Results 1 to 6 of 6

Thread: The central issue of the civil war

  1. #1
    Joel_Henderson Guest

    The central issue of the civil war

    The central issue of the Civil War is one thing: whether or not the peoples of the individual states retained their sovereignty under the Constitution-- or vested it in ONE PEOPLE.

    The various natterings here about the Constitution saying this, that or the other thing, are IRRELEVANT-- since ALL laws are simply guidelines which the sovereign may or may not consider in forming its FINAL DECISION.

    So the issue thus comes down to this:

    DID they, or NOT?

  2. #2
    Joel_Henderson Guest
    My answer:
    I say, they did NOT.

    NOTHING in the Constitution manifests a combining of sovereignty of all states into one nation; nor do the federalist papers, Constitutional Conventions, ratification histories etc. Rather the opposite, in fact.


    Likewise, Lincoln ADMITTED this by his actions: this is why Lincoln found it necessary to LIE about the fact that every state WAS clearly a sovereign nation BEFORE the Constitution, since this was the entire basis for Lincoln's denial of secession-- as he stated in his Special Address to Congress on July 4, 1861:

    "Having never been States, either in substance or in name, outside of the Union, whence this magical omnipotence of "state rights," asserting a claim of power to lawfully destroy the Union itself?"

    Ergo, if every state WAS outside the Union, then it WOULD have such a claim of power.
    And since it WAS, then they clearly WERE sovereign-- again NOT through their governments, but their PEOPLE (who once again simply DELEGATED power to state governments, just as they did to the FEDERAL government).
    And delegation, by definition, is ALWAYS to a subordinate-- particularly when done by a soveriegn; otherwise, it would not be delegation but surrender
    And that always requires a clear and express manifestation of intent-- not a mere half-arsed intrepretation by a conquering tyrant who sees his name on everything.
    So tell us, Unionists-- WHERE does the Constitution or ANY doctument say "each state surrenders it sovereignty, freedom and independence"?
    If you can't show that, then the US regime is nothing but a brute-force dictatorship which merely placates its masses with pretense of sovereign democracy; and likewise, the states are STILL sovereign nations under the law, since once again no law ever CHANGED this.

    The judgment of the sword means nothing, since the war was not WAGED by appeal to the sword--but to the LAW; Lincoln claimed that no state could LAWFULLY get out of the Union by its own mere motion: therefore since he waged his war by the law, then its effects STAND OR FALL by the law.

    Only a dictatorship can pick and choose the law and the sword, only as suits one's convenience; and therefore the USA is a dictatorship if it does so-- i.e. if it refuses to stand down when the law is made clear. However the law STILL STANDS-- and the citizens of every state must stand up to THROW OFF that dictatorship.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Lancaster, UK
    The constitution talks about a single "people", not multiple "peoples" as might be expected if the states were to be considered separate countries. Likewise it talks about a desire to "form a more perfect union" - how can the union be perfect if individual states are still sovereign.

    The constitution is riddled with terminology that strongly implies that the USA is a country, for example mention of treason. Treason can only be against a sovereign state, nobody talks about treason against the EU, for example. It also discusses things as being "domestic", which in the context means within the home country, and refers to foreign as being those countries outside the US.
    “When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist” - Helder Camara
    “It is not the will of God for some to have everything and others to have nothing. This cannot be God” - Oscar Romero
    "It is my conviction that killing under the cloak of war is nothing but an act of murder" - Einstein
    "We do know that no man can be saved except through Christ; we do not know that only those who know Him can be saved through Him" - CS Lewis

  4. #4
    Joel_Henderson Guest
    The constitution talks about a single "people", not multiple "peoples" as might be expected if the states were to be considered separate countries.
    This is a common myth-conception which defies logic. It means the sovereign people of the respective states (PLURAL) that ratified it.

    No such "single sovereign people" EXISTED prior to the Constitution; therefore no single people could have ordained, established and ratified the Constitution.
    Again, you're claiming that this "People" is a chicken which laid the same egg (i.e. the Constitution) it hatched from-- i.e. you're saying that the Constitution created the (one sovereign) people, and that the one sovereign people created the Constitution: quite a dizzying prospect indeed, going around in circle like that.

    Now, if you're claiming that the Constitution somehow transferred the sovereignty of the people individual states, in order to CREATE one "people," then you'll have to show exactly where it manifests this intention. It's certainly not in the four corners of the Constitution itself; likewise, all prior and later documents clearly support that the people of every state retain their respective sovereignty (e.g. the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions, general enforcement requirements, etc).

    Likewise it talks about a desire to "form a more perfect union" - how can the union be perfect if individual states are still sovereign.
    It doesn't say "perfect," it says "MORE perfect." In fact, Lincoln claimed that "the Union was perpetual" in the Confederation, in order to argue that the Constitution simply preserved that "perfection" (which he likewise equated with "perpetuity."

    Likewise, the phrase "to form a more perfect union," clearly indicating that they are creating a NEW union simply more perfect than the previous one (i.e. the Confederation).

    According to the Law of Nations-- Book I, Section 10:
    Of states forming a federal republic.Finally, several sovereign and independent states may unite themselves together by a perpetual confederacy, without ceasing to be, each individually, a perfect state. They will together constitute a federal republic: their joint deliberations will not impair the sovereignty of each member, though they may, in certain respects, put some restraint on the exercise of it, in virtue of voluntary engagements. A person does not cease to be free and independent, when he is obliged to fulfil engagements which he has voluntarily contracted.

    The constitution is riddled with terminology that strongly implies that the USA is a country, for example mention of treason. Treason can only be against a sovereign state, nobody talks about treason against the EU, for example.
    Prove that treason can only be against a sovereign state, never a union of sovereign states.
    (But then "nobody talks about it," so that's anecdotal proof right there, yeah!)

    As for the Constitution being "riddled with terminology," again this proves nothing; in Federalist 39, Madison clearly states that the Constitution is "partly national partly federal;" however if the federal government wields supreme national authority, then it's ALL national, the Constitution be damned. Rather, it would be, at best, a benevolent dictatorship, since the Constitution-- like any law-- is only only as binding as the soverereign WANTS it to be.

    To quote:

    That it will be a federal and not a national act, as these terms are understood by the objectors; the act of the people, as forming so many independent States, not as forming one aggregate nation, is obvious from this single consideration, that it is to result neither from the decision of a majority of the people of the Union, nor from that of a majority of the States.... Were it wholly national, the supreme and ultimate authority would reside in the majority of the people of the Union; and this authority would be competent at all times, like that of a majority of every national society, to alter or abolish its established government.
    However here the "consolidation" argument fails of the simple factor, that the minority lacks the means to ENFORCE the Constitution against the violating majority; again, the Constitution is simple law, and law is 100% wholly subject to the will of the SOVEREIGN, no matter WHAT it says.
    This is the ONE SINGLE FACT, which separates the naive from the knowing

    And thus Unionists prove themselves naive, in that somehow they think the Constitution unbreakable-- as Lincoln claimed, to the insult of any intelligence:

    All profess to be content in the Union if all constitutional rights can be maintained. Is it true, then, that any right plainly written in the Constitution has been denied? I think not. Happily, the human mind is so constituted that no party can reach to the audacity of doing this. Think, if you can, of a single instance in which a plainly written provision of the Constitution has ever been denied. If by the mere force of numbers a majority should deprive a minority of any clearly written constitutional right, it might in a moral point of view justify revolution; certainly would if such right were a vital one. But such is not our case. All the vital rights of minorities and of individuals are so plainly assured to them by affirmations and negations, guaranties and prohibitions, in the Constitution that controversies never arise concerning them.
    Get that? Lincoln here held that the Constitution was an exhaustive list of ALL RIGHTS of "individuals and minorities--" in full contradition of the following:

    "Amendment IX
    The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

    Amendment X
    The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

    So Lincoln basically turned the Constitution on its head, from a complete list of "few and defined" federal POWERS, to a complete list of few and defined LIMITATIONS on such.

    And Lincoln continues, to render even these void as well:

    But no organic law can ever be framed with a provision specifically applicable to every question which may occur in practical administration. No foresight can anticipate nor any document of reasonable length contain express provisions for all possible questions. Shall fugitives from labor be surrendered by national or by State authority? The Constitution does not expressly say. May Congress prohibit slavery in the Territories? The Constitution does not expressly say. Must Congress protect slavery in the Territories? The Constitution does not expressly say.
    From questions of this class spring all our constitutional controversies, and we divide upon them into majorities and minorities. If the minority will not acquiesce, the majority must, or the Government must cease. There is no other alternative, for continuing the Government is acquiescence on one side or the other. If a minority in such case will secede rather than acquiesce, they make a precedent which in turn will divide and ruin them, for a minority of their own will secede from them whenever a majority refuses to be controlled by such minority. For instance, why may not any portion of a new confederacy a year or two hence arbitrarily secede again, precisely as portions of the present Union now claim to secede from it? All who cherish disunion sentiments are now being educated to the exact temper of doing this.
    Is there such perfect identity of interests among the States to compose a new union as to produce harmony only and prevent renewed secession?
    Plainly the central idea of secession is the essence of anarchy. A majority held in restraint by constitutional checks and limitations, and always changing easily with deliberate changes of popular opinions and sentiments, is the only true sovereign of a free people.
    And there we have it: once again, we come face-to-face with the inevitable fact, that law is simply a written reference, which is wholly subject to the WILL of the sovereign; and hence, such "constitutional checks and limitations" are not only mere paper tigers, but that such are OWNED by this "majority!"

    Likewise, the power of this majority is limited to simply choosing their respective state's delegates; beyond this, all federal power is held and wielded ENTIRELY by the government itself.

    As such, Lincoln's claim is simply an insult to any intelligent person.

    And that insult only added to injury; thanks to Lincoln, current policy holds that this sovereignty is therefore held by the federal government, as chosen by the majority; however by LAW, every state is nationally sovereign via its people, while the Union was simply a voluntary federal republic among these states. Federal law is NOT national law; in fact, even Lincoln's primary supporters now admit that Lincoln spoke falsely in deriving his legal authority.

    In America's Constitution, Yale Law Professor Akhil Amar writes the following:
    "Thus in the great debate of the 1860's both Jefferson Davis and Abraham Lincoln got some things right and some things wrong, but Lincoln was right when it counted. Contrary to what Lincoln said, it is doubtful that a new indivisible nation—as opposed to thirteen original nation-states in a classic confederacy—sprang into existence in July 1776...the United States did not become an indivisible nation prohibiting unilateral state secession—the crux of the Gettysburg contest—until 1788. Lincoln also stumbled in claiming that none of the thirteen original states had ever been sovereign."
    [Amar's America's Constitution, pp. 38-39]

    However this was Lincoln's entire basis for Lincoln's denial of secession-- as he claimed in his Special Address to Congress on July 4, 1861:
    "Having never been States, either in substance or in name, outside of the Union, whence this magical omnipotence of "state rights," asserting a claim of power to lawfully destroy the Union itself?"

    This claim is therefore not a mere "technicality--" as Amar implies by claiming that "Lincoln was right when it counted" -- but rather was this was the central premise of his claims-- which would therefore collapse without it. Rather, we must examine the motive for Lincoln's lies: i.e. to give him the absolute national authority, which the truth would not. If he had told the truth: i.e. that the states were fully sovereign immediately up to the Constitution, then he'd have been opening himself up for the obvious counter: that, contrary to Amar's claims, that the states did not give up their sovereignty via the Constitution, any more than they did via Articles of Confederation before it (which held similar restrictions on states' powers to those in the Constitution, but still specifically retained the sovereignty of each).

    Rather, Amar's argument for federal national authority, can be found entirely in the following passage from The David C. Baur Lecture: "Abraham Lincoln And The American Union," by Akhil Reed Amar. Here, he bases his entire theory of federal national authority-- and his entire defense of Lincoln-- on the following passage in the Constitution:

    "In dramatic contrast to Article VII--whose unanimity rule that no state can bind another confirms the sovereignty of each state prior to 1787 --Article V does not permit a single state convention to modify the federal Constitution for itself. Moreover, it makes clear that a state may be bound by a federal constitutional amendment even if that state votes against the amendment in a properly convened state
    convention. And this rule is flatly inconsistent with the idea that states remain sovereign after joining the Constitution, even if they were sovereign before joining it. Thus, ratification of the Constitution itself marked the moment when previously sovereign states gave up their sovereignty and legal independence."

    Here, Amar's fatal mistake is quite basic, in claiming that state sovereignty was bureaucratic rather than popular; and thus, he defines that a state's sovereignty pertains solely to its government, rather than its People. However the Declaration of Independence was quite specific, that governments derived their just powers only by consent of the governed, who may likewise alter or abolish them and elect new government—at will; therefore, each state's sovereign was its People-- who therefore simply re-delegated some powers from state to federal government via the Constitution; however they did not surrender their sovereignty itself in any way, or "merge" it with the Peoples of other states as Amar claims. Thus, Amar falsely construes an absolute surrender of sovereignty by state governments, but in truth they simply never had such.
    However under the concept of popular sovereignty, the People of a sovereign state must remain its ruling sovereigns, unless and until they expressly name different persons as such. However the Constitution nowhere manifests any such intention by the People of any state; and hence none can be so construed. Therefore each state-- vis-à-vis its People, vs. its government-- can be thus "bound" by the Constitution, only as it pleases that People; for they the sole ruling sovereign power of that state, and all government, both state and federal, is simply their delegated servant.

    Because of this, Lincoln was simply a politician who twisted the law in order to conquer sovereign nations under the cloak of legal authority, by distorting history in order to grant himself national authority over them where none existed.
    However the law is still the law, and so the sovereign states are still sovereign.
    Last edited by Joel_Henderson; 11-26-2008 at 12:27 AM.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    In the nightmares of right wingers.

    Thumbs up Liberty and Union, now and forever, one and inseperable

    "We, the People of the United States...."

    Says it all, despite the likes of those who say otherwise.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    As I understand, people in the southern states thought that the federal government was unconstitutionally interfering in the slavery issue and violating the Tenth Amendment. Lincoln favored a ban on slavery in the new territories that the US had acquired in the west. People in the southern states argued that the Constitution granted no power to the federal government to decide where slavery could be practiced in the US. They also feared that if the federal government started banning slavery in certain parts of the US then it was a slippery slope to a federal ban on all slavery in the US. Perhaps, if Lincoln had advocated that the Constitution be strictly followed there would have been no Civil War and slavery would have lasted much longer.
    Last edited by Galileo; 01-20-2011 at 02:21 AM.
    "Indeed, not a word in the constitutional text even arguably supports the Court’s overwrought and novel description of the Second Amendment as 'elevat[ing] above all other interests' 'the right of law-abiding, responsible citizens to use arms in defense of hearth and home.' Ante,at 63."
    -Justice Stevens on the Heller ruling

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts