Posted on 03/26/2002 10:38:41 PM PST by kattracks
Do states have a right of secession? That question was settled through the costly War of 1861. In his recently published book, "The Real Lincoln," Thomas DiLorenzo marshals abundant unambiguous evidence that virtually every political leader of the time and earlier believed that states had a right of secession.
Let's look at a few quotations. Thomas Jefferson in his First Inaugural Address said, "If there be any among us who would wish to dissolve this Union, or to change its republican form, let them stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left to combat it." Fifteen years later, after the New England Federalists attempted to secede, Jefferson said, "If any state in the Union will declare that it prefers separation ... to a continuance in the union ... I have no hesitation in saying, ‘Let us separate.'"
At Virginia's ratification convention, the delegates said, "The powers granted under the Constitution being derived from the People of the United States may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression." In Federalist Paper 39, James Madison, the father of the Constitution, cleared up what "the people" meant, saying the proposed Constitution would be subject to ratification by the people, "not as individuals composing one entire nation, but as composing the distinct and independent States to which they respectively belong." In a word, states were sovereign; the federal government was a creation, an agent, a servant of the states.
On the eve of the War of 1861, even unionist politicians saw secession as a right of states. Maryland Rep. Jacob M. Kunkel said, "Any attempt to preserve the Union between the States of this Confederacy by force would be impractical, and destructive of republican liberty." The northern Democratic and Republican parties favored allowing the South to secede in peace.
Just about every major Northern newspaper editorialized in favor of the South's right to secede. New York Tribune (Feb. 5, 1860): "If tyranny and despotism justified the Revolution of 1776, then we do not see why it would not justify the secession of Five Millions of Southrons from the Federal Union in 1861." Detroit Free Press (Feb. 19, 1861): "An attempt to subjugate the seceded States, even if successful could produce nothing but evil -- evil unmitigated in character and appalling in content." The New York Times (March 21, 1861): "There is growing sentiment throughout the North in favor of letting the Gulf States go." DiLorenzo cites other editorials expressing identical sentiments.
Americans celebrate Abraham Lincoln's Gettysburg Address, but H.L. Mencken correctly evaluated the speech, "It is poetry not logic; beauty, not sense." Lincoln said that the soldiers sacrificed their lives "to the cause of self-determination -- government of the people, by the people, for the people should not perish from the earth." Mencken says: "It is difficult to imagine anything more untrue. The Union soldiers in the battle actually fought against self-determination; it was the Confederates who fought for the right of people to govern themselves."
In Federalist Paper 45, Madison guaranteed: "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite." The South seceded because of Washington's encroachment on that vision. Today, it's worse. Turn Madison's vision on its head, and you have today's America.
DiLorenzo does a yeoman's job in documenting Lincoln's ruthlessness and hypocrisy, and how historians have covered it up. The Framers had a deathly fear of federal government abuse. They saw state sovereignty as a protection. That's why they gave us the Ninth and 10th Amendments. They saw secession as the ultimate protection against Washington tyranny.
COPYRIGHT 2002 CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.
Contact Walter Williams | Read his biography
©2002 Creators Syndicate, Inc.
We, the delegates of the people of Virginia, duly elected in pursuance of a recommendation from the general assembly, and now met in convention, having fully and freely investigated and discussed the proceedings of the Federal Convention, and being prepared as well as the most mature deliberation hath enabled us to decide thereon, Do, in the name and in behalf of the people of Virginia, declare and make known that the powers granted under the Constitution being derived from the people of the United States may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression, and that every power not granted thereby remains with them and at their will.
Agreed?
Goodbye.
But I will agree to it right now; I won't even insist that you answer my request that you give your interpretation of that sentence. I will even not call you (names).
You mean like "This time I really, really mean it. Cross my heart and hope to die, stick a needle in my eye." That kind of promise? And this time I'm supposed to believe it? I'll believe it when I see it.
"The census [of 1860] also determined that there were fewer than 385,000 individuals who owned slaves. Even if all slaveholders had been white, that would amount to only 1.4 percent of whites in the country (or 4.8 percent of southern whites owning one or more slaves).
The source quoted is:
The American Negro, Raymond Logan and Irving Cohen New York: Houghton and Mifflin, 1970), p.72.
I felt sure that your figure of 2.25 million slave owners had to be wrong as there were less than 4 million slaves in all, so that would have left the average slave owner owning less than two slaves. I posted that but it got lost with the deletion of the thread. Since then I found this source. This is at least roughly in agreement with the claim that one southerner in 18 was a slave owner. (That, I believe, was posted by Gorjus.)
You are welcome. I must point out, though, that the natural right to revolution, or rebellion, also requires, from Locke, the Declaration, and the whole train of Founding thought, that the grounds be just, and the provocation of long standing ..."but when a long train of abuses ...etc..." Presumably the Minnesotas did not think there had been "a long train of abuses," just one crucial election which the slave power had lost, and they also did not think the cause of perpetuating and extending human slavery naturally just. So, the key requirement for a just rebellion being absent, the secessionists were engaged in acts of treason.
Such, at least, I believe to have been their thinking, and I further believe it correct.
Thanks for your courtesy, a virtue that is fast growing rare on this thread.
Richard F.
Thanks for the kind words. Here is a thought on the editorial business. Shouldn't we distinguish between those who, like President Buchanan, thought legal secession a pipe dream, but at the same time thought they had no prudent and/or legal means to resist it, and so would let the rebels go, and those who really believed in the right of secession?
If the editorials were counted that way, and not simply summed up under the "Let them go" heading, the results would be different, and I would guess strikingly so.
I don't have access to the 1942 study, so I have to leave it there. Too bad Gallup wasn't around then for a snap poll!
We know how well GOP leadership today reflects the rank-and-file following, and how seldom it diverges in favor of an agenda set by the modern industrial and business lobby.
Boy do I agree with you there! But you knew I would, right?
Cheers,
Richard F.
And check your attitude at the door. Because it doesn't.
Hope you feel better tomorrow,
Cheers,
Richard F.
"The key to this semantic question is that Lorenzo said:
made it a point to mention.... and Quackenbush twisted those words into:
'revealed his single-minded devotion....'
So you see, Quackenbush is simply being disingenuous in order to discredit DiLorenzo. Most speeches cover a variety of topics; and most of Lincoln's did. It follows that "making a point to mention" cannot be construed to be "a single-minded devotion" to an issue."
Well, but, as Quackenbush points out,
DiLorenzo, from page 54 of the book: "Lincoln was always a Whig, and was almost single-mindedly devoted to the Whig agenda-protectionism, government control of the money supply through a nationalized banking system, and government subsidies for railroad, shipping and canal-building businesses ("internal improvements").
I fail to see any misrepresentation here.
Regards,
Richard F.
Our commissions give a complexion to the business; and can we suppose that, when we exceed the bounds of our duty, the people will approve our proceedings? We are met here as the deputies of thirteen independent, sovereign States, for federal purposes. Can we consolidate their sovereignty and form one nation, and annihilate the sovereignties of our States, who have sent us here for other purposes? --William Patterson, delagate to the Philadelphia convention 1787, and future governor of New Jersey
These bear some thought. They say nothing about secession, and they are only two of the Founders, but they are worty of attention, IMHO.
Cheers,
Richard F.
This is not the most illuminating way to count. The better question would be, "What % of households owned slaves?" Don't you agree? Surely we don't want to ignore marriage, or take minors as not involved in the peculiar institution if their parents were slaveholders ...
Cheers,
Richard F.
I omitted your "irony" remark, but I didn't mean to mislead. I agree that the current GOP leadership ignores and abuses the rank and file, especially the pro-life, pro-family segment.
cheers,
Richard F.
To repeat, I believe the Founding doctrine on sovereignty is either complex and fascinating, or contradictory. Given that many thoughtful men were involved, it is probably a bit of each. Let the investigation continue.
And that you have eagerly adopted his recourse to the yelp of "ad hominem" rather than do so.
So why don't you take one more diversionary pot shot at me and then we'll let the matter rest.
Of, if you prefer, please tell me if you think that Lincoln's words on the Bank decision in the Dred Scott speech reveal a focus on economic policy, or slavery.
One2many,
It's a simple question, give it a simple answer.
Richard F.
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.