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 ...
You do know that during Buchanan’s administration in January 1861 Confederate General P.T. Buearegard and the South Carolina militia fired on the Star of the West ship? Before Lincoln ever became President. That does not sound like the South was trying to negotiate peace.
I'll ask you the question in reverse, what was it about South Carolina and the South in general becoming an independent sovereign nation that was so abhorrent to the North?
I do, for the situation now is intolerable/unlivable and goes against everything I believe in. The 'Statists' have left us no quarter, I believe they deserve none either.
How come you get to ask all the questions and when they’re answered you go onto the next question? Why is it that you make an accusation about how the South wanted to just leave and Lincoln started a war, are proven wrong about it and then go onto the next question?
Amazingly, all Supreme Court opinions are after-the-fact. Do you really think the court should simply sit there and make pronouncements before any cases are brought?
Yeah, I know you guys' Constitution begins and ends with the 10th Amendment, but you might want to look at Article 1, Section 10 and all of Article 4.
Thank you. The thread has become so contentious with each side adamant and unyielding I decided to abandon it. To satisfy my own curiosity I will go to the link. Thanks.
A quote from Robert E. Lee 1970 a few months before his death:
"So far from engaging in a war to perpetuate slavery, I am rejoiced that slavery is abolished. I believe it will be greatly for the interest of the South. So fully am I satisfied of this that I would have cheerfully loast all that I have lost by war, and have suffered all that I have suffered to have this object attained."
---American History Revised-200 startling facts that never made it into the text books. Seymour morris Jr.
And “you guys” always jump to conclusions!
I responded to “Hence, you will find a long list of things States are not allowed to do.” with “Show me that list!”.
You quite rightly refer to the SPECIFIC limits in the constitution and I rightly refered to the (much later enacted!) 10th Amendment which simply states the obvious - if not granted to the fed nor prohibited to the states - the rights / powers are reserved to the states / people.
The list is actually quite short.
If you had taken even a moment of time to read what I have said in this thread instead of jumping to your assinine conclusions - you would have understood that ...
Only a fool wishes for war ...
I seek the truth and presume that you do too.
The reason why I corrected you on your assertion is that the issue was tossed around on another thread and the consensus (as I recall) was as I stated. Fort Sumter was a “new” installation and not around long enough to have a rich & varied past full of activities that it wasn’t designed to do.
When you couple that with the fact that a proper tariff collection point was in operation within the city, there was no need to press this new installation into service inappropriately.
I tell you what. Rustbucket is a Civil War aficionado who has a wealth of CW trivia. What say we ping him and see what he can add to the conversation regarding the use of Ft. Sumter as a tariff collection point.
While I think it is of minor import, I believe that, “From tiny misstatements mighty myths grow” and poorly serve the truth.
Unfortunately, nothing is available online except to students and faculty of McMurray State who must login with a university assigned password.
An interesting point I learned yesterday while roaming around on the internet was that William Tecumseh Sherman, the union general who burned and looted his way through the South was the first president of Louisiana State University and was there when the war started. LSU later became the home base for T. Harry Williams, friend of McWhiney and an award winning historian of the South.
Madison is refering to a state being turned out of the union by the others.
The fallacy which draws a different conclusion from them lies in confounding a single party, with the parties to the Constitutional compact of the United States. The latter having made the compact may do what they will with it. The former as one only of the parties, owes fidelity to it, till released by consent, or absolved by an intolerable abuse of the power created.
The underlined clause is important. Madison states that a single party (a state) is released from it's bound of fidelity to the union when an intolerable abuse exists.
I have seen written that this means the state must revolt - I don't agree that the state must declare war upon the union in order to assert it's sovereignty - secession is, in effect, the same statement without hostilities.
That "war" is the likely outcome of such a declaration is obvious. It is also obvious that the founders abhored the idea.
And secession is what? Breaking free and forming a new government!
I ask you, what act did the Lincoln administration do in it's first month that was so oppressive as to the people needing to break free?
I have a hunch that the causes of the the south's anxieties lie a bit further back than Lincoln ...
The only thing the Republican party was for was not extending slavery to new states and territories. Was that so oppressive to the Southern states?
IMHO - and based soley on that statement! - no. But as I already stated, the causes had much deeper roots. You yourself have repeatedly told me to read post 78 - I have read and reread it. Have you stopped to ask yourself WHY SC was discussing secession in 1832? (I don't know myself, but obviously it had nothing to do with Lincoln or the Republicans.)
Perhaps what I read said that Ft. Sumpter was defending a tariff collection point. I can’t seem to find it again.
However, another interesting piece of trivia to me is that in addition to William Tecumseh Sherman being the first president of LSU, two cannons which fired on Ft. Sumpter rest on the LSU campus. I have seen them many times without realizing that.
They are listed Here
PS - This does not imply that I agree with the causes listed - it is simply the abuses cited at the time ...
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.