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 Pauls 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 Pauls 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 ...
That is entirely false historians (at least competent historians)
Translation: the small, select group of pro-Hamilton "historians" you personally agree with.
The reality is much more complex. It is indeed true that Hamilton claimed he was not going to fire the first shot before the duel (though this was never communicated to Burr, who actually expressed surprise and disgust at it when he found out about it after the fact). But Hamilton was also a flaky, impulsive hot-head who vacillated between conciliation and provocation. As much as he told friends he would not fire the first shot before the duel, he also did just about everything physically possible during the duel to provoke Burr and send signals of an intent to kill. Hamilton actually interrupted the duel as they were lining up in order to re-right his pistol aim and adjust his glasses, suggesting he very much intended to fire a shot. He also selected a pair of pistols with hairspring triggers, which were designed to give the advantage to the man with the better shot (and Hamilton was generally reputed to be a better shot than Burr).
It is also easy to see how Hamilton's pre-duel claims that he would delope mid-duel were intended to leave a paper trail behind in the event that he emerged from the duel victorious, as he would almost certainly face murder charges. Seriously, who writes a letter that basically says "I detest dueling and find it wrong, but I'm going to do it anyway and just not fire"? It suggests that either Hamilton was a flake, or he was not honest about his intentions in that letter and intended them for his legal defense. Dueling was perilous legal territory for all involved - even to the point that the seconds of both men intentionally turned away so they could not be considered eyewitnesses to the actual shot. A paper written the day before disavowing any intent to fire could be used to construct a legal defense that the shot was accidental, even if it was not, and thus reduce the charge to manslaughter.
In any case, the most likely scenarios accepted by most historians today are these:
1. Hamilton fired intentionally at Burr and missed. Burr returned fire and hit.
2. Hamilton intentionally deloped as he claimed he would do and fired above Burr to miss (though he did so against dueling convention, where the deloping shot was traditionally fired into the ground). Burr mistook this as a missed shot, quite justifiably, and returned fire.
3. Hamilton did not intend to fire but accidentally tapped the hair trigger resulting in an accidental discharge above Burr. Burr mistook this as a missed shot, again justifiably, and returned fire.
As he was removed from the dueling ground H believing the gun had not discharged warned those aiding him to be careful with it since it was still loaded.
Incorrect. After being shot Hamilton actually admitted firing by saying "I did not intend to fire at him" and insisted Nathaniel Pendleton, his second, could verify that (obviously referring to his pre-duel letter, and thus suggesting he was indeed either laying the legal grounds or had fired by accident). The loaded pistol he warned about was his second, a backup gun permitted by dueling practices should both men fire and miss.
Police are extremely closed mouth about criminals guilt. In fact, they are called alleged guilty parties or some other euphemism
Nonsense. You are mistaking police, who routinely issue press releases and hold news conferences about how they "busted the bad guys," with the press, which does indeed use the "alleged" euphemism ad nauseum in order to protect itself from civil libel suits if the guy gets acquitted. The police are bound by no such code though, and a prosecutor who made his case by repeatedly referring to the defendant's "alleged crime" would be laughed out of the courtroom. So would a cop witness.
Jeffersons actions in this case were loathsome through and through and were an offense to the law. Perhaps you can educated me as to other presidents doing something similar?
Certainly. John Adams and the prosecution of the Philadelphia Aurora and other anti-federalist newspapers under the Sedition Act. Abraham Lincoln, who unlike Jefferson, actually suspended habeas corpus and used the suspension to target opposition northern politicians and newspapers well behind the war lines just as much as any southerner. Andrew Johnson, who enlisted the military to make swift execution of the accused Lincoln assassination conspirators including Surratt outside of the civilian court system, even though the evidence against her was questionable. Franklin Roosevelt, who personally ramrodded the Quirin saboteur conspirators into a military tribunal with hasty executions instead of a civilian courtroom and got the supreme court to rubber stamp it on highly dubious legal grounds. The list could go on a lot longer. And it includes many presidents we consider "great."
Outside of Jeffersons flunkies...
That's an awfully broad qualifier you use there. In fact, it could apply to over 100 witnesses against Burr in some form or another. The court heard from most of them but it generally did not exonerate Burr by challenging what they said - he got off because none of them could show that he ever ACTED upon his alleged intention of separating the western states - a key legal point, which was also the crux of Martin's defense strategy.
I believe in the Constitution 100%. However, the federal government has usurped powers from the states that were never relinquished. As a matter of fact, the Constitution clarifies that states retain those rights in the 10th amendment.
Why do you think that prohibition required a constitutional amendment, but anti-drug laws do not? The federal government never had the power to force states to obey these laws, so they have found ways to stretch and manipulate the original intent of the Constitution to invent powers they never had.
Since the passage of the 17th amendment, the states unfortunately no longer have representation in Congress to control over-reaching federal powers as the founding fathers intended.
The contract was breached by the federal government a long time ago. Most states just put up with the federal government's “illegal” abuse, but they are starting to see the light. We want a divorce.
You can call secession a breach of contract if you want, but that doesn't make it wrong, any more than divorce is an unfortunate, although necessary part of life.
The People are not required to take an oath to the Constitution. We are a free people. We have the right to change our government to serve our needs. To say otherwise is to be contrary to the definition of liberty. The founding fathers knew this and it was anticipated. It's why we have the 2nd Amendment.
Hamilton was also accused of having an affair with Angelica Church, his sister-in-law so unproven scurrilous claims were not going in one direction.
And yet it does not change the fact that he was indeed guilty of the Reynolds affair.
Under the rules of the day the Reynolds affair being entirely private was not to be used as political ammunition.
I see you're a fan of what can be termed the "Clinton Defense." It's utter nonsense though. There are no "rules" of the day that preclude mention of a sex scandal because it is "private." Kings and politicians have been rocked by sex scandals for thousands of years. Henry VIII had a couple of his wives executed for adultery. And even in the antebellum United States, the simple appearance of marital impropriety could rock the political scene in a way that was anything but private (witness the Petticoat Affair in Jackson's presidency).
The fact that H fell for the Honey Trap set up to catch him
And we'll call that one the "Marion Barry Defense." The "b*tch set him up," right? Sorry, but Hamilton still took the bait and continued to do so for at least three long years. He had himself and himself ALONE to blame for that.
"Outside of Jeffersons flunkies..."
"at least competent historians..."
Tell me, arrogant. Do you know where one might find a true Scotsman?
They were every bit as legitimate as the other 11 secession ordinances which meant that they too were not worth the paper they were written on. Lincoln had to answer to the Constitution, not some group's pretensions. The rebs might as well have written a declaration annexing Pluto.
------------------------------------------------
And, how about the “secession ordinance” of Arizona Territory? By the neo-Confederates’ “states rights” reasoning, how could a territory secede from the Union?
Also, unlike the Burr incest thing which is COMPLETELY speculative on your part, there may actually be something to the Hamilton-Church relationship. The letters between them were unusually effusive and intimate. Even Ron Chernow’s hagiographic biography of Hamilton admits that it isn’t a very far fetched rumor.
I don't think that's an admission of secession legitimacy but rather a fulfillment of the Constitutional guarantee of a republican form of government. The behavior of the ex-Confederate powers when given free reign during Andrew Johnson's Reconstruction would support that view.
Article VI mandates an oath by state officers to support the Constitution. A decision by those officers to secede violates said oath. It is in addition a clear act of insurrection, the suppression of which is a power allocated to the Federal Government.
Case closed.
Ah... a spontaneous election. How quaint. But in fact you are wrong. The Texas referendum on secession was a vote for or against the ordinance of Secession, created by a secession convention that convened on 28 Jan 1861. The Texas Legislature voted to endorse the calling of the secession convention, and opened the House chambers for its use. Gov. Sam Houston actually opposed the convention, and apparently also secession in general -- he apparently considered it to be unconstitutional. Both Houston and the Texas legislature called for a referendum on the matter, to put the issue of secession to a popular vote; and of course the state of Texas conducted the election. (source)
The bottom line is that the People choose their government, regardless of Article VI, or any other claim you try to make.
Uh huh. So you've basically just given up on the untenable argument that "the Constitution is silent on secession," and now you're apparently hoping I don't notice the shift in your argument.
All you're really saying is, that if people want to get out from under the rule of the Constitution, they can mount an insurrection to make it stick. But if so ... there is no longer any ground for complaint if the government against which they acted, undertakes a Constitutionally authorized action to suppress said insurrection.
Was King George right to fight the insurrection?
The people of Texas would legally and peacefully vote on secession. I wonder... would the federal government be any more successful than King George in stopping the insurrection?
How about if the rest of the country secedes from you? Would that be alright?
The Constitution defines a form of government, in which the several states agree to operate under an over-arching federal government, as part of a single country. The states have reserved powers, but the states are also subject to the authority of the Federal government. If we assume that oaths mean anything at all, then an oath to uphold the Constitution is an oath to maintain that system of government -- and secession explicitly violates that oath.
This has been a discussion of whether or not the Constitution "allows" secession. It clearly does not, and the Constitution describes the authority by which the federal government may suppress an insurrection.
As a matter of governance under the Constitution, there is no real argument beyond the neo-confederate desire to obscure the real reasons for secession.
We can natter on all day about whether secession is morally justified -- it may or may not be. In the case of the Confederacy, however, there is no real question: the slave-holding roots of secession were utterly immoral.
And make no mistake: it was about slavery. Since you've brought up Texas, note that their referendum was an up or down vote on the Ordinance of Secession. Read it: you'll find that this document was absolutely clear that slavery was the leading cause for their action.
It's a matter of perspective, I suppose, as to whether billy has seceded from reality, or vice versa.
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.