tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5147000415127454560.post6785763513721328991..comments2023-12-09T12:13:00.212-08:00Comments on AOL Journals 1st Old Hickory's Weblog: Confederate "Heritage" Month 2005: April 29 "Liberal" neo-Confederatism?Bruce Millerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05022449143502020665noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5147000415127454560.post-10125971586780014152005-04-29T12:07:00.000-07:002005-04-29T12:07:00.000-07:00"To say that any state may at pleasure secede..."To say that any state may at pleasure secede from the Union is to say that the United States is not a nation." <br><br>That pretty much sums up my opinion as well on this matter. And this also applies to cities (why are they trying to take my NYC out of the Union? I wonder) as well as states?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5147000415127454560.post-86139987436130820322005-04-30T15:38:00.000-07:002005-04-30T15:38:00.000-07:00I am not sure about secession. The United States ...I am not sure about secession. <br><br>The United States was formed by a negotiated agreement among the states. There was no provision for any state to withdraw from the Union; however, the Constitution did not dissolve the states, and treated them as very significant entities in the allocation of government powers. In looking back today, we are influenced greatly by the growth in the size and scope of our federal government (ironically enough, a growth that took off during the Civil War).<br><br>The question has since been settled by force of arms, if not by any compelling legal argument, but seen from the perspective of the 1850's I think the question is not so easily dismissed. As you point out, extremists on both sides of the slavery issue thought secession a valid option for their states at one time or another. <br><br>Today, in view of the nature of our modern nation and complex union, I believe that secession is not an option to be unilaterally chosen by a state government. It seems to me that such an action today would indeed be treason.<br><br>But in 1861? I think the arguments on both sides are not unreasonable. I am not sure that the states that wished to secede should have been prevented by force from doing so. <br><br>Whether secession was legal or not, if Northeners had known the ultimate cost of the war that followed, would they have tried to stop the Southern states from leaving the Union? Was the Civil War worth it?<br><br>Lincoln believed that the Union had to be preserved in order to preserve the last best hope of man for freedom and self-government and the attainment of the promises of life. liberty and the pursuit of happiness.<br><br>Maybe he was right, but if I had known the incredible cost in blood, I might have voted to let the South leave in peace.<br><br>Thanks for another thought-provoking post.<br><br>Neil Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5147000415127454560.post-59792823474286074912005-04-30T18:01:00.000-07:002005-04-30T18:01:00.000-07:00Neil,Secession in 1860-61 was not a question that ...Neil,<br><br>Secession in 1860-61 was not a question that can be dealt with in the abstract. It took place in very particular circumstances. The notion that the Southern states just wanted to leave in peace is not consistent with their own actions or with the practical logic of the situation.<br><br>This might be a good thing to take up in a 2006 Confederate "Heritage" Month series. Here I'll just give a version short enough for the Comments section. (Well, two Comments entries, anyway.)<br><br>But in the 1850s, the South had insisted on the use of federal power to compel even antislavery to join slave patrols to return human property to its owners by means of the Fugitive Slave Law of 1850. If the US became a separate country from the CSA, the free states of the US would have not been compelled to return fugitive slaves, and the Slave Power would have had to demand the right to send armed patrols into the separate nation of the US to recover fugitive slaves. In addition, the Mississippi River was an absolutely critical route of commerce for the Midwest. Control of the Mississippi would have given the CSA a powerful weapons to compel Midwestern states to leave the Union.<br><br>The Confederacy's military strategy was also an aggressive one of attacking on enemy territory. And in the times they seized Northern territory, they also seized blacks to be sold into slavery.<br><br>By 1860, slavery had become an all-or-nothing proposition. It's a "what if" of history, and those are always tricky. But the idea of a free US long existing side-by-side with a slave CSA is hard to conceive. At best, the US would have been reduced to a minor, rump nation alongside the CSA, one much smaller than the Union of states that fought the war. (cont)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5147000415127454560.post-38715671391871580662005-04-30T18:03:00.000-07:002005-04-30T18:03:00.000-07:00(cont. from last post)American nationalism is a su...(cont. from last post)<br><br>American nationalism is a subject that would be hard to discuss without working through concepts like Lincoln's famous "mystic chords of memory."<br><br>For the vast majority of Americans, there was more that should have bound them together than should have made them separate nations. In the end as in the beginning, the war was not really about sectional "character" or an abstract right of secession. It was whether the whole United States would continue to develop democracy or recede into the backwaters of history as a slave republic.<br><br>The reason Lincoln's Gettysburg Address has proved of such enduring appeal is that it is a brief but brilliant enunciation of democratic American nationalism. - BruceAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5147000415127454560.post-29574254109860139002005-12-11T00:31:00.000-08:002005-12-11T00:31:00.000-08:00Here the writer states that "secession is not...Here the writer states that "secession is not "tenuously legal," it's not the least tiny bit legal. The Civil War settled that one definitively."<br><br>Excuse me, but how does the use of of force by government, "settle" the LEGALITY of that use of force? Last I checked, the law only considers the original intent of the written law; even Lincoln stated, in authorizing the use of force to prohibit secession, that "the intent of the lawgiver, is the law." By doing so, he thus bound himself to such intent.<br><br> Are you seriously suggesting, that abuses of power by government, are legally self-justifying? If a police officer shoots an innocent person and claims self-defense, is this "settled" since the person is dead?<br><br>I'm afraid this is a monstrous, Machiavellian concept, which is wholly unacceptable in a society which pretends to carry the title of "free--" but which yields to totalitarian suppression regarding the purported meaning of the laws. <br>On the contrary, if secession was legal prior to the Civil War, then it's legal now; it's unfathomable to imagine that the state-- which is charged with upholding the law-- can change the law, by VIOLATING it-- at least while CLAIMING to uphold it. This stands logic and reason on its head, implying that the state-- i.e. the union-- can do no wrong... regardless of any contradictions or atrocities it commits in defiance of recognized agreements or rights.<br><br>.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5147000415127454560.post-63158373440699024542005-12-11T20:00:00.000-08:002005-12-11T20:00:00.000-08:00To "statesovereignty": You're posing questions on ...To "statesovereignty": You're posing questions on such a high level of abstraction (or obscurity) that any answer would be pretty much meaningless.<br><br>As far as the case of America and American Constitutional law, it is indeed a settled question: no state can secede from the Union on its own accord. A Constitutional amendment would be required to do such a thing legally. - BruceAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com