Confederate History in Virginia: Let's Do a Real Assessment
As Texas begins to re-write its text books, Virgina can be counted on to provide focus to the historical debate. Shockingly, I agree. We need to have a Confederate History month were a reassessment of the social and historical events of that period led to the War of the Rebellion, as it was officially called. So let's assess those cherished days
( Read more... )
The Union was created by the states; the idea that it was perpetual was quite novel, though it served Lincoln's purpose. Considering that the United States themselves began with a secession movement against the British Crown, the notion that they would subsequently and perpetually cede sovereignty makes no sense, and is unsupported by the Constitution's text.
The Emancipation Proclamation, a measure taken in desperation, had nothing to do with some epiphany of Lincoln's to end slavery. It had everything to do with a desire to keep England from helping the Confederacy (the tariff hurt their export profits) by claiming the moral high ground and inspiring uprisings among slaves on plantations where all the men were at war. Again, the proclamation freed NO slaves in the Union, where Lincoln had influence.
And finally, Lincoln started the war when he sent an armada into South Carolina's waters. He had promised to evacuate Fort Sumter, and instead sent reinforcements.
No civilized person can defend slavery - period. The CSA was as horrible a government as the USA for that reason alone. However, the Constitution is rather clear, thanks to the Tenth Amendment, that secession by any state for any reason is perfectly constitutional. Thus, Lincoln's war was indeed one of conquest, and a horrible one that cost over 600 thousand soldiers' lives.
Reply
Secession is an ACT of REBELLION. The States did not create the Constitution. It was the CONVENTIONS elected to Ratify the Constitution. Madison and Hamilton were adamant on that point that the states did NOT create the Constitution. In fact, if it were left to the state there never would have been a Constitution, they like the Articles of Confederation Government thank you very much.
Hence, secession is an Act of Rebellion and therefore illegal. James McPherson states this plainly. As did Andrew Jackson, the states rights man himself.
States cannot leave the union. And the idea that the union was perpetual was NOT a novel idea. Andrew Jackson, though he never stated as such, believed that it was perpetual look at the Nullification crisis, he was prepared to send in Federal troops to end the dispute. Even the attempt at New England secession met with criticism.
Those states that stated their right to nullify laws, while it may have been good policy, the point was moot after Jackson ended the Nullification crisis.
The Emancipation Proclamation was Not entirely an act of Desperation, As you recognize it did make slavery a major point in the war and gave the North the moral high ground. It was brilliant politically. It did not free the slaves in the slave states that remained apart of the union. However, behind this is the promise of freedom for all slaves as the 13th Amendment provided the law the proclamation lacked.
I disagree about the sending of an ARmada to South Carolina. If he intended that is be a military act, why did he notify the Governor of South Carolina that he was going to send provisions to the fort. Records both naval and government show that the "armada" was a providing provisions for the troops as any President is entitled to do. If it had been an "armada" then why would he bother to inform the governor of what he planned to do. Surprise would have provided better cover than this.
Hence, it was the SOUTH who started shooting against supply ships, not that is honorable. Where did you learn your history, Texas? There were NO reinforcements they were intended to supply the fort which had been blockaded by Southern Militias.
To defend the South for this is incredible. They were ready to leave and were ready to take over federal forts. the federal government stated that it would maintain its fortifications as was its right.
Read the Debates of the Constitutional Convention by James Madison. Clearly, the founding fathers agreed that the Constitution would NOT be a creature of the states for the reason you just stated. Conventions were the creatures of the people and the people therefore in convention ratified the Constitution.
Reply
"Any people, anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable, a most sacred right, a right which we hope and believe is to liberate the world. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people, that can, may revolutionize, and make their own of so much of the territory as they inhabit. More than this, a majority of any portion of such people may revolutionize, putting down a minority, intermingled with, or near about them, who may oppose their movements." Abraham Lincoln, January 12, 1848
The several nullification (the proper name is actually "state interposition") "crises" were separate matters from secession. States are perfectly within their rights to nullify federal laws which violate the Tenth Amendment, rejecting a usurpation of their prerogatives by Congress, as the amendment states. That is not an act of rebellion, either. And to suggest that state interposition was moot after Andrew Jackson is to ignore very recent history. The unconstitutional federal REAL ID program under Bush (which states have effectively ignored) and the current movement to ignore federal gun laws and the recent health care mandate demonstrate this quite clearly. Thankfully, state interposition is far from dead.
When it came to resupplying Fort Sumter, Lincoln simply lied. He manipulated South Carolina into firing the "first shot" (which harmed no soldiers), but he was supposed to be evacuating the fort. His goal was achieved, and we know this from his own words as well. And as to where this might be learned, how about primary sources?
"Mr. Lincoln saw an opportunity to inaugurate civil war without appearing in the character of an aggressor." Providence Daily Post, April 13, 1861
"The affair at Fort Sumter, it seems to us, has been planned as a means by which the war feeling at the North should be intensified, and the administration thus receive popular support for its policy ... If the armament which lay outside the harbor, while the fort was being battered to pieces [the US ship The Harriet Lane, and seven other reinforcement ships], had been designed for the relief of Major Anderson, it certainly would have made a show of fulfilling its mission. But it seems plain to us that no such design was had. The administration, virtually, to use a homely illustration, stood at Sumter like a boy with a chip on his shoulder, daring his antagonist to knock it off. The Carolinians have knocked off the chip. War is inaugurated, and the design of the administration accomplished." The Buffalo Daily Courier, April 16, 1861.
I am not defending anything about the South except the states' right to secede, which is clear and well-established. The CSA government was execrable, defending slavery, conscripting soldiers, and concealing the real reasons for secession. In other words, they behaved just as the USA did at the time. Had the USA simply let the CSA go in peace, slavery would have ended with in decades at most, and without the war's concomitant loss of life and property.
Reply
First, all states that were apart of those states in Rebellion had to rewrite their state Constitutions before being accepted into the union after the war. Hence, if secession was apart of any state constitution prior to that, the point is moot because the war solved the problem of secession.
Secondly, there is no LAW of secession. Because that would mean that the federal government would allow the withdrawal of states anytime they disagreed with a federal mandate. Usually they take this to the courts first. Hence, Secession is the breaking up of the laws that bind the seceding group from the overall group. In other words, I am taking my marbles and going home. However, as I have said, secession is an ACT of rebellion, because they are leaving the group, rebelling against, laws or governmental procedures that the rest have to follow.
Secession has NEVER been the law of the land. The 10th amendment only reserves powers not mentioned in the Constitution, IN THE CONSTITUTION, to the states or the PEOPLE. Hence, since Secession would destroy the union it is ridiculous that they would, founding fathers, allow the inclusion of such a concept. Texas V. White is the standard (See below) these nullification laws are moot.
This is different than if a state wanted to actually wanted to leave the Union and started down that road. It would then be the responsibility of the Federal government to protect those who did not want to leave and are still in that state
In addition, the founding fathers wanted a stronger central government than the Articles of Confederation because it was in our interest to be one Nation. Granted it took the war to make us one nation, but it was a way of brining in all the states.
And let us not forget that the terms of slavery were in the Constitution itself with the provision of the 3/5 compromise and the agreement not to outlaw the International Slave Trade Until 1808. The North agreed to these terms, because it was profitable to them and the South.
I do think you may need to get away from the high school text books.
Look at James McPherson's Battle Cry Freedom, there is a short book by Charles Dew's work Apostles of Disunion on the secession commissioners. Also Eric Foner and Bruce Catton. Just to name a few and I believe the frist three are Southerners.
While I can agree that the war may have started over States Rights, It was fought over the states right to enslave another population. Can you honestly state that the Civil War would have ever happened had Slavery never been apart of the issue? Absolutely not. Because slavery is as much an issue of freedom as it is economics. They go together.
Until the South really looks at this issue honestly and with some self assessment, then I am afraid we will continue to talk past each other
I fully understand that you are not trying to defend the Confederate cause. However, you indirectly are by not challenging yourself to look at what all the issues are.
Also in Texas V. White (74 US 700-703) the Supreme Court wrote the following:
"When Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation. The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration or revocation, except through revolution or through consent of the States.
"...The obligations of the State, as a member of the Union ...remained perfect and unimpaired. ...the State did not cease to be a State, nor her citizens to be citizens of the Union.
"...Our conclusion therefore is, that Texas continued to be a State, and a State of the Union."
- Texas v. White, 74 U.S. 700, 703 (1868)
Hence, the federal government always claimed that Texas could not leave the union because it lacked the right to secede. This was always the argument of the Lincoln and the Republicans.
Hence, if a state attempts to secede it is an Act of Rebellion or Revolution.
Reply
The states wouldn't have had to be accepted back into the Union had they not left (i.e., seceded). Whatever they did was under duress, oppressed as they were by a demonstrably brutal conqueror (as an aside, contracts under duress are universally recognized as non-binding in common law).
Gosh, there is no law of secession in the Constitution! That's the point. There is also no law concerning dentistry in the Constitution, making any federal attempt to promote, regulate or outlaw dentistry unconstitutional. All that absence means is that the FEDERAL government has no authority to legislate on the matter of secession. Please read the Tenth Amendment again, because you seem to keep missing the only point of legal principle here that really matters.
FACT: The states, when they created the federal government by ratifying the Constitution, granted it explicit powers.
FACT: Rightly concerned (as history has shown) that it would usurp powers beyond what was granted, they attempted to explicitly limit its authority with the Bill of Rights, and particularly the aforementioned Tenth Amendment.
You, on the other hand, seem to see the federal government as a roach motel - states can check in, but they can't check out. Considering most federal politicians and employees, I wouldn't blame you for the vermin association, but why would you believe that any entity would join an association that would not permit its peaceful exit? You may argue irrelevancies all you wish (including the politically motivated defense of effectively ex post facto silliness like Texas v White), but if you don't understand this point, we are indeed wasting our time.
The federal government may only do what the Constitution permits, and nothing in the Constitution prohibits secession by the states. Thus, any state may secede for any reason.
That "high school text books" crack made me chuckle, especially with you pimping a simplistic, junior high book such as McPherson's "Battle Cry of Freedom." Foner is infamous for believing the South wasn't treated badly enough. I suggest you try reading books written for adults, such as "When in the Course of Human Events," by Charles Adams, and "Emancipating Slaves, Enslaving Free Men," by Jeff Hummel, and "States' Rights and the Union," by Forrest McDonald.
Reply
Leave a comment