Lincoln And The Death Of The Constitution

Wolves of Liberty ^ | 9/7/2010 | gjmerits

[gjmerits]

The Gettysburg speech was at once the shortest and the most famous oration in American history...the highest emotion reduced to a few poetical phrases. Lincoln himself never even remotely approached it. It is genuinely stupendous. But let us not forget that it is poetry, not logic; beauty, not sense. Think of the argument in it. Put it into the cold words of everyday. The doctrine is simply this: that the Union soldiers who died at Gettysburg sacrificed their lives to the cause of self-determination - that government of the people, by the people, for the people, should not perish from the earth. It is difficult to imagine anything more untrue. The Union soldiers in the battle actually fought against self-determination; it was the Confederates who fought for the right of their people to govern themselves.

[rustbucket]

[George Washington]: But the Constitution which at any time exists, till changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole people, is sacredly obligatory upon all.

To amend the Constitution takes the act of majorities of state legislatures in three quarters of the states. I suppose that is what he meant by "whole people." But the Constitution was not the act of the lumpen mass of people of the whole country. It was the act of the people of the individual states acting through their ratification conventions.

Besides, the Constitution doesn't need to be changed for secession to take place. The withdrawing of a state from the Union was certainly viewed as permissible and consistent with the Constitution by people who actually ratified the Constitution. They had recently gone through a war to win their independence from an oppressive government. Why would they enter an untried form of Union from which they could not withdraw without a war if a majority other states or the central government were oppressing them?

The New York ratification document provides one of the clearest statements of the original intent that a state withdrawing was consistent with the Constitution. That ratification document was voted for by such Federalist luminaries as Alexander Hamilton and future Chief Justice John Jay:

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 seventeenth day of September, in the year One thousand Seven hundred and Eighty seven, by the Convention then assembled at Philadelphia in the Common-wealth 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 the Powers of Government may be reassumed by the People, whensoever it shall become necessary to their Happiness; ...

... Under these impressions and declaring that the rights aforesaid cannot be abridged or violated, and that the Explanations aforesaid are consistent with the said Constitution, And in confidence that the Amendments which shall have been proposed to the said Constitution will receive an early and mature Consideration: We the said Delegates, in the Name and in the behalf of the People of the State of New York Do by these presents Assent to and Ratify the said Constitution.

Virginia's ratification document that talked about resuming governance was written by James Madison, future Chief Justice John Marshall, and three other Federalists.

The Union that remained after the southern states withdrew in 1860-1861 did not cease at all. However, during the war the Constitution was twisted into a pretzel by Lincoln.

[Bigun]

Well, it helps when certain portions of the text aren’t conveniently left out, without an elision, like those quotes from St. George.

Well then let's just a look at what YOU posted.

I'm not sure whether everyone is properly getting St. George Tucker's drift. Tucker was an abolitionist, seeking a manner to choke off slavery, albeit without calamitous injury to the slave-holding states.

"Whilst America hath been the land of promise to Europeans and their descendants, it hath been the vale of death to millions of the wretched sons of Africa…Whilst we were offering up vows at the shrine of Liberty... whilst we swore irreconcilable hostility to her enemies... whilst we adjured the God of Hosts to witness our resolution to live free or die; we were imposing on our fellow men, who differ from us in complexion, a slavery ten thousand times more cruel than the utmost extremity of those grievances and oppressions, of which we complained".

Tucker isn't arguing that the sovereignty of the states can be grasped back from the federal government; he is arguing that the sovereignty is not diminished while they operate within the federal government, since their union was voluntary.

OK!

Your quote is not relating to the issue of secession, but is an explanation of the tenth amendment. In fact, your citation is a misquote:

The portion I quoted was taken directly from the source with modification of any kind!

The twelfth article of the amendments to the constitution of the United States, declares, that the powers not delegated to the United States by the constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

The powers absolutely prohibited to the states by the constitution, are, shortly, contained in article 1. section 10. viz.

1. No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance or confederation.

2. Nor grant letters of marque and reprisal.

3. Nor coin money.

4. Nor emit bills of credit.

5. Nor make any thing but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts.

6. Nor pass any bill of attainder.

7. Nor any expost facto law.

8. Nor any law impairing the obligation of contracts.

9. Nor grant any title of nobility. . . . Concerning all which, we shall make some few observations hereafter.

All other powers of government whatsoever, except these, and such as fall properly under the first or third heads above-mentioned, consistent with the fundamental laws, nature, and principle of a democratic state, are therefore reserved to the state governments.

What do you imagine that he meant by this? I maintain that he meant EXACTLY what he said in plain English! i.e. that their powers were diminished ONLY to the extent they had agreed to in the above listed items.

From this view of the powers delegated to the federal government, it will clearly appear, that those exclusively granted to it have no relation to the domestic economy of the state. The right of property, with all it's train of incidents, except in the case of authors, and inventors, seems to have been left exclusively to the state regulations; and the rights of persons appear to be no further subject to the control of the federal government, than may be necessary to support the dignity and faith of the nation in it's federal or foreign engagements, and obligations; or it's existence and unity as the depositary and administrator of the political councils and measures of the united republics. . . . Crimes and misdemeanors, if they affect not the existence of the federal government; or those objects to which it's jurisdiction expressly extends, however heinous in a moral light, are not cognizable by the federal courts; unless committed within certain fixed and determinate territorial limits, to which the exclusive legislative power granted to congress, expressly extends. Their punishment, in all other cases, exclusively, belongs to the state jurisprudence.

I suggest that you read the above paragraph VERY carefully and try to understand what he says therein!

The federal government then, appears to be the organ through which the united republics communicate with foreign nations, and with each other. Their submission to it's operation is voluntary: it's councils, it's engagements, it's authority are theirs, modified, and united. (but only to the extent that they have expressly agreed to modify and unite them. I find no article, item or phrase within the Constitution which grants the federal government the power to hold anyone in that voluntary union at the point of a bayonet! Perhaps I missed that and you will be kind enough to show that to me!) It's sovereignty is an emanation from theirs, not a flame by which they have been consumed, nor a vortex in which they are swallowed up. Each is still a perfect state, still sovereign, still independent, and still capable, should the occasion require, to resume the exercise of it's functions, as such, in the most unlimited extent.

(Did you perhaps miss this VERY important sentence?)But until the time shall arrive when the occasion requires a resumption of the rights of sovereignty by the several states (and far be that period removed when it shall happen) the exercise of the rights of sovereignty by the states individually, is wholly suspended, or discontinued, (Why did you conveniently neglect to include the words immediately following this in those that you bolded? Here! Let me correct that for you!) in the cases before mentioned: nor can that suspension ever be removed, so long as the present constitution remains unchanged, but by the dissolution of the bonds of union. An event which no good citizen can wish, and which no good, or wise administration will ever hazard.

Funny, how your citation missed the part about the sovereignty being now united with the other states, united and modified.

I missed no such thing! I simply have the ability to read and correctly interpret the plain English language of the text.

"But isn't he still recognizing the right to secede? He says it cannot be removed except by the dissolution of the bonds of union?," you ask. "Does he not reserve the right of administration to be foolish? Or of a citizen to be bad?"

He does not write that "no correct citizen" could wish for dissolution; rather, he states that "no good citizen" could wish for it. To wish for dissolution, in other words, is to be inherently a bad citizen. Thus, we can imagine that the union is not to be broken by legal secession, but may be against the desire of the sovereignties by calamity, such as invasion, treachery, or unimaginable calamity.

No good citizen may wish for any number of things but that does not mean that events won't force him to undertake those very things in the future if he wishes to remain FREE!

[rockrr]

I wonder what the record is for going the longest without a “Lincoln was a Tyrant” thread.

Does that include a “Lincoln was a racist”, “Lincoln was a Homosexual” and/or “Lincoln was a space alien” threads? LOL

[rockrr]

Not your most stupid remark, but certainly somewhere in the top ten. Congrats!

[dangus]

>> Would it surprise you that if secession was already illegal and unconstitutional congress would never need to pass anti-secession legislation? <<

Ever hear of a clarification? Check out the arguments against passage of the Bill of Rights. No-one objected to them, but there were concerns that they were unneeded, since they already existed under the Constitution, and that the enumeration of certain rights would enable people to argue that the unenumerated rights did not exist. This criticism was satisfied by the ninth and tenth amendment.

Other examples of clarifications:

1. The proposed "Freedom of religion" amendment.
2. Recognizing the citizenship of people born in the Panama Canal service, like John McCain.
3. The proposed "Right to Life" amendment.
4. The tenth amendment.
5. Any of literally thousands of clauses in the federal code which begin, "Nothing in the section shall be construed as..."

So, was this law a clarification, or not?

Under this Constitution, as originally adopted, and as it now exists, no state has the power to withdraw from the jurisdiction of the United States.

[central_va]

Under this Constitution, as originally adopted, and as it now exists, no state has the power to withdraw from the jurisdiction of the United States.

The only thing clear is that congress tried to outlaw secession, your denials of that fact clarifies your inanity too.

[Bigun]

Under this Constitution, as originally adopted, and as it now exists, no state has the power to withdraw from the jurisdiction of the United States.

Then perhaps you would be so kind as to point out EXACTLY where that is codified in U.S. law.

[dangus]

>> but only to the extent that they have expressly agreed to modify and unite them. I find no article, item or phrase within the Constitution which grants the federal government the power to hold anyone in that voluntary union at the point of a bayonet! <<

Really? Try this one on for size. Article 1, Section 8:

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, ...to provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress insurrections...

Keep reading that one over and over again. Congress has the expressly stated authority to call forth the military to execute the Laws of the Union.

>> What do you imagine that he meant by this? I maintain that he meant EXACTLY what he said in plain English! i.e. that their powers were diminished ONLY to the extent they had agreed to in the above listed items. <<

And one of the listed items was "No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance or confederation... nor any law impairing the obligation of contracts." (Aside: "Marriage reform" laws -- that is, "no-fault divorce" laws -- are unconstitutional!)

>> What do you imagine that he meant by this? I maintain that he meant EXACTLY what he said in plain English! i.e. that their powers were diminished ONLY to the extent they had agreed to in the above listed items. <<

You mean like here:?

The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same.

Perhaps you don't understand "ratification." Once an agreement is ratified, it must be honored, except under the terms for withdrawal under the agreement. Otherwise, contracts, treaties, constitutions, etc., are meaningless.

>> Why did you conveniently neglect to include the words immediately following this in those that you bolded? Here! Let me correct that for you!)<<

I published them. I did not have to delete any portions because I found them destructive to my argument.

>> I missed no such thing! I simply have the ability to read and correctly interpret the plain English language of the text <<

And to remove entirely, without elision, the portions that disprove your case? Your citation lacked entirely the phrase, "it's councils, it's engagements, it's authority are theirs, modified, and united."

[Idabilly]

UNITED STATES CODE ANNOTATED

THE ORGANIC LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE OF 1776

Did I just read that right? The Declaration of Independence is at the head of the United States Code? Now, what does that document say, hmmm? Ah, I remember now:

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.

Now, if I can remember correctly one of the founders said something regarding this Declaration and Secession. Well knock me down and call me a unionist, here it is:

With these qualifications, we may admit the same right as vested in the people of every state in the Union, with reference to the General Government, which was exercised by the people of the United Colonies, with reference to the Supreme head of the British empire, of which they formed a part - and under these limitations, have the people of each state in the Union a right to secede from the confederated Union itself.

John Q Adams

[dangus]

>> That the Powers of Government may be reassumed by the People, whensoever it shall become necessary to their Happiness; <<

Did that mean?

1. There should be a lawful means by which the People should be able to win redress for their grievances, amend the Constitution as they see fit, and even, hold a Constitutional convention so as to replace the Constitution as a whole when the entire People concur that the new government is failing at its aims of securing freedom

or

2. If anyone subgroup of the People feel so motivated, they can declare that the Laws of the government do not apply to them any longer?

Notice there is no portion of that quote which makes any mention of the State taking action separate from the Nation.

Does the clause reserve the sovereignty of the State of New York, or the People of the State of New York?

[dangus]

>> BINGO! Read the NINTH and TENTH AMENDMENTS. Then, read them AGAIN. <<

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Fair enough. So is there anything in the Constitution to suggest that the United States has the power to enforce its laws, even amidst opposition? Oh yes, there's this:

The Congress shall have Power to provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union

And then there's this:

The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same.

[dangus]

>> BINGO! Read the NINTH and TENTH AMENDMENTS. Then, read them AGAIN. <<

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Fair enough. So is there anything in the Constitution to suggest that the United States has the power to enforce its laws, even amidst opposition? Oh yes, there's this:

The Congress shall have Power to provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union

And then there's this:

The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same.

[frogjerk]

it was the Confederates who fought for the right of their people to govern themselves.

“Their slaves weren’t men or people so of course they couldn’t govern themselves, right?”

“Their” slaves were considered no differently than the slaves in the north...and those that were in the South as states of the Union. Your comment is devoid of logic and has no relevance.

Read again. The poster said that is was the Confederates who fought for the right of their people to govern themselves. And I rightly pointed out that they were hypocrites because they did not consider their slaves worthy of such a lofty goal. My comment is logical and has every relevance to the comment that was made, sorry for you.

[rustbucket]

Really? Try this one on for size. Article 1, Section 8:

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, ...to provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress insurrections...

Keep reading that one over and over again. Congress has the expressly stated authority to call forth the military to execute the Laws of the Union.

I did read it over and over. It applies to states that remain in the Union, not to states that have exercised their right/power to withdraw from the Union. You know, those powers that were not delegated to the Federal government nor prohibited to the states under the Constitution.

You interpret the Constitution as though it were a giant bait and switch. In other words, in order to get the Constitution ratified, proponents of a "once in, always in" union said the Constitution meant states could reassume their own governance, but now that states are in, they can't leave.

Do you honestly think the Constitution would have been ratified if it had said a state could not leave or could only leave with the approval of states that might be oppressing it?

[southernsunshine]

Bigun - It appears I'm the last one here this morning. I believe you and I read St. George Tucker in a like manner. IOW, as you state @ post 242, I maintain that he meant EXACTLY what he said in plain English!

dangus - Perhaps your reference to a misquote is directed to me? If so, for the sake of bandwidth, I would direct you back to Bigun's post 242.

[Idabilly]

That amounts to a hill of beans. They left the Union, therefore; the laws of the Union no longer applied. The Constitution either makes secession illegal or it doesn’t, it implies.. nothing.

[rockrr]

Do you honestly think the Constitution would have been ratified if it had said a state could not leave or could only leave with the approval of states that might be oppressing it?

Yes. If only because the alternative was unthinkable.

[Bubba Ho-Tep]

! Do they think a particular state, or group of states, has the right to direct the affairs of another sovereign state? I think not!

Is the state the fundamental, unbreakable unit of sovereignty? Can a county secede from a state? Can a township secede? Can you unilaterally announce that you and your house are now their own country? Why or why not?

[Bubba Ho-Tep]

Secession is not a declaration of war nor does it constitute insurrection. Secession is the act of withdrawing from an organization, union, or a political entity.

So all that you have to do to make it unconstitutional for the government to suppress your insurrection is to issue a document that says "I secede"?

[cowboyway]

The civil war was about slavery. Sorry.

No. It wasn't. Sorry that you've chosen the simpletons view.

You cannot rewrite history no matter how much you want to.

Sure you can. You yankees started rewriting history before The War for Southern Independence even ended.