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.
Frankly, I think you could set aside your German, Swedish, Dutch and French speakers from the category of "loyal subjects" with few exceptions.
They might have paid lip service to the Brits, but that's not a sign of loyalty.
The main source of resistance to the Brits in the Mohawk valley, as a good example, was centered in what was, in the main, a multi-ethnic Lutheran Church ("The Old Yellow Church").. The vision there was far different than that found in the transplanted English villages along the coast.
Then there were the Scots ~ most of them were descendants of fellows who'd been brought to America as POWs from the war of conquest mounted against Scotland by the Brits.
Want some Scottish names from the Revolution? Oh, my goodness!
No, to evaluate what we are really talking about when it comes to secession from the American Union we need to start with conditions at the time of the Treaty of Paris and not before.
Here you had 13 new nations ~ with land claims all the way to the West Coast (among other things). In a short period of time they formed "A new nation" ~ with, again, land claims to the Pacific (which, whether exercised or not actually existed, and were not disputed by the Brits in the treaty conferences leading up to the Treaty of Paris ~ so we don't need to get into a question of whether Georgia's claim to California was greater than Mexico's ~ which came later.) At the time of the treaty signing there were the colonies, and their land claims.
Within the framework of the Articles of Confederation lines were drawn and political institutions established, and vice versa.
That's where we start ~ not with the pre-existing foreign sympathies of the greater part of the American population in 1776.
Americans logically begin their legal history as The United States! A new nation with vast land resources made a conscious decision to sell it to the people to extend civilization into the wilderness.
Georgy Zhukov did much the same in Russian military service (albeit over a longer period of time).
Hideyoshi Nakamura rose from a peasant foot soldier to become Shogun of Japan.
There are other such men reported in human history, but not many.
What their lives tell us is that social mobility, though certainly possible, is won only at a very high personal cost.
BTW, Zhukov kind of won WWII despite having Stalin as his boss. Neither Nakamura nor Forrest had a comparable disability.
It reflects his post-rebellion revisionism you mean. Prior to 1861 the only thing Bedford Forrest had to say about a black man was something along the lines of "Sold! To the gentleman in the blue suit."
It's also telling that the only reference anyone can find to any organization called "Jubilee of Pole Bearers" is on Lost Cause websites printing this alleged address. Did they organize for that one speech and then disband without leaving a trace?
Nope. It's a collection of quotes from a variety of websites and books that I've come across over the years. No one link. Unlike that POS from Clyde which could have been linked to Link
I just provided the link to show I knew how to do it.
Well if editorial comments qualify as ad hominum attacks then we're both guilty.
As opposed to the Southron viewpoint which is exactly the opposite - only Yankees are racist? Give me a break.
Idabilly posted an example of how most yankees felt/feel about blacks by posting the Great Emancipator's own racist words.
If Lincoln spoke those words today there is no doubt he would be pilloried as a racist, and rightly so. But he didn't say those words today, did he? So why stop at him? If you are going to judge Lincoln by modern standards of racism, are you willing to judge everyone of the period by those same standards? Will you admit for the record that Davis and Lee and every other Southerner you would care to name was every bit as vile a racist as Lincoln was?
It contrasts the difference between disHonest Abe and NBF.
Dishonest Abe was a racist till he OD'd on lead but has been falsely portrayed as one who loved blacks.
NBF, on the other hand, has been falsely portrayed as a raving racist.
There's your damnyankee revisionism.
Prior to 1861 the only thing Bedford Forrest had to say about a black man was something along the lines of "Sold! To the gentleman in the blue suit."
Shall we repost all the pre-1861 disHonest Abe quotes on blacks? Hmmmm?
It's also telling that the only reference anyone can find to any organization called "Jubilee of Pole Bearers" is on Lost Cause websites printing this alleged address.
You and the rest of the damnyankee coven have selectively left out certain parts of history that you didn't want to be known. This is another example.
Did they organize for that one speech and then disband without leaving a trace?
Then show that its untrue, Mr. Athiest. (come and get it, bubba-ho)
And the rebel government not only incorporated all those protections into their own constitution, along with guaranteeding that no confederate state could ever be slave free. Then they went a step further and protected slave imports as well.
“As for the South, it is enough to say that perhaps eighty per cent. of her armies were neither slave-holders, nor had the remotest interest in the institution. No other proof, however, is needed than the undeniable fact that at any period of the war from its beginning to near its close the South could have saved slavery by simply laying down its arms and returning to the Union.”
Well not after January 1863 they couldn't. But Gordon's post-rebellion revisionism aside, depending on the state upwards of half of all Southern soldiers either owned slaves or came from families that did.
Nah. If you're content to wallow in your illiteracy, who am I to stop you?
I'm pretty sure that's not a legitimate and authentic quotation. Apparently, no one has ever found an appearance of this quote prior to 1904.
“Amend the Constitution to say it should never be altered to interfere with slavery.” -—Abe Lincoln, December 24, 1860
Your butcher offered up the 13th Amendment to FOREEVER protect slavery.
I'm pretty sure that's not a legitimate and authentic quotation either. Among the problems with your claim that he offered it up is that Lincoln was not yet President and did not hold any political office at all in December 1860.
If you disagree and believe it to be authentic, then I welcome the identification of a source document.
To clarify my previous comment on the Grant quote, the exact phrasing used above hasn’t been found prior to 1904. The 1904 book in question repeats a differently-worded quote, which reportedly was printed in an 1868 smear book called the “Democratic Speaker’s Handbook.”
Non-Sensicle: “As opposed to the Southron viewpoint which is exactly the opposite - only Yankees are racist? Give me a break.”
Cowboy: “Idabilly posted an example of how most yankees felt/feel about blacks by posting the Great Emancipator’s own racist words.”
“I cannot make it better known than it already is that I strongly favor colonization.” Lincoln’s Second Annual Message to Congress, December 1, 1862.
“We know that some Southern men do free their slaves, go North, and become tip-top Abolitionists; while some Northern ones go South, and become most cruel slave-masters.”
“When Southern people tell us they are no more responsible for the origin of slavery than we, I acknowledge the fact.”
“What next? Free them, and make them politically and socially our equals? My own feelings will not admit of this; and if mine would, we well know that those of the great mass of white people will not.”
“I will say here, while upon this subject, that I have no purpose, either directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so. I have no purpose to introduce political and social equality between the white and the black races. There is a physical difference between the two, which, in my judgment, will probably forever forbid their living together upon the footing of perfect equality; and inasmuch as it becomes a necessity that there must be a difference, I, as well as Judge Douglas, am in favor of the race to which I belong having the superior position.”
/facepalm
Lol...
Im uncomfortable disturbing someone while they “pleasure” themselves (mentally, of course) but here is a bit more for you...
The fedgov will be in the same position as the British in regards to “ownership” of anything they previously had claim over or thought they owned, that includes land and people. This isn’t a question or a matter for the laws or contracts of men. This is about humans acting upon their natural right to withdraw consent and break the bonds which tied them to another and creating new guards for their future security. The entity that seeks to retain control has no legal recourse because there are no courts or laws that bind the parties once this takes place. They can either step aside and resign themselves to the inevitability of it or they may attempt to re-shackle US through violent means.
What anti-secessionists seek to do through their “arguments” is (if they cannot frighten us into staying) then justify their violence upon those who dare reject them. We, on the other hand, will justify OUR violence in response to yours (if you can even muster an army without us).
This crap your shoveling is MEANINGLESS. At the very moment we withdraw consent to be bound to you there will be “NO CONTROLLING LEGAL AUTHORITY” (lol) other than the use of arms. That is a choice that you (figuratively speaking) will have to make AFTER you convince your “loyal” population that is is the right thing to do, AND keep them supporting it as the casualties mount. YOU will be the aggressor, I wonder how that will play after a few months... ;^)
I am sure that after the beat down a bunch of independent secessionist operators gets private property claims of the inhabitants of the territory will be respected.
There is nothing whatsoever that prevents a state government and the people of a state from joining together to move to Northern Saskatchewan (e.g.) to be refounded ~ provided the Canadians give you an OK.
That may be done peacefully and according to contracts set beforehand, and everybody can walk away happy, or drive since it's certain you'd want a good connection to the interstate system eh. (Learn to say "eh" at appropriate moments BTW ~ then you can disappear into the Canadian sea with the fish.)
Remember, your demand to secede interferes with the property rights of those opposed to secession, and it's the obligation of the United States to protect property rights.
“Not too steady in his grasp of constitutional law, President Buchanan signed the joint resolution the day the Senate approved it: an unnecessary step, given the fact that Congressional power to propose amendments to the Constitution is not subject to presidential approval or veto. Two days later, Abraham Lincoln was inaugurated as the sixteenth president of the United States and the proposed amendment was largely forgotten, although two states, Ohio and Maryland, actually ratified it! An Illinois state constitutional convention that met in 1862 purported to ratify the amendment, but had no legal authority to do so. Interestingly, Lincoln alluded to the Corwin amendment in his First Inaugural Address (paragraph 29). Although he stopped short of endorsing it, he said, “holding such a provision to now be implied constitutional law, I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable.” Those were clearly not the words of a wild-eyed abolitionist (as Lincoln’s detractors portrayed him), but of a practical politician trying to manage an unprecedented crisis.”
http://ghostamendment.com/
No, my only point was that H.L. Menken's claim, that “it was the Confederates who fought for the right of their people to govern themselves,” is flawed because the Confederates certainly didn't want black people to govern themselves.
Idabilly posted an example of how most yankees felt/feel about blacks by posting the Great Emancipator's own racist words.
Lincoln, and the North as a whole, were terribly racist in the 1860s as judged by the standards of today. But the South was far worse: many southern blacks tried to escape from the South to the North, but I know of none who went the other way.
That’s swell and all, but it has nothing to do with the Lincoln quote I disputed. Namely:
“Amend the Constitution to say it should never be altered to interfere with slavery.” —Abe Lincoln, December 24, 1860
You purported that Lincoln stated exactly this proactive attitude towards a slavery-protecting Amendment (hence the quote marks) on Christmas Eve 1860 (hence the date you provided). Can you substantiate that quotation or not?
Native Americans?
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/scruggs4.html
Jews?
http://www.jewishmag.com/110mag/civilwar/civilwar.htm
http://thesouthernamerican.org/stardavid.html
http://www.nytimes.com/books/first/r/rosen-confederates.html
http://www.moc.org/site/DocServer/Microsoft_Word_-_Jewish_Confederates.pdf?docID=927
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/anti-semitism/grant.html
“The Jews, as a class violating every regulation of trade established by the Treasury Department and also department orders, are hereby expelled from the department [the “Department of the Tennessee,”
General Grant:
“no Jews are to be permitted to travel on the railroad southward from any point.”
http://www.jewish-history.com/civilwar/shockoe.htm
The Hebrew Confederate cemetery on Shockoe Hill in Richmond, Virginia, is the only Jewish military cemetery in the world outside the state of Israel. The cemetery is maintained by Congregation Beth Ahabah.
Abraham Lincoln to Idabooby.
"He [Stephen Douglas] is blowing out the moral lights around us, when he contends that whoever wants slaves has a right to hold them; that he is penetrating, so far as lies in his power, the human soul, and eradicating the light of reason and the love of liberty, when he is in every possible way preparing the public mind, by his vast influence, for making the institution of slavery perpetual and national." --October 7, 1858 Lincoln-Douglas Debate at Galesburg, Illinois
Grant to Nonsensical
Ulysses Grant to Idabooby.
"...As soon as slavery fired upon the flag it was felt, we all felt, even those who did not object to slaves, that slavery must be destroyed. We felt that it was a stain to the Union that men should be bought and sold like cattle." - Grant to Bismarck, 1878
Tyrant to Nonsensical
Non-Sequitur to Idabooby.
Try again. That's from a letter by William Seward, not Abraham Lincoln.
Your butcher offered up the 13th Amendment to FOREEVER protect slavery. Needless to say, it didn't work. Independence from Yankee-ville was much more important.
And why should it? The amendment would have protected slavery were it was legal. The confederate constitution guaranteed slavery in all states, ensured it could never be done away with, required it be introduced into territories, and protected slave imports. Why should the rebels accept the half a loaf of the 13th Amendment when they could have the full loaf in their own constitution?
“No Amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any state, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State.” —Joint Resolution of Congress, Adopted March 2, 1861
"Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation." - the 13th Amendment that was actually ratified.
Hardly.
Dishonest Abe was a racist till he OD'd on lead but has been falsely portrayed as one who loved blacks.
ROTFLMAO!!!!! And based upon a probably apocryphal quote from a former leader of the KKK you make him out to be the epitome of racial brotherhood. You are a hoot.
You and the rest of the damnyankee coven have selectively left out certain parts of history that you didn't want to be known. This is another example.
Then by all means enlighten us and point us to some information on this 'political and social society'. If you can.
Then show that its untrue, Mr. Athiest. (come and get it, bubba-ho)
Back to calling people an atheist, huh? Whatsamatta? Calling folks homosexual hitting a little too close to home?
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.