Posted on 09/30/2003 12:19:22 PM PDT by sheltonmac
The South's unconditional surrender in 1865 apparently was unacceptable to today's Neo-Confederates.
They'd like to rewrite history, demonizing Abraham Lincoln and the federal government that forced them to remain in the awful United States against their will.
On top of that, now they are opposing the U.S. Navy's plan to bury the crew of the CSS H.L. Hunley under the American flag next year.
The Hunley was the first submarine to sink an enemy vessel. In 1863, it rammed and fatally damaged the Union warship USS Housatonic with a fixed torpedo, but then the manually driven sub sank on its way home, killing its eight-man crew.
It might have been a lucky shot from the Housatonic, leaks caused by the torpedo explosion, an accidental strike by another Union ship, malfunction of its snorkel valves, damage to its steering planes or getting stuck in the mud.
In any case, the Navy found and raised its remains and plans a full-dress military funeral and burial service on April 17, 2004, in Charleston, S.C. The four-mile funeral procession is expected to draw 10,000 to 20,000 people, many in period costume or Confederate battle dress.
But the Sons of Confederate Veterans, generally a moderate group that works diligently to preserve Southern history and heritage, has a radical wing that is salivating with anger.
One Texas Confederate has drawn 1,600 signatures on a petition saying "the flag of their eternal enemy, the United States of America," must not fly over the Hunley crew's funeral.
To their credit, the funeral's organizers will leave the U.S. flag flying.
After all, the search and preservation of the Hunley artifacts, as well as the funeral itself, were paid for by U.S. taxpayers.
Also, the Hunley crew was born under the Stars and Stripes. The Confederacy was never an internationally recognized nation, so the crewmen also died as citizens of the United States.
They were in rebellion, but they were still Americans.
This whole issue is an insult to all Southerners who fought under the U.S. flag before and since the Civil War.
But it isn't the only outrage by rabid secessionists.
They are also opposing the placement of a statue of Abraham Lincoln in Richmond, Va., the Confederate capital.
According to an article by Bob Moser and published in the Southern Poverty Law Center's magazine "Intelligence Report," which monitors right-wing and hate groups, the U.S. Historical Society announced it was donating a statue of Lincoln to Richmond.
Lincoln visited that city in April 1865 to begin healing the wounds caused by the war.
The proposed life-sized statue has Lincoln resting on a bench, looking sad, his arm around his 12-year-old son, Tad. The base of the statue has a quote from his second inaugural address.
However, the League of the South and the Sons of Confederate Veterans raised a stink, calling Lincoln a tyrant and war criminal. Neo-Confederates are trying to make Lincoln "a figure few history students would recognize: a racist dictator who trashed the Constitution and turned the USA into an imperialist welfare state," Moser's article says.
White supremacist groups have jumped onto the bandwagon. Their motto is "Taking America back starts with taking Lincoln down."
Actually, if it weren't for the forgiving nature of Lincoln, Richmond would be a smoking hole in the ground and hundreds of Confederate leaders -- including Jefferson Davis -- would be hanging from trees from Fredericksburg, Va., to Atlanta.
Robert E. Lee said, "I surrendered as much to Lincoln's goodness as I did to Grant's armies."
Revisionist history to suit a political agenda is as intellectually abhorrent as whitewashing slavery itself. It's racism under a different flag. While it's not a criminal offense, it is a crime against truth and history.
I'm not talking about re-enactors here. These folks just want to live history. But the Neo-Confederate movement is a disguised attempt to change history.
In the end, the Confederacy was out-fought, out-lasted, eventually out-generaled and totally over-matched. It was a criminal idea to start with, and its success would have changed the course of modern history for the worse.
Coming to that realization cost this nation half a million lives.
So I hope that all Neo-Confederates -- 140 years after the fact -- can finally get out of their racist, twisted, angry time machine and join us here in 2003.
I'll be glad to, when you identify the alterations for me.
It seems to me that if the people of a State had actually voted to NOT ratify the Constitution, that they were free to go their own way. The terms of ratification provided that the Constitution of 1787 was binding only on those who ratified. By implication, the Framers in the Philadelphia Convention, as well as the people of the ratifying states, were giving their consent to those who did not want to be part of a Constitutional Union, as compared to a Confederation. I don't recall saying that a State couldn't leave the Union with the consent of the other States. That point is clear from Texas vs White.
In any event, after the date set by the Congress of the Confederation for transition to Constitutional government, it was widely viewed that North Carolina would ratify if the 1st Constitutional Congress would propose a "Bill of Rights" similar to the suggestions made by that State in their inconclusive first ratifying convention.
Rhode Island (sometimes referred to a "Rouge's Island" in contemporary literature) was the "problem child." The political majority in Rhode Island did all it could to avoid even calling a convention of the people, holding instead an invalid ratification vote of the legislature (which the federalists boycotted). Rhode Island was in turmoil that bordered, at times, on anarchy. I see no sinister motive in waiting for Rhode Island to work through its own problems.
I thought sure you would like my little story, especially the "Please don't treat me like a foreigner" part. My editorial characterization of Rhode Island as "schizophrenic" is not far from the truth. It was a State on the verge of anarchy in the period 1787-1790. Again, I dismiss your suggestion that the Constitution was an "alteration" of the Articles.
"You assume ..."
"You ignore ..."
No I don't.
As I just posted, I have no problem with States that opted out on a permanent basis. None did. Don't call it "secession," because it is an entirely different process. They would have left with the consent and blessings of the other States.
Nor do I have a problem with the patience shown by the 1st Congress. There were plenty of people and communities in Rhode Island in 1787-1790 who wanted to opt out of Rhode Island! They were trying their hardest to work deals with neighboring States to get annexed so they could remain part of the United States of America.
Secession has nothing to do with the rule of law. If the rule of law were your concern, then you ought to be happy with Texas v White, which is settled case law in this country.
"You may wish to reconsider your argument: perhaps you should describe the secession of the Southern States as “anti-American,” rather than ‘unconstitutional’"
So, do I correctly surmise that it is your position that Jefferson Davis was honoring the Constitution by leading the secessionist "government"??
(That's only partially in jest!) Unilateral secession is unconstitutional on several levels, 1830's era political commentary notwithstanding.
It looks to me like you addressed your message to someone else and called me an ass, among other things. When a person, such as you, addresses his insults about me to some third party and then runs and hides, what he is and what he is doing is perfectly clear.
To: Who is John Galt?With regard to my contention that you don't need a legal dictionary to understand the "plain meaning" of most terms, go back and read the development of that argument. You will find that poster got shut down on that one. The reason being, he was dishonest in his posting of definitions. I had stated a definition of videlicit that he took exception to. He then posted a definition from a legal dictionary; however, he only posted the first half of the definition. The second half contained the synonym I used. I posted the whole definition from the same source. The bottom line being, he was arguing semantics, and missing the whole point, and in general, just making a silly ass out of himself on a meaningless tangent. When a person of that poster's talent at research goes to that length to misrepresent and obfuscate, you know he's lost the debate.
1,774 posted on 11/05/2003 10:37 AM CST by capitan_refugio
"A union of 13 member States was formed under the terms of the Articles (which required unanimous approval of any ‘alteration’); the new Constitution was established only between ratifying States (as few as 9, under the terms of Article VII); because the number of States required to establish the constitutional union (9) was less than the number of States in the existing union (13, the same number required to approve alterations to the Articles) – because 9 does not equal 13 - the establishment of a constitutional union of less than 13 members resulted from either a) the secession (‘formal withdrawal’ ;>) of the ratifying States, or b) the expulsion of the non-ratifying States."
Now we're getting somewhere!
"A union of 13 member States was formed under the terms of the Articles (which required unanimous approval of any ‘alteration’)" - I believe the "Union" (in the sense of a national identity) predates the Articles and even the Declaration. Can we agree that a confederal government was created by the Articles, a document which required unamimous consent for alteration as per Art. XIII?
"... the new Constitution was established only between ratifying States (as few as 9, under the terms of Article VII)" - Right
... because the number of States required to establish the constitutional union (9) was less than the number of States in the existing union (13, the same number required to approve alterations to the Articles)" - Happenstance. The number of the states in the Union could have been any number during the ratification process. Vermont was just about ready to go, and the provisional State of Franklin was making noises west of North Carolina. Nine was established as the trigger. No one knew while in convention at Philidelphia how long or how short the ratification process would be. The approval of the Articles took about four years and some major blackmailing by Maryland (ratifier #13 of Articles). The Framers were not willing to go through that type of situation again, so they made the voluntary act of ratification binding only on the ratifiers.
"... the establishment of a constitutional union of less than 13 members resulted from either a) the secession (‘formal withdrawal’ ;>) of the ratifying States, or b) the expulsion of the non-ratifying States." - So close, yet so far! You provide only two possiblities; sort of a "heads I win, tails you lose" proposition.
You would like to define ratification of the Constitution as "secession" (or formal withdrawal) from the Articles, because that allows you to say that it was a precedent for the acts of the southern states in 186-1861. But that is a faulty construct. Nobody withdrew from the Articles. As a supreme governing document which provided for a confederal form of government, and defined the relationship between the states and the confederal government, the Articles proved to be a failure. That is why a convention was called - to fix the problem. The delegates to the convention quickly surmised there were no "fixes" that could be made to the existing document, so they developed and proposed a new supreme governing document to the American people. The proposed Constitution did not change the country, it proposed changes to the general (national) governing framework. Upon ratification, the government-in-being (the Congress of the Confederation) established the timetable for the transition of the governmental structure. New aspects were instituted. Old aspects carried on. Other functions were modified. As I earlier chided one poster, are we to presume that States "withdrew" from the United States of America to form ... the United States of America!?
The Articles were superceded. It is very simple.
Then we have your other option, that states were "expelled." There are no Acts by Congress, or resolutions by the States, suggesting that any State had seceded or had been expelled.
I think your main concern is with the legal relationship between the States in the Constitutional Union (after March 4, 1789) and the two states that had not yet ratified. History tells us, that as of March 2, 1789 the government conducted under the Articles was finished. History also tells us that the 1st Congress provided for the representatives from North Carolina and Rhode Island as soon as the people of those states had voluntarily into the new compact. The Congress was certainly willing to wait for those two (in reality, one, as North Carolina was a foregone conclusion).
Maybe a third option better describes the situation.
(c) The people of the states that had not ratified were free to choose their own path, by the consent of the other states. The could choose complete independence and take their place among the states of the world, they could look for a foreign power to join (some threatened to do just that prior to ratification), or they could choose ratification and Union.
Did this mean dissolution of the Union? No. It meant modification of the Union. Just like it is modified every time a new state joins. Just like it is modified every time a state is split into smaller states (i.e. Maine and Massachusetts). Just like when new territories are incorporated into the boundaries of the country. States can come, states can go, the Union survives.
The writer makes several errors in fact regarding the war, which I will leave for others to discuss, as I am sure they have. I will only make the observation that a neo-Yankee is far, far worse than any neo-Confeerate could be.
Want to bump that up 135 years and try the first part again?
Damned few south of the Mason-Dixon line voted for Lincoln, but that is just one indicator of the division.
My ancestors took an oath to the Soverign State of Maryland after the Revolution. Under the Articles of Confederation, the several States remained Soverign. Under the Constitution they formed a Federation, (NOT a National Government, but a Federal Government). After the war of Northern Agression, the National Government bit started, to our detriment as much as our benefit.
As for the Constitution, that venerated relic probably has not even been read by 10% of those sworn to uphold it, or if so you could not tell from the bills they propose, the laws they pass, the executive orders, or rulings from the bench.
Salmon Chase said, "There was no place for reconsideration, or revocation, except through revolution, or through consent of the States." I agree with Chase's reasoning, but I disagree with your characterization of "unwritten, extra-constitutional, non-legal."
"Unwritten" shouldn't be a problem. You claim "secession at will" to be a State's right, reserved in the Tenth Amendment. Certainly "secession" is no where mentioned. Nor was "secession" mentioned during the 1st Congress which drafted the proposed Amendment; hence no original intent or legislative history on which to base your claim.
"Extra-constitutional" should not be a problem either. This country is premised on the "natural rights of man." the right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Most "rights" are not enumerated, and thus, are "extra-constitutional." That's what the Ninth Amendment is all about. I would also argue that regulating the membership of the Constitutional Union is an implied power of the federal government, which means that is is not one of the powers reserved to the States or the People.
"Non-legal requirement" Interesting concept. An opinion of the Supreme Court, non-legal. You're going to have to develop that idea a little better.
The Brit got the first sentence wrong. Yawn.
Much of Madison's source material for his Federalist contributions comes from his pre-convention study of ancient and contemporary confederations. His thinking on the subject dates back even before 1788.
His comments in his letter to Webster reflect President Madison's perspective of over 40 years of Constitutional government, and can be characterized as a lament on the lengths the nullifiers and secessionists went to pervert the Constitution and dissolve the Union.
Yes. So what. Do you doubt that the secession aspects of the ruling in Texas v White will ever be overturned? It is still the law, whether you like it or not.
First, the number was never four. New York and Virginia ratified before the transition of government. Your timing is off. Keep in mind the declarations of a certain poster, "ELEVEN!"
Even then, show me the the legal act or instrument by which the other two were "excluded." I've asked WiJG? a similar thing in a post a little while ago.
Why didn't the Framer include a "Bill of Rights" the first ime around? Many of them thought some things were just obvious.
"Argues that the CSA were never out of the 'perpetual' Union?"
Texas v White
"... the CSA existed as a country ..."
I'll agree with you that the CSA was a country when you show me the list of the countries that established formal diplomatic relations with them. (Let me save you the time; there were none.)
You are not responsible for your own posts?
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.