Posted on 05/01/2002 4:39:27 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
In order to accomplish those goals, States needed to stay United and search for ways to settle their differences...not to take an "my way or the highway" attitude.
What's really funny is that this many years later, people on this thread refer themselves as "us" and "we" when discussing the Civil War.
They still don't consider themselves part of the "perfect Union" the Founders wished to create.
That is exactly what Lincoln would say of his position:
"In your hands, my dissatisfied fellow-countrymen, and not in mine, is the momentous issue of civil war. The Government will not assail you. You can have no conflict without being yourselves the aggressors. You have no oath registered in heaven to destroy the Government, while I shall have the most solemn one to 'preserve, protect, and defend it.'"
Perhaps the Republicans could have been more conciliatory, but the secessionists set themselves a course for independence and nationhood early on and did not deviate from it. I suppose someone who's set his mind on something and won't let anything stand in his way can argue that he's just "not running from a fight." But the situation may look very different to others.
The Confederates did have much more freedom of action than you give them credit for. In their day they were revolutionaries. Failed revolutionaries can always claim to be victims and martyrs. Successful revolutionaries are always persecutors and expansionists to some degree. As Confederate elites would have been had they suceeded.
... such is your misconception of them.
I'm not sure that I am following this 'contingent' decision stuff. Supreme Court decisions are retroactive. Statues that the court finds to be in violation of the Constitution are struck down, and any actions taken under those statutes can be voided. The only exception is if the court declares a decision to be prospective, in which case the court takes a 'go and sin no more' attitude. In Texas v. White it was not a prospective decision. The articles of secession were declared in violation of the constitution and Texas never ceased being a state. The decision was valid, no matter how much you may disagree with it.
What those former southern aristocrats cant get over is the shame of losing the war and their way of life to a bunch of poorly led farmers, factory workers, and non-English speaking immigrants.
There was the South Carolina nullification/secession crisis of 1830, and there may have been whisperings or shouts of secession in New England because of the 1807 embargo and War of 1812. And of course there was the crisis over the expansion of slavery and the Civil War.
My point is that secession is far less likely to be invoked to defend individual, human, civil, or even property rights, and far more likely to be used by states to promote their own interests. It has been much more about power, than about freedom. To be sure freedom and power are connected ideas, but the power and interests of states may be satisfied without increasing individual liberty. Indeed, the interests and power of states may demand the repression of individual liberties. They aren't that different from the federal government itself.
So even had there been no 14th Amendment, you wouldn't have seen secession or secession threats over the bulk of what we call "big government." Would the threat of secession have kept the growth of the federal government at bay? It's just barely possible, but how much do our politicians worry about the threat of revolution or massive civil disobedience or civil war? Most of them don't even really have to worry about being defeated in the next election.
In any case, I don't believe that the Constitution contains any right of secession on demand. Nor do I share DiLorenzo's naive presumption that more "state's rights" necessarily means less government and greater individual freedom. States have themselves been capable of great oppression. The same would be true of any sucessor states to our federal union.
For these reasons, I'm not inclined to view secessionists and Confederates or the secessionists and state's righters who followed them as victims and heroes. I concede that there is much to worry about in federal supremacy, but there was also much to oppose or condemn in the actions of the "sovereign" and unchallengable states.
Yes, it sure sounds like that is where you are going. So Constitutionally constrained democracy only works for you if you win, is that it? If someone comes to you and demonizes someone else, and if he persuades you that that object of demonization is a Bad Person, are you then dissatisfied with any right that may be left to the demonized one? Any freedom? Any due process that impedes his swift trip to prison? That is argumentum ad hominem elevated to the level of policy, and legal positivism elevated to the level of overthow of the Bill of Rights a priori, lest it get in the way.
I accept that the 14th Amendment is part of the Constitution, and that constitutional constraints now apply to the states as well as to the federal government. One could also quite easily turn your argument against you. Given completely sovereign, unchecked states, which were not required to abide by the Bill of Rights, what defense of due process would dissidents have against "a swift trip to prison?" In any case, if you look at what happened, the segregationists left the scene without being imprisoned or repressed. Indeed, in the 20th century they did far more of this to those they had power over.
There's a romanticism of lost causes that makes people think that those who lost in history were better and nobler than those who won. The expectation is that massive repression destroyed them. That wasn't the case with the 20th century segregationists. In the final confrontation, they were the weaker side, but they were far more inclined to use force and violence than their opponents.
If you look at my post, I specifically tried to avoid vilifying those segregationist "state's rightists." I am willing to listen to their arguments, and I'll admit that they have a point about the growth of the federal government. But I will not make heroes or martyrs out of them. I don't believe that they were better or purer than what replaced them. Critical of their opponents and sharing some of their concerns about growing federal power, I still don't believe that victory for the segregationists would have been better than their defeat.
My comment about "letting bad ideas die" was addressed to non-sequitur. You guys miss a lot of these articles. It's the other side that posted the last few. I can understand the passion for debate, but sometimes I wonder how much is gained by it.
As I understand it, this thread concerns the question of whether the government of the United States is a government formed by and answerable to the people of the United States or whether the United States is more in the nature of a club that states can join and withdraw from as they wish without regard for the interests or wishes of the people of the United States, the other states, or the government of the United States. Although hints of this latter view were heard in the late 1790's from some who were opposed to some of the legislation (e.g., the Alien and Sedition Acts) emanating from the Federalist controlled U.S. Congress, the full blown version of this latter view was invented much later by Southern politicians in their effort to concoct a legal cover for "secession" so that they could protect the institution of slavery. At least that's what they said they were doing.
So, from an historical perspective, it was really all about slavery. And slavery is gone. Forever.
Naturally, the hostilities had to begin somewhere, but hostilities became inevitable when the various states began to declare their secessions. I say that because I believe that these declarations were sincere. I am convinced that those who made them really did intend to prevent the U.S. Government from continuing to perform its functions in the southern states and they didn't want to invest the time or energy that it might take to oust the U.S. Government legally or peaceably. So they just tried to tell the people of the United States, the other states and the government of the United States to take a hike. Hostilities became inevitable.
The irony is that the path chosen by the southern states actually hastened the end of slavery. And now it's gone. Forever.
Shall our government be bound by law, or by morality?
Before you answer, please consider the differences between the obligations of the people, and the duties of civil servants...
;>)
And what is your basis for that statement?
"I'm not sure that I am following this 'contingent' decision stuff."
By "contingent decision" I mean a decision like Texas v. White (or Roe v Wade) which was not logically necessitated by the Constitution and existing law but reflects the personal attitudes and philosophy of the Justices sitting at the time, as well as possibly other contingent effects (such as current public opinion), making it impossible to have been anticipated, even in principle.
Once again, you assume that secession was not 'legal.' Feel free to read the Tenth Amendment, and then quote the constitutional clause that 'delegates or prohibits' secession. In fact, it was the federal government that refused to settle the issue "peaceably:" barring any constitutional prohibition of secession, the federal troops who remained at Fort Sumter were nothing but armed, foreign trespassers - who were eventually evicted without loss of life...
;>)
Now, I don't know what you might mean by the term "secession," but I know what the southern politicians trying to protect slavery meant. They intended to divest the government of the United States of its powers in the southern states. They really meant that.
The constitution does not provide for any right of "secession." (They just made the whole thing up.) The only constitutional way to divest the powers of the government of the United States is to amend the constitution pursuant to Article V. The southern states did not wish to take that route and they didn't even want to litigate the legitimacy of their position. Instead, they just told the government of the United States to take a hike. They didn't care about the wishes or desires of the people of the United States, or the governments of the other states, or the government of the United States.
At the time, the southern politicians involved in all of this were desperate. They genuinely believed that the preservation of slavery was vital to the preservation of the southern culture. So they took a gamble. And they lost. And now we know that the preservation of slavery was not vital to the preservation of southern culture.
LOL! And which side fired the first shot?
LOL!! I really wish some of you northern supporters would bother looking into your own history before you make statements like that. It is not only provided by the Constitution under the 10th but at the same time was considered as a viable solution on more than one occasion by not only northern politicians but Presidents as well
Who said it was perfect? Not me, and not the Founders. The point, which you seem to have missed, is that the phrase "a more perfect Union" is a statement of continuity with the union that existed under the Articles of Confederation.
They got rid of them because they did not work. Those quote prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the union did not, I repeat did not, exist before the Constitution.
A completely incorrect statement. While (as you've noted) the rules governing the operation of the union were what changed, the Union of states for which those rules were made, was the same.
The states created the union, not the other way around. To read that the union existed before the states is to ignore history and the numerous quotes that many here have posted.
Sigh. "The Union" created the states, in the sense that the Constitutional Convention, acting as a congress of representatives from the Union of states, created the constitution.
I truly wish I could understand the fantasy world that Lincoln idolators live in.
With therapy and psychotropic drugs you may yet be capable of rejoining those of us who inhabit the real world.... ;-)
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
Now, I don't know what you might mean by the term "secession," but I know what the southern politicians trying to protect slavery meant. They intended to divest the government of the United States of its powers in the southern states. They meant to mess with the powers that are delegated to the United States.
At the time, the southern politicians involved in all of this were desperate. They genuinely believed that the preservation of slavery was vital to the preservation of the southern culture. So they took a gamble. And they lost. And now we know that the preservation of slavery was not vital to the preservation of southern culture. The southern politicians were just wrong about that, too.
In fact, slavery and "secession" now has very few fans anywhere in this country. It's a dead issue.
So, Lincoln can be credited both for keeping us together as a nation and for proving that slavery was not a necessary part of southern culture. And now, we're all together as part of one Union and all but a tiny few of Americans like it that way.
In fact, it's better now. Now we have SEC football.
Walt
=========================================
The Patriotist - Ed Lewis
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.
