Your opponent is completely wrong:
Declaration of Independence:We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor. [Emphasis added.]
The keyboard is mightier than the gun.
Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.
Voluntaryism Forum
Lincoln had a similar approach to defining the union, as though it somehow existed before the states. If you read Lincoln's Marxists, there is a whole section on State Sovereignty that is great.
Al Benson, Jr. and Walter Donald Kennedy state that the mistake by Lincoln and other big government people is that they believe:
I. Perpetuity is a vital element of government
II. Secession creates a less perfect union
III. Secession is unlawful (p. 78-94).
While the Articles had a formal title of The Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union, the Articles was not ratified until 1781, which was years after the colonies declared independence by issuing the Declaration of Independence in 1776, thereby becoming states. The states preceded the union regardless of being under the union of the Articles and our current constitution, if there's even a difference (e.g., ". . . a more perfect union. . . .).
You can inform your friend that the states were, indeed, sovereign and voluntarily joined the union they created; the union did not precede the states, like Lincoln, Hitler and other big government people professed.
Actually, 9 States seceded from the Articles of Confederation so by his reasoning the Federal Constitution is illegal. In other words ask him... "why was it okay for them to leave the Articles of Confederation?".
By the way, I consider agreements of perpetual union to be unenforceable.
Autolykos: By the way, I consider agreements of perpetual union to be unenforceable.
I see what you mean and I agree . . . well, unless you consider Lincoln's successful subsequent war as a response to secession the ability to enforce the agreement of perpetual union. The southern states are still "in it," contractually anyway.
This is one of the productive things that came out of your and my (rankorous) discussions on my proposed new individualist political state; that you made me challenge the assumption of perpetual union, and I considered your (overly argumentative) points and come to include secession as a fundamental right of the individual--secession from any power at any time while remaining within your rights. If political power comes from the consent of the individual, then it should die when consent is withdrawn, at least over that individual whom withdraws it.
Up to and including leaving the society at large itself.
triknighted: Autolykos: By the way, I consider agreements of perpetual union to be unenforceable. I see what you mean and I agree . . . well, unless you consider Lincoln's successful subsequent war as a response to secession the ability to enforce the agreement of perpetual union. The southern states are still "in it," contractually anyway.
Lincoln's real goal was to free the slaves. The union was his cover story. In any case, the South was aggressing against its people by holding many of them as slaves, and could ethically be invaded for that. But, after Lincoln had freed the slaves throughout, you could make a case that the South then should've been able to secede at will, and I would agree. Of course, had they then made slavery legal, they could be again invadeable :P
What are you talking about? Lincoln didn't mention ending slavery until a couple years after secession, and before that - for his entire life and as president - he explicitly defended slavery. The main point to take from this, regardless of whether Lincoln was telling the truth or not, is that slavery was not the major cause of the secession of the southern states. At the same time, the major platform of Lincoln's campaign - both for the presidency and for his entire political life - was the imposition of high tariffs on the South. What was a differentiating feature of the Confederacy? That it was a free trade zone.
Many (most? all?) commentators contemporary with the outbreak of the secession - both American and foreign - knew that the mercantilistic policies of Lincoln were the cause of the secession. Opposition to Lincoln, of course, was shut down, and dissenters were imprisoned (Lincoln had illegally suspended habeas corpus of course!) - only the propagandists who later in the war adopted the official rhetoric of ending slavery were allowed to publish. Ending slavery was simply a political move to a) get the foreign powers, in particular UK and France, who supported the Confederacy and opposed slavery, on the Union side, b) attempt to forment some kind of slave insurrection against the southern government. Note that the emancipation proclamation only freed slaves in territories outside of the Union's control. Why? Because the Union only wanted to proclaim the freedom of slaves as a desperate political move against the South.
Anenome: triknighted: Autolykos: By the way, I consider agreements of perpetual union to be unenforceable. I see what you mean and I agree . . . well, unless you consider Lincoln's successful subsequent war as a response to secession the ability to enforce the agreement of perpetual union. The southern states are still "in it," contractually anyway. Lincoln's real goal was to free the slaves. The union was his cover story. In any case, the South was aggressing against its people by holding many of them as slaves, and could ethically be invaded for that. But, after Lincoln had freed the slaves throughout, you could make a case that the South then should've been able to secede at will, and I would agree. Of course, had they then made slavery legal, they could be again invadeable :P
Wayyy off, my friend. Lincoln waged war against the states due to their secession. Not only that, he didn't end slavery; the 13th Amendment did, which was ratified after his death.
How about this humdinger of a quote to start what is suspected to be a major (though unintentional) thread hijack. . . .
"My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause." -Abraham Lincoln
The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume V, "Letter to Horace Greeley" (August 22, 1862), p. 388.
Look, I know that's the common wisdom on Lincoln these days, but hear me out.
You have to read Lincoln in context. He was strongly against slavery. The entire Republican party had been recently founded on an anti-slavery platform, and Lincoln was its first president. All the other presidential contenders he'd beaten out similarly railed against slavery.
Read this article by Thomas Sowell defending Lincoln's legacy:
Since the 1960s, it has been fashionable in some quarters to take cheap shots at Lincoln, asking such questions as "Why didn't he free all the slaves?" "Why did he wait so long?" "How come the Emancipation Proclamation didn't just come right out and say that slavery was wrong?" People who indulge themselves in this kind of self-righteous carping act as if Lincoln was someone who could do whatever he damn well pleased, without regard to the law, the Congress, or the Supreme Court. They might as well criticize him for not discovering a cure for cancer. Fortunately, there is an excellent new book, titled "Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation" by Professor Allen C. Guelzo of Gettysburg College, that sets Lincoln in the context of the world in which he lived. Once you understand the constraints of that world, and how little room for maneuver Lincoln had, you realize what courage and brilliance it took for him to free the slaves.
Since the 1960s, it has been fashionable in some quarters to take cheap shots at Lincoln, asking such questions as "Why didn't he free all the slaves?" "Why did he wait so long?" "How come the Emancipation Proclamation didn't just come right out and say that slavery was wrong?"
People who indulge themselves in this kind of self-righteous carping act as if Lincoln was someone who could do whatever he damn well pleased, without regard to the law, the Congress, or the Supreme Court. They might as well criticize him for not discovering a cure for cancer.
Fortunately, there is an excellent new book, titled "Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation" by Professor Allen C. Guelzo of Gettysburg College, that sets Lincoln in the context of the world in which he lived. Once you understand the constraints of that world, and how little room for maneuver Lincoln had, you realize what courage and brilliance it took for him to free the slaves.
As for the cause of the war, they are many, true, and certainly include Lincoln's silly protectionist tariff schemes, but do you remember the story about Uncle Tom's Cabin author Harriet Beecher Stowe,
"According to legend, Abraham Lincoln greeted Harriet Beecher Stowe in 1862 by saying "So you're the little woman who wrote the book that started this great war."
Are we so sure today that slavery had nothing to do with it? As for the Emancipation Proclamation, read that first article I linked which shows why Lincoln did with it what he did. It was sly, and clever. Lincoln bamboozled his political opponents who wanted to keep slavery with his 'save the union' speeches, while constantly scheming to end slavery with his presidency, and in the end he's the one who made it possible.
triknighted: Wayyy off, my friend. Lincoln waged war against the states due to their secession. Not only that, he didn't end slavery; the 13th Amendment did, which was ratified after his death. How about this humdinger of a quote to start what is suspected to be a major (though unintentional) thread hijack. . . . "My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause." -Abraham Lincoln The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume V, "Letter to Horace Greeley" (August 22, 1862), p. 388.
Yeah, I put that quote of his on about the same level as Clinton's "I did not have sex with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky.
Lincoln lied because he couldn't come right out and say what his real aim was. The union was a cover story. He did of course want to keep the union together, no doubt, but that was the means to ending slavery.
His response to this is that this is not saying that the individual states are free and independend. He claims that they were referring to the collective entity of "The United States", and that this collectivie entity is free and indenpendent of Britain. He continues to insist that they were not 13 free and independnent nations unto themselves.
He also points out that in the declaration they use the term "These united colonies..." and "united states of america", so this proves that they were acting as a union even as they declared their independence.
However, as someone has already pointed out, they did not sign the articles of confederation until several years after the declaration.
Meh. The only reason the opposition to chattel slavery fit into the Republican party platform was because the greatest opponents of high tariffs - the cornerstone of the Republican mercantilism - were the Southerners, and many of the most prominent citizens of the South were slave-holders. Their cronies wanted to secure control of the West, and they would have much greater difficulty doing this if the slave-owners expanded their business into the new territories. Lincoln and co. were never opposed to slavery in general (e.g. the relation of the subject to the state), even if somehow they desired the abolition of chattel slavery but didn't say it for political reasons (which isn't necessarily the case).
Also, it seems that Sowell forgets that Lincoln pretty much did whatever he pleased regardless of the law, including suspending habeas corpus and arbitrarily imprisoning of over 10,000 Americans, shutting down newspapers, illegally calling up the militia, imposing an income tax, and ordering destruction of civilian property and devastation of civilian life and land. Ironically the guaranteed freedom of slaves arriving in Great Britain was based on habeas corpus!