This commentary is special to the Mirror, written by Charles Landis.
When I was a young boy growing up on Oakley, an historic plantation in Virginia, I learned dam Yankee was one word and referred to northerners who invaded the South and occupied for 12 years.. The War was over but there was respect for the leaders and fallen on both sides in that great conflict .About two decades ago the narratives began to change and the history rewritten to conform with the woke progressive agenda;. Southerners were demonized and their memorials disparaged and now vandalized and torn down; the 16199 Project, cancel culture ,and Critical Race Theory became the new standard of learning of the progressive woke.
Today, we are told a revisionist fabrication of the Cause of the War and the conduct of it. My purpose here is, to paraphrase Washington, to take the pains to bring to light the truth. Inter alia:
The Cause of the Southern states was as in the Declaration of Independence and provided for in the compact for federation in the Constitution….secession. Period. The cause of the Northern states was sectional domination, greed, and to fundamentally change the Constitution to a more centralized federal governance. Period.
The War was not begun because of the institution of slavery or any other moral construct of the North. The issue of whether new territories would be admitted as slave or free was an issue because of the consequence on balance of power in Congress for dominance of sectional interests.
The War did not begin with South Carolina firing on Ft. Sumpter. Prior to Lincoln assuming office, South Carolina and Florida s had an agreement with President Buchannan that he would not reinforce or resupply Federal forts at Charleston, South Carolina and Pensacola, Florida.. The South did not want war but peaceful resolution. Upon assuming office, Lincoln ordered Fort Sumpter in Charleston, South Carolina, and ort Pickens in in Pensacola, Florida, be reinforced and resupplied in deliberate violation of the agreement.
Clearly Lincoln’s action was an act of war or intent. The shots fired on Fort Sumpter were to prevent the reinforcement and resupply. In fact, s before the shots were fired on Fort Sumpter, Union troops had begun to reinforce and resupply Fort Pickens; thus it was Lincoln who initiated the first act of war.. Also, the commander of Fort Sumpter, General Winfried Scott, Lincoln’s Commanding officer, and other cabinet members warned Lincoln his actions would precipitate war. His intent was war and excuse to call up 75,000 troops to invade. Thus Lincoln started the hostilities.
Neither Jefferson Davis or Lee was ever tried for treason, secession, rebellion, or any other crime. After the war, a committee of uncompensated Northern lawyers was tasked to determine if Davis should be charged. They reported they could find nothing for which he could be charged…not rebellion…not treason,… nor any war crimes.. After several attempts to charge and bring Davis to trial, prosecutors approached Davis’ s attorneys with an offer to pardon him if he would promise to never request there be a trial. Davis agreed and he was pardoned.
It is often said by woke progressives that Lee was a traitor .This is not and can not be true. In ratification of the Constitution, Virginia expressly stipulated the caveat that it had the right to secede . Lee was a citizen of Virginia and he followed that loyalty after resigning his commission by the Union..
The great fear of the North was that, if there was a trial, Davis would or could be acquitted of any wrong doing. By trial all that Lincoln and h his high command had done would be brought to light; from violation of the Constitution and oath of office to war crimes.
At Lincoln’s second inaugural he spoke to need for malice toward none and charity for all… two weeks before, Sherman had completely destroyed Columbia, South Carolina, then inhabited by defenseless women, children, sick and feeble. Graves were dug up looking for treasure and remains scattered all about.;, going forward with 123 wagons of loot taken from the conquered defenseless non -combatants.
Honest Abe, he was called, much the same as the biggest bully on the block is called Tiny Tim…and the Great Emancipator who sold the slaves he inherited rather than emancipate.
Damnyankees had malice toward all in the South and charity to none.
“The Right of States to Secede”
New York Daily News, November 16, 1860
The people often act without reflection.
Statesmen and politicians, either contracting the sentiment of the populace or influenced by ambitious motives, encourage the action of the people upon an erroneous and often fatal idea.
The present agitation at the South is of this nature.
If it is not quieted it will bring evils upon this Confederacy, the number and extent of which it is painful to think of, and the termination of which it is impossible to foretell.
The Herald and The Tribune both tell us that a State has a right to secede; but can we believe them?
Let the reflecting men study the formation of this Government, the only true source of information, and learn for themselves whether a State has such a right or not.
On the Fourth day of July, 1776, thirteen American colonies declared themselves free and independent States.
Throwing off their allegiance to the British Crown and the Governments, which at that time consisted of the Provincial, Proprietary and Charter Governments, they established one of their own.
In 1774 the first Congress passed the Bill of Rights, which is as dear to us as the Bill of Rights passed during the reign of Charles the First is to Englishmen.
The affairs of the Government were conducted by Congress until near the close of the Revolution, without any substantial form of government.
In March, 1781, the last State acceded to the Articles of Confederation, and the Thirteen Independent States became a confederacy called The United States of America.
The object of the States in establishing a confederacy under the Articles of Confederation was to form a permanent union for the mutual support and protection of each other.
The intention of parties in forming a contract should always be considered.
Knowing the intention of our forefathers, can we violate their contract?
Each State, in accepting the Articles of Confederation, was bound by them.
It was a contract and was binding.
Secessionists ask who would enforce it?
We answer, the majority.
The Articles commenced thus: “Articles of Confederation and PERPETUAL UNION, between the States of.”
Then came the articles defining the powers granted by the States to Congress, and the rights reserved to themselves.
In Article 13 it says: “And the Articles of this Confederation shall be inviolably observed by every State, and the Union shall be perpetual.”
At the close of the last Section in the same Article and immediately preceding the signing of the Articles — that there might be no mistake in the duration of the Union — the language is nearly repeated, viz.: “And that the Articles thereof shall be inviolably observed by the States we respectively represent, and that the Union shall be perpetual.”
One of the main arguments used by persons believing that States have a right to secede is this, that there is no definite time fixed for the duration of the Confederacy.
Can anything be more plain than the language used that it is to be perpetual, to endure forever?
They will say to this that under the Constitution, which is substituted for the Articles of Confederation, no such language is used.
Not until they had signed the Articles of Confederation did they become United States, and in that contract they declared themselves to be United States, and to remain united forever.
They, as United States, adopted the Constitution.
It reads thus: “Constitution of the United States of America.”
“We, the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union., &c.”
Not to limit the Union, but to make it more perfect!
They became United States, and forever under the Articles of Confederation, and neither was abrogated or annulled by the Constitution!
In the words of the preamble, both were affirmed.
Where does the power lie to alter the compact?
In the highest power of the land.
In the States themselves and with the Government, as with all corporate bodies, the majority must rule.
No decree of a Court can dissolve the States as it can a Corporation.
The only power is with the States themselves, and a State once a member of the Confederacy cannot secede without the consent of the others — the majority must rule.
If there was any other power to decree the dissolution of the Union, it should be left to that power; but there is none.
The General Government cannot coerce a Territory to become a member of the Confederacy.
But once having signed the compact and become a member of the Union, it cannot withdraw without the consent of the other members.
If one State has a right to withdraw, all may withdraw; and we should have loss of name, loss of national existence, civil war, servile war, loss of liberty, and, ultimately, the subjugation and overthrow of the most glorious Republic which ever existed.
Could Pennsylvania withdraw from the Union if Congress did not impose a high protective tariff on iron, what would be the result?
She would have to support a Government at great expense; maintain an army and navy; the tariff she might impose would not benefit her at all; on the contrary, it would prove a detriment; there being no greater comity between her and other countries, the other States would purchase iron where they could buy the cheapest.
Bankruptcy of the State would follow, and, consequently, poverty of her citizens.
The same rule would apply, in a greater or less degree, to every other State.
The whole country, and every individual, would necessarily feel the effects of secession; but it would be most injurious to the seceding States.
History tells us that States cannot exist disunited.
The compact of these States is binding upon all, and the man who attempts to violate it will be responsible to future generations for the misery which his acts may produce.
Everything Mr. Plante says is so wrong that one cannot decide where to begin or need bother. below is a portion of a commentary I wrote a few months ago.
——————————————————————————————————————
In 1840, Abel Upshur published a treatise in refutation of Associate Justice Joseph Story’s Commentaries on the Meaning of the United States Constitution, published in 1833. It was Upshur’s writings that argued the Constitutional case for Virginia to secede from the Union in 1860 and Lincoln to resolve the issues of nullification, secession, and confederation vs a national consolidated union in a Civil War enforcing Story’s meaning of the Constitution.
Joseph Story (1779-1845) was considered the foremost jurist and Constitutional law scholar of his time. His Commentaries were based upon his reading of the Federalist Papers and the opinions of Chief Justice John Marshal with whom he had served on the Supreme Court for many years and for whom his work was dedicated. In Story’s view, the reference to We the People in the Preamble to the Constitution means all the people in the United States collectively as one consolidated people; the colonies became states at the time of ratification of the Constitution: the Constitution was not a compact between individual sovereign states as if a confederation; ,and the Constitution was the supreme law of the United States.
.
Upshur’s rebuttal, “A Brief Enquiry into the True Nature of our Federal Government”, argued (I think persuasively) that there was no collective “ We the People” from time of Declaration of Independence and at ratification of the Constitution. Upshur argued that each colony rebelled against England independently, established their own constitutions, and declared themselves independent sovereign states as did Virginia in 1775. Representatives they sent to the first congress (1744) represented only the people of their colony and at signing of the Declaration. (1776). In 1777, representatives signed Articles of Confederation, decidedly not an agreement to establish a consolidated or national government. . In deed, Article II of the Confederation agreement expressly said signatories were as sovereign states.
When exigencies of the time required the inadequacies b of the Articles be addressed, the Congress met and the first draft of the Constitution was reported on August 6, 1787. The Preamble read “ We the People of the States of New Hampshire, Massachusetts…(naming each of the 13 colonies/states) do ordain…” and the meaning was the people of each sate as individual and sovereign not as one collective or consolidated people .On September 8, 1787, a resolution was adopted to refer the draft of the Constitution to a committee of 5 to finalize style and order of matter but not to change anything in meaning of agreement.
On September 12 the committee reported the changes in style and on September 18 it was compared to all matters agreed upon. The Preamble read We the People of the United States. However, this was decided because the Constitution required only 9 states to ratify and it was not certain all 13 colonies/states would ratify. Thus all 13 could not ne named if one or more did not and it would be presumptuous to enumerate all.
Note. The Preamble is not law and has never been cited as. Ratification was by States and the “people” were citizens of the States.
Upshur believed strongly in maintaining the Union but he also asserted the States had the right of nullification and secession While the Constitution was the supreme law of the land and the Supreme Court the supreme arbiter in enumerated powers, because the Constitution was a compact between the States and the federal government it could not be the arbiter in disputes over non remunerated powers or dispute between the parties.. Thus, Upshur argued the States had the right to nullify and /or secede and sovereignty was indivisible.
In the final analysis, the existential reason for Virginia to secede from the Union is found in Upshur’s refutation of Story’s Commentaries. Lincoln had promised that Virginia could remain in the Union as a slave state and he would not introduce Constitutional Amendment as required. Indeed, in Lincoln’s first inaugural address, he said “I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so and I have no intention to do so.” However. Lincoln strongly denied the right of secession and, given the strong Republican majority in the Congress, Virginia did not believe.
.
There are those, then and now, who think because Upshur was a wealthy planter and slave owner, his treatise was a prejudice in that property interest. Emphatically no. His and as well Story’s interest was meaning of the Constitution irrespective of issue in dispute.
If one would but read Story’s Commentaries and Upshur’s treatise they would understand why both Virginia and Lincoln believed they were fighting a Civil war over the meaning of the Constitution, why Lee felt honor bound to serve Virginia and the Confederacy, and why the many memorials to Virginia’s fallen in that great conflict proclaim faithfulness to the Constitution as their cause.
C. Augustus Landis. Res Publica. Ex Fide Fortis
Except Mr. Plante did not say anything, at all.
What Mr. Plante actually did was to reprint an essay titled “The Right of States to Secede” by the New York Daily News, November 16, 1860 wherein was stated, agree with it or not, or like it or not, HOW the people of the North, AT THAT TIME, regardless of how anyone today who was not alive and living through those same looks at those times, saw matters, and why it was, IN THEIR WORDS, again like it or not, they were going to go to war against the South and the secessionist Democrats who wanted their own country where they could continue to have slaves.
Regardless of how anybody else looks at it, those words are what impelled countless people in the north, young and old, to leave hearth and home to go down below the Mason-Dixon line and put paid to the secessionist, slave-owning Democrats.
Apology. Mr. Plante only agrees with all that that is so wrong. Most of damnyankee soldiers were conscripted but exempted from drat if paid $300 for replacement, and over 250,000 were mercenaries just off the boat and needed a job. Also, most prominent abolitionists ( Greely, Garrison et. a) opined Southern states should be allowed to secede. Mr. Plante need do his homework.
Mr. Landis, if the southern states want to secede, let them!
I’m not going to raise a finger to stop them.
Would that make you happy?
And who back then living a hard-scrabble existence out in the country in a log cabin had $300 to buy a replacement with?
Who back then had “hard money?”
Looking at 1860 through the eyes of someone who only knows the twentieth century fairly skews the picture of reality back then is my thought.
In Mr. Landis’ scholarly essay above, an assumption is made that people in America at the time of the Democrat’s Rebellion against America and its peoples so the Democrats could have their own twisted and perverted society in their own country where they were free to own other people as their slaves, which is a hallmark of a Democrat, that insatiable desire to own others, were sophisticated enough and informed enough to know about this Upshur dude, who I had never heard of before this, and grandiloquent philosophical arguments going on in the parlors and drawing rooms of Washington. D.C. about why it was perfectly legal and lawful and the right thing to do for the slave-owning Democrats to secede and take their states out of the Union to make them into another hostile country on America’s border.
Mr. Landis searches for reasons today, in 2022, as to why people back in 1860 were willing to fight a bloody, protracted war against the Democrats to bring those states back into the Union.
As for myself, I go back to the past, to read for myself in their own words why it was that the common man from the North fought in that war.
And it had nothing to do with the grandiloquent theories of this Upshur dude Mr. Landis depends on to make whatever point he is trying to make, and to be truthful, I am never sure of what his purpose is, other than to express his hatred for Lincoln, and to re-litigate the war that the Democrats lost.
As to why young people and older people from the north of New York state left hearth and home to go south and put paid to the Democrats, this following is from a history written in 1885, and it provides as follows:
THE news of the outburst of “the great Rebellion,” in April, 1861, was borne through the rugged wilds and hills of Warren county with a celerity like that of the “fiery cross,” which in past generations gathered the clans of Scotland to the call of their chieftains.
In less than three days after the fall of Sumter, applications were addressed to the adjutant-general’s office, in Albany, for authority to procure enlistments.
On the morning of Thursday, the 18th of April, handbills were posted throughout the village of Glens Falls, containing a call, signed by over forty of the leading citizens of the place, for “a meeting to sustain the government.”
At this meeting, which was held the same evening, and which was largely attended, several spirited addresses were made.
The national flag was brought in and displayed amidst the wildest enthusiasm, and a series of patriotic resolutions adopted, from which the following extract is taken as a sample of their purport and spirit:
“Resolved, That the village of Glens Falls will not be behind any of her sister villages in contributing the men and the means necessary to defend the government, and to maintain the permanency of our beloved institutions; and that, as our fathers who established the Union pledged ‘their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honors,’ to gain our independence, so will we pledge all we possess to cherish and protect the work of the illustrious men of the past, and to transmit unimpaired to our descendants the noble institutions given to us.”
“Resolved, That to the end we are for maintaining this Union undivided, and, whatever may be the consequences, sacrifice of property or life itself — everything but loss of honor — we will stand by the stars and stripes until the last faint echo in the expiring gale wafts our dying prayer heavenward, in behalf of our country, its institutions, and humanity.”
end quotes
And that was it – that was all it took to motivate those young men to go to war – to maintain the Union undivided.
Now, maybe people alive today don’t like that, or think that sufficient, but who cares about what people today think?
An introduction to the “dude” M r. Plante says he never heard of yet so disparages.
Abel Parker Upshur (1790-1844) should be ranked as the most important person in history of the Eastern Shore and, in Virginia, in the quarter century leading to the conclusion of the Civil War.
Abel Upshur ) was a planter, Commonwealths Attorney. legislator, judge, Secretary of Navy, and Secretary of State. Counties in West Virginia and Texas are named after him. Streets in Washington, DC, and Portland, Oregon, are named after him. Mt. Upshur, aka Boundary Peak 17 in Alaska is named in his honor. A ship (destroyer) was named after him His portrait hangs in the State Department and at Blair House.
Prior to his tragic c death, Upshur negotiated the annexation of Texas and resolution of the dispute with England over the Oregon territories. He also reorganized and modernized the Navy.
Foremost in importance, however, were his writings on the meaning of the Constitution which was required reading at law schools of University of Virginia and William and Mary for an entire generation.
Deo Vindice
Why on earth would I or anyone else for that matter have heard of Abel Parker Upshur?
More to the point, why, back in 1860, when people were not “schooled” like they are today, would they have heard of Abel Parker Upshur?
Because they saw him on a talk show, or read his TWEETS on TWITTER?
And there are many, many people who have written about the Constitution.
What makes Abel Parker Upshur special?
Inter alia. Mr. Plante, (aka a damfoolyankee), convinces he is totally ignorant about all that he opines. This a consequence of an accident at birth when his brains s slid out the back door and he was left with shit for brains. His only hope is, if the good lord ever gives the world an enema,, it will be placed where ever he is situate and thus clear his head.
J’a finis. Consummatussumi
Charles, like Sorin, you too are a genuine HOOT, the real-deal bar none!
An American original.
It is the way you have with words, I personally think.
You have that same oratory skill as did Robert Hayne of South Carolina in 1830 who gave us what is considered by many to be a fateful utterance to the differing understandings of the nature of the American Union that had come to predominate in the North and the South.
And your very eloquent arguments couched in the verbiage of a true Virginia Cavalier and gentleman seem very much today based on the logic employed by your fellow Southerner Robert Hayne in 1830.
So like Robert Hayne, whose arguments in 1830 presaged the coming “civil war” or war to punish Democrat transgressions against our Union, it is a real flair for the spectacular and dramatic you have, as well as an ability to spin a good yarn.
So tell us, then – IF Abel Upshur was correct in his assumption that states could secede, a point O.A. Brownson, LL. D handily refuted and thoroughly debunked in 1866 in his masterfully written political essay “The American Republic: Its Constitution, Tendencies, and Destiny,” and he had Storey and Garrison and Greer backing his action, legalizing it, so to speak, the secession of the southern states, why on earth did they come crawling back into OUR Union?
They wanted out, they were out, it was legal according to Abel Upshur and his crowd for them to be out, so why not stay out?
Help us ignorant folks out here, if you will, and explain that to us.
Thanks for this article, I really enjoy the comments from you two gentleman. They makes me do my own research.
Growing up in the south, we never heard of Abel Upshur. It wasn’t taught in the schools. History is often written by the victors with their slanted on events that had occured during the fight for Southern Independence. Growing up, and trying to understand why my ancestors were fighting in the war, didn’t make sense to me.
Why would my ancestors fight in a war, when they had no slaves? My ancestors were poor. They had a little land. They learn to make deals with anyone that was willing to work, It’s what you did to survive.
Now, if mr. Lincoln started a war to save the union. Did he break the Constitution, in order to do so? Did the Southern States believed, that it was their Constitutional right to secceed from a government that was infringing on their Rights?
Was slavery on the way out? Many countries were banning slavery. Hey here is one. Why wasn’t Sherman tried as a war criminal? There is all kinds of evidence that support that he was. He was killing, raping and relocating innocent people and leaving poor and sick expose to the element and letting them die.
This is an open sore to a lot of Southerners. It was OUR ancestors that told us what is never mention in any history books. We honor our ancestors and history. There is no talk shows to discuss these issues. It is all slanted to the victors to tell their stories and not the truth, what really happen.
I will ask you two gentleman this. Is the Federal government taking away our states rights? Are crimes being covered up? Is history repeating itself?
Well, I’m against slavery, but it makes you wonder if my ancestors were right.
Ole times not forgetten.
Is the Federal government taking away our states rights?
That happened a long time ago, now!
And it was predicted at the time the Constitution was debated, that there would be what was called a “consolidation,” which has since happened, as was confirmed in the Federal Register for 6 January 2021, where the Democrats in the Nancy’s House injected to federal government into what was clearly a state’s right issue, that being state legislative control over the elections in each state.
I have read through the entire debates that ill-fated day when there was a coup by Nancy Pelosi and her pack of Democrats, and it is clear that those days are now done.
Are crimes being covered up?
Of course they are.
Just today, the news was out that Joe’s boy Hunter is working out a deal with Joe’s justice department, justice for Hunter, anyway, where Hunter really won’t be guilty of anything, which is a good deal for Hunter, and an advantage of being a Senator’s son!
Does history repeat?
I think so.
Study back far enough and there are certainly repeating cycles, hence the saying, those who use a mirror of brass can see to set their cap, while those who use the mirror of antiquity can predict the rise and fall of nations.
PAUL PLANTE: On the now-vanished Virginia Constitution and what that should mean to all of us
AUGUST 28, 2016
In recent commentary in the Cape Charles Mirror, I made reference to a thoughtful, well-researched, well-reasoned and scholarly essay from the University of Richmond Law Review entitled “A VANISHING VIRGINIA CONSTITUTION?” by The Honorable Stephen R. McCullough, Judge, Court of Appeals of Virginia wherein these three issues were raised by Judge McCullough in his capacity as a loyal citizen of the Commonwealth of Virginia, to wit:
1) The Constitution is the fundamental law of Virginia;
2) It is the charter by which our people have consented to be governed; it sets forth the basic rights and principles sought to be maintained and preserved in a free society; and
3) In recent decades, however, the most fundamental rights protected for Virginians by the Virginia Constitution have been, for all practical purposes, steadily vanishing.
end quotes
And these conclusions were drawn:
1) Some of the most important protections embodied in the Virginia Constitution should not be relegated to irrelevance by sweeping declarations that they are co-extensive with provisions found in the United States Constitution.
2) Instead, a determination of the scope of a provision under the Virginia Constitution should be made on a case-by-case basis, following an examination of text, history, and precedent.
3) The point of ensuring the continued vitality of the Virginia Constitution is not to advance a conservative or a liberal political project.
4) Preserving the vitality of the states in our system of government does not advance any particular ideology.
5) State constitutions should retain their vitality not only because they represent the foundational charter of a sovereign component of the Union, but also because the rights protected by the Virginia Constitution represent a valuable inheritance.
6) Ensuring their continued relevance for the centuries to come is a suitable end in itself.
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/paul-plante-on-the-now-vanished-virginia-constitution-and-what-that-should-mean-to-all-of-us/
Oh, I’m a good old rebel
Now thats just what I am
And for this yankee nation
I do no give a damn
I’m glad I fought against her
I only wish we’d won
I ain’t asked any pardon
For anything I’ve done
I hates the Yankee nation
And eveything they do
I hates the declaration
Of independence too
I hates the glorious union
‘Tis dripping with our blood
I hates the striped banner
And fought it all I could
I rode with Robert E. Lee
For three years there about
Got wounded in four places
And I starved at Point Lookout
I caught the rheumatism
Campin’ in the snow
But I killed a chance of Yankees
And I’d like to kill some more
Three hundred thousand Yankees
Is stiff in southern dust
We got three hundred thousand
Before they conquered us
They died of southern fever
And southern steel and shot
I wish they was three million
Instead of what we got
I can’t take up my musket
And fight ’em down no more
But I ain’t a-goin’ to love them
Now that is certain sure
And I don’t want no pardon
For what I was and am
I won’t be reconstructed
And I do not give a damn
Oh, I’m a good old rebel
Now that’s just what I am
And for this Yankee nation
I do no give a damn
I’m glad I fought against her
I only wish we’d won
I ain’t asked any pardon
For anything I’ve done
I ain’t asked any pardon
For anything I’ve done…