Civil War History - Secession and PoliticsWas it Slavery, or was it States Rights? Perhaps it was the election of Lincoln? What were the real reasons for Southern Secession and what were the political issues in this time of war? Find your answers here in the Secession and Politics Disussion.
I'm afraid I can't agree that you kicked the ball through the goal. You've offered me a picture of you as you are about to kick the ball; and you've offered me a picture of the ball sailing between the posts. But you are proving somewhat stubborn about providing evidence that the two events are connected.
To put it another way, you have produced a lot of very interesting material about a debate. But that's rather like offering footage of TV studio discussions during the 2004 presidential election rather than the hard figures indicating who voted for whom.
It should be simple enough. If the man on the street got to vote on the issue of perpetual surrender of sovereignty in each state, you should be able to feed me the stats. No?
As we both know, the ratification was conducted by convention, not by referendum. The delegates to the convention were fully empowered to act for the People of the various states. They were completely aware of the debate, being in most cases participants themselves, and they were completely aware that both sides had acknowledged loss of sovereignty under the Constitution. The ball is sitting in the net, the announcer is yelling GOOOOOOOAAAALLLLL!!!!!!!!!!! and you're still asking for the seamstress.
"There are certain rights which we have always held sacred in the United States, and recognized in all our constitutions, and which, by the adoption of the new constitution, its present form will be left unsecured. By article 6, the proposed constitution, and the laws of the United States, which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby; any thing in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.
"It is to be observed that when the people shall adopt the proposed constituiton it will be their last and supreme act; it will be adopted not by the people of New-Hampshire, Massachusetts, &c. but by the people of the United States; and whenever this constitution, or any part of it, shall be incompatible with the antient [sic] customs, rights, the laws or the constitutions heretofore established in the United States, it will entirely abolish them and do them away: And not only this, but the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance of the federal constitution will be also supreme laws, and whenever they shall be incompatible with those customs, rights, laws or constitutions heretofore established, they will also entirely abolish them and do them away." [Richard Henry Lee, "Letters from the Federal Farmer to 'The Republican,' " Letter IV, 12 Oct 1787]
In reply to your post #416 you consider the liason between a government and its people one of the 'natural' rights? Could you explain further please?
Lincoln's phrase that "all men are created equal" is just that, we are all the same in the regard that we are human beings, that we breathe, we bleed, we sweat, we toil, we think, we laugh, we hope and we dream. We all may not be born into the same social circum stances, poor or rich, right side or wrong side of the tracks, black, white, yellow, brown, etc., but we should not be denied a chance at happiness or advancement because of that social circum stance or condition.
The phrase 'conceived in liberty' means that my nation or my people have created an environment that permits me to make my own choices and to further my hopes and dreams with a least an attempt at a level playing field, that it is up to me, in that liberty, to advance my dreams by my own decesions in how much education, work, effort, etc., I choose.
Best I could do on the midnight shift.
Sincerely,
Unionblue
__________________ "The American people and the Government at Washington may refuse to recognize it for a time but the inexorable logic of events will force it upon them in the end; that the war now being waged in this land is a war for and against slavery." Frederick Douglass
"Loyalty to our ancestors does not include loyalty to their mistakes." George Santayana
Concerning your post #418, I truely was not using a non-sequitur but was seriously trying to get you to repost your view on the subject. In view of the massive amount of credible information that Cash has replied to your questions and responses, I just had the impression that the goal posts kept moving further downfield a few times.
Sincerely,
Unionblue
__________________ "The American people and the Government at Washington may refuse to recognize it for a time but the inexorable logic of events will force it upon them in the end; that the war now being waged in this land is a war for and against slavery." Frederick Douglass
"Loyalty to our ancestors does not include loyalty to their mistakes." George Santayana
The information that Cash has produced is both massive and - within its own limits - credible. And I'm very grateful to him for taking the trouble.
If there was ever talk about the sovereignty of the United States being surrendered (absurd, I know, but bear with me), I don't believe you'd be very happy if you were told that you weren't going to have the chance to vote in a referendum on the subject. Because you own 1/250,000,000th of that sovereignty. The same as George W. Bush.
I'm not moving any goalposts, old chum. I have stuck consistently to the view that sovereignty cannot be surrendered unless the people as a whole get to vote on the matter.
The idea of "fighting for State's Rights" is part of the semantics used by Southern sympathizers to act as a euphemism for slavery. Most people must have realized that the idea of owning people is an evil in itself and used other expressions to describe slavery to soften its true meaning, that "peculiar institution" being one of them.
I cannot see any other reason to divide the country so violently at that time as the issue of slavery. In the country's history that has really been the only outstanding issue which threatened the dissolution of the union. The simple idea of slavery was at complete odds with the philosophies that were used to found this nation.
As we both know, the ratification was conducted by convention, not by referendum. The delegates to the convention were fully empowered to act for the People of the various states.
If the delegates from each state had been severally and explicitly empowered to surrender national sovereignty I'd be grateful if you would point me towards the supporting documentary evidence.
On a related subject, I was intrigued by part of the wording of Article 4:
If any person guilty of, or charged with, treason, felony, or other high misdemeanor in any State, shall flee from justice, and be found in any of the United States, he shall, upon demand of the Governor or executive power of the State from which he fled, be delivered up and removed to the State having jurisdiction of his offense.
The use of the word "treason" catches my eye. It clearly does not mean treason against the United States because it goes on to talk about "the State having jurisdiction of his offense". So it clearly envisages a situation where it is possible to commit treason against an individual state. Can you cite me any other example in world history where it is deemed possible to commit treason against something which is less than an independent and sovereign entity? I confess I can't think of one.
If the delegates from each state had been severally and explicitly empowered to surrender national sovereignty I'd be grateful if you would point me towards the supporting documentary evidence.
---------------------
What I'm showing you is that everyone concerned knew going in there was a surrender of sovereignty involved. George Washington spelled it out in his letter transmitting the Constitution to the Congress: "It is obviously impracticable in the foederal [sic] government of these States; to secure all rights of independent sovereignty to each, and yet provide for the interest and safety of all--Individuals entering into society must give up a share of liberty to preserve the rest. The magnitude of the sacrifice must depend as well on situation and cir****tance, as on the object to be obtained. It is at all times difficult to draw with precision the line between those rights which must be surrendered, and those which may be reserved; and on the present occasion this difficulty was encreased [sic] by a difference among the several States as to their situation, extent, habits, and particular interests." [George Washington to President of Congress, 17 Sep 1787]
You are still asking for the seamstress.
Can you cite me any other example in world history where it is deemed possible to commit treason against something which is less than an independent and sovereign entity? I confess I can't think of one.
---------------------
In 1844 Thomas Dorr was convicted of treason against Rhode Island and in 1859 John Brown was convicted of treason against Virginia.
Now, the thing about Dorr's conviction is that it had a Supreme Court case related to it, Luther v. Borden, 48 US 1 (1849). In Luther v. Borden, the Supreme Court, Chief Justice Taney writing the opinion, ruled, "The fourth section of the fourth article of the Constitution of the United States provides that the United States shall guarantee to every State in the Union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on the application of the legislature or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened) against domestic violence.
"Under this article of the Constitution it rests with Congress to decide what government is the established one in a State. For as the United States guarantee to each State a republican government, Congress must necessarily decide what government is established in the State before it can determine whether it is republican or not. And when the senators and representatives of a State are admitted into the councils of the Union, the authority of the government under which they are appointed, as well as its republican character, is recognized by the proper constitutional authority. And its decision is binding on every other department of the government, and could not be questioned in a judicial tribunal." [48 US 1, 42]
How can a state be considered independent and sovereign when the United States Government has the authority to declare its state government illegitimate?
What I'm showing you is that everyone concerned knew going in there was a surrender of sovereignty involved.
This is an assertion. Mere repetition will not transform it into a demonstration of fact.
It is obviously impracticable in the foederal [sic] government of these States; to secure all rights of independent sovereignty to each, and yet provide for the interest and safety of all.
Washington’s argument is a cogent one. Some of the rights of independent sovereignty would, indeed, have to be sacrificed for as long as each state consented to remain part of the Union. That is what Article 2 effectively says. That is not at all the same thing as saying that that independence and sovereignty had been surrendered absolutely and for all time.
Can you cite me any other example in world history where it is deemed possible to commit treason against something which is less than an independent and sovereign entity? I confess I can't think of one.
---------------------
In 1844 Thomas Dorr was convicted of treason against Rhode Island and in 1859 John Brown was convicted of treason against Virginia.
The words “any other example” were meant to indicate that I was looking for a case outside of the United States. You know how Australia houses unique lifeforms because of its long isolation from the rest of the world (koalas, kangaroos etc)? Well, I begin to realise that the pro-Unionist political philosophy exists in a similar vacuum. The notion that one can commit treason against a mere administrative sub-division is, if you like, the duck-billed platypus of political theory.
I offer you the following definitions of the word “treason”:
violation of allegiance toward one's country or sovereign
a crime that undermines the offender's government
the crime of disloyalty to one's nation
criminal act of betraying one's country
a breach of allegiance to one's government,
usually committed through levying war against such government
the offence of attempting to overthrow
the government of the state to which the offender owes allegiance
I found these in a Google search, and stopped when they began to be explicitly repetitive. I hope you would agree with me that none of them remotely suggest an offence against an instrument of merely local government; without exception they are worded so as to indicate a crime against ultimate authority. And, really, how could it be otherwise? If Virginia was not a sovereign state, the supposed crime of treason against her made no more sense than that of treason against Essex County, Virginia; or treason against the town of Tappahannock in Essex County, Virginia.
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
