Posted on 06/20/2002 1:32:32 PM PDT by H.R. Gross
Are you claiming the ratification documents are invalid?
Both say "to the people", not to the people of NY or VA.
Any reservation of a right to secede would be under natural law, not U.S. law.
Walt
Virginia ratification document - emphasis added
Abraham Lincoln
FIRST INAUGURAL ADDRESS
MONDAY, MARCH 4, 1861
...
I therefore consider that in view of the Constitution and the laws the Union is unbroken, and to the extent of my ability, I shall take care, as the Constitution itself expressly enjoins upon me, that the laws of the Union be faithfully executed in all the States. Doing this I deem to be only a simple duty on my part, and I shall perform it so far as practicable unless my rightful masters, the American people, shall withhold the requisite means or in some authoritative manner direct the contrary. I trust this will not be regarded as a menace, but only as the declared purpose of the Union that it will constitutionally defend and maintain itself.
In doing this there needs to be no bloodshed or violence, and there shall be none unless it be forced upon the national authority. The power confided to me will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property and places belonging to the Government and to collect the duties and imposts; but beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion, no using of force against or among the people anywhere. Where hostility to the United States in any interior locality shall be so great and universal as to prevent competent resident citizens from holding the Federal offices, there will be no attempt to force obnoxious strangers among the people for that object. While the strict legal right may exist in the Government to enforce the exercise of these offices, the attempt to do so would be so irritating and so nearly impracticable withal that I deem it better to forego for the time the uses of such offices.
... All profess to be content in the Union if all constitutional rights can be maintained. Is it true, then, that any right plainly written in the Constitution has been denied? I think not. Happily, the human mind is so constituted that no party can reach to the audacity of doing this. Think, if you can, of a single instance in which a plainly written provision of the Constitution has ever been denied. If by the mere force of numbers a majority should deprive a minority of any clearly written constitutional right, it might in a moral point of view justify revolution; certainly would if such right were a vital one. But such is not our case. All the vital rights of minorities and of individuals are so plainly assured to them by affirmations and negations, guaranties and prohibitions, in the Constitution that controversies never arise concerning them.
The Southern States fought for the right of self-determination in their affairs, slavery was not an issue of great importance at the time of the framing of the Constitution and slavery was legal.
Another quote, from the same address:
"One section of our country believes slavery is right and ought to be extended, while the other believes it is wrong and ought not to be extended. This is the only substantial dispute."
These are just tidbits to entice you to read the full address. I think you will find President Lincoln addresses your points, and I would say rather well, but I imagine you will disagree. It would not be surprising as many have given their lives on your side of the argument, as well as mine.
http://americancivilwar.com/documents/lincoln_inaugural_1.html
This is classic case of a strawman argument.
You are trying to claim that my statement about something DiLorenzo said:
"The Union soldiers in that battle actually fought against self-determination; it was the Confederates who fought for the right of their people to govern themselves."
"I find this argument laughable coming from the slave holding states."
is a statement about the thinking of slave holding states in general. Sorry, but it is not. Of course, the core of what is wrong with DiLorenzo's statement does not regard slavery, but the fact that the South, as a minority, was trying to overthrow the US Constitution. Relax, I realize you don't agree with that point of view. But this is part of the argument that Lincoln made in his inaugural speech.
Quite an assertion. Now prove it.
It is not my position. Lincoln was quite clear that slavery was legal in the US, but he would fulfill his Constitutional obligations as President.
DONE AND DONE!
Abraham Lincoln, 1838:
"This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it, or their revolutionary right to dismember it or overthrow it."
Straight from the horse's mouth so to speak!
The power confided to me will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property and places belonging to the Government and to collect the duties and imposts; but beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion, no using of force against or among the people anywhere.This statement along with
I understand a proposed amendment to the Constitutionwhich amendment, however, I have not seenhas passed Congress, to the effect that the Federal Government shall never interfere with the domestic institutions of the States, including that of persons held to service.this statement as well as
There has never been any reasonable cause for such apprehension. Indeed, the most ample evidence to the contrary has all the while existed and been open to their inspection. It is found in nearly all the published speeches of him who now addresses you. I do but quote from one of those speeches when I declare that I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so. Those who nominated and elected me did so with full knowledge that I had made this and many similar declarations and had never recanted themall show clearly lincoln could have cared less about what went on in the states as long as they didn't leave and he and Chase got their money. This came from abe's inaugural address, or I imagine as he saw it, his acceptance of the crown of POTUS
"Abraham Lincoln, 1838:
"This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it, or their revolutionary right to dismember it or overthrow it."
Then you'll say the Supreme Court says that secession was illegal -
Abraham Lincoln, First Inaugural Address, March 4, 1861:
"... the candid citizen must confess that if the policy of the Government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the supreme Court, ... the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their Government into the hands of that eminent tribunal."
Chief Justice Marlin T. Phelps, Arizona Supreme Court:
"Nothing was further from the minds of the Framers of the Constitution, than that the supreme Court should ever make the Supreme Law of the Land."
Senator Sam Ervin:
"... judicial verbicide is calculated to convert the Constitution into a worthless scrap of paper and to replace our government of laws with a judicial oligarchy."
Thomas Jefferson, 1820:
"You seem...to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy.... The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal."
Thomas Jefferson in a letter to William S. Smith in 1787. Taken from Jefferson, On Democracy 20, S. Padover ed., 1939: "And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms .... The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
Paul Anderson (?? I think. _Not_ Poul):
"If the price I must pay for my freedom is to acknowledge that the government was granted the power to infringe on them, then I am not free."
The Confederatist argument appears to be "I'm right and if you don't agree whatever happens is on your head." This is pretty much bound to produce problems. A more moderate, peaceful and pragmatic course would be advisible and produce better results for all concerned.
Given all that's happened since, secession looks to have been a bad choice. Both the means and the end of the secessionists were deeply flawed. I don't think that they had a right to secede at will, but even if they did, taking that option was a mistake, and would have been a mistake even if they had not started the war or if the Union had let them leave. There are different ways in which one can be wrong and right. Confederatists rarely question the wisdom or justice of secession. But that's something that ought to be more seriously examined.
Where there is no clearly established and accepted means of severing the Union, acting prudently and responsibly becomes important. Arguably, the union could have been dissolved constititutional amendment. This would have been a better path to take, as it would have been more generally accepted, would have allowed for an equitable arrangement of the details, and would have allowed heads to cool.
Respectfully, it was not any British attempt to stop the "secession" of the American colonies that produced the American Revolution. Rather, it was the British attempt to disarm the militia that produced a war. The Colonists stood up for their rights as Englishmen. The question of independence only came along later in the midst of war. From a practical point of view, people's opinions about the war would have been very different if the shooting hadn't been initiated by the secessionists themelves.
The Confederacy has some major moral burdens to shoulder. A lot of people today are inclined to regard questions of race and slavery as America's common heritage and burden. But when the "South is Right" school comes out portraying the Confederacy as a moral lamb innocent and justified in everything beset by the Yankee wolf, it does tend to produce ill-will. There's certainly enough blame to attach to Southern political elites both for their ends and for the means they used to attain them. One may find fault with the other side as well and also find much to praise in the courage and loyalty of Confederate troops, but the Confederatist whitewash and the anti-Unionist cult do as much to muddy the waters as any one else does.
I share your concern about globalism today. Perhaps if I'd been alive in the 19th century, I'd have had similar concerns about the growing power of the national government. Certainly, in the 20th century the federal government went too far into things that could better be handled by the state or local governments or the private sector. But how I would have reacted in 1860 would have depended much more on the specific circumstances and events of the time, rather than on what happened fifty or 100 years later. Decent and honorable people came to different conclusions in 1860, and one possible conclusion is that the Confederate leaders were overstepping their bounds and acting unconstitutionally and belligerently.
Well put.
Quite an assertion. Now prove it.
Please ping me if he ever responds.
--H.L. Mencken, "The Final Estimate," The Smart Set, 1919.1919. Damned straight.
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.