Ron Paul is wrong on the Civil War and slavery, and he should be ashamed

Grand Old Partisan ^ | August 5, 2010 | Chuck Devore

[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...

[Mind-numbed Robot]

Thank you, Becky Sue. The fact that there are honest differences over this 149 years later indicates it was not a cut and dried situation. Part of that is due to the way history has been presented through the years. I am sure there has been objective work done on the subject, using original documents as sources, but I don’t see any of that scholarship exhibited here.

I had two semesters of History of the South under Grady McWhiney at Millsaps College in Jackson, MS. One of his colleagues was T. Harry Williams, at Louisiana State University. They were two of the best.

As I remember Dr. McWhiney put the flash point on the tariff and Ft. Sumpter was a tariff collection point. Slavery was the issue with emotional appeal and was stressed by the North to arouse people against the South and that version has survived through history for that reason.

[An.American.Expatriate]

Their ratification was conditional on the Constitution being amended with a Bill of Rights.

Not quite. There was no such thing as conditional ratification. Once they had an agreement that the BoR would be considered, they ratified - with a "signing statement" reserving the right to seceed. Legally binding - depends on who wins the war ;D

[central_va]

No prepetual(sic) right to seceed(sic) was ever suggested nor would it have been accepted.

The converse is true also. A Constitution that codified a no secession clause would have been DOA also.

[Old Teufel Hunden]

"Allowed - that seems to be the question :D"

And this is the crux of the argument. I don't see anywhere where this power of secession is given to any state or local government. You are talking about a right, but rights are accorded individuals, not states. I don't see any constitution (Federal or State) where the citizens delegated a power to allow a state to secede on their behalf. Citizens have the power to secede if they want. They can move to a different state or different country. Where did the citizens delegate this power to our Federal, State or Local governments?

[Sherman Logan]

if force is legitimate to stop secession, then force is equally legitimate to bring secession about.

You might want to reexamine that argument.

A parallel one would be to say, "If force is legitimate to prevent a bank robbery, then it is equally legitimate in perpetrating the robbery."

Force is legitimate, when other options fail, in defense of rights and in the service of good. It is never legitimate in the furtherance of evil or the violation of rights.

[An.American.Expatriate]

And what if the people of a state decided they did not want to be ruled by the state (such as my example of Virginia), do they have the right to dissolve the state? What of local governments? Can I get my local township dissolved if we are dissatisfied?

Under the US constitution there is no prohibition - state and local laws may, of course vary!

Seriously though - where does the township derive it's "right to exist"? Several people at some point settled some land and decided that it would be better to band together for thier common well being instead of trying to "go it alone". Generations later, an oppresive system is implemented - do the ancestors of the founders have a right to disband and seek new way or are they forced to forever by subjugated?

[Sherman Logan]

Interestingly, if you look at the Constitution, nowhere does it say what the name of the country is.

Not sure where you get that idea.

Preamble: "We the People of the United States ... do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

[rockrr]

"As I remember Dr. McWhiney put the flash point on the tariff and Ft. Sumpter was a tariff collection point."

Sumter was a defensive fortification, not a tariff collection point.

[An.American.Expatriate]

Citizens have the power to secede if they want.

And this is my point! The power of a state to seceed from the national government is a representative power - it expresses the will of the people of the state!

I admit to sometimes falling victim to the common mix up between "powers" and "rights". You are quite correct - governments, whether local, state or national have powers - only people have rights.

[Publius]

...the consitution is more or less silent here, other than to guarantee a repubican form of government, it says little on what powers the people / a state has within the state.

One of the stories I'll be adding to our "Debate over the Constitution" threads via essay is the story of the Dorr Rebellion in Rhode Island. The best account is by Forrest McDonald in States' Rights and the Union, but there are probably other reasonably good accounts available on the Internet.

It was where the Right to Alter or Abolish got its first test -- and the federal government failed.

[Old Teufel Hunden]

"do the ancestors of the founders have a right to disband and seek new way or are they forced to forever by subjugated?"

Unless expressely delegated to the government? No. The ancestors have the right to secede by leaving. If all the people leave, I guess that government dies of it's own accord. Sort of like Detroit..... : )

[An.American.Expatriate]

Hey, thanks -hadn’t heard of that, time to fire up google and read up on it!

[rockrr]

It was where the Right to Alter or Abolish got its first test -- and the federal government failed.

How do you figure that?

[An.American.Expatriate]

Unless expressely delegated to the government?

Why should I delegate to the government the power to disolve itself? I reserve that right to myself and my fellow citizens!

If all the people leave, I guess that government dies of it's own accord.

And if the government prevents them from doing so?

[allmendream]

It seems to me that the Confederacy was a ‘State’ formed by the Junction of two or more States; which was forbidden without a majority vote by Congress as well as the Legislatures of those States.

From the U.S. Constitution.....

New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new States shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.

The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.

[Bubba Ho-Tep]

It was where the Right to Alter or Abolish got its first test -- and the federal government failed.

In what way did the federal government fail?

[Old Teufel Hunden]

"And if the government prevents them from doing so?"

Name a local or state government in this country that does not allow its citizens to leave... Name a local or state government where the citizenry have delegated to it the power to secede from it's parent government on their behalf?

[Publius]

President Tyler backed the state government against the people of Rhode Island. The people of that state lost their right to alter or abolish their government, and that created a dangerous precedent.

I would recommend States' Rights and the Union by Forrest McDonald for all people who want to participate in threads about federalism, nullification and secession. McDonald lays it all out in terms laymen can understand. I always find myself referring back to the book for examples.

[Ratman83]

Thank you for your response, I have enjoyed your other posts and look forward to the ones to come.

[An.American.Expatriate]

It seems to me that the Confederacy was a ‘State’ formed by the Junction of two or more States; which was forbidden without a majority vote by Congress as well as the Legislatures of those States.

This is only against the constitution when done by parties subject to it! The confederacy "as a state" was not formed until AFTER the states had seceeded.