Posted on 02/17/2010 3:43:05 PM PST by Constitutionalist Conservative
Prior to the American Civil War, it was popularly assumed that states which had freely chosen to enter the Union could just as freely withdraw from said union at their own discretion. Indeed, from time to time individual states or groups of states had threatened to do just that, but until 1860 no state had actually followed through on the threat.
Since then, it has been considered axiomatic that the War “settled the question” of whether or not states had the right to secede. The central government, backed by force of arms, says the answer is No. As long as no state or group of states tests the central government’s resolve, we can consider the question to be “settled” from a practical viewpoint.
This assertion has long troubled me from a philosophical and moral viewpoint. We are supposedly a nation of laws, and the central government is supposedly subservient to the laws that established and empower it.
In a nation of laws, when someone asks, “Do states have a right to secede from the Union?”, a proper answer would have one of two forms:
Here, x would be an explanation of the laws that supported the Yes or No answer.
With the secession issue, though, we are given the following as a complete and sufficient answer:
“No, because if any state tries to secede, the central government will use force of arms to keep it from succeeding.”
There is no appeal to law in this answer – just brute force.
Based on this premise, the central government can amass to itself whatever right or power it chooses, simply by asserting it. After all, who has the power to say otherwise?
Come to think of it, that’s exactly how the central government has behaved more often than not since the Civil War.
This issue came to mind today because of an item posted today on a trial lawyer’s blog (found via Politico). The lawyer’s brother had written to each of the Supreme Court justices, asking for their input on a screenplay he was writing. In the screenplay, Maine decides to secede from the US and join Canada. The writer asked for comments regarding how such an issue would play out if it ever reached the Supreme Court.
Justice Antonin Scalia actually replied to the screenwriter’s query. I have a lot of respect for Scalia regarding constitutional issues, but his answer here is beyond absurd.
I am afraid I cannot be of much help with your problem, principally because I cannot imagine that such a question could ever reach the Supreme Court. To begin with, the answer is clear. If there was any constitutional issue resolved by the Civil War, it is that there is no right to secede. (Hence, in the Pledge of Allegiance, "one Nation, indivisible.")
He actually said that a constitutional issue was settled by military action. Oh, and by including the word “indivisible” in the Pledge of Allegiance, the issue became even more settled.
What if the president were to send out the troops to prevent the news media from publishing or broadcasting anything critical of his administration? This is clearly an unconstitutional action, but by Scalia’s logic, if the president succeeds, we must then say that the military action “settled the question” of free speech.
If these scenarios are not comparable, I’d like to hear why.
Ah the arrogance of the Lost Cause Brigade in full bloom! "Do what I demand or leave!" And then toss in name calling to boot. You are truly a legend in your own mind.
And you made three claims, all based on your own opinion and the assumption that the Davis regime was serious about peace. Something that their actions don't support.
The facts stand. Your opinion of what might have happened certainly has absolutely no relevance and does not matter.
The facts do stand. Fact: the Southern states walked out and walked away from any responsibility for national debt and national obligations. Fact: the Southern states took every bit of federal property they could get their hands on - from forts to mints to revenue cutters to pots and pans - without compensation and without offer of compensation. Fact: that continued with their demand that the federal government turn over property in Charleston and Pensacola without offer of payment. Those are the facts, and as John Adams noted facts are stubborn things. You may claim that the South would have paid for the stolen property. You may insist that the South would have taken responsibility for their share of national obligations. But there is no solid evidence supporting your opinion. No concrete offer to Lincoln. No dollar figure mentioned. No time line proposed. You your claim that the South would have done the right thing is your opinion alone, unsupported by anything other than Lost Cause wishful thinking.
It settled that to attempt it would prove expensive in treasure and blood.
With regard to Confederate efforts to peacefully conclude an agreement, South Carolina issued a formal letter to the administration in late January of 1861 offering compensation for Union facilities on SC soil.
Shortly thereafter, Jefferson Davis offered the same to the Buchanan administration from all the seceded states.
On March 2, the first Confederate peace commissioner arrived in Washington to meet with Lincoln to discuss peace and compensation that had been authorized by the Confederate government.
They stayed in Washington for nearly five weeks, waiting to be seen by the new administration.
Lincoln refused.
I just love watching you Lost Causers grunt and scratch and thump each other on the back. Especially for the most lame posts imaginable. It's like watching the attractions at the zoo, you're so predictable.
I agree that this pragmatic form of the question was indeed answered, complete with exclamation point.
Documentation please. I'm aware of the letter Davis sent to Lincoln in February about a week after he was appointed, offering nothing of the sort. When was this generous letter sent to Bucahanan?
On March 2, the first Confederate peace commissioner arrived in Washington to meet with Lincoln to discuss peace and compensation that had been authorized by the Confederate government.
False. They were there to demand Lincoln's recognition for the legitimacy of their acts of secession and confederate sovereignty. They were not there to discuss anything unless Lincoln first caved to that demand. And had Lincoln surrendered, then they might discuss payment but only if it was of interest to them. The idea that they were there to negotiate peace and payment is Southron myth.
They stayed in Washington for nearly five weeks, waiting to be seen by the new administration.
And what was there to talk about? Lincoln had Davis' ultimatum, he'd gotten it almost two weeks before. Unless Lincoln was prepared to surrender to rebel demands then there was no point in meeting.
I never expect a “serious” response from you...only thinly veiled misrepresentations.
And yet that doesn't stop the Lost Cause brigade from posting them.
So, what is true is that despite your personal opinion, the facts remain that the Confederate government did offer access to the Mississippi and did offer compensation to the Union for Federal property seized.
I believe that about does it.
“.....a very common fallacy in which one attempts to defend oneself or another from criticism by turning the critique back against the accuser. ...”
Try again.
Neither is true. We will never know if lip-service paid about keeping the Mississippi open was an honest offer or a ploy. And no such offer to pay was ever made by the Davis regime to either Buchanan or Lincoln. Not that I've seen.
Nice of you to print the definition for all your fellow Lost Causers who haven't a clue what it means. But if that won't work then neither will Southron myth.
Which brings to mind your beloved Tyrant...
Tyr´ant Pronunciation: tÄ«´rant n. 1. An absolute ruler; a sovereign unrestrained by law or constitution; a usurper of sovereignty. 2. Specifically, a monarch, or other ruler or master, who uses power to oppress his subjects; a person who exercises unlawful authority, or lawful authority in an unlawful manner; one who by taxation, injustice, or cruel punishment, or the demand of unreasonable services, imposes burdens and hardships on those under his control, which law and humanity do not authorize, or which the purposes of government do not require; a cruel master; an oppressor.
Sounds like Lincoln to me..........
Sounds more like Davis. Lincoln ran and won two contested elections, Davis didn't. Lincoln was constrained by a Supreme Court, Davis wasn't. Lincoln had a political opposition in Congress, Davis didn't. Davis ignored his constitution and trampled on state's rights and civil rights in ways Lincoln never imagined. If tyrant is to be correctly applied to one or the other, then I suggest Davis more closely fits the term.
Other than the Great - Major Innes Randolph
Abe Lincoln Writes to Joshua Speed by Jack Peachum Dear Joshua: You know that I love you,
That I have always loved you—only you—
The woman means nothing to me—nothing!
Henceforth, don’t write angry letters to me!
Mary always was and always will be
A splinter between us in our bed:—but—
I can’t be shut of her in this office!
Did my connivance top my ambition,
How quickly I would be a single man!
What is it that fool Herndon says of me?
"His ambition is a little engine—
And knows no rest!" He sees not half of it!
May God legitimize me in office!
A President must be above the law—
Else how is he to make a government?
Me, for the cunning of the country boy,
The big, rude, untutored rural bumpkin
As cozzens the clever city-slicker—
The husband that outsmarts the nagging wife!
Anyway, she’s a cow, gross of habit,
Unpleasant—forever in a foul mood,
Capable of the meanest behavior,
A spendthrift who wastes more than I can earn—
(I sometimes believe she might be insane—
I’ve considered—but that’s not possible!)
We no longer sleep together, of course—
Her headaches—and what a relief to me!
Oh, she has perjured herself more than once
In the matter of government monies—
And persuaded others to do likewise!
I don’t know how we should make an answer
If there be any call to inquiry!
Perhaps—you will pray for me, Joshua—
Pray my rising career don’t be cut short
By the machinations of a woman!
No, of course, there won’t be an inquiry—
I’ve taken proper steps—the matter’s closed!
But you ask what brought me to marry her?
She with her connections and her money—
When you’re poor as I am, you’re needing both—
(Alas, her fortune long gone, I’m afraid!)
I say, what other reasons could there be?
One don’t ride to this office by merit—
The fare will be paid with cash and conscience—
In that capacity, she serves me well.
And lest you think I give her too much praise,
I remind you—she was once a helpmate—
So, in spite of all, I’ve a debt to her—
Not only for office, but family,
A thing I never had nor dared dream of
In my whole entire melancholy life—
But here I have suffered such tragedies!
Alas, that poor Willie should die—my boy,
My precious little son, a sweet angel,
And he shut in the earth, food for the worm!
I glimpse him now and then, in pale moonlight,
Walking across the lawn of the White House—
Mary tells me she’s seen him too—at play,
In the parlor sometimes after sunrise—
Now, God help us both—for we know he’s dead—
We’ve all seen him lying in his coffin!
Our seance did nothing to bring him forth—
How can he be haunting these corridors?
It breaks my heart—I must not dwell on it!
Now, I’ll tell you a thing that baffles me—
Last evening, I looked in a mirror—
And saw my face, half dead and half-alive—
One side, my living face stared back at me,
And on the other side, my naked skull—
Devoid of skin—gleamed bone-white in the glass!
I looked again and the vision was gone!
You agree with everything he said, do you?
...by Jack Peachum
You southron types do have a fascination with homosexuality, don't you?
You Governmental types do have a habit with electing homosexuals,don't you?
P.S
Tyrant quote of the day:
"What about my tariff? ...
I'll defer to your expertise in in that area. I can't honestly say that I voted for someone who was homosexual. But then again I never felt the need to ask.
Tyrant quote of the day...
Rebel quote of the day: "I surrender."
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.