Did the South have a right to secede?

[The Cat-Tribe]

'Irrelevant, address my point even if the Supreme Court didn't give it their full consideration, the fact is that they still made a decision on the issue. But, lets assume if not settled why has there never been another case where the implied decision by SCOTUS in Texas v. White has been challenged or overturned?

Are you listening to yourself?
"Why hasn't the law overturned itself?"

This implies that the Supreme Court is capable of anything over then Legal Positivism "It's true cause it's the Law" They ruled it so and they will not rule it unso, and if we have problem with that, we can fuck ourselves.

Appeal to law...what a crock of shit.

1. It would be nice if one of those of you that moan and gnash your teeth about "Legal Positivism" had the slightest fucking clue to what that term actually means. See, e.g., Wikipedia: Legal Positivism; Legal Positivism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy); Legal Positivism [Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy].

2. To complain about an "appeal to law" in an argument about what the law is . . . is a "crock of shit."

[Distruzio]

Show me where.

Why did you bring it up then if has no relevancy at all?

I haven't said it wasn't relevant. In fact, I've said, repeatedly, that the Tariff was quite important, as was slavery, but that the reason for war was that folks were just sick of the political bickering over the issues. It was clear that sectionalism, protectionism, and most importantly representative democracy were breeding a political situation not favorable to either North or South so long as all states involved remained equal parties to the compact - the Constitution. Therefore one had to either leave, or be triumphed over. The South initially chose to leave. But, unfortunately, Toombs was bypassed for President and the hack Davis was installed instead. War was inevitable with both Davis and Lincoln staring one another down.

Toombs refused to play the game.

Davis enjoyed it... and lost the country to it.

[Revolutopia]

Why did you bring it up then if has no relevancy at all?

I haven't said it wasn't relevant. In fact, I've said, repeatedly, that the Tariff was quite important, as was slavery, but that the reason for war was that folks were just sick of the political bickering over the issues. It was clear that sectionalism, protectionism, and most importantly representative democracy were breeding a political situation not favorable to either North or South so long as all states involved remained equal parties to the compact - the Constitution. Therefore one had to either leave, or be triumphed over. The South initially chose to leave. But, unfortunately, Toombs was bypassed for President and the hack Davis was installed instead. War was inevitable with both Davis and Lincoln staring one another down.

Toombs refused to play the game.

Davis enjoyed it... and lost the country to it.

"I never said it was a reason for secession, besides when I said it was a reason for secession." Don't look now but I hear Mitt Romney is looking for speech and policy writers. His utilization of your own personal flip flops on the roots of the Civil War could deliver him South Carolina.

[Distruzio]

I haven't said it wasn't relevant. In fact, I've said, repeatedly, that the Tariff was quite important, as was slavery, but that the reason for war was that folks were just sick of the political bickering over the issues. It was clear that sectionalism, protectionism, and most importantly representative democracy were breeding a political situation not favorable to either North or South so long as all states involved remained equal parties to the compact - the Constitution. Therefore one had to either leave, or be triumphed over. The South initially chose to leave. But, unfortunately, Toombs was bypassed for President and the hack Davis was installed instead. War was inevitable with both Davis and Lincoln staring one another down.

Toombs refused to play the game.

Davis enjoyed it... and lost the country to it.

"I never said it was a reason for secession, besides when I said it was a reason for secession." Don't look now but I hear Mitt Romney is looking for speech and policy writers. His utilization of your own personal flip flops on the roots of the Civil War could deliver him South Carolina.

I wonder why I even bother with you.

Do you understand the difference between explaining how it was a reason for secession is not how it was the reason for secession? The relevance is that the Tariff played a role in secession. The fact that it was not the sole reason does not render the Tariff irrelevant. Just as the fact that Slavery could not possibly be construed to be the only reason for the war (as slavery existed in the North and the South even after the War began) fails to render it irrelevant. Note that I am quick to correct even those posters in this, and other threads on this topic, even though they be pro-South, because they are wrong to assert Slavery was irrelevant - just as you are wrong to assert the Tariff was irrelevant.

I have explained, in great detail, using reputable and non-Southern sympathetic sources, how the Tariff was related to the secessions.

[Revolutopia]

"I never said it was a reason for secession, besides when I said it was a reason for secession." Don't look now but I hear Mitt Romney is looking for speech and policy writers. His utilization of your own personal flip flops on the roots of the Civil War could deliver him South Carolina.

I wonder why I even bother with you.

Do you understand the difference between explaining how it was a reason for secession is not how it was the reason for secession? The relevance is that the Tariff played a role in secession. The fact that it was not the sole reason does not render the Tariff irrelevant. Just as the fact that Slavery could not possibly be construed to be the only reason for the war (as slavery existed in the North and the South even after the War began) fails to render it irrelevant. Note that I am quick to correct even those posters in this, and other threads on this topic, even though they be pro-South, because they are wrong to assert Slavery was irrelevant - just as you are wrong to assert the Tariff was irrelevant.

I have explained, in great detail, using reputable and non-Southern sympathetic sources, how the Tariff was related to the secessions.

Not this how dare some one call me on my shit, oh the travesty, garbage again.

Stop this fruitless back-n-forth of you bringing something up as important, until someone points out the illogicality of its importance which you then respond that you never said it was. That is a shitty debating tactic and doesn't work on people with memories longer then a gold fish.

Moreover one of the only individuals you have sourced as supposedly saying the tariff was important is Karl Marx, who sorry I don't take as an expert on the case. Through just for shits and giggles even looking at that source, we find your claim to fall flat on its face with Marx claiming that the tariff was only a pretext, a term that is defined as..

A reason given in justification of a course of action that is not the real reason.

So that is one failure, how about one of your other sources you have listed as showing how historians credit the tariff as being important, primarily the wiki article. That source talks about the tariff was directly minor and secondary in relevancy to slavery.

Neoconfederate economist Thomas DiLorenzo asserts that the tariff was the primary cause of the Civil War. Nearly all Civil War historians disagree. Allan Nevins and James M. McPherson downplay the significance of the tariff dispute, arguing that it was peripheral to the issue of slavery. They note that slavery dominated the secessionist declarations, speeches, and pamphlets.

Yeah, you truly proven your point only if you belief that none of us can read without you guiding us by the hand. The South might not have liked the tariff, but in the entire scope of the thing it was highly irrelevant to why they seceded. Not even related to the fact that it was simply not even a threat until they left in their great hissy fit. Continue to peddle on about how it has to be important because South Carolina and Georgia(alone might I add) mentioned how it made them sad thus everyone in the South agreed, but don't expect me to swallow it.

Nor, have you ever provided any evidence of supporting why even if the tariff was important how it is justification for secession, besides throwing out some buzzwords about how it is economic warfare. We all understand that anarchist-capitalists believe they have some innate superiority coming from their understanding that taxes are theft and warfare, but guess what I don't bite if you want to make a legal justification of why that is true provide it in a legal and political framework not based solely on your minority philosophical views.

However, I don't know why I bother even debating you as looking back you seem to continually to mess up on the basic facts of what you are debating. Be it first saying the Morill Tariff was passed in 1857, to saying Dred Scott was in 1854, failing to understand who brought forth Scott, and then completely failing to understanding what the Court's decision was in Scott. Simply, it seems like you are debating with fuzzy facts that you want to twist into supporting whatever your new arguement is and to disregard any refutation by your opponents.

[Dusk_Kittens]

On the contrary, the issue at hand at the time was Federalism vs. Confederation, and the issue at hand presently in this thread is whether or not the South had a political/legal right to secede. Both of these issues are indeed philosophical, the first being a question of Political Philosophy, and the second being a question of Political and Legal Philosophy (Philosophy of Law is a branch of Political Philosophy).

Beyond your complete and total mischaracterization of the legal, political, and historical issues and context of the secession of the Confederate States and the Civil War, your claims of expertise are most amusing.

I accept at face value that you have an advanced degree in Philosophy. It is true that Political Philosophy and Philosophy of Law (aka Jurisprudence) are areas of philosophy. (I have studied both extensively.) But this no more makes you an expert in law or politics than the existence of Philosophy of Science makes you a qualified microbiologist or nuclear physicist!

I will agree, however, that the appeal to force is not a compelling argument.

I have not claimed to any expertise in law (at least, not American law) or politics.

However, perhaps you would like to read up on how Logic was initially codified by Aristotle: he developed Syllogistic Logic (aka Aristotelian Logic) after witnessing legal arguments in the Athenian law courts.

Legal arguments which are illogical will fall, eventually, because Logic is all about correct and incorrect inference forms. If a judge presumes his/her verdict in a case before the evidence is even presented, he/she is biased (which is one way of being illogical), and should, due to that bias, excuse him/herself from the case. If a judge presumes an opinion and then produces evidence in support of that opinion, he/she is biased, and should, due to that bias, excuse him/herself from the case, which I have suggested is what the Supreme Court was admitting in Texas vs. White et al. by declaring that they would not consider the question in depth of whether or not state secession is constitutional.

Nevertheless, in order to come to a verdict in the case at hand, they had to touch on the issue, and in so doing, exposed their bias (and as I have asked previously, "how can a person even pretend to imagine that, in the year 1866, anyone on the Supreme Court could possibly be anything other than pro-Federalist?") in presuming a conclusion without considering all available evidence, and then going on to supply evidence that was consistent with their presumed conclusion. Had they given full consideration to the question, they would have examined the Constitution, the Articles of Confederation, and any other relevant material, in depth, PRIOR to coming to a conclusion.

That they did not do so should be obvious to anyone who looks at the matter dispassionately, but since this sort of clinical disinterest is too much to expect of most, I have laid bare merely a small number of the omissions in their "argument" in my post here.

I suggest you read it again, and try to do so dispassionately, with clinical disinterest (that is, remove your fucking ego from the consideration of what I have presented; the argument is not about you, nor your capacities, nor is it about me or my capacities, in spite of the fact that both of us have presented arguments in favor of opposing sides, so by all means, you can cease and desist with the efforts to twist my words and insult me).

[Revolutopia]

I have not claimed to any expertise in law (at least, not American law) or politics.

However, perhaps you would like to read up on how Logic was initially codified by Aristotle: he developed Syllogistic Logic (aka Aristotelian Logic) after witnessing legal arguments in the Athenian law courts.

Legal arguments which are illogical will fall, eventually, because Logic is all about correct and incorrect inference forms. If a judge presumes his/her verdict in a case before the evidence is even presented, he/she is biased (which is one way of being illogical), and should, due to that bias, excuse him/herself from the case. If a judge presumes an opinion and then produces evidence in support of that opinion, he/she is biased, and should, due to that bias, excuse him/herself from the case, which I have suggested is what the Supreme Court was admitting in Texas vs. White et al. by declaring that they would not consider the question in depth of whether or not state secession is constitutional.

Nevertheless, in order to come to a verdict in the case at hand, they had to touch on the issue, and in so doing, exposed their bias (and as I have asked previously, "how can a person even pretend to imagine that, in the year 1866, anyone on the Supreme Court could possibly be anything other than pro-Federalist?") in presuming a conclusion without considering all available evidence, and then going on to supply evidence that was consistent with their presumed conclusion. Had they given full consideration to the question, they would have examined the Constitution, the Articles of Confederation, and any other relevant material, in depth, PRIOR to coming to a conclusion.

That they did not do so should be obvious to anyone who looks at the matter dispassionately, but since this sort of clinical disinterest is too much to expect of most, I have laid bare merely a small number of the omissions in their "argument" in my post here.

I suggest you read it again, and try to do so dispassionately, with clinical disinterest (that is, remove your fucking ego from the consideration of what I have presented; the argument is not about you, nor your capacities, nor is it about me or my capacities, in spite of the fact that both of us have presented arguments in favor of opposing sides, so by all means, you can cease and desist with the efforts to twist my words and insult me).

Law=/=Logic, the Law does not need to be logical thus demanding that is has to be is a Non Sequitur. Secondly, just because you think it would be right for "bias" judges to excuse themselves has nothing to do with the law. Nothing in the law demands that Justices recuse themselves solely because some might think they are biased. Moreover, if the issue was solely because of bias then it should have been easily overturned something that has not happened thus likely meaning it has been found to met the needed credentials.

[Dusk_Kittens]

I have not claimed to any expertise in law (at least, not American law) or politics.

However, perhaps you would like to read up on how Logic was initially codified by Aristotle: he developed Syllogistic Logic (aka Aristotelian Logic) after witnessing legal arguments in the Athenian law courts.

Legal arguments which are illogical will fall, eventually, because Logic is all about correct and incorrect inference forms. If a judge presumes his/her verdict in a case before the evidence is even presented, he/she is biased (which is one way of being illogical), and should, due to that bias, excuse him/herself from the case. If a judge presumes an opinion and then produces evidence in support of that opinion, he/she is biased, and should, due to that bias, excuse him/herself from the case, which I have suggested is what the Supreme Court was admitting in Texas vs. White et al. by declaring that they would not consider the question in depth of whether or not state secession is constitutional.

Nevertheless, in order to come to a verdict in the case at hand, they had to touch on the issue, and in so doing, exposed their bias (and as I have asked previously, "how can a person even pretend to imagine that, in the year 1866, anyone on the Supreme Court could possibly be anything other than pro-Federalist?") in presuming a conclusion without considering all available evidence, and then going on to supply evidence that was consistent with their presumed conclusion. Had they given full consideration to the question, they would have examined the Constitution, the Articles of Confederation, and any other relevant material, in depth, PRIOR to coming to a conclusion.

That they did not do so should be obvious to anyone who looks at the matter dispassionately, but since this sort of clinical disinterest is too much to expect of most, I have laid bare merely a small number of the omissions in their "argument" in my post here.

I suggest you read it again, and try to do so dispassionately, with clinical disinterest (that is, remove your fucking ego from the consideration of what I have presented; the argument is not about you, nor your capacities, nor is it about me or my capacities, in spite of the fact that both of us have presented arguments in favor of opposing sides, so by all means, you can cease and desist with the efforts to twist my words and insult me).

Law=/=Logic, the Law does not need to be logical thus demanding that is has to be is a fallacy. Secondly, just because you think it would be right for "bias" judges to excuse themselves has nothing to do with the law. Nothing in the law demands that Justices recuse themselves solely because some might think they are biased. Moreover, if the issue was solely because of bias then it should have been easily overturned something that has not happened thus likely meaning it has been found to met the needed credentials.

I don't believe you understand the meaning of "fallacy." A fallacy is an incorrect inference form. You assert that Law does not need to be logical. I disagree. How you derive the conclusion that my disagreement is "a fallacy" is bizarre. In Logic, such a conclusion would be referred to as a "Non Sequitur."

[Revolutopia]

I don't believe you understand the meaning of "fallacy." A fallacy is an incorrect inference form. You assert that Law does not need to be logical. I disagree. How you derive the conclusion that my disagreement is "a fallacy" is bizarre. In Logic, such a conclusion would be referred to as a "Non Sequitur."

Yes, you are right the use of fallacy was wrong, I just had a brain fart and was stumped of what word to use, and thus hastily placed one in and choose unwisely. The point still is that laws do not have to be logical to be laws, is it nice yes but it is not needed.

[Distruzio]

So that is one failure, how about one of your other sources you have listed as showing how historians credit the tariff as being important, primarily the wiki article. That source talks about the tariff was directly minor and secondary in relevancy to slavery.

Neoconfederate economist Thomas DiLorenzo asserts that the tariff was the primary cause of the Civil War. Nearly all Civil War historians disagree. Allan Nevins and James M. McPherson downplay the significance of the tariff dispute, arguing that it was peripheral to the issue of slavery. They note that slavery dominated the secessionist declarations, speeches, and pamphlets.

Civil war historians are not economists. I take the word of economists on economic issues over historians any day.

Yeah, you truly proven your point only if you belief that none of us can read without you guiding us by the hand.

If any of you proved that you didn't need me leading you like children in the darkness...

The South might not have liked the tariff, but in the entire scope of the thing it was highly irrelevant to why they seceded.

Prove it was irrelevant.

Not even related to the fact that it was simply not even a threat until they left in their great hissy fit.

Ugh. I addressed this. Again. And Again. And again. It was tabled before the first round of secessions. Which means it was being discussed before the first round of secessions. It was the GOP's centerpiece for 2 years before the first secession. It was utterly relevant to the secessions.

Nor, have you ever provided any evidence of supporting why even if the tariff was important how it is justification for secession,

We all understand that anarchist-capitalists believe they have some innate superiority coming from their understanding that taxes are theft and warfare, but guess what I don't bite if you want to make a legal justification of why that is true provide it in a legal and political framework not based solely on your minority philosophical views.

However, I don't know why I bother even debating you as looking back you seem to continually to mess up on the basic facts of what you are debating. Be it first saying the Morill Tariff was passed in 1857,

Have you no idea how a session in Congress works?

to saying Dred Scott was in 1854

Wait.... the guy that sometimes crafts paragraphs filled with run on sentences and grammatical errors so confusing that he must be asked for clarification is now giving me shit for hitting the 4 instead of the 7?

[Natvia]

If the South had succeeded, would we still have a Dukes of Hazzard? Or would the whole thing have been rendered redundant?

I feel this is a question that deserves appropriate gravity.

[Revolutopia]

So that is one failure, how about one of your other sources you have listed as showing how historians credit the tariff as being important, primarily the wiki article. That source talks about the tariff was directly minor and secondary in relevancy to slavery.

Civil war historians are not economists. I take the word of economists on economic issues over historians any day.

Okay, find an economist who says it, as I don't consider some Neo-Confederate Austrian nut as a credible source. Nor do I see how insight into economics gives someone a better insight into a historical account then a historian. Oh yeah, this would be a political issue not economics as we are talking about secession not the economic effects of tariffs.

Yeah, you truly proven your point only if you belief that none of us can read without you guiding us by the hand.

If any of you proved that you didn't need me leading you like children in the darkness...

The South might not have liked the tariff, but in the entire scope of the thing it was highly irrelevant to why they seceded.

Prove it was irrelevant.

Your own sources prove that it is irrelevant.

Not even related to the fact that it was simply not even a threat until they left in their great hissy fit.

Ugh. I addressed this. Again. And Again. And again. It was tabled before the first round of secessions. Which means it was being discussed before the first round of secessions. It was the GOP's centerpiece for 2 years before the first secession. It was utterly relevant to the secessions.

It had failed to go anywhere. A bill that cannot pass is not a threat.

Nor, have you ever provided any evidence of supporting why even if the tariff was important how it is justification for secession,

Uh, I make face palm that proves I am correct. Show how it is justification or it is irrelevant to the legal case for secession.

We all understand that anarchist-capitalists believe they have some innate superiority coming from their understanding that taxes are theft and warfare, but guess what I don't bite if you want to make a legal justification of why that is true provide it in a legal and political framework not based solely on your minority philosophical views.

If you want to throw out buzzwords such as tariffs are economic warfare, I am going to assume they are coming from an ideological framework.

However, I don't know why I bother even debating you as looking back you seem to continually to mess up on the basic facts of what you are debating. Be it first saying the Morill Tariff was passed in 1857,

Have you no idea how a session in Congress works?{/quote]
Better then you as I understand that an act that was passed in 1861 was not law in 1857, you referred to tariffs being raised in 1857 something that did not happen. Additionally, any bill introduced in 1857 would not be up in 1861 as there would have been a new congress. Thus, even if the act was first introduced in 1857 that clearly demonstrates the lack of the threat imposed by the bill saying how they were able to kill it only a few years earlier.

edit: Personally, I going to try to step back from this thread as it is getting to aggravating and I don't want to risk going off on a flamefest. Additionally, the much more elegant and graceful debaters of Alien Space Bats, Farnhamia, The Cat Tribes, etc have already demonstrated the lack of right or justification for the Southern secession. Thus, making further debate not needed in my opinion.

[Dusk_Kittens]

I don't believe you understand the meaning of "fallacy." A fallacy is an incorrect inference form. You assert that Law does not need to be logical. I disagree. How you derive the conclusion that my disagreement is "a fallacy" is bizarre. In Logic, such a conclusion would be referred to as a "Non Sequitur."

Yes, you are right the use of fallacy was wrong, I just had a brain fart and was stumped of what word to use, and thus hastily placed one in and choose unwisely.

Thank you, and I credit you for conceding this.

However, I'm also not sure you understand what "logical" means. I hope you're not confusing my usage with that of Star Trek, but I'll come back to this momentarily.

As for your contention that:

just because you think it would be right for "bias" judges to excuse themselves has nothing to do with the law. Nothing in the law demands that Justices recuse themselves solely because some might think they are biased.

you may wish to consult this, in particular noting that USC, Title 28, Section 455

provides that a federal judge "shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned."

You said, in reply to my assertion that:

Legal arguments which are illogical will fall, eventually, because Logic is all about correct and incorrect inference forms.

that

the Law does not need to be logical

I should point out that I initially stated that "Legal arguments which are illogical will fail, eventually ..." and not that the Law needs to be logical. However, in response to your assertion that "the Law does not need to be logical," I stated:

You assert that Law does not need to be logical. I disagree.

and in reply to that, you stated:

The point still is that laws do not have to be logical to be laws, is it nice yes but it is not needed.

I believe there is some equivocation going on here. In the first place, "legal arguments" are not "the Law," and neither "legal arguments" nor "the Law" (or simply "Law") are identical with a particular "law."

A "legal argument" is simply an argument (a set of statements, some of which are given in support of another statement) used by some lawyer or judge in a legal case. Legal arguments which are illogical, that is, which are "unsound," must eventually fail, because, eventually, someone will point out that they are illogical, and show how that is so (either 1. one or more of the premises in the argument are false, or 2. the argument form is invalid), and what the undesirable implications are, and a judge may overturn a previous court finding which was based on that illogical legal argument, unless there are good grounds for maintaining the finding apart from the illogical argument. Either way, the illogicality of the argument will be demonstrated and thus the argument will "fail" in that it will no longer be viewed as a reliable point in favor of x, y, and/or z.

"The Law," or "Law," is a bit more amorphous, in that it is something of a composite, the compendium of all laws in a given legal system -- or the practice of Law by lawyers and judges. Both of these, I maintain, must be logical, or they are flawed. Part of what is meant by "logical" is "consistent." Thus, for example, questions of constitutionality are ideally decided on the basis of whether a given law is consistent with the Constitution. Again, if one law specifically admits or declares the legitimate nature of a given action, and another law prohibits the same action, one or the other must be ruled as obsolete or overruled or the like; in some cases, one or both of the two laws in question may relate to the action in obscure ways, and only when a legal case brings to light the implications of the two laws for that particular action will it be seen that the two laws are inconsistent, and a judge will then be faced with choosing which of the two should be struck down, and on what grounds. As for the practice of Law, unfortunately, it frequently involves Rhetoric and Theatrics intended to impress jurors and/or the judge, or to awe the opposing counsel. However, such tactics are the resort of shysters, and not worthy of the profession. There is a little thing called "professional ethics," which differs a bit from profession to profession, but in that of Law, Logic should trump Rhetoric and Theatrics every time, because the purpose of the practice of Law is to arrive at Justice by means of Truth, and Rhetoric and Theatrics are not concerned with Truth, but rather, with emotion, passion, prejudice, and so on. The goal of the rhetorician is to win a debate. The goal of the logician is Truth. The rules of evidence themselves are designed to be consistent with logical principles. Hence, in some legal systems (notably that of Scotland), there are three possible verdicts: "Guilty," "Innocent" (or "Not Guilty"), and "Not Proved." The latter refers to a verdict in which the evidence is insufficient to convict, but leaves considerable doubt as to the innocence of the accused; it is a recognition that the prosecutor has failed to make his/her case, but it is not an absolution of guilt.

A "law," or a group of "laws," is simply any particular codified prescription or proscription on behavior in a legal system.

To confuse these terms is to equivocate (Equivocation, sometimes called "ambiguity," is a fallacy). Sometimes this is done intentionally (notably by those making use of Rhetoric), but that is not always the case; it can be an innocent mistake of conflating two or more meanings for one word or conflation of two words with similar, but not identical, meanings.

Now, as for "logical," by that is intended "consistent with the Laws of Logic." Logic is a Pure Science. Its laws are absolute, like those of Mathematics (the other Pure Science), not like, say, the laws of Physics or Thermodynamics, which may change as the evidence warrants. For example, If the recent findings at Cern are accurate, the Laws of Physics will undergo some revision, because, currently, Physics says that nothing can move faster than the speed of light. The recent findings at Cern, however, if they can be duplicated and were not simply due to some thus-far-overlooked error, mean that the current understanding in Physics is incorrect.

Logic as an academic course of study is "the study of correct and incorrect inference forms." Logic as a discipline is the application of the Laws of Logic to concrete and abstract ideas. Logic is of two sorts, Inductive and Deductive. Inductive Logic, which is the Empirical Method (observation, experimentation, gathering data, etc), cannot prove a conclusion, but merely (at best) provide strong support for a conclusion. Deductive Logic is such that if the premises of an argument are true, and the form of the argument is valid, then the argument is "sound," and the conclusion must be true; and this is the definition of "proof." Both Inductive Logic and Deductive Logic may use various systems and techniques of Logic, such as Syllogistic Logic, Venn Diagrams, Boolean Circles, Truth Tables (although these are more frequently used in Deductive Logic), Propositional Logic (aka "Sentential Logic"), and Predicate Logic.

In Star Trek, the Vulcans hold a certain philosophical and religious perspective which Gene Roddenberry named "Logic." This Vulcan "Logic" is not identical with the academic course of study nor the application of real-world Logic, although Vulcan "Logic" involves both that study and the application of real-world Logic; it also, however, involves Mysticism and a belief in suppression of the emotions and passions, and a general preference for non-violence. While Logic in the real world advocates reason over emotion and passion for the purposes of applying the Laws of Logic, it does not suggest that suppression of emotions and passions are desirable, only that, for purposes of the application of Logic to concrete and abstract ideas, we should separate our persons (and personalities), as well as prejudices, passions, and emotions (and any other non-rational functions of the human condition) from the ideas being considered (and thereby, hopefully, avoid non-rational contamination of the use of the rational function) -- hence why I call on TCT to remove ego from the discussion (this is not, to me, an exercise in Rhetoric to see who can make a better-sounding, or better-looking post for an audience and thereby "win" a debate, but rather, it is an effort to strip away propaganda from both sides in the conflict of 1861-1865, lay bare the facts of the case, and get at the Truth). In my generation, the original Star Trek series was very influential (to the point of being regarded, implicitly or explicitly, as something akin to an American epic), and therefore, many from my generation (and some from later generations), who have never actually undertaken to learn what real-world Logic is, have derived a skewed understanding of the term, based on the fictional Vulcan philosophy called "Logic." Much of Spock's presentation of Vulcan "Logic" is characteristic of the Empirical Method (because he is the Science Officer on the Enterprise, but this, as I have noted above, is but one type of Logic (Inductive Logic). Those, therefore, who derive their understanding of real-world Logic from the SF series' Vulcan "Logic" are not only conflating a fictional Religion/Philosophy with real-world Logic, but also usually missing out on Deductive Logic.

Finally, in response to your claim:

if the issue was solely because of bias then it should have been easily overturned something that has not happened thus likely meaning it has been found to met the needed credentials.

For the past 150 years, the US Federal Government has had a vested interest in promoting the ideal of "one nation, ... indivisible," and has pushed this notion rather rigorously, to the point that today, if someone mentions the idea of "States' Rights," the first thought that comes into most Americans' minds is "Civil War, slavery, racism," and the resulting reaction is not atypical of the behavior of those indoctrinated in some rigid religious belief system or even those who have been subjected to brainwashing. Very few people who might like to see more political authority devolve to the States, and a weakened central government are in a position to challenge the various assertions by judges, and those who might be in such a position are understandably more concerned with the realization of this goal in the present, rather than with vindicating the Confederacy's claim to a right to secede from the Union.

As TCT's several recent posts demonstrate, a remarkable edifice of legal thought has been built upon a shaky framework whose keystones appear to be

• 1. the idea that military superiority "settled" the question of secession (which has implications that the pro-Federalist crowd would find undesirable, if they would but open their eyes to the logical consequences of such a claim; that is, this idea is tantamount to saying that if any state or group of states wanted to secede today and could successfully repel a Federal military response, then that state or group of states would have successfully changed the supposed answer to the question; AND this idea essentially advocates that violence is necessary in order to achieve self-determination, and therefore encourages various separatist groups to engage in violent acts in an effort to liberate themselves from the Union -- I don't think I need to explain why neither of these implications is desirable)
• 2. the supposed juridical "decision" on the matter in the case of Texas vs. White et al. that secession is somehow illegal, which, as I have shown in great detail, is a very flimsy "support" for the claim
• 3. selective reading of the Articles of Confederation, the Constitution, and other historical documents (such as the various ratification instruments of the several states which ratified the Constitution, the various declarations of secession of the several Confederate states, etc)
• 4. the belief that the goals of the war were nothing more than settling the question of slavery.

Overcoming 150 years of nationalistic propaganda, pro-Federalist propaganda, racist propaganda, romantic "history," historical revisionism (on more than one side), family pride, etc, is no easy task, and many would prefer to leave the past in the past, rather than reopen wounds in the national psyche which have yet to heal (but if they are ever to be healed, then the Truth must come out, and both sides must concede on various matters. There was no "good guy," and there was no "bad guy" (well, there were some "bad apples," namely those guilty of atrocities, but, as I have shown, there were Federals and Confederates, and even those who were opposed to both sides and the war itself, who were guilty of atrocities). There were winners and losers.

It's so often stated that it has become a proverb, "History is written by the victor." But in the case of the war of 1861-1865 (whatever you want to call it; I prefer "The War for Southern Independence," while there are at least four other more or less popular names for the war), there is more than one written history, and very few of them have gotten close to the Truth. I'm not even sure the Truth of the matter will ever be known with certainty, nor do I assume that I myself know it with certainty. I do, however, know that certain things are propaganda, but the most effective propaganda always contains at least a kernel of Truth, which is what makes it so hard to sift through to get at the kernels hidden in all the bullshit. Most of the people who have invested significant time in these discussions (TCT, Distruzio, ASB, myself, and a few others) have been correct in some claims; the difficulty lies in the fact that we have each read different versions of the history, and consulted different historical documents, and that we each come to the question with our own background (educational, cultural, linguistic, philosophical, etc), and so will look at any given thing in a different light based on whatever baggage we bring to the table, even including our various stances in any given field (my own civil libertarian leanings, for example, and my preference for a decentralized polity). In short, I admit that my contentions could be wrong. I have yet to see any convincing argument to that effect, however, and my not being convinced by the arguments I have seen is not from intransigence, but from what I believe I know, which is likely the same reason others have not been convinced by arguments that oppose their own view of the matter. I'm not sure that we, a mixed collection of amateurs and professionals, dealing with interdisciplinary sources, can hash out the Truth of the question(s), particularly since we each believe that we know certain things. But this topic (in one guise or another) comes up fairly often in these fora, and it can be an educational experience for anyone (including those of us who are very involved in the discussion) who bothers to consider the contentions and arguments and sources of the various perspectives.

Perhaps, someday, the majority of our descendants will simply no longer care so much, just as relatively few people today care what were the causes of Julius Caesar's invasion of Gaul, or what motivated Alexander to conquer a vast territory in Europe, Africa, and Asia, or who shot J.R. Until that time, though, I suspect that a fair number of historians, lawyers, philosophers, economists, and various other types, both amateur and professional, will continue to confront the issue and investigate, argue, debate, and so forth.

[The Cat-Tribe]

Excuse me? I called you a liar? Are you completely devoid of reading comprehension? You were the one who called Distruzio a liar. I said that your assertion is entirely without foundation.

I am not devoid of reading comprehension, but I did slightly overreact and exaggerate. Your quoting me incompletely, out-of-context, and in a debate I was not involved in and calling my statements "entirely without foundation" and then again naming me as incorrect caused me to feel I was being called a liar. You did not, however, use that term. I apologize for any offense.

Texas vs. White et al. did NOT settle the case, clearly or otherwise, BECAUSE the Supreme Court did not give full consideration to the question, according to their own statement.

SCOTUS did settle the issue in Texas v. White, as well as copious other cases, BECAUSE the Court ruled on the the question. Technically, the Court not required to give any discussion of its reasoning whatsoever -- although doing so is by far the better and standard practice. Merely because the Court did not discuss an issue "at length" or give what YOU consider "full consideration" does not make its ruling any less authoritative as a matter of law.

As a persuasive matter, the length and logic of the Court's discussion may be relevant. But even there, I started but stopped from rebutting your "critique" because it was verbal diarrhea without substance. Your admit yourself that most of the semantics you delve into lead nowhere. You bizarrely criticize the Court for "assum[ing]" the Consitution should have been adopted. You display a complete ignorance of the genesis of the phrase a "more perfect union." See, e.g. Federalist No. 5; 1 William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England 95-98 (Oxford 1765-1769). On this basis, you conclude the phrase in meaningless nonsense and can be disregarded. You (I can only assume jokingly) pretend the Merriam-Webster Dictionary is "the authoritative dictionary for the American Legal System." On this basis, you conclude the term "sovereignty" means that the States under the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution were "supreme power[s]" that were not subject to any other authority or external control. As I'll explain more below this is nonsense, as the Articles and Constitution would then have been entirely meaningless. You go off on a tangent about the number of states necessary to ratify the Constitution based on your misreading of the phrase "without the States in union, there could be no such political body as the United States" as saying that all the States are required for there to be a United States. Finally, you argue the absurdity that the Constitution itself is illegal, using an argument that James Madison specifically addressed in Federalist No. 43 (point 9).

Oh, one other thing, you claim that there is no evidence anywhere in the Constitution, The Federalist Papers, or the ratification debates that the Constitution was intended to establish a "perpetual union." In fact, there is copious evidence. I will just name a few (in addition to what I already posted):

• The Federalist No. 11 emphasized its portion of a series of arguments in Federalist Nos. 1-13 for a perpetual Union by proclaiming: "Let the thirteen States, bound together in a strict and indissoluble Union, concur in erecting one great American system . . ."
  
  
• James Wilson insisted at the Pennsylvania ratifying convention that "the bonds of our union ought therefore to be indissolubly strong."
  
  
• Governor Samuel Johnson declared in the North Carolina ratifying convention that:
  
  The Constitution must be the supreme law of the land; otherwise, it would be in the power of any one state to counteract the other states, and withdraw itself from the Union. The laws made in pursuance thereof by Congress ought to be the supreme law of the land; otherwise, any one state might repeal the laws of the Union at large. Without this clause, the whole Constitution would be a piece of blank paper.
• In the Virginia ratifying convention, George Wythe "demonstrated the necessity of a firm indissoluble Union of the States."

As for your subsequent posts referencing other cases, I will reply to those next week in greater depth, but for the moment,

Goody. I probably won't still be posting then. We'll see.

I will simply direct your attention to Article II of the Articles of Confederation,

This is UTTERLY IRRELEVANT.

1. Accordingly to your labrythine argument, this is only really relevant to the extent it means (in your interpretation) that the Articles contradicted themselves. The far more logical conclusion is that the Articles did not and that you are simply being absurd in your absolutist definition of "sovereignty."

2. By 1860, all of the relevant states were members of the Union pursuant to the U.S. Constitution. Article V is very clear that they were not "sovereign" after joining the Constitution, even if they were "sovereign" before it.

and quote my previous post on the question of whether or not the Constitution were ever seen as something from which the states could not secede:

of more weight, within the ratification instruments of the States themselves this issue is discussed. These ratification instruments were the States' several conditions for ratifying the Constitution. They would ratify, but with these understandings. What understandings? Let us examine some of them.

"... Virginia ratified the Constitution on the express understanding that 'the powers granted under the Constitution, being derived from the people of the United States, may be resumed by them, whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression.'
"Similar ideas surfaced in New York. Writing as Publius in The Federalist No. 84, Alexander Hamilton explained that 'here, in strictness, the people...retain everything [and] have no need of particular reservations. "WE THE PEOPLE..., to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution...." Here is a [clear] recognition of popular rights.' By 'popular rights' Publius meant rights of the people qua sovereign, including their right to revise what they had created. Following Virginia's lead, New York used its ratification instrument to underscore the understanding of the Preamble's principles: 'All power is vested in, and consequently derived from, the people.... The powers of government may be reassumed by the people whensoever it shall become necessary to their happiness.'
"These assorted speeches, essays, and ratification texts emphasizing the 'popular rights' that 'the people' 'retain' and 'reserve' and may 'resume' and 'reassume' exemplified what the First Congress had centrally in mind in 1789 when it proposed certain amendments as part of a general bill of rights. With its last three words proudly paralleling the Preamble's first three, the sentence that eventually became the Ninth Amendment declared rights implicitly 'retained by the people,' such as their right to alter what they had ordained. Similarly, the Tenth Amendment declared powers 'reserved... to the people,' and the First Amendment guaranteed 'the right of the people peaceably to assemble' in constitutional conventions and elsewhere. In all these places, the phrase 'the people' gestured back to the Constitution's first and most prominent use of these words in the Preamble."
-- Akhil Reed Amar, America's Constitution: A Biography Random House, 2005, p. 11 (italics and ellipses in original)

Mr. Amar will go on, in this book, to argue that the Constitution was not a compact (so I cannot be accused of quoting from a text biased in favor of my contentions), in spite of what he has just written and quoted on page 11 (and in spite of what he omitted on page 11 in reference to the Tenth Amendment, that portion thereof which declares powers "reserved to the States," as I have already quoted multiple times).

I trust I do not need to explain what meaning the ratification instruments of both Virginia and New York unambiguously state.

1. All of those refer to rights of "the people," not individual states. They therefore say nothing whatsoever about secession.

2. Nothing in the Constitution allowed states to put qualifications or conditions on its ratification. As James Madison noted in a letter to Alexander Hamilton on July 20, 1788 (which Hamilton later read to the New York Ratifying Convention):

The Constitution requires an adoption in toto, and for ever. It has been so adopted by the other States. An adoption for a limited time would be as defective as an adoption of some of the articles only. In short any condition whatever must viciate the ratification.

[The Cat-Tribe]

This is like talking to walls. The two "defenders" of the Confederacy's right to secede under the Constitution:

• are against the Constitution itself
  
  
• are anarchists of one type or another.

Dusk Kittens keeps ranting on about Federalists v. Anti-Federalists -- even though that battle was essentially over when the Constitution was ratified in 1789 and the Anti-Federalists soon withered out of existence some 70 years before secession and the Civil War.

It is not "bias" on the part of a Justice of the Supreme Court in 1869 to believe the Constitution is a binding legal document. To suggest it was is simply absurd.

[Shnercropolis]

nope. Giving someone the right to not have the same rights as you is silly.

[Grave_n_idle]

Even if it is true that they didn't give it full consideration, how is that at all even relevant? The fact is the SCOTUS still made a decision ruling that secession was illegal, just because they didn't feel like going into length on the issue does not change that fact. If the issue is not settled then why has there never been another case where the implied decision by SCOTUS in Texas v. White has been challenged or overturned?

Really, instead of relying on the dubious claims of someone like GnI, you ought to read the entirety of my post for yourself:
http://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=145639&p=7497968#p7497968

Which claims of mine are we discussing?

[Keronians]

They lost, so no.

[Grave_n_idle]

'Irrelevant, address my point even if the Supreme Court didn't give it their full consideration, the fact is that they still made a decision on the issue. But, lets assume if not settled why has there never been another case where the implied decision by SCOTUS in Texas v. White has been challenged or overturned?

Not irrelevant. You have assumed that GnI has in any way refuted anything I said. He didn't. This, by the way, is also my answer to your present contention. The Supreme Court did not make a decision in the case in question on the matter of the legality of secession;

On the contrary, Chase specifically addressed that question.

How can you even argue otherwise?

...what they did was to assume an answer, and then offer some cursory support for the assumption. If they were to issue a judgment ("decision"), then they would need to give the matter full consideration, and consult a number of sources (some of which I have provided in the lengthy post I'm advising you to read for yourself), BEFORE making their decision. You don't assume a conclusion and then go look for evidence in support of it, if you intend to promote Justice; on the contrary, you consult the evidence, weigh it, compare and contrast it with other evidence on the matter, and then after reflection and deliberation, you come to a conclusion and issue a judgment ("decision").

Ah... perhaps I understand now... you're not actually arguing that the decision didn't happen... you're arguing that it shouldn't count because you disagree with how it was made?

[Grave_n_idle]

They lost, so no.

That's actually somewhat irrelevant, although it did arguably force a resolution of sorts.

[Brostan]

In my opinion, the united states at the time of the civil war was still a federation, so while the southern states seceding was looked down upon, it was still possible for them to do so. After the civil war the united states national government finally established dominance over the states as a whole, though the rights of individual states and their laws (with the exception of laws that contrasted with national laws; ex: slavery) remained untampered with.

[Distruzio]

Okay, find an economist who says it, as I don't consider some Neo-Confederate Austrian nut as a credible source.

/notafish

Nor do I see how insight into economics gives someone a better insight into a historical account then a historian.

The "account" in question is the effect a tariff would have on the economy of the South. A historian would not know how to interpret the data. An economist would.

Oh yeah, this would be a political issue not economics as we are talking about secession not the economic effects of tariffs.

Not with this particular discussion. The nature of the thread itself is the "right" of secession. You have tried the legal argument and were beaten into a corner by DK and myself until TCT gave you breathing room. I'm out of my depth (I'm a layman with a casual interest in the topic) when delving so deep into the Philosophy of Law so I'll leave that discussion to TCT and DK.

Then you tried to argue about the philosophical right of secession in terms of constitutional legal theory, and have since abandoned that view (as has TCT and everyone else save GnI) when asked to follow simple logic.

But within the context of these discussion, you have misrepresented, misinterpreted, and outright ignored on several occasions any information presented by myself and other anti-federalists in this and other threads. You ask for proof that slavery was not the root cause, we present it. You continue to try to paint the statement that "slavery was not the cause of the war" as a statement that "the War had nothing to do with slavery." You know full well the two statements are not the same. It's intellectually dishonest, Rev.

The South might not have liked the tariff, but in the entire scope of the thing it was highly irrelevant to why they seceded.

This is what we call "backpedalling."

It had failed to go anywhere. A bill that cannot pass is not a threat.

Had the GOP not won the Presidential election, or the previous congressional election with the Tariff as a centerpiece, I would agree with you. Especially since the GOP didn't pose a political threat whatsoever prior to 1850. But since it catapulted on the scene of national politics as a party for protectionism and sectionalism in such a spectacular (and popular, evidently) fashion... I yet fail to see how the Tariff is "irrelevant" to the discussion of secession. This is as stupid as saying the War had nothing to do with slavery.

If you want to throw out buzzwords such as tariffs are economic warfare, I am going to assume they are coming from an ideological framework.

Hence the eyebrow. I make no qualms about where my loyalties lie. Firmly against the Union and against the constitution. I was surprised that you felt the need to question it.

Better then you as I understand that an act that was passed in 1861 was not law in 1857, you referred to tariffs being raised in 1857 something that did not happen.

I did not refer to Tariffs being raised in 1857. I referred to a higher Tariff first being discussed in 1857.

Additionally, any bill introduced in 1857 would not be up in 1861 as there would have been a new congress. Thus, even if the act was first introduced in 1857 that clearly demonstrates the lack of the threat imposed by the bill saying how they were able to kill it only a few years earlier.

Learn2sentencemake, mkay?

edit: Personally, I going to try to step back from this thread as it is getting to aggravating and I don't want to risk going off on a flamefest. Additionally, the much more elegant and graceful debaters of Alien Space Bats, Farnhamia, The Cat Tribes, etc have already demonstrated the lack of right or justification for the Southern secession. Thus, making further debate not needed in my opinion.

It never was. I like ASB's perspective and I find myself nearly willing to accept that the War was actually the North reacting to decades of Southern usurpation of Northern States rights the moment the North found itself in a position to do so. Farn and TCT, as much as I enjoy their conversation, present arguments I've seen and refuted before. TCT is the only one that gets close to responding with emotion I would worry was too aggressive. That being said, you should really reconsider how devoted you are to these disagreements between us. I find no offense in the sincere doubt that ASB, Farn, and TCT give these discussions much thought when their eyes are not on the thread. I know I don't.

[Dusk_Kittens]

Excuse me? I called you a liar? Are you completely devoid of reading comprehension? You were the one who called Distruzio a liar. I said that your assertion is entirely without foundation.

I am not devoid of reading comprehension, but I did slightly overreact and exaggerate. Your quoting me incompletely, out-of-context, and in a debate I was not involved in and calling my statements "entirely without foundation" and then again naming me as incorrect caused me to feel I was being called a liar. You did not, however, use that term. I apologize for any offense.

Your apology is accepted. As for how I quoted you, I concede that I should have included the more complete link (which I do in the longer post from which that was an excerpt, and which is not yet finished), so I apologize for that oversight.

However, I still must wonder about your reading comprehension, due to how you misrepresented things I have said and assumed that I hold positions I have never given any indication of espousing in the very post I'm replying to now.

Texas vs. White et al. did NOT settle the case, clearly or otherwise, BECAUSE the Supreme Court did not give full consideration to the question, according to their own statement.

SCOTUS did settle the issue in Texas v. White, as well as copious other cases, BECAUSE the Court ruled on the the question. Technically, the Court not required to give any discussion of its reasoning whatsoever -- although doing so is by far the better and standard practice. Merely because the Court did not discuss an issue "at length" or give what YOU consider "full consideration" does not make its ruling any less authoritative as a matter of law.

Oh, I admit it's accepted as law by the vast majority; I never said otherwise. What I said is that, they themselves admitted that they were not going to give full consideration to the question, and that, therefore, their cursory pontifications related to the question cannot be taken as "settling" at all, much less "clearly," the question. I further said that by presupposing their conclusion and then looking for reasons to support that conclusion, they were guilty of bias, and should have recused themselves -- BUT they were presented with a case that required some resolution, one way or the other, and in order to resolve the case, they had to at least touch upon the question.

As a persuasive matter, the length and logic of the Court's discussion may be relevant. But even there, I started but stopped from rebutting your "critique" because it was verbal diarrhea without substance. Your admit yourself that most of the semantics you delve into lead nowhere.

I admitted no such thing. Again you are misrepresenting what I have said. What I said was that I would begin with some futile semantic questions, because they were expected (and also because, if I failed to consider those questions, I could be accused of self-referential inconsistency, by not giving a full consideration myself to the entire question in my post; mind you, that post was only a small excerpt -- and thus is not the full consideration I have been preparing -- of a much larger post which I'm still working on, in response to you and others in two or three previous threads, in which threads the same behavior occurred, namely, my opponents engaged in assorted fallacies including, but not limited to, Petitio Principii, Argumentum ad Hominem, Straw Man, Unwarranted Assumption, and Circular Reasoning), and also to get the futile matters out of the way at the outset of my semantic considerations, which were not all futile, as should be plain from the section in which I note my disdain for those who dismiss semantic concerns on the basis of the ad Hominem contention that such concerns are "just semantics" as if any and all semantic concerns are of no importance or relevance.

You bizarrely criticize the Court for "assum[ing]" the Consitution should have been adopted.

"Bizarre" because you likewise assume that the Articles were so flawed as to warrant being replaced by something else, I suppose.

You display a complete ignorance of the genesis of the phrase a "more perfect union." See, e.g. Federalist No. 5; 1 William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England 95-98 (Oxford 1765-1769). On this basis, you conclude the phrase in meaningless nonsense and can be disregarded.

On the contrary, I'm quite aware of the intellectual gymnastics used to justify the nonsensical phrase. It remains nonsensical, for the reasons I have stated. There is no meaning to the phrase "more perfect." Something is perfect or it is not, regardless of which of the definitions of "perfect" are used. Mind that the document was composed with a certain style, namely, a style intended for oratory presentation. To that end, the flow had to proceed in a stylistic manner, stress and syllables, meter and other characteristics of prose recitation, were necessarily involved in the composition.

You (I can only assume jokingly) pretend the Merriam-Webster Dictionary is "the authoritative dictionary for the American Legal System."

Remind me again: Exactly how did President Clinton justify his denial of having had "sexual relations" with Monica Lewinsky?

On this basis, you conclude the term "sovereignty" means that the States under the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution were "supreme power[s]" that were not subject to any other authority or external control. As I'll explain more below this is nonsense, as the Articles and Constitution would then have been entirely meaningless.

Not on the basis of the Merriam-Webster Dictionary alone, but the point remains to be considered: What does "confederation" itself mean? It is interchangeable with "confederacy" and "league." It refers to a voluntary pact between states (here used not in the sense of "states" of the "United States," but rather in the sense of "nation-sates"), tribes, chiefdoms, or other polities which, as the Articles of Confederation themselves state plainly "retain their sovereignty, freedom, and independence."

You go off on a tangent about the number of states necessary to ratify the Constitution based on your misreading of the phrase "without the States in union, there could be no such political body as the United States" as saying that all the States are required for there to be a United States.

Quite the contrary, it is no mere "tangent." I'm sorry if you don't understand that I was not chasing rabbits. The relevance of the discussion is made plain by reference both to the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution. I suggest you re-read that section more carefully. In order for ANY alteration to the Articles of Confederation, unanimity is required. How much more so, then, would casting off the Articles of Confederation entirely and replacing them with the Constitution require unanimity? Yet the Constitution says otherwise, and even when its conditions were met, it still was not declared in force till two more than it claimed to be necessary had ratified it. Nevertheless, until the last two states agreed, it was a wholly illegal and seditious document, and even then, its legality under the Articles of Confederation may be questioned. If the Articles of Confederation established, as you and other pro-Federalists claim, a "perpetual union" in the sense of an indissoluble government, then how was that government dissolved legitimately? For it WAS dissolved, and replaced with the Federal Democratic Republic.

Finally, you argue the absurdity that the Constitution itself is illegal, using an argument that James Madison specifically addressed in Federalist No. 43 (point 9).

I'm aware of Madison's contentions, and I'm aware that it was due to his influence that the ratification of the Constitution is illegal under the terms of the Articles of Confederation, for it was he who convinced he delegates that ratification should not be done through the Congress of the Articles and the state legislatures, as the Articles required. By subverting this requirement, the delegates violated the law of the United States under the Articles of Confederation, and thereby rendered the entire proceeding illicit. But even if the delegates were convinced by it, I should accept Madison's Federalist propaganda for what reason, precisely? Because he later was a President? Because he was one of the early leaders of the USA? Because he was a delegate to the Constitutional Convention? Because he was a Federalist? You do realize, I trust, that "The Federalist Papers" were composed in an effort to convince people to support the Federalist cause, and that, therefore, they employed both Logic and Rhetoric? I'm sorry, but Rhetoric is a discipline which I find useful only when dealing with those who cannot rise above it to Logic, and even then, having to resort to it makes me feel as if I need a shower. I believe that my not infrequent statements of admiration for Thomas Jefferson should be ample demonstration of how I perceive Madison, and his supposed "reasons" for supporting Federalism, and his contention that the Constitution should not be ratified legally under the terms of the Articles of Confederation. I do not think I need to go into the belief held by many Anti-Federalists that Madison had vested interests in his advocacy of Federalism. Now, I can certainly respond, point by point, to Madison's contentions, but why do I need to? Every time one of you pro-Federalists tosses some new thing into the mix after I've thoroughly trounced the last thing you tossed into the mix, you expect me to continue to respond, when you have yet to admit that "Omigod, she actually did dissect that rather well and demonstrate flaws in the position" with regard to the previous "evidence" you presented? I grew weary of this the last time we had this discussion, but I resolved to prepare something for a future such discussion. At least one other topic on the matter or related thereto has arisen since I started preparing that, and I excused myself from even a single post in that thread due to other responsibilities, but this present topic was too pertinent in its question for me to wholly ignore, and so I posted an excerpt (as noted, and there are even comments in what I posted that allude to other portions of the text as yet unpublished in these fora or elsewhere, such as my reference to having argued against the supposed infallible magisterium with which some of you pro-Federalists wish to invest the Supreme Court -- an argument which nowhere appears in the excerpt, but which is already a more or less completed part of the document in preparation). But perhaps I should have bowed out of this topic as well, and waited until I have finished the work now in preparation. Then again, had I done so, I would not have been witness to the amazing manifestations of denial which I have seen in this thread, nor seen how, when each "foundation" is demolished, pro-Federalists not only deny the demolition, but retreat to some other supposed "sure" foundation. I think that perhaps I should simply collect all of these pro-Federalist defenses and publish a book refuting them all. At least I would get some income out of that, no matter how many brainwashed dupes will howl and moan; indeed, their very howling and moaning will only serve as publicity and thereby insure an even greater income from the publication than if they simply quietly accepted defeat. But yes, I shall respond to the points in your previous posts, in time. Again, I have stated that I intend to address the other legal cases you have referenced in the coming week. It remains my intention to do so. After that, I may dissect Madison's blather for the fora, or I may hold off till a later date, incorporating my critique and refutation into the longer post still being written (or, who knows, maybe I'll write that book). The point, regardless of Madison's "arguments," is that the Articles of Confederation comprised the legal document of the legitimate government of the United States at the time, and they had certain requirements for any alteration to the said law. Those requirements were NOT met by the Constitutional Congress, and therefore, the ratification of the Constitution is pointless in a legal sense, for until those requirements are met, the Articles of Confederation remain the legitimate governing document of the United States. You may thank your beloved Federalist Madison for this situation; I merely point it out.

Oh, one other thing, you claim that there is no evidence anywhere in the Constitution, The Federalist Papers, or the ratification debates that the Constitution was intended to establish a "perpetual union."

I did no such thing. Again, you are misrepresenting my words. Here, they are plain enough, if you will look at them without seeking for any dubious foothold by which to launch another attack:

Is there any evidence that the Constitution was presented as establishing a "perpetual union" anywhere in the document itself? No? Implied, according to this statement of the Supreme Court, but certainly not explicit. Alright, how about in The Federalist Papers? Anything? No? Well, yes, in the debates between the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists (which we shall examine momentarily) --

-- but of more weight, within the ratification instruments of the States themselves this issue is discussed. These ratification instruments were the States' several conditions for ratifying the Constitution. They would ratify, but with these understandings.

I will excuse you for some of your misunderstanding; I was not entirely clear. I deny there is any such evidence in the Constitution itself, and then respond to my rhetorical question about The Federalist Papers in the same manner, but immediately correct myself with "Well, yes, ..." and go on to mention the debates between the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists (which were largely conducted in The Federalist Papers and The Anti-Federalist Papers), and then proceed to reference some of the ratification instruments themselves, which you have accused me of denying had anything to do with the question. While I have excused you for misinterpreting me as having denied that The Federalist Papers address the question, I see no reason to excuse you for overlooking the fact that I myself gave evidence from the ratification instruments. That I chose to focus on those CONDITIONS LAID DOWN FOR RATIFYING THE CONSTITUTION by two of the states, rather than quote some of the doubtful sources you quote below (and yes, I'll address why I call them "doubtful") is not sufficient cause for you to accuse me of ignorance nor of an attempt to conceal the fact.

In fact, there is copious evidence.

I wouldn't say "copious," but there certainly are some, as I noted in the very post you've been attempting to criticize. That I didn't get to them in the excerpt does not mean that I have not considered them later in the as-yet-unfinished post, for indeed, I have, but not to the extent that I was willing to yet post that portion of the post.

I will just name a few (in addition to what I already posted):

• The Federalist No. 11 emphasized its portion of a series of arguments in Federalist Nos. 1-13 for a perpetual Union by proclaiming: "Let the thirteen States, bound together in a strict and indissoluble Union, concur in erecting one great American system . . ."
  
  
• James Wilson insisted at the Pennsylvania ratifying convention that "the bonds of our union ought therefore to be indissolubly strong."
  
  
• Governor Samuel Johnson declared in the North Carolina ratifying convention that:
  
  The Constitution must be the supreme law of the land; otherwise, it would be in the power of any one state to counteract the other states, and withdraw itself from the Union. The laws made in pursuance thereof by Congress ought to be the supreme law of the land; otherwise, any one state might repeal the laws of the Union at large. Without this clause, the whole Constitution would be a piece of blank paper.
• In the Virginia ratifying convention, George Wythe "demonstrated the necessity of a firm indissoluble Union of the States."

I'm going to address, for now, only Johnson, as a "dubious" source for your contention.

Note that Johnson has affirmed that if the Constitution be not the Supreme Law of the Land, then it would be in the power of any one state to withdraw from the Union, which, incidentally, is a very relevant question today, even as it was in 1861. If the Constitution be the Supreme Law of the Land, then it must trump any Federal, State, County, or City law, statute, or ordinance. But I digress; allow me to continue to point out how Johnson's statement actually gives support to the cause of secession, rather than the idea of an indivisible Union. He states: "The laws made in pursuance thereof by Congress ought to be the supreme law of the land; otherwise, any one state might repeal the laws of the Union at large. Without this clause, the whole Constitution would be a piece of blank paper." Is this not EXACTLY the argument used by South Carolina in their Declaration of Secession? Why, yes. Yes, it is.

As for your subsequent posts referencing other cases, I will reply to those next week in greater depth, but for the moment,

Goody. I probably won't still be posting then. We'll see.

I will simply direct your attention to Article II of the Articles of Confederation,

This is UTTERLY IRRELEVANT.

On the contrary, it is supremely relevant. The Articles themselves, in spite of their reference to a "perpetual union," frankly declare that:

Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence

You cannot pick and choose which portion(s) you will accept as legitimate statements of the purposes of the government under the Articles; all portions of the Articles are legitimate statements of the purposes of the government under the Articles, in one particular or another.

1. Accordingly to your labrythine argument, this is only really relevant to the extent it means (in your interpretation) that the Articles contradicted themselves. The far more logical conclusion is that the Articles did not and that you are simply being absurd in your absolutist definition of "sovereignty."

Again you have misunderstood or misrepresented what I said. I did not say that the Articles contradicted themselves. What I said was:

Regardless of any talk of "perpetual Union" in the Articles of Confederation, without considering the seeming contradiction between that talk and the powers explicitly noted to belong to the States in Article II, the matter of the legality of secession has NOT been considered by the Supreme Court, at least not fully, and the Supreme Court itself admits that it isn't going to consider it fully.

Please note the italics, which were and are in the original post. I have noted that there is a SEEMING contradiction. Now, if you will be so good as to consult the quote in my OOC Stuff spoiler, from Machiavelli, I believe you may get some idea of how I feel about appearances. If the archaic Italian is beyond you, I'm sure you can find a translation online (I know of two English translations of the text in question available online, but I'm not going to dig through my rather poorly organized bookmarks to find one for you), but if you can't be bothered, then just think "DK embraces some of the Metaphysical concepts of Plato," and you will not be too far off the mark. If something seems a certain way, it does not (necessarily) mean that it actually is that way. Appearance can be deceptive. While it is far from inconceivable that the Articles might contradict themselves (unless you have some odd notion that the text is inerrant), my contention is that the Supreme Court ignored the inconvenient language in Article II in favor of focusing on the Articles' reference to "a perpetual union," and that the term "perpetual" needs to be considered in light of its etymology and the history of the use of the word in English. Verily, then, I have not at all stated that those two portions of the Articles are contradictory of one another, but quite the contrary, have affirmed that they are not, if one accepts the fact that those Americans who composed the Articles were more familiar with Latin and Greek than most Americans of today are, and that "perpetuus, perpetuum, perpetua" has meanings other than "eternal," such as "complete" (in the sense of "thorough," which is precisely what I maintain is intended by the phrase "a perpetual union," for otherwise, the phrase is at least problematic in light of Article II).

2. By 1860, all of the relevant states were members of the Union pursuant to the U.S. Constitution. Article V is very clear that they were not "sovereign" after joining the Constitution, even if they were "sovereign" before it.

What convoluted interpretation of this language even remotely implies that the states were not sovereign after the ratification of he Constitution? This is Article V in its entirety (from here:

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

(The references to the First Article are concerned with the slave trade.) So what about this suggests that the states are no longer sovereign under the Constitution? The notion that the Federal Legislature is able to amend the Constitution (under the conditions stated) in a manner that will that affect all the states? Even the Articles of Confederation allowed for that, while still declaring each state to retain "sovereignty, freedom, and independence." When a polity enters a confederation, confederacy, or league, it accepts that there is a body which governs the confederation, confederacy, or league, and that this body may make demands on the individual polities that make up the confederation, confederacy, or league, so long as they remain part of, and party to, the confederation, confederacy, or league, their "sovereignty, freedom, and independence" notwithstanding. If they wish to disregard such demands, they are free to petition for the demands to be changed -- OR to withdraw from the confederation, confederacy, or league. Nowhere in the Constitution is the latter option declared to be non-existent.

and quote my previous post on the question of whether or not the Constitution were ever seen as something from which the states could not secede:



I trust I do not need to explain what meaning the ratification instruments of both Virginia and New York unambiguously state.

1. All of those refer to rights of "the people," not individual states. They therefore say nothing whatsoever about secession.

Perhaps you would care to explain how "the people" are not precisely what constitute a "state"? Perhaps, also, you would care to explain how exactly "the people" would go about "resuming" or "reassuming" those powers (which are "vested in" and "derived from" "the people") "granted under the Constitution" by some means other than state secession?

2. Nothing in the Constitution allowed states to put qualifications or conditions on its ratification. As James Madison noted in a letter to Alexander Hamilton on July 20, 1788 (which Hamilton later read to the New York Ratifying Convention):

The Constitution requires an adoption in toto, and for ever. It has been so adopted by the other States. An adoption for a limited time would be as defective as an adoption of some of the articles only. In short any condition whatever must viciate the ratification.

And yet, that very ratification instrument of New York states plainly that it has reservations, conditions, for ratification of the Constitution. Here, let's you and I make a contract between us to do some thing X; you agree, but in agreeing, make note of conditions for agreeing, which, although not technically part of the contract in its prepared form (unless you write them in the margins or the like, in which case, they are not, strictly speaking, "part" of the prepared contract, but are nevertheless part of the agreed-upon contract), are included with the contract if a full consideration thereof becomes necessary in a court of law. If two or more parties enter into a contract, does none of the parties have any authority to add conditions for agreeing? If they do add such conditions, shall those conditions be irrelevant? You have a very strange notion of agreements, if you say so. Shall we resort to various international treaties and see if they do not customarily include the reservations and conditions for ratification by the several polities which agree to them? Let's just take one example for now (numerous other examples are found on the UN website, and they will likewise support my assertion that such documents customarily include reservations and conditions of those polities who are party to such agreements), from the Council on Foreign Relations website, where we see, in Article 16, no less than five paragraphs of "Reservations." Incidentally, this treaty, the Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States, declares, in Article 3, this rather interesting ideal:

The political existence of the state is independent of recognition by the other states. Even before recognition the state has the right to defend its integrity and independence, to provide for its conservation and prosperity, and consequently to organize itself as it sees fit, to legislate upon its interests, administer its services, and to define the jurisdiction and competence of its courts.

which is rather amusing in light of a frequently-asserted claim on the part of pro-Federalists that the Confederacy was never an independent nation-state because no other nation-state ever recognized it. "Ex post facto!!!" you may retort. Ah, then shall I not retort in reference to all of your legal cases the exact same reply?


Oh, and one other thing: I will not be responding in any depth, at this time, to your subsequent post, but in that post, you again misrepresented me (as you have done on several occasions in the past, although I shall not presume to judge if this were done intentionally or due to misunderstanding). On that occasion, you did so by labeling me as some sort of "anarchist." I am not any sort of anarchist. I do not believe in the possibility of a society devoid of any hierarchy, nor in the possibility of a society without government, for, protestations to the contrary notwithstanding, classes have always existed, and therefore, a hierarchy has always existed, and therefore (whether it might be considered as having had a "state" or not), every society has had some type of government, since society first came into existence (although, it should be noted, social class is not necessarily determined by economic standing, nor is economic standing necessarily determined by social class). These things (hierarchy, social classes, and government) will always exist in any society. Finally, power vacuums get filled (usually rather quickly), so any attempt at "anarchy" must fail. So yeah, not an anarchist.

[Revolutopia]

Oh yeah, this would be a political issue not economics as we are talking about secession not the economic effects of tariffs.

Not with this particular discussion. The nature of the thread itself is the "right" of secession. You have tried the legal argument and were beaten into a corner by DK and myself until TCT gave you breathing room. I'm out of my depth (I'm a layman with a casual interest in the topic) when delving so deep into the Philosophy of Law so I'll leave that discussion to TCT and DK.

Then you tried to argue about the philosophical right of secession in terms of constitutional legal theory, and have since abandoned that view (as has TCT and everyone else save GnI) when asked to follow simple logic.

But within the context of these discussion, you have misrepresented, misinterpreted, and outright ignored on several occasions any information presented by myself and other anti-federalists in this and other threads. You ask for proof that slavery was not the root cause, we present it. You continue to try to paint the statement that "slavery was not the cause of the war" as a statement that "the War had nothing to do with slavery." You know full well the two statements are not the same. It's intellectually dishonest, Rev.

Please, not another song and dance in evading the question. The answer was solved on the first page when Offenheim quoted Chase and the SCOTUS making a formal decision that secession is illegal. Since, then we heard you make false statements that secessions has occurred following White v. Texas and now Dusk-Kitten making false statements that the SCOTUS did not make a decision on the issue. With that one proven wrong by both The Cat-Tribe and Greed-and-Death clearly detailing that, the SCOTUS did make a decision on the issue.

On the issue of tariffs, first it is highly irrelevant to anything connected to the discussion of the legal right to secession so I fail to see why you are insistent to bring it up. It also has to be one of the most laughable areas of your attempt to divert attention away from your failures. You have proceeded to quote two different sources then falsely claim they support the idea that tariffs were highly important. A simple reading of the text shows that this is not the case with Marx directly saying that the issue of tariffs is a pretext (i.e. false). The other directly says the majority of Historians disagree with the assessment that tariffs were highly important in the decision to secede.

Only, now instead of admitting that you have made a provable false claim you move the goal posts and say you rather trust an economist then historians. Despite, the complete irrelevancy of economic interruption of the economic effects of tariffs has on understanding the political and historical issue of secession. No one is making the claims about the economic effects that tariffs would have on the Southern economy; the issue was if they were highly important in understanding why the South seceded. The fact being that only two states out of the entire Confederacy even mentioned them in their secession documents makes that highly questionable (your claim of SC and GA’s importance on the other states is improvable thus irrelevant). Additionally, there is the fact that a number of the States had decided to keep tariffs within their own territory.

Next, I never abandoned the issue of constitutional legal theory as a contract between the states. That discussion died because I do not feel like watching your song and dance about how the constitution was never ratified. Simply, it is a pointless show of you trying to use your own personal feeling of why you disagree with an action instead of presenting any legal or historical argument. The fact is all the states ratified the Constitution thus were bound to it according to the final interpreters of the constitution.

Moreover, you are not one to talk about people abandoning arguments with how often you drop them after being proven wrong. From your false claims that secessions has happened post Texas v. White which you unceremoniously dropped after I showed how none of those cases have ever gone forward or were even covered by Texas v. White. To your false claims that the South brought the North up for constitutional violations in Dred Scott until I again proved that neither did the South bring it up or did it address the Northern States but only the Territories.

Finally, I never said that slavery was the cause of the war. Simply, the war started because the South engaged in illegal secession and thus Lincoln in fulfilling his constitutional duties engaged in armed conflict to squash the Southern Rebellion. The fact is that the illegal secession came from the factors of slavery and the hissy fit of the South in losing an election. So don't be intellectually dishonest and place words in my mouth.

We all understand that you are an anti-federalist, but that fact is not relevant to this discussion. Simply, how your anti-federalism only relates to your own personal philosophy and has no connection outside those confines. The case we are talking about is did the South have the legal right to secede from the Union, an institution created by a philosophical federalism. Thus, the argument has to relate to the boundaries of federalism not just your personal anti-federalism.

However, we all know this pointless as you will just continue your song and dance routine and not address any of the points mentioned so in short.... .

[Dusk_Kittens]

A small number of corrections/amendments to my previous post (and I'll excuse myself for having to make these on the grounds that there was a small amount of vodka involved during part of the composition of my previous post):

You display a complete ignorance of the genesis of the phrase a "more perfect union." See, e.g. Federalist No. 5; 1 William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England 95-98 (Oxford 1765-1769). On this basis, you conclude the phrase in meaningless nonsense and can be disregarded.

On the contrary, I'm quite aware of the intellectual gymnastics used to justify the nonsensical phrase. It remains nonsensical, for the reasons I have stated. There is no meaning to the phrase "more perfect." Something is perfect or it is not, regardless of which of the definitions of "perfect" are used. Mind that the document was composed with a certain style, namely, a style intended for oratory presentation. To that end, the flow had to proceed in a stylistic manner, stress and syllables, meter and other characteristics of prose recitation, were necessarily involved in the composition.

I recant. There is one meaning which would not be nonsensical, and which I noted in the post you were attempting to criticize by overlooking that the meaning in question was noted by me in that very post, and that is the view of "perfect" as synonymous with "perpetual" (or rather, the Latin source of the English word "perpetual") in the sense of "complete" (not "complete/finished/accomplished/having attained its end or goal," but "complete/thorough/pervasive"). This, however, does not give the strength of meaning which the pro-Federalist position would like.

You (I can only assume jokingly) pretend the Merriam-Webster Dictionary is "the authoritative dictionary for the American Legal System."

Remind me again: Exactly how did President Clinton justify his denial of having had "sexual relations" with Monica Lewinsky?

To be more precise, I intend to note that the dictionary in question is the one accepted by the American legal system as the authoritative dictionary of Standard American English, and not as a dictionary of law or the like. I find this acceptance unsettling, as The American Heritage Dictionary is vastly superior, but that's a discussion for another time.

You go off on a tangent about the number of states necessary to ratify the Constitution based on your misreading of the phrase "without the States in union, there could be no such political body as the United States" as saying that all the States are required for there to be a United States.

Quite the contrary, it is no mere "tangent." I'm sorry if you don't understand that I was not chasing rabbits. The relevance of the discussion is made plain by reference both to the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution. I suggest you re-read that section more carefully. In order for ANY alteration to the Articles of Confederation, unanimity is required. How much more so, then, would casting off the Articles of Confederation entirely and replacing them with the Constitution require unanimity? Yet the Constitution says otherwise, and even when its conditions were met, it still was not declared in force till two more than it claimed to be necessary had ratified it. Nevertheless, until the last two states agreed, it was a wholly illegal and seditious document, and even then, its legality under the Articles of Confederation may be questioned. If the Articles of Confederation established, as you and other pro-Federalists claim, a "perpetual union" in the sense of an indissoluble government, then how was that government dissolved legitimately? For it WAS dissolved, and replaced with the Federal Democratic Republic.

Finally, you argue the absurdity that the Constitution itself is illegal, using an argument that James Madison specifically addressed in Federalist No. 43 (point 9).

I'm aware of Madison's contentions, and I'm aware that it was due to his influence that the ratification of the Constitution is illegal under the terms of the Articles of Confederation, for it was he who convinced he delegates that ratification should not be done through the Congress of the Articles and the state legislatures, as the Articles required. By subverting this requirement, the delegates violated the law of the United States under the Articles of Confederation, and thereby rendered the entire proceeding illicit. But even if the delegates were convinced by it, I should accept Madison's Federalist propaganda for what reason, precisely? Because he later was a President? Because he was one of the early leaders of the USA? Because he was a delegate to the Constitutional Convention? Because he was a Federalist? You do realize, I trust, that "The Federalist Papers" were composed in an effort to convince people to support the Federalist cause, and that, therefore, they employed both Logic and Rhetoric? I'm sorry, but Rhetoric is a discipline which I find useful only when dealing with those who cannot rise above it to Logic, and even then, having to resort to it makes me feel as if I need a shower. I believe that my not infrequent statements of admiration for Thomas Jefferson should be ample demonstration of how I perceive Madison, and his supposed "reasons" for supporting Federalism, and his contention that the Constitution should not be ratified legally under the terms of the Articles of Confederation. I do not think I need to go into the belief held by many Anti-Federalists that Madison had vested interests in his advocacy of Federalism. Now, I can certainly respond, point by point, to Madison's contentions, but why do I need to? Every time one of you pro-Federalists tosses some new thing into the mix after I've thoroughly trounced the last thing you tossed into the mix, you expect me to continue to respond, when you have yet to admit that "Omigod, she actually did dissect that rather well and demonstrate flaws in the position" with regard to the previous "evidence" you presented? I grew weary of this the last time we had this discussion, but I resolved to prepare something for a future such discussion. At least one other topic on the matter or related thereto has arisen since I started preparing that, and I excused myself from even a single post in that thread due to other responsibilities, but this present topic was too pertinent in its question for me to wholly ignore, and so I posted an excerpt (as noted, and there are even comments in what I posted that allude to other portions of the text as yet unpublished in these fora or elsewhere, such as my reference to having argued against the supposed infallible magisterium with which some of you pro-Federalists wish to invest the Supreme Court -- an argument which nowhere appears in the excerpt, but which is already a more or less completed part of the document in preparation). But perhaps I should have bowed out of this topic as well, and waited until I have finished the work now in preparation. Then again, had I done so, I would not have been witness to the amazing manifestations of denial which I have seen in this thread, nor seen how, when each "foundation" is demolished, pro-Federalists not only deny the demolition, but retreat to some other supposed "sure" foundation. I think that perhaps I should simply collect all of these pro-Federalist defenses and publish a book refuting them all. At least I would get some income out of that, no matter how many brainwashed dupes will howl and moan; indeed, their very howling and moaning will only serve as publicity and thereby insure an even greater income from the publication than if they simply quietly accepted defeat. But yes, I shall respond to the points in your previous posts, in time. Again, I have stated that I intend to address the other legal cases you have referenced in the coming week. It remains my intention to do so. After that, I may dissect Madison's blather for the fora, or I may hold off till a later date, incorporating my critique and refutation into the longer post still being written (or, who knows, maybe I'll write that book). The point, regardless of Madison's "arguments," is that the Articles of Confederation comprised the legal document of the legitimate government of the United States at the time, and they had certain requirements for any alteration to the said law. Those requirements were NOT met by the Constitutional Congress, and therefore, the ratification of the Constitution is pointless in a legal sense, for until those requirements are met, the Articles of Confederation remain the legitimate governing document of the United States. You may thank your beloved Federalist Madison for this situation; I merely point it out.

Well, I'll allow that the Constitution was ratified legally and legitimately, if and only if you will allow that the "perpetual union" of the Articles of Confederation permitted secession, and that those states which ratified the Constitution had seceded from the United States, whether their secession were de jure or even merely de facto (for otherwise, those states which ratified the Constitution were still party to the Articles, and bound by its terms, and having ratified the Constitution without following the legitimate legal procedure, were in rebellion against the United States).