The Economics of the Civil War

LewRockwell.com ^ | January 13, 2004 | Mark Thornton and Robert Ekelund

[aristeides]

Why do you call Taney's decision in Merryman ex parte? As far as I know, it was a legitimate opinion of the circuit court. Taney happened to be the judge to whom the case was assigned, so he decided the case and wrote the opinion. But in what sense was his decision ex parte?

[hirn_man]

"It is truly a disgrace that American children are taught that he was a great president."

No its not. He was great(I'm not saying perfect) and shall remain so regardless of your revisionist sore looserman thinking.

[hirn_man]

"What about the American Revolution? What is it you think got the colonists so riled up?"

I think it had to do with no representation, something the confederates allways had. They just couldn't stand the fact that their ideas weren't supreme in the country.

[aristeides]

Which laws are you referring to?

The most important laws establishing the dictatorship in Germany were the Reichstag Fire Decree, promulgated by President Hindenburg, that lifted the constitutional protections of the Weimar Constitution analogous to our Bill of Rights, and the Enabling Law, passed by the legislature, under which the executive branch -- now Hitler's executive branch -- could enact any laws and even, within certain limits, amend the constitution without any need for approval by the legislature.

[Non-Sequitur]

Yeah, that would be found unconstitutional. Although with the Patriot act....

[The Grammarian]

cannons[sic] firing

Why did the author indicate 'cannons' was a misspelling? It's perfectly standard.

[Non-Sequitur]

Why do you call Taney's decision in Merryman ex parte?

Ex parte is latin for one party. Ex parte proceedings are ones where one party is not present in court and is not represented by counsel. It has nothing to do the legitmacy of the decision

[nolu chan]

There is nothing in the act that precludes unilateral action by the President.

The Supreme Court found that a blockade was lawful under the Laws of War and found in existence a War.

Now you are, once again, desperately citing the part of an Act regarding obstruction of the courts, and action permitted to assist the marshals of the courts.

Now, instead of fighting a war, you have The Lincoln combatting obstruction of the judicial system.

The Supreme Court found it was a WAR. They proclaimed the blockade lawful under THE LAWS OF WAR.

[aristeides]

Ex parte proceedings are ones where one party is not present in court and is not represented by counsel.

Yes, I'm familiar with that meaning, and, as far as I know, the Merryman proceedings were not ex parte in that sense. I believe the federal government made pleadings in the case.

[nolu chan]

[N-S] Because the Constitution gives the Supreme Court either original or appellate jurisdiction on all cases arising under the Constitution, the laws of the United States, etc. and so forth.

U.S. Const. Art 3, Sect 2, Cl 2, "In all other cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make."

[exmarine]

Yes, thank you. The Exceptions Clause allows the Congress TO LIMIT the Courts' jurisdiction. But Congress has abrogated its responsibilities - they sit on their hands while the court makes bad ruling after bad ruling. Moral cowards in my opinion. Who in our government has the TESTICLES to stand up for what is right? I'm sick of spineless jellyfish.

[aristeides]

It's not just a matter of spinelessness. The executive and legislative branches of the federal government find it highly convenient that the courts get to handle their hot potatoes, and also to carry their water by diminishing the powers of the states. Never would have happened without the Nineteenth Amendment.

[exmarine]

That is another point. The founding fathers clearly intended that the Congress have the most power as it is the branch most accountable to the people (the Congress has the power to limit the Court's jurisdiction). Our government rules only by consent of the governed (of the people, by the people, for the people). When the government starts ruling be decree, in spite of the will of the people and the written Constitution, it violates the principles of a "free republic" (the very title of this forum!).

[hirn_man]

Lincoln was only the aggressor if the states had the right to seceede. That right was and is very much in dispute.

Andrew Jackson (no yankee by the way) pretty much summed it up with his Proclamation to South Carolina. Secession is treason and will be met with force. Revisionist neo-confederates pretend like the south had no idea their actions could lead to bloodshed.

The idea that secession was universally supported before Lincoln came along is either dishonest or ignorant.

The South engaged in the election of 1860. They refused to abide by that election.

Maybe you can tell me what is the use of a republican form of government if noone is bound to ever abide by the terms of that government?

And just how can people(not necessarily you) go on an on how we are not a democracy, but see nothing wrong with mob rule at the state level (50% + 1) taking ALL of the citizens of a state out of that republican form of government.

And there were attrocities committed on both sides. The hypocracy drips off both sides.

[aristeides]

You are correct in saying that in 1860-1 it was a disputed legal point whether states had the right to secede. But do you go to war to prevent somebody from doing something that is doubtfully legal?

[4CJ]

It was only a lower court case in which Supreme Court Chief Justice Roger Taney rendered an ex-parte personal opinion. As such, it was not an authoritative statement of the law of the land.

From Bouvier's Law Dictionary, Rev. 6th ed. (1856):

Ex parte - Of the one part. Many things may be done ex parte, when the opposite party has had notice; an affidavit or deposition is said to be taken ex parte when only one of the parties attends to taking the same.

As such, it was not an authoritative statement of the law of the land.

Even ex parte, that does not render it a "personal" opinion. It was the official, legal opinion of the Circuit court in question, and until appealed, is the "law of the land."

[exmarine]

The executive and legislative branches of the federal government find it highly convenient that the courts get to handle their hot potatoes, and also to carry their water by diminishing the powers of the states.

Yes, so much for federalism and self-government, eh? Self-government is a dead duck - can anyone pretend that any State or City or County is self-governing? There are so many federal regulations, taxes, etc., that self-governance is but a mere memory. The feds even tell the states that they can't erect 10 comandments in their own courthouses, or pass laws against sodomy, which are clearly allowed under the 10th Amendment. The invented doctrine of incorporation came very late in time (20th century) just as the phoney doctrine of separation and church and state (Everson 1947) did.

[hirn_man]

Not allways.

But you do when to not do so would set a precedent that would destroy your nation.

[eleni121]

Arrogant Southern slave owners and the inhuman social system set up to maintain its false reality could not abide by the the coming end of their feudalistic system. They brought the Civil war on themselves. Rewriting history cannot rewrite the truth.

[aristeides]

I don't believe allowing the secession of the Lower South would have destroyed our nation.