I paused to read the inscription:
DIED
FOR STATES RIGHTS GUARANTEED UNDER THE CONSTITUTION
THE PEOPLE OF THE SOUTH, ANIMATED BY THE SPIRIT OF 1776, TO PRESERVE THEIR RIGHTS, WITHDREW FROM THE FEDERAL COMPACT IN 1861. THE NORTH RESORTED TO COERCION.
THE SOUTH, AGAINST OVERWHELMING NUMBERS AND RESOURCES,
FOUGHT UNTIL EXHAUSTED.
DURING THE WAR THERE WERE TWENTY TWO HUNDRED AND FIFTY SEVEN ENGAGEMENTS.
IN EIGHTEEN HUNDRED AND EIGHTY TWO OF THESE, AT LEAST ONE REGIMENT TOOK PART.
NUMBER OF MEN ENLISTED:
CONFEDERATE ARMIES 600,000; FEDERAL ARMIES 2,859,132
LOSSES FROM ALL CAUSES:
CONFEDERATE, 437,000; FEDERAL, 485,216
“FOR STATES RIGHTS GUARANTEED UNDER THE CONSTITUTION?” That sentence made me laugh out loud. Is there a state’s right to slavery in the Constitution that I am unaware of?
Whom do they think they’re kidding? Only themselves.
-David Drumm (Nal)
If I may advocate for el diablo, one could certainly imply a right to slavery in the Constitution as it existed at that time. The Constitution had features such as the 3/5th compromise and the fugitive slave clause which clearly imply legal recognition of slavery. Of course, you can say that there was no positive right to slavery in the Constitution, but then Alberto Gonzales can also claim, truthfully, that there is no positive right to habeas corpus.
Where the attempted foolery arises is that the South never wants to talk about which “states rights” they were particularly interested in when they seceded. By using the term “states rights” they can pretend that slavery was not at the heart of secession. A quick glance at the articles of secession, however, puts that lie to rest.
In the case of Texas, here is their own declaration of the causes that led them to secede: http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_texsec.asp
As you can see, it mentions the Constitution – specifically the fugitive slave clause.
Thank you,Jim. I am a yankee who currently resides in Texas so I don’t know anything about Texas history. The only place I would consider moving to here is Austin, but you still have to contend with Rick Perry. The Texas history expert, AY, has not been around this blog for quite awhile.
Additionally, the Supreme Court had just ruled a few years prior in Dred Scott that slaves could not be freed even if taken into states that outlawed slavery, because that was an uncompensated taking of legitimate property, without the due process or compensation required under the Constitution. So who’s Lincoln to say he understands the Constitution better than the Supreme Court?
The Thirteenth Amendment then came through and made all these points irrelevant, of course, but at the time the South had a very good legal argument (if not a moral one) that the North was violating their rights.
What ShireNomad said.
Although the barbarism of slavery is manifestly evil and I am in no way defending it, there were legitimate state’s rights issues leading to the Civil War. Just like there will be for the next one. Now that being said, I’d be interested in knowing when that monument was built and who decided upon the not necessarily historically inaccurate but certainly callous (given the raw vileness of slavery) inscription. If it was built in 1866 or 1966 makes a difference in considering the builders perspective.
I went to school in Texas and in the 7th grade you have to take Texas History. If you had that indoctrination, then you would have proudly saluted to honor of our ancestors, even if they were slave owners. It’s all about perception and today, we have that Texas school book clearing house deal going on…
Good points, all.
I would like to point out the privileges and immunities clause:
This suggests that there existed the concept of “citizen of the United States.”
Pre-Civil War, the determination of citizenship was largely determined by the states, but only the Congress was given the power to set the rules of naturalization (determination of who is a citizen). There was never any state right to determine citizenship. Therefore, slavery violated the privileges and immunities clause. Therefore, there was no right to slavery in the Constitution.
Oh my goodness, I dont even believe that Turley let you post this. Are you saying that States rights are NOT guaranteed Nal??? The Civil War was NOT ABOUT SLAVERY. The North had more slaves in the Union than outside of the Union—and Lincoln said during his first inaugural that he had NO INTENTION OF DISTURBING SOUTHERN SLAVERY. Lincoln suppoted slavery because he along with many in his administration and party did NOT want ANY free or slave black men coming to th Northern states. You sound like a classic “Lincoln saved the Union and ended slavery” cultist.
Nal, what does citizenship have to do with your story?? You say that slavery was the main cause and then talk about citizenship. WTF? The states are free, sovereign and independent and the REAL reson for the South’s secession was the incredibly high protectionist tariffs that were being dumped onto the Southern people. The tariffs doubled for them and they simply said “no’ to them and seceeded. Slavery wasnt an issue at all [in relation to the secession] because for 1. Slavery became Constitutional in 1857 and Lincoln even admitted in his first inaugural that he had no intention on interfering with Southern slavery and even if he did, it would be unconstitutional—–not that Lincoln cared about the Constitution because he FORCED American citizens at GUNPOINT to come back into a VOLUNTARY union that the Constitution permits them to seperate from. 2. There were more slaves in the Union than in the seceding states and 3. Lincoln was a racist and wanted all black people [free or slave] out of the country. His Emanicpation Proclaimation did not free a single slave and even if it had, Lincoln did not want those slaves coming up North. The EP was 100% political—not humanitarian. It was simply created to gain the abolitionist vote.
If you want to challenge me on this topic Nal, I will be ready and waiting, but I guarantee you will lose.
You said:
“Is there a state’s right to slavery in the Constitution that I am unaware of?”
Are you forgetting [or didnt know to begin with] that slavery became Constitutional in 1857 as a result of the Dred Scott decision???? Turley, I am appalled that you let uneducated douchebags post articles like this. Shame on you.
Larry: “If you want to challenge me on this topic Nal, I will be ready and waiting, but I guarantee you will lose.”
—
Nope, you have lost already. Let me tell you when: “Turley, I am appalled that you let uneducated douchebags post articles…”. People that resort to such personal invective get exactly the level of respect they deserve, which quickly approaches zero, and their arguments must always be viewed in light of the obvious hostility to an open exchange of ideas their name-calling evidences. If you want an actual argument on the merits don’t call names.
BTW, that your posting is here is evidence that all manner of various and sundry douchebags post here, why the surprise? (Me, I’m not looking for an argument with you, I just thought your douchery needed to be called out.)
@Larry: Two points.
First, I endorse what lottakatz says. You come across as extremely obnoxious.
Two. Read the causes of secession made by the southern states themselves:
http://sunsite.utk.edu/civil-war/reasons.html
If you don’t want to read the whole thing, just do a text search for “tariff.” Then do one for “slave.” Clearly, it was about slavery.
Larry:
Feel free to back up this claims.
For everyone else, check out Total Slave Population in US 1790–1860, by State and do the math yourselves, because Larry can’t add.
Larry, you really need to crawl out from under the sheet & read some actual history books. The problem, for you, is that they have a lot of big words but maybe you can get some help.
Start with a Southern historian, Shelby Foote. Granted his 3 part history is daunting but just try to read the first volume which covers the years leading to the war. It becomes quite obvious that ‘states rights’ are not the issue as the South worked very hard to deny states the right to prohibit slavery (and there are many other examples). Slavery was the only issue that caused the South to start the war of rebellion.
Once you actually have acquired some knowledge then come back and try again.
Larry,
Ditto all who came before but especially lottakatz
Nal,
Thank you
AY,
I miss you
Jim,
Thanks for the link.
I searched the page for “tariff” and got zero hits. I searched for “slave”/”slavery” and got 82 hits.
Larry- Curly and Moe are ashamed of you.
Very Nice Post!! Thanks for sharing this awesome piece
frank: Slavery was the only issue that caused the South to start the war of rebellion
quite right, all other issues were\are a smokescreen, slavery was the one problem with which no compromise was possible
lottakatz—-typical of someone who cant win an argument on facts–resorting to focusing on the name-calling to completely divert away from the remaining 99% of my post, which I noticed NO ONE refuted. And then, you turn right around and name call…lol.
frank, you said:
“It becomes quite obvious that ‘states rights’ are not the issue as the South worked very hard to deny states the right to prohibit slavery (and there are many other examples). Slavery was the only issue that caused the South to start the war of rebellion.”
How could the south have control of any other state? the states are free and sovereign. How can they deny other states anything? Makes no sense. Slavery was already dying out and it would have died out completely, but Lincoln wanted a long and bloody war and force Americans at gunpoint to stay in the VOLUNTARY union. Slavery was the only issue that caused the south to start war? REALLY? It wasnt the protectionist tariffs that nearly doubled for the south? Can you explain the slaves in the NORTH then? Slavery became constitutional in 1857—didnt you read my post at all?? Or you just chose to ignore 90% of it?? War of “rebellion”?? You mean war of secession—the exact same kind of war the revolutionary war was—a war of secession. How could the Emancipation Proclaimation free a single slave when the south didnt even acknowledge Lincoln as their President? Can you answer ANY of my questions?
When you address me this time everyone—actually attempt to DEBUNK something I say.
“quite right, all other issues were\are a smokescreen, slavery was the one problem with which no compromise was possible”
then why didnt Lincoln end it peacefully, through compensated emancipation like every other country did between 1800 and 1860????
Hey Buddha,
Far as I see, the fugitive slave clause and the 3/5ths compromise were void ab initio; sort of a 2-206 knock out result from the DOI.
And don’t you have any problems with the negative implication of the 13th amendment?
Hint: It all comes down to that crucial distinction between usurpation and tyranny.
Bob,
I didn’t say slavery wasn’t an issue, but it wasn’t the only issue.
I think the more accurate answer is that the Southern culture differed considerably from the northern culture. Agrarian, feudalistic, and elitist, the South stood in direct opposition to the industrialized and more democratic North. Slavery was the flash point between the cultures, with the North refusing to accept the practice and the South seeing its way of life threatened if denied the ability to exploit captive persons for its benefit. States’ Rights was merely the pre-textual defense of slavery. Southern legislatures passed the Constitution despite full knowledge that it signaled a death to (or at least a crippling of) notions of States Rights under the AOC.
Buddha,
I wasn’t referring to your comment; just a generic observation.
The negative implication of the 13th Amendment is to say that the government can exercise power over the right of self-ownership.
We call that…
That is to say, the government cannot restore what it never had the power to take away; for if it could, it could also repeal said amendment re-create slavery constitutionally?
Yeah right.
@Larry
Sorry, but you have already been debunked. I guess you didn’t notice. Your main point is that “Slavery wasnt an issue at all [in relation to the secession].” As I’ve pointed out, and provided links to prove, the states that seceded don’t agree with your contention. According to them, slavery was a big factor in their decision to secede.
You also go on and on about tariffs, but again, the word “tariff” does not even arise in the declarations that the seceding states made stating their reasons for secession. So why should I believe that tariffs were the main cause of secession and slavery was not an issue at all?
On a few other points, Nal has already noted that your statement concerning the number of slaves in the North is suspect. Also, you note that Lincoln in his inaugural indicted that he had no desire to end slavery. You are correct. Lincoln 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 inclination to do so.”
Source: http://americancivilwar.com/documents/lincoln_inaugural_1.html
What you fail to note is that by the time Lincoln gave that address, several states had already seceded. In fact, Jefferson Davis was inaugurated as the President of the Confederacy BEFORE Lincoln was inaugurated as President of the United States.
Lincoln’s true intentions notwithstanding, the southern states jumped the gun and behaved irrationally. (This is a bit like all those people who ran out and bought guns after Obama was elected, even though he had no intention of taking people’s guns).
I would note that both Nal and I have provided links to back up our evidence. So far you’ve provided nothing to back up your “facts” and just made naked assertions.
I honestly have no intention of debating you further. However, given the fact that so many Americans have been misinformed about the causes of the Civil War thanks to Confederate apologists that I wanted to present some information in case anybody who reads this thread is not aware of the truth.
In your case, I doubt that this information will change your mind one bit: http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2010/07/11/how_facts_backfire/
Good day.
Nal: The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
This is true. However, slaves were not then considered to be citizens of the United States. The Dred Scott decision is again key here. The Supreme Court ruled that Scott, a slave taken into free territory and arguing for his freedom, had to standing to even bring a case in federal courts because he was not a citizen.
Historical materialism demonstrates that all wars boil down to property. The rest is all smoke screen. In the case of the Civil War the property in dispute were slaves. Only reactionary historical revisionism posits that the Civil War was fought over something other than slavery.
Who is the “they” that is kidding.
When was the memorial built?
Recently?
Probably not by around 100 years.
So why is this an issue?
There are also thousands of memorials in Texas to Texans who died in every war that has been fought by the US since the founding of the Texas Republic. Are “they” also kidding?
Surely the patriotism of thousands upon thousands of “they” who have fought for this nation both before and after the erection of this one memorial deserve more respect.
NAL
REAL reason for the South’s secession was the incredibly high protectionist tariffs that were being dumped onto the Southern people. The tariffs doubled for them and they simply said “no’ to them and seceded. Slavery wasn’t an issue at all [in relation to the secession] because for …
In the end and in the beginning all wars are fought for profit.
Forget the PR bloody shirts from the North or the South, and look at the economic realities and the direction of flow of money.
Who was richest, and still is, the North, who was Poorest, and still is, the South, who controlled(s) the flow of money,the North, and still does.
Th other lesson, which Iraq proves we still haven’t learned, is what would motivate southern poor whites to fight and die to protect slavery? The very thing that killed them in the competitive market. Look for what motivated the foot soldier to leave home, business, to fall into ruin, farm, to return to forest and weeds,family, to go hungry, to go and suffer and die. Then you will know why the South fought.
That knowledge applies to pretty much every voluntary combatant anywhere.
Larry
1, November 7, 2010 at 4:58 am
“quite right, all other issues were\are a smokescreen, slavery was the one problem with which no compromise was possible”
then why didnt Lincoln end it peacefully, through compensated emancipation like every other country did between 1800 and 1860????
==============================================================
That’s a trick question, right? Read your history
South Carolina had voted to secede from the Union on December 20, 1860 (Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, and Texas by 2/1/1861)
Citadel cadets fired on a civilian merchant ship bringing supplies to the Federal garrison at Fort Sumter on January 9, 1861
Lincoln’s first inaugural was on March 4, 1861 and as of that date the 7 states mentioned above had already seceded with the other 4 doing so after the April 12th attack on Fort Sumter noted below)
The South again fired on Fort Sumter itself on April 12 and 13, 1861
Lincoln did not have the choice you mentioned … the South wanted war, started the war, got war, and lost the war.
Had the South sat quietly, adding more states to its Confederacy while running diplomatic mission to Europe, then, perhaps, you might have a point to argue … but the South, considering itself a separate nation, chose to fire on Fort Sumter, a property of the nation to its north, The United States of America. That was an act of war and an act of incredible stupidity.
Lincoln could have responded with negotiations that addressed your point but that ignores the realities of the time which included the expansion of slavery into the territories. Thanks to the firing on Fort Sumter, Lincoln didn’t have to worry about negotiations, he met an act of war with war.
Once again, read your history.
The stupidity of the southern male, the majority of whom didn’t have the means to own a slave, going off to fight and die for an elite subset that controlled the Confederate economy through the cotton and slave industry has always amazed me. The “States Rights” issue was the camouflage used by these elites to con the peasants into dieing with them.
The corporations and churches of today use a variation on the same ruse and I’ll be damned if it doesn’t still work!
Marnie,
The monument was erected in 1903.
The claim that they died other than for the maintenance of slavery is laughable. See previous comments regarding the “tariff” myth.
@Blouise: Well said.
@Marnie: Thanks for the daily reminder of why I want to move out of the South. In most places, ignorance is treatable. Down here, not so much.
Larry:
is this what you are talking about?
“The Nullification Doctrine
A precursor to the War Between the States came in 1832 when South Carolina called a convention to nullify the tariff acts of 1828 and 1832. Branded “the tariff of abominations,” the duties were multiples of previous duties. The convention declared them unconstitutional and authorized the governor to resist federal efforts to collect them. After reaching the brink of armed conflict with Washington, a settlement to reduce the tariffs in steps—the Great Compromise of 1833—was reached.
South Carolinians believed there was precedence for the nullification of unconstitutional federal laws. Both Jefferson and James Madison suggested the doctrine in 1798. It was used to nullify federal laws in Georgia, Alabama, Pennsylvania, and the New England states. The reasoning was that the federal government was created by, and hence was the agent of, the states.
When Congress threatened to raise tariffs to unprecedented levels and the Republican Lincoln was elected president, a special South Carolina convention unanimously adopted an Ordinance of Secession and a “Declaration of Causes” stating that “We assert that fourteen of the States have deliberately refused for years past to fulfill their constitutional obligations. . . . Thus the constitutional compact has been deliberately broken and disregarded by the non-slaveholding States; and the consequence follows that South Carolina is released from her obligation. . . .” Continuing, the Declaration, asserted, “We, therefore, the people of South Carolina, by our delegates in Convention assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, have solemnly declared that the Union heretofore existing between this State and the other States of North America is dissolved, and that the State of South Carolina has resumed her position among the nations of the world, as a separate and independent state, with 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.” The next year war started when South Carolinians fired on Fort Sumter, an island in the harbor of Charleston, South Carolina.”
http://www.thefreemanonline.org/columns/the-civil-wars-tragic-legacy/
Larry might be right,
“The next year war started when South Carolinians fired on Fort Sumter, an island in the harbor of Charleston, South Carolina.”
=================================================
Thus I reassert my point from a previous post:
“Had the South sat quietly, adding more states to its Confederacy while running diplomatic mission to Europe, then, perhaps, you might have a point to argue … but the South, considering itself a separate nation, chose to fire on Fort Sumter, a Federal property of the nation to its north, The United States of America. That was an act of war and an act of incredible stupidity.”
Further, all that you claim in your post was part and parcel of the original ruse for abolitionists also peopled the south necessitating that the “property” issue of slavery had to be avoided as the motive for seceding.
However, had the Confederacy leaders been smart enough to stick with their original ruse and deal with Lincoln on a Constitutional/legal basis … well that’s a hindsight 20/20 position … for they were not smart enough to do that and it’s too late now to relive the times for them or to invent an intelligence they did not possess.
The elites who sent their sons to the Citadel wanted a little saber slashing, a bit of plumed hat waving for, of course, their sons would easily defeat the likes of northern nigger-lovers and immigrant peasants.
Such utter foolishness played right into the hands of Lincoln who well knew that an independent Confederacy opened the door to France, England, and Spain and the territories would once again be up for grabs by Old World empires and the “sea to shinning sea” security that was envisioned for the United States of America would be forever lost.
Like the corporations of today who are blind to everything but profits, the Southern Slave industry elites were blinded by their human-slave-trade profits.
Foolishly those same ignorant Southern elites thought England would remain dependent on Southern cotton and continue to ignore the slave labor that produced it and would therefore recognize the Confederacy. England sat on the fence obviously unimpressed by the strutting sons of the Confederacy elites and turned to Egypt. Thus the South lost its cotton dominance forever and, ironically enough, its need for slaves to pick said cotton.
The corporations of today and the politicians they pay should take note of history. Hah, who am I kidding.
The Confederacy did its best to destroy the United States of America and failed. But the corporations of today and the politicians they pay, partnered with the fundamentalist churches that got their start as a reaction to women getting the vote, may very well succeed. Ignorance is in the genes I guess.
Blouise:
I assume you have documentary evidence to back up your assertions?
I would be interested in reading your sources.
So, I’m left with two possibilities:
1) The 13 states that seceded just forgot to mention tariffs in their Declaration of Causes of Secession, or
2) Revisionists went back through history to find something other than maintenance of slavery as the cause of secession.
Hmmm, I choose number 2. It has the ring of truth.
Whelp, I gots my Sival Wur ‘aknowin frum ‘dis sheer song called I’m a Good Ol’ Rebel. My momma alwayz told me, ‘Son them Yankies don’t thank strait like usin’ southern folk does!
The South is a’ gonna rise a’gin n’ that is fur sure n’ fur sartin’ Yep, rise juss like homemade bread whut aint got no yeast…flat as a fliver. That’s why them folk down yunner et cornpone.
“Larry might be right”—–thank you, finally another voice of TRUTH on this thread. Everything you said was 100% CORRECT. No one mentions the tariff of abominations on here, but you did. Excellent.
mespo said:
“Slavery was the flash point between the cultures, with the North refusing to accept the practice and the South seeing its way of life”
The North didnt accept the practice????? PLEASE tell me youre joking. There were MORE slaves in the NORTH! This is undisputable fact.
Nal—–the revisionists are the ones that say slavery was the ONLY issue, because the Union had more slaves.
Larry might be right
1, November 7, 2010 at 2:37 pm
Blouise:
I assume you have documentary evidence to back up your assertions?
I would be interested in reading your sources.
======================================================
Which assertions would those be?
Ignorance for firing on Fort Sumter. Ignorance in assuming England wouldn’t go elsewhere for its cotton? Ignorance that the North would be easily beaten by the sons of the Southern elite? Ignorance of the dangers posed by the Old World to the territories not yet incorporated as states and thus to the expansion of the United States of America and its overall security as a nation? Ignorance of the blindness wrought by the profits from the human-slave-trade industry? Ignorance of the Southern non-elites to the ruse being employed by their “betters” in order to gain their service and eventual death of almost a quarter of a million of them to protect an industry that profited only a few?
The sources are numerous as are the documents and, quite frankly, the fact that you don’t know them is very telling. Do you own reading, sport, I’m not your water-boy/grad assistant. (Hint, there is a whole thread on this site which will give you plenty of sources and enlightenment will follow … or not … the gene pool being what it is.)
Y’all shud no ya Don’t Mess with Texas nur good ol’ suthen boyz like Ol’ Lar n’ me. Theyz a lot of Suthen/Confedicy pride xhibited on YouTube n’ sheer is won mo’ xample ‘mongt many:
Blousie:
no you are not, but it was a reasonable request.
larry might be right
1, November 7, 2010 at 3:33 pm
Blousie:
no you are not, but it was a reasonable request.
==========================================================
Which I refused to honor as it would be very time consuming and so threw the ball back to you … use your own time.
However, one caution … my contention is: had the Confederacy stuck with their original ruse (a term with which you might legitimately take issue)ie, the “The Nullification Doctrine” and refrained from firing on Fort Sumter … everything might have gone differently for them. The thread I referenced dealt with the Constitutionality/legal right to secede … and to that end I believe a specific discussion on Texas would have been illuminating as it was not part of the original 13 yet was part of the first 7 to secede before Lincoln’s inaugural. Although Texas’s position was not specifically addressed on that thread, the Constitutionality of secession was.
If you haven’t read it already, I highly recommend it.
Larry: then why didnt Lincoln end it peacefully, through compensated emancipation like every other country did between 1800 and 1860????
there was to be no compromise Larry, the slave holders were bound and determined to keep their slaves or have other people die trying
Larry: There were MORE slaves in the NORTH! This is undisputable fact
citation please
Larry:
Have you heard of the Kentuckey Resolve of 1798?
“The most important chapter of Liberty, State, & Union is Chapter 6, “The Nature of the American Union: Jefferson and States’ Rights.” The core of Jefferson’s idea here is what Jefferson wrote in the Kentucky Resolve of 1798, which explained why the state of Kentucky was nullifying the federal Sedition Act, which effectively outlawed free political speech in America. Jefferson defined political tyranny as “the consolidation of power in a single center” and, consequently, he believed that under the American system of government, it was essential that the citizens of the states be acknowledged as the true sovereigns, and as having such rights as nullification and secession as means of asserting that sovereignty and defending themselves against a consolidated tyranny. As Bassani writes, “Jefferson asserted that the states, inasmuch as they were sovereign parties entering into the constitutional compact, had created the federal government simply as their agent, subordinate to their own power, and designed to carry our limited and well-defined functions. As a result, the federal government had no right to expand its own sphere of authority without the agreement of the contracting parties.””
link supplied:
http://www.constitution.org/cons/kent1798.htm
larry might be right,who might be Larry- Curly and Moe are still ashamed of you. Shemp too.
HenMan- I agree with you.
HenMan- Me too!
looks likes HenMan is the winner 3-2
congratulations HenMan
Henman,
When will “HenMan is mighty funny” weigh in on the subject?
😉
People on this thread love to mention that the South fired at Fort Sumter, but what they fail to mention is that no one was even injured, let alone died when they did. Plus, they were provoked by Lincoln. “Larry may be right”—-yes Ive heard of the Kentucky Resolve of 1798—-Jefferson’s writing about states rights—-in which New England referred to when they heavily opposed Jefferson’s trade embargo. They didnt want it because it would have killed the New England shipping industry—-the people spoke and opposed it and referred to Jefferson’s Kentucky Resolve [and even planned to secede from the Union…..which their RIGHT to do so was never in question] and guess what, it was nullified……..peacefully…..but Lincoln wouldnt have a peaceful opposition to his policies, would he? Oh no. So he murdered 300,000 to get his point across.
Looks like me and you are the only two that knows the facts here.
@Marnie:
>There are also thousands of memorials in Texas to Texans who died in every war that has been fought by the US since the founding of the Texas Republic. Are “they” also kidding?
>Surely the patriotism of thousands upon thousands of “they” who have fought for this nation both before and after the erection of this one memorial deserve more respect.
I agree with this and am surprised at the original post. Ironically, many who fought and died and are so memorialized, likely were slaves.
From what I understand, Lincoln was resisting the spread of slavery but was not going to go to the extent of pursuing a war to end it where it was being practiced in the union. It does seem popular and somewhat revisionist to rebrand the war in civil rights terms when it was functionally about denying the secession of some of the slave-holding states.
Incidentally, the post-war “transition” was particularly terrible as the North failed to occupy and maintain order. Many heinous things happened after the war when the South was unattended – oops.
Larry:
Well the facts are what they are and Lincoln was no Jefferson. And according to the Kentucky Resolve the south had every right to seperate. Mr. Jefferson was pretty clear when he wrote the Resolve.
Funny how you arent taught that in school isnt it?
Larry does not understand the difference between “history” and “revisionist history”, thus a follower of Karl Rove?
“History” is where you don’t own the facts, “revisionist history” is where you make up “your own” facts.
Karl Rove believes one can make “their own” reality by ignoring other people and other facts.
It is deceptive and deceitful, but usually the only one who can’t get out from under the effects of it is the person doing the deceiving.
Dredd,
I agree with what you’ve said, with the possible exception of the following:
“…but usually the only one who can’t get out from under the effects of it is the person doing the deceiving.”
Too many people seem willing to “buy” the revisions of the “deceivers”, either because they are naive, “too busy”, and/or ignorant (or, just plain stupid, in some cases). Rove and his ilk know this, of course, and continue working towards their goal of a “permanent conservative majority.” They’re playing by different rules and will do anything — and I mean anything (if they can get away with it) — to achieve their stated goal.
It’s shocking to see people make any kind of claim that the south’s treasonous insurrection was in any way legally justified. It was not. Neither the north nor President Lincoln made any move whatsoever to end slavery. It was the south, through it’s evil attempt to continue slavery forever and protect that sinful, pernicious, and inhuman practice out of pure greed that ended slavery. The north rightfully put down the rebellion and showed unprecedented mercy in dealing with the traitors who attempted to destroy our republic. In return, the loyal citizens of the United States have had to put up with unending bullshit and lies about the protection of property and state’s right ever since. I pray to God that they willt try it again so we can once and for all wipe these disloyal, lying scum off the face fo the earth and complete the job that should have been done by our patriotic and loyal soldiers so long ago.
“People on this thread love to mention that the South fired at Fort Sumter, but what they fail to mention is that no one was even injured, let alone died when they did.” (Larry)
You neglected to mention that the firing on Ft. Sumter (April 1861) was the 2nd incident and that Citadel cadets had fired on a civilian merchant ship bringing supplies to the Federal garrison at Fort Sumter on January 9, 1861. Both were acts of war … the first firing was given a pass, the second was not. The fact that no one was injured in either provocation does not speak well for the Confederate’s ability to aim. Let’s put it this way Larry, if I fire a gun at someone and kill them, it’s murder, if I miss and don’t kill him/her, it’s attempted murder. Either way, I’m going to jail. The fact that the Confederates couldn’t hit the side of a barn with a cannon doesn’t change their attempt to do so.
Imagine … they started a war by missing what they were aiming at and ended the war with a destroyed cotton industry, a destroyed countryside, and a quarter of a million dead. Is it any wonder Southern sympathizers are into revisionist history.
horus- Outstanding! You said everything that needed to be said.
horus,
You wrote: “I pray to God that they willt try it again so we can once and for all wipe these disloyal, lying scum off the face fo the earth and complete the job that should have been done by our patriotic and loyal soldiers so long ago.”
There’s serious trouble brewing in these “united” states and, if somebody doesn’t wake up, it may be too late. NSLs (some of them, anyway, effectively muzzle recipients for life. The following from truthout spells it out:
http://www.truth-out.org/after-valerie-plame-obama-makes-fair-game-todays-whistleblowers64791
From the article:
As Jesselyn Radack of the Government Accountability Project (GAP) told Truthout about the Bush approach compared to now:
“It’s the same or worse: the politics of personal destruction, vengefulness, is still there. Obama [i.e., the administration] has indicted four people for leaking, more than the last three administrations [George Bush’s and Clinton’s terms] combined. ‘No Drama’ Obama is driven to distraction by leaks, he seethes and is tormented by it.” As she pointed out in a blog post recently: “The reality is, Obama – not Bush – has criminalized whistleblowing.”
At the same time, the administration ostensibly supports reforms that aim to tighten the near toothless safeguards for whistleblowers – including those involved in the intelligence community, who have virtually no protection for exposing wrongdoing – that are now stalled in the Senate.
end of excerpt
And to repeat it: “…including those involved in the intelligence community, who have virtually no protection for exposing wrongdoing.”
Pretty much anything goes these days… I’ve always believed that telling the truth and exposure of “wrongdoing” were good things. What’s happened? What did I miss along the way?
There’s a war going on out there, but many are still in the dark.
Oversight,congressional hearings, protection for whistleblowers or, it’s over.
From IPA, The Institute for Public Accuracy
News Release
Rowley, McGovern and Ellsberg — Statement on Wikileaks
June 17, 2010
http://accuracy.org/newsrelease.php?articleId=2270
Powerful interests tried to secure a conviction of Ellsberg, but failed. They’re not making the same mistakes now…
There is a rumor going around that HenMan is handsome, always right, and smart … HenMan has a very good Publicist!
anon nurse,
Reading … weeping
Nal said; “Pre-Civil War, the determination of citizenship was largely determined by the states, but only the Congress was given the power to set the rules of naturalization (determination of who is a citizen). There was never any state right to determine citizenship.”
Nal,
How is it that none of the lawyers on this blawg provided you with correction and direction? Have you taken the time to look up the definition of “naturalization”? If so, and you still believe your comment to be correct, could you please share the definition you used?
Contrary to your comment, States always have, and still do, have the authority to determine who is a citizen of their state. They even have the right (authority) to determine who (even among aliens) can be a citizen of their state.
I suggest the opinion of Justice Story as quoted in Boyd v. Nebraska (1892);
“In discussing this question, we must not confound the rights of citizenship which a State may confer within its own limits, and the rights of citizenship as a member of the Union. It does not by any means follow, because he has all the rights and privileges of a citizen of a State, that he must be a citizen of the United States. He may have all of the rights and privileges of the citizen of a State, and yet not be entitled to the rights and privileges of a citizen in any other State. For, previous to the adoption of the Constitution of the United States, every State had the undoubted right to confer on whomsoever it pleased the character of citizen, and to endow him with all its rights. But this character of course was confined to the boundaries of the State, and gave him no rights or privileges in other States beyond those secured to him by the laws of nations and the comity of States. Nor have the several States surrendered the power of conferring these rights and privileges by adopting the Constitution of the United States. Each State may still confer them upon an alien, or any one it thinks proper, or upon any class or description of persons; yet he would not be a citizen in the sense in which that word is used in the Constitution of the United States, nor entitled to sue as such in one of its courts, nor to the privileges and immunities of a citizen in the other States. The rights which he would acquire would be restricted to the State which gave them. The Constitution has conferred on Congress the right to establish an uniform rule of naturalization, and this right is evidently exclusive, and has always been held by this court to be so. Consequently, no State, since the adoption of the Constitution, can by naturalizing an alien invest him with the rights and privileges secured to a citizen of a State under the Federal government, although, so far as the State alone was concerned, he would undoubtedly be entitled to the rights of a citizen, and clothed with all the rights and immunities which the constitution and laws of the State attached to that character.”
BBB,
Thanks for taking the time to educate me.
The definition is contained within the parentheses.
Is it possible to be a citizen of a state and not be a citizen of the United States?
Blouise-HenMan had an attack of skitzofrenia last night, but after intensive therapy, he seems to be ok now. I think. Maybe. Well, toodle-oooh! (Toodle-freakin’-oooh? How could I have said that?!)
HenMan’s Psychiatrist, Jennifer Melfi,
This is very good news.
HenMan is a valued member of this blog and, based on his rapid recovery, perhaps such intensive therapy is something that would be of benefit to all of us.
Are you accepting new patients?
Nal and BBB,
This is very interesting … Just my way of letting you know others are interested in what the two of you are discussing
Thanks for your insights/comments, Blouise…
(And sorry if I pulled this off-thread a bit. Not my intention.)
Larry – the reason I asked you to actually read a little history was so you wouldn’t ask such stupid questions
Southern states went to Federal courts – repeatedly – to deny states the right to legislate on slavery in any way they did not approve of. Because the USSC was heavily weighted towards Southern slaver owners they always received a welcoming decision.
But the facts don’t fit your myopic beliefs so they must ignored, right?
anon nurse,
IMO, the links are important and should be posted where the most viewers will see them … check your email
Nal,
By saying “[t]he definition is contained within the parentheses”, I assume you mean that the definition of “naturalization” you have chosen is “determination of who is a citizen”. While that may well be your personal understanding of naturalization, it does not conform to any accepted definition that I am aware of.
If you read on from the quote that I provided in Boyd v. Nebraska you will see that the Court provided the meaning of “naturalization” by using very simple words.
http://supreme.justia.com/us/143/135/case.html
“Naturalization is the act of adopting a foreigner and clothing him with the privileges of a native citizen”.
Understanding the definition of “naturalization” is extremely important because it not only grants authority, but limits it too. It limits Congress regarding citizenship to only those who are aliens. However, it only does so under the government of the United States. It does not permit Congress to make that alien a citizen of any state in particular.
I understand how that can be a bit confusing. It is possible to be a naturalized citizen of the United States while not being recognized as a citizen of any one of the states. It does, however, provide the naturalized citizen with the protections afforded native-born citizens by our U.S. Constitution, and all states must recognize that.
You asked; “Is it possible to be a citizen of a state and not be a citizen of the United States?”
The answer is Yes. A state can bestow citizenship on anyone they please, but that only affords that person citizenship in that state alone.
BBB:
This doesn’t seem to be borne out by the quote by Justice Story you posted. Justice Story writes about the state having the authority to give the rights and privileges of citizenship to non-citizens. I would argue that this is different than the authority of conferring citizenship.
The difference between having all the rights and privileges of citizenship and being a citizen is that other states don’t have to respect these rights and privileges.
/As the non-lawyer sticks his “neck” out again.
Dredd says I’m a revisionist yet he doesnt debunk ONE thing Ive said. Yes you are right “Larry may be right”—it was CLEAR from Jefferson’s Kentucky Resolve that secession was granted. Let me ask you something Dredd, am I and “Larry may be right” revising history by mentioning the Kentucky Resolve???
Frank—you continue to IGNORE the FACT that slavery became constitutional in 1857 and Lincoln said in hia inaugural that he had NO INTENTION OF INTERFERING WITH SOUTHERN SLAVERY—-so this “Emancipation Proclaimation to “free slaves”” is utter bullshit and anyone who belives the EP was to free slaves is a revisionist.
Also, I might add, that Lincoln refused to handle this peacefully. Before the war broke out, Confederate peace commissioners and Napoleon III of France attempted to work out a peace with Lincoln, Lincoln refused and blocked every effort toward a peaceful solution.
Lincoln himself NEVER said it even HIMSELF that the war was to “free slaves”. He didnt WANT them free, because he didnt want black people [free or slave] to come North. In fact, two days before Lincoln was inaugurated, the US senate passed a proposed constitutional amendment that read:
“No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give Congress the power to abolish or interfere,within any state, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of the state.”
The US house of representatives passed the amendment on Februart 28, 1861. “domestic institutions” meant SLAVERY.
Lincoln said HIMSELF that his reason for the war was to “…save the Union, and it is not either to save or destroy slavery”—-those are HIS WORDS Dredd—–no revisionism there!!!
Congress announced on July 22, 1861 that the purpose of the war was NOT “interference with the rights or established institutions of those states” [slavery] —-“but to preserve the Union with the rights of the several states unimpaired”——in other words—-the purpose of the war was SOLELY states rights!!
Where’s the revisionism Dredd? Care to debunk Lincoln’s OWN WORDS???
Nal,
With the exception of your definition of “naturalization”, I think you understand citizenship.
Boyd v. Nebraska is a good case because it demonstrates that someone can be a citizen of the United States while not being a citizen of the state in which they reside.
Some other on-point cases are Snowden v. Hughes (1943) and US v. Cruikshank.
I think the most important point to take away is that one would have to be an alien before Congress could make them a citizen of the United States. This is important when discussing those of African descent because even though they (prior to the 14th Amendment) may have been born on U.S. soil, even of parents born on U.S. soil, they had never been relieved of their alien status. It would have been even more confusing when, what we cannot conceive as not being a person, was considered chattel (much the same as a cow or a goat).
In the minds of far too many, granting citizenship to someone of African descent was like making their horse a citizen. I think most of us have trouble wrapping our heads around the concept, but that was, unfortunately, the way it was. I find it easier to adopt a belief that the world was flat.
Correction:
“that the world was flat” SB that the earth is flat
Is having the rights and privileges of a citizen the same thing as being a citizen? So, if a state confers the rights and privileges, it’s the same thing as conferring citizenship?
Except as a citizen of the US, you get the rights and privileges of any state.
Is it possible to be a citizen of the US and not be a citizen of the state in which you reside?
I posting too close with you. Let me read your 3:02 PM comment.
From Boyd v Nebraska:
And this was the opinion of the Court delivered by Chief Justice FULLER. (I have to be careful to know if I’m reading from the dissenting opinion.)
Both of these, it appears to me, to be the opposite of what you claimed in your above comments. Although I haven’t read the whole opinion, it’s possible that the above quotes were taken out of context.
If every citizen of a state is a citizen of the US and vice versa, there can be no logical difference between the two.
Nal,
The case you cite, Gassies v. Ballon 31 U.S. 762 is one of those short and sweet opinions of the Court. It doesn’t provide us with much direction. Here is the FULL opinion of the Court;
“In this case, the Court is of opinion that the jurisdiction can be sustained. The defendant in error is alleged in the proceedings to be a citizen of the United States, naturalized in Louisiana and residing there. This is equivalent to an averment that he is a citizen of that state. A citizen of the United States residing in any state of the union is a citizen of that state.
The authorities on this question have gone far enough, and this Court is not disposed to narrow any more the limitations which have been imposed by the decided cases. They have gone as far as it would be reasonable and proper to go.”
The full case is here: http://supreme.justia.com/us/31/761/case.html
What the Court was saying, is that for the purposes of jurisdiction, a citizen of the United States is a citizen of the state in which he is residing. This did not, however, imply that such determination of citizenship granted any rights or priviledges at the state level (other than those under the U.S. Constitution).
Nal,
Story’s commentaries; “Every citizen of a state is ipso facto a citizen of the United States”.
Nebraska v Thayer (1892) would be a good case to review.
“Mr. Justice Story, in his Commentaries on the Constitution, says: ‘Every citizen of a state is ipso facto a citizen of the United States.’ Section 1693. And this is the view expressed by Mr. Rawle in his work on the Constitution. Chapter 9, pp. 85, 86. Mr. Justice CURTIS, in Dred Scott v. Sandford, 19 How. 393, 576, expressed the opinion that under the constitution of the United States ‘every free person, born on the soil of a state, who is a citizen of that state by force of its constitution or laws, is also a citizen of the United States.’ And Mr. Justice SWAYNE, in The Slaughter-House Cases, 16 Wall. 36, 126, declared that ‘a citizen of a state is ipso facto a citizen of the United States.’ But in Dred Scott v. Sandford, 19 How. 393, 404, Mr. Chief Justice TENEY, delivering the opinion of the court, said: ‘The words ‘people of the United States’ and ‘citizens,’ are synonymous terms, and mean the same thing. They both describe the political body who, according to our republican institutions, form the sovereignty, and who hold the power and conduct the government through their representatives. They are what we familiarly call the ‘sovereign people,’ and every citizen is one of this people, and a constituent member of this sovereignty. * * * In discussing this question, we must not confound the rights of citizenship which a state may confer within its own limits and the rights of citizenship as a member of the Union. It does not by any means follow, because he has all the rights and privileges of a citizen of a state, that he must be a citizen of the United States…”
http://ftp.resource.org/courts.gov/c/US/143/143.US.135.html
Larry:
I enjoy discussing controversial issues, but you pretty much shredded your credibility with your assertion concerning the distribution of slaves in this country. I was struck by the absurdity of your statement as soon as I saw it, but in the interests of absolute accuracy, I checked the U.S. Census figures for 1860. They show a total of 3,950,528 slaves, approximately 13% of the total population. Of that number, 3,521,110 resided in the South. An additional 429,401 lived in Missouri, Delaware, Maryland and Kentucky, states which did not secede, but which harbored strong southern sentiments. Mississippi, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida and Alabama had the highest percentage of slave-owning families. In short, you haven’t done your homework on a pretty basic point, which makes it more likely that you haven’t done your homework on anything else you have to say.
With regard to the question of what would motivate poor southern whites to go to war, the answer is simple: religion and propaganda (which some people regard as one and the same). Most of the men who fought and died for the South didn’t own slaves and never would. But they reacted to the same calls that produced volunteers to serve in Iraq, the need to protect the homeland and to protect Christianity. Men of wealth and power are always able to manipulate the ignorant, particularly with appeals to patriotism. Southern pastors wrote books and preached incessant sermons insisting that slavery was not only biblically justified, but biblically mandated. Southern newspapers (as did their northern counterparts) celebrated each victory as the work of God and lamented each loss as a sign of the need for repentance.
I have an old book at home given to me some years ago which puts much of the Civil War in perspective. It is a collection of essays, speeches and adoring tributes to Jefferson Davis published a year or so after his death. It provides invaluable insight into the views of his southern contemporaries. It is filled with emotional, often bitter, descriptions of a way of life destroyed by northern aggression and treachery, a way of life in which blacks and whites understood their positions and their roles, as though the North had taken upon itself the task of undoing natural law. I am reminded of it whenever I see any of the romantic nonsense put out by the League of the South.
Pres. Lincoln’s goal was to save the Union. That was not possible without the abolition of slavery. The war was virtually inevitable. So, nourish your fantasies as you see fit, but don’t expect anyone with a lick of sense to buy into them.
Mike,
“But they reacted to the same calls that produced volunteers to serve in Iraq, the need to protect the homeland and to protect Christianity. Men of wealth and power are always able to manipulate the ignorant, particularly with appeals to patriotism.”
Sounds to me like you are saying that anyone who served in the armed forces once America went to war with Iraq is ignorant and was manipulated into service. Please tell me that you think higher of the men and women who serve our country Mike, and that I’m not understanding you correctly.
Chris, you completely misunderstood my point. It has nothing to do with the honor and good faith of anyone who serves in the military.
An earlier post raised the question of what would motivate poor southern whites who would never own slaves to fight to defend the institution of slavery. My response was that they were motivated by lies, in the same manner the invasion of Iraq was motivated by lies. Idealism is the most powerful force in the lives of most young people, and it is routinely abused by the cynical. Poor farm boys in 1860 were not told that they were needed to fight for the right to own slaves. Young men and women in 2002 were not told that they were needed to fight to carry out a vendetta in Iraq. Whenever the motives behind a war are questioned, the inevitable response is that somehow the questioning reflects disrespect for those who have answered their country’s call. To the contrary, the disrespect is on the part of those who are willing to sacrifice idealism in the pursuit of dishonorable goals.
MIke A:
Good to see you back by the way. Your point is a good one that men will typically not go to a war of choice unless convinced their way of life is threatened. Unscrupulous leaders have known this since we dwelt in caves, and use it every chance they get to dupe good, patriotic folks into wars that only benefit leaders. Note the absence of political leadership on any battlefield –Churchill & FDR standing as stark counter-examples.
“The loud little handful will shout for war. The pulpit will warily and cautiously protest at first…The great mass of the nation will rub its sleepy eyes, and will try to make out why there should be a war, and they will say earnestly and indignantly: ‘It is unjust and dishonorable and there is no need for war.’ Then the few will shout even louder…Before long you will see a curious thing: anti-war speakers will be stoned from the platform, and free speech will be strangled by hordes of furious men who still agree with the speakers but dare not admit it…Next, statesmen will invent cheap lies, putting blame upon the nation that is attacked, and every man will be glad of those conscience-soothing falsities, and will diligently study them, and refuse to examine any refutations of them; and thus he will by and by convince himself that the war is just, and will thank God for the better sleep he enjoys after this process of grotesque self-deception.
~ Mark Twain
Mike,
Im sorry that I misunderstood you. Thank you for clearing that up.
Chris:
Thanks. I tend to get opaque with my rhetoric at times.
Mespo:
Good to be back, I think. My wife and I spent a week on Cape Cod, returning to Florida just in time for me to cast fruitless ballots for Alex Sink and Alan Grayson. After watching the election results, slogging through cranberry bogs somehow seems preferable to living under Gov. Rick “I take the Fifth” Scott for the next few years.
Mespo:
Great quote from Twain, BTW. I wasn’t familiar with it.
Mike A.,
The next time you and your wife travel to Massachusetts, visit the North Shore area. We have some great restaurants, beautiful coastal scenery, and lots of historical places/houses.
Thanks, Elaine. We did spend a couple of days in Salem, Gloucester and Rockport before heading down to the Cape. As a young Catholic kid in New Mexico I spent many Friday evenings chewing on fish sticks. I wanted to tour the Gorton’s plant in Gloucester to see those machines that create rectangular cod, but my wife didn’t share my fascination. However, she is ready to move to New England, even though I keep reminding her that I am not licensed to practice up there and I still remember Boston winters.
Saw these words carved in stone at Lincoln’s Memorial, they burned into my mind.
“Fondly do we hope—fervently do we pray—that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue, until all the wealth piled by the bond-man’s two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash, shall be paid by another drawn with the sword…”
Mike,
I dont ever remember mentioning anything about what would motivate Southerners to fight the war but regardless of whether youre right or wrong about the whole religion aspect, the facts remain that Lincoln went to war to eliminate secession. Ive said in post after post that slavery was NOT the issue and even used Lincoln’s OWN WORDS where I quoted him. Lincoln said that his goal was to “…save the Union, and it is not either to save or destroy slavery”—those are HIS words. He did NOT care about slavery—at all. He didnt want BLACK MEN…PERIOD to come North so he wanted slavery to continue. The EP was ONLY a political stunt to gain the abolitionist vote in 1864—–NOT to free a single slave. The EP only applied in the areas where Lincoln had no authority. Lincoln’s own Secretary of State, William Seward said:
“We show our sympathy with slavery by emancipating slaves where we cannot reach them and holding them in bondage where we can set them free.”
If slavery was the issue and Lincoln hated slavery, why was there a Fugitive Slave Law, and why did Lincoln support that law???
What makes you think Lincoln himself could end slavery? Congress themselves couldnt do it without a constitutional amendment. Slavery was constitutional as a result of the Dred Scott decision and in my last post I pointed out that the House and senate passed a bill saying:
“No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give Congress the power to abolish or interfere,within any state, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of the state.”
Get it now? I think even Nal knows Im right considering he keeps having meaningless arguments with another guy about citizenship and ignoring my posts.
The average Confederate soldier knew that slave-owners in Delaware, Maryland, Missouri, and Kentucky – and in other union states – were allowed to keep their slaves when the war began. When Fort Sumter was fired upon there were more slave states (and more slaves) in the union (eight) than there were out of it (seven). Consequently, “in virtually every major battle of the Civil War, Confederate soldiers who did not own slaves were fighting against a proportion of Union Army soldiers who had not been asked to give theirs up”.
The Confederate soldier also knew that the Emancipation Proclamation “exempted all the slaves in the North,” and in all the areas of the South that were under federal army control at the time. He also understood that the union was voluntary, and that Abraham Lincoln was lying through his teeth when he said it was not in his first inaugural address. They understood, in other words, that the Constitution was on their side. “The Tenth Amendment to the Constitution reserved to the states all rights not specifically granted to the federal government, and in their view the states had thus retained their right to dissolve the federal relationship”.
Lincoln “saved” the Union in the same sense that a man who has been abusing his wife “saves” his marital union by violently forcing his wife back into the home and threatening to shoot her if she leaves again. The union might be saved, but it is not the same union that existed on their wedding day. That union no longer exists. Similarly, the union that the founders created ceased to exist in April of 1865
“Fondly do we hope—fervently do we pray—that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue, until all the wealth piled by the bond-man’s two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash, shall be paid by another drawn with the sword…”
I guess God was a racist, warmongering, bloodthirsty dictator. Lincoln is referring to the slave when he mentions “the bond-man’s two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil…”, yet Lincoln loved slavery and even admitted on several occasions that he had no intention of interfering with it. AND he hated black people—that’s why he wantd all blacks out of the country and sent off the Liberia. If Lincoln was a Christian, then I’m Santa Claus.
Mike A.,
Did you ever get to Crane’s Beach in Ipswich? Have you seen Marblehead Harbor in the summer? There are so many boats! Newburyport is lovely too.
I love the mid-coast of Maine the best. My husband and I vacation there every summer. Vermont is a beautiful state. I love the Stowe area–and Burlington is a great city.
Listen to your wife. She sounds like a wise woman.
😉
Mike A.,
BTW, my husband and I went out to New Mexico a few years ago for a family wedding. We decided to vacation there for several days and do a little sightseeing. We stayed at the Hyatt Tamaya–where the wedding and reception were held. I really liked it out there. I loved the dry air. It can get quite humid around here in the summer.
Mike said:
“My response was that they were motivated by lies, in the same manner the invasion of Iraq was motivated by lies. Idealism is the most powerful force in the lives of most young people, and it is routinely abused by the cynical. Poor farm boys in 1860 were not told that they were needed to fight for the right to own slaves. Young men and women in 2002 were not told that they were needed to fight to carry out a vendetta in Iraq.”
Oh and Northerners weren’t lied to either? They were first told that the Civil War was to “save the union”, yet when the Emancipation Proc. was issued, they learned that it was to “free slaves”—and that’s why enlistment dropped heavily after the EP and many who were currently serving went off to Canada. The South was NOT fighting for the right to own slaves—they ALREADY KNEW they could keep them because the Dred Scott decision made slavery constitutional in 1857 and Lincoln even said in his first inaugural that he had NO INTENTION of interfering with southern slavery—–christ almighty, how many times do I have to repeat that??????
Why would they fight and DIE for a right they ALREADY HAD under the constitution?? And why would they care what Lincoln thought ANYWAY? They didnt even acknowledge him as their president! Ever heard of Jefferson Davis? They had already seceeded over high tariffs and because Lincoln had dissolved the Union before [you claim] the south did, by ignoring the constitution by denying the states their rights not to pay the high tariffs.
Yeah, you’re right, no one was told in 2002 that they were fighting for Bush’s personal vendetta against Iraq—-but the dipshits keep enlisting dont they? Even 8 year after the lie!
What’s your point??
Larry:
I love guys who keep on fighting after the war is lost. You’d have made a fine confederate general after Gettysburg. As for your comment that “I guess God was a racist, warmongering, bloodthirsty dictator,” that’s easy enough to prove with only a slight perusal of the Old Testament.
Mespo, the war was lost with Nal’s story. It makes no sense for Lincoln to have wanted to “save the Union” because HE is the one who dissolved it by losing his power. Let me explain:
The Declaration of Independence says:
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. – That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed”
Well, the South did NOT consent what Lincoln had done [force high tariffs on the South] so when Southerners began their lack of consent, that’s when Lincoln lost his power because his power ONLY comes “from the consent of the governed”——that means essentially that it was LINCOLN, NOT the South who dissolved the Union FIRST. Where am I wrong on this?
The New Englanders did not consent Jefferson’s trade embargo either in the early 1800’s and they simply nullified it by refusing to do it. They even referred to Jefferson’s Kentucky Resolve of 1798 whih states that secession is permitted. The New Englanders were going to secede, but the embargo was nullified. Did Jefferson wage total war on the New Englanders and say to the, “You WILL accept this embargo and you will NOT secede or you will be shot when I invade you with my armies?” NO. He did NOT. Do you know why???? Because SECESSION IS PERMITTED, and since Jefferson was a REAL president [and the best we ever had] he did NOTHING when they threatened to secede, because it is ALLOWED.
I find it funny that Lincoln mentions in the Gettysburg address the line taken from the excerpt above “all men are created equal” [which Lincoln didnt even believe anyway because of the dozens of comments he made about whites being superior to blacks] but he completely IGNORES the part that says “Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed”. Hmmmm, I wonder why he skipped that part. Hmmmm.
I take it you couldnt refute anything I said in my previous posts either?
Larry:
“I take it you couldnt refute anything I said in my previous posts either?”
****************
Most everything. It’s just not worth the effort.
“Most everything. It’s just not worth the effort.”
Ahhhh yes, that’s the same thing my brother said to me when I challenged him to a debate on Lincoln. He gave the old Archie Bunker excuse.
The Archie Bunker excuse:
That’s from the episode of All in the Family where Archie challenges his neighbor Irene to game of pool. Later when Archie finds out that Irene is a pro at shooting pool [she even won a poolstick encased in a nice box as a prize for winning a pool match] Archie fakes a back ache to get out of playing Irene for fear that he will be humiliated.
Mespo is using the tired old “it’s not worth the effort” crapola to “fake his back ache” to get out of debating and refuting me. Typical of those who panic when confronted with facts they cant dispute.
Elaine M., (& Mike)
My husband and I spent some time in New Mexico 4 years ago and I fell in love with the state. We even contemplated retiring there and would have had we been able to take all the grandkids with us.
I will address this to you personally mespo, since you think you’re so smart.
I asked above:
“Well, the South did NOT consent what Lincoln had done [force high tariffs on the South] so when Southerners began their lack of consent, that’s when Lincoln lost his power because his power ONLY comes “from the consent of the governed”——that means essentially that it was LINCOLN, NOT the South who dissolved the Union FIRST. Where am I wrong on this?”
Where am I wrong mespo? If Southerners did NOT CONSENT, does that NOT mean that Lincoln and the government has no power, since their power is derived from the people’s CONSENT?
Larry,
I don’t really expect you to get the point … in fact you’ll probably view what follows in exactly the opposite but I will never-the-less persevere:
“… O would some Power, the gift to give us,
To see ourselves as others see us!
It would from many a blunder free us, …” (Robert Burns)
Larry, just when and how did the four million slaves held in the confederated states “consent” to be governed by their slavemasters?
Thanks for the appropriate quotation, Blouise, as well as your comment.
anon nurse,
Larry has a lot of pearls in his satchel … we are but swine …
Blouise,
Repeat. “Larry, just when and how did the four million slaves held in the confederated states “consent” to be governed by their slavemasters?”
Larry cannot weasel out of this one. The lad is hoist by his own petard.
Larry brought it up when he asked if “Southerners did NOT CONSENT, does that NOT mean that Lincoln and the government has no power, since their power is derived from the people’s CONSENT?”
By his own argument, the slaveowners must have also lost their power to govern, because their power also derived from the people’s consent, but their enslaved peoples never in fact consented at any time to be governed by their overlords.
Larry,
(I’m not taking sides, but please allow me to present my observations.)
The consent to be governed was formally granted by ratification of the U.S. Constitution. Prior to that, it was by the Articles of Confederation. Subsequent generations have provided tacit consent.
Having consented to be governed does not mean that the people will always agree with the decisions of those who govern, only that those who govern have been granted that authority.
Your words come across as though you are in some kind of “pissing contest”, in which you expect someone in authority to declare the winner.
Let me tell you something I learned about pissing contests: Stay out of them unless you can eliminate or control the wind. If you don’t, you only have yourself to blame when people laugh as your own urine is blown back at you.
Observer—–I guess you either wasnt around or just IGNORED the 6 or 7 times Ive already posted that slavery WAS CONSTITUTIONAL AFTER THE DRED SCOTT DECISION IN 1857!! Ive said this over and over, only to be ignored over and over. Besides, why do you ONLY mention the SOUTHERN slaves when you attempt to make your point about “slaves didnt consent”??? The NORTH had slaves too—-and they were allowed to KEEP their slaves! In fact, as I have already said numerous times as well, there were EIGHT (8) slave states in the NORTH (and more slaves) than the South’s SEVEN (7) slave states. Why are you ignoring the NORTHERN slaves???
Hmmmmm????
Why would the South be angry at the government or Lincoln over an issue [slavery] that was ALREADY GRANTED TO THEM UNDER THE CONSTITUTION????
Why do ALL of you KEEP mentioning slavery even AFTER I post quotes from LINCOLN HIMSELF that clearly state that he was PRO-SLAVERY??? Lincoln said in his first inaugural that he had NO INTENTION ON INTERFERING WITH SOUTHERN SLAVERY and that even if he did, it would be UNCONSTITUTIONAL to do so!!!! And you morons KEEP MENTIONING SLAVERY!
BBB said:
“Having consented to be governed does not mean that the people will always agree with the decisions of those who govern, only that those who govern have been granted that authority.”
No shit sherlock. But when SEVEN states initially secede and then MORE do afterward, that should take precedent over the picture youre trying to paint [that just a few people dont consent]. These were entire states in a secession movement saying NO to a government and president that was killing their economy and export industry by excessively high protectionist tariffs. You make it sound like just a few people can get together and refuse a law by the federal government and because that few doesnt consent, they can nullify the government’s mandate. These were entire states [I might add (again) that were free, independent and sovereign] that according to our founders had MORE authority than the federal government, because the founders clearly stated that the ONLY power the federal government is SUPPOSED to have are the powers DELEGATED to them by the states. The people in Washington do not even have the POWER to make the decisions unless the people CONSENT to it. So, Lincoln dissolved the Union FIRST, so his claim that he was “saving the Union” was utterly absurd. Get it now??
“Let me tell you something I learned about pissing contests: Stay out of them unless you can eliminate or control the wind.”
All of you get hit by piss every single time you fail [intentionally] to refute what I say. NONE of you answered my question that I posted for Mespo. In fact, NONE of my questions have been answered by anyone. All I get are posts like yours that basically resort to some ad hominem attack or resorting to some silly one-liner meant to demean me—-but I notice that no one ever REFUTES me.
Larry: In fact, as I have already said numerous times as well, there were EIGHT (8) slave states in the NORTH (and more slaves) than the South’s SEVEN (7) slave states
citation please
Larry:
““Well, the South did NOT consent what Lincoln had done [force high tariffs on the South] so when Southerners began their lack of consent, that’s when Lincoln lost his power because his power ONLY comes “from the consent of the governed”——that means essentially that it was LINCOLN, NOT the South who dissolved the Union FIRST. Where am I wrong on this?”
*******************
Larry you’re wrong in so many ways, I’ll just point out three:
First, “consent of the governed” doesn’t mean you may pick any old issue with which you disagree and then, after voicing your displeasure, stomp off with your marbles and secede. Nothing in the Constitution requires unanimous agreement by the states and they may not secede just because they do not get their individual way. That’s sandbox government which apparently is to your liking.
Second, the “South” didn’t do anything. Slave populations in the South were not consulted on the question to secede, neither were women, indentured servants, or non-land owning males. The “South” you refer to was an oligarchy of southern planters whose world was threatened because they could no longer rely on cheap slave labor to make and maintain their fortunes. They were the “Cotton Cartel” much like Mexico’s “Drug Cartels” and, again like the Mexican desperadoes, they were armed, angry,and arrogant. Toss “stupid” into that mix and you’ll get a fight every time as any bar tender will tell you.
Third, you are wrong precisely because Lincoln never dissolved the Union. To the contrary, he fought to save it. A bunch of crackpot yahoos with their own personal interests front and center did that and they got the fate of all revolutionaries who act for their own interests alone. This was no war about freedom or rights; it was crass self-interest pure and simple, and that time honored adage about pigs and hogs was “honored” one more time. Too bad it deluded (and destroyed) lots of naive Southern peons about the real causes of war and continues to delude current Southerners about their own history.
Larry asked “Well, the South did NOT consent what Lincoln had done [force high tariffs on the South] so when Southerners began their lack of consent, that’s when Lincoln lost his power because his power ONLY comes “from the consent of the governed”——that means essentially that it was LINCOLN, NOT the South who dissolved the Union FIRST. Where am I wrong on this?”
Larry is wrong on this. If he believes his argument that a government’s power “only comes from the consent of the governed,” then he has no principled support for the confederate government, precisely because that government never had the consent of any of the four million persons held in slavery. He can either support the confederacy, or support the principle of the consent of the governed, but not both.
As George Orwell said, doublethink is “The power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one’s mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them.” The doublethinker believes both propositions passionately, completely oblivious to their inconsistency.
Lincoln did not dissolve the Union, and, in fact, he never recognized or legitimized its dissolution. He kept all the stars on the flag, and maintained that all the states remained in the Union, albeit in a state of rebellion and without legitimate governments. When Jeff Davis asked for negotiations over the war between the two countries, Lincoln responded that he would only negotiate over the future of our common country. Davis caved on this point and sent a delegation to Norfolk under those terms.
Larry writes as if he never read or understood the Scott decision. It did not hold slavery constitutional. The existence of slavery in the states where it was legal was never in question before the Court. The decision had two major holdings. First, it held that an African American descended from African slaves could not be a citizen of the United States or of a state and could not maintain a suit in federal court. Second, it held that the federal government could not constitutionally ban slavery in the territories, so a slaves presence in a federal territory could not render him free.
Larry also said “Lincoln loved slavery and even admitted on several occasions that he had no intention of interfering with it. AND he hated black people—that’s why he wantd all blacks out of the country and sent off the Liberia. If Lincoln was a Christian, then I’m Santa Claus.”
Just about everything in this sentence is false. It is a falsehood to say that Lincoln “loved” slavery, as Larry stated, because Lincoln hated slavery, and said so repeatedly. Larry has asked “Why do ALL of you KEEP mentioning slavery even AFTER I post quotes from LINCOLN HIMSELF that clearly state that he was PRO-SLAVERY???” Larry has posted no “pro-slavery” quotes by Lincoln, just statements by Lincoln that he was barred by the Constitution from interfering with it. That is not the same thing.
At one point Lincoln said that if slavery is not wrong, then nothing is wrong. So the statement that he loved slavery is false. He stated in his first Inaugural that he would not interfere with slavery where it existed in the south because he had just sworn to uphold the Constitution, which gave him no such authority. But it is false to say “had no intention of interfering with it [slavery].” He intended to interfere with slavery by seeking legislation to ban it in the territories, and in the District of Columbia.
All readers should consider Lincoln’s legislative record on the issue of slavery.
As a Congressman, he drew up a handwritten draft of a law to ban slavery in the District of Columbia, where Congress did have plenary power under the Constitution. It is on display in the New York Avenue Presbyterian Church in Washington DC to this day.
In his first two years as President, he signed four separate bills that freed slaves.
He signed the law freeing all slaves in the District of Columbia.
He signed the law abolishing slavery in the federal territories.
He signed the First Confiscation Act.
He signed the Second Confiscation Act.
All of these law bore his signature, and all granted freedom the affected slaves.
Those are the facts.
Then he signed the Emancipation Proclamation, which eventually brought freedom to nearly two million slaves as the Union Army advanced. It is simply a lie to say the Proclamation freed no slaves. It freed slaves even on the day it was signed, as it was read to slaves in Union camps on the Outer Banks of the Carolinas and to other slaves in Union military camps at midnight on January 1st, 1863. It enabled 180,000 freed African Americans to fight for their own freedom and that all slaves.
Finally, Lincoln supported the Thirteenth Amendment, ran for reelection on it, and lobbied its passage through Congress. His signature is on ceremonial copies sent to the states (even though not required by the Constitution), and a signed copy is on display at the Library of Congress website.
Lincoln signature is on all the legal documents that freed the slaves in America.
So nothing will ever educate Larry.
But the readers of the Turley blog should appreciate the real history.
As to Liberia, Lincoln supported voluntary, not mandatory, emigration of freed slaves, only if slaves consented, because of his despair at the rampant racism in the country. He never supported forced deportation. When African American leaders declined the proposal, Lincoln dropped it.
This is the most pathetic: “But when SEVEN states initially secede and then MORE do afterward, that should take precedent over the picture youre trying to paint [that just a few people dont consent]”
Just a few people?
There were four million enslaved people in the confederacy.
Larry:
The Constitution was adopted in 1787. The Federalist Papers explained what it meant, so you would think it was fairly clear. Nevertheless, in 1798, the Congress adopted the Alien and Sedition Acts, which were clearly–*clearly*–unconstitutional. So in just 11 years, and only 9 from the adoption of the Bill of Rights, the Congress grossly stepped out of line. The Doctrine of Judicial Review (itself unconstitutional) was not adotped by the Supreme Court until 1803. So the situation Jefferson found himself in was the following:
1) A constitution was adopted for which he (Jefferson) had grave misgivings, and in the drafting of which he was excluded.
2) Just nine years after adopting the First Amendment, Congress violated it, and there was no obvious way to overcome this violation that was written in the constitution.
In this scenario, there were two schools of thought. Jefferson, an anti-Federalist, wanted a way to declare acts of Congress unconstitutional by state legislatures, acting on behalf of their citizens. Thus he invented nullification and justified it based on the constitution being a compact between sovereign states (which it was). Nevertheless, despite having a good argument, nullification is not specifically written down in the Constitution. It rests on the 10th Amendment, “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.” Obviously there must exist a power to declare acts of congress unconstitutional, right? And it’s not stated in the constitution, right? So it must reside in the States. Q.E.D.
The Federalists, at least at the time, were having none of it. Their solution, which we are stuck with today, is Judicial Review, also invented out of whole cloth and unconstitutional. In this case, the Federal government sits in judgement of its own acts. In paractice this decision has changed the fundamental structure of the country from a federal republic to a judicial oligarchy. Restraint on the part of individual justices has meant that this judicial oligarchy is a weak one, but it doesn’t change the facts.
Strictly on the basis of logic and history, Jefferson’s nullification makes more sense as a structure to protect individual rights. I say this in full knowledge that nullification has been used in the past to oppress black people.
Larry said : Why do ALL of you KEEP mentioning slavery even AFTER I post quotes from LINCOLN HIMSELF that clearly state that he was PRO-SLAVERY???
Lincoln said:
Whenever I hear any one arguing for slavery I feel a strong impulse to see it tried on him personally
You know I dislike slavery; and you fully admit the abstract wrong of it.
–August 24, 1855 Letter to Joshua Speed
I have always hated slavery, I think as much as any Abolitionist.
–July 10, 1858 Speech at Chicago
Now I confess myself as belonging to that class in the country who contemplate slavery as a moral, social and political evil…
–October 7, 1858 Debate at Galesburg, Illinois
I am naturally anti-slavery. If slavery is not wrong, nothing is wrong. I can not remember when I did not so think, and feel. And yet I have never understood that the Presidency conferred upon me an unrestricted right to act officially upon this judgment and feeling.
–April 4, 1864 Letter to Albert Hodges
———————————————
Larry, you’re missing the forest because you keep planting all those trees
You’re absolutely correct in saying that Lincoln went to war, not because of slavery, but to bring the seceding states back into the Union. The seceding States seceded in order to protect slavery.
Without slavery there would have been no secession…no secession…no war. It’s simple Larry
Gosh, Larry wants to know why do we “morons” keep mentioning slavery.
From the “Declaration of Causes of Secession” (source: http://sunsite.utk.edu/civil-war/reasons.html)
Georgia: “The people of Georgia having dissolved their political connection with the Government of the United States of America, present to their confederates and the world the causes which have led to the separation. For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery.”
Mississippi: “Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery– the greatest material interest of the world.”
…
“There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union…”
…
“We must either submit to degradation, and to the loss of property [slaves] worth four billions of money, or we must secede from the Union…”
South Carolina: “A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States, whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery.”
Texas: “In all the non-slave-holding States, in violation of that good faith and comity which should exist between entirely distinct nations, the people have formed themselves into a great sectional party, now strong enough in numbers to control the affairs of each of those States, based upon an unnatural feeling of hostility to these Southern States and their beneficent and patriarchal system of African slavery, proclaiming the debasing doctrine of equality of all men, irrespective of race or color– a doctrine at war with nature, in opposition to the experience of mankind, and in violation of the plainest revelations of Divine Law. They demand the abolition of negro slavery throughout the confederacy, the recognition of political equality between the white and negro races, and avow their determination to press on their crusade against us, so long as a negro slave remains in these States.”
I would repeat, as has already been noted, that the word “tariff” appears nowhere in these documents. Despite this, Larry … well, you’ve all seen for yourself what Larry claims. You’ve also seen how well he documents his claims when repeatedly asked to.
I would call him a troll, but really he is far too comical and is more entertaining than disrupting. Still, his should be a cautionary tale. I posted this link above (http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2010/07/11/how_facts_backfire/) to an article about research that shows that “Facts don’t necessarily have the power to change our minds. In fact, quite the opposite.”
“larry might be right” said “The Doctrine of Judicial Review (itself unconstitutional)” and “Jefferson, an anti-Federalist, wanted a way to declare acts of Congress unconstitutional by state legislatures, acting on behalf of their citizens…”
larry might be right,
What purpose does the Supremacy Clause serve?
Larry,
I know I’m a couple of days late to the party, but I thought I’d give you a little advice: you’re coming off as strident, uninformed, and childish.
Stop using so many UPPER CASE WORDS, exclamation points!!, and question marks??? Stop behaving as if you’re smarter than everyone else on the blog. Even if you think it’s true, showing it reflects poorly on you.
When I first caught up and read this article, I was planning on disagreeing with Nal on whether there was a right to slavery for the states in the original Constitution, but you seem to have put all the focus of the discussion on yourself.
You say you want people to engage with your arguments. Step back, take some deep breaths, and raise them as topics for discussion, one or two at a time, in a calm, rational manner.
Demanding that people “refute you” clearly isn’t working.
BBB:
“This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any state to the Contrary notwithstanding.”
So the federal government can make a law at odds with the purpose and intent of the Constitution and DOI? If it does, then it can enforce an act such as the Alien and Sedition act with impunity? In other words the Constitution nullifies the Constitution?
larry might be right,
No, courts (ultimately the Supreme Court) step in and identify when laws violate the Constitution.
The Declaration of Independence is a guiding document, but doesn’t have any legal effect.
BBB’s point was that nullification of laws by the states is clearly at odds with the Supremacy Clause. A state can put “Law X shall not apply within the border of the state of Y” in their state constitution, but the Supremacy Clause says that the federal law trumps the state constitution.
larry might be right,
You misunderstood the reason I directed you to the Supremacy Clause. It instructs judges to follow the law, and when combined with the clarity added by Marshall in Marbury it makes sure the constitution is supreme.
The idea that the legislature cannot exceed the authority granted them by the Constitution was not something brand new. There had been cases of judicial review in New Jersey, Virginia and Connecticut prior to Marbury. Wythe, Marshall’s mentor had exercised the power in Virginia.
You might find this to be of interest. I’m pretty sure that Sam Adams is the author. It appeared in the Boston Gazzette in 1772.
http://books.google.com/books?id=pBBBwSTwdrEC&lpg=PP1&dq=The%20writs%20of%20assistance%20case&pg=PA485#v=onepage&q&f=false
(I hope the link takes you to page 485.)
James M,
I find U.S. District and Circuit Courts that invalidate Acts of Legislature to be just as bad as having state courts do the same. Our federal laws must be uniform in application. The decisions of the district court are only binding on the parties before them (That is the parties in which the court has personal jurisdiction. In my opinion, the District Court and Circuit Court of Appeals have no personal jurisdiction over another branch of government. They have no authority to permanently enjoin).
I believe that only a court who decisions are controlling on all other courts should have the authority to permanently enjoin the government. They can do so by direct act, or by refusing to enforce the law by considering it void.
I would love to see more continuity in our legal system.
BBB,
the District Court and Circuit Court of Appeals have no personal jurisdiction over another branch of government.
Article III gives the Supreme Court appellate (but not original) jurisdiction over cases arising under the constitution and laws of the United States, and those in which the United States is a party.
Congress has given original jurisdiction for various types of cases to the district courts. E.g. 28 U.S.C. 1331 provides the district courts with original jurisdiction in “federal question” cases. “The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. 1345 provides for original jurisdiction when the United States is a plaintiff
and 1346 provides for certain situations in which the United States is a defendant.
Personal jurisdiction against the government in a U.S. district court is not an issue.
BBB:
not to be contentious, but aren’t you relying on the very thing (I think it was Madison) the founders worried about? Namely men are not angles. To trust all men in positions of power to act in accordance with the Constitution is a long stretch in light of the facts I posted above about the Alien and Sedition Act.
Isn’t the very intent of the Constitution to limit the power of men over other men? Aren’t the people ultimately responsible for their freedom? You seem to think the peoples liberty resides in the conscience of good, incorruptible men. Would that it were so.
BBB,
I guess that reply was to the technical aspect of your post. Conceptually, I’m fine with things the way they are. The district courts are going to have to be the first ones to hear these cases, and they are going to have to come up with decisions. The question then becomes, how far reaching are their decisions? As it stands now, they aren’t binding on other districts. Would you really be happier if one district court could bind all the other courts in the country?
“Namely men are not angles.”
No, but many are obtuse and some are perpendicular.
BIL:
”
“Namely men are not angles.”
No, but many are obtuse and some are perpendicular.”
*********************
LOL, LOL. LOL
LOL
LOL
LOL
Good catch Buddha.
And some like me are L7…
James M. and Larry might be right,
Thanks for your responsive comments. I’ll be happy to reply to them in the AM. Unfortunately, a friend is leaving town (moving) and has deemed it my duty to assist him with eating all the boiled shrimp and liquor he has on hand.
Wish me luck.
…And then there’s Sharron Angle who confronted her own frustration angle …
Mespo said:
“First, “consent of the governed” doesn’t mean you may pick any old issue with which you disagree and then, after voicing your displeasure, stomp off with your marbles and secede.”
According to you, it means if entire states do not consent and are willing to secede over the issue in question, then “consent of the governed” [to you] means “who gives a fuck what the people have to say about it? We are the all powerful federal government and we are going to INVADE them and KILL them if they disobey!” Funny, as I have already mentioned twice now [which you keep ignoring] the Kentucky Resolve of 1798 in which Jefferson clearly stated the states have the right to secede. When New Englanders rejected Jefferson’s trade embargo in the early 1800’s, did Jefferson invade them and kill them? Even when the New Englanders met in 1814 and discussed secession from the Union, NO ONE questioned their RIGHT to secede nor did Jefferson endorse attacking them.
“Slave populations in the South were not consulted on the question to secede, neither were women, indentured servants, or non-land owning males. The “South” you refer to was an oligarchy of southern planters whose world was threatened because they could no longer rely on cheap slave labor to make and maintain their fortunes.”
What about the slave populations in the NORTH? For some strange reason, you always OMIT the Northern slaves. Why is that? Slaves were not citizens as a result of the Dred Scott decision, maybe that’s why their consent didn’t matter. You have to be a CITIZEN first. “Observer” said [in his post under yours] that ONLY the descendants of African American slaves were not citizens. That is FALSE. The original slaves that were imported into the US were also not citizens.
You completely contradict yourself when you say “The “South” you refer to was an oligarchy of southern planters whose world was threatened because they could no longer rely on cheap slave labor to make and maintain their fortunes”. Oh, but wait a minute. How were the Southerners “threatened” when Lincoln ADMITTED that he could not do ANYTHING Constitutionally to interfere with Southern slavery? That brings me to precisely my point: Lincoln could NOT do anything to interfere constitutionally, that’s why he had to IGNORE the Constitution to end slavery [IF the main issue was slavery], but it was NOT. Lincoln’s real agenda was two-fold: To enforce the high protectionist tariffs on the South, and to create a centralized, all powerful government that destroy states rights. I’ve said this time and time again but you keep ignoring, ignoring, ignoring: Answer this question————– Why would Southerners feel THREATENED when under the Constitution [as a result of Dred Scott] they were constitutionally PERMITTED to have slaves??
“Third, you are wrong precisely because Lincoln never dissolved the Union. To the contrary, he fought to save it. A bunch of crackpot yahoos with their own personal interests front and center did that and they got the fate of all revolutionaries who act for their own interests alone. This was no war about freedom or rights; it was crass self-interest pure and simple, and that time honored adage about pigs and hogs was “honored” one more time. Too bad it deluded (and destroyed) lots of naive Southern peons about the real causes of war and continues to delude current Southerners about their own history.”
This entire paragraph is your personal OPINION. Are you trying to say that tariffs and states rights had NOTHING to do with the South’s secession? I will repeat: SLAVERY WAS CONSTITUTIONAL IN 1857————–why do you keep ignoring this???
Lincoln never dissolved the Union? How did he save it? Did he save it by his successful acts of any/all of the following?:
1. Suspension of Habeas Corpus throughout his entire presidency
2. Had his military imprison tens of thousands of NORTHERN political critics and opponents without due process
3. Censored all telegraph communication
4. Shut down over 300 opposition newspapers
5. Imprisoned dozens of duly elected officials of the state of Maryland
6. Participated in the rigging of Northern elections
7. Waged war without the consent of Congress
8. Illegally created a new state [West Virginia]
9. Deported the most outspoken member of the Democratic opposition, Congressman Clement L. Vallandigham of Ohio
Yes, all this was done to “save the Union” and be the “great emancipator” and be “peaceful”.
Observer said:
“If he [me] believes his argument that a government’s power “only comes from the consent of the governed,” then he has no principled support for the confederate government, precisely because that government never had the consent of any of the four million persons held in slavery. He can either support the confederacy, or support the principle of the consent of the governed, but not both.”
The slaves were NOT citizens [per the Dred Scott decision]. Jesus, you all really know NOTHING about the Dred Scott case, do you? If they are not citizens, then the Constitution isn’t applicable to them. The issue of slavery was Constitutional [from 1857-1865] but to individual slaves, it was not.
James M. said “The Declaration of Independence is a guiding document, but doesn’t have any legal effect.”
I agree with that, but that flies in the face of Observer’s attempt of refuting my point that “governments derive their powers from the consent of the governed” because since the DOI is not a legal document, then whether it applied to slaves for legal purposes of the South’s secession is a mute point.
Since I refuted your claim that slaves would have had to consent [they wouldn’t have because their NOT citizens and the DOI is not a legal document] that makes your main point of “consent of the governed” invalid.
“Lincoln did not dissolve the Union, and, in fact, he never recognized or legitimized its dissolution. He kept all the stars on the flag, and maintained that all the states remained in the Union, albeit in a state of rebellion and without legitimate governments.”
Wow, there’s more holes in that paragraph than swiss cheese. You call keeping stars on the flag the sole litmus test that you’re NOT dissolving the union? God, that makes my ribs hurt, I’m laughing so hard. What about shredding the Constitution by all the things I listed in my above post to mespo? He “maintained” that all the states remain in the union? And what gave him that authority since his just powers must come from the consent of the governed? {I refer back to the New Englanders referring to the Kentucky Resolve of 1798 and nearly seceding in 1814—–which their RIGHT to secede was never in question]. “Without legitimate governments”?? Exactly what IS government according to the founders? Did you miss me saying that the ONLY powers that the Federal government is supposed to have comes from those powers that the STATES delegate to them?
“First, it held that an African American descended from African slaves could not be a citizen of the United States”——-not ONLY the descendents but the ORIGINAL slaves as well—–which includes the 4 million slaves you just mentioned above that needed to “give consent” [but they were not citizens, so their consent didn’t count]. And I don’t know the Dred Scott case???? OMG.
Lincoln was a master at political rhetoric. At times he made anti-slavery and anti-racist remarks because he knew [like any politician] that to gain political support, he had to be all things to all people [and this was very easy to do in his day because of the lack of TV’s, cameras, YouTube, and a mainstream media that could have instantly ruined Lincoln if he had ever blatantly made a racist or pro-slavery comment in front of the wrong people]. It was much easier in his day to be racist because the majority of the country was racist, so Lincoln was just sharing the same sentiment the rest of the country had. Because you can recite a anti-slavery or anti-racist comment made by Lincoln here and there means nothing. His ACTIONS is what the true measure of a man is, and Lincoln’s true nature was PRO-slavery and racist.
Lincoln’s idol all his life was SLAVEOWNER Henry Clay. Clay and Lincoln were opposed to slavery “on principle” but deep down supported it heavily. As a lawyer he never, ever defended a runaway slave, but he DID defend one slaveowner….Robert Matson.
The top abolitionist at that time was William Lloyd Garrison—and Garrison once said of Lincoln, “[Lincoln] had not one drop of anti-slavery blood in his veins.”
You said:
“He stated in his first Inaugural that he would not interfere with slavery where it existed in the south because he had just sworn to uphold the Constitution”
That’s a lie. Lincoln’s EXACT quote reads: “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 inclination to do so.”
Another huge reason why Lincoln supported slavery was because Lincoln and the Republican leaders feared that the freed slaves would reside in their own Northern states, and being the racist Lincoln was, he could not have that. Lincoln’s own state of Illinois had recently amended its constitution to prohibit the emigration of black people into the state—as well as several other Northern states. Black Codes existed in the north LONG before they existed in the south. Lincoln was only opposed to the EXTENSION of slavery, not of slavery itself. He didn’t want free or slave black men coming North and taking their jobs and living among them in their own homes that were there for the white race.
C Everett Kook
Your Lincoln quotes mean nothing. Like I said, he talked out both sides of his mouth. He said anti-slavery and anti-racist things around people he wanted political support from and the opposite around those who felt the same way he did.
Here’s a quote you missed from Lincoln:
“My paramount objective in this struggle is to save the Union, and it is not either to save or destroy slavery.”
That quote pretty much contradicts the ones you listed, doesnt it? Of course it does, because Lincoln, being the skilled, master of political rhetoric [and former lawyer], always knew how to say the right things to the right people and the wrong things to those who held his same views. That way, everyone is happy….he’s all things to all men and his political support grew and grew because of it.
If I lived in a day where there is no media, no video cameras, no YouTube, no cell phones, no tape recorders, no TV’s, etc….. Of course, to gain votes I will go to certain states and say “I support… this and that” and gain their support—then I will go to another state and say I support what they support even if it completely contradicted what I just said in the previous state. All they had back then were newspapers and we all know how long it took for stories/events to hit the papers.
Thank you for your correction. However an angle cannot be perpendicular as it is formed from perpendicular lines. The correct term would be right angle or 90 degree angle.
Oh no.
Thank you,/i> Larry.
I thought I was going to have to go all week without a slavery apologist to laugh at.
Fight on, brave Larry! The South will rise again. Plant yeast!!
Larry:
are you a slavery apologist? It doesn’t seem so to me. Seems more like you are for a smaller central government and are trying to make your point using the civil war.
Let me know if I have that right.
larry might be right
1, November 10, 2010 at 7:06 am
Thank you for your correction. However an angle cannot be perpendicular as it is formed from perpendicular lines. The correct term would be right angle or 90 degree angle.
=============================================================
Angle absolutist!
Observer said:
“If he [me] believes his argument that a government’s power “only comes from the consent of the governed,” then he has no principled support for the confederate government, precisely because that government never had the consent of any of the four million persons held in slavery. He can either support the confederacy, or support the principle of the consent of the governed, but not both.”
Larry said: “The slaves were NOT citizens [per the Dred Scott decision]. Jesus, you all really know NOTHING about the Dred Scott case, do you? If they are not citizens, then the Constitution isn’t applicable to them. The issue of slavery was Constitutional [from 1857-1865] but to individual slaves, it was not.”
Sorry, Larry. The slaves may not have been citizens, but they were “governed” by their slavemasters.
The issue is not whether slaves or former slaves could be citizens. The issue is whether, as persons, they were governed without consent.
Larry did not maintain that governments derive their power from the consent of the “citizens” but from the consent of the “governed.” The slaves were governed without their consent.
The southern slavemasters, on the other hand, had in fact consented to be governed by the United States when they ratified the Constitution. I read in the earlier Civil War thread that they could have validly and legally withdrawn this consent by amending the Constitution under the process in Article V, but they never did so, and the Constitution made no provision for “secession.”
Larry cannot even recall what he himself wrote.
Larry quoted Observer:
“He [Lincoln] stated in his first Inaugural that he would not interfere with slavery where it existed in the south because he had just sworn to uphold the Constitution”
Larry’s response:
“That’s a lie. Lincoln’s EXACT quote reads: ‘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 inclination to do so.’”
It is not a lie.
It is an exact and precise summary of what Lincoln actually stated in his Inaugural.
Observer’s summary said that Lincoln “stated in his first Inaugural that he would not interfere with slavery where it existed in the south.” Observer wrote this because Lincoln said “I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the states where it exists.”
Observer said that Lincoln did this “because he had just sworn to uphold the Constitution.” Observer based this summary on Lincoln’s words “I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.”
Larry should be a little more careful.
Larry posted at 1AM, 3AM, and 4AM, so maybe he was a little sleepy when he posted this particular item.
Get a little rest, Larry.
larry might be right,
If Larry is trying to promote the idea of smaller government then perhaps his goal would be better served by a discussion of WWII and FDR.
Whether or not the Civil War was fought over the issue of slavery or states rights is mute because both were soundly thrashed and the Confederacy was defeated, thoroughly. Some lies are more believable than truth but today we live in the United States of America not the The Confederate States of America and no amount of denial or revisionist history changes that fact.
What might have been will never be … acceptance leads to sanity.
Larry said: “Here’s a quote you missed from Lincoln:
“My paramount objective in this struggle is to save the Union, and it is not either to save or destroy slavery.”
Larry continually stated that Lincoln “loved” slaver and that he was “pro-slavery.”
There is nothing in Lincoln’s statement that support’s Larry’s thesis. It is completely consistent with the position that Lincoln opposed and detested slavery. It is a statement of war objectives.
Besides, Larry cropped the statement to take it out of context:
“My paramount objective in this struggle is to save the Union, and it is not either to save or destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slaves, I would do it, if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it.”
So Lincoln’s statement that he would save the Union by freeing all the slaves is conveniently omitted by scholar Larry.
To repeat, Lincoln said “…if I could save it [the Union] by freeing all the slaves I would do it.”
And he did.
Larry:
are you still fighting the civil war and want a different outcome? It seems to me you are arguing a point rather than trying to re-fight the war. I assume you accept the outcome?
Please let me know if that is right.
I hope I don’t have to change to Larry might be wrong.
Who said, “Sometimes silence is the bet response.”
Correction:
Who said, “Sometimes silence is the best response.”
Worth the repetition.
LarryLogic:
Fred says he detests radical islamist religious monarchy and communist dictatorship.
Fred says, however, that he has no intention of interfering with them where they exist in Saudi Arabia and Communist China, and, if sworn in as President, will not interfere with them because under the Constitution he has no lawful right to do so.
Larry says Fred loves radical islamist religious monarchy and communist dictatorship and is pro-monarchy and pro-dictatorship.
Mind bending logic like that can give one a headache.
Regarding “LarryLogic”, ‘Observer’ concluded: “Mind bending logic like that can give one a headache.”
Where’s the Tylenol…
Usually, the term “consent of the governed” means that the governed persons have a right to participate in the selection of their representatives in that government.
The American colonists had no voice whatsoever in the selection of the public official who governed them in 1776. The King was a hereditary monarch. Parliament had a House of Lords made up of hereditary peers. The House of Commons was elected solely in Great Britain, from wealthy constituents. Most cabinet officials were Lords.
To this day, American citizens in the territories are governed without their consent because they have no voice in the selection of the representatives who pass laws that govern them.
Now let us compare the situation of the colonists in 1776 to that of the southern slavemasters in 1860. They had complete representation in their state governments. In the federal government, they were overrepresented in the House because 3/5ths of slaves were counted in apportionment even though they could not vote. In the Senate, each slave state had equal representation without regard to population. Many Presidents had been from the south and had been slaveowners, and some of the northern Presidents, like Buchanan and Pierce, had supported the south. The Supreme Court was headed by Taney, a pro-slavery southerner, and had a majority of southern justices.
So all of the slavemasters were governed with their consent under the meaning of the term because they had participated in the selection of all their representatives. They just happened to disagree with the election of a northern Republican. Their secession had nothing to do with consent of the governed.
It had everything to do with slavery.
Two tylenol, two “observer” postings.
Feeling much better…
James M.,
A “federal question” does not make the United States of America a defendant. It merely provides for jurisdiction when the plaintiff is asserting a federal law or the defendant has asserted a right, privilege, or protection afforded under the Constitution, Laws, or Treaties.
The “United States of America” is the sovereign. To infer that the District Court has authority over the entity which creates it is ludicrous. The sovereign has immunity, and only the sovereign, by explicit act, can waive such immunity. The Federal Tort Claims Act is a good example of that waived immunity.
Does it stand the test of logic for the employee to exercise authority over the employer, or other employees, without express limited authority?
One of the mainstays of our legal system is continuity. As “Larry could be right” noted, if a U.S. District Judge, or a panel of Circuit Court Judges, declared a law to be unconstitutional (void), it is only void in their respective jurisdiction. Only by repetition and acceptance (much like slavery –keeping with the theme of the thread) would that be acceptable to anyone who thinks about it. It promotes limited continuity, and adds to confusion. It’s something that should not be tolerated. Only a court whose decisions are controlling upon all other courts should rule a statute to be unconstitutional. The necessity of continuity must be paramount.
When traveling from state to state, we are all aware that laws will vary. Before making the journey, most intelligent people will review applicable state laws concerning a variety of things from firearm possession to transportation of alcohol. However, to investigate whether or not the federal law (the law of the land) has any force or effect (limitations or protections) as you travel through varied Districts is too bizarre to approach.
(For the most part) All District Judges are equal. To permit a District Judge to make a decision that would limit the ability of his or her equal to decide the same question for their self makes absolutely no sense. It elevates the District Judge to a position in which that judge’s opinion is binding on all other District Judges. (not only in that District, but throughout the country).
Let’s look at the recent ruling by Judge Phillips in the DADT case. Other District Judges, and other Circuit Judges have looked at the law and found it to be constitutional. However, when this lone judge (Judge Phillips) looked at the law, she (in her lone personal opinion) found it to be unconstitutional, and expanded her authority over the entire country by permanently enjoining the Executive from enforcing the law. You can’t tell me that doesn’t expand her jurisdiction, for it eliminates the ability of any of her equals from reaching a different conclusion. (This isn’t about whether or not you agree with her decision. It only has to do with the effect of her decision.)
It’s one thing for a judge to properly assert a duty under the Supremacy Clause, but quite another to acquire personal jurisdiction over the sovereign. I would have no problem with Congress authorizing the District Court to “temporarily enjoin” the Executive from enforcing a law in which the application of such would clearly violate someone’s rights (in the instant case), but going further undoubtedly makes that judges opinion controlling over judges that are her equals.
James M. “Personal jurisdiction against the government in a U.S. district court is not an issue.”
Could you please provide support? It comes across as being dismissive while failing to recognize sovereignty and due process.
When a defendant asserts a protection afforded by the Constitution, does that defendant file a counterclaim against the United States of America?
BBB,
Personal jurisdiction’s purpose is to ensure you don’t have to unfairly litigate cases in foreign courts. (Foreign in this context means courts in other states.) Since the district courts are within the United States, they aren’t foreign.
Just as background, personal jurisdiction comes in two flavors, general and specific. General personal jurisdiction exists where you reside or have extensive contacts with the forum state (e.g. you can sue a company with stores in your city in your local court, even if they aren’t headquartered in your state). Specific personal jurisdiction exists where there are limited contacts with the forum state, but the lawsuit arises out of those contacts (e.g. you get a car accident while passing through a state you don’t do business in — you can be sued about the accident, but not about an unrelated contract).
Addendum to last line of last post:
you can be sued about the accident in the state in which the accident occurred, but not about an unrelated contract
James M.,
I am intimately familiar with personam and locum. It is sovereignty which prevents personal jurisdiction over the United States of America. It is important to first recognize such sovereignty, and then see if it has been waived before you can permit the judge to issue a directive against the sovereign.
When the Supreme Court declares a law unconstitutional it is not necessary for the Court to issue a directive against the United States of America. It is sufficient that the Court’s decision is binding upon all lower courts. A law that is void in the eyes of the Supreme Court need not be repealed in order to lose all force and effect.
BBB,
When discussing the district courts you flip back and forth between scenarios in which a federal question is raised (where you want nationwide continuity) and in which the United States is a defendant (where you are outraged that district courts can enjoin the government). Those two stances seem at odds to me, since the second seems like you want less continuity.
You also want district courts to be unable to decide the constitutionality of laws.
Finally, you bring up sovereign immunity, which is a separate conceptual issue than jurisdiction. When the United States has waived sovereign immunity, it can be sued just like anyone else (including for damages). Individuals in the government who are alleged to have acted illegally can be sued in their individual capacity for prospective relief.
I’m fine with that system. To me the whole idea of sovereign immunity is on somewhat shaky moral ground anyway, but it’s useful from a utilitarian viewpoint. I’m not sure why you want to expand it so radically.
What would a system that is acceptable to you look like? Do cases still get filed in the district courts? What happens when a district court decides a law violates the constitution?
BBB,
It is sovereignty which prevents personal jurisdiction over the United States of America.
You can accidentally waive personal jurisdiction through procedural mistakes. I think courts would be much less likely to find that a an AUSA had accidentally waived sovereign immunity. The two are conceptually different and don’t need to be linked.
“The issue is not whether slaves or former slaves could be citizens. The issue is whether, as persons, they were governed without consent.
Larry did not maintain that governments derive their power from the consent of the “citizens” but from the consent of the “governed.” The slaves were governed without their consent.”
Who do you think the GOVERNED are??? CITIZENS!!!! Geesh!!
“Larry continually stated that Lincoln “loved” slaver and that he was “pro-slavery.”
There is nothing in Lincoln’s statement that support’s Larry’s thesis. It is completely consistent with the position that Lincoln opposed and detested slavery. It is a statement of war objectives.”
Observer——give me ONE quote—just ONE where Lincoln said his objective was to END slavery. Just one. You wont find one.
“So Lincoln’s statement that he would save the Union by freeing all the slaves is conveniently omitted by scholar Larry.
To repeat, Lincoln said “…if I could save it [the Union] by freeing all the slaves I would do it.”
And he did.”
Really? He did? How? How did the Emancipation Proclaimation free slaves?? FIRST, it was CONSTITUTIONAL to have slaves in 1857—-Ive said this REPEATEDLY. Second, the EP was ONLY valid in the SOUTH————NOT in the Federal territories. Why didnt Lincoln want NORTHERN slaves free??? The South was ALREADY seceding and was NOT acknowledging Lincoln as their President. Why would they think ANYTHING Lincoln said was valid since they were not acknowlding him as President?????? Have an answer???
By the way Observer, I notice the things you IGNORE as well as the things you address, and I noticed that even though I was addressing mespo, you IGNORED this:
Lincoln never dissolved the Union? How did he save it? Did he save it by his successful acts of any/all of the following?:
1. Suspension of Habeas Corpus throughout his entire presidency
2. Had his military imprison tens of thousands of NORTHERN political critics and opponents without due process
3. Censored all telegraph communication
4. Shut down over 300 opposition newspapers
5. Imprisoned dozens of duly elected officials of the state of Maryland
6. Participated in the rigging of Northern elections
7. Waged war without the consent of Congress
8. Illegally created a new state [West Virginia]
9. Deported the most outspoken member of the Democratic opposition, Congressman Clement L. Vallandigham of Ohio
Yes, all this was done to “save the Union” and be the “great emancipator” and be “peaceful”.
Are you trying to tell me he didnt do ANY of the above???
Also, answer this question that I asked Mespo, because he keeps ignoring it:
“Why would Southerners feel THREATENED when under the Constitution [as a result of Dred Scott] they were constitutionally PERMITTED to have slaves??”
James M.,
I always strive for continuity.
The sovereignty of the United States of America is not something that needs to be expanded. It is something that exists in full unless waived. Without specific waiver the sovereignty cannot be questioned by any U.S. Court. I know this sounds absurd, but the absurdity is that it has not been properly addressed.
While supremacy is explicitly identified as binding upon the courts, additional authority has never been explicitly granted to those courts. Under a Constitution where a doctrine separating the powers has been adopted one branch does not exercise authority over the other (or exercise the other branch’s power) without explicit consent.
What’s a judge to do? The answer lies with recognizing that a judge is a referee. His duty is to apply the law. While I agree that the judge must determine if a statute is repugnant to the Constitution, the judges refusal to apply that law only works to protect the rights of the party before him. (No one will disagree that the District Judge’s opinion is not binding precedent. By the same token, I don’t think anyone would disagree with a permanent injunction of the Executive has all the effect of binding precedent. We have all the taste, but none of the claories. :)) How do we make that work? This can be accomplished by temporarily enjoining application of a law deemed unconstitutional in order to permit it to be heard by a court whose decisions are controlling. This facilitates direct appeal to SCOTUS (which provides continuity) without permitting the personal whim of every District Judge from imposing their will on the entire country.
Larry,
I don’t intend to get sucked into a full blown debate, but I will note that Southerners were threatened by any shifting of the balance of power between slave and non-slave states. Adding new, non-slave states without adding new slave states (effectively a containment policy on slavery) would make it easier down the road for a constitutional amendment banning slavery to pass.
“larry may be right”—–Im NOT a slavery apologist, Im only pointing out that Lincoln sure as hell wasnt an abolitionist. I think slavery is stupid. It violates the whole concept of “all men are created equal”. You all keep mentioning Southern slavery, southern slavery, southern slavery, but you continually OMIT any talk of the slaves in the NORTH that Lincoln made NO attempt to do ANYTHING about. When you start to accept that ANY anti-slavery rhetoric that Lincoln ever engaged in was ONLY for political support, then you will be nearing the truth. Until then, your heads will remain in your asses.
mute = moot = freudian
Observer, why did Lincoln find the need to shut down over 300 newspapers and censor all telegraph communication if he was such a big advocate of slavery and he was doing the right thing?? The newspapers he shut down and the editors he imprisoned were in the NORTH, not the south. Why was their so much NORTHERN opposition if he was the saint you all think he is?
Got an answer for that???
Why suspend Habeas Corpus??
Why wage war with the consent of congress??
Why did he deport Congressman Vallandigham???
Got answers????
James M.,
Do you know why the state legislatures could not ratify the Constitution?
Lincoln was overrated.
BBB,
Since you want to change the status quo, I think it’s clear that you do want an expansion of the doctrine as it now exists. Whether you want to couch that expansion as a return to original principals or not, it is still a dramatic expansion from current doctrine.
In your mind, why is sovereign immunity so important? For me, sovereign immunity is a practical idea that keeps the courts and DOJ from getting bogged down in nuisance suits, and allows for fiscal stability because there is less opportunity for major damage awards against the government. However, at its core, sovereign immunity is a doctrine that says that people who are injured by the government are fucked and have no recourse. It derives from the archaic idea that the King is above the law. We explicitly reject the idea that the government is above the law. That’s why we have a constitution. I see why sovereign immunity is a practical necessity, but why is it such a guiding principal for you?
Regarding your suggestion about what the court system should look like, Courts of Appeals routinely grant stays when controversial laws are struck down so that the issue can be heard on appeal. Isn’t that quite similar to how you want the district court to handle it? Just this way, the Court of Appeals can leave the final judgment in place without remanding if they agree with the decision. Having two rounds of appeals automatically built into the case would be silly (first on the issue of the case, and then on the nature of the injunction).
Also, The Supreme Court couldn’t handle the caseload if they had to handle direct appeals from the district courts. What harm is there in allowing the courts of appeal to handle the issue until a circuit split develops, at which time the S. Ct. is likely to hear the case?
I assume you’re also against the logic of Ex Parte Young that allows a public official to be sued in order to enjoin them from some unconstitutional action? If so, how do you handle situations in which the Congress or Executive is violating the Constitution but Congress hasn’t waived sovereign immunity?
BBB,
Do you know why the state legislatures could not ratify the Constitution?
Because the Constitution specifies conventions. I could guess at the reason it does so, but don’t know for sure.
Larry: That quote pretty much contradicts the ones you listed, doesnt it?
uh no, apples and oranges
where is the citation for your statement “There were MORE slaves in the NORTH! This is undisputable fact”?
I have a sneaking suspicion it’s a not(ahem) true
you keep changing the game Larry, what’s your point?
Buddha,
I feel the same way about the Beatles.
To Larry.
There was a war on.
The war was provoked by the southern slaveowners when they bombarded Fort Sumter.
The war was treasonous. Treason is the only crime defined in the Constitution, and consists of levying war against the United States, and requires two witnesses. The southerners did did wage war against the United States and there were more than two witness, so they were traitors.
These southern apologists have some nerve complaining about constitutional violations while the slaveowners were engaging in massive treason against the United States of America.
Habeas corpus may be suspended when the public safety requires it in cases of rebellion or invasion. There was a rebellion and an invasion. Congress ratified Lincoln’s actions.
This could go on and on.
Larry has just thrown a lot of wild and tendentious charges into the wind.
To BBB and James M, in this thread it is interesting to note that in Dred Scott, Taney managed to hold that the Missouri Compromise unconstitutional and that federal legislation banning slavery in the territories was beyond the power of Congress under the Constitution, in a case to which the United States was not a party.
It was a private civil property dispute between a slaveowner and a slave.
Lincoln noted this fact in his First Inaugural:
“I do not forget the position assumed by some that constitutional questions are to be decided by the Supreme Court, nor do I deny that such decisions must be binding in any case upon the parties to a suit as to the object of that suit, while they are also entitled to very high respect and consideration in all parallel cases by all other departments of the Government. And while it is obviously possible that such decision may be erroneous in any given case, still the evil effect following it, being limited to that particular case, with the chance that it may be overruled and never become a precedent for other cases, can better be borne than could the evils of a different practice. At the same time, the candid citizen must confess that if the policy of the Government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made in ordinary litigation between parties in personal actions the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their Government into the hands of that eminent tribunal. Nor is there in this view any assault upon the court or the judges. It is a duty from which they may not shrink to decide cases properly brought before them, and it is no fault of theirs if others seek to turn their decisions to political purposes.”
Gyges,
I too think the Beatles are overrated. Conversely I feel that George Harrison was the most underrated of the Beatles.
“How did the Emancipation Proclaimation free slaves??”
This is almost too obvious for words after 150 years.
The Proclamation freed slaves in areas occupied by the treasonous rebels as the Union armies advanced.
Each time the Union occupied a confederate area, all the slaves in that area became free.
That is how it worked.
“Why didnt Lincoln want NORTHERN slaves free???”
Has Larry read nothing in this thread.
To repeat from above, Lincoln signed laws freeing slaves in D.C. and the territories.
Lincoln supported the 13th Amendment and campaigned for reelection on it after the Republican Convention endorsed it. He persuaded Representatives to vote for it. He signed copies that were sent out for ratification.
So, yes, Lincoln did want northern slaves freed, and worked for their freedom in the political process.
James M.,
I think I have made my premise very clear. If, as I suggest, the authority being exercised by the lower court is a usurpation, that usurpation can gain no legitimacy by repetition; just as the violation of the natural rights of slaves gained no legitimacy by repetition.
When the status quo consists of disruptive doctrine there is no reason to shy away from challenging it. I am proposing nothing that would harm the nation. To the contrary, I am suggesting continuity, and recognizing that the District Court cannot (if consistent with the sentiment of the Framer’s) invalidate an Act of the Legislature who created them.
I think you see sovereign immunity as an elitist privilege. I see it as an accepted doctrine. Do I need to cite the plethora of holdings in which the sovereignty of the United States has been recognized?
It long has been established, of course, that the United States, as sovereign, “is immune from suit save as it consents to be sued . . . and the terms of its consent to be sued in any court define that court’s jurisdiction to entertain the suit.” United States v. Sherwood, 312 U. S., at 586
“Courts of Appeals routinely grant stays when controversial laws are struck down so that the issue can be heard on appeal.”
A stay in order to continue the force of law approved by both Houses and the Executive, because a lone judge disagreed with them? The whole premise insists on having the wisdom of one being greater than that of the many. It laughs at the concept of a representative republic whose members subscribe to the same oath. Is it perfect? No, but it’s damn sure better than a country at the pleasure of one.
“Having two rounds of appeals automatically built into the case would be silly (first on the issue of the case, and then on the nature of the injunction).”
What two rounds? I never suggested two rounds. To the contrary, I suggest that constitutional questions should be appealed directly to the Supreme Court. That way the decision effects the entire country at one, thus providing continuity.
“The Supreme Court couldn’t handle the caseload if they had to handle direct appeals from the district courts.”
I am not aware of anything that would prevent us from dividing the court and then permitting any split to be settled en banc.
“What harm is there in allowing the courts of appeal to handle the issue until a circuit split develops, at which time the S. Ct. is likely to hear the case?”
Lack of continuity is the problem. If we are a nation, our federal laws must be the same in all circuits.
Ex Parte Young has to do with enjoining a state official. The state official is a person. No person can be granted the authority to perform an unconstitutional act. If anything ex Parte Young supports my position of sovereignty.
Observer,
“To BBB and James M, in this thread it is interesting to note that in Dred Scott…”
Thanks! But we must consider that Lincoln’s inaugural address took place before the Judiciary Act of 1875 which gave the District Court federal question jurisdiction.
That doesn’t change my argument, but I do appreciate you following along and providing input.
Larry: “Who do you think the GOVERNED are??? CITIZENS!!!! Geesh!!”
Actually, this may come as a shock to Larry, but all persons in a nation are governed by that nation, whether they are citizens or not.
All aliens who are present in the U.S. are governed by its laws and must obey them.
They give their consent when they voluntarily come to the country and can leave if they do not want to consent.
Now, this may be another shock to Larry, but the persons of African descent in the south did not come under its jurisdiction voluntarily. Their ancestors were brought in by force.
Again, they could not leave, either. If they tried, they could be rounded up under the fugitive slave law.
So they were governed without their consent.
Note that Larry has ignore the main point above.
The southern slaveowners, unlike the colonists who drafted the 1776 Declaration of Independence, were in fact governed by their consent by virtue of their participation at every level of state and federal government.
Larry: “Why would they think ANYTHING Lincoln said was valid since they were not acknowlding him as President?????? Have an answer???”
And, finally, yes, Lincoln was their President throughout the war. He asserted this when he agreed to talks with Davis’s representatives at Norfolk concerning our common country.
Buddha,
I just figured that the discussion was due for some new and creative trolling. Wanna bet I get at least 3 responses to my one sentence (that’s efficient trolling)?
Also, I don’t like Sting.
Larry: “Also, answer this question that I asked Mespo, because he keeps ignoring it:
“Why would Southerners feel THREATENED when under the Constitution [as a result of Dred Scott] they were constitutionally PERMITTED to have slaves??”
What is the point of the question?
DNFTT
I asked “Do you know why the state legislatures could not ratify the Constitution?”
James M. responded “Because the Constitution specifies conventions. I could guess at the reason it does so, but don’t know for sure.”
On the issue of ratifying the proposed Constitution, Mason believed the people, rather than state legislatures, should do the job.
Col. Mason considered a reference of the plan to the authority of the people as one of the most important and essential of the Resolutions. The Legislatures have no power to ratify it. They are the mere creatures of the State Constitutions, and can not be greater than their creators. July 23, 1787
http://www.gunstonhall.org/georgemason/essays/constitution.html
This is significant because the District Courts are creatures of the Legislature. I cannot see how they can be greater than the Legislature.
BBB,
This is significant because the District Courts are creatures of the Legislature. I cannot see how they can be greater than the Legislature.
District courts do need general jurisdiction, and they have been granted that jurisdiction in certain classes of cases. One particular type of case (federal question) gives them frequent opportunity to pass on the constitutionality of certain laws. I fail to see where sovereign immunity comes into play at all. It sounds like you should be lobbying for a legislative change on general jurisdiction, not pushing an expansion of sovereign immunity.
If, as I suggest, the authority being exercised by the lower court is a usurpation, that usurpation can gain no legitimacy by repetition
That’s true, but I reject your premise. It also doesn’t alter the nature of the change you’d like to see vis a vis the present system.
the District Court cannot . . . invalidate an Act of the Legislature who created them.
Where is that found in the Constitution or USC? The legislature could try to make that change if they thought it was at all workable.
I see it as an accepted doctrine. Do I need to cite the plethora of holdings in which the sovereignty of the United States has been recognized?
I’d disagree with your characterization of both of our positions. I’m OK with sovereign immunity as settled law. You aren’t satisfied with the current law, and want to rewrite our whole federal court system using it.
Also, sovereignty is not the same as sovereign immunity.
Ex Parte Young is an (acknowledged) polite legal fiction through which the constitutionality of laws can be challenged. It’s an end run around sovereign immunity. I like the doctrine just fine, but I figured it would conflict with your view. If not, that’s fine and we can drop it.
“Why would Southerners feel THREATENED when under the Constitution [as a result of Dred Scott] they were constitutionally PERMITTED to have slaves??”
*******************
Unlike Larry, the Southern planters could see the winds of change beginning to blow and they understood the Constitution was a living document that could change with the consent of 5 men and the stroke of a pen. Britain had legislatively abolished slavery in 1834 (judicially, the practice of domestic slavery was declared illegal much earlier in 1772 in Somersett’s case) and much of the Western nations had abandoned the stupidity much earlier.
The Southern planters felt quite threatened by the growing resentment of slavery in the North and the rise of abolitionist movements among free blacks and intellectuals. (See the speech of Dr. Henry Ruffner of Washington College that was widely discussed in the South. Ruffner described the abolitionists as violent fanatics who had to be combated. http://books.google.com/books?id=qVtLAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA51&lpg=PA51&dq=southern+attitudes+toward+northern+abolitionists&source=bl&ots=PdtuXdSOGL&sig=5FVI_0jErYKIL6JfGuPiFL2_w3I&hl=en&ei=8BjbTLDhLIS0lQeO-f3ICQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CCkQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q&f=false).
The tide of public sentiment was rushing headlong against the agrarian South who needed slavery to avoid the back-breaking work of farming large plantations. I would say that when your source of cheap labor is directly implicated by the perception that the election of Abraham Lincoln would end slavery, your way of life is thus threatened and this you are apt to rebel. They did.
Larry does have one redeeming virtue in that he is willing to say just about anything in defense of his position allowing the rest of us to marvel at the utter ignorance of history that some of our fellow citizens are willing to loudly display.
James M.,
The federal courts are all courts of limited jurisdiction.
Why do you favor the word “expansion”?
I am in no way suggesting an expansion of something. At best, I could be said to be wanting to limit the waiver. However, when no such waiver currently exists, it would be decidedly silly to have a desire to remove that which is not there to begin with.
“Where is that found in the Constitution or USC?”
Do you really want to go there? If you do, could you direct me to the clause granting the Supreme Court with the power of judicial review?
I would agree that Ex Parte Young was an end around. However, that end around was consistent with personal jurisdiction. Creative? Yes. Unlawful? No.
James,
I don’t expect you to accept my premise anymore than I would expect slaveowners to have accepted such a challenge to the accepted status quo of their slaves. Judges can enjoin persons and corporations (recognized as persons for jurisdiction), but the can’t enjoin the sovereign unless the sovereign specifically grants them that power. It’s as ridiculous as having a court attempt to enjoin the king. If the king had not explicitly granted a waiver, the judge would likely be jailed for even attempting the act.
A judge, by grant of subject matter jurisdiction, can be called upon to answer a question, but the answer can only be within the lawful authority of the judge. When the executive, legislature or even the court, exceed their authority it is a usurpation.
Even-handed analysis overlooks the fact that under a Constitution which delegates and limits power, the burden is on a claimant to point to the source of his power — failing which, it is a usurpation. The burden must be on the claimant to point to the source of his power. Ambiguity and status quo cannot be said to be the source of power; can they?
Mespo,
Did you know that Jefferson’s original draft of the DOI included slavery as a complaint against the King?
Even as a slaveowner, Jefferson knew it was wrong.
Mespo,
How did eminent domain effect Fort Sumter? After notification of secession could South Carolina have used (or thought they had a right to use) eminent domain to recover the fort? Who would they notify if they no longer recognized a federal government?
Nowadays, a state cannot condemn federal property.
Utah Power & Light Co. v. U.S., 243 U.S. 389 (U.S. 1917):
The first position taken by the defendants is that their claims must be tested by the laws of the state in which the lands are situate rather than by the legislation of Congress, and in support of this position they say that lands of the United States within a state, when not used or needed for a fort or other governmental purpose of the *404 United States, are subject to the jurisdiction, powers, and laws of the state in the same way and to the same extent as are similar lands of others. To this we cannot assent. Not only does the Constitution (art. 4, § 3, cl. 2) commit to Congress the power ‘to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting’ the lands of the United States, but the settled course of legislation, congressional and state, and repeated decisions of this court, have gone upon the theory that the power of Congress is exclusive, and that only through its exercise in some form can rights in lands belonging to the United States be acquired. True, for many purposes a state has civil and criminal jurisdiction over lands within its limits belonging to the United States, but this jurisdiction does not extend to any matter that is not consistent with full power in the United States to protect its lands, to control their use, and to prescribe in what manner others may require rights in them. Thus, while the state may punish public offenses, such as murder or larceny, committed on such lands, and may tax private property, such as live stock, located thereon, it may not tax the lands themselves, or invest others with any right whatever in them. … From the earliest times Congress by its legislation, applicable alike in the states and territories, has regulated in many particulars the use by others of the lands of the United States, has prohibited and made punishable various acts calculated to be injurious to them or to prevent their use in the way intended, and has provided for and controlled the acquisition of rights of way over them for highways, railroads, canals, ditches, telegraph lines, and the like. The states and the public have almost uniformly accepted this legislation as controlling, and in the instances where it has been questioned in this court its validity has been upheld and its supremacy over state enactments sustained. … And so we are of opinion that the inclusion within a state of lands of the United States does not take from Congress the power to control their occupancy and use, to protect them from trespass and injury, and to prescribe the conditions upon which others may obtain rights in them, even though this may involve the exercise in some measure of what commonly is known as the police power. ‘A different rule,’ as was said in Camfield v. United States, 167 U. S. 518, … ‘would place the public domain of the United States completely at the mercy of state legislation.’
It results that state laws, including those relating to the exercise of the power of eminent domain, have no bearing upon a controversy such as is here presented, save as they may have been adopted or made applicable by Congress.
Mespo: “the Southern planters could see the winds of change beginning to blow and they understood the Constitution was a living document that could change with the consent of 5 men and the stroke of a pen.”
Living document? So much for the concept of specifically enumerated powers; right?
And there but for the grace of a sovereign of nine goes the right of self-ownership?
You’re kidding me; right?
Show me where and how the Fed was delegated the power to ‘exercise power over’ the inalienable right of self ownership.
“Though the earth, and all inferior creatures, be common to all men, yet every [one] has a property in his own person: this no body has any right to but himself.”
“AS usurpation is the exercise of power, which another hath a right to; so tyranny is the exercise of power beyond right, which no body can have a right to.”
Amazing how Tanney never considered the metaphysical impossibility of something like the fugitive slave clause existing within the constitution. The very essence of the document necessitates the clause be ‘knocked-out’ in a 2-206 fashion.
And what of the negative implication of the 13th Amendment? How may a government defined by its contradiction to all things tyrannical proclaim that it may decide whether or not slavery (a/k/a tyranny) can exist within its society? What the Fed gives the Fed may take away by repealing said amendment and substituting it with a new one stating that slavery is once again the ‘law’ of the land?
Bullshit.
This just part of the reason I say that
Mankind has not evolved and inch from the slime that spawned him.
I meant to say [above] “why wage WITHOUT the consent of Congress?”
“The war was treasonous. Treason is the only crime defined in the Constitution, and consists of levying war against the United States, and requires two witnesses. The southerners did did wage war against the United States and there were more than two witness, so they were traitors.”
Two problems with you calling thi “treason”:
1. The Declaration says: “To secure these rights of [life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness], governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed….whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it i the RIGHT of the people to ALTER OR ABOLISH IT, AND TO INSTUTUTE NEW GOVERNMENT.”
and the other problem is Lincoln’s OWN WORDS:
“Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government, AND FORM A NEW ONE THAT SUITS THEM BETTER. This is a most valuable and sacred right—a right which we hope and believe is to liberate the world. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of suc people, that can, may revolutionize, and make their own of so much of the territory as they inhabit.”—–January 12, 1848.
The Declaration of Independence was declaration of SECESSION [from England]—–so how on earth can you say the South’s secession was treasonous? The right to secede was the cornerstone of the founding documents. Do you think the founders after breaking off from England was going to form a new government in which the very same thing could occur within the new government? The right of secession was paramount in making sure government could not be overtaken by another tyrant.
“These southern apologists have some nerve complaining about constitutional violations while the slaveowners were engaging in massive treason against the United States of America.”
“against the United states?” The United States is not one big centralized government state—thy are individual sovereign entities that even had the authority to wage war according to the founding documents.
“Habeas corpus may be suspended when the public safety requires it in cases of rebellion or invasion. There was a rebellion and an invasion. Congress ratified Lincoln’s actions.”
Yes, but the President doesnt have the right to suspend it, ONLY Congress can. Habeas Corpus is a legislative issue, not an executive one and Congress did NOT authorize it. Your statement “congress ratified Lincoln’s actions” makes NO sense because Lincoln could not ACT without approval from Congress first. Habeas Corpus is constitutional right to have a fair trial and representation. To remove it means you are violating the constitution.
“The Proclamation freed slaves in areas occupied by the treasonous rebels as the Union armies advanced.”
Thats funny, the 13th amendment didnt go into effect until December 1865—several years after the EP—–so theres NO WAY the slaves could have been free until then. Your above statement is utter bullshit.
“Larry: “Also, answer this question that I asked Mespo, because he keeps ignoring it:
“Why would Southerners feel THREATENED when under the Constitution [as a result of Dred Scott] they were constitutionally PERMITTED to have slaves??”
What is the point of the question?”
The point is—–you cant answer a basic question because you know you CANT answer it without spewing a colossal contradiction or lie.
The monumental blunder of Davis and the South Carolinians in the Sumter fiasco is still baffling to this day, as is the persistent defense of their mistakes by the Lost Causers.
We know from our own experience in Vietnam that a weaker opponent can defeat a superpower if the superpower is divided politically. At the outbreak of the so-called secession, the north was woefully divided, with massive numbers of people unwilling to wage war to bring the south back.
To this day, commentators say that the north should have let the south go in peace.
Well, it was the south that refused to let that happen. They could have let Lincoln peacefully resupply Sumter and they could have left it in peace. Sure, it was an annoyance in its own harbor. But Cuba has been able to live with a US base in its own harbor for a hundred years or so without bombarding it.
And the shelling was an act of war, even if there were no injuries. Does anyone want to speculate on the American reaction if Cuba suddenly shelled Gitmo?
But Davis and his henchmen were enraged in their Romantic, Cavalier elitist pride by the effrontery. These “gentlemen”: could not abide the affront to their “honor.” They attacked.
The U.S reacted a lot like it did in other situations. Remember the Maine? Pearl Harbor? The north was enraged and mobilized against the south.
Sam Houston, the greatest of all Texans and a loyal Unionist, predicted the inevitable outcome: “Let me tell you what is coming. After the sacrifice of countless millions of treasure and hundreds of thousands of lives, you may win Southern independence if God be not against you, but I doubt it. I tell you that, while I believe with you in the doctrine of states rights, the North is determined to preserve this Union. They are not a fiery, impulsive people as you are, for they live in colder climates. But when they begin to move in a given direction, they move with the steady momentum and perseverance of a mighty avalanche; and what I fear is, they will overwhelm the South.”
We have lived to see similar rash, impulsive, stupid actions in the many years since then.
Why did the Japanese think they could win a war that they provoked with the U.S.? America was divided by isolationists who would have resisted any actions against Japan as they expanded into Dutch and British territories.
Why did Hitler wage a war on Russia? Why did he later declare
war on the United States, when the U.S. had not declared war on Germany. Another blunder.
Here’s the problem Larry: signatories to the DOI are subject to the same restrictions as the Fed.
The DOI bars all tyranny from the land; which includes slavery.
The doctrine of merger and the equal footing doctrine put all states in privity of estate with each other.
Thus, the Northern States, to the extent they were enforcing a declaration of covenants and restrictions against tyranny, running with the land, were legally entitled to kick the shit out of South for breaching said covenant.
Larry: “The Proclamation freed slaves in areas occupied by the treasonous rebels as the Union armies advanced.”
“Thats funny, the 13th amendment didnt go into effect until December 1865—several years after the EP—–so theres NO WAY the slaves could have been free until then. Your above statement is utter bullshit.”
Of the nearly two million slaves who were freed by the Proclamation, over 180,000 joined the Union Army to fight for the United States of America.
That is freedom by any standard. Is Larry trying to argue that the 180,000 free Americans who fought in the United States Army were still slaves? That is nonsense.
They were free fighting men.
They were freed by the Emancipation Proclamation.
Mespo—-I will ask it again since you didnt answer it. Your answer looks like a copy and paste job from some website. I didnt see the word “constitution” in your entire response [in the context of my question], despite me using the word in my question—so here is the question again. This time dont ramble on and on while using the words “slavery” and “south” to make it “appear” as if you answered it.
“Why would Southerners feel THREATENED when under the Constitution [as a result of Dred Scott] they were constitutionally PERMITTED to have slaves??”
NO ONE has still addressed my list of Lincoln’s treasonous acts—nor have they refuted the fact that Lincoln committed them or act like they care if he did. So I will list them AGAIN:
1. Suspension of Habeas Corpus throughout his entire presidency
2. Had his military imprison tens of thousands of NORTHERN political critics and opponents without due process
3. Censored all telegraph communication
4. Shut down over 300 opposition newspapers
5. Imprisoned dozens of duly elected officials of the state of Maryland
6. Participated in the rigging of Northern elections
7. Waged war without the consent of Congress
8. Illegally created a new state [West Virginia]
9. Deported the most outspoken member of the Democratic opposition, Congressman Clement L. Vallandigham of Ohio
Anyone DENY Lincoln did any of the above? And what did ANY of the above have to do with slavery?
Answer this question mespo OR observer [that I already asked, and you IGNORED]:
why did Lincoln find the need to shut down over 300 newspapers and censor all telegraph communication if he was such a big advocate of slavery and he was doing the right thing?? The newspapers he shut down and the editors he imprisoned were in the NORTH, not the south. Why was their so much NORTHERN opposition if he was the saint you all think he is?
Larry: “Why would Southerners feel THREATENED when under the Constitution [as a result of Dred Scott] they were constitutionally PERMITTED to have slaves??”
“What is the point of the question?”
“The point is—–you cant answer a basic question because you know you CANT answer it without spewing a colossal contradiction or lie.”
Larry cannot carry on a civil discussion without accusations of lying and b*******. This is pathetic.
Larry should explain the question.
Bob, Esq., may we politely ask what you are talking about?
Social contract; distinction between usurpation and tyranny; second paragraph of the DOI; sovereignty running with the land since feudal times? All some irrelevant jumble to you?
Pity.
Maybe Mespo will fill you in.
“Of the nearly two million slaves who were freed by the Proclamation, over 180,000 joined the Union Army to fight for the United States of America.”
Slaves were NOT citizens—are you telling me non-citizens could fight in our armies??? Got a link proving this??
“The DOI bars all tyranny from the land; which includes slavery.”
But yet the Dred Scott decision made slavery constitutional. God you guys are freaking nuts!
Observer, find me ONE quotation from Jefferson, Madison or any founding father or any part of any founding document that says or IMPLIES the states are NOT free and independent and cannot seperate from the VOLUNTARY compact. Just ONE. I have already cited MANY that say states CAN seperate and you hav not refuted or debunked me ONCE.
““The point is—–you cant answer a basic question because you know you CANT answer it without spewing a colossal contradiction or lie.”
Larry cannot carry on a civil discussion without accusations of lying and b*******. This is pathetic.
Larry should explain the question.”
Still dodging my question. LOL. Mespo said earlier that the South felt THREATENED because Lincoln wanted to end slavery, so I asked:
“Why would Southerners feel THREATENED when under the Constitution [as a result of Dred Scott] they were constitutionally PERMITTED to have slaves??”
Understand now? or do you need pictures?
BBB,
I’m happy to go there. I think the concept of judicial review is implicit in the idea that the Constitution trumps federal law. Take a straightforward case, e.g. Congress imposes a religious test for office. A court then has to decide whether to apply the law or the plain text of the constitution. Judicial review is born.
The idea of sovereign immunity is hardly as necessary.
Also, comparing someone to a slave owner is a good way to shut down a conversation, regardless of your intentions in doing so.
Larry,
The DOI has no legal effect. It didn’t in 1861 either. The Constitution has no provision for succession. In order to secede or dissolve the United States constitutionally, you’d need to pass an amendment adding a procedure for seceding or dissolving the United States.
Larry,
“Why would Southerners feel THREATENED when under the Constitution [as a result of Dred Scott] they were constitutionally PERMITTED to have slaves??”
I gave you one answer, mespo gave you another. If you’re going to reject answers out of hand if they don’t include a magic word you arbitrarily decide on after the fact, we’ll just stop responding.
Two corrections: secession, not succession two posts back; second paragraph shouldn’t be in italics, one post back.
BBB:
“How did eminent domain effect Fort Sumter? After notification of secession could South Carolina have used (or thought they had a right to use) eminent domain to recover the fort? Who would they notify if they no longer recognized a federal government?”
***********************
Eminent domain against the land of the federal government is a violation of the Supremacy Clause. Utah Power & Light Co. v. U.S., 243 U.S. 389 (U.S. 1917):
The first position taken by the defendants is that their claims must be tested by the laws of the state in which the lands are situate rather than by the legislation of Congress, and in support of this position they say that lands of the United States within a state, when not used or needed for a fort or other governmental purpose of the *404 United States, are subject to the jurisdiction, powers, and laws of the state in the same way and to the same extent as are similar lands of others. To this we cannot assent. Not only does the Constitution (art. 4, § 3, cl. 2) commit to Congress the power ‘to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting’ the lands of the United States, but the settled course of legislation, congressional and state, and repeated decisions of this court, have gone upon the theory that the power of Congress is exclusive, and that only through its exercise in some form can rights in lands belonging to the United States be acquired.
Ooops. Sorry Observer, I missed your post.
James M.,
How could you interpret anything I said to have compared someone to a slave owner? (Am I wrong in assuming that you think I was taking a swipe at you? If so, that was not my intention.) I simply pointed out that what people consider to be acceptable in practice is not easily changed.
“I think the concept of judicial review is implicit in the idea that the Constitution trumps federal law.”
I don’t have a problem agreeing with that. My dissatisfaction lies with applying the lower courts decision to parties not before them, and giving orders to another branch of government.
I’m all for judicial review. I’m all for having all courts recognize supremacy. My primary gripe is with the exercise of authority not granted and the resultant ‘law here, but not over here’.
BBB,
I know what you were trying to say, and given the nature of the thread, I can see why it was on your mind; but this statement did take me a little aback at first:
I don’t expect you to accept my premise anymore than I would expect slaveowners to have accepted such a challenge to the accepted status quo of their slaves.
Mespo,
If only South Carolina would have taken the time to travel into the future and review the 1917 holding of the Court.
If I recall, some previous holdings (maybe at the Circuit level), and the opinion of Justice Story was contrary to the Court’s holding in 1917.
I’m not revisiting the civil war. I was just asking a question.
I will say that I don’t think South Carolina believed that Lincoln was only sending supplies, other than ammunition, to Fort Sumter.
I also find the whole “perpetual union” argument to be pretty lame. All a perpetual union is, is one with no set expiration. If a state wanted to secede, I think they would stand a pretty good chance of prevailing at an international tribunal (ICJ). They may have to give some pretty significant concessions, but I think they could secede without war.
Buddha Is Laughing
1, November 10, 2010 at 2:37 pm
Lincoln was overrated.
==================================================
Gyges
1, November 10, 2010 at 3:21 pm
Buddha,
I feel the same way about the Beatles.
========================================================
Buddha Is Laughing
1, November 10, 2010 at 3:38 pm
Gyges,
I too think the Beatles are overrated. Conversely I feel that George Harrison was the most underrated of the Beatles.
==========================================================
Gyges
1, November 10, 2010 at 3:50 pm
Buddha,
I just figured that the discussion was due for some new and creative trolling. Wanna bet I get at least 3 responses to my one sentence (that’s efficient trolling)?
Also, I don’t like Sting.
======================================================
Sorry, all you get is me.
I often wonder about Lincoln. I agree the Beetles were overrated. I agree Harrison was underrated. I can’t stand Sting. David Bowie gives me a headache when he attempts to imitate Anthony Newley, who also gives me a headache.
Thank you, finally I am recognized for my musical genesis.
If George didn’t get some lovin’ for penning this tune, there is no justice.
And this song speaks for itself (and for me quite often):
With every mistake, we must surely be learning . . .
BIL,
I didn’t know While My Guitar Gently Weeps was written by Harrison. Great song.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cEnJDaqT3-0 Even if you don’t like Sting, this song was the best stalking song ever.
James,
Written by Harrison, lead on original studio recording played by Eric Clapton. It’s one of the songs I literally learned to love music from. My uncle’s had a band when I was a wee lil’ buddha and I used to go to practice and listen to music music with them all the time.
Then the Contract should be held Void…and each goes there separate ways….
Observer wrote: “Of the nearly two million slaves who were freed by the Proclamation, over 180,000 joined the Union Army to fight for the United States of America.”
Larry answered: “Slaves were NOT citizens—are you telling me non-citizens could fight in our armies??? Got a link proving this??”
It is hard to fathom the depth of Larry’s ignorance.
First, to clarify, Observer did not say that slaves fought. He said slaves who had been freed by the Proclamation fought. Free Black African Americans fought bravely to free all African Americans and to save the Union.
And, yes, I am telling Larry that non-citizens could and did fight in our Army, then and now. Thousands of immigrants were recruited into the Union Army, almost as they got off the boats in the harbor.
Aliens have always served in the Army. Until the draft was abolished in 1973, aliens could be and were drafted into the Army. (When it came time to take the oath of enlistment, each alien was given the choice of enlisting or of reporting to the INS for deportation to his country of origin).
The link to the Army’s official site is below.
I hope this had been educational. Perhaps Larry will recognize the error and admit that non-citizens can and have always been able to enlist in the US Army and to fight for America.
Waiting…
https://forums.goarmy.com/thread/198214)
Q. Who Can Enlist in the US Army under this new Recruiting Program?
A. Persons With TPS, Asylee, Refugee, Or One Of Several Non-Immigrant Visa Statuses (E, F, H, I, J, K, L, M, O, P, Q, R, S, T, TC, TD, TN, U, or V) Are Potentially Eligible To Enlist.
The MAVNI program expands the categories of persons who can lawfully enlist in the United States Armed Forces. Previously, the Armed Forces—the US Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, and Coast Guard 1 —have generally enlisted only citizens and non-citizen nationals of the United States; lawful permanent resident aliens (including conditional lawful permanent residents); and certain nationals of the Federated States of Micronesia, the Republic of the Marshall Islands, and Palau who are admissible as non-immigrants under the Compacts of Free Association with those nations. 2 Under Section 504(b)(2) of the military enlistment statute, however, the Secretary of any Armed Force to enlist other aliens “if the Secretary determines that such enlistment is vital to the national interest.” 3 Under guidance from the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of the Army has determined that the enlistment of certain legal non-citizen health care professionals is vital to the national interest, and has authorized the Army to commence the MAVNI pilot program. 4 The legal non-citizens to be recruited include doctors and nurses as well as persons who can demonstrate proficiency in any one of the foreign languages listed in Appendix 1. 5
The Office of the Secretary of Defense set the immigration eligibility criteria for the program; they are also listed in Appendix 1. Anyone who currently holds asylee, refugee, Temporary Protected Status (TPS), or one of numerous non-immigrant statuses (E, F, H, I, J, K, L, M, O, P, Q, R, S, T, TC, TD, TN, U, or V) may be eligible. A non-citizen must have held one of those legal statuses for at least two years; having changed between these statuses during the two-year period will not bar enlistment. In addition, if the person holds a non-immigrant status (E, F, H, I, J, K, L, M, O, P, Q, R, S, T, TC, TD, TN, U, or V), he or she cannot have had a single absence from the United States of more than 90 days in the past two years (multiple absences are apparently fine, as long as no single trip exceeded 90 days).
Persons whose status is not listed in the eligibility criteria cannot enlist under this pilot program. Thus, those holding B visa or other visitor status—including those who entered on the Visa Waiver Program—are not eligible. Asylum applicants are not eligible, although once they have been granted asylum, they may become eligible. Undocumented immigrants, visa overstayers, and other persons who have violated their status are also not eligible.
1 10 USC §101(a)(4) (2009).
2 See 10 USC §504(b)(1) (2009). In January 2006, Congress enacted a unified enlistment statute for the US Armed Forces in 10 USC §504. Prior to this statute being enacted, each Service had different enlistment rules.
3 10 USC §504(b)(2) (2009).
4 In conjunction with the Army’s launch of the pilot program, the Department of Homeland Security has published a new rule in the Federal Register confirming that persons who enlist in the Army under this program are authorized to work. See 74 Fed. Reg. 7993 (Feb. 23, 2009).
BobEsq said: “Social contract; distinction between usurpation and tyranny; second paragraph of the DOI; sovereignty running with the land since feudal times? All some irrelevant jumble to you? Pity. Maybe Mespo will fill you in.”
Actually, it is an ” irrelevant jumble” if offered condescendingly with no explanation, reasoning or links or references to sources, and, no, the burden is on the proponent, not another poster, to sort it out, so until then there is a rebutable presumption to the contrary.
In the meantime, James M. was correct at 6:59 on Nov. 10, when he told Larry: “The DOI has no legal effect. It didn’t in 1861 either. The Constitution has no provision for succession. In order to secede or dissolve the United States constitutionally, you’d need to pass an amendment adding a procedure for seceding or dissolving the United States.” Absolutely right.
At least one proposition in the jumble is clearly false, to wit, “sovereignty running with the land since feudal times.” In America, sovereignty does not run with the land, but flows from the people, under the United States Constitution that was proclaimed by “We the People,” that was ratified by the people in conventions, and that is “the supreme Law of the Land.”
Blouise,
I’ve got my three; I’m happy. (You, Buddha, and George Harrison himself).
I like some Bowie, but he’s far from my favorite.
Buddha: “Written by Harrison, lead on original studio recording played by Eric Clapton.”
Clapton did it just one take.
James said:
“In order to secede or dissolve the United States constitutionally, you’d need to pass an amendment adding a procedure for seceding or dissolving the United States.”
A complete LIE. The New Englanders were going to secede in 1814 but chose not to—-NOT because they didnt have the right to, but because they decided it wouldnt be good economically or politically to do so. NO ONE questioned their RIGHT to, and Jefferson made it CLEAR in the Kentucky Resolve of 1798 that states CAN secede!
James said:
“I gave you one answer, mespo gave you another. If you’re going to reject answers out of hand if they don’t include a magic word you arbitrarily decide on after the fact, we’ll just stop responding.”
No, actually NEITHER of you answered it. You ACKNOWLEDGED the question but thats not the same as ANSWERING it. You did NOT answer it. Mespo just rambled and rambled and used the words “slavery” and “south” a dozen times and passed it off as answering the question. It was NOT an answer to what I asked.
I see NO ONE will address Lincoln’s crimes nor debunk that Lincoln did the following:
1. Suspension of Habeas Corpus throughout his entire presidency
2. Had his military imprison tens of thousands of NORTHERN political critics and opponents without due process
3. Censored all telegraph communication
4. Shut down over 300 opposition newspapers
5. Imprisoned dozens of duly elected officials of the state of Maryland
6. Participated in the rigging of Northern elections
7. Waged war without the consent of Congress
8. Illegally created a new state [West Virginia]
9. Deported the most outspoken member of the Democratic opposition, Congressman Clement L. Vallandigham of Ohio
Observer said:
“In the meantime, James M. was correct at 6:59 on Nov. 10, when he told Larry: “The DOI has no legal effect. It didn’t in 1861 either. The Constitution has no provision for succession. In order to secede or dissolve the United States constitutionally, you’d need to pass an amendment adding a procedure for seceding or dissolving the United States.” Absolutely right.”
New Englanders were going to secede in 1814. NO ONE questioned their RIGHT to. Jefferson made it CLEAR states can secede. What’s your response????
“Succession”????? James doesnt even know how to spell the f ucking word!!!!! LOL
Observer, if Lincoln was the SAINT you think he was, why did Lincoln shut down 300 NORTHERN newspapers and imprison thousands of NORTHERN political opponents???????
[Ive asked this once. It was IGNORED]
HMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM?????????????????????????????????
Observer, here’s the link where you can read about the New England plan to secede
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hartford_convention
You will see that the RIGHT to secede was NEVER questioned.
Larry:
can you remind me what your original thought was on all of this?
Is it states rights or legality of secession or both?
Larry:
“You will see that the RIGHT to secede was NEVER questioned.”
but was it a good idea? There is benefit to a national government as your wiki link implies.
Done been said….
Larry said “Observer, here’s the link where you can read about the New England plan to secede. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hartford_convention You will see that the RIGHT to secede was NEVER questioned.”
Larry should go to that link and actually read it. He claims that it is about a “plan to secede,” but the article clearly states that “no such resolution was adopted at the convention.”
Instead, the Convention recommended amendments to the Constitution. It is a historical myth that the Hartford Convention proposed secession.
So Larry is caught up in another lie about history. Not the first, not the last.
Larry also said “New Englanders were going to secede in 1814. NO ONE questioned their RIGHT to. Jefferson made it CLEAR states can secede. What’s your response????”
The response is pretty clear by now. Although the subject of secession was “discussed,” they were not going to secede in 1814, and never proposed any language concerning secession, so no one raised any question about their right or lack of right to do so, because they never proposed to secede.
To repeat, not even one of the proposals of the Hartford Convention mentioned secession.
That is the historical fact.
The “plan to secede” is historical myth.
Larry cannot even read and comprehend his own sources. Why should any more time be wasted on him?
So, one more time. Larry is wrong,
Larry keeps telling himself this misinformation over and over again until he actually believes it. He said the north had more slaves than the south, but that statement is false, as demonstrated by census totals above. He said the Emancipation Proclamation freed no slaves, but that is false since hundreds of thousands of slaves were freed as the Union Army advanced. He said falsely that Lincoln “loved” slavery or was “pro-slavery,” but never provided any quotations or actions in support of this bizarre proposition, and never responded to the long list of statements and actions by Lincoln in opposition to slavery.
Larry was told that 180,000 African Americans freed by the Proclamation fought for the Union. He demonstrated his woeful ignorance by implying that non-citizens could not serve in the military. He asked for a link, got one, but never responded to the facts or corrected his misinformation.
Why should anyone have to answer his tendentious “questions” when he cannot even comprehend the answers that are given?
Wiki says:
“The convention ended with a report and resolutions, signed by the delegates present, and adopted on the day before final adjournment. The report said that New England had a ‘duty’ to assert its authority over unconstitutional infringements on its sovereignty — a doctrine that echoed the policy of Jefferson and Madison in 1798 (in the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions), and which would later reappear in a different context as ‘nullification.’
“The Hartford Convention’s final report proposed several amendments to the US Constitution. These attempted to combat the policies of the ruling Republicans by:
1. Prohibiting any trade embargo lasting over 60 days;
2. Requiring a two-thirds Congressional majority for declaration of offensive war, admission of a new state, or interdiction of foreign commerce;
3. Removing the three-fifths representation advantage of the South;
4. Limiting future Presidents to one term;
5. Requiring each President to be from a different state than his predecessor. (This provision was aimed directly at the ruling Virginia Dynasty.)
“The Democratic-Republican Congress would never have recommended any of New England’s proposals for ratification. Hartford delegates intended for them to embarrass the President and the Republicans in Congress—and also to serve as a basis for negotiations between New England and the rest of the country.
“Some delegates may have been in favor of New England’s secession from the United States, and forming an independent republic, though no such resolution was adopted at the convention. Historian Samuel Eliot Morison rejected the notion that Hartford was an attempt to take New England out of the Union and give treasonous aid and comfort to Britain. Morison wrote, ‘Democratic politicians, seeking a foil to their own mismanagement of the war and to discredit the still formidable Federalist party, caressed and fed this infant myth until it became so tough and lusty as to defy both solemn denials and documentary proof.'”
Like Larry, they “caressed and fed this infant myth until it became so tough and lusty as to defy both solemn denials and documentary proof.”
Enough time has been wasted on Larry and his ignorance by now.
Observer,
While Larry proper may be a lost cause, combating ignorance is never wasted effort as you may dissuade others from propagating Larry’s faulty memes to others like an infection.
So congratulations on being an effective antibody.
We as a society (and as a species) need more/better antibodies and fewer pathogens of ignorance.
Now you are interchanging terminology to suit your misinformation. I said they planned to secede—that can also be interpreted as “discussed”. Why discuss something if it’s not a plan??? But YOU, being the colossal misinformationist that you are, interject the word “PROPOSED” into it to make it appear like I used the word PROPOSED. I NEVER did. In fact, I said above that they DECIDED NOT TO SECEDE and gave the reasons why, but that doesnt stop you from being dishonest. The link I gave said this in the FIRST sentence.
“The Hartford Convention was an event spanning from December 15, 1814–January 4, 1815 in the United States during the War of 1812 in which New England’s opposition to the war reached the point where secession from the United States was discussed”
and it says:
“Secession was again mentioned in 1814–1815; all but one leading Federalist newspaper in New England supported a plan to expel the western states from the Union. Otis, the key leader of the Convention, blocked radical proposals like seizing the Federal customs house, impounding federal funds, or declaring neutrality. Otis thought the Madison administration was near collapse and that unless conservatives like himself and the other delegates took charge, the radical secessionists might take power.”
I said they planned to secede—I NEVER said they PROPOSED it. That was YOUR word. To PROPOSE something means you are attempting to get permission. You dont get permission to secede if it is already granted as an option.
“He said the Emancipation Proclamation freed no slaves, but that is false since hundreds of thousands of slaves were freed as the Union Army advanced.”
Oh really???? Slaves were FREED??? What year were they freed???? 1863??? 1862?????? Then why did the war CONTINUE until 1865 if it was about FREEING SLAVES?????? I would LOVE an answer to that? You said the war was about slavery and that was the ONLY issue. If Lincoln could free slaves with an executive order, why didnt he issue this order 3 days after taking office and AVOID a war???
Even the wikipedia page says this:
“On September 22, 1862, Lincoln announced that he would issue a formal emancipation of all slaves in any state of the Confederate States of America that did not return to Union control by January 1, 1863”——-key words “THAT DID NOT RETURN TO UNION CONTROL”—-meaning STILL NOT FREE. That was the reason for me saying he freed NO slaves. Even being freed from the South and put in UNION control makes them STILL NOT FREE. Get it now???? How are you FREE if you must RETURN TO UNION CONTROL??? Tell me something Observer, if you are UNDER CONTROL of someone, are you FREE??
Observer—-how much longer will you continue to IGNORE these two things????:
Observer, if Lincoln was the SAINT you think he was, why did Lincoln shut down 300 NORTHERN newspapers and imprison thousands of NORTHERN political opponents???????
I see NO ONE will address Lincoln’s crimes nor debunk that Lincoln did the following:
1. Suspension of Habeas Corpus throughout his entire presidency
2. Had his military imprison tens of thousands of NORTHERN political critics and opponents without due process
3. Censored all telegraph communication
4. Shut down over 300 opposition newspapers
5. Imprisoned dozens of duly elected officials of the state of Maryland
6. Participated in the rigging of Northern elections
7. Waged war without the consent of Congress
8. Illegally created a new state [West Virginia]
9. Deported the most outspoken member of the Democratic opposition, Congressman Clement L. Vallandigham of Ohio
Was your mother scared by a Lincoln when pregnant with you Larry? And if so, why aren’t you upset about Henry Ford accepting the Grand Cross of the German Eagle, the highest honor Nazi Germany could bestow a foreign citizen?
CLARIFICATION: Those are rhetorical questions.
Larry, November 12, 2010 at 3:18 am, when he should have been getting some sleep, said, and I quote “The New Englanders were going to secede in 1814 but chose not to….” and now says that they “planned to secede….”
If they “were going to secede in 1918,” or if they “planned to secede,” as Larry says, it was a lot more than a “discussion.”
But both the statements, in fact, are false, since the New England delegates were never “going to” secede and never “planned” to secede, as Larry’s own link makes clear, so it is ridiculous to draw any meaningful inference or conclusion from the fact that they did not secede.
Because they neither planned to secede nor were going to secede, they could never have “decided not to secede.”
I wrote that the “plan to secede” is historical myth, and I stand by it.
The historical fact is that they planned and decided to propose lawful amendments to the Constitution, not unlawful secession.
Larry is hopelessly confused about the Preliminary Emancipation Proclamation.
Lincoln stated that the slaves in the areas of confederate control would be freed, unless those areas returned to Union control in 100 days. As he expected, those areas did not return to Union control by January 1, 1863, so he issued the final Emancipation Proclamation freeing all slaves in those areas.
Larry asks “How are you FREE if you must RETURN TO UNION CONTROL???”
Larry has misread the Proclamation. The Preliminary Proclamation referred to areas of confederate control, that is, “any State, or designated part of a State, the people whereof shall then be in rebellion against the United States,” returning to Union control, not to slaves being put in Union control. Lincoln said that all slaves in the designated areas occupied by the rebels would be freed by January 1st, unless the rebels abandoned the war and returned to Union control.
If they had done so, the Proclamation would not have been issued. So Lincoln gave them a chance.
Here are the exact words: “[On January 1, 1863] all persons held as slaves within any State, or designated part of a State, the people whereof shall then be in rebellion against the United States shall be then, thenceforward, and forever free; and the executive government of the United States, including the military and naval authority thereof, will recognize and maintain the freedom of such persons, and will do no act or acts to repress such persons, or any of them, in any efforts they may make for their actual freedom.”
So, if an area was still in rebellion on January 1st, the slaves in that area would be “forever free.” If, on the other hand, the areas had ended their rebellion, then the Proclamation would not apply.
The rebellion continued.
The slaves were freed.
The slaves were indeed freed by the Emancipation Proclamation, by the hundreds of thousands as the war wore on.
Text of the Preliminary Proclamation, September 22, 1862
By the President of the United States of America.
A Proclamation.
I, Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States of America, and Commander-in-Chief of the Army and Navy thereof, do hereby proclaim and declare that hereafter, as heretofore, the war will be prosecuted for the object of practically restoring the constitutional relation between the United States, and each of the States, and the people thereof, in which States that relation is, or may be, suspended or disturbed.
That it is my purpose, upon the next meeting of Congress to again recommend the adoption of a practical measure tendering pecuniary aid to the free acceptance or rejection of all slave States, so called, the people whereof may not then be in rebellion against the United States and which States may then have voluntarily adopted, or thereafter may voluntarily adopt, immediate or gradual abolition of slavery within their respective limits; and that the effort to colonize persons of African descent, with their consent, upon this continent, or elsewhere, with the previously obtained consent of the Governments existing there, will be continued.
That on the first day of January in the year of our Lord, one thousand eight hundred and sixty-three, all persons held as slaves within any State, or designated part of a State, the people whereof shall then be in rebellion against the United States shall be then, thenceforward, and forever free; and the executive government of the United States, including the military and naval authority thereof, will recognize and maintain the freedom of such persons, and will do no act or acts to repress such persons, or any of them, in any efforts they may make for their actual freedom.
That the executive will, on the first day of January aforesaid, by proclamation, designate the States, and part of States, if any, in which the people thereof respectively, shall then be in rebellion against the United States; and the fact that any State, or the people thereof shall, on that day be, in good faith represented in the Congress of the United States, by members chosen thereto, at elections wherein a majority of the qualified voters of such State shall have participated, shall, in the absence of strong countervailing testimony, be deemed conclusive evidence that such State and the people thereof, are not then in rebellion against the United States.
That attention is hereby called to an Act of Congress entitled “An Act to make an additional Article of War” approved March 13, 1862, and which act is in the words and figure following:
“Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That hereafter the following shall be promulgated as an additional article of war for the government of the army of the United States, and shall be obeyed and observed as such:
“Article-All officers or persons in the military or naval service of the United States are prohibited from employing any of the forces under their respective commands for the purpose of returning fugitives from service or labor, who may have escaped from any persons to whom such service or labor is claimed to be due, and any officer who shall be found guilty by a court martial of violating this article shall be dismissed from the service.
“Sec.2. And be it further enacted, That this act shall take effect from and after its passage.”
Also to the ninth and tenth sections of an act entitled “An Act to suppress Insurrection, to punish Treason and Rebellion, to seize and confiscate property of rebels, and for other purposes,” approved July 17, 1862, and which sections are in the words and figures following:
“Sec.9. And be it further enacted, That all slaves of persons who shall hereafter be engaged in rebellion against the government of the United States, or who shall in any way give aid or comfort thereto, escaping from such persons and taking refuge within the lines of the army; and all slaves captured from such persons or deserted by them and coming under the control of the government of the United States; and all slaves of such persons found on (or) being within any place occupied by rebel forces and afterwards occupied by the forces of the United States, shall be deemed captives of war, and shall be forever free of their servitude and not again held as slaves.
“Sec.10. And be it further enacted, That no slave escaping into any State, Territory, or the District of Columbia, from any other State, shall be delivered up, or in any way impeded or hindered of his liberty, except for crime, or some offense against the laws, unless the person claiming said fugitive shall first make oath that the person to whom the labor or service of such fugitive is alleged to be due is his lawful owner, and has not borne arms against the United States in the present rebellion, nor in any way given aid and comfort thereto; and no person engaged in the military or naval service of the United States shall, under any pretense whatever, assume to decide on the validity of the claim of any person to the service or labor of any other person, or surrender up any such person to the claimant, on pain of being dismissed from the service.”
And I do hereby enjoin upon and order all persons engaged in the military and naval service of the United States to observe, obey, and enforce, within their respective spheres of service, the act, and sections above recited.
And the executive will in due time recommend that all citizens of the United States who shall have remained loyal thereto throughout the rebellion, shall (upon the restoration of the constitutional relation between the United States, and their respective States, and people, if that relation shall have been suspended or disturbed) be compensated for all losses by acts of the United States, including the loss of slaves.
In witness whereof, I have hereunto set my hand, and caused the seal of the United States to be affixed.
Done at the City of Washington this twenty-second day of September, in the year of our Lord, one thousand, eight hundred and sixty-two, and of the Independence of the United States the eighty seventh.
[Signed:] Abraham Lincoln By the President
[Signed:] William H. Seward Secretary of State
The wiki article that Larry quoted is very good. The link is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emancipation_Proclamation
It describes the slaves who were freed on the very day it was signed:
“It is common to encounter a claim that the Emancipation Proclamation did not immediately free a single slave. As a result of the Proclamation, many slaves were freed during the course of the war, beginning with the day it took effect. Eyewitness accounts at places such as Hilton Head, South Carolina,[17] and Port Royal, South Carolina,[16] record celebrations on January 1 as thousands of blacks were informed of their new legal status of freedom.
“Estimates of the number of slaves freed immediately by the Emancipation Proclamation are uncertain. One contemporary estimate put the ‘contraband’ population of Union-occupied North Carolina at 10,000, and the Sea Islands of South Carolina also had a substantial population. Those 20,000 slaves were freed immediately by the Emancipation Proclamation.”[3] This Union-occupied zone where freedom began at once included parts of eastern North Carolina, the Mississippi Valley, northern Alabama, the Shenandoah Valley of Virginia, a large part of Arkansas, and the Sea Islands of Georgia and South Carolina[18]. Although some counties of Union-occupied Virginia were exempted from the Proclamation, the lower Shenandoah Valley, and the area around Alexandria were covered.[3]
“Booker T. Washington, as a boy of 9 in Virginia, remembered the day in early 1865:[19]
‘As the great day drew nearer, there was more singing in the slave quarters than usual. It was bolder, had more ring, and lasted later into the night. Most of the verses of the plantation songs had some reference to freedom…. Some man who seemed to be a stranger (a United States officer, I presume) made a little speech and then read a rather long paper—the Emancipation Proclamation, I think. After the reading we were told that we were all free, and could go when and where we pleased. My mother, who was standing by my side, leaned over and kissed her children, while tears of joy ran down her cheeks. She explained to us what it all meant, that this was the day for which she had been so long praying, but fearing that she would never live to see.’
“The Emancipation took place without violence by masters or ex-slaves. The proclamation represented a shift in the war objectives of the North—reuniting the nation was no longer the only goal. It represented a major step toward the ultimate abolition of slavery in the United States and a ‘new birth of freedom’.
“Runaway slaves who had escaped to Union lines had previously been held by the Union Army as “contraband of war” under the Confiscation Acts; when the proclamation took effect, they were told at midnight that they were free to leave. The Sea Islands off the coast of Georgia had been occupied by the Union Navy earlier in the war. The whites had fled to the mainland while the blacks stayed. An early program of Reconstruction was set up for the former slaves, including schools and training. Naval officers read the proclamation and told them they were free.”
Observer,
I think it’s probably time to stop feeding the troll.
Nice history lesson for the non-trollish though, Observer.
Observer CONTINUALLY ignores the following: [because he cannot refute it]
Observer, if Lincoln was the SAINT you think he was, why did Lincoln shut down 300 NORTHERN newspapers and imprison thousands of NORTHERN political opponents???????
I see NO ONE will address Lincoln’s crimes nor debunk that Lincoln did the following:
1. Suspension of Habeas Corpus throughout his entire presidency
2. Had his military imprison tens of thousands of NORTHERN political critics and opponents without due process
3. Censored all telegraph communication
4. Shut down over 300 opposition newspapers
5. Imprisoned dozens of duly elected officials of the state of Maryland
6. Participated in the rigging of Northern elections
7. Waged war without the consent of Congress
8. Illegally created a new state [West Virginia]
9. Deported the most outspoken member of the Democratic opposition, Congressman Clement L. Vallandigham of Ohio
On Larry: Beware the blogger of one thread.
yeah mespo, I didnt think you could refute my above post!!! Either can Observer
Larry-
You have allowed Abraham Lincoln to deport Clement L. Vallandigham of Ohio a grand total of six times. Enough is enough. Let the poor fellow rest in peace.
Actually, everyone on here has IGNORED that Lincoln is a war criminal 6 times. Observer is unable to find any websites where he can copy and paste bullshit Lincoln cultist excerpts to my above list of Lincoln atrocities. That’s why it goes ignored.
more about Lincoln the “saint” here:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/004776.html
Larry,
You mistake ignoring you for ignoring Lincoln.
James M., November 12, 2010 at 11:18 pm: “Observer, I think it’s probably time to stop feeding the troll.”
Agreed.
Larry:
“yeah mespo, I didnt think you could refute my above post!!! Either can Observer”
**************
Your silly non-sequitirs and bellicose demeanor do a job better than anything I can muster. Rant on!
-30-