- Thursday, 01 March 2012 19:45
- Written by Mark Kreslins
I was asked to react to an article by my son-in-law Jon…Jon, this is my response.
So, I guess my first response to the article is positive in that he makes good arguments though with flawed assumptions that leads, in my view, to a false conclusion.
For example, early in his post he makes the following assertion: "The legal argument against secession is straight-forward. Beyond the simple fact that most countries don’t provide for their own dissolution at the outset, the Constitution is not silent on the use of force by the federal government." But recovers ground and runs straight into contradictory notions with this from his post: "But to support the Declaration of Independence is to support secession."He then attempts to reconcile these two seemingly contradictory ideas...how can on the one hand, there be a clear legal prohibition against secession and on the other, a clear acknowledgement that people may split over differences, but not light and transient ones.
Blanks error is missing the entire question of 1860-1865 which is, did the States have the right to withdraw from the Union? He assumes that slavery was the central issue of the War of Northern Aggression; indeed it was an issue, but was it THE issue? No, absolutely not or how does one explain the anti-abolitionist State of Kentucky not seceding with the other States. Or how about Delaware threatening to secede if Maryland did? No, Mr. Blanks seems to avoid these uncomfortable elements of this period because they don’t fit neatly into the script or narrative of Lincoln the slave-freer.
No, there were most certainly other issues at play and the absolute mistake most make, at the expense of their liberty, is to frame 1860-1865 as a war to end slavery. If Lincoln had at least framed it that way, some credit could be given to him for at least trying to end the despicable practice, yet his first Inaugural Address makes it quite clear that slavery was not the issue in his mind. Preserving the Union was his driving ambition which begs the question Mr. Blanks fails to ask; exactly where in the Constitution is the Executive Branch charged with “preserving the Union?” Can Mr. Blank point to that section in Article 2?
And herein lies the problem. The average citizen has given just about zero thought to the central question of 1860-1865, they have naively bought into a myth of epic proportions and the consequences have been disastrous. The central question of this period is; did the people of the seceding States, operating through their elected officials, in most cases in Convention, have the Inalienable Right to self-determination? The answer is either yes or no, not…well maybe but it depends. No, we MUST come to grips with this question, or you should just lay down, sign your rights and property to the government and be done with it. No pretending is allowed on the Forgotten Men show. You’re either for liberty, or you’re against it and how you understand 1860-1865 will determine how you understand liberty, federalism, the founding of the Union, the Convention, and the ratification.
If you buy the myth that Lincoln went to war to stop slavery, welcome to serfdom…please put your wallet in this tray.
If you’re mature enough to take an honest look at 1860-1865 objectively (as I did years ago), then you’ll be able to take the blinders off, stop putting your hope in Pastor Santorum, Chief Executive Romney, or Professor Gingrich and take up the cause of Jefferson, Mason, Henry, et. al. Let me assure you: “I know Jefferson…Jefferson is a friend of mine, (pause for dramatic effect)….Lincoln is no Thomas Jefferson.
Again, had Lincoln had the honesty to say that he was going to war with his fellow citizens to stop slavery…well then fair enough? It wasn’t Constitutionally allowed, but at least it was moral. But for him to argue that it was his responsibility to “preserve the Union,” well, that’s simply laughable on its face and offensive to the founding. Again, point to that section in the Constitution giving him that delegated authority. Crickets...
So, do you want to take the blinders off and see the world for what it really is? Until We the People do, there is no incentive for our State Legislators to challenge the Lords of the Potomac. If you do decide to take them off, you need to recognize, as we've been saying for years on the radio, that it’s up to you and it's up to me. Each of us must know what the heck were talking about regarding liberty and property so we can teach others because you can’t give away what you don’t possess.
I recommend starting here - Who Killed the Constitution by Dr. Kevin Gutzman.
If you don’t read books like this and others like it, then you’ll fall into the same trap Mr. Blanks did with his article…you’ll miss the real question of 1860-1865. Did the citizens of the seceding States and do the people of the States today, operating through their duly elected officials, have the Inalienable Right to self-determination and ultimately the right to withdraw from the Union?