Jefferson vs Lincoln

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
241

[quote]pushharder wrote:

Well, of course they did. They were Federalists (Madison did later switch sides).

If you choose to only list quotes and opinions of Federalists you surely will build a strong case of anti-secession.[/quote]

Perhaps the fierciest Unionist of all was Jackson, an ardent Democratic-Republican. It wasn’t a “Federalists” versus “Jeffersonian Republicans” debate, because it wasn’t one of purely “big government” versus “small government”.

The revisionism continues to ignore the salient facts. Right before the election of 1860, the Slave Power attempted an expansion of federal law that would have been the largest expansion of federal power prior to the New Deal in order to preserve slavery. The “states’s rights” argument regarding secession in 1860 was only rejuvenated after the attempt to expand the federal government to protect the institution of slavery failed.

There are no consistent principles in play here. There was nothing in the South’s “secession argument” that had anything to do with the principles of limited government - it was the politics of selfishness, nothing else.

242

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
What are you talking about?

If your fathers were sold into bondage to a given government with (supposedly) at the time agreement that they and their descendents could never leave, though probably most voting had no idea they were agreeing to such a thing and it was not plainly stated, how dare you think that is not binding upon you and at this time you and others could be free to make your own decision?

Today the citizens of the States are born into “perpetual Union” under the Washington DC central government and if those of any state thought to do differently, they should be invaded and, if necessary to force their return, destroyed just as the South was. “Insurrectionists” and traitors.

You actually think you or anyone has a right of freedom and self-determination that amounts to anything beyond paling into nothingness compared to the God status of the Federal Government?

What a maroon![/quote]

This is why I think the founders took secession as a given: its the ultimate control on an out-of-control central government. Too bad they didn’t put it in the Constitution. I guess they thought anyone crazy enough to try to force states to remain in the Union against their will would be terrified of starting…a bloody…fratricidal conflict.

Guess they didn’t count on ‘Honest’ Abe…

243

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
There was nothing in the South’s “secession argument” that had anything to do with the principles of limited government - it was the politics of selfishness, nothing else.[/quote]

Acting in your self-interest is bad? If they didn’t act in their self-interest, who would?

244

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

“Legal” or not, if there were a civil war today wherein the seceding side was propounding a return to a constitutional republic, or something even closer to my principles, I would fight for that side. No human document or institution, no matter how noble, carries the authority of holy writ as if it were Divinely inspired and hence ultimately binding upon the conscience above all else.

In other words it is conceivable to me that something like our constitution be violated in one way so as to preserve the rest whether the majority sees it that way or not. I am thinking in general principle with no reference to the actual civil war or related history at all.[/quote]

If true, why not request a constitutional convention and states that form the “side” of wanting to return to the principles of a constitutional republic can make an ulitatum or respectfully request to leave and form their own government? When the document itself proscribes the peaceful way of addressing exactly your concerns, why would you skip this step (assuming you would)?
[/quote]

Maybe because you’re few in number and will get out voted? Duh.

245

What was “unpeaceful” about forming the Confederacy?

246

[quote]Headhunter wrote:

Acting in your self-interest is bad? If they didn’t act in their self-interest, who would?
[/quote]

So “limited government” isn’t a good or principled thing in and of itself? Big government or small, as long as the South’s self-interest was promoted - the preservation of slavery, America’s first experiment in the rudiments of socialism - who cares? Self-interest above all, whether we expand the state or shrink it, which was the Slave Power’s aim?

Your uninformed opinions have moved from the incoherent to the vile.

248

Ah, but what military action of Lincoln – or of Washington DC, ever at any time – cost only the life of a cow?

Relative to any standard ever established or met for even a moment by Washington DC, the peacefulness of the driving out of Union troops from Fort Sumter was astoundingly peaceful.

And even then, the formation of the Confederacy and secession was not the direct cause of the cow’s death. Foreign troops cannot remain on a country’s soil after orders to remove themselves. If Washington DC had been peacable, they could have removed the troops and had diplomatic meetings. Why, they could even have sent a strongly worded letter. :wink:

“HANS BRIX! YOU’RE BREAKING MY BALLS HERE!!!”

or as the case may be, Robert E Ree.

But Lincoln was far less peacable than is say Kim Jong Il.

249

[quote]Headhunter wrote:

This is why I think the founders took secession as a given: [/quote]

Good Lord, this is just getting plain stupid. Do the secessionists ever produce a single shred of evidence supporting this idea in the face of so much evidence to the contrary?

250

[quote]pushharder wrote:

I think the whole controversy over the Missouri Compromise in 1819 (and earlier the Northwest Ordinance) disputes your idea that secession/union was “settled” political “science”.[/quote]

Oh yeah, how so, with respect to the right of secession, as opposed to mere differences on the slavery question?

251

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

“Legal” or not, if there were a civil war today wherein the seceding side was propounding a return to a constitutional republic, or something even closer to my principles, I would fight for that side. No human document or institution, no matter how noble, carries the authority of holy writ as if it were Divinely inspired and hence ultimately binding upon the conscience above all else.

In other words it is conceivable to me that something like our constitution be violated in one way so as to preserve the rest whether the majority sees it that way or not. I am thinking in general principle with no reference to the actual civil war or related history at all.[/quote]

If true, why not request a constitutional convention and states that form the “side” of wanting to return to the principles of a constitutional republic can make an ulitatum or respectfully request to leave and form their own government? When the document itself proscribes the peaceful way of addressing exactly your concerns, why would you skip this step (assuming you would)?
[/quote]

This is all hypothesis for me and taken to logical conclusion. I’m not calling for anybody’s secession and would consider it a monumental tragedy for this nation to split into formal factions though division is certainly the order of the day anyway.

That said, what do you honestly think a “request” for a constitutional convention for the purpose of secession would get somebody today? It would amount to a mere formality put forth for the history books so the rebels could go on record as having tried it the peaceful way.

I’m asking how we proceed if one group is bruising their finger on the constitution and history pointing out the insoluble nature of “the union” and the other is pointing their finger at them exclaiming the numerous areas of constitutional law other than secession that the union group doesn’t seem to hold so dear.

Picture Ten American Commandments, the tenth being "thou shalt not under any circumstances whatever, take any action designed to separate yourself from or demonstrate insubordination toward this sovereign nation heretofore declared to exist as one unbreakable union of the several United States.

Except the first nine are routinely broken with brazen impunity.

Either we respect the binding nature the first nine and leave or respect the binding nature of the tenth and live passively with the first nine becoming ever more meaningless.

Is it more “constitutional” and hence “legal” to do the latter than the former?

252

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:

And even then, the formation of the Confederacy and secession was not the direct cause of the cow’s death. Foreign troops cannot remain on a country’s soil after orders to remove themselves. If Washington DC had been peacable, they could have removed the troops and had diplomatic meetings. [/quote]

The Southern States were not foreign soil because the Confederacy was not recognized as a legitimate foreign country. To remove troops and then diplomatically meet is to concede that they are a bona fide nation, when, of course, they were not.

As a housekeeping matter, you haven’t gotten one thing right on this entire thread. Still waiting on your explanation for the constitutional authority for Lincoln’s vaunted power to eliminate slavery in the entire Union all by himself. Looking forward to it.

254

Let’s not forget the principled and high-minded Confederacy - those champions of the God-given right to secede and stand firm against tyranny and for liberty - sent troops to East Tennessee to prevent counties in Tennessee from seceding from the Confederacy.

These East Tennesseans - numbering among some 26 counties - actually petitioned the state legislature for a blessing to leave. The state government denied the request and the Confederacy sent some 4,000 militia to enforce loyalty to the Confederacy.

Secession, of course, wasn’t some thoughtful principle - it was a convenient, ad hoc approach to get what you want and was conveniently dispensed with it no longer advanced the Confederacy’s interests.

Gadzooks - also, the Confederacy forced a people to stay at gunpoint. I can hear the heartbreak among “looneytarians” all the way down South where I live.

So, in sum, track the history - the Slave Power was, first, pro-big government to protect slavery, then pro-secession/“states’ rights!” to protect slavery, and then pro-big government/anti-secession to “hold together at gunpoint!” the new nation designed to preserve slavery.

Well done in picking your heroes, looneytarians.

255

[quote]pushharder wrote:

I already mentioned one instance, Pinckney and his comments.[/quote]

Even way back in 1819 when Missouri and Maine were being considered for statehood and the Missouri Compromise had been proposed, Sen. William Pinkney of MD argued for what is called “the compact view, wherein he asserted that the United States was a collection of equal sovereignties and Congress lacked the constitutional authority over those sovereignties.” * Schweikart & Allen

Really? An isolated quote from a Senator, out of context, is your evidence that the question of secession was this open, hot question? Hell, John C. Calhous was talking about it - that doesn’t mean that the question was “up in the air”.

I do not claim the question was “settled” - it clearly wasn’t “settled” until the Civil War. But this idea that it was an open, good faith political question where two sides were debating it as an open question is simply false. When the question was raised in the 1830s, it was controversial and nearly brought the country into conflict.

And that is precisely what the secessionists wanted - if it was merely an “open question of political science”, the Slave Power would not have used it as a measure of brinksmanship over and over.

Were it an open question like you suggest, it would have been raised all the time on all sorts of national debates and federal policies. It wasn’t.

259

[quote]pushharder wrote:
So now we have talks, serious talks, in our antebellum history by of course, the South on many occasions, and by New England on at least one. What’s left, just the Middle Atlantic states? (The few western states at that time had just joined the Union and reasonably would not be discussing secession)

So why the insistence that it was a topic that didn’t come up very often?[/quote]

Because the frequency with which erroneous opinion arises is not a phenomenon restricted to the Internet?