Posted on 10/26/2020 5:41:29 AM PDT by Homer_J_Simpson
WASHINGTON, Wednesday, Oct. 24, 1860. It is my painful duty to confirm, on undoubted authority the statements which have gone abroad from this city, implicating certain high officials in the most diabolical schemes of treason and Disunion. The gentleman who revealed, the plot is R.J. LACKEY, Esq., late of the Treasury Department. He is a Virginian, by birth, and son-in-law of Ex-Governor KING of Missouri, and enjoys a reputation in this community for integrity and goodness of heart, of which any man might be proud. He was dismissed from office a few weeks ago, on the pretended ground that he had declared his preference for LINCOLN over BRECKINRIDGE. This he denies, and the probabilities all go to sustain his denial, for he is not only a Southerner, but the owner of a large amount of slave property in Missouri. Mr. LACKEY distinctly states that a high official at the Treasury Department communicated to him the plan of the Disunionists, of which he cordially approved. The plan, as stated, is for the Governors of the Southern States to convene their Legislatures by proclamation on the 8th day of November, or as soon thereafter as the election of Mr. LINCOLN can be ascertained; that the Legislatures will proceed to declare the Union dissolved, and to pronounce in favor of Mr. Breckinridge as the President of the Southern Union. Mr. LACKEY at once denounced this treasonable scheme, and pointed out the folly and wickedness at which it originated, and the terrible consequences to which an attempt to put it in execution would lead.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
First session: November 21, 2015. Last date to add: Sometime in the future.
Reading: Self-assigned. Recommendations made and welcomed.
Posting history, in reverse order
To add this class to or drop it from your schedule notify Admissions and Records (Attn: Homer_J_Simpson) by reply or freepmail.
Was the New York Times sympathetic to the Disunionists?
No, they were pro-union, pro-Republican.
My understanding was that the owner of the New York Times was arrested bringing supplies to the confederacy.
I don’t know about that. There were many Confederate sympathizers in New York City, but I don’t believe the NY Times management was among them.
The more things change, the more they stay the same.
The more things change, the more they stay the same.
The governors of the southern states convene their legislatures by proclamation? Why that’s TREASON!
On November 8th? Why that’s TREASON!
Declare the union dissolved? TREASON!
_______________________
IOW although the governors can convene their legislatures to do things like ratify the constitution or an ammendment to it, once however it is in place, it is eternal by its own authority and is as permanent as a king of merry old England.
This is not an unreasonable supposition and it is certainly today the law of the land by right of armed force, but the error, is that had such a supposition been made clear in the beginning, the constitution would never have been ratified.
____________________
Thank you for posting these I do so enjoy it.
I had no idea there was this much open discussion of secession in the North before the election.
The US Constitution's definition of treason is clear and succinct:
BDParrish: "...the error, is that had such a supposition been made clear in the beginning, the constitution would never have been ratified."
Our Founders were all consistent in believing and practicing "secession" under two, but only two, conditions:
I learned from George Strong’s diary entry today that there was even a plan to have some New England states secede. George is right that it is a crazy notion, but I never knew anyone thought about it at the time.
Howdy BroJoeK and thanks for your reply!
“Secession”, “states rights”, and “treason”, these are words. It still seems to me like you are playing the same or at least a similar game as the “Lost Causers”. I was not surprised by your comment as I have heard you say that before. Yours is a tempered and reasonable position compared to the NY Times of 1860.
Would you address for me the authority/sovereignty question? What do you say to the inherent inconsistency that states can make a compact that they cannot unmake. The standard answer is that the “people” made the pact not the states.
Would you address a question on the Articles of Confederation? What was wrong with them that they ever needed to be replaced with a constitution?
I understand the position of Harpers Weekly prior to the war. To them the southern idea would justify a state in seceding any time for any reason (or even no reason) even during a war. In other words, during an hypothetical war between the US and France, South Carolina could make a “separate peace” with Napoleon II at any time simply by first passing an ordinance of secession. I think I see why they thought a compact of mutual self-defense could not have held within itself a provision for its own destruction. You are suggesting a similar idea in allowing only the two possibilities for secession. But I think I see why it was not persuasive.
I do appreciate your time, dear FReeper, but in your answer if you don’t mind, you may help me more if you please remember my perspective on “might makes right” and also my views as a Bible believer on human sinful nature. Every wickedness of government, out of Washington DC, or Columbia SC, or Berlin in 1940 or Paris in 1793 was couched in legalese. Marie Antoinette was convicted and executed for treason. To debate whether or not the word “treason” is the right word seems to be to ignore human nature and the limitation of law, but there is value in using such a discussion to get to a deeper truth. I would never tell you what to say, just that in any debate or discussion, I have certain non-negotiable presuppositions, as everyone does including you, I just know exactly what mine are and I have seen many times over that further discussion of them is boring and pointless.
I don't know what "game" that is, but many of my posts are intended to counter false arguments posted by Lost Causers.
The metaphor sometimes used for such activity is "wrestling with a pig", in that you can't help but get stinky-muddy and the pig really enjoys it, so they say.
BDParrish: "Yours is a tempered and reasonable position compared to the NY Times of 1860."
Many other New Yorkers were happy to let secessionists go and some -- i.e., Mayor Wood -- wanted to join them!
BDParrish: "Would you address for me the authority/sovereignty question?
What do you say to the inherent inconsistency that states can make a compact that they cannot unmake."
Any marriage is intended to be forever -- until death do us part.
Exceptions are allowed in the cases of abuse & mutual consent.
But at least traditionally, one party could not just unilaterally declare divorce at pleasure.
That is the closest pattern I can think of to the Constitution's compact.
Further arguments advanced by scholars like Abraham Lincoln include the fact that the 13 original states were never fully sovereign and were, indeed, first created by the Union -- by the Declaration of Independence which declared the British colonies to be now independent states of the United States of America.
My analogy is the states were born as siblings in the United States so that even if sibling rivalry estranges them, they are still sister states.
BDParrish: "Would you address a question on the Articles of Confederation?
What was wrong with them that they ever needed to be replaced with a constitution?"
There's a long list of problems under the Articles of Confederation which the new Constitution was intended to address, beginning with events like Shay's Rebellion and including American Revolutionary War debts.
But the key fact to remember is that in 1788 not everyone believed the old Articles to be inadequate or thought the new Constitution necessary.
Some said that regardless of how inadequate the Articles were, the new Constitution went way too far in the wrong direction.
Those people were known as anti-Federalists and voted against ratification.
After ratification, those same anti-Federalists took on the stance of "strict construction" and became Jeffersonian Democrats.
Actually, Jefferson called himself a small-r "republican", but his Federalist opponents tacked on the word "Democratic" to remind people of Jefferson's support for the French Revolution.
And Jeffersonians were happy to take the label "Democratic" because they did, indeed, support expansion of the voter rolls to include all men free, white & 21.
But "strict construction" turned out to be merely a weapon wielded against Federalist opponents.
Once Democrats came to power after the 1800 election, they did whatever they wanted, regardless of Constitution.
BDParrish: "You are suggesting a similar idea in allowing only the two possibilities for secession.
But I think I see why it was not persuasive."
It's not me suggesting, it's our Founders.
They were willing to "secede" and make war against the British in 1776 due to the necessity created by "...a long train of abuses and usurpations".
They were also willing to "secede" from the old Articles of Confederation by mutual consent, which they there defined as 3/4 agreement.
They considered any other form of "secession" to be insurrection, rebellion, "domestic violence", invasion and/or treason.
Long after our Founders were all dead & buried, then some Southerners began to argue that they and they alone were fit to decide if or when secession became "necessary."
But in reality there was nothing either "necessary" or "mutual consent" about secessions declared after the election of November 1860.
It was strictly at pleasure and no Founder ever proposed or supported such secession.
Well, actually, one did -- Jefferson's former Vice President, Aaron Burr, wanted to secede with Louisiana.
Jefferson had him arrested and tried for treason.
BDParrish: "...in your answer if you don’t mind, you may help me more if you please remember my perspective on “might makes right”"
Presumably, like any conservative, you don't believe that "might makes right" but conversely that a righteous cause can often attract mighty support.
An example of that was the American Revolution supported by several European powers.
An example of the opposite is the refusal of European powers to openly support the Confederate States of America.
They were not going to fight for slavery.
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.