Author Topic: Was The Union Perpetual?  (Read 16082 times)

Offline Shooterman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2813
  • Gender: Male
  • Draft Jan Morgan for President
Was The Union Perpetual?
« on: February 11, 2012, 10:58:55 AM »
Under the Articles of Confederation, the union was considered perpetual.

The Articles of Confederation

Agreed to by Congress November 15, 1777; ratified and in force, March 1, 1781.
Preamble

To all to whom these Presents shall come, we the undersigned Delegates of the States affixed to our Names send greeting.

Whereas the Delegates of the United States of America in Congress assembled did on the fifteenth day of November in the Year of our Lord One Thousand Seven Hundred and Seventy seven, and in the Second Year of the Independence of America, agree to certain articles of Confederation and perpetual Union between the States of New Hampshire, Massachusetts-bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, in the words following, viz:

Articles of Confederation and perpetual Union between the States of New Hampshire, Massachusetts-bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia.


We know that even though the Confederation, ( or union, if preferred ) was considered to be perpetual, a scant 10 years later, that idea of being perpetual was blown to hell, with the ratification of the Compact known as the Constitution of the United States, when nine states seceded from the Confederation and joined the present union. I would suggest, at that immediate point in time, there were two unions of States united in America; those still operating in the Confederation, and, of course, those having ratified the new Constitution. In effect, the states within the old union seceded from the Confederation ( perpetual? ) and formed the new union. It was non perpetual, in that no certification of such was ever incorporated into the new Compact ( Constitution )
There's no ticks like Polyticks-bloodsuckers all Davy Crockett 1786-1836

Yankees are like castor oil. Even a small dose is bad.
[IMG]

elmerfudd

  • Guest
Re: Was The Union Perpetual?
« Reply #1 on: February 11, 2012, 06:20:02 PM »
Under the Articles of Confederation, the union was considered perpetual.

The Articles of Confederation

Agreed to by Congress November 15, 1777; ratified and in force, March 1, 1781.
Preamble

To all to whom these Presents shall come, we the undersigned Delegates of the States affixed to our Names send greeting.

Whereas the Delegates of the United States of America in Congress assembled did on the fifteenth day of November in the Year of our Lord One Thousand Seven Hundred and Seventy seven, and in the Second Year of the Independence of America, agree to certain articles of Confederation and perpetual Union between the States of New Hampshire, Massachusetts-bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, in the words following, viz:

Articles of Confederation and perpetual Union between the States of New Hampshire, Massachusetts-bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia.


We know that even though the Confederation, ( or union, if preferred ) was considered to be perpetual, a scant 10 years later, that idea of being perpetual was blown to hell, with the ratification of the Compact known as the Constitution of the United States, when nine states seceded from the Confederation and joined the present union. I would suggest, at that immediate point in time, there were two unions of States united in America; those still operating in the Confederation, and, of course, those having ratified the new Constitution. In effect, the states within the old union seceded from the Confederation ( perpetual? ) and formed the new union. It was non perpetual, in that no certification of such was ever incorporated into the new Compact ( Constitution )

Moot point, but I do not believe the framers ever considered that a state would want to secede.  Had they considered it, I think they would have most likely specified a provision for doing it rather than prohibiting it.  I believe secession probably was constitutional.  Most likely, Roger Taney, then chief justice, did, too.  But he remained silent on the issue.  Nobody brought a case before him about it because it was being settled via that bloody war.

I am a son of the south who celebrates the valor of both sides in that terrible war.  I wish it had never happened, but it did.  I am also glad, from the perspective of 150 years later, that the Union won.  I am glad the Union was preserved.  I am glad slavery was abolished. 

Offline Shooterman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2813
  • Gender: Male
  • Draft Jan Morgan for President
Re: Was The Union Perpetual?
« Reply #2 on: February 11, 2012, 07:57:19 PM »
Moot point, but I do not believe the framers ever considered that a state would want to secede.  Had they considered it, I think they would have most likely specified a provision for doing it rather than prohibiting it.

They, themselves had seceded from the Crown at a terrible cost. They, themselves were in the process of seceding from the Confederation. The New England States thought of seceding from the States united in America, ( union ) during the War of 1812.   

Quote
I believe secession probably was constitutional.

Think on what you just said, Elmer. If it was Constitutional ( and I believe it was and is, then the Founders had considered it.

Quote
  Most likely, Roger Taney, then chief justice, did, too.  But he remained silent on the issue.  Nobody brought a case before him about it because it was being settled via that bloody war.

Taney had seen what Lincoln was capable of. He fought him on some issues and almost was arrested for it after Lincoln signed a warrant for his arrest but left it to a US Marshall as to whether he served it or not.

Quote
I am a son of the south who celebrates the valor of both sides in that terrible war.  I wish it had never happened, but it did.  I am also glad, from the perspective of 150 years later, that the Union won.  I am glad the Union was preserved.

Both sides were valiant except when Sherman turned his dogs loose on the South during his March Through Georgia. That was not valiant but criminal. As for the preservation of the union, look where it has led us.

Quote
I am glad slavery was abolished.


I am glad slavery was abolished, but the War of Northern Aggression did not abolish it. The Thirteenth Amendment did.
There's no ticks like Polyticks-bloodsuckers all Davy Crockett 1786-1836

Yankees are like castor oil. Even a small dose is bad.
[IMG]

elmerfudd

  • Guest
Re: Was The Union Perpetual?
« Reply #3 on: February 12, 2012, 06:25:09 AM »
They, themselves had seceded from the Crown at a terrible cost. They, themselves were in the process of seceding from the Confederation. The New England States thought of seceding from the States united in America, ( union ) during the War of 1812.   

Think on what you just said, Elmer. If it was Constitutional ( and I believe it was and is, then the Founders had considered it.

Taney had seen what Lincoln was capable of. He fought him on some issues and almost was arrested for it after Lincoln signed a warrant for his arrest but left it to a US Marshall as to whether he served it or not.

Both sides were valiant except when Sherman turned his dogs loose on the South during his March Through Georgia. That was not valiant but criminal. As for the preservation of the union, look where it has led us.
 

I am glad slavery was abolished, but the War of Northern Aggression did not abolish it. The Thirteenth Amendment did.

All I am saying is that preserving the union was the reason for the war, and the existence of slavery was the sine qua non for secession.  Not no stinking tariffs.

But the really interesting thing is people still argue about it 150 years later.  The folks in the 1850's and 1860's knew what caused secession.  The perceived threat to slavery.  And they knew what was behind the war.  The failure of both sides to address the issue any other way. 

Offline Shooterman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2813
  • Gender: Male
  • Draft Jan Morgan for President
Re: Was The Union Perpetual?
« Reply #4 on: February 12, 2012, 06:52:26 AM »
All I am saying is that preserving the union was the reason for the war, and the existence of slavery was the sine qua non for secession.  Not no stinking tariffs.

But the really interesting thing is people still argue about it 150 years later.  The folks in the 1850's and 1860's knew what caused secession.  The perceived threat to slavery.  And they knew what was behind the war.  The failure of both sides to address the issue any other way. 

Sorry, Compadre, but that is simply not so. Tariffs were an important part of the corporatist welfare practiced by the North. Lincoln himself mused as to where he would get his tariffs if the Southerners seceded. The southerners had proposed tariff free ports, ( similar to tax free zones we have today ) Sumter included, which would have wreaked havoc on the money the union had coming in.

This has drifted afar from whether the union was perpetual.   



He was even willing to propose and pass and irrevocable amendment granting the states that that had slavery, perpetuity in keeping them ( that was not feasible, of course, as the issue would have been open to an amendment later )
There's no ticks like Polyticks-bloodsuckers all Davy Crockett 1786-1836

Yankees are like castor oil. Even a small dose is bad.
[IMG]

Online Solar

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 65966
  • Gender: Male
Re: Was The Union Perpetual?
« Reply #5 on: February 12, 2012, 06:57:58 AM »
Slavery was used as an excuse by PC historians, the real reason was ,money and power, always follow the money.
Who was to benefit if the South won as opposed to the North?
Think about that for a moment, its always about the money and power...
#WWG1WGA

elmerfudd

  • Guest
Re: Was The Union Perpetual?
« Reply #6 on: February 12, 2012, 10:27:12 AM »
Slavery was used as an excuse by PC historians, the real reason was ,money and power, always follow the money.
Who was to benefit if the South won as opposed to the North?
Think about that for a moment, its always about the money and power...

Slaves = money. 

elmerfudd

  • Guest
Re: Was The Union Perpetual?
« Reply #7 on: February 12, 2012, 10:34:41 AM »
Sorry, Compadre, but that is simply not so. Tariffs were an important part of the corporatist welfare practiced by the North. Lincoln himself mused as to where he would get his tariffs if the Southerners seceded. The southerners had proposed tariff free ports, ( similar to tax free zones we have today ) Sumter included, which would have wreaked havoc on the money the union had coming in.

This has drifted afar from whether the union was perpetual.   



He was even willing to propose and pass and irrevocable amendment granting the states that that had slavery, perpetuity in keeping them ( that was not feasible, of course, as the issue would have been open to an amendment later )

Well, podner, you and I disagree.  But it's been fun. 

elmerfudd

  • Guest
Re: Was The Union Perpetual?
« Reply #8 on: February 12, 2012, 10:56:29 AM »
The term "perpetual" does not necessarily mean "eternal and unbreakable."  The state has the power to create corporations.  Most states place time limits on the existence of a corporation, say 99 years.  But some may not. Also, those that do often allow non-profits to be "perpetual."  Doesn't mean they can't be abolished.  There are procedures in place for terminating even a "perpetual" corporation.  Just means there is no time limit established at the point of creation.  A "perpetual" union could have meant just that. 

elmerfudd

  • Guest
Re: Was The Union Perpetual?
« Reply #9 on: February 13, 2012, 07:00:18 AM »
The term "perpetual" does not necessarily mean "eternal and unbreakable."  The state has the power to create corporations.  Most states place time limits on the existence of a corporation, say 99 years.  But some may not. Also, those that do often allow non-profits to be "perpetual."  Doesn't mean they can't be abolished.  There are procedures in place for terminating even a "perpetual" corporation.  Just means there is no time limit established at the point of creation.  A "perpetual" union could have meant just that.

And here's another take on the word "perpetual" with respect to corporations. All corporations are deemed "perpetual" in the sense that they do not cease to exist when shareholders are added or withdraw.  The corporation just continues, either with fewer shareholders or more shareholders.  In fact, a corporation's shareholders can turn over 100% and the corporation still exists.  In that sense, it is deemed "perpetual" even if it has a time limit on its corporate charter.

Sounds kind of analagous to a "perpetual"  union that might have states come in and withdraw.  The union is perpetual, but that does not mean it cannot be dissolved, just as a corporation can be dissovlved. Also doesn't necessarily mean that a decision to sign on is irrevocable. 
« Last Edit: February 13, 2012, 07:12:24 AM by elmerfudd »

Offline mdgiles

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9382
  • Gender: Male
Re: Was The Union Perpetual?
« Reply #10 on: June 24, 2012, 08:32:43 PM »
Unless it was changed via the Amendment process.
"LIBERALS: their willful ignorance is rivaled only by their catastrophic stupidity"!

Offline mdgiles

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9382
  • Gender: Male
Re: Was The Union Perpetual?
« Reply #11 on: June 27, 2012, 10:36:05 AM »
Quote
Actually, in the SCOTUS decision in White vs Texas (1869), the decision made an interesting reference that touches on states leaving the union. “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.”
HT to the comments section of PJ Media. I knew I had read that somewhere before. If the South had used the Amendment Process, and negotiations over Federal property, navigation rights on the Mississippi, and the unincorporated territories; there may have never been a Civil War. And the South would have lasted right up to the point where they joined the Nazi side in WW2.
"LIBERALS: their willful ignorance is rivaled only by their catastrophic stupidity"!

Offline Shooterman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2813
  • Gender: Male
  • Draft Jan Morgan for President
Re: Was The Union Perpetual?
« Reply #12 on: June 27, 2012, 12:08:57 PM »
And the South would have lasted right up to the point where they joined the Nazi side in WW2.

Fok you, MD. That was totally uncalled for.
There's no ticks like Polyticks-bloodsuckers all Davy Crockett 1786-1836

Yankees are like castor oil. Even a small dose is bad.
[IMG]

Offline mdgiles

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9382
  • Gender: Male
Re: Was The Union Perpetual?
« Reply #13 on: June 27, 2012, 12:19:02 PM »
Fok you, MD. That was totally uncalled for.
You do know that the Nuremberg Laws of Nazi Germany were based on the Segregation Laws of the old South, right?
"LIBERALS: their willful ignorance is rivaled only by their catastrophic stupidity"!

Offline mdgiles

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9382
  • Gender: Male
Re: Was The Union Perpetual?
« Reply #14 on: June 27, 2012, 03:31:14 PM »
You do know that the Nuremberg Laws of Nazi Germany were based on the Segregation Laws of the old South, right?
"Based on" is incorrect, it would be more correct to say the were inspired by the Jim Crow laws of the old South.
"LIBERALS: their willful ignorance is rivaled only by their catastrophic stupidity"!

 

Powered by EzPortal