One hundred and fifty years ago today President Lincoln sent a message to Congress (which he had purposely kept out of session since his inauguration) justifying the massive un-constitutional actions he had taken after the Confederate bombardment of Fort Sumter on April 12th, 1861. It is not an occasion for Constitutional conservative celebration because this message marks the beginning of the destruction of "federalism" as the Framers had intended in the construction the general government.
Here is a link to Lincoln's
message to Congress in Special Session. Download and print it and/or analyze it objectively for yourselves. While doing so, imagine that this message was delivered by a Woodrow Wilson or a FDR; so as to remove the aspect of the deification of its author. Here, too, began the purposeful destruction of the language which has plagued us ever since. Therefore, here is a link to Webster's first
American Dictionary of 1828.
In this message to Congress the President framed his "anti secession" argument by purposely using word-play (now called "Spin") to confuse the issues at hand. This was to partially obfuscate the fact that for the first time in American history the Union had increased from 33 States in 1860 to the fictional number of 34 States at the time of his inauguration on March 4
th, 1861 even though 11 States had seceded. Mr. Lincoln would see to it that West Virginia would secede from Virginia and join the Union on June 20, 1863.
The words "rebellion" and "secession" have separate distinct meanings & uses and are not legally or in common usage neither interchangeable nor synonymous. An individual can rebel, a sovereign State, in this context, can not. Daniel Shays did not secede; he rebelled because he did not have state sovereignty. By the same token secession is not "insurrection" because the Confederates simply wanted to go in peace, having already been invaded by a
northern confederation. (Note: "nullification" is not synonymous with secession, but is different mater for another day.)
Our founding document,
The Declaration of Independence, was a declaration of war. Whereby, the 13 colonies declared their individual sovereignty and seceded from the British Empire after listing their grievances. This was an act of rebellion as Parliament and George III certainly thought. Our Founders & Framers did not. To them it was a natural continuance of the Glorious Revolution of 1688. The matter was settled by the end of the Revolution by the Treaty of Paris September 3, 1783 which forced George III to recognize our individual States & collective sovereignty.
A sovereign State may "secede", that is by quietly leaving the Union, as South Carolina did in her
Secession Statement, listing her grievances. Essentially reversing the s way she entered the Union, by state convention and "un-ratify" her voluntary agreement. The proof of this concept is by asking the opposite question: How many states or colonies would have joined the Confederacy, as established by "The Articles" or would have ratified the Constitution if they thought or knew that secession was not an option, if "things didn't work out"?
That answer would be not one of them.
Mr. Lincoln's insertion of the phrase "perpetual union", in his message--as if it was in the Constitution--is from the preamble to the Articles of Confederation. It is indicative of Abe's less dishonest behavior in this matter. Perpetual union turned out to mean from March 1
st, 1781 to September 21
st, 1788. I have not as yet seen a list which included Mr. Lincoln's name as President of that union. Nor, do I think he swore an oath to uphold same.
As the phrase "perpetual union" was omitted from the "new" Constitution; we can safely assume that this was not an accident. After all, it is worth remembering that the Constitution's Framers by the end of the Convention were in the process of seceding from the C.A.S.; leaving Rhode Island and North Carolina, its last two members, presumably to fend for themselves. They survived and later joined the Union. Rhode Island survived being "Union-less" for a period of about six months and kept her exit door open; for reasons I'll get into when we discuss the slave trade at some other time.
It should also be pointed out here that from July 4
th, 1776, until March 1
st, 1781, the Colonists did not have any national government regulating or interfering with their daily life. That was very limited and the sole business of local county, municipal and state governments. The Continental Congress busied itself with financing and waging the Revolutionary War, later creating The Articles of Confederation.
Furthermore, we know from
Federalist #21--as Mr. Hamilton laments the fact, in the second thru the fifth paragraphs, that there were absolutely no mulcts or other punishments in either the Articles or the proposed Constitution, by the Federal Governments, of or to any State for any cause. (This was, in truth, why Jefferson Davis et al were not tried for treason.)
In the 26
th paragraph of this Message, Mr Lincoln illustrates his own "sophism" by the following sentence: "
The Union is older than any of the States; and, in fact, it created them as States. Originally, some dependent colonies made the Union; and, in turn, the Union threw off their old dependence, for them, and made them States, such as they are. Not one of them ever had a State constitution, independent of the Union."
This statement would have been complete fiction particularly to William Penn. As any listener to Mark R. Levin's radio program or has read his book "
Liberty & Tyranny" knows that the Constitution is a
contract and that the Federal Government was
the creation of the States.
It was not the other way around.
As a matter of fact, the word
"federal", as the Framers understood it was defined, at the time, as follows:
"Consisting in a compact between parties, particularly and chiefly between states or nations; founded on alliance by contract or mutual agreement; as a federal government, such as that of the United States."
Thus begins the conflict for this modern republican Constitutional conservative. If the Constitution is in fact a
contract, I argue that it in fact is. Then, its words mean what they meant at time they were agreed to. In this case, that would be when each State ratified and entered the Union. It became binding on the first nine States on September 21
st, 1788 when New Hampshire became the ninth State to ratify it. As with any contract it can only be legitimately changed by mutual consent. See Article V.
We, as conservatives, have ridiculed the Progressive Left for its constant assertions of a "living & breathing" constitution as being No Constitution at all. In light of Mr. Lincoln's assertions and construction, we, as Conservatives, therefore should have more than a few problems.
We as listeners and followers of Mr. Levin's conservative manifesto and radio program should have some other problems associated with his line of reasoning. The first is that Mr. Levin seems to want have it both ways on the joint problem of the "Territories" and Supreme Court Justice Roger B. Taney's decision in the Dred Scott case.
The problem, it seems to me, is that Mr. Levin wants to simultaneously adhere to Sen. John C. Calhoun's position in his last speech; "
The Clay Compromise Measures". That is, because the Constitution is a contract, all of the territories are
owned collectively by all of the States. Therefore, some states can not unilaterally make decisions without the consent of the other States.
Secondly, Mr. Levin has frequently affirmed the doctrine of "
Popular Sovereignty" which Stephen Douglas espoused during the famous Lincoln/Douglas Debates on among other things "Territorial Issues".
Thirdly, Mr. Levin in both of his books, "
Men in Black" and "Liberty & Tyranny", has derided Justice Taney's opinion as to the notion of Dred Scott's ability to be a citizen (separately from the main issue in the case). The Constitution gave Congress the power to decide citizenship which it did with the Naturalization Act of 1790 & 1795 again with some additional sections. These were both signed into law by our first President. The very first sentence in Section I is:
"BE it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, that any alien, being a free white person, may be admitted to become a citizen of the United States, or any of them, on the following conditions, and not otherwise."
I do not see how Justice Taney could have ruled otherwise, without engaging in what we Constitutional conservatives claim to abhor--Judicial Activism. But, it must have been easier to throw Roger Taney under the bus than George Washington.
Furthermore, I do not see how Conservatives can uphold Mr. Lincoln's, admittedly un-Constitutional actions by the un-Constitutional notion of "
the ends justify the means".
That is what the Progressive/ Marxist / Liberals / Leftists do; hence the conundrum.
Mr. Madison dismisses the purported "justification" in
Federalist #42. I will discuss the North's complicity in the "Triangle (slave) Trade" in future essays: A Conservative republican's Conundrum II & President Lincoln's beard
