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.
No relevance to 2] Remember? 2] is Lincoln and the Bank in his speeches in the 1857-8 period. None at all
Undeveloped relevance to 1] Remember? I have been asking for several days now for explicit approval of a legal right of secession in the 1774-1815 period. That the notion of compact is involved is known to everyone, and not disputed. That the states had sovereignty under the Articles and the Constitution, in some sense, is also not disputed. Whether the founders drew the conclusion of legal secession is the issue. So far we have one lawyer and author, the opinion of Sen Lodge a century later, if that citation is correct, and nothing else. I'll give your side a suggestion, in the spirit of fair play. I did find, yesterday, Forrest McDonald, in his Novus Ordo Seclorum, p. 281, claiming that Gouverneur Morris held the position. He cites an address in 1814 and some letters and diary entries.
On the GOP platform, "lawless invasion" is not the same things as lawful assertion of federal authority in cases of insurrection.
Greeley may well have been playing a double game; what did his paper advise 3 or 6 months later? In any event, his opinion is neither here nor there regarding any of the three points I asked about.
As to Sen. Wade, please give me a link, if you have it. I have no comment until I see what these words mean:I am not one to ask the South to continue in such a Union as this.
Thank you for the improved tone of your last post, BTW. It makes it more pleasant to discuss these things with you, and I appreciate it.
Richard F.
Having quickly read #39, several points strike me.
1. To the objection: "But it was not sufficient for the convention to adhere to republican form. They ought, with equal care, to have preserved the federal form, which regards the Union as a Confederacy of sovereign states; instead of which, they have framed a national government, which regards the Union as a consolidation of the States."
Madison replies with complex arguments, summarized as you have quoted. But he begins by saying: "Without inquiring into the accuracy of the distinction on which the objection is founded." Hmm. I wonder why he makes this point, repeated at least once again in the article, of declining to accept this distinction as put.
2. As I read the article, I have to conclude that Madison implies, beneath it all, that the American people are not acting as unambiguously ONE people to form a government of divided sovereignty, but that they are acting as a people of divided unity to form a government that corresponds. We are not one people simply, nor 13, but really both, at the time of the founding. Our distribution of governmental sovereignty follows our imperfect, but partially quite genuine, national unity -- we were at the founding a people both one and many. I take this to be a reading that supports neither side of the current dispute unambiguously.
3. This, and related texts, as you mention, are HARD to understand. This raises again in my mind the fascinating question of how self-government is intended to survive, to be embraced by the people, when even fairly bright people working hard and spending some time at it find it really hard to understand basic facts about their polity. Again, this is a question neutral to all our current fights.
And I believe there is another place in Federalist where the question of what to do if this happens is treated rather ominously, as though such a destruction of even the partial national unity will be dangerous perhaps to the point of violence. Anyone remember this?
Probably John Brown type raids was the first thought, and hence the plank is meant as an assurance to the Southern states, where fear of a slave insurrection was rampant.
But many in the south, having bought the language of their own propagandists about the meaning of "Black Repuplicanism," thought that Lincoln was a tool of Seward or even of the Abolitionists, and that his election would lead, one day, to direct use of Federal force, without any provocation on the part of the slave holding states, so the plank was meant to reassure on this point, too.
In any case, on Lincoln's understanding of his duty as Chief Executive, "invasion" is quite distinct from "supression of violent rebellion" and so the contradiction is non-existent.
Cheers,
Richard F.
At the end of # 39 there is mention of "the sword," and the end of # 43 speaks darkly of a need for ratifying states to exercise "moderation" and the others, "prudence." I have always read this as meaning that war might ensue, and Madison is urging the ratifiers to be patient, and the non-ratifiers to change their minds and ratify. As you say, these things are subtle and test the powers of analysis and statesmanship of all Americans. I cheerfully admit I could be wrong in my reading of # 43.
Finally, in the opening series of papers, the prospect of disunion is often associated with war and misery of all kinds.
That's it for now from me.
Richard F.
Article VII of the Constitution provides:
"The ratification of the conventions of nine states, shall be sufficient for the establishment of this constitution between the states so ratifying the same."
Question number 1: Does there exist an ambiguity between the "We the people of the United States" language in the Preamble and the "constitution between the states" language in Article VII given that the power of ratification was delegated to conventions rather than to state legislatures?
Question number 2: What language in Article VII invited or authorized any state conventions to ratify the Constitution with express or implied "reservations" or "qualifications"?
Question number 3: What was intended by the terms "perpetual" and "union" in the Articles of Confederation?
Question number 4: At what point in the histories of any of these sovereign states did any of them exhibit the normal attributes of sovereignty in the area of foreign relations?
I look forward to you answers.
As to question 4, the only thing off the top of my head, without looking up specific instances is when the treaties signed by England at the close of the Revolution. In this instance, England signed 13 separate treaties, one for each soverign state. This would hold them each as 13 separate nations. As I said, this is just off the top of my head. I shall dig for any instances of foreign policy by an individual state.
I don’t recall that England signed “13 separate treaties, one for each sovereign state.” I do recall the Treaty of Paris signed in September, 1783 by David Hartley, on behalf of his Britannic Majesty and by John Adams, Benjamin Franklin and John Jay, on behalf of the United States of America.
As regards the existence of these “13 separate treaties,” it should be recalled that Article VI of the Articles of Confederation (which had been completely ratified by March, 1781) provided:
“No State, without the consent of the United States in Congress assembled, shall send any embassy to, or receive any embassy from, or enter into any conference, agreement, alliance or treaty with any King, Prince or State;”
What kind of sovereignty is left to a state which is required to secure the permission of a foreign body before it can even enter into agreements or alliances with other sovereign states? Note, however, that the Treaty of Paris furthers the ambiguity in that the "United States of America" is a party to the agreement and yet the King "acknowledges [each of the individual states] to be free sovereign and independent states."
This isn't going to be simple!
Press this point. The burden of proof lies on the other side.
Richard F.
Anyone care to support this claim? Where are the treaties archived? Who signed for the separate states? The Governors? Or did the US delegates sign 13 times?
What part of false don't you understand?
Cheers,
Richard F.
Yes and No.
Don't let the King of Great Britain define American thought, and recall that we have a regime of dual sovereignty here, and it may not be too difficult. The 13 may well be independent and sovereign in one sense, and not in another.
That would be what we Americans call, "Federalism."
Cheers,
Richard F.
I should think that being chained to the ... corpse of the son of Quantrill would be little fun.
but tastes differ ...
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.