Arkansas Blog

The traitorous listtle bastard, I'm glad they executed him.

Next?

Max -

Perhaps you should try reading some authentic accounts of the war from primary sources. Your distorted view of the "Civil War" (end of slavery, preservation of the Union, etc.) may come straight out of high school textbooks, but falls short of reality. Most people in the "Union" could have cared less about slavery or secession. Several New England states had threatened to seceed on many occasions. Lincoln was a fascist dictator who suspended habeus corpus, created West Virginia on his own, and locked up state legislators who did not agree with his views. The war was strictly about the economy (stupid).

Flog the delusional bastards, Max.

Slydog sounds like he comes from the occupants of the same circle of hell that threatened violence over the display of a priceless bronze sculpture of Lincoln (a working model for the much larger sculpture that sits in the Lincoln Memorial in Washington, D.C.) at the Hot Springs Convention Center.

oh man, here we go again. Its civil war... blog style!!!

Slydog would prefer to be under the flag of the CSA rather than the USA?

When Arkansas erects monuments to all the thousands of Arkansas lads who fought and died for the USA then we will know we are ready to put all of this behind us.

Earl -

I would suggest that you try "reading" instead of making ad hominem attacks. Try "The Real Lincoln" by Thomas Dilorenzo, professor at Loyola College in Maryland. If you have an open mind, you will consider the points that are made. Otherwise, you are just another Lincoln syncophant who will join the other hagiographers in creating more fiction than fact when it comes to Lincoln. The cult of Lincoln (of which you are obviously a member) prefers to deify Lincoln as messiah. Since you state that I am a denizen of hell, I'll be sure to tell Mr. Lincoln you said hello since he's down here with the rest of us.

Some reviews of the book:

"In The Real Lincoln, Professor DiLorenzo convincingly exposed Lincoln idolatry as a fraud that has poisoned America's understanding of itself. Following up in Lincoln Unmasked, he shows who maintains and profits from the toxin in the body politic and the damage that they are doing to us to this very day. DiLorenzo's masterful diagnosis, we may hope, will go a long way toward a cure." -Clyde Wilson, Distinguished Professor Emeritus of History, University of South Carolina

"Lincoln Unmasked is a masterful book. Finally, Lincoln has been held to account and the lies and machinations of the Lincoln cult exposed." -Paul Craig Roberts, syndicated columnist and former Assistant Secretary of the U.S. Treasury

"Brilliant and withering, Lincoln Unmasked answers the kind of forbidden questions that our country now more than ever needs to hear. Thomas DiLorenzo deals in the kind of information that is consistently withheld from students in what we laughingly call our educational system." -Thomas E. Woods, Jr., bestselling author of The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History

Did you know that Lincoln . . .

. did NOT save the union? In fact, Lincoln did more than any other individual to destroy the voluntary union the Founding Fathers recognized.

. did NOT want to free the slaves? Lincoln, who did not believe in equality of the races, wanted the Constitution to make slavery "irrevocable."

. was NOT a champion of the Constitution? Contrary to his high-minded rhetoric, Lincoln repeatedly trampled on the Constitution-and even issued an arrest warrant for the chief justice of the United States!

. was NOT a great statesman? Lincoln was actually a warmonger who manipulated his own people into a civil war.

. did NOT utter many of his most admired quotations? DiLorenzo exposes a legion of statements that have been falsely attributed to Lincoln for generations-usually to enhance his image.

Lincoln was a fascist dictator who suspended habeus corpus,<< slydog

Pres. Lincoln suspended habeas corpus in a FIFTY SQUARE MILE AREA surrounding D.C.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Meanwhile Senior Demos of NWA will be celebrating MLK Day on Jan 15. The luncheon gathering will be at
11:30 AM at Western Sizzlin on W. Sunset in Springdale.
Featured speaker is UA Law School Dean Cyndi Nance.

A mock Demo Pres Primary election will be held.

Cato -

I don't deal in the hypothetical. I am merely stating that the "version" of the Civil War that is taught in public schools is NOT the complete story. Since the states voted to "join" the union, it seems only logical that they should be able to vote to leave the union. It's not like the states had joined a gang where they were bound for all eternity to remain a part of it. Lincoln expanded the role of the federal government far beyond the boundaries set forth in the Constitution.

"Pres. Lincoln suspended habeas corpus in a FIFTY SQUARE MILE AREA surrounding D.C." << Elwood

That was just his FIRST suspension of habeus corpus. April 27 Lincoln suspended the habeas corpus privilege on points along the Philadelphia-Washington route to keep an unobstructed route between Washington, D.C., and the North due to Lincoln's fear that Maryland would secede. A wave of arrests began after Congress instituted the first-ever military draft in July 1862. Because the draft proved highly unpopular and hard to enforce, Secretary of War Edwin Stanton, at Lincoln's behest, issued sweeping orders on Aug. 8 suspending habeas corpus NATIONWIDE-the first time the writ was suspended beyond a narrowly defined emergency area.

On Sept. 8, the federal official overseeing these arrests decreed that law enforcement agents were enforcing the Aug. 8 orders too stringently. It was evident that people were being arrested who posed no threat to the public safety. Thereafter, the arrests subsided. Still, Lincoln himself reiterated the suspension on Sept. 24, and arrests without trial continued. Overall between 10,000 and 15,000 people were incarcerated without a prompt trial. On balance, their detention almost certainly did not enhance American security nor hasten the Union victory.

"Meanwhile Senior Demos of NWA..."

All 7 of them??? This thread is SO not relevant to much of anything...STILL dead is operative!

In August 1862, Secretary of War Edwin Stanton, on Lincoln's orders, suspended habeas corpus across the country and decreed that a range of civilian criminals and dissenters would face arrest and trial before military courts. Of the 4,000-plus military trials throughout the war, about 55 percent took place in the border states of Missouri, Maryland, and Kentucky (where the Union military maintained a strong presence and where generals wouldn't trust juries composed of locals). Roughly 32 percent occurred in the Confederate states. The rest occurred in Washington, D.C. (which was also under martial law for some of the war), and the North.

The military trials that became most controversial were those of civilians who lived in Union or border states. Their offenses-which were categorized, rather indiscriminately, as "treason," "conspiracy," "rebellion," or other similar crimes-included engaging in guerrilla warfare, spying, avoiding the draft, and even voicing disloyal opinions. These defendants often received less than full justice.

The problem wasn't that the tribunals were kangaroo courts. Staffed by military officers, they did abide by set procedures and sometimes acquitted defendants. Sentences were subject to review by senior officers, death penalties by the president himself. Lincoln himself spared many lives.

But as is typical of military justice, those procedures afforded fewer protections than those of civilian courts. Basic constitutional requirements were ignored. The Army courts had no juries, as the Constitution mandates. Nor did they require a unanimous vote to convict. A majority vote sufficed, except in capital cases, which required a two-thirds vote.

So, yes, David O. Dodd was NOT given a fair trial and was thus made a martyr.

I'm going to have to admit I am in slydog's camp on this one. Our time could be better spent discussing how to defeat the traitorous Mark Pryor, but I too am pretty pissed that the Civil War has been reduced to a People Magazine type sound bite and 99% of the US population buys into it.

Lincoln was not the kindly old grandfather he's made out to be. Thousands of Americans were locked up Gitmo style during the Civil War with no recourse and without being charged with any crime. The Thought Police got em! Only 6 percent of Arkansans owned slaves in 1860. From my studies, the Civil War was about state's rights. And of course the term state's rights has been turned into an automatic red flag denoting someone whose a racist. By now the regulars on this blog know I have many flaws, but racism isn't one of them.

Our country almost split apart between 1800 and 1810 because of fighting over state's rights. Slavery was an afterthought while the Civil War was raging. And of course I detest and condemn slavery of any kind, now or 500 years ago. But this is the kind of arguments that start when we try to shoe-horn a gigantic slice of American history into a blog posting. The old Testament on the head of a pin never much interested me either. Let sleeping Dodds lie.

Paul Greenberg's relatives were being harrassed and muredered by Cossacks at that time. I never understand his fascination w/ the Confederacy and Gen Lee. He never expresses nostalhia for Pogroms, or use eupemisms like 'the late unpleasantness".

dbi -

Thanks for the support. I believe that we see eye-to-eye on this topic.

Despite all the flaws of the leaders and the problems caused by the Civil War's destruction and divisiveness, Lincoln did accomplish his objective which was to preserve the Union. Although it is hard to project an alternate history (many have tried), it is likely that a Southern victory would have reduced our nation's role in the 20th century and possibly keeping us from becoming the superpower we did.
Rather than argue why the war was fought, it would be better to take a hard look at what might have occured if slavery was not eliminated legally, if the country's resources and people were kept divided, and if further war and strife was kept from erupting between the two factions at a later and more dangerous time.
One of the reasons the Southern cause lost, not necessarily the main one, was the problems Jefferson Davis had with the Confederate states insisting on exercising their states' rights to the detriment of the CSA war cause. In a sense, he had a cause, but not a country.
I would recommend to all bloggers the excellent book, "Lies My Teacher Told Me" by James Loewen. It is a condemnation of the textbook industry and how it sanitizes and almost dehumanizes our history. Here is a review:

"High school students hate history. When they list their favorite subjects, history always comes in last. They consider it the most irrelevant of twenty-one school subjects; bo-o-o-oring is the adjective most often applied.

James Loewen spent two years at the Smithsonian Institute surveying twelve leading high school textbooks of American History. What he found was an embarrassing amalgam of bland optimism, blind patriotism, and misinformation pure and simple, weighing in at an average of four-and-a-half pounds and 888 pages.

In response, he has written Lies My Teacher Told Me, in part a telling critique of existing books but, more importantly, a wonderful retelling of American history as it should - and could - be taught to American students. Beginning with pre-Columbian American history and ranging over characters and events as diverse as Reconstruction, Helen Keller, the first Thanksgiving, and the My Lai massacre, Loewen supplies the conflict, suspense, unresolved drama, and connection with current-day issues so appallingly missing from textbook accounts.

A treat to read and a serious critique of American education, Lies My Teacher Told Me is for anyone who has ever fallen asleep in history class. "

DBI,

I don't know if you are a fan of "The Simpsons" or not, but a relevant episode is "Much Apu About Nothing" which first aired on May 5, 1996. Click on blue name for complete episode about immigrants.

Homer teaches Apu facts about American history, like that the 13
stripes on the American flag are for good luck, and the electrical
college, while Chief Wiggum and boys prepare to deport the
immigrants. The day before the exam, Homer asks Apu to study his
9th-grade history notes. Apu tries to study, but falls asleep after
reading two words.

In the morning, Apu wakes up.

Apu: Ohh, I fell asleep! I have forgotten everything that Mr. Homer
taught me!
Lisa: Perfect. Let's roll.

Through another sea of protestors, Apu takes the written exam, then
the oral exam.

Proctor: All right, here's your last question. What was the cause of
the Civil War?
Apu: Actually, there were numerous causes. Aside from the obvious
schism between the abolitionists and the anti-abolitionists,
there were economic factors, both domestic and inter--
Proctor: Wait, wait... just say slavery.
Apu: Slavery it is, sir.

DBI, you are so right when people want to whittle down a complex issue into something so simple.

Jake -

It wasn't too hard for Lincoln to accomplish his "objective" considering he had control of most of the nation's railroads, soldiers, navy, boats, factories, etc. The South was a supplier of raw materials (wealth). Lincold didn't want to lose his gravy train.

Slavery would have eventually ended - just like it did in every other Western nation and without all the death and destruction. Just look at the Delta today. You have so many people out of work because of the industrialization of agriculture - a once labor-intensive job. One man and his tractor can do the work of hundreds.

I hate to revive the "Lincoln cult" discussion, but if slydog was hoping that the pedigrees of those who claim that there is a "Lincoln cult" (sort of like the conspiracy to kill Christmas), he may want to find other academic endorsements.

Clyde Wilson and Paul Craig Roberts were founders of the League of the South. The League of the South is a Southern nationalist organization whose ultimate goal is "a free and independent Southern republic."

Paul Craig Roberts: "in the 20th century the rich were the class most persecuted by government. The class genocide of the 20th century is the greatest genocide in history."

The information in morse code was about union positions, etc. Sounds like not very smart espionage to me.

In 1966 I told my 84 year old grandmother that I was going to vote for Winthrop Rockefeller. She quickly told me never to vote for a republican. I asked her why she felt that way and she replied "because of the war", she was referring to the War between the States. One hundred years after the end of the war what would make an old lady feel the way my granny did? For one thing her father in law was captured at Helena in 1863 and spent the rest of the war in union prisons. She knew many neighbors in that part of Lonoke County who had lost their sons and brothers in the war. She had heard about reconstruction and the occupation by the union army from those who had lived through them. She had grown up in a state that had been defeated in a war. The memories of people like my granny were what made the tale of David O. Dodd an Arkansas legend.

You may call Dodd a traitor if you wish but you must also then call the millions of Confederate soldiers and those who supported them traitors.

I was one of the fellows who did a little research into the original records and helped stage a reenactment of Dodd's trial about 4 or 5 years ago. We used a copy of the Record of Trial from the national archives, a copy of the contemporary Manual for Courts-Martial, and the current (1847) handbooks on military law for this.

First of all, Dodd was accused of spying, not treason. The two offenses are not the same, though commonly mixed in the press and media. The evidence and facts presented at trial indicate that Dodd did indeed possess sensitive information concerning the federal units at Little Rock, contained in a notebook taken from Dodd's person, in Dodd's handwriting, and casually concealed by means of being written in telegraphic code. Dodd was apprehended by Federal outposts on the Military Road/Southwest Trail attempting to convey this information into the Confederate lines. The evidence presented supported the elements of proof for the offense,and Dodd was rightfully convicted of the offense with which he was charged. Dodd provided only character witnesses in his defense, at no time did he deny what he did.

Dodd was tried by a military commission established and empowered to sit in judgement of civilian offenses against military law. That law provided only one possible sentence upon conviction -- death. As a civilian and convicted spy, Dodd was sentenced to be hanged following the review of his Record of Trial by the convening authority and military district commander, an automatic appeals process which applies to convictions under the Articles of War.

"Civil" War is anything but. We have not only our own history to judge this by, but the history of all other nations which have undergone similar circumstances. Lincoln was no saint, but he did a hard and difficult task that, in the long run of things, needed to be done in order to carry out the mandate of our own Declaration of Independence -- that all men, not everybody except blacks -- are created equal and are entitled to the pursuit of happiness.

Slydog and many others propose that our nation and the world would be better off today if there were two separate nations located between the Canadian and Mexican borders. I disagree... World history was greatly affected by what went on here between 1861 and 1865, and we now have a much better nation for that experience.

The southern states attempted to establish their own nation in the 1860s. However, freedom isn't free, and contrary to Thomas Jefferson's assertions, there are no inalienable or absolute rights. There are only those rights for which someone stands up to defend, by arms if needed, and is successful in doing so. The South was unsuccessful, and lost that struggle, and we are where we are today. Perhaps someday someone else will make the same or similar assertion, but they'd better be ready to defend themselves against any and all comers. We live in a world full of predators. You only have those rights which you, -- or someone else -- is able to defend for you. That's why we and most other nations maintain standing armed forces.

And Slydog -- when I want to read fiction, as you suggested up above, there are much better authors -- and scholars -- than DiLorenzo and friends.

Someone smarter than me pointed out on Moyers...I think it was...that every other country in the world managed to end slavery without fighting a civil war. Almost 700,000 Americans died in the Civil War. I'm glad the North won.....I don't want to fight another Civil War. But about the best lesson to be learned from the Civil War is that we were mighty stupid to have fought it in the first place.

I'm upset that blacks are still treated like 2nd class citizens. If only we could solve our current race problems then the Civil War might finally at last be over. And again I say, Mark Pryor is the David O. Dodd of the 21st century.

... and while I forgot, in typing up the previous rant, if we're arguing about David Dodd, how come the picture is of Useless S. Grant?

ARK. BLOG: Read text below.

Mr. Lendall -

It's amazing the information you can get from Wikipedia, isn't it? It seems that the pedigree of your "source" has a few problems also. By the way, did you create your own wikipedia article "Jim Lendall?"

Anyone can do a similar hatchet on your own party, The Green Party of Arkansas. One could take selected quotes out of context and make anything seem possible. One could argue that you share similar values on the following (according to your party's website).

Decentralization
Power and responsibility must be restored to local communities within an overall framework of ecologically sound and socially just values and lifestyles.

as well as:

Respect for Diversity
Greens honor the biological diversity of the Earth and the cultural, sexual and spiritual diversity of Earth's people. We aim to reclaim this country's finest ideals; popular democracy, the dignity of the individual, and liberty and justice for all.

Although I do agree with your parties values, I am sure that just as many people in Arkansas may be offended by your parties stance on the following issues:

The Green Party calls for an end to the "war on drugs."

We, The Green Party of Arkansas in accordance with the United States Green Party 2000 & 2004 Platform; the Declaration of Independence; the Constitution of the U.S.; and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights declare Gays, Lesbians, Bi-Sexuals, Transgenders, and all individuals identifying as Queer have the right to marry and be afforded all the social, economic, and familial benefits of marriage.

Social Justice and Equal Opportunity
Greens want to replace the worldwide system of poverty and injustice with a world free of all oppression.

Please tell me how you are going to accomplish your Social Justice goal (or any other) when you only got 1.7% of the total vote for governor?

DayuM!

You guys & probably gals, have gone in too deep here for this fat boy!

I knew the Civil War was about a whole lot of important stuff....I knew slavery and state's rights....as in 1957...were in the mix to aid in confusing the masses and endear the rednecks using race as an ingredient to simplify the disagreements....but I think I will go looking for that thread bashing nutt haters and huggers.

I know it is goes without saying...carry on. I will hide and watch.

Mr. Up The Road -

Please tell me where I proposed "that our nation and the world would be better off today if there were two separate nations located between the Canadian and Mexican borders."??? I'm going to repeat it again for you (please read it slowly and carefully): "I am merely stating that the "version" of the Civil War that is taught in public schools is NOT the complete story. " My problem is with the one-sided nature of the debate and the elevation of Lincoln to some god. You know, like some people want to believe that Ronald Reagan needs to be on Mt. Rushmore.

I see that you belittle Mr. Dilorenzo. Could you please tell me the names of the scholarly journals in which you have been published? I am sure that you are a renowned scholar on the Civil War and there are just dozens of journal articles and books that you have written. Do you happen to have the LOC numbers for them? Please provide them at once so I can behold the splendor of your academic endeavors.

Also, why was Dodd tried in a military court when he wasn't a soldier?

Mr. UTR -

How can you discredit a book you have never read? Are you a psychic as well as a Civil War expert?

One more thing -

Since some of you are insinuating that I am a right-wing, racist, moron - a majority of the material I have cited (cut and paste) comes from Slate online magazine:

Uncivil Courts (http://tinyurl.com/2tx9lw)
America's military tribunals through the ages.
By David Greenberg
Posted Wednesday, Dec. 5, 2001, at 3:44 PM ET

and

Lincoln's Crackdown (http://tinyurl.com/2pzadp)
Suspects jailed. No charges filed. Sound familiar?
By David Greenberg
Posted Friday, Nov. 30, 2001, at 11:58 AM ET

Regarding the execution of David O. Dodd (from the Uncivil Courts article) -

"Just as the Bushies have invoked Abraham Lincoln's suspensions of the privilege of habeas corpus to justify their summary detentions, so they have hearkened back to the use of military tribunals in the Civil War to justify their new proposal. The big difference between the Bush plan and Lincoln's plan, of course, is that while Bush intends to try mainly what the Supreme Court has called "enemy belligerents" in his military courts, Lincoln prosecuted American civilians. Still, now as then, using Army courts to try anyone but U.S. soldiers is to court the reproach of posterity."

the war was about the economy. yes it was about states rights but the primary states right under consideration was slavery. it was necessary to grow the cotton for the souths part of the triangle trade and their economy at the time. no matter what anybody says slaves were the problem. even in kansas during the years before the war where my relatives had started fighting as bushwhackers it was financial and over slaves and the way the people who owned slaves lived. there was much arguement as to whether there was a right of a state to secede. a west point textbook stated that a state did have that right, therefore leading to the semi friendly loss of many army officers to the south. one of the biggest problems the south had was they seceeded when they didn't have any arms factories. if you are going to start a war it is sort of important to have a place to make your guns and cannons. luckily they had cotton which they could trade to england for those commodities. too bad they couldn't trade some of that cotton for a couple of hundred thousand men.

Mr. UTR and Mr. Lendall -

Here is David Greenberg's Home Page from Rutgers University: http://www.scils.rutgers.edu/~davidgr/

Could both of you please send me your curriculum vitae and the web address of your home pages so I can compare your scholarly qualifications against his? Thanks bunches.

>>... and while I forgot, in typing up the previous rant, if we're arguing about David Dodd, how come the picture is of Useless S. Grant? -- Up The Road

ARK. BLOG: Read text below.<<

UTR -

Now I understand that you have a reading/comprehension problem. At first I thought you were just boasting about your smarts. It's all very clear now. My sympathies.

_._. ._ _. _ ._ _ . ._ ._.. ._.. _ _. . _ ._ ._.. _ _ _ _.

Dog,
I'm speaking for myself, not UTR. I am not a Civil War scholar, but when the "scholars" heaping praise on Dilorenzo's diatribe are limited to the strange folk you quote above, that pretty much discredits Dilorenzo's screed in itself. Despite your Southern aristocracy elitism, a person does not need an advanced academic degree to recognize trash, just by the smell, without having to wade into it.

It brings to mind books such as (the John Birch Society's favorite) "None Dare Call it Treason," which were nothing more than propaganda, disguising itself as scholarly research by including hundreds of footnotes and scores of pages of appendices and bibliography.

The "Lincoln cult" myth is a typical straw man gimmick. It works by claiming your opponent subscribes to an extreme position (Lincoln cult, pro-abortion [rather than the right to choose], anti-Christian), putting the opponent on the defensive trying to deny a non-existent position. Meanwhile, The straw man debate hides the real agenda of the accuser, which may be equally extreme in the opposite direction.

People who disagree with you are not card-carrying members of the mythical Lincoln cult. They simply disagree with you.

P.s., As far as the goals of the Green Party, I support them, in context and out-of-context.
JL

"I don't deal in the hypothetical. I am merely stating that the "version" of the Civil War that is taught in public schools is NOT the complete story.".........Slydog

Perhaps the "complete" story is taught in the private schools? Please, give me a break. It depends on your meaning of "complete story." I personally think the Civil War as taught to students of history seeking undergraduate and graduate degrees is pretty complete, if there are any courses than can be classified "complete."

"Since the states voted to "join" the union, it seems only logical that they should be able to vote to leave the union. It's not like the states had joined a gang where they were bound for all eternity to remain a part of it."......Slydog.

Slydog, that's the same old argument that John C. Calhoun and all the other unhappy southerners presented as they try to support their cause for "nullification." You seem to be, as did Calhoun's generation, completely ignoring Daniel Websters definitive argument against such conclusions by showing them where they were historically and politically wrong. Briefly, Webster pointed out that states did not create the Union but ratherTHE PEOPLE.

Of course, any time states got unhappy, as did the New England states during the War of 1812, they would drag out the secession argument. But Slydog, the Civil War settled that issue once and for all whether Professor Dilorenzo or you don't like it one bit. The fact is up to the Civil War, secession was talked about all the time and whether secession could take place; since 1865, there has been no such serious talk ever again.

"Lincoln expanded the role of the federal government far beyond the boundaries set forth in the Constitution."...Slydog

Lincoln used no power he did not have. Former presidents may have never used such power but that doesn't mean Lincoln didn't have it. If you think his use of haebus corpus was unconstitutional, then you need to quickly review the Constitution as to when haebus corpus can be suspended and that special condition existed when Lincoln was president.

"I don't really care if I don't convince the History profession. They're mostly liberals and leftists anyway."...Professor Dilorenzo

Right away I get suspicious when I see someone has an agenda with that kind of mindset with the presentation of such works. Especially from economic professors. Be a little bit more discerning, perhaps, with the sources who present the arguments you wish to hear and agree with. I try to.

Cato et al. -

Dilorenzo was only ONE source I suggested as an easy-to-read entrance into Lincoln and his "cult." Once again, have you read the book? Dilorenzo uses multiple primary sources to prove his points.

I see that you are all ignoring the fact that the majority of what I have posted here today comes not from Dilorenzo, but from Dr. Greenfield as put forth in two of his History Lessons on Salon.com comparing the abuses of the Bush administration post-9/11 and Lincoln's even more far-reaching dismissal of the Constitution and civil rights.

Does Dr. Greenfield stand you "test" of what a "credible" scholar must be?

PS, Cato -

Try to be just a little bit less patronizing. It makes you seem so uptight.

Uh, Slydog, try to be a little less condemnatory with those who disagree with your historically faulty conclusions. You can do better, even if history is against you.

Well, I finally got angry enough to sign up and post something here instead for sitting on the sidelines, simply reading.
~~ Slydog ~~
The minute you post you own damned CV, to show you are smart enough to responsibly post messages, is the day others should have to post their's in order to provide an opinion. You need to chill and stop being so touchy. You are also making a LOT of assumptions about who has read/not read things.

The Civil War was all Houston Nutt's fault.

Arkansas Publius -

Is English your first language?

"The Civil War was all Houston Nutt's fault."

Okay, not really. Just thought the thread could use a little levity.

Otherwise, hey BIGFAN. Hey slydog!! Nice to see y'all.

And this: Could it be that, while not particularly concerned about man's inhumanity to man, the industrial forces of the North didn't want the **slave-enriched** agrarian powers of the South to spread their political muscle all the way to the West Coast, as seemed likely after the Kansas-Nebraska Act?

I mean the South had been trying to flex the political muscle of slavery since the drafting of the Constitution, in which they turned the nifty trick of having "non-citizens" like Dred Scott nevertheless count as partial "persons" for purposes of representation in Congress.

Some wouild say that's about politics. Some would say that's about slavery.

I'm not saying. I'm just sayin' . . . . .

Cato -

So Lincoln never suspended habeus corpus? Lincoln didn't arrest and imprison legislators? Chief Justice Taney supported Lincoln's suspension of habeus corpus?

These are the points I made today. Please explain how they are historically faulty. As a matter of fact, please explain how any of the points I have made are historically faulty.

You still have not discredited Professor Greenberg - who supports the points I have made.

Cato -

Nice job of taking Dilorenzo's comment out of context. Here is the complete quotation in response to a question posed on LewRockwell.com (http://tinyurl.com/2cd7n4). Read the COMPLETE article instead of cherry-picking. FYI, Dilorenzo is an economist (tarrifs, etc.)

>>What about your peers among professional historians?

I don't really care if I don't convince the History profession. They're mostly liberals and leftists anyway. Some of them are amazingly dishonest, like William Harris, who wrote this book, With Malice Toward None. He teaches at the University of North Carolina.<<

Here is the INTRODUCTION to the article at http://tinyurl.com/2cd7n4.

When Random House released Dr. Thomas DiLorenzo's critique of Abraham Lincoln, The Real Lincoln: A New Look at Abraham Lincoln, His Agenda, and an Unnecessary War, in 2002, it caused quite a stir. Dr. DiLorenzo eloquently and effectively disputed the accepted Lincoln myth, and the liberal academics who've made a living off of Lincoln's unassailability didn't like it one bit.

Born in Pennsylvania - southern Pennsylvania, as he is quick to point out - Dr. DiLorenzo earned a Ph.D. in economics from Virginia Tech and is now professor of economics at Loyola College in Maryland.

In addition to The Real Lincoln, Dr. DiLorenzo is the author of ten books, including Official Lies: How Washington Misleads Us; The Food and Drink Police: America's Nannies, Busybodies, and Petty Tyrants; and Underground Government: The Off-Budget Public Sector (co-authored with James T. Bennett).

Professor DiLorenzo is widely published in the popular press as well, including the Wall Street Journal, Barron's, Washington Post, Washington Times, New York Times, Readers Digest, and many other newspapers and magazines. He has appeared on the Fox News Channel, CNN, CSPAN, and the Rush Limbaugh Radio Show, and writes regularly for such websites as LewRockwell.com. Recently, he was interviewed by the History Channel for an upcoming documentary about Lincoln.

Dr. DiLorenzo is a member of the senior faculty of the Mises Institute in Auburn, Alabama, an educational institution that is devoted to advancing the work of the free-market "Austrian" school of economics.

Barron's magazine labeled The Real Lincoln as its "top pick" of books with economic themes for the year 2002.

We caught up with Dr. DiLorenzo on a branch campus of Loyola College in Maryland.

How did you get on to Lincoln?

I was real interested in the War, and I started thinking about how I could combine my profession with this hobby of mine: the history of the War.

More and more, as I read about Lincoln, I realized he was a tyrant. He was all about money and power. He was the political water-carrier of the Northern big business interests. Of course, he was a centralizer. I'm sort of a libertarian, although Clyde Wilson would say "Jeffersonian." Jeffersonian is pretty much the same thing to me. Most people hear the word "libertarian" and think of people who advocate taking drugs, and that sort of thing. Jeffersonian is more like it.

It really struck me that the War destroyed the Jeffersonian ideal of government. I started writing a few articles about this, and turned it into this book.

The reaction to your book has been mixed.

Bipolar! I've had thousands of e-mails from just ordinary people, which are 99 percent positive. Every day. They come in all the time.

These are people who've always believed this about Lincoln, and now you've codified it?

Yes. I got an email two days ago from a young guy who was very eloquent. He said he studied history his whole life, and especially the War and Lincoln. He went to public school in Michigan. He said this book convinced him that he had been lied to his whole life by his teachers and everybody. I get letters like that all the time. I have stacks and stacks of them.

What about your peers among professional historians?

I don't really care if I don't convince the History profession. They're mostly liberals and leftists anyway. Some of them are amazingly dishonest, like William Harris, who wrote this book, With Malice Toward None. He teaches at the University of North Carolina.

He and I were on a panel together last March sponsored by the Museum of the Confederacy. There were about 150 people there. He stood up there and said, "No private property - nothing - was ever stolen from a Southern household by any of Lincoln's armies." I'm so glad it was on videotape!

Then he said, "Lincoln did not wage war on civilians." This was in Richmond. The people in the audience couldn't believe it. This is a distinguished professor. He's the chairman of a committee that hands out the Lincoln Award every year to the biggest lie and cover-up about Lincoln that's written in book-form. It's just unbelievable.

How can he get away with that?

People just lie like that because most people are too timid to challenge them.

I shouldn't be surprised. So much of the literature is like that: dishonest. I've learned what it means to be a Lincoln scholar. You take all these horrible acts of tyranny, like the mass arrest of civilians, and if you can come up with ten or twelve plausible excuses or justifications for them, then you've got a publishable paper in a scholarly journal.

That's why they hate my book so much. I don't make excuses for it. In fact, I state the obvious. It's horrible.

Hello to you, too, TAP. I hope you had a merry xmas and happy new year. Did Temple get everything she wanted/needed? You've done a great job in helping to raise such a delightful child.

As a lawyer, TAP, do you believe that Lincoln ditched the constitution during the Civil War? Was Lincoln even worse than George W today in the suspension of civil rights and liberties?

Also, would you care to comment on UpTheRoads summation of rights and liberties:

"The southern states attempted to establish their own nation in the 1860s. However, freedom isn't free, and contrary to Thomas Jefferson's assertions, there are no inalienable or absolute rights. There are only those rights for which someone stands up to defend, by arms if needed, and is successful in doing so. The South was unsuccessful, and lost that struggle, and we are where we are today. Perhaps someday someone else will make the same or similar assertion, but they'd better be ready to defend themselves against any and all comers. We live in a world full of predators. You only have those rights which you, -- or someone else -- is able to defend for you. That's why we and most other nations maintain standing armed forces. "

Isn't this what they mean by social darwinism?

Cato, Pubius, and UpTheRoad -

Thank you for showing me the error of my ways. If someone makes a politically incorrect statement, I should totally ignore everything they say or have said. Therefore, I am stating today that I do NOT believe in the helical structure of DNA.

Dr. James Watson (of THE Watson & Crick team) was roundly condemned for saying he was "inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa" because "all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours - whereas all the testing says not really".

Since he made this inflammatory statement, everything he has ever written or will write can now be totally ignored and ridiculed. Thank you once again for allowing me to see the light!!

Thank you slydog. Much of what Temple has become is in spite of her father's influence. (By the way I don't know who you are, although I know where, and I'm fine keeping it that way).

As for your questions, I tend to agree with the Supreme Court justice who said, of another concept, that it was not to be decided in blacks and whites; the greys predominate "and the shades of them are innumerable."

I don't think Lincoln was an angel. I don't think, in his heart, he thought much of black folk. I think if shipping us all back to Africa would have solved his problems, he would have done so. I think he matured and grew wiser and more humane toward blacks over the course of the war.

I think it's hard for me to think of a logical reason why a state that joins a union cannot "unjoin" just as sovereigns back off treaties all the time. I think, however, that is no way to run a railraod.

I think for some, the horrors of slavery might have been the North's "Weapons of Mass Destruction." Except slavery was real.

I think it is as hard to unravel all of this now as it will be for historians a century from now who try to decide whether we invaded Iraq for oil, or to makeover the Middle East in our own vision by setting off an explosion of democracy, or whether we really thought Sadaam was up to something, and although he could never hurt us, we'd best send a signal . . . . or something else.

Slydog, you're a sly one and it's good to see you posting here again. You've been way too quiet for way too long. I've always admired the way you embark upon a fight and then scrap it out to the end. I knew the wolves, coyotes, and bobcats would be ruffled and baring teeth the minute you dared to hint that Honest Abe might have been born with a flaw or two.

But you should know better about Lincoln, sport. The history books have bestowed sainthood upon him, much like they've done with the flawless Harry Ashmore of the more recent (circa 1957-58) unpleasantness. Of course, if the history books bestow sainthood, the sainted have gotta be saints, right?

Sorta like the oldest history book in the house, the bible. Everything described within is unquestionably true; everybody knows THAT! Only the insane would challenge anything in the good book.

TAP, you're so cool. No matter the topic, you make so much sense. How do you stay so danged even headed?

"So Lincoln never suspended habeus corpus? Lincoln didn't arrest and imprison legislators? Chief Justice Taney supported Lincoln's suspension of habeus corpus?"...Slydog

You are lost in this course of debate, Slydog. Of course he suspended habeas corpus. Where do you get the idea anyone is taking issue with that? The Constitution allows the suspension of habeas corpus. Read it slowly and clearly: "The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it."

I am sorry you didn't like the direct quote I listed from the author. That happens a lot. Politicians often charge they were misquoted or "taken out of context." It doesn't change the fact the statement was made.

Now Slydog, 1). was there a case of rebellion taking place? yes or no. 2). was there a case of invasion of the USA and was the public safety in danger in the USA? yes or no. 3). under those conditions, was the Constitution violated? yes or no.

"These are the points I made today. Please explain how they are historically faulty. As a matter of fact, please explain how any of the points I have made are historically faulty."

I just did with this issue of habeas corpus. The Constitution allows such.

"You still have not discredited Professor Greenberg - who supports the points I have made."

I do not intend to discredit Greenberg no more than I would take the time to discredit all the high degree holding expert German educated professionals who endorsed and supported Hitler's racial nonsense with all their misguided intellectual conclusions.

Slydog, I only wish to debate the history of this topic and not the histrionics. Would you tell me, with a yes or no, as to your beliefs with these questions? Just straight answers.

-The Constitution states clearly no state shall enter into any treaty, alliance or confederation. Was the creation of the Confederate States of America an open violation of the Constitution as Lincoln and others maintained?

-The first three words of the Preamble are, "We the People...." Nowhere does it say, "We the states.." Do you believe the people created this Union or the states created this Union?

-Secession by 1850 was embraced by those disgruntled Southerners who expoused nullification, i.e., that States had the ultimate power in the Union to declare national laws null and void and not the United States Supreme Court. Do you think such ideology is valid and legal?

-The old issue of states joining the union voluntarily automatically gave them the right to leave voluntarily, if they so decided, was debated hard and fast back then. Do you agree the Civil War settled that issue once and for all? Do you agree that the Civil War proved states cannot leave the Union once they enter?

-Do you believe the "complete story" is taught in the private schools [secondary and college levels]?

-Do you believe the "complete story" is not taught in the public schools [secondary and college]?

-Would prefer today being under the CSA flag or the USA flag?

Let me say I think the Constitution was violated with the admittance of West Virginia into the Union during the War. I think a lot of people were hoodwinked by their respective leaders during the War, especially the poor whites in the South who owned no slaves but were willing to fight and die for something they didn't have and would never have. The slave owners who controlled my South did a good selling job to them.

Lincoln was not for equailty of the races when he was on the campaign trail but he made it clear as he grew into the office that he had changed his mind. That's a plus for him since he knew he would be called a "nigger lover" by many of those in the North that he needed for support.

I am glad the USA won the war. I am glad Lincoln and the people of the USA has the fortitude and tenacity to see this thing through to conclusion. I think the South lost a friendly sole when Lincoln was assassinated and the Radicals took over with blood in their eyes. The entire episode was a disaster for our nation and there was a monumental failure of leadership in the North and in the South that allowed this tragedy to occur.

Perhaps I missed a posting, but did y'all know that there is an elementary school named for David O. Dodd? There is an etched stone there to commemorate his capture? There is a historical marker a wee bit down from the 10 Mile House? Do y'all know where the "Stagecoach House" or "Ten Mile House" is?
Political incorrectness was not considered in those days. And, today, we have advanced no further, have we? Still talking about "The War" and Lincoln and still arguing points of view that support current/antiquated points of view. Enough is enough.

i had forgotten this but i think it explains it pretty well. in ken burns documentary, shelby foote tells us that the civil war changes the country from the united states are to the united states is. that is a big difference and that explains it very plainly.

I think David O. Dodd, no less than Gen. Robert E. Lee (for whom we have a state holiday) was an individiual caught up in fighting for what he believed was in line with the will of God, justice, fairness, honor and duty to the memory of one's ancestors. I believe these men were wrong, and I am glad they lost, but I harbor no ill will against their memories.

As for the special treatment of spies, I note that the great Underground Railroad Conductor Harriet Tubman was a spy and scout for the Union. I'm glad she was. I know she would have been hanged if caught. I think her work, and that of others like her, was necessary to the ultimate victory. I do not think of her as less honorable than a solder because she was a spy.

I am willing to let Dodd, Lee and the especially evil Nathan Bedford Forrest rest (or whatever they may be doing) in peace, secure in the thought that it's not mine to judge them, even had I been called on to fight them.

I should clarify: I don't "judge" Forrest, at whose hand the KKK did mighty evil, only in the sense that I don't pretend to know what God will do with him, and I don't seek to make manifest my impression of him, as by boycotting Forrest City or something.

Cato,
Your explanation of the constitutional considerations was very, very educational. Thanks.

TAP, like you, it is time to move on. There were a lot of evil actions on both sides of the fence. In our own country, men died fighting for a cause, divided this country and yet while it seems to take forever to recover, it is past time. There were heroes and idols and idiots from each side. My Grandfather was a Civil War Historian in his spare time when he was the Chair of the Federal Reserve in LRAR from which he retired to Chattanooga, TN. I spent my childhood searching Missionary Ridge and other sites for bullets used during surgery. "Bite the Bullet" sort of stuff during surgery when there was no anesthetic. He wrote a book, "Termites in the Temple" ( quoted because there is no underscore here), that was never published. I have the original script. He took one verse from the Bible, "Love Your Neighbor as Yourself", challenged churches to learn to forgive. My fondest memories of this gentle and kind man were his teachings that no matter the outside of a person there is a a real person inside. "Don't Judge a Book By It's Cover". He taught me much more than History.

The Civil War is long over, fellow bloggers. As a former teacher, I read anything and everything written about the Civil War. Many conflicting arguments. Slavery became the issue that split the North and South.
How about focusing our efforts and arguments about a very real Civil War in Iraq?
Let's end this occupation of an innocent country and get our troops home ASAP.

Cato -

My intial post and all those posts which follow were only an attempt to point out that Lincoln was not the great statesman that others have chosen to paint. I could give a rat's ass as to whether the North or South won. My point is that Lincoln was a despot, a dictator, and a fascist. He even makes George Bush look good when it comes to civil liberties. You and others have attempted to portray me as a rabid, right-wing, racist who supports slavery, the Confederacy, and Hitler. Nothing could be further from the truth.

As I have stated, a majority of the material I have used comes from Professor Greenberg's "history lesson" published on Salon.com. Salon is one of the leading liberal webzines in the United States. I don't believe that Salon would allow Greenberg (to whom you compare to "all the high degree holding expert German educated professionals who endorsed and supported Hitler's racial nonsense with all their misguided intellectual conclusions.") to make unfounded and historically-twisted statements.

I'll answer your first three questions with this response:

The most explosive incident regarding the suspension of habeus corpus centered on John Merryman, a Marylander arrested for insurrectionary activities. Summarily jailed, Merryman petitioned for a habeas corpus writ, which Chief Justice Roger Taney granted. But the commanding officer at Fort McHenry, where Merryman was held, refused to release the prisoner, citing Lincoln's edict. With the army loyal to Lincoln, Taney couldn't enforce his order and railed against the president while Merryman stewed in jail for seven more weeks. After being freed, he was never tried.

The Merryman case and others like it ignited a debate over Lincoln's actions. Democrats argued they were unconstitutional. Taney noted that Article 1 of the Constitution, where habeas corpus is discussed, deals exclusively with congressional powers, meaning that Congress alone can authorize the privilege's suspension. Although correct, Taney's argument framed the debate around a legalistic and secondary issue, that of congressional versus presidential power. It skirted the question of whether the situation warranted a suspension of habeas corpus at all. Thus when in March 1863 Congress passed the Habeas Corpus Act, effectively endorsing Lincoln's actions, civil libertarians were stripped of their main argument. (Taney also criticized Merryman's detention, noting that civilians aren't subject to military justice).

HOWEVER, there's no evidence the government would have gone to pieces. By the time he issued his April 27 order, Union troops had made their way through Baltimore, and it should have been clear that Washington wasn't going to be fatally isolated. As for dissuading Maryland from seceding, contemporaneous accounts suggest that whatever the administration's fears, no such move was imminent.

Now let's move on to your next question:

->>The Constitution states clearly no state shall enter into any treaty, alliance or confederation. Was the creation of the Confederate States of America an open violation of the Constitution as Lincoln and others maintained?>-Do you believe the "complete story" is taught in the private schools [secondary and college levels]?

NO. I have been in the public educaion system for 22 years. I am not a fan of "private schools" since most are a refuge of whites who refuse to go to school with blacks.

-Do you believe the "complete story" is not taught in the public schools [secondary and college]?>-Would (sic) prefer today being under the CSA flag or the USA flag?<<

Is this a trick question? I would prefer to be in whichever country would prevent pompous windbags like you from pontificating WITHOUT reading the sources that were supplied to you, INSTEAD of choosing to dismiss them because you don't agree with them.

And finally you state " I think the South lost a friendly sole when Lincoln was assassinated . . ." By sole, do you mean the bottom of a shoe or the fish???????????

One more thing, I'm going to forward your comments to Professor Greenberg. I'm sure he will be overjoyed to know that he is being compared to supporters of Hitler. Just guessing from his last name, I'd say you have made a very serious error.

The Civil War did not end the debate over secession. Here are a few recent examples of local and state governments who have argues for secession in the past 25 years:

The Republic of Texas has been quite fractious and one faction generated national publicity for its illegal antics in the late 1990s. There have been repeated attempts to form a Republic of Cascadia in the Pacific Northwest. The Hawaiian sovereignty movement has a number of active groupings which have won some concessions from the State of Hawaii. Founded in the 1983, The Creator's Rights Party seeks to have one or more states secede in order to implement "God's plan for government" and is fielding political candidates in 2007 around the United States.

Efforts to organize a continental secession movement have been initiated since 2004 by members of Second Vermont Republic, working with noted decentralist author Kirkpatrick Sale. Their second "radical consultation" in November of 2004 resulted in a statement of intent called The Middlebury Declaration. It also gave rise to the Middlebury Institute, which is dedicated to the "study of separatism, secession, and self-determination" and which engages in secessionist organizing.

In November 2006 the same group sponsored the First North American Secessionist Convention which attracted 40 participants from 16 secessionist organizations and was (erroneously) described as the first gathering of secessionists since the Civil War. Delegates included a broad spectrum from libertarians to socialists to greens to Christian conservatives to indigenous peoples activists. Groups represented included Alaskan Independence Party, Cascadia Independence Project, Hawaiʻi Nation, The Second Maine Militia, The Free State Project, the Republic of New Hampshire, the League of the South, Christian Exodus, the Second Vermont Republic and the United Republic of Texas. Delegates created a statement of principles of secession which they presented as the Burlington Declaration.[4]The Second North American Secessionist Convention in October, 2007, in Chattanooga, Tennessee received local and national media attention.[5]

In the summer of 2007, an advocacy group called Californians for Independence was formed. Its mission is "the eventual secession of California from the United States of America."

Cato -

You quote the Constitution but conveniently ignore the Declaration of Independence which called for the SECESSION of the colonies from the English crown.

If the South had a natural right to revolt (which it undeniably did, or else the Declaration of Independence must be denied), then the South was very much justified in seceding. In addition, the South certainly had a constitutional right to secede, based on the 9th and 10th Amendments, and the nature of the Constitution as an enumerated document - not to mention the fact that the federal government created by the Constitution was itself the child of secession twice over - first from England, and second from the Articles of Confederation.

Secession was not the death of representative government, but an instance of representative government. The Southern states, fully respecting the fact that Lincoln had been elected - realized that they would simply be dictated to by the North under Lincoln - left the voluntary union known as the USA (which is a political compact, not a marriage).

Cato repeats a common error in treating "the Southern states" as a monolithic entity. True to their principles, the States seceded qua individual states. Virginia, Tennessee, Arkansas and North Carolina, for example, seceded only after Lincoln called for troops to invade the states that had already seceded. Their reason for seceding? The same reason that former president Franklin Pierce expressed in opposition to the war, and for which Secretary of War William Seward wanted President Pierce arrested, namely, Lincoln had no constitutional authority to invade a state with a federal government army.

To summarize -

"Whenever any form of government becomes destructive, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government," said Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence. Just as a group has a right to form, so too does it have a right to disband, to subdivide itself, or withdraw from a larger unit.

Thomas Jefferson and James Madison held that the U.S. Constitution was a compact of sovereign states which had delegated very specific powers but not sovereignty to a central government-powers which could be recalled any time. By international law sovereignty cannot be surrendered by implication, only by an express act. Nowhere in the U.S. Constitution is there any express renunciation of sovereignty by the states.

In an article entitled "The Foundations and Meaning of Secession" which appeared in the Stetson Law Review (1986), Pepperdine University Law Professor H. Newcomb Morse provides convincing evidence that the American states do indeed have the right to secede and that the Confederate states did so legally.

First, three of the original thirteen states-Virginia, New York, and Rhode Island-ratified the U.S. Constitution only conditionally. Each of these states explicitly retained the right to secede. By accepting the right of these three states to leave the Union, has the United States not tacitly accepted the right of any state to leave?

Second, over the years numerous states have nullified acts of the central government judged to be unconstitutional. These instances where national laws have been nullified give credence to the view that the compact forming the Union has already been breached and that states are morally and legally free to leave.

Third, and most importantly, the U.S. Constitution does not forbid a state from leaving the Union. According to the tenth amendment to the Constitution, anything that is not expressly prohibited by the Constitution is allowed. Therefore, all states have a Constitutional right to secede.

However, two new constitutional questions concerning secession emerged shortly after the Civil War ended. First, under military occupation and control, six former Confederate states were coerced into enacting new constitutions containing clauses prohibiting secession. But in the eyes of most legal scholars, agreements of this sort made under duress are voidable at the option of the aggrieved party. Furthermore, there is absolutely nothing to prevent these six states from amending their constitutions again.

During this same period of time and also under duress, the fourteenth amendment to the Constitution was ostensibly ratified. Although this amendment does not explicitly forbid secession, some have argued that it does so implicitly.

However, the fourteenth amendment is tainted by the highly questionable legality of the Union's invasion of the South. Some legal scholars question whether the fourteenth amendment was ever constitutionally ratified.

According to the Declaration of Independence, we are endowed by our Creator with "certain unalienable rights" including life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. If that is the case, then it is not much of a stretch to argue that the right of secession is such a right.

The ultimate defense against the federal government is the right of secession. Yes, most people assume that the Civil War settled that. But superior force proves nothing. If there was a right of secession before that war, it should be just as valid now. It wasn't negated because Northern munitions factories were more efficient than Southern ones.

Among the Founding Fathers there was no doubt. The United States had just seceded from the British Empire, exercising the right of the people to "alter or abolish" - by force, if necessary - a despotic government. The Declaration of Independence is the most famous act of secession in our history, though modern rhetoric makes "secession" sound somehow different from, and more sinister than, claiming independence.

The original 13 states formed a "Confederation," under which each state retained its "sovereignty, freedom, and independence." The Constitution didn't change this; each sovereign state was free to reject the Constitution. The new powers of the federal government were "granted" and "delegated" by the states, which implies that the states were prior and superior to the federal government.

Even in The Federalist, the brilliant propaganda papers for ratification of the Constitution (largely written by Alexander Hamilton and James Madison), the United States are constantly referred to as "the Confederacy" and "a confederate republic," as opposed to a single "consolidated" or monolithic state. Members of a "confederacy" are by definition free to withdraw from it.

Hamilton and Madison hoped secession would never happen, but they never denied that it was a right and a practical possibility. They envisioned the people taking arms against the federal government if it exceeded its delegated powers or invaded their rights, and they admitted that this would be justified. Secession, including the resort to arms, was the final remedy against tyranny. (This is the real point of the Second Amendment.)

Strictly speaking, the states would not be "rebelling," since they were sovereign; in the Framers' view, a tyrannical government would be rebelling against the states and the people, who by defending themselves would merely exercise the paramount political "principle of self-preservation."

The Constitution itself is silent on the subject, but since secession was an established right, it didn't have to be reaffirmed. More telling still, even the bitterest opponents of the Constitution never accused it of denying the right of secession. Three states ratified the Constitution with the provision that they could later secede if they chose; the other ten states accepted this condition as valid.

Early in the nineteenth century, some Northerners favored secession to spare their states the ignominy of union with the slave states. Later, others who wanted to remain in the Union recognized the right of the South to secede; Abraham Lincoln had many of them arrested as "traitors." According to his ideology, an entire state could be guilty of "treason" and "rebellion." The Constitution recognizes no such possibility.

Long before he ran for president, Lincoln himself had twice affirmed the right of secession and even armed revolution. His scruples changed when he came to power. Only a few weeks after taking office, he wrote an order for the arrest of Chief Justice Roger Taney, who had attacked his unconstitutional suspension of habeas corpus.