The United States of America
Refusing to pay taxes to King George III since 1776
Happy 4th of July
This entry was written by Robert Koehler, posted on July 4, 2007 at 3:35 pm, filed under Completely Random Crap. Bookmark the permalink. Follow any comments here with the RSS feed for this post.
Post a comment or leave a trackback: Trackback URL.
92 Comments
I make it a habit of reading both of these every year:
IN CONGRESS, JULY 4, 1776
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America
When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected, whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & Perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.
In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.
Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.
We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. — And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.
— John Hancock
New Hampshire:
Josiah Bartlett, William Whipple, Matthew Thornton
Massachusetts:
John Hancock, Samuel Adams, John Adams, Robert Treat Paine, Elbridge Gerry
Rhode Island:
Stephen Hopkins, William Ellery
Connecticut:
Roger Sherman, Samuel Huntington, William Williams, Oliver Wolcott
New York:
William Floyd, Philip Livingston, Francis Lewis, Lewis Morris
New Jersey:
Richard Stockton, John Witherspoon, Francis Hopkinson, John Hart, Abraham Clark
Pennsylvania:
Robert Morris, Benjamin Rush, Benjamin Franklin, John Morton, George Clymer, James Smith, George Taylor, James Wilson, George Ross
Delaware:
Caesar Rodney, George Read, Thomas McKean
Maryland:
Samuel Chase, William Paca, Thomas Stone, Charles Carroll of Carrollton
Virginia:
George Wythe, Richard Henry Lee, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Harrison, Thomas Nelson, Jr., Francis Lightfoot Lee, Carter Braxton
North Carolina:
William Hooper, Joseph Hewes, John Penn
South Carolina:
Edward Rutledge, Thomas Heyward, Jr., Thomas Lynch, Jr., Arthur Middleton
Georgia:
Button Gwinnett, Lyman Hall, George Walton
Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.
Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle-field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.
But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate — we can not consecrate — we can not hallow — this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us — that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion — that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain — that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom — and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.
And I suggest that you file this under something more appropriate than “Other Random Crap”, Robert.
For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders
which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns, and
destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to
complete the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun
with circumstances of Cruelty & Perfidy scarcely paralleled in the
most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized
nation.
Happy 4th my fellow Americans…
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
Always good to read those lines.
nice try dlatn, but all Korea has to do is say beat it and we will, gratefully.
re: 1. Strange juxtapostion of a praiseworthy document advocating secession (”it becomes neceſſary for one People to diſſolve the Political Bands which have connected them with another”) and a speech by a man who forcibly crushed the legitimate secessionist aspirations of half the country.
re.: 5. Amen. It’s high time to get rid of King George and his un-American Empire and re-establish the Old Republic.
I’m sure you’re curious to know what I did to celebrate Canada Day. Well, I was going to send my son to kindergarten wearing his maple-leaf T-shirt on Monday…but I forgot.
Spewer, you actually read the Declaration of Independence every year? I guess it’s easier for you guys. Canadians have quite a bit more paperwork to read. I don’t think I ever read the Constitutional Act of 1867 ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C.....ct%2C_1867 ) more than once or twice, and I’m pretty sure I haven’t read any of the other British North American Acts ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B.....merica_Act ). However, I’ve read the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms about half a dozen times since 1982, the year it was signed ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C.....d_freedoms ).
(and to think some Americans complain Canadians are over-nationalistic).
Oh, and happy July 4th. (I wish our revolution in 1837 had been successful…but that’s a rant for another day).
Western C.:
re #1:
Emerson: “A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines.”
Oops Sperwer, I actually had Iraq and the War on Terror™ in mind.
You’re right, it doesn’t apply to the role of the US in Korea.
Nice colorful language though, I like the plunder and ravaging part best
Someguy:
Not only that, I’ve got the flag flying (now that the sun is out), and JP Sousa blasting on the boom box. (The retired Korean three star who lives next door is beside himself with fury :))). I was never provocatively patriotic before I lived in Korea - not even when I lived in France. I still don’t consider myself “nationalistic”. I think there is an important difference.
P.S. My father is a US naturalized Canadian, whose first progenitor in North America was an officer with Wolfe at Quebec, and whose own father fought with the Princess Pats at Ypres.
I would like a new revolution, please. The old one is worn out or at least, much abused.
Sperwer:
I always like that Emerson quote, even when it is used against me. Still I find it hard to reconcile Lincoln’s centrism with the Founders’ decentrism.
But I agree fully with you about the greatness of JP Sousa and the important difference between patriotism and nationalism, on which Daniel Larison paraphrased Erik Ritter von Kuehnelt-Leddihn thusly:
“[T]he words themselves indicate the difference: the patriot loves his fatherland (Lat., patria, Gr., patris), something distinct and different from himself, while the nationalist identifies with and loves those like himself, which K-L maintained was more like self-love than real love.”
Western C.:
I understand and appreciate your point about Lincoln. I imagine you would like Gore Vidal’s take on him. I suppose it all boils down to one’s estimation of what is necessary in order that a “nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure.” I don’t think Lincoln “destroyed the village in order to save it”, although his actions indeed set in motion developments that are mighty challenging to “republicanism”, and that only became more pronounced with Roosevelt, WWII and the post-war confrontation with Communism. I heartily agree that Shrub and the Neocons have been a disaster, though, because they are not really conservatives at all. I once at a fistfight with Wolfowitz in college; too bad I didn’t finish him off. ;))
The barbarians are on the other side dlatn (I got your meaning the first time even though Sperwer chose not to bother).
However, you can do more for your side of the argument than merely professing elegant 18th century drawing room style distaste. Sperwer’s challenge applies equally well to our other so-called “allies”; for example, tell the Germans (German flag flying beside your post) to put some real bite into their own remonstrations to the insane American cowboys.
By denying the US overflight permission/ landing privileges on German soil, for US flights to resupply/reinforce its forces in Iraq. I guess for those to Afghanistan too, since you included “war on terror (’trademark’)”.
If the Brits and Spanish join their Euro brothers in doing the same, we’ll have no choice but to begin to withdraw. Presumably all 3 of these countries would also have to pull their own forces out of Afghanistan as well, but then you and they could look forward to celebratng the end of US barbarism next 4th of July.
This would take some “real” courage on their part (they’d have to be willing to actually risk their own lives, fortunes, & sacred honor, instead of just pretending to themselves that they so so because they indulge in regular finger wagging at the US).
Still, if it’s the “right” thing to do they ought to emulate our own founders and get cracking. The next time you’re sitting around with your German friends having a chinwag and shaking your heads over the US, pass them the word to start showing a little US founding fathers backbone.
W. Confucian: there’s an actual organized secession movement of some sort in Vermont! Two prominent members published an editorial page article, which was on the net not too long ago (Washington Post or NYT, sorry can’t remember which, didn’t make a note of the link, wish I had now).
The authors claimed to have elicited considerable vocal support at numerous town meetings around VT. One of the authors was a political science professor at a university in Vermont (can’t remember which one).
Subsequent to the article I’m sure I saw one of them make a brief unsmiling appearance on one of the cable opinion shows, I think it was on Fox. I remember distinctly that he indicated his willingness for the future Republic of Vermont to either go it alone or possibly join up with Canada; now that’s what I call being broad-minded.
A good illustration of the hypothesis that when it comes to political science, no concept or doctrine is ever really extinct — merely dormant. Maybe the 1864 bank robbery by Confederate agents in St Albans VT left behind the seeds of a secessionist virus, dormant in the soil up there till now:
http://www.civilwarhistory.com.....nada.htm#3
So you may soon have to put aside your theoretical notions of secession and begin to deal with the practicalities. The issue of tariffs for interstate trade, and how to account for the Revolutionary war debt, were two of the prominent and contentious political issues during our Articles of Confederation period; I expect they will again manifest themselves in the upcoming US secession debate.
Dividing up the nukes shouldn’t be a problem, as I expect the new Vermonters will be anxious to declare themselves a “nuclear-free” zone. Of course I don’t expect their disdain will extend as far as their being unwilling to demand a credit for their “fair share” of the cost of US national defense to date, presumably applied as a credit against their “fair share” of assumption of the national debt.
God Bless America! Would be nice to be able to find a 6-pack of PBR right about now.
For the cynics (myself included in those who can’t defend some of the my country’s government’s actions) and haters and dare I say those with an unreasonable inferiority complex, take your potshots later and let us enjoy our day. We’re celebrating our country, our common and not-so-common heritage, not getting excited we are in a war.
“P.S. My father is a US naturalized Canadian, whose first progenitor in North America was an officer with Wolfe at Quebec…”
So, he was an evil man.
One of my ancestors fought alongside Joseph ‘Beausoleil’ Broussard during the Acadian uprising against Monckton (Wolfes second in command during the battle in Quebec) before being captured. Someone broke him out of prison before the Brits had a chance to hang him.
#6 - Not such a strange juxtaposition. It makes perfect sense to view the birth certificate and the death certificate synoptically.
Happy July 4th, America.
I wish we could be a republic. I’ve had enough of the British Monarchy.
Especially Prince Charles… eugh.
“…a speech by a man who forcibly crushed the legitimate secessionist aspirations of half the country.”
Let the primary sources, the Declarations of Secession from the states which issued them, speak to us in the voices of our ancestors with “legitimate secessionist aspirations.”
Below are the first few lines of text from each state’s declaration:
Georgia:
“The people of Georgia having dissolved their political connection with the Government of the United States of America, present to their confederates and the world the causes which have led to the separation. For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery. …”
Mississippi
“In the momentous step which our State has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part, it is but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course.
Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery– the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin. …”
South Carolina
“The people of the State of South Carolina, in Convention assembled, on the 26th day of April, A.D., 1852, declared that the frequent violations of the Constitution of the United States, by the Federal Government, and its encroachments upon the reserved rights of the States, fully justified this State in then withdrawing from the Federal Union; but in deference to the opinions and wishes of the other slaveholding States, she forbore at that time to exercise this right. Since that time, these encroachments have continued to increase, and further forbearance ceases to be a virtue. “
Texas
“The government of the United States, by certain joint resolutions, bearing date the 1st day of March, in the year A.D. 1845, proposed to the Republic of Texas, then a free, sovereign and independent nation, the annexation of the latter to the former, as one of the co-equal states thereof,
The people of Texas, by deputies in convention assembled, on the fourth day of July of the same year, assented to and accepted said proposals and formed a constitution for the proposed State, upon which on the 29th day of December in the same year, said State was formally admitted into the Confederated Union.
Texas abandoned her separate national existence and consented to become one of the Confederated Union to promote her welfare, insure domestic tranquility and secure more substantially the blessings of peace and liberty to her people. She was received into the confederacy with her own constitution, under the guarantee of the federal constitution and the compact of annexation, that she should enjoy these blessings. She was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery– the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits– a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time. Her institutions and geographical position established the strongest ties between her and other slave-holding States of the confederacy. Those ties have been strengthened by association. But what has been the course of the government of the United States, and of the people and authorities of the non-slave-holding States, since our connection with them? “
Legitimate secessionist aspirations indeed. I don’t think a single African-American would agree with you, Western Confucian, nor would many informed Americans of other races who have read and understand relevant primary sources. The South had a number of grievances but seceded principly to preserve slavery. The North fought to preserve the Union. We chide Koreans on their Korean War historical revisionism, yet we have our own historical revisionists who clamor that the Civil War was really about states’ rights. I am grateful to the sacrifices of the men and women who fought to keep our country united and respect those who served because it was their duty.
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/csa/csapage.htm
Red herring, Sonagi. One doesn’t have to defend the Southern states’ reasons for seceding in order to defend their right to do so. Further, one need have no attachment to slavery to decry the violence done by Lincoln to the Constitution in order to achieve his ends, which had little to do with freeing slaves and a lot to do with expanding the power of the federal government—as is understood, to use your own slightly snide phrase, by many informed Americans of many races who have read and understand relevant primary sources. The fact that Lincoln declined to free the slaves in the border states that remained part of the Union is but one testimony to this fact.
What was the Constitutional or other legal basis which gave the Southern states the right to secede?
What “violence” did Lincoln do to the Constitution, what were his “ends” and what “fact” does Lincoln’s allowance of slavery in border states support? Please be specific and provide links to supporting primary sources, if possible.
Nowhere in the Constitution does it state that the individual States ceded their individual sovereignty. For the sake of mutual convenience (the reasons outlined in the Preamble) they agreed to entrust certain functions to the federal government. If they as sovereign entities had the right to enter into such an agreement, and said agreement contains no provision by which that sovereignty was renounced, then it simply follows that they retained the right to withdraw from that agreement if it was no longer in their interest.
You’re kidding, right? I’ll humor you all the same. How about the suspension of habeas corpus in violation of Article I, Section 9? (And don’t forget that he had the Chief Justice arrested when said suspension was declared unconstitutional.) Or the creation of West Virginia from the territory of Virginia in violation of Article IV, Section 3?
Lincoln’s much-ballyhooed Emancipation Proclamation applied only to the states in rebellion. The slaveholding border states, where he actually had the power to effect such an emancipation, were not covered by the proclamation. If freeing slaves was a priority, doesn’t it stand to reason that he would have done so first of all where he actually could do so? The Emancipation Proclamation was a political ploy to gain the abolitionists’ support, and to allow the impressment of “freed” Southern slaves into the service of the Union Army.
I’ll leave Lincoln’s statist ends for another post or another poster.
One more thing, Sonagi. The secession declaration of South Carolina which you yourself cited above states:
Kind of puts the lie to your assertion that the states’ rights argument is historical revisionism.
Incidentally, the reserved rights of the states—the violation of which was cited as a reason for secession by South Carolina—are guaranteed by the Tenth Amendment.
Please demonstrate where the states ceded their sovereignty in entering into the agreement outlined by the Constitution (citing primary sources, if possible). If they didn’t, and if the federal government was in violation of the reserved rights of the states, then the aggrieved states were perfectly within their rights to withdraw from the agreement, weren’t they?
Sonagi: You can’t separate the practical politics and the actual history of the time from the “theory”.
I could be wrong but I think if you go and get into the details of the actual discussions at the 1789 Constitutional Convention, you will find that any specifics on “how-to-do- state-secession-from-the-new-Union-should-it-prove-to-be- necessary” was one of those subjects the details of which both sides of the debate decided to leave undiscussed in the final draft text of the Constitution.
I think both sides found it convenient to reserve to themselves their own understanding as to a right of future seccession — since every state had a substantial constituency that agreed a new union was necessary, and since there was no overwhelming imperative in the 13 original states at the time to outlaw the institution of slavery (I think some northern states had already abolished it, and were confident the institution would eventually fade away of its own accord, like indentured servitude had already done).
Eli Whitney’s cotton gin (1803?) changed that. You could argue that the invention of the cotton gin has caused the death of more Americans than that of the machine gun, to date.
“How about the suspension of habeas corpus in violation of Article I, Section 9? (And don’t forget that he had the Chief Justice arrested when said suspension was declared unconstitutional.) Or the creation of West Virginia from the territory of Virginia in violation of Article IV, Section 3?”
Ah, habeas corpus. Lincoln considered the grave possibility of Maryland’s secession, leaving the US capitol literally surrounded by enemy territory, as fulfilling the requirement of “cases of Rebellion or Invasion.” Likewise, former Ohio Congressman Vallandigham was arrested for inciting troops to desert and exhorting for the South to win. The suspension of habeas corpus was not nationwide, but limited to Maryland and a few other pockets of the North. Lincoln himself believed that he had the right to suspend although Taney and other Circuit Court judges continued to rule against him. The arrest warrant allegation is controversial because the primary source it is based on - book manuscript notes from Lincoln’s friend Lamon - was discovered recently and no copy of the warrant has been found.
Similarly in the case of the formation of West Virginia, the Virginia legislature had seceded to join a foreign country and thus was not able to give “consent.” Congress gave overwhelming approval, and Lincoln consulted with his Cabinet on the constitutionality of the bill before signing it.
{”Kind of puts the lie to your assertion that the states’ rights argument is historical revisionism. “
Please reread my actual words in comment #22:
“The South had a number of grievances but seceded principly to preserve slavery. Count the number of references to slavery versus other convlicts like states’ rights and economics in the Declaration of Causes of Secession from the four states.
“Incidentally, the reserved rights of the states—the violation of which was cited as a reason for secession by South Carolina—are guaranteed by the Tenth Amendment. “
Whether or not the right of secession is implied by the Tenth Amendment is highly controversial.
“If they as sovereign entities had the right to enter into such an agreement, and said agreement contains no provision by which that sovereignty was renounced, then it simply follows that they retained the right to withdraw from that agreement if it was no longer in their interest.”
“Please demonstrate where the states ceded their sovereignty in entering into the agreement outlined by the Constitution (citing primary sources, if possible). If they didn’t, and if the federal government was in violation of the reserved rights of the states, then the aggrieved states were perfectly within their rights to withdraw from the agreement, weren’t they?”
Paul is right. The Constitution is deliberately silent on the issue of secession. “Sovereignty” is defined as “the exclusive right to exercise supreme political (e.g. legislative, judicial, and/or executive) authority over a geographic region, group of people, or oneself.” When we talk about sovereign states, we are referring to independent nations not political units within a country. No US state government exercises “exclusive” power over its dominion.
No state joined the union unilaterally. All were admitted through an act of Congress. It follows, then, that no state ought to leave unilaterally. As long as the Constitution is silent, the debate remains open.
correction:
““The South had a number of grievances but seceded principly to preserve slavery. “
Count the number of references to slavery versus other conflicts like states’ rights and economics in the Declaration of Causes of Secession from the four states.
God bless America.
This land is where my children and their future children will live.
I want this country to be strong both militarily and financially because when the country loses its military edge, it will be attacked. Like the Pearl Harbor. Like the 9/11.
Stay strong, America. Calling troops home and shrinking military budget does not help. While bordering Mexico with its 40 Million population and Canada with strong EU ties, let alone Cuba, America needs strong military.
Stay strong, America!
“And don’t forget that he had the Chief Justice arrested when said suspension was declared unconstitutional.”
Marland Chief Justice Taney was never arrested. See comment #29.
“…Stay strong, America. Calling troops home ….does not help. While bordering Mexico with its 40 Million population and Canada with strong EU ties, let alone Cuba, America needs strong military…”
Baduk, my friend! Your admirable fervency does not always make for a logical consistency. If our immediate US neighbors are in fact evolving into a military threat as you darkly imply, then we need to bring home our foreign-based US troops (ones not fighting, that is) muy pronto.
US strength is not infinite. While I’m all for standing down Eighth Army personnel slots and diverting them elsewhere in the federal government, it would be for more border patrolmen and Coast Guard, not for possible military use against our immediate neighbors.
The ROK has reached the point where it is strong enough to take care of itself (both in terms of population and national wealth).
God bless America.
That is all.
Ah, I was expecting this. According to Lincoln and the North, Virginia was not capable of seceding. By their logic, the act of secession was invalid, and Virginia remained part of the United States, albeit in rebellion. As such, Virginia’s territory remained sacrosanct under Article IV, Section 3. The clause in question makes no exception, even for cases of rebellion. Thus, the possibility or impossibility of secession was something that changed according to the convenience of the moment in Lincoln’s view.
Sonagi, I did read your actual words in comment 22, to wit:
That’s the assertion I was referring to as belied by South Carolina’s secession declaration.
“While bordering Mexico with its 40 Million population and Canada with strong EU ties, let alone Cuba, America needs strong military.”
Your threat priorities are questionable, if I may put it mildly.
First off, I admit that I misspoke regarding Taney’s arrest. Chief Justice Taney was not taken into custody, though there is significant evidence that an arrest warrant was issued against him.
Re habeas corpus: In New York and Chicago among other places, newspaper editors who criticized Lincoln were arrested and held without trial in military prisons by the President’s orders. New York and Chicago were awfully far from the rebellion and/or insurrection, so I fail to see how the Article I Section 9 exceptions apply in these cases.
Historian Charles Adams covers the case of Chief Justice Taney, as well as a number of other habeas corpus violations, in this article: http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig2/adams1.html
#34 Ut.vid.: “…Thus, the possibility or impossibility of secession was something that changed according to the convenience of the moment in Lincoln’s view.”
Well, back in those days they just didn’t take everything to the Supreme Court right away, like we would do now (I think another potential state partition like WV from VA would certainly rate as one of those cases where the SC has “first dibs”, can’t remember the legal phrase for that offhand).
And past precedent can only take us so far anyway, if we’re going to get into the actualities of this unknown (for appprox 140 years) constitutional territory. There’s all kinds of guidance we’re going to need from you secessionists if (when?) a possible state (or states’) secession comes up in the near/distant future.
(BTW, I propose an immediate revival of that old pre-Civil War question, once posed at cocktail parties in what is now throroughly obsolete slang: “Are you secesh?”)
There’s going to be a thousand thorny questions. But let’s take just one for starters.
The Vermont secessionists have their own web site, I just took a look; they say they’re for “peaceful” dissolution, so I reckon that means a statewide vote/referendum (not merely a vote of the state legislature, surely). But — I couldn’t find any guidance from them on just what percentage of votes “secesh” fellers would deem adequate for a successful dissolution.
Certainly it would seem to me that 50% plus one isn’t going to cut it, not even if the Vermonters were to send out stern-looking liberal “vote police” to make sure every single enfranchised Vermonter (except for those insane, in jail, or in a sickbed) “turned out” to his (and her?) local polling place.
A “supermajority” would certainly seem to be indicated here, to assure a “valid” peaceful secession — but just how much of one? 3/5, 2/3, 3/4 are all “good” constitutional fractions (ie they have precedents elsewhere in the text).
What say you, my sadly errant secessionist brother/sister? Or do you prefer to wait for the passage of a const. amendment to settle this (and the other & similar) issues incident to a hypothetical future secession?
Paul H.:
That’d be original jurisdiction. The Supreme Court is the court of first instance for disputes between the states, and if I’m not mistaken for disputes between the states and the federal government.
Also, you’re off the mark by assuming that my support for the Southern secession movement in the mid-19th century makes me a blanket secessionist. The situation on the ground has changed. For one thing, Lincoln settled the secession issue once and for all–not legally, mind you, but by force of arms. “Secede, and have your infrastructure, economic base, dignity, et al. destroyed. Then be forced to jump through hoops to regain admission to the Union you weren’t allowed to leave in the first place.” That’s a difficult precedent to ignore.
So I haven’t given much thought to the Vermont secession stuff, much less do I support it. It’s pie in the sky.
Actually, that wasn’t even where I was going with my reference to the Tenth Amendment:
The Tenth Amendment specifically limits the powers of the federal government to the enumerated powers. It does this by reserving to the states all those powers neither enumerated to the federal government nor forbidden to the states. South Carolina’s argument for secession was that the rapidly expanding federal government was overstepping its purview of enumerated powers, thus repeatedly violating the prerogatives of the states guaranteed by the Tenth Amendment.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=hCFCggdN3kI
Tonight, I was on the Federal Drive of NYC closed for pedestrians with thousands of the crowd watching the Macy’s firework celebrating the Fourth of July. It was spectacular.
“Sonagi, I did read your actual words in comment 22, to wit:
… we have our own historical revisionists who clamor that the Civil War was really about states’ rights.
That’s the assertion I was referring to as belied by South Carolina’s secession declaration.”
The use of the word “really” implies the argument that it was states’ rights, not slavery, that was the driving force behind secession. As I have stated clearly, slavery was not the only issue, but it was the most important. Even South Carolina’s Declaration of Secession refers to states’ rights and federal power mostly in the context of slavery, specifically growing hostility towards slavery among free states and the refusal of those states to return fugitive slaves.
Ut vid.: “…So I haven’t given much thought to the Vermont secession stuff, much less do I support it. It’s pie in the sky.”
Pie in the sky is prb right but OTOH I thought big band music was gone forever, then swing music and dancing made a comeback.
Vermont would make an interesting test case since it has a border with Canada and there’s nothing vital to the US as a whole there. If the percentage of voters in VT who say “yes” to a poll question on sec. ever gets high enough, maybe a non-binding resolution will make it onto a statewide ballot sometime in the next decade, particulary if our domestic politics gets even more polarized red v blue.
There was a brief flurry of “secession” talk after the 2004 election; it was quickly dropped after being ridiculed, but the thought is out there.
Vermont lost its value to the United States when Phish retired/broke up!
A further note in response to Ut vid’s #39:
“…For one thing, Lincoln settled the secession issue once and for all–not legally, mind you, but by force of arms. “Secede, and have your infrastructure, economic base, dignity, et al. destroyed…”
I’d say the CSA settled it when they resorted to “firing first” in the bombardment of Fort Sumter, and thus gave Lincoln his “opening” to resort to armed force to suppress the rebellion (one you seem happy to imply he eagerly wanted).
Prior to the Confederate cabinet authorizing Beauregard to use force to “reduce” Sumter, I think there had been no violence, or “firing on the flag” anywhere else in the CSA:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Fort_Sumter.
At least, none that captured and inflamed the imagination of the Northern public in the way that the firing on Sumter did.
Bruce Catton discussed the issue more extensively in his various Civil war volumes (don’t have my copies handy unfortunately). I think Catton gets pigeonholed as strictly a military historian but actually he takes time periodically to comment at length on the political problems facing both sides, and as I recall he discussed the politics of perception surrounding Ft Sumter extensively.
If CSA had held their fire and waited to starve the garrison out, they might have eventually “outfaced” Lincoln politically. I would say the same dynamic still applies to Vermont; if they can ever get to at least 50% plus one for secession, while being strictly non-violent (sit-down blockades in front of local NG armories when out-of-state US Army VIP’s come for inspection visits?) — I can’t see the other 49 states really summoning the will to send in “federal bayonets”.
Admittedly the future People’s Republic of Vermont will have a problem balancing the fine line between non-violent and violent resistance to federal authority, in terms of restraining their own hotheads. For one thing, I would anticipate a swelling population of eager Muslim jihadis rushing into scenic VT from Canada (welcomed of course by the people’s “diversity” ministry) — once federal control of the border has broken down, due to the inability of the Federal govt to resupply its border control outposts.
Why would they come? Why, to take up residence, in anticipation of using Vermont as a base for cross-border infiltration — into the belly of the Lincolnian beast.
“I would anticipate a swelling population of eager Muslim jihadis…”
“God bless America.”
Irony.
yeah, yeah, yeah…happy birthday. I’d be more obliging if the tax word hadn’t been included. “Representation” since 1913 has proclaimed itself King George and transformed into “Ownership.” Alot of debate going on here about the constitutional dynamics that began with Lincoln but the potential expanse of the power of the Federal Government lay dormant until the 16th amendment. Since then, we have had Wilson, Roosevelt and most recently King George IV to to thank for the increasing power of said government. Thankfully, this George hasn’t hurt the tax situation but nevertheless the expanse of government that began with Lincoln is continuing apace.
#28: as written that seems to imply that a Congressional act forced compliance from those States. Not so. There is no question that the ultimate authority for inclusion in, no even the formation of, the Federal Government lay in the authority of the States. The one consistent theme running throughout the Constitution is the restriction of the Federal Government and the higher athority of the States within their domain. 1860 changed that forever regardless of what the impetus (slavery) was. The president did not even have any authority over military forces beyond what the governor’s granted him, and therefor could rescind.
At #30: so which immigrants have made America great and which ones are a threat?? Just because I can I’ll say it again: FDR was the most damaging president this nation ever had and our great nation has spiraled towards the moral and political stagnation of internationalism ever since. If only polio had finished its work earlier we might communism might have died on the vine without food for survival and the moral rebellion of the sixties and seventies given birth to by the newly evolved philosophy on rights, void of responsibility, might have been averted.
Happy Birthday America. Don’t forget to vote next election!!
#45: Assuming the sovereignty of states is admitted(crucial assumption), who would the rebels in this case be? Seems to me, the troops of a foreign sovereign nation bearing arms in that States territory without the expressed permission of the governor as explicitly required by the Constitution would qualify as rebellion. I’d say the only thing it settled was the need for Lincoln to remove his “invading” force from Sumter.
“Thankfully, this George hasn’t hurt the tax situation but nevertheless the expanse of government that began with Lincoln is continuing apace.”
Is this expanse of government - arguably corresponding to the development of a more modern and sophisticated reality - unique to the United States? I think not.
“Is this expanse of government unique to the United States?”
Absolutely and unquestionably it is unique. It is the only nation that had relative room for expanse. All other nations throughout history were already servants of fully authoritative governments. What made the US unique in the first place was that government was not viewed as inherently omnipotent. Nor is the expanse corresponding to more modern and sophisticated reality. Rather, the benefits accrued are the entropic remains of a philosophy grounded in personal responsibility rather than rights; benefits that have been slowly deteriorating as government finds itself overwhelmed with its responsibilities. It would be better to say that growth has been limited rather than enhanced by the expanse of government. We will never know what could have been had we continued in the tradition of people being responsible for themselves rather than handing over responsibility and authority to their elected oficials.
“Absolutely and unquestionably it is unique. It is the only nation that had relative room for expanse. All other nations throughout history were already servants of fully authoritative governments.”
Were Canadians, Australians, and New Zealanders, just to name three examples, already servants of authoritative governments at the time of their independence? Could one not argue that Europe, on the whole, has become less authoritarian a place than it was a century ago? You could say that England had already established the supremacy of Parliament over the monarchy in the 17th century; actually the 13 colonies were really paying their taxes to the British Parliament, not so much George III. (The British had not a perfect democracy, but then neither was the republic as envisioned by the founding fathers of the United States.)
By the way, I’m a big fan of the United States. Always have been and always will be. The aforementioned founding fathers were an exceptionally brilliant, and without a doubt, unique group of individuals. I just feel that the mythologization of America’s uniqueness - the “city of a hill” stuff - isn’t always that accurate.
GVI, keep in mind what you questioned. It was the expanse of government that you said was not unique to the US. I could have argued that at the time of establishment the US system was unique amongst the nations, but I didn’t. It is the sharp trend away from limited government towards large, all overarching, authoritative government that I contend is unique. Sure, you can find nations that have become less authoritative but none that first adopted the limited government philosophy that set apart the US and then turned around and started back in the other direction towards big gov’t. Hence, my bemoaning the expanse of government.
The US system was grounded in the belief that people are generally prone to do bad things, government people included. Hence all the restrictions on what gov’t can do, and nary a thing mentioned about what people can’t do. Our current “practically-worked” system defies that and operates under the assumption that people are generally good, so government can take it upon itself to direct and “support” its people. Stinks.
#48 Mr Chips:
Federal installations such as Fort Sumter weren’t and aren’t legally subject to the “sovereignty” (however defined) of the states in which they were/are located.
A crime committed on Federal property such as a military base is under primary federal jurisdiction and is subject to primary investigation by the appropriate federal police force (military police, FBI, etc) and then (if necessary) trial in a federal court.
I’m not a lawyer or a constitutional scholar, but it seems to me that when a state joined the union it explicitly undertook to recognize this fact, in regards to federal installations extant (or to be established) on its territory. I think this legal concept must be further reinforced by the precedent of the founders’ establishing a special “district” (ie DC), specially set up to be not subject to the jurisdiction of any state.
Who are the “rebels” and who is the “sovereign”? I guess it depends upon how you define it. I’m not aware that any seceding state of the CSA in 1860-61 held a popular referendum on the subject; state legislatures must have taken care of the legalities by passing a bill, or ordinance, of secession (whatever the correct term used then).
In the eleven Confederate states, I suppose there wasn’t any doubt at the time (and still isn’t) that there was some “supermajority” of the populace/voters in support of secession. But — it would be interesting to know what the “exact” figures were, state by state.
I don’t know that anybody can know this today, other than by historical anecdote (no Gallup polls back then, & of course a truly reliable measure would have to have been a popular referendum with secret ballot, or “Australian” ballot as I think it was called by later progressive-era reformers).
Secret ballot wasn’t the standard back then; when you went to the polling place in early America (prior to the progressive era), I think any others who were interested got to see how you had voted. And then it could become commonly known.
So one comes back to the key question (the one I posed earlier above) of “exactly how much is enough”, if one were to undertake to measure the amount of “true” popular support for a “modern-day” hypothetical secession.
East Tennessee would be a good historical “case study” relating to this issue, as during the CW ET was well-known to both sides as a stronghold of Union support (one in an actual state of the CSA as opposed to a “border” state).
I imagine there must be historical books, or at least history/poly sci Ph.D theses a-plenty, on the subject, particulary in the files of TN public/private universities.
These days I can’t imagine any state govt trying a secession just by state legislation; there would have to be a popular referendum. And of course I don’t really expect that any modern-day “secessionists” will ever have enough “fire in the belly” to take it to that point — at least, absent some tremendous future catastrophe to the country.
Paul H., “Weren’t” and “aren’t” are two very different things. Clearly, what you are saying holds true today. But, how did it get to be that way? Are you sure that the Army in 1859 always occupied Federal land in the same manner as after the War? The army as a whole was a relatively small institution and was, until 1860, entirely dependant upon the states to enlarge it numbers. That enlargement, per the constitution, could only be done with the expressed permission of the governor of the state from which those numbers came. Of course I spoke more tongue in cheek regarding Fort Sumter. It’s merely a debate for constitutional historians of whether the land on which Fort Sumter lay belonged to DC or to South Carolina, and the issue of sovereignty there is key. I do, however, have a problem with saying that the act of joining the union nullified states’ sovereignty. The very power of the union itself was granted by the first states. They didn’t join a union; they created it. The special court could only hold jurisdiction over states that had disagreement with other states but wanted to remain in the union. Nothing regarding that court speaks of its authority over states that are willing to give up the umbrella privileges in being a member of the union. Moot points all, I realize since precedent has clearly stated that States cannot be allowed to secede for the greater good of the full body of states. Nevertheless, what was lost with the emphasis on local government was gradually replaced with power in DC and that cannot be ignored no matter the good that lay in the original issue preserving the union. That loss of power by the states, I believe, starts a line of change that leads right to today where King George throws troops around the globe without any legal options of restraint by the states, or even the congress. Or am I wrong in believing that Congress actually did declare war?
“#28: as written that seems to imply that a Congressional act forced compliance from those States.”
No, my words did not imply coercion. The process involved both parties. The territory submitted a petition, and Congress voted.
“Not so. There is no question that the ultimate authority for inclusion in, no even the formation of, the Federal Government lay in the authority of the States. The one consistent theme running throughout the Constitution is the restriction of the Federal Government and the higher athority of the States within their domain.”
The Preamble to the Constitution begins with the words “We the People of the United States…” This phrase has been interpreted to set the federal government as a separate entity that does not derive its powers from the states. During the Nullification Crisis of the 1820s, southern-born President Andrew Jackson said of South Carolina’s nullifcation of a federal tariff to pay off war debt:
“I consider, then, the power to annul a law of the United States, assumed by one State, incompatible with the existence of the Union, contradicted expressly by the letter of the Constitution, unauthorized by its spirit, inconsistent with every principle on which It was founded, and destructive of the great object for which it was formed.”
A compromise was reached, averting a crisis, but the conflict between government power and indvidual freedom, as personified by the Jefferson-Hamilton rivalry, is as old as our nation.
“The US system was grounded in the belief that people are generally prone to do bad things, government people included. Hence all the restrictions on what gov’t can do, and nary a thing mentioned about what people can’t do.”
This does not make sense. If the founding fathers believed that “people are generally prone to do bad things, government people included,” then wouldn’t the Constitution have restricted both government and individual activities? The Constitution placed clear limits on government authority because, duh, the ragtag revolutionary army had struggled to win a brutal, expensive war against a powerful king of a growing empire. That war was financed by domestic and state debts of $65 million and a foreign debt of $12 million, which our government paid off partly through some rather unpopular tariffs, so our modest little limited federal government wasn’t off to a good start now, was it?
Canada became independent not through a revolutionary war but peaceful separation. I have not read the Canadian Constitution, but I wonder if it has a different thrust from that of the US, which emphasizes limits on government power. My Canadian friends are fond of pointing out to me that while the US Declaration of Independence advocates man’s right to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,” the Canadian Constitution calls for “peace, order, and good government.”
#54 Mr C:
Yes I’m quite sure there were “federal only” US Army troops maintained continously during peacetime prior to 1859, and that there had been such ever since the beginning of the consitutional republic.
I even happen to recall that there was one company of federal artillerymen maintained/funded by the Congress during the Articles of Confederation period (1781-89; I think their main duty to was to guard US govt forts).
I’ll have to go back and check if you want sources/ citations, but prb most US Army federal troops during peacetime prior to 1859 would have been artillerymen for the coast artillery forts such as Sumter.
The coastal states would have been happy to have the burden of paying for even mininal peactime maint/ construction/ garrisoning of such forts borne by the Federal govt. Plus you’re forgetting about the Navy/Marine Corps/Treasury Dept Revenue cutter service (ancestor of US Coast Guard); these had to have installations (navy yards) which were always a federal responsibility (even today, there’s no such thing as a Navy/USMC “national guard”).
There’s one interesting example of “rebellion” against a federal installation just prior to Sumter: John Brown’s notorious 1859 raid on Harpers Ferry (VA, now WVA) which had a federal arsenal with a lot of stored weapons. These wpns belonged to the federal govt, not the state of VA (though Uncle Sam evidently had only one watchman employed for the entire arsenal at the time of the raid):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Brown_(abolitionist)#The_Raid
I remembered that federal troops (US Marines) were dispatched to Harper’s Ferry to take back the engine house from Brown’s men, but I had to reacquaint myself as to which authority tried him. Interestingly, it was not a federal court but the state of VA; I see where VA held onto Brown as they wanted to ensure he didn’t get pardoned or tried by a possibly more sympathetic federal court (hysteria on their part as I think he would have been hanged regardless).
Of course I guess his offenses weren’t purely “federal” as he had committed crimes on non-federal soil in/about the town of Harpers Ferry as well. And I reckon President Buchanan (later opposed to the use of force to prevent secession when it happened) wasn’t inclined to enforce federal jurisdiction.
Interestingly, one of the three counts Brown was convicted of was “treason against the state of VA”; I wonder if that offense still exists in the constitution of VA, as well as any/all of the other 49 states.
And that leads to another interesting question: What if Lincoln had let the CSA go peacefully in 1861, and then West Virginia had subsequently attempted to “secede” from VA in order to rejoin the Union?
In that case, do you think W VA have been justified in using force to prevent secession?
Correction: “In that case, do you think “VA” have been justified in using force to prevent secession?”
“Canada became independent not through a revolutionary war but peaceful separation. I have not read the Canadian Constitution, but I wonder if it has a different thrust from that of the US, which emphasizes limits on government power. My Canadian friends are fond of pointing out to me that while the US Declaration of Independence advocates man’s right to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,” the Canadian Constitution calls for “peace, order, and good government.””
Really good overall comparison I think, but both constitutions have have a similar emphasis on fundamental rights or freedoms.
The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is maybe the most important part of the Constitution Act. Essentially, the Canadian Constituion was patriated in April 1982. My father - no lover of the monarchy - took to me see Queen Elizabeth II sign the Act in front of the Canadian Parliament, finally giving us complete freedom to amend the Constitution without any role - symbolic as it may have been by that time - of British Parliament. (Though we like to see our independence as having begun in 1867 with the British North America Act, it was arguably not until the Statute of Westminister in 1931 - which applied also to Australia, NZ, South Africa, and others - that we were genuinely independent.)
Anyway, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms spells out Fundamental Freedoms, as well an overview of specific rights of Canadian citizens categorized by Democratic Rights, Legal Rights, Mobility Rights, and a few other areas. The Fundamental Freedoms - I had to go to Wiki to refresh my memory on these - are Freedom of conscience and religion, Freedom of thought, belief, opinion, and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication, freedom of peaceful assembly, and freedom of association.
Pretty good document (longer than the United States Bill of rights, but still pretty compact) and no doubt influenced in part by the United States Bill of Rights (which I suppose was also influenced by the original British Bill of Rights).
#53 -
Actually, this perfectly undermines your claim. Had it been at the time a settled point that federal property was not under the jurisdiction of the state within which it was located, there would have been no need to erect an autonomous federal district that was not within the borders of any state. The idea of federal jurisdiction over crimes committed on federal property, etc. came MUCH later.
#55 -
Interpreted by whom?
The idea of enumerated and reserved powers—as contained in the main body of the Constitution and reinforced in Amendment X—flies in the face of any assertion that the federal government does not derive its powers from the states. The sovereign States party to the agreement delegated certain powers to be exercised at a federal level for mutual convenience. They reserved all other powers not so delegated to themselves. As written, the Constitution establishes a federal government that derives its powers from the states. Claiming otherwise based on one sentence from the Preamble is the worst sort of proof-texting fundamentalism. Applied in another context, it’d make Oral Roberts proud.
#59:
1) “The idea of federal jurisdiction over crimes committed on federal property, etc. came MUCH later.”
Don’t know legal history so I’m not in a position to dispute this, but I’m talking theory as opposed to actual practice. Major Anderson could have legally court-martialed rebel intruders who tried to enter the fort and sabotage the powder magazine, couldn’t he?
More importantly:
2) “Actually, this [the establishment of the District of Columbia in the Constitution] perfectly undermines your claim. Had it been at the time a settled point that federal property was not under the jurisdiction of the state within which it was located, there would have been no need to erect an autonomous federal district that was not within the borders of any state.”
Seems to me you’ve got it backwards — that nothing was “settled” either way, until the Constitution was written, ratified and adopted. Subseqent to that, wouldn’t the establishment of the District of Columbia in article I section 8 make the aforesaid DC an important legal precedent for the Constitutional concept of primacy of federal authority over federal installations?
As a side note, there appears to have been no SC property or even a piece of legally titleable land located at the Fort Sumter site, prior to SC’s entry into the Union:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_Sumter
“…Fort Sumter was built after the War of 1812 as one of a series of fortifications on the southern U.S. coast. Construction began in 1829, using slave labor, and the structure was unfinished in 1860, when the conflict began. Seventy thousand tons of granite were imported from New England to build up a sand bar in the entrance to Charleston harbor, which the site dominates…”
Seventy thousand tons of New England granite! No wonder the damn Yankees wanted to keep it; that’s what I call a rock-solid precedent. I’m assuming of course that federal appropriations paid for the construction, unless you think the rebs were entitled to take possession due to their investment of local SC chattel construction labor.
#62.2 - Got it backwards? Hardly. Why would it have been important to establish a special Federal district outside the boundaries of any State—unless it was an understood concern that a Federal installation within the boundaries of a State might be unduly subject to that State’s jurisdiction?
Also, Article I Section 8 specifies that the Federal government had to have the consent of the State legislature in order to purchase land for federal installations within that State. You are correct that it does specify Congressional jurisdiction over such properties, and thus I erred somewhat when I said that this idea came later. Nevertheless, the requirement that the State give consent for a Federal purchase of land within its territory is noteworthy—and highly suggestive of the concept of the sovereignty of States under the Constitution.
“The sovereign States party to the agreement delegated certain powers to be exercised at a federal level for mutual convenience. They reserved all other powers not so delegated to themselves. As written, the Constitution establishes a federal government that derives its powers from the states. “
Perhaps you’re confusing the United States Constitution with the Articles of Confederation. Article II of the Confederation reads:
“Article II. Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled.”
This statement didn’t get left out of the US Constitution by oversight. The delegates to the Constitution wrangled for a long time over giving up power to form a more perfect union.
The Preamble to the US Constitution states unambiguously that the United States government derives its power from the people. The US Senate agrees:
“The Preamble explains the purposes of the Constitution, and defines the powers of the new government as originating from the people of the United States.”
http://www.senate.gov/civics/c.....tution.htm
The website US Constitution Online has this to say about the nature of federal government power:
“There are three major types of government in the place in the world today. The most prevalent is the unitary system. In a unitary system, power is held at the national level, with very little power being held in political subdivisions, such as provinces, counties, parishes, or towns. The least common is the confederation. Confederations are unions of equal states, with some power being held at the national level. Generally, it has been found that conflicting interests lead to the break-down of confederations.
The third major system is the federal system. In a federal system, the national government holds significant power, but the smaller political subdivisions also hold significant power. The United States, Canada, Australia, and Brazil are examples of federal systems.”
Regarding the evolution of the Constitution to shift more power to the federal government:
“Federalism in the United States has evolved quite a bit since it was first implemented in 1787. In that time, two major kinds of federalism have dominated political theory.
The first, dual federalism, holds that the federal government and the state governments are co-equals, each sovereign. In this theory, parts of the Constitution are interpreted very narrowly, such as the 10th Amendment, the Supremacy Clause, the Necessary and Proper Clause, and the Commerce Clause. In this narrow interpretation, the federal government has jurisdiction only if the Constitution clearly grants such. In this case, there is a very large group of powers belonging to the states, and the federal government is limited to only those powers explicitly listed in the Constitution.
The second, cooperative federalism, asserts that the national government is supreme over the states, and the 10th Amendment, the Supremacy Clause, the Necessary and Proper Clause, and the Commerce Clause have entirely different meaning. A good illustration of the wide interpretation of these parts of the Constitution is exemplified by the Necessary and Proper Clause’s other common name: the Elastic Clause.
Dual federalism is not completely dead, but for the most part, the United States’ branches of government operate under the presumption of a cooperative federalism. The shift from dual to cooperative was a slow one, but it was steady.”
http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_fedr.html
The description of dual federalism begins:
“The first, dual federalism, holds that the federal government and the state governments are co-equals, each sovereign.”
Even under the dual federalism of the early Constitution, the federal government, as co-equal in sovereignty, did not derive its power from the states. Co-sovereignty is like a joint title to property. One cannot dispose of it without the other’s consent. Likewise, unilateral secession flies in the face of co-sovereignty.
Rereading Confederation Article II, I realized that it does appear in the Constitution as Article X but without the key words “sovereignty” and “independence.” Compare:
Confederation Article II:
“Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled.”
US Constitution Article X:
“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor