Civil War

[Daveforliberty]

I am in a library right now, and don't have the book in front of me, but I've been reading "America's Constitution" by Akhil Reed Amar. I haven't read more than 75pages yet, but Amar makes the case that it was very clear in the minds of the founders that states could NOT "just leave the union". He sites several passages from the Federalist papers and other writings of the founders.

He contends the Federalist papers and speeches made by Hamilton, Madison and others made it clear to states considering joining the union that it would be a one-way street, UNLESS the entire nation wanted to change their form of government. He even says check the wording in the Virginia ratification document. It does NOT say Virginia reserves the right to secede, but that the PEOPLE (as a nation) reserve the right to change their form of government.

Why would the founders not want states to be able to leave? Because they feared the fate of Europe -- many countries on one continent -- constantly at war with one another. His citations by the founders talk about states on their own making treaties with other countries, inequities in tariffs, etc., and that if you join this union, you are giving up your right to do so.

I realize this may not be very popular with the libs but he makes a pretty compelling argument. I encourage you to read the book yourselves and comment.

 

[katao]

In the documentary "The Money Masters" I saw a most interesting theory.

It said that international bankers were manipulating economic conditions on the U.S. with the ultimate goal of making states secede from the union, and eventually gain total economic control of the states through division. Divide and conquer strategy. Lincoln knew this and going to war was the only way to beat them.

I really doubt these claims and would love to see the evidence. The economic conditions that WERE relevant were the tariffs designed to benefit the Northern states at the expense of the Southern states.

See: http://www.mises.org/story/952

 

[katao]

Lincoln and the republicans(whigs) were just waiting to into power and push their entire economic agenda of protectionism,Central bank,and corporate welfare.The only thing in their way were Jeffersonian Democrats. Going to war enabled Lincoln to push this agenda through a one sided congress

Ding, Ding, Ding - the nail on the head!

 

[katao]

There's been at least a couple threads in this forum where various people have claimed a constitutional right to secession. And in each one I have asked for it to be clearly stated and no one has.

Madison, who I am pretty sure knew a little about the original intent, said:



There is no doubt, people and states have a natural right to revolt. But to contend that secession and nullification is a right of states is absurd. And if you don't realize this then you must be of the opinion that the great American Experiment is a failure.

It is not a constitutional right, but a natural right (outlined in the Declaration of Independence) to withdraw support from a government.

Thomas Jefferson in his First Inaugural Address said, "If there be any among us who would wish to dissolve this Union, or to change its republican form, let them stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left to combat it." Fifteen years later, after the New England Federalists attempted to secede, Jefferson said, "If any state in the Union will declare that it prefers separation ... to a continuance in the union .... I have no hesitation in saying, 'Let us separate.'"

Do States Have a Right of Secession?

http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=1543

 

[fsk]

The US Civil war was about *LEGALIZING* slavery.

The US Civil war said that states don't have the right to refuse to continue supporting the Federal government.

If you don't have the right to withdraw your support for a government, you're a slave.

 

[Spirit of '76]

...

 

[jblosser]

People need to keep in mind when quoting the Federalist that it was only half of the opinion. Yes, it was the half in favor of ratification, and ratification is what happened, but one of the main points of the Anti-Federalist response was that Hamilton and co. assumed too much and weren't covering their corners correctly. This was what got us the Bill of Rights, for one thing. Hamilton didn't think we needed that either.

To the question of "where does the Constitution allow seceding", the Constitution doesn't have to allow it, it only has to not forbid it. Read the 10th amendment again. Is the power of a State to leave the Union delegated to the United States by the Constitution, or prohibited by it to the States?

 

[axiomata]

Thomas Jefferson in his First Inaugural Address said, "If there be any among us who would wish to dissolve this Union, or to change its republican form, let them stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left to combat it." Fifteen years later, after the New England Federalists attempted to secede, Jefferson said, "If any state in the Union will declare that it prefers separation ... to a continuance in the union .... I have no hesitation in saying, 'Let us separate.'"

Do States Have a Right of Secession?

http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=1543

You are simply reading it as you want to hear it, in accordance with your preconceived notions. The quote I listed explicitly mentions the act of secession. You must disagree with it to hold your position.

On the other hand, I agree with Jefferson's statements that you listed.

I think you ought to read it more carefully.

"If there be any among us who would wish to dissolve [not secede from] this Union, or to change its republican form, let them stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left to combat it. [he is saying the concept of dissolution is an error of opinion that can be reasoned with]

As far as the second quote goes, it is true that you can make a quote say what you want by the use of extracting it from its context and the generous use of ellipses. What, you want the full quote with context?

In your letter to Fisk, you

have fairly stated the alternatives between which we are to choose : 1,

licentious commerce and gambling speculations for a few, with eternal war for

the many; or, 2, restricted commerce, peace, and steady occupations for all. If

any State in the Union will declare that it prefers separation with the first

alternative, to a continuance in union without it, I have no hesitation in

saying, "let us separate." I would rather the States should withdraw, which are

for unlimited commerce and war, and confederate with those alone which are for

peace and agriculture.

 

[axiomata]

To the question of "where does the Constitution allow seceding", the Constitution doesn't have to allow it, it only has to not forbid it. Read the 10th amendment again. Is the power of a State to leave the Union delegated to the United States by the Constitution, or prohibited by it to the States?

You know who wrote the 10th Amendment?

The same person who said:

The conduct of S. Carolina has called forth not only the question of nullification, but the more formidable one of secession. It is asked whether a State by resuming the sovereign form in which it entered the Union, may not of right withdraw from it at will. As this is a simple question whether a State, more than an individual, has a right to violate its engagements, it would seem that it might be safely left to answer itself. But the countenance given to the claim shows that it cannot be so lightly dismissed. The natural feelings which laudably attach the people composing a State, to its authority and importance, are at present too much excited by the unnatural feelings, with which they have been inspired agst their brethren of other States, not to expose them, to the danger of being misled into erroneous views of the nature of the Union and the interest they have in it. One thing at least seems to be too clear to be questioned, that whilst a State remains within the Union it cannot withdraw its citizens from the operation of the Constitution & laws of the Union. In the event of an actual secession without the Consent of the Co States, the course to be pursued by these involves questions painful in the discussion of them. God grant that the menacing appearances, which obtruded it may not be followed by positive occurrences requiring the more painful task of deciding them?

 

[jblosser]

He didn't operate in a vacuum you know. He wrote the Bill of Rights as a Federalist appeasing anti-Federalists.

You are also aware he wrote the Virginia Resolution, one of the core documents in the tradition of States' rights and nullification? Yet you said "to contend that secession and nullification is a right of states is absurd". In fact, the letter you quote specifically references that resolution and tries to draw a line separating the two ideas, but you dismiss both. So do we agree with Madison, or do we not?

The supporting documents and opinions of individual founders are definitely indispensible in determining original intent and in resolving interpretation questions but if and when the two are at odds you have to go with what the Constitution actually says. That's why they required conventions of multiple people to approve the language and why we have reports of different wording being discarded.

Which is a good thing, because if Hamilton wrote it entirely himself we'd no doubt have gotten Lincoln and the Fed a lot sooner.

 

[dseisner]

Abraham Lincoln suspended Habeus Corpus! 'Nough said!

 

[Mesogen]

But in the Northern States the Cherokee people saw with alarm a violated Constitution, all civil liberty put in peril, and all the rules of civilized warfare and the dictates of common humanity and decency unhesitatingly disregarded.

Yeah, but in the South all people were free!

Huh?

And what the hell is civilized warfare?

 

[ctb619]

And what the hell is civilized warfare?

Stupid term, but I assume it refers to warfare conducted under customary international law and principles of warfare accepted as legitimate by "civilized" states (proportionality, not targeting civilians etc.).

 

[Mesogen]

I don't get it.

On one hand I hear some people saying Lincoln was a great president for standing up to those evil bankers with his greenbacks.

On the other I hear he was in cahoots with those evil bankers to centralize power in the federal government.

Which is it?

 

[Spirit of '76]

Yeah, but in the South all people were free!

Freer than in the North, where we must note that slavery was legal even after the Emancipation Proclamation, which only "freed" the slaves in territories not under the control of the United States government.

Couldn't have General Grant off invading the Southland with no slaves at home to cater to his wife and kids, now could we?

And what the hell is civilized warfare?

It includes things like not burning down civilian homes and crops and turning civilians out to starve and freeze to death, which were common practices of the Union army.

 

[Daveforliberty]

This is not a defense of Abraham Lincoln. Personally I think he was neither completely bad nor completely good. I disagree with him on many things, but agree on some.

The question at hand is about secession. I'm at home now and have the book I mentioned by Amar. Here are some excerpts:

Page 33: "Although the States would enter the Constitution as true sovereigns, they would not remain so after ratification. The formation of a "more perfect Union" would itself end each state's soverign status and prohibit future unilateral secession..."

Pages 34-35: "Simply put, Article VII recognized the soverign right (or at least the soverign power) of different states in a flawed confederacy to their separate ways, but articles V and VI extinguished the right and power of unilateral secession for each state populace that joined the Constitution's new, more perfect union, thereby merging itself into the continental soverignty of the American people.

Anti-Federalists across the continent got the message and sounded the alarm. In Massachusetts, Samuel Nasson pointed to the Preamble as proof that the Constitution would effect a "perfect consolidation of the whole Union" that would "destroy the Bay State's status as "a soverign and independent" entity... New York's Brutus complained that the Constitution would not be "a compact" among states but rather would create a "union of the people of the United States considered" as "one great body politic."...

...Patrick Henry, true to form, was one of the bluntest of all as he led the charge against the Constitution in Virginia... "The question, Sir, turns on that poor little thing--the expression, We, the people, instead of the states, of America."...

Page 36: But on the fateful question of whether states would continue to be truly soverign, with rights of unilateral exit, the Federalists agreed that the Anti-Federalists had not exaggerated... Madison at Philadelphia stressed that one of the essential differences between a "league" and a "Constitution" was that the latter would prevent subunits from unilaterally bolting whenever they became dissatisfied...

Hamilton/Publius in The Federalist No. 11 spoke of the need for a "strict and indissoluble" union...

Page 36-37: Pennsylvania's Wilson contrasted traditional "confederacies" that istorically "have all fallen to pieces" with the proposed Constitution, in which "the bonds of our union" would be "indissolubly strong." Samuel Johnston declared that "the Constitution must be the supreme law of the land; otherwise, it would be in the power of any one state to counteract the other states, and withdraw itself from the Union."...

Page 37: In Virginia, the distinguished legal scholar George Wythe forcefully explained what was at stake, blending language from the Declaration (which he had signed in 1776), and the Preamble. "To perpetuate the blessings of freedom, happiness, and independence", Americans must form "a firm, indissoluable union of the states" and thereby avoid "the extreme danger of dissolving the Union."

Notably, Virginia's convention spoke of the right of the people of the United States, not the people of Virginia, to reassume power through future acts of popular soverignty..."


What's the bottom line? It sounds like the founders ruled out secession. What does it mean to us?

1) Elect Ron Paul and the argument is put on hold indefinitely
2) Failing that, keep the freedom movement alive and reclaim our Republic and our Constitution
3) Failing that, the People of the United States rise up and throw off the tyrants

 

[Spirit of '76]

Where was their "indissoluble union" when New England was supporting and feeding British troops invading the South in 1812?

O, Jonathan, Jonathan! vassal of pelf,
Self-righteous, self-glorious, yes, every inch self,
Your loyalty now is all bluster and boast,
But was dumb when the foemen invaded our coast.

In vain did your country appeal to you then,
You coldly refused her your money and men;
Your trade interrupted, you slunk from her wars,
And preferred British gold to the Stripes and the Stars!

Then our generous blood was as water poured forth,
And the sons of the South were the shields of the North;
Nor our patriot ardor one moment gave o'er,
Till the foe you had fed we had driven from the shore!

Long years we have suffered opprobrium and wrong,
But we clung to your side with affection so strong,
That at last, in mere wanton aggression, you broke
All the ties of our hearts with one murderous stroke.

 

[Mesogen]

Freer than in the North, where we must note that slavery was legal even after the Emancipation Proclamation, which only "freed" the slaves in territories not under the control of the United States government.

So a slave on a plantation was freer than anyone in the North?

And all midwest states were slave-free from their inception. In the rest of the North slavery was outlawed by 1800. I think New Jersey was a straggler so it took them a few more years.

Couldn't have General Grant off invading the Southland with no slaves at home to cater to his wife and kids, now could we?

http://www.granthomepage.com/grantslavery.htm
It's funny that he made like he was against slavery.
I guess he did set his one slave free in 1859, but that could be for many reasons.

It includes things like not burning down civilian homes and crops and turning civilians out to starve and freeze to death, which were common practices of the Union army.

If it includes mass killing then it is not civilized.
There is no such thing as civilized war.

 

[Spirit of '76]

So a slave on a plantation was freer than anyone in the North?

A slave on a plantation in the South was just as free as a slave on a plantation under Northern control, and he was just as free as a journalist thrown in prison for criticizing Lincoln's war.

And all midwest states were slave-free from their inception. In the rest of the North slavery was outlawed by 1800. I think New Jersey was a straggler so it took them a few more years.

And the movement was underway to do away with slavery in the South, before militant abolitionists in the North started agitating for war and that notion was put on the back burner.

Furthermore, the importation of slaves had long been outlawed throughout the United States, but the shipping companies of New England made quite a lucrative profit by violating those laws all the way up to the outbreak of the war.

http://www.granthomepage.com/grantslavery.htm
It's funny that he made like he was against slavery.

I guess he did set his one slave free in 1859, but that could be for many reasons.

I don't think it's very funny. Besides, he said that many years after the war in order to justify his actions.

Yes, he set his own slave free but his wife did not set hers free until forced to do so by the 13th Amendment.

Also, we must not forget that there were free blacks in the South, and that they were often slave owners themselves.


"The sole object of this war is to restore the union. Should I become convinced it has any other object, or that the Government designs using its soldiers to execute the wishes of the Abolitionists, I pledge you my honor as a man and a soldier I would resign my commission and carry my sword to the other side."

--Ulysses S. Grant​

 

[Spirit of '76]

By the way, for anyone wanting to see beyond the myths and indoctrination perpetuated by the federally-governed public schools and understand the true nature of this period, there's a great resource over at LewRockwell.com:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo-arch.html