Posted on 02/07/2009 7:45:28 AM PST by Loud Mime
None were expected.
What the EP did achieve was to close off the possibility of direct assistance for the Confederacy from Britain or France
A fortunate offshoot of the proclamation to be sure. But it also made possible the enlistment of almost 200,000 soldiers in the Union army as well.
The South ran it alone against an industrialized North. They were doomed to failure unless they had foreign alliances active in the war.
Did they really think that the secession would result in war; that a their brothers to the North would attack them? From what I’ve read in the past, some believed that they would secede and that would be that. They had threats from the Union, but dismissed them as saber rattling.
The events you cited all happened before secession. My point was these trends would not continue after independence because the Confederate constitution dealt with the problem.
I think you can make a good argument that secession was inevitable, but that doesn't mean war was. Lincoln chose to go to war.
“To say that, you must ignore the historical fact of the sectional crisis that had arisen precisely over the issue of the expansion of slavery into the territories. And you’d likewise have to ignore the fact that warfare had already broken out in Kansas over the issue.”
You need not ignore facts. I have a different interpretation of them.
“You don’t get to just pick your facts to defend a vague idea of ‘right to seceed.’ The real secession arose over the issue of slavery, and war was inevitable for that reason.”
My point was, and still is, that slavery has nothing to do with the right to seceed in general, any more than the right of revolution in general should be tied to representation for taxation. That slavery was the primary motivation for the South’s secession is a historical curiosity. Secession as a theory does not begin and end with the South, even if it was the only quasi-successful example. New England contemplated it long before. Jefferson wrote about it.
“All of the other fine talk was nothing more than window-dressing”
I wouldn’t say it was only “window-dressing”, there were states rights issues that still plague us, but they were greatly overshadowed by slavery. Regardless of how Pres. Lincoln got to his final position, it was the right one. It is also sad that it resulted in such appalling loss of life (some were my ancestors) , but it may have been unavoidable, it may have even been as Pres. Lincoln alluded to “divine retribution”, a troubling thought considering our current state. I believe we can now say that, if the federal government had a higher moral authority, something assumed through the civil rights period, that we can now put that thought to rest.
I do not read it that way, as such power should rest in the law enforcement end (the executive) instead of the legislative. Moreover, Section 8 gives powers to Congress; Section 9, which covers habeas corpus, is in another section. If it were a power of Congress, we would find it in Section 8, right?
Please explain further?
I'm fully aware of the reasons for secession, thanks.
-----
The blame for that, ma'am, belongs with those who started the ball rolling in the first place.
As a VOLUNTARY Union can be left at will, the only 'blame' to be doled out is to those who would breach a perfectly legal contract for the sole purpose of consolidating an unconstitutional power.
-----
And ... you seem to use the term "moral issues of slavery" as a way of suggesting that it should not have been addressed by making a clean end of it. How ... convenient.
It has nothing to do with convenience and everything to do with fact. You do have the intellectual capacity to differentiate between a legal issue and a moral one, do you not?
-----
You also forget that the secession convention of your own state, among others, said outright that maintaining the institution of slavery was the reason they seceeded. You can defend that if you wish.
Facts need no defense. Before you jump down from your moral high-horse, let's take a few 'facts' into consideration....
Slavery was legal as the colonies were being established.
Slavery was legal when the Declaration of Independence was signed.
Slavery was legal when the Revolutionary War was fought.
Slavery was legal when the Constitutional Convention was called.
Slavery was legal when the Constitution was ratified.
This is a better security than any that now exists. No power is given to the general government to interpose with respect to the property in slaves now held by the states.
James Madison Debate in Virginia Ratifying Convention
Slavery was legal and slaves were property. Despite the clear legal aspects of the institution, Lincoln used the liberal tactic of pure emotionalism to release the general government from it's bindings, and the Republic died.
The truly ironic thing is that so few people will ever connect Lincoln's actions with todays contemporary government that now tells us how much of our own property we can keep and how much we must tithe to Uncle Sam.
You mean blacks? Lincoln opposed recruitment of black into the Union army. When congress forced it on him he came up with the infamous half pay policy.
No, the only Constitutional power was to restrict the importation of slaves. No federal power existed to end the institution of slavery itself.
Agreed!
Happening in the manner it did, however, still has repercussions today.
I’m not talking about an enumerated power, I’m talking about having the forceful power to do something.
Section 8 describes powers of Congress. Section 9 describes limitation on the powers of congress. Both section pertain to the powers of Congress.
Congress has the power to create courts below the Supreme Court, which effectively confers absolute power over those courts, which in turn implies the right to suspend Habeas Corpus. Section 9 does not grant the power to suspend Habeas Corpus. It restricts the circumstances under which Congress may suspend it. Hope that helps.
"The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it."
“Moreover, Section 8 gives powers to Congress; Section 9, which covers habeas corpus, is in another section. If it were a power of Congress, we would find it in Section 8, right?”
Both sections are part of Article One, which is Congress’ article.
>>>Yeah, let’s look at that for a moment because DiLorenzo deliberately omits one of the three clauses. From Goodwin’s book, page 296:<<<
I would be careful quoting Doris Kearns Goodwin on any subject. This is Lincoln’s original memorandum:
December [22?], 1860.
Resolved:
That the fugitive slave clause of the Constitution ought to be enforced by a law of Congress, with efficient provisions for that object, not obliging private persons to assist in its execution, but punishing all who resist it, and with the usual safeguards to liberty, securing free men against being surrendered as slaves.
That all State laws, if there be such, really or apparently in conflict with such law of Congress, ought to be repealed; and no opposition to the execution of such law of Congress ought to be made.
That the Federal Union must be preserved.
[End of Memorandum]
It was Seward who changed the clause, “with the usual safeguards to liberty”, to, “a trial by jury” [from “Free Men All” By Thomas D. Morris, pp 207].
Also note “the trial by jury” was only to ensure free men were not returned as slaves”. It in no way was entended to help fugitive slaves. There was also no provision for Habeas Corpus (Lincoln had no respect for Habeas Corpus, even in this matter).
I see that. But part of that Section 9 gives some power to the President.....same Article.
The power to suspend HC is not defined, nor is it restricted to a branch. Hence this argument.
oops...forget the first sentence of that post. I was thinking of Article 4, Section 4.
>>>I do not read it that way, as such power should rest in the law enforcement end (the executive) instead of the legislative. Moreover, Section 8 gives powers to Congress; Section 9, which covers habeas corpus, is in another section. If it were a power of Congress, we would find it in Section 8, right?<<<
It is in Article 1, which is exclusively for the congress. Section 9, Clause 2 reads” “The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.” That in no way implies the President can suspend it, only that the congress can suspend it in cases of rebellion or invasion, and in no other case.
Of course, the executive branch enforces laws originated by the congress. But when a President or the Judiciary creates law out of thin air, or attempts to enforce a power when there is no congressional or constitutional authority for that power, that is usurpation of power, which is tyranny.
“It is silent on who may suspend it should such a suspension become necessary. You will note that unlike Section 8, Section 9 does not begin with the words ‘Congress shall have the power to. So your claim that Lincoln usurped Congressional power and imposed a tyranny is incorrect.’”
That is specious. It does not start with “Congress shall have the power to...” for the very specific reason that, unlike the enumerated powers of Section 8, Section 9 primarily deals with limitations on Congress’ power. The Constitution doesn’t explicitly state who has the power to suspend habeas corpus, though it clearly implies that someone does. If it lies with the executive, why did they put the clause in Article One? If the President and Congress share the power, why isn’t it mentioned in Article Two?
There are practical considerations here. The Constitution holds that suspension is valid only in cases of emergency, and it’s more than likely that Congress won’t be able to act fast enough in the event of an emergency. That’s when presidents shine. So Congress need not necessarily give prior consent. But it seems to me that they must have ultimate consent. Otherwise, why not include it among the president’s powers?
Do you believe that the federal government has the authority to use brute force to ensure compliance to the Compact?
Or have I misunderstood?
>>>Nonsense. Article I, Section 9, Clause 2 reads, “The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.” It is silent on who may suspend it should such a suspension become necessary. You will note that unlike Section 8, Section 9 does not begin with the words “Congress shall have the power to. So your claim that Lincoln usurped Congressional power and imposed a tyranny is incorrect.<<<
Okay, show me where the president has that power.
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.