Did the South have a right to secede?

[The Cat-Tribe]

Excellent job of not answering a simple question.

Interesting assertion that the population of the Confederacy were still citizens of the United States. You might want to think that through.

I'm pretty sure that was my answer...unless you think "They are now dual citizens" doesn't answer your question.

Validity? is that the thing you want addressed, okay...Consent of the Governed, as the States are directly responsible for Governing their Citizens, and Secession was a Democratic Process that was consent to by the Citizens of their respective states, then it was most certainly valid.
(Devils Advocacy, as I view all impositions of law and "democracy" to be invalid by their very design)

The ones that voted no, were merely on the losing side of the Democratic Process. And Slaves aren't citizens, both sides agreed on that notion.

Wait, wait . . .

You are trying to draw an arbitrary and capricious line of valid "consent of the governed" between State governments and the United States government? On what fucking basis?

And in doing so, you are invoking majority rule and the non-personhood of slaves.

(BTW, care to present evidence that even the voting majority of each Confederate state actually voted to secede from the Union?)

[GeneralHaNor]

Identical really, both were wars fought over the concept of representation and taxes, The war of "Southern Secession" being just a tad bit more complex with it's issues, and being a much darker shade of grey on the whole "ethical and moral" end

How was the South denied representation?

Were the colonies part of a government to which they had mutually consented was the "supreme law of the land" and was indissoluble?

And, again, what of that pesky 39% of the population of the Confederate States that were slaves? Are they without rights?

Again, Pretty sure Slaves are property by definition, (not saying that's right) and as such have no rights in a democratic system, at best they may have had rights regarding uncessary cruelty, much like a house pet., that 39% is the equivalent of counting your dogs as members of your household for taxes purposes and then registering them to vote...Both sides would agree with this notion at the time.

And "Indissoluble" is something that was in dispute at that time, and wasn't "resolved" till after the conflict.

[The Cat-Tribe]

Naturally, it is the right of any group of people who dislikes its current governance to establish for itself its own state. This principle of International Law was upheld by the International Court of Justice in its advisory opinion Accordance with International Law of the Unilateral Declaration of Independence In Respect of Kosovo.

Please point out where in the ICJ's advisory opinion Accordance with International Law of the Unilateral Declaration of Independence In Respect of Kosovo (45p pdf), the ICJ says anything even vaguely close to what you assert.

Second, as the ICJ carefully limits its opinion to the circumstances of the case before it, explain how (even if what you said above was true) that would trump the U.S. Constitution's limits on secession.

[The Cat-Tribe]

How was the South denied representation?

Were the colonies part of a government to which they had mutually consented was the "supreme law of the land" and was indissoluble?

And, again, what of that pesky 39% of the population of the Confederate States that were slaves? Are they without rights?

Again, Pretty sure Slaves are property by definition, (not saying that's right) and as such have no rights in a democratic system, at best they may have had rights regarding uncessary cruelty, much like a house pet., that 39% is the equivalent of counting your dogs as members of your household for taxes purposes and then registering them to vote...Both sides would agree with this notion at the time.

And "Indissoluble" is something that was in dispute at that time, and wasn't "resolved" till after the conflict.

1. For someone that bitches about (what you misname) "legal positivism," you seem to be insisting that treating about 4 million people as the equivalent of "dogs" was valid and should have been respected.

2. If you really want me to make your eyes glaze over, I can trace SCOTUS caselaw from 1793 through to just before the Civil War that made it very clear that the compact theory of the Constitution was bullshit, that "we the people" (not the states) formed the Union, and the states were subordinate to the federal government. The idea that secession was an open question is rather a myth.

[GeneralHaNor]

I'm pretty sure that was my answer...unless you think "They are now dual citizens" doesn't answer your question.

Validity? is that the thing you want addressed, okay...Consent of the Governed, as the States are directly responsible for Governing their Citizens, and Secession was a Democratic Process that was consent to by the Citizens of their respective states, then it was most certainly valid.
(Devils Advocacy, as I view all impositions of law and "democracy" to be invalid by their very design)

The ones that voted no, were merely on the losing side of the Democratic Process. And Slaves aren't citizens, both sides agreed on that notion.

Wait, wait . . .

You are trying to draw an arbitrary and capricious line of valid "consent of the governed" between State governments and the United States government? On what fucking basis?¹

And in doing so, you are invoking majority rule and the non-personhood of slaves.²

(BTW, care to present evidence that even the voting majority of each Confederate state actually voted to secede from the Union?)³

1. Bottom Up, Authority is derived from the consent of the governed, The citizens give a portion of their sovereignty to their governments which in turn give a portion of their sovereignty to a higher authority, and so on. This is the basic structure of all representative governments. It's true both in principle and on it's face. I suppose you could argue for a top down notion of Authority, IE "Central Authority delegates some responsibility to Govern to lesser authorities and so on" Which seems to be the common notion today, but it certainly wasn't all that popular a notion at that time. Besides, that notion complete negates the concept of consent by not requiring it. It's the position of Tyrants

2. I thought Majority Rule was the principle behind Democracy? (as opposed to the rule of the Few, Oligarchy, Monarchy, etc.)
And yes, Slaves were in fact, Not Persons under the law. Whats that...the law...behaving unethically? Blasphemy!

3. That I care not to do. I admit I make a basic assumption that Democracy works like it says on the side of box, (some assembly required)

[GeneralHaNor]

Again, Pretty sure Slaves are property by definition, (not saying that's right) and as such have no rights in a democratic system, at best they may have had rights regarding uncessary cruelty, much like a house pet., that 39% is the equivalent of counting your dogs as members of your household for taxes purposes and then registering them to vote...Both sides would agree with this notion at the time.

And "Indissoluble" is something that was in dispute at that time, and wasn't "resolved" till after the conflict.

1. For someone that bitches about (what you misname) "legal positivism," you seem to be insisting that treating about 4 million people as the equivalent of "dogs" was valid and should have been respected.

2. If you really want me to make your eyes glaze over, I can trace SCOTUS caselaw from 1793 through to just before the Civil War that made it very clear that the compact theory of the Constitution was bullshit, that "we the people" (not the states) formed the Union, and the states were subordinate to the federal government. The idea that secession was an open question is rather a myth.

1. Deliberate Parody, it highlights the absurdity of the notion that law regardless of it's morality should be adhered to and respected. By that token I don't particularlly have a problem with Slave Revolts, Tyrannical assholes had it coming.(Likewise. if the law tells you can't secede...if can also go fuck itself)

2. Your right, my eyes did glaze over. If the Constitution is not a compact (and many states made it clear in their ratification that wouldn't have signed it unless otherwise) then what it is? By what Authority does the Constitution derive it's power to hold all parties, forever subordinate to it's whim, regardless of their desire? Doesn't sound very "Democratic" to me. You have made it abundantly clear, that the Constitution, rather then protecting the rights of people, instead destroys those rights.

[Fiddlegreen Farms]

"Just because you can, doesn't mean you should.."

As someone who was born, raised, and still lives in Richmond, VA, the old capital of the CSA, with a statue of Stonewall Jackson literally right around the corner from his house, I must say that I have heard all of the arguments ad nauseum, and I still have to state a resounding no!

The stupidest thing that Virginia ever did was it's secession from the Union. Without Virginia the ill fated Confederacy would have lasted six months, maybe a year.

It was inevitable and right that the Union would win, and the fact of the matter is that you cannot have a country with states leaving any time they want. Slavery was, and is wrong. One often hears the statement that the Civil War was not about slavery, but state's rights - Yeah! The right to own slaves!

... Just my two Confederate cents on the matter from this lifelong Union sympathiser.

[The Cat-Tribe]

1. For someone that bitches about (what you misname) "legal positivism," you seem to be insisting that treating about 4 million people as the equivalent of "dogs" was valid and should have been respected.

2. If you really want me to make your eyes glaze over, I can trace SCOTUS caselaw from 1793 through to just before the Civil War that made it very clear that the compact theory of the Constitution was bullshit, that "we the people" (not the states) formed the Union, and the states were subordinate to the federal government. The idea that secession was an open question is rather a myth.

1. Deliberate Parody, it highlights the absurdity of the notion that law regardless of it's morality should be adhered to and respected. By that token I don't particularlly have a problem with Slave Revolts, Tyrannical assholes had it coming.(Likewise. if the law tells you can't secede...if can also go fuck itself)

2. Your right, my eyes did glaze over. If the Constitution is not a compact (and many states made it clear in their ratification that wouldn't have signed it unless otherwise) then what it is? By what Authority does the Constitution derive it's power to hold all parties, forever subordinate to it's whim, regardless of their desire? Doesn't sound very "Democratic" to me. You have made it abundantly clear, that the Constitution, rather then protecting the rights of people, instead destroys those rights.

Get back to me when you:

• Have a basic understanding of the Constitution and how our government is not just about majority rule;
• Understand federalism and the relationship between the state and federal governments;
• Have something approaching a vaguely coherent explanation of how state governments are legitimate and federal governments aren't;
• Have something approaching a vaguely coherent theory of political philosophy; AND/OR
• Have something approaching a vaguely coherent philosophy of law.

[GeneralHaNor]

1. Deliberate Parody, it highlights the absurdity of the notion that law regardless of it's morality should be adhered to and respected. By that token I don't particularlly have a problem with Slave Revolts, Tyrannical assholes had it coming.(Likewise. if the law tells you can't secede...if can also go fuck itself)

2. Your right, my eyes did glaze over. If the Constitution is not a compact (and many states made it clear in their ratification that wouldn't have signed it unless otherwise) then what it is? By what Authority does the Constitution derive it's power to hold all parties, forever subordinate to it's whim, regardless of their desire? Doesn't sound very "Democratic" to me. You have made it abundantly clear, that the Constitution, rather then protecting the rights of people, instead destroys those rights.

Get back to me when you:

• Have a basic understanding of the Constitution and how our government is not just about majority rule;
• Understand federalism and the relationship between the state and federal governments;
• Have something approaching a vaguely coherent explanation of how state governments are legitimate and federal governments aren't;
• Have something approaching a vaguely coherent theory of political philosophy; AND/OR
• Have something approaching a vaguely coherent philosophy of law.

I have all those things, your inability to recognize them, is not my issue

[Distruzio]

On the contrary, since the only 'argument' that has been presented against the precedence of the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union amounts to little more than 'nuh uh!' and 'but I don't like it', I'm going to have to say that the evidence suggests exactly that, and you know it.

The Union gov't began operations on March 4, 1789 with 11 of the 13 states ratifying it. Since North Carolina ratified on November 21, 1789 and Rhode Island on May 29, 1790, the Union did NOT in any imaginable way include all 13 states. Since the Confederation was required by the Articles to attain a unanimous vote from all the states in order to alter the Articles which were perpetual, the Union under the Constitution can not be anything less than an illegal gov't, according to your logic. Since only 12 states were present at the Constitutional Convention, there was no unanimity. Yet the Union began operations with only 11 of the 13. For more than a year, there was no unanimity in the ratification process. The Union states must have seceded from the Confederation states as the Union states did not include all of the Confederation states, per constitutional law as explicitly laid bare in the Articles of Confederation.

This is no word play on my end, GnI. It is no intentional misrepresentation of fact.

12 states were present at the Constitutional Convention, not 13. There is no unanimity.

11 states ratified before the Union began operations, not 13. There is no unanimity.

Therefore, the Constitution is either illegal and the Union an illegitimate gov't or, according to logic so simple an elementary student can grasp it, the Union was a federation of states that had seceded from the Confederation, despite their previous oath to endure as a confederation perpetually.

The Continental Association invented out of thin air the right of secession from the Empire of Great Britain. There was no legal precedent from which they could claim justification for their adoption of the Declaration of Independence. Whatever legal precedent was established under the Confederation, which replaced the Association (mind you, the Association did not include Georgia or New York for the first year so even it fails the neo-Lincolnian claim that "perpetuity" trumps all), by the Articles of Confederation, clearly made any attempt at a new gov't without the unanimous consent of all the states within the Confederation illegal.

This is simple stuff. Seriously GnI.



If the South had no right to secede, b/c the Confederation was perpetual, then the Union had no right to secede, b/c the Articles were perpetual. Any attempt to assert that the Union did NOT secede is a misrepresentation of FACT. It is intellectually dishonest and ridiculous beyond measure.

[Distruzio]

That is a very nice pipedream for you to believe, but (as someone you claims to have read Spooner) you know that is not what he argued. Not even close.

A crude synopsis, I admit. But it is among the most basic of arguments he made, and he made several, establishing his position that the Constitution, and the social contract it represents, is of no merit.

[Distruzio]

(BTW, care to present evidence that even the voting majority of each Confederate state actually voted to secede from the Union?)

The Southern States were NOT democracies. They were republics. Aristocratic republics. Remember, the Confederacy delegitimized democracy.

[Distruzio]

As someone who was born, raised, and still lives in Richmond, VA, the old capital of the CSA, with a statue of Stonewall Jackson literally right around the corner from his house, I must say that I have heard all of the arguments ad nauseum, and I still have to state a resounding no!

The stupidest thing that Virginia ever did was it's secession from the Union. Without Virginia the ill fated Confederacy would have lasted six months, maybe a year.

Wut? What choice did they have when Lincoln announced an invasion of the South? Would you stand idle or even aide a Police officer who pointed a gun at your sister over a disagreement? Virginia did NOT secede with the deep South. It took a decree from Washington of intent to invade (itself a violation of the Constitution) before Virginia seceded.

One often hears the statement that the Civil War was not about slavery, but state's rights - Yeah! The right to own slaves!

Come off it. The "states rights" being argued for was the North arguing for the right to reject immoral laws even though they be Constitutional.

[Distruzio]

People in the US felt the King was going to take their stuff.
People in the Confederacy felt the Federal government was going to take their stuff.

"Stuff" for the colonists being taxes, "stuff" for the confederacy being... What?

I forgot, what was their economy built around?

Something involving forced labor....

[Grave_n_idle]

On the contrary, since the only 'argument' that has been presented against the precedence of the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union amounts to little more than 'nuh uh!' and 'but I don't like it', I'm going to have to say that the evidence suggests exactly that, and you know it.

The Union gov't began operations on March 4, 1789 with 11 of the 13 states ratifying it. Since North Carolina ratified on November 21, 1789 and Rhode Island on May 29, 1790, the Union did NOT in any imaginable way include all 13 states. Since the Confederation was required by the Articles to attain a unanimous vote from all the states in order to alter the Articles which were perpetual, the Union under the Constitution can not be anything less than an illegal gov't, according to your logic. Since only 12 states were present at the Constitutional Convention, there was no unanimity. Yet the Union began operations with only 11 of the 13. For more than a year, there was no unanimity in the ratification process. The Union states must have seceded from the Confederation states as the Union states did not include all of the Confederation states, per constitutional law as explicitly laid bare in the Articles of Confederation.

This is no word play on my end, GnI. It is no intentional misrepresentation of fact.

12 states were present at the Constitutional Convention, not 13. There is no unanimity.

11 states ratified before the Union began operations, not 13. There is no unanimity.

Therefore, the Constitution is either illegal and the Union an illegitimate gov't or, according to logic so simple an elementary student can grasp it, the Union was a federation of states that had seceded from the Confederation, despite their previous oath to endure as a confederation perpetually.

The Continental Association invented out of thin air the right of secession from the Empire of Great Britain. There was no legal precedent from which they could claim justification for their adoption of the Declaration of Independence. Whatever legal precedent was established under the Confederation, which replaced the Association (mind you, the Association did not include Georgia or New York for the first year so even it fails the neo-Lincolnian claim that "perpetuity" trumps all), by the Articles of Confederation, clearly made any attempt at a new gov't without the unanimous consent of all the states within the Confederation illegal.

This is simple stuff. Seriously GnI.



If the South had no right to secede, b/c the Confederation was perpetual, then the Union had no right to secede, b/c the Articles were perpetual. Any attempt to assert that the Union did NOT secede is a misrepresentation of FACT. It is intellectually dishonest and ridiculous beyond measure.

You're right on one thing, it really is simple. Far more simple than you wish it to be with all your obfuscation.

The Convention meets, with quorum present, May 25th 1787

The Constitution is proposed, September 17th, 1787

December 15th, 1791 - the perpetual Articles are effectively finally 'altered', with ratification of all states - the Bill of Rights comes into force, and the (re)forged Constitution is paramount.

You talk about dishonest and ridiculous misrepresentation of facts, even while you fabricate an imagined controversy to try to pretend that the Articles no longer applied. All states DID ratify.

[Distruzio]

The Union gov't began operations on March 4, 1789 with 11 of the 13 states ratifying it. Since North Carolina ratified on November 21, 1789 and Rhode Island on May 29, 1790, the Union did NOT in any imaginable way include all 13 states. Since the Confederation was required by the Articles to attain a unanimous vote from all the states in order to alter the Articles which were perpetual, the Union under the Constitution can not be anything less than an illegal gov't, according to your logic. Since only 12 states were present at the Constitutional Convention, there was no unanimity. Yet the Union began operations with only 11 of the 13. For more than a year, there was no unanimity in the ratification process. The Union states must have seceded from the Confederation states as the Union states did not include all of the Confederation states, per constitutional law as explicitly laid bare in the Articles of Confederation.

This is no word play on my end, GnI. It is no intentional misrepresentation of fact.

12 states were present at the Constitutional Convention, not 13. There is no unanimity.

11 states ratified before the Union began operations, not 13. There is no unanimity.

Therefore, the Constitution is either illegal and the Union an illegitimate gov't or, according to logic so simple an elementary student can grasp it, the Union was a federation of states that had seceded from the Confederation, despite their previous oath to endure as a confederation perpetually.

The Continental Association invented out of thin air the right of secession from the Empire of Great Britain. There was no legal precedent from which they could claim justification for their adoption of the Declaration of Independence. Whatever legal precedent was established under the Confederation, which replaced the Association (mind you, the Association did not include Georgia or New York for the first year so even it fails the neo-Lincolnian claim that "perpetuity" trumps all), by the Articles of Confederation, clearly made any attempt at a new gov't without the unanimous consent of all the states within the Confederation illegal.

This is simple stuff. Seriously GnI.



If the South had no right to secede, b/c the Confederation was perpetual, then the Union had no right to secede, b/c the Articles were perpetual. Any attempt to assert that the Union did NOT secede is a misrepresentation of FACT. It is intellectually dishonest and ridiculous beyond measure.

You're right on one thing, it really is simple. Far more simple than you wish it to be with all your obfuscation.

The Convention meets, with quorum present, May 25th 1787

The Constitution is proposed, September 17th, 1787

December 15th, 1791 - the perpetual Articles are effectively finally 'altered', with ratification of all states - the Bill of Rights comes into force, and the (re)forged Constitution is paramount.

You talk about dishonest and ridiculous misrepresentation of facts, even while you fabricate an imagined controversy to try to pretend that the Articles no longer applied. All states DID ratify.

I did NOT say that all states did NOT ratify. I said the Union gov't began operations before all states ratified. Meaning the much vaunted "perpetuity" and the unanimity required by the Confederation are NOT valid critiques of the Confederate secession.

Really, your obtuse nature is quite amusing, GnI.

[Greed and Death]

"Stuff" for the colonists being taxes, "stuff" for the confederacy being... What?

I forgot, what was their economy built around?

Something involving forced labor....

It was more than just force labor. With the banking system as underdeveloped in the South as it was, slaves were the main source of liquidity in the south. IF the second bank of the US had become a permanent fixture I suspect slavery would not have been nearly as important to the South as it was.

[Farnhamia]

You're right on one thing, it really is simple. Far more simple than you wish it to be with all your obfuscation.

The Convention meets, with quorum present, May 25th 1787

The Constitution is proposed, September 17th, 1787

December 15th, 1791 - the perpetual Articles are effectively finally 'altered', with ratification of all states - the Bill of Rights comes into force, and the (re)forged Constitution is paramount.

You talk about dishonest and ridiculous misrepresentation of facts, even while you fabricate an imagined controversy to try to pretend that the Articles no longer applied. All states DID ratify.

I did NOT say that all states did NOT ratify. I said the Union gov't began operations before all states ratified. Meaning the much vaunted "perpetuity" and the unanimity required by the Confederation are NOT valid critiques of the Confederate secession.

Really, your obtuse nature is quite amusing, GnI.

Article VII: "The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the same."

[Greed and Death]

I did NOT say that all states did NOT ratify. I said the Union gov't began operations before all states ratified. Meaning the much vaunted "perpetuity" and the unanimity required by the Confederation are NOT valid critiques of the Confederate secession.

Really, your obtuse nature is quite amusing, GnI.

Article VII: "The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the same."

But the Consitution was replaced by the Greed and Death Consitution which says
"Ratification by Greed and Death is sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution as supreme law of the land."

[Distruzio]

Article VII: "The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the same."

Was that, per chance, the seventh article of the Articles of Confederation?

ARTICLE VII.
When land forces are raised by any State for the common defense, all officers of or under the rank of colonel, shall be appointed by the legislature of each State respectively, by whom such forces shall be raised, or in such manner as such State shall direct, and all vacancies shall be filled up by the State which first made the appointment.

I'm pretty sure that, according to the pro-Union argument, when one gov't is already in effect in a territory, another cannot claim dominion over the same territory and not be declared a rebellion....

Therefore the seventh article of the Constitution fails to defeat the thirteenth article of the Articles of Confederation:

ARTICLE XIII.
Every State shall abide by the determination of the United States in Congress assembled, on all questions which by this confederation are submitted to them. And the Articles of this Confederation shall be inviolably observed by every State, and the Union shall be perpetual; nor shall any alteration at any time hereafter be made in any of them; unless such alteration be agreed to in a Congress of the United States, and be afterwards confirmed by the legislatures of every State.

Even were absurd logic presenting the Union under the Constitution as the legitimate usurper successor of the Confederation under the Articles believed, no one could possibly contend that the Constitution was not a replacement rather than an alteration. That in itself obliterates any muddled attempt at justification you might make. Moreover, the Constitution, assuming you DO present the argument as correct, was not adopted in a Congress of the United States. It was adopted at a Convention, and later submitted to the States without Congress. Most importantly, was the lack of unanimity in representation at the Convention. Only 12 states were present. Therefore, the gov't under the Constitution cannot be said to be anything but a treasonous gov't, assuming the pro-Union, anti-Confederate argument in favor of a "perpetual Union" argument is believed.

[Grave_n_idle]

You're right on one thing, it really is simple. Far more simple than you wish it to be with all your obfuscation.

The Convention meets, with quorum present, May 25th 1787

The Constitution is proposed, September 17th, 1787

December 15th, 1791 - the perpetual Articles are effectively finally 'altered', with ratification of all states - the Bill of Rights comes into force, and the (re)forged Constitution is paramount.

You talk about dishonest and ridiculous misrepresentation of facts, even while you fabricate an imagined controversy to try to pretend that the Articles no longer applied. All states DID ratify.

I did NOT say that all states did NOT ratify. I said the Union gov't began operations before all states ratified. Meaning the much vaunted "perpetuity" and the unanimity required by the Confederation are NOT valid critiques of the Confederate secession.

A horseshit argument. You're quibbling over timing. All the parties ratified - the transition was according to the Articles. The 'perpetual' argument was never invalidated - no one failed to ratify.

[The Cat-Tribe]

Article VII: "The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the same."

Was that, per chance, the seventh article of the Articles of Confederation?

ARTICLE VII.
When land forces are raised by any State for the common defense, all officers of or under the rank of colonel, shall be appointed by the legislature of each State respectively, by whom such forces shall be raised, or in such manner as such State shall direct, and all vacancies shall be filled up by the State which first made the appointment.

I'm pretty sure that, according to the pro-Union argument, when one gov't is already in effect in a territory, another cannot claim dominion over the same territory and not be declared a rebellion....

Therefore the seventh article of the Constitution fails to defeat the thirteenth article of the Articles of Confederation:

ARTICLE XIII.
Every State shall abide by the determination of the United States in Congress assembled, on all questions which by this confederation are submitted to them. And the Articles of this Confederation shall be inviolably observed by every State, and the Union shall be perpetual; nor shall any alteration at any time hereafter be made in any of them; unless such alteration be agreed to in a Congress of the United States, and be afterwards confirmed by the legislatures of every State.

Even were absurd logic presenting the Union under the Constitution as the legitimate usurper successor of the Confederation under the Articles believed, no one could possibly contend that the Constitution was not a replacement rather than an alteration. That in itself obliterates any muddled attempt at justification you might make. Moreover, the Constitution, assuming you DO present the argument as correct, was not adopted in a Congress of the United States. It was adopted at a Convention, and later submitted to the States without Congress. Most importantly, was the lack of unanimity in representation at the Convention. Only 12 states were present. Therefore, the gov't under the Constitution cannot be said to be anything but a treasonous gov't, assuming the pro-Union, anti-Confederate argument in favor of a "perpetual Union" argument is believed.

Let's put this childish argument (which I already respond to when DK made it by pointing to Federalist 34) to rest.

Even if one accepts your argument is true AND leads to the conclusion you propose, what have you accomplished? You've defeated a very small part of the logic of one of the SCOTUS cases ruling that secession was illegal.

This is, in copious ways, a self-defeating argument:

1. One could simply say that the Articles were violated, so what? The States still ratified the Constitution and in doing so joined an indissoluble Union by free choice.
   
   
2. If as you argue the Articles were a compact, then the Articles weren't violated. That doesn't mean the Constitution (an intentionally stonger federal government) was also a compact.
   
   
3. The Articles were formed by the States. The Constitution was formed by "We the People." The people are the ultimate sovereign, not the state governments. They override the States and the Articles. (And, if you wish to argue -- like DK -- that "the people -- are "the States" explain the distinction made in the 10th Amendment and explain how the 2nd Amendment protects individual gun ownership.)
   
   
4. Where is the historical evidence of a revolt that the Articles were not being respected?
   
   
5. If the Constitution was illegitimate, you have now completely eviscerated your and DK's argument that secession was justified on the grounds that the North was violating the Constitution. In fact, the very nature of the arguments that South Carolina tried to make to justify secession prove your whole theory is a fabrication.

[Grave_n_idle]

Article VII: "The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the same."

Was that, per chance, the seventh article of the Articles of Confederation?

ARTICLE VII.
When land forces are raised by any State for the common defense, all officers of or under the rank of colonel, shall be appointed by the legislature of each State respectively, by whom such forces shall be raised, or in such manner as such State shall direct, and all vacancies shall be filled up by the State which first made the appointment.

I'm pretty sure that, according to the pro-Union argument, when one gov't is already in effect in a territory, another cannot claim dominion over the same territory and not be declared a rebellion....

Therefore the seventh article of the Constitution fails to defeat the thirteenth article of the Articles of Confederation:

ARTICLE XIII.
Every State shall abide by the determination of the United States in Congress assembled, on all questions which by this confederation are submitted to them. And the Articles of this Confederation shall be inviolably observed by every State, and the Union shall be perpetual; nor shall any alteration at any time hereafter be made in any of them; unless such alteration be agreed to in a Congress of the United States, and be afterwards confirmed by the legislatures of every State.

Even were absurd logic presenting the Union under the Constitution as the legitimate usurper successor of the Confederation under the Articles believed, no one could possibly contend that the Constitution was not a replacement rather than an alteration. That in itself obliterates any muddled attempt at justification you might make. Moreover, the Constitution, assuming you DO present the argument as correct, was not adopted in a Congress of the United States. It was adopted at a Convention, and later submitted to the States without Congress. Most importantly, was the lack of unanimity in representation at the Convention. Only 12 states were present. Therefore, the gov't under the Constitution cannot be said to be anything but a treasonous gov't, assuming the pro-Union, anti-Confederate argument in favor of a "perpetual Union" argument is believed.

The 'alteration' was agreed to, and arfterwards confirmed by every state.

The Constitutional Convention was called to revise the Articles of Confederation. The fact that the 'revision' was interpreted differently by some, does not alter the fact that what was done was (technically) within legitimate scope.

[The Cat-Tribe]

(BTW, care to present evidence that even the voting majority of each Confederate state actually voted to secede from the Union?)

The Southern States were NOT democracies. They were republics. Aristocratic republics. Remember, the Confederacy delegitimized democracy.

Only partially true (more wishful projection on your part), but (to the extent it is true) that actually helps my argument and hurts HaNor's position.

[The Cat-Tribe]

That is a very nice pipedream for you to believe, but (as someone you claims to have read Spooner) you know that is not what he argued. Not even close.

A crude synopsis, I admit. But it is among the most basic of arguments he made, and he made several, establishing his position that the Constitution, and the social contract it represents, is of no merit.

For fuck's sake, I specifically noted he made several arguments of various kinds and that I was commenting on one particular set of his arguments as being absurd. Handwaving about his "general position" doesn't respond to a critique of a specific argument. The fact you can't see trees in the forest doesn't make them disappear.