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 ...
Speaking of bringing discredit to a side, consider your own posting about historical facts. Here is my summary of some interactions with you back when you were posting as "since 1854":
- You claimed that President Johnson's policy toward the Southern states was not Lincoln's policy.
- I cited a Republican Congressman saying it was.
- You said the Congressman was wrong.
- I cited a Republican Cabinet member (Welles) saying that it was.
- You argued that Lincoln agreed with Radical Republican Stanton's Reconstruction plan, whatever that was.
- I pointed out that the account of the last cabinet meeting didn't support your position.
- You argued that the notion that Lincoln and the Radicals were enemies was a fiction concocted by Democrat historians.
- I cited reports of disagreement over Reconstruction between Lincoln and the Radicals.
- I cited the Wade-Davis Manifesto as evidence of the deep division between Radicals and Lincoln.
- At this point you claimed I was making stuff up, then left the thread.
When Republicans disagree among themselves, it apparently makes your head explode. I suspect that most of the posters who take exception to your posts are themselves Republican, but that's just a guess.
I recently visited the Lincoln Museum in Hodgenville, KY. It is truly your kind of place. It is filled with seemingly hundreds of paintings and photos of Lincoln's face, wax figures depicting various occasions in Lincoln's life, but not a single really critical evaluation of his actions as president (at least none that I found). It seemed designed for elementary school kids on a school tour.
-------------------------------------------------
I've spared a few minutes for this Mr. Zak. That evil word called ' work ' that many Blue Staters will never understand, which took me away this mornin'.
The Federal Constitution is silent on the issue of Secession, therefore; we must look at the 'intent', and what the sales staff ( Madison, ETC ) sold to the several States. I'll get to the Federalist papers in another post, if you respond to this by John Q Adams :
With these qualifications, we may admit the same right as vested in the people of every state in the Union, with reference to the General Government, which was exercised by the people of the United Colonies, with reference to the Supreme head of the British empire, of which they formed a part - and under these limitations, have the people of each state in the Union a right to secede from the confederated Union itself.
Thus stands the RIGHT. But the indissoluble link of union between the people of the several states of this confederated nation, is after all, not in the right, but in the heart. If the day should ever come, (may Heaven avert it,) when the affections of the people of these states shall be alienated from each other; when the fraternal spirit shall give away to cold indifference, or collisions of interest shall fester into hatred, the bands of political association will not long hold together parties no longer attracted by the magnetism of conciliated interests and kindly sympathies; and far better will it be for the people of the disunited states, to part in friendship from each other, than to be held together by constraint. Then will be the time for reverting to the precedents which occurred at the formation and adoption of the Constitution, to form again a more perfect union, by dissolving that which could no longer bind, and to leave the separated parts to be reunited by the law of political gravitation to the center.
Brilliant strategy, by Grand old Part-of-the-Problem ... alienate all of the south, most of the west and ANYONE ELSE WHO KNOWS HISTORY, pander to blacks WHO WILL NEVER VOTE FOR a Republican and continue that grand tradition of losing the big votes by the RINO’s they back against the voice of the People ... or the Tea Party ... just brilliant!
Why? If the Constitution is silent on a subject, then the constitution does not prohibit it. The whole "founders intent" argument is BS. The constitution is a clear and concise document and requires no clarification of intent!
??
He simply made a case arguing that secession is allowed under the constitution!
How does this alienate:
1. most of the south
2. history buffs
or pander to blacks?
---------------------------------------------------
I can't win for losing :) Just trying to help Mr. Zak understand with baby steps...I agree, the General Government is one of enumerated powers....only.
Mr. Zak, this is a tidbit of John Quincy Adams discussing Thomas Jefferson's view on secession:
Concurring in the doctrines that the separate States have a right to interpose in cases of palpable infraction of the constitution by the government of the United States, and that the alien and sedition acts presented a case of such infraction, Mr. Jefferson considered them as absolutely null and void, and thought the State legislatures competent, not only to declare, but to make them so, to resist their execution within their respective borders by physical force, and to secede from the Union, rather than to submit to them, if attempted to be carried into execution by force.
As long as you are using your omnipotent eye to see into the hearts and minds of people, please tell us what party neo-fascist loons like you are associated with?
Oh, in case you miss my real point...I’m pretty sure most of the people who post on these WBTS threads are not neo-anything. Calling those of us who simply believe that there was no Constitutional provision for or against secession neo-Confederate loons only serves to demonstrate your lack of intellectual honesty and an inability to hold your own on the battlefield of ideas. Better not to expose such shortcomings by restoring to juvenile name calling.
Thanks.
LOL
You are so correct. It is because he has neither honesty OR character.
In case I did not make my position clear, he demonstrates only that he is a man of low character who would pit people against each other intentionally to further his career.
Isn't that so, Zak?
Although that makes sense to many people here, not everyone seems to have that clarity of understanding. Unscrupulous politicians and advocacy groups ignore both original intent and your way of interpreting the Constitution. They use the vagueness of parts of the Constitution to achieve their goals. Large numbers of people who don't understand the Constitution unthinkingly go along with them.
The whole "founders intent" argument is BS.
Fortunately, we do have at least a couple of Supreme Court Justices (Scalia, Thomas) who do consider the original intent of the founders and do consider what words actually mean, so original intent is hopefully making some difference. Scalia considers himself to be a textualist first and an originalist second. I would take it that you are a textualist.
The constitution is a clear and concise document and requires no clarification of intent!
Would that everyone had your clarity of thought. They don’t. Consider all of the arguments over what the Constitution means … the right to bear arms, the commerce clause, restrictions on political speech, the right to privacy, who can suspend habeas corpus, do states have the right to secede, etc., etc., etc.
During the writing and ratification of the Constitution, Federalists like James Wilson had said, “…the liberty of the press, which has been a copious source of declamation and opposition -- what control can proceed from the Federal government to shackle or destroy that sacred palladium of national freedom?” Indeed the Constitution did not delegate control of the press to the federal government, but Federalists passed the Sedition Act anyway and used it to arrest opposition newspaper editors. They even did this after the First Amendment had become part of the Constitution. The next election threw those bums out. Elections may be our best hope against determined opportunistic politicians.
Pointing out written documents that show the intent of the founders may not be much, but I’ll keep doing it anyway (along with donating to politicians I like, going to county and state party conventions as a delegate, being a poll official, etc.)
Would that we, as a nation, were to truly understand what the founders bequeathed to us!
The states created the federal government, and the states can dissolve the federal government. That’s not at all the same as saying that any state has the authority to secede unilaterally.
---------------------------------------------
There are differing opinions. I'll present mine, then after work...I'll respond to yours.
St. George Tucker:
...Consequently whenever the people of any state, or number of states, discovered the inadequacy of the first form of federal government to promote or preserve their independence, happiness, and union, they only exerted that natural right in rejecting it, and adopting another, which all had unanimously assented to, and of which no force or compact can deprive the people of any state, whenever they see the necessity, and possess the power to do it. And since the seceding states, by establishing a new constitution and form of federal government among themselves, without the consent of the rest, have shown that they consider the right to do so whenever the occasion may, in their opinion require it, as unquestionable, we may infer that that right has not been diminished by any new compact which they may since have entered into, since none could be more solemn or explicit than the first, nor more binding upon the contracting parties. Their obligation, therefore, to preserve the present constitution, is not greater than their former obligations were, to adhere to the articles of confederation; each state possessing the same right of withdrawing itself from the confederacy without the consent of the rest, as any number of them do, or ever did, possess.
John Taylor of Caroline, a ratifier for the State of Virgina:
In the creation of the federal government, the states exercised the highest act of sovereignty, and they may, if they please, repeat the proof of their sovereignty, by its annihilation. But the union possesses no innate sovereignty, like the states; it was not self-constituted; it is conventional, and of course subordinate to the sovereignties by which it was formed.
The deputations by sovereignties, far from being considered as killing the sovereignties from which they have derived limited powers, are evidences of their existence; and leagues between states demonstrate their vitality. The sovereignties which imposed the limitations upon the federal government, far from supposing that they perished by the exercise of a part of their faculties, were vindicated, by reserving powers in which their deputy, the federal government, could not participate; and the usual right of sovereigns to alter or revoke its commissions..
And you say the leftists are bad....
Furthermore, how do you explain Virginia, and others reserving that right ? They may have not spelled it out, but pretty darn near it.... I've gotta run...
Nor does a marriage license prohibit divorce. However, the act of getting married has legally-binding ramifications, and so does agreeing to be part of a nation formed under the Constitution. In neither case can one party presume to unilaterally sever the legal ties without some sort of consequence.
The states formally ratified their agreement to live by and under the Constitution.
That includes Article VI, which including the states that the Constitution (not the acts of state governments) are "the supreme Law of the Land." Article VI also states that:
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution
And that includes, of course, acknowledging the superior position of the Constitution, over the desires of the several states that are bound by ratification and the oaths of their officers to remain bound by the supreme Law of the Land.
What you're really saying is that oaths and formal ratifications don't matter. Do you really believe that?
Furthermore, how do you explain Virginia, and others reserving that right ? They may have not spelled it out, but pretty darn near it....
One can "reserve" lots of rights that do not in fact exist. Saying doesn't make it so.
Their obligation, therefore, to preserve the present constitution, is not greater than their former obligations were, to adhere to the articles of confederation; each state possessing the same right of withdrawing itself from the confederacy without the consent of the rest, as any number of them do, or ever did, possess.
Except, of course, that goes directly against the language of the Articles of Confederation, which specifically forbade unilateral secession. And the Articles were not, in fact, superseded by the unilateral actions of the individual states.
That said, I am of the opinion that had the seven states of the Confederacy wanted a peaceful secession, they would have accomplished it. The radicals in South Carolina wanted a war, because they knew that absent war, Virginia and North Carolina would not secede. So they started one.
Had they not, (and if no other group of pro-slavery radicals had decided to), things would have stewed for a while, but the secession would have been let stand. Lincoln could not have initiated force, or if he had, he'd have not retained the support necessary to have won the war.
Of course, a seven-state Confederacy would have been a basket case. But that's not the point of discussion.
------------------------------------------------
Our understanding is completely different.
The Federal Constitution is a Compact amongst Sovereigns, "the people and their States". They form ( as you've said previously, ) the General Government to be "their agent". They delegate specific enumerated powers to "their agent". Visit Article 1 Section 8
As New York said:
...And that those Clauses in the said Constitution, which declare, that Congress shall not have or exercise certain Powers, do not imply that Congress is entitled to any Powers not given by the said Constitution..
Like any agreement, it must bind both or none at all. It can't bind the States, and then empower Fedzilla now can it? James Madison,when selling the Constitution to the State of New York definitely viewed it as a Compact:
Two questions of a very delicate nature present themselves on this occasion: 1. On what principle the Confederation, which stands in the solemn form of a compact among the States, can be superseded without the unanimous consent of the parties to it? 2. What relation is to subsist between the nine or more States ratifying the Constitution, and the remaining few who do not become parties to it?
"The first question is answered at once by recurring to the absolute necessity of the case; to the great principle of self-preservation; to the transcendent law of nature and of nature's God, which declares that the safety and happiness of society are the objects at which all political institutions aim, and to which all such institutions must be sacrificed. Perhaps, also, an answer may be found without searching beyond the principles of the compact itself. It has been heretofore noted among the defects of the Confederation, that in many of the States it had received no higher sanction than a mere legislative ratification. The principle of reciprocality seems to require that its obligation on the other States should be reduced to the same standard. A compact between independent sovereigns, founded on ordinary acts of legislative authority, can pretend to no higher validity than a league or treaty between the parties. It is an established doctrine on the subject of treaties, that all the articles are mutually conditions of each other; that a breach of any one article is a breach of the whole treaty; and that a breach, committed by either of the parties, absolves the others, and authorizes them, if they please, to pronounce the compact violated and void."
New York in turn ratified the Federal Constitution with the following:
That the Powers of Government may be reassumed by the People, whensoever it shall become necessary to their Happiness....
This amounts to nothing ? Need I remind you, " that's it's only a piece of paper"...The People are the States, and they speak as such.....
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.