Targeting Lost Causers

Old Virginia Blog ^ | 06/09/2009 | Richard Williams

[BroJoeK]

"Post some historical documentation that meets your own idiotic standards (specifically declares "unilateral secession," or "unapproved withdrawal from the Union" unconstitutional, before or during "ratification in 1788"). "

More blanks, more "Yeeeeee Haaaaaaaw!"

Constitution's Contract Clause

"Article I, section 10, clause 1 of the Constitution provides that “No State shall … pass any Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts.” "

Law of Obligations

Contract Law

English Contract Law:

"Definition of a contract:
A contract is an agreement between two or more persons (individuals, businesses, organizations or government agencies) to do, or to refrain from doing, a particular thing in exchange for something of value. Contracts generally can be written, using formal or informal terms, or entirely verbal. If one side fails to live up to his/her/its part of the bargain, there's a "breach" and certain remedies for solving the differences are available. The terms of the contract - the who, what, where, when, and how of the agreement - define the binding promises of each party to the contract." "

Now, consider Abraham Lincoln's First Inagural Address:

"I hold, that in contemplation of universal law, and of the Constitution, the Union of these States is perpetual. Perpetuity is implied, if not expressed, in the fundamental law of all national governments.

"It is safe to assert that no government proper, ever had a provision in its organic law for its own termination. Continue to execute all the express provisions of our national Constitution, and the Union will endure forever -- it being impossible to destroy it, except by some action not provided for in the instrument itself.

"Again, if the United States be not a government proper, but an association of States in the nature of contract merely, can it, as a contract, be peaceably unmade, by less than all the parties who made it? One party to a contract may violate it -- break it, so to speak; but does it not require all to lawfully rescind it?"

Of course, I agree with Lincoln, and I suspect, so would "John Galt."

[Who is John Galt?]

Your post is once again completely irrelevant, according to YOUR OWN standards. (In other words, "you're still firing blanks, pal.") Post some historical documentation that meets your own SPECIFIC requirement, that the phrases "unilateral secession" or "unapproved withdrawal from the Union" be included. Otherwise, "you're just jabbering for the sake of it."

"Face it, you have no real ammunition" - AND you're a complete hypocrite.

;>)

[BroJoeK]

" Post some historical documentation that meets your own SPECIFIC requirement, that the phrases "unilateral secession" or "unapproved withdrawal from the Union" be included."

You lost this "debate" long ago. Now you're not even firing "blanks," now you're trying to re-fire spent cartridges of blanks, and yelling "Yeeeeeeee Haaaaaaaw!" all the louder.

""Article I, section 10, clause 1 of the Constitution provides that “No State shall … pass any Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts.” " "

Would not even "John Galt" agree that "unilateral secession" and "unapproved withdrawal from the Union" equate to "imparing the Obligation of Contract" -- of the US Constitution?

[Who is John Galt?]

BJ (Post #2233): Sorry pal, but all you're doing here is "firing blanks" or worse, misfiring "spent cartridges," because NONE of these quotes refer to a right of "unilateral secession," or "unapproved withdrawal from the Union."
Furthermore, any quotes from the period AFTER ratification in 1788 are likely just then-current political statements, and not necessarily the Founders' "original intent."

Post something that complies with your own requirements - hypocrite...

;>)

[BroJoeK]

"Post something that complies with your own requirements - hypocrite..."

Article I, section 10, clause 1 of the Constitution provides that “No State shall … pass any Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts.”

If the US Constitution is not a "Contract," then it is nothing, and I don't believe for a second it's "nothing."

Sorry, pal, but your argument is dead. It's been blown apart by the US Constitution. Now, before we give it a respectful burial, perhaps you'd appreciate a brief post-mortum? Well, here's what you did wrong:

First, you enterred the battle carrying a false flag of "John Galt." Well, I've known "John Galt" for many years, and you're not him. You're not a "John Galt," you're a Johnny Reb, indeed your arguments are nothing but Johnny-one-note, same claims over & over...

Second, you have only one argument, and no matter how many different ways you tried to say it, it all comes down to the same thing:

Since the US Constitution does not expressly forbid secession, Southern declarations of secession in 1860 & '61 were legal, constitutional, and everything which happened afterwards -- seizures of Federal property, firing on Fort Sumter, declaring war on the United States, sending Southern armies into Union states -- all of that is irrelevant to questions about the moral rights & wrongs of the Civil War.

Obviously, both your premise and conclusions are wrong.

Third, having marched into battle under a false flag, with only one round of ammunition, quickly expended, then you tried to replace real fire-power with ever louder "Yeeeee Haaaaaws!"

But after you crossed over the fence at the Emmitsburg Road, you were all alone. By this time your fellow rebs realized the battle was lost, and they were heading home. But you kept coming, out of ammunition, yelling "Yeeeee Haaaaaaaw!" all by yourself.

In the mean time, Union forces are desperately trying to get artillery in place behind the Stone Wall. Just in the nick of time, as Johnny-reb-one-note approaches the wall, screaming his "Yeeeee Haaaaaaw!" the heaviest cannon of all -- the US Constituion -- is finally loaded, aimed and fires:

"Article I, section 10, clause 1 of the Constitution provides that “No State shall … pass any Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts"

So now your argument is just a rotting corpse on the battlefield. How about if we give it a respectful burial, and then go home, pal?

[Who is John Galt?]

Article I, section 10, clause 1 of the Constitution provides that “No State shall … pass any Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts.”

If the US Constitution is not a "Contract," then it is nothing, and I don't believe for a second it's "nothing."

Sorry, BloJo - you forgot to mention which specific clause of the constitutional "contract" was 'impaired' by State secession. The clause prohibiting State secession? Gosh, I can't find one (and neither can you, obviously). In fact, your 'contract clause' claim is absolutely idiotic. You would have us believe that a contract between a business and an employee, for example, that nowhere prohibits the employee's 'unilateral' resignation, but which requires the submittal of time sheets every week, somehow prohibits the employee from ever quitting, because his resignation would 'impair' the submittal of time sheets.

You're a freaking moron.

Sorry, pal, but your argument is dead. It's been blown apart by the US Constitution.

More sucking sounds from BloJo, as what passes for his 'argument' goes down the toilet. Speaking of which:

BJ (Post #2233): Sorry pal, but all you're doing here is "firing blanks" or worse, misfiring "spent cartridges," because NONE of these quotes refer to a right of "unilateral secession," or "unapproved withdrawal from the Union." Furthermore, any quotes from the period AFTER ratification in 1788 [including James Madison in 1789, & Thomas Jefferson in 1791] are likely just then-current political statements, and not necessarily the Founders' "original intent."

Gosh, BloJo - Article I, section 10, clause 1 doesn't even mention "unilateral secession" or "unapproved withdrawal from the Union," so it's inapplicable under your own requirements. Come on, BloJo, post some documentation that actually refers to the unconstitutionality of "unilateral secession" or "unapproved withdrawal from the Union," from the "period [of] ratification in 1788."

Can't do it? You mean you pulled those arbitrary restrictions out of your @ss, and were too stupid to make up restrictions that you could meet yourself? That's absolutely sweet! You're as dumb as a stump!

Now, before we give it a respectful burial, perhaps you'd appreciate a brief post-mortum? Well, here's what you did wrong...

What I 'did wrong' was expect you to provide a rational argument based on historical documentation. Got any documentation written by "the Founders" from the "period [of] ratification in 1788" suggesting that your 'contract clause' prohibited State secession? Of course not...

First, you enterred the battle carrying a false flag of "John Galt." Well, I've known "John Galt" for many years, and you're not him. You're not a "John Galt," you're a Johnny Reb, indeed your arguments are nothing but Johnny-one-note, same claims over & over...

As I have noted in numerous posts, BloJo, "John Galt" is a different Freeper. You're the one flying the "false flag," you idiot, by repeatedly stating something you know to be untrue.

Actually, you're not an idiot - you would make an idiot look like a brain surgeon.

Second, you have only one argument, and no matter how many different ways you tried to say it, it all comes down to the same thing:
Since the US Constitution does not expressly forbid secession, Southern declarations of secession in 1860 & '61 were legal...

LOL! Funny how you can not disprove that argument, BloJo, given the obvious high regard in which you hold yourself...

;>)

and everything which happened afterwards... is irrelevant to questions about the moral rights & wrongs of the Civil War.

Liar.

I have not posted on this thread anything about "the moral rights & wrongs of the Civil War," and I invite you to prove differently, by quoting my posts. In fact, you're a liar, and you will post anything, including blatant lies, in your desperate attempts to support your idiotic claims.

Obviously, both your premise and conclusions are wrong.

Actually, that applies to you.

Third, having marched into battle under a false flag, with only one round of ammunition, quickly expended, then you tried to replace real fire-power with ever louder "Yeeeee Haaaaaws!"

Thanks for proving, once again, that compared to you, a complete idiot is intelligent.

But after you crossed over the fence at the Emmitsburg Road, you were all alone. By this time your fellow rebs realized the battle was lost, and they were heading home. But you kept coming, out of ammunition, yelling "Yeeeee Haaaaaaaw!" all by yourself...

Better have your doc check your meds, BloJo - you're living in a complete fantasy land, and one can only hope that you're already under a physician's care.

So now your argument is just a rotting corpse on the battlefield. How about if we give it a respectful burial, and then go home, pal?

How about you post some historical documentation "from the period [of] ratification in 1788," supporting your claim that the 'contracts clause' prohibits State secession? After all, BloJo, you told us that documentation "from the period AFTER ratification in 1788 [including James Madison's remarks in 1789, & Thomas Jefferson's comments in 1791] "are likely just then-current political statements, and not necessarily the Founders' 'original intent.' " Ante up, you sack of manure.

Oh, and have a nice day in your little fantasy world...

;>)

[BroJoeK]

"you forgot to mention which specific clause of the constitutional "contract" was 'impaired' by State secession."

All of it.

Your argument is dead, pal. It's been blown to pieces by the US Constitution. And no amount of your mouth-to-mouth "Yeeeee Haaaaaw" resusitation can breathe new life into it.

Now it's really starting to stink. So burry it. Then go home. Free your slaves, reb! ;-)

[Who is John Galt?]

Sorry for not getting back to you sooner, BloJo - I was out of town.

Where were we?

All of it.

Actually, BloJo, the clause doesn't even meet your own requirements for applicable documentation:

BJ (Post #2233): Sorry pal, but all you're doing here is "firing blanks" or worse, misfiring "spent cartridges," because NONE of these quotes refer to a right of "unilateral secession," or "unapproved withdrawal from the Union." Furthermore, any quotes from the period AFTER ratification in 1788 [including James Madison in 1789, & Thomas Jefferson in 1791, & the entire Bill of Rights] are likely just then-current political statements, and not necessarily the Founders' "original intent."

Of course, there are only two reasons you could have posted this kind of capricious & completely arbitrary crap:

1) You pulled it out of your @ss, because you were trying to establish a ‘double standard’ (apply the above requirements to others, but NOT to yourself). If that’s the case, you’re a liar and a world-class hypocrite (and no better than any D@mocrat politician, as I’ve noted in the past ;>); or

2) Even though you pulled it out of your @ss, you actually believed (for some idiotic reason) that the requirements should apply to everyone here. If that were the case, you would have posted something close to meeting your own requirements. But what did you post, BloJo?

BJ (Post #2241): "[Excerpts from] Abraham Lincoln's First Inagural (sic) Address [1861]"

Apart from the obvious factual errors in the citation - it nowhere refers to the unconstitutionality of "unilateral secession," or "unapproved withdrawal from the Union," nor does it date "from the period [of] ratification in 1788."

In other words, you pulled a 'double standard' out of your @ss, and tried to smear us with it. Feel free to go pound sand.

Your argument is dead, pal. It's been blown to pieces by the US Constitution. And no amount of your mouth-to-mouth "Yeeeee Haaaaaw" resusitation can breathe new life into it.

Actually, "your argument is dead," BloJo. "It's been blown to pieces" by the words of Jefferson, the words of Madison, the ratification documents of States, the preeminent legal references of the day, and by the US Constitution itself (INCLUDING the Bill of Rights you so happily trash). And no number of your hypocritical double standards "can breathe new life into it."

Free your slaves, reb! ;-)

Go pound sand, you lying hypocrite...

;>)

[BroJoeK]

WIJG: "Actually, BloJo"
"...capricious & completely arbitrary crap"
"You pulled it out of your @ss..."
"you’re a liar and a world-class hypocrite "
"and no better than any D@mocrat politician,"
"Even though you pulled it out of your @ss, "
" you pulled a 'double standard' out of your @ss, and tried to smear us with it"
"Go pound sand, you lying hypocrite..."

Real high-class arguments, that's for sure. :-)

For anyone interested in this subject, I highly recommend: Bruce Catton c1961 "The Coming Fury" Volume One of the American Civil War Trilogy.

I'd count "Coming Fury" as "fair and balanced," since some of Catton's arguments I disagree with. From my perspective, he's slightly biased toward the Confederacy. But it is well-written -- history at it's best, imho.

We have seen here, ad infinitum, the arguments FOR secession, i.e.:

• that it is allowed by the 10th Amendment
• that it was provided for in the Virginia signing statement (also NY and Rhode Island),
• that Madison's Federalist 43 uses it as his argument against excessive Federal power
• that some Founding Fathers (notably Jefferson) wrote later favoring it.
• and besides all that, those D*amn Yankees are just as despicable as WIJG's comments claim.

The legal arguments AGAINST unilateral, unapproved secession are probably best expressed in Lincoln's First Inaugural and his address to Congress on July 4, 1861.

The crux of the question was: is unilateral, unapproved secession "rebellion," "insurrection," "treason" or "domestic violence," as provided for in the Constitution?

Well -- is the Constitution a contract? If it is, then why would the following not apply:

Article 1, section 10: "No state shall...pass any...Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts."

Many in 1860 understood that secession meant breaking the Constitutional contract, for a few examples:

Robert E. Lee, January 1861:

"Secession is nothing but revolution.

"The framers of our Constitution never exhausted so much labour, wisdom & forbearance in its formation & surrounded it with so many guards & securities, if it was intended to be broken by every member of the confederacy at will.

"It was intended for perpetual [sic] union, so expressed in the preamble,4& for the establishment of a government, not a compact, which can only be dissolved by revolution or the consent of all the people in convention assembled. It is idle to talk of secession. Anarchy would have been established & not a government, by Washington, Hamilton, Jefferson, Madison & the other patriots of the Revolution.

"In 1808 when the New England States resisted Mr Jeffersons Imbargo law & the Hartford Convention assembled secession was termed treason by Virga statesmen. What can it be now?"

Future Confederate VP, Alexander Stephens, addressing the Georgia legislature, January 1861:

quoting Catton (p113): "The election of Lincoln [Stephens] liked no better than the next man but it was not by itself sufficient reason for fracturing the Constitution.

"Do not let us break it because, forsooth, he may. If he does, then is the time to strike." "

In short, the future Confederate VP understood that secession constituted breaking the Constitution's contract.

So did the Maryland legislature, on April 26, 1861 (p353):

"After some debate the legislature agreed with the governor. It passed a resolution asserting that it lacked the constitutional power to adopt an ordinance of secession..."

Among Democrats, Lincoln's chief rival and southern sympathizer, Stephen Douglas said (p197):

"...he could never agree "that any State can secede and separate from us without our consent..."

Of course, my personal favorite, as a Pennsylvanian is the Pennsylvania legislature's resolution (p202):

"the right of the people of a single state to absolve themselves at will, and without the consent of other states, from their most solemn obligations, and hazard the liberties and happiness of the millions composing this union, cannot be acknowledged."

Even Jefferson Davis himself understood from Day One that secession could require the Confederacy:

"to appeal to arms and invoke the blessing of Providence on our just cause."

And so the South made its "appeal to arms," and invoked "the blessing of Providence."

But the South's "appeals" and "invocations" were all rejected.

[Walter Hilderman]

I noticed your knowledgeable post about Governors Island on the Free Republic website. The last U.S. Army Recruiting Officer who was stationed at Governors Island before the Civil War was Major Theophilus Hunter Holmes. After having been part of organizing the relief mission (Star of the West) that was sent from Governors Island to reinforce Fort Sumter, Holmes resigned from the U.S. army and thereafter became a Confederate general. Wikipedia says that while still in the U.S. army, Holmes secretly supplied the Confederacy with information about the relief mission, but there is no footnote connected to that entry. I’ve talked to the NPS folks at Governors Island. They are familiar with the allegation and think that it appeared in one or more NY newspapers at the time, but they can’t find any further info on the incident. Do you know anything about this or could you suggest anything? I live in South Carolina and am trying to track this down without driving to NYC. This type of treachery would be an inconsistency for Holmes, but I’m writing a biography about him and intend to let history’s chips fall where they may. Thanks, Walter Hilderman

[rustbucket]

Welcome to FreeRepublic and good luck on your book.

As I remember, I had some trouble finding that letter to Major Holmes concerning the Star of the West. I wasn't looking for him in particular. In fact, I didn't know anything about him. I think I ended up scanning the pages of the appropriate OR volume by date. Indeed, when I searched the online versions of the Official Records for his name just now, that particular January 5 communication to Holmes did not come up.

In December 1860 Buchanan apparently told Winfield Scott to send a ship loaded with troops to reinforce Sumter. Here is Scott's December 31 order to the commander of Fort Monroe in Virginia to have the Brooklyn prepared and loaded with troops for that purpose: Link.

Scott later changed the Brooklyn to the Star of the West, a ship that made a regular run to Charleston and might possibly enter the harbor without suspicion presuming its mission was kept secret.

But the mission did not stay secret. News that the North was preparing to send a ship to Sumter loaded with 200 or more troops apparently reached Charleston on Dec 31 according to Abner Doubleday. See: Link. However, that is not consistent with the story that Anderson was unaware that a ship with reinforcements was coming.

Another version was that the Charlestonians found out on January 7 that the Star was coming. See: Link.

I don't know whether Holmes transmitted information about the Star and its mission to the South Carolinians. News that the Star had been sent with reinforcements for Sumter made the front page of the New York Herald on January 9 in an article dated January 8 from Washington. The Washington article also said that the news from Charleston was that the Star would not be fired upon. The Star tried to enter the harbor on January 9. IIRC, it ignored a warning from a Confederate picket boat, ignored a warning shot or two across its bow, and finally turned around after being hit twice by shells from shore.

[rustbucket]

Here is a January 3, 1861, New York Times article that mentions the Brooklyn was likely to be sent to Sumter. Link.

Apparently there was a January 7th article in the NYT that said the Star of the West was coming. It was mentioned in E. Milby Burton's excellent book, "The Siege of Charleston, 1861-1865": Link. Burton says communications with Governor's Island were cut off to prevent leaks about the Star and its mission, but it still didn't stay secret. Burton's book says that on January 7 a telegram signed "Jones" was sent to Charleston warning that the ship was coming.

If you are in South Carolina you ought to be able to find Burton's book. I bought my copy at the government bookshop at the dock from where the tour boat leaves to go to Fort Sumter. FYI, Burton is or was the director of the Charleston Museum.

The January 7 NYT article that announced the Star might be in this collection of Jan 1861 NYT articles: NYT Articles.

[rustbucket]

From that archive of New York Times articles, here is an article from January 8, 1861: http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=9A07E2DD133FE034BC4053DFB766838A679FDE

And here is the January 7th article about the Star of the West that Burton mentioned: http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=9403E5DD133FE034BC4F53DFB766838A679FDE

[Who is John Galt?]

Sorry for not getting back to you sooner - I was out of town.

Where were we?

Real high-class arguments, that's for sure. :-)

That's quite humorous, coming from someone who considers Wikipedia to be a 'reference' deserving multiple links (BloJo Post #2241), who accuses those who disagree with him of being modern-day slave owners (BloJo Post #2247), and who's fovorite argument in support of his opinion is "Yeeeeeee Haaaaaaaw!!!" (BloJo, too many idiotic posts to count). But thanks for proving another of my points - you're a complete hypocrite.

;>)

For anyone interested in this subject, I highly recommend: Bruce Catton c1961 "The Coming Fury" Volume One of the American Civil War Trilogy.

Sorry, BloJo, but that doesn't satisfy your Post #2233 requirement for documentation dating from "1788." As noted above, you're a hypocrite, who pushes double standards - just like any D@mocrat politician.

I'd count "Coming Fury" as "fair and balanced," since some of Catton's arguments I disagree with. From my perspective, he's slightly biased toward the Confederacy. But it is well-written -- history at it's best, imho.

Funny - many consider Catton to be a leftist, who is blatantly biased towards the 'statist' (as defined by Mark Levin) end of the spectrum.

We have seen here, ad infinitum, the arguments FOR secession, i.e.:
* that it is allowed by the 10th Amendment
* that it was provided for in the Virginia signing statement (also NY and Rhode Island),
* that Madison's Federalist 43 uses it as his argument against excessive Federal power
* that some Founding Fathers (notably Jefferson) wrote later favoring it.

None of which you have refuted, even with multiple links to irrelevant Wikipedia 'references.'

* and besides all that, those D*amn Yankees are just as despicable as WIJG's comments claim.

Just can't resist throwing in yet another blatant lie, can you, BloJo? But thanks for proving another one of my points - you're a liar (repeatedly, in print).

The legal arguments AGAINST unilateral, unapproved secession are probably best expressed in Lincoln's First Inaugural and his address to Congress on July 4, 1861.

Yes, let's look at a few portions of Mr. Lincoln's address, which you excerpted in Post #2241:

"It is safe to assert that no government proper, ever had a provision in its organic law for its own termination. Continue to execute all the express provisions of our national Constitution, and the Union will endure forever -- it being impossible to destroy it, except by some action not provided for in the instrument itself."

FALSE - The federal government is a creature of the States, and can be 'terminated' by the States under the specific written terms of Article V of the Constitution.

"One party to a [constitutional] contract may violate it -- break it, so to speak; but does it not require all [parties] to lawfully rescind it?"

FALSE - again, as Article V notes, only "three fourths" of the States would be required to rescind the Constitution completely, via the amendment process specified.

Obviously, your understanding of the Constitution is just as flawed as was Mr. Lincoln's.

Well -- is the Constitution a contract? ... Many in 1860 understood that secession meant breaking the Constitutional contract...

Sorry, BloJo, but that (once again) fails to satisfy your Post #2233 requirement for documentation dating from "1788." As noted above, you're a 'do-as-I-say-not-as-I-do' hypocrite.

Robert E. Lee... Alexander Stephens... the Maryland legislature, on April 26, 1861... Stephen Douglas... Jefferson Davis himself...

So, in your Post #2233 you advise us that the public comments of Jefferson and Madison (and the entire Bill of Rights, for that matter), published within three years of ratification, are irrelevant because "any quotes from the period AFTER ratification in 1788 are likely just then-current political statements, and not necessarily the Founders' 'original intent.' " (Gosh, you must believe that Madison & Jefferson were complete scoundrels, or subject to dementia, to make such a claim! ;>)

But here, in your Post #2249, you quote multiple sources from SEVEN DECADES OR MORE AFTER ratification - while still discounting Jefferson and Madison.

Hypocrite.

And so the South made its "appeal to arms," and invoked "the blessing of Providence."
But the South's "appeals" and "invocations" were all rejected.

In other words, you suggest that 'might makes right' - a suitable epitaph to your irrational, revisionist 'argument,' if there ever was one...

[Who is John Galt?]

Pardon the typo(s)...

;>)