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.
Cheap entertainment.
I shall address the rantings of your mentor, Francisco Martin, over the next few days. You claim to agree with what he said, as quoted by you. That is your end of the political spectrum, publicly advocated by you.
Apparently you consider quoting from the c.v. of a source to be an ad hominem attack upon the source. You are like a fine whine.
Letter from James Madison to Daniel Webster, March 15, 1833
"I return my thanks for the copy of your late very powerful Speech in the Senate of the United S. (Note: I believe Madison refers to Webster's 2nd reply to Haynes during the nullification debate) It crushes "nullification" and must hasten the abandonment of "Secession." But this dodges the blow by confounding the claim to secede at will, with the right of seceding from intolerable oppression. The former answers itself, being a violation, without cause, of a faith solemnly pledged. The latter is another name only for revolution, about which there is no theoretic controversy. Its double aspect, nevertheless, with the countenance rec’d from certain quarters, is giving it a popular currency here which may influence the approaching elections both for Congress & for the State Legislature. It has gained some advantage also, by mixing itself with the question whether the Constitution of the U.S. was formed by the people or by the States, now under a theoretic discussion by animated partisans.
"It is fortunate when disputed theories, can be decided by undisputed facts. And here the undisputed fact is, that the Constitution was made by the people, but as embodied into the several states, who were parties to it and therefore made by the States in their highest authoritative capacity. They might, by the same authority & by the same process have converted the Confederacy into a mere league or treaty; or continued it with enlarged or abridged powers; or have embodied the people of their respective States into one people, nation or sovereignty; or, as they did by a mixed form, make them one people, nation, or sovereignty, for certain purposes, and not so for others.
"The Constitution of the U.S. being established by a competent authority, by that of the sovereign people of the several States who were the parties to it, it remains only to inquire what the Constitution is; and here it speaks for itself. It organizes a Government into the usual Legislative, Executive & Judiciary Departments; invests it with specified powers, leaving others to the parties to the Constitution; it makes the Government like other Governments to operate directly on the people; places at its Command the needful Physical means of executing its powers; and finally proclaims its supremacy, and that of the laws made in pursuance of it, over the Constitutions & laws of the States; the powers of the Government being exercised, as in other elective & responsible Governments, under the control of its Constituents, the people & legislatures of the States, and subject to the Revolutionary Rights of the people in extreme cases.
"It might have been added, that whilst the Constitution, therefore, is admitted to be in force, its operation, in every respect must be precisely the same, whether its authority be derived from that of the people, in the one or the other of the modes, in question; the authority being equally Competent in both; and that, without an annulment of the Constitution itself its supremacy must be submitted to.
"The only distinctive effect, between the two modes of forming a Constitution by the authority of the people, is that if formed by them as embodied into separate communities, as in the case of the Constitution of the U.S. a dissolution of the Constitutional Compact would replace them in the condition of separate communities, that being the condition in which they entered into the compact; whereas if formed by the people as one community, acting as such by a numerical majority, a dissolution of the compact would reduce them to a state of nature, as so many individual persons. But whilst the Constitutional compact remains undissolved, it must be executed according to the forms and provisions specified in the compact. It must not be forgotten, that compact, express or implied, is the vital principle of free Governments as contradistinguished from Governments not free; and that a revolt against this principle leaves no choice but between anarchy and despotism."
Before too many people jump up and down and exult, "See there, Madison approves of secession. This argument is devestating!", let's review what Madison really said:
First, there are two forms of secession. One form is secession due to "intolerable oppression," another name for which is "revolution," and about which there is no "theoretic controversy."
The second form of secession Mdison termed "secession at will," or what we have called on this thread "unilateral secession". Madison termed secession at will to be a "violation, with cause, of a faith solemnly pledged." (Using your criteria, we must now refer to Madison as a "mystic."). Mystic Madison continued, in the next paragraph to refer to "secession at will" (along with "nullification") as "disputed theories."
It is safe to say that Madison was no admirer of unilateral secession. But this is not surprising, because Madison held these views for most of his adult life. As far back as the mid-1780's when he was studying past forms of government, in anticipation of developing a new form of government to replace the failing confederation under the Articles, Madison made these notes:
"8. In some of the States the Confederation is recognized by and forms a part of the Constitution. In others, however, it has received no other sanction than that of the legislative authority. From this defect two evils result:
1. Whenever a law of a State happens to be repugnant to an act of Congress, particularly when the latter is of posterior date to the former, it will be at least questionable whether the latter must not prevail; and as the question must be decided by the Tribunals of the State, they will be most likely to lean on the side of the State.
2. As far as the union of the States is to be regarded as a league of sovereign powers, and not as a political Constitution, by virtue of which they are become one sovereign power, so far it seems to follow, from the doctrine of compacts, that a breach of any of the articles of the Confederation by any of the parties to it absolves the other parties from their respective obligations, and gives them a right, if they choose to exert it, of dissolving the Union altogether."
In part 2 of Note 8, Madison bemoans the power of the States relative to the powers of the Confedral government. Madison points out the inherent danger posed to the infant nation by the "right to dissolve the Union." I put it to you, that Madison is considering the fundamental relationship between a "general" (read national, federal) government and subordinate State governments. He calls this "defect" an "evil."
Now, does it make any sense to you that Madison, probably the principal architect of the Constitution of 1787, would have into the Constitution written, implied, or allowed principles he considered defective and evil? It boggles the imagination.
|LINK|
"In fact, Congress did continue to act as a government until it dissolved on the first of November [1788], by the successive disappearance of its members."
"It existed potentially until the 2d of March [1789], the day preceding that on which the members of the new Congress were directed to assemble."
It did? According to the Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774-1789, Vol. 34, pp. 603-606, during the periond of 3 Nov 1788 to 2 Mar 1789, 19 different delegates, in attendance on 16 different days out of the full 102, of which no more than 2 men attended the same session on any one of those 16 days. The entry for 3 Nov 1788 is noted:
This is the first day of the federal year 1788--1789. From this date to March 2, 1789, delegates from the various states appeared and presented their credentials, so that it would have been possible at any time that seven states were present for the secretary to have read the credentials and for Congress to have begun its sessions. Because of the organization of the new Government under the Constitution, the Continental Congress for 1788--1789, never transacted any business.
That Congress provided for Rhode Island and North Carolina by alloting them seats.
I can "save" you a seat at my table, but that doesn't make you a member of my family.
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.
Because they didn't wage war on them? Where in the Constitution does it grant the states the power to "coerce" a state into ratification?
Let me state, that although North Carolina had at first voted to reject the new Constitution...
Not to nitpick, since I do think you presented an admirable post, but NC did not reject the Constitution. It deferred acceptance until a Declaration of Rights was presented,
Resolved, That a Declaration of Rights, asserting and securing from encroachment the great Principles of civil and religious Liberty, and the unalienable Rights of the People, together with Amendments to the most ambiguous and exceptional Parts of the said Constitution of Government, ought to be laid before Congress, and the Convention of the States that shall or may be called for the Purpose of Amending the said Constitution, for their consideration, previous to the Ratification of the Constitution aforesaid, on the part of the State of North Carolina.
Rhode Island ratified by the narrow majority of 34-32, and then, only because some of the "anti-federalists" abstained in the voting.
Correct. The state failed on 11 occasions to convene a convention. The people of the state - in town meetings - rejected the Constitution on 24 Mar 1788, by a vote of 2,708-237. The first called convention (1 Mar 1790)rejected the Constitution, the second narrowly ratified, but this was only after the other states in the "union" threatened her with economic sanctions - a tariff and a demand for debt payment - hence the "whiney" letter.
You are correct that one of the bonds that holds the Union is the "national" goverment ...
Which is why the state sent this to the new government, 'We are induced to hope that we shall not be altogether considered as foreigners, having no particular affinity or connection with the United States.'
I am familiar with Mr. Jackson’s Proclamation (in fact, you will find a link to the document on my FR homepage ;>). Unfortunately, you cut your quotation just a bit short: finding no credible support for his argument within the Constitution, Mr. Jackson attempted to justify his position by citing an extra-constitutional, governmental ‘right of “self-defense.” Such a right – if it existed – would justify not only the use of armed force against seceding States, but almost any other act that a government might consider to be contrary to its own interests.
"Southerner" Andrew Jackson may have been; 'strict constitutional constructionist' he obviously was not...
;>)
And as another American president noted with regard to the same constitutional crisis:
Yes, sir, "the Federal Union must be preserved." But how? Will you seek to preserve it by force? Will you appease the angry spirit of discord by an oblation of blood? Suppose that the proud and haughty spirit of South Carolina shall not bend to your high edicts in token of fealty; that you make war upon her, hang her governor, her legislators, and judges, as traitors, and reduce her to the condition of a conquered province - have you preserved the Union?
This Union consists of twenty-four States; would you have preserved the Union by striking out one of the States - one of the old thirteen? Gentlemen had boasted of the flag of our country, with its thirteen stars. When the light of one of these stars shall have been extinguished will the flag wave over us, under which our fathers fought? If we are to go on striking out star after star, what will finally remain but a central and a burning sun, blighting and destroying every germ of liberty? The flag which I wish to wave over me is that which floated in triumph at Saratoga and Yorktown. It bore upon it thirteen States, of which South Carolina was one.
Sir, there is a great difference between preserving union and preserving government; the Union may be annihilated, yet government preserved; but, under such a government, no man ought to desire to live.
John Tyler, ‘Comments Regarding the Force Bill,’ 1832
I find myself more in agreement with President Tyler than President Jackson: “there is a great difference between preserving union and preserving government;” we now have our "central and... burning sun," fully capable of "blighting and destroying every germ of liberty;" and a union maintained by force ceases to be a union.
Let me add quickly, before I have to leave for a few hours, this following observation by James Madison, late in his life:
Letter from James Madison to Daniel Webster, March 15, 1833
And I am quite familiar with this letter as well (you will find links to several of Mr. Madison’s public documents & personal letters at my FR homepage ;>).
Before too many people jump up and down and exult, "See there, Madison approves of secession. This argument is devestating!"
Actually, the comments are somewhat less than ‘devastating.’ An examination of Mr. Madison’s public writings and official documents reveals a somewhat different picture than the one you attempt to paint. For example, during the debates in the federal convention (May 31, 1787), he stated that the use of federal military force against a State would be considered grounds for secession; in Federalist No. 43, he acknowledged the right of the ratifying States to secede from the union formed under the ‘Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union;’ and in Federalist No. 46, he discussed the right of the States to use armed force (State militias) to oppose unconstitutional federal actions. It might well be said that James Madison ‘sold’ the Constitution to the people of the States by suggesting that actions comparable to those of the future Confederate States would be entirely constitutional.
Following ratification, Mr. Madison continued to present his views in official government documents. In the Virginia Resolutions of 1798, for example, he discussed the right of the State governments to ‘arrest the progress’ of unconstitutional federal actions; two years later, in his Report on the Virginia Resolutions, he defended the right of the States to judge whether federal actions were constitutional – including the actions of the high court.
(If you do indeed prefer Mr. Madison’s private correspondence to his official public writings, you may wish to read his letters to Spencer Roane, regarding the activist & over-reaching Marshall court; and his letter to Robert Walsh, regarding the lack of any federal power to interdict slavery in the territories. ;>)
In summary, a single opinion, offered in private, decades ‘after the fact,’ when opposed by volumes of official & public documentation to the contrary, can hardly be described as ‘devastating.’ A 'last minute change of heart,' perhaps...
;>)
(By the way, your quotation of Mr. Madison’s repeated references to the possible “dissolution of the Constitutional Compact” hardly supports your contention that the constitutional union was binding in perpetuity… ;>)
”… a faith solemnly pledged." (Using your criteria, we must now refer to Madison as a "mystic.").
Not at all. “Sacred” is primarily a religious term; “faith” is not.
;>)
As far back as the mid-1780's …Madison bemoans the power of the States relative to the powers of the Confedral government… Now, does it make any sense to you that Madison, probably the principal architect of the Constitution of 1787, would have into the Constitution written, implied, or allowed principles he considered defective and evil? It boggles the imagination.
While it may ‘boggle the imagination’ of some, it hardly contradicts documented historical fact. I believe Mr. Madison went into the federal convention as an advocate of a national – rather than federal - government. The convention debated, and specifically rejected, such a government. Obviously, the Constitution and the government that it created did not reflect Mr. Madison’s pre-convention preferences.
;>)
Regarding the last "session" of the Congress of the Confederation, it was a session in name only, because they never acquited a quorum. However, they were able to transmit letters, receive reports, etc. I think the last business was conducted in mid-October of 1788. The point being, for what it was worth, the confederal government existed until the transition to the new constitutional, federal government. There was no lapse in the Union, or even the Union's government.
With regard to the absense of NC and RI, I still think "excluded" from the 1st Congress is the wrong terminology.
Why don't you start a new rant about Martin and see if anyone really cares.
"boo-hoo" - nolu troll
What I was looking at was the 1st Amendment to Rhode Island's ratification document. It is toward the bottom of the document and reads:
"1st The United States shall guarantee to each State its sovereignty, freedom and independence, and every power, jurisdiction and right, which is not by this constitution expressly delegated to the United States."
Nevertheless, whether one uses "expressly" or its synonym "clearly," the point Madison would make is that modification constituted a further limitation on the Federal government, and one that was not supported by the Congress in debate on the issue. Congress used no adverb to modify "delegated."
Would you agree the "right of unilateral secession" (not to be confused with the natural right of revolution) did not exist under the "Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union between the States"?
If so, then would you agree that changing the form of the "general" government (in the sense of Madison) did not represent secession?
If so, then would you agree those States entering the Constitutional Union, upon ratification of the Constitution, sans Bill of Rights, did not carry with them the explicit "right to secession"?
And would you also agree they did not carry an implicit "right to secession"? (I think you will claim that certain reservations made by New York, Rhode Island, and possibly Virginia in their ratification documents would provide, at a minimum, and implicit right - you earlier refered to the language as an "express" right to secession with out showing any sort of "expression." Let's set those cases aside for a moment and continue to the main point.)
Will you agree that there exists nowhere in the main body of the Constitution an affirmation expression for the right of unilateral secession?
How, then, does the 10th Amendment convey or allow an unspoken, unwritten, and untested right of unilateral secession, when none existed prior to the adoption of the Tenth Amendment? To my knowledge, there was no affirmative expression made concerning secession in the debates over the Tenth Amendment! There has never been an official action that has declared unilateral secession to be lawful, constitutional, or democratic.
Madison, in his letter to Trist, in 1832, stated, "It is high time that the claim to secede at will should be put down by the public opinion; and I shall be glad to see the task commenced by one who understands the subject." It is highly illogical, if not totally preposterous, to believe that the very people who had fought so hard, and at such cost, for independence and the opportunity to build an American Nation, would provide in their seminal document an unwritten method of national execution.
For those who claim unilateral secession springs from the nebulosity of the Tenth Amendment, show me how this right is superior to other equally nebulous rihgts contained therein. The Tenth is purportedly a guarantor of State's and individual's rights, correct? From the Tenth, how do we determine whether I have the right to smoke a cigar on a crowded bus, or if you have the right to a clean environment while sitting next to me?
How do we determine if I have the right to play loud music all night long, or you, as my neighbor, have the right to peace and quiet?
How do we determine if my State has a right to authorize the use of medical marijuana, or if the federal government has to right to prohibit that practice?
How do we determine if your state has a right to unilaterally secede from the Union, or if my state has the right to expect your state to live up to its constitutional agreements?
The Tenth Amendment is not so cut and dried as pro-secessionists seem to think. There are a lot of conflicting "rights," don't you think?
I think the main point is, the State ratified the Constitution, and that's all that was asked. I seriously doubt if reservations in these cases become "de facto" part of the agreement. I'll leave it to the real constitutional lawyers, like Ann Coulter, to figure out.
Speaking of which, I know for years you have considered Rawles to be an authoritative reference on the Constitution (circa early 1800's). You might say he was a Constitutional expert in his day, wouldn't you? Do you give equal reverence to the writings of Laurence Tribe or Alan Dershowitz? I didn't think so. So much for legal scholars.
Normally I would not quote from the writings of Professor Francisco F. Martin, an internationalist legal scholar, but in this case, he sums up the argument nicely."Comment: As I (F. F. Martin) argued in an earlier posting, the Framers in settling on a non-unanimity rule were legally justified to do so because several of the states had violated the Articles of Confederation by, e.g., entering into treaties with other foreign states (viz., Va, Md. NY, Pa., Ga.). This relieved the other states from observing their treaty obligations under the Articles with those states that had breached the Articles. This was the point partially made by Madison. However, some states did not violate the Articles; therefore, the Articles were still binding. This was conformed to the customary international law governing multilateral treaties. However, because it was unclear exactly which and how many states had violated the Articles, a compromise was required. (For example, did Massachusetts violate the Articles by maintaining troops and a navy? Or, were such troops a militia and was the navy necessary for combating piracy -- two exceptions allowed under the Articles?) The solution -- a legal one, I submit - was to use the 9-state rule under the Articles for entering into a new treaty. Unanimous consent was required only for amendment -- not for establishing a new treaty, such as the Constitution."
Professor Martin takes the position that the Articles and the Constitution of 1787 are treaties between sovereign states (certainly a position you would support as well). But that issue is not really germane. Martin's fundamental finding was that "unanimous consent was required only for amendment." Which is what I had stated earlier.
Normally I would not quote from the writings of Professor Francisco F. Martin, an internationalist legal scholar,
In this case, you did quote from the writings of Professor Francisco F. Martin. Do you agree with him or not? Do you agree, or continue to support, all of the following assertions which were in your post? If not, which ones do you disavow?
In the failed 1788-1789 session, no more than 2 representatives appeared on the same day. That occurred twice, on the first day of the session - 3 Nov 1788, and on 1 Jan 1789. There were 15 days in which a sole representative appeared (for a total of 17 days to correct my earlier post). There were no representatives on hand for 85 days of the session. There was no government in force, the Congress was the government of the union, and almost no one showed up for business. The pending business from the prior session was abandoned. The state of New York elected David 'Gelston, John Hathorn, Samuel Jones, Philip Pell, and Abraham Yates delegates to Congress on December 16 [1788].' [Letters of Delegates to Congress, Vol. 25, p. 466] Of those, only Gelston and Pell attended, and then, only one day apiece. No bills were debated, no acts were passed, no session was convened.
However, they were able to transmit letters, receive reports, etc.
Other than a delegate showing up to present their credentials, the only person in attendence was the secretary Charles Thomson. From the Journals of the Continental Congress, Vol. 34, p. ix:
'The credentials of the Delegates, who attended for the Congress for the federal year 1788--89, though never read in a session of the Congress, are nevertheless printed in an appendix in order to conclude the stow of the Continental Congress, which actually finished its labors on October 13, 1788.'
Implicit in most pro-secessionist arguments is that, after the Treaty of Paris in 1783, the United States were 13 independent, sovereign, entities working together in a loose coalition, league, or confederation. Sovereignty, they say, rests solely with the States. Some even go the the lengths of purposely refering to the "united States", emphasizing "united" as an adjective, rather than "United States" as a collective noun; denying the existance of the coountry.
My point is that the United States has been, since July 1776, an independent nation. American nationalism pre-dates the Declaration of Independence, expressed not only in documents such as the "Articles of Association," but in attitudes and collective experiences as British colonies, forced because of geography, to be increasingly self-sufficient. Americans had abundant experience in intra-colonial, as well as inter-colonial government prior to independence. Indeed, independence was driven, in part, from their past governing experiences.
I see the development of the American nation to be expressed in the development of a "national" (Madison = "general") government. From 1776 to 1781 the States did act autonomously, but cooperatively. But as early as 1777, the groundwork for the Articles of Confederation had been laid. Under the British Crown, sovereignty rested with the King. Americans decided, and expressed in their Declaration, that sovereignty rested with the people. When the people form representative governments, they not only empower those governments to do certain things, they transfer a degree of sovereignty to the government. (The concept of sovereignty implies not only supremecy and authority, but also the ablity to govern.)
The Articles of Confederation, when ratified in 1781, created a weak central authority, which was, for all purposes, a "national" government. (The term, "The United States of America" first shows up in the Articles.) Certain powers, that heretofore had been reserved by the individual States, were transfered to the confederal government. If the State can be considered to be "sovereign" and "independent" and capapble of self-rule, then too can a "national" government. Under the Articles, the States did not cede much, due in part to Americans understandable distrust of strong central authority.
By 1787 it was clear the Articles contained fatal defects. The Framers of the Constitution, who had ample experience in writing State constitutions, determined to replace, rather than repair the Articles. It is interesting to note, however, on the basis of textural analysis, nearly 2/3rds of the provisons in the Articles are preserved in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
In changing the form of government from a confederation with a weak central authority to a federal system with a stronger, but limited, authority, the Framers sought to reach a compromise between the well-established "sovereignty" of the States and the unexpressed sovereignty of the people. Under the Constitution, the States would retain sovereignty in State affairs. The federal government, authorized by the people, would exercise sovereignty in "national" affairs. The people would govern through representatives (a Republican form of government), including a national executive authority as well as State and federal legislators. Each level of authority, from the people through the federal government, possessing the prerogative to rule based on establish principles in written documents (i.e the rule of law). The Constitution is an expression of American nationalism, rather than a mere compact between State governments. Once established, no State possessed the right to unilaterally dissolve or exit the Union their people had ratified. The people retained the natural right of revolution if they suffered oppression; this is unchallenged. But in over 140 years I have yet to see a convincing case made that the secessionist states were truly oppressed. What I have seen is the attempt to conflate the right of revolution with the so-called right of secession.
Changing a form of government does not automatically create a new country. In our own history we see the progression from a cooperative, to a confederatioon, to a constitutional union. Nationality is more than government. This was recognized by Madison, Jefferson, Hamilton, et al. It is relevent what the people record as the birthdate of their country, because it provides a benchmark in time in the development of a nation. The American nation, declared in July 1776, exists because it is the will of the people that it do so.
Once again you state your conclusions with no support from the document itself. Up until the WBTS, and even afterward in some instances, the interrelation of the states was oftentimes discribes as a sisterhood. Don't get me wrong, I like my sister, but when she decides to eat Thanksgiving dinner with her husband's family I'm not going to drive over there and kill them all.
Nationality is more than government.
Caution - you're diverting course from the Lincoln-worshippers with this one.
So apply that to the colonies. They declared their independence (IIRC 5 states before 4 Jul 1776) seperately and as a group. As an aside, the semantics of the word "state" has changed over the centuries, it once meant a country. From the Declaration:
these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and IndependentThose states/nations then formed a "firm league of friendship" under the Articles, but nowhere did they state that a new nation had been formed. First they stated that the "stile" 'of this Confederacy shall be "The United States of America"', but never use the phrase again. What they do use is the term "the United States in Congress assembled", which they use some 28 times. Immediately thereafter they noted that each "state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence".States[Nations]; that they are absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and theState[Nation] of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and IndependentStates[Nations], they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which IndependentStates[Nations] may of right do.
In the Constitution the states/nations are referenced several times in the plural, i.e 'treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them'; 'the United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion'; and ' the Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same'.
I doubt very seriously that the men writing the Declaration, the Articles and Constitution forgot the meaning of the word "state" in less than 20 years.
The Declaration was prefaced as the "unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America". Calling this the "united" States of America no more made this one country than the United Nations is one country.
So you subscribe to those stated beliefs of Professor Francisco Forrest Martin as you have quoted and described them.
Articles of Confederation:
The United States in Congress assembled shall also be the last resort on appeal in all disputes and differences now subsisting or that hereafter may arise between two or more States concerning boundary, jurisdiction or any other causes whatever; which authority shall always be exercised in the manner following. Whenever the legislative or executive authority or lawful agent of any State in controversy with another shall present a petition to Congress stating the matter in question and praying for a hearing, notice thereof shall be given by order of Congress to the legislative or executive authority of the other State in controversy, and a day assigned for the appearance of the parties by their lawful agents, who shall then be directed to appoint by joint consent, commissioners or judges to constitute a court for hearing and determining the matter in question: but if they cannot agree, Congress shall name three persons out of each of the United States, and from the list of such persons each party shall alternately strike out one, the petitioners beginning, until the number shall be reduced to thirteen; and from that number not less than seven, nor more than nine names as Congress shall direct, shall in the presence of Congress be drawn out by lot, and the persons whose names shall be so drawn or any five of them, shall be commissioners or judges, to hear and finally determine the controversy, so always as a major part of the judges who shall hear the cause shall agree in the determination: and if either party shall neglect to attend at the day appointed, without showing reasons, which Congress shall judge sufficient, or being present shall refuse to strike, the Congress shall proceed to nominate three persons out of each State, and the secretary of Congress shall strike in behalf of such party absent or refusing; and the judgement and sentence of the court to be appointed, in the manner before prescribed, shall be final and conclusive; and if any of the parties shall refuse to submit to the authority of such court, or to appear or defend their claim or cause, the court shall nevertheless proceed to pronounce sentence, or judgement, which shall in like manner be final and decisive, the judgement or sentence and other proceedings being in either case transmitted to Congress, and lodged among the acts of Congress for the security of the parties concerned: provided that every commissioner, before he sits in judgement, shall take an oath to be administered by one of the judges of the supreme or superior court of the State, where the cause shall be tried, 'well and truly to hear and determine the matter in question, according to the best of his judgement, without favor, affection or hope of reward': provided also, that no State shall be deprived of territory for the benefit of the United States.All controversies concerning the private right of soil claimed under different grants of two or more States, whose jurisdictions as they may respect such lands, and the States which passed such grants are adjusted, the said grants or either of them being at the same time claimed to have originated antecedent to such settlement of jurisdiction, shall on the petition of either party to the Congress of the United States, be finally determined as near as may be in the same manner as is before presecribed for deciding disputes respecting territorial jurisdiction between different States.
Articles of Confederation:
The United States in Congress assembled shall never ... enter into any treaties or alliances, ... unless nine States assent to the same
Every State shall abide by the determination of the United States in Congress assembled, on all questions which by this confederation are submitted to them. And 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.
The United States in Congress assembled could enter into a treaty upon the assent of nine States, but could not make any alteration to any of the Articles unless such alteration was agreed to in a Congress of the United States, and afterwards confirmed by the legislatures of every State.
REGARDING THE ASSERTED APPLICABILITY OF THE "RULE OF NINE"
Assume arguendo the rule was applicable as stated.
At any time, any nine states could wilfully and deliberately violate the contract, form a convention, and replace the contract with one of their choosing.
The righteous 9 could adopt and enact a contract on behalf of all 13 states saying anything. The righteous 9 could impose an Islamic Republic in which only sworn believers of Islam would be permitted to hold office. The righteous 9 could establish a Taliban court as the Supreme Judicial Court. The righteous 9 could permanently abolish habeas corpus.
As the union is perpetual and indissoluble, the heretical 4 are bound to the (now Islamic) union forever. They may not secede. If they do not ratify, the righteous 9 will meet in Congress and reserve chairs for when they succumb to economic coercion.
Should the heretical 4 attempt to secede, the righteous 9 have the legal right and sacred obligation to crush them. Following their destruction and surrender, the heretical 4 must conform their constitutions as directed by the righteous 9. They will be ruled by martial law until they have reformed to the satisfaction of the righteous 9.
THE AofC "RULE OF NINE" AS REVISED BY THE CONSTITUTION
U.S. Const., Article II, Section 2, Clause 1
He [the President] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; ....
In case of a material breach by one of the parties, said party shall not be allowed to benefit from the breach. Professor Martin specifically named 5 breaching states (GA, MD, NY, PA, VA). That only leaves a potential of 8 righteous, non-breaching states. Pursuant to the Rule of Nine, at least one heretical breaching state must have been allowed to participate in creating and enacting the new contract, obtaining benefit from his own breach.
In fact, PA was the second state to ratify, GA was the sixth state, and MD was the seventh state.
The new contract was brought to life by the first nine ratifications. Fully one-third of the actors who created the new contract were among those named by Professor Martin as having been in breach of the Articles of Confederation.
RI was not alleged to have committed any breach, yet was subjected to economic coercion by all five of the allegedly breaching states.
SUBJECTING OUR CONSTITUTION TO INTERNATIONAL LAW
SOVEREIGNTY "The term 'sovereign' or 'sovereignty,' says Judge Story, "is used in different senses, which often leads to a confusion of ideas, and sometimes to very mischievous and unfounded conclusions." Without any disrespect for Judge Story, or any disparagement of his great learning and ability, it may safely be added that he and his disciples have contributed not a little to the increase of this confusion of ideas and the spread of these mischievous and unfounded conclusions. There is no good reason whatever why it should be used in different senses, or why there should be any confusion of ideas as to its meaning. Of all the terms employed in political science, it is one of the most definite and intelligible. The definition of it given by that accurate and lucid publicist, Burlamaqui, is simple and satisfactory -- that "sovereignty is a right of commanding in the last resort in civil society."1 The original seat of this sovereignty he also declares to be in the people. "But," he adds, "when once the people have transferred their right to a sovereign [i.e., a monarch], they can not, without contradiciton, be supposed to continue still masters of it.2 This is in strict accord with the theory of American republicanism, the peculiarity of which is that the people never do transfer their right of sovereignty, either in whole or in part. They only delegate to their governments the exercise of such of its functions as may be necessary, subject always to their own control, and to reassumption whenever such government fails to fulfill the purposes for which it was instituted.
I think it has already been demonstrated that, in this country, the only political community -- the only independent corporate unit -- through which the people can exercise their sovereignty, is the State. Minor communities -- as those of counties, cities, and towns -- are merely fractional subdivisions of the State; and these do not affect the evidence that there was not such a political community as the "people of the United States in the aggregate."
That the States were severally sovereign and independent when they were united under the Articles of Confederation, is distinctly asserted in those articles, and is admitted even by the extreme partisans of consolidation. Of right, they are still sovereign, unless they have surrendered or been divested of their sovereignty; and those who deny the proposition have been vainly called upon to point out the process by which they have divested themselves, or have been divested of it, otherwise than by usurpation.
Since Webster spoke and Story wrote upon the subject, however, the sovereignty of the States has been vehemently denied, or explained away as only a partial, imperfect, mutilated sovereignty. Paradoxical theories of "divided sovereignty" and "delegated sovereignty" have arisen, to create that "confusion of ideas" to which Judge Story speaks. Confounding the sovereign authority of the people with the delegated powers conferred by them upon their governments, we hear of a Government of the United States "sovereign within its sphere," and of State governments "sovereign in their sphere; of the surrender by the States of part of their sovereignty to the United States, and the like. Now, if there be any one great principle pervading the Federal Constitution, the State Constitutions, the writings of the fathers, the whole American system, as clearly as the sunlight pervades the solar system, it is that no government is sovereign -- that all governments derive their powers from the people, and exercise them in subjection to the will of the people -- not a will expressed in any irregular, lawless, tumultuary manner, but the will of the organized political community. expressed through authorized and legitimate channels. The founders of the American republics never conferred, nor intended to confer, sovereignty upon either their State or Federal Governments.
If, then, the people of the States, in forming a federal Union, surrendered -- or, to use Burlamaquie's term, transferred -- or if they meant to surrender or transfer -- part of their sovereignty, to whom was the transfer made? Not to "the people of the United States in the aggregate"; for there was no such people in existence, and they did not create or constitute such a people by merger of themselves. Not to the Federal Government; for they disclaimed, as a fundamental principle, the sovereignty of any government. There was no such surrender, no such transfer, in whole or in part, expressed or implied. They retained, and intended to retain, their sovereignty in its integrity -- undivided and indivisible.
"But, indeed," says Mr. Motley, "the words 'sovereign' and 'sovereignty' are purely inapplicable to the American system. In the Declaration of Independence the provinces declare themselves 'free and independent States,' but the men of those days knew that the word 'sovereign' was a term of feudal origin. When their connection with a time-honored feudal monarchy was abruptly severed, the word 'sovereign' had no meaning for us."3
If this be true, "the men of those days" had a very extraordinary way of expressing their conviction that the word "had no meaning for us." We have seen that, in the very front of their Articles of Confederation, they set forth the conspicuous declaration that each State retained "its sovereignty, freedom, and independence."
Massachusetts -- the State, I believe, of Mr. Motley's nativity and citizenship -- in her original Constitution, drawn up by "men of those days," made this declaration:
"The people inhabiting the territory formerly called the Province of Massachusetts Bay do hereby solemnly and mutually agree with each other to form themselves into a free, sovereign, and independent body politic, or state, by the name of The Commonwealth of Massachusetts."New Hampshire, in her Constitution, as revised in 1792, had identically the same declaration, except as regards the name of the state and the word "State" instead of "Commonwealth."
Mr. Madison, one of the most distinguished of the men of that day and of the advocates of the Constitution, in a speech already once referred to, in the Virginia Convention of 1788, explained that "We, the people of "thirteen SOVEREIGNTIES."4
In the "Federalist," he repeatedly employs the term -- as, for example, when he says: "Do they [the fundamental principles of the Confederation] require that, in the establishment of the Constitution, the States should be regarded as distinct and independent SOVEREIGNS? They are so regarded by the Constitution proposed."5
Alexander Hamilton -- another contemporary authority, no less illustrious -- says, in the "Federalist":
"It is inherent in the nature of sovereignty, not to be amenable to the suit of an individual without its consent. This is the general sense and the general practice of mankind; and the exemption, as one of the attributes of sovereignty, is now enjoyed by the government of every State in the Union."6In the same paragraph he uses these terms, "sovereign" and "sovereignty," repeatedly -- always with reference to the States, respectively and severally.
Benjamin Franklin advocated equality of suffrage in the Senate as a means of securing "the sovereignties of the individual States."7 James Wilson, of Pennsylvania, said sovereignty "is in the people before they make a Constitution, and remains in them," and described the people as being "thirteen independent sovereignties."8 Gouverneur Morris, who was, as well as Wilson, one of the warmest advocates in the convention of a strong central government, spoke of the constitution as "a compact," and of the parties to it as "each enjoying sovereign power"9 Roger Sherman, of Connecticut, declared that the Government "was instituted by a number of sovereign States.10 Oliver Ellsworth, of the same State, spoke of the States as "sovereign bodies."11 These were all eminent members of the Convention which formed the Constitution.
There was scarcely a statesman of that period who did not leave on record expressions of the same sort. But why multiply citations? It is very evident that the "men of those days" entertained very different views of sovereignty from thsoe set forth by the "new lights" of our day. Far from considering it a term of feudal origin, "purely inapplicable to the American system," they seem to have regarded it as a very vital principle in that system, and of necessity belonging to the several States -- and I do not find a single instance in which they applied it to any political organization, except the States.
Their ideas were in entire accord with those of Vattel, who, in his chapter "Of Nations or Sovereign States," writes, "Every nation that governs itself, under what form soever, without any dependence on foreign power, is a sovereign state."12
In another part of the same chapter he gives a lucid statement of the nature of a confederate republic, such as ours was designed to be. He says:
"Several sovereign and independent states may unite themselves together by a perpetual confederacy, without each in particular ceasing to be a perfect state. They will form together a federal republic: the delibertions in common will offer no violence to the sovereignty of each member, though they may, in certain respects, put some restraint on the exercise of it, in virtue of voluntary engagements. A person does not cease to be free and independent, when he is obliged to fulfill the engagements into which he has very willingly entered."13What this celebrated author means here by a person, is explained by a subsequent passage: "The law of nations is the loaw of sovereigns; states free and independent are moral persons."14
[ 1] "Principles du Droit Politique," chap v, section 1; also chap. vii, section 1.
[ 2] Ibid., chap. vii, section 12.
[ 3] "Rebellion Record," vol i, Documents, p. 211
[ 4] Elliot's "Debates," vol iii, p. 114, edition of 1836
[ 5] "Federalist," No. xl.
[ 6] Ibid, No. lxxxi.
[ 7] See Elliots "Debates," vol. v. p. 266.
[ 8] See "Life of Gouverneur Morris," vol iii, p. 193
[ 9] See "Writings of John Adams," vol vii, letter of Roger Sherman.
[10] See Elliot;s "Debates," vol ii, p. 197.
[11] "Law of Nations," Book I, chap i, section 4.
[12] Ibid, section 10.
[13] Ibid, section 12.
SOURCE: Jefferson Davis, The Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government, Vol I, pp. 141-5.
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.