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.
"Boo-hoo."
Your timeline must be imaginary. Just because the southern states had not yet initiated hostilities doesn't mean that an armistice was in effect. That kind of agreement exists only between sovereign nations. The southern states launched their rebellion, seized federal property, fired on shipf flying the U.S. flag and you want us to believe that they were serious about negotiating a fair settlement?
Sure he did. Article IV, Section III makes it clear that consent of the states is required and the Chief Justice pointed that out. Haven't you read the Constitution at all?
Oh, don't be so bashful about identifying the esteemed scholar whom, you believe, "sums up the argument nicely." I will list the "conservative" credentials of this ACLU attorney, UC Berkeley professor, and Friend of the Court on behalf of Johnny Taliban.
|LINK|
The second unmistakable sign of the Lindh defense's desperation is not so much that they are seeking to dismiss all or part of the indictment (this was predictable; that's what lawyers do), but rather the grounds on which they seek to do so. Grounds so far- fetched that one wonders how Lindh's lawyers could have asserted them with a straight face. I'll address the three most indefensible.
"Combat immunity." Lindh's lead lawyer, James Brosnahan, and his team have made the absurd argument that the charge against their client should be dismissed because of some purported "well-established international law principle of combat immunity." The New York Times explained their theory this way: "They said the court should dismiss the charge of conspiracy to commit murder because all foot soldiers are immune from prosecution [for] actions during combat." Putting aside the question of whether so-called "international law" has any place in a federal criminal trial for violation of federal law, the fact is that neither the Supreme Court of the United States nor any other federal court has ever held that an American citizen charged with conspiracy to murder another American(s) - not actually murdering, during combat or at any other time, but rather conspiring to murder - possesses any kind of immunity under "international" or any other kind of law.
|LINK|
They said he also had the right to claim 'combat immunity' under international law, which allows soldiers to take part in armed conflict.
But [Judge] Ellis disagreed, siding with the government which had noted that President George W Bush had declared the Taliban 'unlawful combatants' and they are not protected under international rules of law.
"Combat immunity is not available to unlawful combatants and the president has determined that the Taliban is (an) unlawful combatant," Ellis said, as Lindh, dressed in a prisoner's jumpsuit, stared straight ahead at the judge.
Whether or not the Founding Fathers expected that the Union should be "eternal" did not make entry into the Union binding. Why should the people of New York dictate what is acceptable to the people of Mississippi. Of course, we cannot imagine the strength of the argument of states rights because, today, the states have abdicated much of their rights to the Federal government for federal funding. (I realize that this statement is an oversimplification - but you understand the point I'm making).
To the South, they believed they had the right to leave. They joined the Union voluntarily, why shouldn't they be able to leave. To the North, the preservation of the Union was paramount. So, the war came. And the South lost. And the argument for states rights above Federal rights would never be the same.
My contention was that the Constitution nowhere delegates the power to approve/disapprove of state acts such as secession. Congress is delegated the power to appove/disapprove the ADMISSION of a state, but nothing else.
Nor is there one that says "Any state may secede at will."
Nurse, I think we've discovered the problem. The patient seems to have a problem understanding the 10th Amendment:
'The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it [the Constitution] to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.'Re: secession. Is the power delegated by the Constitution to prevent secession? No. Are the states prohibited by the Constitution from seceding? No.
You forgot the rest of it. "...without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.
No. The emphasis was that it ONLY addresses the ADDITION of new states. Nothing is said about one leaving.
Without consent of Congress? I believe that such a requirement is clearly implied.
Implied? Where? See Amendment X.
Utter nonsense, since the power to add or alter the status of a state is clearly delegated to the United States and not the individual state itself.
Clearly delegated? Where? Numerous states ceded vast properties to the "general" government. Georgia gave up what became the state of Alabama - the federal Congress did not have the power to prevent it, nor did it have the power to approve it. If the territory in question were still part of an existing state, the federal congress & state congress must appove, else only the federal congress has a voice in the matter.
And when those public acts are in violation of the Constitution, as the southern acts of secession were, then no faith or credit are due them
What clause of the Constitution did they violate?
They were elcted. And then they entered into a rebellion against the federal government which prevented law and order from being established.
So you agree that they possesed a republican form of government. But secession is not rebellion, secession removed them from the union. Regarding the power of the judiciary to controlling state legislatures,
'If the majority of the legislature be corrupted, it may well be doubted, whether it be within the province of the judiciary to control their conduct, and, if less than a majority act from impure motives, the principle by which judicial interference would be regulated, is not clearly discerned.'
Chief Justice John Marshall, Fletcher v Peck, 6 Cranch 87 (1810).
Among the members of Rights International's Board of Directors are Frank Askin, General Counsel of the ACLU.
From Rights Internationals mission statement,
Rights International sues foreign governments before international tribunals ... We sue countries for money damages and injunctive relief ...Human rights advocates must take advantage of the transnational impact that decisions of these tribunals have. Using an analogy, these cases have greater impact than U.S. Supreme Court cases because they affect the lives of millions of more people and dozens of other countries. Unlike previous years, countries now are complying with these courts' orders. These courts not only compel governments to stop human rights violations, but also make them pay money damages. [emphasis in original]
Gee, who gets the money - the victims or the lawyers?
One of the cases RI supported was that of William Andrews, who was convicted of murdering 3 people in Utah [1974]. They challenged a note found by a juror, and the makeup of the jury - white and Mormon. Of note, their mission statement states that they 'litigate cases addressing a variety of human rights issues, including ... racial/gender/religious discrimination.' Yet they challenge the jury on those same grounds.
;o)
Sorry. #1 was 'The "perpetual" Articles were replaced, i.e. were terminated .'
Both Governments could not be understood to exist at the same time. The new Government did not commence until the old Government expired.What "union" were the states members of from 1 Nov 1788 through 4 Mar 1789? Even then, when the new government formed, were the other 2 excluded states members of this new "union" despite having NOT ratified? If North Carolina and Rhode Island & Providence Plantations NEVER ratified would they be in that same union? To have a "union", one must have a common bond. The government is that bond. The government was dissolved. James Wilson, on 30 Jun 1787 stated, 'If a minority should refuse their assent to the new plan of a general government, and if they will have their own will, and without it separate the Union, let it be done.'
Chief Justice John Marshall, Owings v. Speed, 5 Wheat. 419 (1820)
And here again, ad hominem attacks without really discussing the issue. You want to paint me as some leftist because you are incapable of maintaining a rational and reasoned discussion. I readily admit, from time to time, even an idiot like you comes up with a good point. Your input in the last few hundred posts on this thread, however, may yet prove me wrong.
Of course I refuse to acknowledge that unilateral secession as practiced by the southern states is unconstitutional, because it has never been shown to be so. Chase's decision is demonstrably wrong, which you refuse to acknowledge. Let me guess, you agree that abortion is okay simply because the Supreme Court decision is valid. I do not have to question a decision's validity just because I'm showing reasons why the decision is wrong. Validity of an 1869 SCOTUS decision has nothing to do with the core argument of whether or not the southern states legally seceded in 1860 and 1861.
As I have posted on this thread, NO state's representatives were "excluded" from the 1st Constitutional Congress. That Congress provided for Rhode Island and North Carolina by alloting them seats.
Hypothetically, if Rhode Island or North Carolina had continued to refuse to ratify the Constitution and "separated" from the "union," it certainly would have been with the consent of the other eleven.
Let me state, that although North Carolina had at first voted to reject the new Constitution, the sentiment changed when the 1st Congress proposed for State ratification the Bill of Rights. North Carolina in convention, ratified the Constitution on Nov 21, 1789 (one day after New Jersey became the first state to ratify the Bill of Rights). Then, operating under the full fellowship of the Union, North Carolina ratified the BoR on December 22, 1789, becoming the third state to do so.
Rhode Island, on the other hand, was a "basket case." Strong internal political divisions prevented Rhode Island from even holding a convention of the people. The "anti-federalist" majority in the State Assembly had attempted to provide a legislative vote on ratification, in contradiction to the terms of the new Constitution. The "pro-federalists" in the Assembly boycotted the session. (It was during this time that the Governor, in behalf of the anti-federalist legislature, sent the whiney letter {which has been posted here several times} to President Washington and the federal government.) Ultimately, it was the realization of the Rhode Islanders that they were quickly becoming a failed state, and that areas with "pro-federalist" majorities were negotiating annexation with neighboring members of the Constitutional Union, that led them to hold a ratification convention. Rhode Island ratified by the narrow majority of 34-32, and then, only because some of the "anti-federalists" abstained in the voting.
You are correct that one of the bonds that holds the Union is the "national" goverment (usage in today's terminology, rather than Madison's terminolgy, so we don't confuse you-know-who). But the roots of American nationalism (another type of bond) pre-date the Declaration of Independence.
You seem to be missing nolu chan's point. Equally relevent: What is the birthdate of AT&T? Is their corporate structure unchanged from the old Bell Labs days?
Your insistence (repeatedly) that the government can create a power with no concern to the expressly written prohibition provided by the tenth sounds to me like 'hemming and hawing.'
The government does not manufacture or sell liquor - at least that I'm aware of.
"The Constitution of the United States, then, forms a government, not a league; and whether it be formed by compact between the states or in any other manner, its character is the same. It is a government in which all the people are represented, which operates directly on the people individually, not upon the states; they retained all the power they did not grant. But each state, having expressly parted with so many powers as to constitute, jointly with the other states, a single nation, cannot, from that period, possess any right to secede, because such secession does not break a league but destroys the unity of a nation; and any injury to that unity is not only a breach which would result from the contravention of a compact but it is an offense against the whole Union.
"To say that any state may at pleasure secede from the Union is to say that the United States are not a nation, because it would be a solecism to contend that any part of a nation might dissolve its connection with the other parts, to their injury or ruin, without committing any offense. Secession, like any other revolutionary act, may be morally justified by the extremity of oppression; but to call it a constitutional right is confounding the meaning of terms, and can only be done through gross error or to deceive those who are willing to assert a right, but would pause before they made a revolution or incur the penalties consequent on a failure."
- President Andrew Jackson in his "Proclamation to the People of South Carolina" during the "Nullification Crisis."
So which armistice is it that Lincoln's cabinet kept insisting he was violating?
If he cited article IV, why all this hoopla about the preamble?
This is very clear. I would refer you to The Bill of Rights: Original Meaning and Current Understanding by Eugene W. Hickok, Jr., University Press of Virginia. I bought this in paperback to learn more about the background of the 2nd Amendment.
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.