Lee, Virginia, and the Union

https://www.abbevilleinstitute.org ^ | March 27, 2019 | Fred H. Cox

[NKP_Vet]

The Hall of Fame recently dedicated at New York Uni­versity was conceived from the Ruhmes Halle in Bavaria. This structure on University Heights, on the Harlem river, in the borough of the Bronx, New York City, has, or is in­tended to have, a panel of bronze with other mementos for each of one hundred and fifty native-born Americans who have been deceased at least ten years, and who are of great character and fame in authorship, education, science, art, soldiery, statesmanship, philanthropy, or in any worthy un­dertaking. Fifty names were to have been chosen at once; but, on account of a slight change of plans, only twenty-nine have been chosen, and twenty-one more will be in 1902. The remaining one hundred names are to be chosen during the century, five at the end of each five years. The present judges of names to be honored are one hundred representa­tive American scholars in different callings. They are most­ly Northern men, although at least one judge represents each State.

[DiogenesLamp]

The Virginia Confederate legislature removed itself from the Union and declared war on the United States.

And the US government rejected this claim.

Checkmate.

[OIFVeteran]

So the father of the constitution is not an authority on what it means? Where’s the yea right Jennifer Lawrence meme when you need it. Your freaking delusional dude. I think I’ll take his views on the constitution before yours.

[DiogenesLamp]

So the father of the constitution is not an authority on what it means?

You think James Madison's opinion overrides that of his own state?

We the Delegates of the People of Virginia duly elected in pursuance of a recommendation from the General Assembly and now met in Convention having fully and freely investigated and discussed the proceedings of the Federal Convention and being prepared as well as the most mature deliberation hath enabled us to decide thereon Do in the name and in behalf of the People of Virginia declare and make known that 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 and that every power not granted thereby remains with them and at their will: that therefore no right of any denomination can be cancelled abridged restrained or modified by the Congress by the Senate or House of Representatives acting in any Capacity by the President or any Department or Officer of the United States except in those instances in which power is given by the Constitution for those purposes: & that among other essential rights the liberty of Conscience and of the Press cannot be cancelled abridged restrained or modified by any authority of the United States.

No. The authority of the US Constitution derives from the Consent of the Governed, not from one man trying to dictate what he claims it means. The State of Virginia did not agree with Madison, nor did the State of New York, nor the State of Rhode Island. Presumably none of the states agreed with him about this, though they did not make specific note of it in their ratification statements.

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp: "Do you not grasp the difference between Northerners producing $78,217,202 and Southerners producing $198,389,351 in European value?
$198,389,351 is more than $78,217,202.
It is 72% of the combined total.
The North was only producing 28% of the total, so how were they paying for those goods?"

Your numbers are lies, and you know it.
They overstate "Southern products" and understate everything else.
The true number for Deep South exports is roughly 50% of US total -- cotton.
Everything else of major value was produced outside the Deep South.
The proof of this came in 1861 when the Confederacy was eliminated from US totals and except for cotton US totals didn't change.
Tobacco dipped a little, others products increased.

Fire Eaters in 1860 and Lost Causers today grossly exaggerated the economic importance of "Southern products" to the overall US economy -- $4.5 billion in GDP.

[DiogenesLamp]

Your numbers are lies, and you know it. They overstate "Southern products" and understate everything else.

Yeah, that New Yorker just lied about it when he wrote his book in 1860.

You are really grasping at straws. The official records have even worse numbers for you. I remember when one of the other freepers posted them to you, and you wanted to argue with the official record!

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp: "I'm not going to argue numbers with you.
I've seen you try to massage the numbers before, and other freepers have called you out on it.
The numbers printed before the war, or even the numbers in the official record are good enough to prove the same point."

Your numbers were a lie then and are still a lie.
Cotton was the only exclusive "Southern Product" and it was 50%, of the total, no more.
Even your own numbers tell us cotton was 47% in 1859.
And cotton exports drastically fell in 1861, but nothing else did.
Everything else was produced in Union states and was not seriously effected by the Civil War.

That should tell you the truth of this matter, if truth mattered to you.

[rockrr]

And yet there she stands, recognized by the United States (my country) and virtually all reality-based lifeforms.

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp: "In fact, I consider this argument to be an admission that I am correct, and so I like it quite a lot.
"Might makes right." "

But like everything else Lost Cause, it's a lie.
The fact is the Union did its best to observe Constitutional principles, including with the admission of West Virginia.

DiogenesLamp's claim that it was somehow not strictly according to Hoyle was put to rest by the US Supreme Court in 1871 (6-3) and has not been revisited since.

[DiogenesLamp]

And cotton exports drastically fell in 1861, but nothing else did.

And gee, I wonder what happened in 1861? Oh, that's right, a f***ing blockade of all Southern ports!

I can't imagine why putting warships outside of every port city to threaten shipping would have an effect on exports. It's really just a mystery, isn't it?

I've always been amazed that you can say with a straight face that the numbers for 1861 and subsequent years represents normal trade. No, it's what happens when you *FORCE* all trade into Northern ports when they would have preferred to go to Southern ports.

Also massive inflation of the currency occurred because of all the borrowing and spending, so the numbers get hinkey right away in 1861.

[DiogenesLamp]

And yet there she stands, recognized by the United States (my country) and virtually all reality-based lifeforms.

So? Slavery in the United States stood for "four score and seven years", but this didn't make it right. People will accustom themselves to accepting something that isn't right after sufficient passage of time.

It still isn't right.

[DiogenesLamp]

The fact is the Union did its best to observe Constitutional principles, including with the admission of West Virginia.

You act like the force of law is a mere suggestion. It isn't a question of doing your "best", it's a question of either complying with the law, or not complying with the law.

They chose not to comply with the law, and then they put on a bunch of theater to make it appear as if they had done so.

[rockrr]

It still isn't right.

Perhaps, perhaps not. It is your opinion, just not a widely held one.

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp: "Said all the founders in the Declaration of Independence. If you have a good grasp of the English language, you understand that "should" does not mean "shall."
Do you grasp the fact that "should" does not mean "shall"? "

Right, and "should" certainly does not mean "should not".
In fact, the word "should" is not used anywhere in the Declaration which is material to this particular discussion.
What matters here is the word "When..." -- "When a long train of abuses and usurpations...it is their right..."

"When" is not "should" or "shall", "when" is just a statement of fact -- when such conditions exist, then (and only then) "...it is their right, it is their duty..."

Nothing in the Declaration says or implies an unlimited "right of secession" at pleasure, regardless of how often you claim it does.

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp: "And the US government rejected this claim.
Checkmate."

Nonsense, you can't "checkmate" truth with lies.
The US government, pursuant to Article 4, section 4, simply recognized a new Virginia state legislature.

Now Checkmate.

[mo]

Lincoln did to the South EXACTLY what King George tried to do to the colonies 80 years earlier.

Thats why its still a bit of an issue for a lot of folks.

[rockrr]

Not even in the same ballpark.

[DiogenesLamp]

Perhaps, perhaps not. It is your opinion, just not a widely held one.

It is clearly a fact that the legislature of Virginia did not approve the creation of the state of "West" Virginia from their territory.

Pretending that a hastily created "Virginia" legislature approved it makes as much sense as someone pretending to sign a document with someone else's signature. It's a fraud.

[DiogenesLamp]

In fact, the word "should" is not used anywhere in the Declaration which is material to this particular discussion.

"Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes;"

Nothing in the Declaration says or implies an unlimited "right of secession" at pleasure, regardless of how often you claim it does.

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.

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp quoting: "...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..."

Right, that is exactly the reason Virginians refused to secede before Fort Sumter, because they recognized than no legitimate claims of "injury or oppression" existed.
After Fort Sumter they pointed at the action there as sufficient "injury or oppression" to justify their secession.

In fact Fort Sumter was in no sense "injury or oppression" to Virginia, but it was at least something more than Virginians had before -- something more than at pleasure secession of Deep South states.

[DiogenesLamp]

The US government, pursuant to Article 4, section 4, simply recognized a new Virginia state legislature.

Which was the equivalent of a man putting on a dress and calling himself a "woman." It was a "transgender" legislature, not a real one.

The real legislature of Virginia existed long before the US Constitution was ever written, and no honest person can claim they didn't know which body represented the real legislature of Virginia.

It was the one in Richmond.

What your side does is play make believe with the law, and then demand everyone accept the delusions you assert as being "real."

The real Virginia legislature did not consent, and therefore the US Constitution was violated, and I don't give a f*** what a Pet court said about it, it's clearly a fabricated ruling.