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 ...
>seven states illegally declared their “independence” from the United States before Lincoln was sworn in as President.
US COnstitution, Amendment X:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Given that the power of succession [withdrawing from the agreement of the Constitution, ‘independence’] is not given to the United States by the Constitution it stands to reason that such powers are either the State’s or the People’s; therefore I cannot in good conscience agree with terming their declaration of independence from the federal government as ‘illegal.’
>After South Carolina fired the first shot at Fort Sumter, four additional states declared independence...
Let’s look at the history & facts here:
1 — SC declared its independence on 20 Dec 1860
2 — The ‘first shot’ was fired at approx. 0430 on 12 Apr 1861
3 — Prior to this ‘first shot’ repeated requests/demands for the evacuation of Fort Sumter were made by SC
Given that SC was/is supposed to be a sovereign state and there were foreign troops were occupying a portion of SC, was SC justified in using force to remove them?
“1/3 of the states joined the Union during or after the Civil War, when it was pretty clear secession wouldn’t fly.”
Well, secession may not have been, or may not be successful, but the right to secede was not precluded.
Government does not give rights, they are inherent within man and his relationships and come from God. Your premise is flawed.
So what? We're talking about events before the War of Northern Aggression. What happened afterward has no bearing on the concept of secession prior to TWONA....
- Uh, yes it IS!
Any power not granted to the federal government WAS NOT GRANTED!
All of these things (yes even welfare) are talked about by the founding fathers.
Welfare of whom?
It is not a catch all for everything under the sun, it is a catch all for everything under the sun that is not assigned by the Constitution as a power of the new federal government.
A supposed constitutional right for a state to secede did not occur to people until the 1820s. It never even came up during the convention or ratification.
...so you’re citing a clause in the Articles of Confederation which the Constitution superseded and replaced in order to justify qualifying the latter’s concept of ‘union’ as perpetual?
That is highly dubious reasoning.
On Manipulated History...
At the time Virginia and New York ratified the Constitution (the two largest and most influential states) they declared that they did so with the understanding they could secede. This was acceptable to the remaining states, and the Constitution was ratified with that understanding. The Tenth Amendment was inserted into the Bill of Rights to make future secession unnecessary. Furthermore, if secession was illegal, why did New England seriously consider it in the War of 1812, and why did the Mass. Assembly pass an article of secession at the time Texas’ admission to the union? Why was a textbook in use at West Point’s government class that taught that secession was legal?
After the Civil War, there was talk of a trial for Jefferson Davis for treason. The Chief Justice of the Supreme court advised against a treason trial for Davis because, since secession was legal, in his opinion, Davis would be acquitted and the South would win in court what it had just lost on the battlefield.Secession was only declared illegal by the Supreme Court about 1867.
Talk about historical revisionism. Jeez!! This is not to say that the South should have seceeded or that it would have been a good thing had they been successful. But secession was most definitely not illegal.
Here we go again.
Ron Paul is a NUT!
The “Articles of Confederation” were found to be flawed and were discarded with the institution of the Constitution.
Here's what Jefferson thought on the subject:
....the rights retained by the States, rights which they never have yielded, and which (Virginia) will never voluntairily yield they do not mean to raise the banner of dissaffection , or of seperation from their sister states, co-parties with themselves to this compact. They know and value too highly the blessings of their union as to foreign nations and questions arising among themselves, to consider every infraction to be met by actual reistance; they respect too affectionately the opinions of those possessing the same rights under the same instrument, to make every different construction for immediate rupture. They would indeed consider such a rupture as among the greatest calamities which could befall them; but not the greatest. There is yet one greater, submission to a government of unlimited powers.
See Justice Scalias question to the idiot Solicitor General of the the United States in 1996.
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.