Posted on 09/09/2019 9:42:11 AM PDT by NKP_Vet
Nearly all modern historians agree with Professor James McPherson’s conclusion that the Civil War was caused by Southern objections to the 1860 Republican Party’s resolve to prohibit slavery’s extension into any of the federal territories that had not yet been organized as states. The resolution originated with the Wilmot Proviso fourteen years earlier before the infant GOP had even been formed. In 1846 Pennsylvania Congressman David Wilmot introduced a rider to a $2 million appropriation intended for use in a negotiated settlement to end the Mexican War. The rider stipulated that the money could not be used to purchase land that might be acquired in the treaty if slavery was allowed in such territories. After considerable wrangling, the bill passed without the rider.
Contrary to first impressions, the Proviso had little to do with sympathy for black slaves. Its purpose was to keep blacks out of the new territories so that the lands might be reserved for free whites. As Wilmot put it, “The negro race already occupy enough of this fair continent . . . I would preserve for free white labor a fair country . . . where the sons of toil, of my own race and color, can live without the disgrace which association with negro slavery brings upon free labor.”
The same attitude prevailed during the Civil War. Abraham Lincoln readily admitted that his September 1862 Emancipation Proclamation was a necessity of war. Major General George McClellan, who then commanded the North’s biggest army and would become Lincoln’s opponent in the 1864 presidential elections, believed it was a deliberate attempt to incite Southern slave rebellions. Lincoln was himself aware that such uprisings might result.
(Excerpt) Read more at civilwarchat.wordpress.com ...
Secession is not insurrection. Lincoln was full of crap. So are his apologists.
What did anybody expect? He was a member of the Lincoln administration. Did anybody really expect the SCOTUS to rule that their own side had been wrong all along after the war had already been fought? Gosh, how many of those SCOTUS justices were appointed by Lincoln? C'mon. Nobody with even a shred of objectivity is going to buy that as being dispositive.
Breezed right by the whole invading Southern territory thing, didn't you?
No, I said secession as practiced by the Southern states was illegal. Secession itself is not forbidden by the Constitution, seceding unilaterally is. Secession needs to be done after negotiation and with the consent of the other states. Chase thought so. Madison thought so. Jefferson thought so. Who am I to disagree with them?
And you were wrong in that. Unilateral secession is the right o each state. Nowhere did any state agree that they would require some kind of permission slip from the federal government or from other states in order to leave. Madison only expressed his opinion that a state could not unilaterally secede in the 1820s - long after the constitution had been ratified. That's not what he said in the federalist papers and he never objected when 3 states expressly reserved the right to unilaterally secede at the time that they ratified the constitution. Jefferson consistently expressed the view that secession was within the right of each state.
That Chase would say his side and that he himself was right all along hardly comes as a surprise. That he would bluntly say that secession is not treason is more persuasive being that it is a statement against interest.
Yes there was. Article IV, Section 3 Clause 1 ".....but no new States shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress." Lincoln's whole argument was that Virginia and the rest of the Southern states never really constitutionally left. So if they never left then their state legislature must consent to allow a new state to be carved out of their territory. Yet the legislature of Virginia never consented. Therefore Unconstitutional. OR Lincoln's argument that the Southern states never really constitutionally left - ie the entire basis upon which he started and the North prosecuted the war - was false. Which is it?
No, its not hard to understand at all. To be admitted, a state requires the consent of Congress. The whole right of free association thing. Both parties - ie the state and the US - must agree to enter into a union. Any change of status of that state....any change of border.....the creation of a new state from the territory of an existing state....all deal with matters that pertain to the union between that state and other states.
Leaving however does not require both parties to agree just as both parties in a marriage do not have to agree to a divorce. As for the terms after deciding to leave, the parties should negotiate in good faith to divide up resources and debts in an equitable fashion. The Southern states offered to do so and sent a delegation to Washington DC with the express purpose of negotiating financial arrangements in good faith. Lincoln refused to meet with them. And Jefferson openly said on multiple occasions that he thought secession perfectly legal, constitutional and reasonable.
"The future inhabitants of [both] the Atlantic and Mississippi states will be our sons. We think we see their happiness in their union, and we wish it. Events may prove otherwise; and if they see their interest in separating why should we take sides? God bless them both, and keep them in union if it be for their good, but separate them if it be better." – Thomas Jefferson "If any State in the Union will declare that it prefers separation" over "union," "I have no hesitation in saying, 'let us separate.'" Thomas Jefferson and....don't bother with your usual game of demanding 158 sources notarized from the library of congress and an electronic signature before the quotes are to be deemed "acceptable". I'm simply not going to play that game. Jefferson said it. Look it up for yourself if you doubt it.
Why do you assume leaving = "shafting those remaining"? The 13 colonies themselves SECEDED from the British Empire. I doubt the Founders thought of themselves as "shafting those remaining" in the British Empire. But you PC Revisionists do cling to your dogma.
I don't even think they forgot to write it down. They said right up front that the powers the states were delegating the federal government were few and limited. Every single last power not specifically named in the constitution as being delegated by the states to the newly created federal government was a power the states kept. That included the right to unilateral secession. They themselves had unilaterally seceded from the British Empire just 8 years before most of them ratified the constitution. To say they never contemplated that secession might be needed from the EXPERIMENTAL new union they were creating is pure lunacy. They didn't say it because they did not need to. And just in case anybody wanted to claim that a right did not exist if not spelled out in the constitution they added the 9th amendment so nobody could make that argument. Just to make sure nobody could claim any power not listed in the constitution belonged to the federal government rather than to the states, they added the 10th amendment.
I have.
A rather lame analogy. A more accurate one might be a business partnership. One party may walk out but it takes negotiations to legally end the arrangement.
In a marriage both have to consent to get married. One however may dissolve the marriage even if the other would prefer they don't go.
Another lame analogy. In a marriage it takes action on the parts of the court to dissolve the union.
Why not? What prohibits it?
Not hard to do when there was no invasion. Merely federal troops in their assigned post at a fort owned by the federal government.
And you were wrong in that.
And of course you have the quotes to prove it?
That's not what he said in the federalist papers...
Quote please.
...and he never objected when 3 states expressly reserved the right to unilaterally secede at the time that they ratified the constitution.
You mean like this "never objection"? "My opinion is that a reservation of a right to withdraw if amendments be not decided on under the form of the Constitution within a certain time, is a conditional ratification, that it does not make N. York a member of the New Union, and consequently that she could not be received on that plan. Compacts must be reciprocal, this principle would not in such a case be preserved. The Constitution requires an adoption in toto, and for ever. It has been so adopted by the other States. An adoption for a limited time would be as defective as an adoption of some of the articles only. In short any condition whatever must viciate the ratification."
Jefferson consistently expressed the view that secession was within the right of each state.
But not unilateral secession. Even his oft-quoted line from his first inaugural - "If there be any among us who would wish to dissolve this Union or to change its republican form, let them stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it." - he's obviously talking about separation based on mutual agreement.
That Chase would say his side and that he himself was right all along hardly comes as a surprise.
Lot of that going on around here.
That he would bluntly say that secession is not treason is more persuasive being that it is a statement against interest.
See my reply 177 and 204.
Virginia was partitioned after a vote to do so passed the part of the Virginia legislature recognized by the federal government as the legitimate legislature, and a vote in Congress. As required by the Constitution. The Supreme Court recognized the legality of this process in the Virginia v West Virginia (78 US 39) decision issued in 1879.
Except it is the Law.
If it's a whole "right of free association thing" then you should be just as free to associate as you are to no longer associate. You shouldn't need the consent of others to do so.
Both parties - ie the state and the US - must agree to enter into a union.
If you read Article IV then strictly speaking only the U.S. needs agree to the union. No part on the part of the territory is needed for Congress to declare them a state. And just because the territory wants to become a state doesn't mean Congress needs to make them one, or "associate with them" if you want to use that odd-ball term.
Leaving however does not require both parties to agree just as both parties in a marriage do not have to agree to a divorce.
Actually it does, as well as a judge's order.
As for the terms after deciding to leave, the parties should negotiate in good faith to divide up resources and debts in an equitable fashion.
Which argues against unilateral secession.
The Southern states offered to do so and sent a delegation to Washington DC with the express purpose of negotiating financial arrangements in good faith.
So let me see if I get this right. The Southern states walk out of the Union, walk away from responsibility for debt and national obligations, seize every bit of federal property that they can get their hands on, and then send a delegation to Washington saying "If you agree that what we did is legal and recognize us as a separate country then we'll pay for everything. Honest. We promise." And you call that "negotiating in good faith?" If I were to say to you, "Give me your house. Sign over all rights, titles, and ownership to me, free and clear. Once you do that I'll give you a good price for it. I promise." Would you negotiate a deal like that?
And besides, the delegation wasn't sent to Washington to negotiate anything but Southern independence. Read the letter from Davis to Lincoln and nowhere is there an offer to pay for anything. All Davis is interested in was recognition.
And Jefferson openly said on multiple occasions that he thought secession perfectly legal, constitutional and reasonable.
Secession by mutual agreement. Not secession by one side walking out without negotiating possible matters of disagreement first.
Because in your world those states leaving can walk away from all obligations from their share of debt and responsibilities with every bit of property not nailed down leaving the remaining states to pay the bill and suffer the loss. And there is nothing they can do about it. And you claim the Constitution protects that.
The 13 colonies themselves SECEDED from the British Empire.
The 13 colonies fought and won a rebellion to SECEDE from the British Empire. The 13 Southern States fought and lost a rebellion to SECEDE from the U.S. See the difference?
Ur preaching to the choir. You and I are in agreement
The Constitution gives Congress the specific right to fund an army and a navy. Would you then agree that the U.S. Air Force is an unconstitutional organization and funding for it should be eliminated?
Then you know the source is valid.
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.