Posted on 07/14/2015 4:30:37 AM PDT by SJackson
The victors of war write its history in order to cast themselves in the most favorable light. That explains the considerable historical ignorance about our war of 1861 and panic over the Confederate flag. To create better understanding, we have to start a bit before the 1787 Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia.
The 1783 Treaty of Paris ended the war between the colonies and Great Britain. Its first article declared the 13 colonies "to be free, sovereign and independent states." These 13 sovereign nations came together in 1787 as principals and created the federal government as their agent. Principals have always held the right to fire agents. In other words, states held a right to withdraw from the pact — secede.
During the 1787 Constitutional Convention, a proposal was made that would allow the federal government to suppress a seceding state. James Madison rejected it, saying, "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."
In fact, the ratification documents of Virginia, New York and Rhode Island explicitly said they held the right to resume powers delegated should the federal government become abusive of those powers. The Constitution never would have been ratified if states thought they could not regain their sovereignty — in a word, secede.
On March 2, 1861, after seven states seceded and two days before Abraham Lincoln's inauguration, Sen. James R. Doolittle of Wisconsin proposed a constitutional amendment that read, "No state or any part thereof, heretofore admitted or hereafter admitted into the union, shall have the power to withdraw from the jurisdiction of the United States."
. Several months earlier, Reps. Daniel E. Sickles of New York, Thomas B. Florence of Pennsylvania and Otis S. Ferry of Connecticut proposed a constitutional amendment to prohibit secession. Here's a question for the reader: Would there have been any point to offering these amendments if secession were already unconstitutional?
On the eve of the War of 1861, even unionist politicians saw secession as a right of states. Rep. Jacob M. Kunkel of Maryland said, "Any attempt to preserve the union between the states of this Confederacy by force would be impractical, and destructive of republican liberty."
Both Northern Democratic and Republican Parties favored allowing the South to secede in peace. Just about every major Northern newspaper editorialized in favor of the South's right to secede. New York Tribune (Feb. 5, 1860): "If tyranny and despotism justified the Revolution of 1776, then we do not see why it would not justify the secession of Five Millions of Southrons from the Federal Union in 1861." Detroit Free Press (Feb. 19, 1861): "An attempt to subjugate the seceded states, even if successful, could produce nothing but evil — evil unmitigated in character and appalling in content." The New York Times (March 21, 1861): "There is growing sentiment throughout the North in favor of letting the Gulf States go."
The War of 1861 settled the issue of secession through brute force that cost 600,000 American lives. We Americans celebrate Abraham Lincoln's Gettysburg Address, but H.L. Mencken correctly evaluated the speech: "It is poetry, not logic; beauty, not sense." Lincoln said the soldiers sacrificed their lives "to the cause of self-determination — that government of the people, by the people, for the people should not perish from the earth." Mencken says: "It is difficult to imagine anything more untrue. The Union soldiers in the battle actually fought against self-determination; it was the Confederates who fought for the right of people to govern themselves."
The War of 1861 brutally established that states could not secede. We are still living with its effects. Because states cannot secede, the federal government can run roughshod over the U.S. Constitution's limitations of the Ninth and Tenth Amendments. States have little or no response.
Walter Williams has nailed it. The Constitution, as written, provides for secession, and New Hampshire and Rhode Island nearly seceded during the War of 1812.
The Federalist Papers are quite informative about how secession and accession are both plausible. The Committee on Style made some changes to the preamble that confused the issue of whether the States or the people joined the Union. Salmon Chase preferred amnesty to the former Confederates and stated that if secession was tried in a court of law he didn’t think the Union would win and would have to pay reparations to the South.
When someone with the stature of Walter Williams pens such, regarding it as "nonsense" calls ones own faculties into question.
Detroit. Baltimore. San Francisco. St. Louis. Atlanta. Washington D.C. The work product of Appomattox.
Yes. I remember the pretext of the Gulf of Tonkin incident . . . er, I mean, the Fort Sumter incident.
If the Federal Government does not abide by the constitution, why should any of the several states?
If the POTUS does not follow constitutional dictates, follow the legislation of the congress and thumbs his nose at the supreme court, then why should any citizen be restricted by these same “laws”?
Obama’s Dictatorship would fight a secessionist movement today with FOREIGN forces. Bring ISIS and the ChiComs in to beat down any rebels.
Free on your feet, or slave on your knees. The time is fast approaching to choose sides.
> Would there have been any point to offering these amendments if secession were already unconstitutional?
That says it all.
Entirely agree.
The once American federal republic has been rendered a despotic empire ruled by fear and force.
Article V is our last chance to restore liberty.
Article V while we can.
This is not the first lost cause foolishness WW has penned.
As usual, Prof. Williams makes points that should be made. He has long been a beacon of reason calling us back to a reality that has been under persistent attack for over a century.
There is an interesting book on this subject with regards to VA. The younger men in VA felt their state was losing influence among others, that the heroes of the Revolution were in the past and that this influence, pride and glory needed to be refreshed. They thought they could make names for themselves as had the heroes of the past. The older men who remembered the Revolution and The War of 1812 were not eager to revisit those hardships. The older men had misgivings and tried to influence their sons and grandsons, but failed completely when Lincoln called for troops. I will have to look in my bookcase for the title and author and post it later.
Yet another article presenting facts, real or not, to re-fight the War Between the States. Every article on the subject has generated countless posts defending one position or the other, knowing that their post will change minds and hearts. Nobody has.
Rehashing the causes and the stances from our present day point of view is ridiculous at best and dangerous at the worst. It is ridiculous to think that we know what people felt or thought in 1860. It is dangerous in that by so doing we forget the lessons of history.
The War Between the States did NOT start with the firing on Fort Sumter. It had been brewing since at least 1856, with the Dred Scott decision (the worst SC decision ever, up until the Deathcare and same-sex decisions) supporting slavery. Dred Scott was the law of the land!
I would suggest reading the party platforms of the parties in the election: http://www.ushist.com/general-information/1860_national_presidential_election_platforms.shtml
Next, I would ask that you review the political arena of today in contrast to 1860. Is our opposition to the new law of the land different to 1860? Is our opposition to the sitting President different from 1860? Do we have a President bent on expanding the Federal government as in 1860?
We may not be divided by geography, but we are divided along many lines. Will we repeat the same lesson of history? I pray not; but if it come I know where I stand.
IIRC, every secessionist state held a convention to decide the matter. IOW, they left the Union in the same fashion as they entered, through the convention process. This was in perfect accordance with our founding principles.
As principals, they came together in 1776 as "united States" or "United Colonies" according to the Declaration Of Independence.
As principals, in 1781, they created a general government as their agent through the "Articles of Confederation and perpetual Union..." (emphasis added).
As principals, in 1787, they created a federal government as their agent through the Constitution of the United States, in part to form a more perfect Union.
As principals they have the right to fire agents if they so agree, as they did in 1787, but that does not mean they have the right to unilaterally withdraw from the pact they have with each other, unless perhaps it's the right associated with "might".
Note:
From the "Articles of Confederation and perpetual Union...":
Article VI, second paragraph:
"No two or more States shall enter into any treaty, confederation or alliance whatever between them, without the consent of the United States in Congress assembled, specifying accurately the purposes for which the same is to be entered into, and how long it shall continue." (Emphasis added.)
Article XIII, first and second paragraphs (Emphasis added):
"Every State shall abide by the determination of the United States in Congress assembled, on all questions which by this confederation are submitted to them. And the Articles of this Confederation shall be inviolably observed by every State, and the Union shall be perpetual; nor shall any alteration at any time hereafter be made in any of them; unless such alteration be agreed to in a Congress of the United States, and be afterwards confirmed by the legislatures of every State.
And Whereas it hath pleased the Great Governor of the World to incline the hearts of the legislatures we respectively represent in Congress, to approve of, and to authorize us to ratify the said Articles of Confederation and perpetual Union. Know Ye that we the undersigned delegates, by virtue of the power and authority to us given for that purpose, do by these presents, in the name and in behalf of our respective constituents, fully and entirely ratify and confirm each and every of the said Articles of Confederation and perpetual Union, and all and singular the matters and things therein contained: And we do further solemnly plight and engage the faith of our respective constituents, that they shall abide by the determinations of the United States in Congress assembled, on all questions, which by the said Confederation are submitted to them. And that the Articles thereof shall be inviolably observed by the States we respectively represent, and that the Union shall be perpetual."
From the United States Constitution:
Article VI:
"All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation." (Emphasis added.)
From Samuel Johnson's Dictionary of 1755:
"Engagement...6. Obligation, motive."
From Webster's Dictionary of 1828:
"Engagement...1. Obligation by agreement or contract. Men are often more ready to make engagements than to fulfil them.
"Perpetual...1. Never ceasing; continuing forever in future time; destined to be eternal; as a perpetual covenant; a perpetual statute."
“As principals, in 1781, they created a general government as their agent through the “Articles of Confederation and perpetual Union...”
But the Articles of Confederation and their stated aspiration for a perpetual Union didn’t last very long.
All Walter Williams is demonstrating, though I doubt he realizes it, was that at first the Southern acts of secession were not opposed by the North. It wasn’t until the South chose to start what he calls the “War of 1861” that any action was taken against them at all. After that, well, the rest is history.
Most Confederate states entered not through the convention process but with the permission of the other states through a vote in Congress. They sure didn't leave the same way.
“...aspiration for a perpetual Union didn’t last very long.”
That is part of the dispute. I’d say the principals, and those who subsequently joined them, have stayed in a Union so far, admittedly with a change of agent, a major blip and some smaller ones.
Good point. My mind was in the 1787-1788.
Still, neither the people nor states relinquished their God given right to secede by virtue of joining the Union.
They made a mess of it by starting the war then.
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.