Posted on 12/23/2008 6:14:00 AM PST by rightwingintelligentsia
"Washington, D.C. - On January 20th, President-elect Barack Obama will take the oath of office using the same Bible upon which President Lincoln was sworn in at his first inauguration. The Bible is currently part of the collections of the Library of Congress. Though there is no constitutional requirement for the use of a Bible during the swearing-in, Presidents have traditionally used Bibles for the ceremony, choosing a volume with personal or historical significance. President-elect Obama will be the first President sworn in using the Lincoln Bible since its initial use in 1861.
'President-elect Obama is deeply honored that the Library of Congress has made the Lincoln Bible available for use during his swearing-in,' said Presidential Inaugural Committee Executive Director Emmett Beliveau. 'The President-elect is committed to holding an Inauguration that celebrates America's unity, and the use of this historic Bible will provide a powerful connection to our common past and common heritage.' "
(Excerpt) Read more at politico.com ...
This, by far, is the funniest take on this I've seen!
At last we agree. At least partially.
It is not a “Lost Cause myth” that secession was taught and almost universally accepted prior to Lincoln’s war. I have given you a good number of examples of that — in history, from both primary and secondary sources — and there are far, far more. To deny these facts does not make it less true.
We agree that a dissolution of the Union CAN take place. You, however, limit the authority to dissolve the Union to a “National Convention” or an “act of Congress.” Our Founders would have been horrified. When the Constitution was agreed upon as a compact that governed “the Union,” EACH STATE had to individually approve participation in the Union it created.
IN the SAME EXACT way, each State had the authority to withdraw from the Union in the same manner — unilaterally. Period. The only reason that is not the case today is because the Federal government usurped that authority from the states via violent warfare (Lincoln’s war) and since them Federal tyranny through judicial fiat, and legislative regulatory statute.
I must note here that, if ANY government entity BEYOND the several sovereign states and their citizens may prevent their right to self government and thus force “Union” upon them, then their governemnt is not, and cannot be, one “of the people, by the people and for the people,” as Lincoln was wont to say, can it?
And yes, the Confederate Cause was a “revolution.” It was a continuation of the first American Revolution — the freedom of the Colonies (which became States) to self-government and self-determination. And, it was the ONLY option left to the peoples of those states when the Federal government imposed their will upon the region.
Again, I appeal to the current circumstances that the United States are in, as all the evidence necessary to demonstrate the real goals of Federal control over states and people, and the failure such creeping tyranny ultimately brings.
JDW
I return my thanks for the copy of your late very powerful Speech in the Senate of the United S. It crushes "nullification" and must hasten the abandonment of "Secession." But this dodges the blow by confounding the claim to secede at will, with the right of seceding from intolerable oppression. The former answers itself, being a violation, without cause, of a faith solemnly pledged. The latter is another name only for revolution, about which there is no theoretic controversy.
----------------------------------------
I'll follow Madison's reading of the Constitution not Calhoon's ranting.
I haven’t quoted nor referred to Calhoun once — though he is merely one more of MANY who held to the doctrine of seccession. I mentioned the Rawle, among many other scholars of the antebellum period.
I would say that James Madison, The Father of the Constitution, easily trumps Rawle and the other apostles of disunion you mentioned. And Madison was specifically responding to Webster's Senate speech condemning Calhoon's early attempts to promote unilateral secession as Constitutional.
It wasn't then, and it isn't now.
As I noted earlier, Rawle was an abolitionist and a unionist who taught at West Point. He was hardly an “apostle of secession.”
Madison was indeed a Federalist, as were many of the Founders — but just as many were Anti-Federalists. They wished to retain a “union” more like the old Articles of Confederation, rather than the Constitution constructed at the Philadelphia Convention. Among them were Patrick Henry, and Thomas Jefferson also held a healthy skepticism of a Federal “Constitution.” [It is not coincidental that most of the Anti-Federalists were from the South...]
In fact, had it not been for the insistence of a large number of Anti-Federalist Founders that a specific “Bill of Rights” be passed in addition to the Constitution, there would have never BEEN a “Union.”
These Anti-Federalists were driven by (you guessed it) States Rights! They wished for the Sovereign States and the people to retain all rights not specifically designated to them by the Constitution. Even then, the Anti-Federalists warned that the Constitution could be abused, or ignored, by a Federal Government that got out of control. Patrick Henry was again one of Federalism’s greatest critics. And, again, their warnings and cautions turned out to be prophetic — both at the time of the “Civil War,” and right up to today.
You noted in an earlier post that the Confederate cause was “nothing more than a Revolution.” You were correct. As Jefferson said, “Every generation needs a new revolution. The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.” Oh, and HE was an Anti-Federalist, and a States Rightist — who also OPPOSED slavery. They did exist. They were not scarce.
Rawle never taught at West Point, and his book, A View of the Constitution of the United States was only used for one year (1826) and was replaced by Kent's Commentaries which rejected the idea of secession.
An interesting discussion of Rawle is here. He was a pretty obscure figure who only gained notoriety after the Civil War when the Lost Cause school hung their hat on him for post-facto justification. He seems not to even be mentioned in the period leading up to secession.
It is also not true. The Antifederalists were strong in nearly every state. It was not at all a sectional argument.
Antifederalists commanded clear majorities in Rhode Island, New York, North Carolina, and South Carolina; outnumbered the Federalists by closer margins in Massachusetts and Virginia; and boasted significant strength in every other state except Delaware and New Jersey.
Source: http://www.answers.com/topic/antifederalists
Your facts on Rawle are simply wrong.
You are correct, however, that the Antifederalists were strong in several States, both North and South. My point, perhaps poorly stated, was that in is no surprise that Antifederalists were so strong in the South.
It is quite interesting, however, that the Antifederalist sentiments greatly decline in New England and to a lesser extent in the MidWest — but it stayed constant or grew in the South.
What 'facts' are you talking about? Are you saying that he was an instructor at West Point? That his book was the standard text used there in the decades before the Civil War? What is it you think is wrong?
It is quite interesting, however, that the Antifederalist sentiments greatly decline in New England and to a lesser extent in the MidWest — but it stayed constant or grew in the South.
<<<<< Scratching Head >>>>>>>> What do you mean? The anit-federalists as a movement ceased to exist with the Ratification of the Constitution. Most of their leaders "moved on" and participated actively as both elected and appointed leaders in the new government. They all became federalists with a small 'f.'
I think you are confusing the Party system (Federalist vs. Democrat-Republican) which did not develop until a decade after the Constitutional Convention. The "Federalist Party" did not necessarily represent the same philosophy nor individuals as the as the Federalists nor did the Democratic-Republicans necessarily mirror the Anti-Federalists. Both of those parties had national followings and were not regionally segregated as you apparently imagine. The same is true for their successors -- The Jacksonian Democrats vs The Whigs. Both were national in scope until the question of slavery ended up completly destroying the Whigs and eventually dividing the Democrats into Northern and Southern factions.
If you are somehow under the impression that "Southerners" were somehow 'reluctant' to exercise federal authority over the states, and were for 'smaller' government, that is one of the biggest lies ever told. From Jacksonian days all the way up through FDRs New Deal, Southern Democrats were all for any expanded government power, program or spending, as long as it benefited them.
Do you still claim that Rawle was an instructor at West Point and taught secession to Lee, Grant, and Jackson as you claimed in post 138?
BTW. Both Lee and Grant did not consider secession to be constitutional and said so. I don't really know what Stonewall thought about it.
History tells us that Lincoln was a politically ambitious lawyer who eagerly prostituted himself to northern industrialists who were unwilling to pay world prices for their raw materials and who, rather than practice real capitalism, enlisted brute government force -- "sell to us at our price or pay a fine that'll put you out of business" -- for dealing with uncooperative southern suppliers. That's what a tariff's all about. In support of this "noble principle", when southerners demonstrated what amounted to no more than token resistance, Lincoln permitted an internal war to begin that butchered more Americans than all of this country's foreign wars -- before or afterward -- rolled into one.
Lincoln saw the introduction of total war on the American continent -- indiscriminate mass slaughter and destruction without regard to age, gender, or combat status of the victims -- and oversaw the systematic shelling and burning of entire cities for strategic and tactical purposes. For the same purposes, Lincoln declared, rather late in the war, that black slaves were now free in the south -- where he had no effective jurisdiction -- while declaring at the same time, somewhat more quietly but for the record nonetheless, that if maintaining slavery could have won his war for him, he'd have done that, instead.
I have found no reliable historical evidence that Rawle did not teach at West Point. Still, if you say he didn’t teach there — or “only for a year or two” — I’ll stipulate that you are correct.
Now, do you still claim that Rawle was an “obscure” legal figure who had no real impact in early American history and jurisprudence?
You are correct about Lee and Grant, BTW. Both considered secession to be problematic. Of course, on the same token, if you look at the lives and practices of Grant and Sherman, Lee and Jackson, you will find a contradiction just as fascinating — if not more so — than the one you point out. Of those four Generals, only 2 owned slaves. They were the two Union Generals.
No one is arguing that contradictions and paradoxes didn’t exist during this era. In any time of civil conflict, contradictions abound. Eventually, however, if the questions are to be answered and the problems resolved, a consistent set of principles must be accepted and applied. Otherwise, similar problems and recurring challenges will buffet the nation. THAT is where we are RIGHT NOW...Again.
Had Lincoln known such a leftist would one day desecrate his Bible, I'm sure he would have otherwise donated it a more worthy custodian.
What kind of logic is that? You say he taught at West Point yet you present no evidence that he did but now say that there is no evidence that he didn't! Don't you think his law firm web site that you seem to think puts the guy up there with the Founders would mention it?
Now, do you still claim that Rawle was an “obscure” legal figure who had no real impact in early American history and jurisprudence?
Yes I do. If not for a few paragraphs he wrote concerning secession which no one ever seemed to quote until well after the Civil war, you would have never heard of him. And what is with this impact on "jurisprudence?" The guy never served on the bench and never issued a decision. He seems to have been a fairly successful lawyer in the late 18th and early 19th century when most of his cases would have been who's cow ate who's corn.
My logic is not the question — I was responding to YOUR question in the context of my past comments! My sources (which I provided earlier in part) said that Rawle taught at West Point.
According to what I’ve read, he taught in the 1820’s, his text on the Constitution WAS used at West Point during that period there. A couple of sources I’ve read say he “taught for a year or two.” A couple of others mention no length of tenure.
The length of time he taught was not the major point at issue — that he DID teach at West Point was at issue. You denied that earlier — and in your last post you continue to say “you present no evidence that he did” [teach at West Point].
If you still believe Rawle was obscure, in light of his work for President Washington, and in the circles of those establishing the new nation, and as founder of the oldest (and a quite successful)law firm in Philadelphia, and as an instructor at West Point (even if only “for a year or two”), and the writer of a major work on the US Constitution — well, we’ll have to agree to disagree.
It appears that all you have read is Tom DiLorenzo and you quote him verbatum.
I'd suggest you expand your reading list. DiLorenzo is an ideological crackpot, not an historian.
Thanks for the suggestion — It’s completely wrong, as I’ve quoted several other sources, and I’ve read many. But again, thank you for your helpfulness.
The Right to Secede
September 30, 1999
How can the federal government be prevented from usurping powers that the Constitution doesn’t grant to it? It’s an alarming fact that few Americans ask this question anymore.
Our ultimate defense against the federal government is the right of secession. Yes, most people assume that the Civil War settled that. But superior force proves nothing. If there was a right of secession before that war, it should be just as valid now. It wasn’t negated because Northern munitions factories were more efficient than Southern ones.
Among the Founding Fathers there was no doubt. The United States had just seceded from the British Empire, exercising the right of the people to “alter or abolish” — by force, if necessary — a despotic government. The Declaration of Independence is the most famous act of secession in our history, though modern rhetoric makes “secession” sound somehow different from, and more sinister than, claiming independence.
The original 13 states formed a “Confederation,” under which each state retained its “sovereignty, freedom, and independence.” The Constitution didn’t change this; each sovereign state was free to reject the Constitution. The new powers of the federal government were “granted” and “delegated” by the states, which implies that the states were prior and superior to the federal government.
Even in The Federalist, the brilliant propaganda papers for ratification of the Constitution (largely written by Alexander Hamilton and James Madison), the United States are constantly referred to as “the Confederacy” and “a confederate republic,” as opposed to a single “consolidated” or monolithic state. Members of a “confederacy” are by definition free to withdraw from it.
Hamilton and Madison hoped secession would never happen, but they never denied that it was a right and a practical possibility. They envisioned the people taking arms against the federal government if it exceeded its delegated powers or invaded their rights, and they admitted that this would be justified. Secession, including the resort to arms, was the final remedy against tyranny. (This is the real point of the Second Amendment.)
Strictly speaking, the states would not be “rebelling,” since they were sovereign; in the Framers’ view, a tyrannical government would be rebelling against the states and the people, who by defending themselves would merely exercise the paramount political “principle of self-preservation.”
The Constitution itself is silent on the subject, but since secession was an established right, it didn’t have to be reaffirmed. More telling still, even the bitterest opponents of the Constitution never accused it of denying the right of secession. Three states ratified the Constitution with the provision that they could later secede if they chose; the other ten states accepted this condition as valid.
Early in the nineteenth century, some Northerners favored secession to spare their states the ignominy of union with the slave states. Later, others who wanted to remain in the Union recognized the right of the South to secede; Abraham Lincoln had many of them arrested as “traitors.” According to his ideology, an entire state could be guilty of “treason” and “rebellion.” The Constitution recognizes no such possibility.
Long before he ran for president, Lincoln himself had twice affirmed the right of secession and even armed revolution. His scruples changed when he came to power. Only a few weeks after taking office, he wrote an order for the arrest of Chief Justice Roger Taney, who had attacked his unconstitutional suspension of habeas corpus. His most recent biographer has said that during Lincoln’s administration there were “greater infringements on individual liberties than in any other period in American history.”
As a practical matter, the Civil War established the supremacy of the federal government over the formerly sovereign states. The states lost any power of resisting the federal government’s usurpations, and the long decline toward a totally consolidated central government began.
By 1973, the federal government was so powerful that the U.S. Supreme Court could insult the Constitution by striking down the abortion laws of all 50 states; and there was nothing the states, long since robbed of the right to secede, could do about it. That outrage was made possible by Lincoln’s triumphant war against the states, which was really his dark victory over the Constitution he was sworn to preserve.
Joseph Sobran
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.