Posted on 06/09/2009 8:47:35 AM PDT by Davy Buck
My oh my, what would the critics, the Civil War publications, publishers, and bloggers do if it weren't for the bad boys of the Confederacy and those who study them and also those who wish to honor their ancestors who fought for the Confederacy?
(Excerpt) Read more at oldvirginiablog.blogspot.com ...
So you're calling him a liar, then.
I see no reason to doubt the word of a true witness that was on board one of the ships in question, attribution already provided.
A witness who has already proved to be unreliable in other aspects of the engagement, writing decades after the events.
You try to cloud the issue again with the "shot heard out to sea" red herring, and then use the "higher authority" of the author who does not footnote the quote you used, while saying he does.
First, off, I said the author offers a bibliography, not footnote. For a "noted historian" you seem to have trouble distinguishing the two. Second, the shot heard at sea report was brought to the table by Rustbucket. You say "red herring," I say "corroborating fact." Do you have some other explanation for the shot, or were the confederates who reported it lying, too?
And what footnoted corroboration do you offer? Basically none. Apparently your style of history is to demand meticulous documentation of every detail when it disagrees with your regional prejudice, but if it agrees, then it gets a pass.
That's a fact, not BS.
Actually, your post is complete "BS." Virginia provided, in writing, contingencies to that State's ratification of the Constitution. Those contingencies, or reservations of rights, were part of the legal document. That ratification could have been accepted, as it was, or denied, as it was. It was accepted, including the subject contingencies. Virginia was admitted to the union, on the legal basis of those very same ratification documents, including the subject reservations of rights.
Tell us, Squat-to-Post: if you were selling your house, and a prospective buyer provided a written offer, with the words "subject to sale of current residence" handwritten over the signature line, would you consider that provision to be part of the contract, or not? Based on your previous posts here, you would seem to suggest that such 'reservations of rights' are not part of the contract, no matter what the buyer intended, or specified in writing.
You're nothing but a cheat, and a sneak thief, Squat-to-Post - and you would lose in any honorable court in the land...
And you can show us the document which says this?
BJ: And you can show us the document which says this?
Were the ratification documents accepted (did Virginia become a State), or were they rejected (did Virginia not become a State)?
One might just as well ask: can you show us a document that supports your Post 2194 claim, that "[e]specially rejected was any language referring to powers 'reassumed,' or 'resumed,' by the people, or suggesting the possibility of states' unilateral secession?"
Obviously, you could not be referring to such language being "rejected" from inclusion within the original Constitution (which was written before Virginia ratified the compact); nor can you be referring to some supposed 'rejection' of the subject reservation of rights ("...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...") from the Bill of Rights - because Virgina did not include such language among the State's suggested amendments.
In fact, your conflation of Virginia's reserved rights, declared, in writing, in the first paragraph of the document, with suggested amendments (clearly labeled as such) in the following paragraphs, is nothing but crude historical revisionism.
(Which is typical of many of your statements here, I might add... ;>)
The following states ratification documents included NO signing statements or suggested amendments: Delaware, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Georgia, Connecticut, Maryland, South Carolina & Vermont.
The following states ratification documents included a total of over 200 paragraphs of suggested amendments, Bills of Rights and signing statements: Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Virginia, New York, North Carolina & Rhode Island. Of these 200+ paragraphs, three use the words "reassumed" or "resumed" and "powers," but all three in relation to the people, not a state. And none use terms like "secession" or "withdrawal from the Union."
Of those 200+ signing paragraphs & recommended amendments, some were duplicates or later combined to make up the Constitution's Bill of Rights. ALL the rest, including "reassumed powers," have no legal standing whatever. That's my argument.
Now, you can easily refute my argument by simply providing links to Founding Documents which specifically recognize that any of those non-accepted recommendations have ANY standing in United States law.
Indeed, a logical thought process (which a disciple of Ayn Rand will surely appreciate) might proceed as follows: can words like "secession," or any of the three states' paragraphs referring to "reassumed powers" be found in:
So what are we really talking about here? Well, seems pretty obvious to me: secessionists' w*t dr**ms, or as the Disney folks might say: Constitutional Imagineering -- analagous to our liberals claims of finding stuff in its "penumbras & emanations." ;-)
BJ: ALL the rest, including "reassumed powers," have no legal standing whatever. That's my argument.
First, Post 2,206 was yours, not mine. You can't even get the simple facts straight.
Second, as I asked in Post 2,207: can you show us a document that supports your Post 2194 claim, that "[e]specially rejected was any language referring to powers 'reassumed,' or 'resumed,' by the people, or suggesting the possibility of states' unilateral secession?" The answer is, obviously not.
Now, you can easily refute my argument by simply providing links to Founding Documents which specifically recognize that any of those non-accepted recommendations have ANY standing in United States law.
"Recommendations?" We are discussing specific, written reservations of rights, not "recommendations." As I noted in Post 2,206, "your conflation of Virginia's reserved rights... with suggested amendments (clearly labeled as such) in the following paragraphs, is nothing but crude historical revisionism." You are simply repeating your previous revisionist efforts in this post.
Furthermore, you continue to ignore the Tenth Amendment, which declares (in short) that powers not delegated or prohibited by the Constitution are reserved to the States and their people. And the Constitution nowhere prohibited State secession.
So what are we really talking about here? Well, seems pretty obvious to me: secessionists' w*t dr**ms, or as the Disney folks might say: Constitutional Imagineering -- analagous to our liberals claims of finding stuff in its "penumbras & emanations." ;-)
Wrong again. I am talking about a government of limited, delegated powers, and the rule of written, constitutional law. You are talking about a government of unlimited powers - totalitarian "w*t dr**ms," or as Thomas Jefferson warned: making the Constitution a blank paper through construction -- absolutely identical to "our liberals claims of finding stuff in its 'penumbras & emanations.' "
;-)
Look pal, you are making a specific argument here: that the US Constitution, or amendments, treaties, laws, supreme court rulings or regulations somehow make lawful, not just the vague & undefined terms of "powers" "reassumed (or resumed)" & "by the people" -- words found only in signing statements of three states, and nowhere else -- but specifically terms like: "unilateral secession" and "unapproved withdrawal from the union," which are found NOWHERE in ANY original Constitutional language.
But if you can show us where those specific terms ARE made lawful, I'll be most interested to see that.
WIJG: "Furthermore, you continue to ignore the Tenth Amendment, which declares (in short) that powers not delegated or prohibited by the Constitution are reserved to the States and their people. And the Constitution nowhere prohibited State secession."
If terms like "unilateral secession" or "unapproved withdrawal from the Union" had been included in ANY of the original Constitutional language (i.e., Federalist Papers), and there noted favorably, then I would agree it might be considered part of the 10th Amendment. But nothing like that appears.
So consider what I've said before: the Constitution also does not specifically prohibit actions like unprovoked murders of federal officers. Does that in any way make such acts constitutional? Obviously not, and so with other serious acts, like secession.
Bottom line: you have challenged me to show where unilateral secession is forbidden, and I have challenged you to show where it was ever acknowledged as lawful. Now consider, in normal contract law, when such an impasse arises, the parties typically appeal to a judge for legal decision. I ask you: what appeal was ever made to any court on the subject of secession?
Isn't it entirely fair to say that the South, in 1861, appealed to the "court of arms" for a "trial by combat"?
How did Jefferson say it? "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants"? So exactly who were the tyrants in 1861 -- those who started war to defend their "peculiar institution" of slavery, or those who accepted war, eventually to free those slaves?
And is it not then fair to say the "court of arms" heard the South's "appeal" and rejected it?
Allow me to summarize your opinion (which you also presented in Post 2,208):
if it isn't mentioned in the Constitution, it's illegal. Although you suggest (in 2,208) that such an opinion is "logical," it is, in fact, infantile.
But if you can show us where those specific terms ARE made lawful, I'll be most interested to see that.
Sure thing, pal:
Amendment X
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.
Secession is nowhere prohibited to the States by the Constitution, nor does the Constitution delegate to the federal government the power to prevent the secession of a member State. (As you noted above, sport, the terms " 'unilateral secession' and 'unapproved withdrawal from the union' ...are found NOWHERE in ANY original Constitutional language." ;>) The power was therefore reserved to the States and their people under the terms of the Tenth Amendment.
;>)
If terms like "unilateral secession" or "unapproved withdrawal from the Union" had been included in ANY of the original Constitutional language (i.e., Federalist Papers), and there noted favorably, then I would agree it might be considered part of the 10th Amendment. But nothing like that appears.
It appears that you can not read simple English: the amendment States that "powers NOT delegated... NOR prohibited... ARE reserved," not the opposite, as you suggest with your inane "if terms... had been included" claim.
So consider what I've said before: the Constitution also does not specifically prohibit actions like unprovoked murders of federal officers. Does that in any way make such acts constitutional? Obviously not, and so with other serious acts, like secession.
Actually, the fact that "the Constitution also does not specifically prohibit actions like unprovoked murders of federal officers" simply suggests that such crimes (occurring within a State) were to be dealt with under State law, rather than federal law; while Article II delegates authority over such crimes occurring within the ranks of the military to Congress; and Article IV might suggest that such crimes occurring on federal property would also be subject to Congressional statute.
Once again (no doubt because you are excessively influenced by "penumbras & emanations" ;>), you read something into the Constitution that is not there.
Now consider, in normal contract law, when such an impasse arises, the parties typically appeal to a judge for legal decision. I ask you: what appeal was ever made to any court on the subject of secession?
Why would a State appeal an action that was nowhere prohibited by the Constitution? But perhaps Mr. Lincoln's federal government agreed with your "parties typically appeal to a judge" opinion: if so, perhaps you can provide the documentation...
Isn't it entirely fair to say that the South, in 1861, appealed to the "court of arms" for a "trial by combat"?
You might help substantiate that suggestion, by providing evidence of Mr. Lincoln's decision to "appeal to a judge," rather than deploy military forces within the seceded States...
;>)
So exactly who were the tyrants in 1861 -- those who started war to defend their "peculiar institution" of slavery, or those who accepted war, eventually to free those slaves?
Actually, I would suggest that the tyrants were the federal officials who used military force to prevent an action (State secession) that was nowhere prohibited by the Constitution. Oh, and that would include the federal officials who waited years (until January 31, 1865) to pass an amendment proposing to actually ban your "peculiar institution" (your term "eventually" was more than just a little appropriate ;>).
And is it not then fair to say the "court of arms" heard the South's "appeal" and rejected it?
Sure, pal - if you also believe the same "'court of arms' heard Poland's 'appeal' [in 1939] and rejected it;" and if you believe the "'court of arms' heard Hungary's 'appeal' [in 1956] and rejected it;" shall I go on?
As I noted above, Squat-to-Post, your arguments are infantile...
There, fixed it. ;-)
My opinion is that the 10th Amendment means just what it says, but that there's no evidence "unilateral secession" or "unapproved withdrawal from the Union" were contemplated at the time as being included in "powers... reserved to the states."
I'll cite again the example of murdering federal officials -- not prohibited by the Constitution. And for sake of discussion, let's make it on federal property in federal territory. In your response, you amazingly cite article 2 as authorizing Congress to deal with military discipline -- did you mean Article 1? And then you claim Article 4 "might suggest that such crimes occurring on federal property would also be subject to Congressional statute." Might suggest? Might suggest?? Article 4 suggests no such thing!
What I'm suggesting is that there has to be some limit to nonsense, and some place where common sense take over, and that should apply to such serious matters as secession and the murder of federal officers.
But the whole argument about secession is bogus from the beginning, because it was not secession alone which caused the Civil War. Indeed, seven deep south states peacefully seceded, and there was no war -- none. At the same time, eight other slave states debated secession and decided against it. Still no war. Federal forts were seized by Southern forces -- no war. Federal troops were expelled from seceded states -- no war. Federal ships were captured by Southern forces -- no war. Federal armories and customs houses taken over by Southerners -- still no war.
So, up to that point (March 1861), it might even be said that the Union had de facto acknowledged the states' secession. And as Lincoln said in his First Inaugural address, there COULD be no war, unless the South started it.
Well, Davis soon obliged, by firing on & forcing surrender of Fort Sumter. Now Lincoln still did not declare war, but he did declare an Insurrection.
Where the Constitution says nothing about "unilateral secession," it does clearly speak of suppressing Insurrections.
In response, the Confederacy declared war on the United States.
That's why I've said, secession alone did not cause the Civil War, and indeed there need have been no war, had the South not been determined to start one.
"As I noted above, Squat-to-Post, your arguments are infantile..."
As I've noted before, you are a disgrace to the name John Galt, and its creator, Ayn Rand. You should sign off, check out and then come back under some more appropriate name -- of which I've suggested several that could truly reflect your nature as a partisan lost causer...
Actually, you're simply misquoting me - and you're also wrong. But allow me to refresh your memory:
From your Post 2,208:
Indeed, a logical thought process (which a disciple of Ayn Rand will surely appreciate) might proceed as follows: can words like "secession," or any of the three states' paragraphs referring to "reassumed powers" be found in:
* the Constitution itself (answer: no)
* Founders documents such as the Federalist Papers (answer: no)
* Amendments to the Constitution (answer: no)
* Treaties ratified according to the Constitution (answer: no)
* Laws written & approved according to the Constitution (answer: no)
* Official government regulations issued with the approval of Congress (answer: no)
* Judiciary rulings recognized as precedent (answer: no)
* Supreme Court rulings on their constitutional validity (answer: no)
* Any other document which might be, or has been, recognized as legally binding (answer: no)
From your Post 2,210:
Look pal, you are making a specific argument here: that the US Constitution, or amendments, treaties, laws, supreme court rulings or regulations somehow make lawful, not just the vague & undefined terms of "powers" "reassumed (or resumed)" & "by the people" -- words found only in signing statements of three states, and nowhere else -- but specifically terms like: "unilateral secession" and "unapproved withdrawal from the union," which are found NOWHERE in ANY original Constitutional language.
Allow me once again to summarize your opinion: if it isn't mentioned in the Constitution, it's illegal. An infantile opinion, certainly, but most definitely yours.
;>)
In your response, you amazingly cite article 2 as authorizing Congress to deal with military discipline -- did you mean Article 1?
Actually, I cited Article II - but thanks for correcting my typo.
;>)
And then you claim Article 4 "might suggest that such crimes occurring on federal property would also be subject to Congressional statute." Might suggest? Might suggest?? Article 4 suggests no such thing!
Actually, IIRC, Article IV, Section 3, clause 2 ("The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States") has been cited as the basis for federal legal authority in the various territories,and on federal properties. But by all means, feel free to prove me wrong.
;>)
What I'm suggesting is that there has to be some limit to nonsense, and some place where common sense take over...
(We obviously find neither in your opinions... ;>)
...and that should apply to such serious matters as secession and the murder of federal officers.
I always find it amusing, when someone essentially proclaims 'the rule of common sense' (meaning their own, personal version of 'common sense,' naturally) in preference to the rule of law.
...So, up to that point (March 1861), it might even be said that the Union had de facto acknowledged the states' secession. And as Lincoln said in his First Inaugural address, there COULD be no war, unless the South started it.
Well, Davis soon obliged, by firing on & forcing surrender of Fort Sumter. Now Lincoln still did not declare war, but he did declare an Insurrection.
Mr. Lincoln's failure to "declare war" was no indication of northern forbearance - in fact, Mr. Lincoln was advised that a declaration of war would amount to formal recognition of the seceded States / Confederacy as sovereign and independent entities. However, neither Mr. Lincoln's maintenance of forces inside South Carolina nor his declaration of an "insurrection" were constitutional, unless secession was UNconstituional - something you have yet to prove.
Where the Constitution says nothing about "unilateral secession," it does clearly speak of suppressing Insurrections.
So, you're back to conflating "insurrection" and secession, just as you conflated secession and nullification in your Post 2,052. You really should strive for a more "logical thought process."
In response, the Confederacy declared war on the United States.
(Apparently you are recognizing the Confederacy's sovereign right to do so - that doesn't exactly fit with the rest of your opinions... ;>)
That's why I've said, secession alone did not cause the Civil War, and indeed there need have been no war, had the South not been determined to start one.
Really? Perhaps you can tell us how Mr. Lincoln received the southern peace delegation in 1861? Given your self-righteous pontificating (above, and "up to that point (March 1861), it might even be said that the Union had de facto acknowledged the states' secession. And as Lincoln said in his First Inaugural address, there COULD be no war, unless the South started it"), I have no doubt that you will be able to provide extensive transcripts of Mr. Lincoln's personal and passionate discussions with the southern peace commissioners, in his tireless efforts to avoid armed conflict. Please include the documentation in your next post...
;>)
As I've noted before, you are a disgrace to the name John Galt, and its creator, Ayn Rand. You should sign off, check out and then come back under some more appropriate name -- of which I've suggested several that could truly reflect your nature as a partisan lost causer...
And as I've noted before, Squat-to-Post, "John Galt" is an entirely different Freeper (but then, you never were one to let facts get in your way).
Go back to your 'Blue Avenger' comic books, pal...
;>)
Gosh, I almost forgot to mention: we're still waiting for you to provide evidence of Mr. Lincoln's decision to "appeal to a judge" (your Post 2,210), rather than deploy military forces within the seceded States. "I ask you: what appeal was ever made to any court on the subject of secession" by Mr. Lincoln's government?
;>)
False again, despite my repeated efforts to correct you. What I've said is: the 10th Amendment means just what it says, as understood by the Founders at the time. The question is: whether terms like "unilateral secession" or "unapproved withdrawal from the Union" (or "nullification" for that matter) were understood by the Founders as included in "powers reserved to the states"? And I've seen no evidence they were.
But your continued argument on this point has got me wondering: what other "powers" are not specifically prohibited to States under the Constitution? There must be quite a few:
And with a little imagination, we could go on and on, and on, listing supposed "powers" that are not expressly prohibited to the States. But would anyone seriously suggest that all such "powers" were intended by the Founders under the 10th Amendment? I don't believe that for a second.
So, I think the 10th Amendment's word "powers" has to be understood as meaning "legitimate & usual powers of government," which while not there enumerated were well known to everyone. And I've seen no evidence suggesting those usual "powers" included secession.
WIJG: "I always find it amusing, when someone essentially proclaims 'the rule of common sense' (meaning their own, personal version of 'common sense,' naturally) in preference to the rule of law."
Of course, I'm no lawyer and we're talking personal opinions here. But as long as you are citing "THE LAW," perhaps you can cite for us a law which expressly legalized unilateral secession? Hmmmmm?
WIJG: "Actually, IIRC, Article IV, Section 3, clause 2 ("The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States") has been cited as the basis for federal legal authority in the various territories,and on federal properties."
Granted. My oversight.
But let's return to my list of supposed "powers" not expressly prohibited to the States, and add the "power" to declare it legal to murder federal officials -- or indeed anyone else. Would you claim that our Founders intended such by the 10th Amendment? No way am I going to believe that.
WIJG: "neither Mr. Lincoln's maintenance of forces inside South Carolina nor his declaration of an "insurrection" were constitutional, unless secession was UNconstituional - something you have yet to prove."
Nonsense. Nowhere does the Constitution require the Federal government to abandon its military installations for no good reason -- even if those forts suddenly find themselves in a "foreign country" nothing says the President has to automatically give them up. Your argument here is bogus.
WIJG: "So, you're back to conflating "insurrection" and secession, just as you conflated secession and nullification in your Post 2,052. You really should strive for a more "logical thought process." "
Here you're just blowing smoke. In fact, "secession" and "nullification" are both words not found in the Constitution or related documents, but which were later claimed as covered by the 10th Amendment. Both are strictly "penumbras" and "emanations," having no recognized legal validity.
I'll say again: where "secession" is not mentioned in the Constitution, words like "insurrection," "rebellion," "domestic violence," "treason," and "invasion," are listed and powers ENUMERATED for dealing with them, including but not limited to the power to declare war.
But the whole debate is bogus to the core, because three weeks after taking Fort Sumter -- and Lincoln (not Congress) declaring a state of Insurgency -- the Confederacy formally declared war on the United States.
So, it was the South which began shooting at Fort Sumter, not the Union. It was the South which then declared war, not the Union. It was the South which appealed to the "court of arms" for a "trial by combat," and they got exactly what they asked for. What is your problem with that? ;-)
WIJG: "(Apparently you are recognizing the Confederacy's sovereign right to do so - that doesn't exactly fit with the rest of your opinions... ;>)"
What a ridiculous argument. The Confederacy did in fact formally declare war on the United States. Whether it had a "sovereign right to do so," or not -- it did declare war, and so had no right to complain or blame someone else for the war which it officially started.
WIJG: "Really? Perhaps you can tell us how Mr. Lincoln received the southern peace delegation in 1861? Given your self-righteous pontificating (above, and "up to that point (March 1861), it might even be said that the Union had de facto acknowledged the states' secession. And as Lincoln said in his First Inaugural address, there COULD be no war, unless the South started it"), I have no doubt that you will be able to provide extensive transcripts of Mr. Lincoln's personal and passionate discussions with the southern peace commissioners, in his tireless efforts to avoid armed conflict. Please include the documentation in your next post..."
"Self righteous pontificating?" What's wrong with you, pal, are you sick?
Neither Buchanan nor Lincoln spent any serious time with "southern peace commissioners." But both informed the South that Fort Sumter would not be surrendered, period, and both made efforts to resupply it, the first in January, 1861.
I'll remind you, yet again, that after America's victory over Britain in 1781, the Brits maintained forts on American soil for the next 34 years, through several negotiations, the last Brits not finally removed until after the War of 1812. These British forts did not, by themselves, cause any wars between the US & Britain. In due time they were all negotiated away.
By contrast, the South announced in January, 1861 that ANY effort to resupply Fort Sumter was tantamount to war. Obviously, the Confederacy wanted a war of independence. And it got one. What's the problem?
WIJG: "And as I've noted before, Squat-to-Post, "John Galt" is an entirely different Freeper"
Whatever made you imagine that I don't or didn't understand your handle? Are you stupid? You are using the name "Who is John Galt" to post garbage that is insulting to "John Galt" and its creator, Ayn Rand. Unlike Ayn Rand you are not a philosopher, you are a partisan lost-causer, who will say anything and everything you can think of to defend your cause. Nothing wrong with that -- more power to you and your buddies. But you should stop misusing the name "...John Galt."
Another ridiculous argument. There's just nothing you won't say, is there?
Seceding states acknowledged no Federal authority, so an appeal by Lincoln to a US court would have been nonsense. On the other hand, states claiming the Constitutional right of unilateral, unapproved secession could have established that right as legitimate by appealing to the US Supreme Court. And given previous Court decisions, such as Dred-Scott, it's even possible the Court would agree.
But no such appeal was ever made, and so it was never established in any legal sense that unilateral secession is Constitutionally valid. And, of course, that remains true today.
Sorry pal, but you need to grow up and get over it. It is what it is. ;-)
You sound exactly like a liberal politician - 'the Constitution means just what it says, subject to my understanding of what the Founders intended.' How nice...
The question is: whether terms like "unilateral secession" or "unapproved withdrawal from the Union" (or "nullification" for that matter) were understood by the Founders as included in "powers reserved to the states"? And I've seen no evidence they were.
Then you have not read Madison's Federalist No. 43, Jefferson's Kentucky Resolutions, or Madison's Virginia Resolutions and Report on the Virginia Resolutions. In other words, you're willfully ignorant...
But your continued argument on this point has got me wondering: what other "powers" are not specifically prohibited to States under the Constitution? There must be quite a few:
* The "power" of some States to invade other states is not expressly prohibited.
Really? Article I, Section 10, clause 3:
No State shall, without the Consent of Congress... engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.
Looks like you're wrong - again.
* The "power" of some states to extort money from others is not prohibited.
What on earth are you talking about? Extortion has been defined as the "illegal use of one's official position or powers to obtain property, funds, or patronage." If it's "illegal," then it by definition must violate some specific law. To which law are you referring?
* The "power" of some states to enslave citizens of other states (or indeed of their own free citizens) is not prohibited.
Obviously you've never read Article IV, Section 2, clause 1:
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
And allow me to introduce you to the Fourth Amendment:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons... against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated...
But wait - there's more! Allow me to also introduce you to the Fifth Amendment:
No person shall... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law...
In other words, you're wrong... wrong... wrong.
* The "power" of some states to seize shipping from other states is not prohibited.
Obviously, you have never read Article I, Section 9, clause 6, either:
No Preference shall be given by any Regulation of Commerce or Revenue to the Ports of one State over those of another; nor shall Vessels bound to, or from, one State, be obliged to enter, clear, or pay Duties in another.
Even assuming that a State determined to "seize shipping from other states" that had voluntarily entered port, jurisdiction is specified by yet another portion of the Constitution with which you are unfamiliar - Article III, Section 2, clause 1:
The judicial Power shall extend... to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; ...[and] to Controversies between two or more States...
You're wrong again - and again.
* The "power" of some states to maintain forts in other states is not expressly prohibited.
Let me refer you, once again, to Article I, Section 10, clause 3:No State shall, without the Consent of Congress... keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace... or engage in War,unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.
It would be literally impossible for a State to "maintain forts in other states" without troops, or warships, or engaging in war (which would result if the violated State elected to defend itself, in compliance with the same clause). In short, you're wrong again.
* The "power" of some states to nullify laws or unilaterally secede is not expressly prohibited.
Obviously, you are unaware that the States are prohibited from 'nullifying' the laws of other States - Article IV, Section 1:
Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State...
As to 'nullification' and 'secession' as they relate to federal authority, you are yet again confusing entirely separate issues.
As I noted above, you're willfully ignorant.
And with a little imagination, we could go on and on, and on, listing supposed "powers" that are not expressly prohibited to the States.
Actually, I wish you had gone "on and on, listing supposed 'powers' that are not expressly prohibited to the States:" it would only have added additional proof of your mind-numbing ignorance.
Of course, I'm no lawyer and we're talking personal opinions here. But as long as you are citing "THE LAW," perhaps you can cite for us a law which expressly legalized unilateral secession? Hmmmmm?
Please reread (and try to understand it, this time) Amendment X:
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.
You can not cite a 'delegation' of the power to prevent State secession to the federal government; nor can you cite a 'prohibition' of that power to the States. You have no argument - an ignorant opinion, most certainly, but no argument.
Nonsense. Nowhere does the Constitution require the Federal government to abandon its military installations for no good reason...
Just more of your same old "if it isn't specifically mentioned in the Constitution" opinion.
Yawn...
Here you're just blowing smoke. In fact, "secession" and "nullification" are both words not found in the Constitution or related documents, but which were later claimed as covered by the 10th Amendment. Both are strictly "penumbras" and "emanations," having no recognized legal validity.
And you are obviously "blowing smoke," when you deny that your 'argument' amounts to "if it isn't mentioned in the Constitution, it's illegal." That is the specific substance of your statements, in post, after post, after post. Obviously, you are as self-delusional as you are ignorant.
I'll say again: where "secession" is not mentioned in the Constitution, words like "insurrection," "rebellion," "domestic violence," "treason," and "invasion," are listed and powers ENUMERATED for dealing with them, including but not limited to the power to declare war.
Thanks for posting another idiotic argument - in essence:
'insurrection is implicitly prohibited by the Constitution, making it illegal, and because I think the formal withdrawal of a State from the union is also illegal, even though it's not mentioned anywhere, it must be equivalent to insurrection.'
"A logical thought process" would do you wonders...
But the whole debate is bogus to the core, because three weeks after taking Fort Sumter -- and Lincoln (not Congress) declaring a state of Insurgency -- the Confederacy formally declared war on the United States.
So, it was the South which began shooting at Fort Sumter, not the Union. It was the South which then declared war...
As I noted previously, only a sovereign state can issue a declaration of war. You claim, on the one hand, that the seceded States were engaged in an "insurrection," and were still members of the union. You claim, on the other hand, that they issued a declaration of war (an impossibility, unless the Confederacy was a sovereign and independent state). In other words, your opinions are self-contradictory - no big surprise there.
Oh, and by the way - care to post a copy of (or a link to) that 'formal declaration of war' by the Confederate States of America? I would love to add it to my references...
;>)
Whatever made you imagine that I don't or didn't understand your handle? Are you stupid? You are using the name "Who is John Galt"...
Give the kid a tootsie roll, and the newest edition of the 'Blue Avenger' comic book series! Congratulations! I really thought you were too "stupid" to get my name right! Wait - you still didn't get it right (you left out the question mark, "stupid" ;>)...
...to post garbage that is insulting to "John Galt" and its creator, Ayn Rand.
Ouch! Now you've hurt my feelings! Guess I'll just have to post a little piece from the Mises Institute:
"...(I)t is misleading to date the tradition of American liberty from the late 1780s, since the Constitution of the United States was in fact only the culmination of generations of practical self-government on the part of Americans. At the time of the framing of the Constitution and the formation of an allegedly "more perfect union," the colonists had precedents for challenging the powers of a confederation, as in the case of the Confederation of New England, for rejecting a confederation, as in the case of the Albany Plan of Union, and for bringing down a confederation by force, as in the case of the Dominion of New England. It can hardly be surprising, therefore, to learn that at the time of the ratification of the Constitution, three states [Virginia, New York, and Rhode Island] in acceding to the new confederation, explicitly reserved the right to withdraw from the Union at such time as it should become oppressive. In so doing they were only exercising the vigilance and libertarian principle that had animated the American experience during the colonial period.
"Thus when a union of polities becomes an end in itself, as it has in the minds of some since the days of Daniel Webster but certainly since Abraham Lincoln's revolution, the repudiation and indeed perversion of the colonial ideal is complete. Yet today, even self-proclaimed conservatives, whom one might expect to be engaged in preserving their country's tradition of liberty, cavalierly decry attachment to the principles embodied in the Confederate flag as "treason," even though the value of self-government vindicated by the South had been insisted upon since colonial times. The real traitors, however, are not the Confederates, but those who betray the real American tradition of independence and self-government in favor of the principle of unlimited submission to central authority. This is what the colonial period has to teach us."
Colonial Origins of American Liberty
- Thomas Woods, 2000
[Delivered at the Mises Institute conference, The History of Liberty, January 2000; Posted on Mises.org, March 3, 2000]
You ought to poke around Mises.org sometime. While you're there, do a search on "Ayn Rand" - you might actually learn something...
;>)
...you are a partisan lost-causer, who will say anything and everything you can think of to defend your cause.
Actually, all we have to do is look at the long list of "powers" that you erroneously claimed were NOT "prohibited to States under the Constitution" (your Post 2,215, and above) to verify that it is you "who will say anything and everything you can think of to defend your cause"...
"I ask you: what appeal was ever made to any court on the subject of secession" by Mr. Lincoln's government?"
Another ridiculous argument. There's just nothing you won't say, is there?
LOL! Glad you think it's "another ridiculous argument" - you're the one who made it, in Post 2,210:
"Now consider, in normal contract law, when such an impasse arises, the parties typically appeal to a judge for legal decision. I ask you: what appeal was ever made to any court on the subject of secession?"
You said "parties," Squat-to-Post (meaning both parties). Either you're an idiot (thanks again for calling your own opinion "another ridiculous argument" ;>) or... oh, heck, let's just face it - you're an idiot.
;>)
WIJG: "You sound exactly like a liberal politician - 'the Constitution means just what it says, subject to my understanding of what the Founders intended.' How nice..."
Did you really mean to make this argument? If the Constitution does not actually mean what the Founders intended, then pray tell, exactly what DOES it mean? ;-)
WIJG: "Then you have not read Madison's Federalist No. 43,"
Had not read Federalist 43 lately, so went back to review -- did I miss something the first time, years ago?
In Federalist 43, Madison compares the Constitution to a treaty amongst states, and that's true -- but only up to a point. Yes, State legislatures sent delegates to the Constitutional Convention in 1787. But specially elected ratifying conventions approved the Constitution in each state. Thus "roots" of the Constitution were sunk deeper into the US body politic than your usual "treaty."
Nevertheless, as Madison says: a "treaty" made by several parties can also be undone by those parties:
"A compact between independent sovereigns, founded on ordinary acts of legislative authority, can pretend to no higher validity than a league or treaty between the parties. It is an established doctrine on the subject of treaties, that all the articles are mutually conditions of each other; that a breach of any one article is a breach of the whole treaty; and that a breach, committed by either of the parties, absolves the others, and authorizes them, if they please, to pronounce the compact violated and void.""Should it unhappily be necessary to appeal to these delicate truths for a justification for dispensing with the consent of particular States to a dissolution of the federal pact, will not the complaining parties find it a difficult task to answer the MULTIPLIED and IMPORTANT infractions with which they may be confronted?"
In 1861 Southern states elected "Secession Conventions" which "pronounced the [Constitution] compact... void." But in what sense did they say it had been "violated"? Well really, in only one: some states were not enforcing Fugitive Slave laws:
On this, South Carolina, the first seceding state said:
"The Constitution of the United States, in its fourth Article, provides as follows: '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.'"This stipulation was so material to the compact, that without it that compact would not have been made..."
And Texas, the last of the original seven seceders specifically identified:
"...directly or indirectly violated the 3rd clause of the 2nd section of the 4th article [the fugitive slave clause] of the federal constitution, and laws passed in pursuance thereof; thereby annulling a material provision of the compact... "
So, in 1860, South Carolina didn't like other states' "nullification" of Fugitive Slave laws, but in 1832 South Carolina had declared its own right to nullify the "1828 Tariff of Abominations." Didn't South Carolina want it both ways?
Further, the Fugitive Slave situation in 1860 had not materially changed from what had been previously accepted for many decades, except in one respect: the new constitutionally elected President, Abraham Lincoln. So that was the REAL reason for secession, and it had nothing to do with supposed "violations" of the Constitution.
Nor were any legal efforts made to establish that "violations" had in fact occurred. Nor was any notice taken of the government's efforts in 1860 & 1861 to address such "violations" as might be proved.
Therefore, Madison's criteria for "dissolution of the federal pact," were not met in 1860, and so secession was not a legitimate remedy.
WIJG: "What on earth are you talking about? Extortion has been defined as the "illegal use of one's official position or powers to obtain property, funds, or patronage." If it's "illegal," then it by definition must violate some specific law. To which law are you referring?"
Actually, I do appreciate your taking time to look up specific clauses in the Constitution which may apply to my arguments about what, precisely, was or was not "prohibited to the States." But in every case, my point is valid and your mocking only proves that!
In each "example" I invented, the Constitution does not precisely, in so many words, prohibit such actions. However, no one -- not even a secessionist like WIJG -- would argue such actions are therefore ALLOWED. What ARE allowed -- reserved to the States -- are ONLY those recognized, legitimate and normal powers of government.
The debate here is: whether "unilateral secession" could be considered one of those? I've still seen nothing to suggest it is.
WIJG: "As I noted above, you're willfully ignorant."
Not in the least. You have simply misunderstood my argument, and in so doing, proved it correct. Thanks! ;-)
The Constitution does not, in so many words prohibit the examples I listed, but as you argue so well, that does not make them "powers reserved to the states." And the same is true for such terms as "secession" and "nullification," imho.
WIJG: "Please reread (and try to understand it, this time) Amendment X: 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."
Recognized, legitimate and usual "powers" of government did not then, do not now, include unilateral secession.
WIJG: "Thanks for posting another idiotic argument - in essence:
'insurrection is implicitly prohibited by the Constitution, making it illegal, and because I think the formal withdrawal of a State from the union is also illegal, even though it's not mentioned anywhere, it must be equivalent to insurrection.'
WIJG: "A logical thought process" would do you wonders..."
If you had a logical thought process of your own, that was not completely absorbed in trying to defend the indefensible, you'd have a bit more room to criticize.
In fact, I've argued repeatedly here that secession alone did not cause the Civil War, but that Insurrection, Rebellion, Invasion, etc, did, and without those, there could be no war.
And I think the core of your problem is, you can't or don't want to understand that. You imagine the South after secession was just sitting around when the North sent vast armies to conquer it. But in fact, the North did nothing of the kind, until the South began shooting, and declared war.
WIJG: "Oh, and by the way - care to post a copy of (or a link to) that 'formal declaration of war' by the Confederate States of America? I would love to add it to my references..."
The Confederacy's Declaration of War on the United States.
WIJG: "Ouch! Now you've hurt my feelings! Guess I'll just have to post a little piece from the Mises Institute:"
So YOU represent the Mises Institute! Well, glory hallelujah, now at least we know who you are and where you come from. So, for Chr*st's sake, pal, DROP THE "Who is JOHN GALT?"
You can be "Who is Ludwig von Mises?" It's a perfectly acceptable way to tell us just what kind of person we're dealing with -- having nothing to do with falsely suggesting some connection to Ayn Rand's John Galt.
WIJG: "You said "parties," Squat-to-Post (meaning both parties). Either you're an idiot (thanks again for calling your own opinion "another ridiculous argument" ;>) or... oh, heck, let's just face it - you're an idiot."
I'd say these insults just about sum up your whole argument. They put you in the same league with Stande Waitie and his bunch. These people live to insult, insult to live -- a debate like this is just a real good excuse for them to hurl more insults.
As I said before: the South could easily have appealed their "right of secession" to the Supreme Court, and given such previous decisions as Dred-Scott, may even have won and therefore have been officially recognized. A Union appeal to the Supreme Court after secession would have been meaningless.
But logic is not what you're looking for here, is it? No, what you want is just another opportunity to hurl invectives, and like Jefferson Davis & Fort Sumter, any little excuse is more than enough to start firing away, isn't it, pal? ;-)
Wrong again – as Mr. Madison noted in his Report on the Virginia Resolutions, it was up to the individual States (as parties to the compact), NOT the federal government, to decide.
But in every case, my point is valid and your mocking only proves that!
Actually, in every case, you were wrong – as usual.
In each "example" I invented, the Constitution does not precisely, in so many words, prohibit such actions. However, no one -- not even a secessionist like WIJG -- would argue such actions are therefore ALLOWED.
Actually, that is the exact rationalization (the Constitution does not precisely, in so many words, allow such actions) upon which you have based your opinion that State secession is unconstitutional – the word “secession,” you have noted repeatedly, does not appear in the Constitution, and the action is therefore (you claim) unconstitutional.
Thanks for proving my point – again.
What ARE allowed -- reserved to the States -- are ONLY those recognized, legitimate and normal powers of government.
Given that the ratifying States seceded from the union formed under the terms of the Articles of Confederation, State secession was indeed a 'recognized, legitimate and normal power of government.'
You have simply misunderstood my argument, and in so doing, proved it correct. Thanks! ;-)
The Constitution does not, in so many words prohibit the examples I listed, but as you argue so well, that does not make them "powers reserved to the states." And the same is true for such terms as "secession" and "nullification," imho.
You are living in a fantasy land, Squat-to-Post. Unlike you, I have not based my opinions on the presence, or absence, of specific words in or from the Constitution. That is your infantile ‘argument.’ Rather, I look at concepts: and the concept of formal State withdrawal from the federal union is nowhere prohibited by the Constitution.
If you had a logical thought process of your own, that was not completely absorbed in trying to defend the indefensible, you'd have a bit more room to criticize.
In fact, I've argued repeatedly here that secession alone did not cause the Civil War…
Like so many of your ‘arguments,’ the cause of the war is completely irrelevant to the question of the constitutionality of State secession. "A logical thought process" would do you wonders...
The Confederacy's Declaration of War on the United States
Actually, it’s simply ‘an act recognizing the existence of war between’ the two countries.
WIJG: "Ouch! Now you've hurt my feelings! Guess I'll just have to post a little piece from the Mises Institute"
BJ: So YOU represent the Mises Institute! Well, glory hallelujah, now at least we know who you are and where you come from. So, for Chr*st's sake, pal, DROP THE "Who is JOHN GALT?"
You can be "Who is Ludwig von Mises?" It's a perfectly acceptable way to tell us just what kind of person we're dealing with -- having nothing to do with falsely suggesting some connection to Ayn Rand's John Galt.
“Logic is not what you're looking for here, is it? No, what you want is just another opportunity to hurl invectives… and any little excuse is more than enough to start firing away, isn't it, pal?”
;-)
As I said before: the South could easily have appealed their "right of secession" to the Supreme Court...
Actually, what you have “said before” is that “"in normal contract law, when such an impasse arises, the parties typically appeal to a judge for legal decision."
A Union appeal to the Supreme Court after secession would have been meaningless.
Look, Squat-to-Post, you can’t have it both ways. Either the States (as parties to the compact) could decide for themselves the constitutionality of federal actions, as suggested by James Madison and Thomas Jefferson; or the federal high court (as is currently claimed) holds that power. Given that you claim State secession was unconstitutional, you obviously do not agree with Mr. Jefferson or Mr. Madison. But neither, apparently, do you believe that the federal high court holds the power to determine the constitutionality of such action – instead, you seem to be suggesting that the president’s personal opinion is sufficient.
As I noted previously, you sound exactly like a liberal politician.
"You are living in a fantasy land, Squat-to-Post."
"That is your infantile ‘argument.’ "
""A logical thought process" would do you wonders..."
"Look, Squat-to-Post, you can’t have it both ways."
"As I noted previously, you sound exactly like a liberal politician."
You sound to me like Stand Watie, PeaRidge, central_va and that whole crowd. Your arguments are not in any way "logical," they amount to nothing more than the old Rebel Yell battle cry. Yes, it defeated many a Union formation, but does not constitute a "logical argument."
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.