Posted on 09/30/2003 12:19:22 PM PDT by sheltonmac
The South's unconditional surrender in 1865 apparently was unacceptable to today's Neo-Confederates.
They'd like to rewrite history, demonizing Abraham Lincoln and the federal government that forced them to remain in the awful United States against their will.
On top of that, now they are opposing the U.S. Navy's plan to bury the crew of the CSS H.L. Hunley under the American flag next year.
The Hunley was the first submarine to sink an enemy vessel. In 1863, it rammed and fatally damaged the Union warship USS Housatonic with a fixed torpedo, but then the manually driven sub sank on its way home, killing its eight-man crew.
It might have been a lucky shot from the Housatonic, leaks caused by the torpedo explosion, an accidental strike by another Union ship, malfunction of its snorkel valves, damage to its steering planes or getting stuck in the mud.
In any case, the Navy found and raised its remains and plans a full-dress military funeral and burial service on April 17, 2004, in Charleston, S.C. The four-mile funeral procession is expected to draw 10,000 to 20,000 people, many in period costume or Confederate battle dress.
But the Sons of Confederate Veterans, generally a moderate group that works diligently to preserve Southern history and heritage, has a radical wing that is salivating with anger.
One Texas Confederate has drawn 1,600 signatures on a petition saying "the flag of their eternal enemy, the United States of America," must not fly over the Hunley crew's funeral.
To their credit, the funeral's organizers will leave the U.S. flag flying.
After all, the search and preservation of the Hunley artifacts, as well as the funeral itself, were paid for by U.S. taxpayers.
Also, the Hunley crew was born under the Stars and Stripes. The Confederacy was never an internationally recognized nation, so the crewmen also died as citizens of the United States.
They were in rebellion, but they were still Americans.
This whole issue is an insult to all Southerners who fought under the U.S. flag before and since the Civil War.
But it isn't the only outrage by rabid secessionists.
They are also opposing the placement of a statue of Abraham Lincoln in Richmond, Va., the Confederate capital.
According to an article by Bob Moser and published in the Southern Poverty Law Center's magazine "Intelligence Report," which monitors right-wing and hate groups, the U.S. Historical Society announced it was donating a statue of Lincoln to Richmond.
Lincoln visited that city in April 1865 to begin healing the wounds caused by the war.
The proposed life-sized statue has Lincoln resting on a bench, looking sad, his arm around his 12-year-old son, Tad. The base of the statue has a quote from his second inaugural address.
However, the League of the South and the Sons of Confederate Veterans raised a stink, calling Lincoln a tyrant and war criminal. Neo-Confederates are trying to make Lincoln "a figure few history students would recognize: a racist dictator who trashed the Constitution and turned the USA into an imperialist welfare state," Moser's article says.
White supremacist groups have jumped onto the bandwagon. Their motto is "Taking America back starts with taking Lincoln down."
Actually, if it weren't for the forgiving nature of Lincoln, Richmond would be a smoking hole in the ground and hundreds of Confederate leaders -- including Jefferson Davis -- would be hanging from trees from Fredericksburg, Va., to Atlanta.
Robert E. Lee said, "I surrendered as much to Lincoln's goodness as I did to Grant's armies."
Revisionist history to suit a political agenda is as intellectually abhorrent as whitewashing slavery itself. It's racism under a different flag. While it's not a criminal offense, it is a crime against truth and history.
I'm not talking about re-enactors here. These folks just want to live history. But the Neo-Confederate movement is a disguised attempt to change history.
In the end, the Confederacy was out-fought, out-lasted, eventually out-generaled and totally over-matched. It was a criminal idea to start with, and its success would have changed the course of modern history for the worse.
Coming to that realization cost this nation half a million lives.
So I hope that all Neo-Confederates -- 140 years after the fact -- can finally get out of their racist, twisted, angry time machine and join us here in 2003.
For the zillionth time, the Court REFUSED to address the legitimacy of secession, stating that the Confederacy's 'right to do so is now being decided by wager of battle.'
For the zillionth time, the Court REFUSED to address the legitimacy of secession, stating that the Confederacy's 'right to do so is now being decided by wager of battle.'
Is that the entire text of the decision? You are trying to hide the facts from people.
Calling the secessionists "traitors" pretty much illumines what the Court thought of the legitimacy of secession.
Acting on unilateral state secession is treason. No reasonable, fair minded person could say anything else.
Walt
Per the Contitution, any federal law prohibiting secession, unilateral or otherwise, must be pursuant to the Constitution. Please post the law in question.
There's not one is there?
Perhaps you could cite the revalent section of the Constitution prohibiting secession. There's not one is there? The prohibitions against the state are all in Article I, as noted by Justice Marshall in the Virginia debates.
If such HAD existed, Grier and the court, in the Prize Cases, would have cited such. They did not. What he did say was,
'When the party in rebellion occupy and hold in a hostile manner a certain portion of territory, have declared their independence, have cast off their allegiance, have organized armies, have commenced hostilities against their former sovereign, the world acknowledges them as belligerents, and the contest a war.'Got that? Then he adds this,
'[O]n the 13th of May, 1861, the Queen of England issued her proclamation of neutrality, recognizing hostilities as existing between the Government of the United States of American and certain States styling themselves the Confederate States of America. This was immediately followed by similar declarations or silent acquiescence by other nations.'The Confederacy was recognized as a belligerent party by foreign nations.
'[T]he parties to a civil war usually concede to each other belligerent rights. They exchange prisoners, and adopt the other courtesies and rules common to public or national wars.Which did occur. The Confederacy was recognized as a belligerent party by the Union.
Still with Grier? This isn't rocket science. Now for the kicker,
'The parties belligerent in a public war are independent nations.'The court legally recognized the independent nation called the Confederate States of America. No reasonable, fair minded person could say anything else.
There's not one is there?
Of course there is. It's the Militia Act -- passed on February, 28, 1795.
You must be learning disabled or something because you have seen this quote many times.
The majority ruling in the Prize Cases refers directly to the Act.
"The Constitution confers on the President the whole Executive power. He is bound to take care that the laws be faithfully executed. He is Commander-in-chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several States when called into the actual service of the United States. He has no power to initiate or declare a war either against a foreign nation or a domestic State. But by the Acts of Congress of February 28th, 1795, and 3d of March, 1807, he is authorized to called out the militia and use the military and naval forces of the United States in case of invasion by foreign nations, and to suppress insurrection against the government of a State or of the United States.
All persons residing within this territory whose property may be used toincrease the revenues of the hostile power are, in this contest, liable to be treated as enemies, though not foreigners. They have cast off their allegianceand made war on their Government, and are none the less enemies because they are traitors."
Why would the Supreme Court refer to the Militia Act -- if it had not been made PURSUANT to the Constitution?
What on God's green earth gives -you- , or anyone else, now or in the 19th century -- the right to decide which laws are made in pursuance to the Constitution? That power, under law, rests exclusively with the Supreme Court. And the Supreme Court called the secessionists traitors.
I don't know what helped form your opinions on these issues, but whatever it was was obviously incomplete.
Walt
Then why did the court not just state that secession was illegal per the Militia Act and stop there? IF, and that is a big "if", what you assert about secession is true, why did the court continue and state that the Confederacy's 'right to do so is now being decided by wager of battle.'
The entire story is too long to be told in this book, but it appeared from the testimony of Samuel K. Chester, an actor, that on the Friday previous to the assassination, he saw Booth in New York. Booth exclaimed to him, "What an excellent chance I had to kill the President, if I had wished, on Inauguration day!" Booth spoke of the plot to capture the President, not to assassinate him, and to take him to Richmond. The affair, he said, failed, owing to some parties backing out.It seems we have some dissent.The testimony clearly showed this fact.
Lawrence A. Gobright, Recollection of Men and Things at Washington, During The Third of a Century, Philadelphia: Claxton, Remsen & Haffellfinger, 1869, p. 376
What gives a 19th century Supreme Court more credibility than the documents writer, or is it your belief that Madison was happy with the militia act?
In the debates, the framers refused TWICE to allow troops to be sent in to coerce a state.
You're the Democrat with the deserter and barbarian heritage honey, not me.
Not in a bogus 'culture' like the Confederacy where every single soldier was conscripted at least once. But it does in a society such as the North had where 98% of the white soldiers were volunteers, and it certainly did for Americans of African Heritage in the south where all Americans of African heritage who chose to fight for their freedom with honor in the Union Army did so voluntarrily. That was, of course, the honorable alernative to digging ditches for the greatest slave master in the history of America, that scum bastard Lee. That traitor, by the way, forced American soldiers to dig ditches under fire, and was only stopped from such a violation of the accepted rules of war by his Excellency, Benjamin Butler.
No no, it's only the little people who are not allowed to disagree with the court.
Sorry, I'm a Republican/Libertariarn - just like Thomas Jefferson, Patrick Henry and others - a supporter of limited government, a promoter of free trade. My ancestors did not desert, nor were they barbarians. They were invaded by barbarians though, and fought to defend their country from an aggressor that saw nothing wrong with attacking innocent women & children.
Nonsense. My ancestor volunteered on 3 separate occasions, each a 1 year term.
But it does in a society such as the North had where 98% of the white soldiers were volunteers
I guess you never heard of the Draft Riots huh? Or the Enrollment Acts?
all Americans of African heritage who chose to fight for their freedom with honor in the Union Army did so voluntarrily
Lt. Col. Glenn. Executive Mansion
Commanding Post at Washington,
Henderson, Ky. Feb. 7. 1865Complaint is made to me that you are forcing negroes into the Military service, and even torturing them---riding them on rails and the like---to extort their consent. I hope this may be a mistake. The like must not be done by you, or any one under you. You must not force negroes any more than white men. Answer me on this.
A. LINCOLN
Collected Works Of Lincoln, Roy P. Basler, ed, Vol VIII, p. 266.
The wives and mothers of the conscripts, giving way to their feelings, break into the loudest lamentations and rush upon the men, clinging to them with the agony of separation.At Marion Chaplin's the same plan was pursued, the men being found in the fields, collected, impressed, and marched off.
Official Records: Series 3, vol 2, Part 1 (Union Letters, Orders, Reports), pp.59-60
That was, of course, the honorable alernative to digging ditches for the greatest slave master in the history of America, that scum bastard Lee. That traitor, by the way, forced American soldiers to dig ditches under fire, and was only stopped from such a violation of the accepted rules of war by his Excellency, Benjamin Butler.
Lee freed the slaves his wife inheirited, he also ordered his own son to continue to fight in a battle - he didn't discriminate. Regarding your hero "Beast"/"Spoons" Butler,
NEW BERNE, N. C., September 1, 1864.Major General B. F. BUTLER,
Commanding Department of Virginia and North Carolina:GENERAL: The negroes will not go voluntarily, so I am obliged to force them. I have sent seventy-one and will send this afternoon about 150.
I expect to get a large to-morrow. I have done all that could be done, but I am not as fortunate as you expected me to be. I shall keep working.
I have the honor to be, very respectfully,
FRED. MARTIN,
Captain and Aide-de-Camp.
Official Records: Series 1, vol 42, Part 2 (Richmond-Fort Fisher), pp. 653-654
And your Yankee culture will be remembered for bringing down this country.
I don't want to get drawn into another endless argument… I simply refer to the supremacy clause.
From the link you provided:
”It has long been established that ‘a state statute is void to the extent that it actually conflicts with a valid federal statute’"
There is no need for an “endless argument” – simply name the “valid federal statute” that prohibits State secession. There is absolutely no “conflict” unless some “valid federal statute” declares secession to be unlawful.
If a state cannot simply void a federal law or constitutional provision on its own, it's highly unlikely that it could simply throw off the whole Constitution.
First, you are ‘comparing apples and oranges.’ To “void a federal law or constitutional provision,” that “federal law or constitutional provision” must in fact exist. And you have yet to cite a “federal law or constitutional provision” that prohibits secession. Why? Because no such restriction exists (except, perhaps, in some vague ‘unwritten law’ apparently familiar only to unionists).
Second, you seem to be suggesting that, because the federal government was delegated certain enumerated powers, it was therefore also granted any other power that might somehow relate. Mr. Madison addressed that issue repeatedly (The Federalist No. 45, i>The Virginia Resolutions of 1798, Report on the Virginia Resolutions of 1800, Letter to Spencer Roane, 1819, etc.), as did Mr. Jefferson (The Kentucky Resolutions of 1798, Declaration of 1825, etc.). They suggested that federal powers were limited to those enumerated in the Constitution; and that a ‘broad & pliant’ interpretation of federal powers (such as that favored by most unionists) was never intended, and was completely unjustified. Mr. Madison observed that if such broad powers had in fact been proposed for the new federal government, the Constitution would never have been ratified.
“A union that was silent or indifferent about something as important as slavery was bound to face trouble;” “the 14th amendment allowed the federal government -- especially the courts -- to enforce uniform standards on the states;” “Much of our loss of freedom has to do with the loss of the frontier and with the introduction of the income tax.”
You raise a number of interesting points. However, I would suggest that many problems were caused by the imposition of a national government on a constitutional foundation intended for a federation of States. And finally, if the specific written terms of the Constitution conflict with your concept of government, it is more likely that your concept of government is unconstitutional, than that the Constitution does not actually mean what it clearly says.
;>)
N-S: No, I'll wait and see your answer. This should be good.
Since you refuse to answer your own question, let’s take another look at your posts:
Where does it say that the federal government may not eliminate a state, say by expelling it from the Union?
591 posted on 10/04/2003 6:24 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur
There is nothing that prevents it. According to Ariticle IV Congress can create a state. In fact according to the Constitution only congress has a role in creating a state, not the President, not the courts, not even the people of the state itself. So where does it say that Congress can't uncreate one?
718 posted on 10/06/2003 6:08 PM PDT by Non-Sequitur
Two points:
First, your suggestion that Congress can “uncreate” a State is a ‘nonsequitur.’
;>)
Second, I have already answered your question – twice.
;>) ;>)
"The men at the convention, it is clear enough, assumed that the national government must have the power to throw down state laws that contradicted federal ones: it was obvious to them that the states could not be permitted to pass laws contravening federal ones...
It did not take long for the supremacy of the Supreme Court to become clear. Shortly after the new government was installed under the new Constitution, people realized that the final say had to be given to somebody, and the Connecticut Jurist and delegate to the Convention Oliver Ellsworth wrote the judicary act of 1789, which gave the Supreme Court the clear power of declaring state laws unconstitutional, and by implication allowing it to interpret the Constitution. The power to overturn laws passed by Congress was assumed by the Supreme Court in 1803 and became accepted practice duing the second half of the nineteenth century."
"The convention was slow to tackle the problem of an army, defense, and internal police. The Virginia Plan said nothing about a standing army, but it did say that the national government could 'call forth the force of the union against any member of the Union failing to fulfill its duty under the articles thereof.' The delegates had expected to discuss something like this clause, for one of the great problems had been the inability of the old Congress to enforce its laws. Surely it should be able to march troops into states when necessary to get state governments to obey.
But in the days before the convention opened Madison had been thinking it over, and he had concluded that the idea was a mistake. You might well march your troops into Georgia or Connecticut, but then what? Could you really force a legislature to disgorge money at bayonet point? 'The use of force against a state,' Madison said, as the debate started on May 31, 'would be more like a declaration of war, than an infliction of punishment, and would probably be considered by the party attacked as a dissolution of all previous compacts by which it might be bound.' Although he did not say so at the moment, he had another way of enforcing national law, which not only would be more effective, but also philosophically sounder. As the government was to derive its power from the people, it ought to act on the people directly. Instead of trying to punish a state, which was, after all, an abstraction, for failure to obey the law, the U.S. government could punish individuals directly. Some person -- a governor, a tax collector, a state treasurer -- would be held responsible for failure to deliver the taxes. Similarly, the national government would not punish a state government for allowing say, illegal deals with Indians over western lands, but would directly punish the people making the deals. All of this seemed eminently sensible to the convention and early in the debate on the Virginia Plan the power of the national government to 'call forth the power of the Union' was dropped. And so was the idea that the government should be able to compell the states disappeared from the convention. It is rather surprising, in view of the fact that the convention had been called mainly to curb the independence of the states, that the concept went out so easily. The explanation is, in part, that the states' righters were glad to see it go; and in part that Madison's logic was persuasive: it is hard to arrest an abstraction."
--"Decision in Philadelphia" by Collier and Collier
Walt
Really? Where?
On what planet? All first year 'volunteers' who went to war under the state conscription acts were drafted into the Confederate National Army during their first enlistment. They were re-conscripted at that point for three years, and then, two years later, re-conscripted for the duration. The only way your ancestor 'volunteered southern style on three occasiions was to use different names. No doubt he merely collected his equipment and deserted back to the hill country. There is no other explanation.
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.