Goodwin
Posts: 3
Joined: 10/7/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Greyshaft
These are the words of the people who signed the Constitution into law for Virginia. It is clear that they claimed the right to revoke that agreement whenever they chose and that they were only joining the USA on the condition that they retained that right. That right was not challenged by the rest of the states for over seventy years until Lincoln became President.
I would argue that there are two things wrong with this claim. The first and most fundamental is, so what? Originalism is often a valid guideline for judging things like the Constitution, but it is not an unbreakable rule. I am not sure why the entire American government and every other state needed to hold itself for all eternity to the views expressed by a handful of leading figures from a handful of states in the end of the 18th century. Interpreting the Constitution requires much more than simply asking what its ratifiers believed, particularly because many of them had drastically different interpretations themselves.
Beyond that, it is wrong to say that this questions never came up before the Civil War. The dividing line between the powers of the states and the powers of the federal government was a constant source of contention during the antebellum period. In fact, my entire argument in the original thread was basically to copy a long quote from Daniel Webster's second reply to Hayne. This famous speech--known best for it's closing line of "Liberty and Union, now and for ever, one and inseperable!"--came in an 1830 debate about the same issue we are discussing here. Robert Hayne, a senator from South Carolina, used a debate about the sale of federal land to expound upon the idea that the states entered into the Constitution as sovereign entities and thus had the right to leave whenever they wished and nullify federal laws that they did not like. Webster rose in opposition to him and made what is considered one of the finest speeches in American history.
The foundation of Webster's argument can be seen in the very first words of the Constitution itself. It begins "We the people," not "We the states." Webster argues that the federal government is not a creature of the state governments, rather it is a creature of the very people who have the ultimate sovereignty in the American system of government, and therefore it is responsible to the people and not the states. If you will forgive me for posting yet another long quote, Webster is far smarter than I am and makes the point much better than I can:
quote:
I must now beg to ask, Sir, Whence is this supposed right of the States derived? Where do they find the power to interfere with the laws of the Union? Sir the opinion which the honorable gentleman maintains is a notion founded in a total misapprehension, in my judgment, of the origin of this governemnt, and of the foundation on which it stands. I hold it to be a popular government, erected by the people; those who administer it, responsibile to the people; and itself capable of being ammended and modified, just as the people may choose it should be. It is as popular, just as truly emanating from the people, as the State governments. It is created for one purpuse; the State governments for another. It has its own powers; they have theirs. There is no more authority with them to arrest the operation of a law of Congress, than with Congress to arrest the operation of their laws. We are here to administer a Constitution emanating immediately from the people, and trusted by them to our administration. It is not the creature of the State governments. ...This government, Sir, is the independent offspring of the popular will. It is not the creature of State legislatures; nay, more, if the whole truth must be told, the people brought it into existence, established it, and have hitherto supported it, for the very purpose, amongst others, of imposing certain salutary restraints on State sovereignties. The States cannot now make war; they cannot contract alliances; they cannot make, each for itself, separate regulations of commerce; they cannot lay imposts; they cannot coin money. If this Constitution, Sir, be the creature of State legislatures, it must be admitted that it has obtained a strange control over the volitions of its creators.
To my mind, although there may be some merit to the idea that states can seceed, no one has yet overcome Webster's arguments here. The "more perfect union" of the federal government is a creature of the American people, not the states, and thus can only be altered and modified, such as through removing portions, by the people. That the Constitution itself provides a method for doing so is only further evidence that no state can of its own volition irrevocably alter the American union.
To add one final note here, I think that those who say this discussion is foolish or useless is wrong. Most of us here are American citizens with the ability to vote in American elections. Those from other nations have their own systems of democracy and government to contribute to. All of us benefit from having discussions and thinking about the very nature of our governments as well as the more basic nature of democracy. Clearly the exact nature of the American federal system is an open question, always changing and evolving based on the influence of voters. The only way we can responsibly influence this evolution is if we consider the many issues involved. So a discussion of the Constitution, Civil War, and legality of secession among a bunch of average joes can actually provide a very valuable benefit.
|
Printable Version
RE: Secession, right or wrong? - 
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread