See other Dead Constitution Articles
Title: The Legality of Secession
Source:
endusmilitarism.org
URL Source: http://www.endusmilitarism.org/secessionlegality.html
Published: Oct 13, 2005
Author: George Desnoyers
Post Date: 2014-12-30 22:15:49 by Southern Style
Keywords: None
Views: 159
Comments: 8
The Legality of Secession by George Desnoyers October 13, 2005 When they originally ratified the U.S. Constitution, at least three states – New York, Virginia, and Rhode Island - included clauses asserting the right too secede from the Union at a future time. Of the three states, the ratifications by New York and Virginia were considered necessary for the Union to have a chance to succeed. The debates within those two states received great attention. Both were large states, and their ratifications were uncertain for several months. Virginia’s ratification (with a vote of 89 to 79) came on June 25, 1788 and New York’s (with a vote of 30 to 27) on July 26, 1788. Even though the ratifications by Virginia and New York occurred after the ratification of the Constitution by the necessary ninth state, New Hampshire, on June 21, 1788, they were nevertheless still viewed as crucial. When the ratifications of Virginia and New York finally occurred, confidence was high that the new nation would at least have a fighting chance to succeed. Rhode Island’s clause asserting its right to secede is often overlooked due to its being the last of the original thirteen states to ratify. Rhode Island’s first attempt to ratify the Constitution, by referendum, had failed on March 4, 1788. The state finally ratified the Constitution (with a vote of 34 to 32) on May 29, 1790. This was nearly two years after the ratifications by New Hampshire, Virginia, and New York, after the swearing in of George Washington as President, and after the House of Representatives had passed a Bill of Rights (September 25, 1789). [Ten of the twelve Amendments passed by the House were ratified by the states and were incorporated into the Constitution as “The Bill of Rights” on December 15, 1791.] Some important facts should be pointed out. First, the ratifications of the Constitution by New York, Virginia, and Rhode Island were not given conditionally upon those states being granted the right to secede by the other states. Had that been the case, the ratifications would have been invalid. Ratifications of the Constitution had to be unconditional. Those who voted to ratify the Constitution in New York, Virginia, and Rhode Island simply put into writing a right they thought naturally belonged to their respective states. The states were voluntarily joining the Union, and most people believed the same principles toward self-governance that gave states the right to join the Union also gave states the right to withdraw from the Union. [It’s sometimes said that the way people think regarding that last point may be determined by whether they view a state’s joining the Union as making a contract or as joining a treaty. The right to unilaterally withdraw from treaties is generally accepted. The right to unilaterally withdraw from contracts is not generally accepted.] Second, the ratifications of Virginia, New York, and Rhode Island were unanimously accepted as valid. Those states’ claims to the right of secession was understood and agreed to by the other ratifiers, including George Washington who presided over the Constitutional Convention and served as a delegate from Virginia. Third, many lawyers believe that the acceptance of these three ratifications (New York, Virginia, and Rhode Island) as valid guarantees all states the right to secede. This conclusion is based on the principle that whatever rights are held by some states must be held by all states. [Exceptional rights have been granted to some states in order to encourage them to join the Union. But those special rights were understood by all states already in the union at the time the states granted special rights were accepted.] Fourth, other states might have included clauses asserting their right to secede. However, they thought it unnecessary since the Constitution did not forbid secession and because it was believed that states’ rights were preserved wherever the Constitution did not expressly transfer states’ powers to the new federal government. (On December 15, 1791, this idea was incorporated into the Constitution as the Tenth Amendment which states, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.") The belief of the Constitution’s ratifiers was that the states were entering into a voluntary association and not giving up their sovereignty. One of the Federalist Papers expressing the ideas that were persuasive in convincing states to join the Union is Federalist Paper #45. That publication, addressed to the “People of the State of New York,” said, “The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite.” Fifth, several writings of the founders referred to the formation of the Union under the Constitution as an experiment. Although many people clearly hoped the new Union of states would long endure, very few people expressed great confidence that it would. More widespread were expectations that states would withdraw from the Union if the arrangement were found to be unsatisfactory. Sixth, for nearly seven decades, from the ratification of the Constitution to shortly before the Civil War, very few people questioned the right of states to secede from the Union. Most people took the right to secede for granted, and secession had occasionally been considered by states in different regions of the country. After all, the country had been formed largely through secession from British rule. Secession has not incorrectly been called, “as American as apple pie.” Seventh, President Lincoln gave several arguments against the legality of secession. His first inaugural address contained four. A lot has been written about Lincoln’s arguments; some people accept their validity, while other people reject them. As the likelihood of secession increased, most folk thought secession might be sad – or tragic, but not evil. But Lincoln’s arguments acquired greater appeal with the emotionalism produced by the attack on Fort Sumter on April 12-13, 1861. Eighth, some, and perhaps even most, Americans believe that the issue of whether secession was legal was settled on the battlefield when the forces of the Union defeated the South. But, clearly, the issue could not be settled that way! Americans accept that it is improper and unjust to settle matters of legality through the use of force. Ninth, one frequently repeated (maybe because Lincoln used it) – but very weak – argument involves comparing the reference to a “perpetual union” in the Articles of Confederation to the reference to forming a “more perfect union” in the Constitution. It is claimed that the “more perfect union” under the Constitution would necessarily have to include the “perpetual” quality of the union under the earlier Articles of Confederation. This argument makes little sense! It could just as well be argued that Union under the Constitution is “more perfect” because it is not deemed necessarily perpetual, but recognizes (by the absence of prohibition) the right of states to secede. What makes this argument all the weaker is the fact that the Articles of Confederation refer to the "perpetual" nature of the Union no less than five times. In light of such importance in the Articles of Confederation, it must be considered intentional that the Constitution has not even one reference the Union being "perpetual." Furthermore, the present Union is not “perpetual” in the sense that – as has happened in the past - new states can be formed from parts of existing states. An agreement was reached at the time of the annexation of Texas that Texas may ultimately be carved into five separate states. The truth is that many points within the Articles of Confederation were abandoned in the new Constitution. During the Constitutional Convention, most people believed that the failures of the Articles of Confederation made a new Constitution imperative. Tenth, when simple concepts of self-determination and self-governance of peoples are discussed, people generally agree that decisions – including the most basic decisions - regarding governance have to be open to all generations of peoples, and not just to generations of peoples that lived decades or centuries ago. Lincoln's "democracy argument” offered that since the Constitution itself permits almost any kind of amendment (it prohibits only two kinds), the right to secede has been replaced by the right to [try to] amend the Constitution. But, suppose that in some generation, as happened before during Lincoln’s, the people in some state(s) are not satisfied with ultimately leaving crucial matters of governance up to the whims of others, many of whom are perceived as not sharing sufficient common interests with themselves. Unlike Lincoln, those folk might find the right to [try to] amend the Constitution a totally inadequate replacement for the right to secede. Shouldn’t they be able to decide that question for themselves? Eleventh, while Lincoln and much of his cabinet thought and gave lip-service to the idea that legal secession was impossible, and for that reason often refused to recognize states as actually having "seceded" (done the impossible), they certainly acted toward those states as though real secessions had in fact occurred, both by taking Constitutional rights away from the seceded states, and (Lincoln excepted, since he was dead) by making them go through a re-admittance procedure following the Civil War. Twelfth, some scholars say that the Supreme Court's decision in Texas v. White did not settle the legality-of-secession question on the "con" side as firmly as many people have claimed. For one thing, the court did allow some possibility of legal secession by saying: 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. (Emphasis mine.) What was Texas v. White about? During the Civil War, the secessionist government of Texas had sold U.S. bonds after passing an ordinance repealing a requirement that the governor of Texas endorse the bonds before redeeming them. (The governor had refused to endorse secession and had been dismissed.) Following the war, Texas sued to recover the bonds that had been transferred to George W. White and several others. However, Texas’ re-admittance to the Union had been delayed by the state’s failure to satisfy Congress’s demand that Texas ratify the Fourteenth Amendment. The issue of whether or not Texas was a state of the United States had bearing on whether or not the Supreme Court had jurisdiction in the case. Since the legality of secession was not the main issue between Texas and the purchasers of the bonds, many people feel that the legality-of-secession issue was far from fully argued and adequately considered. The Supreme Court’s decision in Texas v. White has remained very controversial. Thirteenth, secession could occur in the U.S. by a Constitutional amendment. But an interesting point has been raised about how (rather than whether) mutually agreed-upon secession could be made legal through a Constitutional amendment (assuming unilateral secession is not already legal). If the Constitutional amendment allowing for secession followed the same process as all the other amendments so far, which states would be allowed to vote on the question in the two houses? It has been argued that only the states not wishing to secede should be allowed to vote. Otherwise, it could not be guaranteed that secession by Constitutional amendment would be mutually agreed-upon. Obviously it could not be considered mutually agreed-upon if the total vote among only the states wishing to remain in the Union was against the secession. [On August 20, 1998, Canada's Supreme Court ruled that a province (Quebec was the province considered) had no right to unilaterally secede, either under Canadian law or under international law. However, the Court held that the desire of a province to secede obligated Canada's national government to negotiate with the province that desired to secede. Such negotiations would be conducted according to standards that would at the start neither guarantee secession nor rule out mutually agreed-upon secession. This seems to recognize in Canada a real possibility of mutually agreed-upon secession, i.e., of a secession having the approval of both the seceding province and the remaining portion of Canada.] Best Argument Against the Legality of Secession Perhaps the best argument against the legality of secession is the one that rests upon secession being an “insurrection." Section VIII of Article 1 of the Constitution gives Congress the power to call forth the militia to “suppress insurrections.” However, many people would argue that secession is not an insurrection. They see secession as the withdrawal of recognition of an authority as lawful rather than the refusal to obey recognized lawful authority. In addition, secession is not in itself an aggressive action taken against the residue of states left within the Union. It is a point often overlooked, but some states that seceded during the Civil War are very proud of the fact that they did not declare war - or fight an offensive war - against the Union, but only fought a defensive war in order to be able to govern themselves as they saw fit. Northerners should remember this if they wish to understand the thinking of many in the South.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: Southern Style (#0)
(Edited)
The states were voluntarily joining the Union, and most people believed the same principles toward self-governance that gave states the right to join the Union also gave states the right to withdraw from the Union. [It’s sometimes said that the way people think regarding that last point may be determined by whether they view a state’s joining the Union as making a contract or as joining a treaty. The right to unilaterally withdraw from treaties is generally accepted. The right to unilaterally withdraw from contracts is not generally accepted.] In my view, the Articles of Confederation were neither a treaty or a contract. They were national law that had originated as something of an Amendment-like proposal or Letter of Intent among the Continental Congress of the original 13 States to enact the document as such through ratification by 9 votes; alterations later requiring unanimous consent. Eventually, all 13 ratified and eventually they all seceded from that Union, nullifying the Articles of Confederation as the binding law of the land and replacing them with the more perfect Union of the Constitution. Model Treaty - Wikipedia The Model Treaty, or the Plan of 1776, was created during the American Revolution and was an idealistic guide for foreign relations and future treaties between the new American government and other nations. The Model Treaty was not with a specific country, but rather was a template for future relations with foreign countries and was America’s first diplomatic statement. It adhered to the ideal of free and reciprocal trade. On September 24, 1776, Congress accepted the Model Treaty and commissioners to France were chosen on the next day. Benjamin Franklin took the Model Treaty to Paris, and it was used as the starting point for negotiations with France, which ultimately resulted the signing of two treaties: an economic treaty, the [United States–France] Treaty of Amity and Commerce, and a treaty of military alliance, the [Franco-American] Treaty of Alliance. Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union - Wikipedia In 1775, with events outpacing communications, the Second Continental Congress began acting as the provisional government to run the American Revolutionary War and gain the colonies their collective independence. It was an era of constitution writing—most states were busy at the task—and leaders felt the new nation must have a written constitution, even though other nations did not. During the war, Congress exercised an unprecedented level of political, diplomatic, military and economic authority. It adopted trade restrictions, established and maintained an army, issued fiat money, created a military code and negotiated with foreign governments. On June 7, 1776, Richard Henry Lee introduced a resolution before the Continental Congress declaring the colonies independent; at the same time he also urged Congress to resolve “to take the most effectual measures for forming foreign Alliances” and to prepare a plan of confederation for the newly independent states. Congress then created three overlapping committees to draft the Declaration [of Independence], a Model Treaty, and the Articles of Confederation. The Declaration announced the states' entry into the international system; the model treaty was designed to establish amity and commerce with other states [i.e. France and foreign nations]; and the Articles of Confederation, which established “a firm league” among the thirteen free and independent states, constituted an international agreement to set up central institutions for the conduct of vital domestic and foreign affairs. In practice, the Articles were in use beginning in 1777; the final draft of the Articles served as the de facto system of government used by the Congress ("the United States in Congress assembled") until it became de jure by final ratification on March 1, 1781; at which point Congress became the Congress of the Confederation. Article XIII stipulated that "their provisions shall be inviolably observed by every state" and "the Union shall be perpetual". According to Article XIII of the Confederation, any alteration had to be approved unanimously: On the other hand, Article VII of the proposed Constitution stated that it would become effective after ratification by a mere nine states, without unanimity: The apparent tension between these two provisions was addressed at the time, and remains a topic of scholarly discussion. According to their terms for modification (Article XIII), the Articles would still have been in effect until 1790, the year in which the last of the 13 states, Rhode Island, ratified the new Constitution. the ratification process had taken nearly three and a half years. Many participants in the original debates were no longer delegates, and some of the signers had only recently arrived. The Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union were signed by a group of men who were never present in the Congress at the same time. Roger Sherman (Connecticut) was the only person to sign all four great state papers of the United States: the Continental Association, the United States Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation and the United States Constitution. ------- "They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
Did anyone here witness this alleged agreement or its signing ? (Besides Cynicom). [Just kidding]. Look, those people had every right to sign whatever they chose to sign for themselves. What exists today doesn't even in a remote sense resemble what they signed or agreed to, even though it's my opinion that we have no obligation to their agreement just as our children and grand children will have NO OBLIGATION to a debt that they didn't create or agree to pay. It doesn't matter what people agreed to 200 plus years ago. Maybe they had faith in their leadership, whereas we have nothing but fraud emanating out of D.C. And if I were asked to give my signature to a document agreeing to abide by the frauds and murders that these oppressors think we should abide by I'd refuse to sign or abide. (Recall, give me liberty or give me death). You, GreyLmist, have become a gatekeeper for the totalitarians in D.C. accidentally or not. Your perpetual support for the psychotic behavior that persists in Washington via your constant harping about the relevance of a constitution that it appears you are the only one that still thinks exists is truly treasonous behavior on your part because this is the Cinderella sort of thinking that keeps Americans enslaved. To perpetuate a failed system turned violently oppressive is tantamount to the behavior of an abused spouse. And this might be acceptable if you were the only one taking the ass whipping, but you're not the only one. The whole fucking world is being beat down by these assholes in D.C. that use that G.D. piece of paper against us continually rather than to protect our GOD GIVEN RIGHTS. (Do we not have the right not to mass murder children around the world, not to fund abortions, not to be spied upon and etc.,) ? The bankers have bought and paid for every single federally elected scumbag in D.C. The people of the country have been made slaves to the Wall Street scum that are too big to jail, and many hard working Americans have been made homeless on the continent that their fore bearers conquered. The fairytale document known as the Constitution hasn't been honored for at least 101 years. Many of our brethren have been imprisoned for relying upon the Constitution in courts that reject it out of hand. Your persistence in clamoring about the value of this worthless document is mind-boggling considering your obvious intellect. Are you a paid shill ? Do you see America as a more perfect Union today ? If so, are you blind or are you a paid shill ? This forum allows free speech but your constitutional commentary is very costly because it allows those that buy into it hope for relief that surely isn't coming out of D.C. or because the Constitution says so. "Honest, April 15th is April Fools Day".
Yes indeed they should but the key phrase there is "for themselves" on an individual basis, Statelessly -- whereupon they should promptly try to apply for a "just visiting" Visa here as foreigners. Secessionists from the Constitution (as Lincoln and his violative Company were in that era) don't get to decide any such question for Constitutionalists or the United States of America this time, all 50 of which are the private property of our Constitutionally Loyal Republic. Edited for punctuation. ------- "They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
:) There doesn't have to be a "sunset clause" in the Constitution. It's not for everyone. Anyone who doesn't like it is free to recind their citizenship here, I'm sure. They're not free to take our States if they don't like it. The Constitution looks just as it did the last time it was amended. Existing violators and their violations don't change it at all. I'd agree that there are some Post-Bill of Rights Amendments like the 16th and 17th which should be repealed as Prohibition was. Contrariness such as yours, though, is hardly facilitative to reaching that point sooner rather than later. Constitution Loyalists have no need to cancel out the Constitution. If there's something they'd like to amend, they can do so and without the approval of those unaligned. Defectors from the Constitution shouldn't expect to be a part of that process. What is it about the Constitution that you don't agree with? Isn't it really more the defiant rogues you object to than that? The Constitution doesn't prohibit the nullification of invalid debt. The collusion of bankers and politicians acting as debt-slavers in rebellion against a Constitutional monetary system is even more nullifiable than the Confederacy's debts that were rejected as being obligatory upon the Union, even though the States that had moved to secede weren't deemed free to leave it. I am not a gatekeeper/shill for the D.C. totalitarians nor do I support any of their maniacal actions of insurgency against the Constitution, which is America's real government and not a fairytale document or a failed system. There are people who have willfully failed to abide by it and others who have failed to enforce it. Clearly, conditions here have become deplorable because of that but please stop blurring the Constitution with the enemies of it. There are many more than just me who do know that it exists. Even if I was the only one, that would simply amount to all of America being soley my private property until other Constitution Loyalists show up to dutifully act as America's rightful and lawful custodians by upholding, protecting and defending the Constitution against all enemies foreign or domestic. Edited for punctuation. ------- "They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
If one or both (or all) parties to the contract committed fraud against the other parties then the party who has been defrauded has the right to withdraw from the contract. And the federal government has defrauded the states and the people many times, the most egregious example that I can think of being the claim they have the right to foist off irredeemable "notes" on us and call it money. Americans who have no experience with, or knowledge of, tyranny believe that only terrorists will experience the unchecked power of the state. They will believe this until it happens to them, or their children, or their friends. Paul Craig Roberts "When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men living together in society, they create for themselves in the course of time a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it." Frederic Bastiat
When the states joined the union nobody said that Abraham "Honest Abe" Lincoln would smash the shit out of your state in a genocidal rage if they left the union peacefully. "Secession is a deeply American principle. This country was born through secession." ~ Ron Paul the Articles of Confederation refer to the "perpetual" nature of the Union no less than five times. In light of such importance in the Articles of Confederation, it must be considered intentional that the Constitution has not even one reference the Union being "perpetual."
On June 11, 1776, the Continental Congress resolved to create three committees, one for drafting the Declaration of Independence, one for drafting the Articles of Confederation, and one for drafting a "Model Treaty" to guide foreign relations.
a document signed amongst the 13 original colonies that established the United States of America as a confederation of sovereign states and served as its first constitution.
[T]he 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.
The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same.
#2. To: GreyLmist (#1)
#3. To: Southern Style (#0)
(Edited)
Lincoln's "democracy argument” offered that since the Constitution itself permits almost any kind of amendment (it prohibits only two kinds) [See references: Article Five, Text and Article One, Section 9 Limits on Congress, Clauses 1 and 4: the Slave Trade and Apportionment of direct taxes], the right to secede has been replaced by the right to [try to] amend the Constitution. But, suppose that in some generation, as happened before during Lincoln’s, the people in some state(s) are not satisfied with ultimately leaving crucial matters of governance up to the ["Secession Amendment"] whims of others, many of whom are perceived as not sharing sufficient common interests with themselves. Unlike Lincoln, those folk might find the right to [try to] amend the Constitution a totally inadequate replacement for the right to secede. Shouldn’t they be able to decide that question for themselves?
#4. To: noone222, Cynicom (#2)
(Edited)
Did anyone here witness this alleged agreement or its signing ? (Besides Cynicom). [Just kidding].
Look, those people had every right to sign whatever they chose to sign for themselves. What exists today doesn't even in a remote sense resemble what they signed or agreed to,
it's my opinion that we have no obligation to their agreement
just as our children and grand children will have NO OBLIGATION to a debt that they didn't create or agree to pay.
#5. To: Southern Style (#0)
The right to unilaterally withdraw from contracts is not generally accepted.
#6. To: Southern Style (#0)
(Edited)
-Alex Kurtagic
#7. To: All (#1) (Edited)
On the other hand, Article VII of the proposed Constitution stated that it would become effective after ratification by a mere nine states, without unanimity: The apparent tension between these two provisions was addressed at the time, and remains a topic of scholarly discussion. It could be argued that Article VII of the Constitution not only affirmed the right of States to secede then from the Articles of Confederation's Union but was a statement of secession from it; and also that the new Union of the Constitution being formed was willing to lose 4 of the original 13 States completely if they had opted to secede as Independents by non-ratification but they didn't. Am posting that as evidence of Lincon's War against the South being terribly wrong on the grounds of Secession as something forbidden. The original 13 States had fought to "gain the colonies their collective independence" from Britain. Article VII of the Constitution itself recognized their rights to choose Independence from the ratifying collective, as well as the rights of ratifying States to peacefully proceed in secession and Independence from the first Union as they chose to do. It wasn't the Constitution, though, that the South wanted to secede from but the maladministrations of it -- much as is the case still when State Secession is debated. The 14th Amendment after Lincoln's War instructs the States not to enact or enforce any law in violation of the Constitution even when it's a Federal law. If that was a clear option for the South prior to the War, there might not have been one. People who want to claim our States as their own territories by "Seceding" them from the Constitution on the grounds that D.C. and State maladministrators defy it but they don't want to enforce it themselves either haven't any valid claim to do so -- just a plan to get something for nothing by taking what's ours if they can get enough officials to fail in their duties to that end result. Any American who wants to secede from the Constitution's Union should do that and can, very simply and singularly, by negating their citizenships. Edited punctuation and grammar. According to Article XIII of the Confederation, any alteration had to be approved unanimously:
[T]he 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.
The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same.
-------
"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
#8. To: All (#1) (Edited)
On June 7, 1776, Richard Henry Lee introduced a resolution before the Continental Congress declaring the colonies independent; at the same time he also urged Congress to resolve “to take the most effectual measures for forming foreign Alliances” and to prepare a plan of confederation for the newly independent states. Congress then created three overlapping committees to draft the Declaration [of Independence], a Model Treaty, and the Articles of Confederation. The [Congressionally ratified] Declaration [of Independence] announced the states' entry into the international system; the [M]odel [T]reaty was designed to establish amity and commerce with other states [resulting in 2 with France: an economic treaty and a military alliance]; and the Articles of Confederation, which established “a firm league” among the thirteen free and independent states, constituted an international agreement to set up central institutions for the conduct of vital domestic and foreign affairs. Wikipedia links added above. From the link for Richard Henry Lee: Additional info: Lee Resolution - Wikipedia The resolution was finally [Congressionally] approved on July 2, 1776, and news of its adoption was published that evening in the Pennsylvania Evening Post and the next day in the Pennsylvania Gazette. The resolution, seconded by John Adams, had three parts: That it is expedient forthwith to take the most effectual measures for forming foreign Alliances. That a plan of confederation be prepared and transmitted to the respective Colonies for their consideration and approbation. the Lee Resolution's passage was contemporaneously reported as the colonies' definitive declaration of independence from Great Britain. The evening of July 2, the Pennsylvania Evening Post reported: The Pennsylvania Gazette followed suit the next day with its own brief report: After passing the [Lee] resolution of independence on July 2, Congress turned its attention to the text of the [Declaration of Independence]. Over several days of debate, Congress made a number of alterations to the text, including adding the wording of Lee's resolution of independence to the conclusion. The final text of the declaration was approved by Congress on July 4 The latter two parts of the June resolution were not passed until months later. The second part regarding the formation of foreign alliances [the Model Treaty] was approved in September 1776, and the third part regarding a plan of confederation [the Articles of Confederation] was passed in November 1777 [at which point Congress became the Congress of the Confederation] Organic law - Wikipedia In the United States of America The Organic Laws of the United States of America can be found in Volume One of the United States Code which contains the General and Permanent Laws of the United States. U.S. Code (2007) defines the organic laws of the United States of America to include the Declaration of Independence of July 4, 1776, the Articles of Confederation of November 15, 1777, the Northwest Ordinance of July 13, 1787, and the Constitution of September 17, 1787.In 1775 ... the Second Continental Congress began acting as the provisional government to run the American Revolutionary War and gain the colonies their collective independence. ... During the war, Congress exercised an unprecedented level of political, diplomatic, military and economic authority. It adopted trade restrictions, established and maintained an army, issued fiat money, created a military code and negotiated with foreign governments.
an American statesman from Virginia best known for the motion in the Second Continental Congress calling for the colonies' independence from Great Britain. ... He was a member of the Lee family, a historically influential family in Virginia politics. [Members: ... Robert E. Lee ... ]
also known as the resolution of independence, was an act of the Second Continental Congress declaring the United Colonies to be independent of the British Empire. Richard Henry Lee of Virginia first proposed it on June 7, 1776
Resolved, That these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, free and independent States, that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain is, and ought to be, totally dissolved.
This day the CONTINENTAL CONGRESS declared the UNITED COLONIES FREE and INDEPENDENT STATES.
Yesterday, the CONTINENTAL CONGRESS declared the UNITED COLONIES FREE and INDEPENDENT STATES.
An organic law is a law or system of laws which forms the foundation of a government ...
-------
"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest