The Empire States of America

This modern notion that Americans have that the United States is a single entity or one large nation is inconsistent with how Americans understood their citizenship in the 18th and 19th centuries. If we were to go back in time before the 1860s and ask a man from Virginia or New York to which country they were a citizen of, they would have respond with their respective State. When the Southern States seceded from the Union of States, they did not combine to create a new country; the States were already countries in their own rights and formed a confederacy, exactly like the founders did when they created the Union to fought British tyranny.

Alexis de Tocqueville wrote about the state of the Union in Democracy in America that

The Union was formed by the voluntary agreement of the States; and in uniting together they have not forfeited their nationality, nor have they been reduced to the condition of one and the same people. If once of the states chooses to withdraw for the compact, it would be difficult to disprove its right of doing so, and the Federal Government would have no means of maintaining its claims directly either by force or right. (Tocqueville 1945)

The Southern States declaring their independence and reclaiming their sovereign rights was not a radical or revolutionary thought in 1860. There were no documents restricting or denying any state the right of secession at that time and it was understood by Americans that secession was a right. The very Declaration of Independence was a document declaring to the King of England that the colonies were independent and free States.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. (Jefferson n.d.)

When it was declared at a Special Convention of the People of South Carolina “that the Union heretofore existing between this State and the other States of North America, is dissolved and the State of South Carolina has resumed her position among the nations of the world, as a separate and independent State; with full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent States may or right do,” this declaration was not a radical idea. (Carolina 2008)

 

In fact, there were several instances prior to the War Between the States when secession was threatened. Both the northern States and southern States prior to 1860 felt at odds with the party in control of the Federal Government at various times and threatened secession. Events such as the Louisiana Purchase, the War of 1812, the annexation of Texas, and even the Mexican War stirred up anti-Southern State sentiments among Northerners. All these issues were considered to be in the best interest of the Southern States or in reality the Democratic-Republican Party or Jeffersonians (also known as Anti-Federalists as labeled by the Northerners).

With Thomas Jefferson’s purchase of the Louisiana territory from France, many New England leaders felt that Jefferson overstepped his authority as president and were contemplating secession from the Union. In a letter to John C. Breckinridge on August 12, 1803, Jefferson had this to say about secession:

“…Besides, if it should become the great interest of those nations to separate from this, if their happiness should depend on it so strongly as to induce them to go through that convulsion, why should the Atlantic States dread it? But especially why should we, their present inhabitants, take side in such a question?…The future inhabitants of the Atlantic & Missipi [sic] States will be our sons. We leave them in distinct but bordering establishments. We think we see their happiness in their union, & we wish it. Events may prove it otherwise; and if they see their interest in separation, why should we take side with our Atlantic rather than our Missipi descendants? It is the elder and the younger son differing. God bless them both, & keep them in union, if it be for their good, but separate them, if it be better.” (Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson, 1743-1826. Letters n.d.)

New Englanders were again upset when President James Madison (a Jeffersonian) declared war against Great Britain on June 18, 1812 (the War of 1812); they met in 1814 at the Hartford Convention to discuss secession. In 1832, with high tariffs causing economic difficulties among agrarian states, South Carolina threatened to nullify the federal law or secede from the Union. 

No one cried out and said that the New England States or South Carolina could not secede from the Union in either instance, it was understood that it was their right to if the majority of the people of those individual States voted for it. 
 

As early as 1825, the right of secession was also taught at West Point as being acceptable. Textbooks on constitutional law referenced William Rawle’s right of secession in his book, View of the Constitution. Many of the generals who fought for the Confederate States of America were educated at West Point and would have been taught the following information about state sovereignty and secession in Rawle’s book.

It depends on the state itself to retain or abolish the principle of representation, because it depends on itself whether it will continue a member of the Union. To deny this right would be inconsistent with the principle of which all our political systems are founded, which is, that the people have in all cases, a right to determine how they will be governed.

            This right must be considered as an ingredient in the original composition of the general government, which, though not expressed, was mutually understood…. (Rawle 1829)

Rawle continues in his book to explain how a state would go about seceding from the Union.

The secession of a state from the Union depends on the will of the people of such state. The people alone as we have already seen, hold the power to alter their constitution.

            But in any manner by which a secession is to take place, nothing is more certain than that the act should be deliberate, clear, and unequivocal.

            To withdraw from the Union is a solemn, serious act. Whenever it may appear expedient to the people of a state, it must be manifested in a direct and unequivocal manner. (Ibid, 302)

Even Alexander Hamilton, who was a champion for centralized government and a man idolized by Lincoln, would have opposed the use military force to keep the Southern States in the Union. Hamilton made the following statement at the Constitutional convention.

To coerce the states is one of the maddest projects that was ever devised….What picture does this idea present to our view? A complying state at war with a non-complying state; Congress marching the troops of one state into the bosom of another; this state collecting auxiliaries, and forming, perhaps, a majority against its federal head. Here is a nation at war with itself. Can any reasonable man be well disposed towards a government which makes war and carnage the only means of supporting itself — a government that can exist only by the sword? Every such war must involve the innocent with the guilty. This single consideration should be sufficient to dispose every peaceable citizen against such a government. (The Debates in the Convention of the State of New York, on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution n.d.)

Regardless of the issues and the causes that brought the States to war with each other, the States had a right to secede. When Lincoln forced the Southern States back into the Union by buoyant point, he destroyed any reality of a “Union” between the States. Lincoln imposed his will and philosophy of a central government upon all the States. The Southern States opposed this form of government and attempted to continue to run their State governments based on the Constitution. The State’s lost their rights and their sovereignty as a result of this war. Lincoln destroyed the Union with his actions and created an Empire. He destroyed that very Union formed by our Founders and the people of the States.

Works Cited

The Debates in the Convention of the State of New York, on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution. n.d. http://www.constitution.org/rc/rat_ny.htm (accessed October 15, 2013).

Carolina, Government of South. The Avalon Project. 2008. http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_scarsec.asp (accessed October 15, 2013).

Ibid. "A View of the Constitution." By William Rawle, 302. Philadelphia: Philip H Nicklin, Law Bookseller, 1829.

Jefferson, Thomas. The Charters of Freedom. n.d. http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration_transcript.html (accessed October 15, 2013).

—. Thomas Jefferson, 1743-1826. Letters. n.d. http://etext.virginia.edu/etcbin/toccer-new2?id=JefLett.sgm&images=images/modeng&data=/texts/english/modeng/parsed&tag=public&part=156&division=div1 (accessed October 15, 2013).

Rawle, William. In A View of the Constitution, 296. Philadelphia: Philip H Nicklin, Law Bookseller, 1829.

Tocqueville, Alexis de. "Democracy in America." 381. New Rochelle: Arlington House, 1945.

           

Lincoln's Hypocrisy

"Democracy is the government of the people, by the people, for the people." - Abraham Lincoln

This statement by Abraham Lincoln, in his famous Gettysburg Address, demonstrates his hypocrisy and false accusation that his war was being fought to preserve a representative government. If he truly supported the idea of democracy and the will of the people being supreme, he would have listened to the voice of the people from the Southern States and allowed them to succeed from the Union. 
 

Lincoln had expressed his fears that representative government would “perish from the earth” if the South had left. His insistence on forcing the Confederate States of America back into the Union was in fact an attack on representative government. The people of the South had cast their votes and decided that the Federal government had infringed upon their constitutional rights; and in the spirit of the Declaration of Independence, “That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government,” they decided to withdraw. 

Lincoln appeared to support the concept of representative government and the power of the people to “institute new Government” when it suited them better. But by not allowing the South to go free, Lincoln went against his own beliefs and words that he delivered to the House of Representatives on January 12, 1848, when he said

Any people, anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable, and most sacred right, a right which we hope and believe is to liberate the world. (Lincoln 1989)

When Lincoln called for troops to invade the South, he sought to deny Southerners the right of representative government. H.L. Mencken stated clearly what each side was actually fighting for when he said

It is poetry, not logic; beauty, not sense. Think of the argument in it. Put it into the cold words of everyday. The doctrine is simply this: that the Union soldiers who died at Gettysburg sacrificed their lives to the cause of self-determination—that government of the people, by the people, for the people, should not perish from the earth. It is difficult to imagine anything more untrue. The Union soldiers in the battle actually fought against self-determination; it was the Confederate who fought for the right of their people to govern themselves. The Confederates went into battle free; they came out with their freedom subject to the supervision of the rest of the country—and for nearly twenty years that veto was so efficient that they enjoyed scarcely more liberty, in the political sense, than so many convicts in the penitentiary. (DiLorenzo 2002)

When Lincoln started his war to “save the Union,” he in reality was destroying that very Union formed by the States over seventy years earlier. A “Union” is formed voluntarily by a group and cannot be forced together by gunpoint. With Lincoln’s invasion of the South to force them back into the “Union,” it ceased to be a “Union” and became an empire. This War Between the States and Federal victory in 1865 changed our constitutional republic, a “government of the people, by the people, for the people,” into a consolidated empire.

 

Selected Bibliography

DiLorenzo, Thomas J. "The Real Lincoln." 114. New York: Three Rivers Press, 2002.

Lincoln, Abraham. "Lincoln: Speeches and Writings 1832-1858." 167. New York: Library of America, 1989.

The Intolerable Act 1774 and Today

It would seem as if history is repeating itself. Watch this quick little video (1 min) and tell me if this does not sound familiar to similar acts today. 

• Do you feel as if the government is passing laws today that in a way punish its people?

• Do not our plethora of government regulations make living in America difficult?

• Is there not a build up of extra "troops" being sent out to "maintain" order?

 

• Are there not places being shut down by the government?

 

Let us hope and pray that we can settle these problems in America before the only solution the people feel they have is that which they decided on to implement in 1775.  

Know Your Unalienable Rights?

"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."

What is an unalienable right? Can you list them? 

The founders did not list all of our unalienable rights in the Declaration of Independence. Thomas Jefferson emphasized a few of them when he wrote "that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

Here is a list of your unalienable rights:

• The right of self-government.
• The right to bear arms for self-defense.
• The right to to own, develop, and dispose of property.
• The right to make personal choices.
• The right to free conscience. 
• The right to choose a profession.
• The right to choose a mate.
• The right to beget one's kind.
• The right to assemble.
• The right to petition.
• The right to free speech.
• The right to a free press.
• The right to enjoy the fruits of one's labor.
• The right to improve one's position through barter and sale.
• The right to contrive and invent. 
• The right to explore the natural resources of the earth.
• The right to privacy.
• The right to provide personal security.
• The right to provide nature's necessities -- air, food, water, clothing and shelter.
• The right to a fair trial.
• The right to free association.
• The right to contract.       

I ask you, have the law makers infringed upon any of those unalienable rights listed above? Our Declaration of Independence was issued to a tyrannical government that was oppressing its people and infringing upon these rights that were given to us by our Creator. If there is any law today that infringes upon these rights, they are attacking the very foundation of our American government. If that is the case, then they are attacking your liberties. If your liberties are being attacked, then we have enemies that would do us harm. 

Americans, if you have pledged to defend our Republic, then step up and take your rights back. Use the system as created by our founders to protect our freedoms. Contact your elected officials and demand that they honor their oaths of office and support the Constitution of these United States. Educate yourselves, your children, your relatives, your neighbors and spread forth the message of liberty.              

In God Washington Trusted

Like many of the founding fathers, George Washington believed in God and acknowledged His hand in saving the Continental army and the revolution. Charles Bracelen Flodd noted that there were at least sixty-seven desperate moments that George Washington admitted would have potentially destroyed the cause had the hand of God not intervened in behalf of their struggle for independence. (Charles Bracelen Flood, Rise and Fight Again, Dodo, Mead & Co., New York, 1976, p. 377.)

The following comes from President Washington's first inaugural address:

"No People can be bound to acknowledge and adore the invisible hand, which conducts the Affairs of men more than the People of the United States. Every step, by which they have advanced to the character of an independent nation, seems to have been distinguished by some token of providential agency." (Fitzpatrick, Writings of George Washington, 30:292.)

Our Republic was Founded on the Religion of America

It is a great misunderstanding by Americans in the 21^st century how greatly important religion was to the Founding generation. Far too often, the purpose and intent of the separation of church and state is taken to mean that religion should be completely removed from public buildings and public life. This is so far from the truth and this practice is leading our constitutional republic down a continual road of destruction.

Our republic was created and expected to only be maintained by a moral and religious citizenry as evident in the words of our founders. Self-government, in the minds of the founding generation, was referred to “republicanism,” and they understood that it could only be maintained by a people free from corruption and selfishness. Benjamin Franklin wrote:

“Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters.” [1]

Can it be any clearer in the following words from the General who led our Continental Army and our first elected President, George Washington?

“Of all the disposition and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tributes of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens…Let it simply be asked, where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education…reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.” [2]

Even John Adams warned that the future of our great republic depended upon the level of virtue and morality retained by the people. He said:

“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” [3]

How then were these great States unified in 1783 expected to maintain a virtuous and moral people without religion? What was the intent and desire behind the phrase “separation of church and state” as conveyed by Thomas Jefferson? 

Our founders clearly intended to create laws that would restrict any interference by a federal government in any religious matters. They set out to ensure that the American people’s right to worship as they pleased was maintained. They did not want the President or any leader to give any preferential treatment to any one church or create a national religion. Such doings in Europe had fostered several problems for years that they had hoped to avoid in America.

It is clear that the founders did not intend to remove religion from the foundations of our republic when Congress wrote and approved in 1787, the very year the Constitution was created, the famous Northwest Ordinance. So important was religion and morality to maintaining our liberty and freedom that these inspired men encouraged that it would be taught in houses of learning. Here is the way they said it:

“Article 3: Religion, morality, and knowledge being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged.” [4]

Let’s look as some definitions of those three components religion, morality, and knowledge as defined by W. Cleon Skousen [5]:

1.       Religion, which might be defined as a “fundamental system of beliefs concerning man’s origin and relationship with his fellowmen.”

2.       Morality, which may be described as “a standard of behavior distinguishing right from wrong.”

3.       Knowledge, which is “an intellectual awareness and understanding of established facts relating to any field of human experience or inquiry (i.e. history, geography, science, etc.)”

It is true that the founders thought is wise to separate the specific religious differences that were being taught by all the various sects, but they highly encouraged that the basic beliefs shared by them all be instructed to our students. This is evident when Thomas Jefferson wrote the Bill for Establishing Elementary Schools in Virginia, when he said:

“No Religious reading, instruction, or exercise shall be prescribed or practiced inconsistent with the tenets of any religious sect or denomination.” [6]

It is obvious that then if religion was to be taught in schools, the principles instructed must be accepted by all faiths. So then what did the founders believe those basic principles were among all faiths? Benjamin Franklin summarized what he thought were the “fundamental points in all sound religion” in a letter to Ezra Stiles, president of Yale University, when he said:

“Here is my creed: I believe in one God, the Creator of the universe. That he governs it by his providence. That he ought to be worshipped. That the most acceptable service we render to him is in doing good to his other children. That the soul of man is immortal, and will be treated with justice in another life respecting its conduct in this. These I take to be the fundamental points in all sound religion.” [7]

There are five fundamental points that Franklin makes, that is consistent with the writings of the other founders, that should be taught in our schools to raise a people with virtue and morals that will support and maintain a republican form of government. The founders sometimes referred to these beliefs as the “religion of America.” They thought that these five fundamentals should be taught with morality and knowledge to maintain a “good government and the happiness of mankind.” They are as Skousen points out [8]:

1.       There exists a Creator who made all things and mankind should recognize and worship him.

2.       The Creator has revealed a moral code of behavior for happy living which distinguishes right from wrong.

3.       The Creator holds mankind responsible for the way they treat each other.

4.       All mankind live beyond this life.

5.       In the next life mankind are judged for their conduct in this one.

This republic was founded by virtuous, moral, religious men. The republic that they designed and left in our care can only be maintained by a virtuous, moral, and religious people. Is it no wonder then, as we have continued to strip the fundamental religion out of our public buildings and schools that our republic has deteriorated? Is it no wonder then that our land has raised up corrupt and immoral leaders?

If we are to restore our republic and the liberty that our founding generation bled and died for, then we need to once again become a religious and moral people. It is time that we demand that the “religion of America” be brought back to our schools and public houses.

Works Cited

[1] Smyth, Writings of Benjamin Franklin, 9:569.

[2] Padover, The Washington Papers, p. 318-319.

[3] Quoted in John R. Howe, Jr., The Changing Political Thought of John Adams, Princeton University Press, Princeton, N.J., 1966, p. 189.

[4] George B. de Huszer, Henry W. Littlefield, and Arthur W. Littlefield, editors, Basic American Documents, Littlefield, Adams & Co., Ames, Iowa, 1953, p. 66.

[5] W. Cleon Skousen, The Five Thousand Year Leap: 28 Great Ideas That Changed the World, American Documents Publishing, L.L.C., Franklin, Tennessee, 1981, p. 60.

[6] J. Randolph, ed., Early History of the University of Virginia, 1856, p. 96-97.

[7] Smyth, Writings of Benjamin Franklin, 10:84.

[8] W. Cleon Skousen, The Five Thousand Year Leap: 28 Great Ideas That Changed the World, American Documents Publishing, L.L.C., Franklin, Tennessee, 1981, p. 61.