Was it worth it?

[repman66]

You can put the in front of a plural word

We the People of the United States

In the Constitution "the United States" is treated as plural, but so is "the House of Representatives," "the Senate," and "Congress." Over time, usage changed in American English, so that these collective nouns became construed as singular. (In British English, collective nouns can still take plural verb forms.) "The United States" also went the singular route, but its path was complicated by the plural ending -s at the end of "States." (Civil War and Secession had NOTHING to do with this Grammer change, just like how we now write two ss in a row).

Don't be pedantic. The issue is clear and decided unless modified by Constitutional Amendment.

ARE OR IS?; Whether a Plural or a Singular Verb Goes With the Words United States. (Published 1901)

Plural or Singular Verb Goes With "United States"

www.nytimes.com

 

[rvbgrif]

Don't be pedantic.

We are talking about the original wording of the Constitution...

but so is "the House of Representatives," "the Senate," and "Congress."

No they aren't. Congress is often referred to as "the Congress", but none have plural objectives.

Over time, usage changed

Noticed how in the original Constitution, the United States meant the 13 States as a collective, as a Union. Here is a snippet from the 26th amendment. Notice how the United States is referred to as a separate entity from the States themselves.

The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.

This is a different meaning of the word "United States" from the original Constitution.

 

[repman66]

We are talking about the original wording of the Constitution...



No they aren't. Congress is often referred to as "the Congress", but none have plural objectives.



Noticed how in the original Constitution, the United States meant the 13 States as a collective, as a Union. Here is a snippet from the 26th amendment. Notice how the United States is referred to as a separate entity from the States themselves.



This is a different meaning of the word "United States" from the original Constitution.

Obviously you didn't read the article from 1901 talking about the difference in language so why am I surprised when you post a snippet from a document written in 1971?

I'm not sure you know what you're on about, how the hell should I?

 

[rvbgrif]

I'm not sure you know what you're on about, how the hell should I?

Because I wrote that it was the 26th amendment to the Constitution.

Here is a link if you are still confused https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-sixth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution.

I picked it because it was the second most recent amendment and clearly defined the United States and States as entirely separate entities.

 

[repman66]

Because I wrote that it was the 26th amendment to the Constitution.

Here is a link if you are still confused https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-sixth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

What is your point ?

 

[JerryD]

Thanks but that doesn't answer my question. If the Supreme Court and the Constitution contradict, which of them is it treason to disobey?

The Supreme Court determines what the Constitution means. If you perceive a conflict, it's between what the Supreme Court says and what you believe, not what the Constitution says.

Now, there have been some really bad cases that seems to fly in the face of the Constitution. But until they are overturned or the law has been changed, the bad opinion is the law, whether you agree with it or not.

 

[rvbgrif]

What is your point ?

Well you said this.

It is THE UNITED STATES not THESE UNITED STATES.

So it is a rebuttal of that, as the original language of the Constitution is more important than recent language.

 

[Belfoured]

I am not sure the Supreme Court and Constitution can contradict. It is the Supreme Court that decides what the Constitution says and it means.

While it may be illegal to disobey the Constitution it is not automatically treason. There have been many Supreme Court decisions that some or even many people disagreed with, perhaps some poor decisions by the Supreme Court. Still the Supreme Court 's rulings are the law of the land.

"While it may be illegal to disobey the Constitution it is not automatically treason'

Thanks for pointing that out and you're correct. "Treason" is expressly defined in the Constitution. That definition does not include "disobeying the Constitution". A police officer may willfully refuse to give Miranda warnings. That is "disobedience" of (1) the Constitution (2) as interpreted by the SCOTUS. It's not "treason" in either aspect. Hard stop. Frankly, this is descending into the absurd.

 

[Pork Chop Phil]

Suggest comparing outcomes between this and other civil wars. English Civil Wars ( or British, more properly) resulted in something of a lasting settlement in terms of constitutional method. Russian Civil War brought something grotesque that lasted for a lifetime and leaves us all with trouble. Spanish Civil War ? A bit hard to assess.
American Civil War, a good deal more successful than either the Russian or the Spanish in its legacy.

 

[atlantis]

John Browns raid was a wakeup call for white southerners.

 

[archieclement]

It would strike anybody with common sense as very odd - indeed, insane - that the Founders went through all this work to establish a republic and that any member or members could simply decide to blow it up on a whim because they didn't like this or that. That is where Lee was coming from, just for example.

Then there are these quotes from Washington's Farewell Address in 1796:

"These considerations speak a persuasive language to every reflecting and virtuous mind and exhibit the continuance of the Union as a primary object of patriotic desire. ... But the Constitution which at any time exists, until changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole people, is sacredly obligatory upon all. The very idea of the power and the right of the people to establish government presupposes the duty of every individual to obey the established government ... One method of assault may be to effect in the forms of the Constitution alterations which will impair the energy of the system and thus to undermine what cannot be directly overthrown."

The Founders had enough integrity and self-awareness to realize that they had engaged in a rebellion against the Crown. They were smart enough to include in the Constitution the authority to suppress the exact same thing. Call it "hypocrisy" if you want. I call it basic common sense.

Its common sense if want tyranny, which tyranny of a majority is still tyranny. Why certainly some founders did not view it being or to become a coerced coalition. Which if states are held against the states will is what it actually is.

Certainly not all founders were hypocrites, as Jefferson illustrates, as well likely why constitution avoided defining it as granted or prohibited.

Certainly think it's fair to say, the failure to reach a consensus to define the role of coercing states against their will or not.....was a costly omission.

 

[repman66]

Its common sense if want tyranny, which tyranny of a majority is still tyranny. Why certainly some founders did not view it being or to become a coerced coalition. Which if states are held against the states will is what it actually is.

Certainly not all founders were hypocrites, as Jefferson illustrates, as well likely why constitution avoided defining it as granted or prohibited.

Certainly think it's fair to say, the failure to reach a consensus to define the role of coercing states against their will or not.....was a costly omission.

That is why this is a Republic, with a separation of powers, and with a federal system to govern local affairs. However, no one state or group of states, sans as defined in the constitution (IE. Article 5) have a right to resign just because they want to.

The government doesn't work that way. That way is anarchy. Every time we don't have agreement you take your ball and go home? That is why Europeans thought this experiment wouldn't last and that is exactly why the founders made is so that you need a super-majority 2/3rds to modify the Constitution - which a resignation of a state IS.

In 1860 you would need 22 states to agree to allow South Carolina to resign. Ironically, the 22 states that remained in the Union were the super majority needed to resolve the Civil War -- and resolve it they did.

All the lives that could have been saved if the South had just followed the Constitution they so often complained the North was violating.

What a waste. What an evil, stupid, and vain cause. No worse cause to fight for in human history.

 

[archieclement]

That is why this is a Republic, with a separation of powers, and with a federal system to govern local affairs. However, no one state or group of states, sans as defined in the constitution (IE. Article 5) have a right to resign just because they want to.

The government doesn't work that way. That way is anarchy. Every time we don't have agreement you take your ball and go home? That is why Europeans thought this experiment wouldn't last and that is exactly why the founders made is so that you need a super-majority 2/3rds to modify the Constitution - which I resignation of a state IS.

In 1860 you would need 22 states to agree to allow South Carolina to resign. Ironically, the 22 states that remained in the Union were the super majority needed to resolve the Civil War -- and resolve it they did.

All the lives that could have been saved if the South had just followed the Constitution they so often complained the North was violating.

What a waste. What an evil, stupid, and vain cause. No worse cause to fight for in human history.

Regardless of your thoughts, they obviously disagreed. That they indeed found independence a worthy cause is history, same as the founders did. They were no less sincere in their effort and willing to die to be independent.

 

[repman66]

Regardless of your thoughts, they obviously disagreed. That they indeed found independence a worthy cause is history, same as the founders did. They were no less sincere in their effort and willing to die to be independent.

The died for chattel slavery and stupid elites. They found W H I T E supremacy a worthy cause to give their lives and their "cause" allowed their descendants to live in the poorest region of the United States for the next 100 years.

Great job!

 

[archieclement]

The died for chattel slavery and stupid elites. They found W H I T E supremacy a worthy cause to give their lives and their "cause" allowed their descendants to live in the poorest region of the United States for the next 100 years.

Great job!

Again not sure your agenda.

As I have stated repeatedly over the years I personally think they should not have seceded........and if over slavery there was no need.

However my personal views 150 years later don't blind me to the rather obvious fact that they disagreed with my view. So I certainly have no issue with acknowledging they disagreed and obviously found pursuing independence worthy of the risk. That they fought for four years and were willing to shed blood and hardship doesn't suggest they were not sincere in their belief.

I certainly would disagree it was for **** as slavery was being preserved in the United States without secession. Without secession its hard to envision slavery not continuing for decades. As well how reconstruction was conducted would contributed to postwar poverty.

 

[Belfoured]

Its common sense if want tyranny, which tyranny of a majority is still tyranny. Why certainly some founders did not view it being or to become a coerced coalition. Which if states are held against the states will is what it actually is.

Certainly not all founders were hypocrites, as Jefferson illustrates, as well likely why constitution avoided defining it as granted or prohibited.

Certainly think it's fair to say, the failure to reach a consensus to define the role of coercing states against their will or not.....was a costly omission.

You claim to dislike "tyranny of the majority". Were the votes to secede in Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, Texas, Virginia, and Tennessee unanimous? That sounds like an appalling example of "tyranny of the majority" ...

 

[archieclement]

You claim to dislike "tyranny of the majority". Were the votes to secede in Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, Texas, Virginia, and Tennessee unanimous? That sounds like an appalling example of "tyranny of the majority" ...

Certainly no more then a tyranny of a majority of nation if entire states, or regions disagree to the point they feel better off without it. And from what I've read would been certainly as or more applicable to ARW, as substantial number were loyalists. How then did founders reconcile 20-30% of colonies were still loyalists? Certainly the ARW fell far short of colonies being unanimous as well.........

If arguing principles as to secession or federal supremacy they would still apply. Both seem still quite debated.........as well if not applying hypocrisy, twice in our history as there been breakaway attempts at independence, if raising a state not being 100% unanimous, surely colonies weren't either.

 

[repman66]

Certainly no more then a tyranny of a majority of nation if entire states, or regions disagree to the point they feel better off without it. And from what I've read would been certainly as or more applicable to ARW, as substantial number were loyalists. How then did founders reconcile 20-30% of colonies were still loyalists? Certainly the ARW fell far short of colonies being unanimous as well.........

If arguing principles as to secession or federal supremacy they would still apply. Both seem still quite debated.........as well if not applying hypocrisy, twice in our history as there been breakaway attempts at independence, if raising a state not being 100% unanimous, surely colonies weren't either.

None of your argument makes sense - firstly, loyalist were invited to return, eventually, and men like Alexander Hamilton fought laws passed by the various states which seized property and denoted exuberant taxes. After the initial hysteria of war settled down these men became citizens.

The Constitution was approved by a UNINAMOUS decision. You cannot "break away" unless you use the mechanisms described in the Constitution. Either it governs ALL or it governs NOTHING. We, the people, chose it to govern all.

There is no such thing as being "an American" except for the Constitution. That is AMERICAN. The Founders realized this nation needed a national identity which was neither race, nor religion, nor any group association. It was to be a nation of LAWS and the Constitution is the binding document that makes us all American. Like it or leave it baby.

Finally, I, sitting in Pennsylvania, have as much right to live and prosper in your state, as you do. Why can't you understand this? We are all one country.

 

[archieclement]

None of your argument makes sense - firstly, loyalist were invited to return, eventually, and men like Alexander Hamilton fought laws passed by the various states which seized property and denoted exuberant taxes. After the initial hysteria of war settled down these men became citizens.

The Constitution was approved by a UNINAMOUS decision. You cannot "break away" unless you use the mechanisms described in the Constitution. Either it governs ALL or it governs NOTHING. We, the people, chose it to govern all.

There is no such thing as being "an American" except for the Constitution. That is AMERICAN. The Founders realized this nation needed a national identity which was neither race, nor religion, nor any group association. It was to be a nation of LAWS and the Constitution is the binding document that makes us all American. Like it or leave it baby.

Finally, I, sitting in Pennsylvania, have as much right to live and prosper in your state, as you do. Why can't you understand this? We are all one country.

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.

 

[repman66]

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.

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.