Madison: A WARNING TO FUTURE AMERICANS

[30x90]

BTW, "Lincoln's lack of leadership"?!?! Most of the states that seceded, did so before he was even inaugurated!!!

Lincoln purposely provoked the South into firing the first shot.
Secession was legal and constitutional.

You're lying. He did what he could to try and reconcile with the South. They just weren't willing to listen to anything. That makes it on THEIR heads.

"Lying"?
No. Child, please!...Are you one of the ignorant who thinks the war was about slavery?
The truth is a little different than what you might have learned in middle school.

State sovereignty is a cornerstone of America's political philosophy.That's what Jefferson said when he drafted the Declaration of Independence.
(That the colonies were actually NOT sovereign states didn't matter, though. The truth is that they were British colonies under colonial charters)

The Southern states that seceded used the Declaration of Independence as a precedent. South Carolina reclaimed those sovereign rights on the same grounds that Jefferson had used 84 years beforehand in the Declaration:
-
That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

The South wanted to be free from unfair tariffs (Morrill Tariff Bill of 1860..South Carolina Tariff of Abominations 1832) and Lincoln's "Spot Resolutions" imposed by the North, so they formed a limited republic that guaranteed individual AND states rights and unlike the republic in the North, didn't insist on subjugating the states that didn't want to be part of it.They believed that states had the right to nullify federal laws they didn't think were in their interest.

The Confederate Constitution preserved what the South saw as the original intent of the U.S. Constitution. Sovereignty belongs to the people of the states. That's how it was in the colonial times and that's how it was under the Articles of Confederation of the U.S.
The cornerstone of the Confederacy was the U.S. Constitution slightly modified.

Slavery?
Right..whatever. Ignorant people continually besmirch the South by claiming they intended to extend slavery. That's not true, though.
The South knew that, even though it was legal and Constitutional (even in the North. See the Dred Scott case of 1857), slavery would eventually end...as it turns out, the industrial revolution was just around the corner and machines were able to do the work of MANY slaves at a much cheaper cost.

The North dispensed with slaves when they were no longer economically viable. Nothing to do with Northern "moral superiority".That position was just a cynical yankee ploy.

Lincoln couldn't have cared less about the slaves, actually.

Lincoln-Douglas debates:

"I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races,that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race. "

Robt. E Lee said:

There are few, I believe, in this enlightened age, who will not acknowledge that slavery as an institution is a moral and political evil. It is idle to expatiate on its disadvantages. I think it is a greater evil to the white than to the colored race. While my feelings are strongly enlisted in behalf of the latter, my sympathies are more deeply engaged for the former. The blacks are immeasurably better off here than in Africa, morally, physically, and socially. The painful discipline they are undergoing is necessary for their further instruction as a race, and will prepare them, I hope, for better things. How long their servitude may be necessary is known and ordered by a merciful Providence. Their emancipation will sooner result from the mild and melting influences of Christianity than from the storm and tempest of fiery controversy."

remember..slaves were still living in the stone age in Africa at the time.




from Lincoln's first inaugural address:

"This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it, or their revolutionary right to dismember, or overthrow it…."

So "REVOLUTION" was seen as a "right"...but not secession...Lincoln was some politician, huh? Sort of like Rahm Emanuel.."Never let a crisis go to waste..."

So..the first shots at Fort Sumter...
The South offered to pay for any federal properties on Southern soil and even offered to pay their portion of the federal debt of the U.S..He refused to meet with Southern diplomats. Two Supreme court justices even attempted to intervene on the South's behalf..Lincoln didn't want to hear it.

Fort Sumter in Charleston and Fort Pickens in Pensacola Florida were the only 2 Federal forts in the Confederacy that hadn't surrendered to the C.S.A.
Fort Sumter was originally built to protect the people of Charleston...but to have it as a Union occupied fort in Southerm territory with its' cannons pointed at Charleston would be an intolerable provocation to the South. Lincoln knew this and reinforced the fort.

The issue wasn't just Charleston harbor..Lincoln vowed to continue to collect "duties and imposts"...tariffs...in the South. Tariffs supplied 95% of the Federal revenue and the Morrill Tariff had more than DOUBLED tariff duties in the South.
The South opposed the tariffs..The North supported them.
On April 6, 1861 Lincoln reinforced the fort.After negotiations between P.G.T. Beauregard and the commander of the fort Major Robt. Anderson broke off Beauregard ordered his artillery to open fire.
Lincoln now had his excuse to wage total war on american citizens. The equivalent today of sending tanks to invade the South, blockade the ports and carpet bomb the cities..of fellow american civilians.

Robt. E. Lee
"Still, a Union that can only be maintained by swords and bayonets, and in which strife and civil war are to take the place of brotherly love and kindness, has no charm for me. "


Men like Lee, Jeff. Davis, etc..would not consider waging war on civilians.

Robt. E. Lee's son, Custis Lee wrote:
"I am opposed to the theory of doing wrong that good may come of it. I hold to the belief that you must act right whatever the consequences. ... "

If following the law of a free republic and fighting a defensive war solely against armed combatants are faults, the South had them...The North didn't , though. Lincoln ignored the law the Constitution and the Supreme Court when it suited him.(suspended habeus corpus and held civilians under military tribunals)
His armies waged war on the farms, livlihoods and people of the South..not just against the army.

There was no "Civil War"..no one was trying to overthrow the government..the South just wanted to do what the colonies had done...what Texas had done...secede legally...
It was truly a war of northern aggression.

 

[midcan5]

The usual tired apology for slavery, aka State's Rights.

by Edward Ball

[...]

"But a look through the declaration of causes written by South Carolina and four of the 10 states that followed it out of the Union — which, taken together, paint a kind of self-portrait of the Confederacy — reveals a different story. From Georgia to Texas, each state said the reason it was getting out was that the awful Northern states were threatening to do away with slavery.

South Carolina: “The non-slaveholding states ... have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery” and “have encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to leave their homes.”

Mississippi: “Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery — the greatest material interest of the world. ... There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union.”

Georgia: “A brief history of the rise, progress, and policy of anti-slavery and the political organization into whose hands the administration of the Federal Government has been committed will fully justify the pronounced verdict of the people of Georgia.”

Several states single out a special culprit, Abraham Lincoln, “an obscure and illiterate man” whose “opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery.” Lincoln’s election to the White House meant, for South Carolina, that “the public mind must rest in the belief that slavery is in the course of ultimate extinction.”

In other words, the only state right the Confederate founders were interested in was the rich man’s “right” to own slaves.

It’s peculiar, because “states’ rights” has become a popular refrain in Republican circles lately. Last year Gov. Rick Perry of Texas wondered aloud whether secession was his state’s right in the aftermath of laws out of Congress that he disliked.

In part because of this renewed rhetoric, in the coming remembrances we will likely hear more from folks who cling to the whitewash explanation for secession and the Civil War. But you have only to look at the honest words of the secessionists to see why all those men put on uniforms." http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/19/opinion/19Ball.html

"Her conclusion is that the Americans who fought the Civil War overwhelmingly thought they were fighting about slavery, and that we should take their word for it." AmericanHeritage.com / Why the Civil War Was Fought, Really

Court ruling on secession: Texas v. White

Admission of state to union: FindLaw: U.S. Constitution: Article IV: Annotations pg. 16 of 18


Southern Arguments for and Against Secession from the Union - Associated Content from Yahoo! - associatedcontent.com
Agrument v Lincoln's position: http://apollo3.com/~jameso/secession.html
Does constitution allow secession: FindLaw's Writ - Dorf: Does the Constitution Permit the Blue States to Secede?

AmericanHeritage.com / How the North Lost the Civil War

 

[editec]

The BIG LIE, once it takes hold is a pernicious thing to dislodge isn't it, Midcan?

The vast majority of historical evidence leads one to a single conclusion...that the root cause of the rebellion was slavery.

But as there are now people who hate central government generally, they impose their revisionist POV onto US history and try to convince we who READ, that every historical bit of evidence is meaningless, and that their POV (based on some goofy theory of state rights, but not by the historical evidence) is the truth.

Here's a thought...there are none so blind as those who will not see.

Debating with people who refuse to acknowledge facts is a waste of your time.

 

[zzzz]

The Southern states that seceded used the Declaration of Independence as a precedent. South Carolina reclaimed those sovereign rights on the same grounds that Jefferson had used 84 years beforehand in the Declaration:
-
That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

You really ought to use it in the full context of the paragraph.

That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

Depotism:The use of cruel and arbitrary use of power.

If states could succeed for transient causes there would be no United States. States would succeed because they were not getting enough tax money back. So using the DOI as a basis for succession does not give justification for seperation from the Union.

In other words it is just like the song"

 

[30x90]

Fine...You guys insist the only cause of the War of Northern Aggression was slavery...and you ignore the words of the principals and cite instead, several "authors" who have books to sell....or northern "op ed" writers with an agenda. (Edward Ball)(Frederic Smoler)
One of your "authors" (Chandra Manning) cites random cherry picked letters from soldiers... as if the private in the trenches knows more about the war than the President of the C.S.A. or the U.S.A....

"Her conclusion is that the Americans who fought the Civil War overwhelmingly thought they were fighting about slavery, and that we should take their word for it."
Oh well, HER conclusion is...blah blah.....
and..."her work continues in the interpretive tradition of the historian James McPherson"

"Interpretive" being the key word here...meaning not necessarily accurate.

"In his new book, Redemption: The Last Battle of the Civil War (Farrar, Straus and Giroux, $24), Nicholas Lemann, the dean of the Columbia Graduate School of Journalism, applies his considerable talents as a storyteller to helping general readers catch up with the last 30 or so years of historians’ rethinkings.

Yeah, right! His new book...



To cite one of YOUR sources:
http://apollo3.com/~jameso/secession.html
"The Civil War caused and allowed a tremendous expansion of the size and power of the federal government. It gave us our first federal conscription law, first progressive income tax, first enormous standing army; it gave us a higher tariff, and greenbacks. James McPherson writes approvingly: "This astonishing blitz of laws . . . did more to reshape the relation of the government to the economy than any comparable effort except perhaps the first hundred days of the New Deal. This Civil War Legislation . . . created the 'blueprint for modern America."4 Albert Jay Nock was more critical of the war's impact, especially on the Constitution: "Lincoln overruled the opinion of Chief Justice Taney that suspension of habeas corpus was unconstitutional, and in consequence the mode of the State was, until 1865, a monocratic military despotism. . . . The doctrine of 'reserved powers' was knaved up ex post facto as a justification for his acts, but as far as the intent of the constitution is concerned, it was obviously pure invention. In fact, a very good case could be made out for the assertion that Lincoln's acts resulted in a permanent radical change in the entire system of constitutional 'interpretation'--that since his time 'interpretations' have not been interpretations of the constitution, but merely of public policy. . . . A strict constitutionalist might indeed say that the constitution died in 1861, and one would have to scratch one's head pretty diligently to refute him."5

This paper will not address the morality of the Union's invasion of the Confederacy, except indirectly and only to the extent that certain moral principles were undoubtedly reflected in the framework of laws governing the Union in 1861. Thus, whether the Union's invasion of the Confederacy can be morally justified, even if found to be unlawful, will not be answered here.7 It is the case, however, that the officials who launched the invasion, especially President Lincoln, made no such argument in 1861.

In the context of a legal analysis of state secession, it was the Union's invasion of Virginia that is significant, and not the Confederacy's firing on Fort Sumter a month earlier. The Confederacy fired on Fort Sumter to expel what it believed were trespassers on South Carolina soil and territorial waters. By no means can the seizure of the fort be construed as a threat to the security of the states remaining in the Union, the closest of which was 500 miles away. If South Carolina illegally seceded from the Union, then both the Union's initial refusal to surrender Fort Sumter and its subsequent invasion were lawful and constitutional. Conversely, if South Carolina had the right to secede from the Union, then indeed the Union soldiers in the Fort were trespassers and also a potential military threat to South Carolina. Thus, assuming the right of secession existed, the Union had no right to retaliate or initiate war against the Confederacy. Its subsequent invasion of Virginia then marks the beginning of its illegal war on the Confederacy. The incident at Fort Sumter is largely significant as a political victory for the Union. President Lincoln, while holding a hostile military force on Southern soil, was able to outmaneuver the Confederacy into firing the first shot of the war.9 That such a shot would be fired, however, was guaranteed by President Lincoln when he disingenuously announced in his Inaugural Address that "there shall be [no violence] unless it be forced upon the national authority." He then defined the term "national authority" in such a way as to insure that war would come: "The power confided in me, will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property, and places belonging to the government, and to collect the duties and imposts; but beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion--no using of force against, or among the people anywhere."

Whatever one's views, legal, political, or moral about the Civil War or President Lincoln, it should be obvious that Lincoln was being dishonest here. He was suggesting that he would not resist secession, but would continue to tax the seceders and hold hostile military installations on their property--an absurdity. Before becoming President, Lincoln had been more honest. He simply said "we won't let you" secede. The truth is, the Southern states wanted to go in peace, but Lincoln "wouldn't let them."10

We turn next to Lincoln's discussion of the Constitution as he believes it relates to secession. He argues that while states have reserved powers under the Constitution--presumably referring to, but not mentioning, the Tenth Amendment--secession cannot be such a power since it is "a power to destroy the government itself." This is of course hyperbole and abuse of language. To depart from is to destroy, according to Lincoln. If the union government was "destroyed"22 by secession, what was the entity that put a million troops in the field to stop it?

Secession does not destroy the federal government; it merely ends its authority over a certain territory and sets up a new government to take its place in that territory. Nevertheless, even if we meet Lincoln halfway and concede that secession involves a partial destruction of the power and scope of the federal government, how does that fact alone prove its unconstitutionality? It still remains for Lincoln to confront the limited and delegated nature of the powers of the federal government and the Ninth and Tenth Amendments which transform those principles into positive law. He dodges:

"What is now combatted, is the position that secession is consistent with the Constitution--is lawful, and peaceful. It is not contended that there is any express law for it;23 and nothing should ever be implied as law, which leads to unjust, or absurd consequences."

Nowhere does Lincoln mention the Ninth and Tenth Amendments. Since those Amendments carry much of the load of the argument for secession and were frequently cited by secessionists of the day, the failure of the brilliant lawyer to grapple with those clauses is strong evidence of his inability to do so. Lawyers have often treated the weak points in their cases with silence there and much noise elsewhere.

Not only does Lincoln ignore the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, he simply replaces them with an amendment of his own: states have no rights that are not expressly stated in the Constitution. It was precisely the point of those amendments, however, to ensure that no serious lawyer would ever make such an argument.


If the war was solely about slavery, why did Lincoln wait 4 years to "emancipate" them?
Why didn't he do it on the very first day?


Read more history...and pay special attention to the words of the people involved..not some revisionist current day "authors" and their "interpretations".

 

[30x90]

The Southern states that seceded used the Declaration of Independence as a precedent. South Carolina reclaimed those sovereign rights on the same grounds that Jefferson had used 84 years beforehand in the Declaration:
-
That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

You really ought to use it in the full context of the paragraph.

That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

Depotism:The use of cruel and arbitrary use of power.

If states could succeed for transient causes there would be no United States. States would succeed because they were not getting enough tax money back. So using the DOI as a basis for succession does not give justification for seperation from the Union.

In other words it is just like the song"

If states could succeed for transient causes

it would actually be GREAT for the U.S......LMAO......secede...succeed..whatever, huh?..LMFAO

Makes not one bit of difference whether the "full context" of the paragraph is used or the relevant portion I cited...Nothing is changed. The facts remain..

Secession was legal and Constitutional. Lincoln even said so, as I pointed out in an earlier post...
..and really..no one cares about an Eagles song ...We're talking about history here.
The Eagles?..LMAO..right..THEY'RE important...

 

[JamesInFlorida]

First of all Madison wasn't really the "last surviving character from the Founding of America". Madison had nothing to do with the founding of America. He didn't attend any continental congress meetings until 1780. They had already voted to become an independent nation, and were already several years into the Revolutionary war. Madison had great influence over the constitution-but not over the actual founding of America.

Second of all people confuse Madison's great contributions to this country, with his average presidency (at best). Madison wasn't that great of a president. Same can be said for Adams really (who was one of the most important, and arguably the most influential of the FFs).

In all honesty if the Brits were busy fighting wars already-we would have lost both the revolutionary and the war of 1812.

And nobody knows what the FFs would think of today. It's been hundreds of years-and the world has changed. It's a much different world. Plus you can find quotes from any one of the founding fathers to support virtually any argument.

1780...make one think of Madison as a Founder...unless one thinks he had absolutely NO influence on anything until 1780.

gawd, you're an interesting tool

Well my point was he wasn't all that influential in the "founding" of America-but one can't deny his influence on America later on. Those who always bring up the founding fathers tend to be the ones who know the least about them. They'd tell you how influential Jefferson was in founding the country, even more so than someone like Adams.

 

[konradv]

First of all Madison wasn't really the "last surviving character from the Founding of America". Madison had nothing to do with the founding of America. He didn't attend any continental congress meetings until 1780. They had already voted to become an independent nation, and were already several years into the Revolutionary war. Madison had great influence over the constitution-but not over the actual founding of America.

Second of all people confuse Madison's great contributions to this country, with his average presidency (at best). Madison wasn't that great of a president. Same can be said for Adams really (who was one of the most important, and arguably the most influential of the FFs).

In all honesty if the Brits were busy fighting wars already-we would have lost both the revolutionary and the war of 1812.

And nobody knows what the FFs would think of today. It's been hundreds of years-and the world has changed. It's a much different world. Plus you can find quotes from any one of the founding fathers to support virtually any argument.

1780...make one think of Madison as a Founder...unless one thinks he had absolutely NO influence on anything until 1780.

gawd, you're an interesting tool

Well my point was he wasn't all that influential in the "founding" of America-but one can't deny his influence on America later on. Those who always bring up the founding fathers tend to be the ones who know the least about them. They'd tell you how influential Jefferson was in founding the country, even more so than someone like Adams.

Of course Madison was influential in the founding of America. Someone who was as important in the drafting of the Constitution couldn't be anything but. America as we know it wasn't founded on a particular date, but over a period of time that can't be considered over until the Constitution had been approved. Before that America may have been a dream, but the reality was the states were more like loosely-allied seperate countries.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

First of all Madison wasn't really the "last surviving character from the Founding of America". Madison had nothing to do with the founding of America. He didn't attend any continental congress meetings until 1780. They had already voted to become an independent nation, and were already several years into the Revolutionary war. Madison had great influence over the constitution-but not over the actual founding of America.

Second of all people confuse Madison's great contributions to this country, with his average presidency (at best). Madison wasn't that great of a president. Same can be said for Adams really (who was one of the most important, and arguably the most influential of the FFs).

In all honesty if the Brits were busy fighting wars already-we would have lost both the revolutionary and the war of 1812.

And nobody knows what the FFs would think of today. It's been hundreds of years-and the world has changed. It's a much different world. Plus you can find quotes from any one of the founding fathers to support virtually any argument.

1780...make one think of Madison as a Founder...unless one thinks he had absolutely NO influence on anything until 1780.

gawd, you're an interesting tool

Well my point was he wasn't all that influential in the "founding" of America-but one can't deny his influence on America later on. Those who always bring up the founding fathers tend to be the ones who know the least about them. They'd tell you how influential Jefferson was in founding the country, even more so than someone like Adams.

Rakove, read Rakove.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

1780...make one think of Madison as a Founder...unless one thinks he had absolutely NO influence on anything until 1780.

gawd, you're an interesting tool

Well my point was he wasn't all that influential in the "founding" of America-but one can't deny his influence on America later on. Those who always bring up the founding fathers tend to be the ones who know the least about them. They'd tell you how influential Jefferson was in founding the country, even more so than someone like Adams.

Of course Madison was influential in the founding of America. Someone who was as important in the drafting of the Constitution couldn't be anything but. America as we know it wasn't founded on a particular date, but over a period of time that can't be considered over until the Constitution had been approved. Before that America may have been a dream, but the reality was the states were more like loosely-allied seperate countries.

What James is about is trying to get people to think of the founders as separate from the framers and as separate from the ratifiers...

The debates of each Congress are often confused...

but he is speaking a language I speak here...mostly to the deaf, dumb and blind.

 

[JamesInFlorida]

1780...make one think of Madison as a Founder...unless one thinks he had absolutely NO influence on anything until 1780.

gawd, you're an interesting tool

Well my point was he wasn't all that influential in the "founding" of America-but one can't deny his influence on America later on. Those who always bring up the founding fathers tend to be the ones who know the least about them. They'd tell you how influential Jefferson was in founding the country, even more so than someone like Adams.

Of course Madison was influential in the founding of America. Someone who was as important in the drafting of the Constitution couldn't be anything but. America as we know it wasn't founded on a particular date, but over a period of time that can't be considered over until the Constitution had been approved. Before that America may have been a dream, but the reality was the states were more like loosely-allied seperate countries.

Well America as we know it isn't an accurate statement-because even after the consitution was drafted it wasn't America as we know it today (50 states, the world power, no more slavery, women/minorities/non-land owners can vote, we have an air force, Britain is no longer our enemy, etc.). So sorry right after the constitution was drafted is NOT "America as we know it".

And yes our country WAS founded on a specific date, when the continental congress voted to form a country-which is the USA (July 2nd 1776). While the states were certainly similar to their own nations-the reality is after it was voted upon, all the states were one country, regardless of how much in common they had with one another or not. And no Madison was not present in the continental congress for the actually date our country was founded.

I never disputed his influence with the constitution, who only perhaps Hamilton was just as influential over.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

I never disputed his influence with the constitution, who only perhaps Hamilton was just as influential over.

whew! glad we cleared that up.