Skip to comments.Ron Paul is wrong on the Civil War and slavery, and he should be ashamed
Posted on 08/05/2010 6:01:30 AM PDT by Michael Zak
[by Assemblyman Chuck DeVore (R-Irvine, CA), re-published with his permission]
For years I have admired Congressman Ron Pauls 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 Pauls 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...
(Excerpt) Read more at grandoldpartisan.typepad.com ...
If the wife wants to leave her husband and, rather than going to court, she shoots him, the odds are she will be spending jail time.
States’ Rights were to be subordinated to the Union by the Constitution. Hence, you will find a long list of things States are not allowed to do.
St. George Tucker was not the constitutional expert that Madison and Hamilton were and his opinion is worthless up against theirs. And the constitution was a creation of the whole American People not of states. States were DIRECTED by Congress to create conventions of the People gathered in states to consider ratification. This was for administrative convenience and to avoid the political expression of the states, the legislatures.
I care not about your spelling just the truth within your post of which there is very little.
The point is that even if every convention attendee was a member of a legislature he does not speak for the legislature when not in session. Nor does the legislative stamp of approval mean anything in this context.
This method was adopted to register the voice of the whole people not as states but merely gathered IN states. The adoption of the constitution was through the general Will of the American people not state approval.
George Washington agrees with me that there was no right to secede. There was no legitimate government in 1776 because it had not received our consent as was the case in 1861. We were not represented in Parliament which was the rights other Englishmen shared.
The first argument for independence was precisely that we were not allowed representation and our native governments were dissolved by the Crown.
Washington’s Farewell Address (written by Hamilton) was primarily directed against those men who would delude Americans into secession. The typical description that it was a call for isolationism is utterly false. It was a broadside against secessionists.
Here is New York’s ratification document — Pertinent line at beggining of fourth paragraph:
We, the delegates of the people of the state of New York, duly elected and met in Convention, having maturely considered the Constitution for the United States of America, agreed to on the 17th day of September, in the year 1787, by the Convention then assembled at Philadelphia, in the commonwealth of Pennsylvania, (a copy whereof precedes these presents,) and having also seriously and deliberately considered the present situation of the United States, Do declare and make known,
That all power is originally vested in, and consequently derived from, the people, and that government is instituted by them for their common interest, protection, and security.
That the enjoyment of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, are essential rights, which every government ought to respect and preserve.
That the powers of government may be reassumed by the people whensoever it shall become necessary to their happiness; that every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by the said Constitution clearly delegated to the Congress of the United States, or the departments of the government thereof, remains to the people of the several states, or to their respective state governments, to whom they may have granted the same; and that those clauses in the said Constitution, which declare that Congress shall not have or exercise certain powers, do not imply that Congress is entitled to any powers not given by the said Constitution; but such clauses are to be construed either as exceptions to certain specified powers, or as inserted merely for greater caution.
You refer continually to “government” as if it were some entity that is ABOVE and MORE POWERFUL than the people! That is the exact opposite of what the founders built - government is BELOW and SUBSERVIANT to the people.
It is from the CONSENT of the governed that the government derives it’s power and failing that consent - the government ceases to exist as a legitimate entity (and then often resorts to various forms of force to remain in power).
Theoretically, each and every citizen is a sovereign entity. Each of us could declare our independence from the Nation and our state. Of course, if I were to do so, the state and the nation would have no requirement to deal with me and could even forbid the passage of myself or my goods through thier territory and forbid that others trade with me - so my independence would likely be rather short lived.
If we ALL declared individual independance - this would indeed be anarchy and the founders nightmare - something they argued AGAINST in the federalist papers as the union of the parts is better able to protect the rights of the whole!
Oh - and another example of being prevented from “leaving” - try leaving the US with your mobile property to see how much the US lets you take with you ....
As to “the vote” - the southern states did what they did with the consent of the people of the south - the north with the conesnt of the north - this in and of itself does not prove that one side or the other was correct.
We are discussing secession and whether it is/was constitutional. Not slavery. So leave that crap for another thread.
Show me that list! The only one I am aware of is the one in the Tenth Amendment which doesn't seem all that long ;D.
You are so right and "those people" are so wrong, even so called FR conservatives who seem to totally misunderstand what the USC is all about. One day "those people" are going to get a real history lesson.
Where do you live geographically? North or South? Perhaps you were educated in a Northern public schools? I could be wrong here but I am just curious as to who caused your head to be rectally inverted at a young age....
When setting up an analogy aren't you supposed to use a hypothetical argument?
On the occasion corresponding to this four years ago, all thoughts were anxiously directed to an impending civil war. All dreaded itall sought to avert it. While the inaugeral [sic] address was being delivered from this place, devoted altogether to saving the Union without war, insurgent agents were in the city seeking to destroy it without warseeking to dissole [sic] the Union, and divide effects, by negotiation. Both parties deprecated war; but one of them would make war rather than let the nation survive; and the other would accept war rather than let it perish. And the war came.
To be bluntly honest - I really would rather discuss this without refering to what the south did or didn’t do / should or shouldn’t have done / whether the south was justified , etc ... as I am NOT defending the south / slavery / or what have you ...
It is a purely theoretical debate whether states / the people can seceed from the union.
The state (as a political entity - e.g. any government) is NOT more powerful than the people because the people can ultimately disband the government at any time they so choose.
The government DOES act on behalf of the people - that is it’s entire reason for being - and should generally act in the people’s best interest! It is a general principle that a duly elected representative government is considered to reflect the will of the people.
You state that the founders were against a state leaving the union once they entered - and I would agree that they did not like the idea! However, I find no wording from them that actually indicates that it was forbidden to do so. Maybe I missed it ... OTOH it would seem to go against the very principles the nation was founded on and just about all writings of the founders regarding how the constitution was designed.
IMHO the founders dreaded the idea of secession as they KNEW it would ultimately lead to armed conflict as no nation ever voluntarily accepts the loss of a part and it would have meant the destruction of the very thing they held dear. But they were apparently UNWILLING to actually codifiy this as a prohibition as it would have scared the people / the states - no one at the time wanted a return to tyranny (excepting the odd torie or two ...). They knew that the MUST leave that option open in order to soothe the naysayers who contended that the Federalists wanted nothing less than a new monarchy.
This is WHY Madision is so obtuse in his writings about Factions - instead of stating the logical conclusion, that when the confederation of states FAILS to protect the rights of a minority, that the minority has retained the right to dissolve the bonds!
The people, acting on thier own, can never stand against a coordinated power. Instead, they exert thier rights through representatives who speak on thier behalf. Thus, when the people of a region decide that “enough is enough” - they express this through thier regional representatives. That is where a “State” derives it’s power to secede.
It is my contention that the constitution spells out plainly what sovereign powers the federal government was granted AND what sovereign powers the several States where prohibited in excersising. The Constitution does NOT specifically prohibit the power to secede to the several states (although several other sovereign powers are prohibited), nor does it grant the federal government the power to prohibit it! That alone - even without the 10th Amendment provisions, is sufficient to justify my contention that secession is “legal” (but I don’t want to be around when it happens!)
The Grady McWhiney collection at McMurry University could
settle the question. Here is a link to their site. It is one of the largest collections of period documents in existence.
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.