Posted on 06/25/2002 10:40:23 AM PDT by TexConfederate1861
Most of the CSA apologists use natural law arguments and sources to counter U.S. law and the words of the founders professing the permanance of the Union.
I doubt they really believe that secession was legal under U.S. law.
Walt
Lincoln said, "I felt that measures, otherwise unconstitutional, might become lawful..."
Which word(s) are you having a problem with?
Secession was a central issue in Texas v. White because the defense was arguing that since Texas had left the United States and was currently governed under reconstruction law then she was not actually a state and did not have the right to have the case heard by the Supreme Court. The Court, in a 5-3 majority, ruled that secession as practiced by Texas was illegal and therefore Texas had never ceased to be a state even when she was in rebellion. This was the first time the issue had been taken to the court and the ruling was proper. The fact that it was issued 8 years later means nothing. Most Supreme Court decisions are made years after the fact.
I think E just did a special on Ft. Jefferson as an "out of the way" paradise.
The import of the Hodges letter is that the EP -was- constitutional because of the situtation. It is a lie to say that Lincoln -thought- the EP was unconstitutional. You also have been shown the Conkling letter in the last few days. You cannot claim to be offering a fair interpretation when you ignore the data you don't like.
From the Conkling letter:
"But to be plain, you are dissatisfied with me about the negro. Quite likely there is a difference of opinion between you and myself upon that subject. I certainly wish that all men could be free, while I suppose that you do not. Yet I have neither adopted nor proposed any measure, which is not consistant even with your view, provided you are for the Union. I suggested compensated emancipation; to which you replied you wished not to be taxed to buy negroes. But I had not asked you to be taxed to buy negroes, except in such way, as to save you from greater expense, to save the Union exclusively by other means. You dislike the emancipatio proclamation; and perhaps, would have it retracted. You say it is unconstitutional--I think differently. I think the Constitution invests the commander in chief with the law of war, in time of war. The most that can be said, if so much, is, that slaves are property. Is there--has there ever been--any question that by the law of war, property, both of enemies and friends, may be taken when needed? And is it not needed whenever taking it helps us, or hurts the enemy?"
President Lincoln stated plainly he thought the EP was constitutional. You knew that. You lied.
Walt
You have to truncate the sentence. You are pushing something not at all supported in the record.
"I felt that measures, otherwise unconstitutional, might become lawful, by becoming indispensible to to the preservation of the of the Constitution, through the preservation of the nation. Right or wrong, I assumed this ground, and now avow it."
Lincoln is clearly saying that the EP was lawful because it became indispensible. He -thought- it to be lawful. Your earlier statement that "even Lincoln" thought the EP was unlawful is just a lie.
Walt
No, 8 months LATER he admits that it was unconstitutional.
In your world, does that mean legal or illegal?
In your world, does that mean legal or illegal?
It means you have to snip the record to mae your poonts.
Walt
Dred Scott was a horrible decision, (that all the Confederates loved) but it was the decision none the less just as Roe v. Wade was a horrible decision but remains the law. You can't pick and choose what laws you wish to respect, you can only work to change them, or accept the legal consequences of violating them.
Because the 13th amendment overturned the concept of "people as property" and the 15th amendment made all blacks born in the US, citizens with equal rights under the law. Congress and the people through amendment can overturn any SC decision they want.
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.