Posted on 08/05/2010 6:01:30 AM PDT by Michael Zak
[by Assemblyman Chuck DeVore (R-Irvine, CA), re-published with his permission]
For years I have admired Congressman Ron Paul’s principled stance on spending and the Constitution. That said, he really damaged himself when he blamed President Lincoln for the Civil War, saying, “Six hundred thousand Americans died in a senseless civil war… [President Abraham Lincoln] did this just to enhance and get rid of the original intent of the republic.”
This is historical revisionism of the worst order, and it must be addressed.
For Congressman Paul’s benefit – and for his supporters who may not know – seven states illegally declared their “independence” from the United States before Lincoln was sworn in as President. After South Carolina fired the first shot at Fort Sumter, four additional states declared independence...
(Excerpt) Read more at grandoldpartisan.typepad.com ...
States discussed secession as early as 1803. One of the reasons Hamilton was killed was because he made sure Burr was defeated as Gov. of NY. Burr was playing footise with the NE secessionists and Hamilton abhorred the idea of destroying the Union. H was actually offered command of the military of the proposed new nation but made sure it never was created.
Of course, we know the opinion that Jackson had about secessionists as he threatened to personally hang anyone attempting it from S. Carolina’s highest tree.
>It’s an interesting connundrum that is being played out all over the United States right now. I think Walter Williams said it best. I heard him say that you can always violate the law and stand up for your individual rights. However be prepared for the consequences of your actions. Something like that.
>Anyways, the right to keep and bear arms is spelled out in a lot of state and federal constitutions and is a widely recognized natural right. The power of one state to secede from the United States I don’t find anywhere as a right or power.
Actually it’s a specific instance of a general principal which is integral to the argument of the validity of secession: either the Constitution [federal and/or State] are legally binding to that government or they are not. If they are not, then using them as references or [legal] defense is worthless. {IOW, you cannot use them as the basis/foundation for any sort of reasoning.} But if they *are* legally binding then they are necessarily superior to the laws passed by that [level of] government as they are the basis and authority for the formation of the respective legislature; in which case such Constitutions have every right to exclude from the legislature any particular aspect (such as the right to keep and bear arms by forbidding abridgment of that right via law).
By using the Constitution as a point of reference for authority you are implicitly rejecting that it is a “feel good document” or a “living, breathing [ever-changing] document” (which can, without warning, mean something completely different than it did five minutes/days/years/decades ago). It is extraordinarily important that you and I and every other Citizen know a) which the Constitution is and b) which the *government* says the Constitution is.
As a small example, I’ll refer back to my State Constitution; in its bill of rights there is the following section:
Every man shall be free to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience, and no person shall ever be molested or denied any civil or political right or privilege on account of his religious opinion or mode of religious worship. No person shall be required to attend any place of worship or support any religious sect or denomination; nor shall any preference be given by law to any religious denomination or mode of worship.
If my state government *can* [legitimately] “abridge the right of the Citizen to keep and bear arms” (contrary to its constitution) like in the referenced prohibition at universities OR [say] at courthouses then there is no guarantee that the above cited section cannot also be violated. The State could prohibit Baptists, Catholics, Muslims, and/or Buddhists [etc] from voting [or handing out literature “of a political nature”].
It is the same with the Federal System; though pointing it out may label you as a “crazy.”
Just as no convention is necessary to grant rights, no convention is necessary to assert them.
Except that unilateral secession wasn’t a right they had to assert.
And this is where your understanding of what the constitution is, is flawed. Hamilton wrote, in regards to the Bill of Rights [which he REJECTED!], that such a BoR was dangerous as it would IMPLY powers not granted specifically - IOW, the Government was given specific limited powers - nowhere is a power listed that confers a power upon the federal government to COMPELL a member state to remain in the Union - thus it did not have the power to do so (legally). That the founders "never thought" about sucession can not be proved - what CAN be proved is that they did NOT forbid it in the constitution!
Bingo! WE have a winner!
Read post 78 from the writer of the constitution. See what he thought about this “power” of secession...
Hasdrubal.
I think that is the crux of the matter. We are discussing which rights the people gave to the government, not vice versa. We know the founders and constructors of the Constitution took great care to limit the power of the central government. That was specifically the purpose of the 10th Amendment, to protect the states and the people from a powerful central government. The previous nine were to protect the individual against the government.
In that context, in makes no sense that the states would bind themselves irreconcilably to that government. Plus some of the states had a pre-nup.
Here’s a question for you then: can a State maintain it’s Union with the other States yet refuse to acknowledge the Federal Government’s legitimacy [in some action]? If no, then why hasn’t the federal government moved [militarily] on the states that have passed Firearm Freedom Acts? (Such military action would not only be legitimate, from the basis of your argument, but required/needful.)
Can a state legitimately say that the Federal Government has no right to determine it’s standards and/or requirements for education?
Can a state legitimately reject the Supreme Court’s decision in Roe v. Wads? {which stripped states of the right to protect it’s unborn citizens}
Can a state legitimately reject the Supreme Court’s decision in Keelo v. New London? {which stripped people of the right to private property if such larceny carried the stamp of government approval.}
Can a State legitimately reject the requirements imposed by the “obamacare” law?
Can a State legitimately reject the failure of the federal government to defend against invasion by calling its own National Guard to defend against said invasion? (If it cannot, why hasn’t the federal government moved [militarily] on Arizona or New Mexico?)
I didn't say it wasn't known, or that I didn't know it; but that the guy has about one hundredth the recognition factor of his brother, not based upon the feat of crossing the Alps with elephants - which they both accomplished - but based upon the relative success that accompanied that feat.
Several states expressed reservations about this or that, but all states signed on to the same agreement.
Or FORMING a different state or country by secession!
Not only was that mostly true (tariffs were national decisions which the South generally supported). But many of the fortunes of the earliest Northern industrialists came from the slave trade either directly or indirectly.
There were areas of NY state where slavery was as concentrated as in the South in the late 1700s. But that was an anomaly and most of the slaves in the North were dispersed in small numbers among the general population not held in large groups.
But for the invention of that Connecticut Yankee, Eli Whitney, slavery may well have been phased out in the South as is was in the North. It was an archaic institution unsuited to a modern economy.
However, much of the North was opposed to Lincoln taking the slavers on even after federal institutions were attacked. That part of the industrial class that depended upon cotton was vehemently opposed to the War. The cities controlled by the Democrats were opposed.
Don't need to reread it ...
I stated that secession is NOT forbidden in the constitution - so please cite where it IS forbidden!
The framers did not create the British government as they did the US government along with its mean to change itself.
They weren’t even allowed representation in Parliament.
On the other hand, the South controlled the federal government for most of the time between 1801 and 1860. It probably would have continued even longer had the Democrat Party not split into three parts for the 1860 election allowing Lincoln to win.
At the first inauguration of George Washington, the guest of honor was Cyrus Griffin, President of the United States in Congress Assembled.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.