Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Politically Correct History
Lew Rockwell ^ | 1/23/03 | Thomas Dilorenzo

Posted on 01/23/2003 5:44:47 AM PST by billbears

The political left in America has apparently decided that American history must be rewritten so that it can be used in the political campaign for reparations for slavery. Congressman Jesse Jackson, Jr., of Chicago inserted language in a Department of Interior appropriations bill for 2000 that instructed the National Park Service to propagandize about slavery as the sole cause of the war at all Civil War park sites. The Marxist historian Eric Foner has joined forces with Jackson and will assist the National Park Service in its efforts at rewriting history so that it better serves the political agenda of the far left. Congressman Jackson has candidly described this whole effort as "a down payment on reparations." (Foner ought to be quite familiar with the "art" of rewriting politically-correct history. He was the chairman of the committee at Columbia University that awarded the "prestigious" Bancroft Prize in history to Emory University’s Michael A. Bellesiles, author of the anti-Second Amendment book, "Arming America," that turned out to be fraudulent. Bellesiles was forced to resign from Emory and his publisher has ceased publishing the book.)

In order to accommodate the political agenda of the far left, the National Park Service will be required in effect to teach visitors to the national parks that Abraham Lincoln was a liar. Neither Lincoln nor the US Congress at the time ever said that slavery was a cause – let alone the sole cause – of their invasion of the Southern states in 1861. Both Lincoln and the Congress made it perfectly clear to the whole world that they would do all they could to protect Southern slavery as long as the secession movement could be defeated.

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 (emphasis added).

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.

On March 2, 1861 – the same day the "first Thirteenth Amendment" passed the U.S. Senate – another constitutional amendment was proposed that would have outlawed secession (See H. Newcomb Morse, "The Foundations and Meaning of Secession," Stetson Law Review, vol. 15, 1986, pp. 419–36). This is very telling, for it proves that Congress believed that secession was in fact constitutional under the Tenth Amendment. It would not have proposed an amendment outlawing secession if the Constitution already prohibited it.

Nor would the Republican Party, which enjoyed a political monopoly after the war, have insisted that the Southern states rewrite their state constitutions to outlaw secession as a condition of being readmitted to the Union. If secession was really unconstitutional there would have been no need to do so.

These facts will never be presented by the National Park Service or by the Lincoln cultists at the Claremont Institute, the Declaration Foundation, and elsewhere. This latter group consists of people who have spent their careers spreading lies about Lincoln and his war in order to support the political agenda of the Republican Party. They are not about to let the truth stand in their way and are hard at work producing "educational" materials that are filled with false but politically correct history.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Government
KEYWORDS: b; dilorenzo; dixie; empire; freedom; lincoln; statesrights
This is very telling, for it proves that Congress believed that secession was in fact constitutional under the Tenth Amendment. It would not have proposed an amendment outlawing secession if the Constitution already prohibited it
1 posted on 01/23/2003 5:44:47 AM PST by billbears
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: All

God Bless This Great Country!


Donate Here By Secure Server

Or mail checks to
FreeRepublic , LLC
PO BOX 9771
FRESNO, CA 93794

or you can use

PayPal at Jimrob@psnw.com

STOP BY AND BUMP THE FUNDRAISER THREAD-
It is in the breaking news sidebar!


2 posted on 01/23/2003 5:47:14 AM PST by Support Free Republic (Your support keeps Free Republic going strong!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: stainlessbanner; 4ConservativeJustices; Constitution Day; shuckmaster; sheltonmac; GOPcapitalist; ..
Well that about wraps it up ping. Another excellent commentary on factual evidence instead of the the myth from DiLorenzo
3 posted on 01/23/2003 5:47:23 AM PST by billbears (The South was right!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: billbears
Whenever I see such as this, I just have to wonder about the drooling idiots that voted these traitorous animals into office in the first place.
4 posted on 01/23/2003 5:50:10 AM PST by RightOnline
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: billbears; farmfriend; madfly; backhoe; Carry_Okie; redrock; marsh2; hellinahandcart; KLT; ...
Congressman Jesse Jackson, Jr., of Chicago inserted language in a Department of Interior appropriations bill for 2000 that instructed the National Park Service to propagandize about slavery as the sole cause of the war at all Civil War park sites.

So this is where all the NPS revisionism is coming from!!!

5 posted on 01/23/2003 5:53:01 AM PST by sauropod (Mike Farrell has donated his brain to science. Too bad he is still here....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RightOnline
Sometimes I wonder why we even allow ourselves to become alarmed and agitated about all of this garbage. No one is going to do anything about it until it is far too late. The citizens of this once great nation are too fat, soft, and lazy. No one will ever be willing to lose all to save the Union. Far too snug and cozy in our warm, safe beds... Face the facts: the USA has been neutered... So, let's practice the new national motto: "Bah, bah, bah... Where's farmer Sam (as in Uncle Sam) to feed, water and care for us?? Bah, bah, bah..."
6 posted on 01/23/2003 5:57:14 AM PST by DonPaulJonesII
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: sauropod
Congressman Jesse Jackson, Jr., of Chicago...........
like father, like son.
7 posted on 01/23/2003 6:02:41 AM PST by NYDave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: NYDave
Congressman Jesse Jackson, Jr., of Chicago........... like father, like son.

And don't forget, "Follow the money."

8 posted on 01/23/2003 6:34:47 AM PST by yankeedame (Oh, I can take it but I'd much rather dish it out.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: sauropod; FirstFlaBn
FirstFlaBn summed it up very well on the 'Southern Bias' at Civil War Sites thread
9 posted on 01/23/2003 6:40:45 AM PST by stainlessbanner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: DonPaulJonesII
bttt
10 posted on 01/23/2003 6:50:58 AM PST by madfly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: DonPaulJonesII
Unfortunately, the sheeple are willfully ignorant. This is why i get upset about it.

It will reinforce the leftist stereotypes. They don't need any more help.

11 posted on 01/23/2003 7:03:07 AM PST by sauropod (Mike Farrell has donated his brain to science. Too bad he is still here....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: billbears
...in its efforts at rewriting history so that it better serves (a) political agenda...

Well, Tommy certainly knows all about that.

12 posted on 01/23/2003 7:30:20 AM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
Well, we do keep anxiously awaiting that book you and Walt are co-authoring...
13 posted on 01/23/2003 7:34:07 AM PST by Treebeard (I am Evil Homer, I am Evil Homer...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: billbears
Wow, These people hired to indoctrinate people at the NPS are racists. It's incredible. and it's bad. Jesse Jackson (Jr or Sr) is no different from that Georgia politician from the 60's named JB Stoner who represented the klan.
14 posted on 01/23/2003 7:37:08 AM PST by Red Jones
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: billbears
Great post!! Telling the truth never hurts,,,,well hardly ever.
15 posted on 01/23/2003 7:50:17 AM PST by SCDogPapa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All
DAY of SUPPORT....FLY your flags (US, a British one, Hungarian, Polish, Australian and Japanese one, too if you have them)....and put up your BUSH/CHENEY signs, (and the BIG W's on your SUV's) for the STATE of the UNION next Tuesday, Jan 28th, if you support the President, our MILITARY and the United States of America. PSST....pass it on.









16 posted on 01/23/2003 8:26:05 AM PST by goodnesswins ("You're either with us, or against us!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: goodnesswins
Ummmm you forgot one


17 posted on 01/23/2003 9:12:34 AM PST by billbears (Deo Vindice!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: billbears
HA.....don't think I'll go THERE!
18 posted on 01/23/2003 9:21:54 AM PST by goodnesswins ("You're either with us, or against us!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: billbears
Some of his facts differ from information I have:

Under International law, a legal distinction is made between an insurrection, rebellion and international war.

(Source: Alfred H. Kelly & Winfred A. Harbison, The American Constitution, Its Origins and Development, Fourth Edition, W.W. Norton & Co., Inc. c1970.)

"An insurrection is legally construed to be an organized and armed uprising for public political purposes; it may seek to overthrow the government, or it may seek merely to surpress certain laws or alter administrative practice. A rebellion in general is considered to have a much more highly developed political and military organization than an insurrection; in international law it conveys belligerent status. Generally such belligerent status implies that the belligerent government is attempting by war to free itself from the jurisdiction of a parent state, that it has an orgainzed de facto government, that it is in control of at least some territory, and that it has sufficient proportions to render the issue of the conflict in doubt. An international war, on the other hand, is one between two or more independent states who are recognized members of the family of nations.

"In international law the rights of parties to an armed conflict vary greatly with their status. Insurgents have very limited status; they are not mere pirates or bandits, but their activities do not constitute "war" in the de jure sense, and they cannot claim against neutrals the privileges of the laws of war. A full rebellion, on the other hand, is a "war" so far as international law is concerned and the rebel government possesses all the belligerent rights of a fully recognized international state, toward both neutrals and the parent state. Needless to say, a parent state may attempt by force to surpress either an insurrection or a rebellion. In domestic law rebels may be criminals in the eyes of the parent state, and answerable to its courts if their movement fails. Thus under the United States Constitution insurrection and rebellion constitute treason, for which the laws provide severe penalties.

"The Southern secessionists took the position that the armed conflict was an international war between the United States and the Confederate States of America. The Confederates believed that secession had been constitutional and that they had not only a de facto government entitled to full belligerent rights but also a de jure government whose independence and sovereignty should be recognized by foreign powers. In their hope of winning the war the Southerners counted heavily upon the aid and the intervention of foreign nations and they were bitterly disappointed when little aid was forthcoming. Even after the collapse of the Confederacy all true Southerners held that the struggle had been a 'War between the States.'

"The official position of the Union government was that secession was a constitutional impossibility and a nullity, and hence that the so-called Confederates were engaged in an insurrection against their lawful government. When the Confederates fired upon Fort Sumner, President Lincoln proclaimed on April 15, 1861, that the execution of federal laws was being obstructed 'by combinations too powerful to be suppressed by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings.' Therefore he called for the militia to suppress the insurrection, in much the same way that Washington had done in the Whisky Rebellion of 1794. Both Congress and the Supreme Court later supported Lincoln's theory of the war, even though the war attained enormous proportions.

"In harmony with this insurrection theory the Union government throughout the was was meticulously careful to avoid any act that even suggested official recognition of the Confederacy as a de jure independent state. At first the United States attempted to deny the Confederacy possessed even belligerent status. Thus in 1861, the State Department objected strongly to foreign powers granting belligerent rights to the Confederacy. Throughout the war the Lincoln administration invariably maintained that no peace terms could be considered unless they were premised upon the legal nonexistence of the Confederacy and the complete submission of the 'rebels' to Union authority. In theory Union spokesmen commonly insisted that they were dealing only with the 'pretended government' of the 'so-called Confederate States of America.'"

The United States never declared war. Lincoln believed that the States were legally incapable of seceding from the Union; that the Union was sovereign and indivisable.

In accordance with this legal position, it was impossible for the rebel states to form a new nation, rather they were states in which an insurrection was taking place. Abraham Lincoln issued a Proclamation that an insurrection existed in the states of South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana and Texas on April 15, 1861, ("Messages & Papers of the Presidents," vol. V, p.3214). He also proclaimed a blockade of Southern harbors on April 19, 1861. The date of this proclamation was taken by the Supreme Court in several cases to be the official beginning of the insurrection.

The Confederate States, on the other hand, passed "An Act recognizing the existence of war between the United States and the Confederate States" on May 6, 1861. This act exempted Maryland, North Carolina, Kentucky, Arkansas, Mousouri, Delaware and the territories of Arizona and New Mexico, and the Indian Territory south of Kansas. The Confederacy proceeded upon the legal basis that the Union was a voluntary association of States that had joined together to create a federal government, leaving the State free to withdraw from it or secede at any time.

Under the "insurrectionist" theory, Moderate Congressmen of both the Republican and Democratic parties took the view that the very existence of the Confederacy had been officially illegitimate. Hence, at the war's end there had been no peace treaty - the Confederacy just dissolved. The Southern states would just revert to the Union unconditionally.

Accordingly, after Union armies had gained control of several Southern States, Lincoln initiated a system of provisional military governors, instructing them to establish governments loyal to the Union. Considering restoration of the Union to be a Presidential function, on December 8, 1863, Lincoln issued a "Proclamation of Amnesty and Reconstruction" setting forth a plan by which an occupied state could become politically restored to the Union. At least ten percent of those who had voted in the State in the 1860 election would be required to take an oath of allegiance to the United States. After that, the state could organized its own government and resume its old place as a full and equal partner in the Union. Lincoln viewed the seceding southern states as "out of their proper relation" to the Union, the object being to restore them to proper relationship.

Before the war's end, new governments were formed in Arkansas, Louisiana and Tennessee under this plan. With the exception of Tennessee, these governments had been created largely by the military governors and lacked support of the people. Congress refused to seat the elected representatives of these new governments.

Some in Congress took another view that the southern states had been in rebellion by separating from the Union and establishing an independent government and that upon occupancy, they should be treated as a conquered territory. Following this line of reasoning, some, such as Charles Sumner, asserted the "state suicide" theory that the southern States had destroyed their original standing as States and would have to start all over again to seek admission as a State in the Union. As the admission of new States was solely a Congressional power under the Constitution, this theory held that the President had no authority to "restore" the Union.

From 1861-1865 (both during and after the war,) Congress persisted in treating the South as a conquered territory under martial law. Under international law, parties at war or in rebellion were entitled to the privileges of war, including confiscation of property. Lands confiscated by the North were granted to blacks under General Sherman's Field Order No. 15, which allowed twenty thousand black families to farm hundreds of thousands of acres of confiscated plantation land on the Georgia and South Carolina coast. Under captured property law, federal treasury agents seized pieces of real estate, including Arlington, General Lee's home.

In July of 1864, Congress passed the Wade-Davis Bill to formalize the treatment of the Southern states as conquered territory under martial law. It provided for the appointment of a military commander for each Confederate state who would be responsible for enrolling white male citizens. Following an oath of allegiance of all enrolees, qualified voters would chose delegates to a State constitutional convention. Provided that it first repudiated secession and abolished slavery, the convention would establish a new State government. In order to attend the convention, delegates had to take an "iron-clad" oath swearing that they had never voluntarily served or supported the Confederacy.

After Congress adjourned, Lincoln offered the Southerners the choice of following the Wade-Davis formula if they wished. None of the states wanted to embrace the formula, so Lincoln awarded the bill a pocket veto.

There were several plans subsequently advanced for the South. Thaddeus Stevens' plan for reconstruction called for the confiscation of land belonging to about seventy thousand leading Confederates and redistribution of this land to every black family desiring land. Any remaining land would be sold to pay the war debt, provide military pensions and compensate Southern Unionists for damages incurred in the war.

President Johnson continued the policies of Lincoln, believing that "reunion" was a presidential affair the main objective of which was to "restore" the proper relationship among the States. On June 13, 1865, he proclaimed the insurrection in Tennessee at an end, ("Messages and Papers of the Presidents," V, p. 3515;) and on Apr. 2, 1866, he proclaimed the insurrection ended in all the former Confederate States except Texas. On August 20, 1866, Pres. Johnson proclaimed that Texas had complied with the conditions of his Reconstruction proclamation and declared the insurrection in Texas at an end, (Mess. & Pap. V, p. 3632.)
19 posted on 01/23/2003 9:27:38 AM PST by marsh2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: billbears
My God, I love the Stars and Bars. The demolibocrites don't even know what it is.....that's the only reason they don't whine about it.

Deo vindice, my friend!
20 posted on 01/23/2003 9:41:30 AM PST by rebelyell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: billbears
Dixie bump! I can't wait for the Wlat brigade and Claremonster cult to squirm over this one!

Things like these show their true colors because they end up siding with the likes of Jesse Jackson Jr, Eric "The Red" Foner, "Noam" McPherson, Asa, Sebesta, and of course the first Lincoln immortalizer, Karl Marx.

21 posted on 01/23/2003 10:04:44 AM PST by GOPcapitalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: NYDave
You mustn't leave out his other two sons, the beneficiaries of a shakedown of Anheuser-Busch by PUSH. They received a North Chicago distributorship worth huge bucks albeit neither had any previous beverage experience.
22 posted on 01/23/2003 10:12:49 AM PST by Dionysius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: sauropod
NOPE! though he is one of the offenders, the NPS for DECADES has been anti-southron & PC!

the bureaucrats are also all too often RACISTS!

that i KNOW from expierience.

FRee dixie,sw

23 posted on 01/23/2003 10:24:20 AM PST by stand watie (Resistance to tyrants is obedience to God. : Thomas Jefferson 1774)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: sauropod
"It will reinforce the leftist stereotypes. They don't need any more help."

Having just come from an education thread where a poster left this concept, "Ms. Schlafly is about as far right as they come.." I am understanding that miseducation is being carried out in many places. Very soon we will dismiss Ann Coulter and Ronald Reagan as foam-at-the-mouth beasts, too right here on a "conservative" website or a "Constituion-conscious" entity.

I'd say that truth is no-where valued or sought. We make heroes out of brigands and vice versa even in the most "clean" circles.

Lee is particularly villified and I am of the belief that it was almost solely his conduct, personal and public, at the end of the conflict which allows this nation to exist as supposedly one today.
24 posted on 01/23/2003 10:51:03 AM PST by Spirited
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: stainlessbanner
FirstFlaBn summed it up very well on the 'Southern Bias' at Civil War Sites thread

Well, I am sure the GOP and Bush will legislatively correct this and see that the battlefields remain battlefields and not anti-southern indictrination centers.... (sarcasm)

What I would like to know is why Jackson's amendment was not shot down in flames. I am really getting sick of all this PC crap.

25 posted on 01/23/2003 10:57:13 AM PST by Hacksaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Dionysius
I thought the distributorship was either coke or pepsi. I could be wrong but you're right about the Op PUSH shakedown.
Rev Jesse operates like a true, old-time mustache-pete. He runs a pure extortion business. It ashamed the IRS has been, apparently, told hands-off on Jesse although he was audited and paid a small amount of money sometime in the 80's.
26 posted on 01/23/2003 11:14:25 AM PST by NYDave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: billbears
Legislating history? What'll these idiots think of next?
27 posted on 01/23/2003 2:34:46 PM PST by aomagrat (IYAOYAS)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GOPcapitalist
I can't wait for the Wlat brigade and Claremonster cult to squirm over this one!

Barf over this one would be more like it.

28 posted on 01/23/2003 4:24:38 PM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Hacksaw
Time to organize a corps of volunteers to actually go into the park areas and (quietly) raise hell, stage-whispering things, MSTing the 'official truth' of staff and guides and talking loudly so that others may overhear them. It would be difficult to justify throwing you out just for 'discussing things amongst yourselves" and record photo and video evidence just in case (video and photo teams should maintain a discreet distance so that no public connection is drawn between them and 'those pesky disruptors'). Rotate your 'truth squads' so that they don't know who to watch. This could be fun!
29 posted on 01/23/2003 4:34:53 PM PST by coydog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
another constitutional amendment was proposed that would have outlawed secession (See H. Newcomb Morse, "The Foundations and Meaning of Secession," Stetson Law Review, vol. 15, 1986, pp. 419–36). This is very telling, for it proves that Congress believed that secession was in fact constitutional under the Tenth Amendment. It would not have proposed an amendment outlawing secession if the Constitution already prohibited it.

Ouch!! Better put some ice on that Non.

30 posted on 01/23/2003 6:57:45 PM PST by billbears (Deo Vindice!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: billbears
Mr. Guthrie proposed the following:
"The Union of the States under the Constitution is indissoluble, and no State can secede from the Union, or nullify an act of Congress, or absolve its citizens from their paramount obligation of obedience to the Constitution and laws of the United States."
Mr. Field offered:
"The Union of the States, under the Constitution, is indissoluble."
And this:
"No State shall withdraw from the Union without the consent of all the States, given in a Convention of the States, convened in pursuance of an act passed by two-thirds of each House of Congress."
Mr. Goodrich proposed:
"And no State can secede from the Union, or nullify an act of Congress, or absolve its citizens from their paramount obligations of obedience to the Constitution and laws of the United States."
Lucius E. Chittenden, Report of the debates and proceedings in the secret session of the conference convention, for proposing amendments to the Constitution of the United States, held at Washington, D.C., in February, A.D. 1861, New York: D. Appleton & Co., 1864, pp. 396-398.
31 posted on 01/24/2003 4:22:51 AM PST by 4CJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: billbears
Ouch!! Better put some ice on that Non.

Considering DiLusional/s track record I'm not medicating anything until I learn more about it. He seems to be running true to course once again.

Tommy claims one amendment was proposed in March, after the seven southern states had rebelled. I looked at the Congressional Globe for March 2nd and nothing is mentioned about it so it obvously wasn't proposed in the House or Senate. In his article Morse talks about amendments, plural, proposed while the southern states were in the process of seceding which was in January, not March, so I'm not sure where Tommy got the information he printed. Regardless, you are as familiar with what was going on in January with all the compromises and I don't remember a single one of them dealing with outlawing secession, do you?

Now I'm not willing to say that Tommy is streaching the truth again, but regardless of whether he is full of crap or not I must say that if it existed it's still a good thing that any amendment preventing secession never saw the light of day. As the Chief Justice pointed out in his majority decision in Texas v. White such an amendment would be a waste of time. Secession as practiced by the southern states was not constitutional to begin with.

32 posted on 01/24/2003 4:23:00 AM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

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