I am noticing an uptick of the drumbeat of claim that slavery was not
the cause of the Civil War. It is true that it was not the only cause.
But the declarations of secession by the states that then went on to
form the Confederacy make it clear that slavery was the primary
reason. http://www.civilwar.org/education/history/primarysources/declarationofcauses.html#
Each state's statement is linked on the top of the page, and you can
read them for yourself. YES OTHER CAUSES EXISTED. but with
one exception slavery was given a lot of attention.
John C. Calhoun was the first to formulate a theory of secession, as
distinct from general remarks and so forth. Ironically, this was to slow
up the process that might start, because at the time he had property in
the south and a career in the government in the north, and didn't want
any conflicts that could affect him. Therefore he argued (in response
to the tariff issue that was a major tipping point for some) that when
the fed issues an order the states don't like, they should first simply
ignore it (on whatever basis he gave, I forget what) and go through
a process of development of opposition and rejection, with formal
secession an option to use at the very end of this. (Which of course
meant he would be retired and his careers north and south not
interfered with and he comfortably home in the south if this
happened. Disgusting hypocrite. not that such an effort is evil in
itself, but he was of course arguing as a southern loyalist so to
speak and from a Constitutionalist position (which didn't really
allow for any of his procedures).
Someone argued that the Emancipation Declaration didn't free
any slaves, since it addressed places not under northern control yet,
and any non seceded slave states were not addressed by it. But
the minute a southern location came under northern control, the
Emancipation Declaration applied, and knowing about this would
give slaves in unrecovered places motive to either run away,
revolt or drag their heels in compliance in the war effort, and to
help the Union troops when they came. Many did run off to join
them.
The argument is given that the Constitution provides for secession.
Obviously people who say this haven't read the Constitution except
to skim lightly, or rely on the words of liars. The Constitution does
not provide for secession from the USA, only for secession from a
state, to become a new state of the USA, provided the state seceded
from allows this.
The Preamble speaks of "a more perfect union." as compared to
what? The Articles of Confederation that preceded it were like what
the Confederacy had, and a book was written showing how this
disunity itself interfered with effectiveness of the south during the
Civil War. Pride, romanticism, all these stirring, thrilling lies that
stir feelings that some think are "spiritual" but St. Paul calls puffed
up and empty, kept people from learning from this failure. Also
kept them from noticing that both sides prayed to the same God,
and the North won.
A more perfect union, by definition then, would be something
that was centralized, obliged all members to help each other
on demand either directly or through a central government, and
that you could not leave, and could not under most circumstances
disobey the central government.
Someone noted that the behavior of the signatories to the Constitution,
their caution and their demand for a Bill of Rights, showed that they
knew they were getting into something they couldn't get out of. Like
a marriage in the days when divorce was unthinkable.
When you examine what the Constitution gave the states, shows
exactly this. All meaningful manifestations of sovereignty were
stripped from the states. Most importantly, border controls and
tariffs and the right to deal with foreign governments except through
the federal government. Ego sops like having their own flags were
left, which is nothing.
The states were also required to guarantee a republican form of
government to their citizens. This meant that their constitutions had
to be approved by the federal government before they could be
admitted, and they could not write up one that or change later to
one that was monarchic, inherited political class (officially at
least), mobocratic democratic which by definition is without
representation, or other deviancies from the pattern of the federal
Constitution.
The Constitution declared that itself and any treaties made pursuant
to it were the supreme law of the land any decisions or laws of any
states to the contrary notwithstanding, which latter means, do not
withstand, i.e., have no standing, no merit, no authority.
What most so called "constitutionalists" tell you is a mix of truth
and lies.
The Tenth Amendment is a laugh. it reserves to "the people" whatever
the Constitution doesn't already secure to the federal government or to
the states. I can't think of anything that isn't already in one or the other
category.
As for the income tax, that is not unconstitutional because it is created
by a formal amendment to the Constitution. Some things about it may
be unconstitutional, but the phenomenon itself is not.
A really odd thing is not only the liar who said that wages are not
taxable income (sending a lot of people to jail who believed him)
but the people who bought his argument, because he repeatedly cited
to prove this a paragraph WHICH EXPLICITLY LISTS WAGES AS
TAXABLE INCOME in the tax code.
No comments:
Post a Comment