We want state legislatures to call for a Constitutional Convention
Lessons learned from history, or not . . .?
The following text was copied from Ridpath's Cyclopaedia of Universal History written in the 1880's and published in 1890 in New York:
"The first and most general of these causes (of the war of northern aggression) was the different construction put upon the National Constitution by the people of the North and the South. A difference had always existed as to how the instrument was to be understood. The question at issue had respect to the relation between the States and the General Government. One party held that under the Constitution the union of the States is indissoluble; that the sovereignty of the Nation is lodged in the central Government; that the States are subordinate; the acts of congress, until they are repealed or pronounced un-constitutional by the Supreme Court, are binding on the States; that all attempts at nullification and disunion are in their nature disloyal and treasonable. The other party held that the National Constitution is a compact between sovereign States; that these States constitute a confederacy, or what the Germans would call a Staatenbund; that for certain reasons the Union may be dissolved by the States; that the sovereignty of the nation is lodged in the individual States, and not in the central government; that Congress can exercise no other than delegated powers; that a State feeling aggrieved may annul an act of Congress; that the highest allegiance of the citizen is due to his own State, and afterwards to the General Government; and that acts of nullification and disunion are justifiable, revolutionary, and honorable. The theory was, in brief, that the Constitution itself provided that the States, under the Constitution, might abrogate the constitution as it related to themselves, and thereby dissolve the Union."
Note the uncanny parallels between the arguments of 200 years ago and the present day. Ridpath has not taken great liberties with the truth but note his closing comment: "The theory was, . . . ".
"The first and most general of these causes (of the war of northern aggression) was the different construction put upon the National Constitution by the people of the North and the South. A difference had always existed as to how the instrument was to be understood. The question at issue had respect to the relation between the States and the General Government. One party held that under the Constitution the union of the States is indissoluble; that the sovereignty of the Nation is lodged in the central Government; that the States are subordinate; the acts of congress, until they are repealed or pronounced un-constitutional by the Supreme Court, are binding on the States; that all attempts at nullification and disunion are in their nature disloyal and treasonable. The other party held that the National Constitution is a compact between sovereign States; that these States constitute a confederacy, or what the Germans would call a Staatenbund; that for certain reasons the Union may be dissolved by the States; that the sovereignty of the nation is lodged in the individual States, and not in the central government; that Congress can exercise no other than delegated powers; that a State feeling aggrieved may annul an act of Congress; that the highest allegiance of the citizen is due to his own State, and afterwards to the General Government; and that acts of nullification and disunion are justifiable, revolutionary, and honorable. The theory was, in brief, that the Constitution itself provided that the States, under the Constitution, might abrogate the constitution as it related to themselves, and thereby dissolve the Union."
Note the uncanny parallels between the arguments of 200 years ago and the present day. Ridpath has not taken great liberties with the truth but note his closing comment: "The theory was, . . . ".
About
© 2009 Created by Michael Patrick Leahy on Ning. Create a Ning Network!
