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 ...
No its a very apt analogy. Its just inconvenient for you. The parties at the very beginning made clear they maintained the right to unilaterally dissolve the partnership.
Another lame analogy. In a marriage it takes action on the parts of the court to dissolve the union. No, another apt analogy highlighting the right to free association. Sovereigns exercise power in their own right. They derive their power from no other source. There is no court above the states for anything they have not expressly delegated to the federal government.
The lack of constitutional authority for doing so.
There is not Constitutional authority for a state to leave unilaterally either. You claim that since it is not prohibited then the 10th Amendment allows it. Well nothing prohibits the states from expelling another state against its will either. Then shouldn't the 10th Amendment allow for that? Why one and not the other?
Hardly. I've seen people like you quote it. But nobody has ever said when Chase said it and what the context was.
Ah but there was an invasion. US naval forces invaded the sovereign territory of the independent sovereign state of South Carolina which was not part of the US.
And of course you have the quotes to prove it?
I provided them in another post in this thread and as you well know I have provided them on this board literally dozens of times. Feel free to search for yourself.
Quote please.
“...the act of the people, as forming so many independent States, not as forming one aggregate nation, is obvious from this single consideration, that it is to result neither from the decision of a majority of the people of the Union, nor from that of a majority of the States.... Each State, in ratifying the Constitution, is considered as a sovereign body, independent of all others, and only to be bound by its own voluntary act” (Federalist 39).' James Madison There's much more. Feel free to read for yourself. I'm not going to be your google monkey.
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."
Gosh, when did he say this? Was it before ratification? Was it at the time of ratification? If not, then how is one man's opinion expressed decades later any kind of proof as to what the parties ie the states, agreed to at the time?
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.
He never expressed any kind of view of "mutual agreement" being required in order to secede. Read the Declaration of Independence again. Did the 13 colonies obtain "mutual agreement" from the rest of the British Empire?
So much for your reading comprehension. I'm not the one who wrote that.
Lot of that going on around here.
there sure is
See my reply 177 and 204.
See my responses again
ROTFLMAO! You can't make this stuff up. "the part recognized by the federal government". The constitution says in black and white that this is unconstitutional. Yes, exactly this. Oh the completely radical Republican northern dominated SCOTUS said years after the fact that it was OK? Well, that just makes it all fine and dandy then. Again ROTFLMAO!
Except I don't have to agree with it.....and in the reply to your inevitable response, might does not make right. Just because the SCOTUS issues a ruling, that does not mean I have to agree with it. Do you agree with Roe V Wade? Its current law.
Turns out they were wrong.
Sovereigns exercise power in their own right.
LOL! Sovereign! I honestly think you have no idea what that word means.
Right. You should be able to freely associate with whomever you choose. You should not have any kind of right to hold others in bondage who do not wish to associate with you. That's the whole root of the problem with slavery. Forced association directly leads to an abusive relationship.
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.
I agree with this. It requires the consent of Congress for a state to be admitted. But it requires the consent of the prospective state as well. Government derives its legitimacy from the consent of the governed.
Actually it does, as well as a judge's order.
Actually it doesn't require the consent of both to dissolve a marriage. It only requires a judge because individuals, unlike states, are not sovereign.
Which argues against unilateral secession.
No it doesn't.
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?
Except they did not do as you claim. They acknowledged that they had a moral obligation to pay a portion of the national debt (nevermind that they'd been paying most of the taxes and that the money had been overwhelmingly spent in the North). As for the formerly federal installations within their sovereign borders....their tax money for all those years paid for those installations too. You seem to be overlooking that fact. When there is a divorce or when a business partnership is dissolved, the former partners sit down and equitably divide up the assets and liabilities.
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.
The delegates were empowered to discuss the dividing up of assets and liabilities. That was the whole purpose for sending them to Washington. The CSA and Jefferson Davis wanted to have neighborly relations with the USA. They said so quite openly many times. They wanted to trade. They outright offered free passage of the Mississippi with no conditions attached. They were not seeking bad relations and certainly were not seeking a war. They simply wanted to leave and be left in peace.
Secession by mutual agreement. Not secession by one side walking out without negotiating possible matters of disagreement first.
Jefferson never said anything about mutual agreement and given that the 13 colonies left the British Empire just 8 years before ratifying the constitution, it is not reasonable to think he had suddenly changed his view and now thought mutual agreement necessary. Had that principle been in effect in 1776, he never would have penned the Declaration of Independence.
This is false. I can only think this is a deliberate misreading of what I have said. I said repeatedly that the parties should equitably divide the assets and liabilities and negotiate in good faith over the separation.
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?
Yours is entirely a might makes right argument. The 13 colonies seceded and felt they were within their rights to do so. They believed in their right to free association. They were not mere gamblers who did not care about anything other than force. They actually believed in their principles. The same principles that completely justify the secession of the Southern states. If anything, the Southern states were on much firmer legal ground. Their sovereignty had been recognized unlike the colonies and they expressly reserved the right to unilaterally secede from the voluntary union they entered into.
When?
Federalist 39
"...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."
Gosh, when did he say this?
In a letter to Alexander Hamilton, July 20, 1788. Before the ratification. Link
He never expressed any kind of view of "mutual agreement" being required in order to secede
It's clear that Jefferson is talking about discussions about it.
Read the Declaration of Independence again. Did the 13 colonies obtain "mutual agreement" from the rest of the British Empire?
Well considering there was at that time an armed rebellion going on with Great Britain in order to achieve that separation, then I'll point out again that the difference was that the Founders wanted their independence enough to win their rebellion while the Southern states did not want their independence enough enough to win their's.
S--T--R--E--T--C--H. Providing for the national defense against foreign invasion is the very first responsibility of the federal government or indeed any government. This does not remotely concern the principle that powers not delegated to the federal government by the sovereign states remain with the states - as the 10th amendment makes clear.
Nope, it's part of history. Nothing to make up. Read it and weep
The constitution says in black and white that this is unconstitutional. Yes, exactly this.
Where? The Constitution says the state legislature must approve partition. Well the West Virginia legislature did approve, at least that part that wasn't off rebelling did.
The states do not derive their powers from the US constitution. It is very much the other way around. You seem to fail to grasp that. What this means is that the states do not require permission from the federal government to exercise a power not specifically stated in the constitution - such as the right to unilateral secession. The power to expel another state from the club by other states would have to be spelled out in the club bylaws. It isn't. Ergo, that individual state's right to free association prevails. They can remain in if they so choose. They can leave if they so choose.
Sounds like you have some more research to do.
No they weren't. Might does not make right.
LOL! Sovereign! I honestly think you have no idea what that word means.
I know what it means. Clearly you don't.
Fine, that is your opinion. I have no objections to RvW.
When Lincoln sent a heavily armed flotilla into the territorial waters of the independent sovereign state of South Carolina.
In a letter to Alexander Hamilton, July 20, 1788. Before the ratification. Link
Did he say this in the federalist papers or his public utterances before ratification? If so it might be evidence as to what the parties actually agreed to when they ratified the constitution. However, if its just the private opinion of one man expressed to another, then it is worthless in terms of showing what the parties agreed to. So did he say this anywhere in the federalist papers? Did he say this to the various state governments considering ratification of the constitution? If he did, it seems awfully strange then that 3 states including the two largest and most powerful ones expressly reserved the right to unilaterally secede when they ratified the constitution. Stranger still that he never uttered a peep at the time about this being any kind of conditional ratification and thereby defective.
It's clear that Jefferson is talking about discussions about it.
No its not. It would be entirely inconsistent for a man who penned the declaration of independence in which the 13 colonies certainly did not obtain mutual consent from the rest of the British empire prior to seceding from it.
Well considering there was at that time an armed rebellion going on with Great Britain in order to achieve that separation, then I'll point out again that the difference was that the Founders wanted their independence enough to win their rebellion while the Southern states did not want their independence enough enough to win their's.
So you have no argument at all on the merits. Instead you try to fall back on "might makes right". This is the kind of argument put forth by the worst monsters in history to "justify" their aggression too.
I have a lot of objections to it and not even because I would choose to always ban abortion. It was decided on the basis of a right to privacy - which is nowhere stated in the constitution. The right to life was repeatedly cited by the Founders but privacy was not mentioned except in terms of papers and possessions. It was never clear that anybody intended "papers and possessions" to include gestating human embryos. Its a classic example of judicial activism - unelected Black robed deities of the court ruling the country by fiat. This is totally contrary to the democratic values the country was founded upon.
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.