The Original Secessionists

the tea party tribune ^ | 2/18/12 | jim funkhouser

[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 don’t need, and I suspect a majority of truthseekers don’t 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 government’s 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.

[HMS Surprise]

Please explain your “affect”(sic)? Because I don’t think you’ve actually produced a coherent theory. And by the way, go to hell. (Unless you are a middle-schooler, which seems possible considering.)

[rockrr]

The funkhouser ‘effect’ in full rage. Just another blog pimp - this one a Lost Cause Loser to boot.

[Ditto]

Comparing the Whiskey Rebellion and the secession of the South by way of political agreements is so ridiculous it is not worthy of retort.

What was the political argument?

[KrisKrinkle]

“...you would demand...”

“...if you say it was necessary in all cases involving issues of political maps...”

I didn’t make a demand. I didn’t say it was necessary in all cases or even in any particular case. I stated what you should expect. I didn’t even state that the expectation should or would come to fruition in all cases. Just that you should have the expectation.

“if you say...you are the epitomy of a warmonger.”

I didn’t say it. That’s close to calling me a name for saying something I didn’t say.

“Self-determination is not scary unless your only goal is to maintain power.”

Some who depend on the nanny state for things they could do themselves might disagree.

“There are two types of law, contract and criminal. Criminal acts require action up to and including war. Contract violations require negotiation, penalties, and perhaps violence...”

Perhaps your world view is too narrow.

[BroJoeK]

central_va, #45: "Welcome to Free Republic, you will have no problem here.
We've had some knock down drag out fights over the years on this very subject.
Soon the Lincoln Coven will descend on your thread.
But don't worry it won't be pulled."

HMS Surprise, #81: "Klan? You sir, are a MORON."

In fact, the Pro-Confederate Lost Causer division outnumbers pro-unionists here several to one.
And every few weeks they post yet another thread hoping to rewrite history to suit their political agenda.

It's one more Pickett's Charge, once more the old ghosts rise up from Seminary Ridge to assault the Cemetery and win the battle that will justify all their ancestors' dreams...

And this time will be different...
This time Ewell will take Culp's Hill, and throw the Union into confusion.
This time JEB Stuart's cavalry will penetrate the Union rear opposite Pickett's Charge, throwing the Union into chaos.
This time Alexander's artillery will fire into the Union forces, not over their heads.
And this time even Old Longstreet will make his end-run to the south, cutting off the Union's retreat and utterly destroying their forces... HuuRaw!

Yes, this time... the Confederacy will win the battle, will win the war, and most important, will win the debate against those damnyankee "Lincoln Coven" Union defenders.
They may be few in number, but they can't be let escape unharmed... ;-)

But here's the thing, HMS Surprise, your thread can and will be pulled, even here on Free Republic, if or when our pro-Confederate propagandists, having lost the battle in the field, and lost the debate on the merits of historical facts and reason, now turn to the only weapon they have left: their Rebel Yells of insults, threats and foul language against those who won't let them dream their dreams and tell their lies in peace...

Generals' order: move out of the woods.

Troops line up:

Divisions form up. Dress those ranks!:

Once more, assault the cemetery:

[rockrr]

Bloody brilliant! Who knows - you may yet earn yourself a picture of dancing Lincolns or a cheery “Go to hell” ;-)

[HMS Surprise]

Let me reiterate, pull the damn thread. If your argument descends to “klan” I will apply the appropriate moniker. Moron fits like a glove. The South lost a war, America lost its soul. The proof is all around you. Except for this issue all here agree, but when people point to the nexus of what we have today, many run and hide their brain. A. Lincoln was not a Marxist. The Civil War and its aftermath paved the way for the marxist/socialist/statist agenda. Tell me, without trying to scare me with electronic bulletin board hokum, how that was a good thing?

[HMS Surprise]

I see that you finally figured out how to use the term “effect”. Congratulations. I’m sorry you don’t have a blog to pimp by the way. Enjoy every moment you spend here harrassing me. I’m more than a little certain it’s the highlight of your day.

[central_va]

This time Alexander's artillery will fire into the Union forces, not over their heads.

The way I understand it the fuzes were defective:

A week after the battle, Lt James Dinwiddie working for the Ordnance Dept conducted tests on the various fuses supplied from around the Confederacy at the Richmond Labratories. His findings showed that while those fuses manufactured in Charleston and Selma were made of eceptional quality, the rate of burn for those fuses was markedly less. In his findings compared with those fuses as previously supplied to the ANV from the Richmond arsenals it was found the fuses from Charleston and Selma burned at a rate of one second longer for the same length of fuse. The result of course was that those fuses in shells intended to explode over the Federal position at Gettysburg ranged anywhere from 150 to 200 yrds further to the rear before exploding. A 4 " fuse would burn at the rate as one cut to 5 "

Although this is no excuse the gunners could see the problem better than anyone else, but for some reason nobody compensated.

[central_va]

The Bormann fuze is named after its inventor, Belgian Army Captain Charles G. Bormann. The Bormann time fuze was employed by the United Stated Ordnance Department as early as 1852. The time fuze is contained in a tin and lead disk (4). This disk has time markings indicated in seconds and quarter-seconds graduated up to 5 1/4 seconds. The artillerist used a metal punch to pierce the thin metal at the desired time marking. This exposed a section in the horseshoe-shaped horizontal mealed powder train (3), which is covered by a thin sheet of tin. When the cannon discharged, the flame from the explosion ignited this powder train. It would burn in a uniform rate in both directions, but one end would terminate in a dead-end just beyond the 5 1/4 second mark (Confederate copies are 5 1/2 seconds). The other end would continue to burn past the zero-mark, where it would travel through a channel (1) to a small powder booster or magazine (2). This powder then exploded, sending the flame through a hole in the fuze underplug (5) to the powder chamber of the projectile. The purpose of the brass or iron fuze underplug was to form a solid base of support for the soft metal fuze, which could have easily been damaged during firing.

Federal 5 1/4-second Bormann time fuze

Confederate 5 1/2-second Bormann time fuze

[rustbucket]

They don't say that "they (the STATES) reserved the right to “resume” the powers of government". They say that the people (in one case referring to the people of the United States and in another referring to the people of the several states) may resume or reassume the "powers". They're not saying the States can leave the Union. They're saying the people can replace the Federal (or for that matter the State) government.

Um ... In most cases, if not all, the voters of the seceding states elected delegates to their respective state secession conventions. That is similar to what was done for the ratification of the US Constitution in 1787-90.

To further confirm that secession was what their people wanted, the secession conventions of Texas and Virginia submitted the question of secession directly to their voters. Tennessee also submitted the question directly to their voters. Submitting the question to the voters of the state is a step further than was required to ratify the US Constitution. Actually, the one time I'm aware of when the question of ratifying the US Constitution was put to the voters of a state (Rhode Island), it was voted down by a large majority. A small convention later ratified the Constitution for Rhode Island after the new US government started taxing imports from Rhode Island as they did imports from all foreign countries.

Texas had submitted the question of joining the Union directly to their voters, and it passed. Texas then did the same thing on leaving the Union.

[rustbucket]

They don't say that "they (the STATES) reserved the right to “resume” the powers of government". They say that the people (in one case referring to the people of the United States and in another referring to the people of the several states) may resume or reassume the "powers".

One further comment. Albert Taylor Bledsoe, in his 1866 book, "Is Davis a Traitor or Was Secession a Constitutional Right Previous to the War of 1861?" notes the following:

In the first place, the Constitution was not to be established by the people of America as one nation, or by “the people of the United States as one great society;” and this fact was perfectly well known to the Virginia Convention of 1788. It has already been sufficiently demonstrated, that the Constitution was ordained, not by the people of America as one great society, but by each People acting for itself alone, and to be bound exclusively by its own voluntary act. It would be a great solicism in language, as well as logic, to say that the people of the United States as one great society, might resume powers which were not delegated by them. The sovereignty which delegates, is the sovereignty which resumes; and it is absurd to speak of a resumption of powers by any other authority, whether real or imaginary.

[mek1959]

Great post.

I refuse to respond to whoever KrisKrinkle directly...he’s obviously a “federalist” in the not so “limited” government sort of way.

Hmmm...let me see, where did I put that...oh, here it is! Did Great Britain cease hostilities with the “Union” or the “United States;” separate an independent States. Under KrisKrinkles imaginations, this must have been lost on the “ratifiers” when they ratified the Constitution with reservations to resume governance should the new federal government exceed it’s authority.

Here’s Article 1 of the Treaty of Paris 1783: “His Britannic Majesty acknowledges the said United States, Viz New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, to be free Sovereign and independent States;”

That sure does sound a lot like them Brits ceased hostilities with the “free, sovereign and independent States” to me there Jethro. I guess them dummies who ratified the Constitution must’a forgotten all that when the surrendered ALL of their sovereignty to the new federal government.

Geez, give me a break. All of you Big Government Lincolnians sure give me a chuckle as I see you tie yourself up in knots defending your nationalist positions all while bowing at the alter of a national government. Pretty funny to watch...not so funny to deal with the consequences. Like:

1. $16 Trillion of debt
2. Molestation at the airport of my wife and daughters
3. Healthcare mandates
4. And just about 4000 other unconstitutional acts by the so called “federal” government you continue to defend.

Not me, I left that train of abuses a long time ago.

[KrisKrinkle]

“I refuse to respond to whoever KrisKrinkle directly...”

You’re a dishonorable coward unworthy of those whose side you take.

[mek1959]

Ouch! Hang on while I run and get my kleenex.

I’ve run into your types for decades...the real condescending ones. I think I’ll pass on people like you. Yeah, that’s what I’ll do.

From the eloquent KrisKrinkle - “You do understand that the Union and the Federal Government are not the same don’t you?”

Enough said...please do me a favor and don’t reply.

[x]

If the feds have any extra-Constitutional jurisdiction over the States, or the people within the States, you DO NOT have a Republic.

You have to explain what you mean by "extra-Constitutional" jurisdiction. From the very beginning the federal government could levy excise taxes, establish post offices and roads, coin money, punish counterfeiters. It could also regulate interstate commerce, which came to be quite extensive. So there was some federal jurisdiction over the people within the states from the beginning. The Constitution was designed so that the federal government didn't have to beg funds from the states. Doubtless, the federal governments gotten larger and more powerful over time, but some growth was to be expected.

___________________

You are in a place where a lot of us have been. We get angry about the current state of the country. We look back for a moment when things could have gone wrong. We think we found it in the Civil War. We conclude that if things had gone differently we'd be freer. Then we learn more and realize that it's not as simple as that.

The Confederacy wasn't some libertarian anti-government movement. It was a government itself. In its day as big and in intention as powerful a government as the one it opposed. It was heavily invested in slavery, and maintaining slavery (or the system of control that would have replaced it) would have meant a very oppressive government indeed.

It's also not the case that state's rights means freedom. You've only got to think back a few decades to see that. State governments don't have an inherently greater commitment to liberty than the general public. I'd also like to see less power in Washington and more in states and cities and families and individuals, but "state's rights" is no panacea.

You also have to consider how things looked to people at the time. It's not like there was one wrong path we took and one right path we didn't take. There were all kinds of possibilities, and no one knew where each would lead. The path you favor could have turned out far worse for many than the one you deplore.

Nobody was thinking, "We have to break up the union or someday Washington might create a socialized national health program." No more than they were thinking, "We'd better stick together so we're not pushovers for Hitler or Stalin." Try to put yourself in the place of people at the time and see the world through their eyes, rather than making everything in the past revolve around our current concerns.

Also, things happened quickly, people had to act on the fly, with no knowledge of how things would turn out. As a said, 1861 was something like a revolutionary situation. Secessionists were trying to pull away all the slave territories they could. If you just did nothing and let them have their way, you might have ended up on the wrong side of national border.

[mek1959]

X - thanks for your “civil” manner of discourse on this hotly contested issue. I suppose that it’s still so hotly contested suggests that while Lincoln and the “North” did indeed militarily win, the issue of States Rights (obviously absent the horror of slavery) has not.

On the Commerce Clause specifically, I’ll post a link here by Professor Randy Barnett about the meaning the Framers and Ratifiers would understood of certain words they used. It helped me to better understand the extra-constitutional activities of Congress under this clause.

http://randybarnett.com/Original.htm

[KrisKrinkle]

“...please do me a favor and don’t reply.”

on top of

“I refuse to respond to whoever KrisKrinkle directly...”

Apparently you don’t do well with disagreement.

“Ouch! Hang on while I run and get my kleenex”

Must have hurt bad enough that you responded yourself instead of waiting for someone else to respond so you could freeload on their post.

Take the last shot. Unless you suddenly get interesting you don’t have to worry about a response or disagreement.

[Sherman Logan]

Y’all have got to get your story straight.

The original non-BOR rights Constitution was opposed by precisely the people you claim as your philosophical ideals. The ones who were opposed to centralization of federal power, who placed somewhat ambiguous disclaimers in their state ratification of the Constitution and who later came up with the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions.

They insisted on a BOR as a way of limiting central power.

And now your argument is that the Constitution was great except for that pesky enumeration of inherent rights?

The problem here, IMO, is that the Declaration did not proclaim that any people anywhere could rebel and set up their own government if they had the power to do so. Nobody had ever argued otherwise.

The DOI made a moral argument, AFAIK for the first time. Any people anywhere had the moral right to rebel and set up its own government IF that government was for the purpose of protecting or expanding the inalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness of all men.

Any government set up by any people anywhere for any other purpose is merely an example of the exercise of brute power. Spartans, Romans, commies, Nazis, etc.

They can do it, of course, if they have the power. But such a government is by the definition of the DOI illegitimate. It has no MORAL right to exist.

The CSA was set up explicitly to protect the rights of one group of men to continue to violate the rights of another group of men. As such, by the terms of the DOI, it had no legitimate right to rebel or to govern.

No wonder your idol hated the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. Must have particularly loathed the Bill of Rights.

[RegulatorCountry]

The CSA was set up explicitly to protect the rights of one group of men to continue to violate the rights of another group of men. As such, by the terms of the DOI, it had no legitimate right to rebel or to govern.

Well, then, neither did the Federal government have any right to have rebelled or to have governed, under your tortured and specious logic. It seems that you're under the impression that human bondage in the form of chattel slavery was some uniquely southern novelty.