When did the States lose their Sovereignty?

cw1865

Sergeant Major
Joined
Jun 12, 2007
Location
Riverdale, NJ (Morris County)
No ratification

Well you can think about what the result would've been for a state that didn't choose to ratify.

The relevant period is still 1776-1787. The Revolution is being fought until 1783, so yes, there is no period of direct independent existence in the way that we would think of it.

Its a difficult question, and to a certain extent all of the answers are true: 1. they were never truly sovereign; 2. they remain 'sovereign' in the way that Marshall defines dual sovereignity or 3. they lost it at ratification.

Its amazing inasmuch as its simply a hangover from the English colonial charters which runs like a 'meme' from generation to generation having great appeal in certain groups.
 

Baggage Handler #2

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
May 6, 2008
Location
Old Northwest Territory
We're talking about when they lost soverignty, but I'm wondering if they ever had it.

Ole
Without wandering into the minutia too deeply, consider that the colonies were chartered business enterprises containing quasi-governing bodies. The fact that England itself had no real constitution translates that these governing bodies were sort of self-defining. And yet.. the real truth comes in that they didn't rebel from Old Blighty piecemeal. It had to happen more or less at once or it wasn't going to happen at all.

See it that way, and from the beginning of rebellion (and at least they were manly enough to fess up to it's being treason) the thirteen were bound as one, with a singular future: succeed in the attempt or go down together. What was the quote, "We must hang together or surely we shall hang separately." (Franklin?)
 

unionblue

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Member of the Year
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Location
Ocala, FL (as of December, 2015).
Davis said that the North had said that the states could not exist half slave and half free, or as he put it...

could not longer exist under the conditions which had formed it, or for ' the ends for which it was established...'

It's a pity Davis had to make things up in order to justify his actions during the War of the Rebellion, but his words are just that, an attempt at justification, not grounded in the numerous Supreme Court decisions or ratification arguments that took place long before the tragic secession of the Southern States, or even in the wording of the Constitution. But who can blame him? He had so much to justify.

With the majority in the North making all these decisions, and enforcing them by votes and by
the Federal military, once in power...

Again, it's a real shame that now both you and Davis are ignoring a rather large chunk of American history where the South held sway over the federal government for over SEVENTY years, in which it controlled all of these decisions you claim the North did, when most of the appointments in the Federal military went to Southern appointments (West Point, etc.), when they were "once in power..." Just reading the history of the time opens up so much to those who really exert an effort. But I digress...

You tell me that THIS is what the founding fathers wanted for their posterity?

No, I only point to the records and documents they left. It's up to you to actually read them and see what they intended. I'll wait.

I choose England, sir! At least our tyrant was three thousand miles away!

(Yawn.)

Do show me where in 1787 the states declared openly WE ARE NO LONGER STATES, but wards of the Federal government, and whatever the mob decrees, that will we do!

Why do you ask questions on topics that nobody has brought up? Nobody here has claimed the States said "WE ARE NO LONGER STATES, but wards of the Federal government, etc." The question of this thread was "When did the States lose their Sovereignty?" I can only assume by your term "mob" and "decrees" you are making a back-handed insult to the people, who decided in conventions to approve the ratification of the US Constitution somehow constitutes a form of mob rule. Bunk. For once, the power was where it was supposed to be, according to our founding fathers, in the hands of the people, who decided to advance from the petty form of State Sovereignty to a Constitution who gave power directly to the people. Sorry that seems a bad thing to you.

I would like chapter and verse, since you are so astute with this information, and knowledgeable to that end.

So, you admit you have not read any of Elliot's Debates (Which I gave a website for in my post# 10 of this thread), nor any of the notes of the state conventions during the ratification debates on the Constitution? (Sigh.)

Sir.

Surely, such a statement by any or all of the states would have been flown on the very flags of invasion!

I cannot see the independent Americans from Missouri or Virginia, and certainly not North Carolina going for THAT, at any time!

Loyalist

I know you can't see it, one has to LOOK for it before one can know of such things.

First, as a primer, go to the following website and READ the following article:

The Framers and the Sovereign, Debates on Sovereignty in the Constitutional Convention, by James Hogan.

http://americanhistory.suite101.com/article.cfm/we_the_people

After reading the above, you may wish to contemplate the following:

One Nation

James Madison's NOTES on the Federal Convention of 1787: May 30:

[Mr. Morris presented a resolution that was postponed -] "Resolved that the articles of Confederation ought to be corrected & enlarged, as to accomplish the objects proposed by their institution; namely, common defense, security of liberty & general welfare." [The following were presented:]

1. that a Union of the States merely federal will not accomplish the objects proposed by the articles of Confederation, namely common defence, security of liberty & genl. welfare.

2. that no treaty or treaties among the whole or part of the States, as individual Sovereignties, would be sufficient.

3. that a national Government ought to be established consisting of a supreme Legislative, Executive & Judiciary."

[The third proposition was considered.]

"Genl. PINKNEY expressed a doubt whether the act of Congs. recommending the Convention, or the Commissions of the Deputies to it, could authorise a discussion of a System founded on different principles from the federal Constitution.

"Mr. GERRY seemed to entertain the same doubt.

"Mr. GOVr. MORRIS explained the distinction between a federal and national, supreme, Govt.; the former being a mere compact resting on the good faith of the parties; the latter having a compleat and compulsive operation. he contended that in all Communities there must be one supreme power, and one only.

"Mr. MASON observed that the present confederation was not only deficient in not providing for coercion & punishment agst. delinquent States; but argued very cogently that punishment could not in nature of things be executed on the States collectively, and therefore that such a Govt. was necessary as could directly operate on individuals, and would punish those only whose guilt required it.

"Mr. SHERMAN who took his seat today, admitted that the Confederation had not given sufficient power to Congs. and that additional powers were necessary; particularly that of raising money which he said would involve many other powers. He admitted also that the General & particular jurisdictions ought in no case to be concurrent. He seemed however not to be disposed to make too great inroads on the existing system; intimating as one reason that it would be wrong to lose every amendment, by inserting such as would not be agreed to by the States.

"...On the question as moved by Mr. Butler, on the third proposition it was resolved in Committee of the whole that a national governt. ought to be established consisting of a supreme Legislative Executive & Judiciary."


(The above seems to answer your notion that the States were unaware of what they were trying to attempt. It shows they discussed, talked, debated, and voted on the idea, so no one was surprised or cheated, etc. The founders KNEW what was going to happen to state sovereignty and they WANTED it to happen as the concept of it was NOT working under the Articles of Confederation.)

(More evidence as follows.)

Federal Social Compact

From the minority report of the Pennsylvania ratification assembly (December 1787):

"In short, consolidation prevades the whole constitution. It begins with an annunciation that such was the intention. The main pillars of the fabric correspond with it, and the concluding paragraph is a confirmation of it. The preamble begins with the words, "We the people of the United States," which is the style of a compact between individuals entering into a state of society, and not that of a confederation of states..."


(Last, and not at all least, there is the following.)

The issue of State sovereignty and the integrity of the Union was answered by reference to the locus of sovereignty with the body of the people as stated by Chief Justice Marshall in M'Culloch v. Maryland (1819):

"...In discussing this question, the counsel for the State of Maryland have deemed it of some importance, in the construction of the Constitution, to consider that instrument not as emanating from the people but as the act of sovereign and independent states. The powers of the gneral government, it has been said, are delegated by the states, who alone are truly sovereign; and must be exercised in subordination to the states, who alone possess supreme domination.

"It would be difficult to sustain this proposition. ...The Convention which framed the Constitution was indeed elected by the state legislatures, but the instrument, when it came from their hands, was a mere proposal, without obligation or pretensions to it. It was reported to the then existing Congress of the United States with a request that it might "be submitted to a Convention of Delegates, chosen in each state by the people thereof, under the recommendation of its legislature, for their assent and ratification."

"This mode of proceeding was adopted; and by the Convention, by Congress, and by the state legislatures the instrument was submitted to the people. They acted upon it in the only manner in which they can act safely, effectively, and wisely, on such a subject-by assembling in convention.

"It is true, they assembled in their several states; and where else should they have assembled? No political dreamer was ever wild enough to think of breaking down the lines which separate the states, and of compounding the American people into one common mass. Of consequence, when they act, they act in their states. But the measures they adopt do not, on that account, cease to be the measures of the people themselves, or become the measures of the state governments.

"From these conventions the Constitution derives its whole authority. The government proceeds directly from the people; is ordained and established in the name of the people; and is declared to be ordained in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, ensure domestic tranquillity, and secure the blessings of liberty to themselves and to their posterity. The assent of the states, in their sovereign capacity, is implied in calling a convention, and thus submitting that instrument to the people.

"But the people were at perfect liberty to accept or reject it; and their act was final. It required not the affirmance, and could not be negatived, by the state governments. The Constitution, when thus adopted, was of complete obligation, and bound the state sovereignties.

"It has been said that the people had already surrendered all their powers to the state sovereignties, and had nothing more to give. But, surely, the question whether they may resume and modify the powers granted to government does not remain to be settled in this country. Much more might the legitimacy of the general government be doubted had it been created by the states.

"The powers delegated to the state sovereignties were to be exercised by themselves, not by a distinct and independent sovereignty created by themselves. To the formation of a league, such as was the Confederation, the state sovereignties were certainly competent. But when, in order to form a more perfect union, it was deemed necessary to change this alliance into an effective government, possessing great and sovereign powers, and acting directly on the people, the necessity of referring it to the people, and of deriving its power directly from them, was felt and acknowledged by all.

"The government of the Union, then (whatever may be the influence of this fact on the case), is emphatically and truly, a government of the people. In form and in substance it emanates from them..."


Fact and sources provided by US history.

Your turn.

Unionblue
 

unionblue

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Member of the Year
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Location
Ocala, FL (as of December, 2015).
They got the idea, oriiginally, from the dissatisfied North.

This whole 'experiment' was an attempt to get rid of empire, and kingdoms.

To be the new and improved Britain.

NEW England, so to speak...

But the puritans and the congregationalists just can't stay out of people's lives!

Even after they have become socialists, and forgotten God, entirely!


Loyalist

UNSUPPORTED OPINION.

Any evidence, any historical source to support it?

STILL waiting.

Unionblue
 

Glorybound

Major
Retired Moderator
Honored Fallen Comrade
Joined
Aug 20, 2008
Location
Indiana
One can be a brother only in something. Where there is no tie that binds men, men are not united but merely lined up.
Antoine de Saint-Exupery


Sorry. Off-topic obviously, but I've always liked this author. Much of what I've read of his is beyond my understanding though. All I can remember of "The Little Prince", which I read in the early '80's is "what is essential is invisible". And I may be misquoting him even now.

BH, does your signature by him pertain to brothers, as in the Civil War, brother against brother? Or what is your interpretation of that? If you prefer not to reply or to reply by PM that's fine. What other books has he written? Thanks for the thought provoking brain teaser.:smile: Sorry folks, please to continue.


Lee
 
Joined
Oct 14, 2008
Location
Los Angeles
Sorry. Off-topic obviously, but I've always liked this author. Much of what I've read of his is beyond my understanding though. All I can remember of "The Little Prince", which I read in the early '80's is "what is essential is invisible". And I may be misquoting him even now.

BH, does your signature by him pertain to brothers, as in the Civil War, brother against brother? Or what is your interpretation of that? If you prefer not to reply or to reply by PM that's fine. What other books has he written? Thanks for the thought provoking brain teaser.:smile: Sorry folks, please to continue.


Lee

I think it's just one of those weird poetic excuses for murder and imperialism, i.e. to claim that a union implies absolute authority over its members.
Lincoln was fond of such twabble.
 

tory_loyalist

Banned
Joined
Aug 2, 2008
Location
His Majesty's colonies
I know you can't see it, one has to LOOK for it before one can know of such things.

First, as a primer, go to the following website and READ the following article:

The Framers and the Sovereign, Debates on Sovereignty in the Constitutional Convention, by James Hogan.

http://americanhistory.suite101.com/article.cfm/we_the_people

After reading the above, you may wish to contemplate the following:

One Nation

James Madison's NOTES on the Federal Convention of 1787: May 30:

[Mr. Morris presented a resolution that was postponed -] "Resolved that the articles of Confederation ought to be corrected & enlarged, as to accomplish the objects proposed by their institution; namely, common defense, security of liberty & general welfare." [The following were presented:]

1. that a Union of the States merely federal will not accomplish the objects proposed by the articles of Confederation, namely common defence, security of liberty & genl. welfare.

2. that no treaty or treaties among the whole or part of the States, as individual Sovereignties, would be sufficient.

3. that a national Government ought to be established consisting of a supreme Legislative, Executive & Judiciary."

[The third proposition was considered.]

"Genl. PINKNEY expressed a doubt whether the act of Congs. recommending the Convention, or the Commissions of the Deputies to it, could authorise a discussion of a System founded on different principles from the federal Constitution.

"Mr. GERRY seemed to entertain the same doubt.

"Mr. GOVr. MORRIS explained the distinction between a federal and national, supreme, Govt.; the former being a mere compact resting on the good faith of the parties; the latter having a compleat and compulsive operation. he contended that in all Communities there must be one supreme power, and one only.

"Mr. MASON observed that the present confederation was not only deficient in not providing for coercion & punishment agst. delinquent States; but argued very cogently that punishment could not in nature of things be executed on the States collectively, and therefore that such a Govt. was necessary as could directly operate on individuals, and would punish those only whose guilt required it.

"Mr. SHERMAN who took his seat today, admitted that the Confederation had not given sufficient power to Congs. and that additional powers were necessary; particularly that of raising money which he said would involve many other powers. He admitted also that the General & particular jurisdictions ought in no case to be concurrent. He seemed however not to be disposed to make too great inroads on the existing system; intimating as one reason that it would be wrong to lose every amendment, by inserting such as would not be agreed to by the States.

"...On the question as moved by Mr. Butler, on the third proposition it was resolved in Committee of the whole that a national governt. ought to be established consisting of a supreme Legislative Executive & Judiciary."

(The above seems to answer your notion that the States were unaware of what they were trying to attempt. It shows they discussed, talked, debated, and voted on the idea, so no one was surprised or cheated, etc. The founders KNEW what was going to happen to state sovereignty and they WANTED it to happen as the concept of it was NOT working under the Articles of Confederation.)

(More evidence as follows.)

Federal Social Compact

From the minority report of the Pennsylvania ratification assembly (December 1787):

"In short, consolidation prevades the whole constitution. It begins with an annunciation that such was the intention. The main pillars of the fabric correspond with it, and the concluding paragraph is a confirmation of it. The preamble begins with the words, "We the people of the United States," which is the style of a compact between individuals entering into a state of society, and not that of a confederation of states..."

(Last, and not at all least, there is the following.)

The issue of State sovereignty and the integrity of the Union was answered by reference to the locus of sovereignty with the body of the people as stated by Chief Justice Marshall in M'Culloch v. Maryland (1819):

"...In discussing this question, the counsel for the State of Maryland have deemed it of some importance, in the construction of the Constitution, to consider that instrument not as emanating from the people but as the act of sovereign and independent states. The powers of the gneral government, it has been said, are delegated by the states, who alone are truly sovereign; and must be exercised in subordination to the states, who alone possess supreme domination.

"It would be difficult to sustain this proposition. ...The Convention which framed the Constitution was indeed elected by the state legislatures, but the instrument, when it came from their hands, was a mere proposal, without obligation or pretensions to it. It was reported to the then existing Congress of the United States with a request that it might "be submitted to a Convention of Delegates, chosen in each state by the people thereof, under the recommendation of its legislature, for their assent and ratification."

"This mode of proceeding was adopted; and by the Convention, by Congress, and by the state legislatures the instrument was submitted to the people. They acted upon it in the only manner in which they can act safely, effectively, and wisely, on such a subject-by assembling in convention.

"It is true, they assembled in their several states; and where else should they have assembled? No political dreamer was ever wild enough to think of breaking down the lines which separate the states, and of compounding the American people into one common mass. Of consequence, when they act, they act in their states. But the measures they adopt do not, on that account, cease to be the measures of the people themselves, or become the measures of the state governments.

"From these conventions the Constitution derives its whole authority. The government proceeds directly from the people; is ordained and established in the name of the people; and is declared to be ordained in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, ensure domestic tranquillity, and secure the blessings of liberty to themselves and to their posterity. The assent of the states, in their sovereign capacity, is implied in calling a convention, and thus submitting that instrument to the people.

"But the people were at perfect liberty to accept or reject it; and their act was final. It required not the affirmance, and could not be negatived, by the state governments. The Constitution, when thus adopted, was of complete obligation, and bound the state sovereignties.

"It has been said that the people had already surrendered all their powers to the state sovereignties, and had nothing more to give. But, surely, the question whether they may resume and modify the powers granted to government does not remain to be settled in this country. Much more might the legitimacy of the general government be doubted had it been created by the states.

"The powers delegated to the state sovereignties were to be exercised by themselves, not by a distinct and independent sovereignty created by themselves. To the formation of a league, such as was the Confederation, the state sovereignties were certainly competent. But when, in order to form a more perfect union, it was deemed necessary to change this alliance into an effective government, possessing great and sovereign powers, and acting directly on the people, the necessity of referring it to the people, and of deriving its power directly from them, was felt and acknowledged by all.

"The government of the Union, then (whatever may be the influence of this fact on the case), is emphatically and truly, a government of the people. In form and in substance it emanates from them..."

Fact and sources provided by US history.

Your turn.

Unionblue


When you speak of the PEOPLE, you, like most (if no all) of the Collectivists, only speak of those who are a political majority.

You tend to make the mistake that the Left always makes; that of belittling and disenfrachising the minority.

A majority does not give you carte blanche to destroy your political opponents forever.

STATE SOVEREIGNTY was also a belief that the several states would be protected physically and economically from sectionalist mobs like the Black Republicans.

THEY WEREN'T.

Thus, the enemy became the so-called Federal government and the army...

True, THE PEOPLE are not the general government, nor the states in situ, and neither are they politically dominant mobs... Once THE PEOPLE organize a team and form a league, they are NOT ANY LONGER - THE PEOPLE....

They became SECTIONALLY interested.

THE PEOPLE are the ones who resist tyranny and oppression when it comes to them through others...

THE STATES lost their 'sovereignty', then, when the general government was allowed to attack the seceded states and force a coerced union...

Because THE PEOPLE lost their sovereignty, at the same time.

Now, a political party has the power to invade and force citizens to do its bidding...

And you champion such a cause, I understand...


Tory

These opinions your sources wrote are indeed interesting, but since none of them prevented a state from seceding, neither did they prevent a sectionally-elected mob from attacking these seceded as a group, and destroying them...

Had any of the founding fathers seen into the future, the safeguards they would have fashioned to prevent such Federal totalitarianism would have been their loudest voice of all...

Again, sir. I hold the common opinion that any coercion of a 'delinquent' state was for a state STILL IN THE UNION, not one which had seceded itself... "To force a state would be the maddest folly ever devised"! (paraphrase from my favorite Northern Left Wing Totalitarian Federalist, HAMILTON)

It is a blind arrogance to assume that the leaders of a state one hundred years ago signed the souls of their POSTERITY away to be ruled by a mob majority in a general election, with no thought of being able to pull away from it.

You do yourself an injustice when you consider the Northern position to be proper in the matter of the late war.

State sovereignty suggests an open compromise by any and all majority election winners...

If abolition is your game, there are channels for such redress. If tax increases are your game, then consider those whom you are taxing... and by what amounts. What do the TAXED get out of it, if anything, from the general government?

Or, are they just the Milch Cow, set up to be fed upon 'for the benefit of the residue'.

The South, according to Davis, was never accorded any such respect...

And never would be.

The North would seem to have brought the conflict upon themselves, trying the very patience and loyalty of Union men, North and South, who now saw their devotion as a Confederate government...

The Federal one having been degraded to sectionalism.
 

unionblue

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Member of the Year
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Location
Ocala, FL (as of December, 2015).
When you speak of the PEOPLE, you, like most (if no all) of the Collectivists, only speak of those who are a political majority.

(I have often noted in my debates, that when a person cannot defend their postion by referencing sources, documents, etc., in short, actual evidence, to support what is truly just their own opinion, they employ the desperate tactic of labeling those they cannot answer, as if filling up the empty space of their reply with such, will somehow enhance that vast, empty space, where truly nothing is offered and nothing really said in reply.)

"Why should there not be a patient confidence in the ultimate justice of the people? Is there any better hope in the world?"

You tend to make the mistake that the Left always makes; that of belittling and disenfrachising the minority.

"A majority held in restraint by constitutional checks and limitations, and always changing easily with deliberate changes of popular opinion and sentiments, is the only true sovereign of a free people."

A majority does not give you carte blanche to destroy your political opponents forever.

"A constitutional majority is the only true sovereign of a free people.

If by the mere force of numbers, a majority should deprive a minority of any clearly written constitutional right, it might, in a moral point of view, justify revolution, certainly if such a right were a vital one."

But, in the end, "The most reliable indication of public purpose in this country is derived through our popular elections." As it was then, as it is now.

STATE SOVEREIGNTY was also a belief that the several states would be protected physically and economically from sectionalist mobs like the Black Republicans.

"What can be more preposterous then to say that the States as united, are in no respect or degree, a Nation, which implies sovereignty, although acknowledged to be such by all other Nations and Sovereigns, and maintaining with them, all the international relations, of war and peace, treaties, commerce, etc., and, on the other hand and at the same time, to say that the States separately are completely nations and sovereigns, although they can separately neither speak nor harken to any other nation, nor maintain with it any of the international relations whatever and would be disowned as Nations if presenting themselves in that character."

THEY WEREN'T.

"The milliners it appears, endeavor to shelter themselves under a distinction between a delegation and a surrender of powers. But if the powers be attributes of sovereignty and nationality and the grant of them be perpetual, as is necessarily implied, where not otherwise expressed, sovereignty and nationality according to the extent of the grant are effectually transferred by it, and a dispute about the name, is but a battle of words. The words of the Constitution are explicit that the Constitution and laws of the U.S. shall be supreme over the Constitution and laws of the several States, supreme in their exposition and execution as well as in their authority. Without a supremacy in those respects it would be like a scabbard in the hand of a soldier without a sword in it."

Thus, the enemy became the so-called Federal government and the army...

"The firing on that fort will inaugurate a civil war greater than any the world has yet seen...you will lose us every friend at the North. You will wantonly strike a hornet's nest which extends from the mountains to ocean. Legions now quiet will swarm out and sting us to death. It is unnecessary. It puts us in the wrong. It is fatal."

True, THE PEOPLE are not the general government, nor the states in situ, and neither are they politically dominant mobs... Once THE PEOPLE organize a team and form a league, they are NOT ANY LONGER - THE PEOPLE....

"It is true, they assembled in their several states; and where else should they have assembled? No political dreamer was ever wild enough to think of breaking down the lines which separate the states, and of compounding the American people into one common mass. Of consequence, wheny they act, they act in their states. But the measures they adopt do not, on that account, cease to be the measures of the people themselves, or become the measures of the state governments.

From these conventions the Constitution derives its whole authority. The government proceeds directly from the people; is ordained and established in the name of the people; and is declared to be ordained in order to form a more perfect union..."


They became SECTIONALLY interested.

"Without union our independence and liberty would never have been achieved; without union they never can be maintained."

"I have heard something said about allegiance to the South. I know no South, no North, no East, no West, to which I owe any allegiance."


THE PEOPLE are the ones who resist tyranny and oppression when it comes to them through others...

"I have faith in the people...let them know the truth and the country is safe."

"I am a firm believer in the people. If given the truth, they can be depended upon to meet any national crisis. The great point is to bring them the real facts."


THE STATES lost their 'sovereignty', then, when the general government was allowed to attack the seceded states and force a coerced union...

"The day we seceded the star of our glory set."

We have just carried an election on principles fairly stated to the people. Now we are told in advance, the government will be broken up, unless we surrender to those we have beaten...If we surrender, it is the end of us."

Because THE PEOPLE lost their sovereignty, at the same time.

"The day of the sectionalist is over. The day of the nationalist has come."

Now, a political party has the power to invade and force citizens to do its bidding...

"When any one State in the American Union refuses obedience to the Confederation by which they have bound themselves, the rest have a natural right to compel obedience."

And you champion such a cause, I understand...

"Let us be diverted by none of those sophisticated contrivances wherewith we are so industriously plied and belabored."

"I think the Constitution invests its Commander-in-Chief with the law of war in time of war."

"Those who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves."



Tory

These opinions your sources wrote are indeed interesting, but since none of them prevented a state from seceding, neither did they prevent a sectionally-elected mob from attacking these seceded as a group, and destroying them...

"The people have recently entrusted the Government to the hands of those who always have avowed the faith of strict construction. They have a right, sir, to require that we will thus administer it--that we will restrict appropriations to objects which are clearly constitutional."

Had any of the founding fathers seen into the future, the safeguards they would have fashioned to prevent such Federal totalitarianism would have been their loudest voice of all...

"The fate...of America may depend on this...Have they made a proposal of a compact between the states? If they had, this would be a confederation. It is otherwise most clearly a consolidated, national government. The question turns, sir, on that poor little thing, the expression, WE, the people, instead of the states, of America...[If] the states be not the agents of this compact, it must be one great, consolidate, national government, of the people of all the states." PATRICK HENRY.

Again, sir. I hold the common opinion that any coercion of a 'delinquent' state was for a state STILL IN THE UNION, not one which had seceded itself... "To force a state would be the maddest folly ever devised"! (paraphrase from my favorite Northern Left Wing Totalitarian Federalist, HAMILTON)

"I am persuaded that a firm union is as necessary to perpetuate our liberties as it is to make us respectable; and experience will probably prove that the national government will be as natural a guardian of our freedom as the state legislatures themselves."

"Congress can no more abolish the state governments, than they can dissovle the Union. The whole Constitution is repugnant to it." ALEXANDER HAMILTON


It is a blind arrogance to assume that the leaders of a state one hundred years ago signed the souls of their POSTERITY away to be ruled by a mob majority in a general election, with no thought of being able to pull away from it.

"We, the people, in order to form a more perfect Union, do hereby ordain and establish..."

You do yourself an injustice when you consider the Northern position to be proper in the matter of the late war.

"We of the South will tear this Constitution to pieces, and look to our guns for justice."

"I yield to no one precedence in love for the South. But because I love the South, I rejoice in the failure of the Confederacy."


State sovereignty suggests an open compromise by any and all majority election winners...

"This sophism derives much, perhaps the whole, of its currency, from the assumption, that there is some omnipotent, and sacred supremacy, pertaining to a state, to each state of our Federal Union. Our states have neither more, nor less power, than that reserved to them, in the Union, by the Constitution..."

If abolition is your game, there are channels for such redress. If tax increases are your game, then consider those whom you are taxing... and by what amounts. What do the TAXED get out of it, if anything, from the general government?

"This government, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it, or their revolutionary right to dismember or overthrow it."

Or, are they just the Milch Cow, set up to be fed upon 'for the benefit of the residue'.

"I'd rather every one of my children should be laid out on the cooling board, than have the Yankees get my n*i*g*g*e*r*s."

The South, according to Davis, was never accorded any such respect...

"I am loath to close. We are not enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies. Though passions may have strained, it must not break our bounds of affection. They mystic cords of memory, stretching from every battlefield, and patriot grave, to every living heart and hearthstone, all over this broad land, will yet swell the chorus of Union, when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature."

And never would be.

"With malice toward none; with charity for all; with firmness in the right, as God give us to see the right, let us strice on to finish the work we are in; to bind up the nation's wounds; to care for him who shall have bourne the battle, and for his widow, and his orphan- to do all which may achieve and cherish a just, and a lasting peace, among ourselves, and with all nations."

The North would seem to have brought the conflict upon themselves, trying the very patience and loyalty of Union men, North and South, who now saw their devotion as a Confederate government...

The Federal one having been degraded to sectionalism.

"Thirty years ago they rubbed out part of the line, and said to [the Slave Trader], "You may go into the lands of the South, but not into the lands of the North." This was the Missouri Compromise. Five years ago they rubbed out the rest of the line, and said to him, "We leave it to the Settlers to decide whether you shall come in or not." This was the Nebraska Bill. Now they turn humbly to him, hat in hand, and say, "Go where you please; the land is all yours, the National flag shall protect you, and the National Troops shoot down whoever resists you." This is the Dred Scott decision."

I have tried very hard here to have the founders and participants at this time of history reply to your post.

I am satisfied they have done a far better job at doing so than myself.

Unionblue
 

timewalker

Cadet
Joined
Jan 7, 2008
Location
Flower Mound, Texas
"Thirty years ago they rubbed out part of the line, and said to [the Slave Trader], "You may go into the lands of the South, but not into the lands of the North." This was the Missouri Compromise. Five years ago they rubbed out the rest of the line, and said to him, "We leave it to the Settlers to decide whether you shall come in or not." This was the Nebraska Bill. Now they turn humbly to him, hat in hand, and say, "Go where you please; the land is all yours, the National flag shall protect you, and the National Troops shoot down whoever resists you." This is the Dred Scott decision."

I have tried very hard here to have the founders and participants at this time of history reply to your post.

I am satisfied they have done a far better job at doing so than myself.

Unionblue

Well done, Neil. You have done yeoman's work in assembling the quotes.
 

ole

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Retired Moderator
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Location
Near Kankakee
(I have often noted in my debates, that when a person cannot defend their postion by referencing sources, documents, etc., in short, actual evidence, to support what is truly just their own opinion, they employ the desperate tactic of labeling those they cannot answer, as if filling up the empty space of their reply with such, will somehow enhance that vast, empty space, where truly nothing is offered and nothing really said in reply.)
A shorter version: If you can't persuade with logic; overwhelm with BS.

Ole
 

tory_loyalist

Banned
Joined
Aug 2, 2008
Location
His Majesty's colonies
"Thirty years ago they rubbed out part of the line, and said to [the Slave Trader], "You may go into the lands of the South, but not into the lands of the North." This was the Missouri Compromise. Five years ago they rubbed out the rest of the line, and said to him, "We leave it to the Settlers to decide whether you shall come in or not." This was the Nebraska Bill. Now they turn humbly to him, hat in hand, and say, "Go where you please; the land is all yours, the National flag shall protect you, and the National Troops shoot down whoever resists you." This is the Dred Scott decision."

I have tried very hard here to have the founders and participants at this time of history reply to your post.

I am satisfied they have done a far better job at doing so than myself.

Unionblue


Couple of things. First off, I wish you wouldn't tag the last comment to where only your last comment comes up when I try to answer...

This would be helpful if you would not do this, and let
all of your response be visible so I won't have to go back to the page and read it, and come forward, and
et cetera...

Second, I shall answer this as I go... So let me post part, so these less than perfect PC machines won't accidently erase an hour's worth of typing... I am not on my beloved
4Gig of ram 1 terrabyte of memory iBeast, as I am in South Carolina tonight, having come through the thriving megalopolis of Society Hill, and Bennettsville. The plastic-smelling evening fires are so close together that there is no fresh air smell between them, in Steele's Southern cities of Tomorrowland. The fields are full of cotton the machines missed,
the only people are in the one of the several area McDonalds, or else walking up and down the long vast roads to nowhere, with no sign of an automobile among them,and literally falling over great white wads of this
cotton all up and down the streets like wads of shaving cream...
which doubtless have blown off these
massive rectangles of cotton 'bales'. What businesses are not burned down are closed up...
I am put in mind of modern war-torn
Iraq, in fact. It is one of the saddest places I have ever seen...

The Federal Armies caused this fiasco in Society Hill...
It's been 150 years. Why can't we divert some "billions" down here?

(A heavy burden of oppression rests upon me, and the future looks gloomy in the extreme - Davis at Fortress Monroe)

You are right, Steele! Light Years from when Sherman came through here! Absolute Light Years! No comparison! Love what they have done with the place!


Third. To which people were you referring? I was referring to the political majorities that the
Left likes to aggrandize as being WE THE PEOPLE of the United Majorities of America. I Said that you seem to refer to these people, by making the same generalizations about THE PEOPLE that they, The Left
make of them, themselves...

WE THE PEOPLE are everyone; not just the elected party! If the minority are not to be considered, then there are no protections, save in a general secession...

As to the wonderfulness of Sources, I have a new thread I am starting on that. Soon.

Fourth, A majority held in place by Constitutional Checks?

If the Constitution can be amended to steal slaves from lawful owners, what good is it, again?

Constitutional, then, can thus
be amended to mean anything that the recent
ruling faction wishes it to say...

Does it not become a sham?

Read Davis and his country's desire for protections against the do-gooder mobs of the North.

Fifth; A Majority is the only true sovereign of a free people? Free People do not have 'sovereigns', I was led to believe! They have 'electeds', and these electeds
have a responsibility to make sure that the North does not fill up with nobodies from
other countries who can then vote themselves largesse from the common purse and destroy those with whom they disagree, those
who have been here longer, and those
who actually built the place, in the first instance!

Otherwise, the South could again build a majority, amend the 13th amendment, and
start dealing in slaves again...

They won't ever do that, because Slavery is no longer workable in the mechanized world.
And slavery was not the be all and end all of the Southern Cause, as you would have us believe... It was a part of it, but not the whole. (Davis, again).

Under your system, however, where winner takes all, with no regard to the minority, you endanger the very fabric you worked so hard to build!



Or, they (the ruling class)
could now decide to expatriate all vagrants back to their country of origin... as master Lincoln wished to do.

The way the North treated the minority makes it possible for a new majority to do foul and unthinkable things when they become the stronger...

Sixth, you are all about some quotes... but who said the things you are giving out here?

Some sound like Lincoln...

No state would have ever entered this Union knowing that the majority could have its way with the minority to such a degree as to do what the North intended to do to the South...
and not have that state enjoy the redress of a general secession...

No state would have ever signed such a paper.

The North didn't sign it under those terms, nor did the North require these terms until it desired to force itself and its newfound majority
upon the South...

When Bush 43 went back in a second time, the Blue States began bleating about joining with Leftist Canada, and a general secession of the South. So it would change again, to suit the almighty North?

And Bush is a CENTRIST, not
a CONSERVATIVE!

Conservatives have no vote, any longer...

Must finish later; got people waiting to use this thing...

Loyalist
 

Freddy

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
Dec 19, 2006
Location
Worcester, MA
Just a few problems with you post.
(A heavy burden of oppression rests upon me, and the future looks gloomy in the extreme - Davis at Fortress Monroe)
A slave owner feels opressed!

If the Constitution can be amended to steal slaves from lawful owners, what good is it, again?
Ending slavery by making it illegal as a result of a failed rebellion is the price of losing said rebellion.

Constitutional, then, can thus
be amended to mean anything that the recent
ruling faction wishes it to say...
The US Constitution needs the votes of two-thirds of Congress and three-fourths of the states' legislatures or conventions to amend the Constitution. Hardly a faction!

Otherwise, the South could again build a majority, amend the 13th amendment, and start dealing in slaves again...
That is simply nonsense.

Or, they (the ruling class)could now decide to expatriate all vagrants back to their country of origin... as master Lincoln wished to do.
Lincoln rejected colonization in mid-1862 and no blacks were forced to leave the US.

The way the North treated the minority makes it possible for a new majority to do foul and unthinkable things when they become the stronger...
The North treated the South comparetively well compared to the victors in other rebellions.

NO STATE would ever have bound itself to a Constitution if it knew that a majority of other states could have its elected 'way' with them, as it pleased....
You are correct, states were bound to the US Constitution, but states were also protected by it.

The Union was for states who wished to remain in the Union, and it remained to coax or coerce states who wished to remain in the Union to play by the mob majority rules...
The Union was for all states who ratified the US Constitution. Which states were coerced by the Union to remain? If you are refering to border states let me remind you that a civil war was raging.
 

unionblue

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Member of the Year
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Location
Ocala, FL (as of December, 2015).
Couple of things. First off, I wish you wouldn't tag the last comment to where only your last comment comes up when I try to answer...

This would be helpful if you would not do this, and let
all of your response be visible so I won't have to go back to the page and read it, and come forward, and
et cetera...

I have my system, you have yours, and there's nothing wrong with anyone having to go back a bit in this thread and do a little checking, IMO, so let's learn to live with each others style of answering one another and move on.

Second, I shall answer this as I go... So let me post part, so these less than perfect PC machines won't accidently erase an hour's worth of typing... I am not on my beloved
4Gig of ram 1 terrabyte of memory iBeast, as I am in South Carolina tonight, having come through the thriving megalopolis of Society Hill, and Bennettsville. The plastic-smelling evening fires are so close together that there is no fresh air smell between them, in Steele's Southern cities of Tomorrowland. The fields are full of cotton the machines missed,
the only people are in the one of the several area McDonalds, or else walking up and down the long vast roads to nowhere, with no sign of an automobile among them,and literally falling over great white wads of this
cotton all up and down the streets like wads of shaving cream...
which doubtless have blown off these
massive rectangles of cotton 'bales'. What businesses are not burned down are closed up...
I am put in mind of modern war-torn
Iraq, in fact. It is one of the saddest places I have ever seen...

The Federal Armies caused this fiasco in Society Hill...
It's been 150 years. Why can't we divert some "billions" down here?

Tacking today's problems onto the issues that were brought about and settled by the Civil War is a nogo in my book. It's claptrap taking up space and bandwith. This is a CIVIL WAR forum.

(A heavy burden of oppression rests upon me, and the future looks gloomy in the extreme - Davis at Fortress Monroe)

Your one of those "glass half empty" folks, aren't you?:smile:

You are right, Steele! Light Years from when Sherman came through here! Absolute Light Years! No comparison! Love what they have done with the place!

Or maybe three-quarters empty.


Third. To which people were you referring? I was referring to the political majorities that the
Left likes to aggrandize as being WE THE PEOPLE of the United Majorities of America. I Said that you seem to refer to these people, by making the same generalizations about THE PEOPLE that they, The Left
make of them, themselves...

WE THE PEOPLE are everyone; not just the elected party! If the minority are not to be considered, then there are no protections, save in a general secession...

As to the wonderfulness of Sources, I have a new thread I am starting on that. Soon.

Fourth, A majority held in place by Constitutional Checks?

If the Constitution can be amended to steal slaves from lawful owners, what good is it, again?

Constitutional, then, can thus
be amended to mean anything that the recent
ruling faction wishes it to say...

Does it not become a sham?

Anytime you wish to talk about history, I'm here.

Read Davis and his country's desire for protections against the do-gooder mobs of the North.

Fifth; A Majority is the only true sovereign of a free people? Free People do not have 'sovereigns', I was led to believe! They have 'electeds', and these electeds
have a responsibility to make sure that the North does not fill up with nobodies from
other countries who can then vote themselves largesse from the common purse and destroy those with whom they disagree, those
who have been here longer, and those
who actually built the place, in the first instance!

Does it hurt to contort so? To wiggle so much as to be completely off topic? Are you so convinced that a straight forward debate about the historical facts concerning when the states lost their sovereignty must be done with claptrap, 21st century whinning, and political fluff from a short sighted point of view?

Wrong forum.

Otherwise, the South could again build a majority, amend the 13th amendment, and
start dealing in slaves again...

They won't ever do that, because Slavery is no longer workable in the mechanized world.
And slavery was not the be all and end all of the Southern Cause, as you would have us believe... It was a part of it, but not the whole. (Davis, again).

You should accept the fact that Davis lied when he said this. He lied to himself, worst of all, but he is trying to lie to us and our grandchildern, which is even more henious. Slavery was the primary cause of the war. Period. Until we accept that as the historical truth it is, all those who deny it are simply dead weights on the lessons of the time, immoveable ballast, intent on holding everyone back from learning the simple truth.

Under your system, however, where winner takes all, with no regard to the minority, you endanger the very fabric you worked so hard to build!

The South walked onto the field, freely and with confidence, thinking it could decide the contest by force of arms. Overconfidence is a weakness that has brought down many a people and a country, as history has shown us.


Or, they (the ruling class)
could now decide to expatriate all vagrants back to their country of origin... as master Lincoln wished to do.

Mumbling, opinion, but no source, no history.

The way the North treated the minority makes it possible for a new majority to do foul and unthinkable things when they become the stronger...

And you would be happy with the tyranny of a minority, allowing it to dictate at the expense of the many.

No thanks, the majority will do for now, until the people decide on something better. And that's the problem that prevades your entire post. No confidence whatsoever in the people. You simply keep coming across as one of those frustrated people who wish they were in charge so they could tell the rest of us poor fools what to do. The problem is, the majority simply cannot go along with you providing them the answers.

Sixth, you are all about some quotes... but who said the things you are giving out here?

Some sound like Lincoln...

Perhaps the concept of "research" or trying a goole search escapes you. No matter.

No state would have ever entered this Union knowing that the majority could have its way with the minority to such a degree as to do what the North intended to do to the South...
and not have that state enjoy the redress of a general secession...

They did. Again, research would show you that, but it would then mean a complete revamping of your beliefs and the admission that you are wrong. I won't hold my breath. You have the evidence already presented, but you continue to just babble your opinion without backup.

No state would have ever signed such a paper.

They did. Its called the United States Constitution.

The North didn't sign it under those terms, nor did the North require these terms until it desired to force itself and its newfound majority
upon the South...

Horsehocky. See the above.

When Bush 43 went back in a second time, the Blue States began bleating about joining with Leftist Canada, and a general secession of the South. So it would change again, to suit the almighty North?

And Bush is a CENTRIST, not
a CONSERVATIVE!

Conservatives have no vote, any longer...

Must finish later; got people waiting to use this thing...

Loyalist

Again, your 21st century observations have little or no meaning when it comes to the study of the Civil War. You only do this when you CANNOT provide historical sources or history to back up these rants. You haven't been in danger of losing your credibility, you lost it a long while back when doing such.

But consistentcy, that you have never lost, as you continue to post the same baseless rants.

History speaks loud and clear on when and why the states gave up their sovereignty and invested it in the people.

Ignore it at your own peril.

Unionblue
 
Top