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 am using in this thread two articles from Walter E. Williams. The first came out in an Alabama newspaper on Dec. 17th. If I cannot re-print them both in this column, I will follow up in the next.
The first article is entitled: Liberties difficult to regain
Last week's column, "Let's Do Some Detective Work,"provided unassailable evidence that the protections of liberty envisioned by the Constitution's Framers mean little today. I was pleasantly surprised by the responses from fellow Americans expressing disgust and fear over what our nation is becoming. Several asked how we can regain our liberties. My short answer is: I'm not sure they can ever be recovered. Let's look at it.
We all have a moral obligation to pay our share for constitutionally mandated functions of the federal government, but we have no such obligation to have Congress take the earnings of one American and give them to another American. Forcing one American to serve the purposes of another is one way slavery can be defined.
I'm an emancipated adult fully capable of taking care of my own retirement. Why should I or anyone else be forced to pay into the government's Social Security? Do you see any signs on the horizon that such practices are coming to an end? The list of encroachments on personal liberty like these is virtually endless.
Self-determination is a human right we all should respect. If some people want socialism, that's their right -- but it is not their right to use brute government power to force others, who want liberty, to be a part of it. Liberty-minded Americans might organize to acquire government power to impose their will on socialist-minded Americans, but that's not right either. A far more peaceful method is simply to part company.
That's an idea already being explored by Free State Project. Their plan, as stated on their website (freestateproject.org) is: "20,000 or more liberty-oriented people will move to New Hampshire, where they may work within the political system to reduce the size and scope of government. The success of the Free State Project would likely entail reductions in burdensome taxation and regulation, reforms in state and local law, an end to federal mandates and a restoration of constitutional federalism."
In 1788, during New Hampshire's ratification convention, a concerned people said "amendments AND alterations in the said Constitution would remove the fears and quiet the apprehensions of many of the good People of this State and more Effectually guard against an undue Administration of the Federal Government. The Convention do therefore recommend that the following alterations and provisions be introduced into the said Constitution: (among them) First That it be Explicitly declared that all Powers not expressly and particularly Delegated by the aforesaid Constitution are reserved to the several States to be, by them Exercised." The Ninth and Tenth Amendments, which mean virtually nothing now, were added to our Constitution in response to these fears.
While members of Free State Project have not proposed it, I would imagine that if New Hampshire's elected representatives couldn't successfully negotiate with the U.S. Congress to obey the Constitution, the only other alternative would be that of making a unilateral declaration of independence and go our own way just as our Founders did in 1776.
Many people might argue that it's the U.S. Supreme Court that decides what is constitutional or not. Here's what Thomas Jefferson said about allowing the Court to hold a monopoly on the interpretation of the Constitution: "... the opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what are not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action but for the Legislature and Executive also in their spheres, would make the Judiciary a despotic branch."
The history of the Court, not to mention last week's decision on the constitutionality of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform that attacks free speech, is proof that Jefferson was right and Alexander Hamilton wrong in his Federalist Paper No. 78 prediction that the judiciary would be the "least dangerous" branch of government.
Contact Walter E. Williams | Read Williams's biography
(Message edited by thea_447 on December 28, 2003)
__________________ Thea
No one has permission to use any material from any of my posts on any CWT forum, the archives, or any other forum without my express written permission.
Secession Clearly Allowed
- Walter E. Williams, Dec. 27, 2003
In my last column, I argued that liberties lost are seldom regained, but there was an outside chance to regain them if enough liberty-minded Americans were to pursue Free State Project's proposal to set up New Hampshire as a free state.
Free State Project (www.freestateproject.org) intends to get 20,000 or so Americans to move to New Hampshire and, through a peaceful political process, reduce burdensome taxation and regulation, reform state and local law, end federal mandates, and attempt to restore constitutional federalism as envisioned by the nation's founders.
Since there was only a remote possibility that we could successfully negotiate with Congress, the courts and White House to obey the U.S. Constitution, I speculated that liberty could only be realized by a unilateral declaration of independence - namely, to part company. Quite a few readers criticized the idea, calling secession unconstitutional.
On March 2, 1861, after seven states had seceded and two days before Abraham Lincoln's inauguration, Sen. James R.Doolittle of Wisconsin proposed a constitutional amendment that said, "No state or any part thereof, heretofore admitted or hereafter admitted into the Union, shall have the power to withdraw from the jurisdiction of the United States."
Several months earlier, Reps. Daniel E. Sickles of New York, Thomas B. Florence of Pennsylvania and Otis S. Ferry of Connecticut proposed a constitutional amendment to prohibit secession. Would there have been any point to offering these amendments if secession were already unconstitutional? I'm guessing no.
There's more evidence. At the 1787 constitutional convention, a proposal was made to allow the federal government to suppress a seceding state. James Madison, the father of our constitution, rejected it, saying: "A Union of the States containing such an ingredient seemed to 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."
Professor Thomas DiLorenzo, in his revised, "The Real Lincoln," provides abundant evidence in the forms of quotations from our Founders and numerous newspaper accounts that prove that Americans always took the right of secession for granted.
Every single bit of evidence shows that states have a right to secede. There's absolutely nothing in the Constitution that prohibits secession. What stops secession is the brute force of a mighty federal government, as witnessed by the War of 1861. Only one good thing came out of that war. It eliminated slavery.
It's had a devastating legacy for future generations of Americans, in that since the issue of secession was brutally settled, the federal government is free to run roughshod over the safeguards envisioned by the Framers, namely the Ninth and Tenth Amendments.
There's little to suggest that the same brutality wouldn't be encountered if secession were tried again, as one writer cautioned: If New Hampshire seceded, massive troops along with today's deadly modern military equipment would be on its soil before lunch.
Contact Walter E. Williams | Read Williams's biography
(Message edited by thea_447 on December 29, 2003)
__________________ Thea
No one has permission to use any material from any of my posts on any CWT forum, the archives, or any other forum without my express written permission.
I've read many of your posts, and read between the lines on some, leading me to a question: How can you have so much hate bottled up for a country like ours? It's not perfect, and it never will be . . . but can you give me the name of one other country that's better, one other country where you would rather live?
Pay it no mind, Thea is one of those dear Lost Causers who firmly believes Jeff Davis and the CSA cabinet walked on water and that Abe Lincoln and the men who served the Union were the Anti-Christ. It's best just to sit back and watch Neil debate her... he has the patience of a saint.
One of these days maybe some of us who don't tout the Lost Cause will convince them that the Emancipation Proclomation wasn't all that bad a thing.
__________________ Few take the trouble to understand or to view the American scene with perspective. And we Americans love to find ourselves guilty of something. However, it is never I who am guilty, but those other Americans, the past or present government or the other political party. Americans almost never find other countries guilty. It is always ourselves or our fancied influence in other countries. Louis L'amour
You state: I've read many of your posts, and read between the lines on some, leading me to a question: How can you have so much hate bottled up for a country like ours?
Perhaps you shouldn't spend so much time trying to read between the lines and read what I've actually written. I came here firstly on the premise that 1. My belief the South had a perfect right to secede from the Union. 2. Tariffs were the motive for their wanting to leave the Union, not slavery per se. After that the threads have expanded to encompass many varying areas of interest, I hope, to all that post here.
Since the first opening shots were fired, quite amicably I might add, between me and Neil, we have engaged in lively debate and I think, if you ask him,we have become fast friends, although we'll always be poles apart on causes of this war. He, at least, does not do me the disservice of questioning my loyalty to my country. And quite frankly, I think Neil would miss me if I didn't post on various subjects. He lives and breathes this stuff just as much as I do.
I do not hate this country. My ancestors and members of my immediate family have fought in every single war this country has ever been involved with and will do so again if called upon. They've also served in the legislature and I've even had a governor of a state in my family. But that is beside the point. What they did, or thought, is lost to the ages in history. What I say and think is recorded here for all to ponder or decimate, as the case may be.
I have not tried to read between the lines of your posts. You've made it abundantly clear that all of this talk is pointless. So again, I have to wonder, if it bothers you so much, why do you keep coming back? Now we're back to the whole point of these message boards. The topic of the WBTS is fascinating to everyone. I would hope that you would afford me the same opportunity to express my thoughts as you would those of your "Lincolnese" friends.
I come to these boards to debate the WBTS. When I find another article that I think might also be relevant to the points I've presented in the past, I enclose it.
It is your prerogative to delete every single message that comes with my byline. I can assure you this will help you immensely. I do this on a regular basis with certain members of this board who have repeatedly tried to start fights with me, have been rude, and have acted in such a manner as to be called what is commonly called on boards such as these, a troll. (I learned that term from my dear friend Tommy, a.k.a. APHillbilly.)
What I view as a loss of states rights that persists to this very day and was caused by the South's loss to overwhelming odds, you perceive as hatred of this country. That is not the case. I also don't have any problem whatsoever with slavery being abolished. What I do have a problem with is the way history is written and taught to our children: that Yankees came in here as knights on white chargers and abolished the evil institution of slavery; that this was their primary objective and that they taught the evil South a good lesson.
What actually happened was that states rights died at Appommatox, the South became a virtual colony of this country and has never been allowed to recover economically from the disastrous conclusion of this bloody war. In addition such feelings of animosity now exist that race relations can never be normal. And even though other parts of the country have more race riots, etc. than the South: for every movie that is ever made, invariably the South comes out as backward, her peoples as hate mongering illiterates who marry their cousins, ad infinitum.
In conclusion, I suggest again, that if my posts bother you, delete them and you won't raise your blood pressure or waste your time worrying over someone's opinion whom you'll never be able to change.
I live in the South, I've traveled everywhere. I know what other parts of the country deal with and I still prefer the South. I'm not so unrealistic that I dream of moonlight, magnolias, and mint juleps. I see the dumbing down of our school children, little development of new industries, little job growth, people standing in line to get only two pills of a prescription because they can't afford more, things like that. And all the while Federal retirees who belittle our pattern of speech, life-style, etc. continue to move here in droves to live because of our lower taxes, etc. There's an oxymoron in there somewhere but sometimes it doesn't seem so amusing.
I think I've fully answered my position. I sincerely hope that you had a very nice Christmas and will have a happy and healthy New Year.
(Message edited by thea_447 on December 29, 2003)
__________________ Thea
No one has permission to use any material from any of my posts on any CWT forum, the archives, or any other forum without my express written permission.
Thea, I raise my cold ice tea glass to you. Thank you for stating a fact that I have tried to say before. I do not understand why people feel that people from the South are anti-American just because we disagree with the facts about the Civil War. I too do not agree that Slavery was the PRIMARY cause of the war. I usually just read these posts but really thought I needed to thank you for what you said.
Kat/Mississippian and proud of her Southern Heritage
If you do not wish me to read between your lines, please do not read between mine. I did not say that you are unpatriotic or disloyal, although I can see how my poor choice of words would give you that impression. Further, your posts do not particularly bother me. My blood pressure is pretty good for someone my age, and I haven't seen one of your posts that raised it a point - unless it was in sheer amazement. I've known for some time that I disagree with almost everything you say, and you reciprocate well in kind. I've also known from approximately Post #2 that you would never change your mind. That doesn't bother me either.
My intent wasn't to offend you, but obviously I have. In retrospect, my words were too coarse. What I honestly perceive is that you give distinct impression that you do not like what this country has become. Statements like "Yankees . . . knights on white chargers" and "Lincolnese friends" don't do much but add fuel to the fire. I also find it interesting that you also lumped all "northern retirees" into one stereotyped group, just as you claim that those same people do to southern folks. Is one fair when the other is not?
In response to your lamentations that the union is the poorer for being whole, I honestly disagree. You said that the only good thing that came from the war was the abolition of slavery. I agree that was ONE good outcome. But, I submit that the most positive result of the war was the preservation of the United States of America. If the Union were not re-joined, slavery would have died out anyhow. It may have taken longer, but it would have died. It had to, or the confederate states would have become a pariah nation.
However, if the Union had not been preserved, there would have been two smaller, weaker nations in its place. If that were the case, how would we have been the major force we have become in the world economy and in preserving peace in the world? Would two smaller, weaker states been able to stand up to Hitler and the empire of Japan as the UNITED states did? I rather doubt it. I think the nation is better of in virtually all aspects as one entity rather than two.
You may (or may not) find it interesting that I come from predominately southern stock, and live in southern Virginia. My ancestors were the original settlers in Adams County, MS in the late 1700's. I'm a member of MOS&B, and six of my cousins rode with JEB Stewart. I suppose that makes me a traitor to "the cause," but it doesn't change my position.
Finally, since my poorly worded question offended you, I respectfully apologize and decline your kind invitation to either ignore your posts or go away. You are free to ignore mine, however, as there will undoubtedly be more.
Apparently my reputation as a granadier (thanks, Neil) is intact.
I wish you the best in '04 also.
(Message edited by jeffdavislegion on December 29, 2003)
Daniel,
You state: What I honestly perceive is that you give distinct impression that you do not like what this country has become.
You are absolutely correct in this.
This one I did not understand: "northern retirees" into one stereotyped group, just as you claim that those same people do to southern folks. Is one fair when the other is not?
I used the term "Federal retirees", not northern. Also, as to stereotyping Southerners, are you willing to state that you've never told or passed along a "Bubba" joke? Three fourths of Florida and most of Alabama's Gulf Coast line is chock full of Federal retirees; if you'd met some of them, you would notice the condescension all the while they're smiling at how much cheaper it is to live "down here". I know these things as fact because I've taught their children while they were in the military and watched their smugness, only to have them return after their service career is over, with a much different outlook on "being in the South."
You state: In response to your lamentations that the union is the poorer for being whole I honestly disagree. Where did I make such a statement? What I believe I have inferred is the South would be better off today if it were separate from the Union.
You state: You said that the only good thing that came from the war was the abolition of slavery. I agree that was ONE good outcome. That was not MY statement, it was the statement of Prof. Walter E. Williams. I agree that slavery needed to be abolished.
You state: However, if the Union had not been preserved, there would have been two smaller, weaker nations in its place. With this statement I would absolutely disagree. I believe that the two nations could have co-existed amicably and with much greater harmony than we have today. Since I have always been an isolationist my theories on our entries into wars or even whether there would have BEEN wars of such a great magnitude would not interest you and those views certainly do not belong on this board. Before every single military voice on this board jumps on me about this, I don't care to elaborate at all on my views of world wars,etc. Suffice it to say I've had family members fighting in all of them. But I will finish this paragraph with the one good Sherman quote I allow myself: War is H...!
I am here only to discuss various elements of the WBTS and I will continue to post my remarks, not with the idea of changing your opinion, but in the hope that many others will feel that this debate is for everyone, not just a select few.
And Daniel, not to worry, I'm not easily offended. Every person has a right to their opinion.There's no need for an apology. Sometimes in our zeal to get our points across we write words that come out differently when read by another. Believe me, I've had that happen to me many times.
Till we meet again, I remain, YMOS,
__________________ Thea
No one has permission to use any material from any of my posts on any CWT forum, the archives, or any other forum without my express written permission.
Just noticed your edit.
Your remark on "grenadier", I understand being armed with grenades, but I did not know you were from a European regiment. Do you have a rank? <grin>
__________________ Thea
No one has permission to use any material from any of my posts on any CWT forum, the archives, or any other forum without my express written permission.
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
