Posted on 03/31/2014 10:24:31 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
“After the war President Davis asked for a trial but was not granted one because to put him on trial would put secession on trial and it was deemed a losing proposition.”
That is an untrue statement, because Jefferson Davis was ultimately indicted in the case of The United States v. Jefferson Davis. Davis was released from custody on $100,000 bail with the assistance of Horace Greeley. The case was ultimately dismissed, nolle prosequi, for a variety of reasons. The principal reason, however, was the passage of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution and its punishment of former officers and officials of the rebel Confederate States of America. Davis’ defense attorneys persuaded Davis to abandon his efforts to go on trial to argue his case for secession, because the punishments provided by the 14th Amendment gave them an opportunity to escape trial for treason of some 34 other CSA officers on the grounds doing so would constitute disallowed double jeapordy.
What happens when the perpetual Union of the United States lays claim to sovereign powers and sovereignty not delegated to them?
More accurately, the Second War for Independence.
It wasn’t a “civil war” as the southern states had no designs on controlling the central government. Their design was to be independent of it.
If ND, SD, Nebraska, Kansas, OK and Texas seceded all at once they could cut the country in half. So what? Ukraine does not have to secede from Russia, it is already its own country. Russia is trying to get it back by force.
The Constitution was a contract between the states to form a federal government for common defense, as a foreign representative, and to arbitrate any conflict between the states.
The created entity has long since violated both the spirit and the letter of that contract.
FRiend, some very FRiendly advice: when you're posting lengthy excerpts, use some kind of emphasis such as this to show us the specific words which make your point.
For italics, it's simply: < I > then < /I >.
For stronger points: use < b > < u > to start your emphasis, then < /b > < /u > to end it.
Please, give us a fighting chance to see what you're trying to say.
For more, here is an old HTML sandbox.
“What happens when the perpetual Union of the United States lays claim to sovereign powers and sovereignty not delegated to them?”
There are a variety of methods of confronting that problem, enough to fill one or more books, depending on the nature of the transgressions. One of those methods is currently underway at the present time with the Convention of States. Oterh methods include using parliamentary law at the local level to replace representatives and governments until some of the powers lost to the citizens are restored, particularly the powr of presentment for a Grand Jury.
So only one side of this contract is entitled to use force against the other to effect compliance?
I suppose you could call it that with accuracy. But to call it "War of Northern Aggression" doesn't make sense. Do we call the Revolutionary War the "War of British Aggression"?
1812 was the “War of British Aggression”...
There is no doubt in my mind that the 1787 Constitution has fully and lawfully superseded the Articles of Confederation for all practical purposes. I ask again, please enlighten me as to where I can find a reference to a perpetual union in the Constitution of the United States?
“So only one side of this contract is entitled to use force against the other to effect compliance?”
The usage of Grand Jury indictments under the power of presentment, voting to repalce representatives and delegates, recall elections, ballot initiatives, arrests and indictments by friendly prosecutors, and more are usages of the force behind the power of the State as provided for by the Founding Fathers.
No, you always have the Right of Revolution. Rise up, destroy the Old Order and create new laws and government you like better. Just don’t believe that it’s “legal” because the whole point is to remove yourself from law as constituted. And don’t act all surprised and hurt when the existing government doesn’t just roll over and play dead for you. The Founding Fathers were under no illusion what would happen to them if their revolution failed.
That husband of hers you mentioned, Captain Timothy McGinnis, just happened to have died at Lake George in Sept 1755 fighting the Indians and the French to save the butts of those same men who imprisoned her..
Has it ever been held that one side is still legally obligated to abide by a contract that has been abrogated by the other?
It was also a war of American aggression..
ask the non-combatant Canadian women who lost their houses when the Americans came through Ontario in 1814 burning village after village..
ask Hannah De Forest the 10 yo who was imprisoned in Fort Dayton, Albany, NY ...
As a widow with little children of her own, her house in St Davids was burnt down by the aggressive Americans in July 18/19, 1814..
Did I miss where the southern states took their complaints to court?
To keep her from using her influence with the Indians
__________________________________________
Well from Canada where she fled she was able to influence them a lot better thank you very much...
she convince many to go north to escape the eventually massacre that was coming after the war ended when the white men would want to go back to stealing the lands of the Indians err pushing the Indians ever westward out of the NY colony..
“There is no doubt in my mind that the 1787 Constitution has fully and lawfully superseded the Articles of Confederation for all practical purposes.”
That is a misrepresentation of the facts to deceive yourself and the readers. The Constitution clearly states “Article. VI. All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.”
In other words, the Constitution says the “Engagements,” meaning the agreements, “entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.”
One of the agreements incorporated into the Constitution by Article VI is “The Articles of Confederation Article XIII. Every State shall abide by the determination of the united States in congress assembled, on all questions which by this confederation are submitted to them. And the Articles of this confederation shall be inviolably observed by every State, and the union shall be perpetual; nor shall any alteration at any time hereafter be made in any of them; unless such alteration be agreed to in a congress of the united States, and be afterwards confirmed by the legislatures of every State.”
You can drop the attempts to say the Constitution does not incorporate prior acts of the United States in the Articles of Confederation, because the Constitution clearly does incorporate the Engagements therein by Article VI.
Your false interpretation is made even more ludicrous insofar as it would imply the Constitution invalidated the Declaration of Independence, the Treaty of Paris of 1783 ending the Revolutionary War and granting British recognition of the independence of the United States, the Articles of Confederation, an assortment of other acts of the Continental Congresses and Congress and a wide array of Federal and state statutes that incorporate agreements by reference to prior acts.
So, your reference to a perpetual Union is to be found by reference in Article VI of the Constitution to the Engagement found in the relevant Articles of the Confederation.
You missed a change of context.
Start at #42.
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.