Unless, of course, if Brad “I am not an anarchist but sure talk like one” Warbiany doesn’t beat me and publish first. :)

LOL… I like to think of myself as an anarchist about half the time, and a pragmatic extreme minarchist the other half.

I.e. I never believe the state is morally legitimate, but occasionally think that it might be a necessary evil.

I guess I’m a fence-sitter on that one :-)

What Madison said in secret to Hamilton (a New Yorker) has nothing to do with the original understanding of Virginians. Antifederalist warnings are not what the Virginians agreed to in ratifying the Constitution, either. What counts, as Jefferson said, was the way the Constitution was explained to the people by its friends (that is, Federalists) when they were considering whether to ratify it.

In Virginia, then, what mattered was what Nicholas and Randolph, for a five-man committee including Marshall and Madison, told the Ratification Convention that ratifying the Constitution was going to mean for their state’s relationship to other states. And what they said was that Virginia was going to be “as one of thirteen parties to a compact” and that the Congress would have only the powers it was “expressly delegated.”

If not, Madison could have written anything to Hamilton in private, or Hamilton could have said in Philadelphia that he favored a monarchy, and that would be binding. Callahan’s position is pure nonsense.

It seems Callahan is averse to doing the work of reading The Documentary History of the Ratification of the Constitution. Far easier to google “Patrick Henry” (the ANTIFEDERALIST leader) and get warnings about monarchy, titled nobles, DC = Versailles, etc.

In response to this article: http://www.facebook.com/ext/share.php?sid=169097985111&h=0K81o&u=pPIIz discussed here: http://www.facebook.com/home.php#/posted.php?id=500453180&share_id=169097985111&post_id=1629885&comments

Here are an excerpt from relevant comments on that thread.

Kevin Gutzman at 4:21pm April 23
He’s incorrect in saying that Virginia, New York, and Rhode Island assedrted a right to secesson “post facto” in state constitutional secession clauses. If they had, such clauses would have no bearing on the question whether they had a right to secede from the Union. What those three states did was reserve the right to secede *in ratifying*. In … Read Moreother words, they said going in that they reserved the right to go out.

One might argue that such reservations were invalid. As I explore in a footnote to my 2004 _Review of Politics_ article on this question, however, if the reservations were invalid, so were the ratificatons. This is true whether you think of the Constitution as a contract or as a treaty. (I provide sources from both contract law and the law of treaties in a footnote to that 2004 article.)

***

Gene Callahan at 7:42am April 24
The language in NY, RI, and Virginia was not even a claim to a right of secession — it was standard Lockean language about the right of the people to overthrow a corrupt government, not of a state to secede. Both the Federalists and anti-Federalists were quite clear that this was a UNION, not a confederation (although for that reason the … Read MoreFederalists were pro and the anti-Federalists antoi the constitution), modeled after the ‘indissoluble’ union of England and Scotland in 1707, in which two sovereign entities merged to become one, obliterating the sovereignty of the two separately. The Federalists repeatedly declared that any ratification that included a right to secession was ‘no ratification at all.’

***

Stephan Kinsella at 10:14am April 24
I’d ask Callahan to point to language from the Virginia Ratification Convention in which Virginia Federalists told the Virginians that any ratification including a right to secession was no ratification at all. He can’t, because there is none.

It’s easy for him to pontificate without actual familiarity with volumes VIII-X of The Documentary … Read MoreHistory of the Ratification of the Constitution (the Virginia volumes, which include a stenographer’s account of the Convention itself, plus scores of letters and scores of newspaper articles on both sides). Chapter 3 of Gutzman’s book and his 2004 article, on the other hand, are the fruit of years’ work on that record — which, if you add in the microfilm supplement to those volumes, includes every single document extant from Virginia’s internal debate. He has really scoured this.

Callahan makes categorical statements about what Federalists said. Apparently George Nicholas and Edmund Randolph, two of their four leading spokesmen in Virginia, didn’t get the memo. (James Madison and John Marshall, the other two leading Federalist voices in the Convention, sat silent as Nicholas and Randolph explained the significance of … Read Moreratification on behalf of their five-man committee in the way that Gutzman describes in his book.)

If Callahan wants to correct this account, let’s see specific page references.

I’d also ask Callahan to show precisely where in the Virginia volumes of *The Documentary History of the Ratification of the Constitution* showing that Virginia Federalists told their fellow Virginians that ratification of the Constitution would mean the “obliteration” of Virginia’s sovereignty. Again, they said no such thing; rather, as Guzman … Read Morehas pointed out, Nicholas told the Convention that they were to be “as one of thirteen parties to a contract,” which is another way of saying that they (that is, Virginia, the sovereign people of Virginia, their state) would remain sovereign. Callahan needs to read the record before he deigns to instruct others on it. Otherwise, it might appear he has no idea what he is talking about.

Gene Callahan at 10:41am April 24
“Have they made a proposal of a compact between the states? If they had, this would be a confederation. It is otherwise most clearly a consolidated government. The question turns, sir, on… the expression, We, the PEOPLE, instead of the STATES, of America… Suppose the people of Virginia should wish to alter their government; can a majority of … Read Morethem do it? NO… they are consolidated with other states…” — Patrick Henry, anti-federalist

“the Constitution requires an adoption in toto, and for ever” — James Madison, letter to Hamilton

Yeah, Henry and Madison probably had no idea what they were talking about, either. Please forgive us, oh great master of constitutional history!

Ultimately Mr. Sandefur and you, Doug, are mistaken in your basic construction of the constitution. The constitution is a limiting compact, one which grants limited, enumerated powers to the federal government, with the residuim being retained by the States. All powers not explicitly surrendered were and are retained by the States, so it is incumbent upon opponents of the constitutional argument for secession to to demonstrate that secession is prohibited by some portion of the federal constitution. Article I, Section 10 forbids the State exercise of several various powers, but interestingly there is neither prohibition of secession there, nor in any other portion of our charter.

As you often overlook, the framers did not want a strong central government, they had just fought a war to escape the rapacious grasp of just such a regime. They did however, desire an energetic government with imperium over distinct, limited areas. This is why the powers granted the federal government under the federal constitution are virtually identical to those granted under the Articles of Confederation… the only thing which changed was the enforcement mechanism for executing these delegated powers. Consider moreover the Bill of Rights, its origins and purpose… It was drafted by the Anti-Federalists to ensure the limiting ramparts erected in the structure of the federal constitution were manned. Amendment X was an Anti-Federalist amendment, written by them, for them, with the express intent of making clear that the federal government is one of delegated powers only. Amendment IX was also just such an amendment, designed to eliminate an expansive interpretation and construction of the constitution.

As for your repeated attempts to distinguish the departure of thirteen English colonies from the British Empire in the War for Independence from any attempt by any State at any time to withdraw from the federal “suicide pact,” consider these few facts. The thirteen colonies, departed from English rule independently of each other, as the Declaration of Independence states clearly in its authorizing language: “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.”

Consider most diligently this language, then tell me that the thirteen colonies did not secede: “these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States[.]” This is followed by this intriguing language: “all political connection between them [the colonies, jointly and severally]and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved[.]” So here we have it, the colonies, departing from English rule, as colonies, and becoming sovereign States, under their own self government. So by dissolving the political connections, what exactly did the colonies constructively do? They Seceded! Look at Virginia, where the civil government continued to exist prior to the opening salvos of war. Under Governor Patrick Henry’s leadership, the Virginian constitution continued to reign supreme in the Old Dominion.

At the close of the war, the belligerents came to an understanding: the Treaty of Paris. In it, England recognized that: “His Brittanic Majesty acknowledges the said United States, viz., New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, to be free sovereign and independent states[.]” “[T]o be free and independent states[.]”

So, the States were thus sovereign when they entered into the Articles of Confederation, and, by extension, when, pursuant to Article VII of the new constitution, the States formed a new union “in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present[.]”

Now then, when these States formed the federal union, they surrendered only those powers enumerated in the fundamental charter. They explicitly reserved in the text, in order to placate Patrick Henry and the Anti-federalists, all powers not delegated, and all rights not enumerated. So we finally see, the States were a group of principle parties who delegated certain powers to their new, created agent, the federal government. This agent was created to protect liberty and provide security for the people of the States, and for the States as bodies themselves. The agent was given limited power, with the residiary being retained by the principles. It follows logically that when the principles determine that their actor is failing to secure the objectives the agent was empowered to accomplish, these principles may cancel the agency they have granted the agent.

This cancellation is secession.

To assert that each proper mention of secession must based on some governmental abuse rising to Jeffersonian standards is entirely beside the point that according to the terms of the constitution, such an action would be constitutional. Though perhaps imprudent and ill-advised, such State action is wholly their prerogative, and is clearly within their reserved powers.

Ultimately Mr. Sandefur and you, Doug, are mistaken in your basic construction of the constitution. The constitution is a limiting compact, one which grants limited, enumerated powers to the federal government, with the residuim being retained by the States. All powers not explicitly surrendered were and are retained by the States, so it is incumbent upon opponents of the constitutional argument for secession to to demonstrate that secession is prohibited by some portion of the federal constitution. Article I, Section 10 forbids the State exercise of several various powers, but interestingly there is neither prohibition of secession there, nor in any other portion of our charter.

As you often overlook, the framers did not want a strong central government, they had just fought a war to escape the rapacious grasp of just such a regime. They did however, desire an energetic government with imperium over distinct, limited areas. This is why the powers granted the federal government under the federal constitution are virtually identical to those granted under the Articles of Confederation… the only thing which changed was the enforcement mechanism for executing these delegated powers. Consider moreover the Bill of Rights, its origins and purpose… It was drafted by the Anti-Federalists to ensure the limiting ramparts erected in the structure of the federal constitution were manned. Amendment X was an Anti-Federalist amendment, written by them, for them, with the express intent of making clear that the federal government is one of delegated powers only. Amendment IX was also just such an amendment, designed to eliminate an expansive interpretation and construction of the constitution.

As for your repeated attempts to distinguish the departure of thirteen English colonies from the British Empire in the War for Independence from any attempt by any State at any time to withdraw from the federal “suicide pact,” consider these few facts. The thirteen colonies, departed from English rule independently of each other, as the Declaration of Independence states clearly in its authorizing language: “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.”

Consider most diligently this language, then tell me that the thirteen colonies did not secede: “these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States[.]” This is followed by this intriguing language: “all political connection between them [the colonies, jointly and severally]and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved[.]” So here we have it, the colonies, departing from English rule, as colonies, and becoming sovereign States, under their own self government. So by dissolving the political connections, what exactly did the colonies constructively do? They Seceded! Look at Virginia, where the civil government continued to exist prior to the opening salvos of war. Under Governor Patrick Henry’s leadership, the Virginian constitution continued to reign supreme in the Old Dominion.

At the close of the war, the belligerents came to an understanding: the Treaty of Paris. In it, England recognized that: “His Brittanic Majesty acknowledges the said United States, viz., New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, to be free sovereign and independent states[.]” “[T]o be free and independent states[.]”

So, the States were thus sovereign when they entered into the Articles of Confederation, and, by extension, when, pursuant to Article VII of the new constitution, the States formed a new union “in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present[.]”

Now then, when these States formed the federal union, they surrendered only those powers enumerated in the fundamental charter. They explicitly reserved in the text, in order to placate Patrick Henry and the Anti-federalists, all powers not delegated, and all rights not enumerated. So we finally see, the States were a group of principle parties who delegated certain powers to their new, created agent, the federal government. This agent was created to protect liberty and provide security for the people of the States, and for the States as bodies themselves. The agent was given limited power, with the residiary being retained by the principles. It follows logically that when the principles determine that their actor is failing to secure the objectives the agent was empowered to accomplish, these principles may cancel the agency they have granted the agent.

This cancellation is secession.

Its logic was faulty in that it tried to extend the “perpetual Union” of the Articles of Confederation to the Constitutional republic. The Constitution replaced the Articles, including the perpetual Union Clause in Article XIII, which actually prohibited the Constitution in the first place since the Constitution was an amendment of the Articles that was declared in effect without the approval of all of the state legislatures as Article XIII required.

That brings us to the error in logic. For the Court’s ruling to be correct, the Articles must still have been valid and in effect, making the Constitution not in effect since it violated Article XIII. Yet the Court in question was delegated by Article III of that same Constitution, so by its own reasoning it lacked jurisdiction to rule because its authority was non-existent as the document that delegated that authority was not in effect.

If the Court was to have jurisdiction, then the Articles had to have been legitimately replaced, meaning Article XIII was no longer in effect, and the Union was not perpetual (not in the Constitution, either), meaning secession is legal.

An “immoral” action by or status of the CSA does NOT mean the Constitution authorized Lincoln’s war, nor that it’s justified under libertarian principles.

BTW criticism of Lincoln’s war is not defense of slaver, the CSA, or even its decision to secede.

Looking up closed, it’s quite simple…

I am GOD. Everything you do, you must come through ME…

Peace.

I agree, but that also means that we’re entitled to look at the specific circumstances surrounding the act to determine whether it is legitimate or not.

My point is that, based on the circumstances of that time, the Southern Rebellion was morally unjustifiable.

My argument is that the Southern Rebellion was immoral because of the reasons that motivated it.