absurdity

O'Bruadair · Posted: Mon Mar 19, 2007 9:34 am Post subject: absurdity

Session resolutions on slavery

Read em before

Not the point.

Not the question.

The fact that there were some rich and influential slave owners (maybe 5% of the Southern population) that were perfectly willing to go to war or any other extreme to protect their privileged position is not in doubt and never has been.

But did this, could this, have brought on a war in a constitutional democracy?

The very idea is patently absurd.

The war was very plainly caused by the north’s unwillingness to let the South secede in peace. (And secession was an extreme but perfectly constitutional action)

The question is then why was the north so unwilling to do that? Again very plainly, if the yankee objective was ending slavery it would have made sense to do that. If they had they would have at the very least been rid of the original seven slave states that had left the union. This would have shifted the balance of power in the US congress overwhelmingly to the north. They could have then very easily passed and ratified a constitutional amendment abolishing slavery in the remaining slave states.

Not only this. Had the state lines between the northern and Southern states become an international border it would have in effect freed the slaves in much of the Deep South too. No more fugitive slave laws! No more Dred Scot! Any slave that wanted to be free and was capable of walking across the line would be free!

Obviously then the real reason the lincoln administration and the north did not let the South go in peace had nothing to do with slavery therefore neither did the war!

I know this is hard for most Americans to do but if you can overcome your public “education” and admit the simple logic of this you must then ask yourself WHY the leaders of the north were unwilling to let the South go. This ain’t too hard to figure out either (see quote below)

cwalenta999 · Sergeant Major Joined: 17 Mar 2007 Posts: 60

North definitely fights the war to 'preserve' the Union. I make no assertion that somehow the North is fighting an abolitionist crusade; I'll even go so far as to say the only reason the Emancipation Proclamation went out was to hopefully incite slave revolts in South, and to keep England/France out. But that doesn't mean the South didn't secede to preserve its 'peculiar' institution, we know that is the case because the resolutions of secession flat out say it is a motive.

Now if you want to debate whether secession in 1860 should have been legal, that is one thing (obviously Texas v. White, the SC case ruling secession illegal was only decided after the war, obviously if the South had won the war I am sure Texas v. White would've never been heard or would've reflected the political reality); because essentially what you're arguing is that the North caused the war because it was unwilling to recognize the Southern secession; whereas of course the Northern position would be that the union cannot be dissolved and hence the war is caused by the mere act of secession.

From the end of the American Revolution until 1865, the history of the country is inextricably linked with the issue of slavery and expansion westward. From the ratification of the Constitution, the slave states were already worried about the relationship the slave states were going to have with the Federal government. If you look at the Constitution its clearly important because its not buried in fine print, its right in Article I which barred Congress from prohibiting the slave trade until 1808 and of course included the infamous 3/5ths clause essentially counting slaves as .6 of a person for apportionment purposes.

Now put on top of that a genuine fear of Emancipation. Do you find it surprising that SC was the first to secede? I don't. Look at the percentage of population in SC that are enslaved. In SC the number exceeds 50% (I don't know the exact figure, but it doesn't exceed 60%).

O'Bruadair · Posted: Tue Mar 20, 2007 1:29 pm Post subject:

You mostly argue my case here and I thank you.

However, you said:

"But that doesn't mean the South didn't secede to preserve its 'peculiar' institution, we know that is the case because the resolutions of secession flat out say it is a motive."

Even if what you mean here were true and the one and only cause of secession was to preserve slavery (and even that is a patent and hateful lie) it is still very plainly ABSURD to say that secession caused the war. That is still nothing but statist and cultural marxist propaganda.

Lincoln and his yankee cronies very plainly CHOSE war when they deliberately provoked the South into firing on Sumter. A war was just as plainly necessary for them to accomplish their ends and their ends had absolutely nothing to do with abolishing slavery.

Their ends had to do with consolidating power into the hands of the federal government and keeping the wealth of the South under their control at the same time in order to enrich themselves.

There would have been no war without their avarice and aggression.

cwalenta999 · Sergeant Major Joined: 17 Mar 2007 Posts: 60

I'm not here to argue with you, I know better than to argue with people who already have their mind set on it. I'm posting here for people who don't know that much on the topic and may be reading about the Civil War for the first time. I had seen many postings on this website and its becoming a forum for Southern apologists. No matter how you look at it the secession was primarily motivated by the issue of slavery, the statement 'But for slavery, the South does not secede.' is and always will be a true statement.

Just as a minor point large tracts of land were legitimately owned by the Federal Government. This is particularly true in states that aren't the original 13 states where, particularly in 1860 the majority of the land is actually owned by the Federal government (some states, ie. Nevada still have federal ownership rates like 80%), and I don't mean owned in the sense that the Feds seized it or bought it, I mean owned it prior to the formation of the state. Federal land policy is actually interesting in its own right.....

O'Bruadair · Posted: Tue Mar 20, 2007 4:53 pm Post subject:

You don’t mean to argue? Of course you do but you are not arguing with me you are arguing with plain facts and logic. And BTW if you will go back and read my previous post you will find that I said you were largely arguing MY case!

It is only in the specifics of what the war was really caused by that we differ. You believe the myth of the “glorious and righteous union” fighting for freedom. I don’t. It’s garbage (and yes absurdity)

BTW I’m not apologising for anything, certainly not for slavery and not even for the South. Just stating plain facts. I don’t know of any Southerners who will say that slavery was anything but a horrible evil. We own up to the sins of our ancestors and are quite used to acknowledging them.

Problem is almost NO ONE will but the blame for the war squarely where it most obviously belongs and that is with lincoln and his yankee allies! They wanted war for the reasons I have outlined and they saw to it that they got it.

You said:

“Just as a minor point large tracts of land were legitimately owned by the Federal Government. This is particularly true in states that aren't the original 13 states where, particularly in 1860 the majority of the land is actually owned by the Federal government (some states, ie. Nevada still have federal ownership rates like 80%), and I don't mean owned in the sense that the Feds seized it or bought it, I mean owned it prior to the formation of the state.”

I’ve heard this bogus argument before and it is garbage also. Ole abe made essentially the same argument to try and justify his blood-spattered actions and Adolph Hitler repeated the nonsense in “Mien Kampf” to try and justify HIS.

The original states entered the union as independent entities. They delegated certain limited powers to the federal government but reserved all other powers (including the power of secession) to themselves or the people.

When additional States joined the union did they join as “second class states”? Of course not! They joined as equal States with all powers and privileges enjoyed by any other State. I might add also that in most of the South there was very little land left in the public domain by 1860. The vast majority was owned by private individuals. Most of the land that belongs to the US government in the South today was purchased from individuals in the 20th century.

I might also add that the Confederate States offered to PAY for any and all federal property that was within their borders and even offered to pay their share of the national debt as well!

Adolph’s Abe’s and your argument just does not hold water!

Suspicious · Corporal Joined: 26 Mar 2007 Posts: 3

You are absolutely correct, O'Bruadair. The war was caused by the fact that the North would not allow the South to secede in peace. However, your argument is heavily flawed elsewhere and since cwalenta999 is unwilling to argue with you, I will.

Let us first analyze this statement:

"The original states entered the union as independent entities. They delegated certain limited powers to the federal government but reserved all other powers (including the power of secession) to themselves or the people."

So, you are telling me that the states, as in the state governments, ratified the Constitution? WRONG! The people voted for representatives who ratified the Constitution. The states did not give the Federal government its power, and even the Anti-Federalists admitted this (see the infamous Brutus' XII quote).

Would you like to quote the Constitution (ie that 9 STATES must ratify the Constitution to make it legitimate)? Sure, every Southern apologist does. The fact is that the states in their governmental capacities and their "division-of-people" capacities are two different entities. A state could be defined as merely a division of people, like a town or village. The US elects its Presidents via the Electoral College, which is divided via STATES, but do the people (indirectly) vote for the President or do the state (governments) elect him/her?

Tell me, what is the first line of the Constitution? "We, the People", correct? Look up the statement made by Patrick Henry when the Constitution was being written/ratified (If you are too lazy, he essentially said: Who authorized anyone to say "We, the People"? If the states are not members of this pact, then it must be a great, big accord between the PEOPLE).

So, if the people gave the Fed. gov. its sovereignty, then the people obviously reserve the right to secede, not the states (governmental capacity again) themselves.

Furthermore, let us read Jefferson's Miscellany:

It has been often said that the decisions of Congress are impotent because the Confederation provides no compulsory power. But when two or more nations enter into compact, it is not usual for them to say what shall be done to the party who infringes it. Decency forbids this, and it is unnecessary as indecent, because the right of compulsion naturally results to the party injured by the breach. When any one state in the American Union refuses obedience to the Confederation by which they have bound themselves, the rest have a natural right to compel them to obedience. Congress would probably exercise long patience before they would recur to force; but if the case ultimately required it, they would use that recurrence. Should this case ever arise, they will probably coerce by a naval force, as being more easy, less dangerous to liberty, & less likely to produce much bloodshed.

Wow! Harsh words coming from the great defender of states rights! Apparently, even if you believe that the states gave the Fed. its sovereignty, the states have a NATURAL RIGHT TO COMPEL THE OTHERS TO OBEDIENCE. This quote is even from the Articles of Confederation era, and the Articles explicitly granted sovereignty to its separate states.

Moving along, I expect to hear that the American Revolution established the right to secede. Wrong again, my Confederate-loving friend. The Am. Rev. established the right of revolution against a government that was infringing on your God-given rights. I see no such right that the Confederacy was protecting during the Civil War. After all, the right to own slaves is not a right at all. It is a blatant contradiction of the spirit of the Declaration.

To recap: The people entered the Federal pact, not the states. Therefore, if the southern states had, say, voted to leave the Union via a convention or whatnot, that should have been fine. However, it is doubtful that such an attempt would have been successful. After all, only, say, "maybe 5% of the Southern population" would have voted for such an asinine movement.

Of course, I am not trying to justify the specific paths that Lincoln took to reunite the Union or the destruction of the South. However, I do believe that the starting the war was justified if, and only if, the main purpose was to reunite the Union (as Lincoln obviously intended).

Personally, I would have left the South secede. I have met enough Southern-folk to understand why shiny things moving in circles (cough:Nascar:cough) would entertain them j/k Razz

.

Edit: Oh, and just in case you feel the need to label me as some "public school average Joe", I happen to be a home school student with a VERIFIED IQ of 166 (yes, I know I just reified the IQ term, and, no, it was not some fly-by-night IQ test).

O'Bruadair · Posted: Tue Mar 27, 2007 10:59 am Post subject:

Nice try but all this is still horse feathers.

It is simply the same old tired worn out old bogus argument and false reasoning that lincoln and hitler used. [b:2d3949e3f1]“The people”[/b:2d3949e3f1] that ratified the Constitution are very plainly [b:2d3949e3f1]“the people of each STATE meeting in convention”.[/b:2d3949e3f1]

There was not and neither could there have been a legal convention of ALL the people of the United States meeting to coerce the States into forming a union. Such a convention would have had no political sovereignty what so ever. The founding fathers most certainly understood this else why would there not have been even a suggestion for such a convention? Alexander Hamilton would have given his right arm to have had this. Even HE must have realised that such a thing would have been ludicrous.

The folowing may give you a clue to the proper constitutional relationship between the terms “the people” and “the State”

Virginia’s Act of Ratification declared 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. ”

Very plainly here “[b:2d3949e3f1]the people of the United States[/b:2d3949e3f1]” means [b:2d3949e3f1]the people of each state meeting in convention.[/b:2d3949e3f1] This is the soverign entity that ratified the Constitution to start with and this is the one who has the power to withdraw from that compact.

US Senate resolution 1838:

"Resolved, That in the adoption of the Federal Constitution, [b:2d3949e3f1]the States [/b:2d3949e3f1]adopting the same acted severally, as [b:2d3949e3f1]free, independent, and sovereign States; [/b:2d3949e3f1]and that each, for itself, by its own voluntary assent, entered the Union with the view to its increased security against all dangers, domestic as well as foreign, and the more perfect and secure enjoyment of its advantages, natural, political, and social.”

cwalenta999 · Sergeant Major Joined: 17 Mar 2007 Posts: 60

The thread here is essentially whether the states, prior to the Civil War, possess the right to secede from the Union. Typically pro-secessionist arguments run along the lines of the Tenth Amendment - "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

This argument is strongest in the case of the original 13 colonies, followed by all states carved out of the original lands of the US east of the Mississippi; and is weakest in the states carved out of the Louisiana Purchase. Texas being a special case since its joins by treaty; also containing a provision to split up into 5 different states (which is actually interesting because one potential compromise just prior to the Civil War COULD have been getting Texas to split up into 5 states giving 10 more Senate seats to the South, interesting that was never explored). The reason why it makes a difference is because the Tenth Amendment obviously reserves powers to the states not granted to the Federal government and in the case of the states outside of the 13 colonies, statehood is granted upon application by the Federal government, and yes, it makes a difference because the power to make new states actually IS delegated to the Federal Government; hence if the US government reconizes the secession in South Carolina, Virginia, etc.; it needn't ALSO recognize it in Arkansas, ie. US Government could recognize Arkansas' secession only as a revocation of its application for statehood and revert it to a territory.

Typically anti-secessionists will point to the Article of Confederation being a union that cannot be dissolved (it says this in the preamble / 'perpetual Union') and then argue that the US Constitution revises the Aritcles of Confederation.

Another argument that anti-secessionists make is to look at the question in reverse. Imagine the 13 colonies, not voting to secede, but to EJECT a state from the union; or 12 colonies seceding and reforming and now of course imagine this happening over and over again.

At the end of the day, both sides to the argument admit that the Constitution is silent on the issue of secession, but its not a 'no brainer' argument either way. At the end of the day the question comes down to what WE BELIEVE the founders intended. Did they intend to create a Confederation, aka the united STATES, or did they intend to make the UNITED states.

I personally make the argument that if secession were permissable that the US today would be a third world nation.

Suspicious · Corporal Joined: 26 Mar 2007 Posts: 3

You are still assuming that the states in question are the states in their GOVERNMENTAL CAPACITIES! Please study the differences! Even Madison asked Jefferson if he knew the difference between the STATE and the LEGISLATURE on matters of the Federal pact.

You just agreed with me by saying:

"Very plainly here “the people of the United States” means the people of each state meeting in convention. This is the soverign entity that ratified the Constitution to start with and this is the one who has the power to withdraw from that compact."

Notice that I said the same thing earlier. I said that a convention (with reps of the people) could withdraw the people or other group from the Union! Read my post! We do agree on this! Now, it comes down to, would the South have been able to rally sufficient support for those conventions? I doubt the people would have truly cared about seceding for the sake of the rich %5.

Furthermore, if a very small percentage of the people vote for/against the Constitution, it STILL HAS THE POWER TO BIND EVERYONE. If only one percent of the US votes for a President, electing said President, does that mean the other 99% can safely ignore every bill he/she signs into law? Right there is your third-world country. Granted, not everyone voted or was or is allowed to vote, but show me a common election or convention that allows everyone to vote. Can people under 18 vote for Presidents/reps? Obviously not. Creating a new nation and forcing others who live in it (and did not agree to the Const.) to obey its rules is an odd situation, but the states themselves did authorize the ratifying conventions as a peace offering between the Federalists to the states. The states themselves apparently saw nothing wrong with the process (Well, except Rhode Island, but it saw the light after the US treated it as a foreign nation).

I think you should understand that the US is not a democracy, but a republic. The will of the people is executed via representatives. That is simply how it is done. The Founding Fathers believed that even the people could not be trusted with absolute power. So, the people voted for the Constitution via representatives; the ratification of the Const. was a republican process. It was legitimate.

The main problem is exactly as cwalenta999 said. The Constitution is not clear on the subject. The closest it comes to secession is "No state shall enter into a confederation or treaty." We can argue all we want, but the fact is that everything is based on how different people interpret the Constitution and the Founding Fathers' intentions. If the US Senate of 1838 was a bunch of fools, then we can hardly trust their judgment. What matters is the Founding Fathers' intentions. Anything else is null and void.

By the way, why did you not respond to my Jefferson Miscellany quote? Obviously it contradicts your whole argument since he is a Founding Father supporting the prevention of secession. Jefferson was a pioneer of the rights of the states (see Kentucky Resolution), so why did he say such a thing? Maybe unilateral secession is NOT ALLOWED after all, hmmm?

Edit: BTW, cwalenta999, your last sentence is a great argument. I believe Timothy Sandefur made a similar one. He only changed the wording to something like "if unilateral secession were allowed, then all the powers of the Federal government would be useless." Indeed, imagine if a state could secede on its mere notion every time the Feds made a decision the states did not like!

O'Bruadair · Posted: Tue Mar 27, 2007 6:15 pm Post subject:

“Suspicious”

“would the South have been able to rally sufficient support for those conventions?”

Well of course they in fact DID “rally sufficient support for those conventions”!

The people of each of the 11 States that seceded (13 if you count Missouri and Kentucky) did in fact meet in convention (not legislature) and they voted to secede. They did so overwhelmingly I might add (the vote the Alabama convention was 98 to 1) At least one (Virginia) backed this up with a referendum of all voters.

cwalenta999

“I personally make the argument that if secession were permissable that the US today would be a third world nation”

Pure conjecture on your part but even if this were the inevitable result of secession (which it most certainly ain’t) it would not change the basic constitutional, legal and moral question one whit.

Think the Norwegians believe themselves a “third world country” because they seceded from the Kingdom of Sweden in 1906? What about the British? Are they “third world” because ¾ of Ireland seceded from the UK? Is Ireland? What about Latvia, Estonia and Lithuanian? Are they impoverished because they seceded from the Soviet Union? Is Germany a “third world country” because their plans for empire in the 1930’s didn’t work out? Is Japan? Is Italy because they lost their claim on Ethiopia?

I don’t really have the time or inclination to answer each of both your points blow by blow. ALL of BOTH your points though rest on one basically flawed idea.

That idea (again offered by both ole abe and his admirer, Adolph Hitler) is this:

The “Union” existed before the States and created the States, therefore it ultimately holds all authority and sovereignty over them.

Think of what this doctrine really says! This is directly analogous and just as illogical as saying that my marriage existed before either my wife or I were born and that the marriage created us both!

Can any one think of a more patently absurd idea?

If you are not afraid to have your cherished myths challenged further then read “When in the Course of Human Events” by Charles Adams

Suspicious · Corporal Joined: 26 Mar 2007 Posts: 3

I just wanted to let you know that I DO NOT believe the US created the states. I believe in what is known as "dual sovereignty". That is, for the uninitiated, that the US is sovereign in its realm, and that the states are sovereign in their own. They should be separate units. The problem is that the states CANNOT secede. Only the people, through the [b:39b4ce1049]proper[/b:39b4ce1049]channels, can exit the Union.

Also, I really should clarify my position here. I may have contradicted myself earlier or not be really clear on certain issues. I may have also been too reactionary to your posts. I apologize for this transgression.

My honest belief is that the states and U.S. are separate units. However, the people give power to both. I also believe that when one enters an agreement, one must seek the approval of the other members of the contract to exit the contract (unless of course one's associates infringe on or break the contract themselves). The South, I admit, did convene for conventions, but after the Constitution was ratified the people became ONE PEOPLE, UNDER ONE FLAG.
Heck, if you even want to renounce your US citizenship, you have to contact the government, which is really just a vessel for the power of the people. At one time, if you even stayed outside the US for too long, you lost your citizenship. The problem here is that the states (or people, whatever) did it unilaterally.

cwalenta999 · Sergeant Major Joined: 17 Mar 2007 Posts: 60

Yes, I am bringing up the War of 1812 and the Nullification Crisis.

Look up the War of 1812 and you'll note that traitorous Yankees (New England states oppose the war) traded with the enemy by trading with Canada, loaning money to the British and refusing to permit their state militia from serving outside of their home states. This is obviously a tremendous display of state sovereignity and absolutely ridiculous. You simply cannot run a nation like that.

Nullification Crisis - I'm sure you guys have heard of this one, but essentially its the idea that a state can invalidate any Federal law that it deems to be unconstitutional. The nullification crisis emerges in the context of tariffs (which is actually a power SPECIFICALLY granted in Constitution to US Government, so I am not really sure what SC's argument was that the tariff was unconstitutional). (It should also be noted that prior to Civil War tariffs are probably the single most important revenue earner for the Federal government, it would be akin to a state simply ignoring the Federal income tax today or 'opting out' of social security). Again, if nullification were permitted, they wouldn't be Federal laws, they would be Federal guidelines.

Now let's assume certain facts. Let's assume that secession is legal but that no state has never opted for it. Now let's assume that the agricultural breadbasket of the nation decides to secede because the US may be compelled to suspend farm subsidies (the US IS actually facing pressure to cease farm subsidies). Now, O'Bruadair, in theory, would be fine with this. UNTIL the states that seceded throw up a 50% export tariff on corn and wheat products and now a loaf of bread is $6 and milk is $10 a gallon; and the nation cannot conduct commerce because there are customs checkpoints on I-80.

You're incorrect, it IS NOT complete speculation on my part to argue that a post-secession US/Confederacy would've evolved into a '3rd world nation' - and my point is that a Constitution that permits secession OR which grants too much sovereignity to the states produces a weak country as a whole and I think the War of 1812 is a fine example of that. The reason why I think that the US would've become a third world nation if secession were permitted is because the Federal government would not have been able to effectively regulate interstate commerce, nobody in their right mind would lend to the United States because it, in theory, might not exist the next day, so lenders would price in a higher risk premium and raise interest rates, confidence in bank notes issued by the United States would have been nil - and the 1865-1914 period is really the takeoff stage for the US economy and I think we would've missed that.

O'Bruadair · Posted: Wed Mar 28, 2007 3:56 pm Post subject:

Suspicious

“I just wanted to let you know that I DO NOT believe the US created the states.”

Note I said “union” not US. If you do not believe this then your whole position on the subject of the constitutionality of secession comes tumbling down like the house of cards that it is. [b:1dd2e91e1d]This is the very reason that lincoln and hitler put forth that particular absurdity![/b:1dd2e91e1d] Either the States were and are sovereign or they are not. You can not have it both ways!

cwalenta999

“You simply cannot run a nation like that”

Well now, you are right! Not the kind of “nation” that you mean here, in any case.

[b:1dd2e91e1d]That was and is the whole dang point now, ain’t it?[/b:1dd2e91e1d]

Secession was to be the ultimate check on the tendency of ALL governments, over time, to become more and more centralised, more grasping, more tyrannical and more imperial. The writers of the Constitution certainly understood this. That is why they reserved any rights not specifically prohibited them by the Constitution to the STATES or to the people in the 10th amendment.

Had the original intent and meaning of the 10th amendment not been twisted and mutilated beyond recognition (starting with lincoln and his yankee mercantilist handlers) the US (and/or the CS if there were one today) would have been much less likely to start acting like an arrogant bullying militaristic imperialist power. And BTW considerably over half the world perceives us to be just that today!

History has not been kind to empires. When ours finally crumbles, future historians will count the lincoln administration as the beginning of the end.

If you are not afraid to have your cherished myths challenged further then read [b:1dd2e91e1d]“When in the Course of Human Events” by Charles Adams[/b:1dd2e91e1d]

cwalenta999 · Sergeant Major Joined: 17 Mar 2007 Posts: 60

"Secession was to be the ultimate check on the tendency of ALL governments, over time, to become more and more centralised, more grasping, more tyrannical and more imperial."

This is the compact/contract theory of secession, ie. in other words the states retain the right to secede if the Federal government breaches the Constitution. (In an interesting side note Arizona passed a resolution saying essentially the same thing, that Arizona would secede if the Federal government materially breaches the Constitution, pretty interesting article actually) Problem is that the South can't actually point to a Federal breach of the Constitution.

I agree, the US did not 'make' the 13 original states, but I do disagree that the Federal government did not make states. Territories were created by acts of Congress. I also respectfully refer you to Article IV, Section 3, clause 2 of the Constitution

Section 3 - New States

New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new States shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.

The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.

O'Bruadair · Posted: Wed Mar 28, 2007 5:27 pm Post subject:

Again, once a State was accepted as such then they had and have all the rights and powers of any other State, regardless of how the US originally obtained the territory.

Abe and hitler were WRONG.

There are NO SECOND CLASS or provisional States. JUST sovereign and equal States.