• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Celebrate the 151st Anniversary of Lee's Surrender

Gaugingcatenate said:
While I applaud the actual attempt at research, supplying other than just a rambling off of some opinion, how do you account for these words in the Ratification document of Virginia:

Avalon Project - Ratification of the Constitution by the State of Virginia; June 26, 1788

"We the Delegates of the People of Virginia duly elected in pursuance of a recommendation from the General Assembly and now met in Convention having fully and freely investigated and discussed the proceedings of the Federal Convention and being prepared as well as the most mature deliberation hath enabled us to decide thereon Do in the name and in behalf of the People of Virginia declare and make known 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 and that every power not granted thereby remains with them and at their will: that therefore no right of any denomination can be cancelled abridged restrained or modified by the Congress by the Senate or House of Representatives acting in any Capacity by the President or any Department or Officer of the United States except in those instances in which power is given by the Constitution for those purposes: & that among other essential rights the liberty of Conscience and of the Press cannot be cancelled abridged restrained or modified by any authority of the United States."

Those are the opening sentences of the Ratification of the Constitution by the State of Virginia; June 26, 1788 and therefore should hardly be missed if one is actually looking to find them. You in turn have provided two Federalists stating what they most certainly believed, Hamilton and Madison, two of the famous trio writing as advocates the Federalists Papers, but you do not show any of the actual ratification documents to verify.

And NY, not quite as clear, but still there:

Avalon Project - Ratification of the Constitution by the State of New York; July 26, 1788

"WE the Delegates of the People of the State of New York, duly elected and Met in Convention, having maturely considered the Constitution for the United States of America, agreed to on the seventeenth day of September, in the year One thousand Seven hundred and Eighty seven, by the Convention then assembled at Philadelphia in the Common-wealth of Pennsylvania (a Copy whereof precedes these presents) and having also seriously and deliberately considered the present situation of the United States, Do declare and make known...

That the Powers of Government may be reassumed by the People, whensoever it shall become necessary to their Happiness"

That seems in direct contradiction of your statements of evidence.
Click to expand...

Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase, writing in Texas v White:

“The Union of the States never was a purely artificial and arbitrary relation. It began among the Colonies, and grew out of common origin, mutual sympathies, kindred principles, similar interests, and geographical relations. It was confirmed and strengthened by the necessities of war, and received definite form and character and sanction from the Articles of Confederation. By these, the Union was solemnly declared to 'be perpetual.' And when these Articles were found to be inadequate to the exigencies of the country, the Constitution was ordained 'to form a more perfect Union.' It is difficult to convey the idea of indissoluble unity more clearly than by these words. What can be indissoluble if a perpetual Union, made more perfect, is not?[SUP][7][/SUP]”

“When, therefore, Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation. All the obligations of perpetual union, and all the guaranties of republican government in the Union, attached at once to the State. The act which consummated her admission into the Union was something more than a compact; it was the incorporation of a new member into the political body. And it was final. The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration or revocation, except through revolution or through consent of the States.[SUP][7][/SUP]
 
Gaugingcatenate said:
While I applaud the actual attempt at research, supplying other than just a rambling off of some opinion, how do you account for these words in the Ratification document of Virginia:

Avalon Project - Ratification of the Constitution by the State of Virginia; June 26, 1788

"We the Delegates of the People of Virginia duly elected in pursuance of a recommendation from the General Assembly and now met in Convention having fully and freely investigated and discussed the proceedings of the Federal Convention and being prepared as well as the most mature deliberation hath enabled us to decide thereon Do in the name and in behalf of the People of Virginia declare and make known 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 and that every power not granted thereby remains with them and at their will: that therefore no right of any denomination can be cancelled abridged restrained or modified by the Congress by the Senate or House of Representatives acting in any Capacity by the President or any Department or Officer of the United States except in those instances in which power is given by the Constitution for those purposes: & that among other essential rights the liberty of Conscience and of the Press cannot be cancelled abridged restrained or modified by any authority of the United States."

Those are the opening sentences of the Ratification of the Constitution by the State of Virginia; June 26, 1788 and therefore should hardly be missed if one is actually looking to find them. You in turn have provided two Federalists stating what they most certainly believed, Hamilton and Madison, two of the famous trio writing as advocates the Federalists Papers, but you do not show any of the actual ratification documents to verify.

And NY, not quite as clear, but still there:

Avalon Project - Ratification of the Constitution by the State of New York; July 26, 1788

"WE the Delegates of the People of the State of New York, duly elected and Met in Convention, having maturely considered the Constitution for the United States of America, agreed to on the seventeenth day of September, in the year One thousand Seven hundred and Eighty seven, by the Convention then assembled at Philadelphia in the Common-wealth of Pennsylvania (a Copy whereof precedes these presents) and having also seriously and deliberately considered the present situation of the United States, Do declare and make known...

That the Powers of Government may be reassumed by the People, whensoever it shall become necessary to their Happiness"

That seems in direct contradiction of your statements of evidence.
Click to expand...


Wow. Did you even bother reading the post and the links?

Rambling off of "some opinion??"

The people voting at the NY Convention, vetoing the proposal and Madison and Hamilton are just folks with "some opinion??"

Jesus Cripes.
 
James Madison To Alexander Hamilton - on the question if "there should be reserved to the state of New York a right to withdraw herself from the union after a certain number of years."



[July 20, 1788]



N. York Sunday Evening



Yours of yesterday is this instant come to hand & I have but a few minutes

to answer it. I am sorry that your situation obliges you to listen to

propositions of the nature you describe. My opinion is that a reservation of

a right to withdraw if amendments be not decided on under the form of the

Constitution within a certain time, is a conditional ratification, that it

does not make N. York a member of the New Union, and consequently that she

could not be received on that plan. Compacts must be reciprocal, this

principle would not in such a case be preserved. 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. What the New Congress by virtue of the power to admit new

States, may be able & disposed to do in such case, I do not enquire as I

suppose that is not the material point at present. I have not a moment to

add more than my fervent wishes for your success & happiness.



This idea of reserving right to withdraw was started at Richmd. & considered

as a conditional ratification which was itself considered as worse than a

rejection.
 
Paperview said:
Wow. Did you even bother reading the post and the links?

Rambling off of "some opinion??"

The people voting at the NY Convention, vetoing the proposal and Madison and Hamilton are just folks with "some opinion??"

Jesus Cripes.
Click to expand...
Talk about Jesus, did you even read the ratification documents themselves? I quoted the relevant passages RIGHT HERE. You quoted nothing from the ratification documents themselves, With what is expressed in the actual documents I provided that should assist you in understanding that you are, with all doubt removed, COMPLETELY AND UTTERLY WRONG.

Tried being nice about it, tactful, but have now tired of that approach. Apparently you require the idiocy of your inane claims be pointed out with exclamations before you wake up to the fact?

Yes, I read your non-conclusive documentation of information which, while pertinent to the history, has nothing to do with the results that Virginia and NY, very major and influential states of the time, both included verbiage in their FINAL ratification documents indicating they gave approval with a stipulated right to withdraw... read them again for yourself for crying out loud.

Of course if you cannot read, follow and comprehend what I wrote about you NOT just rambling off with an opinion, perhaps you cannot fathom what it is they are saying in the actual documents either?

You also seemingly cannot understand that, with the labeling of Madison and Hamilton "two of the famous trio writing as advocates the Federalists Papers" there might be, I dunno, some discernment that indicated some of the importance to their standing? Not to your state of consciousness, eh? The fact of the matter, as I stressed as well, that these two were for the ratification without stipulation. While influential, they in no matter shape or form controlled the process.

While I understand your unwillingness to concede you have insufficient evidence to prove your point, that is not my problem. The sentiments I asserted are ALL CONTAINED WITHIN THE FINAL RATIFICATION DOCUMENTS. You laid down your cards with a bluff... and I called you on them.

Read 'em and weep [ if you are able to understand them ].

PS this is what I got when I attempted the yale pages... READACTUALDOCUMENTSPLEASE..jpg


which is fine as I am perfectly able to read, follow and comprehend what the actual documents of ratification tell me, don't have to wait to have some prof at yale spin it...

And yes, I read the letter from Madison to Hamilton..., he wrote a letter stating HIS OPINION... so?
 
Jack Hays said:
Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase, writing in Texas v White:

“The Union of the States never was a purely artificial and arbitrary relation. It began among the Colonies, and grew out of common origin, mutual sympathies, kindred principles, similar interests, and geographical relations. It was confirmed and strengthened by the necessities of war, and received definite form and character and sanction from the Articles of Confederation. By these, the Union was solemnly declared to 'be perpetual.' And when these Articles were found to be inadequate to the exigencies of the country, the Constitution was ordained 'to form a more perfect Union.' It is difficult to convey the idea of indissoluble unity more clearly than by these words. What can be indissoluble if a perpetual Union, made more perfect, is not?[SUP][7][/SUP]”

“When, therefore, Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation. All the obligations of perpetual union, and all the guaranties of republican government in the Union, attached at once to the State. The act which consummated her admission into the Union was something more than a compact; it was the incorporation of a new member into the political body. And it was final. The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration or revocation, except through revolution or through consent of the States.[SUP][7][/SUP]
Click to expand...
Jack, we have been over this and over this... you are free to go back and read all that again... I am certainly not typing it all out again since it is all already here.
 
Gaugingcatenate said:
Talk about Jesus, did you even read the ratification documents themselves? I quoted the relevant passages RIGHT HERE. You quoted nothing from the ratification documents themselves, With what is expressed in the actual documents I provided that should assist you in understanding that you are, with all doubt removed, COMPLETELY AND UTTERLY WRONG.

Tried being nice about it, tactful, but have now tired of that approach. Apparently you require the idiocy of your inane claims be pointed out with exclamations before you wake up to the fact?

Yes, I read your non-conclusive documentation of information which, while pertinent to the history, has nothing to do with the results that Virginia and NY, very major and influential states of the time, both included verbiage in their FINAL ratification documents indicating they gave approval with a stipulated right to withdraw... read them again for yourself for crying out loud.

Of course if you cannot read, follow and comprehend what I wrote about you NOT just rambling off with an opinion, perhaps you cannot fathom what it is they are saying in the actual documents either?

You also seemingly cannot understand that, with the labeling of Madison and Hamilton "two of the famous trio writing as advocates the Federalists Papers" there might be, I dunno, some discernment that indicated some of the importance to their standing? Not to your state of consciousness, eh? The fact of the matter, as I stressed as well, that these two were for the ratification without stipulation. While influential, they in no matter shape or form controlled the process.

While I understand your unwillingness to concede you have insufficient evidence to prove your point, that is not my problem. The sentiments I asserted are ALL CONTAINED WITHIN THE FINAL RATIFICATION DOCUMENTS. You laid down your cards with a bluff... and I called you on them.

Read 'em and weep [ if you are able to understand them ].

PS this is what I got when I attempted the yale pages... View attachment 67201694


which is fine as I am perfectly able to read, follow and comprehend what the actual documents of ratification tell me, don't have to wait to have some prof at yale spin it...

And yes, I read the letter from Madison to Hamilton..., he wrote a letter stating HIS OPINION... so?
Click to expand...

Holy crapinola. Did you ever fly off the whackadoodle handle.

LOL

No, I'm not wrong. THE VOTE WAS TAKEN ON THE QUESTION OF SECESSION AT THE CONVENTION AND IT WAS VETOED.


Do you get that??


As to you not being able to see the Yale article, apparently they changed the link. (this was a reprint of mine from several years ago - not the first time in the rodeo with Lost Causers - and I get tired of retyping the same thing)

You can read it here:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/18/opinion/conventional-wisdom.html

The author is a Sterling one. with some of the best bonafides in the country. I think I'll take his word (and that of James Madison and Hamilton) against a bellowing anonymous internet squawker who can just spout wrongity wrong wrong and apparently wouldn't know actual documented history if it bit him in the ass.
 
Paperview said:
Holy crapinola. Did you ever fly off the whackadoodle handle.

LOL

No, I'm not wrong. THE VOTE WAS TAKEN ON THE QUESTION OF SECESSION AT THE CONVENTION AND IT WAS VETOED.


Do you get that??


As to you not being able to see the Yale article, apparently they changed the link. (this was a reprint of mine from several years ago - not the first time in the rodeo with Lost Causers - and I get tired of retyping the same thing)

You can read it here:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/18/opinion/conventional-wisdom.html

The author is a Sterling one. with some of the best bonafides in the country. I think I'll take his word (and that of James Madison and Hamilton) against a bellowing anonymous internet squawker who can just spout wrongity wrong wrong and apparently wouldn't know actual documented history if it bit him in the ass.
Click to expand...

First of all, one vote taken does not mean the matter can never be brought up again and, as you can clearly see in the RATIFICATION DOCUMENTS THEMSELVES, THEY STATE VERY CLEARLY WHAT WAS AGREED UPON.

1. Do you doubt your own eyes?

2. Do you doubt your own ability to read and understand what the document says?

3. Do you doubt the veracity of my source*?

4. Do you generally doubt reality?


* here are other sources showing the exact same verbiage... but maybe its a conspiracy, eh? Virginia Ratification Documents from the Continental Congress and the Constitutional Convention, 1774-1789 NY Ratification New York's Ratification - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

That little NYT opinion piece you quote is just that, an opinion. And obviously, again and for the last time, as you can read the documents themselves, this prof is absolutely, like yourself, wrong. You were wrong, you are wrong and, unless you regroup and adjust your perspective, you will always be wrong on this question.

You are certainly welcome to keep denying what the documents state, pretty damn clearly to those who can think clearly. I know what I see, and your little yale prof and inconsequential letter from Madison to Hamilton read at the ratifying convention are interesting historical side-notes, but are categorically of no consequence.

Your continued denial and obstinance in the face of irrefutable visual proof was, maybe, laughable at first, but now its just plain annoying...
 
Last edited:
I can only laugh at this ridiculousness of this poster. ^

Seriously.

Out in la la land.

I'll leave the readers to discern on their own the veracity of our respective posts and the historical accuracy thereof.


I have no time to further entertain people who are off in another universe.

Chow!
 
Paperview said:
I can only laugh at this ridiculousness of this poster. ^

Seriously.

Out in la la land.

I'll leave the readers to discern on their own the veracity of our respective posts and the historical accuracy thereof.


I have no time to further entertain people who are off in another universe.

Chow!
Click to expand...
So we all can concisely ascertain who is and who is not in "la la land", let me ask you to deny these phrases in the two state, Virginia and NY, ratification documents:

Virginia Ratification Document---- "Do in the name and in behalf of the People of Virginia declare and make known 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 and that every power not granted thereby remains with them and at their will"

Now tell me that is not flat out saying they, the people of Virginia, can take back those powers which they ceded, conditionally, to the Constitution. Be it also known that each state under the Articles of Confederation were individual and self-sovereign entities, that at the end of hostilities GB made peace with each of the 13 independent former colonies now states, understanding this concept of each of their states of autonomy.

NY Ratification Document ---- "WE the Delegates of the People of the State of New York, duly elected and Met in Convention, having maturely considered the Constitution for the United States of America, agreed to on the seventeenth day of September, in the year One thousand Seven hundred and Eighty seven... That the Powers of Government may be reassumed by the People, whensoever it shall become necessary to their Happiness"

And tell me that is not also saying the people of NY can take back those powers to which, by this document, they ceded to the Constitution.

And if you deny they stated it so, please provide your [ sane and plausible ] rationale.
 
You're only about the 1000th ne0-confederate I've seen trying to make that case, using the proposed amendments at the convention..

Jefferson Davis and his randy band tried it too.

How'd it work out for them?

"In toto and forever."

Live it.
Learn it
Love it.
 
Paperview said:
You're only about the 1000th ne0-confederate I've seen trying to make that case, using the proposed amendments at the convention..

Jefferson Davis and his randy band tried it too.

How'd it work out for them?

"In toto and forever."

Live it.
Learn it
Love it.
Click to expand...
Ha ha ha, Enlarged and bolded font hardly makes up for the feeble and failed argument. Read the ratification documents themselves, brother, not the specious spin heaped upon them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom