Posted on 02/03/2006 3:38:06 PM PST by churchillbuff
Sorry, but all I can think of is the scene in Monty Python and the Holy Grail when Arthur says, "The Lady of the Lake, her arm clad in the purest shimmering samite, held aloft Excalibur from the bosom of the water, signifying by divine providence that I, Arthur, was to carry Excalibur. THAT is why I am your king."
The territory of your state was first populated by Indians. Meanwhile, thousands of miles away, a King granted a corporation a royal patent and men with guns imposed a government on the original inhabitants of the land now defined by the arbitrary lines on the map of "colony."
MONTGOMERY, February 27, 1861.The President of the United States: Being animated by an earnest desire to unite and bind together our respective countries by friendly ties, I have appointed M. J. Crawford, one of our most settled and trustworthy citizens, as special commissioner of the Confederate States of America to the Government of the United States; and I have now the honor to introduce him to you, and to ask for him a reception and treatment corresponding to his station and to the purpose for which he is sent. Those purposes he will more particularly explain to you. Hoping that through his agency. &c. [sic.]
JEFF'N DAVIS.
For the purpose of establishing friendly relations between the Confederate States and the United States, and reposing special trust, &c., Martin J. Crawford, John Forsyth, and A. B. Roman are appointed special commissioners of the Confederate States to the United States. I have invested them with full and all manner of power and authority for and in the name of the Confederate States to meet and confer with any person or persons duly authorized by the Government of the United States being furnished with like powers and authority, and with them to agree, treat, consult, and negotiate of and concerning all matters and subjects interesting to both nations, and to conclude and sign a treaty or treaties, convention or conventions, touching the premises, transmitting the same to the President of the Confederate States for his final ratification by and with the consent of the Congress of the Confederate States.
Given under my hand at the city of Montgomery this 27th day of February, A.D. 1861, and of the Independence of the Confederate States the eighty-fifth.
JEFF'N DAVIS.
ROBERT TOOMBS, Secretary of State.
The Commissioners to Mr. Seward.WASHINGTON CITY, March In, 1861.
Hon. William H. Seward, Secretary of State of the United States.Sir: The undersigned have been duly accredited by the Government of the Confederate States of America as commissioners to the Government of the United States, and, in pursuance of their instructions, have now the honor to acquaint you with that fact, and to make known, through you to the President of the United States, the objects of their presence in this capital.
Seven States of the late Federal Union, having in the exercise of the inherent right of every free people to change or reform their political institutions, and through conventions of their people withdrawn from the United States and reassumed the attributes of sovereign power delegated to it, have formed a government of their own. The Confederate States constitute an independent nation, de facto and de jure, and possess a government perfect in all its parts, and endowed with all the means of self-support.
With a view to a speedy adjustment of all questions growing out of this political separation, upon such terms of amity and good will as the respective interests, geographical contiguity, and future welfare of the two nations may render necessary, the undersigned are instructed to make to the Government of the United States overtures for the opening of negotiations, assuring the Government of the United States that the President, Congress, and people of the Confederate States earnestly desire a peaceful solution of these great questions; that it is neither their interest nor their wish to make any demand which is not founded in strictest justice, nor do any act to injure their late confederates.
The undersigned have now the honor, in obedience to the instructions of their Government, to request you to appoint as early a day as possible, in order that they may present to the President of the United States the credentials which they bear and the objects of the mission with which they are charged.
We are, very respectfully, your obedient servants, [ Signed]
JOHN FORSYTH MARTIN J. CRAWFORD.
The desire of the Confederate states to resolve the question of their separation without a single drop of shed blood is rather evident in the above letters, carried by the Commissioners to Washington City, would you not agree? In the event that it's not immediately clear, please refer to my highlights of the same. The first letter makes it abundantly clear that the commissioners were sent to resolve ALL QUESTIONS surrounding the secession, including (as Jefferson Davis himself indicated in his book) the settlement of all debts owed to the United States.
Where does it say that? You have claimed that the seceding states can walk away, you claim that power lies in the Constitution. Where does the Constitution require them to compensate the remaining states for anything? If you claim that they can walk away then you have to believe that they are under no obligation to do anything about what they walk away from or what they walk away with.
I don't claim that the power to walk away "lies in the Constitution," but rather I am claiming that such power exists above the Constitution, in the inherent right of men to adjust their Governments as they see fit. Just as there was no National Convention on adding States to the Union in which the States in Congress assembled voted to allow each other into the union—but rather, a state-by-state accession to the Constitution—I see no reason why there should have been a National Convention (as suggested by Seward) to "allow" something which the States already have the power to do.
Would things have run more smoothly had the Confederates attempted to withdraw from the Federal union that way? As I've said in a previous post, perhaps, but I have my doubts.
The obligation of redressing all dues is clearly in the hands of the seceeding State, and if unpaid, a case could be made on the validity of using the force of war against it to reclaim such dues. I would tend to say, however, that the horrors committed against the South through the Civil War were far and above the notion of the "redress" of communal dues, and more of the same character as open and avert aggression, something which had no place in the usages of Christian war, particularly among supposed former allies. Furthermore, it is extremely important to distinguish a line between "using the forces of war to reclaim and redress all dues" and "to conquer and make subservient" a former State. The latter, which is what the North ultimately accomplished (de facto) by the Civil War, is inexcusable for any reason.
Ah, now you are placing restrictions on their actions. Before they could walk at will because they were sovereign and part of the deal voluntarily. Now you're claiming that they need justification. Well where does the Constitution place this restriction on them? Where does the Constitution require 'extreme grievance' before they can walk? What constitutes 'extreme grievance' in the first place?
I am not placing restrictions on their actions, but merely sharing my opinion of when the States are justified in seceeding. And as I said above, the power to do so does not exist in the Constitution, but rather, above it.
Towards the proposition you have made on previous threads that the States contain no inherent Sovereignty, I'd start with this quote:
Calhoun, John—Address at Fort Hill (1831)The great and leading principle is, that the General Government emanated from the people of the several States, forming distinct political communities, and acting in their separate and sovereign capacity, and not from all of the people forming one aggregate political community; that the Constitution of the United States is, in fact, a compact, to which each State is a party, in the character already described; and that the several States, or parties, have a right to judge of its infractions; and in case of a deliberate, palpable, and dangerous exercise of power not delegated, they have the right, in the last resort, to use the language of the Virginia Resolutions, "to interpose for arresting the progress of the evil, and for maintaining, within their respective limits, the authorities, rights, and liberties appertaining to them." This right of interposition, thus solemnly asserted by the State of Virginia, be it called what it may,—State-right, veto, nullification, or by any other name,—I conceive to be the fundamental principle of our system, resting on facts historically as certain as our revolution itself, and deductions as simple and demonstrative as that of any political or moral truth whatever; and I firmly believe that on its recognition depend the stability and safety of our political institutions.
... With these strong feelings of attachment, I have examined, with the utmost care, the bearing of the doctrine in question; and, so far from anarchical or revolutionary, I solemnly believe it to be the only solid foundation of our system, and of the Union itself; and that the opposite doctrine, which denies to the States the right of protecting their reserved powers, and which would vest in the General Government (it matters not through what department) the right of determining, exclusively and finally, the powers delegated to it, is incompatible with the sovereignty of the States, and of the Constitution itself, considered as the basis of a Federal Union.
And I'll close by asking again, if the States acceded to the Federal Constitution individually in their own sovereign capacity, why should they be denied the right to withdraw from the same? At what point does the Federal government become the aggressive overlord, operating above and beyond the consent of the Governed?
I hope I have addressed your previous posts in sufficient detail. Please accept my apologies for taking so long—Things have actually been a bit busy over here in the real world.
As always, I will continue to hold you in the
Warmest regards,
~dt~
Indians who had no concept nor notion of land "ownership," and scoffed at any notion of the same?
The Commonwealth of Virginia, while not being perfect, has certainly handled relations between the English settlers and the Indians as well as (if not better than!) any of the other original colonies.
Furthermore, the notion that the Royal government instituted by arms, a "government on the original habitants[Indians]" is demonstrably false, as the Indian tribes were operating in their own sovereign capacity for the duration of Virginia's existence—a brief look at the historic record will reveal that the Crown repeatedly entered into treaties with these sovereign Tribes, thus recognizing them as their own Governments, outside of his Dominion. Though relations between the English and the Indians were not always amicable—1622 is a rather stark example of a period lacking amity—we've generally related very well with each other. If you compare the treatment of the Indians by Virginia to any Spanish colony, for instance, the notion that somehow the English were less than honorable is laughable at best.
I hope that this clarifies the reality of the Commonwealth's history sufficiently.
Regards,
~dt~
I'm Henry the Eighth, I am!
Henry the Eighth I am! I am!
I got married to the widow next door,
She's been married seven times before.
Every one was a Henry
She wouldn't have a Willie or a Sam
I'm her eighth old man named Henry
Henry the Eighth I am.
Are you sure that wasn't Lincoln? After all, he assumed legislative and judical powers as well as his elected executive powers. Those are the powers of a king.
Or as Madison said in Federalist 47:
The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.
To establish relations between countries, first and foremost, to the exclusion of all else. In other words, either Lincoln agreed to recognize the legality of the southern acts of secession or there was no reason for the commissioners to be there, because all other matters were secondary. Well, why should Lincoln have agreed to an ultimatum like that?
The desire of the Confederate states to resolve the question of their separation without a single drop of shed blood is rather evident in the above letters, carried by the Commissioners to Washington City, would you not agree? In the event that it's not immediately clear, please refer to my highlights of the same. The first letter makes it abundantly clear that the commissioners were sent to resolve ALL QUESTIONS surrounding the secession, including (as Jefferson Davis himself indicated in his book) the settlement of all debts owed to the United States.
I confess that nothing interests me less in what you think the Davis regime could have done or would have done or might have done. And I've no doubt that my questioning the sincerity of the offers or speculating on what Lincoln should have done or could have done or would have done would bore you to tears as well. What I am interested in is that if, in your world, states can come and go from the Union at will then what are they obligated to do. They have walked out, are no longer part of the Union, regardless of the wishes and desires and interest of the remaining states. So why should they be obligated to anything to do with the country that they just walked away from? Why should they care about debt or treaty obligations or the rights of the states remaining with the country they left? In your scenario they are obligated to do nothing. And the remaining states have no recourse whatsoever except the ultimate one of war. And how can you believe that the founding fathers would agree to that?
And I'll close by asking again, if the States acceded to the Federal Constitution individually in their own sovereign capacity, why should they be denied the right to withdraw from the same? At what point does the Federal government become the aggressive overlord, operating above and beyond the consent of the Governed?
The states can withdraw in the same manner as they join, with the consent of the other states. That is the only way to ensure that the rights of all the parties involved are protected because all questions of potential disagreement are settled to the satisfaction of all parties before the split. For states to unilaterally secede with no requirement that they settle matters of potential dispute, like debt or treaty obligations or matters like access to the Mississppi or other transportation links, means that the remaining states have no rights, they are due no protections, and their issues don't matter. And I would defy you to point out a single one of the founders that believed that.
Please re-read both letters again in their entirety, rather than inferring what you wish from a limited citation. If you have any familiarity at all with Southern writings of the era, you'll know that it's common to write in a fairly indirect, though extremely polite, manner. It's clear from the highlights made in both of the letters I had provided that the Confederate government sought nothing more than to resolve the matter peacefully. It was not a matter of ultimatum, but one that could possibly have been avoided should Washington have taken the time to receive and hear the gentlemen dispatched for that purpose.
What I am interested in is that if, in your world, states can come and go from the Union at will then what are they obligated to do. They have walked out, are no longer part of the Union, regardless of the wishes and desires and interest of the remaining states. So why should they be obligated to anything to do with the country that they just walked away from? Why should they care about debt or treaty obligations or the rights of the states remaining with the country they left? In your scenario they are obligated to do nothing. And the remaining states have no recourse whatsoever except the ultimate one of war. And how can you believe that the founding fathers would agree to that?
I have answered this question as eloquently as I can in my previous posts, including the matter of settling differences via civilized war. Please look at 343 again to review my reply—particularly about the difference between war to redress grievances such as debt incurred and uncivilized war for the sole purpose of conquest. All of the evidence I have seen related to the time period clearly indicates to me that the latter is the path chosen by the North—the path of subversion and subordination.
There are also a number of other questions and assertions I've made towards you that have yet to elicit a response from you. I would be greatly interested in hearing your thoughts on these issues, most prominently on the topic of your previous claim that the States have no inherent Sovereignty. If you get a chance, could you go back and take a look at these questions in a little bit more detail, and perhaps honor your humble servant with a response to some of them, by any chance?
I look forward to hearing more from you,
Regards,
~dt~
I've read both letters, front to back, several times. And I've read the legislation authorizing the commissioners in the first place. And both the legislation and the message from Davis state that the purpose of the commissioners is to negotiate friendly relations between the confederacy and the United States. First thing listed in both, then one says that the commissioners are to settle questions of disagreement while Davis says that they are only to settle matters and subjects of interest. Well, what if the subject of interest was a reunification of the states with the U.S.? That was out of the question, given the primary purpose of the commissioners. Now they may have wanted to settle matters peacefully, they may have even been sincere in that desire. But the one issue not on the table was an end to secession, and unless Lincoln accepted that and recognized the legitimacy of the Davis regime then nothing else was on the table either. The letters were an ultimatum, nothing more or less.
have answered this question as eloquently as I can in my previous posts, including the matter of settling differences via civilized war.
With all due respect you answered nothing, offered nothing to back up what are nothing more or less than your opinions. What places the obligation of redressing grievances if not the Constitution? And if the states have already walked away from their obligations then how does the Constitution apply to them? You claim that they would want to peacefully settle matters, but the confederate actions at Sumter indicates how little tolerance the south had for solutions not made on their time line and to their liking.
I would be greatly interested in hearing your thoughts on these issues, most prominently on the topic of your previous claim that the States have no inherent Sovereignty.
I disagree with your contention that I believe states have no inherent sovereignty. I have pointed out that they are sovereign within their own borders and controlling their affairs. I have completely disagreed with your claim that they trump the Constitution or that the federal government exists only at the whim of the states and when it is convenient for them.
I disagree that the intent of those letters was an ultimatum, but lacking the documentation to dispute it, I'll have to table the topic for now. I'm confident that there is evidence out there pointing to the intent behind this Commission, but for the moment, I do not have it collected.
With all due respect you answered nothing, offered nothing to back up what are nothing more or less than your opinions. What places the obligation of redressing grievances if not the Constitution? And if the states have already walked away from their obligations then how does the Constitution apply to them? You claim that they would want to peacefully settle matters, but the confederate actions at Sumter indicates how little tolerance the south had for solutions not made on their time line and to their liking.
I apologize sincerely and profusely for not being able to back up my arguments with concrete evidence. While I have been familiar with the school of thought from which I'm arguing, I am rather new to actually researching and documenting it. I will assure you with the utmost sincerity, that I have reached the conclusions I have by a careful and reasoned study of the philosophy surrounding the creation of the Federal government, and the history of the Royal Colonies which brought it about, but I have not spent as much time in the contemporary writings surrounding these events as I would like.
I disagree with your contention that I believe states have no inherent sovereignty. I have pointed out that they are sovereign within their own borders and controlling their affairs. I have completely disagreed with your claim that they trump the Constitution or that the federal government exists only at the whim of the states and when it is convenient for them.
My sincerest apologies once again. I had you mixed up with another FReeper, who had made statements to that effect. You are obviously more correct in your portrayal of our Federal system than he is.
I do promise that I will continue to research these matters, and if I find evidence to support my position, I will continue to collect it and present it to you. In the mean time, it is truly my honor to cede to you the debate for now. You have done a most superb job in keeping me honest, and it has really been a great pleasure to discuss these matters with you.
Regards,
~dt~
"...[t]he separate independence and individual sovereignty of the several states were never thought of by the enlightened band of patriots who framed this Declaration; the several states are not even mentioned by name in any part of it,—as if it was intended to impress this maxim on America, that our freedom and independence arose from our union, and that without it we could neither be free nor independent.” -- Charles Pinkney"...[I]could not admit the doctrine that when the colonies became independent of Great Britain, they became independent also of each other....that the United Colonies were declared free and independent states, and inferring, that they were independent, not individually, but unitedly, and that they were confederated, as they were independent states.” -- James Wilson
but...
Wilson and Pinkney expressed a radical nationalist vision of the constitutional design that not only deviated from the views that prevailed at the time but, despite the dissent's apparent embrace of the position, remains startling even today, see post, at 18 (quoting with approval Wilson's statement that " `the government of each state ought to be subordinate to the government of the United States' "). Alden v Maine
Um, no. Lincoln is emphatic:
"This is a most valuable,-- most sacred right--a right, which we hope and believe, is to liberate the world. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government, may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people that can, may revolutionize, and make their own, of so much of the teritory as they inhabit. More than this, a majority of any portion of such people may revolutionize, putting down a minority, intermingled with, or near about them, who may oppose their movement.Lincoln is not speaking of armed revolution - which is not a right at all, but simply the exercise of raw military power. He's not referring to revolution in the modern sense - the fight to overthrow an existing government and seize control - he's referring to what the Colonies exercised - the RIGHT of SELF-GOVERNMENT. And he states that the idea should spread, "which we hope and believe, is to liberate the world." He's not calling for wars to occur on a massive scale, he's hoping that repressed people everywhere will do exactly what the colonies did - secede from their existing government, and form one that is ideally suited to their needs and desires.
Speaking of reading the speech, I especially like his comment about the "half insane mumbling of a fever-dream".
Clearly what Lincoln is saying isn't that states can unilaterally renounce the Union...
Lincoln said, "Any portion of such people that can, may revolutionize, and make their own, of so much of the teritory as they inhabit." Nowhere does he state that they must beg permission, instead they have the right to "shake off the existing government".
He's speaking of the Texas Revolution, which, if I recall correctly, was an armed affair. The historical context for his concept of the "Right of Rebellion" can be found in Locke and Blackstone, who were writing out of the experience of the "Grand Rebellion", i.e, the English Civil War, another armed affair. Clearly it's a nice fantasy that tyrants, real or perceived, will simply roll over when someone becomes upset with them, but that's usually not the real world, except when the US pressures some shah or presidente to get on a plane and go to the Riviera.
He's not calling for wars to occur on a massive scale, he's hoping that repressed people everywhere will do exactly what the colonies did - secede from their existing government, and form one that is ideally suited to their needs and desires.
He could also be calling for a slave uprising in the south. Would you have supported such as a legitimate revolution that the southern states had no right to oppose?
Nowhere does he state that they must beg permission,
Indeed not. But he does say, "that can, may."
Look, I'm not denying that the south had a natural right to rebel (as did Texas against Mexico, West Virginia against Virginia, or slaves against their masters), but I'm saying that the Constitution doesnt allow a state, having joined the union only with the permission of the other states, to unilaterally withdraw from it. Either ask permission or be prepared to fight. But don't just childishly insist on having your way, despite the rules, then throw a temper tantrum when you're told you can't and start shelling US troops.
The problem here is the definition of 'revolution'. Today it means the violent overthrow of an existing government - which is NOT what Lincoln hopes will spread around the world. In context, the 'revolution' - as in revolutionary idea - that Lincoln advocates is the idea that the common man has the God given right to self-government - no royal blood necessary, and that Any group of people can and should form the government which best suits their goals.
He could also be calling for a slave uprising in the south. Would you have supported such as a legitimate revolution that the southern states had no right to oppose?
Strange that you would consider that legitimate, but Southern secession illegal. But to answer your question - yes, I firmly believe that every person has the right to associate with those that share their beliefs, and form a common government for their mutual benefit. But do I support a rebellion wherein people wantonly slaughter men, women and children - no.
I'm saying that the Constitution doesn't allow a state, having joined the union only with the permission of the other states, to unilaterally withdraw from it.
Of course you don't, that would mean Lincoln's war was an illegal war of subjugation wouldn't it? But the problem you have legally is that the Constitution has only the powers delegated to it by the states - each state retains all powers not delegated to the federal government via the Constitution, excepting any the Constitution prohibits them from exercising. There is NO clause that grants the federal government any power to retain a state (the use of force against a state was denied twice during debates), and the Constitution lacks any clause preventing a state from seceding from the union.
Beg to differ, but in context, the meaning is that the borders of Texas weren't fixed by treaty but by revolution. The sentence before the paragraphs you cite reads, "The extent of our teritory in that region depended, not on any treaty-fixed boundary (for no treaty had attempted it) but on revolution." What the next two paragraphs basically say is "And that's fine."
He then goes on to say, "After this, all Mexico, including Texas, revolutionized against Spain; and still later, Texas revolutionized against Mexico. In my view, just so far as she carried her revolution, by obtaining the actual, willing or unwilling, submission of the people, so far, the country was hers, and no farther."
So, he cites two revolutions involving the same territory , both of them bloody affairs, not abstract concepts. As I said before, the legal and philosophical background to the concept of the Right of Revolution is based in Locke and Blackstone, who both wrote out of the experience of the English Civil War, the "Great Rebellion." An interesting point you could possibly make would be that it was the north that had a bloodless revolution in the election of 1860, then "carried her revolution, by obtaining the actual, willing or unwilling, submission of the people, so far, the country was hers" over the south.
Strange that you would consider that legitimate, but Southern secession illegal."
Again you're mixing concepts. I'd find a slave rebellion in the south to be perfectly legitimate in a moral sense. I'm quite certain, though, that it would have been illegal.
I can't beleive that Lincoln considers war to a a sacred right, nor can I believe that he's an advocate for massive revolts/wars across the globe. Anyone desiring world war would be insane.
Do you also believe that when Jefferson says, "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." he's only talking about metaphorical blood? That when Patrick Henry says, "Give me liberty or give me death" he's doesn't mean actual death? Lincoln came immediately after the Age of Revolutions and knew exactly what Revolution and Rebellion meant. I can only think of one bloodless revolution that Lincoln would know of (the Glorious Revolution of 1688), and at least a dozen bloody ones, from France to Mexico to Haiti to the Bolivarian campaigns in South America. And of course the foundation story of the United States is one of blood and battle.
Again, look at Locke. Or look at the Anastaplo case in the USSC, especially Justice Black's dissent.
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.