On this date in 1863

[Bull Snipe]

A glorious 4th of July for the Union cause. General Lee's Army of Northern Virginia begins it retreat from Pennsylvania after having been defeated by General Meade's Army of the Potomac at the Battle of Gettysburg. General Grant accepts the surrender of the City of Vicksburg from General Pemberton. About 32,000 Confederate soldiers stack their weapons and are paroled by the Union forces. This is the second Confederate Army to surrender to Grant. The Union now controls the Mississippi river and the Confederate state is split into two parts.

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp: "Well there is a serious problem with this.
Human rights are granted by God, and the government should not infringe those, even if the majority says so.
Isn't the issue of slavery an example of government infringing human rights?
We should not allow a system where this is an option.
Oppressive government's should not be tolerated, even if they are elected by Democratic process and aided by a corrupt and immoral court system."

And so yet again DiogenesLamp hints darkly at unlawful or unconstitutional actions to overturn properly elected government instead of imagineering more effective arguments to persuade a majority of fellow citizens there's a better way, much better.
For examples of how this can be done, I refer you to two presidential elections I remember quite well, 1980 and 2016.
They clearly demonstrate that Truth, while often hard-pressed, can sometimes defeat landslides of nonsense and make very serious improvements.

[x]

We the Delegates of the people of Virginia, duly elected in pursuance of a recommendation from the General Assembly, and now met in Convention, having fully and freely investigated and discussed the proceedings of the Federal Convention, and being prepared as well as the most mature deliberation hath enabled us, to decide thereon, DO in the name and in behalf of the people of Virginia, declare and make known that the powers granted under the Constitution, being derived from the people of the United States may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression, and that every power not granted thereby remains with them and at their will: ...

The Virginia statement above was included by Virginia in their 1861 secession ordinance.

From the Richmond Dispatch of March 25, 1861:

Tradition says of the men she elected to the Convention called to pass upon it, a majority were pledged to vote against its adoption. It is certain that a majority of the body did vote against the ratification at one time; and that not until a clause was inserted in the ordinance of ratification, protesting that Virginia would resume the powers granted when they should be perverted to her injury and oppression, was the small vote obtained in its favor, of 89 to 79.

None of the three resume/resume statements above were conditional. They were expressions of what the Constitution meant with regard to secession.

Secession? Or the right of revolution? Unilateral secession at will? Or a negotiated withdrawal?

Notice that the ratification convention says that the federal governments powers derive from the people of the United States, and the newspaper says the powers were granted by Virginia.

Secession was a very thorny question and apt to end in war. Which it did. Obviously, it wasn't as simple a matter as many people claim

[jeffersondem]

“WE the Delegates of the People of the State of New York, duly elected and Met in Convention, having maturely considered the Constitution for the United States of America, agreed to on the seventeenth day of September, in the year One thousand Seven hundred and Eighty seven, by the Convention then assembled at Philadelphia in the Common-wealth of Pennsylvania (a Copy whereof precedes these presents) and having also seriously and deliberately considered the present situation of the United States, Do declare and make known. ... That the Powers of Government may be reassumed by the People, whensoever it shall become necessary to their Happiness; ... “

Please check your source on the above quote.

A good friend of mine says the New York delegates only agreed that the Powers of Government may be reassumed by the People if the King of England, or some other really big and important person to be named at a later date, determined it was necessary.

Can that be right?

[BroJoeK]

jeffersondem: "Killing people you don’t agree with on moral issues may be moral.
I’m not sure that’s what Jesus taught but, for the purpose of this thread, let’s suppose Jesus did tell northerners to kill slave owners (in the South, not the border states)."

Obviously, jeffersondem enjoys his own bizarre sense of humor.

jeffersondem: "Just realize that when your folks took up arms to 'free the slaves' they were fighting to overthrow the pro-slavery provisions of the United States constitution. "

So our Lost Causers often claim, but the truth is quite different.
In fact, "pro-slavery provisions" remained in effect, in Union states until, for the most part, those states themselves legally abolished slavery.
Yes, those "pro-slavery provisions" were indeed overthrown in the Confederacy, but not by the Union so much as by Confederates themselves in declaring themselves a different country!
In what Universe is the United States obliged to enforce its own laws in someone else's country, especially one which provoked, started, declared & waged war on the USA.
Wouldn't the first requirement always be to defeat such an enemy, then straighten out the legal issues?

jeffersondem: "And if, as some believe, southerners were fighting for the pro-slavery provisions in the constitution, they were fighting to prevent the U.S. constitution’s violent overthrow.
But by then, the South had left the union - and took the constitution with them."

Only in your own wet dreams!
In fact the Confederate constitution contained some significant differences from the original, principally in expressly protecting slavery more thoroughly that our Founders intended.

[BroJoeK]

gandalftb: "Yes, my family took up arms after Fort Sumter was attacked.
They fought to force changes to the Constitution, not to overthrow it."

Then, assuming they served honorably, they were nothing more than citizens doing their civic duties, as required by law, just as millions of others, North, Border and South, also did.
We do not blame soldiers for the misjudgments or malfeasance of their leaders.
The soldier's duty is only to serve honorably and lawfully.
God will ultimately decide who wins, who loses, who lives longer & who dies sooner.

That's in His hands, not ours.

[BroJoeK]

jeffersondem: "To be clear: I don't like the concept of true democracy, or a pure one either.
More importantly, our founders didn't like, and didn't provide for a democracy."

Amen, brother.

[BroJoeK]

rustbucket: "Nor did it give power to the Federal Government or to individual states or to groups of states to stop other states from seceding. Indeed, IMO the Constitution wouldn't have been ratified if such approval had been required or such power had been given. "

Nor did the Constitution, or any Founder, ever expect the United States to submit humbly to military assault from secessionist states.
Indeed, in one of its clearer sections it defined exactly what such war-making is.

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp: "Everyone nowadays has been brainwashed with slavery on the brain.
The war had nothing to do with slavery.
Lincoln didn't suddenly wake up one morning and say 'Those Southerners have slavery, so I'm going to attack them.'

What Lincoln did do was to wake up one day and say 'If those Southerners established independent trade with Europe, two hundred million dollars per year will be lost to my backers in New York, and the Federal Government will also lose 80% of it's income.' "

Both of those hypothetical "quotes" from Lincoln are pure fantasy, one no less than the other, both invented by people with their own axes to grind, not Lincoln's true words to report.

DiogenesLamp: "Do you not realize when you've been conned? "

All the conning here comes from DiogenesLamp.

DiogenesLamp: "He sent that invasion force to do one thing, and that was to prevent the South from Trading with Europe without New York and Washington DC taking their cut."

You know I think I saw something like that in JK Rowling's latest movie, "Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them"

[rustbucket]

Notice that the ratification convention says that the federal governments powers derive from the people of the United States, and the newspaper says the powers were granted by Virginia.

The Constitution has no provision where power is given to the en masse people of the whole country.

An answer to the point you make about the wording of the Virginia resume powers statement dates back to an 1866 book by Albert Taylor Bledsoe, an Illinois lawyer who bested Lincoln in court more times than Lincoln bested him. The book was, "Is Davis a Traitor? Secession as a Constitutional Right Prior to the War of 1861." Bledsoe noted the following in the book:

In the first place, the Constitution was not to be established by the people of America as one nation, or by "the people of the United States as one great society;" and this fact was perfectly well known to the Virginia Convention of 1788. It has already been sufficiently demonstrated, that the Constitution was ordained, not by the people of America as one great society, but by each People acting for itself alone, and to be bound exclusively by its own voluntary act. It would be a great solicism in language, as well as logic, to say that the people of the United States as one great society, might resume powers which were not delegated by them. The sovereignty which delegates, is the sovereignty which resumes; and it is absurd to speak of a resumption of powers by any other authority, whether real or imaginary.

Bledsoe made the arguments for the right of secession better than I can, so I'll quote more of his arguments (paragraph breaks mine for readability):

… the evil intended to be remedied shows the true meaning of the words in question. The Virginia people did not fear, that the people of the United States might pervert the powers of the Federal Government for their own oppression. Their fears were for the weak, not for the strong; not for the people of the United States in the aggregate, but for the Southern States in the minority; and especially the State of Virginia.

They feared, as the burning eloquence of Henry, and Mason, and Monroe, and Grayson evinced, that the new Government would "operate as a faction of seven States to oppress six;" that the Northern majority would "operate as a faction of seven States to oppress six;" that the Northern majority would, sooner or later, trample on the Southern minority.

They feared in the language of Grayson, that the new Union would be made "to exchange the poverty of the North for the riches of the South." In the words of Henry, "This Government subjects everything to the Northern majority. Is there not, then, a settled purpose to check the Southern interest? We thus put unbounded power over our property in hands not having a common interest with us. How can the Southern members, prevent the adoption of the most oppressive mode of taxation in the Southern States, as there is a majority in favor of the Northern States? Sir, this is a picture so horrid, so wretched, so dreadful, that I need no longer dwell upon it."*

Did the Convention of Virginia, then, seek to quiet these dreadful apprehensions, by declaring, that the people of the United States "as one great society," might resume the powers of the Federal Government whensoever they should be perverted to their oppression? By declaring, that this one great society, or rather the majority of this society, might resume the powers of the Federal Government whensoever they should be pleased to use them for the oppression of the minority? Could any possible interpretation render any legislation more absolutely ridiculous? It puts the remedy in the hands of those from whom the evil is expected to proceed! It gives the shield of defence to the very power which holds the terrible sword of destruction!

The Convention of Virginia spoke "in behalf of the people of Virginia;" and not in behalf of the overbearing majority, by whom it was feared these people might be crushed. They sought to protect, not the people of America, who needed no protection, but the people of Virginia. Hence, as the people of Virginia had delegated powers to the Federal Government, they reserved "in behalf of the people of Virginia," the right to resume those powers whensoever they should be perverted to their injury or oppression.

* Elliot's Debates, Vol. iii, p. 312.

Now this reservation enures to the benefit of all the parties to the Constitutional compact; for as all such compacts are mutual, so no one party can be under any greater obligation than another. Hence, a condition in favor of one is a condition in favor of all. This well-known principle was asserted by Mr. Calhoun in the great debate of 1833, with the remark that he presumed it would not be denied by Mr. Webster; and it was not denied by him. Hence any State, as well as Virginia, had the express right to resume the powers delegated by her to the Federal Government, in case they should be perverted to her injury or oppression.

But, it may be asked, were the powers of the Federal Government perverted to the injury or oppression of any Southern State? It might be easily shown, that they were indeed perverted to the injury and oppression of more States than one; but this is unnecessary, since the parties to the compact, the sovereign States by whom it was ratified, are the judges of this question.*

* See Virginia Resolutions of *98; Kentucky Resolutions of '98 and ‘99; the Virginia Report of 1800, &c., &c.

Here are some opinions about the question of the whole people of the United States:

They acted upon it in the only manner in which they can act safely, effectively and wisely, on such a subject — by assembling in convention. It is true, they assembled in their several States — and where else should they have assembled? No political dreamer was ever wild enough to think of breaking down the lines which separate the States, and of compounding the American people into one common mass. Of consequence, when they act, they act in their States. But the measures they adopt do not, on that account, cease to be the measures of the people themselves, or become the measures of the State governments.
[Chief Justice John Marshall, McCullough v Maryland, 4 Wheat. 316, (1819)]

When the American people created a national legislature, with certain enumerated powers, it was neither necessary nor proper to define the powers retained by the States. These powers proceed, not from the people of America, but from the people of the several States; and remain, after the adoption of the constitution, what they were before, except so far as they may be abridged by that instrument.
[Chief Justice John Marshall, Sturges v. Crowninshield, 4 Wheat. 122 (1819)]

The ultimate source of the Constitution's authority is the consent of the people of each individual State, not the consent of the undifferentiated people of the Nation as a whole. The ratification procedure erected by Article VII makes this point clear. The Constitution took effect once it had been ratified by the people gathered in convention in nine different States. But the Constitution went into effect only "between the States so ratifying the same," Art. VII; it did not bind the people of North Carolina until they had accepted it.
[Justice Clarence Thomas, US Term Limits v Thornton, 514 US 779, (1995)]

In addition, it would make no sense to speak of powers as being reserved to the undifferentiated people of the Nation as a whole, because the Constitution does not contemplate that those people will either exercise power or delegate it. The Constitution simply does not recognize any mechanism for action by the undifferentiated people of the Nation.
[Justice Clarence Thomas, US Term Limits v Thornton, 514 US 779, (1995)]

Those excerpts from opinions were posted long ago by poster 4CJ.

[rustbucket]

According to every version of the New York Ratification Document I’ve seen, your friend is wrong. Perhaps there was a draft version of something like that written before the Continental Congress passed the Declaration of Independence. As I remember, a number of the delegates to the Continental Congress initially wanted to reach a peaceful agreement with the King rather than the complete break that the DOI achieved.

[BroJoeK]

Sontagged: "I agree with you about the Deep State (Jesuit banksters?) in Lincoln’s day."

But the key point which our Lost Causers always ignore is that in 1860, just as today, those "Deep Staters" were Democrats, not Republicans.
They were the economic, political and social allies of the great Southern Slave-Power, they voted with Southern Democrats, they supported Southern concerns even to the point of secession.
In New York they wanted to secede along with the Deep South.

Indeed, those Deep State Northern Democrats supported their Southern brethren until, until... until secessionists turned on them, renounced their debts, suspended payments and even withheld their exports -- "cotton diplomacy" they called it.
Suddenly secession hit Northern Democrats where it truly hurt and they began to see the wisdom of "preserving the Union".

But DiogenesLamp claims those Democrats "pulled Lincoln's strings", forcing him to "start war at Fort Sumter" and that part of his story is pure fantasy, worthy of a JK Rowling novel.

[BroJoeK]

jeffersondem: "That is an interesting comment about the constitution of the United States being founded on "false pretenses."
May we see your data on that?"

Read it yourself, for the first time.
Show us where the word "slavery" appears in the original Constitution.

[gandalftb]

I still own the timber that my family hid slaves on. The ruins of the cabin are still there.

My great-great grandfather took wagons to the dock at Clayton, IA picked up the escaping slaves there and sent them on through the network of Methodist abolitionists north to Minnesota and Canada.

Just plain fact that abolitionists violated federal law helping fugitive slaves. There were many in NE IA along the MI River.

Google “Sny Magill”. Donald Magill was a Scotsman that was in my family circle, son of a local indian trader, fought at Vicksburg and was so traumatized that he retreated to the valley of Sny Magill very near my family farm, rarely ever spoke again. The valley and forest reserve is named after his father’s trading post.

My grandfather knew him and I saw the remains of his cabin when I was a boy.

There is also a book “The History of Clayton County”, published in 1873. It talks a great deal about the run up to the war from an IA perspective.

But then again, this could all be utter nonsense by some poser that continues this endless debate, hoping to enlighten both sides.

[jeffersondem]

“Show us where the word “slavery” appears in the original Constitution.”

Show us where the words “racial discrimination" appears in the Confederate constitution.

And give us a heads-up if you plan on making a serious comment.

[jmacusa]

History does repeat itself , doesn't it JoeK? In 1949 Southern Democrats would again split from their party and form the even more racist and radical and supremacist Dixiecrats.

[BroJoeK]

gandalftb: "But then again, this could all be utter nonsense by some poser that continues this endless debate, hoping to enlighten both sides."

"Poser" is the easiest explanation, otherwise things get... complicated.
As I said, unless your ancestors were Kansas Jayhawkers or part of John Brown's family, they committed no violence against slavers before 1861.

So what exactly were they "guilty" of, helping the Underground Railroad?
And they did this in violation of orders from Federal officials?
No, of course not, they were unhindered by Federal law enforcement -- law enforcement that was under strict control of Democrats in Washington, DC.

Why were Democrats so lackadaisical about enforcing their own Fugitive Slave laws?
Because there were too few Fugitives to make a difference in their 4 million slave population -- a few dozen a month, nearly all from anti-slavery Border State areas (i.e., Missouri, Maryland).
Those fugitives made no serious difference in the Deep South until... until... until they needed an excuse for declaring secession and then suddenly Fugitive Slaves became their defining constitutional breech.
Indeed, slavers' need for a Constitutional breech may help explain why there was so little enforcement in the first place.

So the Underground Railroad became a fig leaf Deep South Fire Eaters used to cover otherwise totally "at pleasure" and therefore unconstitutional declarations of secession.

See, DiogenesLamp, anybody can play your ludicrous conspiracy games.

[BroJoeK]

jeffersondem: "Show us where the words “racial discrimination" appears in the Confederate constitution.
And give us a heads-up if you plan on making a serious comment."

Show us where the word "slavery" appears in the original Constitution.
And give us a heads-up if you plan on making a serious response.

[BroJoeK]

jmacuisa: "In 1949 Southern Democrats would again split from their party and form the even more racist and radical and supremacist Dixiecrats."

I think at least some of our Lost Causers are the last of the old Dixiecrats, or maybe their children & grandchildren.
The Dixiecrat 1948 candidate, Strom Thurmond, became a Republican in 1964 and so we have those people in our party.

At about that same time a former West Virginia KKK Exalted Cyclops was moving up to Democrat leadership in the US Senate, so it's just not correct to say that all the old racists became Republicans.

[gandalftb]

“So what exactly were they “guilty” of, helping the Underground Railroad?”

The “Fugitive Slave Act of 1850” required that all escaped slaves, upon capture, be returned to their masters and that officials and citizens of free states had to cooperate or face jail and fines.

I never said that my family committed violence against slavers, read my post.

I said that my family broke federal law because of their faith.

Slow down and read the posts before you respond so absolutely.

True, not many slaves successfully escaped, maybe 1,000 a year, hard to document. But my family regularly helped a few a month while a very small part of the network. The network was very secretive and it is unlikely that historians have much of a grasp of the full extent.

“anti-slavery Border State areas (i.e., Missouri, Maryland)” ??? Better check your facts, those were slave states that didn’t secede.

[rockrr]

Slow down and read the posts before you respond so absolutely.

Indeed. I believe BroJoeK's post was complimentary to yours, not critical of it.