.

Cromwell, in Canada there is a separatist movement and the question becomes one of the mechanism/mechanics of separation.

that the powers granted under the constitution, being derived from the people of the United States, may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression

Who is ‘them’ and how would one recognize ‘them’?  Who decides for all of them and speaks for them at that point?  A referendum was the route taken twice in Canada recently.  But that then entails other questions.  What is the question poised?  In Quebec that was poised once as basically “Are you in favour of a sovereignty association with Canada?”  Sovereignty Association?  The question has to be clear and consequences spelled out.   You do not get to use the former nations currency.  You do not benefit from any of the trade or defense treaties.  You are a babe in the woods having to negotiate deals with every power all over again.  Do you take your share of the national debt, how do you determine your share of the debt?

Do you need just 50% + 1 vote or a more convincing 60?  Is is (50%+1 or 60%) or those who actually vote of those eligible to vote?  I mean if only 11 people show up to vote and the yes side gets 6 votes, is that enough of a mandate for a nation of millions?  Who is eligible to vote?  Maybe if the slaves (never mind the women) had been able to vote then the outcome would not have been a majority.

If the argument is “A few rich slave owning individuals feel wronged by the North and therefore we go to war” then it really doesn’t speak for the masses.  Of course that is hyperbole but only to what extent…

@Cromwell_Dude:

If it was illegitimate, what do you make of the New York and Virginia ratification conventions that I quoted above? ‘That the powers granted to the Federal Government could be taken back by the States whensoever.’ Seems as if the Lincoln administration was acting under illegitimate authority. How do you reconcile or make sense of the posts above quoting the New York and Virginia Ratification Conventions condoning Secession?

Also, if you believe what is stated in the Virginia and New York State Constitutional Ratification Conventions, then it is clear there is an occupying force standing guard in the seceded States. Doesn’t seem whacky to me. It seems the logical deduction based on the primary source evidence given earlier.

The Federal Congress accepted the ratifying conventions of Virginia and New York. If it disagreed with the conventions’ language, then it should have requested a revote. Instead, it accepted the language of the ratifying conventions. It was complicit with Secession by commission or omission.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secession_in_the_United_States under Adoption of the United States Constitution:

" [Constitutional Scholar Akhil] Amar specifically cites the example of New York’s ratification as suggestive that the Constitution did not countenance secession. Anti-Federalists dominated the Poughkeepsie Convention that would ratify the Constitution. Concerned that the new compact might not sufficiently safeguard states’ rights, the anti-Federalists sought to insert into the New York ratification message language to the effect that “there should be reserved to the state of New York a right to withdraw herself from the union after a certain number of years.” The Federalists opposed this, with Hamilton, a delegate at the Convention, reading aloud in response a letter from James Madison stating: “the Constitution requires an adoption in toto, and for ever.” Hamilton and John Jay then told the Convention that in their view, “a reservation of a right to withdraw [was] inconsistent with the Constitution, and was no ratification.” The Convention ultimately ratified the Constitution, without including the “right to withdraw” language proposed by the anti-Federalists."

While I a have not yet fully considered all the ramifications of a state being able to voluntarily secede, and thus am not fully decided on the issue, my current, and in all likelihood permanent position, is that secession is neither beneficial or legal. The response above is something I agree with and I think addresses your question pretty well. James Madison did write some contrary passages in Federalist 39 and in a report on the Virginia Assembly, however I believe the above quote is general enough to address Madison’s remarks also. These statement’s bring up further relevant questions, such as whether or not Madison refers to secession or revolution. But that is an entirely ancillary debate.

From the same as above:

_"However, Amar argues that the permanence of the United States changed significantly when the Articles of Confederation were replaced by the adoption of the United States Constitution. This action “signaled its decisive break with the Articles’ regime of state sovereignty.” By creating a constitution instead of some other type of written document, it was made clear that the United States was:

“Not a “league”, however firm; not a “confederacy” or a “confederation”; not a compact on among “sovereign states” all these high profile and legally freighted words from the Articles were conspicuously absent from the Preamble and every other operative part of the Constitution. The new text proposed a fundamentally different legal framework.”

Here it must be noted that sovereign states do not forfeit their sovereignty solely by failure to expressly retain it. On the contrary any such relinquishment must be manifested expressly; otherwise, an invader could simply claim such sentiment to be “implied” in any treaty or other instrument… and the facts regarding such, as having being “settled on the battlefield”

To some of your points… just because a state condones secession in their own Constitution does not make it legal. The Constitution itself is a legal document which supersedes state constitutions. There are certain areas in which states cannot pass law because the Constitution/Bill of Rights effectively prohibits it. Similarly, any language supporting secession is (should be) nullified by the US Constitution. Since that language is not explicitly present, I suppose you could make an argument against it, however, I will hold to this position.

As for an “occupying force in seceded states”… even if we accepted that the Southern states did legally secede and form their own nation, the Union won and whatever territory they gained in military conquest and enemy capitulation is theirs. The Confederacy no longer exists, in name or geographical definition, therefore it cannot be currently occupied. Besides, by 1870 all 11 Confederate states were officially readmitted to representation in Congress, not readmitted to the Union because they were always part of it in the eyes of the Fed. Government.

Some people believe that Texas, Arizona, New mexico and Colorado are all occupied Mexican territory… if anything, I say they are bitter and refuse to accept the current and future reality of the world. Not saying that you are these things Cromwell, just that your opinion can give people this impression._

@Cromwell_Dude:

What is NOT allowed from both sides:

-bratty and undisciplined children
-battlefield re-enactments

You cannot control the first one. Children are just that; they do not understand these events yet and cannot be expected to be as reverent as church mice the entire time. The responsibility for them is with their parents/guardians who should instill that respect in them. If we are to heed the comments on this thread, we should be more worried about adults acting like children over the issue rather than be worried about kids being kids.

Secondly, why no re-enactments? Yes, I know the difference between living re-enactments and battlefield re-enactments… but why? Is it disrespectful to the war dead? Or just something for oversensitive people to get worked up over because maybe “their side” won’t win the battle?

@Cromwell_Dude:

With that said, who has more validity- a ‘constitutional’ law scholar or the men who drafted and ratified the 1787 Constitution?

The men themselves, and their words of course, but this gentleman has supporting primary sources of his own, including Hamilton, Jay and likely Madison at some time. Even though these are the same men that you reference, do their words supporting his point of view not count? Scholars and interpreters exist that we may better understand and implement the Constitution. Some of them are poor scholars and like to twist wordings to fit their worldview, but others get pretty near the mark. I have no idea what Mr. Amar’s political affiliations are, and I do not care to; I know that his words here seem to be both reasoned and based in truth. As far as I am able, I will seek out for myself and find the truth of the matter. But if there is evidence for one and evidence for the other, both from the same, where do we stand?

@Cromwell_Dude:

Also, if only 9 States had to ratify the new constitution and no one knew which 9 would ratify the new constitution, it was illogical to include the original draft of the 1787 Constitution listing all 13 States. Hence, the draft was returned to committee and rewritten.

It does not matter if only the original 9 ratified it directly, if a state joins the Union it falls under the same law that governs all the others, which is implicit, if not explicit, ratification. it does not matter if they would or would not have agreed to the terms in 1787 if they were around, it matters that they are agreeing to the terms, as they are, when they join.

@Cromwell_Dude:

I stand by the no bratty children and/or undisciplined children. Being a child is no excuse for improper behavior. I am all for the parents being escorted out of the festivities with their animals they call “children.” Or, how about charging more for kids under a certain age? Some one has to man up and tell these parents and businesses that kids screaming and yelling is not acceptable. Notice I said “kids” and not “babies.” Babies cry. Not 2 year old brats who did not get a Confederate flag with their American flag cotton candy. Save it for Chucky Cheeze….Perhaps child free areas at these events? Or, at least undisciplined children free areas?

This is still more of a rant and personal opinion rather than any solution. Children are allowed at Arlington National Cemetery, which is certainly going to be a much more hallowed place than any site of re-enactment. How are they kept in line there? Parents and guardians. For the most part I think that only parents who have respect for war dead take their kids there, and thus the children will have the same respect.

I just don’t see how you can not allow children at such an event. It does not happen in real life. Besides, what is your age limit? Juveniles and teenagers can be (and will be) far worse than any toddler or young kid. And like I said, apparently we should be more worried about adults starting riots than we are worried about kids running or crying. They are children; such a sin as minor squabbles by kids can certainly be overlooked by the long dead soldiers. They died so kids could have the freedom to be upset and rambunctious after all…

@Cromwell_Dude:

The 13 colonies agreed to a perpetual Union in 1781 and totally disregarded it in 1787. In short, the 13 States seceded from the Articles of Confederation and created a new constitution even though the Article’s preamble talked about a “perpetual union.” So much for that hot air about a “perpetual union!”

There is no need to baby us with repetition, we can all read.

Regarding the Articles of Confederation, I think it is a little different when all states involved saw that their government was dysfunctional and collectively decided to forge a new one. It was not a separation but a dismantling to rebuild and strengthen. You may call me out on rosy sentiment and semantics on that one, but so be it, it is still the truth.

@Cromwell_Dude:

I didn’t think this post needed clarifying, but I said bratty and undisciplined children. I never said “no children.” I welcome children at these events. I gladly welcome them and believe much time should be spent on them. I welcome TONS of children. But, undisciplined children need to take a walk. Along with the biological entities that created them. Tons of children welcome. Children needing parental discipline-go home. War Dead Time. Not Angry Bird Time or Modern Warfare 2 Time. No rant. Discussing the logistics.

It’s not a rant. It’s the war dead. Have you ever been at Arlington and seen the soldiers guarding the Tomb of the Unknowns stop his solemn walk to discipline children? I have. We are talking about war dead, not Chucky Cheeze. I have not called any of your remarks rants, Sir.

Oh but it is. Obviously you are passionate about this subject; for that I give you much credit. However, what you threw down about kids is a rant; an emotionally driven series of responses on a particular subject. I hate to pull a Webster, but I must: to talk in a noisy, excited, or declamatory manner; to scold vehemently. I think that qualifies. Regardless of your feelings on the issue, you still have not proposed a method of weeding out the troubled ones other than kick them out as they cause problems. Which in itself is not bad, since it is the normal procedure at public events. However, your comments were neither logical or logistical, simply emotional; which is not conducive to a serious discussion. And I have been to the Tomb, multiple times. However, I have never seen a guard break his stride to chastise a child. I do believe you have and that is actually pretty cool. I did not know they were allowed to do that. However, I think it makes my point that I, and I imagine most others, have not seen what you described: people are not generally like that and when they are they should be dealt with individually.

And what is with the obsession with the war dead? Not that respecting them and honoring their memory is unimportant or trivial, but if that is your massively paramount concern (as it seems to be) I think you need to have your own private ceremony and do things right, as you see it. As concerned as you are about it, your ancestors will not roll over in their graves if someone speaks ill of the Confederate soldier. I don’t like it if someone speaks ill of American soldiers today, or of any time, but I don’t get my feathers ruffled over it. Your persistent shouts of “what about the Confederate soldier!” bring to mind the image of a voice crying out in the wilderness, except I don’t believe there is any savior coming. If I am your only doubter, then don’t take it so hard.

All in all I think I am about done with this thread. Not because the discussion is too fanciful or unstimulating, nor because you have not been a good host Cromwell (I think we actually agree on much more than we disagree). It’s just that I am so damn busy… and honestly, I have no crusade here. I will sleep just fine if I don’t convince you of my point of view. And I know that I will continue to honor and respect all American War dead and living, including actual or self-defined Confederates. While it strengthens my arguments, debating this subject gets neither of us anywhere with material value. We have little power to influence the events we speak of and none whatsoever to influence the past. I have a game of TripleA to finish with a friend, work to go to in the morning, a fiance to love in the evening and outside contracting to fit in somewhere in between. I wish you the best until we meet again here. I shall allow you to have the last word with me and then continue this thread as it evolves.

Peace.

@Cromwell_Dude:

And, it is disappointing to see you go. I don’t have to agree with people 100%. You call it passionate. I call it well-read. I am very passionate when I hear these words: “Lee was a traitor.” The main idea of this thread is to discuss ways to remember the war dead. I greatly enjoyed your posts. I believe most people are followers. Some are looking for leaders. Seems sad that all the war dead don’t have any one to speak for them except those Intellectual Priests of Sanctioned Scholars, who are really just peddling their latest book to justify some grant. And, if no consensus can be found here, then I don’t believe any consensus can be found. �  �

Agreed. And as I said, it is not out of frustration or anger, simply that I cannot justify an indefinite conversation of this depth. You have a great deal of knowledge. And while I am knowledgeable, I am no expert and I have not the time to become one; I will defer to your research and bow out here. We do not agree on a number of things, but nonetheless, keep up the good work Cromwell.

Cromwell:'DJensen’s respect system is being ruined by some individuals. The annoying thing is we do not know who they are or why they cannot PM their problem.
We can only continue to post our thoughts, knowing some care and want to listen.

Sometimes linking two issues tightly might not be the ‘most right’ way to look at things.  Honoring the war dead is an issue.  Flying the Confederate flag is also an issue but they are not the same issue.  The problem is the Confederate flag means different things to different people and those ‘things’ are often diametrically opposed.  Perhaps the two things ought to be slightly de-linked?  Just saying……