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 ...
You're truly confused.
The PEOPLE created the States. Furthermore, every State that was born after the Constitution was adopted has the same rights and privileges as the original thirteen Nation States.
--------------------
These speculative notions may be regarded as having received the most solemn sanction in the United States of America; the supreme national council of which hath, on the most important occasion, which hath ever occured since the first settlement of these states by the present race of men, declared, "that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to abolish it, and to institute a new government, laying its foundations upon such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most "likely to effect their safety and happiness."[9] Such is the language of that congress which dissolved the union between Great Britain and America. Few are the governments of the world, antient or modern, whose foundations have been laid upon these principles. Fraud, usurpation, and conquest have been, generally, substituted in their stead.
When a government is founded upon the voluntary consent, and agreement of a people uniting themselves together for their common benefit, the people, or nation, collectively taken, is free, although the administration of the government should happen to be oppressive, and to a certain degree, even tyrannical; since it is in the power of the people to alter, or abolish it, whenever they shall think proper; and to institute such new government as may seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. But if the government be founded in fear, constraint, or force, although the administration should happen to be mild, the people, being deprived of the sovereignty, are reduced to a state of civil slavery. Should the administration, in this case, become tyrannical, they are without redress. Submission, punishment, or a successful revolt, are the only alternatives.
http://www.constitution.org/tb/t1b.htm
No doubt the people created the states, but the forms through which the people created the states were those of the Federal Government, which thus, created the states, set the boundaries, and set the date for their admission to the Union, and guaranteed from then on a republican form of government.
No doubt that our government depends on the consent of the governed, but that consent is expressed through elections of various officials, such as the president, and the powers of those officials are limited, even if the people would consent to giving them more power, such powers would have to be granted by amendment, legislation, or by court case. If the people would like to remove powers from any official position, such removal would have to take place by amendment, by legislation, or by court case. Of course the person occupying a position could be removed by impeachment, or by expiration of his term.
The documented legal procedure used in the Whiskey Rebellion was to apply (IAW the Militia act of 1792) to a supreme court justice. The justice was James Wilson, who delivered his opinion on August 4, and Washington issued a presidential proclamation on August 7th that the militia would be called out to suppress the insurrection. General ‘Light Horse Harry’ Lee was put in charge of the 12,000+ man army.
In response to the widespread perception that waiting for a supreme court justice was a weakness, the Militia Act of 1795 removed that requirement.
As amended:
Sec. 2. “And be it further enacted, That whenever the laws of the United States shall be opposed or the execution thereof obstructed, in any state, by combinations too powerful to be suppressed by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, or by the powers vested in the marshals by this act,.........it shall be lawful for the President of the United States to call forth the militia of such state to suppress such combinations, and to cause the laws to be duly executed. And if the militia of a state, where such combinations may happen, shall refuse, or be insufficient to suppress the same, it shall be lawful for the President, if the legislature of the United States be not in session, to call forth and employ such numbers of the militia of any other state or states most convenient thereto, as may be necessary, and the use of militia, so to be called forth, may be continued, if necessary, until the expiration of thirty days after the commencement of the ensuing session.”
I think you're missing the point. The federal government has no sovereignty of it's own - all the sovereign authority resides in the people and their respective States.
Federalist #81
It is inherent in the nature of sovereignty not to be amenable to the suit of an individual without its consent. This is the general sense, and the general practice of mankind; and the exemption, as one of the attributes of sovereignty, is now enjoyed by the government of every State in the Union
Sovereigns don't retain the 'right of revolution' - since that is their basic natural right - they retain their sovereign right to 'alter or revoke its commission'..without asking 'Mother May I?' ...
John Taylor of Caroline:
Sovereignty is the highest degree of political power, and the establishment of a form of government, the highest proof which can be given of its existence. The states could not have reserved any rights by the articles of their union, if they had not been sovereign, because they could have no rights, unless they flowed from that source. In the creation of the federal government, the states exercised the highest act of sovereignty, and they may, if they please, repeat the proof of their sovereignty, by its annihilation.
And so it proved.
Augh...And any government that may exercise to do whatever it professes to be necessary and proper to promote whatever it professes to be the general welfare is, by definition, a government of unlimited powers.
"Nullification and Secession are both rights; and the difference between them is simply this: Nullification proposes to preserve the Constitution, by annulling every act of the Federal Government, which the Constitution does not authorize; it proposes to preserve the Union, by annulling those usurpations in some mode which shall not withdraw the State from the Union, nor embarrass the regular action of the Government within the Constitution. Secession withdraws the State out of the reach of the usurped powers, when all other means of redress have failed. Nullification, therefore, is the primary right and the primary duty of the State; Secession is the ultimate right, when Nullification has failed.----Abel P. Upshur
Sic semper tyrannis!!
--------
Here is Washington's Proclamation upon receiving certification from the Supreme Court's Justice James Wilson: Washington's Proclamation - August 7, 1794
I hope that helps.
If one party to a contract can unilaterally breach it at will without fear of penalty I see no point to even having a contract and I don’t see that the terms of the contract, whatever they may be, matter. I doubt society as we know it can exist if we can’t have contracts or compacts or agreements to which the involved parties can be held, which likely involves some sort of possible penalty for breach.
Reference 2, from my post 194:
My disagreement is with the position that a state or states have the unilateral right to secede from the Union at mere will and that the states remaining in the Union have no right to try and penalize the secession or hold them to the agreement to remain in Union.It may be that actions by the Northern States were sufficient to breach the agreement forming the Union, justifying secession by the Southern States. Or it may not be. As I wrote: “Which side eventually had a legitimate grievance is up for debate.”
If actions by the Northern States were sufficient to breach the agreement forming the Union, thereby justifying secession by the Southern States, the Northern States were in the wrong to wage war.
If actions by the Northern States were not sufficient to breach the agreement forming the Union and secession by the Southern States was unjustified, the Northern States had some right to try and hold the seceding States to the agreement or penalize them.
Reference 3, from my post 203:
The United States predates the Constitution, established it, and could replace it. It’s relevance to the States as a Union is limited.
I was asked for a source on that and I responded in post 220, which is long enough that I’m not going to repeat it here.
Reference 4, from my post 75 in regard to New York, Rhode Island and Virginia reserving in their ratifications to the Constitution, the right to reassume their own governance if necessary for their happiness or if they were oppressed:
They don't say that "they (the STATES) reserved the right to “resume” the powers of government". They say that the people (in one case referring to the people of the United States and in another referring to the people of the several states) may resume or reassume the "powers". They're not saying the States can leave the Union. They're saying the people can replace the Federal (or for that matter the State) government.
I do mean New York, Rhode Island, and Virginia.
Then I stand by Reference 4 above. In post 75 I quoted what I thought were the relevant words from the documents in question. When you wrote “three states specifically reserved the right to reassume their own governance”, if you mean they reserved it to the people, then I don’t disagree that they did so. That they reserved the right to the individual state in question, as a state, may be implied or inferred but is not stated outright. Or did I quote the wrong parts of the relevant documents?
As to Bledsoe:
In the last paragraph, he does write about the people of Virginia, not the State of Virginia, which kind of supports my position noted above.
He seems to attach too much relevance to the Constitution and the Federal Government in his argument. I stand by Reference 3 above, and believe such relevance is limited.
Bledsoe was a lawyer in Springfield, Illinois, but he was also an officer in the Confederate Army and an official in the Confederate Government. In and of itself that does not invalidate any argument he made, but his point of view was not neutral.
In the Preface to "Is Davis a Traitor or Was Secession a Constitutional Right Previous to the War of 1861?", Bledsoe writes:
“The subjugation of the Southern States, and their acceptance of the terms dictated by the North, may, if the reader please, be considered as having shifted the Federal Government from the basis of compact to that of conquest; and thereby extinguished every claim to the right of secession for the future.”
I fail to see how “every claim to the right of secession for the future” could be extinguished by conquest, which was involuntary, but not be extinguished by agreement to perpetual union which was voluntary.
As to the Virginia Ordinance of Secession, particularly the part you emphasized, but leaving the references to the Constitution and Federal Government aside, I stand by Reference 2 above.
And nowhere in the post do I see a reason to be swayed from the position I took in Reference 1 above.
I don’t have a problem with what Madison wrote there. In that part of my post 263, I was concerned with Davis’ “all” versus the Tenth Amendment’s “powers”.
Why would they want the people of the oppressing states, who might be a majority of the people of the United States, to have the right of voting on whether a state or group of states could secede?
Because it might lead to a parting of the ways without conflict.
Or
Because the shoe might have been on the other foot and they would have had the right of voting on whether some other state or group of states could secede.
Or
Because the honorable thing to do would be to get agreement from other parties to an agreement rather than unilaterally breach it.
I’m not that interested in this right now, but you asked and those answers came to mind quickly.
Given that, why would states join such a Union unless they had an escape clause?
One reason might be that they perceived the advantages to outweigh the disadvantages. Why did people used to promise “till death do us part, etc.” without an escape clause?
Why do people have children and thus form a family without having an escape clause?
You might take a look at de Tocqueville’s statement…
His last paragraph was:
If one of the federated states acquires a preponderance sufficiently great to enable it to take exclusive possession of the central authority, it will consider the other states as subject provinces and will cause its own supremacy to be respected under the borrowed name of the sovereignty of the Union. Great things may then be done in the name of the Federal government, but in reality that government will have ceased to exist.
Limiting my response to his scenario, I’d say that if one of the federated states had done as he writes, it would have been in the wrong and the other federated states would have been justified in taking appropriate action if they could.
Not without the state's permission, according to the Constitution.
Bearing in mind that I think the Constitution is of limited importance in this, out of curiosity I have to ask: What part of the Constitution are you writing about?
You quoted George Washington: “…as that State is not a member of the present Union…”
That does give me some pause, though it’s not the equivalent of an Ordinance of Secession or formal declaration stating dissolution of one Union and formation of another Union which are the kinds of things I would like to see as proof that one Union ended and a new one began. I’ll have to think about it.
We joined with Britain, Canada, Australia, etc. to fight World War II. We were the Allies, an association fighting against the Axis powers. Does this association, formed to fight a war, mean that we are bound to them in a future government from which we cannot leave?
And:
Does the fact that we are members of the UN and a signatory to the UN charter mean that we can't withdraw from that organization if we so desire?
Did we sign up to that?
In any case, where have I said that a party to an agreement (whether it be a simple agreement, a compact, a contract, a treaty) may not under any circumstances withdraw, secede or whatever, particularly if another party to it breached the agreement? My disagreement has been with the position that the Northern States had no right to take action against the Southern States for seceding. If the Southern States breached the “agreement”, the Northern States had just as much right to take action as the Southern States had right to take action if the Northern States breached the “agreement.” As an extension, I see little point in entering an agreement if one party can unilaterally breach it at will and the other parties have no recourse.
You begin: If one group of states can violate a contract with impunity…
And I finish with: …I see no point to even having a contract and I don’t see that the terms of the contract, whatever they may be, matter. I doubt society as we know it can exist if we can’t have contracts or compacts or agreements to which the involved parties can be held, which likely involves some sort of possible penalty for breach.
That's neither here nor there for my purpose. My purpose was to respond to your statement in post 232 that "The Constitution did not give the government the power to coerce states", by providing a definition of "coerce" and as food for thought a quote from the Constitution where that power might be given. Or might not. I just meant it as something to think further about.
In regard to your post 280, I don’t care to dispute any of that.
My words were in opposition to the contention that as States, New York, Rhode Island and Virginia reserved in their ratifications to the Constitution, the right to reassume their own governance. That they reserved the right to the individual state in question, as a state, may be implied or inferred but is not stated outright. They reserved the right to the people. Or perhaps there is an outright statement of reservation that I missed in the ratification documents of these three States.
In tracing this back through the thread, I noted my original response was to post 63 in which mek1959 wrote “They make it CRYSTAL clear that they (the STATES) reserved the right to “resume” the powers of government to their citizens if...”.
I misread that the first time, missing the part about “reserved...to...their citizens”. I find that equivalent to reserving the right to the people, and if I’d read it that way the first time I wouldn’t have commented.
I'm trying to get him to show me where he's getting his information instead of regurgitating his interpretation as if they WERE facts.
------
Your post is a perfect example of how large a role 'interpretation' plays in what we read.
Before troops could be raised, the Militia Act of 1792 required a justice of the United States Supreme Court to certify that law enforcement was beyond the control of local authorities.
Now some might read that sentence to read that Justice Wilson certified that, due to the rebellion, federal forces were superior to local ones.
I, however, interpret it within its proper Constitutional confines [Article 4 section 4] and see it as Justice Wilson certifying that the local authorities had lost control of the situation and required assistance.
But the State hadn't ASKED for assitance, so Governor Mifflin met President Washington at the State border.
Fearing the secession of western territories - and an even greater threat to the nation's western borders - President Washington ordered Governor Mifflin to send the Pennsylvania militia to enforce the law. But Mifflin declined, asserting that a president in peacetime and in the absence of any local request for help had no authority to direct a state governor to use a state militia for any purpose. In the process, he established a precedent that is still honored today.
The Whiskey Rebellion
Ah, I just read the thread and discovered the confusion.
He posted 284 & 285 to himself, so I never got pinged.
When the States ratified the Constitution they never intended it to be any sort of national government. It was an agreement between individual sovereign's - united by compact. Most of the great legal minds ( before that ambulance chaser from Illinois changed the nature of government from "consent of the governed" into "consent or be shot" ) agree that the State government is/was government proper.
---------------------------
The federal government then, appears to be the organ through which the united republics communicate with foreign nations, and with each other. Their submission to it's operation is voluntary: it's councils, it's engagements, it's authority are theirs, modified, and united. It's sovereignty is an emanation from theirs, not a flame by which they have been consumed, nor a vortex in which they are swallowed up. Each is still a perfect state, still sovereign, still independent 52, and still capable, should the occasion require, to resume the exercise of it's functions, as such, in the most unlimited extent.
http://www.constitution.org/tb/t1d03000.htm
----------
Chief Justice Ellsworth:
"I want domestic happiness as well as general security. A General Government will never grant me this, as it cannot know my wants, nor relieve my distress. My State is only as one out of thirteen. Can they, the General Government, gratify my wishes? My happiness depends as much on the existence of my State Government as a new-born infant depends upon its mother for nourishment."
Fisher Ames:
"A consolidation of the States would subvert the new Constitution, and against which this article is our best security. Too much provision cannot be made against consolidation. The State Governments represent the wishes and feelings, and local interests of the people. They are the safeguard and ornament of the Constitution; they will protract the period of our liberties; they will afford a shelter against the abuse of power, and will be the natural avengers of our violated rights."
Judge Iredell:
"If Congress, previous to the Articles of Confederation, possessed any authority, it was an authority, as I have shown, derived from the people of each province, in the first instance." "The authority was not possessed by Congress, unless given by all the States." "I conclude, therefore, that every particle of authority, which originally resided either in Congress or in any branch of the State governments, was derived from the people who were permanent inhabitants of each province, in the first instance, and afterwards became citizens of each State; that this authority was conveyed by each body separately, and not by all the people in the several provinces or States jointly."
---------------------------
Of the Virginia Resolutions of 1798, in a series of Essays, addressed to Thomas Ritchie, by a distinguished citizen of Virginia, under the signature of "Locke," in February, 1833:
You all say, that it is absurd to pretend that a State can be in the Union and out of the Union at the same time; and that it is monstrous in a State to contend for all the advantages of the Union, as to certain laws, while she refuses to submit to the burthens imposed by other laws. Nothing in nature can be more perfectly self-evident than all this. It is not surprising that a man of General Jackson's measure of intellect and information should be deceived by such a superficial view of the subject: but we had a right to expect better things from a veteran in politics, like yourself. Remember, sir, that a law beyond the Constitution is no law at all, and there is no right any where to enforce it. A State which refuses to submit to such a pretended law, is strictly within the Union — because she is in strict obedience to the Constitution; and it is strange to say that she "refuses to submit to the burthens" imposed by any law which is not law at all. Here, then, you have a picture of Nullification. It secures to the State the right to remain in the Union, and to enjoy all the advantages which the Constitution and laws can afford — submitting, at the same time, to all which that Constitution and laws rightfully enjoin; while it "arrests the progress" of usurped power, by destroying the obligation of every pretended law which the Constitution does not authorise, and which, therefore, is not law. If this is not the meaning of the resolutions of 1798, I have much misunderstood them. It is precisely upon this point that the public mind of Virginia has been most strangely misled by the authority of the President's name, and the speciousness of your paragraphs. — You owe the people a heavy debt of reparation, which I hope you will live to pay.
This leads us to the second object of the resolutions of 1798, which is "to maintain within the limits of the respective States, the authorities, rights and liberties appertaining to them." I have already shown, in my second letter, that these authorities, rights, and liberties are not merely those which belong to every sovereign State, and which may be enjoyed as well in a state of separation as in league with others, but also all the authorities, rights, and liberties which the States are entitled to, under the Constitution, and as members of the Union. No State, therefore, can possibly effect this object of the resolutions of 1798, by any proceeding which either withdraws her from the Union, or weakens her just influence in it.
South Carolina says that an unconstitutional law is void, and so say the Virginia Resolutions — South Carolina says that each State has a right to decide for itself whether a law is constitutional or not, and so say the Virginia Resolutions — South Carolina, in the exercise of this right, has declared that the Tariff Laws are unconstitutional and so say the Virginia Resolutions of 1828 and 1829 (I have forgotten the date) and so, Mr. Ritchie, say you. How, then, can you countenance the President, in subjecting the citizens of South Carolina to the sword, for not submitting to what you yourself believe to be a sheer usurpation on the part of the Federal Government? Do, sir, in pity to our oppressed spirits, answer this question. You will not answer it, sir — because you cannot answer it without convicting yourself of inconsistency. This I will prove — for I do not mean to allow you any refuge from this dilemma. South Carolina is either right in her proceedings, (principles and all,) or else she is wrong. If she is right, then, there can be no pretence whatever for making war upon her: if she is wrong, how does that fact appear? It is admitted that the other States, co-parties with her to the Constitution have not said so. — Congress alone, and the President, or rather the Federal Government, has said it. Do you, sir, acknowledge any such right in the Federal Government? Is it not perfectly clear, that if such right exists the Federal Government is an appellate tribunal, with power to decide, in the last resort, upon the constitutionality of its own acts? Of what avail is the right of a State to pronounce that an unconstitutional act of Congress is really so, if Congress may overrule that decision? Is not this, sir, the very essence of that consolidation against which the Virginia Resolutions, Madison's Report, and your own valuable labours, have so long contended? It is impossible, then, for you to justify Congress and the President, except by asserting, either that Congress may overrule the decision of South Carolina, upon a question touching their own powers, and, by the same rule, may overrule the decision of every other State, and thus become the sole judges of the extent of their own powers; or by asserting that they may constitutionally enforce an unconstitutional law. Can you, sir, escape this difficulty, without abandoning every principle for which you have professed to contend for thirty years? I am exceedingly anxious to know in what manner you will do it. For myself, I can discover but one possible loop-hole of retreat, and even that I will endeavour to close upon you. — I reserve this, however, for a succeeding letter.
Ah, I begin to see where you're going with this. Mifflin told Washington "You're not the boss of me" and because Washington didn't crush him it must be true.
Except that Washington did obtain certification from SCOTUS, did raise a militia from Pennsylvania's neighboring states, and did invade Pennsylvania, which caused the rebels to abandon their insurrection.
In the process, he established a precedent that is still honored today.
Quite so.
Mifflin could have notified President Washington to his face that the State withdrew from the Union...and there is nothing Washington could have done about it.
Maybe yes, maybe no.
Each is still a perfect state, still sovereign, still independent, and still capable, should the occasion require, to resume the exercise of it's functions, as such, in the most unlimited extent. (Your quote from "Tucker's Blackstone".)
Me in post 194:
My disagreement is with the position that a state or states have the unilateral right to secede from the Union at mere will and that the states remaining in the Union have no right to try and penalize the secession or hold them to the agreement to remain in Union.It may be that actions by the Northern States were sufficient to breach the agreement forming the Union, justifying secession by the Southern States. Or it may not be. As I wrote: “Which side eventually had a legitimate grievance is up for debate.”
If actions by the Northern States were sufficient to breach the agreement forming the Union, thereby justifying secession by the Southern States, the Northern States were in the wrong to wage war.
If actions by the Northern States were not sufficient to breach the agreement forming the Union and secession by the Southern States was unjustified, the Northern States had some right to try and hold the seceding States to the agreement or penalize them.
If it pleased me to do so, and it doesn't right now, I could take much of your post, including the quote at the top of this post, and use it to support the last paragraph above.
...(before that ambulance chaser from Illinois changed the nature of government from "consent of the governed" into "consent or be shot")...
I don’t agree that Lincoln matters that much except as someone who succeeded in doing the will of the Northern States and people. I don’t think he could have done what he did if it wasn't what the Northern States and people wanted done. I wonder whether or not there would have been an effort to impeach him if he had not tried to hold the Union together.
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.