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.
More Yankee hypocrisy.
BTW, many of the black adults (and some of their children!) didn't want integration where I lived. In the ensuing years of racial strife, they lost control of a generation of their children, with commonly terrible results. Many of those 'kids' are dead now, the result of crime and drugs which were not part of their culture in the '60's.
We have killed as many crews of space 'vessels' as died in the Hunley. (Apollo 1, Challenger, Columbia).
The Hunley was the first submarine to sink an enemy warship, and did so before a practical engine existed for submarine vessels (with human power).
The cutting edge of military technology is fraught with risk, but the Hunley had disengaged from the target, and was on the way back. In all probability she was run over by a Union ship and otherwise might have survived to sink another.
Yep. Point Lookout, the Death Camp on a Sand spit. A friend and I went down there years ago and found the area fenced off with a lighthouse or some such. No Admittance. There will never be any attempt to excavate the site, not that much would be left after years of brackish water and erosion.
Survivor's accounts made the place far worse than Andersonville, especially given the Yankees' resources. All within sight of Westmoreland, Virginia, just 9 miles away.
The standard of free, white, male, 21, and a property owner applied all over.
And so I've noticed that in the last 30 or so posts, you've quoted the subject of our original debate as authority in resolving elements thereof. We've come full-circle, I suppose; although my faint desire to see this hit 2K posts may spur me to keep it up.
I'll agree with you that the CSA was a country when you show me the list of the countries that established formal diplomatic relations with them
So the USA can be a country (your word) without said qualification, but the CSA not? No wonder you wrap your notions of "Union" in mysticism.
Articles of Confederation
II.
Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled.
III.
The said States hereby severally enter into a firm league of friendship with each other....
To: capitan_refugio[CapnR] I speculated that Texas v White, on the issue of secession, will never be revisited and over-turned.
CapnR NOW says that CapnR speculated. Did CapnR speculate, or did he say Chief Justice Chase ruled?
REALITY CHECK:
[CapnR to Gianni #1426] Chief Justice Chase did not alter one word of the Constitution. He ruled that the original intent of the framers was that the Union was paramount and that unilateral secession was, is, and will remain illegal.
1,527 posted on 10/27/2003 1:10 PM CST by nolu chan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1517 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
To: nolu chan
You are not a very perceptive person, are you? What do you do for a living, pluck feathers for the Tyson company?
Obviously, "... was, is, and will remain" was my editorialization. You have read Texas v White and know what it says. There is nothing inconsistant with my take on the ruling. You, however, have no reasonable basis to counter the argument, so you resort to your typical tactics. Of course, you are not recognized for your intellect here at FR, but rather your ability to bluster.
By the way, you still haven't answered my question to you. What was the birthdate of the United States of America? "Where is, repeat, where is nolu chan? The world wonders."
1,548 posted on 10/27/2003 4:33 PM CST by capitan_refugio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1527 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
To: capitan_refugio
[CapnR] What do you do for a living, pluck feathers for the Tyson company?
No, I am a brain insemination specialist. I take intellectually challenged fellows, such as yourself, into a cow pasture, and there I stretch a cow vagina over your head. I then summon the biggest, meanest bull in the pasture and see if he can't inseminate some brains into you.
1,573 posted on 10/28/2003 5:10 AM CST by nolu chan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1548 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
I concede. My #1527 was certainly unduly provocative. Your #1548 in response to my #1573 demonstrated superior wit and originality by far. Do claim your victory and please stop beating up on me like that.
Because of its virtually metaphysical nature, it is hard to answer the theoretical question of whether the state peoples wholly retained their separate identity, or whether adoption of the constitution signified the existence of a unified "People of the United States." To the extent that the Framers had any shared understanding on this point, which is itself somewhat dubious, they probably leaned toward the view that ratification signified the emergence of a national People.
I believe the problem is that we have been focused on the text of the document and the intent of the framers, when we should have been breathing in the UC Berkeley campus air, expanding our awareness, and contemplating the virtually metaphysical nature of the Constitution.
every time it rains hard & the camp area floods, more BONES & SKULLS wash up to the surface. MANYof the skulls have bullet holes in the rear.
the reason that no excavation is allowed by either the Veterans Department or the state of MD is that nobody in today's PC administrations wants to admit the PLPOWC was a DEATH CAMP on the order of DACHAU!
free dixie,sw
...a neo-Yankee is far, far worse than any neo-Confeerate could be.
Well-said!
BUT the are MANY PALEO-Confederates from the old rebel families, who have NOT forgotten how sweet it was to breathe FREE dixie air!
my 13YO neice will bask in the sun of a new & much improved SOUTHRON REPUBLIC, though i probably won't live to see dixie freedom.
free dixie,sw
there are NO neo-confederates. period. end of story.BUT the are MANY PALEO-Confederates from the old rebel families
We stand corrected!
c_r: I'll be glad to, when you identify the alterations for me.
I thought you might have a recognized one or two, based on your own statements:
”The proposed Constitution … proposed changes to the general (national) governing framework. … New aspects were instituted. … Other functions were modified.”
”History tells us, that as of March 2, 1789 the government conducted under the Articles was finished.”
” Did this mean dissolution of the Union? No. It meant modification of the Union.”
”The Articles were superceded.”
Were the Articles of Confederation altered, or simply abandoned? Or do they continue in effect, as you seem to insist with regard to the “perpetual” union language?
It seems to me that if the people of a State had actually voted to NOT ratify the Constitution, that they were free to go their own way.
“Free to go their own way?” So much for your “perpetual” union…
;>)
The terms of ratification provided that the Constitution of 1787 was binding only on those who ratified. By implication, the Framers in the Philadelphia Convention, as well as the people of the ratifying states, were giving their consent to those who did not want to be part of a Constitutional Union, as compared to a Confederation. I don't recall saying that a State couldn't leave the Union with the consent of the other States.
I believe Rhode Island was not even represented “in the Philadelphia Convention.” No product of the convention can therefore be assumed, even “by implication,” to constitute the unanimous “consent” required by your argument that “a State [could] leave the Union with the consent of the other States.”
The internal contradictions inherent in your argument are becoming increasingly evident…
;>)
Again, I dismiss your suggestion that the Constitution was an "alteration" of the Articles.
Actually, you’ve been all over the map on this one. Apparently you enjoy analogies: assume that a convention of less than three fourths of the States proposed that the Constitution be “superceded,” contingent upon the ratification of 37 or fewer States – would such an amendment/alteration/modification/replacement ‘supercede’ the existing Constitution if so ratified?
As I just posted, I have no problem with States that opted out on a permanent basis. None did. Don't call it "secession," because it is an entirely different process. They would have left with the consent and blessings of the other States.
Actually, “[t]hey would have left with the consent and blessings of the other States” - except Rhode Island, which was not even represented at the convention. “They would also have left with the consent and blessings” of one fewer State than was required to alter the compact, and they would have lacked the unanimous consent that you suggest is required for such an act. Furthermore, they would have left what you have repeatedly insisted is a union binding in perpetuity.
As for “secession,” the term has been defined as ‘formal withdrawal from an alliance, federation, or association, as from a political union.’ You suggest that a State ‘opting out’ of the “perpetual” union formed under the Articles (even though the “process” was not approved by the required thirteen States ;>) is not “secession.” Tell us, did the “process” lack ‘formality?’ Or did ‘opting out’ not constitute a ‘withdrawal?’ Or will you suggest once again that the union is not “political?”
“As I just posted,” the internal contradictions inherent in your argument are becoming increasingly evident…
;>)
Secession has nothing to do with the rule of law. If the rule of law were your concern, then you ought to be happy with Texas v White, which is settled case law in this country.
On the contrary, secession has everything to do with the rule of law. The federal government, which “is entirely a creature of the Constitution,” and possesses “power and authority” which “have no other source,” used military force to prevent secession. In 1860-61, the Constitution nowhere prohibited secession. Where then did the federal government acquire the “power and authority” to suppress secession?
You have suggested that the union “is a state of mind:” was the federal authority 'generated' by someone’s “state of mind?” Mr. Lincoln’s, perhaps? Please be specific. You suggest that secession was somehow contrary to “the fundamental underpinnings of the Nation:” which of those “fundamental underpinnings” allowed the federal government to ignore the Constitution?
As for Texas v White:
Perhaps you will apply both ‘logic and reasoning’ to two issues I raised previously, which you have failed to address:
1) Mr. Madison’s comments from the ‘Report on the Virginia Resolutions’ (1800):
"However true, therefore, it may be, that the judicial department is, in all questions submitted to it by the forms of the Constitution, to decide in the last resort, this resort must necessarily be deemed the last in relation to the authorities of the other departments of the [federal] government; not in relation to the rights of the [States as] parties to the constitutional compact, from which the judicial, as well as the other departments, hold their delegated trusts. On any other hypothesis, the delegation of judicial power would annul the authority delegating it; and the concurrence of this department with the others in usurped powers, might subvert forever, and beyond the possible reach of any rightful remedy, the very Constitution which all were instituted to preserve.”
2) Mr. Taylor’s comment from ‘New Views of the Constitution of the United States’ (1825):
"The right of construction [interpretation] must be attached to the right of alteration [amendment], or the latter right would be destroyed.”
1,771 posted on 11/04/2003 5:26 PM PST by Who is John Galt?
The issue is the suggestion that federal judicial review of constitutional issues was both exclusive and final. I believe you have suggested that the high court has the ‘final say’ (or something to that effect ;>) regarding the meaning of the Constitution.
1,792 posted on 11/06/2003 5:07 PM PST by Who is John Galt?
You profess an attachment to ‘logic and reasoning:’ can you address the ‘logic and reasoning’ of Mr. Madison’s and Mr. Taylor’s statements?
So, do I correctly surmise that it is your position that Jefferson Davis was honoring the Constitution by leading the secessionist "government"??
You previously suggested that a political compact was not binding on States that had “opted out,” even when the number of States which approved the ‘opting out’ “process” was less than that required to ‘alter’ the compact, and even though you insist the compact was binding in ‘perpetuity.’ Have you changed your mind?
;>)
Unilateral secession is unconstitutional on several levels, 1830's era political commentary notwithstanding.
Which “levels,” precisely? The “state of mind” level? Or the “fundamental underpinnings” level? Certainly not on the written, ‘English language,’ level…
;>)
I believe the "Union" (in the sense of a national identity) predates the Articles and even the Declaration…
So, you believe that a State that had refused to ratify the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union, would still have been a part of the “perpetual” union mentioned therein? Article III declares that “[t]he said States hereby severally enter into a firm league of friendship with each other:” do you suggest that the “firm league of friendship” was somehow separate from the “Union?” If so, then how do you transfer the “perpetual union” language from the “firm league of friendship” to the “Union?” If not, then how can you insist that the “Union… predates the Articles?”
Were there two sets of ‘laws’ governing the 13 States - one written (the Articles) and applicable to the members of the “league of friendship,” and another apparently unwritten and applicable to ‘existing’ “Union” members? Was there perhaps even a third, relating to “national identity?” By which of these ‘laws’ was the government bound? Could Congress, for example, have authorized the annihilation of “schizophrenic” Rhode Island, in the interests of preserving the “national identity?”
By the way, you suggest in Post #1,818 that you will agree “that the CSA was a country when you show me the list of the countries that established formal diplomatic relations with them.” Care to apply that ‘standard’ to your claim that “the ‘Union’… predates … the Declaration?” How many countries “established formal diplomatic relations” with the “Union” before the Declaration of Independence? Or does your “in the sense of a national identity” disclaimer indicate that the pre-Articles / pre-Declaration “Union” was not really “a country?”
(Your “Union” seems to be quite a marvelous creature: not a “political” union, and not a “country.” In Post #1,776, you declared that “[t]he Union… is a state of mind,” indicating that it might be ‘mental’ in nature – like a ‘Vulcan mind-meld’ that somehow prohibits State secession… ;>)
“(13, the same number required to approve alterations to the Articles)" - Happenstance. The number of the states in the Union could have been any number during the ratification process. Vermont was just about ready to go, and the provisional State of Franklin was making noises west of North Carolina. Nine was established as the trigger…
Although by this point it has become quite obvious that you have based your argument on some sort of ‘unwritten law,’ I will nevertheless suggest that “13” was not “happenstance” – it was the number of States required to ‘alter’ the terms of a contract, which had been agreed to by every party thereto. (It strikes me as very amusing that you at one point attempted to base your argument on contract law, suggesting, IIRC, that terms previously agreed to could not be modified without the consent of all parties. “Happenstance?” Not under the contract law you cited… ;>)
As for your suggestion that “the states in the Union could have been any number during the ratification process,” such an admission appears to undermine your “perpetual” union argument. As for your “trigger,” nothing you say will cause “nine” to equal “13, the same number required to approve alterations to the Articles"…
;>)
You would like to define ratification of the Constitution as "secession" (or formal withdrawal) from the Articles, because that allows you to say that it was a precedent for the acts of the southern states in 186-1861. But that is a faulty construct.
“[F]aulty construct?” LOL! The only way to avoid the conclusion that the ratifying States seceded from the union formed under the Articles, or that the ratifying States expelled the non-ratifying States from that same union, is to claim that the union was not political in nature. You have done just that. I must therefore ask: what do you consider, today, to be “the supreme” law of the land?”
;>)
As I earlier chided one poster, are we to presume that States "withdrew" from the United States of America to form ... the United States of America!?
Why not? The facts suggest it. Here, you place too much emphasis on actual “happenstance” – the name of the confederation. Would you recognize that secession had indeed occurred, if the union formed under the Articles had been named the Confederate States of America? It was indeed recognized as a “confederacy”…
The Articles were superceded. It is very simple.
If they were “superceded,” why do you suggest that the “perpetual” union language of the Articles remains in effect?
And you seem to suggest (at least some of the time ;>) that “the Articles were superceded” by means of a “process” that somehow complied with the terms of the Articles. If so, precisely how can you argue that the complete replacement of the Articles required the approval of fewer States than did a simple “alteration?”
The people of the states that had not ratified were free to choose their own path, by the consent of the other states.
“By the consent of the other states” – except, of course, Rhode Island.
The could choose complete independence and take their place among the states of the world, they could look for a foreign power to join (some threatened to do just that prior to ratification)...
Hardly a description of “perpetual” union – political or otherwise…
;>)
Did this mean dissolution of the Union? No.
You are correct only if you are referring to some sort of mystical, ‘non-political’ “Union."
"Unwritten" shouldn't be a problem. You claim "secession at will" to be a State's right, reserved in the Tenth Amendment. Certainly "secession" is no where mentioned.
Let’s review the amendment in question:
The 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.
That appears, to me at least, to be ‘written.’ And the terms are quite clear. Are you suggesting that secession is not a ‘power?’ Or that it was “delegated to the United States by the Constitution?” Or perhaps that it was “prohibited by” the Constitution “to the States?” (Strange – it doesn’t say ‘prohibited by the Constitution, or by the Articles, or by the “national identity,” or by a “state of mind,”’ as you would apparently have us believe… ;>) Maybe you are still having trouble with the word “reserved”…
;>)
"Extra-constitutional" should not be a problem either. This country is premised on the "natural rights of man." the right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Most "rights" are not enumerated, and thus, are "extra-constitutional." That's what the Ninth Amendment is all about.
“Bad analogy.” You are comparing the powers of government – a supposedly “limited” republican government - to the natural and inalienable rights of the people. Shame on you…
I would also argue that regulating the membership of the Constitutional Union is an implied power of the federal government, which means that is is not one of the powers reserved to the States or the People.
And as Mr. Madison noted, any power can be “implied.” Even the standard purportedly employed by the federal judiciary, however, is more restrictive:
”As far as the Federal Constitution is concerned, then, the States can exercise all powers that the Constitution does not withhold from them. The Federal Government and the States thus face different default rules: where the Constitution is silent about the exercise of a particular power - that is, where the Constitution does not speak either expressly or by necessary implication - the Federal Government lacks that power and the States enjoy it.”
Justice Thomas (with whom The Chief Justice, Justice O'Connor, and Justice Scalia join), U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, 1995
You have advised us repeatedly how important judicial opinion and judicial precedence are: care to tell us why you refuse to employ the judicial standard of “necessary implication?”
;>)
"Non-legal requirement" Interesting concept. An opinion of the Supreme Court, non-legal. You're going to have to develop that idea a little better.
Certainly:
”… [A]n act of the legislature, repugnant to the constitution, is void…
”…[and] it is apparent that the framers of the Constitution contemplated that instrument as a rule for the government of courts, as well as of the legislature.”
Mr. Justice Marshall, Marbury v. Madison, 1803
Just as Mr. Madison suggested in his Report of 1800, an unconstitutional “opinion of the Supreme Court” is no more lawful than an unconstitutional “act of the legislature”…
;>)
Not at all. Take the analogy of a contract. There are 13 parties to the contract. They agree to let one or more out of the contract. There is no unilateral abrogation here. It's by agreement. And the contract remains in force for those still bound to it. It's still the contract.
The Philadelphia Convention didn't change a word of the Articles. There was no alteration. The people of the United States ratified the document that superceded the Article (i.e. the Constitution of 1787). Textural analysis of the new constitution reveals that about 2/3rds of the Articles are embodied in the new document. Many of the founding principles of this nation are found in both documents.
After March 2, 1789, the Articles were no longer effective, having been replaced by the American people, in convention in their respective States, with the new Constitution. So as not to go round and round, we both note that two of the original thirteen did not ratify until after the new government was in operation. I don't view that as beinig in "disunion," nor do I find any evidence of official sanctions for their delayed ratification.
Note that the Chase ruling in Texas v White simply states "consent." I personally believe it should be unanimous, but the ruling does not require it. The language of the Constitution said that it would apply only to the people of those states that had ratified in convention. So, the implication that potential non-ratifying states would not be forced into a union not of their choosing, and hence, were free to choose their own course, is quite reasonable.
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.