Posted on 06/04/2002 9:50:22 AM PDT by aconservaguy
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."
Do States Have a Right of Secession? By Walter Williams (April 19, 2002)
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.
Editor's Comment: Secession is not protection against establishing a government to prevent the abolishment of slavery. The key issue in the right to secession is not separating oneself from a government that prevents the "self-determination" of "peoples," but separating oneself from a government that fails in its purpose: the protection of individual rights.
Except for Tennessee and Virginia--and the Tredegar Iron Works in Richmond. Ol' Jeff Davis knew he needed those.
BTW, what about Davis' decision on April 17th, 1861 to authorize privateering against Union-flag commerce?
What? The South was going to let lincoln and his tariff cronies continue to charge to enter one of the Confederacy's ports?
Interesting. Charleston brought less revenue in than it cost to maintain.
What kind of world do you live in where that is normal? This was sovereign territory,
As were the forts. But that little detail seemed to have slipped your mind.
the troops had well enough time to clear out,
And they were supposed to abandon federal property to the South because...?
but lincoln and Chase wanted every penny. Sending troops into a sovereign nation where they are not requested nor wanted to take money out of that sovereign nation's coffers from their trade is incomprehensible
And refusing to actually PAY for the property makes the South equivalent to common thieves.
Congratulations, I'll bump up my estimation of you. You are far ahead of many.
Booting the Feds off their land would have just about as much legal standing as Injuns booting Americans off the land we, errr, "appropriated" from them. And as much chance as the Injuns demanding that Americans leave their land.
Sadly, we did "appropriate" the land. Might makes right, eh?
If a state has ceded land to the Feds... whether through purchase, gift or (as in the case with a lot of western lands)the Feds simply take it... if everyone involved has agreed that the land is federal, then that is that.
Would you have let the British keep their forts in the US of A in 1776? Just curious.
Sadly, many of our opponents do not consider those lost, and worse, could care less.
Sadly, many of our opponents friends do not consider those lost, and worse, could care less.
Well heck, I consider my ancestors in good company considering the British probably felt that the colonies on the North American continent didn't pay their fair amount for the forts the British built in the previous century after the 13 separate and sovereign states seceded from the British Empire
Here's a friendly hint: PICK ONE VERSION AND STICK WITH IT.
Well, if you're claiming that secession was some sort of legal right, then you are forced to recognize the Union's property rights. If you're not recognizing the Union's property rights, then you're saying that secession was actually an act of rebellion, insurreection, and/or revolt.
right on, kentucky woman!
texas woman :)
Believe me, the tone didn't go over my head. However one looks at it pre- or post-1860, how good it was depends on what angle you view it.
I am? Was the property for the Fort was given to the federal government - or was it purchased by the federal government? (Hint: it was NOT purchased by the federal government).
From Article I, section 8, clause 17: [T]o exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings."
In Federalist 43, Madison explains that it's "public money expended on such places". Public money (eg, federal monies) did not purchase the land in consideration. It also had to be done with the consent of the state legislature, and we all know that legislative acts are subject to rescission (no prohibition against that either).
Since it was an artificial island, it REALLY belonged to the Federal Government--they built the damn thing in the first place. And other facilities that the Confederates had chased the Federal government out of had been secured in fee simple.
So, which one is it?
The 9th and 10th do not, IMNHO, make way for unilateral secession.
Believe it or not, I actually wish that secession had gone peacefully. That's the key word: PEACEFULLY. Among other things, it needed to involve all parties (the Federal government, the seceding states, and those states that would suddenly find themselves as bordering on a nation that could, under some circumstances, be a hostile one). The South also needed to not engage in stealing Federal property and just BUY the damn forts.
Somehow you've this mass delusion that allows you to see an overriding commerce clause.
And somehow, you think that unilateral secession is just an absolute given, based on vague language in the 9th and 10th amendments. By that argument, a person may then secede from the United States, declare his land to be a sovereign government, and shoot at his neighbors as he sees fit.
Your last comment to my post also reveals quite painfully your rejection of the 4th and 5th Amendments. (Innocent until proven guilty is the specific part of the 5th Amendment you're ignoring.)
Hmm. You still haven't explained how my comment is wrong. Sergeant Stryker had a very sage line of advice in The Sands of Iwo Jima.
All they do is state that various non-specified rights are the province of the states and the people; they do not explain the enforcement of same.
Your problem in seeing them as vague is because they are broad restrictions on government power beyond those limited and specific powers enumerated to the government.
The biggest defect I can see in the Constitution is that it didn't have provisions for a state wanting out. Like I said, secession isn't a unilateral right IMNHO. Especially if you just apply it literally to the 10th Amendment, because that means that, in theory, one could secede as an individual from the US government and his or her state, and declare himself and his parcel of land to be a sovereign nation, with no say-so on anyone else's part.
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.