Posted on 06/25/2002 10:40:23 AM PDT by TexConfederate1861
Truth hurt, does it? Still, if you have a better source for census information then trot it on out.
You said that Lincoln himself didn't believe the EP to be constitutional, and that is just a flat lie.
Walt
There is nothing in the founding of the country or the writing of the Constitution that supports an interpretation of legal unilateral state secession.
The secesionists knew that, and largely based their arguments on natural law such as sprang from the Declaration of Independence. Since the conditions of the D of I didn't apply either, one argument is as bankrupt as the other.
Walt
http://fisher.lib.virginia.edu/census/
Click on the year 1860, look for the data on slave population, check the box for New Jersey, and watch your myth evaporate.
Isn't that what this new Spielberg/Tom Cruse movie is all about --- courts can read minds and issue conviction before a crime is commited? (Trust me, I won't waste my money finding out)
Maybe the Rebs were 140 years ahead of Speilberg's stories. ;~))
Boy, that's a strong argument.
BTW ---- Jesus was Jewish.
Consider the following from the Articles of Confederation (http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/artconf.htm)
the Articles of this Confederation shall be inviolably observed by every State, and the Union shall be perpetual; nor shall any alteration at any time hereafter be made in any of them; unless such alteration be agreed to in a Congress of the United States, and be afterwards confirmed by the legislatures of every State.
So how did the states legally secede from the Articles of Confederation and form a "more perfect union"? I submit that the secession of Texas and the other southern states from the authority of the US Constitution was just as legal as the secession of the original 13 states was from the Articles of Confederation.
You will probably contend that the main difference is that the southern states formed a new nation, whereas the original 13 states were simply changing the form of government for all 13. However, if you will read Article 7 of the US Constitution, you will see The ratification of the conventions of nine states, shall be sufficient for the establishment of this constitution between the states so ratifying the same.
The ninth state to ratify the Constitution was New Hampshire on June 21, 1788. Rhode Island and Vermont took another 2 and 2.5 years, respectively. Would Rhode Island and Vermont have had the legal right to invade and subjugate Delaware and Pennsylvania for unilaterally seceeding? After all, the Articles of Confederation specifically said the union was perpetual.
If each of the first 9 states to ratify the US Consitution had the legal right to do so, then all of the southern states similarly had the right to withdraw from one political agreement and enter into another one.
I don't see anything in the current constitution that says this. But I did find the following from the 1845 constitution:
All political power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority, and instituted for their benefit; and they have at all times the unalienable right to alter, reform, or abolish their form of government, in such manner as they may think expedient.
The 1845 Consitution was the state constitution that the people of the Republic of Texas ratified as part of the annexation by the United States. The 1845 Constitution was reviewed and approved by the US Congress and President Polk.
The above sentence, which is Article 1, Section 1 of that constitution, clearly indicates to me that the Texans intended to retain their legal right to "alter, reform, or abolish their form of government".
If the US government reviewed and approved this constitution, why did it renege on the deal a few years later?
Then why did he advocate it before war was even on the horizon? I believe one of the most prominent mentions of it is in his 1854 Peoria speech.
To the contrary. To assume that a conflict as inescapably complex as the war and the events that led up to it may be reduced to the sole simple issue of slavery, or any other sole issue for that matter, is itself an exercise in ignorance, for it attempts to force reduction beyond the irreducable.
To be sure, those supporting the institution of slavery used every possible avenue of distraction.
Did they though? Most of the calls for secession by those who were strictly slave proponents readily identified it as their issue. Others, including slavery opponents such as Robert E. Lee, gave different reasons. Tariffs were cited by some (and it cannot be denied that Lincoln sought tariffs). Loyalty was another issue. Federalism and self government were prominent among the calls. A dispute over the composition of the cabinet was brewing. And those are just a few of the big ones. Again, to reduce the conflict beyond them is to force the irreducable into a reduction. And that may only be achieved by violating the irreducability. To do that one must (a) deny the historical evidence that renders the issue irreducable and (b) falsely inflate that to which the reduction is artificially being pursued.
Every conceivable issue was put forth as an excuse for secession. All of these put together do not even begin to equal the economic, social, and moral impacts of abolishing slavery. The South enjoyed all the benefits and riches that come from a parasitic relationship,
Did they though? The clear majority of the population in almost every single confederate state never owned a single slave. Many did, but nowhere near a majority. Similarly, economic trends worldwide were at work rendering slavery increasingly unviable as a tool of production. That is why every single western nation in the world abolished the institution in the period roughly covering 1800-1885. If what you are saying is true, only one country went to war over it - the United States. All others did it peacefully by various legislative means.
and the war was, most assuredly, fought to end that relationship.
Then why did Lincoln himself, both publicly and privately, insist otherwise throughout the war's conduction and especially during the secession period?
If one studies Lincoln's surviving works and letters, a number of themes emerge among his "reasons" for the war. Perhaps most prominent is "preserving the union." Another prominent one that appears over and over and over is the issue of collecting duties or tariffs at southern ports.
I think it very superficial to deduce what was in the mind of Lincoln by highlighting certain speeches and legislation.
It is, unless what is being highlighted is a thoroughly consistent and reoccuring theme of Lincoln's during the said time period.
The poor man was walking the most perilous tightrope in American history, and as a unionist, he would sacrifice himself, his beliefs, his morals, and his brothers and sisters to protect it. This is often taken out of context, and used to belittle his abolitionist heart.
I don't believe Lincoln ever had an abolitionist heart. He had passive moral objection to slavery's existence, but was hardly ever one to advocate support for the abolitionist movement either publicly or privately. For most of his career he was perfectly content to allow slavery's continued existence, and in at least one prominent case was willing to prolong it, so long as it did not cross one guideling that he held with nearly solid consistency, that being opposition to slavery's extension into American territories. Only when it became politically viable and beneficial to his cause did he move to abolish slavery. The move was probably consistent with his passive moral position on the issue, but came about because the circumstances were ripe.
It is only in his personal letters and correspondence that his true feelings can be considered.
It is interesting you mention that. I invite you to examine those letters if you wish, especially from the period of late 1859 to mid 1861 - the election period and secession period. You will find the union theme reoccuring, the collection of duties theme reoccuring, assertions that he is not for the abolition of slavery, and some advocacy for protectionist tariffs.
He made consissions to the South
I know of only one major secession era "concession" attempt by Lincoln, that being the constitutional amendment, and it was intentionally stalled up by the radical northerners in congress along with every other attempt at compromise, slavery related or otherwise. It made it out at the very end of the session and passed after Lincoln lobbied heavily for it, but it was too narrow in it's addressing of issues, too little in what it did, and too late to stop secession, the bulk of which had already occurred.
to save the Union only.
I'll readily agree that was the stated position of Lincoln throughout his speeches and writings. But there was definately more to it that saving the union only. Alexis de Tocqueville commented on that issue in an interesting prediction about secession itself that he made 30 years prior to the event:
"However strong a government may be, it cannot easily escape from the consequences of a principle which it has once admitted as the foundation of its constitution. The Union was formed by the voluntary agreement of the states; and these, in uniting together, have not forfeited their sovereignty, nor have they been reduced to the condition of one and the same people. If one of the states chose to withdraw its name from the contract, it would be difficult to disprove its right of doing so, and the Federal government would have no means of maintaining its claims directly, either by force or by right. In order to enable the Federal government easily to conquer the resistance that may be offered to it by any of its subjects, it would be necessary that one or more of them should be specially interested in the existence of the Union, as has frequently been the case in the history of confederations.
If it be supposed that among the states that are united by the federal tie there are some which exclusively enjoy the principal advantages of union, or whose prosperity entirely depends on the duration of that union, it is unquestionable that they will always be ready to support the central government in enforcing the obedience of the others. But the government would then be exerting a force not derived from itself, but from a principle contrary to its nature. States form confederations in order to derive equal advantages from their union; and in the case just alluded to, the Federal government would derive its power from the unequal distribution of those benefits among the states.
If one of the federated states acquires a preponderance sufficiently great to enable it to take exclusive possession of the central authority, it will consider the other states as subject provinces and will cause its own supremacy to be respected under the borrowed name of the sovereignty of the Union. Great things may then be done in the name of the Federal government, but in reality that government will have ceased to exist." - Democracy in America, Book 1, Chapter 18
I disagree with the celebration of falsehoods, but readily concede that it is at work in Lincoln and many before him, almost always to justify the continuation of a something which certain persons agree should be promoted.
"Such is the tale; is there any possibility of making our citizens believe in it? Not in the present generation, he replied; there is no way of accomplishing this; but their sons may be made to believe in the tale, and their sons' sons, and posterity after them. I see the difficulty, I replied; yet the fostering of such a belief will make them care more for the city and for one another." - Plato, The Republic, ca. 380 B.C.
To the contrary. It is an inherent consequence of the very foundation upon which the constitution and the nation itself is built. As Alexis de Tocqueville so eloquently put it:
"However strong a government may be, it cannot easily escape from the consequences of a principle which it has once admitted as the foundation of its constitution. The Union was formed by the voluntary agreement of the states; and these, in uniting together, have not forfeited their sovereignty, nor have they been reduced to the condition of one and the same people. If one of the states chose to withdraw its name from the contract, it would be difficult to disprove its right of doing so, and the Federal government would have no means of maintaining its claims directly, either by force or by right. In order to enable the Federal government easily to conquer the resistance that may be offered to it by any of its subjects, it would be necessary that one or more of them should be specially interested in the existence of the Union, as has frequently been the case in the history of confederations."
And that was 30 years before the war, Walt. Tocqueville was an extremely intelligent individual and I'm willing to bet that he didn't just make that up out of nowhere. To the contrary, he studied the nature of the American government and carried out its consequences to their ends. If a union is voluntarily created, those who created it may similarly leave. And if they express their clear will to do so in an indisputable demonstration of an attempt at self government, who is to stop them from doing so?
As Tocqueville continued, none of the others nor the nation itself had that right. But that does not mean that none would do so. Rather that possibility remained, and was anticipated to occur at the hands of those who had a vested interest in the continuation of the union itself. He also predicted that persons with this vested interest would rarely if ever admit to it publicly, and rather would conduct their campaign of opposition to disunion under the "borrowed name" of the union itself.
Now who does that sound like...
Not very compelling when compared to this:
"In all our deliberations on this subject we kept steadily to our view, that which appears to 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, led each state in the Convention to be less rigid on points of inferior magnitude, than might have been otherwise expected; and thus the Constitution we present is the result of a spirit of amity, and that mutual deference and concession which the peculularity of our political situation rendered indispensible....
George Washington, President [of the Constitutional Convention] By Unanimous Order of the Convention", September 17, 1787
Washington is saying (by unanimous consent, now) that every delegate at the constitutional convention is for the consolidation of the Union.
All you provide is disinformation.
Walt
Then why did he advocate it before war was even on the horizon? I believe one of the most prominent mentions of it is in his 1854 Peoria speech.
The war was well brewing by 1854.
Walt
Walt, I don't disagree. But after all your time on the sort of threads are you saying you have never encountered someone who does not accept this premise?
My point is that arguments based on your premise above, or the opposite one in the original article, are not going to sway the other side. The premise itself must be commonly accepted first.
Those who ignore this, and try to build further persuasive arguments without addressing the premise itself, are guilty of the logical fallacy "begging the question."
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.