Ma'a Salama, United States - It Has Been a Pleasure (Part III)

A Fabulous Experiment Gone Awry
~ Sovereignty Versus Political Slavery~

What began a mere two centuries ago as an ambitious venture into governance under a constitutional republic established to preserve those natural rights to Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness to which each citizen is entitled has been slowly modified, manipulated, macerated, and masticated by the very individuals elected and sworn to uphold, protect, and defend it. Created by traitors to the Crown in the wake of a bloody revolution, destroyed by traitors to the Republic in the wake of an ordinate sense of entitlement.He needed to break the CSA's back, and the EP was nothing more than a tool in his chest to force their submission.

We have lost our way, led astray by politicians seeking self-fulfillment, self-glorification, self-gratification, and self-compensation, monetary as well as psychological. This destruction did not happen overnight, rather crept upon us slowly and insidiously, the pace accelerating this past hundred years.

With his inaugural address on March 4, 1861, President Abraham Lincoln began the undermining of the foundation upon which the nation was built by decreeing that secession from the Union was an action "legally void." (Emphasis mine):

I hold, that in contemplation of universal law, and of the Constitution, the Union of these States is perpetual. Perpetuity is implied, if not expressed, in the fundamental law of all national governments. It is safe to assert that no government proper, ever had a provision in its organic law for its own termination. Continue to execute all the express provisions of our national Constitution, and the Union will endure forever -- it being impossible to destroy it, except by some action not provided for in the instrument itself.

Again, if the United States be not a government proper, but an association of States in the nature of contract merely, can it, as a contract, be peaceably unmade, by less than all the parties who made it? One party to a contract may violate it -- break it, so to speak; but does it not require all to lawfully rescind it?

Descending from these general principles, we find the proposition that, in legal contemplation, the Union is perpetual, confirmed by the history of the Union itself. The Union is much older than the Constitution. It was formed in fact, by the Articles of Association in 1774. It was matured and continued by the Declaration of Independence in 1776. It was further matured and the faith of all the then thirteen States expressly plighted and engaged that it should be perpetual, by the Articles of Confederation in 1778. And finally, in 1787, one of the declared objects for ordaining and establishing the Constitution, was "to form a more perfect Union." But if [the] destruction of the Union, by one, or by a part only, of the States, be lawfully possible, the Union is less perfect than before the Constitution, having lost the vital element of perpetuity.

It follows from these views that no State, upon its own mere motion, can lawfully get out of the Union, -- that resolves and ordinances to that effect are legally void, and that acts of violence, within any State or States, against the authority of the United States, are insurrectionary or revolutionary, according to circumstances.

In essence, by his interpretation, States attempting to leave the Union, whether through exercise of self-determination or for any other reason, had no legal right to do so. A collection of sovereign entities, each with its own constitution, bound together by legal contract, yet their sovereignty may be impugned on the premise that once signing, there is no means of dissolution.

At the time of the Constitution's ratification, Federalist intention was permanence of the Union without the right of secession. However, by no stretch of the imagination was there a lack of redress in the face of oppression, through revolution, nor were nor were member States "united on the principle of unlimited submission to their general government." In truth, States did not cede their sovereignty upon ratification, as evidenced by Amendment X, further constricting the abilities of an already limited federal government in deference to States' rights for all matters not specifically outlined in the Constitution or those forbidden to it.

In any case, in analyzing Lincoln's statements in the context of States' rights versus the constitutionally mandated duties of the Federal Government, some issues strike a chord. I have great respect for our 16th President. He was intelligent and in many ways a forward thinker. On the other hand, I also believe he caused irreparable harm to the Republic, even if unintentionally.

"In contemplation of universal law, and of the Constitution, the Union of these States is perpetual. Perpetuity is implied, if not expressed, in the fundamental law of all national governments."

The Constitution contains no phrasing stating that states are forbidden to dissolve their relationship with the Union. Additionally, "fundamental law of all national governments" (other than taxation to support the government and maintaining a military for protection, the latter of which I suppose he could be referring to, I can think of none implying perpetuity; Rome tried its best in both and still never reached that benchmark) was unlikely to have been a consideration in creation of another document Lincoln cites and to which he attributes continuation and "maturity" of the Constitution: The Declaration of Independence, where we find mention of "universal (natural) law" and the rights endowed upon us by "nature's God." (Governments) are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. If the governed no longer consent, the structure of power collapses, the government is no longer viable, and the contract becomes voidable.

"It is safe to assert that no government proper, ever had a provision in its organic law for its own termination."

I beg to differ. The Founding Fathers intentionally created an instrument by which to facilitate such action in the Preamble to the Constitution: "in order to [...] secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity." Support for this notion can be found in the Declaration of Independence. Incidentally, that document provides enormous insight into the original intent of the Founding Fathers when forming the governmental structure of their newborn nation. 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.

This alone dispels the fallacious argument that "no State, upon its own mere motion, can lawfully get out of the Union."

"Again, if the United States be not a government proper, but an association of States in the nature of contract merely, can it, as a contract, be peaceably unmade, by less than all the parties who made it?"

Why not? Was it really necessary to preserve the Union at a cost of some $7 billion ($75 billion in 2008 dollars) and 620,000 lives, in the end only to effect the ultimate demise of that which you were trying to save? Already at an economic disadvantage when separated from the North's economy, technological advances ultimately leading to the voluntary abolition of slavery would make or break the Confederacy. Had they failed on their own - and been allowed to do so - is it beyond imagination that they would have sought readmission (if for no other reason than threat of invasion by Mexico)? Either way, the Union - with or without the Confederate States - would have grown stronger, having learned a valuable lesson.

"It follows from these views that no State, upon its own mere motion, can lawfully get out of the Union, -- that resolves and ordinances to that effect are legally void, and that acts of violence, within any State or States, against the authority of the United States, are insurrectionary or revolutionary, according to circumstances."

This statement, taken with the prior, should give one pause. States attempted to leave the Union, I would presume peaceably, per Lincoln's own words, making their intent known and filing documents of secession. Yet they were regarded and treated as insurrectionists because they no longer consented to governance and exercised their rights under "universal (natural) law." The United States overstepped its constitutional authority in pursuing acts of war against a free and independent nation, the Confederate States of America, and deposing its government.

So began the fall of States' rights, in spite of their specific protection under Amendment X.

Lincoln's disregard of rights held by parties outside the national government (and of genuine constitutional authority) was glaringly evident in his philosophy regarding the return of fugitive slaves and by whose authority it would be carried out:

There is some difference of opinion whether this clause should be enforced by national or by state authority; but surely that difference is not a very material one.

Not material, indeed. Actually, it makes ALL the difference, when placing that authority with the federal government rather than amongst and between the states means they must first cede that power to the federal government, as per Amendment X. This is true whether the issue is the return of fugitive slaves, education, energy policy, or even healthcare. QED.

Further, I cannot help but notice contradictory actions following Mr. Lincoln's verbose rhetoric (and another fine example of the revisionist history taught in the public school system):

Apprehension seems to exist among the people of the Southern States, that by the accession of a Republican Administration, their property, and their peace, and personal security, are to be endangered. There has never been any reasonable cause for such apprehension. Indeed, the most ample evidence to the contrary has all the while existed, and been open to their inspection. It is found in nearly all the published speeches of him who now addresses you. I do but quote from one of those speeches when I declare that "I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so." Those who nominated and elected me did so with full knowledge that I had made this, and many similar declarations, and had never recanted them. And more than this, they placed in the platform, for my acceptance, and as a law to themselves, and to me, the clear and emphatic resolution which I now read:

Resolved, That the maintenance inviolate of the rights of the States, and especially the right of each State to order and control its own domestic institutions according to its own judgment exclusively, is essential to that balance of power on which the perfection and endurance of our political fabric depend; and we denounce the lawless invasion by armed force of the soil of any State or Territory, no matter what pretext, as among the gravest of crimes."

I now reiterate these sentiments; and in doing so, I only press upon the public attention the most conclusive evidence of which the case is susceptible, that the property, peace and security of no section are to be in any wise endangered by the now incoming Administration. I add too, that all the protection which, consistently with the Constitution and the laws, can be given, will be cheerfully given to all the States when lawfully demanded, for whatever cause -- as cheerfully to one section as to another.

Despite his bold assurances on March 4, 1861, that the property, peace, and personal security of the southern States was not in danger, January 1, 1863, witnessed implementation of the Emancipation Proclamation, freeing the slaves of the southern states deemed to be in rebellion but doing nothing to free those in strategic border states vulnerable to secession yet not quite ready to let them go free. Culturally connected to the South, politically aligned with the North, economically free to choose either, these states were vital to securing a Union victory. Losing them could prove catastrophic. Their resources were needed to fuel the Union military machine, their loss having the potential to tip the balance of power in favor of the less liquid economy and, accordingly, the war efforts of the South. In an attempt to induce these states' "willing compliance," compensated emancipation efforts were launched, using federal monies; however, this undertaking was not well-received and failed to pass into law. Other legislation of the time included the Confiscation Act of 1862, freeing the slaves of Confederates that had not surrendered within 60 days of passage, as punishment.

Contrary to what we have been taught in the public schools, Lincoln's prime consideration was not freeing the slaves, after all. From Lincoln's mouth to the public's ear, although he personally abhorred the practice of slavery, he had neither any right under the law to interfere with its practice nor any inclination to do so. In studying his actions and his words, it becomes evident that abolition was merely a means to the end of "saving" the Union by what he believed to be his constitutional authority, up to and including enforcement of the "contract" between the states - by force of arms if necessary - at the expense of states' rights, which he initially held inviolable. I would go so far as to speculate he did not truly believe in any rights outside those held by the central government, which actually has DUTIES as opposed to RIGHTS. He needed to break the CSA's back, and the EP was nothing more than a tool in his chest to force their submission.

We go on to find Mr. Lincoln bemoaning his conundrum in a letter to Horace Greeley:

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.

Any way you boil it down, the man's actions marked the beginning of the end, starting with the decimation of State and individual rights.