The Constitution and the Issue of Slavery, A new Look at it. (part IV )

So, what did we find out about the Civil war era? Eleven States seceded from the union that the founding fathers built. The underlying reason being is that they no longer felt that they could trust that the federal government would remain true to the principles as written in the Constitution. I say this even though it can be shown that through political compromise neither side was abiding by the intent of the principles that the founding fathers set for this nation.


We found out that there were numerous amendments proposed for the purpose of not only assuring the slave States of their State rights but also to avoid a war that seemed inevitable at the time. One of those proposed amendments, the Corwin amendment, can be said as expressly declaring what the Constitution implied by assumption. This assumption being that all rights not expressly declared in the Constitution belonged to the States or to the people.

We have learned that a president was elected 1860 whose primary goal was to maintain the unity of the States not the freedom of the slave as some would have us believe. This intent was expressed in a letter to Horace Greeley as shown here. Now exactly why this unity was so important to Mr. Lincoln so as to engage in a war in order to maintain it is a question only better men then I am can answer. In that letter, Lincoln clearly identified his intent by the following words.

“My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause.”

Yet, in spite of this declared intent, we know that seven States seceded from the Union as a result of the election of this man as president. We learned that four more States seceded from the Union when federal troops refused to hand over the fort at Fort Sumter which was on land of a State that had seceded from the Union. We also know that certain counties of one of those States, Virginia, seceded from that State and was admitted as a State into the Union.

Was the Civil war inevitable and necessary? Based upon Lincoln's frame of mind and his intent on keeping the Union intact then the only conclusion must be yes it was inevitable. Whether or not it can be declared as a necessary war, now that is the debatable issue.

We must remember that the primary reason for the formation of the Union of States was for self defense against foreign invasion. Without this reason there would have been no need for the States to unite as one nation after they gained their independence from the motherland. And the importance of this was such that the founding fathers were willing to compromise on the issue of slavery at the beginning in order to bring about this union.

From this we know that Lincoln could have permitted those States to secede from the Union in the same spirit that the original States seceded from the motherland and in the same spirit that West Virginia seceded from Virginia.

If there were those that believed that such a division would weaken the Union's ability to defend itself then seeking a defense pact with the Confederacy would have accomplished the purpose of the intent of the formation of the Union in the first place. This would allow both nations to lie side by side in a peaceful manner, each remaining true to their own principles.

This would declare that while the war may have been inevitable it was not a necessary war in our history. To me, it went against all of the principles that the founding fathers hoped to accomplish by the ratification of the Constitution. The only thing it accomplished was to create a nation united by force based upon ideology out of a nation that was united voluntarily based on agreed upon principles as it was founded.

The Constitution and the Issue of Slavery, A new Look at it. (part III )

The Civil war or as it is called at times the war between the States began April 12, 1861 and ended on April 9, 1865. but as it was said previously the political battles prior to the war was not about slavery itself but the expansion of the institution of slavery. This was the gist of Lincoln's “House divided” speech made on June 16, 1858 that is quoted so often and taken out of context of its intent. In it he said the following.


"A house divided against itself cannot stand." I believe this government cannot endure, permanently, half slave and half free. I do not expect the Union to be dissolved — I do not expect the house to fall — but I do expect it will cease to be divided. It will become all one thing or all the other.

Either the opponents of slavery will arrest the further spread of it, and place it where the public mind shall rest in the belief that it is in the course of ultimate extinction; or its advocates will push it forward, till it shall become alike lawful in all the States, old as well as new — North as well as South.”

All of you Biblical buffs might recognize that this speech as coming from Matthew 12:25. And from this speech we can see that Lincoln's was not so much concerned about slavery itself as he was concerned about the unity of the nation. Apparently, the idea of secession of some states was seen as inevitable unless there was some kind of solution to this problem that was dividing this nation.

Another attempt to prevent secession was shown when Congress tried to pass the Corwin amendment to the Constitution, 3/2/1861. Corwin Amendment supporters seem to have believed it would not have changed 1860s law other than to have restricted the Congress's future powers. It further appears that supporters regarded the amendment as simply a reiteration of principles already contained in the Constitution. President Lincoln was for this amendment. The amendment stated the following.

“No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State.”

In understanding of this amendment we can see that it reveals a couple of things about the mindset of the people. First it was intended on assuring those States where slavery was legal that the U.S. Government would not interfere in their way of life thus there would be no need to secede. The second thing it reveals is that it acknowledges that all domestic affairs was strictly within the powers and authority of the States.

The federal government had no Constitutional authority or power to interfere in domestic affairs except on this specific issue as I advocated in a previous post concerning the Constitution. Even then, as we can see, based on the laws at that time the federal government could only address the issue within the authority given to it by the Constitution. It could only regulate the importation of slaves and regulate the expansion of it to new territories. This can be seen in the following wikipedia quotation as to Lincoln's understanding of the Constitution.

Outgoing President James Buchanan publicly endorsed the Corwin Amendment. Abraham Lincoln, in his first inaugural address, did not oppose the Corwin Amendment: "Holding such a provision to now be implied Constitutional law, I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable." Just weeks prior to the outbreak of the Civil War, Lincoln penned a letter to each governor asking for them to support the Corwin Amendment.

In my humble opinion, this is irrefutable evidence as to how the powers were meant to be divided up between the State governments and the federal government per the Constitution. Without convincing evidence to the contrary any political ideology of the Constitution that does not recognize this division of powers is a declaration that ideology takes priority over the Constitution.

The Constitution and the Issue of Slavery, A new Look at it. (part II )

Prior to the Civil war and prior to the election of Abraham Lincoln as President of the United States the Union was made up of 34 States, 16 that could be called slave States. This left 18 States that were identified a free States at the time. Based on these simple facts one could assume that ratification of any amendment to the Constitution abolishing slavery would be considered as very improbable.

While there were threats of secession prior to Lincoln's election history reports that it was his election that became the straw that broke the camel's back. Seven States seceded from the union prior to his inauguration. And upon the attack at Fort Sumter four more States seceded from the union. These eleven States made up what is called the Confederacy.

Neither President Buchanan nor President Lincoln recognized a State's right to secede from the union and thus considered what the southern States did as a rebellion. They considered secession as going against the will of the founding fathers of setting up a perpetual union.

This is opposed to the idea of the Constitution being a compact or contract among the States which each State entered into willingly therefore should be allowed to leave willingly. It is this concept that is the foundational basis of State rights or State sovereignty.

While everyone is in agreement that the slave issue was the dominant issue of the day and it was that issue that ultimately led to its unfortunate bloody conclusion the right of the present States to have legalized slavery was not the focus of the debate. It was the expansion of slavery into new territories which could be a real threat to the political fortunes of this nation that was the focus. This was characterized by use of the term of “slave power” by northern politicians.

“The problem posed by slavery, according to many Northern politicians, was not so much the mistreatment of slaves (a theme that abolitionists emphasized), but rather the political threat to American republicanism, especially as embraced in Northern free states. The Free Soil Party first raised this warning in 1848, arguing that the annexation of Texas as a slave state was a terrible mistake. The Free Soilers rhetoric was taken up by the Republican party as it emerged in 1854.”

“Worse, said the Republicans, the Slave Power, deeply entrenched in the "Solid South", was systematically seizing control of the White House, the Congress, and the Supreme Court. Senator and governor Salmon P. Chase of Ohio was an articulate enemy of the Slave Power, as was Senator Charles Sumner of Massachusetts.”

It was in the election of Lincoln that some saw that "slave power" was broken and a good reason for the secession of the Southern States from the union as exemplified by the words of Salmon Chase in congratulating Lincoln for winning the election;

“The object of my wishes and labors for nineteen years is accomplished in the overthrow of the Slave Power, ...”

In conclusion with this knowledge I know a different viewpoint but also brings up a big question of the intent of the founding fathers in regards to what they expected the Constitution to mean. Did they see it as a compact or did they see it as creating a perpetual union?

All Quotes were taken from the Wikipedia on the subject of Slave Power

The Constitution and the Issue of Slavery, A new Look at it

Was the Civil war necessary for the purpose of freeing the slaves? If we are to understand our own history along with the original intent of the founders the answer has to be no. Along with this we can better understand the reasoning of the Southern States when they decided to leave the confederation of States. The understanding can be found right in the Constitution itself.


This understanding can be found in the following section of the Constitution. It is the first clause of the ninth section of Article I.

“The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think

 proper to admit,

shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight,

but a tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.”

Believe it or not, this clause dealt with the issue of slavery. It was meant to be the first step in the banning of the institution within this new nation. In fact a debate ensued over this clause because the word “slave” was not used to clarify its meaning. It was inserted into the Constitution for the purpose of giving the federal government the authority and power over the particular domestic issue of slavery at the point of its intended authority and power.

The explanation of this clause can be seen in the following rebuttal argument by William Wilson:

“With respect to the clause restricting Congress from prohibiting the migration or importation of such persons as any of the states now existing shall think proper to admit, prior to the year 1808, the honorable gentleman says that this clause is not only dark, but intended to grant to Congress, for that time, the power to admit the importation of slaves. No such thing was intended. But I will tell you what was done, and it gives me high pleasure that so much was done. Under the present Confederation, the states may admit the importation of slaves as long as they please; but by this article, after the year 1808, the Congress will have power to prohibit such importation, notwithstanding the disposition of any state to the contrary. I consider this as laying the foundation for banishing slavery out of this country;and though the period is more distant than I could wish, yet it will produce the same kind, gradual change, which was pursued in Pennsylvania.

It is with much satisfaction I view this power in the general government, whereby they may lay an interdiction on this reproachful trade: but an immediate advantage is also obtained; for a tax or duty may be imposed on such importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each person; and this, sir, operates as a partial prohibition;

it was all that could be obtained. I am sorry it was no more; but from this I think there is reason to hope, that yet a few years, and it will be prohibited altogether; and in the mean time, the new states which are to be formed will be under the control of Congress in this particular, and slaves will never be introduced amongst them.”

So, from this explanation of the clause we can see that it was the intent of the founding fathers to ban the institution of slavery and it can be found in the Constitution when we decide to understand it from the point of view of “Original Intent” rather than seeing it as a “Living document”. If we was to interpret that clause in accordance to the idea behind the concept of it being a living document we could never come to the conclusion that is seen here.

It could also be shown as being added evidence that the structure of government was intended to be as I stated in my post on the Preamble, part III as declared here;

“From this, the hierarchy was established of the federal government being subordinate

to the collective of the States

and the county and city governments being subordinate

to their respectful individual State”

The reason being is that they enumerated this particular issue as being within the powers of the federal government thus allowing the assumption that all other domestic issues remained within the power of the States or the people. The fact that States had the power to ban slavery declares that they were not intended to be subordinate to the federal government on any domestic issues even on this issue.

The choice now becomes yours, the reader. Was war necessary to free the slave as so many want to believe? Can it be even said that slavery was the real issue in regards to the war?

A Day to Remember

Just a small note to say;

HAPPY

BIRTHDAY

to the
U.S. MARINES

and a

HEART FILLED

THANK YOU

TO EVERY VETERAN

this day.

Liberalism and Its Promise to the People (part III )

If, as the left proclaims, people are equal therefore should be treated as equals by each other and that the federal government exists to protect the rights of the people, that leaves me in a very skeptical mood. That would mean that each of us has the same needs. and when one man works therefore catering to his own needs while another may be without then the man without has had his rights abused. The reason being that a state of inequality would exist under those circumstances.


On the other hand we could be a nation where a third party doles out the needs of the people. Since the U.S. Government is the protector of the rights of individuals then it will be that government that doles out in accordance to each person's needs. The criteria it uses will be the laws of equality. Now, in the above scenario, both persons are being treated as equals but neither man has his needs fulfilled. There is but one way that both man would have his rights protected and both men would have his needs fulfilled.

That being if that third party, namely the government, had the authority and power to make a decision in regards to the needs of each man. And if that man was an elected official then, by the ideology of the left, that official was acting in accordance to the will of the people. Neither man would have any legal or moral grounds to protest the distribution of the wealth because each man has, by legal definition, had his needs met as his needs has been determined for him.

Of course the above scenario would be no problem if the elected official had unlimited resources to fulfill the needs of each person. But we must remember that this official is limited by the budget he is given and that budget relies on taxes to finance it. So, how does this elected official protect the rights of the individual by satisfying his needs on a limited budget?

If taxes are imposed to meet the needs of some we threaten the needs of the others who must pay that tax. If we lower taxes so that the some who pay the taxes may fulfill their needs then we threaten the needs of others who is dependent upon that government dole. Besides, I know of no man who has the capacity to redistribute the wealth in such a way that can be declared as just for all.

We must consider another thing also. We live on a planet of many nations. And each of those nations has an economic system. It is this system that the people use to provide for their needs. And it is from the people that make up this system that provides the taxes that the government imposes. Both, the needs of the people and the taxes that is paid is limited by how profitable that business is.

If those people who head up the business sector believe that they are being taxed too heavily then they'll take their business elsewhere. When that happens men lose the means to provide for their own needs and governments lose a source of taxes which was to be used to provide the needs of those dependent upon the government. We again have a situation of inequality which, according to the ideology of the left, the U.S. Government was not suppose to allow.

As for those who think that the rich can afford to pay more taxes they must remember one thing. They are not the ones who will decide whether or not to pay those taxes that would be imposed upon the rich. That rich man decides that. And that rich man can live anywhere he decides to and will leave if he feels that his taxes are too high. And this is happening now. The rich are emigrating while the poor are immigrating.

This was just some thoughts and I blame these thoughts on those who kindly inspired them. I hope they be thoughts that can be judged as worthy of further thought from those that might read them.

Liberalism and Its Promise to the People (part II )

Since the attainment of equality is the goal of the ideology of those on the left then those who seek to promote social policies that is in accordance to this goal is basically a moral person. This would lead us to the conclusion that those who seek to promote social policies that was not in accordance to this goal as being basically immoral. How else could it be if man was meant to be equals as created?


Power or the lack of it as perceived is the determinate of this inequality of persons. The powerful will exploit those with lesser power if power is in the wrong hands. The rich will exploit the poor. Big business will exploit the workers and cheat the consumer. Given the opportunity, the dominant religion will become the state religion leading to persecution of all of the others. Men will exploit women.


The powerful will benefit those with lesser power if power be in the right hands. And power in the right hands will be the hands of those who seek to promote equality. And with this, redistribution of assets from the rich to the poor will be the pronounced goal of the righteous. With this, regulation of big business will be the pronounced goal of the righteous. With this, strict separation of State and religious establishments and secularism will be the pronounced goal of the righteous. With this, the liberation of women will be the pronounced goal of the righteous.


Money or the lack of it as perceived is the means that men use to obtain and keep power per the ideology of the left. Money in the wrong hands of the powerful is the tool of the greedy. Profits is the goal of the greedy. Money in the right hands of the powerful is the tool of compassion. The welfare of the people is the goal of the compassionate.


In accordance to the ideology of the left it is big business who are the masters and it is those politicians on the right who are the servants of their masters. They be bought. They be owned. It is the politicians on the left who fight for the freedom of all in their quest for equality. And that can't be bought. It can't be owned.


It was the founding fathers who recognized the justice that be had in the equality of man. It was for this that a war for independence was fought and righteousness won out. It was Lincoln who saw the injustice of the inequality of the institution of slavery. It was against this that a war to free the slave was fought and righteousness won out. And it is the left that continues the fight of this righteous cause of equality that began over 200 years ago.


It is for the cause of the equality of man that a government be of the people. It is for the cause of equality that a government be by the people. It is for the cause of equality that a government be for the people. It is the essence of the meaning of good government.


It is a political ideology that gives real meaning to the right of Life. For there can be no better life than that of a life where men are equal. It is an political ideology that gives real meaning to the right of Liberty. For what freedom can match that freedom where one man does not have power over another? It is a political ideology that gives real meaning to the right of Pursuit of Happiness. For what is there to prevent happiness if the pursuit of it is unhindered by the powerful forces that are inherit in inequality?


It is the cause of equality that the left sees themselves as united with the people. It is for the cause of equality that the left identifies themselves as liberals in the same mode as the founding fathers. And it is seeing the slow but steady progress of this cause that some of the left will identify themselves as progressives.

Liberalism and Its Promise to the People

Liberalism, per the ideology that is followed, is a philosophy of governing that recognizes the ideology of the Right in regards to the structure of power then takes that ideology one step beyond. It first recognizes the State's power to rule over the people. In other words, it recognizes that domestic affairs are the domain of the States and foreign affairs is the domain of the federal government. It adds one more responsibility to the federal government though.


Liberalism adds the responsibility of being the protector of the rights of individuals from the abuses of States. And the liberal ideology has a means to determine the abuses of those rights. With this in mind the ideology also has a mechanism to determine the remedy of these abuses.

Liberalism begins on the concept that individuals already have all of their rights and that those rights are self-evident truths. It further declares that the people themselves will protest when the exercise of these rights are denied or banned. Those truths once revealed to the federal government, being in compliance to the will of the people, is to recognize that the State has abused its power to rule and act so as to protect this rights.

Liberalism does not recognize the Constitution as the Supreme law of the land. Liberalism recognizes the Constitution as a living document that recognizes the rights of the individual and reveals to the world the abuses of the States of this nation. These rights can be found in the following words of the fathers of this nation.

“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.”

It is the liberal viewpoint that the Creator endowed all rights to the individual and that these three rights declared are but a few of the total number of rights endowed by their Creator. Since it was the Creator who bestowed these rights then the individual has always possessed them. Since they are self-evident then it can only be declared that the States have abused their right of rule by the denial of or the banning of the exercise of these rights.

A good example of this was the issue of slavery. To the liberal point of view the fact that this institution was wrong should have been seen as being self-evident. The inequality of such an institution could be clearly seen thus self evident. No one can deny this. Many of the fathers saw the evil of this inequality.

Thus a compromise had to be reached on this issue in order to pass and have this new Constitution ratified. With this as a given, any State that continued to allow this state of inequality to exist as well as those who compromised their principles were abusing their right to rule. Thus, when Lincoln freed the slaves all States lost their right of self-rule with each State subordinating themselves to the rule of the central government of the United States.

It is from this concept that State laws as well as the Constitutions of the States are now subject to the review of the Supreme Court. It is the Supreme Court acting in the name of the federal government that will determine whether or not if the States have recognized the equality of men as endowed by the Creator thus providing the means of the protection of individual rights.

If the Supreme Court finds in the favor of the individual then the legislature of the federal government has the authority to act on this ruling by enacting laws of protection. These laws then give the President the authority to execute those laws thus assuring that the rights of those individuals are protected. In this is the understanding of the U.S. Government as being the protector of the rights of individuals.

With this we can ascertain that the only righteous path that any President takes this nation, per liberalism, can only be the path of equality. Any other path is an unrighteous path for it is the path of inequality.

And this is the divide that defines Conservatism and liberalism. For, in the mind of liberalism, conservatism seek to conserve inequality and in seeking a smaller government any progress already achieved towards equality will be reversed or at the least, hindered. It is from this that some liberals have considered those who call themselves conservatives a greater threat to this nation than terrorism.

In the mindset of liberalism there is no need to allow the States to determine their own path as the Right would say, each experimenting with different solutions. Experimentation is for determining if a belief can be proven for the purpose of ascertaining the truth. Self-evident truths will be apparent when seen thus needing no proof. This would declare that, from this, it is evident that the Right is wrong and do not deserve to lead this nation.

In the mindset of liberalism once equality has been achieved every man will be able to exercise all of the rights that the Creator has endowed him with. It is towards this goal that liberalism seeks to lead this nation. And since this path is the path of the Creator then it is self evident that liberalism was and is destined to be the only moral path of the governance if the people seek to find favor with their Creator.

It must also be self-evident that equality is an achievable goal for men because if it wasn't then men would not have been endowed with all of the rights by our Creator that declare men as being equal. Thus, it cannot be declared as an unachievable idyllic state of being. And, in the liberal mindset, it can't be the path to enslavement and socialism as some will claim and as I have posted.

 So, the sooner that men, namely the conservatives, stop hindering the progress of equality the sooner we will reach the state of equality and enjoy the life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness that is promised in it.