Skip to comments.The Author of the Civil War
Posted on 07/07/2012 11:51:43 AM PDT by nickcarraway
At the height of the holiday shopping season of 1860, a bookseller in Richmond, Va., placed a telling advertisement in The Daily Dispatch promoting a selection of "Elegant Books for Christmas and New Year's Presents." Notably, the list of two dozen "choice books, suitable for Holiday Gifts" included five works by the late Scottish novelist and poet Sir Walter Scott in "various beautiful bindings."
Sir Walter Scott not only dominated gift book lists on the eve of the Civil War but also dominated Southern literary taste throughout the conflict. His highly idealized depiction of the age of chivalry allowed Southern readers and writers to find positive meaning in war's horrors, hardships and innumerable deaths. And his works inspired countless wartime imitators, who drew upon his romantic conception of combat.
In 1814 Scott had begun his ascension to the heights of literary stardom with the publication of the historical romance "Waverley," which was soon followed by other novels in the so-called Waverley series. The works were an immediate and immense success in Great Britain and America. Over the course of many volumes, Scott glamorized the Middle Ages, at once shaping and popularizing what we now consider the classic tale of chivalry. As one enamored 19th-century reader explained, each of Scott's romances focused upon the "manners and habits of the most interesting and chivalrous periods of Scottish [and] British history."
Among Scott's most famous works was "Ivanhoe," published in 1820. The romance, set in the 12th century, presents a tale of intrigue, love and valor. The plot traces the fortunes of young Wilfred of Ivanhoe as he strives, despite his father's opposition, to gain the hand of the beautiful Lady Rowena. In the course of Ivanhoe's adventures, Richard the Lionheart and Robin Hood appear, and Ivanhoe performs many a remarkable feat.
(Excerpt) Read more at opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com ...
Here are a couple of links to the more recent threads of the type I mentioned above should you care to indulge.
The State in question:
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. ( New York ratification ordinance, July 26, 1788)
Here is the Mr. Madison that you've tossed aside:
Letter from James Madison to Daniel Webster, March 15, 1833:
It is fortunate when disputed theories, can be decided by undisputed facts. And here the undisputed fact is, that the Constitution was made by the people, but as embodied into the several States, who were parties to it; and therefore made by the States in their highest authoritative capacity.
James Madison to Nicholas P. Trist, February 15, 1830:
The compact can only be dissolved by the consent of the other parties, or by usurpations or abuses of power justly having that effect.
31st of May, 1787
The use of force against a state would look more like a declaration of war than an infliction of punishment, and would probably be considered by the party attacked as a dissolution of all previous compacts by which it might be bound
8th of June, 1787
Any government for the United States formed on the supposed practicability of using force against the unconstitutional proceedings of the states would prove as visionary and fallacious as the government of Congress
I had written to Mr. Madison, as I had before informed you, and had stated to him some general ideas for consideration and consultation when we should meet. I thought something essentially necessary to be said, in order to avoid the inference of acquiescence; that a resolution or declaration should be passed, 1. answering the reasonings of such of the States as have ventured into the field of reason, and that of the committee of Congress, taking some notice, too, of those States who have either not answered at all, or answered without reasoning. 2. Making firm protestation against the precedent and principle, and reserving the right to make this palpable violation of the federal compact the ground of doing in future whatever we might now rightfully do, should repetitions of these and other violations of the compact render it expedient. 3. Expressing in affectionate and conciliatory language our warm attachment to union with our sister States, and to the instrument and principles by which we are united; that we are willing to sacrifice to this every thing but the rights of self-government in those important points which we have never yielded, and in which alone we see liberty, safety, and happiness; that not at all disposed to make every measure of error or of wrong, a cause of scission, we are willing to look on with indulgence, and to wait with patience, till those passions and delusions shall have passed over, which the federal government have artfully excited to cover its own abuses and conceal its designs, fully confident that the good sense of the American people, and their attachment to those very rights which we are now vindicating, will, before it shall be too late, rally with us round the true principles of our federal compact. This was only meant to give a general idea of the complexion and topics of such an instrument. Mr. M. who came, as had been proposed, does not concur in the reservation proposed above; and from this I recede readily, not only in deference to his judgment, but because, as we should never think of separation but for repeated and enormous violations, so these, when they occur, will be cause enough of themselves. - Thomas Jefferson
Ohioan:The Founders never intended to interfere with those--hence the absolute absence of any functional delegation to Congress of powers to engage in social engineering. Even John Marshall, a strong advocate for Federal Powers, recognized that control over Health, Safety & Morals (the Police Powers) were left to the States.
Virginia ratification convention:
Mr. John Marshall asked if gentlemen were serious when they asserted that, if the state governments had power to interfere with the militia, it was by implication. If they were, he asked the committee whether the least attention would not show that they were mistaken. The state governments did not derive their powers from the general government; but each government derived its powers from the people, and each was to act according to the powers given it. Would any gentleman deny this? He demanded if powers not given were retained by implication. Could any man say so? Could any man say that this power was not retained by the states, as they had not given it away? For, says he, does not a power remain till it is given away? The state legislatures had power to command and govern their militia before, and have it still, undeniably, unless there be something in this Constitution that takes it away.
For Continental purposes Congress may call forth the militia,--as to suppress insurrections and repel invasions. But the power given to the states by the people is not taken away; for the Constitution does not say so. In the Confederation Congress had this power; but the state legislatures had it also. The power of legislating given them within the ten miles square is exclusive of the states, because it is expressed to be exclusive. The truth is, that when power is given to the general legislature, if it was in the state legislature before, both shall exercise it; unless there be an incompatibility in the exercise by one to that by the other, or negative words precluding the state governments from it. But there are no negative words here. It rests, therefore, with the states.
There was no assault on January 8 by any of the locals on Ft. Pickens. A group of local officials and state militia had heard that the fort was abandoned and walked there to investigate. Union troops, hiding inside the formerly abandoned fort, opened fire on them.
So all of that tongue mung from you about rebellion, recognized authority, assault, blah, blah, .... is just plain wrong.
Well said, indeed, Sir.
Why not just step out of your usual role as Negative Man and simply do some reading. You can form your own opinion, but as you can clearly see, the events described were not opinion but factual, down to the day, time, and location
They were where they shouldn't have been doing something highly illegal and should have been shot in the head and left on display.
Thanks again for supplying more opinions
Colonies are not “states”. The Continental Congress receded the formation of any of the “states”. The “functional societies on the continent, the Indian tribes such as the Iroquoise, were not “states” either. I am not the one confused here.
There were no “diverse cultures” endanger of being overridden by the federal government then or now (except for the Indian cultures). Slight variations in the overwhelmingly American culture does not represent “diversity”. The Slaver “culture” was little higher than the “culture” of the criminal gangs of NYC, part of the democrat alliance.
The federal government in 1860 was TINY with a TINY army dispersed along the frontier. You will not get away with the outrageous LIE of federal “tyranny” to support the Slaver Revolt. It is a LIE through and through. It could not have tyrannized ANYONE in 1860. Stop LYING.
No one should mistake my view since I paint them in the most clear terms. There was NO justification for the Slaver Revolt and there is not a shred of justification for defending it. ZERO.
John Marshall would have been the first to volunteer to defend the UNION. That union his rulings had done so much to create and strengthen against its internal enemies. Marshall agreed almost entirely with his great friend Alexander Hamilton who put the Union’s safety above almost everything earthly.
The Slaver Revolt came about ONLY because the Slavers’ wanted it to protect slavery. NOT because of Lincoln, not because of capitalist machinations, not because of abolitionists. But ONLY by Slavers for Slavers.
The entire definition of “constitution” makes secession illegal. It isn't an arbitrary law established in a unilaterally revocable manner such as an Islamic marriage.
No state can take back its ratification outside of a Constitutional amendment.
Ft. Sumter was not vacant when attacked by the Slaver forces. It was occupied federal property. Slaver revolutionaries had for weeks been seizing federal arms and properties all over the South treasonously placed in their grasp by secessionist traitors within Buchanan's cabinet. Lincoln, wisely and rightly, made sure that did not happen to Sumter.
My comments about the Slaver revolt and the Founders always stand when dealing with folk who CANNOT refute them.
You were yammering on about St. George Tucker.
Lincoln knew Blackstone as well as any man in the country. He also knew sophistry and how to not be convinced be it.
Neither 9 or 10 gives the slightest support to destruction of the Union and secession. Perhaps you have heard the phrase “...supreme law of the Land.” You need to carefully study it.
There is no phrase in the constitution stating that the federal government can control or patrol the border so I guess that means to you take all of Latin America can just come on in. There is nothing saying that we can create and fund an Air Force either so get rid of the missiles and bombs, eh?
Changing a constitution is not just a simple matter of some ad hoc bunch declaring themselves free of it. It was created by a SPECIAL act of the entire People and can only be changed by that entire People.
Why shouldn’t South Carolina have been allowed to declare itself a monarchy?
Apparently among the many things you are confused about is the meaning of “culture”. There was no real difference in culture in the north and south then or today.
The South today is a little slower to adopt changes bad and good but that is about it. There are slight variations in foods but same language, religion, literature, music etc.
The American republic was created for all men not just whites. It’s constitution did not forbid Blacks from voting, nor women from voting, nor Asians from voting.
Your belief does reveal the depth of delusion rational people have to deal with in the defenders of the Slaver Revolt.
Almost everything they condemn Lincoln for was done by the Confederate government. Davis had to violate the “constitution” the Slaver government adopted by aping the federal constitution on a wholesale basis. Hilarious stuff.
Don’t LIE. I am NOT the person you claim I was.
The Constitution was created for the people of the United States & their posterity (See the Preamble), the States were to determine the suffrage (see Article I, Section 2).
I have no idea what your term "slaver" is supposed to mean, but you are obviously pretty angry over something that happened before you were born.
Your first quotation does nothing to support the contention the Slaver Revolt was legal.
The letter from Madison does not change the fact that states were EXPLICITLY forbidden from ratifying the constitution. Nor does it argue that it can be changed by mere state actions outside the constitution.
Comments prior to the writing and ratification of the constitution are not relevant to the point. And force was quite effective against those who produced the insurrection.
There had been no “abuse” by the federal government of the South. Not only had the government been controlled basically by Southerners and Slaver sympathizers for of the time prior to Lincoln’s election. South Carolina did not even wait til Lincoln was in office so HE couldn’t have abused their rights.
John Marshall was one of the strongest supporters of the Union within the generation of the Founders. He would NEVER have suggested that the Union could be split legally as the Slavers attempted.
He would have been among the first to take up arms to defend it from such treason as would his patriot friends: G. Washington, and A. Hamilton. To claim otherwise shows no knowledge of the man, his ideas or his actions. OR being willing to resort to outright falsehood.
Nothing in your quote supports the idea of legal secession through extra-constitutional means.
MM “Miss Pitty Pat, what was life in the old South like before the Wah.”
Miss Pitty Pat “ Why Honeychile, life was wonderful. Our darkies grovelled nicely at our feet and worked theirselves to death out of sheer love for their massas and mistresses.
Nothing like the horrors of today when the darkies actually have to audacity to think they are men. Why I never.”
MM “That takes care of my ‘research’. Thank you kindly Miss Pitty Pat.”
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.