michaelm@3comvax.UUCP (Michael McNeil) (10/09/85)
> <stupid postings on Usenet> C'mon line eater! > > Note: This is STella Calvert, a guest on decvax!frog!wjr > > The Constitution was voted in by a majority (not a unanimity) of the > states. It was then forced on states that did NOT support it. How > many of the signers of the Declaration signed the Constitution? I > believe that is where we "strayed off the path". Note that when the > _Confederacy_ attempted to secede, the United Statists in their > coercive majesty dragged those states back (and forgot about black > rights as soon as politically expedient). I enjoyed your article, STella, but I found myself disagreeing with the above paragraph. I'm no expert on the U.S. Constitution, history, or law, but my memory of the historical events was that after nine out of thirteen states approved the Constitution, the accord went into effect between them. However, the non-signatory states were under no compulsion to join the Union -- in fact they could not be compelled to since at the time they were independent states. All of the original holdout states eventually, over the next two years, did approve the Constitution and join the United States, with the State of Rhode Island being the final laggard. The states joined for a number of reasons, commercial, political, and social. Many people feared a future as small, Balkanized states. Americans had recently freed themselves from European domination, and many wondered if small independent states could continue to fend off the imperial powers. "Independent" states could also look forward to strong trade barriers at the border. A "common market" was one of the attractive benefits of the Union. Certainly, one can imagine Rhode Island, say, continuing to reject the Constitution and evolving alongside the United States as a sort of American Luxembourg. But, the fact is that no state chose this route, and instead all chose the Union. In acceding to the U.S. Constitution, the states also acceded to the Constitutional provision which declares it to be the "supreme law of the land." Now, once having agreed that the U.S. Constitution -- and its institutions such as the Congress -- are the "supreme law of the land," where do the signatory states get the idea that they can unilaterally withdraw? Don't get me wrong, I believe that states can legally withdraw from the Union -- but it seems clear that the Congress must acquiesce. The Confederate States did not get Congress's approval before attempting to dismantle the Union! -- Michael McNeil 3Com Corporation "All disclaimers including this one apply" (415) 960-9367 ..!ucbvax!hplabs!oliveb!3comvax!michaelm Life, even cellular life, may exist out yonder in the dark. But high or low in nature, it will not wear the shape of man. That shape is the evolutionary product of a strange, long wandering through the attics of the forest roof, and so great are the chances of failure, that nothing precisely and identically human is likely ever to come that way again. Loren Eiseley, *The Immense Journey*, 1946
mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) (10/12/85)
>Certainly, one can imagine Rhode Island, say, continuing to reject >the Constitution and evolving alongside the United States as a sort >of American Luxembourg. But, the fact is that no state chose this >route, and instead all chose the Union. In acceding to the U.S. >Constitution, the states also acceded to the Constitutional >provision which declares it to be the "supreme law of the land." > In fact, Quebec continued to reject the Constitution, despite some pretty stron representations from delegations including, if memory serves me, Benedict Arnold and Ben Franklin. The statement above should be amended to read "no state that joined the Union decided to stay out of the Union", a pretty meaningless statement. -- Martin Taylor {allegra,linus,ihnp4,floyd,ubc-vision}!utzoo!dciem!mmt {uw-beaver,qucis,watmath}!utcsri!dciem!mmt
wjr@x.UUCP (Bill Richard) (10/24/85)
In article <244@3comvax.UUCP> michaelm@3comvax.UUCP (Michael McNeil) writes: > However, the non-signatory >states were under no compulsion to join the Union -- in fact they >could not be compelled to since at the time they were independent >states. All of the original holdout states eventually, over the >next two years, did approve the Constitution and join the United >States, with the State of Rhode Island being the final laggard. I'm sorry I phrased that so it seemed I was arguing that the other states were drafted into the Union -- and sorrier still my sources on the disinformation campaign used to bring the holdouts into line are buried in a storage locker. But until then, OK -- states were not forced to join, they were propagandized. >The states joined for a number of reasons, commercial, political, >and social. Many people feared a future as small, Balkanized >states. Americans had recently freed themselves from European >domination, and many wondered if small independent states could >continue to fend off the imperial powers. And many, including signers of the Declaration, feared King Washington as much as the other George. > In acceding to the U.S. >Constitution, the states also acceded to the Constitutional >provision which declares it to be the "supreme law of the land." >Now, once having agreed that the U.S. Constitution -- and its >institutions such as the Congress -- are the "supreme law of the >land," where do the signatory states get the idea that they can >unilaterally withdraw? Don't get me wrong, I believe that states >can legally withdraw from the Union -- but it seems clear that >the Congress must acquiesce. The Confederate States did not get >Congress's approval before attempting to dismantle the Union! I don't know where those states got the idea they could withdraw unilaterally -- but it might have been from Thomas Jefferson. "When in the course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bonds which have connected them with another...." I won't quote the whole thing, but TJ argued that there are rights that cannot be superceded by any government. And if that argument was sufficient for the first revolution, it would seem sufficient for any other. STella Calvert Every man and every woman is a star. Guest on: ...!decvax!frog!wjr Life: Baltimore!AnnArbor!Smyrna!<LotsOfHitchhikingAndShortVisits> !SantaCruz!Berkeley!AnnArbor!Taxachussetts Future: ... (!L5!TheBelt!InterstellarSpace)
mcgeer@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU (Rick McGeer) (10/25/85)
In article <818@x.UUCP> wjr@x.UUCP (STella Calvert) writes: >In article <244@3comvax.UUCP> michaelm@3comvax.UUCP (Michael McNeil) writes: >> However, the non-signatory >>states were under no compulsion to join the Union -- in fact they >>could not be compelled to since at the time they were independent >>states. All of the original holdout states eventually, over the >>next two years, did approve the Constitution and join the United >>States, with the State of Rhode Island being the final laggard. > >I'm sorry I phrased that so it seemed I was arguing that the other states were >drafted into the Union -- and sorrier still my sources on the disinformation >campaign used to bring the holdouts into line are buried in a storage locker. >But until then, OK -- states were not forced to join, they were propagandized. Is there any evidence whatever of such propagandizing? What specific falsehoods were told, and by whom? The benefits of joining the United States were fairly evident, and the Framers' goodwill relatively clear -- the structure of the Senate was a specific concession to the small states, who feared domination by the likes of Virginia and New York. > >>The states joined for a number of reasons, commercial, political, >>and social. Many people feared a future as small, Balkanized >>states. Americans had recently freed themselves from European >>domination, and many wondered if small independent states could >>continue to fend off the imperial powers. > >And many, including signers of the Declaration, feared King Washington as much >as the other George. This is a damned lie. Washington was offered the crown on a number of occasions in the 1780's, first in 1781 (when Congress, beginning a long and ignoble tradition, refused to pay the army) and again in 1785. Each time he refused, with vehemence -- on the first occasion personally forestalling a coup by his officers. Further, he and he alone pushed hard for a Constitution, at least in part because he feared that the remnants of the Continental Army would attempt to put him on the throne. And the only reason the Constitution was accepted at all was that Washington agreed to be the first President. Indeed, Flexner writes that the only aspect of the Constitution that appealed to people was that Washington would be the first President. Finally, Washington attempted to retire after his first term and did retire after his second, *against the wishes of practically every state government and the Congress* -- because he was afraid that he would die in office, be succeeded by Adams, and thus establish a monarchial tradition. In sum: Washington sought no public office, aside from that of a seat in the House of Burgesses, from 1760 on -- each office he took was thrust upon a reluctant Virginia planter. Two. Washington's holdings suffered grievously both during the Revolution and his Presidency; indeed, Washington's tenure in public affairs was a personal disaster. Three. Washinton twice refused the crown of America and retired from public life to ensure that a monarchial tradition never took hold in America. Four. It is very clear that the people of the early Republic would have preferred King Washington, given the option. It was only because of his genuine commitment to democracy that we enjoy it today. There are any number of biographies and histories which attest to this: I suggest you read them and learn our collective debt to the Father of America. -- Rick.
franka@mmintl.UUCP (Frank Adams) (10/29/85)
In article <818@x.UUCP> wjr@x.UUCP (STella Calvert) writes: >In article <244@3comvax.UUCP> michaelm@3comvax.UUCP (Michael McNeil) writes: >>Now, once having agreed that the U.S. Constitution -- and its >>institutions such as the Congress -- are the "supreme law of the >>land," where do the signatory states get the idea that they can >>unilaterally withdraw? Don't get me wrong, I believe that states >>can legally withdraw from the Union -- but it seems clear that >>the Congress must acquiesce. The Confederate States did not get >>Congress's approval before attempting to dismantle the Union! > >I don't know where those states got the idea they could withdraw unilaterally >-- but it might have been from Thomas Jefferson. > > "When in the course of human events it becomes necessary for one >people to dissolve the political bonds which have connected them with >another...." I won't quote the whole thing, but TJ argued that there are >rights that cannot be superceded by any government. > >And if that argument was sufficient for the first revolution, it would seem >sufficient for any other. Quite so -- if the government is sufficiently oppresive, you have a right to revolt against it. But that isn't a *legal* right, and you had better be prepared for it to fight back. Which is of course what happened. Frank Adams ihpn4!philabs!pwa-b!mmintl!franka Multimate International 52 Oakland Ave North E. Hartford, CT 06108