Posted on 09/26/2002 6:42:56 PM PDT by tall_tex
I have been watching Ken Burns, "Civil War Series" again. I do not know why I keep watching and holding out hope that this time we might just win.
My sad announcement, is that we did not win, this time either.
Why did we loose, surely we had God on our side.
Why do the good guys continue to loose, Roy and Dale won, the Lone Ranger and Tonto won.
The Clinton's win, the Dash@@786450897, have and are winning still, and again.
I guess good guys finish last, maybe we should not be such good guys.
Well it is plain to EVERYONE else that they DID exsist and the conflict was between two nations rather than factions within the SAME nation as you contend but, I guess, the old saw which goes "There are none so blind as those who will not see" is true in your case.
Eminent domain is the process of condemning and acquiring private land for public use, not public land for private use. Sumter was the property of the United States government and South Carolina had no legal claim to it.
"What is ``invasion''? Would the marching of an army into South California, for instance, without the consent of her people, and in hostility against them, be coercion or invasion? I very frankly say, I think it would be invasion, and it would be coercion too, if the people of that country were forced to submit."
We've had this arguement before, 4CJ, mainly because to take the quote out of context. In the very next sentence Lincoln went on to say the following:
"But if the government, for instance, but simply insists upon holding its own forts, or retaking those forts which belong to it, or the enforcement of the laws of the United States in the collection of duties on foreign importations, or even the withdrawl of mails from those portions of the country where the mails themselves are habitually violated; would any or all of those things be coerciion?"
The South sent three men to meet with Lincoln, to pay the federal government for any property seized, yet Lincoln refused to meet with them.
The south sent three men to get Lincoln to agree that they were an independent country. He refused to do that.
Lincoln invaded a sovereign nation, instigated a war that needlessly killed over 623,000 men, women and children, black and white, soldier and civilian.
The confederacy was not an independent nation and your saying so doesn't make it so. Neigher the United States nor any other nation recognized them as a soverign nation. They were a section of the United States in rebellion. Nothing more, nothing less.
Were not those colonies part of Britain? And did it not take an act of Parliament to end the British slave trade? I believe so.
And what makes you say that?
Read some of the stories of former slaves. They were free and they had no idea what they should do. Thousands trailed along behind the Union army because they thought they should (and the Union soliders hated them).
Do you really think that slave owners would, at their own expense and in the face of a declining value of their asset, have footed the bill to educate and train their slaves for life after slavery?
As a whole, no. But, some would have. Some broke the law by teaching slaves to read and write anyway.
Slavery ending of it's own accord in an independent south wouldn't have left the freed slaves any better off.
We'll never know if that's true or not. But they certainly wouldn't have been any worse off.
Really? Who? What nation recognized the confederacy as an independent nation and dealt with them on that basis? Nobody. Calling yourself a nation doesn't make you one. You can go around calling yourself the Grand High King of the Universe, but unless someone starts bowing and calling you 'Your Majesty" then your just another nut.
I would disagree that there's anything obvious about that.
You're right - that's why Lincoln turned to slavery (after 2 years of fighting) in an attempt to turn the war.
The Sovereign citizens of those seven states who formed the Confederate States of America and the Sovereign citizens of those states who later feely joined them THAT’S who!
Do you actually maintain that some OUTSIDE entity must recognize such an action for it to be legitimate?
Yes, actually. You claim the confederacy was a legitimate government while I maintain that it was as rebellious section of the United States. Historically, the entire world agreed with me. Again, you can call youself whatever you want but unless someone else agrees with you then claims mean absolutely nothing to anyone but you.
On what possible legal premise do you make this claim OTHER than the absolutely spurious construct of the Lincoln forces who posited that, somehow, the federal government pre existed the states and created the states.
On the premise that the southern acts of unilateral secession were not acts allowed under the Constitution and therefore constituted rebellion. The Supreme Court agreed with that, BTW, in Texas v. White in 1869.
Could ANYONE have guessed what the conclusion reached by a northern, reconstruction era, court needing to justify the war of Northern Aggression might have been in Texas Vs White? Their answer was:
"The Constitution, in all its provisions, looks to an indestructible Union, composed of indestructible States. Considered, therefore, as transactions under the Constitution, the Ordinance of Secession, adopted by the convention and ratified by a majority of the citizens of Texas, and all the Acts of her Legislature intended to give effect to that ordinance, were absolutely null. They were utterly without operation in law. Our conclusion, therefore, is, that Texas continued to be a State, and a State of the Union, notwithstanding the rationale for military occupation is also self-contradictory."
Interesting enough in Coleman vs Tennessee, the U.S. Supreme Court held military occupation lawful, not on constitutional grounds, but by resorting to international law principles which apply primarily to independent nations.
"Though the late war was not between independent nations, but between different portions of the same nation, yet having taken the proportions of a territorial war, the insurgents having become formidable enough to be recognized as belligerents, the same doctrine must be held to apply. The right to govern the territory of the enemy during its military occupation is one of the incidents of war and the character and form of the government to be established depend entirely upon the laws of the conquering State or the orders of its military commander." (97 U.S. 509, 517; 1879)
It would appear then that to justify the otherwise unconstitutional military occupation of a state, the post war U.S. Supreme Court treats the state as if it were an independent nation, implicitly recognizing the validity of its secession. What the Court did not cite was any constitutional provision, which justified the war in the first place. Since the invocation of international law was based on the fact of war, and the Union's involvement in that war violated the Constitution, it is evident that the Constitution's supremacy clause forbade this action. Yet the Yankee government felt compelled to resort to international law to override the Constitution. The unconstitutional and amoral nature of the Court's reasoning can be seen.
Not according to Chief Justice Chase:
"When, therefore, Texas became one of the United States, she entered into a indissoluble relation. All the obligations of perpetual union, and all the guaranties of republican government in the Union, attached at once to the State. The Act which consummated her admission into the Union was something more than a compact; it was the incorporation of a new member into the political body. And it was final. The union between Texas and the other States was as complete as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the Union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration, or revocation, except through revolution, or through consent of the States.
Considered, therefore, as transactions under the Constitution, the Ordinance of Secession, adopted by the convention and ratified by a majority of the citizens of Texas, and all the Acts of her Legislature intended to give effect to that ordinance, were absolutely null. They were utterly without operation in law. The obligations of the State as a member of the Union, and of every citizen of the State, as a citizen of the United States, remained perfect and unimpaired. It certainly follows that the State did not cease to be a State, nor her citizens to be citizens of the Union. If this were otherwise, the State must have become foreign, and her citizens foreigners. The war must have ceased to be a war for the suppression of rebellion, must have become a war for conquest and subjugation.
Our conclusion, therefore, is, that Texas continued to be a State, and a State of the Union, notwithstanding the transactions to which we have referred. And this conclusion, in our judgment, is not in conflict with any act or declaration of any department of the National Government, but entirely In accordance with the whole series of such acts and declarations since the first outbreak of the rebellion.
The unconstitutional and amoral nature of the Court's reasoning can be seen.
The Constitutionality or the morality of Supreme Court decisions are not based on your own personal opinions. Thankfully.
Show me the provision of the United States Constitution, not the Articles of Confederation or any other document but the Constitution, making reference to a "Perpetual Union" and I'll utter not one more word on this subject!
No more likely than the Austro-Hungarian Empire being rejoined. When a state successfully secedes in international law, it's not coming back.
OK, quoting again from Chief Justice Chase's decision:
"The Union of the States never was a purely artificial and arbitrary relation. It began among the Colonies, and grew out of common origin, mutual sympathies, kindred principles, similar interests and geographical relations. It was confirmed and strengthened by the necessities of war, and received definite form, and character, and sanction from the Articles of Confederation. By these the Union was solemnly declared to "be perpetual" And when these articles were found to be inadequate to the exigencies of the country, the Constitution was ordained "to form a more perfect Union." It is, difficult to convey the idea of indissoluble unity more clearly than by these words. What can be indissoluble if a perpetual Union, made more perfect, is not? "
But I hasten to add that the Chief Justice made it clear that there was a way for a state to peacefully leave the Union and I quoted that earlier. "The union between Texas and the other States was as complete as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the Union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration, or revocation, except through revolution, or through consent of the States.
With the consent of the states, same way all but the original 13 states entered the Union. The south should have tried that.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.