|
|
|
|
Letters to the Editor Richmond Times Dispatch
In response to James Walton, I do not believe I expressed an opinion as to the cause of the Civil War or why Southerners fought, and I certainly did not vilify anyone. I was simply pointing out what I saw as inconsistencies and factual errors in Bevin Alexander’s commentary. I did, however, express an opinion about the Constitution. Walton claims that, "This conflict was a continuation of the principles of the Revolution." In the American Revolution the Colonies were fighting against a government in which they had no representation. Southerners not only had representation but held leadership positions in the U.S. government. The Constitution created a representative democracy that, with the addition of the Bill of Rights, is based on the will of the majority with protection for the rights of the minority. There is also a peaceful way to change or completely rewrite the Constitution in the event that a majority of Congress and the states find it necessary. Such a system cannot survive unless the minority is willing to accept the will of the majority. There are certain natural rights which cannot be removed even by the majority, but these are protected by the Bill of Rights and other amendments. Perhaps Walton could provide us with some specific infringements on the natural rights of Southerners and other "illegal acts of Lincoln and the federal government." The Constitution also created a federal system in that it divided power between the central and state governments. However, the Supremacy Clause in Article VI makes it clear that the central government is supreme. Article VI also binds officials, by oath, in both the central and state governments to support the Constitution. In addition, Article I Section 10 states, "No state shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance or Confederation..." Lincoln could not allow the country to split apart and establish the precedent that if a state is dissatisfied with an act of the national government or the results of an election, it can break away. Regarding the Virginia Act of Ratification, Walton did not finish the quote, thereby implying a different meaning. The paragraph in the Act from which he quotes reads "We, the delegates of the people of Virginia, duly elected...in behalf of the people of Virginia, declare and make known that the powers granted under the Constitution, being derived from the people of the United States, may be resumed by them, whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression; and that every power not granted thereby, remains with them and at their will; that therefore, no right of any denomination can be canceled, abridged, restrained, or modified [ This is where Walton ended the quote.] by the Congress, by the Senate or the House of Representatives acting in any capacity, by the president, or any department, or officer of the United States, except in those instances in which power is given by the Constitution for those purposes; and that among other essential rights, the liberty of conscience and of the press cannot be canceled, abridged, restrained, or modified, by any authority of the United States." The final paragraph concludes with the words, "We the said Delegates, in the name and in behalf of the People of Virginia, do, by these presents, assent to, and ratify the Constitution,...hereby announcing to all those whom it may concern, that the said Constitution is binding upon the said People, according to an authentic copy hereto annexed..."
Sincerely,
Robert S. Alley Jr | |||||||
|
Send mail to boballey@comcast.net
with questions or comments about this web site.
|
