[quote]doogie wrote:
thunderbolt23 wrote:
If states can secede from the Union, can counties secede from states?
Can cities secede from counties?
Eastern Tennessee had large pro-Union elements. Could the eastern counties of Tennessee secede from a Confederate Tennessee and join the Union?
Are you being an ass, or do you not understand the history of the Constitutional Convention and the ratification?
[/quote]
Under the Articles of Confederation, secession was a moot point, as all of the States were sovereign countries. Kind of like the European Community. This didn’t work out too well, also kind of like the EC.
As a condition to its ratifying the new federal Constitution, Rhode Island demanded that it could reserve the right to secede. The other States agreed that this was reasonable. I believe that Texas, when it entered the Union, made a similar condition, but Doogie would know this better than I.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
…Then again, is the big government bureaucracy created by a Democratic administration (say, the Clinton administration) more dominating than that created by a Republican administration (say, the Bush administration)?
…
[/quote]
The difference between the two is Clinton had a Congress that was in opposition.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Varqanir wrote:
…Then again, is the big government bureaucracy created by a Democratic administration (say, the Clinton administration) more dominating than that created by a Republican administration (say, the Bush administration)?
…
The difference between the two is Clinton had a Congress that was in opposition.[/quote]
Meaning that the administration was stifled in reaching its full potential.
Slavery was the greatest issue of the age since America’s inception, even in the Constitutional Congress in 1787.
The Kansas-Nebraska Act, The Missouri Compromise, the Wilmot Proviso, the Dred Scott decision, John Brown’s Raid, The Compromise of 1850, the Crittenden Compromise… these were all the Roe v. Wades of the day. If you cannot see that slavery was by far the biggest issue in Congress and in American politics, then you are a fool.
[/quote]
Southern revisionist history? Sure. That makes sense. Yankees have a much better understanding of why the South seceded. Winners write history, but that doesn’t mean it’s true.
You completely ignore the tarrif of 1812 (“Tariff of Abominations”), the Nullification Crisis, the Force Bill, the Compromise of 1833, and the Northern reaction to the raid on Harpers Ferry.
I realize they have to dumb things down for you up there. It doesn’t surprise me that your understanding of the war is limited to three syllables (slavery). How many people in the South do you think owned slaves? Enough to hold off the Union for 4 years?
I’ll help you out. States’ rights was the biggest issue of the day. In fact, it was the biggest issue going all the way back to 1776.
I can’t tell if you are ignorant or just dishonest.
You think quoting a bunch of books written by Yankees a hundred years after the war made your point? That would be funny if it wasn’t so sad.
Why don’t you read what someone who actually fought and risked his life for the South had to say about the causes for the war?
“As for the South, it is enough to say that perhaps eighty per cent. of her armies were neither slave-holders, nor had the remotest interest in the institution. No other proof, however, is needed than the undeniable fact that at any period of the war from its beginning to near its close the South could have saved slavery by simply laying down its arms and returning to the Union.”
–“Reminiscences Of The Civil War”, (Chapter I)
By John B. Gordon, Maj. Gen. CSA
“The South maintained with the depth of religious conviction that the Union formed under the Constitution was a Union of consent and not of force; that the original States were not the creatures but the creators of the Union; that these States had gained their independence, their freedom, and their sovereignty from the mother country, and had not surrendered these on entering the Union; that by the express terms of the Constitution all rights and powers not delegated were reserved to the States; and the South challenged the North to find one trace of authority in that Constitution for invading and coercing a sovereign State.”
–“Reminiscences Of The Civil War”, (Chapter I)
By John B. Gordon, Maj. Gen. CSA
or how about this:
"But great and wide as was that cause [slavery] in its far reaching effects, a close study of the history of the times will bring us to the conclusion that it was the fear of a mischief far more extensive and deeper even than this which drove cool and reflecting minds in the South to believe that it was better to make the death struggle at once than submit tamely to what was inevitable, unless its coming could be averted by force. Men, too old to be driven blindly by passion, women, whose gentle and kindly instincts were deeply impressed by the horrors of war, and young men, with fortune and position yet to be won in an open and inviting field, if peace could be maintained so as to secure the opportunities of liberty and fair treatment, united in the common cause and determined to make a holocaust of all that was dear to them on the altars of war sooner then submit without resistance to the loss of liberty, honor and property by a cruel abuse of power and a breach of plighted faith on the part of those who had professed to enter with them into a union of justice and fraternal affection.
You know damn well that Lincoln didn’t free ALL slaves, right? Just those in states still in rebellion. Meaning those in border states which had not seceded from the Union, and those in states already under Union control weren’t freed.
–“Origin Of The Late War” by
Honorable Robert Mercer Taliaferro Hunter, of Virginia (written around 1876)
or:
“What, then, was the true cause which impelled Virginia to secede and for which her people fought? It may be stated in a word. Statesmen from the dawn of the Union had declared, and her people had been educated to believe, that any State had the constitutional right to peaceably withdraw from the Union. When the Cotton States adopted that course and formed the Southern Confederacy, Virginia, while deploring the event, still felt they had but exercised an undoubted right, and therefore any armed coercion on the part of the Federal government was not warranted by the Constitution.
Mr. Davis, in one of his first messages, thus stated the position of this new government: ‘In independence we seek no conquests, no aggrandizements, no concessions of any kind from the States with which we have lately been confederated. All we ask is to be let alone; that those who never held power over us shall not now attempt our subjugation by arms.’
Virginia believed they had the right to make that declaration, and to take that stand; and because of this conviction, and because of its repeated declaration in the most solemn and authoritative form, both by legislative enactment and the avowals of her leaders, to have remained in the Union and joined in the coercion of the seceding States, would have been a repudiation of her principles and an act of tyranny and dishonor.”
– “The Vindication Of The South”
by Hon. B. B. Munford
From the Richmond, Va., Times, October 22, 1899.
Col. John M. Wimer, CSA who died in Confederate service, shortly before the war had been elected mayor of St. Louis as an Emancipation Party candidate.
General Sterling Price, CSA the great Confederate general, had been a Unionist until the Federal government overstepped any legal or constitutional boundaries in Missouri.
If the war was about slavery, why didn’t Lincoln free any slaves? He made a proclamation that was meaningless. He could have freed the slaves in the border states. He could have freed the slaves in the Southern states occupied by Union troops. He did neither. If the border states knew the war was about slavery and the Union’s victory would mean an end to it, why didn’t they join the South at the beginning? Why would Lincoln fear they’d join the South if their slaves were freed if that was the very reason for the war to begin with?
His own Secretary of State said the Proclamation was an illusion in which “we show our sympathy with the slaves by emancipating the slaves where we cannot reach them and holding them in bondage where we can set them free.”
At the start of the war, Lincoln actively resisted emancipation efforts. He voided earlier emancipation proclamations issued by the Union generals John C. Fr?mont and David Hunter in their military districts. He wouldn’t enforce provisions passed by Congress in 1861 and 1862 that called for the confiscation and emancipation of slaves owned by persons supporting the rebellion.
If the war was about slavery, why didn’t Lincoln actively try to end the institution?
Today you’d call Lincold a white supremacist. The Great Emacipator said, ?There is a physical difference between the two [white and black races], which, in my judgment, will forever forbid their living together upon the footing of perfect equality?. I am in favor of the race to which I belong, having the superior position.? When asked what should be done with the blacks, he said, ?Send them to Liberia.? He wanted to colonize every last black to Africa, Haiti, or Central America: ?I cannot make it better known than it already is, that I strongly favor colonization.? He termed the elimination of every black from American soil ?a glorious consummation? and ?the true solution to the race question.?
If the war was about slavery, why were Northern Unionists the last slaveholders in America? In fact, a slave freed in the South could go north and end up being enslaved in St. Louis.
General U. S. Grant’s wife, Julia Dent Grant, owned slaves throughout the war. She brought them with her when she went to visit Grant in his various camps, choosing routes that avoided states where the slaves might automatically be freed. Those who acknowledge this always emphasize that they were his wife’s slaves. Grant, through his own words, was not particularly opposed to slavery at the time of the war. He came–as did many–to the realization of the wrongness of slavery in later years.
[quote]
This isn’t a war in a forign land we are talking about, this is the capital of the country, your country, becoming surrounded with slave holding, brutally repressive states. You’re not going to suspend habeas corpus?[/quote]
[quote]
So the same men that hold other men in bondage are allowed to bitch when their own freedom is curtailed?
I think fucking not.[/quote]
Again. What percentage of people in the south do you think owned slaves? What percentage of the women and children burned out of cities in the South do you think owned slaves?
The first place habeus corpus was suspended by Lincoln was in Maryland. On August 8, 1862, it was suspended NATIONWIDE. As a result, people IN THE NORTH were arrested for criticizing Lincoln. Even before that, on Aug. 6, Union Gen. Henry Halleck arrested one Missourian for saying, “[I] wouldn’t wipe my ass with the stars and stripes.” Overall between 10,000 and 15,000 people were incarcerated and held without trial.
About 4,000 un-Constitutional military trials of civilians occurred during the war. Basic constitutional requirements were ignored. The Army courts had no juries, as the Constitution mandates. Nor did they require a unanimous vote to convict. A majority vote sufficed, except in capital cases, which required a two-thirds vote.
You think it makes sense for Lincoln to shit all over the Constitution because some states want to peaceably leave the Union, but you think it is horrible for Bush to try and protect the Union from enemies who would not hesitate to wipe us off the planet?
I’ll summarize for you.
Bush is hurting Islamo-fascist murdering scum. Lincoln was arresting people who didn’t like him.
Lincoln was a war criminal of the worst sort. He targeted civilians, burned entire cities to the ground, and allowed his troops to sack the South.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Varqanir wrote:
…Then again, is the big government bureaucracy created by a Democratic administration (say, the Clinton administration) more dominating than that created by a Republican administration (say, the Bush administration)?
…
The difference between the two is Clinton had a Congress that was in opposition.
Meaning that the administration was stifled in reaching its full potential.
Bullshit. States rights is something that can be, and has been, worked out between the state and federal level.
The issue would have been far, far less inflammatory if slavery was not around.
[/quote]
“Worked out”? It’s not like they sat down, drank a few beers and talked it out.
Was it worked out in 1798 when Jefferson wrote the Kentucky Resolutions:
"Resolved, that the several States composing the United States of America, are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their general government; but that by compact under the style and title of a Constitution for the United States and of amendments thereto, they constituted a general government for special purposes, delegated to that government certain definite powers, reserving each State to itself, the residuary mass of right to their own self-government; and that whensoever the general government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force: That to this compact each State acceded as a State, and is an integral party, its co-States forming, as to itself, the other party....each party has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions as of the mode and measure of redress"?
When do you think it was “worked out”?
It was “worked out” with the blood of 618,000 Americans and the desecration of the Constitution.
So your premise is that the relatively few slave owners convinced the other 96% of whites in the South to risk everything they owned, their families, and their very lives to support something that didn’t affect them at all?
Then, after the war, these very men who were willing to risk EVERYTHING to defend slavery couldn’t stand the thought of being seen as badguys, so they decided to concoct an alternative rationalizatin for the war (that being States’ rights)?
That makes about as much sense as calling a place with 108 toxic dumps and the highest population density in the nation “The Garden State.”
Is calling them “Yankee authors” inaccurate?
I’m white trash, not a redneck.
Are you just pretending that I didn’t explain to you that Lincoln suspended habeas corpus in the NORTH first and that he jailed NORTHERN Americans who disagreed with him? Or are you admitting that the Northern states were brutally repressive?
Yes, they wanted to leave peacably. But as you stated, “The South did not have the option to leave, and that was made clear.”
See how that works?
[quote]
Lincoln’s situation was far more pressing than Bush’s. The Lincoln administration was intent on preserving this country in a time of massive Civil War. That differs alot from a made up war to protect US interests in the Middle East.[/quote]
Bush’s situation is that the United States was attacked by people who want to destroy us. In response he has jailed some FOREIGN illegal combatants and toppled a regime that repeatedly violated sixteen United Nations Security Council Resolutions by supporting terrorists and refusing to allow international weapons inspectors to oversee the destruction of the weapons of mass destruction he claimed to have.
Lincoln’s situation was not dire. The Southern states wanted to leave the Union they had voluntarily joined. Linconln’s response was to destroy everything the U.S. stood for and waste 600,000 lives. If they had been allowed to leave, Lincoln would still have been the President of the United States and the Constitution would still have meant something. What was the harm in that?
They made the last real stand in America against tyranny. They believed these words had a meaning:
…Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, ? That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. [/quote]
Ah, but declarations of independence from tyrannical governments have always been met with fearsome displays of force by the armies of the tyrants.
And speaking of which, Happy Patriots’ Day.
Today is the day, two hundred thirty-one years ago, on which the British marched into Concord, Massachusetts to confiscate the guns and ammunition of the colonists, and were told, in effect, “molon labe!” (“come and get 'em!”) Following the so-called “shot heard round the world” (and many. many other shots, to be sure), the British were driven out of Lexington and Concord, all the way to Boston.
Today is also the day, sixty-three years ago, that the Nazis rolled their tanks, machine guns and artillery into the Jewish ghetto in Warsaw, and were met with stubborn resistance from men and women armed only with pistols, shotguns and molotov cocktails, who held off the SS for forty-two days.
It is also, by hideous coincidence, the day a bunch of modern-day stormtroopers marched into a little town in Texas, ostensibly to confiscate a few illegal smallarms from an obscure religious group. This standoff, as we all know, ended with seventy-six people including women and children, being burned alive.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Varqanir wrote:
You know, it’s a real treat to see the conservatives bashing a Republican president, and the liberals defending him. This doesn’t happen every day.
Seriously, though, I think Lincoln’s justifications for his actions were pretty shaky, but even assuming he had ironclad reasons, the result was to set a precedent for abuse of executive power that continues to this day.
Sic semper tyrannis.
Quoting Boothe after he shot Lincoln? That’s the way to solidify your argument.
Boy, that’s gratitude for you. I just said five minutes ago that I agree with you, and now this. ;p Actually, it’s the state motto of Virgina, birthplace of men with names like Tom and George, whose job it was to stand up to tyrants.
Come now…you’re far too intelligent to weasel out of that. Also, may I ask: how do you so such minuatae (spelling?) about American history? Are you teaching in Japan? Your knowledge of our constitution is excellent.
First of all, secession was NOT protected by law. It may have been implicit as a right, but was never spelled out. This is why Lincoln had to address the issue in his Inaugural address.
“Amendment X
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.”
Ergo, protected by law.
That’s the argument and difficulty Lincoln had. The right to secede is ‘kind of’ there and ‘kind of’ not. Its somewhat akin to Bertrand Russell’s ‘Set of All Sets’ dilemma: Is the set of all sets a member of itself?
Lincoln took it to mean that a state has powers only as long as it remains a state, within the Union. Leaving the Union was thus breaking the contract and all bets were off.
I personally think that the states had the right to leave the Union. In a barbaric world though, its probably fortunate that the Union did NOT break apart.
Once again, I am surprised that as a Conservative you are for a powerful central government, but I agree. [/quote]
Well, to be honest, this doesn’t cleave down predictable party lines. I favor a strong national government and a limited one.
But the way you posed the statement is, in my view, too simplistic. The legitimacy of secession is not just a matter of which side you are on in terms of size of the central government. If someone favors secession because they like a small national government, they haven’t done their homework. These questions go right to the heart of government itself and the the design of the political framework.
Moreover, fellas like Washington and Hamilton were most certainly the ‘conservatives’ of their time, and they were much more nationalist than the ‘liberal’ Jefferson.
I think so, yes - when there is real oppression and you have been denied the opportunity at self-government.
In this case, was the South oppressed? Was the South denied its say in the representative government?
No.
The South was basically going to be a democratic loser, well within the confines of normal lawmaking and representative government. The slavery compromise in the Constitution allowed it unfettered until 1808 - then after that, it was on the table to handled by the legislature. When the tides shift on policy, the law changes. The South saw both in the short and long term - slavery was on its way out. They seceded because they were destined to lose in the democratic arena, squalling all the while about ‘rights’ that were there the whole time.
The Southern states knew damn well that the slavery compromise ended in 1808 - and they joined up anyway. There was always the risk that slavery would be abolished by way of Congress passing a law outlawing it - it is right there in the unvarnished Constitution the Southern states ratified. To pretend like that possibility wasn’t on the table is intellectually dishonest by the Confederates then and the neo-Confederates now.
If the Southern states got all fussy about slavery being abolished in the Congress, well caveat emptor, or ‘buyer beware’. Squealing about how Lincoln “shredded the Constitution!” makes little sense when the South tried to legitimize leaving the Union over the fact that the Congress was doing its constitutional job post-1808. That makes about as much sense as seceding over the Congress establishing post offices and toll roads.
Slavery was not enshrined in the Constitution forever - it was destined to put to the legislative test. If you don’t like it, no problem - reject the contract. But if you accept the contract, and then have the legislature fairly go the other way than to your liking, and you want to take your ball and go home because you didn’t win in a contest that was fair and square - nope.
On a non-political note - that is the wimpiest argument that can be made.
See, here is a different point - I think it could have been resolved by representative government. It would have been slow and piecemeal. As for crippling the South, it would not be in the best interests of the nation to have any section of it ‘crippled’ by way of policy.
That being said, I don’t subscribe to the materialist approach. That is a rather amoral approach.
“Every State shall abide by the determination of the United States in Congress assembled, on all questions which by this confederation are submitted to them. And the 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.”
"And we do further solemnly plight and engage the faith of our respective constituents, that they shall abide by the determinations of the United States in Congress assembled, on all questions, which by the said Confederation are submitted to them. And that the Articles thereof shall be inviolably observed by the States we respectively represent, and that the Union shall be perpetual. "
First of all, secession was NOT protected by law. It may have been implicit as a right, but was never spelled out. This is why Lincoln had to address the issue in his Inaugural address.
“Amendment X
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.”
Ergo, protected by law.
That’s the argument and difficulty Lincoln had. The right to secede is ‘kind of’ there and ‘kind of’ not. Its somewhat akin to Bertrand Russell’s ‘Set of All Sets’ dilemma: Is the set of all sets a member of itself?
Lincoln took it to mean that a state has powers only as long as it remains a state, within the Union. Leaving the Union was thus breaking the contract and all bets were off.
I personally think that the states had the right to leave the Union. In a barbaric world though, its probably fortunate that the Union did NOT break apart.[/quote]
Hmmm. That’s a good point. I suppose if we were to carry the argument past counties, cities and towns, and assume that an individual has the right to “secede” from society, then he would, in effect, become an “outlaw”: no longer subject to the laws of society, but also no longer under their protection.
In which case (jumping back to the Civil War), perhaps what Lincoln should have done was let the Southern states secede, recognize the Confederacy as a union of sovereign nations, then ask Congress to declare war on South Carolina for failing to protect Fort Sumter from insurgent attack.
Quoting Boothe after he shot Lincoln? That’s the way to solidify your argument.
Boy, that’s gratitude for you. I just said five minutes ago that I agree with you, and now this. ;p Actually, it’s the state motto of Virgina, birthplace of men with names like Tom and George, whose job it was to stand up to tyrants.
Come now…you’re far too intelligent to weasel out of that. [/quote]
Ha! Oh, all right. You win that point.
Well, thank you again, but “your” Constitution is also mine. I think you missed the part where I said I wasn’t Japanese. And the minutiae of history, particularly military history, is one of my great passions.
Far from being an ass - they are fair questions: what is the difference? If a constitution is no more than a treaty by which consent or lack of it allows you to opt in or opt at will, why would there be a difference between a federal and a state constitution?
Just because you don’t have a plausible answer doesn’t mean I am an ass for asking the question.
If the right to secede is natural and inherent, presumably it extends further than the reach of just the federal government.
[/quote]
Ok. I think that cities, counties, colonies and states should be able to secede if the majority of the inhabitants wish to. If they think they can make it on their own, they should be free to withdraw and give it a go.
The Constitutional Convention was intended to “improve” the Articles of Confederation, but Madison and the Nationalists hijacked it. The Confederation wasn’t improved, it was scrapped completely in favor of a republic. If Jefferson or Patrick Henry was there, we’d probably still be functioning under an ammended Articles of Confederation.
Only eight years after it was ratified, we already had Jefferson writing, “…the several States composing the United States of America, are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their General Government; but that, by a compact under the style and title of a Constitution for the United States, and of amendments thereto, they constituted a General Government for special purposes, – delegated to that government certain definite powers, reserving, each State to itself, the residuary mass of right to their own self-government; and that whensoever the General Government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force; that to this compact each State acceded as a State, and is an integral party, its co-States forming, as to itself, the other party: that the government created by this compact was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself; since that would have made its discretion, and not the Constitution, the measure of its powers; but that, as in all other cases of compact among powers having no common judge, each party has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions as of the mode and measure of redress.”
How exactly does adhering to the ideals expressed in the Declaration of Independence (“Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed”) equate to anarchy?
Even if your assertion were true, I’d prefer anarchy over tyranny any day. So did many others:
Cause of Separation
Robert Barnwell Rhett
State Convention of South Carolina 1860
The one great evil from which all other evils have flowed, is the overthrow of the Constitution of the United States. The Government of the United States is no longer the government of a confederate republic, but of a consolidated democracy. It is no longer a free government, but a despotism. It is, in fact, such a government as Great Britain attempted to set over our fathers, and which was resisted and defeated by a seven years struggle for independence.
The Southern States now stand exactly in the same position toward the Northern States that our ancestors in the colonies did toward Great Britain. The Northern States, having the majority in Congress, claim the same power of omnipotence in legislation as the British Parliament. “The general welfare” is the only limit to the legislation of either; and the majority in Congress, as in the British Parliament, are the sole judges of the expediency of the legislation this “general welfare” requires. Thus the Government of the United States has become a consolidated Government, and the people of the Southern States are compelled to meet the very despotism their fathers threw off in the Revolution of 1776.
No man can for a moment believe that our ancestors intended to establish over their posterity exactly the same sort of Government thay had overthrown. The great object of the Constitution of the United States, in its internal operation, was, doubtless, to secure the great end of the revolution - a limited free Gorvernment - a Government limited to those matters only which were general and common to all portions of the United States. All sectional or local interests were to be left to the States. By no other arrangement would they obtain free government by a Constitution common to so vast a Confederacy. Yet, by gradual and steady encroachments on the part of the North, and submission on the part of the South, the limitations in the Constitution have been swept away, and the Government of the United States has become consolidated, with a claim of limitless powers in its operations.
It is not in the power of human language to exclude false inferences, constructions, and perversions, in any constitution; and when vast sectional interests are to be subserved involving the appropriation of countless millions of money, it has not been the usual experience of mankind that words on parchment can arrest power. The Constitution of the United States, irrespective of the interposition of the States, rested on the assumption that power would yield to faith - that integrity would be stronger than interest, and that thus the limitations of the Constitution would be observed. The experiment has been fairly made. The Southern States, from the commencement of the Government, have striven to keep it within the orbit prescribed by the Constitution. The experiment has failed. The whole Constitution, by the constructions of the Northern people, has been swallowed up by a few words in its preamble.
Not only their fanatacism, but their erroneous views of the principles of free governments, render it doubtful whether, separated from the South, they can maintain a free Government among themselves. Brute numbers with them is the great element of free Government. A majority is infallible and omnipotent. “The right divine to rule in kings” is only transferred to their majority. The very object of all constitutions, in free, popoular Governments, is to restrain the majority.
South Carolina acting in her sovereign capacity, now thinks proper to secede from the Union. She did not part with her sovereignty in adopting the Constitution. The last thing a State can be presumed to have surrendered is her sovereignty. Her sovereignty is her life. Nothing but a clear, express grant, can alienate it. Inference should be dumb. Yet is is not at all surprising that those who have construed away all the limitations of the Constitution, should also by construction claim the annihilation of the sovereignty of the States. … They desire to establish a despotism, not only omnipotent in Congress, but omnipotent over the States; and as if to manifest the imperious necessity of our secession, they threaten us with the sword, to coerce submission to their rule.
[quote]
Moreover, the Constitution provides that the federal government can “suppress Insurrections and Rebellions”. A secession ipso facto is a rebellion against the current government, as every rebellion can be boiled down to stating that “the power you had over me yesterday you don’t have today because of my unilateral decision” - so why would the Constitution recognize the right of the national government to suppress rebellions while at the same time permitting unilateral rebellions anytime a state wanted it?
Do tell.[/quote]
You can’t be serious. Rebellions are organized opposition intended to change or overthrow existing authority. Secession is the act of withdrawing from membership in a group. Those are not equivalent things. The people of the south didn’t give a damn if the United States of America continued to exist. They just said, “This isn’t the deal we agreed to so we’re going home now. Ya’ll have a good time.”
Ok. I think that cities, counties, colonies and states should be able to secede if the majority of the inhabitants wish to. If they think they can make it on their own, they should be free to withdraw and give it a go. [/quote]
Nonsense. This is no government at all.
You are making my argument for me. Just because you didn’t like what became of the Constitutional Convention doesn’t mean it didn’t become that which you don’t like. You yourself are saying that a republic was created, not a confederacy. The confederacy was indeed scrapped, so arguments that states could act as though they were in a confederacy are null and void. State actions must be viewed in the context of the republic they joined, not the confederacy they used to belong to.
So what? What did the federal government do that overstepped its boundaries to warrant this vaunted secession?
And don’t say attack Southern states for seceding - that is backwards in time. The states seceded first - why? What did the government do that overstepped its Jeffersonian boundaries to permit rebellion?
Don’t hide behind the Declaration pretending that Southern states were upholding democratic ideals - they were doing the opposite. The federal government hadn’t wronged the Southern states - the government duly instituted by men was legislating away slavery, and the South, who had duly consented to participate, didn’t like the outcome. Participating in popular government means something other than joining up when you like it and leaving when you lose. Otherwise, that is no government at all.
As for ideals - try again. The South did more to wreck the concept of representative government than to promote it, which is what the Declaration of Independence was about.
What tyranny? After 1808, slavery was a legislative question. It could go either way - and losing in a representative government is not tyranny. Tyranny means you have no voice to participate, no control over your destiny. The Southern states had a voice, but they were losing - that ain’t oppression.
Then why do neo-Confederate so boldly proclaim themselves as ‘rebels’? Why do they wave a ‘rebel’ flag?
Moreover, if it is not a rebellion, why fire on Ft. Sumter?
And your last argument is weak - what the South got was exactly the deal they haggled for - no movement on the slavery issue till 1808. Post-1808, it as up for grabs. To pretend that the South didn’t get what they bargained for is absolutely ludicrous. If the South wanted slavery in perpetuity, they should have rejected ratification of the Constitution. They didn’t, knowing full well that slavery could be legislated away if the South became an electoral minority after 1808.
“If there be any among us who wish to dissolve the Union or to change its republican form, let them stand undisturbed, as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it.” ? Thomas Jefferson’s First Inaugural Address
“Any people anywhere, being inclined and
having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable, a most sacred right ? a right which we hope and believe is to liberate the world. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people, that can, may revolutionize, and make their own of so much of the territory as they inhabit.” ? Abraham Lincoln [!], January 12, 1848 speech in Congress
“The Union was formed by the voluntary agreement of the States; and these, in uniting together, have not forfeited their Nationality, nor have they been reduced to the condition of one and the same people. If one of the States chose to withdraw its name from the contract, it would be difficult to disprove its right of doing so ?” ? Alex de Tocqueville, Democracy In America
“If [the Declaration of Independence] justifies the secession from the British empire of 3,000,000 of colonists in 1776, we do not see why it would not justify the secession of 5,000,000 of Southrons from the Federal Union in 1861.” ? New York Tribune, December 17, 1860
“The error is in the assumption that the General Government is a party to the constitutional compact. The States ? formed the compact, acting as sovereign and independent communities.” ? John C. Calhoun
“The American people, North and South, went into the [Civil] war as citizens of their respective states, they came out as subjects ? what they thus lost they have never got back.” ? H.L. Mencken
“I have no idea that the Union can be maintained or restored by force. Nor do I believe in the value of a Union which can only be kept together by dint of a military force.” – United States Senator James Alfred Pearce of Maryland
“Any attempt to preserve the Union between the States of this Confederacy by force would be impracticable, and destructive of republican liberty.” --Maryland Congressman Jacob M. Kunkel
Quoting Boothe after he shot Lincoln? That’s the way to solidify your argument.
Boy, that’s gratitude for you. I just said five minutes ago that I agree with you, and now this. ;p Actually, it’s the state motto of Virgina, birthplace of men with names like Tom and George, whose job it was to stand up to tyrants.
Come now…you’re far too intelligent to weasel out of that.
Ha! Oh, all right. You win that point.
Also, may I ask: how do you so such minuatae (spelling?) about American history? Are you teaching in Japan? Your knowledge of our constitution is excellent.
Well, thank you again, but “your” Constitution is also mine. I think you missed the part where I said I wasn’t Japanese. And the minutiae of history, particularly military history, is one of my great passions.
Far more interesting than hentai anime! ;p
[/quote]
I did not realize that you were an American living in Japan. I publicly apologize for any insult.
Since I am a science/math teacher, my knowledge of history is not as extensive as yours. Would you care to share some of the names of books you’ve read in this regard? This is not some kind of trick – during the summer is when I catch up on my reading.
In a book called THE REAL LINCOLN, the author (whose name I’ve forgotten) writes that the main cause of the secession was high tariffs. The South was paying roughly 70% of all federal revenues and getting little in return.
Slavery was never a central issue for most people. When whites in the North figured out that the Radical Republicans in Congress DID start the war to end slavery, most were very pissed, especially with the introduction of the draft.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
In a book called THE REAL LINCOLN, the author (whose name I’ve forgotten) writes that the main cause of the secession was high tariffs. The South was paying roughly 70% of all federal revenues and getting little in return.
Slavery was never a central issue for most people. When whites in the North figured out that the Radical Republicans in Congress DID start the war to end slavery, most were very pissed, especially with the introduction of the draft.[/quote]
Modern looney-libertarians talk in the same tone as mindless Marxists: commitment to a supposedly infallible theory, claims of ‘false conciousness’, and belief in the inerring utopian view of their political economy to the point of such zeal that anyone who takes a different approach is the height of evil-intentions and bad faith.