Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others.
~ Thomas Jefferson

Thursday, May 26, 2011

The South desired secession. Were they wrong?

In the preamble to the Declaration of Independence, it was written:

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.

But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.

Throwing off such government didn't mean accepting anarchy in its place, but rather instituting a new government to "guard their future security." States were meant to be sovereign over the loose republic that was formed as a Federal government, at least by the likes of Jefferson and most of the Founders. True, Hamilton and others of his ilk wanted a strong central government, but that was not the wish of most of the rebels who had just fought and died to gain freedom from the strong central government of King George.

This is something that those who would conceal or deny the true meaning of the Second Amendment want you to forget: that the right to keep and bear arms had nothing to do with hunting or even personal self-defense (although that was understood to be every man's right as well), but to maintain the possession and skill at arms that was necessary to resist tyranny. These men who wrote the Bill of Rights had just prior to this needed the same military arms as the British in order to gain their freedom. They didn't feel it necessary to state the obvious, that arms are required to prevent government from running roughshod over the People.

And it wasn't the "right of the militia to keep and bear arms", but the right of the People to do so that "shall not be infringed." The prefacing clause mentioned the militia because the Founders knew that being "well-regulated" - requiring both the possession of the proper weapons and equipment and proper training - was a more likely guarantee of being effective in the People's fight to remain free, should they need to resist their own government once more. It did not limit "the People" to only those individuals in the militia. It simply stated that such a militia would not even be possible if the people were disbarred the ability to keep and bear arms.

So, the Founders knew that a "long train of abuses" with no relenting by government demanded a change. The South felt the need for a change as well. As I have posted before, it had little to do with slavery and much to do with the tariffs and unfair trade practices (so much for the Commerce clause) that the Federal government was imposing upon the Southern states. They did not seek to use force to stop the Federal government from imposing these restrictions and fees. They did not seek to force their vision of proper government upon the Northern states. They simply wished to separate, and form their own union.

Lincoln felt that the income of the Federal government would be sorely diminished by the loss of income from the South. He also feared the reduction of Federal power should some states be successful in removing themselves from fealty to the Federal government. I am certain he feared that the southern states would, in the long run, be joined by other states desiring a change in government.

For this peaceful attempt at change, hundreds of thousands of Southern men died at arms. Thousands of Southern civilians died as well, and Sherman was not the only Northern military commander to rape, pillage and burn his way across the South. At Lincoln's written direction. A goodly number of Northern soldiers were unwilling conscripts, and they died for the North's aggression against the South, as well.

[Edit: How much of this was truly "North" against "South" as opposed to the Federal government versus state's rights is unclear to me. I don't believe the citizens of the North would have demanded war against the South had the Federal government not decided - with the collusion of central bankers and other oligarchs as well, I'm sure - that it did not wish to relinquish power over, and income generation from, the South. There were actually few Northerners with a strong enough view against slavery (the lie presented after the fact), and those that did were most likely against armed violence anyway for religious reasons. War would not have ensued had not Lincoln forced the citizens of the North to mobilize. Often at the threat of imprisonment.]

Honorable Means, at the Bonnie Blue Blog (http://thebonnieblueblog.blogspot.com/) responded to a fellow who posted
"Does anyone truly believe that things would have been better had we splintered into a group of individual states or mini-nations instead of being the United States of America? I don’t think any person with any degree of intelligence will argue that point."
HM lists a long train of current abuses that indicate why he thinks we would indeed have benefited had the South been successful in seceding. Please read his post at:


Consider bookmarking and following his blog. He writes well and often posts things we all need to read, things that will open your eyes to important ideas that you might otherwise have missed.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Sorry, folks. I was completely ignorant about comment rules. Anyone can post, but I'd prefer a name, even if it is made up. Anonymous posts just seem cheap, if you know what I mean. Also, if you want to argue a point, that's fine. Cheap shots and name calling towards me or another person commenting (ad hominem) is rude and will get you banned. Other than that, I'd love to get some comments.