Skip to comments.The Great Civil War Lie
Posted on 06/11/2013 4:48:08 AM PDT by iowamark
click here to read article
I recommend you read Daniel Webster’s quote more carefully. He does not, in what you quoted, assert that the northern states have violated the compact.
Further, various SCOTUS decisions ruled that state officials are not required to help southern kidnappers recover their slaves. That is a federal government responsibility only.
Why? Because with northern help would come northern state procedure, which would require giving the kidnapped and alleged slave due process, and the forged documents routinely used by the kidnappers would have been challenged per the personal liberty laws. To avoid that, Taney removed the state role in recovering the fugitive slaves.
That resolved the controversy, per Article 3 section 2 for honest people.
To be fair, the Maryland and Delaware militia were among the most well trained at Boston.
The southern soldiers were indeed critical before Boston, and in the sad defeats at New York they were used as a fire brigade to hold off the british to permit others to escape.
Whereas at Boston they had the tea party, in Charleson SC, the tea was unloaded, and no one would buy it. It sat in a corner of the warehouse and moldered. In Richmond, it wouldn’t even be unloaded.
The word comes from the Latin...
I think you're thinking of Wilson.
LOL! Well Bless your heart. It has nothing to do with my being 'mercurial', but everything to do with our conversation the other day where you said;
I know that you dont hold me in much regard but believe me when I say that I am open to new/different ideas.
Obviously untrue, or you would not have so suddenly reverted to your previous behavior. I see no reason I'm obligated to 'play nice' since you've shown yourself to be so deceptive.
The south had no legitimate complaint.
The US Supreme Court of Appeals said otherwise.
Frankly, I don't care what you 'recommend' since you can't read the plain launguage in Article 4 Section 4.
Where did you get that information about Lee and Whipping post from?
Well, what do we do now? Fight the thing all over again?
So what was the abuse of the 'compact' that justified secession?
Someone probably called her mercurial... ;-)
Well bless your little heart. ;-)
No, but it would be nice if folks would TRY to understand the concept of Original Intent and the Constitutionally mechanics behind it, but to do so, one has to be able to separate the morality of slavery from the legality of it.
Until we do, there is absolutely no hope of the States reasserting their sovereignty.
And to be totally blunt, trying to drag people from the ignorance instilled by our the public education system gets tiresome.
Their continued passage of laws concerning the return of escaped slaves, which were contrary to both what they agreed to when they signed the Constitution as well as the legal precedent set by the USSC Court of Appeals.
It was from the testimony of the slaves at Arlington.
News paper articles posted before the rebellion.
An analysis of pro-Lee writing based on access to his slave legers.
The Fugitive Slave Act ended all of that and that was passed by congress 6 years before the Civil War. The US military could and did drag those poor people looking for freedom back to the Dixie Hell Hole you so admire.
What's your next lame excuse?
Well bless your heart again!
It's interesting how some folks think that they understand the concept of original intent (and the Constitutionally mechanics behind it).....and others who understand original intent and the limitations inherent therein.
You mean WWI right?
Bastards were spinning the war 150 years ago while it was going on
Check out the American Civil War Gazette
Except that judging from the citation, 14 Wend. 507 N.Y., it appears to be a state appeals case and not a federal one. Specifically New York.
And as for Webster, he was speaking in the abstract and not making accusations. Earlier in the speech he said, "For it would be absurd to suppose that, by the whole states and large portions of the country, either the North or the South has the power or the right to violate any part of that Constitution directly, and of purpose, and still claim from the other observance of its provisions. If the South were to violate any part of the Constitution intentionally and systematically persist in so doing year after year, and no remedy could be had, would the North be bound by the rest of it? And if the North were deliberately, habitually, and of fixed purpose, to disregard one part of it, would the South be bound any longer to observe its other obligations? "
So did the South have the right to decide on their own that the compact was broken? Webster answered that, too. "No state can decide for itself what is constitutional and what is not. When any part of the Constitution is supposed to be violated by a state law, the true mode of proceeding is to bring the case before the judicial tribunals; and, if the constitutionality of the state law be made out, it is to be set aside."
Finally, what did Webster think of the South's remedy? The action you claim were constitutional? "...after all, secession, disruption of the Union, or successful nullification, are but other names for revolution." So violations that you claim justified the Southern rebellion are not supported by one of your sources, and are marginally supported by the other, which was not a federal court case. Madison's provisions still stand, and were not met by the South in 1860.
No, big collection of private papers. How many have you actually read?
Um...What part of "the only letter I've seen" did you not understand?
LOL. That's like me saying, "The only bird I saw today was a robin, therefore robins are the only birds around." You claim that the request for confidentiality is unique in Madion's writings yet you've read a tiny sampling of his whole works.
I can, just fine. Dealing with someone who acts as if only certain words in the letter have any viability while totally disregarding the rest is what I have trouble with.
Accusing others of cherry-picking quotes is a bit hypocritical on your part. IMHO.
You don’t understand, for most Southerners the war was just to get away from the New England Yankee puritans. We just plain don’t like you. Get it? Slavery was as good a reason as any. Killing Yankees with a free rifle and ammo was really appealing to a lot of people back then, still is to a lot of folks.
Yeah but now you have football.
I bet you’re just a barrel of laughs at Tupperware parties ;-)
The war was about shooting Yankees, simple as that. I don’t understand what the blue bellies were risking their life for, that is the mystery here.
The Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 'stopped' nothing.
Michigan Personal Freedom Acts , was approved on February 13, 1855. A Massachusetts Act called for the removal of any state official who aided in the return of runaway slaves and disbarment of attorneys assisting in fugitive slave rendition. Another section authorized impeachment of state judges who accepted federal commissioner positions authorizing them to prosecuted fugitive slaves. Ohio passed An Act to Prevent Kidnapping in 1857.
The US military could and did drag those poor people looking for freedom back to the Dixie Hell Hole you so admire.
By what authority? Please show me the part of the Constitution that authorizes the use of force in order to insure compliance with the Compact.
What's your next lame excuse?
LOL! It has nothing to do with excuses, but everything to do with facts.
While I enjoy a spirited discussion (and decidedly fall on the unpopular side of the argument), please do not confuse my defense of Constitutional Law as permission to be used as your personal whipping post.
All four volumes of his letters and uncounted essays.
Accusing others of cherry-picking quotes is a bit hypocritical on your part. IMHO.
Youre certainly entitled to your opinion, but I believe anyone who looks at my posts for themselves can see I typically post a healthy section of text each time AND have enough courtesy to provide a link for their perusal, so its not like I'm tossing out a short blurb with nothing to support it.
Kinda hard to 'cherry-pick' when you show someone the whole orchard.
Of course you wouldn’t.
And don't care.
Of course you don’t. You are the reason why it is so difficult for anyone to build any sympathy for your position.
Not really trying for that. Just explaining the reality of the situation and exposing the reconstructed lies..
You’re failing miserably.
The South ended up paying higher prices for goods they didn’t produce. It also affected Britain’s ability to pay for cotton from the South.
AND they wanted to punish all Southerners for it. Hence came Reconstruction.
Nope. FDR is on record complaining about the Jews who kept “bothering” him about the conditions of their fellow Jews in Europe.
Can you provide an example of this “record”?
True, my mistake, it was a decision from New York. Being listed under the federal Constitutional provision at the source caused my confusion. Unlike some people though, you wont come across me making the same assertion again.
And as for Webster, he was speaking in the abstract and not making accusations.
Politicians tend to talk that way.
Earlier in the speech he said,
The next sentence after your quote:
This is indeed to be understood with some qualification,
so obviously it wasnt a carte blanch statement.
So did the South have the right to decide on their own that the compact was broken? Webster answered that, too
Hes speaking of STATE law in your exerpt, not federal law
. if the constitutionality of the state law . is supposed to be violated by a state law,
The remarks concerning federal authority is further down:
But what I mean to say is, that if the public men of a large portion of the country, and especially their representatives in Congress, labor to prevent, and do permanently prevent, the passage of laws necessary to carry into effect a provision of the Constitution, particularly intended for the benefit of another part of the country, and which is of the highest importance to it, it cannot be expected that that part of the country will long continue to observe other constitutional pro-visions made in favor of the rest of the country; because, gentlemen, a disregard of constitutional duty, in such a case, cannot be brought within the corrective authority of the judicial power.
Madison's provisions still stand, and were not met by the South in 1860.
LOL! It was a letter. Trying to insinuate it was a provision as if it had some force in Constitutional law is, well, pretty lame
The 'joke' was on them, since it wasn't just the South that got *reconstructed*.
But we can agree that the Northern consumer paid the same inflated price for his tariff-protected good as the Southern consumer did. So why should it matter to him if the manufacturer who was shafting him was across town or across the country?
It also affected Britains ability to pay for cotton from the South.
No it didn't.
You mean like the writings of Daniel Webster or St. George Tucker?
Webster was a Senator at the time in question. As far as Tucker is concerned:
St. George Tucker was in the Revolutionary War and rose to the rank of Colonel. He communicated regularly with members of Congress, a fact proven by doing a search here:
http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/hlawquery.htmlfor the exact phrase St. George Tucker, brings multiple returns.
His Annotated version of Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England [of which the View of the Constitution is a part] was one of the reasons President Madison appointed him a Judge of the Virginia District Court, and his annotated Blackstone volumes are among the leather bound tomes found behind every practicing lawyers desk in the country.
More from the William and Mary Law Review The Legacy of St George Tucker
Before you get TOO smarmy, TUCKER is the reason the federal government even acknowledges the plain language of the 2nd Amendment today:
St. George Tucker, Northwestern University Law Review Largely forgotten today, Tucker returned to some legal prominence last Term, when the majority in District of Columbia v. Heller cited his annotated Blackstones Commentaries as proof that the Second Amendment had originally been understood as an individual right to arms.
I’ll leave the smarmy to you.
Just one of many examples:
Because Southern industries didn’t get the same preferential treatment as large Northern ones, hence it was to their deficit.
The Emancipation Proclamation went over like wet fart up North. It spawned Conscription Riots and the Copperheads to go Hermitile.
The only large Southern industry wasn't threatened by imports. It's customers, foreign and domestic, clammored for its goods and there were no foreign sources of cotton to compete with their supplying U.S. textile mills. So what would protective tariffs have accomplished for them?
Again, what difference did that make to the average Northern consumer who was paying the same inflated price as the Southern consumer was? Did it benefit him that some manufacturer was able to jack up his price due to tariffs? Did his community realize additional tax revenues because the business was located there? No. Did it create jobs? Some, but not for most people. So why did it matter where the industry was located? Tariffs hit everyone, North and South. They forced everyone to pay an inflated price. They did not harm one part of the country more than another.
I thought conscription spawned the Conscription Riots. Hence the name. Silly me.
Why would that be embarrassing?
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.