Yes indeed.
Posted on 08/25/2008 9:11:18 AM PDT by Colonel Kangaroo
"..., that I do not consider the proceedings of Virginia in ’98-’99 as countenancing the doctrine that a state may at will secede from its Constitutional compact with the other States. A rightful secession requires the consent of the others, or an abuse of the compact, absolving the seceding party from the obligations imposed by it." - James Madison, 1832
I'm pretty sure that Madison read the Constitution, and the Constitution in 1832 was identical to the Constitution in 1860. So obviously people of the time both read the Constitution and believed the Southern acts of unilateral secession to be wrong.
OR: Series 4, Vol. 1, pg. 203
So what's your assumption as to how a state may be taken out of the Union? Can anyone do it? Can I get together with a few friends, call ourselves a convention, declare our state seceded (maybe with a ratification vote down the road at some point, even though you don't think it necessary), and then invite foreign troops in?
I wonder what people would say about an Iraqi-American general who, at the beginning of the build-up in 2003 resigned his commission in the US Army and went back to Iraq to take command of its forces.
From his debates with Lincoln Douglas’ attitude was not in way more enlightened than Lincoln’s.
One difference was that Lincoln was willing to have all blacks move/be moved to another country, Liberia, Panama, somewhere in Africa.
Robert E. Lee:
“Robert E. Lee’s Opinion Regarding Slavery
This letter was written by Lee in response to a speech given by then President Pierce.
Robert E. Lee letter dated December 27, 1856:
I was much pleased the with President’s message. His views of the systematic and progressive efforts of certain people at the North to interfere with and change the domestic institutions of the South are truthfully and faithfully expressed. The consequences of their plans and purposes are also clearly set forth. These people must be aware that their object is both unlawful and foreign to them and to their duty, and that this institution, for which they are irresponsible and non-accountable, can only be changed by them through the agency of a civil and servile war. There are few, I believe, in this enlightened age, who will not acknowledge that slavery as an institution is a moral and political evil. It is idle to expatiate on its disadvantages. I think it is a greater evil to the white than to the colored race. While my feelings are strongly enlisted in behalf of the latter, my sympathies are more deeply engaged for the former. The blacks are immeasurably better off here than in Africa, morally, physically, and socially. The painful discipline they are undergoing is necessary for their further instruction as a race, and will prepare them, I hope, for better things. How long their servitude may be necessary is known and ordered by a merciful Providence. Their emancipation will sooner result from the mild and melting influences of Christianity than from the storm and tempest of fiery controversy. This influence, though slow, is sure. The doctrines and miracles of our Saviour have required nearly two thousand years to convert but a small portion of the human race, and even among Christian nations what gross errors still exist! While we see the course of the final abolition of human slavery is still onward, and give it the aid of our prayers, let us leave the progress as well as the results in the hands of Him who, chooses to work by slow influences, and with whom a thousand years are but as a single day. Although the abolitionist must know this, must know that he has neither the right not the power of operating, except by moral means; that to benefit the slave he must not excite angry feelings in the master; that, although he may not approve the mode by which Providence accomplishes its purpose, the results will be the same; and that the reason he gives for interference in matters he has no concern with, holds good for every kind of interference with our neighbor, -still, I fear he will persevere in his evil course. . . . Is it not strange that the descendants of those Pilgrim Fathers who crossed the Atlantic to preserve their own freedom have always proved the most intolerant of the spiritual liberty of others?”.
As for the others, I leave that to you to research.
Another difference is that Robert Lee was willing to put his money where his beliefs were, and actually paid passage to Liberia for some of his former slaves. Obviously Lee had no problems with the idea of the Burke's moving to Africa with their children. And considering that William Burke was able to attend a Monrovia seminary, somehing he could never have done in Virginia, and become an ordained Presbyterian minister then it's clear that in their case moving to Africa was quite a step up over slavery in Dixie.
Robert E. Lee’s Opinion Regarding Slavery
You might want to go back and really read that in detail. What, exactly, was Lee's opinion of slavery? Well, he thought it was "a greater evil to the white than to the colored race", so it's clear who he's more concerned for. He goes on to state that slavery was "necessary for their further instruction as a race...", though what more they had to learn as a race after 250 years of bondage Lee didn't say. He was of the opinion that blacks were "...immeasurably better off here than in Africa..." so obviously Lee didn't think slavery was all that bad if a life here a his property was better than freedom in Africa. And as for the institution itself, Lee believed it would end when God willed it, be it 2 years or 2,000. And most of all, the fate of slavery should be left to the Almighty and that man should do nothing to hasten it's end. Except pray. And his opinions didn't change much, because seven years later he was still saying that he considered "...the relation of master and slave, controlled by humane laws and influenced by Christianity and an enlightened public sentiment, as the best that can exist between the white and black races while intermingled as at present in this country..."
The fact of the matter is that Lee's opposition to slavery was tepid at best, and non-existent at worst.
As for the others, I leave that to you to research.
I have. Both Davis and Jackson were slave owners and believed in the institution.
Well, you did ask.....and I did read what I posted (why would I not?).
Two points: one, From his comments Lee evidently understood something you missed, that slavery harmed the South by it’s very existence and two, Lee wasn’t filled with a desire to war to prolong the practice. Indeed his views are hardly different from the founding fathers like Jefferson and Washington. Both owned slaves and believed in the institution.
I believe that is a bit of an overstatement. Had Lee truly believed that slavery harmed the South then he would not have been so strongly opposed to taking any steps to end it. He was content to leave it in divine hands, regardless of how long it took. Those are not the sentiments of a man who viewed slavery as overly harmful.
Indeed his views are hardly different from the founding fathers like Jefferson and Washington. Both owned slaves and believed in the institution.
True. However nobody is making the claim that Jefferson or Washington was opposed to slavery, either.
Beyond the fact that state sanctioned slavery, the ultimate in oppressive government, was the cornerstone of the Confederacy, Confedederate rule was characterized by usurpation and heavy-handedness. Lincoln is attacked for his Constitutional behavior, but Jeff Davis's irregularities are given a pass. And since today the bigger problems come from a bloated federal government, the oppressions of local Confederate are also given a pass. Not all state oppressions are from the federal level. It was no comfort to a poor victimized farmer that his abuse was the product of local corruption and greed.
In Virginia's case, it's secession declaration: "This ordinance shall take effect and be an act of this day, when ratified by a majority of the voter of the people of this State cast at a poll to be taken thereon on the fourth Thursday in May next, in pursuance of a schedule hereafter to be enacted." Virginia was admitted to the confederacy weeks before it had legally seceded from the Union.
Yes indeed.
And he took full advantage of that position.
I guess it does save time. Like not bringing forward arguments does for you.
Only if you assume that a plebiscite was somehow required to authorize secession.
Care to cite some references? (BTW, it will be extremely entertaining to see you trying to justify 'the right of State secession via plebiscite'... ;>)
Virginia's secession declaration. It clearly states it's contingent on a vote by the citizens of the commonwealth. Such a vote didn't take place until after they were admitted as a confederate state, after they had taken hostile actions against the federal government, and after they had allowed confederate troops on their soil.
What do you know about "strict construction?" Anything at all? I tell you what, sport - provide a specific citation from the US Constitution that prohibits State secession.
Go for it...
Strict construction, taking what the Constitution actually says over what we wish it would say, is often awkward, but is the safest guarantee of our liberty under the federal system.
I agree - and the Constitution nowhere "actually says" that State secession is prohibited.
The Constitution flatly and clearly says that states may not exercise sovereign powers.
"The Constitution flatly and clearly says that states may not exercise sovereign powers" - so long as they remain members of the union. Once a State retires from the union, that prohibition is obviously no longer applicable.
You may cite extra-Constitutional authorities and opinions for what the Constitution plainly says, but if you do so I do not think you should pretend to be a strict constructionist.
Hey, sport, I tell you what: I will gladly limit myself to the specific written terms of the US Constitution of 1860 - which no where prohibits State secession.
Have at it...
So what you are saying appears to be that State secession was completely Constitutional, but these folks screwed up the paper work.
Congratulations.
You know the answer. At least be honest about it.
I will be completely honest about it - perhaps you should consider that position as well:
...the principle on which all our political systems are founded, which is, that the people have in all cases, a right to determine how they will be governed.
William Rawle, 1829
Or are you blowing smoke as usual?
;>)
Pardon me, because I have a 9-5 job: but how long has it been since you posted any kind of verifiable historical reference for your idiotic arguments? Days? Weeks?
I suggest that you start with the US Constitution - you obviously have never read it...
;>)
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.