We Don't Need Another CIVIL WAR!

I’ve been watching documentary filmmaker Ken Burns’ classic series The Civil War , and I’m loving it! Since coming to the South, my interest in the horrific fight between Americans has increased dramatically.

I’ve also read Bill O’Reilly’s / Martin Dugard’s book Killing Lincoln, which I also enjoyed immensely.

Watching The Civil War, I heard Frederick Douglass quoted many times, which piqued my interest too, so now I’m also reading his autobiography! I definitely highly recommend this one. Too many have white-washed Slavery with an image of happy slaves joyfully singing spirituals. This is the other side, from the perspective of an ex-slave.

In times past, I may have watched The Civil War with a jaundiced eye, suspect that it originally aired on liberal PBS, or that Ken Burns is probably a liberal.

But I’m watching it with an open mind, and though I’m sure some people may tell me that it’s biased and is missing this or that key fact, I find it even-handed, and just as important–HUMANE.

In our mad desire to “win” in the political and cultural arena, I find a severe shortage of humanity among us (“right” and “left”). No, I will not equate the two, and pretend that humanity is equally lacking in the two sides. Many leftists are out of their minds with rage and destructive impulses. Yet, I see too little love on the right side of the spectrum as well.

As I watch The Civil War, I’m constantly struck by the good and bad on BOTH sides:

The North stood against the evil of Slavery (that’s a HUGE mark in their favor). Yet, life in northern cities could be de-humanizing, particularly in contrast with more natural and healthy rural living, which the South personified.

And the destruction of states’ rights, which Lincoln started, opened the door to today’s full-on ASSAULT against these rights. Yet nobody can rationally say that any state has the right to sanction the buying and selling of human beings against their will.

The South had a healthy distrust of the corrupting power of the federal government. Unfortunately for them, this distrust was so great that it impeded them from coming together sufficiently within their OWN government to maximize their chances for winning the war.

That so many Americans were essentially okay with a system that treated other Americans as PROPERTY is unsettling, to be frank. Of course, things have not changed all that much: the WHOLE country (North and South) permits the slaughter of unborn children in the womb. So are we any better than the slave-holders?

My point here, is that our hatred for our fellow man blinds us to the GOOD that resides within him. If the North and South COMBINED the good aspects of each, there never would have been a Civil War, and Reconstruction would have gone much better for all concerned, particularly the ex-slaves.

This principle is true of virtually EVERY division we have: black vs. white, right vs. left, rural vs. city, vegan vs. carnivore, “internal” vs. “external” martial arts, calisthenics vs. weight training, etc.

Tribes rule what was once the UNITED States of America, and this same phenomenon is playing out worldwide.

Everywhere we see the rise of “tribal chiefs”–those who benefit via money and power from fomenting DIVISION amongst us. We see it all over the Internet–“influencers” who get clicks by insulting people who don’t agree with them.

Think about it–is this really productive? Does this place us in a more or less united position? Many of the people doing this call themselves “Christians.” Is this Christian?

Tribes are typically led by “chiefs” who are charismatic, have a way with words, are bold, and insatiable for attention. They cater to our worst instincts. It reminds me of one of my favorite old quotes…

"The palaces of kings are built upon the ruins of the bowers of paradise"--Thomas Paine

Tribalism is killing our unity, and thus killing our nation and the civilized world. We must overcome it or perish!

I believe healing starts when we recognize the part we are playing in this deadly game. This site will continue to promote the best in natural health, success, and freedom, and it will continue to point out those who are enemies of these, but it will not indulge in gratuitous insults to build our readership.

And I have no illusions–we will not ALL unite. Only those of goodwill, despite our differences. But I believe that will be enough to save our countries, or at least to safeguard those of us who trust God’s grace and the power of a people united.

Patrick Rooney is the Founder of OldSchoolUs.com. He communicates clearly and fearlessly during perilous times about natural health, success, and freedom. To reach Patrick, email him at info@oldschoolus.com.

[jamcusa #123 to jffersondem] Bullshit. Lincoln had sent resupply ships.

Fort Sumter was being supplied by a local merchant, McSweeney under a contract pre-existing the troop movement to Fort Sumter. Buchanan and Lincoln set afoot a mission to reinforce Fort Sumter (and Fort Pickens), not to resupply.

The Official Records clearly document this.

The below lie was transmitted to South Carolina Governor Pickens by Robert S. Chew of the State Department:

O.R. Series 1, Vol. 1, Part 1, page 291

APRIL 8, 1861.
"I am directed by the President of the United States to notify you to expect an attempt will be made to supply Fort Sumter with provisions only, and that if such attempt be not resisted no effort to throw in men, arms, or ammunition will be made without further notice, or in case of an attack upon the fort."
The above was communicated to us on the evening of April 8 by Robert S. Chew, esq., of the State Department in Washington, and Captain Talbot stated that it was from the President of the United States, as did Mr. Chew, and was delivered to him on the 6th instant at Washington, and this was read in their presence and admitted.
F. W. PICKENS.

- - - - - - - - - -

As documented by Official Records, Lincoln's special messenger, Mr. Robert S. Chew of the State Dept., delivered Lincoln's lie on April 8, 1861.

As documented by Official Records, military orders had already been issued to reinforce Fort Sumter (and Pickens).

The message delivered by Mr. Chew was a documented lie. Lincoln subsequently repeated that lie to Congress.

[Lincoln 4 Jul 1861 special message to Congress]

It is thus seen that the assault upon, and reduction of, Fort Sumter, was, in no sense, a matter of self defence on the part of the assailants. They well knew that the garrison in the Fort could, by no possibility, commit aggression upon them. They knew—they were expressly notified—that the giving of bread to the few brave and hungry men of the garrison, was all which would on that occasion be attempted, unless themselves, by resisting so much, should provoke more.

Below are the rather elaborate plans to deliver bread.

Official Records, Operations in Charleston Harbor, S.C., Series 1, Volume 1, Page 236.

HEADQUARTERS OF THE ARMY Washington, D.C., April 4, 1861
To: Lieut. Col. Henry L. Scott, A.D.C. [Aide de Camp], New York
SIR: This letter will be handed to you by Capt. G.V. Fox, ex-officer of the Navy, and a gentleman of high standing, as well as possessed of extraordinary nautical ability. He is charged by high authority here with the command of an expedition, under cover of certain ships of war, whose object is to re-inforce Fort Sumter.
To embark with Captain Fox you will cause a detachment of recruits, say about two hundred, to be immediately organized at Fort Columbus, with a competent number of officers, arms, ammunition, and subsistence. A large surplus of the latter — indeed, as great as the vessels of the expedition can take — with other necessaries, will be needed for the augmented garrison of Fort Sumter.
The subsistence and other supplies should be assorted like those which were provided by you and Captain Ward of the Navy for a former expedition. Consult Captain Fox and Major Eaton on the subject, and give all necessary orders in my name to fit out the expedition, except that the hiring of vessels will be left to others.
Some fuel must be shipped. Oil, artillery, implements, fuses, cordate, slow-match, mechanical levers, and gins, &c., should also be put on board.
Consult, also, if necessary, confidentially, colonel Tompkins and Major Thornton.
Respectfully, yours,
Winfield Scott

- - - - - - - - - -

Official Records, Navy, Ser. I, Vol. 4, pg 107

Cooperation of the Navy in the relief of Fort Pickens, April 12 and 17, 1861.
Order of General Scott, U. S. Army, to Colonel Brown, U. S. Army, appointed to command Department of Florida, regarding reenforcement of Fort Pickens.
Headquarters of the Army,
Washington, April 1, 1861.
Sir : You have been designated to take command of an expedition to reenforce and hold Fort Pickens, in the harbor of Pensacola. You will proceed with the least possible delay to that place, and you will assume command of all the land forces of the United States within the limits of the State of Florida. You will proceed to New York, where steam transportation for four companies will be engaged, and, putting on board such supplies as you can ship, without delay proceed at once to your destination. The engineer company of sappers and miners; Brevet Major Hunt's Company M, Second Artillery; Captain Johns's Company C, Third Infantry; Captain Clitz's Company E, Third Infantry, will embark with you in the first steamer. Other troops and full supplies will be sent after you as soon as possible.
Captain Meigs will accompany you as engineer, and will remain with you until you are established in Fort Pickens, when he will return to resume his duties in this city. The other members of your staff will be Assistant Surgeon John Campbell, medical staff; Captain Rufus Ingalls, assistant quartermaster; Captain Henry F. Clarke, assistant commissary of subsistence ; Brevet Captain George L. Hartsuff, assistant adjutant-general, and First Lieutenant George T. Balch, ordnance offtcer.
The object and destination of this expedition will be communicated to no one to whom it is not already known. The naval officers in the Gulf will be instructed to cooperate with you, and to afford every facility in their power for the accomplishment of the object of the expedition, which is the security of Fort Pickens against all attacks, foreign and domestic. Should a shot be fired at you, you will defend yourself and your expedition at whatever hazard, and, if needful for such defense, inflict upon the assailants all the damage in your power within the range of your guns.
Lieutenant-Colonel Keyes, military secretary, will be authorized to give all necessary orders and to call upon the staff department for every requisite material and transportation, and other steamers will follow that on which you embark, to carry reenforcements, supplies, and provisions for the garrison of Fort Pickens for six months. Captain Barry's battery will follow as soon as a vessel can be fitted for its transportation. Two or three foot companies will embark at the same time with the battery. All the companies will be filled up to the maximum standard, those to embark first from the recruits in the harbor of New York. The other companies will be filled, if practicable, with instructed soldiers.
You will make Fort Jefferson your main depot and base of operations. You will be careful not to reduce too much the means of the fortresses in the Florida Reef, as they are deemed of greater importance than even Fort Pickens. The naval officers in the Gulf will be instructed to cooperate with you in every way in order to insure the safety of Fort Pickens, Fort Jefferson, and Fort Taylor. You will fully communicate with them for this end, and will exhibit to them the authority of the President herewith.
The President directs that you be assigned to duty from this date according to your brevet rank in the Army.
With great confidence in your judgment zeal, and intelligence, I remain, respectfully,
WINFIELD SCOTT.
Brevet Colonel Harvey Brown, U. S. Army,
Washington, D. C.
April 2, 1861.
Approved:
Abraham Lincoln.
[Enclosure.]
Executive Mansion, Washington, April 1, 1861.
All officers of the Army and Navy to whom this order may be exhibited will aid by every means in their power the expedition under the command of Colonel Harvey Brown, supplying him with men and material, and cooperating with him as he may desire.
Abraham Lincoln.

This entry in the ship's log of the USS Supply is for the night prior to the events at Fort Sumter. It documents an invasion force landing in Florida, in violation of the existing armistice, before the events in South Carolina.

USS SUPPLY SHIPS LOG - APRIL 11, 1861

Official Records, Navy, Ser. 1, Vol. 4, pg. 210

Abstract log of the U. S. ship Supply, January 9 to June 14, 1861, Commander Henry Walke, commanding.
April 11. — At 9 p. m. the Brooklyn got Underway and stood in toward the harbor, and during the night landed the troops and marines on board, to reenforce Fort Pickens.

[Handy Dandy #191 to DiogenesLamp] The Supreme Court case that you should be talking about is The Dred Scot[t] Decision, (you know, when Taney solved the Slavery situation once and for all)? And three years later the Civil War broke out...... You do realize that the Dred Scot[t] Decision was the final version of Article IV, sec2, clause 3?

Do you realize that in Scott, the Supreme Court found that the Circuit Court lacked jurisdiction to hear the case at the lower level and, therefore, remanded the case to the Circuit Court with a Mandate instructing the Circuit Court to dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction? The Mandate:

Missouri, C.C.U.S.
No. 7
Dred Scott, Ptff. in Er.
vs.
John F.A. Sandford
Filed 30th December 1854.
Dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
March 6th, 1857. —
- - - - - - - - - -
No. 7
Ptff. in Er.
Dred Scott
vs.
John F.A. Sandford
In error to the Circuit Court of the United Stated for the District of Missouri.
This cause came on to be heard on the transcript of the record from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Missouri and was argued by counsel. On consideration whereof, it is now here ordered and adjudged by this court that the judgment of the said Circuit Court in this cause be and the same is hereby reversed for the want of jurisdiction in that court and that this cause be and the same is hereby remanded to the said Circuit Court with directions to dismiss the case for the want of jurisdiction in that court. —
Ch. Jus. Taney
6th March 1857

There were nine seperate opinions issued in Scott. Nothing in Taney's Opinion was an official Opinion of the Court except those things argued before the court resulting in an opinion concurred in by at least four other justices. The vast majority of Taney's opinion was dicta, just his own opinion, not supported by four concurring justices.

U.S. Constitution, Article 2, Section 2, Clause 3:

No person held to service or labor 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 labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due.

I fail to see how reversal for lack of jurisdiction is the final version of a constitutional provision.

Jurisdiction had been claimed on the purported diversity of state citizenship between Sanford (NY) and Scott (MO, so claimed). The Supreme Court of Missouri had previously determined that Scott was not a citizen of Missouri. In interpreting Missouri law, the highest court of the State is the ultimate authority. The U.S. Supreme Court reviews State laws to determine whether they are repugnant to the federal constitution or not. It does not review interpretations of State law and then direct states on how to interpret their own laws.

[DiogenesLamp #231 to jmacusa, rebuildus] Davis's actions were treasonous and for what he had done Lincoln could have had him hung.
They tried. Federal Prosecutors worked on the case for months.

Years, not months. Not one team of government lawyers, but several teams successively concluded it was a path fraught with danger. The case was dismissed on February 19, 1869, having been rendered moot by President Andrew Johnson's removal of exemptions to general amnesty on Christmas day, 1868.

They finally decided to give it up when they talked with Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase about the matter, and he told them that Lincoln wanted Davis to escape, and he was right. Justice Chase told them that if they put Davis on trial, they would very likely lose in court everything they had won on the battlefield for secession is not treason.
I spent quite a lot of time a year or so running down these quotes. Yes, Justice Chase did say that, but it's hard to find.

Apparently, CJ Chase's brainchild was that the 14th Amendment imposed a penalty upon those who "shall have engaged in insurrection or insurrection or rebellion." Any trial of Davis at that point could have been considered contrary to the double-jeopardy clause of the Constitution.

This was taken up at the District Court in December 1868. "On December 5, 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 rendered thse case moot, and the Court dismissed it on February 19, 1869." See The Salmon P. Chase Papers, Volume 5, Correspndence, 1865-1873, Edited by John Niven, page 287, footnote 4 to Chase's letter of December 3, 1868 to Nettie Chase.

See also, The Life and Public Services of Salmon Portland Chase, by J.W. Schuckers, 1874, First Mnemosyne reprinting 1969, pp. 534-35:

If convicted of the offenses charged in this indictment, Jefferson Davis might be fined any sum not exceeding ten thousand dollars or be imprisoned not exceeding ten years, or both!¹
¹ The indictment against Davis was founder the act of congress of July 17, 1862; and Judge Field, of the U. S. Supreme Court in the "Chapman case," determined at San Francisco, held that participation in rebellion after the passage of that act, as was charged against Davis, was punishable as I have stated in the text.

See also, The Papers of Jefferson Davis, Volume 12, June 1865 - December 1870, Lynda Laswell Crist, Editor, Louisiana State University Press, Baton Rouge, 2008, First printing, Letter of Lead Defense Counsel Charles O'Conor to Davis of December 7, 1868; pp. 332-33:

In the course of my last interview with Mr. E. speaking as one might think to relieve himself from any possible imputation of having led me to indulge in expectations which his own future action might disappoint, that gentleman admonished me that there was no just ground to hope for a voluntary abandonment of the prosecution. Enlarging on the topic, he spoke of President Johnson’s famous pledges to exert his official powers in a manner that would “make treason odious.”
As I did not perceive that any evil could flow from it, and had some notion that it might be beneficial, I spoke pretty freely. I told him his remarks, though known to be perfectly sincere, had never induced in my mind any hope for lenity; that I had long previously made a careful scrutiny and was perfectly satisfied that whilst a particular individual to whom my evidences pointed, had power to keep it on foot, the prosecution would not be abandoned. I further told him I was persuaded that the prosecution was not attributable to Mr. Johnson’s personal wishes nor to his pledges or outgivings concerning treason.
A day or two after this I wrote a note to Judge Ould stating the policy and views of the Chief Justice might possibly differ from those of the prosecution-party, and that whilst we were bound not to complain of delays and to acqu/i/esce, cheerfully in the existing arrangement, we were bound no further; and I advised him to throw no obstacles in the way of any course favorable to the defence or embarrassing to the prosecution which the Court proprio motu might incline to take.
Very soon after this, Judge Ould ascertained that the Chief Justice was inclined to consider the disfranchisement of the leaders by the late amendment of the Constitution as a punishment which precluded the infliction of any other penalty for the same offence, i.e. engaging in “the rebellion.”
I determined at once to give him a chance of making a judicial determination accordingly. The utmost promptitude in action was necessary to the attainment of this object; and by employing it the object was attained.
I had no time to consult with or even adequately to notify your numerous professional advisers. The only preliminary consultation which circumstances permitted was one had on Wednesday evening between Judge Ould and myself. The argument occupied two days, and at its close the opinions of the two Judges stood opposed.
The Chief Justice is thoroughly enlisted. His judgment is with you; his fancy is excited; he says a judicial determination of this point in your favor would furnish a magnificent chapter in our history and sundry things of that sort. In a variety of ways he evinced the deepest interest in having all the details of practice in bringing the matter before the Supreme Court carefully attended to.

[jmacusa #123 to jeffersondem] Bullshit. Lincoln had sent resupply ships.
[jmacusa #304 to woodpusher] The South has undertaken a violent secession and was preparing for war. ... Nothing changes the fact the Confederate batteries fired the first shots.

Nothing changes the fact that your claim that Lincoln had sent resupply ships was exposed as rank fiction.

Several southern states had undertaken a secession by passing ordinances of secession in 1864 while Buchanan was President. Extraordinary violence did not occur and neither did a war occur as a direct result. The border states of Virginia, Arkansas, Tennessee, and North Carolina seceded after the events of April 12, 1865 in Charleston, SC and in the Pensacola, FL area.

There was no violent secession in 1860. There was no war in 1860.

Lincoln created a state of war by issuing his second declaration of a blockade, April 19, 1865, as has been repeatedly affirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court.

A state of war may only be created by an official public proclamation by a government. "[I]n a civil war, only the government can know when the insurrection has assumed the character of war." Matthews v. McStea, 91 U.S. 7, 9 (1875).

Lincoln's first proclamation of a blockade was not such a proclamation which would create a state of war. The Supreme Court emphatically held that there was no state of war on April 15, 1865, and such war commenced on April 19, 1865.

No declaration of war was ever made. The President recognized its existence by proclaiming a blockade on the 19th of April; and it then became his duty as well as his right to direct how it should be carried on. In the exercise of this right, he was at liberty to allow or license intercourse; and his proclamations, if they did not license it expressly, did, in our opinion, license it by very cogent implications. It is impossible to read them without a conviction that no interdiction of commercial intercourse, except through the ports of the designated States, was intended. The first was that of April 15, 1861. The forts and property of the United States had, prior to that day, been forcibly seized by armed forces. Hostilities had commenced; and, in the light of subsequent events, it must be considered that a state of war then existed. Yet the proclamation, while calling for the militia of the several States, and stating what would probably be the first service assigned to them, expressly declared, that, “in every event, the utmost care would be observed, consistently with the repossession of the forts, places, and property which had been seized from the Union, to avoid any devastation, destruction of or interference with property, or any disturbance of peaceful citizens in any part of the country.” Manifestly, this declaration was not a mere military order. It did not contemplate the treatment of the inhabitants of the States in which the unlawful combinations mentioned in the proclamation existed as public enemies. It announced a different mode of treatment, — the treatment due to friends. It is to be observed that the proclamation of April 15, 1861, was not a distinct recognition of an existing state of war. The President had power to recognize it, The Prize Cases, supra ; but he did not prior to his second proclamation, that of April 19, in which he announced the blockade.

Obviously, the Supreme Court explicitly and emphatically found that the proclamation of April 15, 1861 was not a distinct recognition of a state of war, rather it announced a different mode of treatment, the treatment due to friends. The court found that the President could have recognized such a state of war but chose not to, and did not do so, until April 19, 1861.

The precise dates, and the precise events, of the start and end of the civil war was addressed by the United States Supreme Court in the case of The Protector, 79 U.S. 700 (1870).

Assuming arguendo that it is denied that South Carolina had left the union, i.e. that secession was unlawful and actions to effect it were null and void, then the sending of a transport ship in the service of the government with armed troops, ammunition, and supplies was an unconstitutional invasion of the state contrary to Article 4, Section 4 of the Constitution.

The opinion of the Attorney General, Jeremiah Black was sought and rendered on November 20, 1860.

"The laws referred to in the Act of 1795 are manifestly those which are administered by the judges, and executed by the ministerial officers of the courts for the punishment of crime against the United States, for the protection of rights claimed under the Federal Constitution and laws, and for the enforcement of such obligations as come within the cognizance of the Federal Judiciary. To compel obedience to these laws, the courts have authority to punish all who obstruct their regular administration, and the marshals and their deputies have the same powers as sheriffs and their deputies in the several States in executing the laws of the States. These are the ordinary means provided for the execution of the laws; and the whole spirit of our system is opposed to the employment of any other, except in cases of extreme necessity arising out of great and unusual combinations against them. Their agency must continue to be used until their incapacity to cope with the power opposed to them shall be plainly demonstrated. It is only upon clear evidence to that effect that a military force can be called into the field. Even then its operations must be purely defensive. It can suppress only such combinations as are found directly opposing the laws and obstructing the execution thereof. It can do no more than what might and ought to be done by a civil posse, if a civil posse could be raised large enough to meet the same opposition. On such occasions, especially, the military power must be kept in strict subordination to the civil authority, since it is only in aid of the latter that the former can act at all.
"But what if the feeling in any State against the United States should become so universal that the Federal officers themselves (including judges, district attorneys, and marshals) would be reached by the same influences, and resign their places? Of course, the first step would be to appoint others in their stead, if others could be got to serve. But in such an event, it is more than probable that great difficulty would be found in filling the offices. We can easily conceive how it might become altogether impossible. We are therefore obliged to consider what can be done in case we have no courts to issue judicial process, and no ministerial officers to execute it. In that event troops would certainly be out of place, and their use wholly illegal. If they are sent to aid the courts and marshals, there must be courts and marshals to be aided. Without the exercise of those functions which belong exclusively to the civil service, the laws cannot be executed in any event, no matter what may be the physical strength which the Government has at its command. Under such circumstances to send a military force into any State, with orders to act against the people, would be simply making war upon them.
"The existing laws put and keep the Federal Government strictly on the defensive. You can use force only to repel an assault on the public property and aid the Courts in the performance of their duty. If the means given you to collect the revenue and execute the other laws be insufficient for that purpose, Congress may extend and make them more effectual to those ends.
"If one of the States should declare her independence, your action cannot depend on the rightfulness of the cause upon which such declaration is based. Whether the retirement of the State from the Union be the exercise of a right reserved in the Constitution, or a revolutionary movement, it is certain that you have not in either case the authority to recognize her independence or to absolve her from her Federal obligations. Congress, or the other States in Convention assembled, must take such measures as may be necessary and proper. In such an event, I see no course for you but to go straight onward in the path you have hitherto trodden — that is, execute the laws to the extent of the defensive means placed in your hands, and act generally upon the assumption that the present constitutional relations between the States and the Federal Gevernment continue to exist, until a new code of things shall be established either by law or force.
"Whether Congress has the constitutional right to make war against one or more States, and require the Executive of the Federal Government to carry it on by means of force to be drawn from the other States, is a question for Congress itself to consider. It must be admitted that no such power is expressly given; nor are there any words in the Constitution which imply it. Among the powers enumerated in Article 1, Section 8 is that 'to declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and to make rules concerning captures on land and water.' This certainly means nothing more than the power to commence and carry on hostilities against the foreign enemies of the nation. Another clause in the same section gives Congress the power 'to provide for calling forth the militia,' and to use them within the limits of the State. But this power is so restricted by the words which immediately follow that it can be exercised only for one of the following purposes:
To execute the laws of the Union; that is, to aid the Federal officers in the performance of their regular duties.
To suppress insurrections against the State; but this is confined by Article 4, Section 4, to cases in which the State herself shall apply for assistance against her own people.
To repel the invasion of a State by enemies who come from abroad to assail her in her own territory.
All these provisions are made to protect the States, not to authorize an attack by one part of the country upon another; to preserve the peace, and not to plunge them into civil war. Our forefathers do not seem to have thought that war was calculated 'to form a more perfect Union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.' There was undoubtedly a strong and universal conviction among the men who framed and ratified the Constitution, that military force would not only be useless, but pernicious, as a means of holding the States together.
"If it be true that war cannot be declared, nor a system of general hostilities carried on by the Central Government against a State, then it seems to follow that an attempt to do so would be ipso facto an expulsion of such State from the Union. Being treated as an alien and an enemy, she would be compelled to act accordingly. And if Congress shall break up the present Union by unconstitutionally putting strife and enmity and armed hostility between different sections of the country, instead of the domestic tranquillity which the Constitution was meant to insure, will not all the States be absolved from their Federal obligations? Is any portion of the people bound to contribute their money or their blood to carry on a contest like that?
"The right of the General Government to preserve itself in its whole constitutional vigor by repelling a direct and positive aggression upon its property or its officers cannot be denied. But this is a totally different thing from an offensive war to punish the people for the political misdeeds of their State Government, or to enforce an acknowledgment that the Government of the United States is supreme. The States are colleagues of one another, and if some of them shall conquer the rest, and hold them as subjugated provinces, it would totally destroy the whole theory upon which they are now connected.
"If this view of the subject be correct, as I think it is, then the Union must utterly perish at the moment when Congress shall arm one part of the people against another for any purpose beyond that of merely protecting the General Government in the exercise of its proper constitutional functions.
"I am, very respectfully, yours, etc.,
"J. S. BLACK."

One certainty is that you cannot credibly claim that a Confederate force marched or sailed north to initiate the conflict.

Let me put it to you this way. Taney himself thought the decision would resolve the matter of Slavery once and for all.

Let me put it to you this way. Nothing became an Opinion of the Court because of what Taney may have thought. Only what a majority concurred in became an Opinion of the Court. The majority Opinion of the Court settled what the law stated. It was never overturned judicially. Amendments to the Constitution changed the law.

As a slave, Etheldred Scott was not a citizen of Missouri. That question was decided by the Missouri Supreme Court. It was correctly decided pursuant to what was then Missouri state law. Etheldred Scott not being a citizen of Missouri, the claim of jurisdiction pursuant to diversity of state citizenship necessarily failed.

The reason for that according to Taney, was that a black man had never been considered a citizen from the beginning, was not then and there a citizen, and could not ever be a citizen!

You greatly misrepresent Taney's reasoning. Taney correctly stated that a slave had no municipal status. Scott was not a citizen at birth. Neither was he an alien. Freedom would not make him a citizen, and eligibility for naturalization required one to be an alien. After the war, the 13th Amendment freed slaves but did not make them citizens. They became citizens by virtue of the 14th Amendment. This Amendment was a necessity because, as non-aliens, they were not eligible for naturalization.

Remember too that Taney was Lincoln’s number one adversary. A side note: Taney, as Chief Justice of the “eminent tribunal” swore Abe into office, and then had to sit there and squirm as Lincoln ripped him a new one. Taney was one of the, named by Lincoln, slavery promoters mentioned in the House Divided speech, pre-election.

What made Taney on the opposite side of Lincoln was that Taney insisted on judging according to the law as written, and not creating law from the bench for political reasons.

We Pennsylvanians think it strange, and it seems curious to read the prints or newspapers, from some states and find - For sale a plantation, a house and lot, horses, cows, sheep and hogs; also a number of Negroes - men and women and children - some very valuable ones… In this inhuman traffic and cruel trade the most tender ties are torn asunder, the nearest connections broken.
- The Rev. Jacob Gruber, Camp Meeting, Washington County, Md., 1819

For his statements, Gruber was prosecuted. In closing arguments, defense counsel argued that,

There is no law that forbids us to speak of slavery as we think of it. Any man has a right to publish his opinions on that subject whenever he pleases. It is a subject of national concern, and may at all times be freely discussed. Mr. Gruber did quote the language of our great act of national independence, and insisted on the principles contained in that venerated instrument. He did rebuke those masters, who, in the exercise of power, are deaf to the calls of humanity; and he warned them of the evils they might bring upon themselves. He did speak with abhorrence of those reptiles, who live by trading in human flesh, and enrich themselves by tearing the husband from the wife -- the infant from the bosom of the mother....

Rev. Gruber was acquitted. The famous defense counsel who so argued was none other than Roger Taney.

"When Massachusetts neighbors criticized Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story for having upheld the fugitive slave law in Prigg v. Pennsylvania, he [Justice Story] wrote, "You know full well that I have ever been opposed to slavery. But I take my standard of duty as a judge from the Constitition." (Walker Lewis, Without Fear or Favor, p. 355)

"Taney had early owned slaves, and in 1805 was assessed on three. With marriage his household expanded and we can gather some idea of its growing size from the fact that in 1818 he emancipated seven Negroes and in 1821 an eighth. He also joined with his brother Octavius in freeing two others they inherited from their father. Although he and Anne retained servants, they kept no slaves other than two who were too old to support themselves. Those that they freed were furnished with wallets which, in case of need, they could present for an allowance, paid in small coins as a protection against swindlers." (Walker Lewis, Without Fear or Favor, pp. 44-5)

"Taney already had emancipated most of his own slaves, and it is known that he made at least one substantial loan to enable a free Negro to purchase his wife's liberty." (Walker Lewis, Without Fear or Favor, p. 76)

Taney was a "slavery promoter" in the same sense as Justice Joseph Story. He took his standard of justice as a judge from the Constitution. However immoral slavery was, it was then constitutional and lawful.

I have maintained on these CW threads that the Dred Scott decision was the belligerent act that lead to the Civil War. Which makes the outcome of the Civil War, the Emancipation Proclamation and then the 13th Amendment the official slow death of Article IV, section2, clause3. I see a thread from the “fugitive slave cause”, to the Fugitive Slave Act, to the Compromise of 1850, to the Dred Scott decision and through the Civil War and Lincoln. Can you see it?

I see a steaming turd.

The lawyers for the parties conspired to present a palpably false statement of agreed facts, for example, falsely claiming that John Emerson had sold Scott to John Sanford at a time when Emerson was long dead.

The claim of jurisdiction should also have failed because John Sanford was never the owner of the slave Scott.

The legal owner of Scott was Calvin Chaffee, a Massachusetts abolitionist congressman. Days after the Supreme Court opinion was issued, Chaffee issued a quit claim deed regarding Scott. Scott's wages, which had been held in escrow while the legal proceedings took place, were claimed by Mrs. Calvin Chaffee.

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.