Was change of government from the AOC to the Constitution a “Secession”

Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!
Joined
Oct 18, 2019
Messages
73
No one ever mentioned the "right of secession" before that time either.
Different terms may have been used, but secession was directly discussed during the Hartford Convention of 1814-15 and during the debate over the Alien and Sedition Acts in 1798-1799, as well as when 11 states seceded from the union to establish a new union (without North Carolina and Rhode Island) in 1788, as well as in the debates over ratification of the Constitution.

Here, for example, is an objection to the Constitution from the address of the Pennsylvania anti-federalists from December 12, 1787:

"...the absolute command of Congress over the militia may be destructive of public liberty; for under the guidance of an arbitrary government, they may be made the unwilling instruments of tyranny. The militia of Pennsylvania may be marched to New England or Virginia to quell an insurrection occasioned by the most galling oppression, and aided by the standing army, they will no doubt be successful in subduing their liberty and independency. But in so doing, although the magnanimity of their minds will be extinguished, yet the meaner passions of resentment and revenge will be increased, and these in turn will be the ready and obedient instruments of despotism to enslave the others; and that with an irritated vengeance. Thus may the militia be made the instruments of crushing the last efforts of expiring liberty, of riveting the chains of despotism on their fellow-citizens, and on one another. This power can be exercised not only without violating the Constitution, but in strict conformity with it; it is calculated for this express purpose, and will doubtless be executed accordingly.”
 

unionblue

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Member of the Year
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Messages
30,061
Location
Ocala, FL (as of December, 2015).
Different terms may have been used, but secession was directly discussed during the Hartford Convention of 1814-15 and during the debate over the Alien and Sedition Acts in 1798-1799, as well as when 11 states seceded from the union to establish a new union (without North Carolina and Rhode Island) in 1788, as well as in the debates over ratification of the Constitution.

Here, for example, is an objection to the Constitution from the address of the Pennsylvania anti-federalists from December 12, 1787:

"...the absolute command of Congress over the militia may be destructive of public liberty; for under the guidance of an arbitrary government, they may be made the unwilling instruments of tyranny. The militia of Pennsylvania may be marched to New England or Virginia to quell an insurrection occasioned by the most galling oppression, and aided by the standing army, they will no doubt be successful in subduing their liberty and independency. But in so doing, although the magnanimity of their minds will be extinguished, yet the meaner passions of resentment and revenge will be increased, and these in turn will be the ready and obedient instruments of despotism to enslave the others; and that with an irritated vengeance. Thus may the militia be made the instruments of crushing the last efforts of expiring liberty, of riveting the chains of despotism on their fellow-citizens, and on one another. This power can be exercised not only without violating the Constitution, but in strict conformity with it; it is calculated for this express purpose, and will doubtless be executed accordingly.”
There was NO secession from the United States by any state in 1788. Saying there was is a deliberate misdirection of the history of that event. I also see in your above quote by the anti-federalists there is NO mention of secession, but of concerns.

While you do have a case of secession being mentioned during the Hartford Convention, I see you go into no detail about the delegates who mentioned it held no positions of authority or power during the convention and that their ideas were not seriously entertained and even fail to mention the fact that the idea of secession was denounced by Virginia newspapers in particular and the South in general.

Unionblue
 
Last edited:

trice

Lt. Colonel
Joined
May 2, 2006
Messages
11,916
Different terms may have been used, but secession was directly discussed during the Hartford Convention of 1814-15 and during the debate over the Alien and Sedition Acts in 1798-1799, as well as when 11 states seceded from the union to establish a new union (without North Carolina and Rhode Island) in 1788, as well as in the debates over ratification of the Constitution.
You are saying this same thing about 1788 over in the "George Bassett's hypothetical" thread. The answer here is the same as what you are being told there: this never happened.

There was no "secession" in 1788. The United States of America existed before the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union was written or adopted. The United States of America existed before the Constitution was written or adopted. It is the same Union in 1789 it was in 1788 and in 1787 and is today.

If you think not, please post actual documents from the time showing that any state at all "seceded" in 1788. If you have none to show, please simply say so.
 
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

trice

Lt. Colonel
Joined
May 2, 2006
Messages
11,916
If it didn't include the same states, it isn't the same union.
Strangely, the United States Supreme Court does not agree with you. The reason seems to be that they are studying the facts and applying the law to come to their decisions while you are simply declaring that what you would like to be true must be true.

All 13 States that signed the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union ratified the Constitution. All 13 of them remained in the Union and never left it.


Wikipedia? Really?

I am not sure what you think this proves for your case, but nothing in it I can see supports a claim that eleven States "seceded" in 1788. Please tell us what you think does.
 
Joined
Oct 18, 2019
Messages
73
Trice, please give me a direct answer to each of the following questions, providing an explanation of any details or nuances you believe are necessary to understand. Can you have a union without any kind of system of government or confederation? The states were united in a military alliance before the Articles of Confederation were ratified between late 1777 and 1781, but military alliance was no longer applicable after the end of the war. In any case, the states were united under the AoC until 9 states ratified the Constitution and the new government established under the Constitution began governing in March/April of 1789, right? At that point the Articles of Confederation had been abandoned, right? And yet, neither NC nor RI had ratified the Constitution. So how were they part of the union at that time?
 
Last edited:
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

trice

Lt. Colonel
Joined
May 2, 2006
Messages
11,916
Apart from an answer to my questions, the "indissoluble" quotes are completely at odds with the topic and purpose of the thread, as is your earlier nonsense, indefensible claim that all 13 states remained in the Union and never left it through the period of ratifying the Constitution.
No State ever left the Union. All 13 States that signed the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union remained in the Union and ratified the Constitution. Two, however, took some time about ratifying it.

Here is a definition of what I think you are claiming occurred: "In what might be called secession in the classic sense, a group in a portion of the territory of a state attempt to create a new state there; secessionists attempt to exit, leaving behind the original state in reduced form." None of that indicates "secession" took place in 1788.

That discussion still appears to be off topic and against the general forum usage for threads of this type. I refer you to post #31.
 
Joined
Oct 18, 2019
Messages
73
Here is a definition of what I think you are claiming occurred: "In what might be called secession in the classic sense, a group in a portion of the territory of a state attempt to create a new state there; secessionists attempt to exit, leaving behind the original state in reduced form." None of that indicates "secession" took place in 1788.
Obviously the original union wasn't left behind in a reduced form in 1788, but whether that precise definition of "secession" was met is really beside the point when what we're discussing here is whether the Washington and Hamilton quotes provide any evidence that they openly rejected the right of secession because of their use of the word "indissoluble" while the states were still united under the Articles of Confederation. In other words, the question is whether those quotes (and really any quotes at all from before the 1830's) should fairly be understood as openly denying the right of secession. Those quotes don't contain the word "secession", so the question is how far the use of the word "indissoluble," understood in the proper context for each quote, gets us to a denial of the right of secession.

As far as it relates to the meaning of "indissoluble" there's no reason to get hung up on whether an original union in reduced form was left behind, is there? After all, we're not talking directly about the word "secession" anyway, not in those quotes. And that element of the definition of secession would be absent plenty of other standard definitions anyways.

No State ever left the Union. All 13 States that signed the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union remained in the Union and ratified the Constitution. Two, however, took some time about ratifying it.
You can keep playing games or you can provide a direct answer to all the questions I asked you to provide a direct answer to in post #29. It's nonsense to say that all 13 states remained in the Union if there was a time between 1786 and 1792 when all 13 states weren't in union together. And there obviously was a time. The only way to deny it is to play games and avoid confronting the historical facts and hiding behind vague statements that you don't explain.

Even if there hadn't been such a time -- there was, but even if there hadn't -- 9 states were still committed to dissolving the existing union and re-establishing a union on new terms, invented completely from scratch, disregarding the terms for amendments established in the Articles of Confederation, regardless of what the other 4 states should do, leaving them out of the union unless they agreed to the new terms, and Washington and Hamilton both supported that plan. If that's consistent with an "indissoluble union", why wouldn't any other form of secession (very loosely/expansively defined) be?

Maybe Washington and Hamilton were simply speaking as hypocrites, but if that's the case, even if the 1784 Washington quote should be understood to deny the right of secession, he obviously proved that he didn't mean what he said just 3 years later. But perhaps there's a better way to understand those quotes that doesn't make a hypocrite of Washington, a way that's compatible with a portion of the union ditching the terms of the existing union and inventing new terms and re-establishing a union on the basis of those terms with just a portion of the existing states, leaving the other states no option but to join on the terms established by the states abanndoning the original terms of union or to be left outside of the union. In any case, that's what happened, and Washington and Hamilton supported it, and those facts are very relevant to understanding those quotes.
 
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!
Joined
Oct 18, 2019
Messages
73
The title of this new thread isn't the question I would ask. The question I would really like to ask is whether the founding era quotes from the other thread should properly be understood as denying the right of secession. In other words, do those quotes properly belong in the other thread? The question is how to understand pre-constitutional ratification quotes about an "indissoluble" union. Whether or not the word "secession" properly applies to anything that happened between 1787 and 1791 is really another question. Given what the federalists supported in 1787-1788, whatever they said about an "indissoluble" union while the Article of Confederation were still in effect has to be understood in light of the fact that they supported a portion of the union ditching the terms of the existing union and inventing new terms from scratchand re-establishing a union on the basis of those terms with just a portion of the existing states, leaving the other states no option but to join on the terms established by the states abandoning the original terms of union or to be left outside of the union. Whether you want to call that secession or not is really beside the point in that other thread.

Either Washington and Hamilton were just hypocritical political opportunists that clearly rejected what they themselves said by their support of the Constitution's 9/13ths clause or their words are being misinterpreted. Either way they can't be interpreted as a rejection of the right of secession.

And that leaves no one prior that anyone can quote prior to the 1830's clearly denying the right of secession, which, of course, makes sense given how fundamental the right of secession was to the United States' founding in 1776. It took a couple generations before anyone could openly deny the principles the US were founded on, which isn't to say some people didn't reject those principles during the founding era but only that the political climate forced them to more or less hide their opposition to those principles, at least to the extent they had any interest in holding office or being politically influential.
 
Joined
Oct 18, 2019
Messages
73
But in any case, if this is where my questions in what are now post #6 can be asked, unionblue and Trice can provide a direct answer to each of those questions here if they want to be taken seriously.
 

Dead Parrott

Corporal
Joined
Jul 30, 2019
Messages
364
The title of this new thread isn't the question I would ask. The question I would really like to ask is whether the founding era quotes from the other thread should properly be understood as denying the right of secession. In other words, do those quotes properly belong in the other thread? The question is how to understand pre-constitutional ratification quotes about an "indissoluble" union. Whether or not the word "secession" properly applies to anything that happened between 1787 and 1791 is really another question.
Ah, ok, that actually is a different question than the one leading the thread. Thanks.
 
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!
Joined
Oct 18, 2019
Messages
73
Ah, ok, that actually is a different question than the one leading the thread. Thanks.
I'll take that as sarcasm, but in the context of Trice claiming that secession only applies to situations where a reduced union is left behind -- I think that's a lousy definition for our purposes here or even in general, but those are apparently the kind of semantics arguments that are being made -- whether a union was left behind by the "seceding" states or not and therefore whether there was really a "secession" according to whatever definitions unionblue and Trice want to use is irrelevant to the question of whether an "indissoluble" union can be broken up/reduced/pick-whatever-word-you-want-to-use-for-what-happened-in-1788 according to Washington and Hamilton's use of the term (assuming they both meant to use the word the same way.)
 

thomas aagaard

1st Lieutenant
Joined
Nov 19, 2013
Messages
3,963
Location
Denmark
No. It is completely normal for States change Constitutions from time to time.

Denmark got our in 1849, then a new one in 1863, 1866, 1915 and 1853.
(and others before that, but where the King was the absolute sovereign. And then before that other laws with an elective monarchy)

And the same can be seen in other states.

The US do it a bit differently by simply adding Amendments.. instead of taking a new text.
 
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

trice

Lt. Colonel
Joined
May 2, 2006
Messages
11,916
I'll take that as sarcasm, but in the context of Trice claiming that secession only applies to situations where a reduced union is left behind -- I think that's a lousy definition for our purposes here or even in general, but those are apparently the kind of semantics arguments that are being made -- whether a union was left behind by the "seceding" states or not and therefore whether there was really a "secession" according to whatever definitions unionblue and Trice want to use is irrelevant to the question of whether an "indissoluble" union can be broken up/reduced/pick-whatever-word-you-want-to-use-for-what-happened-in-1788 according to Washington and Hamilton's use of the term (assuming they both meant to use the word the same way.)
This is what I said:
"Here is a definition of what I think you are claiming occurred: "In what might be called secession in the classic sense, a group in a portion of the territory of a state attempt to create a new state there; secessionists attempt to exit, leaving behind the original state in reduced form." None of that indicates "secession" took place in 1788."​

That definition is not mine. It comes from the Stanford Encylopedia of Philosophy and is a fairly concise and standard description of how the type of secession "the South" tried in 1860-61 would be considered in political philosophy today. Here is the complete paragraph it came from:

It is useful to distinguish secession from other ways in which “separation” or “state-breaking” can occur. In what might be called secession in the classic sense, a group in a portion of the territory of a state attempt to create a new state there; secessionists attempt to exit, leaving behind the original state in reduced form. Second, there is irredentist secession, wherein the attempt is not to create a new state, but to merge the seceding territory with a neighboring state. This typically occurs when the majority in the seceding area are of the same ethno-national as that which is predominant in the neighboring state. A third case, exemplified by the dissolution of Czechoslovakia, occurs when there is agreement between the populations or at least the leaders of two regions (which together comprise the whole territory of the state), to split the state into two new states. A fourth case is that of externally-imposed partition of an existing state into two or more new states. In the past partition usually occurred when a deal was struck between two powerful neighboring states at the expense of the state that was partitioned, as with the partitioning of Poland between Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union. At present, externally-imposed partition is more likely to be considered as a last resort for dealing with intractable ethno-national conflict within a state. In what follows, the focus is on secession in the classical sense, but with some attention also to irredentist secession.

If anyone is interested in more detail on that topic, you can find the complete Secession article it is taken from here. That is a nice compact description in the Stanford work, but it does point to a lot of further reading for anyone interested in really delving into the topic. Fair warning: if you are not particularly interested in things like the Philosophy of Law it is pretty dense and will require effort to get through.

The problem you have is that the Union of the United States of America was not broken up in 1788 as you claim and you have provided no actual evidence to support your claim that it was. The Supreme Court has held the same ever since the Constitution was adopted. None of the Original Thirteen ever declared they were seceding. None of the Original Thirteen were ever thrown out by the others.

Added later: Some people might like to look at the Stanford article for reference in discussing the attempt of "the South" in 1860-61. The article does a quick run-through of the different Theories of the Right to Secede in section 2 (six general categories). It also gets into Secession and Just War Theory in section 3 followed by Secession and the Philosophy of International Law in section 4.
 
Last edited:

wausaubob

Major
Joined
Apr 4, 2017
Messages
8,677
Location
Denver, CO
The details are interesting, but my impression always was that George Washington, and most of the rest of the Virginians were ready to go it alone, and they had the strength to do it. Alexander Hamilton knew they finance system under the Confederation would never work, and 75 years later it was permanently given up. If they wanted to maintain their independence from London and Paris, they had to change and Virginia led the way.
 

wausaubob

Major
Joined
Apr 4, 2017
Messages
8,677
Location
Denver, CO
If they had not changed, the Chesapeake Bay states and Ohio territory were going to go out of the Confederation and US would have become like the German states before unification.
 
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

jackt62

1st Lieutenant
Joined
Jul 28, 2015
Messages
3,614
Location
New York City
The only successful secession was that of the southern states during the period from 1860-1861. All prior talk of secession was simply that: talk and threat of disunion to achieve various aims, whether it be the Hartford Convention of disaffected New Englanders, Aaron Burr's purported attempt to create a separate "country," or the South Carolina nullification crisis that raised the banner of states rights.
 
Joined
Oct 18, 2019
Messages
73
Trice, your continued refusal to provide a direct answer to each of my questions in post #6 -- questions for which you used the off-topic excuse to avoid in the last topic -- suggests that you recognize the relevant points and are just hiding from them. If you have a serious case to make and more than red herrings to offer, let's have an answer to those questions.
 
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!
Top