| September 17 |  |
Editor says, what if the foresight of two lesser known Founding Fathers, Patrick Henry and George Clinton had prevented the American Civil War? Please note that the opinions expressed in this post do not necessarily reflect the views of the author(s).
| Share this Article on: |  Facebook |  Twitter |
In 1787, on this day the foundation and source of the legal authority underlying the existence of both the Union and the federal government was adopted by the Constitutional Convention and later ratified at a local level in the name of "We, the States".
A future-proofed US ConstitutionThe leader of the Virginia delegatation, Patrick Henry had originally refused to attend the Federal Convention, planning to use the power of his rhetoric to defeat the Constitution when it was later presented at the State Ratifying Convention. Persuaded to attend, he convinced the other delegates that the draft preamble smacked of consolidated government rather than confederation. "We, the People" was both improper and illegal because "the people had no right to enter into leagues, alliances or confederations. States and foreign powers are the only proper agents for his kind of government".
Evidence of the success of Henry's gambit soon followed. The Governor of New York, George Clinton issued a "Neutrality Proclamation" after President George Washington had done so at a federal level. And the heads of both Clinton and Henry' would be sculptured at Mount Rushmore, symbolizing their critical involvement in the protection of States Rights at the birth of the Republic.
Entry posted by Todayinah Editor
© The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Founding Fathers by Brion McClanahan (2009)Story Tags
Permalinks: Post, Day. Browse Thread: Alternate Nations Source: Wikipedia Labels: Patrick Henry, US Constitution, America, States Rights, Philadelphia.
~ I'm not sure how this would have changed things, but changed they would be.
~ It mitght have given added force in the nineteenth century and later to John Calhoun's argument that the Union was a "compact" or treaty among sovereign states, making secession appear more legitimate.
~ It would have made little difference. the Preamble has always been
considered a statement of ideals, not of government or of law.
At any rate, the various states were considered sovereign.
By the way, I suggest looking at the whole, proper name of the
Articles of Confederation, and after your double take, applying
it to the right of secession -- it couldn't have existed.
~ A constitution is only as good as the national government or the nation's people are willing to enforce it. The Tenth Ammendment is even more solid in the status of the states yet that has not detered the Federal government's grab for power.
~ Preventing federal tyranny at the cost of abetting local tyrannies. Not a net benefit, but then I am biased.
~ Well said, Griffin. With a much weakened federal government, the question of succession would have arisen seriously before the Civil War with bids by the Northeast at the Hartford Convention, plus South Carolina, as well as the legitimacy of Rhode Island. Maybe there wouldn't be a Civil War since America had already broken up into a loose military/economic confederation.
© Today in Alternate History, 2013-. All characters appearing in this work are fictitious. Any resemblance to real persons, living or dead, is purely coincidental.
