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 ...
“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?”
West Virginia seceded from Virginia.
“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?”
Texas voted overwhelmingly in a public referendum to Secede in 1861.
“And of course, a disproportionate percentage of the best and brightest leaders of the federal army deserted to fight for the rebels.”
Wow, you sure make no bones about what side you support. For the record, those leaders resigned their commissions (which was their right as officers) and did NOT desert.
“Since slaves were people, I doubt that any of the seceding states represented the will of their people.”
Women are people, too. So were freedmen. However, neither had the franchise. So, by your logic, you must necessarily admit that the non-seceding states did not re[resent the will of their people because at least one half of them had no voice whatsoever.
“virtually all adult women were wives”
Where do you get that from? Hell, women so outnumbered men in “The States” that the surplus was offered paid passage to the Pacific Northwest by lumber and shipping companies so that there would be some available women. I’d venture to say that a great many adult women in “The States” were not married (many were widows), though likely not a majority.
You are reading Jefferson’s statement selectively. Simply saying the threshold of secession is high doesn’t preclude its use when that threshold is met. Hence his conclusion, “Between these two evils, when we must make a choice, there can be no hesitation.” And there’s absolutely NOTHING in that conclusion that even hints at requiring consent of both parties.
Wives or widows whose husbands or sons would represent their interests.
I should have said they deserted the Union, which is a fact, not that they deserted from the Army.
The comment was in the context of a reply to a comment in which the author was trying to imply that the early fighting in the war consisted of the professional federal army attempting to crush the “people’s militia” fighting for freedom. That’s a serioius distortion of the facts.
After 400 + posts, I think both sides have stated their opinions and it’s almost a foolish endeavor now. If you feel that the states had a right to secede, then nothing I can show you will convince you otherwise. As I’ve stated previously, I find it amusing that all of you southern apologists find a mythical right for a state (when no government has a right) but conveniently ignore the true rights of people to life, liberty and property.
I’ll leave you with this. If in 1861 the Southern states wanted to secede, they should have put it to the vote of the people. I don’t mean just the white males, but all of the people including the slaves. I wonder how that vote would have turned out.
Interesting, but untrue. In the year prior to the rebellion well over 90% of all federal revenue was collected in Northern ports. The South actually paid a disproportionately small percentage into the federal coffers. Alexander Stephens put the total paid by the North at 75% and it's clear he was inflating the Southern contribution by a considerable amount.
Stole what? They paid for every federal installation except Sumter.
They paid for nothing. They appropriated everything they could get their hands on - forts, arsenals, mints, ships, you name it - without compensation of any kind.
Cut off large parts of the country from access to the sea? I know you surely must be joking with that one. What about Philadelphia? New York? The vaunted New England seafaring tradition?
What about Illinois, Iowa, Ohio, Minnesota, and other states which accessed foreign markets via the Mississippi?
The fact of the matter is your hero Lincoln took secession as a personal insult, and being the petty man he was he could not abide such a blow to his ego, and decided to plunge half of the North American continent (sans Canada) into a bloody and costly war.
The fact of the matter is that it was Jefferson Davis who chose war over Sumter, who launched the bloody, costly conflict over Sumter that led to the death of the confederacy and the destruction of the South. Lincoln didn't kill the confederacy. It committed suicide on April 13, 1861.
Why did it need a military 7 times the size of its neighbor's if it did not have aggressive intent?
If you feel that the states had a right to secede, then nothing I can show you will convince you otherwise.
It's really not even a matter of a contestable point with which to convince. Jefferson's own words on secession are clearly stated, and they indisputably acknowledge its legitimate existence. The ONLY qualifier he attaches to it is a requirement that the state's grievance be sufficiently serious to merit secession.
Now there is certainly room for debate about what rises to the level merit for secession under Jefferson's understanding. You can also legitimately debate to what extent Jefferson's views speak for his generation (and plainly all the founders did not agree on this - Madison took the opposite stance from Jefferson and actually got caught misrepresenting the recently deceased Jefferson's views in 1828). But it's not even a matter of question that Jefferson thought secession a legitimate and even justified course of action under certain circumstances.
Please note that my point is not to prove that Jefferson's position is inherently right or wrong. I am simply saying that you do an injustice to history when you try to pass off secession as some Calhounite invention from a later generation, or suggest that the founders detested it in one big collective and authoritative voice. At least *some* of them indisputably believed in its legitimacy, and the ranks of those that did included at least one of the founders we generally consider "preeminent" along with Madison and Washington and a few others.
If in 1861 the Southern states wanted to secede, they should have put it to the vote of the people. I don’t mean just the white males, but all of the people including the slaves.
Considering that women and blacks generally could not vote in the northern states at the time any more than the could in the southern ones, your stipulation is historically unrealistic and thus reeks of contrivance.
By the exact same electoral standards of the day used in every state of the union, at least some of the southern states did indeed put the matter to a referendum. I believe Texas, Virginia, and Tennessee were among the ones that did, and it passed in all three. By landslide margins.
By modern standards we may fault them for not permitting women and blacks to vote. But by those exact same standards, we should also throw out every single election ever held in the United States between 1776 and August 26, 1920 when women's suffrage was finally passed.
“Wives or widows whose husbands or sons would represent their interests.”
Give me the legal cite for that, please.
“What about Illinois, Iowa, Ohio, Minnesota, and other states which accessed foreign markets via the Mississippi?”
What, the Ohio River was closed down? Moreover, the North dominated rail transport, so moving goods to “the interior” was no real problem.
You said: “In the year prior to the rebellion well over 90% of all federal revenue was collected in Northern ports. The South actually paid a disproportionately small percentage into the federal coffers.”
The situs of the collections had nothing to do with who paid the taxes. The purchaser of the goods paid the taxes, not the citizens of the collection point.
There is a good essay by historian Michael Scruggs about tariffs (”Understanding the Causes of the Uncivil War”), and especially the horrendous Morrill Tariff that lop-sidedly favored the interests of Northern manufacturers at the expense of Southern agricultural interests. The Morrill Tariff (named after of the New England industrialist who championed the tax) was proposed by, supported by, and passed in the House of Representatives by the North (which dominated the House of Representatives), as only one Southerner voted for it. The Southern members of the House recognized the Morrill Tariff for what it was: An economic death sentence on the Southern states.
I quote from Professor Scruggs’ essay: “U. S. tariff revenues already fell disproportionately on the South, accounting for 87% of the total. While the tariff protected Northern industrial interests, it raised the cost of living and commerce in the South substantially. It also reduced the trade value of their agricultural exports to Europe. These combined to place a severe economic hardship on many Southern states. Even more galling was that 80% or more of these tax revenues were expended on Northern public works and industrial subsidies, thus further enriching the North at the expense of the South. ... Northern industrialists became nervous, however, when they realized a tariff dependent North would be competing against a free trade South. They feared not only loss of tax revenue, but considerable loss of trade. Newspaper editorials began to reflect this nervousness. Lincoln had promised in his inaugural speech that he would preserve the Union and the tariff.”
It’s really a good essay, and you may find it interesting.
It was a political theory, not a law. If you want more information check on the debate on adoption of women’s suffrage.
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.