Ron Paul is wrong on the Civil War and slavery, and he should be ashamed

Grand Old Partisan ^ | August 5, 2010 | Chuck Devore

[Michael Zak]

[by Assemblyman Chuck DeVore (R-Irvine, CA), re-published with his permission]

For years I have admired Congressman Ron Paul’s principled stance on spending and the Constitution. That said, he really damaged himself when he blamed President Lincoln for the Civil War, saying, “Six hundred thousand Americans died in a senseless civil war… [President Abraham Lincoln] did this just to enhance and get rid of the original intent of the republic.”

This is historical revisionism of the worst order, and it must be addressed.

For Congressman Paul’s benefit – and for his supporters who may not know – seven states illegally declared their “independence” from the United States before Lincoln was sworn in as President. After South Carolina fired the first shot at Fort Sumter, four additional states declared independence...

[arrogantsob]

You just prefer to believe the facts I raise are wrong because they destroy your position.

Refute these simple facts: 1 Madison believed secession wrong; 2 Washington believed secession wrong; 3 Hamilton believed secession wrong.

[Michael Zak]

My point was about “a constittutional right to secession” not some people who wanted to secede just because they wanted to do it.

[Cheburashka]

If you really want answers to these questions look around at your options to get yourself educated. Don’t expect me to give you a free Constitutional Law seminar.

[arrogantsob]

We pick and choose what we are allowed in society and family as well as politically. That is an unavoidable fact of life.

[Bubba Ho-Tep]

Several New England states came within a hair of succeeding over the War of 1812.

Nonsense. A few hotheads and newspaper editorialists grumbled about it, but at the Hartford Convention, where the New England states met to talk about their grievances, the idea never got off the ground. The final report of the convention never mentioned it. Still, the word that it had even been discussed caused southern papers to scream bloody murder. Here's what the Richmond Enquirer (Thomas Jefferson's favorite newspaper, by the way) said on the subject:

The Union is in danger. Turn to the convention in Hartford, and learn to tremble at the madness of its authors. How far will those madmen advance? Though they may conceal from you the project of disunion, though a few of them may have even concealed if from themselves, yet who will pretend to set the bounds to the rage of disaffection? Once false step after another may lead them to resistance to the laws, to a treasonable neutrality, to a war against the Government of the United States. In truth, the first act of resistance to the law is treason to the United States. Are you ready for this state of things? Will you support the men who would plunge you into this ruin?

No man, no association of men, no state or set of states has a right to withdraw itself from this Union, of its own accord. The same power which knit us together, can only unknit. The same formality, which forged the links of the Union, is necessary to dissolve it. The majority of States which form the Union must consent to the withdrawal of any one branch of it. Until that consent has been obtained, any attempt to dissolve the Union, or obstruct the efficacy of its constitutional laws, is Treason--Treason to all intents and purposes.

Any other doctrine, such as that which has been lately held forth by the ‘Federal Republican’ that any one State may withdraw itself from the Union, is abominable heresy – which strips its author of every possible pretension to the name or character of Federalist.

We call, therefore, upon the government of the Union to exert its energies, when the season shall demand it – and seize the first traitor who shall spring out of the hotbed of the convention of Harford. This illustrious Union, which has been cemented by the blood of our forefathers, the pride of America and the wonder of the world must not be tamely sacrificed to the heated brains or the aspiring hearts of a few malcontents. The Union must be saved, when any one shall dare to assail it.

Countrymen of the East! We call upon you to keep a vigilant eye upon those wretched men who would plunge us into civil war and irretrievable disgrace. Whatever be the temporary calamities which may assail us, let us swear, upon the altar of our country, to SAVE THE UNION.

The scandal that secession had even been mentioned was used by the Democrats to accuse their opponents of treason, and was enough to destroy the Federalist Party. I guess their principled position on union was flexible when they had a grievance, though.

[Larry Lucido]

Lol

I just happened to know that one including the ass kicking he got.

[tgusa]

Don’t get me started. I grew up within a stone’s throw of Richmond.

[An.American.Expatriate]

You may have read it but you don't choose to or don't want to comprehend what the writer of the Constitution said.

He was one of many. Also, before he was against it, he a was for it in the Virginia-Kentucky Resolutions ...

[Old Teufel Hunden]

"Also, before he was against it, he a was for it"

Are you trying to compare James Madison to John Kerry? : )

[allmendream]

LOL!

Well you went about proving my point. Just about everybody knows the name Hannibal and that he crossed the Alps with elephants. If someone knows of, has heard of, and knows the name of Hannibal's brother- they are proud enough of the fact that they have to give a shout out!

Thus the difference between success and failure. One is within the popular culture, the other is the answer to a Trivial Pursuit question.

[Ratman83]

Bill Pub I know your both have a lot of knowledge on the Federalist papers, fo either of you know of any writings that address the issue of secession

[An.American.Expatriate]

Are you trying to compare James Madison to John Kerry? : )

I wouldn't dare!

[An.American.Expatriate]

http://thomas.loc.gov/home/histdox/fed_09.html

About midway through ...

“... the confederacy may be dissolved, and the confederates preserve their sovereignty.”

Granted, Hamilton was actually discussing benefits of the Union and not secession. Since he was pleading FOR the constitution, it only makes sense that he would highlight the reasons FOR such a union. He, Madision and Jay however, went to great lengths to highlight the supremacy of the people and the states (in that order) over the national government EXCEPT where the federal government was specifically granted supremacy.

Jefferson even went so far as to adress the idea of disolving the union during his first inaugural adress.

All of these people were AGAINST any state seceding from the Union / disolving the Union. In most cases they stated that it would have adverse consequences - what I do NOT find is any of them saying that a state could not do so.

[Old Teufel Hunden]

"what I do NOT find is any of them saying that a state could not do so."

You are asking me to prove a negative which is faulty argument. By their actions, even you admit that they were against secession and found no basis to legally do so. What they were for is outlined in the Declaration of Independence. That is:

"When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation."

Jefferson then went on to list the grievances of the colonies against the Empire. Jefferson talked many times of rebelling against an overburdened government. Do you think that Jefferson would consent that it was a good idea to rebell against the United States government over the idea of extending the institution of slavery (denying people their liberties) to new states and territories? The institution of slavery was antithetical to everything the founders believed in. They only consented to allow it because they knew it was a deal breaker to form the union. They kicked the can down the road, but make no mistake about it. They meant for the situation to be resolved and for blacks to have freedom, liberty and equality.

[Old Teufel Hunden]

"Jefferson even went so far as to adress the idea of disolving the union during his first inaugural adress."

I believe you are referring to this:

"We have called by different names brethren of the same principle. We are all Republicans, we are all Federalists. If there be any among us who would wish to dissolve this Union or to change its republican form, let them stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it."

He is using rhetorical flourish to talk about tolerance of opinion. Certainly not that he thinks it should be dissolved. He also does not say here that states can simply choose to dissolve without some process, such as an amendment. Notice how he says that these people are in error of opinion.

[An.American.Expatriate]

http://thomas.loc.gov/home/histdox/fed_10.html

Here Madison argues about the resolution of faction and comes to the conclusion that a republican government is best to resolve such problems. He also adresses the subjugation of a minority.

He clearly indicates that it is WRONG for the rights of the minority to be taken by the majority - and provides for PROTECTIONS against such takings. Unsaid but implied is that the minority does NOT have to sit still for it!

I don’t ask you to prove a negative. I simply stated that I could not find a reference which forbids secession. That the founders prefered the Union to remain whole is beyond debate.

I am trying to limit the debate to secession and not whether slavery / other reasons for secession were valid, moral, etc ... I think we can all agree that slavery was unjust.

BTW - the last couple of paragraphs in my link are rather interesting “today” ....

[Old Teufel Hunden]

"I am trying to limit the debate to secession"

We can certainly do that. If a state were to secede it would have to be done politically, through law (such as an amendment). The Southern states chose to do it through rebellion. As Madison intimated, the Constitution is a compact between two parties (The state and the union). If one wanted out of it, they had to do more than simply choose to opt out. There is no opt out clause in the constitution. Even in a divorce, both parties have to work out a settlement. One party cannot simply choose to not be married.

If you wrote a legally binding business agreement between two parties and there was nothing in the original agreement that allowed for one or the other party to opt out of the agreement. Would one party be allowed to simply opt out? No, it would have to go to court, be adjudicated and a settlement arranged.

[An.American.Expatriate]

The error of opinion is in WANTING to disolve the union - not in whether it is possible to do so!

I conceed that I may have implied that Jefferson was in favour - that is incorrect (pardon my wording on that!).

NONE of the founders favoured secession - but they DID adress those who did!

I mainly used this reference to show that after 10 years - there was already talk of leaving, disolving, etc ... this continued right up to the civil war.

IMHO this issue, like so many others today really boils down to whether the consitution - as originally written, i.e. without the Bor etc - was a confederation of sovereign states for a common cause or the creation of a central absolute sovereign of subject states.

In todays world, it is obviously the later. I contend it was originally the former - but I conceed that opinions on this differ - sometimes extremely! :D

[DwFry]

“Nothing is contradicted. Self-rule is upheld by providing for the means of changing the constitution through amendment.
It cannot be changed by less than a majority of the states. It cannot be changed by armed rebellion against the legitimate government.”

Tell it to George Washington...

[Old Teufel Hunden]

Yes, the talk of secesion was around at their time. Just witness the Hartford compact for proof. However, none of the founders ever thought that it was legitimate (through our constitution) or desirable to do so. Since they are the ones that formed this Union, you would have to agree that they wrote it with the intention that you could not simply secede or opt out of the union. And as Jefferson said:

"On every question of construction [of the Constitution] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or intended against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed."

If I may paraphrase Jefferson, if we didn't write the constitution with this intent, don't try to invent a power of secession reserved for the states.

I wholeheartedly agree that the Federal government of today has far too much power and the creep towards consolidation of power at the federal level and away from the states can be traced back to the Civil War and accelerated exponentially under Wilson. However, I blame the beginning creep on the South disobeying the Constitution and (writing into it) the opt out clause in the first place. Lets remember, Lincoln and the leading Republicans of that era were trying to abolish slavery through political and non violent methods.