Skip to comments.The Original Secessionists
Posted on 02/18/2012 11:09:23 AM PST by HMS Surprise
There is nothing more irritating to a warrior-poet than an unwillingness to debate. If speech is troubling, or blatantly false, or amateurish, then it will fall of its own weight. I dont need, and I suspect a majority of truthseekers dont want, an administrator hovering above the public forum deciding which issues are too controversial for polite company.
The Civil War has become untouchable, unless you agree with the standard arguments. 1. Lincoln was a god among men. 2. The South was evil. 3. Union is the ultimate goal of the American experiment. 4. The Federal governments design trumps the rights of the People, and the States. 5. Political bands are eternal, and must be preserved at all costs. 6. The ends justify the means.
The arguments for the necessity of the War between the States are considered unassailable, and I have noticed lately that the political-correctness has reached such a high level that even purportedly conservative blogs are beginning to remove threads that stray into pro-rebellion territory.
I understand the temptation to ignore this issue for political expediency, but the goal of individual liberty (personal freedom), as well as State sovereignty (political freedom), can never be accomplished unless we acknowledge and understand that the Civil War planted the seeds of the eventual unconstitutional federal takeover of every aspect of American life.
Some basics that are undeniable, albiet censorable, follows.
(Excerpt) Read more at teapartytribune.com ...
Rather, the war was made by the men who ordered cannon fire on US forces performing their duty at Ft. Sumter.
The 10th amendment does not reserve secession to the states. Rather it reserves powers to the states or to the people.
Secession could be legal, certainly by amendment, probably by legislation of the federal legislature, or by successful supreme court case, or by successful rebellion followed by treaty. The first three were not attempted by the slave owners of 1860, and they didn’t meet the high standard of the 4th.
The English army was not transported to put down a rebellion. Rather they were transported to collect illegal taxes. In all locations except Boston, the taxed tea was either not unloaded, or was not moved from the custom house. In Boston the colonials were unable to get an agreement to not unload the tea, and because of that they dumped it to prevent its unloading and sale. Their actions after that caused the rebellion.
The argument is that Southerners looked to the heros of the American Revolution and their documents just as Lincoln did, but they each came away with different views. Southerners were animated to repeat, Lincoln was determined to maintain the status quo which was created. I am NOT a Lincoln-hater, I am a Washington lover, and consider him, and others in the founding, to be better angels... to steal a phrase.
I am sure they assumed that the “problems” that would cause them to leave would appear almost “instantly” not after roughly 3 generations. (Assuming a generation equals 25 years!)
I am not arguing that the Tenth makes secession legal, or that secession is called for, or that secession is imminent. I am arguing that to ignore the South’s arguments, or worse to say that they were evil, puts any argument for State authority over federal authority in peril.
When I wrote “Their actions after that caused the rebellion.” I meant the actions of English troops after the tea party caused the rebellion.
Look carefully at what England did to occupied Boston after the Tea Party. Contrast that with the actions of Lincoln before the firing on Ft. Sumter.
“We are not enemies, but friends...” was taken by the rebels of 1860 as a declaration of war.
What you say is true. Few of the original 13 would have ratified if they would have thought that it meant eventual submission to federal authority in all cases. The Civil War cemented the paradigm of U.S. supremacy over State sovereignty. This has led us to where we are today. The omnipotent federal state, consuming all political liberty and personal freedom.
Nice try, but not paying taxes that are owed IS rebellion. What other kind is there? Standing in place hating on the King while paying taxes is the very definition of submission. Indeed, it is the definition of normality.
It could have been possible to split up the country through a bill in Congress or a Constitutional amendment. But for states to unilaterally sever their link to the union, to form a league, a country of their own, raise an army, and fire on a federal base was sure to mean war.
George Washington would have understood, which is why he called out troops to face the Whiskey Rebellion. Any president confronted with what Lincoln was would either have to roll over and take whatever a newly established hostile regime decreed, or else fight back against an unlawful rebellion. Would you want to be the president who decided that the federal government couldn't protect its property and couldn't enforce the laws?
Some things you leave out: 1861 was something close to a revolutionary situation. Militant pro-slavery elements were trying to take as many slave states out of the union as they could. It was smash and grab and they were out for all they could get. The secessions weren't always procedurally correct, and secessionist elements didn't hesitate to use force to get their own way.
You apparently have the idea that the Confederacy was jus' folks like us. A benign bunch of good ol' boys who sat around in a garage talking about guns when the feds burst in. They weren't. They were a government like other governments, with the same -- indeed, greater -- tyrannical elements as other governments.
That the secessionists would produce a free society or that North and South would live side by side in peace are both highly debatable propositions. Slavery was already deeply ingrained in Confederate society, and however things went in the future, you can bet the CSA would have excercised maximum control over the servile population. It's possible that North and South could have lived together peacefully, but it's not something you can safely assume.
Nice try again, but epic fail. Lincoln was the decider. There was no chance that the South would invade the North. Lincoln’s disclaimers were short-lived, and did not reflect his actions. I am NOT a Lincoln-hater, and I understand that it may have been impossible for any politician to step back from the brink at the time. But, he could have, if he had chosen, to allow seperation peacefully. Anyone who thinks that was impossible is not able to think in even a modestly critical fashion.
>>The North could have allowed for a Confederacy. It COULD HAVE done that. No great schism in the cosmic fabric would have taken place.
Wrong. The European oligarchs were slavering over a viable Confederacy, arranging loans and arms shipments to the South, opening a future marshaling and support front in Mexico with Maximilian’s usurpation of the govt., operating espionage networks from Canada, propagandizing and recruiting Indian populations of the Western Front, etc.. The South would have constituted a base of operations for an eventual European invasion of the North led and orchestrated by our traditional enemy, England.
People think that “geopolitics” was an invention of Nazi strategist Karl Haushaufer. It has been an operant methodology for empire since there were empires.
The Confederacy was just folks like us, Lincoln said so. It created people like Washington and Jefferson. Without the South America would never have existed. Your attempts to demonize the South is all I need to know really. Their still around my friend, and you call them brothers I’m sure. Hating them is tantamount to self-hatred, unless you think that their design was always insurrection, even from the time of the Founding. Ridiculous.
Sorry, but wrong. Where do we find conservatives today? Massachusetts? Nope, Georgia. Where do people attend church? New York? Nope. Dallas. If the South had seceded successfully, the “Euporeanization” of the North would have happened by now. The only thing that prevents it now is The South. Any Northern conservative must thank God daily for his Southern brothers and sisters, for without them he would be lost.
The South losing brought us to where we are today...even here in Alabama. Our glorious Lee County government schools take MLK Day but not Washington’s Birthday or the diluted President’s Day. Only Magic Negros are worth celebrating.
Confederates were like us, meaning other Americans. But the Confederate leadership wasn't just like us, meaning ordinary aggrieved citizens. They had power and wanted more. They weren't innocent victims in what happened. It wasn't like it was Big Government Lincoln against the little guys who never had a chance. Davis and his government were a Government, a Big one that wanted to get Bigger.
Here's the thing: we've been arguing about this stuff for years. All the arguments have been tossed around for a long time and we know what they are, so we use shorthand. You come in like you're saying something new. Granted, those civil war threads haven't been active in a while, but you could find them and figure out just what's been at issue here before assuming that you already do.
Canada proves that the North and South would have existed peacefully together. I don’t think they would have seperated for long at any rate.
And while were what iffing... If America had not “seceded” from the coming British Empire it is doubtful that WWI or WWII would have ever have happened. England with an English powerhouse in America would have been an unassailable force.
“Ifs and buts... so much fun.” (Don Meredith)
Sigh if you wish, the argument is pertinent because pretending that the Civil War was America being perfected is allowing a paradigm to exist that the libs carry into battle every day.
On a further point, what exactly were the grievances of the Southern states? Lincoln had not even taken office, and had vowed that despite his personal views, he would take no actions to interfere with slavery in the Southern states. Whether or not this was true or not we will never know, as the Southern states, when they lost in a legitimate national election, simply walked out in a huff when the result did not go in a way they favored. They then set about seceding from the US, months before Lincoln was even sworn in.
The Southern states were not exactly bastions of state’s rights either. For years, they used the national government to try and push pro-slavery views onto other states that wanted no part of it, and the existence things such the Fugitive Slave Act bear testimony to that fact. Despite being, supposedly, founded on the idea of the right of secession, the Confederacy refused to acknowledge that concept when applied to themselves. The Confederacy had many internal revolts against the government, ones that they often used military force to deal with. West Virginia is only the most notable example - other regions, like Nickajack and Winston spring to mind. Heck, eastern Tennessee petitioned the legislature to secede from the state, and the Confederacy sent troops to occupy the region and prevent any such independence movement from occurring.
The Constitutional ratification statements of several states would indicate they believed they had the right to withdraw from the Union. Virginia’s ratification statement read in part:
WE the Delegates of the people of Virginia, duly elected in pursuance of a recommendation from the General Assembly, and now met in Convention, having fully and freely investigated and discussed the proceedings of the Federal Convention, and being prepared as well as the most mature deliberation hath enabled us, to decide thereon, DO in the name and in behalf of the people of Virginia, declare and make known that the powers granted under the Constitution, being derived from the people of the United States may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression, and that every power not granted thereby remains with them and at their will: that therefore no right of any denomination, can be cancelled, abridged, restrained or modified, by the Congress, by the Senate or House of Representatives acting in any capacity, by the President or any department or officer of the United States, except in those instances in which power is given by the Constitution for those purposes: and that among other essential rights, the liberty of conscience and of the press cannot be cancelled, abridged, restrained or modified by any authority of the United States.
Presently, there is a independence movement in Vermont. To ensure the citizens of Vermont understand the consequences of secession, I propose a new amendment to the Constitution that provides for the following:
1. No state shall seceded from the Union and should a state attempt succession the remaining states within the Union may use the military force necessary for subjugation.
2. States not seceding may be compelled to furnish military force for said subjugation.
3. Upon subjugation, states attempting secession are to be administered by martial law until federal supremacy is assured.
4. During the subjugation process, the Bill of Rights and the writ of habeas corpus may be suspended at the sole discretion of the President.
5. During secession hostilities, the military forces of the United States are permitted to pillage, burn and destroy the property of civilians in the rebellious state(s) at the discretion of military commanders.
6. Food and medicine may be considered contraband in the rebellious states.
6. During secession hostilities, civilians in the rebellious states may be imprisoned, exiled, and executed without trial.
The founding fathers certainly would have approved of an amendment including these provisions since apparently the concepts were in the Constitution but not explicitly stated.