|View single post by Unionblue|
|Posted: Thu Dec 10th, 2009 07:17 am||
Saw a part of an article I had copied long ago and thought it would fit nicely on this particular thread.
"In analyzing the "revolution" of 1861, therefore, we must have reference to the question of slavery. WHY did the Confederacy fire on Fort Sumter? WHY did they break the supreme law of the land by declaring themselves no longer part of the union? The answer is, in order to preserve their slave property from interference by the federal government. Or, more accurately, in reaction against the election of a President who had pledged himself to halt the spread of slavery into the western territories (which he did have the constitutional authority to do). Although the Confederates phrased their arguments in terms of "freedom," it was the "freedom to enslave" that they were defending. This made the Confederacy an illegitimate government, rather like the communist coups taking place on an hourly basis in South America. When the Confederacy initiated force by firing on Fort Sumter, therefore, it became the responsibility of the President to "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed," including the supreme law of the land, by putting down the rebellion by force if necessary.
This is the answer to our second question: the secession of 1861 was not a legitimate revolution. Its "cournerstone" rested on "the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery--subordination to the superior race--is his natural and normal condition." The Constitution of the Confederacy protected slavery from any government interference. The Confederacy seceded, not in response to the initiation of force, but in response to the election of Abraham Lincoln--no radical abolitionist, as other anti-Lincoln writers have emphasized--and fired upon Fort Sumter, which was federal property.
It was illegal for the American Patriots to fire on the Redcoats in 1776, but they did so because the British had violated the natural rights of Americans, and declared the right to "bind them in all cases whatsoever." The American Revolution was based explicitly on the principles of equality and the right of individuals to own themselves. The Confederacy's attack on Fort Sumter, on the other hand, was engaged explicitly in the name of defending the "right" to enslave without the interference of federal authorities, and in defense of a Constitution explicitly protecting "right of property in negro slaves."
Source document: Why Joseph Sobran Is Wrong About The Civil War, by Timothy Sandefur.
Belief does not make truth. Evidence makes truth. And belief does not make evidence.