"Small nations have therefore always been the cradle of political liberty; and the fact that many of them have lost their liberty by becoming larger shows that their freedom was more a consequence of their small size than of the character of the people."
Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America, 1835

Very apt, considering the climate in America today. Well done, Sir Dan!!

Do you think one could get a link to your website on the E.U's official site. :)

Third World city in the midst of our Nation's Capital.....

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/07/12/D8IQH9P05.html

And when he wrote that there were only 24 states and only one had so far been admitted that came out of Jefferson's Louisiana Purchase. At the time Jefferson made that deal this very issue of whether the Republic was imperiled by becoming an empire was broached. I think the Republic has long been dead and that Tocqueville, as in most things, was spot on here.

Brian: I think the point you make is a very interesting one. Conservative nerds (take no offense, I count myself within your ranks) make so much, theoretically at least, on the question of secession. A much more interesting question, for discussion purposes (as it is moot otherwise), than subtraction is addition. To put another way, what if you started a business with twelve of your friends. Without your consent, and without the imprimatur of the governing bylaws, some of your friends add more partners, with interests like theirs but not like yours. Your stake in the business, naturally, diminishes. Does all this not invalidate the initial agreement? Many of the people living in my home state, Massachusetts, thought so about 200 years ago. With apologies to the Southern readers, the gripes of oldline Yankees--whether after the Louisiana Purchase, during the War of 1812, or during the Mexican-American War--seem a more serious rationale for disunion than those given by, say, Alexander Stephens.

One could also see how the constant drive to add led to the failed attempt to subtract. Incidentally, those who pursued the latter were most guilty in promoting the former.

Brian & Dan

If I might ask a couple of question, as a country becomes larger it seems it will add people and groups whose interests will conflict with one another. This will probably make it harder to hold the union together. This may require more central government control. Do you think that the increase in the size of a country that adds people with differnet interests makes it harder to keep the country together? If this is the case, do you think the need to try and keep a diverse country together could be what leads the increase in the power of the central government?

B.Poster: Jefferson, ironically given his Louisiana Purchase, balked at the idea of Americans inhabiting the Pacific Northwest being governed by Washington. He imagined Astorians, "Free and independent Americans, unconnected with us but by ties of blood and interest, and employing like us the rights of self-government." Alas, one can quote Jefferson for any effect. But the question his words inspire remains: is it feasible for a group of people to govern another group of people thousands of miles away? The American revolutionists answered this one way. Perhaps the revolution in travel and communications negates that answer.

I think our country is so diverse that the state isn't the thing that keeps it together. My sense is that nations such as Canada, where there is a French-English split, and Israel, where there is a Palestinian-Jewish split, face far greater problems than the United States, which is split in so many different directions on ethnic and religious lines. When there are so many different groups, the groups are united in their hatred of sectarianism and racism. When there are two groups, or three groups--look out.

Dan: "To put it another way, what if you started a business with twelve of your friends. Without your consent, and without the imprimatur of the governing bylaws, some of your friends add more partners, with interests like theirs but not like yours. Your stake in the business, naturally, diminishes. Does all this not invalidate the initial agreement?"

This is the second time you've put forward this ana-logy, and it remains a bad one. The agreement between the original States (i.e., the Constitution) contains a provision for the addition of new States. Article IV, Section 3 states that "New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union." The new States were added accordingly with the consent of Congress, i.e., with the consent of the States' representatives.

How could the excercise of a term of an agreement invalidate that agreement?

Make that "exercise."

Dan, re: your answer to B. Poster:

Isn't this exactly the point of the Federalist Papers on fractions and their promotion? the problem arises when an issues so overwhelms a people that two large fractions emerge on one issue, rather than just having many fractions related to a variety of issues.

The statement of de Tocqueville's is also interesting in contrast with the Federalist Papers' reflections on the size of the State.

There, it is argued that larger States are now possible because we have the political mechanics, so to speak, to successfully govern them -- just as 300 years previously the principles of physical mechanics were worked out by Galileo, which then allowed the moving of objects with greater mass more easily.

A good argument at the time. But now, when we are over twice the size we were when these papers were written? I don't think so. We're definitely too big, and it seems to me that were in the process of morphing (depending on your perspective) from a national democracy of sorts (the Republic is long-since dead) into a plutocracy or an oligarchy.

The question would be, where do we go from here? Constitutional reform?

Some addled brains at the New Republic theorized, after the Bush win in 2004, that the Bush Administration wanted in principle to appoint as Supreme Court judges not those who would focus on Roe v. Wade, but who would deconstruct everything, or nearly everything, which has been built upon the "interstate commerce" clause of the Constitution in the past 75 years, which would have the effect of returning many things (e.g., workplace safety regulations) to the states. But it would appear that this was false, or that they have not succeeded -- probably because of the radical nature of this project: not even the most conservative judges in the U.S. are willing to go this far.

Given this, it seems we are stuck with our current system, where people in Washington, DC are dictating how school districts in Washington State ought to function (at least as regards standardized testing), and other follies.

Half the people don't even bother to vote and more, and most of the newspapers and broadcasters give a dumbed-down version of politics. What can you do with that?

I don't know.

DvT

Ralph: Where does the constitution give President or the Congress the power to add new territory? (As is well known, even Jefferson, in making the deal for the LP with Napolean admits that he has no such power, but he mused that the ends justified the means.) Without that power, the power to add new states was very limited.

"Without that power, the power to add new states was very limited."

Agreed. And I am not defending the constitutionality of the LP. But neither point saves Dan's ana-logy.

It does not matter if the community seeking Statehood is part of an illicitly aquired U.S. property or a completely independent entity (e.g., if Canada wanted to become a State), the power to grant Statehood is given to Congress by the Constitution, and Congress represents the States (prior to the 17th Amendment) and the People. Therefore, it was impossible for communities arising out of the LP to become States without the consent of the existing States.

Ralph: It is not territory becoming a state that Dan's ana-logy complains about, so your attack falls flat. That the US territory at the time of the constitution could become states was part of the original contract. I don't see why you think this ana-logy is bad. By adding the LP in such a way that these new territories would be able to become states, certain members of the partnership certainly added new partners to the contract. Let's say two old women win the lottery together, and agree to divide it in even portions for all of their children. Then one adopts her 100 best friends and claims they're now heirs. That's called cheating.

p.s. Don't you have anything better to nitpick over?

Dan's ana-logy lacks the specificity you give it. It is concerned with the addition of new partners against the bylaws and without the consent of the existing partners. That is, with the addition of new States against the Constitution and without the consent of the existing States.

Don't you have anything better to defend?

Ralph: Given that everyone here on this board is versed enough to have an even cursory knowledge of U.S. history, a specificity is not necessary in my example. Everyone knows what happened. States came into the union that were not part of the nation--as territory or as actual states--after the initial agreement of states. Vermont? Ohio? Kentucky? Maine? Yeah, they were all part of the nation's lands at the time of the Constitution. If the states approve, then, sure, let them be states. But Northern Mexico? Arctic Russia? The Sandwich Islands? The Constitution doesn't say anything about acquiring foreign, or colonial, lands.

Teddy Roosevelt's suggestion that we annex Mexico and Central America all the way south to Panama, for instance, wasn't authorized by the Constitution. It would have so altered the initial union that states would have been right to say: this isn't what we signed up for. By rule, a Constitutional Amendment would have been needed; by precedent, because of the Louisiana Purchase, the Texas annexation, Gadsden, etc., no such Constitutional alteration would have been needed to partake in such a drastic alteration of the nation that that Constitution governs.

It's strange that the same people who view subtraction as a crime against the Constitution invent all sorts of Constitutional justifications for addition.

Dan I don't think it is strange at all that those who deny the right of secession also love addition, it's called imperialism. Historically speaking it almost seems to be a natural proclivity of republics. I don't know that Ralph specifically (the recipient of your comment) loves addition of territory though, but in general I think the two go hand in hand.

The Israelis seem to be currently exhibiting their enjoyment of both principles by refusing to subtract a Palestinian state and by continuing to add to their territory. Maybe the similarity is part of the emotional bond between Israel and the U.S.

Dan,

As I said to Skeptic, I am not arguing that the Constitution permitted the Louisiana Purchase. What I am arguing is that once the purchase was made, parts of that property could become States according to the Constitution. And when they in fact did so, it was according to Article IV, Section 3 and by the consent of the existing States insofar as those States were represented in the Senate. So, Louisiana Purchase or no, the existing States had the opportunity to say "this isn't what we signed up for" by voting down the addition of new States.

Article IV does not require that new States come from the property of the United States. Texas was admitted to the Union in 1845 by a joint resolution of Congress in accordance with the U. S. Constitution (though Tyler had tried to annex Texas via treaty and failed).

Your argument that the Constitution doesn't permit adding territory, but does permit making states out of the territory acquired without the Constitution's permission doesn't make sense. But I am sure you'll spin some sophistic line of reasoning justifying it.

You also seem to be responding to strawmen by pretending as if, in my original post on this thread, I didn't refer to two land grabs--the Mexican War and the Louisiana Purchase--and instead referred purely to the entrance of states into the union.

The latter is a direct consequence of the former, of course, which is a major reason why New Englanders balked at the Mexican War, the Louisiana Purchase, and the War of 1812 (even if we ended up with the same boundaries after that war). They knew that if unconstitutional land grabs occurred, then their power in the union would inevitably decline. They also knew that the Constitution--the agreement between the states that they all agreed to fair and square--didn't say anything about making Nicaragua a state. Had it, no state north of Virginia would have signed on. This is an argument, like Roe v. Wade, about arbitrarily making up the rules of the game as we go along.

I see a problem with that

Maybe nations WHICH ARE cradles of political liberty have always been small. But nations WHICH ARE small have hardly always been cradles of political liberty.

Thanks for drawing our attention to Art. IV, Sect. III Ralph.

I think that the argument between you and Dan is over what constitutes "territory or other property belonging to the United States," clearly when the article was written this meant extra territory of the various original state charters, and what they had accrued to themselves by 1787. However, since the Constitution did not discuss how the Federal government could lawfully go about acquiring MORE territory, then Dan's point stands that the addition was rightfully controversial (particularly through conquest).

I find something else in that article even more interesting, and that is the stipulation that "no new states shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of any other state" a constitutional principle that was clearly violated by the creation of West Virginia (as I know Skeptic is fond of pointing out). Its pretty amazing just how many major violations of the rule of law our government has engaged in over its history. I wonder how much the Constitution ever really "constituted."

Look. My basic point is very simple. Not a single territory or independent State (Texas) became a new State by unconstitutional means -- every one was admitted by a vote in Congress per the Constitution. And not a single territory or independent State became a new State against the consent of the existing States -- every one was admitted by a vote of the Senate.

Ralph: you are just being silly. In his initial comment, which you tried to "correct," Dan only said that by adding territory to the US unconstitutionally, members were added to the partnership that, per the initial agreement, couldn't have been added to the partnership, and this illicitly changed the nature of the contract. That ONE intermediating step within this process--that step by which a territory becomes a state--would not be considered in abstraction unconstitutional, is completely irrelevant. Doesn't the LP add something new to the union? Doesn't it do so unconstitutionally? Doesn't this lead to new full members in the partnership? Aren't these new member ones that couldn't have become full members if the constitution had been followed? Doesn't this change the nature of the union? It seems to me that you have implied that every one of these questions should be answered affirmatively. Sooooo what's your beef?

Ralph,

No states were admitted w/o the consent of the original states . . . except Kansas, West Virginia, and Nevada. All of those states were admitted after some or all of the southern states had seceded.

Skeptic: "Doesn't this lead to new full members in the partnership?"

This is the question that I answer negatively. It only leads to new full members with the consent of the existing members per the Constitution. If the States existing prior to the Louisiana Purchase did not want parts of that property to become States, all they had to do was vote 'Nay'. It's that simple.

Brian,

Could you recount the circumstances of Kansas' and Nevada's entry into the Union. I support Lincoln's division of Virginia in the circumstances of the Civil War. I believe that suspensions of the Consitution are justified when necessary to save the regime from destruction. But that's another discussion.

Ralph: hilarious.

"This is the question that I answer negatively."

And then you procede to answer it affirmatively.

"And then you procede to answer it affirmatively."

What are you talking about?

The LP no more "lead" to the creation of new states than money in my bank account "leads" me to buy a computer. It may be a necessary condition, but who cares? Your defense needs something closer to a sufficient condition.

1) In your second sentence, you admit that it led to the new members, although you also articulate an additional intervening condition. But so what? There are millions of intervening necessary conditions, e.g., the world didn't blow up in between the LP and the statehood of Kansas.

2) Get real. How can you deny that the LP leads to new members? With it you are almost guaranteed to get these new members, without it you are guaranteed not to. You give a crack head crack. He takes it. Did giving him the drugs lead him to take it? If you want to parse the obviousness of this away, go ahead, but no one will be convinced.

Well, you're obviously delusional. So I let my comments stand.

Ralph: Your last comment aside, I think you are getting too lost in abstraction. This are real historical events that we are debating, not a hypothetical. The Louisiana Purchase, Mexican War, Texas Annexation, Gadsden Purchase, the 54-40 compromise, etc. all led to new states (or portions of new states). You can claim that adding new territory doesn't necessarily lead to statehood (Guam, Puerto Rico), but in the cases that we are discussing the fact is that adding new territory in every case led to adding new states. In fact, in almost every instance the stated intent of adding new territory was to add new states, and the opposition cried foul, at least early on, because they feared a dilution of their power because of the addition of new states, which they knew would inevitably grow out of the new territory.

Surely you also know the difference in difficulty between 1). a simple majority vote in Congress and 2). passing a Constitutional Amendment. This is particularly important with regard to a state you're familiar with, Texas, which owes its statehood to a single vote switch in the U.S. Senate over the annexation question. Had a Constitutional Amendment been required, the vote wouldn't have been close to passing. In other words, it really, really, really matters a lot whether the amendment process is followed or bypassed.

Thus, it's easy to see how some Senators thought the rights of their states were being violated by the admission of new territory without amending the Constitution. Had New England pushed through, say, Quebec, Ontario, and Nova Scotia--all with climes inhospitable to slavery--as states, my sense is that we would be reading about Southerners objecting to the affront against the Constitution (not to mention their "peculiar institution").

Dan,

The historical facts are not in question. We disagree about whether or not the addition of new States (as it actually happened) violated the Constitution and whether or not the addition occured without the consent of the existing States. I maintain that it did not on both counts.

I do agree that the addition of territories (e.g., Louisiana Purchase) was unconstitutional. The lawful addition of territories would have required a Constitutional amendment.

I disagree, however, that the addition of States requires a Constitutional amendment. And this is an abstract question insofar as it concerns Constitutional law.

Article IV, Section 3 states that "New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union." It does not mention a two-thirds majority, and therefore, a simple majority is implied (a super majority cannot be implied, and the idea that this clause implies an amendment is indefensible). Accordingly, the simple majority vote to admit Texas was Constitutional.

As for consent, given the democratic nature of the Senate, a majority vote constitutes the consent of the Senate. At the time, the Senate represented the States. Therefore, the consent of the Senate is the consent of the States.

Ralph: Everyone here is familiar with the Constitution. You don't add anything to the conversation by interjecting that the Constitution allows for Congress to add new states. Everyone knows this.

My point, and the point of those objecting to the Louisiana Purchase 200 or so years ago, is that the Constitution doesn't authorize additional territory, colonies, etc. Thus, to make that addition, and thus any states that grow from it, legitimate, there must be a Constitutional amendment. Because amending the Constitution is extremely difficult, and because accomplishing something by executive fiat is very easy, Jefferson opted for the latter.

To draw an ana1ogy, the Constitution permitted slavery but outlaws the slave trade (at least starting in 1808). Had someone succeeded in breaking the slave trade law, could they then, once caught when inside the country with their slaves, appeal to the laws permitting slavery? This seems to be what your argument is with regard to territory and statehood--that it's unconstitutional to add territory, but if you can get away with it, then it's okay to make new states from the unconstitutional territory.

I also think your argument suffers from taking such an abstract approach to such concrete cases. The addition of territory has, in almost every case, been connected with statehood. Texas, for instance, became a territory within the United States and then a state within the same year. Everyone knew that Texas statehood was a fait accompli once Texas annexation occurred. Yet, you are pretending as if there is no link between acquisition and statehood. All of U.S. history says otherwise.

Because the addition of new areas, and new states that followed new areas, so fundamentally alters the original agreement, the original agreement must be altered to make those additions, and the states that come from them, legitimate. If certain states bypass that process to become states, of course some of the older states will, rightfully, complain.

Why have a Constitution when you can alter it by a simple majority vote in Congress? Or by fiat?