Emancipation Proclamation didn't end Slavery

Arkansas Democrat-Gazette | 6-15-02 | THEMAN R. TAYLOR

[Non-Sequitur]

Because the decision was overridden by something called the 13th Amendment. So, sorry but no slave.

[OBAFGKM]

"Pretty false too. the US Census for 1860 says the State of New Jersey had ZERO slaves! Not one!

"Snifff, snifff ---- another Lost Cause Myth bites the dust. Click the link and check the records."

Goodness, must you be so arrogant about your ignorance of U.S. history?! Your claim and (non-working) link not withstanding, there were a handful of legally owned slaves in New Jersey in the early 1860s. As I recall, the last was an old gentleman owned by the Hoaglands of Rock Road.

To understand how this came to pass, you might want to look up New Jersey's Abolition Laws of 1804 and 1820.

[Ditto]

To understand how this came to pass, you might want to look up New Jersey's Abolition Laws of 1804 and 1820.

You may want to look up the 1860 US Census. Their count was ZERO!

[WhiskeyPapa]

And their decision was that unilateral secession as practiced by the southern states was illegal.

And as you know, the Court took this position as early as 1862.

I've seen posted to the moderated ACW newsgroup that the decision this in the Prize cases was unanimous. The court did split 5-4 on WHO had the authority to put down the rebellion, the president or Congress.

I haven't found this unanimous thing independently myself.

Walt

[OBAFGKM]

"You may want to look up the 1860 US Census. Their count was ZERO!"

Still ignorant, I see. Please read the New Jersey Abolition Acts that I cited earlier. Once you have figured out what "colored apprentice for life" means, please read the note under "New Jersey" at the web site, There Really Were Slaves In New Jersey In The 1860s.

Tex, I thought you might be interested in the site, too. It's a pretty good resource.

[doryfunk]

"In fact, it doesn't matter if you or I agree with the decision at all. The Supreme Court's opinion is the only one that matters"

These statements show a complet disrespect for the founding principles of the American revolution and the Constitution. The people are to be the ultimate power in the government. The people are to guard and protect their rights against all tyrants be it Lincoln or the current judicial tyranny. Juries are to decide the law and the fact. They have the right and duty to interpret the law just as much as the supreme court. Furthermore, the union of States was originally an agreement entered into by free States and the States as parties to the contract are to ensure that the contract is followed. THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS NOT TO BE THE FINAL ARBITER OF WHETHER ITS ACTIONS ARE LEGAL. When the federal government violates its contract, the constitution, the States are to stop the abuse by nullification and imposition, and if necessary, secession. This is what our founding fathers intended. The Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions of Jefferson clearly show this. The very foundation of our government is based on the idea that "whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

To say that the Supreme Court's opinion is the only one that matters is extremely shallow and an admission of judicial tyranny. If thats the form of government you want, continue to ascribe to it. As for me, in the immortal words of the Southern Statesman, Patrick Henry, "Give me Liberty, or give me Death."

[Non-Sequitur]

THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS NOT TO BE THE FINAL ARBITER OF WHETHER ITS ACTIONS ARE LEGAL.

No that would be the Supreme Court, as per Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution. If you see rebellion as the preferred solution to solving issues arrising under the Constitution then so be it.

[doryfunk]

THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS NOT TO BE THE FINAL ARBITER OF WHETHER ITS ACTIONS ARE LEGAL.

"No that would be the Supreme Court, as per Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution. If you see rebellion as the preferred solution to solving issues arrising under the Constitution then so be it."

You are grossly in error. Article III of the Constitution deals with judicial power and vests the judicial power of the federal government of these united States to the supreme court. Judicial power is the power to judge the legality of an act based on laws written by the legislative branch. When the judicial branch becomes abusive of its power by ruling as they please regardless of the written law (legislating from the bench) it is the responsibilty of several different groups to place checks on this abuse of power. The Congress can pass a law that makes more specific what was meant by an old law. The executive branch of the federal government headed by the President can refuse to enforce the wrongful rulings. When none of these are done, it is the duty of each State as party to the contract to intervene on behalf of her citizens. Finally, the ultimate deciding power resides with the people.

To illustrate this point which you seem to have a hard time understanding, probably due to your government education, lets look at a hypothetical example. Pretend that the supreme court ruled that it was illegal to attend church services on Sunday. Certainly that is a far fetched position for the court, but do your best and pretend. Pretend that it goes even further, and that the president uses the executive power to enforce the ruling by the supreme court and starts arresting people for going to church because, after all, according to you, what the supreme court says is all that matters. What would be the proper recourse according to you? [Please dont respond by saying that this situation hasnt happened and cant happen. Certainly it hasnt. I only ask that use your imagination and give me the proper recourse to judicial tyranny backed by the executive branch.]

[WhiskeyPapa]

When the judicial branch becomes abusive of its power by ruling as they please regardless of the written law (legislating from the bench) it is the responsibilty of several different groups to place checks on this abuse of power.

That's fine. But it is not the solution based in U.S. law. It is the solution based in natural law.

No one is saying that people don't have natural rights that supercede the government's rights.

Where you find the "pro-union" posters (for want of a better term) taking issue with the neo-rebs is whether or not there was any justification for revolution in 1861. The pro-union posters also take issue with the unsupported idea that secession were legal under U.S. law -- no, and whether the main luminaries like Washington, Madison and Jefferson would have favored it -- also a big no.

Walt

[Non-Sequitur]

I'm not sure what I can blame your ridiculous analogy on, be it government school or whatever, but let's take it a step further and look at it your way.

You say the states are the final say, that the state must intervene on behalf of her citizens. So what if the Alabama legislature outlaws the practice of any religion but Southern Baptist? Louisiana gets all huffy and makes Roman Catholicism the only acceptable faith. Florida bans Methodists AND guns at the same time. So you have each state "intervening on behalf of her citizens." A person riding on Amtrack between New Orleans and Miami would have to get baptised half a dozen times during the course of the trip. You have 50 different entities deciding 50 different meanings of one document. Why have a Constitution in the first place?

The Constitution lays out the authority and responsibility of the Supreme Court. It says when the court has jurisdiction, the duty to interpret and apply the law. When it comes to matters of what is Constitutional or what is not then it is the Supreme Court who decides. Not you. Not me. Not, as Andrew Jackson pointed out, the state.

[4CJ]

It means you have to snip the record to mae your poonts.

If Lincoln had stated that "State secession might become lawful" would that mean it was legal or illegal at that time?

[GOPcapitalist]

The war was well brewing by 1854.

But not a sure thing, and definately not something that most of the people expected. It is absurd for you to characterize Lincoln's pro- colonization stance as something to end the war when he advocated that stance in 1854 several years before war was a reasonable and sure expectation, much less an actual reality. As late as July 1861, most, including Lincoln's commanders and likely Lincoln himself, anticipated the drive to Richmond would take a few weeks or maybe a month at most. Manassas changed that.

Admit it Walt. You shot your mouth off with an assertion you could not back. You got caught again.

[GOPcapitalist]

Not very compelling when compared to this:

Typical yet foolish. You ignore Tocqueville's quote and don't even bother with his argument. Instead, you cut n' paste one of your little washington quotes and hopes that nobody will notice your rusty old smoke spewing dodge. Well guess what Walt. Somebody noticed.

I again ask you to address the inescapable consequences of the very nature of the nation's foundation as discussed by Tocqueville.

All you provide is disinformation.

I again ask, as I have asked you many times before, to substantiate that allegation. I do not expect you to be able to do so as you never are and likely never will be. That means that it is you providing the disinformation by the very fact that you fraudulently accuse others of it whenever you find yourself losing an argument. It's sad but again very typical of you, Walt.

[WhiskeyPapa]

Well guess what Walt. Somebody noticed.

Not impressed.

"To be fearful of vesting Congress, constituted as that body is, with ample authorities for national purposes, appears to me to be the very climax of popular absurdity and madness."

George Washington to John Jay, 15 August 1786

Walt

[WhiskeyPapa]

Instead, you cut n' paste one of your little washington quotes and hopes that nobody will notice your rusty old smoke spewing dodge.

When you belittle GeorgeWashington, I don't have to say much, do I?

Walt

[GOPcapitalist]

When you belittle GeorgeWashington

I don't belittle Washington. I just note the fact that your cut n' paste quote from him is a diversionary tactic to allow you to avoide the argument I stand by and its expression by Tocqueville. I notice you failed yet again to address it. Big surprise there. I don't have to say much, do I?

Substance wise, you never have much to say, Walt. But that doesn't seem to have any limiting effect upon volume.

[Aurelius]

BUMP

[doryfunk]

US Constitution - Ammendments 9 and 10, Bill of Rights

9 -The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

10 - The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

According to ammendments 9 and 10 of the U.S. Constitution, secession is clearly legal. While secession is not a power specified for the States, that should not be used to say it is not a power of the state per ammendment 9. Secession is clearly not a power delegated to the union nor does the constitution specifically bar it from the States. Thus, as a right that the States and the people had before as illustrated by their secession from the crown, it is a power reserved to the States and the people. Clearly secession is constitutional.

[doryfunk]

I never said that the States were the final arbiter as to what is right or wrong. If a State violates the constitution of the U.S. or its own constitution, it is the duty of the people to remedy the situation.

The reason we have a constitution is to set down the regulations for all to follow, including the Supreme Court. The Court in deciding the law, is not above the law. As long as the court follows what is actually written in the Constitution, there is no problem. Instead, loose constructionists bastardize the constitution to promote their own socialist, atheist agenda.

There is a proper course of action to solve all abuses of power be it by the county, State, or Federal government whether it is from the executive, legislative, or judicial branch. The power in this country is supposed to come from the bottom up though, and not the top down. Thus, the people are the ultimate arbiters. Their representation with the federal government is through the State. The federal government as the most distant from the people is properly, the most limited.

[WhiskeyPapa]

According to ammendments 9 and 10 of the U.S. Constitution, secession is clearly legal.

The people retain the right to maintain the Union, which is what they have done.

You know, of course that Jefferson Davis, citing language identical to language in the U.S. Constitution, said that the central government could coerce the states in the matter of conscription. And if in conscription, why not secession?

Walt