Replies

FLT-bird mis-quoting: "If any State in the Union will declare that it prefers separation' over 'union,' 'I have no hesitation in saying, ‘let us separate.’ " --Thomas Jefferson"

The internet is chock full of fake Jefferson quotes, and on the face of it this appears to be one, else, why the phrase "over 'union' " inserted?

Yes, Jefferson is reported to have spoken kindly of Northern secession at the time of the Hartford Convention (1815) but when faced with real secession of his old Vice President, Aaron Burr, Jefferson had Burr arrested and tried for treason.

So Jefferson himself demonstrated Founders supported disunion by mutual consent but not unilateral unapproved declarations of secession at pleasure.

FLT-bird quoting: "Sen. Henry Cabot Lodge writes, 'It is safe to say that there was not a man in the country, from Washington and Hamilton to Clinton and Mason, who did not regard the new system as an experiment from which each and every State had a right to peaceably withdraw."

Peacefully via mutual consent.
No Founder ever supported unilateral unapproved declarations of secession at pleasure.
And as it happened, in early 1861 Deep South Fire Eaters did "withdraw" more-or-less peacefully.

FLT-bird: "A textbook used at West Point before the Civil War, A View of the Constitution, written by Judge William Rawle, supports this view."

Proving only that secessionist propaganda could be found almost anywhere.
In fact, no Founder supported unilateral unapproved declaration of secession at pleasure.
Instead, they considered mutual consent or necessity as required for disunion.

FLT-bird quoting Grant: "If they had foreseen it, the probabilities are they would have sanctioned the right of a State or States to withdraw rather than that there should be war between brothers."

In fact, our Founders understood clearly the distinction between peaceful disunion by mutual consent (as in 1788) versus rebellion, insurrection, domestic violence, invasion & treason.
Their new Constitution provides for defense against those latter events.

FLT-bird: "President John Tyler likewise believed a state had the right to leave the Union.
So did President John Quincy Adams who tried to organize the New England states to secede in the 1820’s."

President John Tyler was a Virginian, slave-holder and Confederate Congressman who unsurprisingly sympathized with secession arguments.

John Quincy Adams was Secretary of State under Prsident Monroe from 1817 to 1825 and US President from 1825 to 1829, so can't imagine what your claim here represents.
On the contrary, according to this analysis:

"In Adams’ formulation, 'We, the People' of the American Union had again come together, as surely as they had to throw off the despotic rule of George III, to throw off the Articles of Confederation.
Adams derided states’ rights as 'grossly immoral,' and the 'dishonest doctrine of despotic stare sovereignty.'
Those who advanced it were advocating a theory of government that stood in direct opposition to the principles of the Founding Era.[9]"

Young John Quincy Adams was a Founding Son, and the furthest possible from closet secessionist.
Old John Q gave young Congressman Abraham Lincoln advice on "contraband of war" which helped Old Abe write the Emancipation Proclamation.

FLT-bird quoting President Buchanan in 1860 on Congress & Union: "...the sword was not placed in their hand to preserve it by force."

Buchanan also argued that unilateral unapproved secession at pleasure was unconstitutional & illegal.

FLT-bird: "The Northern Federalists’ Hartford Convention declared in 1814 that a state had the right to secede in cases of 'absolute necessity' "

Exactly, that is my argument here: mutual consent (as in 1788) and necessity (as in 1776) are the two, and only two, legitimate reasons for disunion.
Neither condition existed in late 1860 and early 1861.

FLT-bird: "The Brits did not recognize any legal separation or independence by the colonies.
That’s why they went to the trouble of sending troops after all."

In 1774 Brits revoked the Massachusetts charter of self-government of 1691 and in 1775 declared the colonies in rebellion -- essentially a declaration of war and death sentence on our Founders.
That's as clear a separation as can be imagined.

FLT-bird: "The sovereign states determined they had 'necessity' just as the colonies did before them.
The situations were analogous in many ways "

But in 1776 necessity was clear & present to our Founders -- as clear as a rope around their necks.
Nothing remotely resembling such necessity existed in late 1860 & early 1861.

FLT-bird: "The situations were analogous in many ways as Robert Barnwell Rhett laid out in his address which was attached to South Carolina’s Declaration of Causes."

In 1776 our Founders laid out about two dozen material reasons for their separation from Britain.
Not a single one of those reasons applied to 1860 secessionists.

FLT-bird: "In both cases, the minority was being taxed by the majority for their own benefit rather than for the benefit of the minority community and the votes of the minority (the Brits offered a few seats in Parliament) were insufficient to protect them from this economic exploitation for others’ benefit."

The Brits did discuss American complaints about "taxation without representation" but offered nothing.
In 1860 Deep South slavers were not only represented in Congress, but over-represented due to the Constitution's 3/5 rule.
So there is no legitimate comparison -- zero, zip, nada legit -- between 1776 and 1860.

FLT-bird: "No you have it backwards.
The Colonies refused to be governed by the Brits any longer and took up arms against them in 1775.
They weren’t even sovereign like the states were."

Brits began separating themselves from their American colonies by (among others, see DOI):

Imposing taxation without representation.
Revoking Massachusetts' 1691 Charter of self-government.
Imposing British troops on colonists.
Declaring colonies in rebellion.
Taking military actions against colonial militias.

Through those acts & others Brits lost any claim to legitimate rule.
Nothing remotely resembling that existed in 1860.

FLT-bird: "The one who obviously lacks historical knowledge here is you."

I do note you've collected many of the standard Lost Causer proof-texts, but otherwise seem oblivious to what actually happened in either 1776 or 1860.

FLT-bird: "Patently false.
They had after all seceded from the British Empire in 1776 without consent."

Right, they separated from necessity which along with mutual consent they considered valid reasons for disunion.
No Founder ever supported unilateral unapproved declarations of secession at pleasure.

FLT-bird: "The sovereignty of each was recognized by name in the 1783 Treaty of Paris."

But not in the new US Constitution of 1787.
Just the opposite, the Constitution provides for Federal response to rebellion, insurrection, domestic violence, invasion and/or treason.

FLT-bird: "It was recognized by the Constitution’s two biggest Cheerleaders Madison and Hamilton in the Federalist Papers."

Then you will provide us with proof-texts for this claim?

FLT-bird: "It is up to each state to determine necessity for itself.
Its nonsensical to argue..."

It is certainly nonsensical to argue, as you do, the equation of conditions in 1776 with those of 1860.
There was no similarity whatever.
Founders clearly understood the distinctions between true necessity and unjustified actions at pleasure.

FLT-bird: "WRONG.
See the quotes above.
The artificial distinction you are trying to draw between 1776 and 1861 for the same act is laughable. "

Sorry, but none of your proof-texts actually support your argument.
They are irrelevant to it.

And what's laughable are your efforts to make an equation of 1776 and 1860.

FLT-bird: "Nope! The US has a signed treaty with Cuba in which the terms of a perpetual lease of Gitmo are laid out in 1903."

And South Carolina deeded land to the Federal Government for Fort Sumter.
Then, just like Cubans today, they declared Federal ownership illegitimate, but unlike Cubans who have not started war over Gitmo, Confederates used Fort Sumter as their excuse to start Civil War.

FLT-bird: "The analogy would be the Brits maintaining a fortress in a major harbor like NY after the 13 colonies’ secession from the British Empire, "

And Brits did maintain forces in New York City, along with dozens of forts & trading posts in New York, Ohio and Michigan for years after their 1781 Unconditional Surrender at Yorktown.
No Founding president used those Brit forts as their excuse to start another war, unlike Jefferson Davis in 1861.

FLT-bird: "The Brits did leave some troops in border areas and yes that was a source of friction."

But unlike Jefferson Davis no Founding President used those British forts, forces & trading posts as excuses to start a war.

FLT-bird: "And as Shelby Foote wrote in The Civil War, 'Lincoln had maneuvered [the Confederates] into the position of having either to back down or else to fire the first shot of the war.' "

It's still rubbish, regardless of how many parrot it.
In fact, Lincoln's duty was to resupply Fort Sumter just as President Buchanan had attempted in January, 1861.
Jefferson Davis' decision to use Lincoln's mission as his excuse to start Civil War was Davis' and his cabinet's alone.
And they all knew the consequences:

"Mr. President, at this time it is suicide, murder, and will lose us every friend at the North.
You will wantonly strike a hornet's nest which extends from mountain to ocean, and legions now quiet will swarm out and sting us to death.
It is unnecessary; it puts us in the wrong; it is fatal."[15]

FLT-bird quoting Lincoln to Fox: "I sincerely regret that the failure of the late attempt to provision Fort Sumter..."

That's the important part: Lincoln regrets failing to resupply Fort Sumter.
That he finds some consolation in Jefferson Davis' decision to start Civil War is not surprising, but cannot be called the reason for Lincoln's resupply mission.

BroJoeK
The internet is chock full of fake Jefferson quotes, and on the face of it this appears to be one, else, why the phrase “over ‘union’ “ inserted?

So Jefferson himself demonstrated Founders supported disunion by mutual consent but not unilateral unapproved declarations of secession at pleasure.

Pure BS. Jefferson made numerous quotes which all showed he supported the notion that government derives its legitimacy from the consent of the governed. This was after all the author of the declaration of Independence. He said several times that the union was voluntary and a state had the right to unilateral secession as the quotes I posted show. Nowhere did he ever say anything about mutual consent.

BroJoeK
Peacefully via mutual consent.
No Founder ever supported unilateral unapproved declarations of secession at pleasure.
And as it happened, in early 1861 Deep South Fire Eaters did “withdraw” more-or-less peacefully.

No. He never said anything about mutual consent. This is a fantasy you have created which you have no evidence for.

BroJoeK
Proving only that secessionist propaganda could be found almost anywhere.
In fact, no Founder supported unilateral unapproved declaration of secession at pleasure.
Instead, they considered mutual consent or necessity as required for disunion.

LOL! More spin than a laundry machine. It was taught at West Point. Several presidents held that view. The union was voluntary. There was no requirement of mutual consent expressed by any of them and certainly not by the states who were the parties to the Constitution.

BroJoeK
In fact, our Founders understood clearly the distinction between peaceful disunion by mutual consent (as in 1788) versus rebellion, insurrection, domestic violence, invasion & treason.
Their new Constitution provides for defense against those latter events.

There is no requirement for mutual consent expressed anywhere in the constitution or the Federalist papers. This is entirely your own fantasy creation.

BroJoeK
President John Tyler was a Virginian, slave-holder and Confederate Congressman who unsurprisingly sympathized with secession arguments.

So yet another president who felt states had the right of unilateral secession. You could have just admitted that and saved time.

John Quincy Adams presented a petition for secession. He certainly believed in the right of secession by the sovereign states.

BroJoeK
Buchanan also argued that unilateral unapproved secession at pleasure was unconstitutional & illegal.

He did say that...he also said the federal government did not have the right to prevent it by force.

BroJoeK
Exactly, that is my argument here: mutual consent (as in 1788) and necessity (as in 1776) are the two, and only two, legitimate reasons for disunion.
Neither condition existed in late 1860 and early 1861.

Exactly. Your argument is a joke entirely without historical support. You can find nothing that argues for “mutual consent” nor is there anything that says a state cannot determine necessity but a colony can....especially since the state is sovereign and the colony is not. It was for each state to determine whether it was necessary or not. Several believed it was - as was their right.

BroJoeK
In 1774 Brits revoked the Massachusetts charter of self-government of 1691 and in 1775 declared the colonies in rebellion — essentially a declaration of war and death sentence on our Founders.
That’s as clear a separation as can be imagined.

There was no clear separation. In fact it was prevent separation ie secession that the Brits sent troops. Your argument is nonsensical.

BroJoeK
But in 1776 necessity was clear & present to our Founders — as clear as a rope around their necks.
Nothing remotely resembling such necessity existed in late 1860 & early 1861.

The sovereign states felt there was such necessity in 1860 and 1861. Since they reserved the right to do so when they ratified the constitution and nowhere gave up that right, it was for them to determine necessity. Several of the states did lay out declarations of causes ranging from refusal to enforce the fugitive slave clause of the constitution to unfair taxation and federal government expenditures to deliberately failing to provide border security as required by treaty.

BroJoeK
The Brits did discuss American complaints about “taxation without representation” but offered nothing.
In 1860 Deep South slavers were not only represented in Congress, but over-represented due to the Constitution’s 3/5 rule.
So there is no legitimate comparison — zero, zip, nada legit — between 1776 and 1860.

Here you’re wrong. The Brits did offer seats in Parliament for the Colonies. Its just that it would not have been enough seats to prevent themselves from being economically exploited for the benefit of the mother country. That is perfectly analogous to the situation the Southern states found themselves in in 1861. They had tried nullification of the Tariff of Abominations a generation earlier. Now the demographics had shifted even more against them and the Northern states set about to jacking up the tariff rates to ruinous levels once again. The Morrill Tariff ended up tripling tariff rates.

BroJoeK
Brits began separating themselves from their American colonies by (among others, see DOI):

Imposing taxation without representation.
Revoking Massachusetts’ 1691 Charter of self-government.
Imposing British troops on colonists.
Declaring colonies in rebellion.
Taking military actions against colonial militias.

Through those acts & others Brits lost any claim to legitimate rule.
Nothing remotely resembling that existed in 1860.

Au Contraire. The Brits were still the recognized rulers of the colonies. The Colonies were not sovereign. They never had been. There was no separation. That was something the colonies did themselves. Your attempts at drawing some artificial distinction here fail. Utterly.

BroJoeK
do note you’ve collected many of the standard Lost Causer proof-texts, but otherwise seem oblivious to what actually happened in either 1776 or 1860.

Just as I note that you’ve collected many of the PC Revisionist texts and yet are amazingly ignorant about US history and simply come up with your own little fantasy justifications like mutual consent which was nowhere agreed to by the states and nowhere stated in the constitution....or this fanciful notion of necessity which only the non sovereign colonies could determine for themselves but not the sovereign states.

BroJoeK
Right, they separated from necessity which along with mutual consent they considered valid reasons for disunion.
No Founder ever supported unilateral unapproved declarations of secession at pleasure.

More of your forays into fantasyland. Nowhere did any state agree to having to get a permission slip from other states in order to do exactly what they had done 8 years earlier ie secede unilaterally according to their own determination of necessity.

BroJoeK
But not in the new US Constitution of 1787.
Just the opposite, the Constitution provides for Federal response to rebellion, insurrection, domestic violence, invasion and/or treason.

It didn’t need to be recognized in the US Constitution. It had already been recognize. It was acknowledged by everybody including the biggest proponents of the Constitution. It was nowhere denied in the Constitution. Nowhere in the constitution was the federal government delegated the power to prevent secession. The 10th amendment was added to make sure nobody could claim powers not mentioned in the constitution belonged to the federal government instead of to the sovereign states.

BroJoeK
Then you will provide us with proof-texts for this claim?

Here is but one example. Federalist #39 There are many more. READ the Federalist papers.

“...the act of the people, as forming so many independent States, not as forming one aggregate nation, is obvious from this single consideration, that it is to result neither from the decision of a majority of the people of the Union, nor from that of a majority of the States.... Each State, in ratifying the Constitution, is considered as a SOVEREIGN body, independent of all others, and only to be bound by its own voluntary act” (Federalist 39).’ James Madison

BroJoeK
It is certainly nonsensical to argue, as you do, the equation of conditions in 1776 with those of 1860.
There was no similarity whatever.
Founders clearly understood the distinctions between true necessity and unjustified actions at pleasure.

Oh not at all. The states were sovereign in 1861 while the colonies were not in 1776. The Colonies were offered representation but not enough to protect themselves from being exploited by the tyranny of the majority. The situation was the same for the Southern states in 1861. Sovereign states had if anything, a superior right to determine necessity for themselves vis a vis non sovereign colonies in 1776.

BroJoeK
Sorry, but none of your proof-texts actually support your argument.
They are irrelevant to it.

And what’s laughable are your efforts to make an equation of 1776 and 1860.

Oh but they do. Laughable is your attempt to claim secession in 1776 by non sovereign colonies was OK but secession in 1861 by sovereign states which had never agreed to surrender their sovereignty was not OK.

BroJoeK
And South Carolina deeded land to the Federal Government for Fort Sumter.
Then, just like Cubans today, they declared Federal ownership illegitimate, but unlike Cubans who have not started war over Gitmo, Confederates used Fort Sumter as their excuse to start Civil War.

And land in the colonies belonged to the British Crown....until the colonies seceded. Certainly once there has been secession compensation is due, but any property within a sovereign country or sovereign state can be claimed under eminent domain. This is of course a completely different situation to Gitmo in Cuba. There is no dispute that is sovereign Cuban territory. The US holds it under a lease agreement by treaty.

BroJoeK
And Brits did maintain forces in New York City, along with dozens of forts & trading posts in New York, Ohio and Michigan for years after their 1781 Unconditional Surrender at Yorktown.
No Founding president used those Brit forts as their excuse to start another war, unlike Jefferson Davis in 1861.

And the Brits evacuated the fort in NY City after the Treaty of Paris. Had they held it and sent a heavily armed flotilla to reinforce it and not agreed to the colonies secession, THEN the situation would have been analogous to 1861 when Lincoln sent a heavily armed flotilla into South Carolina’s sovereign territory to reinforce FT. Sumter.

BroJoeK
But unlike Jefferson Davis no Founding President used those British forts, forces & trading posts as excuses to start a war.

Davis didn’t start the war. Lincoln did.

BroJoeK
It’s still rubbish, regardless of how many parrot it.
In fact, Lincoln’s duty was to resupply Fort Sumter just as President Buchanan had attempted in January, 1861.
Jefferson Davis’ decision to use Lincoln’s mission as his excuse to start Civil War was Davis’ and his cabinet’s alone.
And they all knew the consequences:

Nope! This is what’s rubbish. Lincoln started the war. Anybody who sends a fleet of warships into one of another country’s principle harbors is committing an act of war and is knowingly doing so. The aggressor is one who invades the land of another - not one who fires to drive an invader away.

BroJoeK
That’s the important part: Lincoln regrets failing to resupply Fort Sumter.
That he finds some consolation in Jefferson Davis’ decision to start Civil War is not surprising, but cannot be called the reason for Lincoln’s resupply mission.

Did you not read his letter to his naval commander? He was delighted the armed invasion of South Carolina’s territory got a war started. It was all about money.

“But what am I to do in the meantime with those men at Montgomery [meaning the Confederate constitutional convention]? Am I to let them go on... [a]nd open Charleston, etc., as ports of entry, with their ten-percent tariff. What, then, would become of my tariff?” ~ Lincoln to Colonel John B. Baldwin, deputized by the Virginian Commissioners to determine whether Lincoln would use force, April 4, 1861.