Posted on 07/22/2020 3:14:43 AM PDT by Kaslin
The Confederacy has been the excuse for some of today's rioting, property destruction and grossly uninformed statements. Among the latter is the testimony before the House Armed Services Committee by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Mark Milley in favor of renaming Confederate-named military bases. He said: "The Confederacy, the American Civil War, was fought, and it was an act of rebellion. It was an act of treason, at the time, against the Union, against the Stars and Stripes, against the U.S. Constitution."
There are a few facts about our founding that should be acknowledged. Let's start at the beginning, namely the American War of Independence (1775-1783), a war between Great Britain and its 13 colonies, which declared independence in July 1776. The peace agreement that ended the war is known as the Treaty of Paris signed by Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, John Jay, and Henry Laurens and by British Commissioner Richard Oswald on Sept. 3, 1783. Article I of the Treaty held that "New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, to be free sovereign and Independent States."
Delegates from these states met in Philadelphia in 1787 to form a union. During the Philadelphia convention, a proposal was made to permit the federal government to suppress a seceding state. James Madison, the Father of the Constitution, rejected it. Minutes from the debate paraphrased his opinion: "A union of the states containing such an ingredient [would] provide for its own destruction. The use of force against 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."
During the ratification debates, Virginia's delegates said, "The powers granted under the Constitution being derived from the people of the United States may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression." The ratification documents of New York and Rhode Island expressed similar sentiments; namely, they held the right to dissolve their relationship with the United States. Ratification of the Constitution was by no means certain. States feared federal usurpation of their powers. If there were a provision to suppress a seceding state, the Constitution would never have been ratified. The ratification votes were close with Virginia, New York, and Massachusetts voting in favor by the slimmest of margins. Rhode Island initially rejected it in a popular referendum and finally voted to ratify -- 34 for, 32 against.
Most Americans do not know that the first secessionist movement started in New England. Many New Englanders were infuriated by President Thomas Jefferson's Louisiana Purchase in 1803, which they saw as an unconstitutional act. Timothy Pickering of Massachusetts, who was George Washington's secretary of war and secretary of state, led the movement. He said, "The Eastern states must and will dissolve the union and form a separate government." Other prominent Americans such as John Quincy Adams, Elbridge Gerry, Fisher Ames, Josiah Quincy III, and Joseph Story shared his call for secession. While the New England secessionist movement was strong, it failed to garner support at the 1814-15 Hartford Convention.
Even on the eve of the War of 1861, unionist politicians saw secession as a state's right. Rep. Jacob M. Kunkel of Maryland said, "Any attempt to preserve the union between the states of this Confederacy by force would be impractical and destructive of republican liberty." New-York Tribune (Feb. 5, 1860): "If tyranny and despotism justified the Revolution of 1776, then we do not see why it would not justify the secession of Five Millions of Southrons from the Federal Union in 1861." The Detroit Free Press (Feb. 19, 1861): "An attempt to subjugate the seceded States, even if successful, could produce nothing but evil -- evil unmitigated in character and appalling in extent." The New-York Times (March 21, 1861): "There is a growing sentiment throughout the North in favor of letting the Gulf States go."
Confederate generals fought for independence from the Union just as George Washington fought for independence from Great Britain. Those who label Robert E. Lee and other Confederate generals as traitors might also label George Washington a traitor. Great Britain's King George III and the British parliament would have agreed.
The 1783 Treaty recognized all 13 states (not colonies) as members of the United States, which united negotiated a single treaty with the Brits, not 13 separate treaties.
No state ever claimed absolute sovereignty & independence.
From Day One it was always in context as members of the United States, under whatever form the national government took -- Declaration of the Continental Congress, Articles of Confederation or new Constitution.
woodpusher quoting: "II.
Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled."
Like I said, no state ever claimed absolute sovereignty & independence -- no original state ever claimed to be a separate country.
It was always in context as members of the United States of America, to which all states recognized certain sovereign powers.
And you claim the Gazette is an official document, equivalent to a treaty recognizing Rhode Island and North Carolina as independent foreign countries?
I don't think so.
Indeed, the Gazette's language clearly does not recognize those states' independence when it talks about, "...the delusion which has so long infatuated a majority of her citizens..."
As for the word "confederation", it was never the official term used for the United States under their new Constitution.
Indeed, the Constitution itself specifically distinguishes between the old Confederation and the new Constitution.
I think you are the one that previously said you do not believe in this; regardless, I'll re-post.
“. . . and that as Free and Independent states, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do.”
They were named individually and the sovereignty of each was recognized. Specifically. The Founders insisted upon it.
Game, set, match.
Could they?
Can the states do that?
Other than you and Justice Baldwin I don't know anyone who supports the idea that property in slaves is the foundation of the Constitution.
“Other than you and Justice Baldwin I don’t know anyone who supports the idea that property in slaves is the foundation of the Constitution.”
Do you know if that case - the one you learned of recently - was ever overturned by a higher federal court?
Can you tell us who, other than you and Baldwin, consider property in slavery the foundation of the Constitution?
Yes and do all the time. States make laws for example. Cities don't. Counties don't. They can't. Any power they exercise is delegated to them by the state AND CAN BE TAKEN AWAY by the state. A state's rights/powers cannot be taken away by anyone. They do not rely on any external source for their power.
Where did I claim that? The Gazette newspaper claimed as its name, "Gazette of the United States," and that it was a "National Newspaper." (My underline.) It did not claim to be a national organ of the United States or of the federal government, only that it would report on "the PROCEEDINGS of CONGRESS -- its LAWS, ACTS, and RESOLUTIONS, communicated so as to form an HISTORY of the TRANSACTIONS of the FEDERAL LEGISLATURE, under the NEW CONSTITUTION." (capital letters as in the newspaper).
You would have recognized that if you had read what the newspaper said of itself in the link I provided in my post.
Indeed, the Gazette's language clearly does not recognize those states' independence when it talks about, "...the delusion which has so long infatuated a majority of her citizens..."
The Gazette was arguing the cause of the Federalists. I would hope by now that you would be able to recognize that. If not, you could look up the Gazette in Wikipedia, one of your favorite sources in the past. Here is Wikipedia says (and take it with a grain of salt because it is Wikipedia, after all):
The Gazette of the United States (1789–1793) was an early American partisan newspaper first issued on April 15, 1789, as a biweekly publication friendly to the administration of George Washington, and to the policies and members of the emerging Federalist Party. The Gazette was originally published in New York City by editor John Fenno, but followed the United States Government in 1790 to its new temporary seat and capital in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. There the editorship was taken over by Joseph Dennie until he founded Port Folio.[2]Throughout its history, The Gazette would function as a quasi-official Federalist publication.[2] Contributors would write, often pseudonymously or anonymously, in support of various Federalist positions, politicians, or policies. Like many other publications of the day, the paper also hosted pieces containing personal attacks (in this case, largely on Federalist opponents). Among the paper's more famous and prolific pseudonymous contributors was Alexander Hamilton, who produced articles under many different noms de plume. John Adams, then Vice-President of the United States, published his famous Discourses on Davila, his last great text of political theory, in periodic installments of the Gazette between April 1790 and April 1791, when the series was suddenly interrupted.
The Gazette played a notable role in the development of political parties and early partisanship. It also played a leading role in inspiring the creation of its rival paper, the National Gazette, which was founded at the urging of anti-Federalist leaders Thomas Jefferson and James Madison as a vehicle for their party's own political self-promotion and polemics.
Rhode Island at the time was primarily a very rural state. It was full of Anti-Federalists, which is why the state tried something like ten or eleven times unsucessfully to ratify the Constitution. It quickly ratified the Constitution after one house of the US Congress voted to tax imports from Rhode Island into the United States, but before the other house of Congress passed that same law. Money drives a lot of decisions, as Lincoln later demonstrated in his first inaugural speech where he basically said - you can keep your slaves, but I want your import revenue.
Yes they do.
They can't.
They can.
Any power they exercise is delegated to them by the state AND CAN BE TAKEN AWAY by the state.
Perhaps. Under certain circumstances.
A state's rights/powers cannot be taken away by anyone. They do not rely on any external source for their power.
They rely on the U.S. Constitution for many of them. And are denied powers by the same.
Vermont was not part of the original 13 colonies and was not a part of the United States of America when it began its existent on July 4th, 1776.
Vermont was part of one of the supposedly indestructible, indissoluble states in 1776. And then in 1777, it wasn't. And it remained a free and independent state until 1791 when it joined the union of 13 as a free and independent state, with its self-constituted borders.
Vermont v. New Hampshire, 289 U.S. 593 (1933) held that Vermont had been part of New York in 1776-77, but that it left the indestructible, indissoluble New York and the indestructible, indissoluble Union in 1777, the Order in Council was nullified, and Vermont remained a free and independent State until it joined the Union in 1791. See #405 supra.
The same thing the Supreme Court said about Texas in Texas V White applies to Vermont.
The Court's dictum in one case never overrules the holding of another case. Even if the dictum in Texas v. White were to be misrepresented as a holding, in a conflict of holdings between two pronouncements by the Supreme Court, the most recent pronouncement takes precedent.
In short, nothing said in Texas v. White (1869) can overrule anything held in Vermont v. New Hampshire (1933). As the most recent statement, the holding in Vermont v. New hampshire established that a part of a State could, and did, seperate from a State and the Union.
He violated that oath in taking up arms against the duly elected government of the United States and along with Jefferson Davis and is directly responsible for the deaths of some 600,000 Americans. The two of those clowns are lucky they weren't hung. I find it pretty God damned annoying to listen to twits like you who ostensibly call themselves conservatives come to a conservative web site venerating a bunch of treasonous Southern Democrats.
Robert E.Lee took up arms against the duly elected government and Constitution he swore an oath to defend. That makes him an insurrectionist and a traitor.Due to political expediency, the nations psychical, emotional, industrial, financial cost and staggering death toll on both sides Lincoln saw no point in prosecuting Lee and Davis as the war criminals they were even though Davis wanted to continue the war in a guerrilla style fashion.
Meanwhile, back in reality....
Bradley Tyler Johnson was arrested on March 26, 1866. He had been a Brigadier General in the Confederate Army. A Maryland native, he was accused of treason for taking up arms against his country. Johnson won his freedom on April 5, 1866, folowing intervention by Ulysses S. Grant. The officials involved were William F. Giles, District Judge of the court in Baltimore, James Speed, Attorney General, and William J. Jones, District Attorney.
Chase to Schuckers, 24 Sep 1866, autograph letter, Chase Papers, Library of Congress (micro 36:07:0748).
5. Early last Spring Bradley Johnson a double traitor, if treason consists in levying war against his state as well as the U. States was arrested in Maryland for treason & was held to bail by the District Judge. Gen. Grant requested to have him discharged without bail, on the ground that he was not liable to arrest or trial, because he had been paroled at the time of the surrender of Lee or Johnston; and the President, thereupon, ordered the discharge through the Attorney General &, On motion of the District Attorney under direction of the Attorney General the District Judge directed the discharge. I will not express any opinion on the propriety of this interference with the course of judicial proceeding. It prevented the expression of a judicial opinion upon the effect of military paroles upon liabilities to punishment for treason or other crimes.
Prosecution counsel Richard H. Dana to Attorney General William M. Evarts, 24 Aug 1868, re holding a trial for treason:
The possible result would be most humiliating to the Government and people of this country, and none the less so from the fact that it would be absurd. The Government would be stopped in the judicial course because it could neither assume nor judicially determine that Jefferson Davis took part in the late civil war. Such a result would also bring into doubt the adequacy of our penal system to deal with such cases as this.If it were important to secure a verdict as a means of punishing the defendant, the question would present itself differently. But it would be beneath the dignity of the Government and of the issue, to inflict upon him a minor punishment, and, as to a sentence of death, I am sure that, after this lapse of time, and after all that has occurred in the interval, the people of the United States would not desire to see it enforced.
In fine, after the fullest consideration, it seems to me that, by pursuing the trial, the Government can get only a reaffirmation by a Circuit Court at nici prius of a rule of public law settled for this country in every way in which such a matter can be settled, only giving to a jury drawn from the region of the rebellion a chance to disregard the law when announced. It gives that jury a like opportunity to ignore the fact that Jefferson Davis took any part in the late civil war. And one man upon the jury can secure the results. The risk of such absurd and discreditable issues of a great state trial, are assumed for the sake of a verdict which, if obtained, will settle nothing in law or natural practice not now settled, and nothing in fact not now history, while no judgment rendered thereon do we think will be ever executed.
Besides these reasons, and perhaps because of them, I think the public interest in the trial has ceased among the most earnest and loyal citizens.
If your views and those of the President should be in favor of proceeding with the trial, I am confident that I can do my duty as counsel to the utmost of my ability and with all zeal. For my doubts are not what the verdict ought to be. On the contrary, I should feel all the more strongly, if the trial is begun, the importance of victory to the Government, and the necessity of putting forth all power and using all lawful means to secure it. Still, I feel it my duty to say that if the President should judge otherwise, my position in the case is at his disposal.
Very respectfully
Your ob’t. ser’t.
(signed) Richard H. Dana, Jr.
Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase to Janet Ralston Chase, 3 Dec 1868, re Davis case dismissal.
TO JANET RALSTON CHASEAutograph letter on letterhead stationery. Chase Papers, Library of Congress (micro 38:0594).
Richmond, Va. Decr 3, 1868.
My darling Nettie,
I am really sorry that I did not carry into effect my purpose of two or three days ago and send for you & Sue to come down. I did not, because I feared a change of weather & knew that, if the weather shd change, you might as well be in Libby as at the Spotswood. Besides I did not expect that so far as the Court business was concerned there would be any thing that would interest you. But the weather continues splendid, & here today we have the Jeff Davis case on in one of its most interesting & important aspects—upon the question of the effect of the 14th Constitutional amendment upon the acts which provide for the punishment of treason & other offences supposed to be committed by being concerned in the rebellion.
And Mr. Ould has made this morning a very able & eloquent speech on the Davis side & is to be followed by Mr. Beach the District Attorney & Gov. Wells before adjournment. Mr. R. H. Dana Jr. of Mass will speak tomorrow, also, for the Government & Mr. O'Conor will close for Mr. Davis. So you would not only have had fine weather, but might have heard if you chose, learned & eloquent advocates.
It is too bad to make you sorry in this way: but it has just come out. Perhaps, after all, you are so agreeably entertained in Washington that you don’t feel a bit sorry.
What I really took my pen to say is that I shall not be able to come home tomorrow (Friday) as I intended; but you may expect me confidently the next day in the Evening of Saturday if I dont conclude to come up tomorrow night, in which case I shall be with you at breakfast Saturday Morning.
Most affy your father S P Chase
Miss Nettie Chase
The defense had moved earlier to dismiss the case, arguing that the third section of the Fourteenth Amendment limited Davis’s punishment to disenfranchisement. The prosecution maintained the amendment only created a disability—it did not supersede punishments already sought under Davis’s indictment.
On December 5, 1868 the district court issued a split decision, with Chase favoring dismissal, and referred the matter to the Supreme Court.
Andrew Johnson’s removal of exemptions to general amnesty on December 25, 1868 rendered the case moot, and the Court dismissed it on February 19, 1869. That ended the prosecutions of Davis and Lee.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Robert E. Lee served a system of government that endeavored to enslave a race of human beings as nothing more that chattel.
Abraham Lincoln and Ulysses S. Grant served a government that enslaved a race of human beings as nothing more than chattel. Ulysses S. Grant had been a slave driver, his wife was a slave owner, and she had visited him during the war accompanied by one of her slaves. Abraham Lincoln and wife rented a slave. Grant manumitted his slave William in 1859. "Along with her servant, also named Julia, and the Grants’ youngest son, Jesse, Julia Dent Grant had lived with her husband in nearly every one of his military camps since the war began." Servant is a euphemism for slave. Julia, the servant, was most definately a slave. In the great war to end slavery, the commanding general of the Union forces was accompanied by his wife and her slave.
Mary Todd Lincoln's family owned one slave for every member of the family. Mary Todd Lincoln famously said, "One thing is certain; if Mr. Lincoln should happen to die, his spirit will never find me living outside the boundaries of a slave State."
Due to political expediency, the nations psychical, emotional, industrial, financial cost and staggering death toll on both sides Lincoln saw no point in prosecuting Lee and Davis as the war criminals they were even though Davis wanted to continue the war in a guerrilla style fashion.
Lee was indicted on June 7, 1865. Lincoln had nothing to do with the non-prosecution decision. Lincoln was dead.
Lincoln was still dead four years later when the case against Davis was dropped, 19 Feb 1869. Lincoln had nothing to do with it.
Your decision not to carefully read Johnson v Thompkins resulted in your being sat down sternly.
You should take care so that it does not become necessary again.
Your failure to answer the question is duly noted. But not surprising.
You should take care so that it does not become necessary again.
Go for it.
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.
