Was it worth it?

[archieclement]

It was settled in argument, read the Federalist papers and letters between Hamilton, Jay, Madison, Washington etc.

It is settled in practice, as this is the system that works best and allows a democratic republic to function.

It is settled in law, with the 1869 decision you have described as "invalid."

It is settled in blood, on the battlefield, tested that any democratic nation might live.

Basically, sometimes, in a democracy, you don't get everything you want. When that happens - You don't get to grab your ball and go home. States don't exist WITHOUT the Federal Government and vice versa. Everything is interconnected (there is no Federal Common Law, etc.).

There were no secessionist movements after the civil war because there was no slavery to trigger such abject stupidity.

And again if obviously you refer to settled by war in ACW, or law in 1869. It wasn't settled till after the war, although states still pursue/consider it to this day..........

 

[Belfoured]

Yet while we are not supposed to go into specifics here, certainly issues such as secession and defying Federal law continue to be a thing. So seems bit silly to argue they are settled.

As well any weight to unanimous is odd as others raised it, and you seem to parrot it but then South Carolina secession vote 169-0 or North Carolina 120-0.

Again simply recognizing the reality not all founders agreed secession was not permitted such as Jefferson, and certainly not everyone agreed in 1861. No amount of spin changes until after the ACW there was no consensus or even legal ruling. Which I use consensus loosely as secession efforts have continued. Though generally have considerably less steam post ACW.

And if unanimous is somehow important to Constitution 3 delegates did not sign, one state sent no delegates and afterwards only 3 of 13 the states ratified it unanimously. So if suggested nationally was somehow unanimous consent and approval, would seem bit misleading

As well your raising **** or slavery earlier was odd if relying on US Constitution, as it was the price of Union and the Constitution. Without it the formation of the US as we know it would never occurred. Simply historical reality.

You're the one who raised "tyranny of the majority" as an objection. The votes in Mississippi (84-15), Florida (62-7), Alabama (61-39), Georgia (208-89), Louisiana (113-17), Texas: 166-7 and 46,153-14,747), Virginia (88-55), Arkansas (65-5), and Tennessee (105,000-47,000) are - under your analysis - "tyranny of the majority".

As for Jefferson, he was not a member of the 1787 Convention. Washington and Madison were. Jefferson's views on intent are entitled to no more weight than are Lee's, etc.

 

[archieclement]

You're the one who raised "tyranny of the majority" as an objection. The votes in Mississippi (84-15), Florida (62-7), Alabama (61-39), Georgia (208-89), Louisiana (113-17), Texas: 166-7 and 46,153-14,747), Virginia (88-55), Arkansas (65-5), and Tennessee (105,000-47,000) are - under your analysis - "tyranny of the majority".

As for Jefferson, he was not a member of the 1787 Convention. Washington and Madison were. Jefferson's views on intent are entitled to no more weight than are Lee's, etc.

I never said tyranny of a majority by definition would not include there's a minority. Again founders didn't call off revolution because there was significant loyalist element.

And in reality your tilting windmills. As what I have said is there was not unanimous opinion by founders, as there wasn't, likely why they never address it. Nor was there any concensus post Constitution as it had been raised, debated and threatened up to ACW, where it was actually implemented. Certainly not settled by courts/law till 1869.

So regardless of your opinion today, or mine, or anyone else's, in reality throughout the period it was not settled or unanimous at all. That there was a ACW rather clearly demonstrates it. I dont see why anyone would have issue with acknowledging there was actually differing opinions that certainly existed and many certainly considered it a ill defined or open issue.

If your point is simply the founders could done a better job defining it would agree. But imagine a "upon signing your bound by military coercion forever" passage would likely caused some reservations. But certainly such a passage would better defined it.

 

[archieclement]

For the record as I have stated numerous times in ACW example, is I don't think the south should or even needed to secede.

As abstract principle think Jefferson's views had merit. Certainly if remove states ability to leave if they find the government becoming so objectionable they find it warranted.......if would surely erode the necessity for government to maintain the consent of the governed, which is indeed reflected by and through states representation in Congress.

 

[Belfoured]

I never said tyranny of a majority by definition would not include there's a minority. Again founders didn't call off revolution because there was significant loyalist element.

And in reality your tilting windmills. As what I have said is there was not unanimous opinion by founders, as there wasn't, likely why they never address it. Nor was there any concensus post Constitution as it had been raised, debated and threatened up to ACW, where it was actually implemented. Certainly not settled by courts/law till 1869.

So regardless of your opinion today, or mine, or anyone else's, in reality throughout the period it was not settled or unanimous at all. That there was a ACW rather clearly demonstrates it. I dont see why anyone would have issue with acknowledging there was actually differing opinions that certainly existed and many certainly considered it a ill defined or open issue.

If your point is simply the founders could done a better job defining it would agree. But imagine a "upon signing your bound by military coercion forever" passage would likely caused some reservations. But certainly such a passage would better defined it.

The bar on secession would be subject only to the amendment process. You claimed this would be objectionable as "tyranny of the majority". That concept doesn't apply only when you don't like the result. Moreover, the fact that some people don't accept a proposition doesn't make it invalid or wrong. There are people who today don't accept a whole lot of things - including the bar on secession. So what? And there isn't a legal instrument - constitution, statute, contract, etc - ever drafted that can't be challenged by somebody who disagrees with it or that could have been even more specific. That doesn't just throw the door wide open.

I understand your position and I think you understand mine. Diminishing returns ...

 

[kGs]

I never said tyranny of a majority by definition would not include there's a minority. Again founders didn't call off revolution because there was significant loyalist element.

And in reality your tilting windmills. As what I have said is there was not unanimous opinion by founders, as there wasn't, likely why they never address it. Nor was there any concensus post Constitution as it had been raised, debated and threatened up to ACW, where it was actually implemented. Certainly not settled by courts/law till 1869.

So regardless of your opinion today, or mine, or anyone else's, in reality throughout the period it was not settled or unanimous at all. That there was a ACW rather clearly demonstrates it. I dont see why anyone would have issue with acknowledging there was actually differing opinions that certainly existed and many certainly considered it a ill defined or open issue.

If your point is simply the founders could done a better job defining it would agree. But imagine a "upon signing your bound by military coercion forever" passage would likely caused some reservations. But certainly such a passage would better defined it.

"The last clause of the sixth Resolution, authorizing an exertion of the force of the whole against a delinquent State, came next into consideration.
Mr. MADISON observed, that the more he reflected on the use of force, the more he doubted the practicability, the justice and the efficacy of it, when applied to people collectively, and not individually. An union of the States containing such an ingredient seemed to provide for its own destruction. The use of force against a State would look more like a declaration of war than an infliction of punishment; and would probably be considered by the party attacked as a dissolution of all previous compacts by which it might be bound. He hoped that such a system would be framed as might render this resource unnecessary, and moved that the clause be postponed. This motion was agreed to,nem. con."
Thursday, May 31 Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787

 

[G Low]

You mean like England and France?

At least they had the English Channel!!

 

[Scottish Rebel]

Forgive my ignorance on U.S. constitutional matters but was there no option for States to offer a referendum to eligible voters on State secession?

 

[repman66]

Forgive my ignorance on U.S. constitutional matters but was there no option for States to offer a referendum to eligible voters on State secession?

No. It doesn't work like the UK. The Constitution is SUPREME.

 

[rvbgrif]

Edit: sorry I misread your post and thought you meant the British Constitution. Never mind... but leaving the post up because it is informative.

No. It doesn't work like the UK. The Constitution is SUPREME.

The UK doesn't have an official Constitution in the way that the United States does. The British Constitution is uncodified, and evolved over time from many different documents and precedents. Examples being the Magna Carta (1215), Bill of Rights (1689), Human Rights Act (1998), judicial decisions such as the rule of law and limits on executive power, and unwritten but binding political practices such as the Prime Minister must be a member of the House of Commons.

British Courts also cannot invalidate acts of Parliament in the same way that the Supreme Court in the US can invalidate laws if it deems them unconstitutional. Parliament in the UK is sovereign, they can make or unmake any law and can't be struck down.

Forgive my ignorance on U.S. constitutional matters but was there no option for States to offer a referendum to eligible voters on State secession?

This was attempted during the US Civil War. Since there is no official option written into the US Constitution, its legality was disputed.

It was never decided in Court, instead the Battles of Fort Sumter and First Mananas/Bull Run started the Civil War. Deciding it in court would have been interesting, as a number of the Supreme Court Justices were sympathetic to the Confederacy, notably the Chief Justice Roger Taney. Instead, the Civil War ended with a Union Victory, Taney died in 1864 and was replaced by Salmon Chase, who helped establish the Republican Party and wrote Texas v White, a Supreme Court decision on secession.

 

[repman66]

Edit: sorry I misread your post and thought you meant the British Constitution. Never mind... but leaving the post up because it is informative.



The UK doesn't have an official Constitution in the way that the United States does. The British Constitution is uncodified, and evolved over time from many different documents and precedents. Examples being the Magna Carta (1215), Bill of Rights (1689), Human Rights Act (1998), judicial decisions such as the rule of law and limits on executive power, and unwritten but binding political practices such as the Prime Minister must be a member of the House of Commons.

British Courts also cannot invalidate acts of Parliament in the same way that the Supreme Court in the US can invalidate laws if it deems them unconstitutional. Parliament in the UK is sovereign, they can make or unmake any law and can't be struck down.

I understand that - the acts of union of 1707 and 1800 were enacted by Parliament. Parliament is supreme - aka a referendum, if sanctioned simply by an act Parliament, hast the force and effect of law.

The US has one document, its Constitution, that is above all other things. That must be followed to "resign." If a state "secedes" without following the Constitutionally mandated actions, they are traitors.

 

[rvbgrif]

they are traitors.

No, the Constitution very clearly defines treason. It is the only crime clearly defined in the Constitution. You must "make war on the states" the meaning of which is ambiguous, it could mean some states or all of them, in service to a foreign power, and have two witnesses observe you.

It was written this way to prevent disputes such as secession to be punished as treason.

 

[kGs]

Edit: sorry I misread your post and thought you meant the British Constitution. Never mind... but leaving the post up because it is informative.



The UK doesn't have an official Constitution in the way that the United States does. The British Constitution is uncodified, and evolved over time from many different documents and precedents. Examples being the Magna Carta (1215), Bill of Rights (1689), Human Rights Act (1998), judicial decisions such as the rule of law and limits on executive power, and unwritten but binding political practices such as the Prime Minister must be a member of the House of Commons.

British Courts also cannot invalidate acts of Parliament in the same way that the Supreme Court in the US can invalidate laws if it deems them unconstitutional. Parliament in the UK is sovereign, they can make or unmake any law and can't be struck down.



This was attempted during the US Civil War. Since there is no official option written into the US Constitution, its legality was disputed.

It was never decided in Court, instead the Battles of Fort Sumter and First Mananas/Bull Run started the Civil War. Deciding it in court would have been interesting, as a number of the Supreme Court Justices were sympathetic to the Confederacy, notably the Chief Justice Roger Taney. Instead, the Civil War ended with a Union Victory, Taney died in 1864 and was replaced by Salmon Chase, who helped establish the Republican Party and wrote Texas v White, a Supreme Court decision on secession.

But MPs and UK soldiers still swear an oath to the King, not parliament. Technically he could remove prime ministers and dissolve parliament, they don't for fear, not law.

 

[rvbgrif]

But MPs and UK soldiers still swear an oath to the King, not parliament. Technically he could remove prime ministers and dissolve parliament, they don't for fear, not law.

Yeah, Britian is also odd in that the Monarchy owns everything. The police, the school system, the military, bbc, etc. The Monarch doesn't have a drivers license because they legally can't be pulled over for traffic violations.

 

[atlantis]

There has been some flirtation with secession by private groups advocating for their state to secede in the last few decades that have not amounted to much. Given the cost in blood/treasure of the great rebellion it has sufficed as a deterrent, but what happens as future generations lose interest in our history.