Does this ruin the Constitutional Convention?

[goodguy777]

Suppose a popular well respected delegate gets the floor, one that the other delegates make it a point to be present when its known he will speak, and says that he really thinks the Constitution should be explicit as to whether one or more states, having joined the Union have the legal and Constitutional right to secede? He says it might lead to civil war or something if the Constitution does not take a position one way or another.

Mind you, I am not asking whether he is correct, what if that is what he says?

 

[King of the Uzbeks]

Said Delegate is listened to, but it won't be adopted.

 

[Ramontxo]

At the very least this gives way to discussions that clarifies the situation. Now, that even a clear negative would dissuade the south is another question...

 

[NHBL]

possibilities

The Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union were quite clear in their title that the Union was forever, so it could have been addressed, one way or the other, in the Constitution.

 

[Derek Jackson]

If there were a clear statement that the Union were perpetual and states could not leave or do so without agreement of Congress would it have weakened the Sessesionist movement? Maybe changed the results in Virginia, North Carolina and Tennessee

 

[Sabot Cat]

Essentially happened OTL:

Once again, it was in New York that the answer emerged most emphatically. At the outset of the Poughkeepsie convention, anti-Federalists held a strong majority. The tide turned when word arrived that New Hampshire and Virginia had said yes to the Constitution, at which point anti-Federalists proposed a compromise: they would vote to ratify, but if the new federal government failed to embrace various reforms that they favored, "there should be reserved to the state of New York a right to withdraw herself from the union after a certain number of years."

At the risk of alienating swing voters and losing on the ultimate ratification vote, Federalists emphatically opposed the compromise. In doing so, they made clear to everyone -- in New York and in the 12 other states where people were following the New York contest with interest -- that the Constitution did not permit unilateral state secession. Alexander Hamilton read aloud a letter at the Poughkeepsie convention that he had received from James Madison stating that "the Constitution requires an adoption in toto, and for ever." Hamilton and John Jay then added their own words, which the New York press promptly reprinted: "a reservation of a right to withdraw" was "inconsistent with the Constitution, and was no ratification."

 

[Pesterfield]

Why was the Constitution accepted then?

Could no state government imagine a situation ever coming up where they might want or need to leave?

 

[ManintheField]

Essentially happened OTL:

And yet, when actually adopted, the Instrument of Ratification did indeed contain language to that effect.

 

[goodguy777]

The Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union were quite clear in their title that the Union was forever, so it could have been addressed, one way or the other, in the Constitution.

I think that's right.

 

[goodguy777]

Essentially happened OTL:

I don't think letters and newspaper reports would ever be considered part of the Constitution.

 

[goodguy777]

Why was the Constitution accepted then?

Could no state government imagine a situation ever coming up where they might want or need to leave?

I think ASBs must have been at work, otherwise the delegates almost would have had to be brain dead.

 

[MRig]

The procedural concerns of Southern secessionists were essentially a smokescreen for their distributive interests -- that it was in their interest for slavery to survive. It's a common thing. Notice, for example, what people say about the filibuster depending on who is doing the filibustering. Another, historical example: some Northeasterners talked about secession during the War of 1812, which I believe is the POD for Decades of Darkness. The procedural justification for secession exists to justify its outcome.

It's a well-established tradition in common law that a single party to a compact cannot unilaterally withdraw from that compact. The secessionists came up with some other procedural argument that, on the merits, does not make sense in the legal tradition that the Constitution comes from.

 

[goodguy777]

The procedural concerns of Southern secessionists were essentially a smokescreen for their distributive interests -- that it was in their interest for slavery to survive. It's a common thing. Notice, for example, what people say about the filibuster depending on who is doing the filibustering. Another, historical example: some Northeasterners talked about secession during the War of 1812, which I believe is the POD for Decades of Darkness. The procedural justification for secession exists to justify its outcome.

It's a well-established tradition in common law that a single party to a compact cannot unilaterally withdraw from that compact. The secessionists came up with some other procedural argument that, on the merits, does not make sense in the legal tradition that the Constitution comes from.

Can you give more detail on that?

 

[goodguy777]

Said Delegate is listened to, but it won't be adopted.

What if said delegate should be The Man himself? I think he did talk from the floor sometimes. Have to let somebody else preside for a little while, though.

I think my idea wouid make a huge difference. If the ACW is not butterflied beyond all recognition, whichever side the Constitution goes against at an absolute minimum would have to KEEP telling itself it is not a welsher and a traitor and/or not a tyranny.

Each side bolstered itself on the notion the Constitution was on its side, now only one could.