restrictions as the inhabitants thereof respectively, provided that such restriction shall not extend so far as to prevent the removal of property imported into any state, to any other state, of which the Owner is an inhabitant; provided also that no imposition, duties or restriction shall be laid by any state, on the property of the united states, or either of them. If any Person guilty of, or charged with treason, felony, — or other high misdemeanor in any state, shall flee from Justice, and be found in any of the united states, he shall, upon demand of the Governor or executive power, of the state from which he fled, be delivered up and removed to the state having jurisdiction of his offence. Full faith and credit shall be given in each of these states to the records, acts and judicial proceedings of the courts and magistrates of every other state.
Perpetuate? Hmm. How does that retain this: sovereignty, freedom, and independence? That almost sounds like a nation-state.
No state, without the Consent of the united states in congress assembled, shall send any embassy to, or receive any embassy from, or enter into any conference agreement, alliance or treaty with any King prince or state; nor shall any person holding any office of profit or trust under the united states, or any of them, accept of any present, emolument, office or title of any kind whatever from any king, prince or foreign state; nor shall the united states in congress assembled, or any of them, grant any title of nobility.
No two or more states shall enter into any treaty, confederation or alliance whatever between them, without the consent of the united states in congress assembled, specifying accurately the purposes for which the same is to be entered into, and how long it shall continue.
No state shall lay any imposts or duties, which may interfere with any stipulations in treaties, entered into by the united states in congress assembled, with any king, prince or state, in pursuance of any treaties already proposed by congress, to the courts of France and Spain.
No vessels of war shall be kept up in time of peace by any state, except such number only, as shall be deemed necessary by the united states in congress assembled, for the defence of such state, or its trade; nor shall any body of forces be kept up by any state, in time of peace, except such number only, as in the judgment of the united states, in congress assembled, shall be deemed requisite to garrison the forts necessary for the defence of such state; but every state shall always keep up a well regulated and disciplined militia, sufficiently armed and accoutered, and shall provide and constantly have ready for use, in public stores, a due number of field pieces and tents, and a proper quantity of arms, ammunition and camp equipage. No state shall engage in any war without the consent of the united states in congress assembled, unless such state be actually invaded by enemies, or shall have received certain advice of a resolution being formed by some nation of Indians to invade such state, and the danger is so imminent as not to admit of a delay till the united states in congress assembled can be consulted: nor shall any state grant commissions to any ships or vessels of war, nor letters of marque or reprisal, except it be after a declaration of war by the united states in congress assembled, and then only against the kingdom or state and the subjects thereof, against which war has been so declared, and under such regulations as shall be established by the united states in congress assembled, unless such state be infested by pirates, in which case vessels of war may be fitted out for that occasion, and kept so long as the danger shall continue, or until the united states in congress assembled, shall determine otherwise.
How does that retain this: sovereignty, freedom, and independence?
A lot more only the US Congress can do.
Every state shall abide by the determinations of the united states in congress assembled, on all questions which by this confederation are submitted to them. And the Articles of this confederation shall be inviolably observed by every state, and the union shall be perpetual; nor shall any alteration at any time hereafter be made in any of them; unless such alteration be agreed to in a congress of the united states, and be afterwards confirmed by the legislatures of every state.
Here are the men who signed the above document. Did these men not read this? Any of it? Did these men not understand words? I am not allowed to bring up about courts but hey.
On the part of & behalf of the State of New Hampshire:
- Josiah Bartlett
- John Wentworth. Junr; August 8th, 1778
On the part and behalf of the State of Rhode-Island and Providence Plantations:
- William Ellery
- Henry Marchant
- John Collins
On the part and behalf of the State of New York:
- Jas Duane
- Fra: Lewis
- Wm Duer
- Gouvr Morris
On the part and behalf of the State of Pennsylvania:
- Robert Morris
- Daniel Roberdeau
- Jon. Bayard Smith
- William Clingan
- Joseph Reed; 22d July, 1778
On the part and behalf of the State of Maryland:
- John Hanson; March 1, 1781
- Daniel Carroll, do.
On the part and behalf of the State of North Carolina:
- John Penn; July 21st, 1778
- Corns Harnett
- Jno Williams
On the part and behalf of the State of Georgia:
- Jno Walton; 24th July, 1778
- Edwd Telfair
- Edwd Langworthy
On the part of & behalf of the State of Massachusetts Bay:
- John Hancock
- Samuel Adams
- Elbridge Gerry
- Francis Dana
- James Lovell
- Samuel Holten
On the part and behalf of the State of Connecticut:
- Roger Sherman
- Samuel Huntington
- Oliver Wolcott
- Titus Hosmer
- Andrew Adams
On the Part and in Behalf of the State of New Jersey, November 26th, 1778:
- Jno Witherspoon
- Nathl Scudder
On the part and behalf of the State of Delaware:
- Thos McKean; Febr 22d, 1779
- John Dickinson; May 5th, 1779
- Nicholas Van Dyke
On the part and behalf of the State of Virginia:
- Richard Henry Lee
- John Banister
- Thomas Adams
- Jno Harvie
- Francis Lightfoot Lee
On the part and behalf of the State of South Carolina:
- Henry Laurens
- William Henry Drayton
- Jno Mathews
- Richd Hutson
- Thos Heyward, junr.
Are all these men silly? I do not see Hamilton, Madison, Jefferson etc names?
"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 effect their Safety and Happiness." if that consent is violated."
Isn't that what they did by going from the AoR to the Constitution? They abolished the former to go to the latter and they did so peacefully. There is NO language in the AoR OR the US Constitution that states any State can just leave because it is not getting its way. I am seeing constantly people stating outside words as relevant to the lack of words within the actual govt documents which is just ignoring there is no word secession but perpetual is in there not once but twice. And the Constitution was creating a more PERFECT union.
Perfect to what? What was meant by that? They were fixing what they saw wrong with the AoR.
The US Constitution has an amendment process as well which follows this: Right of the People to alter. There is even a means to call up a constitutional convention which follows this: Right of the People ... to abolish it, and to institute new Government.
There is nothing in there that states if one does not like how something was voted that they could unilaterally secede. The Natural Right to Revolution is what the DoI is addressing and any state has that to this day. No State to date have ever tried to leave by going to Congress and asking them to vote on it. The South did its Natural Right to Revolution as it thought itself the 2nd American Revolution.
"if that consent is violated" Violated how? Those Southern states had no issue with the passing of the Federal Fugitive Slave Act which did it not violate the sovereignty of those Northern States? Only when Northern States denied compliance did Southern Sates whine of their consent being violated as the Federal govt was not putting a boot heel down on the North. So they demanded the Federal govt do thy bidding because they were in the majority vote? Yet when not in the majority vote they are going to whine their consent is being violated. Sounds like someone wants their cake and eat it too.