Posted on 05/29/2011 2:46:36 PM PDT by BigReb555
Uncle Bob Brown, a former servant of the Davis family and a passenger on the train, saw the many flowers that the children had laid on the side of the railroad tracks. Brown was so moved by this beautiful gesture that he wept uncontrollably.
(Excerpt) Read more at canadafreepress.com ...
The Articles formed as a "perpetual union" and the Constitution spoke of a "better and more perfect union." From a constitutional viewpoint, it seems that it is necessary to make an argument that temporary is "better and more perfect" than perpetual, this is something that none of the southern states addressed.
I believe that there are certainly arguments that can be made and they very well may need to be made in the future, but until they are made I think the validity of secession is problematic.
The only "problematic" argument would rest with whomever was putting forth the Federal case.
What we have is our several State ratification documents calling for their State to reassume it's delegated authority; if for no other reason, than for their States "happiness".
Then of course, I could tear apart that whole "perpetual union" with the Federalist papers. "The first question is answered at once by recurring to the absolute necessity of the case; to the great principle of self-preservation; to the transcendent law of nature and of nature's God, which declares that the safety and happiness of society are the objects at which all political institutions aim, and to which all such institutions must be sacrificed."
The Southern States did address the issue of secession. It was the Northern States that attempted to make it illegal after the fact. History is a funny thing because nothing is as it seems.
Here is Texas Senator Louis Wigfall talking about Northern legal maneuvers on secession:
I desire to pour oil on the waters, to produce harmony, piece and quite here.It is early in the morning, and I hope I shall not say anything that may be construed as offensive. I rise merely that we have an understanding of the question. It is not slavery in the territories, it is not expansion, which is the difficulty. If the resolution which the Senator from Wisconsin introduced here, denying the right of secession, had been adopted by two thirds of each branch of the department of the Government, and had it been ratified by three fourths of the States, I have no hesitation in saying that, so far as the State in which I live and to which I owe my allegiance is concerned, if she had no other cause for a disruption of the Union taking place, she would undoubtedly have gone out.
Here is one vote that was voted down - 28 nays to 18 yeas:
“Under this Constitution, as originally adopted and as it now exists, no State has power to withdraw from the jurisdiction of the United States; and this Constitution, and all laws passed in pursuance of its delegated powers, are the supreme law of the land, anything contained in any constitution, ordinance, or act of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.”
When you dig into the State ratification documents, this is were the meat is. During Virginia's ratification, Mr. Madison said the following:
That resolution declares that the powers granted by the proposed Constitution are the gift of the people, and may be resumed by them when perverted to their oppression, and every power not granted thereby remains with the people, and at their will. It adds, likewise, that no right, of any denomination, can be cancelled, abridged, restrained, or modified, by the general government, or any of its officers, except in those instances in which power is given by the Constitution for these purposes. There cannot be a more positive and unequivocal declaration of the principle of the adoption — that every thing not granted is reserved. This is obviously and self-evidently the case, without the declaration.
George Tucker’s 1803 edition of Blackstone’s Commentaries, which he annotated to American law, was widely used for the teaching of law in the United States for years. Here are some of his thoughts:
But the seceding states were certainly justified upon that principle; and from the duty which every state is acknowledged to owe to itself, and its own citizens by doing whatsoever may best contribute to advance its own happiness and prosperity; and much more, what may be necessary to the preservation of its existence as a state.30 Nor must we forget that solemn declaration to which every one of the confederate states assented . … that whenever any form of government is destructive of the ends of its institution, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government. Consequently whenever the people of any state, or number of states, discovered the inadequacy of the first form of federal government to promote or preserve their independence, happiness, and union, they only exerted that natural right in rejecting it, and adopting another, which all had unanimously assented to, and of which no force or compact can deprive the people of any state, whenever they see the necessity, and possess the power to do it. And since the seceding states, by establishing a new constitution and form of federal government among themselves, without the consent of the rest, have shown that they consider the right to do so whenever the occasion may, in their opinion require it, as unquestionable, we may infer that that right has not been diminished by any new compact which they may since have entered into, since none could be more solemn or explicit than the first, nor more binding upon the contracting parties. Their obligation, therefore, to preserve the present constitution, is not greater than their former obligations were, to adhere to the articles of confederation; each state possessing the same right of withdrawing itself from the confederacy without the consent of the rest, as any number of them do, or ever did, possess.
And that is the crux of the problem, they DID NOT ADDRESS IT, everything else becomes moot because this wasn't addressed.
Try to set aside any preconceptions you might have and compare any of the declarations of secession alongside the Declaration of Independence. It has always been clear to me that the seceding states were clear in what they wanted to do, but I don't see where they made the case the way that Jefferson did.
You've got it all backwards. There was no "perpetual union" to secede from... since they did that already forming this new Constitution. Moreover, as soon as Lincoln picked curtain # 2... the Constitution was void. See Madison's quote below.
This FORMER Constitutional Republic was transformed ( thanks to Lincoln ) into something better characterized by rape, pillage, arson and murder.
"A Union of the States containing such an ingredient seemed to provide for its own destruction. The use of force against a State, would look more like a declaration of war, than an infliction of punishment, and would probably be considered by the party attacked as a dissolution of all previous compacts by which it might be bound."
They cited the Declaration of Independence several times. Have you not looked at what Thomas Jefferson said concerning this Constitution and State secession?
Here:
Whilst the General Assembly [of the State of Virginia] thus declares the rights retained by the States, rights which they have never yielded, and which this State will never voluntarily yield, they do not mean to raise the banner of disaffection, or of separation from their sister States, co-parties with themselves to this compact. They know and value too highly the blessings of their Union as to foreign nations and questions arising among themselves, to consider every infraction as to be met by actual resistance. They respect too affectionately the opinions of those possessing the same rights under the same instrument, to make every difference of construction a ground of immediate rupture. They would, indeed, consider such a rupture as among the greatest calamities which could befall them; but not the greatest. There is yet one greater, submission to a [federal] government of unlimited powers.
You said: “It’s not ‘propaganda’ if it was the central theme of the declarations of secession, which it was.
To what document(s) are you referring?
You said: “..by “local custom” you mean raping the servants?”
Are you quoting some document of the period?
Again, what documents are you quoting?
As if it really explains something?
You did not provide any data on point of consumption versus point of tariff payment, and who paid the transfer tariff fees.
Is it because you would like to misrepresent?
If not, then take this data into consideration:
In 1860 the total value of imports into all of the United States was $336,000,000.
For the same year, the Southern states imported $346,000,000 in products, $10,000,000 more than the entire imports of all the states combined.
Some of the Southern states imports came directly from Europe. For 1860, the South brought in $106,000,000 in direct imports.
The balance, $240 million, came from from Northern Manufacturers and suppliers, or imports from Europe that were brought in by Northern or Southern brokers through New York, and reshipped South.
The South consumed more imported goods than all of the Northern and Western states combined.
Tariffs were paid to the US Customs by the importer at either the port of entry or the reshipment port elsewhere.
An importer could be a New York businessman or a New Orleans businessman.
Or the importer could be a mercantilist in Memphis who bought from a Chicago importer who bought from a Boston importer.
If the goods were perishable, then duties were collected immediately. If not, the goods could be stored for up to three years without duties being paid. Then, when shipped West or South and reaching the final businessman, the tariffs were paid either at the local Customs House or to the importer who revised his sales price up to compensate for the tariff he had already paid.
So, it is as simple as you would make it out to be?
" You will not regard confederate obligations ; you will not regard constitutional obligations; you will not regard your oaths. What, then, am I to do? Am I a freeman? Is my State a free State ? We are freemen ; we have rights ; I have stated them. We have wrongs; I have re- counted them. I have demonstrated that the party now coming into power has declared us outlaws, and is determined to exclude thousands of millions of our property from the common territory ; that it has declared us under the ban of the Union, and out of the protection of the laws of the United States everywhere. They have refused to protect us from invasion and insurrection by the Federal power, and the Constitution denies to us, in the Union, the right to raise fleets an^ armies for our own defense. All these charges I have proven by the record; and I put them before the civilized world and demand the judgment of to-day, of to- morrow, of distant ages, and of Heaven itself upon the justice of these causes. I am content, what- ever it be, to peril all in so holy a cause. We have appealed, time and again, for these constitu- tional rights. You have refused them. We ap- peal again. Restore us those rights as we had them ; as your Court adjudges them to be ; just as our people have said they are. Redress these fla- grant wrongs — seen of all men — and it will restore fraternity, and unity, and peace to us all. Refuse them, and what then? We shall then ask you, ' Let us depart in peace.' Refuse that, and you present us war. We accept it, and, inscribing upon our banners the glorious words, ' Liberty and Equality,' we will trust to the blood of the brave and the God of battles for security and tran- quillity."
ROBERT TOOMBS
Unless you and I live in a state or states voting on secession, what you or I think means jack squat - nothing.
Hey, they still rape the servants, didn’t last week news prove it to you?
From what I've read, I agree with it.
I think that throughout this thread some may have misinterpreted what I was trying to say. Was the War about states rights? Of course it was. The North had spent decades treating the South like some sort of ugly stepchild and finally the South had enough.
Was the War ONLY about slavery? Of course not, but it is foolish to suggest that it wasn't about slavery at all. Lincoln was right when he said that the nation couldn't survive half slave and half free; but, as the article you linked noted, there had to be some way to end slavery, integrate the freed slaves into society AND do this in a way that didn't cripple the Southern economy. Unfortunately, the Civil War failed miserably in this area and the plight of Blacks actually became worse in many respects.
I don't think any honest American has ever tried to justify slavery as moral, because it is so inherently immoral. And, I believe the immorality tends to make some say the War was only about slavery and others to deny that slavery had anything to do with it. The Republic was clearly on a collision course for a showdown over slavery from the beginning, there was either going to be a peaceful resolution or a violent conflict; unfortunately, too many of the leaders on both sides were more interested in preserving the status quo through a series of compromises and this made violence inevitable.
Yes, it is simple. Most tariffs were paid in NYC. The south had only 25% of the population and the slaves didn’t get many luxury european goods. Rail was relatively more expensive, so by preference goods were consumed as close to the port as possible, meaning that tariff paid in the north was largely consumed in the north.
Second, tariff was low at the time of the rebellion. Southerners had written the tariff schedule, and had nothing to complain about. By not rebelling they could have blocked any oppressive changes in the Senate.
But they wanted to rebel. Raping their slaves was so important to them and they hated that northerners would look down their noses at them. They might even prosecute them if a southerner brought an underage girl north on vacation and raped her there. Well that kind of injustice would be offensive to southern honor, so rebellion was the only solution for it.
so close to 700,000 men died, so the southern rapists could feel good about themselves.
Texas v. White ruled that as practiced by the pretended confederates, secession did not happen.
It could, by ratified treaty, by statute, or by successful federal court case, or by successful rebellion. None of those happened in the 1860s. I don’t think that unilateral secession would be legal, and certainly wasn’t justified by slavery.
Another revisionist historian.....
|
|
|
| Secession Timeline various sources |
|
|
|
|
| [Although very late in the war Lee wanted freedom offered to any of the slaves who would agree to fight for the Confederacy, practically no one was stupid enough to fall for that. In any case, Lee was definitely not fighting to end slavery, instead writing that black folks are better off in bondage than they were free in Africa, and regardless, slavery will be around until Providence decides, and who are we to second guess that? And the only reason the masters beat their slaves is because of the abolitionists.] Robert E. Lee letter -- "...There are few, I believe, in this enlightened age, who will not acknowledge that slavery as an institution is a moral and political evil. It is idle to expatiate on its disadvantages. I think it is a greater evil to the white than to the colored race. While my feelings are strongly enlisted in behalf of the latter, my sympathies are more deeply engaged for the former. The blacks are immeasurably better off here than in Africa, morally, physically, and socially. The painful discipline they are undergoing is necessary for their further instruction as a race, and will prepare them, I hope, for better things. How long their servitude may be necessary is known and ordered by a merciful Providence. Their emancipation will sooner result from the mild and melting influences of Christianity than from the storm and tempest of fiery controversy. This influence, though slow, is sure. The doctrines and miracles of our Saviour have required nearly two thousand years to convert but a small portion of the human race, and even among Christian nations what gross errors still exist! While we see the course of the final abolition of human slavery is still onward, and give it the aid of our prayers, let us leave the progress as well as the results in the hands of Him who, chooses to work by slow influences, and with whom a thousand years are but as a single day. Although the abolitionist must know this, must know that he has neither the right nor the power of operating, except by moral means; that to benefit the slave he must not excite angry feelings in the master..." |
December 27, 1856 |
|
|
|
| Platform of the Alabama Democracy -- the first Dixiecrats wanted to be able to expand slavery into the territories. It was precisely the issue of slavery that drove secession -- and talk about "sovereignty" pertained to restrictions on slavery's expansion into the territories. | January 1860 |
|
|
|
| Abraham Lincoln nominated by Republican Party | May 18, 1860 |
|
|
|
| Abraham Lincoln elected | November 6, 1860 |
|
|
|
| Robert Toombs, Speech to the Georgia Legislature -- "...In 1790 we had less than eight hundred thousand slaves. Under our mild and humane administration of the system they have increased above four millions. The country has expanded to meet this growing want, and Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Texas, Arkansas, Kentucky, Tennessee, and Missouri, have received this increasing tide of African labor; before the end of this century, at precisely the same rate of increase, the Africans among us in a subordinate condition will amount to eleven millions of persons. What shall be done with them? We must expand or perish. We are constrained by an inexorable necessity to accept expansion or extermination. Those who tell you that the territorial question is an abstraction, that you can never colonize another territory without the African slavetrade, are both deaf and blind to the history of the last sixty years. All just reasoning, all past history, condemn the fallacy. The North understand it better - they have told us for twenty years that their object was to pen up slavery within its present limits - surround it with a border of free States, and like the scorpion surrounded with fire, they will make it sting itself to death." | November 13, 1860 |
|
|
|
| Alexander H. Stephens -- "...The first question that presents itself is, shall the people of Georgia secede from the Union in consequence of the election of Mr. Lincoln to the Presidency of the United States? My countrymen, I tell you frankly, candidly, and earnestly, that I do not think that they ought. In my judgment, the election of no man, constitutionally chosen to that high office, is sufficient cause to justify any State to separate from the Union. It ought to stand by and aid still in maintaining the Constitution of the country. To make a point of resistance to the Government, to withdraw from it because any man has been elected, would put us in the wrong. We are pledged to maintain the Constitution." | November 14, 1860 |
|
|
|
| South Carolina | December 20, 1860 |
|
|
|
| Mississippi | January 9, 1861 |
|
|
|
| Florida | January 10, 1861 |
|
|
|
| Alabama | January 11, 1861 |
|
|
|
| Georgia | January 19, 1861 |
|
|
|
| Louisiana | January 26, 1861 |
|
|
|
| Texas | February 23, 1861 |
|
|
|
| Abraham Lincoln sworn in as President of the United States |
March 4, 1861 |
|
|
|
| Arizona territory | March 16, 1861 |
|
|
|
| CSA Vice President Alexander H. Stephens, Cornerstone speech -- "...last, not least. The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution -- African slavery as it exists amongst us -- the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the 'rock upon which the old Union would split.' He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact." | March 21, 1861 |
|
|
|
| Virginia | adopted April 17,1861 ratified by voters May 23, 1861 |
|
|
|
| Arkansas | May 6, 1861 |
|
|
|
| North Carolina | May 20, 1861 |
|
|
|
| Tennessee | adopted May 6, 1861 ratified June 8, 1861 |
|
|
|
| West Virginia declares for the Union | June 19, 1861 |
|
|
|
| Missouri | October 31, 1861 |
|
|
|
| "Convention of the People of Kentucky" | November 20, 1861 |
|
|
|
The institution the south wanted in every state was slavery, so that slave owners would not be inconvenienced by having to dress them selves or going without their concubines.
The slave states lost an election and decided they wanted to secede.
They were seceding before Lincoln took office.
The 3/5 was a compromise that STILL gave the South over representation by that number.
So, the Slave States always had more representation then they should have had.
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.