Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Parting Company Is An Option
Walter E. Williams, George Mason University ^ | February 26, 2004 | Walter E. Williams

Posted on 12/21/2004 7:01:52 AM PST by cougar_mccxxi

Parting Company Is An Option

by Walter E. Williams

My last essay in Ideas On Liberty, "How Did We Get Here?", provided clear evidence that Congress, the White House, as well as the Courts, had vastly exceeded powers delegated to them by our Constitution. To have an appreciation for the magnitude of the usurpation, one need only read Federalist Paper 45, where James Madison the acknowledged father of our Constitution explained, "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the Federal Government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State Governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will for the most part be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects, which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties and properties of the people; and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State."

Short of some kind of cataclysmic event liberties lost are seldom regained but there is an outside chance to regain them if enough liberty-minded Americans were to pursue Free State Project's proposal to set up New Hampshire as a free state. Free State Project (www.freestateproject.org) intends to get 20,000 or so Americans to become residents of New Hampshire. Through a peaceful political process they hope to assume leadership in the state's legislature and executive offices and reduce burdensome taxation and regulation, reform state and local law, end federal mandates that violate the Ninth and Tenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution and restore constitutional federalism as envisioned by the nation's Founders.

Since there is only a remote possibility of successful negotiation with Congress, the Courts and White House to obey the U.S. Constitution, it is my guess that liberty could only realized by a unilateral declaration of independence - namely, part company - in a word secede. While our Constitution is silent about secession, there is clear evidence that our Founders saw it as an option.

On March 2, 1861, after seven states had seceded and two days before Abraham Lincoln's inauguration, Senator James R. Doolittle (WI) proposed a constitutional amendment that said, "No State or any part thereof, heretofore admitted or hereafter admitted into the Union, shall have the power to withdraw from the jurisdiction of the United States." Several months earlier Representatives Daniel E. Sickles (NY), Thomas B. Florence (PA) and Otis S. Ferry (CT) proposed a constitutional amendment to prohibit secession. One is immediately faced with the question: would there have been any point to offering these amendments if secession were already unconstitutional? There's more evidence. The ratification documents of Virginia, New York and Rhode Island explicitly said that they held the right to resume powers delegated should the federal government become abusive of those powers.

There's more evidence. At the 1787 constitutional convention a proposal was made to allow the federal government to suppress a seceding state. James Madison rejected it saying, "A Union of the States containing such an ingredient seemed to provide for its own destruction. 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."

Professor Thomas DiLorenzo, in his revised The Real Lincoln, provides abundant evidence in the forms of quotations from our Founders and numerous newspaper accounts that prove that Americans always took the right of secession for granted. Plus, secession was not an idea that had its origins in the South. Infuriated by Thomas Jefferson's Louisiana Purchase, in 1803, the first secessionist movement started in New York, Massachusetts, Connecticut and other New England states.

The preponderance of evidence shows that states have a right to secede. The Constitution probably would have never been ratified if the states, sovereign nations as per the 1783 Treaty of Paris that ended the war of independence with Great Britain, did not believe they had a right to secede. The only barrier to secession is the brute force of the federal government as witnessed by the costly War of 1861 that produced only one decent result - the elimination of slavery. Since the issue of secession was brutally settled, it left a devastating legacy for future generations of Americans. The federal government is free to run roughshod over the restrictions and safeguards the Framers imposed on the federal government.

Self-determination is a human right we all should respect. If some people want socialism that is their right but it is not their right to use force to make others who wish to be left alone be part of it. By the same token, liberty-minded Americans have no right to impose their will on socialist-minded Americans. A far more peaceful method is for each to simply part company.

One wonders whether the brutality witnessed in 1861 would be repeated if New Hampshire seceded - massive troops along with today's deadly modern military equipment and Americans killing Americans.

Walter E. Williams Ideas on Liberty #25 February 26, 2004


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Editorial; US: New Hampshire
KEYWORDS: an; company; fsp; is; kerrydefeat; option; parting; secession; walterwilliams
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-64 next last

1 posted on 12/21/2004 7:01:52 AM PST by cougar_mccxxi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: cougar_mccxxi
If you read the writings of the anti-federalists, most of their complaints and predictions about the Constitution and how it threatened state sovereignty have come to fruition.
2 posted on 12/21/2004 7:06:42 AM PST by SAR
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cougar_mccxxi

Very thought-provoking!


3 posted on 12/21/2004 7:09:14 AM PST by cvq3842
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cougar_mccxxi
I sure like Walter E. Williams. If the states voluntarily came together, then there is no reason why they cannot voluntarily withdraw.
4 posted on 12/21/2004 7:10:42 AM PST by Max Combined
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: stainlessbanner

Dixie Ping, Sir...


5 posted on 12/21/2004 7:11:09 AM PST by TomServo ("Pretend you’re a Picasso! Move your nose to the back of your head!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SAR

10th Ammendment: 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.

I don't think it can be much clearer.

Our "representatives" have serially violated our laws.

Most of the government agencies are illegal: NEA, Social Security, Income Tax (should never have been put in the Constitution), HUD, HHS, most of them except Defence and Commerce are illegal.

We need to get our country back.


6 posted on 12/21/2004 7:11:35 AM PST by shubi (Peace through superior firepower.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: cougar_mccxxi

bump


7 posted on 12/21/2004 8:09:00 AM PST by VRW Conspirator (Respect your authorities...if you have any - Mark Twain)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cougar_mccxxi

Federal, state, local, and FICA taxes; upwards of 40% of your income.

Gas, cigarette, sales and consumption taxes; you know the story.

Work permits, building permits, drivers license, compulsory insurance; it goes on and on.

Getting the federal, state and local governments out of our pockets and off our backs? Priceless :)


8 posted on 12/21/2004 8:18:15 AM PST by cougar_mccxxi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cougar_mccxxi
One wonders whether the brutality witnessed in 1861 would be repeated if New Hampshire seceded - massive troops along with today's deadly modern military equipment and Americans killing Americans.

If probably would if New Hampshire shelled U.S. troops in a U.S. facility on her way out.

9 posted on 12/21/2004 8:26:16 AM PST by Non-Sequitur (Jefferson Davis - the first 'selected, not elected' president.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nolu chan; sionnsar; Free Trapper; dcwusmc; Wampus SC; Fiddlstix; Southron Patriot; ...

Dixie Ping


10 posted on 12/21/2004 8:37:03 AM PST by stainlessbanner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TomServo

Thanks for the ping Sir!


11 posted on 12/21/2004 8:45:17 AM PST by stainlessbanner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur

That would be a certainty. It would no doubt also be a certainty, shot or no, with a Clinton as president.


12 posted on 12/21/2004 8:54:05 AM PST by sionnsar († trad-anglican.faithweb.com † || Iran Azadi || http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1304997/posts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: stainlessbanner
Hey stainless~

Thanks for the ping . . .

Through a peaceful political process they hope to assume leadership in the state's legislature and executive offices and reduce burdensome taxation and regulation, reform state and local law, end federal mandates that violate the Ninth and Tenth Amendments . . .

Couldn't help but think that this is what has taken place in the "solid South" since '68. It's gone from all blue to all red? Of course none of that was due to "imports" but rather good 'ol boys in pick-ups with Rebel flags on the window. ;^)

13 posted on 12/21/2004 9:50:12 AM PST by w_over_w (Where do forest rangers go to "get away from it all?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: cougar_mccxxi

BUMP!!!


14 posted on 12/21/2004 12:06:05 PM PST by Pagey (Hillary talking about the bible,is as hypocritical as Bill carrying one out of church for 8 years)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TomServo

Glad to see you back at the keyboard.


15 posted on 12/21/2004 12:20:24 PM PST by PeaRidge ("Walt got the boot? I didn't know. When/why did it happen?" Ditto 7-22-04 And now they got #3fan.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: TomServo

Glad to see you back at the keyboard.


16 posted on 12/21/2004 12:22:38 PM PST by PeaRidge ("Walt got the boot? I didn't know. When/why did it happen?" Ditto 7-22-04 And now they got #3fan.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: stainlessbanner
Excellent article my friend! Its too bad so many damnYankees didn't recognize that intent of the Founders. I see Non-Sequential is up to his old buffonish charges. Please explain to me how a US Fortification on Southern soil in 1861, with no treaty recognizing it by the Confederate Government AS AN AUTHORIZED FOREIGN MILITARY FORTIFICATION was legally exempted from being fired upon?

But then Lincoln would use any port in a storm to promote war. And the Yankees had the temerity to call us ignorant!

17 posted on 12/21/2004 8:00:58 PM PST by Colt .45 (Navy Veteran - Pride in my Southern Ancestry! Chance favors the prepared mind.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: stainlessbanner

Thanks for the Ping. Dr. Williams is great. I love it when he does his radio show. Wish he'd stop letting that Limbaugh fellow guest host so much!


18 posted on 12/21/2004 8:36:56 PM PST by dcwusmc ("The most dangerous man, to any government, is the man who is able to think things out for himself.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur

Just clarification here:

When South Carlina seceded in December of 1860, all (previously) federal properties within her borders returned to the State.

Fort Sumter was OUR property, NOT federal property. It was within OUR territorial waters according to all international law.

For the tyrant Lincoln to reject Confederate peace emmissaries, then notify them that he would reinforce the troops was an act of war.

We drove the invaders out.

The tyrant Lincoln wanted a war, and he got a war.


19 posted on 12/22/2004 7:44:49 AM PST by Jsalley82
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: cougar_mccxxi

Walter Williams is simply the best! A true 'black Confederate', and one of my heros!!!


20 posted on 12/22/2004 7:48:08 AM PST by Jsalley82
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jsalley82
When South Carlina seceded in December of 1860, all (previously) federal properties within her borders returned to the State.

Based on what rule of law?

21 posted on 12/22/2004 9:28:07 AM PST by Non-Sequitur (Jefferson Davis - the first 'selected, not elected' president.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Colt .45
I see Non-Sequential is up to his old buffonish charges.

Ah Colt .45. Clueless as ever.

Please explain to me how a US Fortification on Southern soil in 1861, with no treaty recognizing it by the Confederate Government AS AN AUTHORIZED FOREIGN MILITARY FORTIFICATION was legally exempted from being fired upon?

I guess it isn't, if you are out to start a war. Which is what the Davis regime did.

22 posted on 12/22/2004 9:30:54 AM PST by Non-Sequitur (Jefferson Davis - the first 'selected, not elected' president.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur

No, it was Lincoln's attempts to re-supply and reinforce the fort which were the cause of it. Being fired upon was only the effect. But then the Yankees always played by two sets of rules. One for themselves, and a completely different set for everyone else. Now days we call this type the liberal left.


23 posted on 12/22/2004 12:10:24 PM PST by Colt .45 (Navy Veteran - Pride in my Southern Ancestry! Chance favors the prepared mind.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Colt .45
No, it was Lincoln's attempts to re-supply and reinforce the fort which were the cause of it.

The confederate forces had been firing at anything flying the U.S. flag long before Lincoln's resupply effort. On at least two prior occasions they had tried to initiate hosilities by firing on unarmed ships. In the end, they came to the conclusion that the only way to get their war was to bombard the fort itself.

24 posted on 12/22/2004 12:22:06 PM PST by Non-Sequitur (Jefferson Davis - the first 'selected, not elected' president.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: cvq3842; cougar_mccxxi
Very thought-provoking!

Concurring bump.

BTTT.

25 posted on 12/22/2004 6:41:09 PM PST by lentulusgracchus ("Whatever." -- sinkspur)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: SAR; cougar_mccxxi
If you read the writings of the anti-federalists, most of their complaints and predictions about the Constitution and how it threatened state sovereignty have come to fruition.

Notice that author Williams is at George Mason University. Mason was one of the greatest of the Antifederalists, as were Thomas Jefferson and Patrick Henry. Also, for a long time, John Hancock of Massachusetts, although the Federalists finally won him over (having made winning him over a major project).

26 posted on 12/22/2004 6:44:58 PM PST by lentulusgracchus ("Whatever." -- sinkspur)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
The confederate forces had been firing at anything flying the U.S. flag long before Lincoln's resupply effort.

Overcharacterization for polemical effect -- how well you do it.

The Southerners were concerned only with the possibility -- the probability (about which they guessed aright) that Lincoln had been lying to them and would attempt to reinforce the garrison with more troops. He did.

In the end, they came to the conclusion that the only way to get their war was to bombard the fort itself.

Oh, I'm sorry, but "getting their war" was Lincoln's purpose -- and will you insist I quote Lincoln's personal secretary, John Nicolay, to you to prove it?

Starting a war was Lincoln's idea. I think he wanted a war all along --ever since 1856, when he finally concluded that there was no constitutional way to abolish slavery. (So, he decided on an unconstitutional one -- a civil war.)

27 posted on 12/22/2004 6:49:13 PM PST by lentulusgracchus ("Whatever." -- sinkspur)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: lentulusgracchus

Thank you for your support! Non-Sequential will always try to attempt to re-establish some moral high ground where there is none.


28 posted on 12/22/2004 11:53:50 PM PST by Colt .45 (Navy Veteran - Pride in my Southern Ancestry! Chance favors the prepared mind.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: shubi
We need to get our country back.

Yeah we do. Now try telling that to all the Bush suckups and Big Stupid Government Excusers here on FR.

I'm sick of this BS government.

29 posted on 12/22/2004 11:56:18 PM PST by Hank Rearden (Never allow anyone who could only get a government job attempt to tell you how to run your life.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Colt .45
You're welcome.

To keep the equities of the American Civil War straight, it's only necessary to remember a) there was no rebellion, b) there was no insurrection, c) the People, not their servant officeholders, are Sovereign and answer only to the ineffable Who Am, and d) who invaded whom.

Everything else is excuses and eyewash -- excuses for killing 620,000 men in the field, and almost a million people overall, over politics.

30 posted on 12/23/2004 1:35:21 AM PST by lentulusgracchus ("Whatever." -- sinkspur)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: lentulusgracchus

"The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence. "
Art4 Sec4 U.S. Constitution

I think you have a point.


31 posted on 12/23/2004 2:11:59 AM PST by shubi (Peace through superior firepower.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: cougar_mccxxi

Brewing up a pot of Columbian and can't wait to dive into dessert for breakfast!

God Bless Walter Williams and Merry Christmas BTTT


32 posted on 12/23/2004 2:14:51 AM PST by ApesForEvolution (You will NEVER convince me that Muhammadanism isn't a death cult that must end. Save your time...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lentulusgracchus
Overcharacterization for polemical effect -- how well you do it.

They had fired on the Star of the West and the Rhoda Shannon.

The Southerners were concerned only with the possibility -- the probability (about which they guessed aright) that Lincoln had been lying to them and would attempt to reinforce the garrison with more troops. He did.

It didn't have to happen. Lincoln's intentions to reinforce only if the resupply effort was opposed was made cleart to Governor Pickens and Major Anderson.

Starting a war was Lincoln's idea. I think he wanted a war all along --ever since 1856, when he finally concluded that there was no constitutional way to abolish slavery. (So, he decided on an unconstitutional one -- a civil war.)

Overcharacterization for polemical effect -- you do it well yourself. Ending slavery was never an overriding goal of the Union. Preserving it was an overriding goal of the confederacy.

33 posted on 12/23/2004 3:10:03 AM PST by Non-Sequitur (Jefferson Davis - the first 'selected, not elected' president.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Colt .45
Non-Sequential will always try to attempt to re-establish some moral high ground where there is none.

Moral high ground? Are you claiming the moral high ground for the Davis regime? Once again we see where Colt .22 insists on laying blame everywhere except where it is due.

34 posted on 12/23/2004 3:12:20 AM PST by Non-Sequitur (Jefferson Davis - the first 'selected, not elected' president.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: lentulusgracchus
To keep the equities of the American Civil War straight, it's only necessary to remember a) there was no rebellion, b) there was no insurrection, c) the People, not their servant officeholders, are Sovereign and answer only to the ineffable Who Am, and d) who invaded whom.

The southron myth machine at work yet again. Yes, there was a rebellion. Yes there was an insurrection. Whatever the hell 'c' means. You don't invade your own country so nobody invaded anyone.

35 posted on 12/23/2004 3:14:28 AM PST by Non-Sequitur (Jefferson Davis - the first 'selected, not elected' president.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
Abolition of slavery was a byproduct of Federal Consolidation of powers and was not the aim of Lincoln.

The War Between the States did not start over slavery.

I'm glad that it led to it's end in America though - and though we are still ALL slaves to the Feds, via the IRS/IRC CONSTITUTIONALLY REPUGNANT INSANITY; outright tyranny.

Go FAIRTAX!! http://www.fairtax.org
36 posted on 12/23/2004 3:15:59 AM PST by ApesForEvolution (You will NEVER convince me that Muhammadanism isn't a death cult that must end. Save your time...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: cougar_mccxxi; ancient_geezer; kevkrom
Those which are to remain in the State Governments are numerous and indefinite.

The former (powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the Federal Government, few and defined) will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will for the most part be connected.
37 posted on 12/23/2004 3:19:53 AM PST by ApesForEvolution (You will NEVER convince me that Muhammadanism isn't a death cult that must end. Save your time...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hank Rearden

When you don't have a Constitutional government in America, you have, in essence, a shadow of a government.

Watch the shadows...


38 posted on 12/23/2004 3:21:49 AM PST by ApesForEvolution (You will NEVER convince me that Muhammadanism isn't a death cult that must end. Save your time...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: cougar_mccxxi
Re-fighting the Civil War... Again.

One of those things FReepers never seem to get sick of.

39 posted on 12/23/2004 3:22:32 AM PST by Zeroisanumber
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ApesForEvolution
The War Between the States did not start over slavery.

But defense of the institution of slavery was by far the single most important reason why the south began the War of Southern Rebellion in the first place.

40 posted on 12/23/2004 3:46:53 AM PST by Non-Sequitur (Jefferson Davis - the first 'selected, not elected' president.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: ApesForEvolution; cougar_mccxxi; kevkrom

The former (powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the Federal Government, few and defined) will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will for the most part be connected.

I'm afraid that WW is focusing too much on one aspect without regard to the fact that the nation changes with time. That even Madison and the Anti-federalists recognised one unescapable fact about the Constitution as opposed to the federation of state under the Articles of Confederation.

For there is more to the national government than the administration of "external objects".

Federalist #45:

Federalist #39:

A point of which even the Anti-federalists concurred:

Anti-Federalist Papers #3 NEW CONSTITUTION CREATES A NATIONAL GOVERNMENT;

For by no means was the national government expected to restrict itself to "EXTERNAL" sources of revenue:

Federalist #30:

Federalist #35:

Federalist #34:


41 posted on 12/23/2004 8:13:17 AM PST by ancient_geezer (Don't reform it, Replace it!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: ancient_geezer

I love it when you do that...lol :)

Merry Christmas FRiend and a safe, blessed New Year...


42 posted on 12/23/2004 8:19:20 AM PST by ApesForEvolution (You will NEVER convince me that Muhammadanism isn't a death cult that must end. Save your time...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur

The blame lies with the Northern Yankees for interfering in Southern States' internal affairs. I haven't ever heard of the Southern States trying to tell the Northern States how to run their internal affairs. But the reverse wasn't true, the Yankees were always meddling in Southern Affairs. So when the Southern States asserted their soveriegn rights as guaranteed under the 9th and 10th Amendments, all of a sudden its "Why you can't do that." So then the Southern States defend themselves, and they are labeled the culprits. No sir Mr. Non-Sequential, the North and you have no high ground. So much for the Bill of Rights, and the American Ideology. Lincoln would've made Joseph Dugashvili proud.


43 posted on 12/23/2004 12:22:44 PM PST by Colt .45 (Navy Veteran - Pride in my Southern Ancestry! Chance favors the prepared mind.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Colt .45
The blame lies with the Northern Yankees for interfering in Southern States' internal affairs.

In what way?

44 posted on 12/23/2004 1:02:54 PM PST by Non-Sequitur (Jefferson Davis - the first 'selected, not elected' president.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur

First through shifting of taxes owed from the War For Independence. Secondly through abolitionists attempts to incite slave insurrections. Thirdly through Northern merchants putting all of their money behind getting certain trade laws inimicable to Southern economic interests passed through Congress. Lastly through illegal invasion of the Southern States by military force.


45 posted on 12/23/2004 3:02:39 PM PST by Colt .45 (Navy Veteran - Pride in my Southern Ancestry! Chance favors the prepared mind.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Colt .45
First through shifting of taxes owed from the War For Independence.

How did they do that?

The government didn't support that. They sent troops to put down Brown and let Virginia try him on those ridiculous treason charges.

Thirdly through Northern merchants putting all of their money behind getting certain trade laws inimicable to Southern economic interests passed through Congress.

For example?

Lastly through illegal invasion of the Southern States by military force.

There was nothing illegal and there was no invasion. One does not invade ones own country.

46 posted on 12/23/2004 3:27:41 PM PST by Non-Sequitur (Jefferson Davis - the first 'selected, not elected' president.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: SAR

New Hampshire was a poor choice for the FreeState project because it is in the midst of the socialist states of New England. Indeeed, New Hampshire voted for Kerry. It is lost, do not look back nor waste any time on it. Pick a state in the Red Zone.


47 posted on 12/23/2004 3:34:24 PM PST by rcofdayton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
How did the Northern States get tax burdens from the War for Independence shifted? They went to Congress and whined about how paying those taxes would bankrupt the Northern States. So the Congress went and shifted a lot of the tax burden on the South "to help out" the Northern States. This occured in the late 1700's or early 1800's. Then Congress later enacted a "protective tariff" which enriched the North at the expense of other sections vis a vis the South.

As for your other viewpoint about the South starting the war, I offer this as proof of Lincoln's perfidity and badgering of the South into war.

"It was his Secretary of the Navy, Gideon Wells, who wrote: " It was very inmportant that the Rebels strike the first blow in the conflict."

Lincoln assembled the squadron of warships and tugs, as recommended by Captain G.V. Fox. He placed Fox in command and sent the fleet to Charleston.

The reinforcement had been outlined by Fox: "I simply propose three tugs convoyed by light-draft men of war ... The first tug to lead in empty, to open their fire"

Before Fox could carry out the plan, the Southerners bombarded and captured the fort.

Did the failure of the expedition distress Lincoln? Not at all. On May 1, 1861, he wrote Fox: " I sincerely regret that the failure of the attempt to provision Fort Sumter should be a source of annoyance to you ...
You and I both anticipated that the cause of the country would be advanced by making the attempt to provision Fort Sumter, even if it should fail; and it is no small consolation now to feel that our anticipation is justified by the result."

So if you were to have asked a Confederate Soldier why they seceeded, he would have told you these reasons:

1. Our States entered the Union with the understanding that they had the right to withdraw when membership proved unhappy.

2. We were tired of being gypped by unfair tariff laws.

3> we were fed up with insane abuse from South-hating fanatics.

4. We bought our slaves from the North, only to learn later that it proposed to free them without a penny of compensation.

5. Northern fanatics had inspired murderous slave uprisings. Why wait for more?

6. A rabidly-sectional party was in control at Washington.

We had no idea of making war. We planned to relieve the North from further association with us.

Sorry but your tired assed old arguments won't wash here. I know who the real culprits were - and they weren't from the Southern States!

48 posted on 12/23/2004 10:47:54 PM PST by Colt .45 (Navy Veteran - Pride in my Southern Ancestry! Chance favors the prepared mind.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Colt .45
How did the Northern States get tax burdens from the War for Independence shifted? They went to Congress and whined about how paying those taxes would bankrupt the Northern States. So the Congress went and shifted a lot of the tax burden on the South "to help out" the Northern States. This occured in the late 1700's or early 1800's. Then Congress later enacted a "protective tariff" which enriched the North at the expense of other sections vis a vis the South.

Specifically?

As for your other viewpoint about the South starting the war, I offer this as proof of Lincoln's perfidity and badgering of the South into war.

So the gist of your arguement is that there was a war because the southern leadership was too stupid to see through Lincoln's plot? Doesn't say much about them, does it?

So if you were to have asked a Confederate Soldier why they seceeded, he would have told you these reasons...

If you asked the southern leadership why they sent those soldiers into war they would have told you this:

"But not to be tedious in enumerating the numerous changes for the better, allow me to allude to one other -- though last, not least. The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution -- African slavery as it exists amongst us -- the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution."

Sorry but your tired assed old arguments won't wash here. I know who the real culprits were - and they weren't from the Southern States!

According to your lame-ass old southron myths.

49 posted on 12/24/2004 4:30:02 AM PST by Non-Sequitur (Jefferson Davis - the first 'selected, not elected' president.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
"But not to be tedious in enumerating the numerous changes for the better, allow me to allude to one other -- though last, not least. The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution -- African slavery as it exists amongst us -- the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution."

Says you. Same old yadda-yadda! Nothing new to see here folks, time to move along.

50 posted on 12/24/2004 2:49:05 PM PST by Colt .45 (Navy Veteran - Pride in my Southern Ancestry! Chance favors the prepared mind.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-64 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson