American Civil War, yet again

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

MM,

Indeed.

OAR,

"The Union of the States never was a purely artificial and arbitrary relation. It began among the Colonies, and grew out of common origin, mutual sympathies, kindred principles, similar interests, and geographical relations. It was confirmed and strengthened by the necessities of war, and received definite form and character and sanction from the Articles of Confederation. By these, the Union was solemnly declared to 'be perpetual.' And when these Articles were found to be inadequate to the exigencies of the country, the Constitution was ordained 'to form a more perfect Union.' It is difficult to convey the idea of indissoluble unity more clearly than by these words. What can be indissoluble if a perpetual Union, made more perfect, is not?"

First, "more perfect" though noble and poetic is fairly vauge. More perfect to the author of this opinion means States can't recind ratification. "More Perfect" to a State ratifying only on condiction of the ratification of the 10th amendment that would allow a State to later recind ratification may take the opposite view. Second, the phrase "more perfect" is in the preamble a statement of general principles no where does it appear in the operative body of the Constitution. No where are States expressly denied the power to recind ratification. Finally, referring back to the AoC is absurd. Upon adoption of the Constitution by 9 States the AoC became a nullity. Dead law without force and effect. Article VII of the Constitution guaranteed that. The Constitution cannot be a mere amendment or codicile to the AoC because the Constitution, in Art. VII, violates the express terms of the AoC. The AoC could only be amended or changed by unanimous consent of all the States, Art. VII of the Constitution gives it force and effect when 9 states ratify. That is an abrogation and dismissal of the earlier terms of the AoC.

Therefore for those three reasons, vagueness, no citation to the operative body of the Constitution, and reliance upon the abrogated AoC Texas v. White fails to properly addess the real issues surrounding the reserved power of States to recind ratification.

[Zorral]

Yes, but without force, there wouldn't be an independent nation able to draft and ratify a Constitution. It was force, not legal argument, that established US independence vis-a-vis Great Britain.

On bilateral secession: correct, Lincoln would have never permitted it. Ergo, the solution would be to get a President who would be willing to negotiate.

On Fort Sumter: we're getting into the realm of alternative history here, but if the South hadn't fired on the Fort, that opens another can of worms - notably how viable the Confederacy would have been without the four extra states that joined in the aftermath of Sumter.

:agree:

They had to have Virginia to make it work at all. They got Virginia via rushing the point by firing on the fort (because Lincoln was determined they had to fire the first shots -- though to me they'd been firing the first shots over and over again in Kansas as well as other parts -- they even planned an armed take over the California legislature at one point). Additionally, South Carolina and Georgia gave up their desire to re-open the African slave trade*, in exchange, so that Virginia gentlemen planters could continue to live comfortably by selling off a few slaves a year. I.e. complete protectionism of the domestic slave trade.

----------------

* Though, once again, showing out of touch with reality they were, the places they planned to slave from had changed so much by 1861, it's so unlikely as to be fairly certain they'd have been shot out of the water.

[Serious Callers Only]

Yeah, insofar as that goes,I guess I get the Southern idea of being underwhelmed at the moral superiority of being the SECOND last modern state to abolish slavery, as opposed to the last.

Brazil was 1888 (after it was unprofitable because of generalized terrible wages lolololol), and it only sunk the monarchy. Better than a generalized civil war at least. Should have enacted land 'redistribution' if they wanted to survive the wrath of the scum at the top.

[Zorral]

Agreed, and I've often wondered if denial of that fuels the faulty french military contempt theme, or if that's just another British import.

I'm Canadian, btw.

This is my personal opinion purely, but it perhaps goes back to Jefferson's betrayal of Louis XVI in his presidency. (Jefferson was a terrible president, in o so many ways! Backstabbing was his mo, starting at least with attempting to rape his best friend's wife -- and not only once. She was terrified to tell her husband, until quite late in the game. He was a terrific political operator though, a master of others doing his dirty work.)

[Zorral]

I really don't think it will matter at all. People don't believe this stuff because they haven't been taught; they believe this stuff because it makes them feel good. Education is important and valuable but it doesn't matter. Remember that Congressman -- who was also a licensed MD -- who said that evolution was a lie told by the Devil? There's no way that he was not educated about evolutionary theory at some point. He likely encountered it multiple times in some form throughout middle school, high school, college, and medical school.

It's the same thing here. If someone doesn't want to understand something, no amount of education can change that.

As well, having a large population that the power elite can keep stirred up at all times with such bs is very good for the power elite. Divide and conquer. Religious and racial bigotry are the most effective weapons in their arsenal for both defense and offense, retaining and increasing their power. Now it's being deployed globally by the consolidated global plutocratic oligarchy, a/k/a the 1%, particularly toward labor and wages. This garbage isn't happening only in the U.S.

[Ramsay Gimp]

This is my personal opinion purely, but it perhaps goes back to Jefferson's betrayal of Louis XVI in his presidency. (Jefferson was a terrible president, in o so many ways! Backstabbing was his mo, starting at least with attempting to rape his best friend's wife -- and not only once. She was terrified to tell her husband, until quite late in the game. He was a terrific political operator though, a master of others doing his dirty work.)

I've never heard of the bolded part, care to elaborate? That's a pretty serious charge

[Zorral]

Meacham's bio of TJ; this historian admires TJ greatly is grinding no axes. But then, so few people see rape as rape or even attempted rape. He called it "attempted seduction," caused by TJ's the great ardor of his nature, frustrated by failure to win to wife the heiresses he wooed, which Meacham goes on about at length, not even noticing that this ardor bred his wife to death. Which happened to very many women for a very long time. It nearly happened to Louisa Catherine Adams, John Quincy Adams's wife.

[jarl the climber]

I've never heard of the bolded part, care to elaborate? That's a pretty serious charge

Once again I'm straining my memory but I beleive this was the Walker affair and Jefferson was accused of making unproper advances towards another mans(Walker) wife while he was away during the Revolutionary War if I recall correctly, Jefferson privately wrote a letter to the husband apologizing for this when the charge became public but he denied trying to rape her. There was a journalist named Callender who was trying to blackmail Jefferson after he became President, when he refused to pay, Callender publicized this story as well the one about Sally Hemmings and a couple of other ones that had less teeth.

[jarl the climber]

Madison, writing re the Nullification Crisis made it clear that he saw nullification -- and secession which was a subtext of nullification, as against the Constitution and the legal system -- We must keep in mind that Madison was also one of the principal authors of the Federalist Papers:

TO N. P. TRIST. … MAD. MSS.

Montpellier, Decr 23, 1832.

Yes but Madison did play a role in authoring the Virginia and Kentucky resolution in 1798 and 1799 in which these two states declared the Alien and Sedition Act to be unconstitutional. These resolutions were the inspiration for Nullification and all though Madison did try to disown the theory that he had proposed thirty years earlier the damage had all ready been done. So yes Madison was one of the chief movers of the Constitution but through a lapse in judgement he is also one the Fathers secession doctrine and Calhoun was merely one of his bastard offspring.

[Ramsay Gimp]

Meacham's bio of TJ; this historian admires TJ greatly is grinding no axes. But then, so few people see rape as rape or even attempted rape. He called it "attempted seduction," caused by TJ's the great ardor of his nature, frustrated by failure to win to wife the heiresses he wooed, which Meacham goes on about at length, not even noticing that this ardor bred his wife to death. Which happened to very many women for a very long time. It nearly happened to Louisa Catherine Adams, John Quincy Adams's wife.

Once again I'm straining my memory but I beleive this was the Walker affair and Jefferson was accused of making unproper advances towards another mans(Walker) wife while he was away during the Revolutionary War if I recall correctly, Jefferson privately wrote a letter to the husband apologizing for this when the charge became public but he denied trying to rape her. There was a journalist named Callender who was trying to blackmail Jefferson after he became President, when he refused to pay, Callender publicized this story as well the one about Sally Hemmings and a couple of other ones that had less teeth.

Ugh. Another serious moral stain on my favorite founder. I don't see much evidence that he raped his friend's wife though, only evidence of an illicit affair. And then turned down a duel from the husband years later, apparently not wanting to follow his enemy Hamilton into an early grave :P

[OnionAhaiReborn]

MM,

Indeed.

OAR,

First, "more perfect" though noble and poetic is fairly vauge. More perfect to the author of this opinion means States can't recind ratification. "More Perfect" to a State ratifying only on condiction of the ratification of the 10th amendment that would allow a State to later recind ratification may take the opposite view. Second, the phrase "more perfect" is in the preamble a statement of general principles no where does it appear in the operative body of the Constitution. No where are States expressly denied the power to recind ratification. Finally, referring back to the AoC is absurd. Upon adoption of the Constitution by 9 States the AoC became a nullity. Dead law without force and effect. Article VII of the Constitution guaranteed that. The Constitution cannot be a mere amendment or codicile to the AoC because the Constitution, in Art. VII, violates the express terms of the AoC. The AoC could only be amended or changed by unanimous consent of all the States, Art. VII of the Constitution gives it force and effect when 9 states ratify. That is an abrogation and dismissal of the earlier terms of the AoC.

Therefore for those three reasons, vagueness, no citation to the operative body of the Constitution, and reliance upon the abrogated AoC Texas v. White fails to properly addess the real issues surrounding the reserved power of States to recind ratification.

First, Chase isn't talking about rescinding ratification. In Texas' case that wasn't possible as they had never ratified the Constitution in the first place, they'd been annexed. Most of the other seceding states, and the vast majority of states today, couldn't rescind ratification either, as they were territories before being granted statehood and admission to the Union by the United States Congress.

Chase doesn't argue that the Constitution is "a mere codicil" to the AoC, he merely looks to the AoC's language to inform the meaning of the Constitution's preamble. This seems to me perfectly reasonable in seeking to understand a section of the Constitution which lays out it's intent, if Chase successfully argues that the founders intended the Constitution to form an indissoluble Union that's a strong step in proving that it also is indissoluble under the Constitution's terms. In any case, I doubt I'll improve on Chase's argument in my own words when you disagree with his original- I only quoted it because I felt the characterization of it as 'we win so we say so' was unfair.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

OAR,

Chase discusses none of the issues that need to be discussed. He end runs by talking about the AoC and the only non-operative portion of the Constitution placing the meaning he desires on "more perfect".

[OnionAhaiReborn]

OAR,

Chase discusses none of the issues that need to be discussed. He end runs by talking about the AoC and the only non-operative portion of the Constitution placing the meaning he desires on "more perfect".

I think his reading of the meaning of "form a more perfect Union" is perfectly natural and fair, well buttressed by historical context which refers not only to the AoC but also to the Revolutionary War (in agreement with Lincoln's four score and seven years) as the time our national founding. You're referring to the Preamble as "non-operative," but if I'm not mistaken it's generally considered to have legal force nonetheless.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

OAR,

You and I fundamentally disagree. Chase's opinion is a dodge deliberately avoiding the hard issues.

[Zorral]

Ugh. Another serious moral stain on my favorite founder. I don't see much evidence that he raped his friend's wife though, only evidence of an illicit affair. And then turned down a duel from the husband years later, apparently not wanting to follow his enemy Hamilton into an early grave :P

He didn't succeed. She fought him off. But he did try more than once. That's really bad. That she was his friend's wife, amplifies how rotten his behavior was. In no way was he a nice man. Just the way he set up Monticello dramatizes it.

One of the most interesting things about visiting Monticello is how differently women who run households view the house's set-up than men do -- who don't even notice the mess it is in so many ways for proper domestic care. But then, when you have so many women as relatives and so many women as slaves and relatives to do everything for you inside the house, what do you care?

As far as That Duel goes, I always see TJ dancing a jig once the door is closed after getting the news that two of the men he most hated, and who were his greatest political rivals, had essentially taken out each other.

[jarl the climber]

Ugh. Another serious moral stain on my favorite founder. I don't see much evidence that he raped his friend's wife though, only evidence of an illicit affair. And then turned down a duel from the husband years later, apparently not wanting to follow his enemy Hamilton into an early grave :P

Well we don't know for certain but like since he denied trying to force himself on her but she did rebuff his advance as Zorral noted and one of the stories was that when she was a guest in his house one night he came into the room where she was sleeping and tried to rape her, he denied this in the letter of apology he sent to the husband and since he at least admitted to making improper advances and apologized for that the husband sort of let him slide on that and accepted his denial. Still I think he was Governor of Virginia when this occured and the husband was away at the war as well so it was a serious breach of ethics by modern standards and you could see it as an abuse of his office and authority as well as a personal indiscretion.

[Zorral]

Yes but Madison did play a role in authoring the Virginia and Kentucky resolution in 1798 and 1799 in which these two states declared the Alien and Sedition Act to be unconstitutional. These resolutions were the inspiration for Nullification and all though Madison did try to disown the theory that he had proposed thirty years earlier the damage had all ready been done. So yes Madison was one of the chief movers of the Constitution but through a lapse in judgement he is also one the Fathers secession doctrine and Calhoun was merely one of his bastard offspring.

However, to seriously nitpick, notice that the Virginia Resolution doesn't employ "nullification" but rather

"interposition" to express the idea of the states’ right to "interpose" between the federal government and the people of the state. There was great division on this among the Jeffersonian Dems, particularly by the time of the Nullification crisis; Andrew Jackson against and Calhoun for.

In earlier decades, even after the Resolutions were drafted, seven states' legislatures disapproving. That no consensus was struck, and division grew ever greater through the 1850's, particularly after Taney ruled the Fugitive Slave Act -- abolitionists in the north began to talk of secession to keep the claws of the slave bounty hunters and kidnappers out.

But in the end it was the Calhounite Fire Eaters such as Fitzhugh, Robert Barnwell Rhett, Beverly Tucker, William Lowndes Yancey, John Quitman, Louis Wigfall, the proprietors of the Charleston Mercury Gazette, and the other "philosophers" of secession, who ran the country off the cliff. They were more than willing to burn down the whole thing if they didn't have their way. In the end others suffered for their temper tantrums. That's the legacy of all those centuries of slavery, a legacy we see in play to this very day.

[DanteGabriel]

But in the end it was the Calhounite Fire Eaters such as Fitzhugh, Robert Barnwell Rhett, Beverly Tucker, William Lowndes Yancey, John Quitman, Louis Wigfall, the proprietors of the Charleston Mercury Gazette, and the other "philosophers" of secession, who ran the country off the cliff. They were more than willing to burn down the whole thing if they didn't have their way. In the end others suffered for their temper tantrums. That's the legacy of all those centuries of slavery, a legacy we see in play to this very day.

Not just the legacy, but the same fucking childish behavior continues.

[BloodRider]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/05/16/racist-police-obama-_n_5336768.html

I know. Two wrongs do not make a right, but Jesus Christ is this sort of shit beyond the pale.

[Galactus]

OAR,

Legislatures have the power to recind and retract earlier legislation. Unless that power was expressly barred to the States they retained that power to recind.

My problem with your idea that the power to recind ratification is denied to the States by implication is that if implication is all that is necessary to deny States power they inhereintly possess, like the power to recind earlier legislative actions, the States retain no power at all and the text of the 10th amendement is meanimgless.

No it isn't. Reserved powers only enter into the question when powers are not exlicitly delegated to the federal government (agreed, yes?)

Therefore states *cannot* override federal powers in the areas where the Constitution delegates power to the Federal government, yes?

Secession would (by implication) override all federal authority: Including those areas explicitly delegated by the Constitution.

Therefore secession is not a reserved power.