Posted on 06/28/2017 11:20:43 AM PDT by Sopater
My "Rewriting American History" column of a fortnight ago, about the dismantling of Confederate monuments, generated considerable mail. Some argued there should not be statues honoring traitors such as Robert E. Lee, Stonewall Jackson and Jefferson Davis, who fought against the Union. Victors of wars get to write the history, and the history they write often does not reflect the facts. Let's look at some of the facts and ask: Did the South have a right to secede from the Union? If it did, we can't label Confederate generals as traitors.
Article 1 of the Treaty of Paris (1783), which ended the war between the Colonies and Great Britain, held "New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, to be free sovereign and Independent States." Representatives of these states came together in Philadelphia in 1787 to write a constitution and form a union.
During the ratification debates, Virginia's delegates said, "The powers granted under the Constitution being derived from the people of the United States may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression." The ratification documents of New York and Rhode Island expressed similar sentiments.
At the Constitutional Convention, a proposal was made to allow the federal government to suppress a seceding state. James Madison, the "Father of the Constitution," rejected it. The minutes from the debate paraphrased his opinion: "A union of the states containing such an ingredient (would) provide for its own destruction. The use of force against a state would look more like a declaration of war than an infliction of punishment and would probably be considered by the party attacked as a dissolution of all previous compacts by which it might be bound."
America's first secessionist movement started in New England after the Louisiana Purchase in 1803. Many were infuriated by what they saw as an unconstitutional act by President Thomas Jefferson. The movement was led by Timothy Pickering of Massachusetts, George Washington's secretary of war and secretary of state. He later became a congressman and senator. "The principles of our Revolution point to the remedy — a separation," Pickering wrote to George Cabot in 1803, for "the people of the East cannot reconcile their habits, views, and interests with those of the South and West." His Senate colleague James Hillhouse of Connecticut agreed, saying, "The Eastern states must and will dissolve the union and form a separate government." This call for secession was shared by other prominent Americans, such as John Quincy Adams, Elbridge Gerry, Fisher Ames, Josiah Quincy III and Joseph Story. The call failed to garner support at the 1814-15 Hartford Convention.
The U.S. Constitution would have never been ratified — and a union never created — if the people of those 13 "free sovereign and Independent States" did not believe that they had the right to secede. Even on the eve of the War of 1861, unionist politicians saw secession as a right that states had. Rep. Jacob M. Kunkel of Maryland said, "Any attempt to preserve the union between the states of this Confederacy by force would be impractical and destructive of republican liberty." The Northern Democratic and Republican parties favored allowing the South to secede in peace.
Northern newspapers editorialized in favor of the South's right to secede. New-York Tribune (Feb. 5, 1860): "If tyranny and despotism justified the Revolution of 1776, then we do not see why it would not justify the secession of Five Millions of Southrons from the Federal Union in 1861." The Detroit Free Press (Feb. 19, 1861): "An attempt to subjugate the seceded States, even if successful, could produce nothing but evil — evil unmitigated in character and appalling in extent." The New-York Times (March 21, 1861): "There is a growing sentiment throughout the North in favor of letting the Gulf States go."
Confederate generals were fighting for independence from the Union just as George Washington and other generals fought for independence from Great Britain. Those who'd label Gen. Robert E. Lee as a traitor might also label George Washington as a traitor. I'm sure Great Britain's King George III would have agreed.
It is you that is scrambling from the kitchen. You are welcome to stay - if you can take the heat.
In regards to the problem of several sons and a finite amount of land, usually the landed gentry in the South tried to solve that problem by passing most of the land to the oldest son and trying to hook the younger sons up with women with no brothers who might expect to inherit from there fathers.
Interesting. Apparently they didn’t follow that tradition in New England. Maybe they were unhappy with the royalty system, primogeniture and the traditions of England in general.
Later in New England, and especially among the Irish, I see in the census the farm was not divided. The oldest son would get it. It’s interesting - among the Irish sons, those lads didn’t marry young. They waited till the father died and then one of them got the farm.
“However, it seems to me that the Louisiana Purchase involved a treaty, or agreement, with a foreign government to purchase territory adjacent to the United States. the Constitution empowers the President to make treaties.”
Does that work both ways? How about “a treaty, or agreement, with a foreign government” for them “to purchase”, say for instance:
Back in the day, the Northwest territory.
Today, Puerto Rico or better yet California.
I have my own view, I’m just wondering what others think.
Until the 1900’s it was understood that the D of I was the frame and foundation of the Constitution. The D of I is persuasive authority of very important assumptions of the Constitution.
The principles of the D of I were never repudiated by the Founders, only by the 1900’s rising Leftist socialists who have also tried to nullify the Constitution.
One man’s opinion which he believes is reasonable and supported. Hardly “settled”, but thanks for the sarcasm.
That is the issue of today - exactly the point that should be made to the states. These acts and many other illegal federal acts are unconstitutional acts of tyranny. But not ONE state has rejected and nullified these and many other unconstitutional federal acts.
Why?
Because the governors and elected politicians of each state are addicted to federal financial aid and worried sick about losing it. We've gone full circle. America is about INDEPENDENCE, but the states have become addicted to financial dependence on the feds and don't want to risk being cut off by doing the right thing.
You question reaches the very heart of what needs to be done to aid in the recovery of our Free Constitutional Republic.
I think you're right. It is amazing how far-sighted our visionary Founders were. They knew they were building something that would affect posterity and the world for centuries to come.
So let's bring things up to the present. What is posterity doing with this?
Not one state has rejected and nullified any of the myriad of unconstitutional acts of the feds - by definition, acts of tyranny.
Why?
Because the governors and elected politicians of each state are addicted to federal financial aid and worried sick about losing it. We've gone full circle. America is about INDEPENDENCE, but the states have become addicted to financial dependence on the feds and don't want to risk being cut off by doing the right thing.
If we are to recover our Free Constitutional Republic, constitutional state sovereignty and independence must once again be asserted by the states and the people.
“One man’s opinion which he believes is reasonable and supported. Hardly “settled””
Friend, it was settled at Appomattox a long time ago. I am a proud Southron, and American. We can argue about many things regarding the Civil War. One of the few things we cannot argue about is if it is “settled”.
Surely a half million American lives on both sides accomplished at least that.
The other thing that we can’t argue about is that the soldiers on both sides were Americans.
A territory is another matter. The U.S. government does own its territory and could sell it legally because such act is specifically allowed in the Constitution.
The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States --Art. IV, Sec. 3, Cl. 2
Of course the Civil War itself was settled.
But the South’s justification for secession remains an open issue for many and is a worthwhile inquiry. War may settle power, not necessarily moral right.
You are quite right about that and with that in mind we have a very hard row to hoe.
I think the tradition of the eldest son receiving the bulk of the property goes back to Bible times.
You got it my FRiend.
The good news is recognizing the goal and the difficulty in attaining it. The first step in solving a problem is identifying the problem. So many here on FR and elsewhere don't seem to recognize our overall goal of restoring our Free Constitutional Republic, much less the the tough road to get there. "Trump" is as far as many go. But we know that Trump is only the first step.
The bad news is that restoring our Free Constitutional Republic would seem an almost impossible task. It would mean
1) actually restoring the Constitution as written and originally understood and intended as the Supreme law of the Land, which in turn would mean, among other things,
2) sending hundreds of thousands of officials, bureaucratic heads, and government workers home packing without a job (don't weep for them - America would rejoice in new-found freedom and prosperity and these ex-government folks would find a new job soon).
I'm not sure the world has ever seen the peaceful dismantling of a socialist government - this could be a first ever. As it was in the beginning, so now, it will take the Divine Providence of God Almighty to see this miracle through.
I'm trusting that God is in the process of doing just that.
God bless.
There are a lot of things I like about DJT but one of the most prominent ones is the fact that he has said he believes in state’s rights. I hope he follows through but simply saying it is a step beyond most other politicians.
Right after his inauguration I posted a number of times that he is not there to do everything for us. The fact is he simply cannot do it all no matter how much he might desire to. DJT is an opportunity for the rest of us to get to work and have a chance to accomplish our goals.
It’s a nice sentiment to say that we have his back but the reality is he is there to have our backs and I think he sees it that way. That is rare.
Right - he is our servant, not the other way around.
We've got the ball rolling at the federal level with Trump, but the state level is severely lacking in moving toward constitutional state sovereignty and independence. The people of each state need to wake up and take back their states and their constitutional independence from the tyranny of the feds.
...the long road ahead - but with God, all things are possible. :)
Why?”
Because the governors and elected politicians of each state are addicted to federal financial aid and worried sick about losing it.”
You are mostly right - it's about money. That was a major reason the North attacked the South in the first place. If you don't want to call it money, just think of it this way - the North fought for what they perceived their own best economic and political best interest.
And after 300,000 southerners were killed, their villages and homes destroyed, the disaster at Appomattox, and the southern states relegated to the status of conquered territories, no one attempted to oppose the federal bayonets again.
But let's be honest, it is not just governors and politicians - it is the people (North and South) that elect these politicians that are the problem today.
The D of I shows the steps to valid secession and that secession:
1) should not be “for light or transient causes”
2) requires a certain “patient sufferance” while “evils are sufferable”
3) involves notifying and submitting the facts of abuse “to a candid world” (27 specific abuses are listed in the D of I) and finally
4) “when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty to throw off such Government.”
Your post 365 was long, but not quite long enough.
When searching the DOI for guidance on secession, I encourage you to consider this language: “That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in such Form, AS TO THEM shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.” (emphasis added)
This DOI theory does not require the permission of the King, or the Prime Minister, or the President of the Empire, or even an affirmative vote of the U.N. General Assembly for people to secede.
Yes, this is controversial. Yes, it is something Americans celebrate only once a year on July 4 and then - for the most part - only by lip service.
And yes, it is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
“But the South’s justification for secession remains an open issue for many and is a worthwhile inquiry. War may settle power, not necessarily moral right.”
No it is not an open issue. The South thought secession was an option. It was determined that it was not an option. It is not an open issue, nor is it even close to an open issue.
It’s interesting from a historical perspective to be sure, but this sort of discussion, framed as you have framed it makes it seem like you want to try again.
The South should not be condemned for asserting their independence during the Civil War as Americans. The North should not be condemned for preventing it from succeeding as Americans.
The precedent is set, without regard to moral right or wrong or any other Constitutional interpretation. There will be no seceding from the Union. That’s the way it is.
“That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in such Form, AS TO THEM shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”
That is an eloquent statement of natural law which I did not include because although important, it is general background of natural law principles. It is a statement of the right of a people to secede from its government. What follows is the application of this general right of secession to the issue of and justification for valid American colonial secession, which I included.
The application flows from this statement of natural law, it does not conflict with 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.