Abraham Lincoln Bicentennial - 2009; the official work and preparation begins now

Who does? I don't.

I would also point out that the circumstances were completely different. The idea that the former colonies -- having just recently won independence -- would NOT have even considered become a part of a union if they thought they were surrendering their hard won sovereignty.

The "former colonies" were only four of the 11 Confederate states. All of the others were FEDERAL territories (or in the case of Texas, an independent nation) before appealing to Congress for admission.

Well, I did answer on the fly but I covered myself. The other states that seceeded would have assumed that the same rules applied to them as did the original colonies -- which we've establishing both those in the north and south believe secession was possible.

Thanks for the details.

Way to cherry pick a quote.

I don't cherry-pick anything thankyouverymuch.

-----

Did you notice that he's talking about the Articles of Confederation and not the Constitution?

Of course I did. The quote was given because of the word FREE in front of 'inhabitant' or 'citizen'. The restriction that one has to be free before one can be an inhabitant or citizen would prevent Article 1, Sec. 8, Clause 4 from being applicable.

If the fact he was quoting the Articles bothers you, here-

This was the legal state of this subject in Virginia, when the federal constitution was adopted; it declares that congress shall have power to establish an uniform rule of naturalization; throughout the United States; but it also further declares, that the powers not delegated by the constitution to the U. States, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states, respectively or to the people. The power of naturalization, and not that of denization, being delegated to congress, and the power of denization not being prohibited to the states by the constitution, that power ought not to be considered as given to congress, but, on the contrary, as being reserved to the states. And as the right of denization did not make a citizen of an alien, but only placed him in a middle state, between the two, giving him local privileges only, which he was so far from being entitled to carry with him into another state, that he lost them by removing from the state giving them, the inconveniences which might result from the indirect communication of the rights of naturalized citizens, by different modes of naturalization prevailing in the several states, could not be apprehended. It might therefore have been extremely impolitic in the states to have surrendered the right of denization, as well as that of naturalization to the federal government, inasmuch as it might have operated to discourage migration to those states, which have lands to dispose of, and settle; since, it might be a disagreeable alternative to the states, either to permit aliens to hold lands within their territory, or to exclude all who have not yet completed their probationary residence within the U. States, so as to become naturalized citizens, from purchasing, or holding lands, until they should have acquired all other rights appertaining to that character
St. George Tucker, Blackstone's Commentaries

*****

§ 1098. The propriety of confiding the power to establish an uniform rule of naturalization to the national government seems not to have occasioned any doubt or controversy in the convention. For aught that appears on the journals, it was conceded without objection. Under the confederation, the states possessed the sole authority to exercise the power; and the dissimilarity of the system in different states was generally admitted, as a prominent defect, and laid the foundation of many delicate and intricate questions. As the free inhabitants of each state were entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in all the other states, it followed, that a single state possessed the power of forcing into every other state, with the enjoyment of every immunity and privilege, any alien, whom it might choose to incorporate into its own society, however repugnant such admission might be to their polity, conveniencies, and even prejudices. In effect every state possessed the power of naturalizing aliens in every other state; a power as mischievous in its nature, as it was indiscreet in its actual exercise. In one state, residence for a short time might, and did confer the rights of citizenship. In others, qualifications of greater importance were required. An alien, therefore, incapacitated for the possession of certain rights by the laws of the latter, might, by a previous residence and naturalization in the former, elude at pleasure all their salutary regulations for self-protection. Thus the laws of a single state were preposterously rendered paramount to the laws of all the others, even within their own jurisdiction. And it has been remarked with equal truth and justice, that it was owing to mere casualty, that the exercise of this power under the confederation did not involve the Union in the most serious embarrassments. There is great wisdom, therefore, in confiding to the national government the power to establish a uniform rule of naturalization throughout the United States.
Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution

*****

NATURALIZATION, n. [See Naturalize]
The act of investing an alien with the rights and privileges of a native subject or citizen.
Webster's 1828 Dictionary

-----

To regulate merely means to make uniform. The States could not wield the power of naturalization simply because it caused too much confusion.

The ability to make regular rules for naturalization as they pertain to aliens in no way, shape or form equal to the power to change a specific type of property into a person.

Particularly when the ownership of that property is a Constitutionally guaranteed right.

You well know that what you said is a vast misrepresentation of the facts.

There were two votes of the citizens of Tennessee. The first did not result in separation. The second, taken after Lincoln sent the warships to Charleston and called up the militia army, did result in the citizens of Tennessee massively supporting secession.

Your commentary is biased and a direct attempt at forging facts. This is where we part.

The second election was a rubber stamp affair taken after the politicians of the slavery crowd in the legislature ignored the first vote in the haste to align Tennessee with the cause of the secession idiots of the Deep South. As the Louisville Journal Of May 13th, 1861 well noted:

"The spirit of secession appears to have reached its culminating point in Tennessee. Certainly the fell spirit has, as yet, reached no higher point of outrageous tyranny. The whole of the late proceedings in Tennessee as been as gross an outrage as has been perpetrated by the worst tyrant of all the earth. The whole secession movement on the part of the Legislature of the State has been lawless, violent and tumultuous. The pretense of submitting the Ordinance of Secession to the vote of the people of the State, after placing her military power and resources at the disposal and under the command of the Confederate States without any authority from the people, is as bitter and insolent a mockery of popular rights as the human mind could invent."

My apologies.

Upon reflection, I can see where my post, being a quoted quote (?) as it were, could indeed be construed as trying to defend a Constitutional concept on pre-constitutional grounds.

That was not my intent, and again, my apologies.

The process started with southern Democrat Woodrow Wilson, not Lincoln.

FWIW, we Virginians only claim Wilson as necessary to retain (for a while at least) the title "Mother of Presidents."

Other than that, we tell people he was from New Jersey.

Other than that, we tell people he was from New Jersey.

(snicker)

OK....let's look at it this way: Say in 1860, BEFORE secession occurred, that the Taney Court ruled secession was illegal. If that happened, then I would say that it was a VALID ruling.

It would have been unconstitutional. The Supreme Court, any court for that matter, cannot issue rulings on things that have not happened. Prior to the Southern rebellion, secession in any form had never been attempted. The Tany court could not rule secession legal or illegal under those circumstances. It wasn't until the Texas v. White case that the issue reached the court and the Constitutionality of unilateral secession be decided.

NOW, let's look at what happened: AFTER THE FACT, meaning after the states had seceded, and had been forced back into the Union at bayonet point, a ruling is made, by a court that was packed with Lincoln appointees, that secession is illegal....Don't you see that something smells ROTTEN with the situation?!

No. Had the court ruled for the defendants then you would be praising the same group to the heavens and holding the decision up as a shining light of jurisprudence. It doesn't work that way. The court's decisions are legal, valid, and binding regardless of whether you agree with them or not.

The other states that seceeded would have assumed that the same rules applied to them as did the original colonies -- which we've establishing both those in the north and south believe secession was possible.

No, most people did not believe unilateral secession was constitutional. People did believe very much in the Right to Revolution, but the Slave Power never evoked the right to revolution for all too obvious reasons.

Read what Madison said about unilateral secession. He basically called it crap. Beyond having no basis in the Constitution, one would have to believe men like Washington, Madison, Franklin and Hamilton were total idiots to spend so much effort and risk so much crafting a document that any cabal of self-serving politicians could rip up and throw away at their whim.

If the Southern states had really wanted out of the Union, they had options to do it legally and constitutionally. They could have petitioned congress to be freed of their obligations either as individual states, or as a group, just as they petitioned Congress to be admitted. The mood of the country then probably would have allowed it as long as fair disposition of common property and other issues such as access to the lower Mississippi were addressed.

Why didn't they do that? Simple. Congress would have debated the issue and as the people of those states followed the debate they would have realized that most individuals had nothing to gain and every thing to lose by disunion. It was only the wealthy slave owners who would benefit, not the average Southern citizen. The people of the southern states, especially in the Upper South, would have rejected disunion. The Slave Power did not want a calm, reflected debate of the issue. They wanted passion, fear, ignorance and a foolish bravado. They thought that Lincoln would be a weak president. With their aristocratic snobbery, they already considered him to be a simpleton who could not possibly unify the North into action. While they berated Northerners as "pasty-faced mechanics" they vastly overestimated their own capabilities. They were damn fools, and greedy ones at that.

The restriction that one has to be free before one can be an inhabitant or citizen would prevent Article 1, Sec. 8, Clause 4 from being applicable.

What an absurd position. Madison makes it clear that the language in the Articles is confusing, including the part about "free," and that as a result the Constitution has put all matters pertaining to citizenship in the hands of the federal goverment, and you're claiming that they're still bound by the confused language of the Articles? What other parts of the Articles that the Constitution specifically sought to mend are still, as it turns out, superceding the Constitution?

As for your position that one has to be free before one can be considered an inhabitant raises the question of just what those "other persons" being counted for representation (on a 3/5ths basis) were. Here's Madison in Federalist 54:

Let the compromising expedient of the Constitution be mutually adopted, which regards them as inhabitants, but as debased by servitude below the equal level of free inhabitants, which regards the slave as divested of two fifth of the man.

I'm denying he has the authority to exercise those powers on one of the parties to the compact if that party never attacked another party, yes.

There's this fort in Charleston. Starts with an "S."

He had been elected; South Carolina decided not to wait any longer. Lincoln had threatened coercion, and they knew he would likely make good on the threat.

What threat? What had Lincoln done? The only threat was that he wouldn't allow them to secede unilaterally, spoken in an obscure speech years earlier. What had he threatened to do to the south in his presidential campaign, other than prevent them from expanding slavery into the territories? It appears that you're claiming the south seceded simply because Lincoln wouldn't let them.

Ft. Sumter's disposition on April 12, 1861 required resolution either by the US Congress, or by negotiations with the Confederacy, or through settlement plans with the Commissioners. Sending armed gunboats to Charleston harbor was not settlement via political means.

Sending supplies to a United States army garrison requires congressional approval? I believe that one's covered under the powers of the Commander in Chief.

That was not my intent, and again, my apologies.

Damn, and here I'd already jumped all over it. Serves me right for not reading the whole thread before replying.

The ability to make regular rules for naturalization as they pertain to aliens in no way, shape or form equal to the power to change a specific type of property into a person.

Interesting, though, that an individual (the owner) had the power to change property into a person by freeing them.

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.

And if one state becomes too much for the other 49 to tolerate then you're saying it's OK for the 49 to secede from the one. And that differs from one being expelled how?

Being financially bled dry and denied your guaranteed right to property isn't enough for you?

Bled dry in what way? And their property rights weren't being threatened at all. They were free to promote slavery within their borders and nobody was doing anything to interfere. Neither Lincoln or any other leader of the Republican party was advocating otherwise.

Blackstone said it was. The 3 methods of legal notification can be found in his Commentaries.

How nice. I would point out that Blackstone's Commentaries were on the laws of England and not on the Constitution.

I wonder why?

Snorting aside, the Constitution gives the Supreme Court the jurisdiction over deciding what acts are Constitutional and what are not. And your apparent belief that you alone are the authority on what Supreme Court decisions are Constitutional and what are not, while amusing, is not relevant.

There was no 'rebellion'. The South did not attack the north or try to overthrow the federal government.

Actually the southern states did when they fired on Fort Sumter. Or had you forgotten about that?

It seems now you're having the same trouble with understanding the word 'rebellion' as you do the word 'voluntary'.

Not at all. I've posted the definition of rebellion - an open, armed, and usually unsuccessful defiance or resistance to an established government - before and I think that is an accurate description of the southern actions. The misunderstanding seems to be on your part.

Yes, there are. Those implied powers do have to have a relation to an expressed power, just like implied and expressed rights.

You mean like the expressed power to create a state? And once created, the expressed power to approve any change in the border of a state or any combining of states or splitting of states? Out of that comes the expressed power to approve the removal of a state.

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.

I'll leave that area to you.

Since there is nothing in the Constitution that says a the state may not LEAVE, so it must be legal, right? Right?

Which is what I'm trying to determine. If, in your world, a state can leave without the consent of the other states because the Constitution does not expressly forbid it then it stands to reason that a state can be expelled by the other states for the same reason, that the Constitution does not expressly forbid it. I cannot see how you can believe one to be true without the other being true.

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.

Which was not being done at the time the south chose to initiate it's rebellion.

Please show me where I ever said there was no such thing as an implied power.

Reply # 107, when you said "If that were a power of the federal government, it would BE IN THE CONSTITUTION as part of the full disclosure of the compact."

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.

I understand the Constitution very well, it's your interpretation I'm having a problem with.

The South had slaves. Slavery is evil, therefore the South was evil and whatever was done to them is justifiable.

And that is among the more illogical statements you've made because I've never raised the issue of slavery. Other than the primary reason why the South launched their rebellion in the first place, I have no interest in it. What I have said is that the southern acts of unilateral secession were illegal, the south chose to initiate an armed rebellion to further their aims, they lost their rebellion, so they have nobody but themselves to blame for their misfortunes.

You have glossed over ALL the sources I've supplied, because you cannot refute their content.

I've glossed over them because they do not address the legality of the Southern secession. Secession with the consent of all the parties involved is one thing, and there is no reason why it should not be legal. Secession where the rights and interests of only one side of the question are respected or protected makes no sense, regardless of how you try and spin it. It makes no more sense than permitting a state to be expelled against its will. But you seem to think otherwise. 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.

On the contrary I've read them all. And I don't see where you come to the conclusions you come to other than by ignoring everything inconvenient or which doesn't suit your agenda.