If it was so unwise as to be necessary to ratify, then there would have been no need to ratify, as states simply would have said "It's too dangerous, we agree." In other words, ratification was more important than danger, which means danger held far less sway.
He was against it himself, but he admits the right in the same speech my quote came from. They indissoluble link of the union lies not in the RIGHT (because it was a known right of the sovereign state), but in the heart of the people. http://discerninghistory.com/2013/07/john-quincy-adams-on-secession/
Yeah, you have to understand what you read. You do not understand what you are reading because you do not have a proper historical perspective. There is actually an important distinction in the sentence you bolded "and under these limitations, have the people of each state in the Union a right to secede from the confederated Union itself" that would later be perverted by Justice Story trying to disprove the right of secession.
Ben, THE PEOPLE. Not "the State." The only way to secede is for THE PEOPLE to do it, which is known as rebellion.
I understand that he explicitly says the state cannot secede, only the people. Explicitly says that. Not hints. Explicitly says it. That's all he perspective you need to know for this one. Find a better mascot, John Quincy isn't one.
And the people not meaning the state has profound implications for the 2nd Amendment, as it's the difference between an individual right and a state militia.
It's apples-to-oranges, to say the least. States' voter ID laws are a transparent effort by those in power to stay there, under the guise of "preventing voter fraud." For someone who distrusts the establishment, that seems a little problematic.
From now on, I'm just going to claim others just don't have the understanding that I have on any subject matter. I'll never lose an argument/discussion again.
Is this a joke? This is not what he is saying at all. Again, you don't understand what you are reading. When he references this... ...he is referencing arguments that had already been made by the previous generation of founders who were fighting just the idea you are proposing. If you want to make the argument you are making, there are those (in the minority) who tried to make it. JQA, while he disagreed with the sentiment and was disgusted by the possibility of such an action by a state, was not one of those.
You don't lose many on the football forum. You are more knowledgeable than most on this forum on that topic and I think you are given that credit over there. I've read and studied the time period. I've read a good portion of documentation from that time period. I may be a condescending ass, as History Major Uni calls me, but its because their arguments are sophomoric and show a lack of understanding. The mainstream view of secession and states rights comes more from the victor getting to write the history than it does an actual historical account. Which is how it goes all throughout history. However, it is sad that the citizenry is not taught the true history of how this nation was formed.
Bullshit, it's because you think your interpretations are the only valid ones and denigrate others as being stupid, essentially, for not following you down the pathway. In reality, any student of history knows these arguments have been very contentious, even among those who are considered experts in the field as well as leading statesmen of the time. You act as if you're the only one who's studied this period, these people and their writings, while you drop morsels on the pissant plebeians that are too "sophomoric" to understand your greater depth of knowledge. You aren't.
Again, Ben, he explicity states that States do not have the right, but only the PEOPLE have the right The right of the state is equally disowned. TO THE PEOPLE alone is there reserved. Again. Explicitly states that states do not have the right, only the people.
With these qualifications [that to the people alone is there reserved the power], we may admit the same right as vested in the people of every state in the Union, with reference to the General Government, which was exercised by the people of the United Colonies [ie: open rebellion], with reference to the Supreme head of the British empire [the government rebelled against], of which they formed a part [colonies were a part of England] – and under these limitations, have the people of each state in the Union a right to secede from the confederated Union itself [ie: you have to rebel like we did]. John Quincy, in his public voting, as in this speech, is completely against the idea that a state can secede, as the only way to do is for the people to rebel. That's why he continually says "the people."
I feel like we should settle this like the founding fathers would've. Skin those smoke wagons. Pistols at high noon.
This may be the best line: Meaning, specifically, do those people wishing to secede have the heart, aka: mettle, to do it. You don't have to discuss heart to discuss a legal succession, but you very well must to discuss rebellion.
Very well, I name you my second. And I'll be out that day, so you'll have to fill in for me, as my second. Thanks JQK. You've been super helpful.
