Posted on 07/22/2020 3:14:43 AM PDT by Kaslin
The Confederacy has been the excuse for some of today's rioting, property destruction and grossly uninformed statements. Among the latter is the testimony before the House Armed Services Committee by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Mark Milley in favor of renaming Confederate-named military bases. He said: "The Confederacy, the American Civil War, was fought, and it was an act of rebellion. It was an act of treason, at the time, against the Union, against the Stars and Stripes, against the U.S. Constitution."
There are a few facts about our founding that should be acknowledged. Let's start at the beginning, namely the American War of Independence (1775-1783), a war between Great Britain and its 13 colonies, which declared independence in July 1776. The peace agreement that ended the war is known as the Treaty of Paris signed by Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, John Jay, and Henry Laurens and by British Commissioner Richard Oswald on Sept. 3, 1783. Article I of the Treaty held that "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."
Delegates from these states met in Philadelphia in 1787 to form a union. During the Philadelphia convention, a proposal was made to permit the federal government to suppress a seceding state. James Madison, the Father of the Constitution, rejected it. Minutes from the debate paraphrased his opinion: "A union of the states containing such an ingredient [would] provide for its own destruction. The use of force against a state would look more like a declaration of war than an infliction of punishment and would probably be considered by the party attacked as a dissolution of all previous compacts by which it might be bound."
During the ratification debates, Virginia's delegates said, "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." The ratification documents of New York and Rhode Island expressed similar sentiments; namely, they held the right to dissolve their relationship with the United States. Ratification of the Constitution was by no means certain. States feared federal usurpation of their powers. If there were a provision to suppress a seceding state, the Constitution would never have been ratified. The ratification votes were close with Virginia, New York, and Massachusetts voting in favor by the slimmest of margins. Rhode Island initially rejected it in a popular referendum and finally voted to ratify -- 34 for, 32 against.
Most Americans do not know that the first secessionist movement started in New England. Many New Englanders were infuriated by President Thomas Jefferson's Louisiana Purchase in 1803, which they saw as an unconstitutional act. Timothy Pickering of Massachusetts, who was George Washington's secretary of war and secretary of state, led the movement. He said, "The Eastern states must and will dissolve the union and form a separate government." Other prominent Americans such as John Quincy Adams, Elbridge Gerry, Fisher Ames, Josiah Quincy III, and Joseph Story shared his call for secession. While the New England secessionist movement was strong, it failed to garner support at the 1814-15 Hartford Convention.
Even on the eve of the War of 1861, unionist politicians saw secession as a state's right. Rep. Jacob M. Kunkel of Maryland said, "Any attempt to preserve the union between the states of this Confederacy by force would be impractical and destructive of republican liberty." New-York Tribune (Feb. 5, 1860): "If tyranny and despotism justified the Revolution of 1776, then we do not see why it would not justify the secession of Five Millions of Southrons from the Federal Union in 1861." The Detroit Free Press (Feb. 19, 1861): "An attempt to subjugate the seceded States, even if successful, could produce nothing but evil -- evil unmitigated in character and appalling in extent." The New-York Times (March 21, 1861): "There is a growing sentiment throughout the North in favor of letting the Gulf States go."
Confederate generals fought for independence from the Union just as George Washington fought for independence from Great Britain. Those who label Robert E. Lee and other Confederate generals as traitors might also label George Washington a traitor. Great Britain's King George III and the British parliament would have agreed.
I'm not revising anything. Notice how I use direct sources from the time period?Andy your support of Democrats is duly noted.
19th century Democrats who wanted limited government, balanced budgets, decentralized power and a non interventionist foreign policy? Proud to side with all of that.
Which are you?
In other words imaginary Democrats?
Yes I would have people believe the truth. You are right about that.No it is not. Chase mentioned the two methods of dividing the Union: rebellion or with the consent of the other states. The Southern states tried the former and lost. Has they tried the later they may well be separate today. Next time make the right choice.
Each state is sovereign. It does not require a permission slip from anybody else to leave.Well Dred Scott was nullified by the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments. Plessy v Ferguson was overturned by Brown v. Topeka Board of Education, et.al. Texas v. White remains binding today.
Dred Scott was later nullified. That does not mean it was correct at the time. Same goes for Plessy v Ferguson. Texas V White is wrong and no more binding than either of those were before they were overturned.
Of course you do.
Each state is sovereign. It does not require a permission slip from anybody else to leave.
So you keep saying.
Dred Scott was later nullified. That does not mean it was correct at the time.
Correct? No, that is a matter of opinion at the time and is generally discredited now. Binding? It certainly was.
Same goes for Plessy v Ferguson.
Yes, but not in the manner you would have us believe. Bad decision in retrospect but still binding.
Texas V White is wrong and no more binding than either of those were before they were overturned.
Except that the other decisions were binding until overturned and the White decision is binding still.
Oh but they do.
Notice Virginia’s say; “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.” Notice they didn’t reserve the right to resume the powers to the people of Virginia, but to the people of the United States.
The people is the people of each state acting in their highest sovereign capacity as Madison described them in the federalist papers. Each state is sovereign. Each state can secede - unilaterally.Now New York and Rhode Island also do not say the people of New York or Rhode Island, it only says to the people. As in “We the people”. None of those ratification documents reserve any right to “secede” and are perfectly in line with this supreme court decision;
Yes they do and were seen to be stating exactly that at the time they were passed. We the people of each sovereign state.“The people made the constitution, and the people can unmake it. It is the creature of their will, and lives only by their will. But this supreme and irresistible power to make or to unmake, resides only in the whole body of the people; not in any sub-division of them. The attempt of any of the parts to exercise it is usurpation, and ought to be repelled by those to whom the people have delegated their power of repelling it.” Cohens v Virginia
False. The people did not make the constitution. The states did. There was never some fictional "whole people" who ratified it. Again, sovereign states did individually and states reserved the right to unilaterally secede.
Actually it is a usurpation of powers by the federal government the sovereign states never delegated to it. There is no legitimacy to any decision rendered under this usurpation.
Neither. Unlike you I actually know my history and am honest.
In other words Jeffersonian Democrats which most Southerners were in the 19th century and well into the 20th. We would call them Conservatives today.
I'm glad we straightened that out.
So you keep saying.
Because its the truth.Correct? No, that is a matter of opinion at the time and is generally discredited now. Binding? It certainly was.
Binding it may have been so long as force could be brought to bear to enforce it. Correct it never was - just like Texas V White.Yes, but not in the manner you would have us believe. Bad decision in retrospect but still binding.
No, in exactly the manner I highlighted. It was an incorrect illegitimate decision temporarily binding only so long as it could be backed by force.Except that the other decisions were binding until overturned and the White decision is binding still.
Don't worry. It won't stand. Nothing lasts forever.
Hell, if I have to I’ll resign my commission
Damn,you sound like Hot Lips Houlihan.
HOT LIPS: At first they called me Hot Lips and you let them get away with it. And then you let them get away with everything. If you don't turn them over to the MPs this minute, I'm going to resign my commission!BLAKE: God dammit, Hot Lips, resign your goddamn commission.
j/k
The point is you are saying the court ruled definitively but it was well after the war.
Secession happened well before.
You can’t say see the courts said it was illegal after the fact...
Can't prove that by what you have posted here.
They would not recognize themselves based on your description.
The court rules when the matter comes before them. In this case it happened to be 1869.
Secession happened well before.
When it happened is irrelevant. It's when the court took the matter under consideration. As it happened it was after the rebellion was over.
You can’t say see the courts said it was illegal after the fact...
Every decision handed down by the court is after the fact. Courts cannot rule on something that hasn't happened.
I'm glad we straightened that out.
Correct it never was - just like Texas V White
Opinion duly noted. For what it's worth.
Don't worry. It won't stand. Nothing lasts forever.
Kind of like a Robert Lee statue? Sorry, couldn't resist.
Nice PeeWee Herman impersonation.
He’s proven he’s a bit of both.
As soon as you get a Supreme Court ruling that says that then it will be true. Until then Texas v White remains the law of the land and uni-lateral secession remains unconstitutional.
LOL. Actually just thinking about being a private again caused my back and knees to start hurting. I do not miss road marches.
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.