Posted on 06/20/2002 1:32:32 PM PDT by H.R. Gross
As for your second point, I'm referring to May 1861 when the south passed their tariff bill. A time when the south was not outmanned. A time when the south was not desperate. A time when the blockade had not been established, so the south wasn't in desperate need of everthing. And a time when the south had not kicked the hell out of anything, except civil liberties and their own constitution (but that is a topic for another post). In short, the tariff was the first thing the south turned to for revenue. Why would that be if the tariff was such a bone of contention prior to the war? Why wouldn't they try other sources before turning to something as hateful as a tariff?
Finally someone who admits that there were Constitutional grounds why Davis and his gang were never tried. But, I assume, that you arguement would be that secession was protected by the Constitution and that is, of course, false. Davis wasn't tried because the 14th Amendment had been ratified. Since that prevented the southern leadership from holding elected or appointed office in the Federal government, Chief Justice Chase's opinion was that any trial, conviction, and sentence for treason would violate their 5th Amendment protection against double jeopardy.
From earlier posts of mine:
The Constitution is the law of the land. States rights are circumscribed by Constitutional bounds, and subordinate to the Constitution in the powers over which the Constitution enumerates as in the federal government's sphere.
Article VI, Clause 2
"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land"
Insurrection
The act or an instance of open revolt against civil authority or a constituted government.
Again, from an earlier post of mine:
Abraham Lincoln
FIRST INAUGURAL ADDRESS
MONDAY, MARCH 4, 1861
...
"I therefore consider that in view of the Constitution and the laws the Union is unbroken, and to the extent of my ability, I shall take care, as the Constitution itself expressly enjoins upon me, that the laws of the Union be faithfully executed in all the States. Doing this I deem to be only a simple duty on my part, and I shall perform it so far as practicable unless my rightful masters, the American people, shall withhold the requisite means or in some authoritative manner direct the contrary. I trust this will not be regarded as a menace, but only as the declared purpose of the Union that it will constitutionally defend and maintain itself.
In doing this there needs to be no bloodshed or violence, and there shall be none unless it be forced upon the national authority. The power confided to me will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property and places belonging to the Government and to collect the duties and imposts; but beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion, no using of force against or among the people anywhere. Where hostility to the United States in any interior locality shall be so great and universal as to prevent competent resident citizens from holding the Federal offices, there will be no attempt to force obnoxious strangers among the people for that object. While the strict legal right may exist in the Government to enforce the exercise of these offices, the attempt to do so would be so irritating and so nearly impracticable withal that I deem it better to forego for the time the uses of such offices.
... All profess to be content in the Union if all constitutional rights can be maintained. Is it true, then, that any right plainly written in the Constitution has been denied? I think not. Happily, the human mind is so constituted that no party can reach to the audacity of doing this. Think, if you can, of a single instance in which a plainly written provision of the Constitution has ever been denied. If by the mere force of numbers a majority should deprive a minority of any clearly written constitutional right, it might in a moral point of view justify revolution; certainly would if such right were a vital one. But such is not our case. All the vital rights of minorities and of individuals are so plainly assured to them by affirmations and negations, guaranties and prohibitions, in the Constitution that controversies never arise concerning them."
You see, from the definition, the Southern state governments were in "open revolt against civil authority or a constituted government." The President is bound by oath to uphold the Constitution, which the South was revolting against. Under these circumstances, war was inevitable.
...the men who refused to bend over for the british empire would then turn around & bend over for despotism & tyranny out of DC...
Care to attempt to list a comparison of the abuses suffered by the colonists at the hands of the British government versus those suffered by the Southern states at the hands of the federal government? Also, pay attention to the long suffering attempts by the colonists to simply have the British government recognize the colonists rights as British citizens before resorting to the sword, after all other avenues yielded no success. I'll give you some help, for the colonists, start with the Declaration of Independence. I'll let you come up with the list of abuses for the Southern states, if you can.
You will not be able to make such a comparison, because there is none to be made. That is what I find offensive about such an argument. To compare the two situations is what is offensive.
Did you really mean to say this?
The truth is that Andrew Johnson pardoned Davis, just before a 3 judge panel could be assembled to vote on whether or not to indict him. Many wanted him tried, but those who looked into the Union's case started having second thoughts. After the pardon, they quickly lost interest. It was a convenient excuse not to try him, since he would have proven secession to be constitutional.
A voluntary Union is a more Perfect Union.
The Union Party Radicals of the 1860s were of another spirit. Thank you for not personally attacking me. :)
You must be a Southern Gentleman.
As for a trial, if there is anyone who thinks that Davis would not have been convicted if placed on trial then they are unbelievably naieve. And such a trial would have done nothing to prove or disprove the legality of secession. Than was decided by the Supreme Court in 1869. It's illegal.
Our Union -is- voluntary.
When the people grow tired of it, they can exercise their constitutional right to amend it, or their revolutionary right to overthrow it.
Walt
The people of the states may disunite without being killed, by holding state conventions and voting to secede?
You mean like New Yorkers reserved the right to do when they ratified the Constitution:
?
What was featured in South Carolina's declaration was not slavery but the failure of the north to enforce the provision in the Constitution requiring the return of fugitive slaves. In other words, we didn't break the compact, you did.
lol...
"It's not about slavery, it's just about our slaves."
Honestly ... do you nutjobs even read what you write?
lol...
"It's not about slavery, it's just about our slaves."
Honestly ... do you nutjobs even read what you write?
Do you ever read what you are replying to? The SC declaration establishes who broke the compact.
The comment stands. Your boys gambled and lost it all, over slavery. What a dismal, wretched little cause.
You cultists are all the same. When logic fails, just spew insults.
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.