Posted on 02/12/2018 3:57:10 AM PST by harpygoddess
It has long been a grave question whether any government, not too strong for the liberties of the people, can be strong enough to maintain its existence in great emergencies.
~ Lincoln
February 12 is the anniversary of the birth of the 16th - and arguably the greatest - president of these United States, Abraham Lincoln (1809-1865). Born in Kentucky and raised in Illinois, Lincoln was largely self-educated and became a country lawyer in 1836, having been elected to the state legislature two years earlier. He had one term in the U.S. Congress (1847-1849) but failed (against Stephen A. Douglas) to gain election to the Senate in 1856. Nominated by the Republican party for the presidency in 1860, he prevailed against the divided Democrats, triggering the secession of the southern states and the beginning of the Civil War. As the course of the war turned more favorably for the preservation of the Union, Lincoln was elected to a second term in 1864, but was assassinated in April 1865, only a week after the final victory.
(Excerpt) Read more at vaviper.blogspot.com ...
Total nonsense.
Lincoln did nothing Founders themselves disapproved of.
This is what is called "hand waving." The refusal to deal with the details and just wishing they would go away.
If the Confederates are correct, and they were a separate country, then seizing their assets is understood under long standing rules of war. But if Lincoln was correct, and they are merely in Rebellion, they are still subject to the jurisdiction of the US Constitution, which does not allow the President to do this, so long as state laws exist to the contrary.
You are telling us Lincoln treated them like a foreign country when he wanted them to fall under that body of law, and treated them like a "Rebellion" when he needed that as a justification to invade them.
Except that no laws of war, as understood at the time, were broken.
If they weren't a foreign country, then no laws of "war" would apply. Laws of war only apply to differing nation states, not to regions in rebellion.
Constitutional law was broken by applying rules of war to a "rebellion."
Also Constitutional law was broken in recognizing West Virginia as a separate state.
You can keep saying that, but that clause that prohibits them from freeing slaves makes it impossible to create a "free" state so long as laws exist in other states holding people in bondage.
Constitutionally, fugitive slaves were one thing, slaves moved permanently to a free-state were something else altogether.
I don't see a time limit imposed on article IV section 2. If it isn't in there, you can't claim that there is one.
Or even more, with people like DiogenesLamp imposing meanings on Founders' words which Founders themselves never intended.
Dude, you are the one that keeps claiming states can ignore Article IV, Section 2. I keep telling you they cannot ignore it. It is you who are imposing artificial time limits that are not written into the text of the law. You are making up meanings that the founders did not write down.
He deliberately disobeyed an actual clause of the US Constitution. He usurped a power not granted to the Presidency, and one which he himself repeatedly said that he did not have.
I just realized how funny this is. You reject the idea that states can declare independence "at will", but you completely embrace the idea that they can abolish slavery, "at will", even though the constitution specifically says:
No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour,
The constitution clearly says no state law can free them. It's in plain language, and it FORBIDS a state law from freeing them. Yet you say they have that power, "at will."
You are a mixed up fellow who simply wants to believe what you want to believe, and you do not actually care what makes sense and what is actually true.
You always forget the supremacy clause which establishes that the Constitution and federal laws made pursuant to it constitute the supreme law of the land. Congress passed the Confiscation Acts. The Supreme Court upheld their constitutionality. The Confiscation Acts gave Lincoln all the authority he needed to declare the slaves to be freed. And freed slaves moving from one part of the country to another do not violate Article IV, Section 2.
Lincoln seized a power he was not granted under the constitution...
Complete nonsense.
In this particular case, Article IV, Section 2 explicitly says that the State laws requiring servitude will override State Laws abolishing it.
The supremacy clause is exactly what I am counting on in making my argument.
States cannot make laws that override other States laws regarding servitude. The Constitution provides supremacy in the particular case of State laws requiring servitude.
Neither can the President nor Congress pass a law that abridges a constitutional requirement.
But not federal law.
The supremacy clause is exactly what I am counting on in making my argument.
Obviously not the supremacy clause I'm thinking of. Article VI, Clause 2?
States cannot make laws that override other States laws regarding servitude. The Constitution provides supremacy in the particular case of State laws requiring servitude.
Not the case in this instance. Congress passed a law saying that private property being used to support the rebellion could be seized without compensation. That's basically what Lincoln did with his Emancipation Proclamation. He didn't change laws regarding servitude. He removed the servants by freeing them.
Neither can the President nor Congress pass a law that abridges a constitutional requirement.
They didn't. The Supreme Court said so.
Here we go round in circles again. The CONSTITUTION is the highest form of Federal law. It trumps all other Federal Law that is not a Constitutional Amendment.
Obviously not the supremacy clause I'm thinking of. Article VI, Clause 2?
Playing dumb because you don't want to face the truth. The Supremacy clause of the Constitution puts all parts of the Constitution above all other forms of law in this nation.
It means that Article IV, section 2, overrides all state laws in opposition to it.
Congress passed a law saying that private property being used to support the rebellion could be seized without compensation.
Can't even do that. It violates the fifth amendment which guarantees "Due Process" if private property is to be taken. You can't do it en masse. Not legally anyway.
That's basically what Lincoln did with his Emancipation Proclamation.
Yes it is, and it violates both Article IV, Section 2, and it also violates the Fifth Amendment "Due Process" clause.
They didn't. The Supreme Court said so.
Of course they did. Who was going to undo all the blood shed? It was all show trial, and it had no basis in truth.
The Lincoln and subsequent eras were rife with manipulations and defiance of actual law, but so long as those in power condoned it, everyone just shrugged and accepted it. Lincoln had that in common with Obama.
Basically lawless, but nobody in a position of power brave enough to challenge them.
The possibility of the South expanding there would have required them to compete with the existing and much larger slave plantations already in place.
I repeat: at the time of the Civil War, slavery had been abolished except in Brazil and in Spain's remaining colonies (Cuba and Puerto Rico), and (until 1863) the Dutch colonies. The British, French and Danes had already abolished slavery in their colonies, as had the Spanish-speaking Republics.
Southern desires to expand into the Caribbean are well documented. It was felt that a larger area under Confederate control would make slavery more secure. Moreover, if you really wanted to make Charleston or New Orleans the successor to New York, expanding the empire of slavery would be a good strategy. So your own cockamamie theory condemns you.
Expansion into Cuba or Puerto Rico would have the effect of consolidating the slave area, and preventing abolition. Expansion into Mexico or Central America would be expanding the slave area, bringing slaves and slave owners from the US into the new acquisitions. As for Haiti and the smaller Caribbean islands, they would have been more trouble to the Confederates than they would have been worth.
And all laws made in pursuant to it are the supreme law of the land, and judges in every state "shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding." Federal law gave the government the right to seize private property being used to support the rebellion. Slaves were certainly doing that, so freeing them was well within the power of the president to do under the law in effect at the time. Anything in the constitution of the laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.
The Supremacy clause of the Constitution puts all parts of the Constitution above all other forms of law in this nation.
And laws written pursuant to that are above all other constitutions and all laws in all the states. I get that.
Can't even do that. It violates the fifth amendment which guarantees "Due Process" if private property is to be taken. You can't do it en masse. Not legally anyway.
Apparently Congress can against those who are in rebellion against the United States. Congress thought so and the Supreme Court agreed.
Yes it is, and it violates both Article IV, Section 2, and it also violates the Fifth Amendment "Due Process" clause.
It violates neither, your prattling to the contrary notwithstanding.
Of course they did. Who was going to undo all the blood shed? It was all show trial, and it had no basis in truth.
And at the end you resort to stupid, as always. Your only argument is that the Supreme Court was wrong and biased because you said so. On that note of idiocy I suggest we end this once and for all.
On March 22, 1873, the Spanish National Assembly finally abolished slavery in Puerto Rico.
No it didn't, because a Congressionally passed law cannot override the fifth amendment. Of course they said it did, but by this time the nation was pretty much adrift from Constitutional law anyway.
Let me refresh your memory about what the fifth amendment says:
" nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
Congress does not have the power to overturn due process. I know that you want to believe it does in this case, but I figure at some point the contradictions in your thinking will eventually force you to have a reckoning with yourself.
Cuba and Puerto Rico still had slavery in the 1860s.
And who is to say what would have happened had the Civil War not happened or had it gone the other way?
Because you say so. That does not strengthen your case.
Cuba and Puerto Rico still had slavery in the 1860s.
Exactly. It means what I said about there being an already large slave industry there was correct.
And who is to say what would have happened had the Civil War not happened or had it gone the other way?
I think if the Civil War had not happened, or if the South had won it, there is a good possibility that slavery would have continued longer in places like Cuba and Puerto Rico. I suspect it is as a result of Social pressure from the United States (et al) that some of these governing bodies acted to end the practice.
But my point remains. There already was slavery going on in these areas, and the South would have been a smaller market trying to infiltrate an already existing and larger market.
The words of the fifth amendment say so, and therefore I don't need to strengthen my case.
You just need to stop looking at everything through your subjective preference. Objectivity is the act of not lying to yourself.
The other reason would have been political, merging the existing slave powers into a single country -- or the creation of colonies and protectorates. That would account for expansion to Cuba or Puerto Rico.
But even in that case, if New Orleans or Charleston really wanted to become the next New York, as you keep saying, extensive trade and investment in the Caribbean would be one way to do so.
If Cotton was King, sugar might be Prince or Duke or at least a Baronet. Once economic ties were thick enough, annexation might seem like the next logical step, and that would have been opposed by Britain and the US.
Even if you reject that, you still have the possibility of slaveowners and their slaves moving down to Mexico to form plantations and expand the Confederate sphere of influence. Annexation attempts would follow.
No, because you say so. Courts have not agreed with you. Not when the government seized German assets in World War I. Not when they seized German assets in World War II. Not when they seized rebel asset in the rebellion. You argument is idiotic and nonsensical, and all you have to support it is your own silly opinion. That's all you ever have.
Are you arguing that the Southerners would make slavery in Cuba and Puerto Rico more profitable than it already was? I don't see it. What more could they have done to get more economic performance out of slavery in those places?
The other reason would have been political, merging the existing slave powers into a single country -- or the creation of colonies and protectorates. That would account for expansion to Cuba or Puerto Rico.
Maybe, but I noticed the US didn't feel any great need to go down to those places and put a stop to slavery.
If Cotton was King, sugar might be Prince or Duke or at least a Baronet. Once economic ties were thick enough, annexation might seem like the next logical step, and that would have been opposed by Britain and the US.
Really? And who was buying the Sugar then?
Even if you reject that, you still have the possibility of slaveowners and their slaves moving down to Mexico to form plantations and expand the Confederate sphere of influence. Annexation attempts would follow.
I have already predicted (In absence of war) that they would have expanded the confederate sphere into the territories, and probably would have eventually had other states leaving the Union and joining the confederacy as well.
This is one of the reasons the Confederacy actually did pose a political threat to the interests of the existing US government, but it isn't something which could have been proven at the time, only predicted.
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.