Targeting Lost Causers

Old Virginia Blog ^ | 06/09/2009 | Richard Williams

[Davy Buck]

My oh my, what would the critics, the Civil War publications, publishers, and bloggers do if it weren't for the bad boys of the Confederacy and those who study them and also those who wish to honor their ancestors who fought for the Confederacy?

[Bubba Ho-Tep]

Gee, that's exactly what happened last time. Around the time when you could no longer realisticallty pretend that the book was merely slow in coming, you have to leave town and try to reset the clock. You are consistent, if nothing else.

Aren't you willing to buy the copy on Amazon? My, how the price has gone up. I only paid about 5 bucks for my copy.

[Idabilly]

“That was an open question. But many or most of those same scholars believed secession was not constitutional. Those are perhaps related questions, but there is a difference.”

x, That is just—silly

The first thing I have at heart is American liberty; the second thing is American Union.— Patrick Henry

“Without the check and balance of true Federalism, that is, a system of balance between the State and Federal governments where the abuses of the Federal government can be challenged and defeated by We the People of the Sovereign States, all American liberty is in danger”

William Rawle, A View of the Constitution of the United States of America, was the text used at the US Military Academy from 1825-1840

“Nice opinion, but only an opinion. Jefferson wasn't around when the Constitution was written and adopted, and a lot of what he says has more to do with his role as a factional leader, rather than a legal scholar.

But you haven't dealt with my original point: the fact that a state might possibly have gotten away with secession in the early years of the Republic doesn't mean that the Constitution allowed unilateral secession.”

Jefferson may not have led the charge crafting that particular document. However, Mr. Madison did!

Can we both agree that Madison {The Father of said document}
Disagreed with your beloved {Webster} Therefore, Lincoln..With just about everything!

“I return my thanks for the copy of your late very powerful Speech in the Senate of the United S. It crushes “nullification” and must hasten the abandonment of “Secession.” But this dodges the blow by confounding the claim to secede at will, with the right of seceding from intolerable oppression. The former answers itself, being a violation, without cause, of a faith solemnly pledged. The latter is another name only for revolution, about which there is no theoretic controversy. Its double aspect, nevertheless, with the countenance recd from certain quarters, is giving it a popular currency here which may influence the approaching elections both for Congress & for the State Legislature. It has gained some advantage also, by mixing itself with the question whether the Constitution of the U.S. was formed by the people or by the States, now under a theoretic discussion by animated partizans.”

“But this dodges the blow by confounding the claim to secede at will, with the right of seceding from intolerable oppression”

State of New Hampshire: Article VII, New Hampshire State Constitution, 1792.

The people of this state have the sole and exclusive right to governing themselves as a free, sovereign, and independent state

Article X, New Hampshire State Constitution, 1792 W]henever the ends of government are perverted, or public redress are ineffectual, the people may, and of right ought to, reform the old, or establish a new government. The doctrine of non-resistance against arbitrary power, and oppression, is absurd, slavish, and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind.”

Constitution State of Massachusetts, 1780
The people of this commonwealth have the sole and exclusive right of governing themselves, as a free, sovereign and independent State….”

More later..

Regards

[BroJoeK]

"I fully expect to meet you one day in the Democratic Socialist Re-education Camp #7. Maybe then, together as inmates, we will have time to discuss what could have happened differently back in the day if only a few states had seceded while we wait in line for a cup of fish eye soup in the pouring rain....."

Stuff & nonsense, and here's why: there are twice as many conservatives in America as liberals. So there's no real reason why we should ever lose a major election.

Except for one: I call it "conservative political insanity," and what I mean by that are comments such as the following (sadly seen all to often here on Free Republic):

"I'm so mad at Bush & McCain for not being conservative enough that I'm going to sit on my hands and let the liberals elect their Beloved Obama."

I'd say such people really deserve a bit of "reeducation" -- in why even a "moderate" conservative is better than any flaming liberal! ;-)

[Idabilly]

http://books.google.com/books?id=pmCFAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA188&lpg=PA188&dq=james+madison+violation+of+compact&source=bl&ots=NjxmwdSYrp&sig=MhjVfSU4P0Zy8hJMaELHV9IGrDE&hl=en&ei=TFVmSpmrK4OcsgPl67DiDg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5

x, Would be incorrect
Journal of the Federal convention By United States. Constitutional Convention, James Madison, Erastus H. Scott
“A breach in fundamental principle's of the compact by a part of society,would certainly absolve the other part of their obligations to it”

[BroJoeK]

"In short, Mr. Jefferson obviously disagreed with you (your loss)."

There are only a few of Jefferson's ideas I disagree with, and your quote is not one of those.

But the Constitution is explicit & clear, that Congress will declare war, suppress insurrections, repel invasions, and respond to rebellion and "domestic violence."

Yes, "domestic violence" requires a request from the state, but the others do not -- and that is the basis for President Lincoln's response to the South's illegal attacks on & seizures of Federal property and military forces.

"Under your idiotic argument, Congress could "define" our recent 'Tea Parties' to be either an "insurrection," or "invasion," have their sock puppet in the White House call out the US military to kill everyone present, and it would be 'constitutional.'"

Pure nonsense. An insurrection requires the use of unlawful force, especially against Federal forces. And that's exactly what the South did to dozens and dozens of Federal forts, arsenals, customs houses and ships. If today's "tea parties" also involved such use of unlawful force, the perpetrators would be arrested. Then if they violently resisted arrest, they'd also be subject to deadly force.

" This is simply a repeat of your second idiotic argument (assuming I have them numbered correctly), that 'the [federal] government WAS made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself'"

I said nothing of the sort, except in cases of a declaration of war, suppressing insurrection and repelling invasion -- all of which are specifically named in the Constitution.

By the way, if you wish to return to those antebellum debates about states rights to "nullify" Federal laws they don't like, we can do that. But this was NOT the issue which lead to Southern secession.

The South did NOT secede after Lincoln's election in 1860 because "d*amn Yankees" were trying to shove new laws down their throats. Instead, the reasons involved Northern stubbornness in refusing to either allow slavery in non-slave territories or consistently enforce fugitive slave laws in non-slave states.

Talk about "states rights"!

[BroJoeK]

"Perhaps you should tell your friend Non-Sequitur: he routinely quotes from Mr. Madison's "confidential" and personal letters, dating from the 1830's."

The US Constitution was written and ratified in 1787. What was said and done at that time is of primary importance in establishing the Founders' intentions.

What was said by the Founders in later years is still of some importance in determining what they meant.

What was said by others at other times is of less importance, seems to me.

"From Federalist No. 43:

"What relation is to subsist between the nine or more States ratifying the Constitution, and the remaining few who do not become parties to it?..."

Clearly and obviously, Madison is talking about states which are still part of the old Articles of Confederation, but have not yet ratified the new Constitution. When there is " a speedy triumph over the obstacles to reunion," then these states will be reunited under the new Constitution.

"John Galt," I'm surprised at how flimsy your argument is in this case. Is that the best you have?

"The Constitution also does not mention a perpetual union, because (according to your idiotic argument) it did not in any way contemplate it. Please be consistent - you can't have it both ways."

Nonsense. So far as I know there was no discussion in 1787 of anything resembling secession or "sun setting" or any other termination of the Constitution -- except through such ordinary, peaceful and lawful methods as ammendments and constitutional conventions. So we have to assume that, except for these methods, the new contract of union was considered as "perpetual," as the old Articles of Confederation.

Further the Constitution has specific provisions dealing the invasion, insurrection, rebellion and "domestic violence," so obviously these matters were considered carefully.

[BroJoeK]

"I offer historical documentation in support of my statements (please see my previous posts), while you offer multiple, contradictory, and blatantly irrational arguments, lacking documentation."

I find your "documentation" -- or rather your exegeses of it -- unconvincing.

I find your insults unpersuasive.

[BroJoeK]

""A little late to be authoritative?" Heck, William Rawle was from Pennsylvania - he started the nation's oldest existing law firm, in Philadelphia, in 1783. He was a delegate to the Pennsylvania Constitutional Assembly in 1789."

And Mr. Rawle's role in the US Constitutional Convention of 1787 was what, exactly?

And his contribution to the Federalist Papers, or other debates of 1787 regarding ratification was what?

And in 1829, what issue were his words responding to?

If I remember correctly, the first serious discussions of secession came under President Jefferson, around 1804, as a result of his embargo of Northern ports. It came to nothing, but there were other secession talks in 1814 and later.

So, point is, by at least 1804, secession was part of the then current political discussion, and Founders were lining up on one side or the other of it, depending on their positions THEN. If I remember right, President Jefferson OPPOSED secession in 1804.

That's why you have to go back to the original discussions of 1787 to see how the Founders intended it. Seems obvious to me, the Founders intended any such questions to be dealt with legally and peacefully through such processes as amendments and constitutional conventions.

Finally, I note again how eager you are to insult me. I don't think that speaks well of your arguments.

[BroJoeK]

"If your source is just listing items without providing details, there is a good possibility it is in error about the Lane."

I did post this link before. Here it is again:

Fredriksen 2008: Civil War Almanac

The bibliography lists around 300 references, though none tied to any specific entry. Of course I can't say what errors it might include regarding the names of specific ships.

But clearly the larger issue here (beyond the names of specific ships) is the one you raised -- regarding the different approaches of Presidents Buchanan and Lincoln.

• Both Buchanan and Lincoln talked "no use of force."
• Both sent ships to resupply and reinforce Federal garrisons at Forts Pickens and Sumter.
• But when push came to shove, Buchanan backed away from using military force to support those forts.
• Lincoln did not.

[BroJoeK]

"if the Northern States refuse, willfully and deliberately, to carry into effect that part of the Constitution which respects the restoration of fugitive slaves, and Congress provide no remedy, the South would no longer be bound to observe the compact. A bargain cannot be broken on one side and still bind the other side.—Daniel Webster"

It's important to note yet again that the North's inconsistent enforcement of fugitive slave laws was real the concern with drove Southern secession.

"It is an historical fact that, on two occasions during their deliberations, the framers in the Philadelphia Convention voted to deny Congress the power of calling forth military forces of the Union to compel obedience of a state, and on two further occasions they voted to deny Congress the power of sending the Federal army or navy into the territory of any state, except as allowed under Article IV, Section 4 of the United States Constitution—to repel a foreign invasion or at the request of its legislature or governor to deal with domestic violence."

And yet the same clause which specifically authorizes Congress to repel invasions also authorized it to suppress insurrections. That is a fact. You can look it up.

"they must themselves decide, in the last resort, such questions as may be of sufficient magnitude to require their interposition. "

Interposition?. That is not political "code word" for "secession." It means a state may protect its citizens against the Federal Government's authority.

But that was in no way the issue in 1860. The issue then was the Federal Government's UNWILLINGNESS to impose Southern fugitive slave laws on northern states.

Sorry pal, but you have this whole history very confused in your own mind.

[BroJoeK]

"They ought to teach this one in grade school, along with Mr. Jefferson's other declaration."

And did President Jefferson support the efforts of Northern states to secede as a result of his Embargo Act?

[Idabilly]

[Idabilly]

[BroJoeK]

"according to the US Census the 1860 individual per capita income in the South was $3,978; in the North it was $2,040....a numerical factor of sizable magnitude in 1860 dollars.

"If I were you, I would take the time to do a bit more research."

You make an interesting and challenging point, one which does not square with the usual history of the 19th century US economics -- as for example:

Economics and the Civil War

"While factories were built all over the North and South, the vast majority of industrial manufacturing was taking place in the North.

"The South had almost 25% of the country's free population, but only 10% of the country's capital in 1860." [the correct Southern population number of 5.6 million whites is just 20% of the country's total white population, not 25%]

"The North had five times the number of factories as the South, and over ten times the number of factory workers. In addition, 90% of the nation's skilled workers were in the North.

"The labor forces in the South and North were fundamentally different, as well. In the North, labor was expensive, and workers were mobile and active. The influx of immigrants from Europe and Asia provided competition in the labor market, however, keeping wages from growing very quickly.

"The Southern economy, however, was built on the labor of African American slaves, who were oppressed into providing cheap labor.

"Most Southern white families did not own slaves: only about 384,000 out of 1.6 million did. Of those who did own slaves, most (88%) owned fewer than 20 slaves, and were considered farmers rather than planters.

"Slaves were concentrated on the large plantations of about 10,000 big planters, on which 50-100 or more slaves worked. About 3,000 of these planters owned more than 100 slaves, and 14 of them owned over 1,000 slaves.

"Of the four million slaves working in the South in 1860, about one million worked in homes or in industry, construction, mining, lumbering or transportation. The remaining three million worked in agriculture, two million of whom worked in cotton."

So, the South had 25% of the country's free population, but only 10% of the country's capital. This suggests to me that Non-Sequitur's figures of 90+% imports going to the North sounds right. I suspect, the discrepancy with your per capita numbers is rooted in the fact that only 60% of the South's 9 million people were white.

By the way, as long as we're looking up important numbers:

"As of 1850 the percentage of Southern whites living in families that owned slaves was 43 percent in the lower South, 36 percent in the upper South and 22 percent in the border states that fought mostly for the Union.[37] 85 percent of slaveowners who owned 100 or more slaves lived in the lower South, as opposed to one percent in the border states."

[central_va]

Congress to repel invasions also authorized it to suppress insurrections

Secession falls into neither of those categories.

[BroJoeK]

BJK: "Congress to repel invasions also authorized it to suppress insurrections"

CV: "Secession falls into neither of those categories."

Possibly not -- I've said before that a peaceful, negotiated secession approved by Congress seems reasonable to me.

But that's not what the South did, and not what caused the Civil War.
What the South did instead was unilateral secession, followed immediately by illegal seizures of dozens of Federal forts, arsenals, customs houses and ships.
When attempts were made to resupply and reinforce two Federal forts -- Sumter and Pickens -- the South resorted to violence.

President Lincoln declared the violence "insurrection," which he was Constitutionally authorized to suppress, and Congress agreed.
Soon after, Jefferson Davis declared "war" on the United States.

That's what caused the Civil War, not secession itself.

[BroJoeK]

"I will repost below from an 1863 document that the great researcher nolu chan once posted to me about what the Founders and others had to say about which branch of government had the power to suspend the writ. It is a long read, but an informative one: "

Of course, it is generally agreed today that the President should not, on his own, deny habeas corpus. So, Lincoln should have gotten Congress's approval, and he did, but after the fact. How serious a breach is that?

I think I'd put it in the same category as President Jefferson's admittedly unconstitutional Louisiana Purchase. So, what punishment do you suggest they receive? Should we give the whole Louisiana Purchase back to France?

[BroJoeK]

"Concurring in the doctrines that the separate States have a right to interpose in cases of palpable infraction of the constitution by the government of the United States, and that the alien and sedition acts presented a case of such infraction, Mr. Jefferson considered them as absolutely null and void, and thought the State legislatures competent, not only to declare, but to make them so, to resist their execution within their respective borders by physical force, and to secede from the Union, rather than to submit to them, if attempted to be carried into execution by force.——John Quincy Adams"

I think Jefferson's views on nullification and secession changed depending on whether he was in power or out of it.

For examples, did President Jefferson ever support states nullifying any laws during his administration? Did he ever support northern efforts to secede because of Jefferson's Embargo Act?

Here is a lengthy article on the historical issue of states nullification of federal laws. It's important to note, by the time the crisis receided in 1832, many people had crossed over to sides of the nullification argument you might not expect:

"The Alabama legislature, for example, pronounced the doctrine “unsound in theory and dangerous in practice.” Georgia said it was “mischievous,” “rash and revolutionary.” Mississippi lawmakers chided the South Carolinians for acting with “reckless precipitancy.” "

[BroJoeK]

"This Country was founded by Secession—Could it be they thought it was a unalienable Right? In Lincoln's years before absolute corruption—He certainly did!"

Secession -- peaceful, lawful, negotiated and approved by Congress is one thing. Violent insurrection against the government of the United States is something else entirely.

[BroJoeK]

"Lincoln like Obama {Was over his head} His OPPOSITION argued their points much more eloquently..Both liberal Lawyers from Illinois--- To boot"

You post a lengthy wordy quote without telling us who said it, where, when or why. Whatsup with that, pal?