I think the firebrands of the South, much as I agree with their arguments and love their energy, jumped the gun when they decided to secede. They claim kinship with the events that precipitated the events of the Revolution without acknowledging that the Founding Fathers agreed to armed conflict and rebellion only after all other efforts had been exhausted. I do not know much about the arguments of Southern politicians, except for how it is attributed to James Kemper that Virginia should be ruled by Virginians, not by some president in Washington. The events that led up to 1776 were a long road of more than a century in the making from the Townshend, Stamp, and Intolerable Acts to impressments, quartering of soldiers, and military governors in the colonies. None of those things were imposed upon the South, and the South did not go to the same lengths to redress its grievances as did the Founders.
Generations passed before secession began. As the Founding Fathers died out, Adams and Jefferson in 1826 on the same day, and Charles Carroll, who was the last of the signers of the Declaration of Independence to die in 1832, a new breed of politician rose to authority to which the events of 1776 were alien. They, like so many in our day, ignored the Declaration, which lays out the rationale for separation from Great Britain, and opted out of the Union under the Constitution. This causes two problems. First of all, if contracts can be terminated at will because one side is unhappy, what meaning does the contract have, and how is the Constitution better than the Articles of Confederation? Secondly, the South was not subject to the same list of “abuses and usurpations” for so long a time without redress at all as those to which the colonies before them had been subject. They weren’t forced to give up slavery and were allowed to insist that admission of states had to keep the balance, neither of which is in the Constitution. Yes, there may have been some politicking by northern politicians, and if Stephen Douglass was representative of the average northerner, then I can understand their misgivings. That does not excuse the speed of their sedition.
That being said, I think the South’s premise was correct and noble. The Constitution clearly lays out the argument that the States gave birth to the Federal Government. Creatures do not boast themselves over the Creator without causing backlash, and yet 150 years ago, they were aware that the same proclivity to impose the will of some on others without their consent loomed on the horizon. The States were supreme, and yet the federal government was interfering in their affairs. If a state wants to allow slavery within its boundaries, that is up to the state, until and unless the Constitution expressly forbids it. I am not sure that they were justified to force territories to become slave or free or establish a Mason-Dixon line or bribe Nevada with incentives to come in as a free state. It is also clearly not in the power of the Federal Government after admission of a state to forbid the state to subsequently change its mind. Otherwise, same sex marriage would never have been permitted, especially in Massachusetts, which was once a Puritan haven. Yet, apparently the intellectuals and elitists were at work then as they are now, for if it’s conservative, Constitutional, and moral, it’s subject to change, but once Liberals have their way, it’s immutable and unmercurial forever and ever amen.
Had I been alive back then, I would have argued as vehemently for State sovereignty as I do today. I happen to believe that many things are immoral, unethical, and down right stupid. However, I also understand that the Constitution was expressly written to forbid a few from imposing their will on everyone everywhere within the Union. If I am not allowed to do something by the Constitution, it doesn’t matter if I think it ought to be a federal law. I haven’t the right to meddle in their minds, their lives, their homes, and their decisions. Yet, here they have swooped back again to the belief that they can FORCE men to be better against their will and their morals. I am glad slavery ended so many generations ago, and I am upset it took so long to end such a salacious practice, but the manner in which it was ended was not true to Constitutional principles as I understand them. Of course, neither was secession. If you think it ought to apply to everyone, you amend the Constitution and have the people expressly authorize you to exercise that authority.
It’s just easier for liberals to use the courts, the bureaucracy, and executive fiat or for reactionaries to rebel. Sedition and rebellion are unbecoming of people who have not gone at least as far as the Founding Fathers to seek another solution. If you are going to hearken back to their memory, emulate them in semblance as well as substance. God will not support such sedition or reactionary rebellion. Virginia should indeed be ruled by Virginians as Nevada should be ruled by Nevadans, and it’s time we remind the Federal politicians once more that they work for us and not we for them.
No comments:
Post a Comment