Posted on 11/13/2006 9:25:11 PM PST by freedomdefender
Maybe you missed it, but there was a war going on.
Wow...that "hack" as you call him, certainly has made plenty of money, as his book was a best seller.
Have YOU read his book? Try checking his sources....they are irefutable.....
You and I have argued that sad point before....
A Supreme Court ruling by a Yankee "Kangaroo" Court AFTER the fact, has NO bearing.
Unilateral Secession was a basic right, well understood by the founding fathers, and specifically reserved by some states when they agreed to enter into the Union.
I have read his "book" and on those points where there are sources they are invariably either twisted beyond recognition by DiLorenze are their meanings turned on their head by quoting out of context, and in some cases, laughably so, demonstrating that he simply trolled neo-confederate websites for material rather than reading from the original sources.
It is in no way a work of history ... it is a political rant by a radical libertarian who established a preposterous conclusion and then cheery picked material to support that conclusion.
As to number of books sold, so what? To even consider this clown a historian (he's not by the way -- he's an economics instructor at a small college in Maryland) would be like calling Dan Brown a great theologian because he sold lots of books. In fact, even though it's a piece of crap, the DiVinci Code probably has better historical grounding than DiLorenzo's Real Lincoln. But they have a common basis --- distort history to reach a false conclusion.
Don't get smarmy with me just because I patiently answered the question YOU kept asking.
-----
In your world a state can 'voluntarily' combine with the other states
If it has rescinded its position with the larger collective, yes. It cannot, however, be a member of 2 different organizations at the same time.
----
but once in the other states are stuck. They lose their voluntary rights and are forced to tolerate that state.
Horsehocky! I never said the other States lost their voluntary rights. No state is 'forced' to tolerate another. They have just as much right to leave the collective if a state's presence becomes too much to tolerate.
For that matter, all the Northern states could have left and reformed into another government if that was their wish.
-----
That's your idea of intolerable oppression?
Being financially bled dry and denied your guaranteed right to property isn't enough for you?
-----
What you imagine to be 'legal notification' isn't legal because you say it is.
Blackstone said it was. The 3 methods of legal notification can be found in his Commentaries.
-----
The underlying act has to be valid in the first place, and as the Supreme Court ruled in 1869 the southern acts of unilateral secession were not Constitutional.
(snort)
I wonder why?
The federal government, then, appears to be the organ through which the united republics communicate with foreign nations, and with each other. Their submission to its operation is voluntary: its councils, its sovereignty is an emanation from theirs, not a flame by which they have been consumed, nor a vortex in which they are swallowed up. Each is still a perfect state, still sovereign, still independent, and still capable, should the occasion require, to resume the exercise of its functions, as such, in the most unlimited extent.
But until the time shall arive when the occasion requires a resumption of the rights of sovereignty by the several states (and far be that period removed when it should happen) the exercise of the rights of sovereignty by the states, individually, is wholly suspended, or discontinued, in the cases before mentioned: nor can that suspension ever be removed, so long as the present constitution remains unchanged, but by the dissolution of the bonds of union. An event which no good citizen can wish, and which no good, or wise administration will ever hazard.
St. George Tucker, "View of the Constitution of the United States
(Tucker was commissioned by Congress to help explain the new Constitution to the People)
-----
But putting down the Southern rebellion was not outside the Constitutional boundaries of the governments power.
ROFLMAO!
I've already shown you where we have (or HAD) a government with limited authority that was created by the States.
The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.
James Madison, Federalist #45
There was no 'rebellion'. The South did not attack the north or try to overthrow the federal government.
It seems now you're having the same trouble with understanding the word 'rebellion' as you do the word 'voluntary'.
-----
But there are implied powers granted by the Constitution
Yes, there are. Those implied powers do have to have a relation to an expressed power, just like implied and expressed rights.
Trying to justify something by the use of 'implication' when there is NEVER an expression isn't an implied right or power, it's just pulling something out of your arse.
Like the authority to promote property to person.
-----
Since there is nothing in the Constitution that says the states may not expel another state it must be legal, right? Right?
Since there is nothing in the Constitution that says a the state may not LEAVE, so it must be legal, right? Right?
*****
The opposition of the federal government, or the interposition of federal officers, would but inflame the zeal of all parties on the side of the State, and the evil could not be prevented or repaired, if at all, without the employment of means which must always be resorted to with reluctance and difficulty. On the other hand, should an unwarrantable measure of the federal government be unpopular in particular States, which would seldom fail to be the case, or even a warrantable measure be so, which may sometimes be the case, the means of opposition to it are powerful and at hand. The disquietude of the people; their repugnance and, perhaps, refusal to co-operate with the officers of the Union; the frowns of the executive magistracy of the State; the embarrassments created by legislative devices, which would often be added on such occasions, would oppose, in any State, difficulties not to be despised; would form, in a large State, very serious impediments; and where the sentiments of several adjoining States happened to be in unison, would present obstructions which the federal government would hardly be willing to encounter.
But ambitious encroachments of the federal government, on the authority of the State governments, would not excite the opposition of a single State, or of a few States only. They would be signals of general alarm. Every government would espouse the common cause. A correspondence would be opened. Plans of resistance would be concerted. One spirit would animate and conduct the whole. The same combinations, in short, would result from an apprehension of the federal, as was produced by the dread of a foreign, yoke; and unless the projected innovations should be voluntarily renounced, the same appeal to a trial of force would be made in the one case as was made in the other. But what degree of madness could ever drive the federal government to such an extremity.
James Madison, Federalist #46
It was obviously inconceivable to the Founders that several states would join the federal government in order to deny the people in certain other states their right to property.
----
But there are implied powers granted by the Constitution, something the Supreme Court ruled on in McCulloch v. Maryland.
The finding in McCulloch v. Maryland:
We are unanimously of opinion, that the law passed by the legislature of Maryland, imposing a tax on the Bank of the United States, is unconstitutional and void.
The State was trying to tax the new national bank. Please show me where I ever said there was no such thing as an implied power.
-----
It's obvious you don't understand the brilliance of the Constitution. The type of law it welds actually switches depending on the jurisdiction it exercises.
The first is its civil jurisdiction. This is exercised in the federal enclave and other areas designated as areas of exclusive legislation enumerated in Article I, Section 8, Clause 17.
The second type is Administrative jurisdiction. This is where the federal government exercises its national aspect. The regulation of commerce among the several states, seeing to it that the Militias were armed and organized, etc.
As Madison said:
The proposed Constitution, therefore, [even when tested by the rules laid down by its antagonists,][1] is, in strictness, neither a national nor a federal Constitution, but a composition of both. In its foundation it is federal, not national; in the sources from which the ordinary powers of the government are drawn, it is partly federal and partly national; in the operation of these powers, it is national, not federal; in the extent of them, again, it is federal, not national; and, finally, in the authoritative mode of introducing amendments, it is neither wholly federal nor wholly national.
James Madison Federalist #39
-----
If you think the Constitution was so carefully crafted to allow government to do whatever it wished as long as it could justify it to itself, all the time the Founders spent writing it was wasted.
They made it clear (and I've given you several quotes) where they said the parties to the compact were STILL sovereign outside the few enumerated powers they had given to the general government.
The problem is that you just don't want to believe it. All the quotes, precedents and legal writings will not convince you, because your mind is closed to facts contrary to what you've always believed. To whit;
The South had slaves. Slavery is evil, therefore the South was evil and whatever was done to them is justifiable.
That's your mindset, enjoy it at your leisure.
==================================================
I've responded to your repeated questions, yet you still ask them in an apparently lame attempt to get me to change the answer.
You continually 'rephrase' what I've said in an attempt to change the meaning to something I never said.
You have glossed over ALL the sources I've supplied, because you cannot refute their content.
You obviously have either never read or cannot comprehend the various documents, treaties and writings left by the Founders and concerning Constitutional construction, nor any of the Commentaries concerning the law or Constitutional operation.
Your 'sources' are still lacking and your replies all consist of "Yadda, yadda, yadda, you're just wrong." without a shred of substantiating evidence to bolster your assertions.
Your debating skills are quite puerile since you don't discuss, you just dictate.
If you have no wish to read the available information and discover the original intent, that is your choice, but I really can't one single, viable reason why I should continue this conversation with someone who doesn't have enough intellectual honesty to objectively look at the evidence presented.
No, there was an illegal act against the parties to the compact going on.
A 'war' is a legitimate, justifiable action.
Really? The southern states left the Union without discussion, walking away from treaty obligations entered into by the country as a whole, appropriating whatever federal property they could get their hands on, and repudiating their share of the national debt. What say did the remaining states have in any of that?
Believe me I'm trying. So you either believe that unilateral secession AND involuntary expulsion are both unconstitutional or you believe both are Constitutional. Which is it?
Then there's Tommy's continual claim that Lincoln's act of suspending habeas corpus in April 1861 was unconstitutional. What made DiLusional the authority on what is constitutional and what is not?
Unilateral Secession was a basic right, well understood by the founding fathers, and specifically reserved by some states when they agreed to enter into the Union.
So you say. But while I'm aware of many quotes indicating support for the concept of secession, I'm not aware of a single one that indicates any of the founders believed a state could leave without the approval of all the parties impacted. In fact quite the contrary, I've seen quotes from Madison idicating complete opposition to unilateral secession.
Well, let's just agree to disagree.
Why don't you post some that 'throughly documented" stuff from Tommy DiLusional for all of us to see.
Shooting down his crap is easier than shooting fish in a barrel.
I recall once when he was always posting his articles over at Lew Rockwell's lunatic asylum. He had one where trying to make some point or another, he claimed that Thomas Jefferson and Alex deTouchville were close friends and carried on correspondence for years. I cracked up reading that and immediately sent a very friendly e-mail to DiLusional saying how interesting that point was and could he please give me a source so that I could learn more about their friendship.
Of course, I got no reply from him, but about a half hour later, the article on Rockwell had been edited to remove that really stupid inaccuracy with no apology or retraction included. When scholars make mistakes, they acknowledge them. When propagandists get caught, they simply cover it up and pretend it never happened.
I really can't one = I really can't think of one,
Here's some more from that speech:
Do you say that such restriction of slavery would be unconstitutional and that some of the States would not submit to its enforcement? I grant you that an unconstitutional act is not a law; but I do not ask, and will not take your construction of the Constitution. The Supreme Court of the United States is the tribunal to decide such questions, and we will submit to its decisions; and if you do also, there will be an end of the matter. Will you? If not, who are the disunionists, you or we? We, the majority, would not strive to dissolve the Union; and if any attempt is made it must be by you, who so loudly stigmatize us as disunionists.
Yes, in fact, he had: From Gustavus Fox who stated the following about the gunboat expedition to Charleston:
"On the 30th of March, the President sent me to New York...
But South Carolina had seceded the previous December, months before Lincoln took office, and Buchanan had attempted to do the exact same thing you damn Lincoln for--sending supplies to a US fort, when he sent the "Star of the West" in January.
Are you joking? It was an official document issued by the secession convention, voted on and approved (unanimously, I believe) by the same people who decided on secession.
Article 1, Sec. 8, Clause 4: "To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization". The power to determine citizenship rests with the federal government.
Didn't stop any of the states that have joined the Union since 1865.
The dissimilarity in the rules of naturalization, has long been remarked as a fault in our system, and as laying a foundation for intricate and delicate questions. In the 4th article of the confederation, it is declared "that the free inhabitants of each of these States, paupers, vagabonds, and fugitives from justice excepted, shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of free citizens, in the several States, and the people of each State, shall in every other, enjoy all the privileges of trade and commerce, &c."
James Madison, Federalist, no. 42
It would seem the word 'free' would exclude 'persons held in service or labor', would it not?
Only a free person could be an inhabitant or citizen.
Way to cherry pick a quote. Did you notice that he's talking about the Articles of Confederation and not the Constitution? Did you notice that the next thing he says is:
There is a confusion of language here, which is remarkable. Why the terms free inhabitants are used in one part of the article, free citizens in another, and people in another; or what was meant by superadding to "all privileges and immunities of free citizens," "all the privileges of trade and commerce," cannot easily be determined. (...) Whatever the legal consequences might have been, other consequences would probably have resulted, of too serious a nature not to be provided against. The new Constitution has accordingly, with great propriety, made provision against them, and all others proceeding from the defect of the Confederation on this head, by authorizing the general government to establish a uniform rule of naturalization throughout the United States.Furthermore, as NS pointed out, the blacks were free, having been seized as property by the US army, then disposed of by giving them their freedom.
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.