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

lincolnbicentennial.gov/ ^ | November 2006 | Lincoln Bicentennial Commission

[MamaTexan]

Why didn't they do that?

Um...because they knew they didn't need to?

Journal of the Senate of the United States of America, 1789-1873
SATURDAY, March 2, 1861 Page 379

On motion by Mr. Doolittle, to amend the proposed amendment by inserting at the end thereof the following
Article 8. Under this Constitution, as originally adopted and as it now exists,no State has power to withdraw from the jurisdiction of the United States; and this Constitution, and all laws passed in pursuance of its delegated powers, are the supreme late of the land, anything contained in any constitution, ordinance, or act of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.
It was determined in the negative,
Yeas ... 18
Nays ... 28

If secession wasn't already legal, why were they trying to pass legislation against it 2 months after South Carolina gave its notice? More importantly, why did it fail?

[Bubba Ho-Tep]

The declarations of causes are where they tended to disclose their reasons for doing so, although none were "official documents",

They are as close to an official statement of motives as we can find. Perhaps they aren't official documents, in the sense of legal acts, but in the same way we look at the Federalist Papers to see what the thinking was behind the Constitution, we can look at these documents and see what the thinking was. If there's some more "official document" that gives different motives, I'd love to see it.

and only four states issued these separate declarations of causes.

"a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation." Oh, well. It's clear they didn't care what anyone thought.

[MamaTexan]

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.

Partial inhabitants, perhaps?

The point is that 'naturalization' involves changing the status of an alien into a citizen.

The Constitution did grant the general government power over foreign concerns, and it would seem reasonable that the would include foreign born persons.

Madison himself admitted - but as debased by servitude below the equal level of free inhabitants.

The word 'free', again places a restriction on their political status.

[MamaTexan]

Serves me right for not reading the whole thread before replying.

LOL! I've done that on occasion myself.

-----

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

Well of course. Being their property, it was certainly in their purview to change the status of a slave.

[AmusedBystander]

I question the character of a man that invokes God but was not a believer in God, never joined a church, and often mocked Christians and Christianity.

"I have been driven many times upon my knees by the overwhelming conviction that I had nowhere else to go. My own wisdom and that of all about me seemed insufficient for that day." Abraham Lincoln.

[Bubba Ho-Tep]

More importantly, why did it fail?

Because the Crittenden amendment being debated was supposed to convince the south not to secede. Doolittle's amendment was an abolitionist's bomb thrown into the debate. Note that Doolittle's next action is to demand a roll call vote, to get everyone on record.

[MamaTexan]

I've glossed over them because they do not address the legality of the Southern secession. See post #153.

[MamaTexan]

Because the Crittenden amendment being debated was supposed to convince the south not to secede. Doolittle's amendment was an abolitionist's bomb thrown into the debate.

Rationalizations aside, it would not have been an issue if the ability was not there.

[Colonel Kangaroo]

The consensus among Unionists was that the second Tennessee secession vote wasn't a fair vote with reb armies overrunning the state.

I take any comparisons with Brownlow as a compliment. Unlike pre-war governor Isham Harris who illegally organized the secession and then showed his true devotion to Tennessee by vamoosing to England by way of Mexico when the rebellion failed, Brownlow was a positive force in bringing civilized government to Tennessee. Post-war Republican governor Brownlow was a supporter of black suffrage after the war. He had the honor of being the first prominent opponent of the KKK (the terror wing of the Democratic party) The uncompromising Brownlow was a hero to loyal Tennessee Unionists including the husband and wife who named my great grandfather Brownlow during the rebellion years.

[Non-Sequitur]

See post #153.

What about it? I agree with my learned friend Ditto on just about all things connected with the Southern rebellion. He has said nothing that I haven't also said on numerous occasions.

[MamaTexan]

What about it?

You don't find it questionable that they were attempting to pass legislation against something that was so OBVIOUSLY (according to some) an already established legal fact?

Well, you have trouble with your vocabulary too, so I shouldn't be surprised.

---

I agree with my learned friend Ditto on just about all things connected with the Southern rebellion. He has said nothing that I haven't also said on numerous occasions.

Goody for you. I hope you're happy together.

-----

(PSST- You're still not sourcing anything, and playing semantical games isn't substantiating evidence.)

[Non-Sequitur]

If secession wasn't already legal, why were they trying to pass legislation against it 2 months after South Carolina gave its notice? More importantly, why did it fail?

Why the need for any of the propopsed amendments if half of what you have posted is true? If it was a legal impossibility to tell a slave owner from a slave-holding state that he no longer had the right to his property then why the need for Article 4? If the right to property was a guaranteed right then why the need for Article 2 or 3?

[Non-Sequitur]

You don't find it questionable that they were attempting to pass legislation against something that was so OBVIOUSLY (according to some) an already established legal fact?

If it were so OBVIOUSLY and already established legal fact then why did men as far apart in viewpoint as James Buchanan and Abraham Lincoln agree the Southern actions were illegal? Not to mention 5 of 8 Supreme Court justices?

Well, you have trouble with your vocabulary too, so I shouldn't be surprised.

No, though I freely admit I have problems understanding how you can come up with some of your definitions. Rebellion. Sovereignty. You seem to have problems with them both.

Goody for you. I hope you're happy together.

I enjoy reading his posts because I usually learn something from them. I enjoy reading your posts for comic relief.

PSST- You're still not sourcing anything, and playing semantical games isn't substantiating evidence.)

I'll have to work on that.

[MamaTexan]

why did men as far apart in viewpoint as James Buchanan and Abraham Lincoln agree the Southern actions were illegal? Not to mention 5 of 8 Supreme Court justices?

Sources, please.

[MamaTexan]

If it was a legal impossibility to tell a slave owner from a slave-holding state that he no longer had the right to his property then why the need for Article 4? If the right to property was a guaranteed right then why the need for Article 2 or 3?

Specifics please.

There are 22 sections dispersed between Articles 2, 3, & 4.

[mac_truck]

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.

Emphasis bump.

The average southerner was also mislead into believing they were getting a raw deal from the Federal government and that the North was profiting from Federal policy at the expense of the South. There was nothing wrong with the Southern economy that some hard work and economic diversification wouldn't fix.

[Non-Sequitur]

Sources, please.

Surely I don't need to source Lincoln in secession? I believe that his opposition is well known, but his first inaugural address will do for a start. The five of eight Supreme Court justices is from the Texas v White decision. For Buchanan, read his last message to Congress December 1860.

[Non-Sequitur]

There are 22 sections dispersed between Articles 2, 3, & 4.

My mistake. I was referring to the link you provided in post 161. There were 7 sections that made up the proposed constitutional amendments. You only read number 8.

[MamaTexan]

Texas v White

Took place in 1869.

-----

For Buchanan, read his last message to Congress December 1860.

Buchanan's address does not a law make.

Here's what the White House has to say about him-

As President-elect, Buchanan thought the crisis would disappear if he maintained a sectional balance in his appointments and could persuade the people to accept constitutional law as the Supreme Court interpreted it. The Court was considering the legality of restricting slavery in the territories, and two justices hinted to Buchanan what the decision would be.

Thus, in his Inaugural the President referred to the territorial question as "happily, a matter of but little practical importance" since the Supreme Court was about to settle it "speedily and finally."

Two days later Chief Justice Roger B. Taney delivered the Dred Scott decision, asserting that Congress had no constitutional power to deprive persons of their property rights in slaves in the territories. Southerners were delighted, but the decision created a furor in the North.

Buchanan decided to end the troubles in Kansas by urging the admission of the territory as a slave state. Although he directed his Presidential authority to this goal, he further angered the Republicans and alienated members of his own party.

So, um...WHY were you using Buchanan to support your argument for succession? Even the current government knows the whole deal was shady.

****

Check out post #145 for a true legal source. Here's the background:

St. George Tucker was the second professor of law at William & Mary and a pioneer in legal education. He drafted a formal description of the requirements for a law degree at the College, which included an exacting schedule of qualifying examinations in history, government and related pre-law subjects. Tucker's course material was published as the first American edition of Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England (1803), which served as the bible of 19th century American lawyers.

[MamaTexan]

You only read number 8.

Which makes it less applicable...how?