Posted on 02/18/2012 11:09:23 AM PST by HMS Surprise
There is nothing more irritating to a warrior-poet than an unwillingness to debate. If speech is troubling, or blatantly false, or amateurish, then it will fall of its own weight. I don’t need, and I suspect a majority of truthseekers don’t want, an administrator hovering above the public forum deciding which issues are too controversial for polite company.
The Civil War has become untouchable, unless you agree with the standard arguments. 1. Lincoln was a god among men. 2. The South was evil. 3. Union is the ultimate goal of the American experiment. 4. The Federal government’s design trumps the rights of the People, and the States. 5. Political bands are eternal, and must be preserved at all costs. 6. The ends justify the means.
The arguments for the necessity of the War between the States are considered unassailable, and I have noticed lately that the political-correctness has reached such a high level that even purportedly conservative blogs are beginning to remove threads that stray into pro-rebellion territory.
I understand the temptation to ignore this issue for political expediency, but the goal of individual liberty (personal freedom), as well as State sovereignty (political freedom), can never be accomplished unless we acknowledge and understand that the Civil War planted the seeds of the eventual unconstitutional federal takeover of every aspect of American life.
Some basics that are undeniable, albiet censorable, follows.
(Excerpt) Read more at teapartytribune.com ...
From the first legal treatise written after Constitutional Ratification by the man later appointed to the Supreme Court by President James Madison:
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. Prudence, indeed, will dictate, that governments established by compact should not be changed for light or transient causes; but should a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object, evince a design in any one of the confederates to usurp a dominion over the rest; or, if those who are entrusted to administer the government, which the confederates have for their mutual convenience established, should manifest a design to invade their sovereignty, and extend their own power beyond the terms of compact, to the detriment of the states respectively, and to reduce them to a state of obedience, and finally to establish themselves in a state of permanent superiority, it then becomes not only the right, but the duty of the states respectively, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.
Of the Several Forms of Government, St. George Tucker, View of the Constitution of the United States, Section XIII
------
[emphasis mine]
The South had every Right to leave the Compact, and the Union had NO right to attack them for it.
Thanks for the research, once again confirming to me that Free Republic represents the pinnacle of cumulative, reasoned, internet thought.
My title intended to allude to the fact that the Founders were the original secessionists. And, I find it curious that many here LOVE them, but HATE the South. I suspect some sophistry is involved in order to reach such an obtuse conclusion in one’s own mind.
Wow. Can you not also apply that to the Framers? Didn’t many, including Washington and Jefferson, also own slaves? If the South turned it on its ear, Jefferson et al set the precedent. You are correct that it takes a hubris to free yourself while retaining slaves, but your attempt to clear the Founders, and hang a more contemporanous group are an epic fail. Try another tack my friend.
Once again I will point out how strange it is that many here LOVE the original secessionists, but HATE the South. Intellectual gymnastics are required to do that.
First of all, you need to remember that no Confederate soldier -- zero, zip, nada -- was killed directly by Union forces until after the Confederacy formally declared war on the United States, on May 6, 1861.
Until that declaration of war there was still the possibility of a negotiated settlement.
After the declaration, there could be only Unconditional Surrender.
Second, note rockrr's response in post #127.
You could just as easily blame George Washington as Abraham Lincoln, but blaming either is ridiculous.
The real blame belongs to the Progressives (Marxists) beginning about 100 years ago, and those most definitely include Southern Democrat Progressives like President Woodrow Wilson, plus all those long-serving Southern Democrat Congressmen & Senators who were only too happy to raise up our taxes and send money back home from the Federal feeding trough.
So don't blame Lincoln, blame your own ancestors as much as anyone.
Originally, the Confederacy was made up of only 7 states. AR,TN,VA and NC only seceded AFTER Lincoln called for troops and wanted to "put down the rebellion". For those 4 states it wasn't about slavery at all, it was about Federal Usurpation of the states. In the words of the governor of Va.
"In reply to this communication, I have only to say that the militia of Virginia will not be furnished to the powers at Washington for any such use or purpose as they have in view. Your object is to subjugate the Southern States, and a requisition made upon me for such an object -- an object, in my judgment, not within the purview of the Constitution or the act of 1795 -- will not be complied with. You have chosen to inaugurate civil war, and having done so, we will meet it in a spirit as determined as the Administration has exhibited towards the South. "
Respectfully,
JOHN LETCHER Gov. Commonwealth of Virginia.
Careful, if you say anything that anyone might interpret as critical of or to anyone or anything that lies below the Mason-Dixon line Funky will lump you into his Kitchen-Katchall of “south-haters”.
(yes, it is that silly!) ;-)
Very much my pleasure. It's amazing what one can find when wandering the dusty, forgotten halls of the Library of Congress:
"If the States look with apathy on this silent descent of their government into the gulf [of consolidation] which is to swallow all, we have only to weep over the human character formed uncontrollable but by a rod of iron, and the blasphemers of man as incapable of self-government become his true historians."
--Thomas Jefferson to Charles Hammond, 1821.
-------
I suspect some sophistry is involved in order to reach such an obtuse conclusion in one’s own mind.
Agreed. In my experience, even a reasonably intelligent person can't seem to separate the morality of slavery with the legality of it.
Until they can, their reasoning will remain flawed.
-----
Great post, BTW!
Lincoln showed how to wield Federal Power in ways nobody dreamed of prior to the "late unpleasantness" and laid the foundation for the 19th century Progressives et. al.
Serious honesty and accuracy are the gold coins of these threads, and just as rare to find.
Most of us are quite poor in that asset, and need frequent help and corrections.
But some have such wealth in abundance, and not all of them are on our end of the playing field...
;-)
The pertinent question, which is often conveniently ignored: Were there a “long train of abuses” that justified the South’s attempt to seperate itself from the North, or were the causes “light and transient,” and not enough for the North to “allow” the South to be a new neighbor? Wars can start and end after a skirmish, or continue until every structure requires new plumbing. The actual War, gave ample opportunity for Lincoln to negotiate peace. Anti-revolutionaries here like to pretend that Americans circa 1863 were unable to entertain notions that would bring about peace. Nonsense, Lincoln could have, he COULD HAVE, publically acknowledged the transgressions of both sides, and made an earnest attempt to sue for peace. You are wrong that all wars end with unconditional surrender by the way; most end with a negotiated settlement. Regardless of fault however, my point that post-Civil War America was ripe for a new national statism is unassailable.
Thanks for the reminder on the time-line. I'd honestly forgotten some States joined later.
Love your tagline, BTW!
Agreed, and I find it more likely that highly intelligent people disagree on this issue than most others. I see the other side, and I don’t find it unattractive. Lincoln is a towering figure and his life strays into myth-making proportions. My thoughts always light on the battlefields though. The results of the actions of every leader involved in the War must be weighed against their lofty rhetoric and grand intentions. 500,000 bodies tip the scale mightily because they were American souls all.
On the Yankee side a good deal of those souls were Irishman FOB's. And when the supply of them ran out Lincoln emancipated a few slaves to stick between DC and the ANV.
Good research!
Thanks for an interesting post, but it requires some correction and context.
First of all, Tucker was never a Supreme Court justice, but rather a judge in the Virginia district court.
Second, Tucker was not a Founding Father -- did not attend the Constitutional Convention or vote for the Constitution's ratification.
His opinions therefore, are his own and not Original Intent of the Founders.
Third, this work by Tucker was written in 1803 -- 16 years after the Constitution's ratification, and after there had already been years of rumblings about nullification and secession -- the Alien and Sedition Acts, the Kentucky Resolutions, Louisiana Purchase, etc.
Some people who had been Federalists 15 years earlier were by 1803 murmuring about secession.
But even then, most held fast to the Founders' Original Intent, which was that secession had to be for material reasons such as oppression or usurpations, that it should not be "at pleasure", and that it should be with mutual consent of other states.
Indeed, even a careful reading of Tucker's work shows he did not advocate secession "at pleasure", but only when "necessary".
In November 1860, when Deep-South slave-holders first began the process to secede, there was no Federal oppression or usurpation, there was no necessity secede -- there was only one thing: the constitutional election of an anti-slavery Republican president, Abraham Lincoln.
So the Deep-South slave-holders declared their secession "at pleasure", simultaneously committing many acts of rebellion and war before formally declaring war on the United States, on May 6, 1861.
Before their Declaration of War, no Confederate soldier had been directly killed by any Union force, and a negotiated peace was still possible.
After declaring war, the Confederacy faced only one future: Unconditional Surrender.
No one here "HATES the South".
That is just a fantasy in your delusional mind.
It tells us all that you are neither serious nor honest in your thinking, pal.
You need to get over it.
Lincoln responded to the Confederacy's Declaration of War on the United States by demanding Unconditional Surrender.
So the Confederacy is totally responsible for its own fate.
And all those Progressive Democrats were cheered on by Southerners.
Neither Progressive Democrat Presidents Wilson nor Roosevelt received higher percentages of votes from any other section of the country than from the Deep South.
Southerners loved Big Government Progressives in those days.
So what I'm saying is: don't be blaming everyone else for your own sins, pal.
Start by looking in your mirror.
True, and I thank you for the correction. His appointment did come, however, from the Father of the Constitution.
-----
His opinions therefore, are his own and not Original Intent of the Founders.
I never claimed he was a Founder.
From your link:
Tucker, St. George View of the Constitution of the United States with Selected Writings (Indianapolis: Liberty Fund 1999) (1803) Editor Clyde N. Wilson states that Views of the Constitution "was the first extended, systematic commentary on the Constitution after it had been ratified by the people of the several states and amended by the Bill of Rights. . . . [and] it was for much of the first half of the nineteenth century an important handbook for American law students, lawyers, judges and statesmen."
-----
Third, this work by Tucker was written in 1803 -- 16 years after the Constitution's ratification,
1803 was the year of full, Constitutional implementation. It wasn't until then that the federal enclave was completed and the area of 'exclusive legislation' could commence.
-----
the Alien and Sedition Acts,
However true, therefore, it may be, that the judicial department is, in all questions submitted to it by the forms of the Constitution, to decide in the last resort, this resort must necessarily be deemed the last in relation to the authorities of the other departments of the government; not in relation to the rights of the parties to the constitutional compact, from which the judicial, as well as the other departments, hold their delegated trusts. On any other hypothesis, the delegation of judicial power would annul the authority delegating it; and the concurrence of this department with the others in usurped powers, might subvert forever, and beyond the possible reach of any rightful remedy, the very Constitution which all were instituted to preserve.
James Madison, Report on the Virginia Resolutions
What about them?
-----
In November 1860, when Deep-South slave-holders first began the process to secede, there was no Federal oppression or usurpation, there was no necessity secede
Yet you said 'Some people who had been Federalists 15 years earlier were by 1803 murmuring about secession'. What do you think they were muttering about? The price of rice in China?
No, as illustrated by Jefferson's letter in my earlier post, the exercise of unauthorized power by the federal government had already begun.
Despite the fact the federal government had no legitimate authority on the subject of slavery within the States, the clamor of the anti slavery movement had grown louder, and the election of Lincoln was the match to the fuse.
I wouldn't consider the obliteration of the economy of an agrarian based society as a 'transient cause', would you?
------
formally declaring war on the United States, on May 6, 1861.
Please provide a source for this Declaration of War.
And since the seceding states, those who break a contract, by establishing a new constitution and form of federal government among themselves, without the consent of the rest of the parties to the contract, have shown that they consider the right to do so break a contract whenever the occasion may, in their opinion require it they decide to, 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.
Considering the right to unilaterally break a contract unquestionable because you’ve unilaterally broken the contract doesn’t track.. The whole underlined part of your post doesn’t track. Applying the logic to a broader range means that people could unilaterally break the marriage contract if “the occasion may, in their opinion require it.” It means it’s nearly pointless to enter a contract. If there is no right to require a party to a contract to hold to it or penalize them for breaking it, there’s little point to a contract.
“The South had every Right to leave the Compact, and the Union had NO right to attack them for it.”
That’s in dispute. Saying it emphatically doesn’t change anything.
Perhaps you should have your tracks checked.
-----
Applying the logic to a broader range means that people could unilaterally break the marriage contract if “the occasion may, in their opinion require it.”
LOL! Don't tell me you haven't ever heard of irreconcilable differences.
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.