I Pledge allegiance to the Confederate Flag

realtive=relative....and to think I just took that IQ test floating around the forum.

I'm going on what y'all turn out. So tell me where there are any Lees, Forrests(?) or Jacksons anywhere in the south today.

Nathan Bedford Forrest can be found in Memphis, Tennessee, ironicly enough near that city's *Union Street, where the general's memorial is located.

Descendents of that great man's stature might be expected to offer some of the leadership, following in his footsteps, and so one did, but he was the only son of the only son of of the only son (grand grandson) of that Confederate Lieutenant General, and his sister had two daughters. Therefore the line came to an end with his death in combat in an Air Corps bomber in the skies over Germany, during the Second World War. I do not think his ancestor would be any less proud of him for having faithfully served the flag of the Union, since he served the people of the south just as well, and like his great grandfather, set quite an example for us all to follow.

Nathan Bedford Forrest

Brigadier General, United States Army Air Force

Born at Memphis, Tennessee, April 7, 1905, the son of Nathan Bedford and Mattie Patterson (Patton) Forrest. He was a student at Georgia Tech, 1923-24 and graduated from West Point in 1928. He married Fraces Brassler, November 22, 1930.

He was commissioned a Second Lieutenant, 1928, and advanced through the ranks to Brigadier General in November 1942. He was serving as Chief of Staff of the Second Air Force when reported missing-in-action on a bombing mission over Kiel, Germany, on June 13 , 1943. He had lived at 115 West 9th Street, Spokane, Washington. He is buried in Section 3 of Arlington National Cemetery.

If we think of the Constitution as any other legal partnership then that cannot be disolved with the approval of the majority or all of the people involved.

Actually, Kent Masterson Brown (article in North and South magazine last year) and Jefferson Davis (his book Rise and Fall) make a lot of the nature of the Constitution as a compact. This nature stipulates that, barring some provision on dissolution of the compact, the willful violation of a material provision of the compact by one party relieves other party from the requirement to abide by the compact. Even Daniel Webster agreed with this (speech at Capon Bridge, Virginia). I don't disagree with Brown and Davis, but believe that a better case for secession lies with the will of the majority of the people of the States that want to secede or not. The best basis of legitimacy of secession is found in the popular will of the people of the States that voted to secede (or not). Anti-secessionism was anti-democratic, in that it overthrew properly elected State governments once those States elected to secede. Of course, the unconditional Unionists had to do this. It is illogical to fight a war to force States to remain in the Union against the will of the people of those States, then leave the same secessionist State governments in place, to allow them to try it again, and again until they succeed. Likewise, it is ludicrous to overthrown an elected States government, then allow the people to elect the same secessionists to States office so they can try again, so the Federal government had to declare these men to be ineligible for re-election. Again, it is ludicrous to allow the people to elect others to State offices who will act exactly as the overthrown State officials, so the Federal government had to declare anyone who did not openly oppose secession to be ineligible to vote. Of course, the Federal government has no constitutional authority to dictate to the States who is and is not eligible to vote, but these ridiculous and scandalous acts were carried out because they had to be for the unconditional Unionists to enforce their views on the nature of the Union. These policies were the fruit of the poison tree of a coercive Union. The Federal government lacks a constitutional enforcement mechanism against secession. Jefferson Davis, citing the proceedings of the Federal Convention in 1787, demonstrated that this omission was intentional. There are no provisions in the Constitution allowing the overthrow of a republican State government, nor even allowing the Federal government's forces to enter a State to protect them from invasion without the request from the State legislature or the State governor. President Buchanan also saw no constitutional enforcement mechanism even though he did not recognize a right of secession. Secession is messy. A coercive Union is messier.

Why should the Constitution be any different. Why would the founding fathers have gone to great lengths to ensure that the people in each state be represented and guaranteed a republican government and protected from government excess only to make it that simple for a state to leave the Union and the people be at the mercy of whoever took them out?

As was borne out in the events during and following the war, a much greater threat to liberties comes from a State government or from a Federal Government that refuses to respect the established limits on its authority. It is logically ludicrous for the Federal government to overthrow an elected State government in executing its constitutional obligation to guarantee each State of the Union a republican form of government. Plus, secession is less risky from a civil liberty perspective because the people of Illinois can never be "at the mercy" of the government excesses of the people of Florida, for example, except through the intervention of the Federal government.

Madison ... the latter is another name only for revolution, about which there is no theoretic controversy."

What is the difference between revolutionary secession and constitutional? How does one invoke this revolutionary right? Simply by declaring the act secession to be a revolution? And then is the Federal government bound to respect it because "there is no theoretical controversy" about it? The Southern peoples' beef was with the Federal and northern State governments, not their own State governments. They wanted to keep their State governments as they were.

During the Constitutional Convention, Madison addressed New York's desire to ratify in part: "My opinion ... a rejection."

Actually, this was the private letter to Hamilton I was writing about in my last post. It was written after Virginia's Convention ratified the Constitution, with the proviso that the powers delegated could be resumed if perverted to their (the people's) oppression.

There are other quotes from Madison but I don't have them handy right now. But they all make clear his belief that the arbitrary secession was wrong.

Madison is a double-edged sword in this regard. He wrote on both ends of this argument. For example, he was the author of the letter described, and of the Virginia Resolution of 1798/9. Also, don't confuse wrong with unconstitutional. Many unconditional Unionists cite quotes from the Founding Fathers disapproving of secession or glorifying the Union and say, "Voila! Secession is unconstitutional." Many of these quotes merely show that the author saw that the Union was good and secession was inadvisable as a policy, not unconstitutional.

My point on the Supreme Court case was that a post-war decision could not have relevance to a pre-war constitutional debate. If does, then let me cite the future US Supreme Court decision of the year a.d. 2023 which will declare that secession is completely legal whenever a State decides it wants out of the Union. Just kidding, but you see my point, I hope.

Respectfully,

D J White

This nature stipulates that, barring some provision on dissolution of the compact, the willful violation of a material provision of the compact by one party relieves other party from the requirement to abide by the compact.

And how was that compact violated?

I don't disagree with Brown and Davis, but believe that a better case for secession lies with the will of the majority of the people of the States that want to secede or not.

That's Rawle's position and I would agree with him that the will of the people is paramount. So why didn't the people have a chance to decide? Of the original 7 confederate states only Texas put the matter to a popular referendum. We will never know what the popular will of the people was. Had referendums been held and had it been found that the popular will was secession it is possible, maybe even probable, that the support would have been found in the Congress to amend the Constitution and allow them to go in peace. When you figure that secession wasn't stongly opposed by the majority of Northern newspapers and public opionion until after the south fired on Sumter it's not as far fetched as one might think.

Isn't it the duty of the federal government to protect the republican form of government? More importantly, isn't it the duty of the federal government to protect the people of each state when laws are broken? Rebellion is a violation of the law.

Madison was opposed to arbitrary secession, as he would have been opposed to any state acting arbitrarily against the interests of any other state. He was pretty consistent on that in the letters I've seen.

A Supreme Court decision on a matter of Constitutional law is relevent no matter when the action and no matter when the decision. The Supreme Court ruled that the actions of Texas were not protected under the Constitution. That ruling will stand until overridden by a future court or by an amendment. And yes, should some future court rule that arbitrary secession is legal then I will accept that ruling as law.

That's Rawle's position and I would agree with him that the will of the people is paramount. So why didn't the people have a chance to decide? Of the original 7 confederate states only Texas put the matter to a popular referendum. We will never know what the popular will of the people was. Had referendums been held and had it been found that the popular will was secession it is possible, maybe even probable, that the support would have been found in the Congress to amend the Constitution and allow them to go in peace. When you figure that secession wasn't stongly opposed by the majority of Northern newspapers and public opionion until after the south fired on Sumter it's not as far fetched as one might think.

The people of each State did get to decide. Each seceding State elected a Convention to consider the issue of secession. The conventions embody the sovereignty of the people. The delegates were empowered specifically to consider this issue in the name of and with the sovereignty of the people. The sending of the decision to the people in a referendum was solely for greater certainty, given how momentous the decision was. A referendum was not mandatory, since the Constitution had been adopted by the mechanism of conventions only. And another point, the Constitution did not need to be amended to allow secession, since, as I have shown in earlier posts, the recalling of delegated State powers was understood across sectional lines (VA, NC, NY, RI) and the understanding that there was no such thing as an unspecified Federal power was universal. The Constitution DID required amending to allow the Federal government to force a State back into the Union against the will of the people of that State, or to overthrow an elected State government once the Army had conquered a State. But Northerners were unwilling to discuss that amendment or simply elevated the idea of Union above that of representative democracy. Southerners elevated the idea of representative democracy above that of Union.

Isn't it the duty of the federal government to protect the republican form of government?

For States within the Union, yes. The Founding Fathers (well, most of them) saw monarchy and aristocracy as a societal disease that they could not tolerate within the Union, so they made that stipulation. But isn’t it at least a little ironic that this stipulation would be cited by Radical Republicans as the justification for overthrowing elected State governments in the immediate aftermath of the war? Don’t you find that at least a little bit unrepublican? And if this authority can be drawn from Article IV, Section 4, then what good is it to have written Constitutions?

More importantly, isn't it the duty of the federal government to protect the people of each state when laws are broken? Rebellion is a violation of the law.

No, actually, it is not the Federal government’s duty to do that. It is the Federal government’s duty to execute the powers specifically delegated to it by the people of the several States. The Federal government violating the Constitution is hardly an effective way to protect the people of each State when laws are broken.

I suggest you read two other Madison documents. The Virginia Resolution (http://www.closeup.org/ky-va.htm) and Madison’s Report on the Virginia Resolution (http://www.constitution.org/rf/vr_1799.txt). They make clear that Madison was very concerned about how the Federal government may usurp undelegated powers and what States should do about it.

“That this Assembly doth explicitly and peremptorily declare, that it views the powers of the federal government, as resulting from the compact to which the states are parties; as limited by the plain sense and intention of the instrument constituting that compact; as no farther valid than they are authorised by the grants enumerated in that compact, and that in case of a deliberate, palpable and dangerous exercise of other powers not granted by the said compact, the states who are parties thereto have the right, and are in duty bound, to interpose for arresting the progress of the evil, and for maintaining within their respective limits, the authorities, rights and liberties appertaining to them.” (http://www.constitution.org/jm/17981221_virres.txt)

My point on the Supreme Court case is that Texas v. White cannot be cited as a pre-war justification for opposing secession. It wasn’t case law yet, although it is now.

Respectfully,

D J White

Actually each state did not elect delegates to a convention. I would refer you to "The Men of Secession and Civil War 1859-1861" by James L. Abrahamson. South Carolina's secession convention delegates were selected by the legislature. Georgia held an election to select delegates but there is considerable evidence to suggest that the results were fixed. In Florida, Mississippi, and Alabama the delegates available were almost exclusively from the plantation owners. Hardly represetnational. Even then the issue was far from unanimous.

Part of the governments duties is to guarantee each state a republican form of government. Preventing rebellion certainly would be part of that.

While Texas v. White was a post war decision, it decided the legality of the southern actions in 1860-61. The southern belief that they had the right to arbitrary secession was incorrect. I'm not using it as justification for opposing secession in 1860-61, I don't need to. Lincoln's opinion was that southern secession was illegal and he took actions consistent with that position. All Texas v. White did was confirm that his actions were the correct ones and the southern actions were illgal.

Let me offer two quotes from Madison as well:

"One thing at least seems to be too clear to be questioned; that whilst a State remains within the Union it cannot withdraw its citizens from the operation of the Constitution laws of the Union. In the event of an actual secession without the Consent of the Co-States, the course to be pursued by these involves questions painful in the discussion of them. God grant that the menacing appearances, which obtruded it may not be followed by positive occurrences requiring the more painful task of deciding them!

Madison was pointing out the dangers of arbitrary secession. It's obvious that he knew that such arbitrary actions must be opposed by the federal government.

"An inference from the doctrine that a single State has the right to secede at will from the rest is that the rest would have an equal right to secede from it; in other words, to turn it, against its will, out of its union with them. Such a doctrine would not, till of late been palatable anywhere, and nowhere less so than where it is now most contended for..."

Would you agree with this? Do the other states have the right to expel a single state regardless of that state's wishes?

Actually each state did not elect delegates to a convention. I would refer you to "The Men of Secession and Civil War 1859-1861" by James L. Abrahamson. South Carolina's secession convention delegates were selected by the legislature. Georgia held an election to select delegates but there is considerable evidence to suggest that the results were fixed. In Florida, Mississippi, and Alabama the delegates available were almost exclusively from the plantation owners. Hardly represetnational. Even then the issue was far from unanimous.

I have Mr. Abrahamson’s book, and don’t see that the South Carolina Convention was appointed by the State legislature. Not saying you’re wrong, I just don’t see it. As for the others, the validity of any election was the State‘s to determine and if the people elected plantation owners, then they were legitimate as delegates because of that election, regardless of their occupation.

Part of the governments duties is to guarantee each state a republican form of government. Preventing rebellion certainly would be part of that.

And preventing the elected State legislature to meet would undoubtedly violate that trust. See Canby’s order to Warren et al. on May 20th, 1865. O.R. Vol. 48, part 2, page 520-1. And instructions from the Secretary of War to Brig. Gen. Nathaniel Banks Sept. 11th, 1861, O.R. vol. 5, pg. 193.

While Madison is obviously troubled by the possibility of secession, the declaration of the people of the Commonwealth of Virginia, in Convention assembled, do not share his trouble. “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.”

Then in 1861, the same people of Virginia, in Convention assembled, declared, “The people of Virginia, in their ratification of the Constitution of the United States of America, adopted by them in convention on the twenty-fifth day of June, in the year of our Lord one thousand, seven hundred and eighty-eight, having declared that the powers granted under the said Constitution were derived from the people of the United States, and might be resumed whenever the same should be perverted to their injury and oppression, and the Federal government having perverted said powers, not only to the injury of the people of Virginia, but to the oppression of the South or slaveholding-States, Now, therefore, we, the people of Virginia, do declare and ordain, That the ordinance adopted by the people of this State in convention, on the twenty-fifth of June, in the year of our Lord, one thousand, seven hundred and eighty-eight, whereby the Constitution of the United States of America was ratified, and all acts of the general assembly of this State ratifying or adopting amendments to said Constitution are hereby repealed and abrogated; that the union between the State of Virginia and the other States under the Constitution aforesaid is hereby dissolved, and that the State of Virginia is in the full possession and exercise of all the rights of sovereignity which belong and appertain to a free and independent State.”

As great a mind as Madison’s was, in those areas in which it opposes the declared will of the people of Virginia as to the rights of those people, Madison was wrong.

Respectfully,

D J White

Would you agree with this? Do the other states have the right to expel a single state regardless of that state's wishes?

Well, in fairness, that’s not what Madison was saying. If all the States but one seceded, then reformed a Union called the Alternative States of America, or some such, they would first have to pass through a national 'state of nature,' if you will. They would have to be completely independent before they reformed a new Union. As far as leaving the one State of the old Union with all of the debts of the Union, I guess that the Federal government (and eventually the sole left-out State) would have to negotiate with the departers to take with them their fair share of the public debt, especially if they were taking their fair share of the public non-moveable assets (something the Confederate States attempted to do, but were never received by Mr. Lincoln). Failing a resolution through negotiation, the left-over State would only have a recourse to the final arbiter between sovereign States when no superior judge exists to determine wrongs and measures of redress: war.

More to the point, if the departers left in peace and settled accounts with remaining State[s], and then changed the name, but kept the republican ideals of the old Union, wouldn’t this be preferable to keeping the old name, but rejecting the original ideals of the old Union, namely that governments "derive their just powers from the consent of the governed," and "whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it and institute new government, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness?" Just a thought. I don’t think that the American people ever thought of secession for flippant and transient reasons. It’s only been tried once, with disastrous consequences for those who attempted it. The greater threat to liberty comes from a Federal government which refuses to acknowledge any limits on its power, and is willing to engage in the most violent and anti-republican acts to ensure subordination of its subjects.

Respectfully,

D. J. White

I salute the confederate flag with AFFECTION, REVERENCE, and UNDYING REMEMBRANCE!

Speaking of pitiful...

I salute the confederate flag with AFFECTION, REVERENCE, and UNDYING REMEMBRANCE!

And complete ignorance, apparently.

Walt

I know that I am reviving dead fossils BUT I think I need to say something/add something in this thread. America is one of the greatest republics founded. The reason for this is because of the dualism ever present in whatever political/government process we have. Instead of subscribing to one doctrine as was the norm for most governments back in the 18th century our founding fathers decided to split the difference and represent both confederate and federal ideals in one magnificent document known as the constitution. Because of this, a difference was set up, our government is actually founded upon two different sets of ideals. Two opposing ideas forced on one “bar” (our country) creating a moment of force that has forever propelled us to the country that we are today (sorry for the engineering imagery I am a BioMed/EE major at RPI). I would