Posted on 06/07/2022 7:26:34 AM PDT by ChicagoConservative27
Wouldn't it be up to those states to do what they thought best for themselves?
Initially 8 remained in the Union while 7 left. It wasn't until Lincoln sought to use force against those seven that the others left, leaving 4 remaining (and creating a new one) that wanted to remain with the Union.
Of course some will argue that Missouri, Maryland and Kentucky were coerced to remain in the Union, so they didn't actually get to chose for themselves anyways.
That would have left Washington DC surrounded or in Confederate hands.
The location of Washington DC was chosen to be a compromise between the Northern power interests and the Southern power interests. Originally the Capitol was in New York, and the Virginians thought this gave Northern interests too much influence and so they wanted the Capitol moved to a more central location.
The Capitol physically left New York, but I now believe that the control New York had on it, never left the Capitol. We still see New York controlling the Capitol through their news lying system.
They weren't rebels. They weren't trying to take over the government, they were trying to separate from it. They also did not start the war.
It can be said that Anderson started the war in December of 1860 by forceably seizing a crucial fortress at the entrance of one of their major harbors. A fortress to which they consented with the understanding that it was being built to protect them, not oppress or subjugate them.
Any American president who didn’t simply want to let the country fall apart would have done something like that.
Analogy on a smaller scale is this. If a woman wants to leave you, you have the right to hold her by force and beat her until she consents to your unwanted control.
A union voluntarily joined should have been able to be voluntarily left. The Declaration of Independence clearly states they had that right, but power always wants to subjugate regardless of principles.
“Lincoln...”
Yes, you could make a case for Lincoln. I am very conflicted about him because I think he was fundamentally a good and brilliant man trying to do what he thought was right.
That being said, you could argue that his prosecution of the war killed the country that our Founding Fathers envisioned and set us on the course to Empire and where we are today.
As brilliant as the Founders were, it seems they made a huge mistake not including a session clause for the political entities that entered into the Constitutional Compact.
This is the version we were all taught growing up, but I assure you it gets far uglier the deeper you dig into his life. As for what he thought was right, I will show you this.
Lincoln's 1848 speech to Congress supporting Texas right to Independence from Mexico.
" Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up, and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable,—a 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. Such minority, was precisely the case, of the tories of our own revolution."
And:
Lincoln's 1852 resolutions in support of Independence for Hungary.
"Resolved, 1. That it is the right of any people, sufficiently numerous for national independence, to throw off, to revolutionize, their existing form of government, and to establish such other in its stead as they may choose."
.
.
.
As brilliant as the Founders were, it seems they made a huge mistake not including a session clause for the political entities that entered into the Constitutional Compact.
They did. It's the "Declaration of Independence." It specifically says:
" 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 alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."
This statement was approved and signed by the representatives of all 13 states.
The US Constitution was written only 11 years later, and nobody had forgotten the right to Independence articulated in the Declaration.
I will also mention that three states included a secession clause in their ratification statements of the US Constitution. Those states were New York, Virginia (the two biggest and most significant states at the time) and Rhode Island.
This created a positive feedback loop whereby the people who feel no pain from taxation are able to force those who pay taxes to transfer money to them through the government.
It is financial insanity.
Thanks for your comments. You reminded me of the wisdom of James Madison in the 1787 Constitutional Convention [James Madison on June 26, 1787)[my red bold font below]:
“The man who is possessed of wealth, who lolls on his sofa, or rolls in his carriage, cannot judge of the wants or feelings of the day laborer. The government we mean to erect is intended to last for ages. The landed interest, at present, is prevalent; but in process of time, when we approximate to the states and kingdoms of Europe; when the number of landholders shall be comparatively small, through the various means of trade and manufactures, will not the landed interest be overbalanced in future elections, and unless wisely provided against, what will become of your government? In England, at this day, if elections were open to all classes of people, the property of the landed proprietors would be insecure. An agrarian law would soon take place. If these observations be just, our government ought to secure the permanent interests of the country against innovation. Landholders ought to have a share in the government, to support these invaluable interests and to balance and check the other. They ought to be so constituted as to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority. The senate, therefore, ought to be this body; and to answer these purposes, they ought to have permanency and stability. Various have been the propositions; but my opinion is, the longer they continue in office, the better will these views be answered” (Farrand, Records, I, 430–31). [Max Farrand, ed., The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787 (4 vols.; New Haven, 1911–37)].
Poll taxes came later and were originally intended to expand the electorate by letting people vote who did not own property (i.e., land) by paying a poll tax. Poll taxes accomplished that end, but later they were used by southern state governments to restrict blacks and poor people from voting. [Link]
In addition to poll taxes, my home state used another method to exclude blacks from voting. They required them to read a section of the Constitution and interpret what it meant. I had heard about that, so I boned up on the Constitution before registering to vote. However, they didn't ask me anything. I was white.
And as far as cults go, you're a member of the International Horses Asses and a member of the cult of "The Lost Cause''.
I am still astounded by the wisdom of the framers, not just in their cumulative creation, but in their individual writings as well.
I’m surprised you can read.
Very interesting, thank you for taking the time to respond with this information. It does seem that Lincoln sang a different tune when it was his governmental ox that was being gored.
I didn’t know that three states included a secession clause in their ratification statements of the US Constitution, it would have been better if all had done so.
Regarding the right of secession, the Devil is always in the details, and having the mechanism of session clearly laid out in the Constitution would have saved a lot of bloodshed and suffering.
I am pleased to have provided some interesting information. If nothing else, I hope it shows that you can't trust what people tell you about history. It seems everyone telling a history has an agenda and they slant everything to suit their preference.
The fort was federal property and was built by the federal government. South Carolina had provided the space. I don't say the land, because I don't believe it was land at the time. If the state wanted it back they could have gone to court.
Analogy on a smaller scale is this. If a woman wants to leave you, you have the right to hold her by force and beat her until she consents to your unwanted control.
A particularly stupid analogy. Turn it around. If a man wants to run out on his family, he still has responsibilities and the matter has to be decided in the courts.
Of course some will argue that Missouri, Maryland and Kentucky were coerced to remain in the Union, so they didn't actually get to chose for themselves anyways.
And others will argue that they were being coerced to leave. Force and fraud were already involved on the secessionist side.
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.