Did the Civil War truly settle the secession question?

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:

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.

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.

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.

First of all, blacks were not only not citizens of the Confederacy but they were not citizens of the Union, either. So, your statement is flawed.

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

Really?

you make him out to be the epitome of racial brotherhood.

In comparison to disHonest Abe he was.

Then by all means enlighten us and point us to some information on this 'political and social society'.

You're the one that disputed its authenticity. The burden of disproof, therefore, lies with you. (but since you don't have any go right ahead and keep posting your spin and lies)

Back to calling people an atheist, huh?

You never denied it..........

Calling folks homosexual hitting a little too close to home?

Not for me.

Does being called a homosexual hit a little close to home for you?

In comparison to disHonest Abe he was.

Complete and utter nonsense.

You're the one that disputed its authenticity. The burden of disproof, therefore, lies with you. (but since you don't have any go right ahead and keep posting your spin and lies)

OK, well based on the fact that there is no evidence whatsoever about the organization other that the alleged speech given by Forrest and given that different sources have identified the group by different names then I have to conclude that the group never existed and Forrest never made the speech and that you lost causers can't even get your myths right. Your turn.

You never denied it..........

And again, would it make any difference if I did? If I said, "I am not an atheist" would you humbly apologize and vow to never all me one again? Do pigs fly?

Does being called a homosexual hit a little close to home for you?

And again, if I said it did or if I said it did not would it make any difference to you one way or the other? Of course not. You and your Lost Cause buddies love to call people queer because it fills some sort of 4th grade thrill that still lives within you. You're to be pitied rather than gotten upset at.

Your entire post was nothing but your opinion and useless.

As was your's.

None of the Confederate initiatives asked for surrender. That is again your opinion.

The initiatives made it clear that there was one outcome acceptable to them - recognition. They were not interested in Lincoln's position or alternatives to recognition. If the only acceptable outcome is your own and your opponents positions are not open for discussion then what is your opponents alternative but complete surrender to your demands?

“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”

Dishonest Abe to Nonsensical

” My understanding is that I need not have her for either, but, as, God made us separate, we can leave one another alone, and do one another much good thereby. There are white men enough to marry all the white women, and enough black men to marry all the black women; and in God’s name let them be so married. The Judge regales us with the terrible enormities that take place by the mixture of races; that the inferior race bears the superior down. Why, Judge, if we do not let them get together in the Territories they won’t mix there.”

Jeff Davis to Federal Boot Kisser

“Secession belongs to a different class of remedies. It is to be justified upon the basis that the States are sovereign. There was a time when none denied it. I hope the time may come again, when a better comprehension of the theory of our Government, and the inalienable rights of the people of the States, will prevent any one from denying that each State is a sovereign, and thus may reclaim the grants which it has made to any agent whomsoever.”

“I well remember an occasion when Massachusetts was arraigned before the bar of the Senate, and when then the doctrine of coercion was rife and to be applied against her because of the rescue of a fugitive slave in Boston. My opinion then was the same that it is now. Not in a spirit of egotism, but to show that I am not influenced in my opinion because the case is my own, I refer to that time and that occasion as containing the opinion which I then entertained, and on which my present conduct is based. I then said, if Massachusetts, following her through a stated line of conduct, chooses to take the last step which separates her from the Union, it is her right to go, and I will neither vote one dollar nor one man to coerce her back; but will say to her, God speed, in memory of the kind associations which once existed between her and the other States.”

“And can Idabooby supply any quotes from any Southern leaders of the time showing their views of the races was more...enlightened?”

And can Nonsensical just admit - His King was a Tyrant?

History is a funny subject - When written by Northern apologist.........

Federal Official Records, Series I, Vol. XLIX, Part n, pg. 253 - April 6, 1865: “The rebels [Forrest] are recruiting negro troops at Enterprise, Miss., and the negroes are all enrolled in the State.”

Federal Official Records: Series 2, vol 6, Part 1 (Prisoners of War) p. 17-18 - “...before one single negro or mulatto was mustered into the U.S. service you had them organized in arms in Louisiana. You had Indians and half-breed negroes and Indians organized in arms under Albert Pike, in Arkansas. Subsequently negroes were captured on the battlefield at Antietam and delivered as prisoners of war at Aiken's Landing to the Confederate authorities, and receipted for and counted in exchange.”

Federal Official Records, Vol. XIII, Chapter XXV, pg. 688, September, 1862 -”... We are not likely to use one negro where the rebels have used a thousand. When I left Arkansas they were still enrolling negroes to fortify the rebellion. “

Religious Herald, Richmond, VA, September 10, 1863 (From unedited microfiche of the original article): “To the Confederate army goes the distinction of having the first black to minister to white troops: “A correspondent of the soldier’s friend mentions a Tennessee reg. which has no chaplain; but an old negro, “Uncle Lewis,” preaches two or three times a week at night. He is heard with respectful attention —and for earnestness, zeal and sincerity, can be surpassed by none. Two or three revivals have followed his preaching in the regiment. What will the wise Christian patriots out of the army, who denounce those who wish to see competent negroes allowed to preach, as tainted with anti-slaveryism, say with regard to the true Southern feeling of that regiment, which has fought unflinchingly from Shiloh to Murfreesboro?’”

There was a reason for this.....

Mein Kampf which was written by another Lincoln admirer ( Adolf Hitler )

“The states that make up the American Union are mostly in the nature of territories, more or less, formed for technical administrative purposes, their boundaries having in many cases been fixed in the mapping office. Originally these states did not and could not possess sovereign rights of their own. Because it was the Union that created most of the so-called states. Therefore the sovereign rights, often very comprehensive, which were left, or rather granted, to the various territories correspond not only to the whole character of the Confederation but also to its vast space, which is equivalent to the size of a Continent. Consequently, in speaking of the United States of America one must not consider them as sovereign states but as enjoying rights or, better perhaps, autarchic powers, granted to them and guaranteed by the Constitution.”

This is a good blog..............

http://www.campaignforliberty.com/blog.php?view=10749

“The age of rail splitters and tailors, of buffoons, boors and fanatics has succeeded. Mr. Lincoln and Mr. Johnson are both men of mediocre talent, neglected education, narrow views, deficient information and of course, vulgar manners. A statesman is supposed to be a man of some depth of thought and extent of knowledge. Has this country with so proud a record been reduced to such intellectual poverty as to be forced to present two such names as Abraham Lincoln and Andrew Johnson for the highest stations in this most trying crisis of its history? It is a cruel mockery and bitter humiliation. Such nominations at this juncture are an insult to the common sense of the people. Editorial: “Lincoln and Johnson,” New York World, 9 June 1864.

“Lincoln was a deep-grounded infidel. He disliked and despised churches. He never entered a church except to scoff and ridicule. On coming from a church he would mimic the preacher. Before running for any office he wrote a book against Christianity and the Bible. He showed it to some friends and read extracts. A man named Hill was greatly shocked and urged Lincoln not to publish it. Urged it would kill him politically. Hill got this book in his hands, opened the stove door, and it went up in flames and ashes. After that, Lincoln became more discreet, and when running for office often used words and phrases to make it appear that he was a Christian. He never changed on this subject. He lived and died a deep-grounded infidel.”
William H. Herndon, quoted by Edmonds, Facts and Falsehoods, pages 54-55.

Complete and utter nonsense

You mean all of your posts? I agree.

then I have to conclude that the group never existed and Forrest never made the speech and that you lost causers can't even get your myths right.

Then contact the websites or any other sources where Forrest's speech is published and demand that they take it down based on your extreme credibility. (bwahahahahaha)

If I said, "I am not an atheist" would you humbly apologize and vow to never all me one again?

Absolutely. Your turn.

And again, if I said it did or if I said it did not would it make any difference to you one way or the other?

And again, it would be so easy for you to do but yet, you refuse. You northrons must get a thrill up your leg every time someone calls you a faggot or mentions Obama.

You're to be pitied rather than gotten upset at.

Yawn......................

I'll take Lincoln's measure of respect for Christianity over that of many of his opponents.

A typical statement of the Gospel according to the Confederacy courtesy of the Maury County Georgia home guard on 6/1/1864:

1st. Resolved. That we invite all ministers of the Gospel who preach among us, to give a lecture on the war, at their earliest convenience, or give their hearers unmistakable evidence that they support the Southern Confederacy.

...Resolved That no more negro preaching be allowed until the war is over. Negroes can hear white men preach if they want to.

Signed Vigilance Committee

Jeff Davis to Federal Boot Kisser

"Federal Boot Kisser" to Idabooby:

Why did you stop there? Davis' next paragraph gives us an idea of Mississippi's motives.

"It has been a conviction of pressing necessity—it has been a belief that we are to be deprived in the Union of the rights which our fathers bequeathed to us—which has brought Mississippi to her present decision. She has heard proclaimed the theory that all men are created free and equal, and this made the basis of an attack upon her social institutions; and the sacred Declaration of Independence has been invoked to maintain the position of the equality of the races. That Declaration is to be construed by the circumstances and purposes for which it was made. The communities were declaring their independence; the people of those communities were asserting that no man was born—to use the language of Mr. Jefferson—booted and spurred, to ride over the rest of mankind; that men were created equal—meaning the men of the political community; that there was no divine right to rule; that no man inherited the right to govern; that there were no classes by which power and place descended to families; but that all stations were equally within the grasp of each member of the body politic. These were the great principles they announced; these were the purposes for which they made their declaration; these were the ends to which their enunciation was directed. They have no reference to the slave; else, how happened it that among the items of arraignment against George III was that he endeavored to do just what the North has been endeavoring of late to do, to stir up insurrection among our slaves? Had the Declaration announced that the negroes were free and equal, how was the prince to be arraigned for raising up insurrection among them? And how was this to be enumerated among the high crimes which caused the colonies to sever their connection with the mother-country? When our Constitution was formed, the same idea was rendered more palpable; for there we find provision made for that very class of persons as property; they were not put upon the equality of footing with white men—not even upon that of paupers and convicts; but, so far as representation was concerned, were discriminated against as a lower caste, only to be represented in the numerical proportion of three-fifths. So stands the compact which binds us together."

Sure looks to me like Davis' views towards blacks wasn't a whole lot different than what you say Lincoln's were. And you call him a racist. What does that make Jeffy boy?

And can Nonsensical just admit - His King was a Tyrant?

Nope. And I'm assuming that your answer to whether you can show any quotes from any Southern leaders showing their views towards the races was better than Lincoln's is the same?

Here we see Lost Cause hypocrisy in full bloom. You condemn Lincoln as a racist, yet ignore worse views from your rebel leaders. You condemn Lincoln as a tyrant, yet ignore worse acts of tyranny from your rebel leaders. You accuse Lincoln of everything under the sun, and ignore worse from your own rebel leaders. You are nothing if not predictable and your posts are almost always ridiculous. You lie and exaggerate and misquote and ignore inconvenient facts. And when cornered you resort to slurs and name calling. But for all that you're the most entertaining group of nutjobs I've ever come across. And it's the entertainment value of your mouth-foaming rants that keep me coming back.

I suppose that Idabooby is asking us how we can respect a man who constantly asked God's blessing on his cause, but belonged to no religion. Who could not remember if he was ever baptized and who had left the 'churchgoing' to his wife for almost all his adult life. Who didn't turn to religion until faced with crisis while president. Who didn't know much about the Bible and had almost never read it. I suppose that would be a good question since the description I gave is that of Jefferson Davis, as related by William J. Cooper in his biography, "Jefferson Davis: American".

When it comes to personal piety and faith in God, Jefferson Davis could not hold a candle to Abraham Lincoln.

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.