The war of Northern Aggression
When it comes to history I have a lot to learn. I'm just curious about the state of affairs in our country and I'd really like to know how it was that our country's civil war began.
I know there was a deep conflict between ideology's which for years built up but what were the catalysts that put north vs. south?
What was the time frame? Who were the key players?
Based on the changes over the past 160 years in technology, ideas and everything else - what would be similar and what would be different should the people of America need to take their country back by force?
We have been taught in our public schools, (one of the best arguments for home schooling I can think of) that the "Civil War" was about differing ideologies regarding slavery. THAT is B.S. the War Of Northern Aggression was fought over two things; 1) MONEY and, 2) State and personal Sovereignty.
The money part is pretty easy to figure out the sovereignty thing is a bit more tricky.
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
During the debates in Congress between the delegates from the 13 colonies regarding the adoption of the Constitution there were many who argued against ratification stating that certain rights guaranteed to British citizens were, in fact missing from the document. Many of the dissenters were from Virginia, which was then the largest and arguably the most influential colony. This posed a substantial problem, as the Constitution was written with the idea of George Washington, a Virginian as President. Should Virginia fail to ratify, it would most certainly make it almost impossible for Washington to hold that post.
The Anti-Federalists persisted in favor of a Bill of Rights during the ratification debates, but also were against ratification, and consequently several of the state ratification conventions gave their assent with accompanying resolutions proposing amendments to be added. In 1788, the Virginia Ratifying Convention attempted to solve the problem that Hamilton and the Federalists had identified by proposing a constitutional amendment specifying:
That those clauses which declare that Congress shall not exercise certain powers be not interpreted in any manner whatsoever to extend the powers of Congress. But that they may be construed either as making exceptions to the specified powers where this shall be the case, or otherwise as inserted merely for greater caution.
This proposal ultimately led to the Ninth Amendment. In 1789, while introducing to the House of Representatives nineteen draft Amendments, James Madison addressed what would become the Ninth Amendment.
The exceptions here or elsewhere in the constitution, made in favor of particular rights, shall not be so construed as to diminish the just importance of other rights retained by the people; or as to enlarge the powers delegated by the constitution; but either as actual limitations of such powers, or as inserted merely for greater caution.
This was an intermediate form of the Ninth Amendment that borrowed language from the Virginia proposal, while foreshadowing the final version. Like Madison's draft, the final text of the Ninth Amendment speaks of other rights than those enumerated in the Constitution. The character of those other rights was indicated by Madison in his speech introducing the Bill of Rights:
It has been said, by way of objection to a bill of rights....that in the Federal Government they are unnecessary, because the powers are enumerated, and it follows, that all that are not granted by the constitution are retained; that the constitution is a bill of powers, the great residuum being the rights of the people; and, therefore, a bill of rights cannot be so necessary as if the residuum was thrown into the hands of the Government. I admit that these arguments are not entirely without foundation, but they are not as conclusive to the extent it has been proposed. It is true the powers of the general government are circumscribed; they are directed to particular objects; but even if government keeps within those limits, it has certain discretionary powers with respect to the means, which may admit of abuse.
The First through Eighth Amendments address the means by which the federal government exercises its enumerated powers, while the Ninth Amendment addresses a "great residuum" of rights that have not been "thrown into the hands of the government."
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
The Tenth Amendment is similar to an earlier provision of the Articles of Confederation: "Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled."
Interpretations of the amendment can be divided into two camps. The first interpretation, as held by the Tenth Amendment Center, most of the Founding Fathers, the Libertarian and Constitution Parties, and a few Republicans including Ron Paul and Jeff Flake, is that the Constitution does not grant the United States any power that it does not expressly mention. This has been used as the basis for such court cases as Gonzales v. Raich, and for arguments in favor of repealing a large number of Federal laws, abolishing the Federal Reserve, and drastically slashing the Federal budget by 50% or more. It is also why amendments were necessary for the abolition of slavery and the prohibition of alcohol - without said amendments, Congress did not have the authority to do those things.
The contrary opinion, as held by most of the current U.S. Government, is that the Constitution grants Congress the authority to do more or less anything that is not explicitly prohibited by the first eight amendments.
Congress cannot directly compel states to enforce federal regulations. In 1997, the Court again ruled that a federal act Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, violated the Tenth Amendment (Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898 (1997)). The act required state and local law enforcement officials to conduct background checks on persons attempting to purchase handguns. Justice Scalia, writing for the majority, applied New York v. United States to show that the law violated the Tenth Amendment. Since the act “forced participation of the State’s executive in the actual administration of a federal program,” it was unconstitutional.
From the time of the Declaration of Independence and after the successful revolution each individual colony looked upon itself as a sovereign state.
Since words have meaning, let us consider the meanings of the two words "Sovereign"and "State";
"Independent of, and unlimited by, any other; possessing, or entitled to, original authority or jurisdiction."
" * Has space or territory which has internationally recognized boundaries (boundary disputes are OK).
* Has people who live there on an ongoing basis.
* Has economic activity and an organized economy. A country regulates foreign and domestic trade and issues money.
* Has the power of social engineering, such as education.
* Has a transportation system for moving goods and people.
* Has a government which provides public services and police power.
* Has sovereignty. No other State should have power over the country's territory.
* Has external recognition."
The Colony of Virginia convened a "Revolutionary Congress" in response to the British Arm firing upon colonists at Lexington Massachusetts on April 19, 1775. On May 15, 1776, Virginias' Revolutionary Convention adopted three resolutions that effectively had Virginia declaring its' independence from Great Britian. The Virginia convention instructed its' representatives to attend the Second Continental Congress to secure a Declaration of Independence from all the Colonies in cooperastion and confederation.
Here's where a couple more definitions are in order;
"An assembly of representatives of sovereigns."
"the act of constituting a political unity out of a number of separate states or colonies or provinces so that each member retains the management of its internal affairs. (from the Latin Foedus)."
" (A) treaty or compact contracted by ancient Rome with one or more allied states (foederati). The treaty contained various conditions establishing permanent friendly relations between the contracting parties. A foedus aequum was a bilateral agreement recognizing both parties as equals obliged to assist each other in defensive wars or when otherwise called upon, in perpetuity. A foedus iniquum defined Rome as superior, the second party being bound to assist Rome in offensive wars, thus limiting the ally's sovereignty.
Pertaining to a league or treaty; derived from an agreement or covenant between parties, especially between nations; constituted by a compact between parties, usually governments or their representatives.
We all know now that the Declaration that was adopted asserted that the colonies were independent STATES. We have been taught, (inaccurately) that the operational portion of the Declaration of Independence was a restatement of Richard Blands' account of the just powers of government, (...We hold there truths to be self-evident...). We are taught that THIS is the bedrock of America... but it isn't!
The members of the Second Continental Congress were not commissioned to concoct a new theory of government. The first three paragraphs are what is called "horatory language" (definition hortatory: Marked by exhortation or strong urging; Formal encouraging [Latin hortari to encourage])... the preamble or predicate for the effective section which comes in the fourth paragraph where the Congress declared the Colonies to be "Free and Independent States" and claimed for them the rights to do what everything that free countries do. They declared themselves sovereign equals to France, Russia, Spain or any other Sovereign Nation.
More information is available at WAMAH