Emancipation Proclamation didn't end Slavery

Arkansas Democrat-Gazette | 6-15-02 | THEMAN R. TAYLOR

[doryfunk]

The people did not reserve the right to maintain the union. They reserved the right to self-determination that our government was founded on. In fighting to preserve the union against the will of the people of the Southern States, the north fought against this principle and violated Southern rights.

Jefferson Davis was wrong in instating conscription. He made a mistake. He was right on many things, but wrong on conscription. Im not a Davis worshipper.

[WhiskeyPapa]

The people did not reserve the right to maintain the union.

That's not true just because you say it is.

The wording of the 10th amendment is plain enough; no wait. It's vague enough.

"On every question of construction [of the Constitution] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or intended against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed."

Thomas Jefferson Letter To Justice William Johnson, Monticello, June 12, 1823

Now let's consider the words of the president of the constitutional convention:

"In all our deliberations on this subject we kept steadily to our view, that which appears to the greatest interest of every true American, the consolidation of our Union, in which is involved our prosperity, felicity, safety, perhaps our national existance. This important consideration, seriously and deeply impressed on our minds, led each state in the Convention to be less rigid on points of inferior magnitude, than might have been otherwise expected; and thus the Constitution we present is the result of a spirit of amity, and that mutual deference and concession which the peculularity of our political situation rendered indispensible...."

George Washington, President [of the Constitutional Convention] By Unanimous Order of the Convention", September 17, 1787

So if we accept the words of George Washington, we will see that it was the --unanimous-- wish of the delegates to the convention that the union be consolidated.

So are you going to throw Washington and Jefferson onto the ash heap of history along with J. Davis?

Your simple professions of what you would like to be the truth don't look so hot when they are compared to the historical record.

Walt

[doryfunk]

When the constitution was written, there was no union to preserve. Therefore, the constitution could not be reserving the right to protect something that did not exist. It was reserving the right to establish the government most beneficial to the people at the time. Washington advocated union because he felt that it was most beneficial to the people at the time who still faced possible reconquest by the British or other colonial force. He did not advocate the union as we no it with a consolidated federal government and servile States. He advocated a true federal union. You can very well and correctly argue that the constitution reserved the right to consolidate when it was the will of the people of the States. You cannot correctly argue that the constitution reserved the right to force other States inot a union against their interest.

Disagreeing with someone on one point(or even many points) is not throwing them on the trash pile of history.

[WhiskeyPapa]

When the constitution was written, there was no union to preserve.

That would be tough to prove as the Great Seal of the USA dates from 1782 -- five years before the constiutional convention. Pull out a dollar bill and you'll see the words right on it: E Pluribus Unum -- from many, one.

Walt

[doryfunk]

A confederation is a type of union. The 'Great Seal' was drawn up while the colonies were associated under the Articles of Confederation. I quote from those articles, 'I. The Stile of this Confederacy shall be "The United States of America".' The States under this union maintained their sovereignty. Again, I quote, "II. Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence". One of the rights of free people and free States is to establish the government most beneficial to them as stated in out declaration of independence. "Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness" Historically it is clear that the right of the people institute new government is theirs. This is what the people of Dixie did in seceding from their former union which had become destructive of their ends.

[doryfunk]

Lincoln's war destroyed volunary union and replaced it with an involuntary one and destroyed "government of the people, for the people, and by the people" which Lincoln claimed to be fighting for.

[Critter]

"My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves 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; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause." - Letter to Horace Greeley (August 22, 1862)

I don't pretend to be an expert on anything, but I can read. :)

Mr Lincoln seems like a rather ordinary politician to me. He'd say anything, to anyone, at any time, in order to fulfill his agenda. Here, he plainly admits that the slaves be damned, if necessary, to preserve the union.

I'm sure that neither I nor anyone else will ever know the whole truth about that war. The first things I do tend to disregard in the argument are the words of the politicians who took part, because the one thing that I am quite certain of, is that the truth is not contained within those words.

In my opinion, the only factual argument than can be made by either side today, is whether or not secession was constitutional. One can argue that it was quite legal based on the 10th amendment, and the fact that the Constitution itself, prior to the amendment, did not specifically address the issue. While Article 1 section 9 does prohibit states from entering into treaties and confederations, it in no way states that once a state is admitted, it must remain a state. Once a state has seceded, one would argue that it cannot be bound by this article and section.

The only place that I can see a problem with this argument is in Article 6:

"The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."

Can the state legislature even convene for the purpose of debating secession? hmmmmm.....

Clever liars, I mean lawyers, could debate this one into a billion dollar legal bill.

I guess we'll never really know, will we?

One thing I do know...

The Second Amendment IS the reset button on the Constitution.

[Huck]

It's incredible to consider that in 1860 Mississippi was home to more slaves than free people. What a sickening thought.

[truth_session]

I looked at your link. I was arguing with someone today about the Constitutionality of pre-Civil War slavery and he told me that at a point in time in the South that owners were not even allowed to free their own slaves if they wished. I didn't believe him of course, but I would like to know if this in fact is true or not.

When I looked at your link I did see that at least one state forced the freed slave to leave the state or be reenslaved, but never did I see one that did not allow for the owner to free the slave.

[truth_session]

"The Federal Government, while but partially under the control of these our unnatural and sectional enemies, has for years almost entirely failed to protect the lives and property of the people of Texas against the Indian savages on our border, and more recently against the murderous forays of banditti from the neighboring territory of Mexico; and when our State government has expended large amounts for such purpose, the Federal Government has refuse reimbursement therefor, thus rendering our condition more insecure and harassing than it was during the existence of the Republic of Texas."

Has really all that much changed in 157 years?

[truth_session]

What Constitutional principle or precept would disallow a state to secede?

[truth_session]

You know of any links that support your claim as to with the reasons for the EP? I'd love to study them.

Thanks.

[Non-Sequitur]

I don't think that the Constitution doesn't allow for secession with the consent of all the parties involved. It was the fact that the southern states acted unilaterally that made their actions unconstitutional.

[SamAdams76]

Read the current bestseller April 1865 - The Month That Saved America by Jay Winik. In that book, Jay enlarges upon many of the points I made in this thread.