Posted on 12/20/2010 3:43:37 PM PST by Jet Jaguar
Saul Alinsky: Rules for Radicals
Your post was well written and thoughtfully laid out; although, it can be misleading to readers. There was no rebellion, insurrection, or domestic violence. Was there any Southern State legislature claiming they wanted Assistance for such events? No. The only transpiring event to ever take place was the Sovereigns whom created the Federal Government deciding they wanted to re-assumed their authority that they delegated. Nothing more & certainly nothing less. That very limited part of their Sovereignty that they delegated to their agent was again theirs, and theirs alone.
The protecting against invasion part is very interesting! It figures this didn't apply to them blue coats....s/
Don't have time to debate your post right now, just enough time for one quick observation.
This sentence in your post (emphasis mine):
Finally, virtually everyone posting here in defense of Lincoln and the Union, would agree with Lincoln that secession could be perfectly legal, if approved by Congress. (BJK)
affirms what patriot preacher said in this sentence (emphasis mine):
Many believe they are “conservatives.” They even populate FR. But ultimately, when their backs are against the wall, they will opt to let Washington decide who’s “free” and who’s not. They won’t let those decision belong to “the States...or to the people.” (patriot preacher)
I wish you all a Merry Christmas!
Blowing holes in your "fellow Americans" with double shot cannister at 50 yards is an interesting way to perserve something.
I vote that they would secede because they’re all a bunch of flaming fags.
Sorry, but the real truth is never "misleading."
Idabilly: "There was no rebellion, insurrection, or domestic violence."
Only in Southern sympathizing history books.
In actual history, there were all of those things, beginning in some cases before a state officially seceded.
Long before firing on Fort Sumter, Southerners forcibly seized dozens of Federal forts, armories, ships, customs houses and even a mint.
Even Southern firing on Federals supporting Fort Sumter did not begin under the "devil" Lincoln, but in January, under Southern-sympathizing "dough-face" President Buchanan.
And Southern forces did eventually invade every Union state and territory surrounding the Confederacy, including Maryland, Pennsylvania, Kentucky, Missouri, Oklahoma and New Mexico.
Idabilly: "Was there any Southern State legislature claiming they wanted Assistance for such events? No."
No, but there were Union states which did.
And there is also a major issue of pro-Union counties of several states which did not accept secession -- including western Virginia, eastern Tennessee, and western North Carolina.
All of these states, plus Arkansas had refused to join the Confederacy, as long as the issue was only the protection and expansion of slavery.
But many of those states' citizens had no interest in slavery and wanted to remain in the Union.
Finally, we might note that after the South fired on and seized Fort Sumter Lincoln declared an insurrection, on April 15, 1861.
The Confederacy then declared war on the United States, on May 6 -- long before a single Federal troop had crossed a single Southern border.
So, who would ever expect to declare war on the United States, and not be defeated unconditionally?
Idabilly: "The only transpiring event to ever take place was the Sovereigns whom created the Federal Government deciding they wanted to re-assumed their authority that they delegated. Nothing more & certainly nothing less. That very limited part of their Sovereignty that they delegated to their agent was again theirs, and theirs alone."
So you keep saying, and saying...
But you can't just walk away from a legal contract without an adequate settlement of accounts, and that constitutionally requires the approval of Congress.
Certainly that was Lincoln's conviction, and it's mine too.
Where in the Constitution is that found?
Along with Abraham Lincoln, I take the Constitution seriously when it talks about suppressing rebellions and repelling invasions.
As to precisely what constitutes "rebellion" or "invasion": in what sense are seizing Federal property, firing on Federal forces, and officially declaring war on the United States not acts covered by the Constitution?
I take it you're referring to Southern forces firing on Fort Sumter?
Wasn't that mostly cannon balls?
Of course, you do remember the South officially declared war on the United States, on May 6, 1861.
Did they somehow expect the Union would only use single shot canister?
LOL. That's like saying that John Dillinger should have deposited $20,000 in the bank before he had the shootout with police.
Dillinger was all about robbing banks and the Confederacy was all about preserving slavery.
Hey a new one, comparing the Confederacy to a comon criminal. Usually the old Nazi and Jap empire comparisons happen first. Congrats.
The Constitution says nothing about secession, one way or another -- so every argument has to look for other Constitutional language and then claim: well, this means x and that means y and therefore my position for / against secession is true.
But the real truth is, our Founders considered their Constitution -- just like the previous Articles of Confederation -- to be "perpetual" and "forever."
Of course, they realized it might have to be dissolved, at some time in the future.
But that would have to be like a marriage divorce -- could not be for no-reason or "at pleasure", had to be by "mutual consent," or from "abuse" and "usurpations" having that same effect.
So the Founders provided no method for leaving the Union, though logically it would be identical to that for a state entering the Union -- namely with the approval of Congress.
What happened in historical fact was, there were no actual "usurpations" or "abuses" and no "mutual consent," so the Deep South first seceded "at pleasure" because of their fears of what an incoming anti-slavery Republican administration might do in the future.
The simple fact is that President Lincoln and Congress did not consider the Deep South's secession to be Constitutional, and when the South began shooting at Federal Forces, Lincoln declared an insurrection.
The Confederacy then declared war, and the rest, as they say, is history.
My point being, I think there is an argument to be made for allowing states to leave the Union. Slavery is wicked and evil. But as for leaving the Union, if it’s what the people of the state want, well, like I said, I think there is argument for that. Heck, I wouldn’t mind it if Texas decided to leave. I’d be down there in a heart beat!
C'mon, CVA, you know that there's gotta be a few straights in Californication...
The why did you post that secession "constitutionally requires the approval of Congress." ?
But the real truth is, our Founders considered their Constitution -- just like the previous Articles of Confederation -- to be "perpetual" and "forever."
First of all, it was a "perpetual union" between the original colonies in the AoC which was changed to "form a more perfect union" in the Constitution. If the Founders had considered the Constitution to be "forever" they wouldn't have allowed amendments, which, theoretically, could be used to turn the Constitution into the communist manifesto.
Secondly, the word "perpetual" in the AoC was specifically replaced to "more perfect" by the Founders specifically to allow the sovereign states to leave the union if they desired.
Now, precisely how does one state, or ten states, leaving the 'union' terminate the perpetuity of the union for the remaining states?
But that would have to be like a marriage divorce -- could not be for no-reason or "at pleasure", had to be by "mutual consent," or from "abuse" and "usurpations" having that same effect.
That's absurd. Just like any other contract, including a marriage contract, when it is broken, the damaged party does not have to have "mutual consent" to leave.
namely with the approval of Congress.
I'll use patriot preacher's words to respond to that:
Many believe they are “conservatives.” They even populate FR. But ultimately, when their backs are against the wall, they will opt to let Washington decide who’s “free” and who’s not. They won’t let those decision belong to “the States...or to the people.” (patriot preacher)
What happened in historical fact was, there were no actual "usurpations" or "abuses" and no "mutual consent," so the Deep South first seceded "at pleasure" because of their fears of what an incoming anti-slavery Republican administration might do in the future.
So, Constitutional violations are OK with you? (I'm guessing that obamacare is okeymacdokey, eh?)
The simple fact is that President Lincoln and Congress did not consider the Deep South's secession to be Constitutional, and when the South began shooting at Federal Forces, Lincoln declared an insurrection.
As we all know, disHonest Abe was rather famous for his Constitutional disregard as is a certain other president from Illinois...
The saddest fact is that there are more genuine Conservatives in states like California and New York than in many Red States combined.
It's just that those Conservatives are so overwhelmed numerically -- by millions of others who don't understand and don't want, many values our Founders took for granted.
Finally, virtually everyone posting here in defense of Lincoln and the Union, would agree with Lincoln that secession could be perfectly legal, if approved by Congress.
But lacking such Congressional approval, Lincoln’s constitutional duty was to preserve the union against rebellion, invasion and domestic violence — and that’s just what he did.
Neither Abraham Lincoln nor the Union would have ever let the South secede, because it wasn’t in their economic interest to do so. They needed an impoverished South to exploit, where they could obtain cheap agricultural and raw goods for their growing industrial machine.
If you’ll direct your attention to the excellent posts of Idabilly (#95 & #100) you’ll see a number of statements and declarations from the ratifications conventions of the Constitution, made by some of the Founding Fathers, no less! They are CRYSTAL CLEAR! These States would NEVER have ratified the Constitution had they not retained the RIGHT to, at any time, by virtue of the State’s act ALONE, rescind their action and withdraw from the compact and withdraw their representatives from the Washington Government.
The idea that a State must ask “permission” from Congress to secede from the Union legally is preposterous on its face! Would the oppressed ask permission of a tyrant to be set free? And would the tyrant grant such a request when HE ALONE is benefiting from such an arrangement?? Absurd!! The “Union mindset” on display!
“Where in the Constitution is that found?”
The Constitution says nothing about secession, one way or another — so every argument has to look for other Constitutional language and then claim: well, this means x and that means y and therefore my position for / against secession is true.
But the real truth is, our Founders considered their Constitution — just like the previous Articles of Confederation — to be “perpetual” and “forever.”
Of course, they realized it might have to be dissolved, at some time in the future.
But that would have to be like a marriage divorce — could not be for no-reason or “at pleasure”, had to be by “mutual consent,” or from “abuse” and “usurpations” having that same effect.
So the Founders provided no method for leaving the Union, though logically it would be identical to that for a state entering the Union — namely with the approval of Congress.
What happened in historical fact was, there were no actual “usurpations” or “abuses” and no “mutual consent,” so the Deep South first seceded “at pleasure” because of their fears of what an incoming anti-slavery Republican administration might do in the future.
The simple fact is that President Lincoln and Congress did not consider the Deep South’s secession to be Constitutional, and when the South began shooting at Federal Forces, Lincoln declared an insurrection.
The Confederacy then declared war, and the rest, as they say, is history.
Your post is well reasoned — but it’s wholly based on speculation. And, it’s based on a faulty premise or two. The Founders did not see the Union they designed as “perpetual” and certainly NOT as “forever.”
Thomas Jefferson clearly declared that people have a right to alter or abolish ANY FORM OF GOVERNMENT that becomes destructive to liberty. To America’s founders, there was no such thing as a sacred cow when it came to government. Government had but one purpose: “to secure these rights.” When ANY FORM of government stops protecting sacred, God-given liberties, it is the right and duty of people to do whatever they deem appropriate to secure their liberties–even to abolishing the government.
THAT — is EXACTLY what the Declaration of Independence said as the Colonies dissolved the bands between themselves and Britain. And that was what the Confederacy attempted to do (however imperfectly) in seceding from the Union. The failure of the Confederacy, however, did not result in the “freeing of the slaves,” as SO MANY Liberals, Progressives and Big Government (Union Minded) Conservatives would have us believe. Instead, the the defeat of the Confederacy resulted in the ascendancy on the all-powerful Central Government, the perversion of the Constitution, and the enslaving of ALL men. We are only NOW seeing the logical end of to these events....
No, they would exercise the natural right of rebellion. But Lost Causers refuse to admit that the south rebelled. They demand the protection of the law while rejecting the law's authority.
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.