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.
“...their God given right to secede...”
What “God given right” is that?
They made a deal, an agreement, a contract of sorts. What God given right is there to break it, to go back on their word?
And I’m not saying there is or isn’t one, I just would like you to describe it more fully.
It - the Union - has been hijacked. We need to admit this, at least to ourselves. That is why we are being told men can “marry” men; children can be killed in the womb (”it's in the Constitution”); and people working at entry level wages are responsible for paying for the health care of everyone else, including millionaires.
The Articles of Confederation were superseded by the Constitution, including amendments IX and X.
Yes, the South fired during the Gulf of Tonkin incident, er, I mean the Fort Sumter incident and that was justification enough for President Lyndon Johnson, I mean President Lincoln, to escalate.
"As the Cherokees reside principally within the territory claimed by North Carolina, and as that State is not a member of the present Union, it may be doubted whether any efficient measures in favor of the Cherokees could be immediately adopted by the general government ..."
One of the changes made in the Constitution from what was in the Articles was the dropping of the word "perpetual."
Other perpetual agreements in the past also didn't last very long. Remember the perpetual Articles of Confederation of the United Colonies of New England; May 19, 1643 [Link]? Remember the perpetual peace between Britain and the United States stated and agreed to by all parties in the 1783 Treaty of Paris?
“What “God given right” is that?”
There are a couple. The first begins, “When in the course of human events . . .”
Another reads: “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
See also Amendment X.
Good points, all.
The 9th and 10th amendments do not apply because the authority over the construction of states was left to congress.
The snippet of quote is from the Declaration of Independence - a document meant to announce to the crown our intention to rebel against their authority. Man has a God-given right of revolution but that does not mean that any such rebellion can go unchallenged.
If you’re going to rebel against authority you had best have God on your side!
Sow the wind, reap the whirlwind.
Dr. Williams is a national treasure!
“It - the Union - has been hijacked.”
The agent, the Federal Government, has been hijacked along with State and many local governments.
I don’t know about the Union, which is not the same as the agent. It’s certainly in the process of being hijacked or destroyed, but I don’t think it’s accomplished yet.
“The Articles of Confederation were superseded by the Constitution...”
I don’t think so entirely. If true, does that invalidate the Treaty of Paris? Are we still at war with England?
“...including amendments IX and X.”
Those amendments presuppose the existence of the rights and powers they protect. Said existence needs to be demonstrated before they can be protected.
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.
Much more significant:
It established that a socialistic economy such as the South’s could not compete against a capitalist one such as the North’s.
The ratification documents are artifacts, not legally-binding agreements. They did not, and do not have the force of law.
The Constitution never would have been ratified if states thought they could not regain their sovereignty —; in a word, secede.
There was much debate over this. In the end they all ratified the US Constitution.
If you really believe that, you should surrender your law degree--or at least your license to practice. If they do not have the force of law, the States involved would not be in the Union; would never have been in the Union.
Read the second para to Walter Williams’ column.
I disagree with you on that one. The ratification documents were the formal legal acceptance of the Constitution. But all of them also contained language, like Virginia's, which in one way or another said: "...do by these presents assent to and ratify the Constitution recommended on the seventeenth day of September one thousand seven hundred and eighty seven by the Federal Convention for the Government of the United States hereby announcing to all those whom it may concern that the said Constitution is binding upon the said People according to an authentic Copy hereto annexed in the Words following..." Which means the ratified the Constitution as passed out of the convention, not the Constitution that they thought was passed out of the convention. They can add all the assumptions to the document that they wanted, if the Constituiton doesn't support them then they're meaningless.
They signed - the US Constitution - because they knew the alternative was unthinkable. They comforted themselves and each other by posting “signing agreements” that looked like tough talk but were only ceremonial or symbolic in order to soften the blow.
They have no force of law.
Yeah, then there’s that...
I think what Shelby was referring to was that the way the “concept” of the United States was seen by individuals and governments was radically altered, and while it was a profound alteration it was accomplished so definitively on a global scale while at the same time imperceptible by those whose perceptions had changed. Literally no one commented on it at the time. Without putting a value judgement on it one has to admit that it is pretty amazing to have this radical a shift in global perceptions of individuals and groups about anything in such a short period of time as four years and at the same time have that shift go essentially unnoticed by all those whose perceptions had been altered. It is amazing. If we could just accomplish a fraction of that even in only those of us in this country we would have seriously accomplished something. We might even be able to undo some of the damage done these last hundred years.
Walter Williams is like the Conservative conscience. He has no bias but for truth.
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.