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.
You refuse to acknowledge that unilateral secession as practiced by the southern states is unconstitutional, as determined by the Supreme Court in their 1869 decision. How does that square with your claim? How can you accept the Supreme Court decision as valid at at the same time refuse to accept their decision?
Maybe we should try it again.
Where does it say in the Constitution that once a state was admitted to the Union, it had no choice but to stay?
I also doubt that the Confederate states seceded from the Union on a whim.
Would like to answer the question with defaulting to sarcasm? If not... then don't bother.
While it does not explicitly detail how a state may leave, Article IV, Section III states that the approval of Congress is required for admission and for any change in status like combining, splitting, or any change in borders. Implicit in that would be the requirement for states to obtain the approval of all affected parties before they leave.
Now, where does it state that a state may leave at will?
Now, where does it state that a state may leave at will?
I would think at the same point where you say that a state may not leave at will...
States needed approval to enter the Union and change their borders, etc. What is specifically missing is any instruction on how to deal with states who wanted to leave. Maybe it was understood from the beginning that states could leave and therefore no "explicit detail" was necessary. (This intepretation has the same weight as your intepretation since both are opinion and speculation) Maybe it was understood from the start that Virginia didn't need New Jersey's permission to do what was right for Virginia and her citizens.
Just a thought...
Then they need to knock that crap off, no?
As James Madison argued, it would be imprudent to "confine a government to the exercise of expressed powers." It was a battle Madison won in the 1st congress,
Might as well say, "It's a battle Madison won when he was drunk out of his gourd." Madison later realized the danger of unlimited power.
I believe that the Tenth amendment is more than just a "declaratory truism." It acted to limit the national government,
But then you hem and haw about how the gov't was correct in acting outside of those limits. So which one is it?
Amendments to the Constitution have been made precisely because it was silent on an issue.
Only when granting or revoking a power, or altering procedures outlined in the constitution. Look at the examples you cited.
(hypothetical: San Francisco decides and declares it wants to become a city-state, autonomous from California). Is this not a matter the Court would not to address, especially if the 9th Circus Court of Appeals (in San Francisco) agreed with their socialist insanity?
Yes, by all means. In your example, the people of San Fransisco are obviously not acting in their own best interest as determined by (who else?) ME. They must be purged by pain.
Nor are 99% of my other rights. Do you have a comprehensive list of yours?
Or why Congress needs to approve other actions of states that have a negative impact on the interests of other states, but not this one.
Flat out falsehood. Sorry, please deposit a quarter to play again.
You must've missed the whole "Ratification was the grandest conspiracy against the people ever by genious Alex H" thread.
Or maybe it was understood from the beginning that since congressional approval was needed for a state to join the Union then congressional approval was needed for a state to leave.
We're talking about actions that states are permitted, not individual rights.
Flat out falsehood. Sorry, please deposit a quarter to play again.
Falsehood because you say it is? Sorry if I don't accept that on your word alone.
Wrong. The Constuitution does NOT state that the federal government must approve state acts.
Since congressional approval is needed for every other change in the status of a state then by implication it should be needed for withdrawal as well.
Wrong. There's no implication involved. The Constitution CLEARLY states, [t]he 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.' Their is no delegated power to prohibit secession, just as secession is not prohibited (see Article I § 10)
Clearly the Constitution replaced the Articles "in order to form a more perfect union."
Good, you understand what Chase doesn't. The Articles were replaced! Chase wrote, "What can be indissoluble if a perpetual Union, made more perfect, is not?" But he overlooks at least five things:
1) The "perpetual" Articles were replaced, i.e. were terminated
2) The Constitution does not contain any reference to perpetuity, in fact it omits the word which was used 5 times in the Articles
3) A union that legally required UNANIMOUS consent to changes was replaced by one that lessened that restriction
4) With the ratification of the 9th state, the existing union was abandoned, the remaining states did not declare war on the to force them back
5) If perpetual meant forever, then the Articles could never have been replaced, and making somthing "more perfect" can't make it any "more perpetual" than it already was
The Blessings of Liberty, not the Blessings of Anarchy or Blessings of Disorder.
ROTF! Did the union dissolve? Did it not wage war on the seceded members? Did the states dissolve into anarchy or disorder when the 1st 9 states ratified the Constitution?
In Article III where the Constitution lays out the jurisdiction of the court. "Jurisdiction" is defined as "the power, right, or authority to interpret, apply, and declare the law".
So what "law" prohibited secession? There's not one. What section of Article III delegates authority to the Supreme Court over states not members of the "union"? There's not one.
Sure it does. The Constitution restricts the government that they can have to a republican form.
Republican government is one in which the people are represented by elected officials. Hamilton thought the 'true principle of a republic is, that the people should choose whom they please to govern them.' Even then, the government must protect each of the states 'against Invasion', not as a pretext to invade. In the case of domestic violence, it it only 'on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened).' Again, the state must petition for assistance.
Your citation is devastating to your own argument. If the Articles "provided a new nation," then certainly the Constitution can be said to have done the same.
What is obvious is the South felt they had a right to secede from the Union and the North felt they did not that right. I suspect that both positions could be firmly supported and argued ad naseum.
It has been.
Of course, that's not what happened. The CSA attempted to negotiate debt and lands - only to be turned away by a man obsessed with retaining power.
Ever consider that were your argument as strong as you think, Chase would have used it himself?
He did. "The union between Texas and the other States was as complete as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the Union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration, or revocation, except through revolution, or through consent of the States."
Check your timeline again. The southern states left the Union, walked out the obligations accumulated while a member, and seized federal property. Then they claimed that they wanted to negotiate a fair settlement. So why not turn over title to your house and your car to me and then we'll talk about price. I'll be fair to you. I promise.
Sorry my friend, but it is your reply that more closely resembles a "red herring" than anything I've posted. Your claim that”[s]ecession was not contemplated by the Tenth Amendment, it was not allowed by the Tenth Amendment, nor was it implied by the Tenth Amendment” remains “absolute and utter nonsense.” Allow me to highlight a few of the gaping holes in your argument:
* On the one hand, you insist the intent of the States with regard to the proposed Tenth Amendment is essentially irrelevant, because it was voiced prior to ratification of that amendment in its final form.
* On the other hand, you suggest that the intent of the parties to the Articles of Confederation (to form a “perpetual” union ;>) is not irrelevant, even though it was voiced prior to ratification of an entire Constitution in its final form.
* I quoted the New York State ratification documents: “That the Powers of Government may be reassumed by the People, whensoever it shall become necessary to their Happiness; that every Power, Jurisdiction and right, which is not by the said Constitution clearly delegated to the Congress of the United States, or the departments of the Government thereof, remains to the People of the several States, or to their respective State Governments…” The phrase “clearly delegated” is obviously comparable to the judicial standard (quoted in my excerpt from U.S. Term Limits Inc. v. Thornton ;>), which requires an ‘explicit or necessarily implicit’ delegation of powers.
* You responded by misquoting Rhode Island’s ratification: “So to, when Rhode Island includes the words ‘not expressly delegated’ they ape language that had been twice rejected by congress in drafting the Amendment” (itals in your original). In fact, the people of Rhode Island had this to say: “That the powers of government may be reassumed by the people, whensoever it shall become necessary to their happiness:- That the rights of the States respectively, to nominate and appoint all State Officers, and every other power, jurisdiction and right, which is not by the said constitution clearly delegated to the Congress of the United States or to the departments of government thereof, remain to the people of the several states, or their respective State Governments…” Again, the language actually used (“clearly delegated” ;>) is entirely consistent with the judicial standard.
* You completely discount the juxtaposition of the two written reservations of rights (secession & proposed Tenth Amendment) in the ratification documents of New York and Rhode Island. With regard to the reserved right of secession, you claim only that the resumption of the powers of government by the people of an individual State would not be secession (if my conclusion is indeed “debatable,” please feel free to debate it ;>). With regard to the ‘blanket’ reservation of powers suggested by the proposed Tenth Amendment, you appear to magically convert the ‘reservation of all powers not delegated’ into a ‘grant of all powers not prohibited,’ apparently because a word which did not even appear in the subject ratification documents (“expressly”) was debated and rejected, and subsequently omitted from the final amendment.
* (Interestingly enough, you seem to insist that we possess a “national” government, even though the concept was debated and rejected in the federal convention, and omitted from the final Constitution. ;>)
* You completely ignore St. George Tucker’s Blackstone’s Commentaries, the premier legal reference of the day (which is still being cited by federal courts, by the way - at least when it suits them ;>), which was published after ratification of the Tenth Amendment, and which clearly links the Tenth Amendment with State secession.
* I have previously cited Thomas Jefferson’s Kentucky Resolutions, wherein he notes that “each [State as a] party has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions as of the mode and measure of redress” – obviously not excluding secession (and I can quote Mr. Jefferson’s Declaration of 1825, if you find the matter “debatable” ;>) – and wherein he quotes the Tenth Amendment no less than three times in support of his arguments.
Suffice to say, your claim that”[s]ecession was not contemplated by the Tenth Amendment, it was not allowed by the Tenth Amendment, nor was it implied by the Tenth Amendment” is fraught with logical inconsistencies, and is contradicted by documented historical evidence.
Let's go one step further. Let's assume New York's reservation is valid. How then does one states reservation become operable for another state that did not make or claim a similar privilige?
How about this?
”Article IV, Section 2 - The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.”
And if you do not believe Article IV, Section 2 is applicable, you are free to cite some specific clause of the Constitution which would suggest (in either an explicit, or necessarily implicit, fashion ;>) that the right of secession was not included in the ‘blanket’ reservation of powers detailed in the Tenth Amendment. That is something I believe you have yet to do. While you are at it, try to locate a clause which would suggest (again, in either an explicit or necessarily implicit fashion ;>) that the federal government was delegated the power to use its military forces against a seceding State.
;>)
(By the way, compadre, congratulations on another win by your alma mater... ;>)
Sure you can. I stated that “many of your posts appear to be nonsequiturs” – not that all of your posts are ‘conclusions which do not follow from the premises.’ All you have to do is honor the facts.
Have at it...
;>)
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.