Posted on 04/24/2002 9:33:49 AM PDT by wasp69
Given your apparent familiarity with Mr. Davis, I can only wonder at your ridiculous statement in Post #36...
;>)
Live! Now on RadioFR!
6pm/9pm - TULL's TAWKIN: Special guest, Ralph Sarchie, an eighteen-year NYPD veteran, works out of the 46th Precinct in New York's South Bronx. But it is his other job that he calls "the Work" that I find interestering. Ralph, under the direction of the Catholic Church, investigates cases of demonic possession.
7pm/10pm - INS WHISTLEBLOWER RICK RAMIREZ GUEST ON SPECIAL EDITION "BANANA REPUBLICAN RADIO HOUR"
Click HERE to listen LIVE! while you FReep!
Not Washington. He urged an "immovable attachment" to the national union.
He wrote:
"What stronger evidence can be given of the want of energy in our government than these disorders? If there exists not a power to check them, what security has a man of life, liberty, or property? To you, I am sure I need not add aught on this subject, the consequences of a lax or inefficient government, are too obvious to be dwelt on. Thirteen sovereignties pulling against each other, and all tugging at the federal head, will soon bring ruin to the whole; whereas a liberal, and energetic Constitution, well guarded and closely watched, to prevent encroachments, might restore us to that degree of respectability and consequence, to which we had a fair claim, and the brightest prospect of attaining..."
George Washington to James Madison November 5, 1786,
"I do not conceive we can exist long as a nation, without having lodged somewhere a power which will pervade the whole Union in as energetic a manner, as the authority of the different state governments extends over the several states. To be fearful of vesting Congress, constituted as that body is, with ample authorities for national purposes, appears to me to be the very climax of popular absurdity and madness."
George Washington to John Jay, 15 August 1786
"In all our deliberations on this subject we kept steadily in our view, that which appears to us the greatest interest of every true American, the consolidation of our Union, in which is involved our prosperity, felicity, safety, perhaps our national existance. This important consideration, seriously and deeply impressed on our minds [at the constitutional convention] led each State in the convention to be less rigid on points of inferior magnitude...the constitution, which we now present, is the result of of a spirit of amity, and of that mutual deference and concession which the peculularity of our political situation rendered indispensible."
George Washington to the Continental Congress September 17, 1787
President Lincoln and the brave Union soldiers and the whole people of the United States put down the treasonous, unwarranted and unlawful rebellion, and preserved the Constitution and government as envisioned by the framers.
Walt
There is no right to legal secession in U.S. law, and there never was.
The Constitution gives the power to the Congress in Aeticle 1, Section 8 to provide for the common defense and general welfare. If secession is inimical to that, Congress may act, which is exactly what happened.
The Constitution also clearly states that the laws made pursuant to it are the supreme law of the land. That includes the Militia Act of 1792, which requires that United States law operate in all the states.
Also, pull out a dollar bill and look at the Great Seal of the United States. E Pluribus Unum, "from many, one." That was adopted in 1782. You can't enlist the framers (not that you are trying) in the treasonous and unwarranted rebellion of the mid 19th century.
Walt
It would have to be approved by Congress at a minimum, as the Constitution gives power to the Congress to provide for the common defense and general welfare. Unilateral state secession would compromise both.
Walt
Crank off a few rounds at a United States fort flying Old Glory and see how you fare.
Walt
Interestingly enough, I must thank our friend Walt for this quote (thanks, Walt! ;>).
Let's don't stop there:
"Conscious that this document bore upon its face the plain contradiction of their pretended authority, and its own palpable nullity both in techincal form and essential principle, the convention undertook to give it strength and plausibility by an elaborate Declaration of Causes, adopted a few days later (December 24th)-- a sort of half-parody of Jefferson's masterpiece. It could of course, quote no direct warrant from the Constitution for secession, but sought to deduce one, by implication, from the language of the Declaration of Independence and the Xth amendment. It reasserts the absurd paradox of State supremacy-persistantly miscalled "State Rights" --which reverses the natural order of governmental existance ; considers a State superior to the Union; makes a part greater than the whole; turns the pyramid of authority upon its apex; plants the tree of liberty with its branches in the ground and its roots in the air. The fallacy has been has been a hundred times analysed, exposed, and refuted; but the cheap dogmatism of demagougues and the automatic machinery of faction perpetually conjures it up anew to astonish the sucklings and terrify the dotards of politiics. The notable point in the [South Carolina] Declaration of Causes is, that its complaint over grievances past and present is against certain states, and for these remedy was of course logically barred by its own theory of state supremacy. On the other hand, all its allegations against the Union are concerning dangers to come, before which admission the moral justification of disunion falls to the ground, In rejecting the rememdy of future elections for future wrongs, the conspiracy discarded the entire theory of republican government.
One might have thought that this might have exhausted their counterfeit philosophy--but not yet. Greatly as they groaned at unfriendly state laws--serisly as they pretended to fear damage or spoilation under future federal statutes, the burden of their anger rose at the sentient and belief of the North. "All hope of remedy," says the manifesto, "is rendered vain by the fact that the public opinion at the North has invested a great political error with the sanctions of a more erroneous religious belief." This is language one might expect from the Pope of Rome; but that an American convention should denounce the liberty of opinion, is not merely to recede from Jefferson, to Louis XIV; it is flying from the town-meeting to the Inquisition."
--"The outbreak of Rebellion", John Nicolay, 1881
The South Carolinians enlisted the Christian religion in their quest to get their bread from other men's faces, and they were laid low. It was definitely a case of Deo Vindice.
Walt
Here's a bit more context:
"Conscription dramatized a fundamental paradox in the Confederate war effort: the need for Hamiltonian means to achieve Jeffersonian ends. Pure Jeffersonians could not accept this. The most outspoken of them, Joseph Brown of Georgia, denounced the draft as a "dangerous usurpation by Congress of the reserved rights of the states...at war with all the principles for which Georgia entered into the revolution." In reply Jefferson Davis donned the mantle of Hamilton. The Confederate Constitution, he pointed out to Brown, gave Congress the power "to raise and support armies" and to "provide for the common defense." It also contained another clause (likewise copied from the U.S. Constitution) empowering Congress to make all laws "necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers." Brown had denied the constitutionality of conscription because the Constitution did not specifically authorize it. This was good Jeffersonian doctrine, sanctified by generations of southern strict constructionists. But in Hamiltonian language, Davis insisted that the "necessary and proper" clause legitimized conscription. No one could doubt the necessity "when our very existance is threatened by armies vastly superior in numbers." Therefore "the true and only test is to enquire whether the law is intended and calculated to carry out the object...if the answer be in the affirmative, the law is constitutional." --Battle Cry of Freedom, James McPherson P.433
In point of fact, the occupants of both executive mansions held that the central government could coerce the states.
After the war, Davis stated that there had been a time when no one had denied the complete state sovereignty -- conveniently forgetting that he had done so himself.
Walt
"My fascination with the Civil War has less to do with military engagements than with the motivations of up to 1.5 million Southern men and boys wiling to die to tear the nation in two in defense of slavery, an utterly indefedsible institution."
"Had the conflict, also known as the War of the Southern Planters, been fought only by Southern slave owners, it would have been over in weeks rather than years. "
I have never heard the term, "War of the Southern Planters".
At least he does give a real and concrete reason for the war -
"The North wanted to build roads, canals and railroads to accommodate growing industries. Without personal or corporate taxation, revenue was raised by tariffs, which protected Northern products and increased prices of imported goods needed by the nonindustrialized South. "
The problem with that theory was that 95% of all tariff revenue was collected in three Northern ports. Philadelphia alone collected almost as much tariff revenue as the 11 busiest southern ports combines. If tariffs fell hardest on anyone it would have been those up North.
Not if the state were Massachusetts.
Fat chance that those 'closest to the trough' will secede, though. {;~)
Come now - I suspect you are too well educated to be truly "surprised." As for the personal beliefs of "the confederate leadership," we could debate the point (which you raised, by the way ;>) endlessly. Or, we could compare them to the personal beliefs of 'the nationalist leadership.' Neither action would address the constitutionality of secession...
;>)
When you start from false premises it is likely that you will draw false, or no, conclusions.
It could of course, quote no direct warrant from the Constitution for secession, but sought to deduce one, by implication, from the language of the Declaration of Independence and the Xth amendment. It reasserts the absurd paradox of State supremacy-persistantly miscalled "State Rights" --which reverses the natural order of governmental existance; considers a State superior to the Union; makes a part greater than the whole; turns the pyramid of authority upon its apex; plants the tree of liberty with its branches in the ground and its roots in the air.
LOL! So, the People of South Carolina “could...quote no direct warrant from the Constitution for secession!” Care to fill in for Mr. Nicolay and ‘quote a direct warrant from the Constitution’ prohibiting secession? Or do the believers in ‘union-at-any-cost’ seek “to deduce one, by implication?” What monumental hypocrisy! No wonder Mr. Nicolay (like so many others before and since) sought justification in “the natural order” – the Constitution (including “the Xth amendment”) certainly provided no grounds for his beliefs! As for “the pyramid of authority,” and the supposed absurdity of “a part” being “greater than the whole,” one wonders what Mr. Nicolay would have thought of the United Nations? In short, the quotations provided by Mr. Nicolay may be useful, but his opinions appear to lack both factual and rational bases. Frankly, his writings are reminiscent of the ravings of Henry Wilson.
By the way, you neglected to mention that Mr. Nicolay was Abraham Lincoln’s personal secretary – an association that might explain his faith in “the pyramid of authority”...
;>)
The South Carolinians enlisted the Christian religion in their quest to get their bread from other men's faces, and they were laid low. It was definitely a case of Deo Vindice.
LOL! Since you were kind enough to bring Henry Wilson to mind, allow me to quote the man:
The 2d of December, appointed for execution, having arrived, the final act in this drama of blood was performed, amid no little of “the pomp and circumstance of war,” and John Brown’s name was added to the list of martyrs, and the cause of impartial freedom he had served so nobly received the baptism of his blood. He died courageously and well, and his death was a fitting close of his life, lending glory to the gallows, and receiving naught of disgrace therefrom...They buried him on the 8th, with services as simple and unostentatious as was the character and life of the martyr himself...John Brown, if not the canonized saint, was the proclaimed hero of the hour, while America was held guilty of his murder...
Henry Wilson, History of the Rise and Fall of the Slave Power in America, 1872
There’s more, but I felt my gorge rising. The comparisons to Christian martyrs and saints, and the allusions to the Christ Himself, are unmistakable. But for some reason, nowhere in his lengthy discourse on ‘Saint John the Just’ did Mr. Wilson make any mention of the ‘fly in the ointment:’ Pottawatomie Creek. John Brown was a serial mass murderer. Mr. Wilson, by the way, was “laid low” while serving as Vice President of the United States of America, shortly after publishing this tripe. Some might say “it was definitely a case of Deo Vindice.”
But don’t let us stop you, Walt – go ahead and hum a few bars of The Battle Hymn of the Republic. While you’re trying to find the right key, I’ll post a little something to further your education:
The Great Revival of the Army of Northern Virginia began in the camps of the 12th and 44th Georgia regiments of Trimble’s Brigade in the Shenandoah Valley one month after Antietam...The revival then spread through the rest of Jackson’s command, which had been decimated by the fight at Sharpsburg. The religious camp meetings grew in power and size and were carried with the army into Fredericksburg, where they grew in intensity throughout the late fall and early winter...
By December 1862, daily prayer meetings and sermons were mobbed. Dr. Joseph Stiles, a chaplain in Trimble’s Brigade, wrote of the revival with great excitement:
”In General Trimble’s, and the immediately neighboring brigades, there is in progress, at this hour, one of the most glorious revivals I ever witnessed. The audiences and the interest have grown to glorious dimensions. It would rejoice you over-deeply to glance for once instant on our night-meeting in the wildwoods, under the full moon, aided by the light of our sidestands. You would behold a mass of men seated on the earth all around you...fringed in all its circumference by a line of standing officers and soldiers – two or three deep – all exhibiting the most solemn and respectful earnestness that a Christian assembly ever displayed.”
The most popular tract, entitled “Come to Jesus,” was passed hand to hand. One of the most requested readings from scripture began, “Though He slay me, yet will I trust in Him.” The religious services were open, nondenominational, and designed to involve each of the soldiers regardless of rank. There were well-known evangelists in the army like Stiles, but anyone could preach or tell of his own conversion. There were rules, of course, but they remained unstated. A primer for battlefield ministers noted that a devout soldier “does not discuss the ‘Relation of Science to Religion,’ or the slavery question, or the causes which led to the war, or the war itself. He does not indulge in abusive epithets of the invaders of our soil, or seek to fire his hearers with hatred or vindictiveness towards the enemy...”
Mark Perry, Conceived in Liberty, 1997
Maybe you would care to post a few lyrics from that song you’re humming.
;>)
Which would no doubt explain why you prefer to quote "the occupants of...executive mansions" rather than the Constitution. Your unflinching belief in coercive governments is hardly substantiated by documents like the Bill of Rights...
;>)
Which would no doubt explain why you prefer to quote "the occupants of...executive mansions" rather than the Constitution. Your unflinching belief in coercive governments is hardly substantiated by documents like the Bill of Rights...
I couldn't remember the name of the executive mansion of the so-called CSA.
But since you seem to agree that both Lincoln and Davis came down squarely on the right of the central government to coerce the states, why don't you start a thread condemning Davis?
I don't believe in coercive governmemts. I do firmly believe that the Government has the right simply to maintain its own existance.
Walt
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.
