With the Fourth of July being tomorrow, I thought providing a unique perspective on what the events of July 4, 1776 actually meant might be helpful and certain to spark intense debate where debate (as opposed to robotic, breathless, child-like idolization of a certain man with a Zeuss-like monument in DC) is certainly needed.

In making his case against Southern secession, Abraham Lincoln made the bizarre claim that the States could not possess sovereignty because the Union preceeded the States. If Lincoln was right, why did each state secede from the British Empire? Witness the relevant text for yourself:

"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."

The "United States" did not exist in 1776. There was no "one nation" - the Articles of Confederation hadn't even been ratified yet. The Revolution was thus an act of thirteen sovereign, independent states uniting in a voluntary mutual defense association in order to be rid of British rule and preserve self-government.

In waging war against those states by denying their sovereign rights, the British King anticipated the words of another tyrant, one Abraham Lincoln.

The blunt fact of the matter is that those singing "Glory" as they invaded a sovereign nation in 1861 were fighting for empire and against self-government just as much as the Redcoats were.

Pre-emptive strike: Before folks start hyperventilating with citations of "all men are created equal" as a way to justify Lincoln's war against Southern secession, please remember that Abraham Lincoln (as well as the vast majority of Northerners) did not believe whites and blacks to be equal or, by extension, entitled to equal rights. As part of the American Colonization movement, Lincoln wanted to deport every black in the United States in order to keep America white. More specifically, Lincoln said that he believed the "physical differences" between whites and blacks would forever forbid the two races from living in equality.

[Edited on July 3, 2006 at 10:27 AM. Reason : formatting]

7/3/2006 10:26:36 AM

RACISM ISN'T WRONG

IT'S TEH J00'S FAULT

7/3/2006 10:35:16 AM

Good post. Apart from calling Lincoln a tyrant and all that jazz, I think you have a valid point. Where does the representative governmnet blong? In the hands of the states? Or in the hands of a centralized power that did not exist with the birth of the Free and Independent States (key word here Independent)?

The states should be independent as much as possible. But we're already on the one-way road to the federal bureaucratization of the land. The money cannot be taken back.

7/3/2006 10:40:54 AM

I don't believe in strong states' rights, but I do hate coloreds.

7/3/2006 12:20:26 PM

Quote :

" This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any state to the Contrary notwithstanding"

7/3/2006 9:45:16 PM

ab,

I think that "tyrant" is a pretty apt description of Abraham Lincoln. Let the man's actions speak for themselves:

* Lincoln suspended the writ of habeas corpus single-handedly, without Congressional authorization. This was recognized as a tyrannical, unconstitutional action by no less an authority than the Supreme Court of the United States at the time (see Ex Parte Merryman where Justice Taney utterly decimates any defense of Lincoln by citing American and British legal precedents). Abraham Lincoln ignored this ruling.

* Lincoln jailed dissidents without trial

* Lincoln censored the press, in one instance ordering the military to "take possession by military force of the printing establishments of the New York World and Journal of Commerce ... and prohibit any further publication thereof.... You are therefore commanded forthwith to arrest and imprison ... the editors, proprietors and publishers of the aforementioned newspapers."

* Lincoln coutenanced waging war against civilian populations in violation of the sensibilities of international law at the time.

* Lincoln actively agitated for a program of forced colonization that would have deported every black person in the United States.

* In his First Inaugural Address, Lincoln announced to the entire world his support that would have forever forbidden the federal government from interfering with Southern slavery

* In his life as a trial lawyer, Lincoln defended a slaveowner, but never defended a runaway slave...

Your points about the current status quo are well-taken and the road to the disgusting federal bureaucratization of this country runs right through the events of 1861-65. Lincoln's war destroyed the Constitutional compact of limited government and decentralism established in 1787.

7/3/2006 11:07:47 PM

Clear,

That's nice, so why don't you cite for me where the Constitution forbids secession? I can't find it. Keep in mind that, by the Tenth Amendment, all powers not given to the feds nor prohibited the States by the Constitution remain with the states. That means if the Constitution doesn't explicity forbid secession, there is definitely a constitutional basis for it.

7/3/2006 11:11:22 PM

I sometimes think that the federal government was intended to be more of a European Union, and each state operated like its own country. The federal government has encroached and expanded to the point that the function of a state has been reduced to little more than just one more administrative body to tax your income and property.

[Edited on July 3, 2006 at 11:31 PM. Reason : .]

7/3/2006 11:31:24 PM

Quote :

"The federal government has encroached and expanded to the point that the function of a state has been reduced to little more than just one more administrative body to tax your income and property"

Excellent point there from Scuba Steve

7/4/2006 12:56:25 AM

^ yeah, cause each state is such a unique history and culture, its a crime to try and homogenize them under the oppressive umbrella of the federalists.

certainly you can always apply 18th century argrarian political philosophy to today's reality.

States Rights!!!!1 Remember the Tenth!!!!1

7/4/2006 2:05:01 AM

I love these kind of threads, God bless teh intarw3b and it's ability to bestow talking points on those who really don't know what they're talking about...

7/4/2006 9:25:51 AM

Quote :

"Happy Secession Day by Thomas J. DiLorenzo Perhaps the best evidence of how American history was rewritten, Soviet style, in the post-1865 era is the fact that most Americans seem to be unaware that "Independence Day" was originally intended to be a celebration of the colonists’ secession from the British empire. Indeed, the word secession is not even a part of the vocabulary of most Americans, who more often than not confuse it with "succession." The Revolutionary War was America’s first war of secession. America’s most prominent secessionist, Thomas Jefferson, the author of the Declaration, was very clear about what he was saying: Governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, and whenever that consent is withdrawn, it is the right of the people to "alter or abolish" that government and "to institute a new government." The word "secession" was not a part of the American language at that time, so Jefferson used the word "separation" instead to describe the intentions of the American colonial secessionists. The Declaration is also a states’ rights document (not surprisingly, since Jefferson was the intellectual inspiration for the American states’ rights political tradition). This, too, is foreign to most Americans. But read the final paragraph of the Declaration which states: 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 do all other things which independent states may of right do (emphasis in original). Each colony was considered to be a free and independent state, or nation, in and of itself. There was no such thing as "the United States of America" in the minds of the founders. The independent colonies were simply united for a particular cause: seceding from the British empire. Each individual state was assumed to possess all the rights that any state possesses, even to wage war and conclude peace. Indeed, when King George III finally signed a peace treaty he signed it with all the individual American states, named one by one, and not something called "The United States of America." The "United States" as a consolidated, monopolistic government is a fiction invented by Lincoln and instituted as a matter of policy at gunpoint and at the expense of some 600,000 American lives during 1861–1865. Jefferson defended the right of secession in his first inaugural address by declaring, "If there be any among us who would wish to dissolve this Union or to change its republican form, let them stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left to combat it." (In sharp contrast, in his first inaugural address, Lincoln promised an "invasion" with massive "bloodshed" (his words) of any state that failed to collect the newly-doubled federal tariff rate by seceding from the union). Jefferson made numerous statements in defense of the defining principal of the American Revolution: the right of secession. In a January 29, 1804 letter to Dr. Joseph Priestly he wrote: Whether we remain in one confederacy, or form into Atlantic and Mississippi confederacies, I believe not very important to the happiness of either part. Those of the western confederacy will be as much our children & descendants as those of the eastern, and I feel myself as much identified with that country, in future time, as with this; and did I now foresee a separation [i.e., secession] at some future day, yet I should feel the duty & the desire to promote the western interests as zealously as the eastern, doing all the good for both portions of our future family which should fall within my power. In an August 12, 1803 letter to John C. Breckinridge Jefferson addressed the same issue, in light of the New England Federalists’ secession movement in response to his Louisiana Purchase. If there were a "separation" into two confederacies, he wrote, "God bless them both, & keep them in the union if it be for their good, but separate them, if it be better." So on July 4 stoke up the grill, enjoy your barbecue, and drink a toast to Mr. Jefferson and his fellow secessionists. (And beware of any Straussian nonsense about how it was really Lincoln, the greatest enemy of states’ rights, including the right of secession, who taught us to "revere" the Declaration of Independence. Nothing could be further from the truth.)"

7/4/2006 11:03:41 AM

Joe,

Describing states' rights as a "18th century agrarian political philosophy" is a gross oversimplification, which casts significant doubt, in my mind, as to how much you actually know about the history of such matters.

Further, there's plenty of application of states' rights/decentralization to political situations, not only in this country, but all around the world. Please tell me you're not one of those fools, so ignorant of the religio-ethnic diversity in Iraq, that mindlessly goes around opposing the partition of that country into three separate nations because of the "instability" boogeyman.

Finally, it's absolutely true that the federal government has "homogenized" the cultural landscape in the United States -- contra the intent of the people that wrote the Constitution. It's amazing to me how cultural leftists salivate over "diversity" when it comes to admitting a black or Hispanic student into a college with an SAT score 200 points below average, but lust for a mangerial, paternalistic, nanny central state to be the final, sole arbiter of this country's morality. So much for "diversity is strength."

7/4/2006 11:26:20 AM

Remember that time those insurgents beat the most powerful country in the world with unconventional tactics?

7/4/2006 12:19:30 PM

^With help from the second or third most powerful country in the world?

7/4/2006 3:48:01 PM

i don't feel like reading oldright's words - is he racist or not? quick summary plz

7/5/2006 12:28:37 PM

eh he's not really being racist here

7/5/2006 1:03:54 PM

The Battle of Gettysburg (July 1 – July 3, 1863), the last battle of the American Revolution

7/5/2006 2:12:03 PM

fyi, this is Meade

7/5/2006 2:17:27 PM

Quote :

"i don't feel like reading oldright's words - is he racist or not? quick summary plz"

More of the old "Lincoln was a douche and seccessionists were just like George Washington."

Sure, you can point out that every conflict was a two sided battle, each side having its own merits - this just cracks me up because I read a plaque arguing the same thing on the wall in a BBQ restaurant on the side of I-95 in the middle of South Carolina over the weekend.

Lincoln was not the greatest president, that just how people want to remember him. However, to argue that the Confederacy was fighting for some noble cause (even though thats not what anyone is doing) is simply absurd. Thats my biggest beef with southern revisionist history regarding the Civil War.

7/5/2006 3:21:25 PM

Quote :

"Finally, it's absolutely true that the federal government has "homogenized" the cultural landscape in the United States -- contra the intent of the people that wrote the Constitution. It's amazing to me how cultural leftists salivate over "diversity" when it comes to admitting a black or Hispanic student into a college with an SAT score 200 points below average, but lust for a mangerial, paternalistic, nanny central state to be the final, sole arbiter of this country's morality. So much for "diversity is strength.""

eheh, i guess it was just a matter of time before we saw your true colours

7/5/2006 4:01:17 PM

^.

7/5/2006 4:10:50 PM

^^
you couldn't tell from the first post? 

7/5/2006 4:11:16 PM

i give people the benefit of the doubt. i wanted to believe that he was genuinely making an argument for state sovereignty

7/5/2006 5:02:40 PM

He is making an argument for states' rights. That seems pretty clear.

7/5/2006 6:55:14 PM

nah, it was a trap

7/5/2006 7:03:53 PM

You know you're doing something right in an argument when all the other side can do is make personal attacks. As Peter Brimelow once said, "A racist is someone who is winning an argument against a liberal."

"i don't feel like reading oldright's words - is he racist or not? quick summary plz"

This a startling statement, and if you're actually serious Excoriator, I'm embarrassed for you and to be associated with a university that could have produced your cowardly intellect.

Moving on, ssjamind, where, pray tell, is the racism in my statement? All I did was restate the position of the Supreme Court of the United States in Grutter v. Bollinger (2003), which held that "diversity" was such a "compelling state interest" that it warranted discrimination against white applicants in favor of less qualified minority candidates in university admissions. This decision was welcomed by every facet of the cultural left in this country. Do you disagree with that assessment of the situation, and if so, why? The only racist statements in this thread have come from the mouth of President Abraham Lincoln, an avowed white supremacist, opponent of equal rights for blacks,and supporter of the forced colonization of every black person in the United States.

Mr. Joshua's take on what I've presented also badly misses the mark. Joshua, I did not necessarily argue that the Confederacy was fighting for a "noble cause," but merely that the Confederacy, and the secession of the Southern states from the Union, stands in line with the Declaration of Indepdence and the American Revolution. If you accept the Declaration of Independence and the secession of the free, sovereign, and independent states from the chains of the British Empire in 1776, you have no basis for damning the Southern states for seceding from the Union. (And if you believe the cause of 1776 to be "noble," as most every American does, you ought to consider that of 1861 "noble" too). But let's be absolutely candid here - by denying state sovereignty, you and Abraham Lincoln stand shoulder to shoulder with King George.

I proudly stand by this statement:

"The blunt fact of the matter is that those singing "Glory" as they invaded a sovereign nation in 1861 were fighting for empire and against self-government just as much as the Redcoats were."

7/5/2006 8:41:05 PM

the south never seceeded

they just thought they did

7/5/2006 8:41:13 PM

I don't care about southern or northern, I'm just tired of the federal govt in general

7/5/2006 8:53:48 PM

http://www.south-art.com/Southern_Party.htm

7/5/2006 9:04:56 PM

There are few on this site so fucking in love with their own vocabulary as this clown. It's like he thinks we'll overlook all the bullshit if he types prettily enough.

7/5/2006 9:26:40 PM

Quote :

"the south never seceded they just thought they did"

7/5/2006 10:34:40 PM

Quote :

"President Abraham Lincoln, an avowed white supremacist, opponent of equal rights for blacks,and supporter of the forced colonization of every black person in the United States."

That's entirely dishonest.

With the first accusation you're taking the fact that his stance on racial equality evolved over his life and using it to brand him as a racist.

The second ignores the fact that Lincoln was ahead of most of his contemporaries. By this measure, John Kerry is anti-gay because he isn't 100% for gay marriage. Of course any honest person would look at the context and think otherwise.

The third is simply hyperbole.

Quote :

"If you accept the Declaration of Independence and the secession of the free, sovereign, and independent states from the chains of the British Empire in 1776, you have no basis for damning the Southern states for seceding from the Union."

Here's what the Declaration of Independence says about revolutions:

"Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes"

Preserving an agricultural system that had no economic or moral justification for existing was not a proper reason. This is clear to everyone but you.

Quote :

"by denying state sovereignty, you and Abraham Lincoln stand shoulder to shoulder with King George."

That's retarded. Less local autonomy = zero representation?

You seem to be under the impression that the national gov't doesn't represent its people. I'll concede that the national gov't doesn't represent bigots as well as state gov'ts tend to, so I can see why many southerners would be upset.



[Edited on July 6, 2006 at 12:23 AM. Reason : .]

7/6/2006 12:21:43 AM

Quote :

"Moving on, ssjamind, where, pray tell, is the racism in my statement? All I did was restate the position of the Supreme Court of the United States in Grutter v. Bollinger (2003), which held that "diversity" was such a "compelling state interest" that it warranted discrimination against white applicants in favor of less qualified minority candidates in university admissions. This decision was welcomed by every facet of the cultural left in this country. Do you disagree with that assessment of the situation, and if so, why? The only racist statements in this thread have come from the mouth of President Abraham Lincoln, an avowed white supremacist, opponent of equal rights for blacks,and supporter of the forced colonization of every black person in the United States."

Where in this thread did i call you a racist?

you got all defensive when i said "true colours", then follow it up with a rant about discrimination...

like i said, its a trap

7/6/2006 10:38:31 AM

Quote :

"If you accept the Declaration of Independence and the secession of the free, sovereign, and independent states from the chains of the British Empire in 1776, you have no basis for damning the Southern states for seceding from the Union. (And if you believe the cause of 1776 to be "noble," as most every American does, you ought to consider that of 1861 "noble" too)."

The colonists of 1776 were angered because they were taxed heavily despite a complete lack of representation within the British government and because laws were passed by the British government to crush dissent in the colonies.They wanted to abandon the society based on hierachy and instead have democracy play a role in government.

The south was represented, they just didn't want a republican to be president because they were afraid of losing their slaves and being forced to hire help. They were not overly taxed, nor did the US government pass laws targeting them. The Civil War was fought because the south wanted to preserve an outdated hierarchical society based on an economy built around the exploitation of slave labor. In effect, they were going in the completely opposite direction of the American revolution. How is that noble?

By your logic, Gandhi and al Zarqawi are the same as well.

Quote :

"But let's be absolutely candid here - by denying state sovereignty, you and Abraham Lincoln stand shoulder to shoulder with King George."

Lets be even more candid here, by trying to boil an extremely complex issue down to a yes or no question you have shown your absolute ignorance regarding historical analysis.

7/6/2006 1:23:45 PM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_civil_war

Quote :

"Fighting began April 12, 1861 when Confederate forces attacked a Federal fort at the Battle of Fort Sumter. In the first year the Union asserted control of the border states and established a naval blockade as both sides raised large armies. In 1862 the large, bloody battles began. After the Battle of Antietam in September 1862, Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation made the freeing of the slaves a war goal — one bitterly opposed by Copperheads. "

so i guess the goal of freeing the slaves wasn't made a primary one until the war of Southern agression had already begun

7/6/2006 2:32:28 PM

The republican party at the time was an abolitionist group. Although the war wasn't started over the idea that slaves would be freed if they lost, the south saw the possibility of a republican president as a step towards emancipation. Thats why they threatened seccession should Lincoln become president and why they ultimately secceded following the election.

7/6/2006 2:40:56 PM

but it says in the constitution that enslaving another person in order to maintain your lifestyle is ok. what kind of tyrannical party would deny Americans that right?

7/6/2006 2:50:52 PM

The constitution never mentions slavery by name. The only real reference to it is the part about the transatlantic slave trade ending by 1808.

7/6/2006 2:54:45 PM

another thing you're forgetting. a dollar yesterday is equal to exactly a dollar today. the raw amount of cash money paid for goods and services 50 years ago will buy the exact same goods an services today.

likewise, ideas that were literalised hundreds of years ago, should be strictly interpreted forever. it doesn't matter that founding fathers of a country were progressive during their time. just because they were progressive then, doesn't mean they would be progressive now. what matters is the exact language they wrote down.

furthermore, the humble, non-tyrannical, human-loving, southern citizens attacked Fort Sumter because they wanted to defend their "way of life", and found this the last resort/only remaining way to go about it.

now, if only they didn't get their asses handed to them, all of this would really matter a lot.

7/6/2006 3:09:56 PM

if (oldright == padowack == salisburyboy )
{
give_joe ($TEXAS);
}

7/6/2006 7:08:38 PM

nah, this cat writes more like steve9194

7/6/2006 7:25:22 PM

o yea. i remember that dude. you might be right.

7/6/2006 7:26:35 PM