Posted on 04/03/2002 9:52:50 AM PST by r9etb
Not tacitly anymore. Same moral plane. The right to self-government that we revere in the Declaration applies equally to other groups even when we might not agree with their purpose. The colonists were slave holders and slaver traders, so they had no higher moralilty if that is the issue.
But we're not talking about the Declaration. We're talking about the Constitution, and whether it gives the Federal Government the right to suppress insurrection. It does.
No disagreement about putting down an isurrection, but insurrection and secession are different. That said, the Revolution was insurrection, illegal, treason to the Crown, and a great idea.
Lincoln didn't start the war, he just reacted to what the Confederates started. Had he just let the Confederates do whatever they wanted to do, there still would have been a bloody conflict over slavery, perhaps in the form of a guerilla war that lasted for decades and killed millions. In the meantime 4,000,000+ people would still be in bondage -- though apparently their suffering is of little important to you.
Moreover, I don't know where you got your 600,000 number, but battle deaths totaled about 200,000. Arguably, most of those Civil War soldiers who died of disease or other non-battle causes would have done so anyway had there been no war. Almost all of the Union soldiers who died (including my ggguncle) were volunteers, so you can't blame Lincoln for their brave decisions to lay their lives on the line for liberty. The Confederate soldiers who fought willingly got what they deserved for fighting for the slaveholders, and you can't blame Lincoln for the Confederate conscripts who died.
Yes, in the end slavery was ended - but surely there were more effective ways. Don't think Lincoln's way is the right way!
As I stated before, I'm still waiting for one of you Lincoln bashers to explain what you would have done to abolish slavery in a more efficient manner. Keep in mind that Lincoln was even amenable to bribing the slaveholders to free the Negroes they held in bondage, but the slaveholders were a hardcore bunch of lunatics who would have none of that. For them it was a matter of Southern "honor" and "liberty" for them to keep Negroes subservient.
The lingering question is why he did not take the moral high ground and free the slaves in 1861.
I answered that in Number 171 above. Please explain how you would have had him do it.
Secession is NEVER an act of insurrection by a soveriegn state.
Until you accept the fact Lincoln did not take the moral high ground on this issue, you will not persuade me of my position.
Ask me how I would have done it differently than Lincoln....simply, follow the guidelines my forefathers had set before me (DoI, Constitution). Might does not make right. But this thread is about secession, friend, let's stay on topic.
That was the excuse for sure. Always did sound like a Gulf of Tolkin incident to me. So who knows?
So far, it appears the Walter Williams side has the edge in facts, or at least the lack of prosecution to prove him wrong.
Arguably the United States was formed as a perpetual union under the Articles of Confederation, and its government was reorganized under the Constitution leaving the perpetual union part intact. One time or another, some of the States tried to "bust the deal" and were forced to "face the wheel." In this case, the "Wheel" was a form of Judicial Combat. Arguably, Lincoln and the Federal Government acted on behalf of the States which did not agree with the decision of other States to back out of a deal they had agreed to (before the Constitution existed).
Note: The United States existed as a Perpetual Union by mutual agreement of the States prior to the Constituion. It was not established by the Constitution and does not depend on the Constitution for its existence. The Federal Gorvenment is not the United States. It is a governing mechanism or agent agreed to by the States. If the States convened a Constitutional Convention today, they could amend the Constitution to abolish the Federal Government and establish a Constitutional Monarchy as the governing mechanism, and the United States would still exist. (The thought of a Constitutional Convention held today is really scary considering the quality of the potential participants.)
Note the following:
Articles of Confederation
To all to whom these Presents shall come, we the undersigned Delegates of the States affixed to our Names send greeting.
Articles of Confederation and perpetual Union between the states of New Hampshire, Massachusetts-bay Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia.
The Stile of this Confederacy shall be "The United States of America".
Agreed to by Congress 15 November 1777 In force after ratification by Maryland, 1 March 1781
*******
The friends of our country have long seen and desired, that the power of making war, peace, and treaties, that of levying money and regulating commerce, and the correspondent executive and judicial authorities should be fully and effectually vested in the general government of the Union: But the impropriety of delegating such extensive trust to one body of men is evident-Hence results the necessity of a different organization. (Letter of the President of the Federal Convention, Dated September 17, 1787, to the President of Congress, Transmitting the Constitution.)
*******
Constitution of the United States : Preamble
We, the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
(Emphasis added.)
*******
This looks like an argument that Lincoln had some justification in trying to preserve the Union.
I came across this recently at Project Avalon and thought I'd throw it into the mix.<
Can you point me to the passage that gives them the right to secede? I can't seem to find it.
|
When the American colonies came to be formed into States, as the result of the Revolutionary war, warned by the oppressions and denial of rights imposed on them by the crown of Great Britain, each of them accompanied their State Constitutions with a "Bill of Rights" in which it was declared that the people possessed certain inalienable rights of which they could not be deprived, which they specified; so when the American people came to form the Constitution of the United States, animated by the same jealousy of the unlimited power of government, they created a government with delegated and strictly limited powers only, and for greater security for their liberty and rights they provided that the powers not therein delegated were reserved to the States and to the people respectively. The Federal government was given jurisdiction over questions of a national and those of an inter-State character, while the States retained jurisdiction over all the local questions and domestic institutions. This is the authority for the doctrine of State rights. Slavery was from the first treated by all the States as a domestic institution, to be controlled or disposed of as each State might choose for itself. And this is the reason why the Northern States abolished slavery without asking the sanction of the Federal government. And when the people of the Northern States commenced their crusade for the abolition of slavery by the numbers and powers of their people where slavery did not exist, and in the States where it did exist without their consent, they commenced a revolution in distinct violation of the Constitution and laws; they made themselves a lawless, revolutionary party, and became rebels against the Government of the United States. And when they levied war to carry out their policy they became traitors. But the minority could not try and punish the treason of the majority. Their pretense was that They were fighting to save the Union, and they made thousands of honest soldiers believe they were fighting for the Union. Their leaders knew that the Union rested on the Constitution, and that their purpose was to overthrow the Constitution. The Union the soldiers fought for was the Union established by the Constitution. The Union the leaders sought was only to be attained by the subversion of the Constitution, the annulment of the doctrine of State rights, the making of a consolidated central republic, abolishing the limitations prescribed by the Constitution and substituting a popular majority of the people of the whole Union in their stead, and to open the way for individual and corporate gain through the agency of the government. Why the South Seceded [Address of Hon. John H. Reagan, only surviving member of the Confederate |
No, if you'll read the original essay, you'll note that this is a thread on the Constitutionality of secession. Tell you what, if you want (and since it might make it easier for you to comprehend, since you haven't had much luck so far) we can frame it as a discussion of whether it is right now constitutional for a State to secede. And before you work you brain up to the point of offering the "no, because the North won the 1861-1865 war", realize that argument is irrelavent, too. That is akin to saying anything is okay if you have a bigger gun.
How's that? Can you put aside your ad hominem attacks and emotion-based rhetoric, and show me where it says Texas cannot secede if I can convince the legislature to pass an article of secession? Point to the wording. And if you want to say that Texas was conquered, nullifying it's right to secede, then let's play your game and make it Maine.
Now to your other silly comment.
Actually, about 1/3 of Southern families owned slaves, and the slaveholders conned most of the nonslaveholding Southerners into supporting the Confederacy by extolling the benefits to them of white supremacy and frightening them with the prospect of free black men raping or marrying their daughters.
Actually, about 1/3 of Southern families owned slaves, and the slaveholders conned most of the nonslaveholding Southerners into supporting the Confederacy by extolling the benefits to them of white supremacy and frightening them with the prospect of free black men raping or marrying their daughters. You're absolutely right, ravinson. I mean, all the archive excerpts I've seen had the soldiers start off every letter home to mom with, "Dear Mom, we're holding Richmond, so Sis is still safe from having to be raped or married by a black man." NOT! But this is a nice attempt to spread utter bulls**t about the thoughts and honor of the Southern fighting man. It also ignores plenty of Northern racism. It is, however, gratifying to see that the money the Federal government spent on propaganda disguised as text books was money well-spent. And don't get me wrong, I'm sure there was plenty of racism, but it spread around pretty equitably. Again, in no way to germane to the constitutionality of secession.
LTS
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.