Posted on 02/11/2009 6:06:39 PM PST by Kaslin
Thank you. You’ve just shown what it takes to stop war.
I already withdrew the “Satanic” label up-thread. That doesn’t change the fact that the confederacy was extra-legal and immoral, seeing that it was based on the perpetuation of slavery.
But that was not the issue in 1861. Lincoln himself said he had no wish and no power to interfere with the domestic situation in any state. But he had to fulfill his Constitutionally mandated tasks which included collecting the duties at the port of Charleston and holding United States property at Fort Sumter.
Hot rhetoric helped aggravate the situation in 1860-61 and the same issues can still inflame today. I hope nobody’s blood pressure is getting too high. We need all the healthy voters we can get for 2012.
_______________
Well, Colonel, it will be a challenge. We've been under the influence of strong 'divide and conquer' politics for far too long. 'They've' proven it works, too.
One guy said it all, and I sure wish we'd listen.
_____________
General Ely S. Parker, a member of the Seneca tribe, drew up the articles of surrender which General Robert E. Lee signed at Appomattox Court House on April 9, 1865. Gen. Parker, who served as Gen. Ulysses S. Grant's military secretary was an educated attorney who was once rejected for Union military service because of his race. At the meeting, Gen. Lee was at first taken aback at the presence of an Indian being in such a position.
After he got to know Parker, Lee is said to have remarked to him, "I am glad to see one real American here."
Parker replied, "We are all Americans."
That’s a great story. And if we ever get too agitated about our differences, we can remember that Osama bin Laden does not care if we’re Yankee or Reb, we’re all the same to him.
“No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation...No state shall, without the consent of Congress, lay any duty of tonnage, keep troops, or ships of war in time of peace, enter into any agreement or compact with another state, or with a foreign power, or engage in war, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent danger as will not admit of delay.”
That only applied if a state remained in the Union. Once a state seceded, it was no longer bound by that compact.
“The question comes, did they go into a mutual confederation to leave the Union. If such, they would have violated the Constitution.”
Exactly. And they knew that. That’s why they seceded first.
I am often amused at those who denigrate the South for slavery. What they always ignore is that THE UNITED STATES allowed slavery and did nothing to eliminate it (it would have taken a Constitutional Amendment to do so). Slavery was legal in the United States up until 1865 with the ratification of the 13th Amendment. Slavery was just fine and dandy as long as it was the United States that allowed it; but it was the gravest of sins when the Confederacy practiced it. What hypocrites!
Lincoln didn’t care a whit about the slaves. He went to war to restore the Union. And, it was NOT a civil war. It was a divorce.
“I don’t know why I let myself get involved in these Lincoln threads, they all follow the same pattern. It is odd that a supposedly conservative site has so many southern apologists on it.”
I don’t think it’s so much being an apologist forthe South as it is disgust for Abe Lincoln. I wish the Southern states had never seceded, though I understand why they did. I just wish it had never come to that. But, Lincoln was a tyrant, and his actions prove it. Years before he became president Lincoln was all for a large and dominant federal government with the states being subordinate to that federal government, in complete contrast to the intent of the Founders in creating the United States. Lincoln’s hero was Henry Clay, who was THE major architect of an omnipotent federal government. Lincoln was enthralled with Clay’s ideas, and took them and ran with them.
“
“I don’t know why I let myself get involved in these Lincoln threads, they all follow the same pattern. It is odd that a supposedly conservative site has so many southern apologists on it.”
I don’t think it’s so much being an apologist forthe South as it is disgust for Abe Lincoln. I wish the Southern states had never seceded, though I understand why they did. I just wish it had never come to that. But, Lincoln was a tyrant, and his actions prove it. Years before he became president Lincoln was all for a large and dominant federal government with the states being subordinate to that federal government, in complete contrast to the intent of the Founders in creating the United States. Lincoln’s hero was Henry Clay, who was THE major architect of an omnipotent federal government. Lincoln was enthralled with Clay’s ideas, and took them and ran with them.”
Good post. Clay was a big factor in Lincoln’s thinking, as were the powerful ‘free soilers’ in his administration. A lot of folks had a problem with him and those around him over confiscation of lands for settlement and/or profit for some.
We have the words of Lincoln and other Republicans of the time. To say that the Scott decision would be challenged is no conjecture. And assuming no rebellion and all else being equal then Lincoln would have had his majority in the court by 1864.
No, it is an area of exclusive legislation, not exclusive control.
And how does any governmental body - federal, state, or local - exercise control if not through legislation? Regardless, the operative word in the clause is 'exclusive'. The federal government did not share control over federal property with the states. Neither South Carolina nor any other Southern state had any legal control or claim to Sumter at all, and would have none unless Congress granted it.
A great variety of cessions have been made by the states under this power. And generally there has been a reservation of the right to serve all state process, civil and criminal, upon persons found therein.
As was the case with Sumter for the legislation deeding hte property free and clear contained the clause that ", That all processes, civil and criminal issued under the authority of this State, or any officer thereof, shall and may be served and executed upon the same, and any person there being who may be implicated by law..." All this means is that the fort could not harbor fugitives from local justice, and this clause had to be agreed to by Congress. There is no doubt that it was, but this fact is irrelevant to the issue of ownership.
No, it was an act of defense.I've already given a legally acknowledged source that said the States could leave at will.
You've given opinions, and I've posted quotes from Madison which indicated his belief that states could not leave at will. I'll be glad to post quotes from others of the time indicating that secession of any type was illegal.
As for 'act of defense', the only hostile actions taken by either side up to the final bombardment were taken by the rebels and not the federal government. The attack on Sumter was an act of war, nothing more or less.
If it has to do with the Constitution, please quote the Article, Section and clause that deals with secession, mentions a perpetual union, or speaks of any obligation concerning 'the rights of all the Stataes'.
(*yawn*) What again? If you haven't read enough of my posts to know that I don't think the Union was perpetual or that secession under any conditions wasn't illegal then why should I think you'd actually read it now?
But what the heck, short answer is that I believe secession with the consent of all parties is allowed. And that Article I, Section 10 and Article IV make it clear that the power to admit states and to approve changes in their status once allowed to join is a power reserved to the United States by the Constitution.
...and sentenced to hang, and Washington pardoned them.
But he did call up the militia and take it into Pennsylvania to suppress insurrection.
That's exactly what is says-Rebuffed by Pennsylvania’s governor, Washington drafted a proclamation requesting that the states of Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Maryland, and Virginia place a force of 12,950 men into federal service.
Said proclamation makes no reference to permission from the state authorities and the call up was successful. The troops mustered and Washington led them through Pennsylvania to put down the rebellion.
That is precisely what happened whether or not these Lincoln apologist ever admit it.
The mercantile republic that is the current, rapidly failing, United States is NOT AT ALL akin to the South Atlantic republicanism laid out by the founders.
Before I get lost in reading ancestral English, I'd like to clarify your position.
Are you saying there should be something in the Constitution to relieve a President of his duties as Commander in Chief should a State choose to leave the Union?
One party cannot dissolve the marriage, it takes a court to do that. But a more appropriate analogy would be the wife walks out of the marriage after having helped run up the credit cards; takes every bit of joint property that she can get her hands on; and oh yeah, fires shots at her spouse on the way out the door.
I don't know how foolish it is when you've already said you agree with the Dred Scott decision, which said that blacks had no rights a white person was bound to respect and that they could never be citizens.
Big whoop. The ideas the Constitution should be able to do something because most people 'believed' it could is a living document argument. It doesn't work that way.
-----
To say that the Scott decision would be challenged is no conjecture.
True. Packing the Supreme Court is child's play once you've already violated the Constitution.
-----
And how does any governmental body - federal, state, or local - exercise control if not through legislation?
The federal government does it through administrative law operating inside specific areas of enumerated jurisdiction. We weren't talking about the others.
-----
Neither South Carolina nor any other Southern state had any legal control or claim to Sumter at all, and would have none unless Congress granted it.
And it could have sat there partially finished, just as it had for over 30 years.
-----
There is no doubt that it was, but this fact is irrelevant to the issue of ownership.
True, but I wasn't arguing ownership with that particular comment, I was contesting your usage of the word 'control' over the Constitutional one 'legislation'. Control implies a totality, which is certainly not the case.
-----
You've given opinions, and I've posted quotes from Madison which indicated his belief that states could not leave at will. I'll be glad to post quotes from others of the time indicating that secession of any type was illegal.
You'll need them. Under the auspices of original intent, anything after 1850 becomes questionable, BTW.
On one hand, we have an unsigned letter to another person's non de plume which the author requested; Having many reasons for marking this letter confidential, I must request that its publicity may not be permitted in any mode or through any channel.
On the other hand we have Federalist, no. 39, part of a series of letters published [with the consent of the authors] for the sole purpose of explaining to the People the events concerning the Constitution.
Each State in ratifying the Constitution, is considered as a sovereign body independent of all others, and only to be bound by its own voluntary act. In this relation then the new Constitution will, if established, be a federal and not a national Constitution.
-----
The attack on Sumter was an act of war
No, it was not.
The use of force agist. a State, would look more like a declaration of war, than an infliction of punishment, and would probably be considered by the party attacked as a dissolution of all previous compacts by which it might be bound.
The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787 Madison
-----
But what the heck, short answer is that I believe secession with the consent of all parties is allowed.
The power to 'admit' is not the power to decide. I've already given a recognized legal source stating the States could leave at will.
-----
And that Article I, Section 10 and Article IV make it clear that the power to admit states and to approve changes in their status once allowed to join is a power reserved to the United States by the Constitution.
Specific Article, sections & clauses, please.
-----
But he did call up the militia and take it into Pennsylvania to suppress insurrection.
Yes...AFTER Washington ordered, Mifflin refused, Washington requested and Mifflin agreed.
-----
Said proclamation makes no reference to permission from the state authorities
LOL! Why would it? It's not a law, an ordinance, or a statute, it's just a statement to notify the parties concerned to the federal government's position.
Oh please, it was Taney who was finding meanings in the Constitution that the founders never dreamed of.
True. Packing the Supreme Court is child's play once you've already violated the Constitution.
Now you're just being silly.
The federal government does it through administrative law operating inside specific areas of enumerated jurisdiction. We weren't talking about the others.
Say what?
And it could have sat there partially finished, just as it had for over 30 years.
And had it sat there partially finished for another 30 years that would still not have changed it's ownership from the federal government to South Carolina.
True, but I wasn't arguing ownership with that particular comment, I was contesting your usage of the word 'control' over the Constitutional one 'legislation'. Control implies a totality, which is certainly not the case.
When it comes to federal property it does. The federal government exercises sole authority over federal property.
You'll need them. Under the auspices of original intent, anything after 1850 becomes questionable, BTW.
Say what?
On one hand, we have an unsigned letter to another person's non de plume which the author requested; Having many reasons for marking this letter confidential, I must request that its publicity may not be permitted in any mode or through any channel.
It was not an unsigned letter. It was one of several which Madison signed and where he ridiculed the idea of unilateral secession.
No, it was not.
It certainly was.
The use of force agist. a State, would look more like a declaration of war, than an infliction of punishment, and would probably be considered by the party attacked as a dissolution of all previous compacts by which it might be bound.
No force was used against South Carolina or any other state until they initiated hostilities. The exact opposite was the fact - all hostile actions were on the part of the South.
The power to 'admit' is not the power to decide. I've already given a recognized legal source stating the States could leave at will.
And I've given at least one that said they couldn't. Would you like more? I can post quotes by Madison, Webster, Clay, Buchanan, Lincoln, Chase, however many you want.
The same Constitution, the supreme law of the land, that puts certain duties on the president is the place to find the conditions that release him from those duties. There is nothing there relieving him of those duties nor even any mention on when he should have considered a state to have left the Union.
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.