Posted on 04/11/2011 7:51:03 AM PDT by Davy Buck
"The fact that it is acceptable to put a Confederate flag on a car *bumper and to portray Confederates as brave and gallant defenders of states’ rights rather than as traitors and defenders of slavery is a testament to 150 years of history written by the losers." - Ohio State Professer Steven Conn in a recent piece at History News Network (No, I'll not difnigy his bitterness by providing a link)
This sounds like sour grapes to me. Were it not for the "losers" . . .
(Excerpt) Read more at oldvirginiablog.blogspot.com ...
And yet looking at the statements of secessionist political leaders, the various declarations of causes, and so on, "internal improvements" hardly merit a mention and tariffs not much more. The threat that they perceived to slavery is all through them, though. The South Carolina appeal to the other southern states to join them in secession isn't addressed to the "Internal improvement opposing states" or the "Low tariff-favoring states." No, it's to the "Slave-holding States."
Corwin wasn't enough for the southern states--they wanted expansion into new territories, which is why Crittenden was proposed.
i don’t want to keep playing the game where you ask my interpretation of the law. that’s for the courts to decide, which they did. you can either obey the laws and the rulings on the laws, or you can violate the law. rum-runners and bootleggers violated the law during prohibition, but before and after, they’re just honest businessmen in the liquor industry. lincoln chose to act against the laws of the land at that specific time because he didn’t agree with them. that’s called violation aka “unconstitutional”.
i really don’t get all the tangential points about slavery, territories, etc. read the court opinions of the 80 pre-war years to understand them, but these points weren’t even heavily debated within the court rulings. there were compromises attempted modifying those laws such as missouri and kansas-nebraska, but ultimately there was no compromise with the radicals (who in fact created the Republican party in response to K-N - many with the intent of SECEDING from the SOUTH! there goes the secession theory.) in the end their man won the day by forcing his way - slaughtering hundreds of thousands - and if you feel all patriotic and morally vindicated by that fact, so be it.
i think your taney quote only reaffirms my own, but we’re getting sidetracked again and i don’t see the point anymore in the larger discussion.
assuming your referring to the the militia act of 1792 and not the one passed during the war, it granted its powers when the states were “in imminent danger of invasion from any foreign nation or Indian tribe” or when laws were being obstructed (as in tax collection like shay’s/whickey rebellions which is where it came from) in a manner “too powerful to be suppressed” by ordinary judicial/executive procedures....
since we know lincoln viewed the states as having never seceded that rules out the first charter; so what law was being violated by this “rebellion” that invoked the second charter of militia rights? if you’re granting that the war was fought over collection of taxes, i may grant you that, but that hasn’t been your argument to this point. or were all possible judicial & executive procedures exhausted at this point, despite the confederates having delegates in d.c. still trying to negotiate to avoid a war?? i’m curious to hear specifically HOW you justify his actions per this act, since they did not meet the the clear criteria as to when and how it could be invoked.
if you think the secession issue was “breaking the law”, then why was lincoln’s opinion greater than that of jefferson, madison, j.q. adams, et al who all stated it’s legality (you know, other presidents who (or whose fathers) actually formed or helped form the laws)? was there an amendment between the presidential terms that i missed?
if you want, sure, slaves went from a bear to a bull market after the cotton gin. for whatever that has to do with the price of butter in china, that point’s yours. can we get back to the other questions now?
Not even Walter O'Malley?
In your fantasy you have a deadly weapon and a time machine and you pass up Hitler and Stalin to kill Lincoln?
Dude, you are one sick _____.
We know this type of union can work cause this is precisely the same union we uses every day in a business relationship, and this is the union most States thought existed prior to the War Between the States.
So if you found half the money in the bank account and half your inventory stolen because your partner had taken off for Belize, you wouldn't object?
First off, it wasn't the abolitonists who overturned the Missouri Compromise, it was the slave interests who decided to change the rules of the compromise in order to make Kansas a slave state. And I challenge you to provide evidence to support your claim that many of the founders of the Republican party favored secession. You might find one or two, such as Lysander Spooner. But many? I doubt it. The closest thing to favoring secession that you'll find out of the north was the Federalists muttering a little about it at the Hartford Convention. They rejected the idea, it didn't appear in the Convention's final report, but the south screamed bloody murder at the notion of such treason and it led directly to the destruction of the Federalist party. As one Virginia newspaper put it in 1814:
"No man, no association of men, no State nor set of States has a right to withdraw itself from this Union, of its own accord. The same power which knit us together can only unknit. The same formality which forged the links of the Union is necessary to dissolve it. The majority of States which form the Union must consent to the withdrawal of any one branch of it. Until that consent has been obtained, any attempt to dissolve the Union, or obstruct the efficiency of its constitutional laws, is treason-treason to all intents and purposes.
if you’re granting that the war was fought over collection of taxes, i may grant you that, but that hasn’t been your argument to this point. or were all possible judicial & executive procedures exhausted at this point, despite the confederates having delegates in d.c. still trying to negotiate to avoid a war??
Okay, so you're conceding that Lincoln was acting within the 1795 act. That's one down. As for the delegates in DC, there was no attempt to negotiate anything other than complete US capitulation to their demands. Returning to the US was not on the table for them, nor was pursuing judicial remedies for their grievances. Their charge was to get recognition, then, perhaps, discuss some matters of interest.
i’m curious to hear specifically HOW you justify his actions per this act, since they did not meet the the clear criteria as to when and how it could be invoked.
Really? You don't think that the secessionist acts, the seizure of US property, the rejection of US authority, the formation of an army (almost two months before Lincoln's call for troops) and the shelling of Ft Sumter fell under the category of opposing or obstructing the laws of the United States or their execution? Because I sure do.
if you think the secession issue was “breaking the law”, then why was lincoln’s opinion greater than that of jefferson, madison, j.q. adams, et al who all stated it’s legality (you know, other presidents who (or whose fathers) actually formed or helped form the laws)? was there an amendment between the presidential terms that i missed?
I have yet to see a quote from Jefferson where he says that unilateral secession is permitted under the constitution. Madison wrote, "But this dodges the blow by confounding the claim to secede at will, with the right of seceding from intolerable oppression. The former answers itself, being a violation, without cause, of a faith solemnly pledged. The latter is another name only for revolution, about which there is no theoretic controversy." And despite a couple of quotes about disunion, John Quincy Adams never said that unilateral secession was legal, either. And since we're talking Founding Fathers, I'll give you George Washington's Farewell Address:
The unity of government which constitutes you one people is also now dear to you. It is justly so, for it is a main pillar in the edifice of your real independence, the support of your tranquility at home, your peace abroad; of your safety; of your prosperity; of that very liberty which you so highly prize. But as it is easy to foresee that, from different causes and from different quarters, much pains will be taken, many artifices employed to weaken in your minds the conviction of this truth; as this is the point in your political fortress against which the batteries of internal and external enemies will be most constantly and actively (though often covertly and insidiously) directed, it is of infinite moment that you should properly estimate the immense value of your national union to your collective and individual happiness; that you should cherish a cordial, habitual, and immovable attachment to it; accustoming yourselves to think and speak of it as of the palladium of your political safety and prosperity; watching for its preservation with jealous anxiety; discountenancing whatever may suggest even a suspicion that it can in any event be abandoned; and indignantly frowning upon the first dawning of every attempt to alienate any portion of our country from the rest, or to enfeeble the sacred ties which now link together the various parts.But what did he know, right?For this you have every inducement of sympathy and interest. Citizens, by birth or choice, of a common country, that country has a right to concentrate your affections. The name of American, which belongs to you in your national capacity, must always exalt the just pride of patriotism more than any appellation derived from local discriminations. With slight shades of difference, you have the same religion, manners, habits, and political principles. You have in a common cause fought and triumphed together; the independence and liberty you possess are the work of joint counsels, and joint efforts of common dangers, sufferings, and successes.
Thank you for you opinion. However, even if true, it is completely irrelevant to the issue of State secession. Whether the seceded States formed an absolute monarchy, or a representative republic, or even an intergalactic empire based on coupon clipping & network marketing, the form of government adopted by the departed States in no way affected the constitutionality of State secession from the union formed under the U.S. Constitution.
The constitutionality of State secession is the critical issue. If secession was constitutional, then it mattered not at all if the southern States retired from the union to protect the institution of slavery, or even to promote the legalization of cannibalism - the United States government had no legal grounds for using military force to prevent their departure. If, on the other hand, secession was unconstitutional, then it mattered not at all if the southern States left the union to organize transcontinental choruses of 'Kumbayah,' or find a cure for cancer - the action was illegal.
(Which is no doubt why some of the Union's more vociferous supporters here spend so much time focusing on slavery... ;>)
John Quincy Adams:
With these qualifications, we may admit the same right as vested in the people of every state in the Union, with reference to the General Government, which was exercised by the people of the United Colonies, with reference to the Supreme head of the British empire, of which they formed a part - and under these limitations, have the people of each state in the Union a right to secede from the confederated Union itself.
Thus stands the RIGHT. But the indissoluble link of union between the people of the several states of this confederated nation, is after all, not in the right, but in the heart. If the day should ever come, (may Heaven avert it,) when the affections of the people of these states shall be alienated from each other; when the fraternal spirit shall give away to cold indifference, or collisions of interest shall fester into hatred, the bands of political association will not long hold together parties no longer attracted by the magnetism of conciliated interests and kindly sympathies; and far better will it be for the people of the disunited states, to part in friendship from each other, than to be held together by constraint. Then will be the time for reverting to the precedents which occurred at the formation and adoption of the Constitution, to form again a more perfect union, by dissolving that which could no longer bind, and to leave the separated parts to be reunited by the law of political gravitation to the center.
While the Constitution was thus accomplishing the first object declared by the people as their motive for ordaining it, by forming a more perfect union, it became the joint and co-ordinate duty of the legislative and executive departments, to provide for the second of those objects, which involved within itself all the rest, and indeed all the purposes of government. For justice, defined by the Institutes of Justinian, as the constant and perpetual will of securing to every one his right, includes the whole duty of man in the social institutions of society, toward his neighbor.
I have yet to see a quote from Jefferson where he says that unilateral secession is permitted under the constitution. Madison wrote, "But this dodges the blow by confounding the claim to secede at will, with the right of seceding from intolerable oppression. The former answers itself, being a violation, without cause, of a faith solemnly pledged. The latter is another name only for revolution, about which there is no theoretic controversy."
James Madison
Federalist No. 43
Two questions of a very delicate nature present themselves on this occasion: 1. On what principle the Confederation, which stands in the solemn form of a compact among the States, can be superseded without the unanimous consent of the parties to it? 2. What relation is to subsist between the nine or more States ratifying the Constitution, and the remaining few who do not become parties to it?
The first question is answered at once by recurring to the absolute necessity of the case; to the great principle of self-preservation; to the transcendent law of nature and of nature's God, which declares that the safety and happiness of society are the objects at which all political institutions aim, and to which all such institutions must be sacrificed. Perhaps, also, an answer may be found without searching beyond the principles of the compact itself. It has been heretofore noted among the defects of the Confederation, that in many of the States it had received no higher sanction than a mere legislative ratification. The principle of reciprocality seems to require that its obligation on the other States should be reduced to the same standard. A compact between independent sovereigns, founded on ordinary acts of legislative authority, can pretend to no higher validity than a league or treaty between the parties. It is an established doctrine on the subject of treaties, that all the articles are mutually conditions of each other; that a breach of any one article is a breach of the whole treaty; and that a breach, committed by either of the parties, absolves the others, and authorizes them, if they please, to pronounce the compact violated and void. Should it unhappily be necessary to appeal to these delicate truths for a justification for dispensing with the consent of particular States to a dissolution of the federal pact, will not the complaining parties find it a difficult task to answer the multiplied and important infractions with which they may be confronted? The time has been when it was incumbent on us all to veil the ideas which this paragraph exhibits. The scene is now changed, and with it the part which the same motives dictate.
Fortunately, the Bill of Rights was added to the original compact - if that had not been done, we would have lost our right to keep and bear arms long ago (or, more likely, seen another conflict between Americans defending their constitutional rights and a federal government intent on destroying them). Unfortunately, even the 9th and 10th Amendments have proved unable to stop (or recently, even to slow) the depredations of power-hungry federal officials...
Thank you!
Yet, they were mentioned. Hmmmm. Are you trying to insinuate that "internal improvements" and tarrifs weren't, and had not been, an issue with the Southern states?
The South Carolina appeal to the other southern states to join them in secession isn't addressed to the "Internal improvement opposing states" or the "Low tariff-favoring states." No, it's to the "Slave-holding States."
So?
Corwin wasn't enough for the southern states--they wanted expansion into new territories, which is why Crittenden was proposed.
Yet, Lincoln's offering was the Corwin Amendment, no? Too little, too late.
Please provide the letters and instructions of the Southern Commissioners which support your statement.
In the calm hours of self-possession, the right of a State to nullify an act of Congress, is too absurd for argument, and too odious for discussion. The right of a state to secede from the Union, is equally disowned by the principles of the Declaration of Independence. Nations acknowledge no judge between them upon earth, and their Governments from necessity, must in their intercourse with each other decide when the failure of one party to a contract to perform its obligations, absolves the other from the reciprocal fulfillment of his own. But this last of earthly powers is not necessary to the freedom or independence of states, connected together by the immediate action of the people, of whom they consist. To the people alone is there reserved, as well the dissolving, as the constituent power, and that power can be exercised by them only under the tie of conscience, binding them to the retributive justice of Heaven.>As for your Federalist 43, quote, it's yet another example of a failure to look at the statement's context. You're taking Madison's observations on the flaws of the Articles of Confederation, the ease with which its parties can disavow it and the mechanisms for superseding it with the Constitution and turning them into a claim of his support for unilateral secession, a notion which he explicitly rejects in other writings. The Constitution is emphatically not a treaty or a league.
I never heard of Walter O’Malley, and frankly after beafly looking up the baseball player i can’t take your question serously.
“”
We know this type of union can work cause this is precisely the same union we uses every day in a business relationship, and this is the union most States thought existed prior to the War Between the States.”
So if you found half the money in the bank account and half your inventory stolen because your partner had taken off for Belize, you wouldn’t object?”
Not if half of it was his. The south did not belong to the North, the South belong to the people of the Southern States then just as it does today.
You need to learn to respect other people’s property rights and stop seeing their land and State as your property.
Do you want to do a statistical analysis of the number of times slavery is mentioned in these documents and speeches and the number of times internal improvements is mentioned? If slavery is mentioned 100 times more often than internal improvements, will you agree that slavery was 100 times more important as a motive for secession?
So?
So clearly that was the collective identity, the sine qua non that formed the unifying basis of those to whom the appeal was addressed.
Yet, Lincoln's offering was the Corwin Amendment, no? Too little, too late.
Lincoln rejected Crittenden.
If you like to spend your time compiling stats, then by all means, please do so. However, since I believe internal improvements, tariffs and slavery were equally contibuting factors in the years leading up to secession, the stats won't change my mind. You didn't answer my question:
Are you trying to insinuate that "internal improvements" and tariffs weren't, and had not been, an issue with the Southern states?
So clearly that was the collective identity, the sine qua non that formed the unifying basis of those to whom the appeal was addressed.
Back then, the Southern states were regularly addressed as either the Cotton states or the Slave states. Should South Carolina have addressed them differently?
Lincoln rejected Crittenden.
And he offered Corwin which has been my point all along. The point is valid - too little, too late.
Okay.
WASHINGTON CITY, March In, 1861.Hon. William H. Seward, Secretary of State of the United States.
Sir: The undersigned have been duly accredited by the Government of the Confederate States of America as commissioners to the Government of the United States, and, in pursuance of their instructions, have now the honor to acquaint you with that fact, and to make known, through you to the President of the United States, the objects of their presence in this capital.Seven States of the late Federal Union, having in the exercise of the inherent right of every free people to change or reform their political institutions, and through conventions of their people withdrawn from the United States and reassumed the attributes of sovereign power delegated to it, have formed a government of their own. The Confederate States constitute an independent nation, de facto and de jure, and possess a government perfect in all its parts, and endowed with all the means of self-support.
With a view to a speedy adjustment of all questions growing out of this political separation, upon such terms of amity and good will as the respective interests, geographical contiguity, and future welfare of the two nations may render necessary, the undersigned are instructed to make to the Government of the United States overtures for the opening of negotiations, assuring the Government of the United States that the President, Congress, and people of the Confederate States earnestly desire a peaceful solution of these great questions; that it is neither their interest nor their wish to make any demand which is not founded in strictest justice, nor do any act to injure their late confederates.
The undersigned have now the honor, in obedience to the instructions of their Government, to request you to appoint as early a day as possible, in order that they may present to the President of the United States the credentials which they bear and the objects of the mission with which they are charged.
We are, very respectfully, your obedient servants, [ Signed]
JOHN FORSYTH
MARTIN J. CRAWFORD.
Do you see anything there that indicates a willingness to negotiate an end to secession or to pursue judicial remedies for their grievances? No. There's a statement that the CSA exists, like it or not, that their demands will be based "in strictest justice" (as I'm sure they themselves will define it), and requesting an appointment to present their credentials--diplomatic-speak for a demand for official recognition.
There is no context missing, he said what he said. Given his unionist status, him saying the word "secede" has your G-String in a knot. We understand
As for your Federalist 43, quote, it's yet another example of a failure to look at the statement's context. You're taking Madison's observations on the flaws of the Articles of Confederation, the ease with which its parties can disavow it and the mechanisms for superseding it with the Constitution and turning them into a claim of his support for unilateral secession, a notion which he explicitly rejects in other writings. The Constitution is emphatically not a treaty or a league.
Here are some observations/facts for you Bubba. The Articles of Confederation was "perpetual," yet Madison said that the States could leave. There is nothing "perpetual" about this new union, you may say "more perfect" and I'll disagree, but calling it perpetual is dismissing fact. If you wish to argue over "treaty or a league" then fine, I'll concede the point, it's a social compact. Rhode-Island certainly believed it to be a social compact, and who am I to disagree?
In That there are certain natural rights, of which men when they form a social compact, cannot deprive or divest their posterity, among which are the enjoyment of Life and Liberty, with the means of acquiring, possessing and protecting Property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.
2d That all power is naturally vested in, and consequently derived from the People; that magistrates therefore are their trustees and agents, and at all times amenable to them.
3d That the powers of government may be reassumed by the people, whensoever it shall become necessary to their happiness:-
There is that word again, "reassumed"
I saying that their significance paled in comparison to slavery as a motivation for secession, and everything the secessionist leaders said supports my position.
Should South Carolina have addressed them differently?
Have you read the Address? Here's the big finish:
We prefer, however, our system of industry, by which labor and capital are identified in interest, and capital, therefore, protects labor; by which our population doubles every twenty years; by which starvation is unknown, and abundance crowns the land; by which order is preserved by unpaid police, and the most fertile regions of the world where the Caucasian cannot labor are brought into usefulness by the labor of the African, and the whole world is blessed by our own productions. All we demand of other peoples is to be let alone to work out our own high destinies. United together, and we must be the most independent, as we are the most important among the nations of the world. United together, and we require no other instrument to conquer peace than our beneficent productions. United together, and we must be a great, free and prosperous people, whose renown must spread throughout the civilized world, and pass down, we trust, to the remotest ages. We ask you to join us in forming a confederacy of Slaveholding States."A confederacy of Slaveholding States." Capitalized, even.
And he offered Corwin which has been my point all along. The point is valid - too little, too late.
Well, then I guess what happened was inevitable. The south wanted more than the rest of the United States--the ones who voted Lincoln into office by a huge electoral margin--were willing to give.
It's pretty funny for you to say that a quote that begins with the line "With these qualifications" isn't missing some context. But I'll repeat his earlier line in case you missed it before: "In the calm hours of self-possession, the right of a State to nullify an act of Congress, is too absurd for argument, and too odious for discussion. The right of a state to secede from the Union, is equally disowned by the principles of the Declaration of Independence."
3d That the powers of government may be reassumed by the people, whensoever it shall become necessary to their happiness:-
It's called "rebellion." It's a natural right, not a Constitutional or legal one.
i think “THE” (k-state’s favorite argument) was mentioned way more than anything else, so statistic analysis says that must of been the real issue. really? we’re counting words now?
really, what IS exactly your point? you try and try to say it’s over slavery, then you say it’s over taxes in response to the militia act, then back to slavery. round and round we go. i making a clear statement of your opinions, i see you follow the example of your hero honest abe.
Total US capitulation to what exactly? I don't see any demands in the correspondence.
Do you see anything there that indicates a willingness to negotiate an end to secession or to pursue judicial remedies for their grievances? No. There's a statement that the CSA exists, like it or not, that their demands will be based "in strictest justice" (as I'm sure they themselves will define it),...
Why should they negotiate and end to secession? How do we know that wouldn't have been the outcome if negotiations had proceeded? Why shouldn't they have defined strictest of justice for themselves? How do you know that wasn't open to negotiation?
... and requesting an appointment to present their credentials--diplomatic-speak for a demand for official recognition.
Requesting an appointment to present credentials was common diplomatic procedure. Would it have given them recognition? Sure it would have, but it was still standard procedure.
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.