I know I said I was going to be presenting some other things, but something came up. I had some time on my hands and was doing some reading at Barnes & Noble (something called The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Civil War, I think). The author was discussing the Declaration of Independence as it related to the constitutionality of secession. I was amazed and embarrassed that I had overlooked the Declaration when I broke down the Constitution. For brevity's sake I am going to dispense with many of the grievances against King George. The pertinent points will be bold. My comments will be red italics.
The Declaration of Independence
When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to 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 shown 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.
Such has been the patient sufferance of these colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former systems of government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over these states. To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his assent to their acts of pretended legislation:
For cutting off our trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing taxes on us without our consent:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of trial by jury:
For taking away our charters, abolishing our most valuable laws, and altering fundamentally the forms of our governments:
For suspending our own legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated government here, by declaring us out of his protection and waging war against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burned our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
Nor have we been wanting in attention to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, enemies in war, in peace friends.
We, therefore, the representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress, assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the name, and by the authority of the good people of these colonies, solemnly publish and declare, that these united colonies are, and of right ought to be free and independent states; that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the state of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as free and independent states, they have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent states may of right do. And for the support of this declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.
This document leaves no doubt that the Confederate states not only had the right to secede from the Union, they had the duty to do so. I have to be honest. In my heart, I have always known two things: the war was not about slavery, and the South had the legal right to secede. It is one thing to know something because your heart believes it, it is quite another to be confronted with absolute vindication for your faith. To see the South's rights spelled out so concisely by the founding fathers is very moving to me. It is made clear through this document that the South had a very solid legal foundation upon which to base its secession. From the outset, the states were given the right of self determination.
Some specific points I would like to address:
Several of the Colonials' grievances with King George are being repeated by the Federal government upon the southern states. Please note that, as with the Colonials, some of these grievances were occurring once war broke out, and not necessarily as a prelude to war:
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his assent to their acts of pretended legislation
The government of the United States took upon itself to attempt to enact and enforce what was essentially a law (though it was termed a “war measure”) on a foreign power. Namely, the Emancipation Proclamation, which had no effect on US lands or peoples, but was intended to be enacted against “those states in rebellion”. How would we handle it now if France passed a law in America that made it illegal to own a gun, and sent french soldiers here to enforce it? That would get real ugly, real quick.
For cutting off our trade with all parts of the world
Technically, not completely cut off, but the protectionist tariffs of the early-to-mid 19th century achieved virtually the same effect economically. The taxes on cheaper and higher quality goods from Europe essentially priced them beyond the reach of most Southerners, which forced them to rely on expensive, inferior goods of northern manufacture.
Incidentally, slavery was just as morally wrong in 1820 as it was in 1862, so why was it tolerated before the war? The tariffs, that's why. The northern textile barons did not waste one minute worrying about the plight of the Negro as long as his looms were getting a steady supply of southern cotton that he could weave and ship overseas, shipments that were protected and secured by the tariffs.
For imposing taxes on us without our consent
These taxes being the protectionist tariffs previously mentioned.
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of trial by jury
The case of John Merryman of Maryland. He was arrested and held without formal charges, having his right of Habeus Corpus completely ignored, on orders of President Lincoln. When Chief Justice of the Supreme Court Taney found out about it, he declared Merryman's detention unconstitutional and ordered him released. He wasn't, and Lincoln ordered that Taney be arrested. He never was, fortunately for him.
For taking away our charters, abolishing our most valuable laws, and altering fundamentally the forms of our governments
The states, under the constitution, were plainly given the right to secede. They did so, wrote their own constitution and devised their own government, under which they operated. The Federal government usurped their right of secession and denied their government. Not only did the Federal government abolish Confederate laws and attempt to alter Confederate government, by denying the right to secession, it abolished its own laws and altered its own government.
For suspending our own legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever
This ties in with the first grievance I have above. The Federal government did assume upon itself the authority to legislate laws to be enforced on foreign soil. Of course, Lincoln did not consider the Confederacy foreign soil. He refused to recognize the Confederacy as a political entity. However, self-assumed ignorance does not entitle one to acts of belligerence.
He has abdicated government here, by declaring us out of his protection and waging war against us
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burned our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
These two, for my purposes, should be considered together. They are, by far, the most egregious of the lot. Imagine this: the county where you live decides, for whatever reason, that the state government is no longer operating in its best interest. It decides it wants to be its own state. Now, this county just happens to have something of vital economic interest within its borders, so your state is opposed to this. Rather than attempting to find a diplomatic solution, though, the governor calls up the National Guard. Within a few days tanks come over the county line, blasting everything in sight, planes fly overhead raining bombs, and soldiers are running riot through your county looting and burning. Does that seem at all like a reasonable response?
Of course not. The unreasoning savagery of it is brought into even sharper focus by the fact that the Southern states were constitutionally empowered to leave the Union. They sought a peaceful separation from a government they no longer felt operated in their best interests. They simply wanted to go their own way. Their actions were completely in keeping with the letter and spirit of the constitution. Virtually nothing that Lincoln did to “restore the Union” had any constitutional authority.
Lincoln's armies, under his authority as commander-in-chief, murdered, and otherwise destroyed, the lives and livelihood of hundreds of thousands of Southerners, whites and blacks, free and slave. There were also many Northern families destroyed by the loss of fathers and husbands, providers and bread-winners of families. Rather than be remembered as a national hero and one of our greatest presidents, Lincoln should be remembered as one of the worst tyrants of the 19th century and posthumously tried as a war criminal. His actions were a disgrace to what should be an honorable, dignified office.
I truly believe, based on precedents already established in recent history, that the former Confederate states as a whole, and individual should receive an official government apology for the crimes committed against them. We, as Southerners, are entitled to this every bit as much as Holocaust survivors or the descendants of former slaves. We were illegally stripped of our constitutional rights of self-determination and forced to submit to foreign rule. How does that differ, in essence, from events in the Balkans states or the various states of the former Soviet Union that seek their independence from Russia? Yet the world sympathizes with them. How did Lincoln's actions differ from the dictators in those areas, dictators who are considered war criminals by the court of public opinion? Lincoln should assume his rightful place among them, and the South is owed an apology.
No comments:
Post a Comment