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

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-64 last
To: Colt .45
Says you.

Says Alexander Stephens, vice president of your confederate states. Don't you think he would know?

51 posted on 12/24/2004 6:09:04 PM PST by Non-Sequitur (Jefferson Davis - the first 'selected, not elected' president.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur

There was no insurrection. The South never attempted to conquor the central government, only to peacefully leave it. Davis would not even allow Stonewall to attack Washington following Manassas I, because, "all we wish is to be left alone."

As for slavery:
On March 2, 1861, the U.S. Senate passed a proposed Thirteenth Amendment to the US Constitution (which passed the House of Representatives on February 28) that would have prohibited the federal government from ever interfering with slavery in the Southern states. (See U.S. House of Representatives, 106th Congress, 2nd Session, The Constitution of the United States of America: Unratified Amendments, Document No. 106-214, presented by Congressman Henry Hyde (Washington, D.C. U.S. Government Printing Office, January 31, 2000). The proposed amendment read as follows:

ARTICLE THIRTEEN
“No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State.”

Two days later, in his First Inaugural Address, Abraham Lincoln promised to support the amendment even though he believed that the Constitution already prohibited the federal government from interfering with Southern slavery. As he stated:
“I understand a proposed amendment to the Constitution . . . has passed Congress, to the effect that the Federal Government shall never interfere with the domestic institutions of the States, including that of persons held to service. To avoid misconstruction of what I have said, I depart from my purpose, not to speak of particular amendments, so far as to say that, holding such a provision to now be implied constitutional law, I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable.”

This of course was consistent with one of the opening statements of the First Inaugural, where Lincoln quoted himself as saying: "I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so."

That’s what Lincoln said his invasion of the Southern states was not about. In an August 22, 1862, letter to New York Tribune editor Horace Greeley he explained to the world what the war was about:
“My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and it is not either to save or destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union.”

Of course, many Americans at the time, North and South, believed that a military invasion of the Southern states would destroy the union by destroying its voluntary nature. To Lincoln, "saving the Union" meant
destroying the secession movement and with it the Jeffersonian political tradition of states’ rights as a check on the tyrannical proclivities of the central government. His war might have "saved" the union geographically, but it destroyed it philosophically as the country became a consolidated empire as opposed to a constitutional republic of sovereign states.

On July 22, 1861, the US Congress issued a "Joint Resolution on the War" that echoed Lincoln’s reasons for the invasion of the Southern states:
“Resolved: . . . That this war is not being prosecuted upon our part in any spirit of oppression, nor for any purpose of conquest or subjugation, nor purpose of overthrowing or interfering with the rights or established institutions of those states, but to defend and maintain the supremacy of the Constitution and all laws made in pursuance thereof and to preserve the Union, with all the dignity, equality and rights of the several states unimpaired; and that as soon as these objects are accomplished the war ought
to cease.”

By "the established institutions of those states" the Congress was referring to slavery. As with Lincoln, destroying the secession movement took precedence over doing anything about slavery.


52 posted on 12/28/2004 5:47:03 AM PST by Jsalley82
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: rcofdayton

Actually, another state has been picked in the Red Zone. Check out www.christianexodus.org

South Carolina leads again.


53 posted on 12/28/2004 5:48:33 AM PST by Jsalley82
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: cougar_mccxxi

In all this there is no mention of purging or expelling a state. How doe the nation rid itsself of a state that is no longer fit for the union?


54 posted on 12/28/2004 5:55:14 AM PST by bert (Don't Panic.....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jsalley82
There was no insurrection. The South never attempted to conquor the central government, only to peacefully leave it.

Sure there was. A insurrection is defined as 'an act or instance of revolting against civil authority or an established government." That is an accurate description of what happened.

Davis would not even allow Stonewall to attack Washington following Manassas I, because, "all we wish is to be left alone."

You should read your history. In his biography "Jefferson Davis, American", Davis is described as being very insistent that the troops move on Washington from Masassas. His two commanding generals, Beauregard and Johnston, finally convinced him that is was impossible because the confederate army was just as disorganized after the battle as the Union army was.

As for slavery...

Slavery was never the primary reason why the Lincoln administration pursued the war that the south had forced on them. The single overriding goal was preserving the Union, and neither Lincoln or any other Northern leader pretended otherwise. Steps taken against the institution of slavery were taken because they supported the war effort. The Emancipation Proclamation, for example, overruled the various fugitive slave laws and allowed slaves fleeing confederate territory to remain in Union territory. Free blacks didn't need to be returned to their owners, and it removed hundreds of thousands of slaves from supporting confederate war efforts. There was nothing altruistic about it. Most Union soldiers thought no more of blacks than did confederate soldiers, and were no less racist in many ways that the southerners.

55 posted on 12/28/2004 6:03:43 AM PST by Non-Sequitur (Jefferson Davis - the first 'selected, not elected' president.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: bert

The 'nation' cannot expel a State. Conversely, a State CAN expel---secede--- from the nation.

The States created these united States. They can un-create it if they wish. The federal government is the servant of the States, not the other way around.


56 posted on 12/28/2004 9:40:42 AM PST by Jsalley82
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur

Wrong again. There was no rebellion at all. There was completely peaceful secession -- unitil Lincoln notified the South that he would reinforce Sumter (the tax collection house), and he refused to meet with Confederate emmisaries.

All after many federal properties had peacefully been returned to Southern states under Lincoln's predecessor, who sought a PEACEFUL resolution....

Your previous quotes by Stephens mean nothing. What politicians have to say (in general) means very little, and Southern politicians were not above saying what was required to get the response they wanted at the time any more than their northern counterparts. What matters is ACTIONS:

1) The Southern States seceded (using slavery as one of their excuses
2) The (now northern-controlled Congress) passed a Constitutional Amendment GUARRANTEEING SLAVERY FOREVER---it could have NEVER been revoked--- and Lincoln PUBLICLY STATED that he AGREED with it. The northern Declaration of War also stated that slavery was NOT the reason for the war.

Non-Sequitur, you make the same error as so many others. To you, secession must necessarily = war.

But if Lincoln had followed the concept of the Declaration, the Southern states could have, and WOULD have, left in peace.

Instead, like every other tyrant, he used force to FORCE a government on Southerners that they no longer wanted.

Much like a marriage, where the husband has been abusing his wife. She tries to escape, but he captures her, ties her to the bed, and beats her almost to death. But HURRAH! The union is SAVED!

Same concept.


57 posted on 12/28/2004 9:53:23 AM PST by Jsalley82
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: Jsalley82
Wrong again. There was no rebellion at all. There was completely peaceful secession...

Considering that the southern actions were illegal, then they did indeed initiate a rebellion or insurrection, take your pick.

... unitil Lincoln notified the South that he would reinforce Sumter (the tax collection house)...

Sumter was a fort, not a customs house. And it was also the property of the U.S. government and not the state of South Carolina. Lincoln had every right to resupply it.

... and he refused to meet with Confederate emmisaries.

The emissaries were sent to obtain recognition of confederate independence, something that Lincoln was not about to do. In any event, it took the south a matter of a few weeks to turn from alleged attempts at a negotiated settlement to war.

All after many federal properties had peacefully been returned to Southern states under Lincoln's predecessor, who sought a PEACEFUL resolution....

Not a single federal facility was 'returned' to the southern states. They had been illegally seized by the southern states. Legal ownership remained with the U.S. government.

The northern Declaration of War also stated that slavery was NOT the reason for the war.

What Northern Declaration of War?

Non-Sequitur, you make the same error as so many others. To you, secession must necessarily = war.

Had the southern states negotiated a peaceful withdrawl from the Union, ensuring that all issues of concern to all the parties affected by their actions were settled prior to the separation, then we would no doubt be in separate countries today. Instead the southern states attempted to unilaterally leave the Union, walking away from financial obligations that were incurred by the United States, and seizing anything that caught their fancy. Every action on the part of the southern states screamed 'war' and dared the North to respond. The southern military fired at ships flying the U.S. flag on more than one occasion. There was nothing 'peaceful' about their actions.

Much like a marriage, where the husband has been abusing his wife. She tries to escape, but he captures her, ties her to the bed, and beats her almost to death. But HURRAH! The union is SAVED!

A more accurate analogy would be the spoiled wife walking out on the husband, taking whatever community property she wanted to, and firing a shot at his head on her way out the door.

58 posted on 12/28/2004 10:26:43 AM PST by Non-Sequitur (Jefferson Davis - the first 'selected, not elected' president.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: Jsalley82
The 'nation' cannot expel a State. Conversely, a State CAN expel---secede--- from the nation.

Why can't a state be expelled? Where is that forbidden by the Constitution?

59 posted on 12/28/2004 10:27:45 AM PST by Non-Sequitur (Jefferson Davis - the first 'selected, not elected' president.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: cougar_mccxxi; msdrby

Food for thought bump.


60 posted on 12/28/2004 10:32:26 AM PST by Professional Engineer (Where there's a GI, there's a way.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur

The powers granted to the federal government are delegated, or enumerated (see the 10th Amendment). The federal government can constitutionally do only those few, specific items delegated it by the States. They can print money, maintain the navy, deliver the mail, etc.

The Constitution does NOT limit the States in any way whatsoever. Nor does it give the federal government any authority over the States. The Constitution (1) defines the structure of the federal government, (2) lists the few powers given, or enumerated, to it (about 24 specific powers), and (3) list a few of the rights which NO ONE can ever limit, or take away, in the bill of rights.

Again, the federal government is a servant of the states, not the master. When it ceases to serve the States, the States can end the contract, called the Constitution.


61 posted on 12/29/2004 9:27:07 AM PST by Jsalley82
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur

...Considering that the southern actions were illegal, then they did indeed initiate a rebellion or insurrection, take your pick. -NS

WHAT illegal actions? The Constitution lists NO actions of the States that are illegal; it only limits upon the federal government! This is a very BASIC Constitutional concept! (One could say, however, the States are limited by the fact that they agree to no longer perform the limited actions granted to the federal government. For instance, SC could no longer print money, deliver the mail, or negotiate treaties with foreign countries. Short of those specific 24 or so powers delegated to the fed, the States are free t do ANYTHING THEY CHOOSE!!! The 10th Amendment is instructive here...)


...Sumter was a fort, not a customs house. And it was also the property of the U.S. government and not the state of South Carolina. Lincoln had every right to resupply it. -NS

Wrong again. Sumter was a customs house, a fact well documented in Charles Adams' "When in the Course of Human Events". And when SC seceded, all federal property within her borders reverted back to the State. Otherwise, or foreign country would own property within her borders, which is an absolutely prepososterous proposition, appart from embassies that might be allowed.

...What Northern Declaration of War? -NS

Obviously, you didn't take time to educate yourself from the yankee propoganda you think you know by reading the post above, quoting the proposed 13th Amendment amost unanimously passed by the northern Congress guarranteeing slavery forever, and the Declaration of War, which stated that the war had NOTHING to do with slavery.

... Instead the southern states attempted to unilaterally leave the Union, walking away from financial obligations that were incurred by the United States, and seizing anything that caught their fancy. -NS

This is an outlandish statement with no basis in fact.
1)The South did NOT 'unilaterally leave the Union' at all. Each State, acting in it's own sovereign will, seceded according to its' own wishes. Initially, only 7 seceded to form the Confederacy. The remainder only seceded when Lincoln proved himself a tyrant, and, like the native Americans, determined to oppose his tyrrany.
2)The Southern States NEVER tried to 'walk away from financial obligations'. That is a lie that is easily proven wrong. The Confederate emmisaries sent to Washington were there with the specific instructions to negotiate the Southern states paying any debts.
3) No Southern State EVER 'siezed anything that caught their fancy'. That is a lie. They reclaimed what had previously been federal property, but ceased to be so when the States ended the contract, called the Constitution.
NS, your lack of knowledge of very basic history and the Constitution is disheartening...

...A more accurate analogy would be the spoiled wife walking out on the husband, taking whatever community property she wanted to, and firing a shot at his head on her way out the door.-NS

Let's see: in 1860, the South was paying 87% of all taxes collected by the federal government. About the same percentage was SPENT in the North. And WHICH SIDE was spoiled????
When the Confederate government formed, they immediately passed a low 10% tarriff rate. The city of New York threatened to secede if Lincoln did not FORCE collection of the tarriffs in the South. Northern newspapers cried that northern industry would be bancrupt before the next winter if Lincoln could not collect the tarriffs in the South.
And I know of NO 'community property' the South took; only previous federal property that reverted to the States. The South got NONE of the navy, very little in the way of military supplies, and in 1860, the federal government (which was FAR, FAR SMALLER then) owned very little anyway. Remember, NO income taxes, NO death taxes, NO corporate taxes, etc, etc, etc....

NS, I suggest you read Adam's "When in the Course of Human Events", as well as DiLorenzo's "The Real Lincoln", just for starters. Both excellent works which simply state the facts from primary sources, instead of making excuses of Lincoln's tyranous acts, like the northern apologists usually do....




62 posted on 12/29/2004 9:56:52 AM PST by Jsalley82
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: Jsalley82
The Constitution does NOT limit the States in any way whatsoever. Nor does it give the federal government any authority over the States.

Sure it does. Article I, Section 10, Clause 1 lays out a whole host of actions that the states are forbidden. Clause 2 and Clause 3 lay out actions that the states can do only with the approval of Congress. Article IV, Section 4 says that the federal government will tell the states what kind of government they are allowed to have. And Article VI, Section 2 says that the Constitution and the laws and treaties made under it will be the supreme law of the land, trumping local laws and state constitutions where they conflict.

When it ceases to serve the States, the States can end the contract, called the Constitution.

Not unilaterally, no.

63 posted on 12/29/2004 10:19:24 AM PST by Non-Sequitur (Jefferson Davis - the first 'selected, not elected' president.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: Jsalley82
The Constitution lists NO actions of the States that are illegal; it only limits upon the federal government!

The Constitution places a number of restrictions on what states can do, and it definitely puts the Constitution in a position of supremecy over any state constitution or local laws.

Wrong again. Sumter was a customs house, a fact well documented in Charles Adams' "When in the Course of Human Events".

The Charleston Customs house was located on East Bay Street. Sumter was always a military fort. Not a single dime of tariff revenue was ever collected there.

And when SC seceded, all federal property within her borders reverted back to the State. Otherwise, or foreign country would own property within her borders, which is an absolutely prepososterous proposition, appart from embassies that might be allowed.

Having given up all claims to the territory when they gave title to it to the federal government, I'm curious as to what rule of law automatically transferred ownership from the federal government to the state of South Carolina. The Constitution makes it clear that only Congress can dispose of federal property like that. Congress didn't do that. Even if their acts of secession had been legal the southern states still had no legal claim to the federal property within their borders.

Obviously, you didn't take time to educate yourself from the yankee propoganda you think you know by reading the post above, quoting the proposed 13th Amendment amost unanimously passed by the northern Congress guarranteeing slavery forever, and the Declaration of War, which stated that the war had NOTHING to do with slavery.

I'll ask again, what declaration of war? When did Lincoln declare war? What document does that? You don't declare war against your own country.

The South did NOT 'unilaterally leave the Union' at all. Each State, acting in it's own sovereign will, seceded according to its' own wishes.

The southern actions were unilateral in that they were not approved by all the parties affected by the decision, that is the remaining states in the United States. Their interests deserved to be addressed, too.

The Southern States NEVER tried to 'walk away from financial obligations'. That is a lie that is easily proven wrong. The Confederate emmisaries sent to Washington were there with the specific instructions to negotiate the Southern states paying any debts.

Utter nonsense. If you would bother to read the instructions given to the so-called emmisaries you would see that they were tasked with establishing relations between the U.S. and the confederate states. In short, obtain recognition from the Lincoln Adminisitration. Only once that was obtained would they discuss 'settlement of all questions of disagreement'. There was no specific instruction to negotiate payment of debts or payment for property seized. In any case, the time to negotiate such a settlement would have been before the separation, when both parties could make their case, and not after you have seized the property in question.

No Southern State EVER 'siezed anything that caught their fancy'. That is a lie. They reclaimed what had previously been federal property, but ceased to be so when the States ended the contract, called the Constitution. NS, your lack of knowledge of very basic history and the Constitution is disheartening...

And you disinterest in the rule of law comes close the equalling that of the Davis regime. The property belonged to the federal government. The states didn't lend the land to the federal government, they signed it over free and clear. The Constitution is clear that only Congress can dispose of the property, states cannot just seize it. But seize it is exactly what the southern states did.

Let's see: in 1860, the South was paying 87% of all taxes collected by the federal government. About the same percentage was SPENT in the North. And WHICH SIDE was spoiled????

Pure myth. The southern states never paid anywhere close to 87% of all taxes. There were, in fact, virtually no taxes to begin with. The bulk of the federal income came from tariffs and the south never came close to paying anything but a fraction of those.

When the Confederate government formed, they immediately passed a low 10% tarriff rate. The city of New York threatened to secede if Lincoln did not FORCE collection of the tarriffs in the South. Northern newspapers cried that northern industry would be bancrupt before the next winter if Lincoln could not collect the tarriffs in the South.

The confederate tariff actually went up to 25% on some items.

NS, I suggest you read Adam's "When in the Course of Human Events", as well as DiLorenzo's "The Real Lincoln", just for starters. Both excellent works which simply state the facts from primary sources, instead of making excuses of Lincoln's tyranous acts, like the northern apologists usually do....

I've read them both. And while I generally like good fiction, neither of them would fall into the category of 'good'.

64 posted on 12/29/2004 10:39:19 AM PST by Non-Sequitur (Jefferson Davis - the first 'selected, not elected' president.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]


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