Posted on 10/25/2010 7:28:30 AM PDT by Michael Zak
On this day in 1859, Senator William Seward (R-NY) said:
"The Democratic party is inextricably committed to the designs of the slaveholders... The history of the Democratic Party commits it to the policy of slavery. It has been the Democratic Party, and no other agency, which has carried that policy up to its present alarming culmination... Such is the Democratic Party... The government of the United States, under the conduct of the Democratic Party, has been all that time surrendering one plain and castle after another to slavery."
The more things change...
LMAO - Are you seriously going to offer this up in lieu of your inability to show that secession was specifically barred by the US Constitution? Your argument here is quite ridiculous, but I will have a go at it anyway. In answer to your question: yes, I would consider it an act of war if Japan had attacked Pearl Harbor even if there had been no casualties. Of course that has absolutely NOTHING to do with Union soldiers being the ones to 'DO something' when they invaded the Commonwealth of Virginia. Virginians were the defenders, remember? Your earlier statement on Third Manasas would be like the Japanese telling us to 'DO something' for there to be a Pearl Harbor II.
“So if the Japanese had bombed Pearl Harbor and by some miracle nobody had been killed then you would have not considered it an act of war and would not have responded to Japanese aggression?”
Wadda ya think ... is this broad a moron or an idiot? Or both? One wouldn’t necessarily rule out the other.
This is from Gods And Generals, Gen. Jackson address to the forces in the Shenandoah valley.
There is nothing that allows it without the consent of the other states.
As you can plainly see, Amendment X uses the term 'prohibit' which is synonymous with 'disallow'. And as we already know, there is nothing in the Constitution that 'prohibits' secession.
It also uses the term 'delegated' as in "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively." Article IV gives Congress - and only Congress - the power to admit a state to the Union. Once allowed in, states cannot split or join or change their borders by a fraction of an inch without consent of Congress; that's outlined in Article IV and Article I. Clearly the power to admit a state and to approve any change in status once it's allowed to join is a power delegated to the United States. And that includes leaving altogether.
The Constitution says no such thing. You made that up.
Others would disagree with you.
However, there are 'explicit' powers and limitations listed throughout - prohibitions against secession not being one of them.
You made that up.
"Among the enumerated powers, we do not find that of establishing a bank or creating a corporation. But there is no phrase in the instrument which, like the Articles of Confederation, excludes incidental or implied powers and which requires that everything granted shall be expressly and minutely described. Even the 10th Amendment, which was framed for the purpose of quieting the excessive jealousies which had been excited, omits the word "expressly," and declares only that the powers "not delegated to the United States, nor prohibited to the States, are reserved to the States or to the people," thus leaving the question whether the particular power which may become the subject of contest has been delegated to the one Government, or prohibited to the other, to depend on a fair construction of the whole instrument. The men who drew and adopted this amendment had experienced the embarrassments resulting from the insertion of this word in the Articles of Confederation, and probably omitted it to avoid those embarrassments. A Constitution, to contain an accurate detail of all the subdivisions of which its great powers will admit, and of all the means by which they may be carried into execution, would partake of the prolixity of a legal code, and could scarcely be embraced by the human mind. It would probably never be understood by the public. Its nature, therefore, requires that only its great outlines should be marked, its important objects designated, and the minor ingredients which compose those objects be deduced from the nature of the objects themselves. That this idea was entertained by the framers of the American Constitution is not only to be inferred from the nature of the instrument, but from the language. Why else were some of the limitations found in the 9th section of the 1st article introduced? It is also in some degree warranted by their having omitted to use any restrictive term which might prevent its receiving a fair and just interpretation. In considering this question, then, we must never forget that it is a Constitution we are expounding." -- Chief Justice Marshall, McCulloch v Maryland
So you freely admit that the invasion of Virginia required the Union to 'DO' something while Virginia did nothing, just as the invasion of Okinawa required the US to 'DO' something while Okinawa did nothing.
I freely admit that the Southern states were engaged in an armed rebellion against the United States. That they initiated these hostilities when they fired on Sumter. And having chosen war to further their aims then they have nobody but themselves to blame when that war came to them.
Clear enough now?
I hope you're taking all these down and adding them to your archives. I'd hate to think you're falling behind.
You mean the address where the Illinois Butcher™ admits to ignoring the Southern Delegation sent to resolve issues between the CSA and the USA? Is that the one?
They were wrong.
Are you going to reiterate rusbucket's previous statements, which is the Federal Constitution is and was a big bait and switch?
No bait and switch. The Constitution they ratified was the same one that prevents unilateral secession.
The private letters are nice and all, but we need to look at what he wrote and then defended.
Private letters also lay out what a man thinks.
The states, then, being the parties to the constitutional compact, and in their sovereign capacity, it follows of necessity that there can be no tribunal above their authority to decide, in the last resort, whether the compact made by them be violated and consequently that, as the parties to it, they must themselves decide, in the last resort, such questions as may be of sufficient magnitude to require their interposition.
That's right; the states. All the states. They being equal parties to the compact then no one state has any more right to say the compact is broken without the others being able to say it is not. But you cling to the Orwellian world where all states are equal but some states are more equal than others.
Since you're into letters, here's one for your collection:
Since you're into letters as well, here's one for your's:
"I had written to Mr. Madison, as I had before informed you, and had stated to him some general ideas for consideration and consultation when we should meet. I thought something essentially necessary to be said, in order to avoid the inference of acquiescence; that a resolution or declaration should be passed, 1. answering the reasonings of such of the States as have ventured into the field of reason, and that of the committee of Congress, taking some notice, too, of those States who have either not answered at all, or answered without reasoning. 2. Making firm protestation against the precedent and principle, and reserving the right to make this palpable violation of the federal compact the ground of doing in future whatever we might now rightfully do, should repetitions of these and other violations of the compact render it expedient. 3. Expressing in affectionate and conciliatory language our warm attachment to union with our sister States, and to the instrument and principles by which we are united; that we are willing to sacrifice to this every thing but the rights of self-government in those important points which we have never yielded, and in which alone we see liberty, safety, and happiness; that not at all disposed to make every measure of error or of wrong, a cause of scission, we are willing to look on with indulgence, and to wait with patience, till those passions and delusions shall have passed over, which the federal government have artfully excited to cover its own abuses and conceal its designs, fully confident that the good sense of the American people, and their attachment to those very rights which we are now vindicating, will, before it shall be too late, rally with us round the true principles of our federal compact. This was only meant to give a general idea of the complexion and topics of such an instrument. Mr. M. who came, as had been proposed, does not concur in the reservation proposed above; and from this I recede readily, not only in deference to his judgment, but because, as we should never think of separation but for repeated and enormous violations, so these, when they occur, will be cause enough of themselves."
No, I'm offering it in response to your ludicrous suggestion that bombarding Sumter was not an act of war merely because nobody was killed.
Of course that has absolutely NOTHING to do with Union soldiers being the ones to 'DO something' when they invaded the Commonwealth of Virginia. Virginians were the defenders, remember?
But it does. War was the remedy that the confederacy chose. War was what they started when the bombarded Sumter. Virginia chose to align herself with the confederacy and therefore joined the rebellion along with them. So having chosen war to further their aims to begin with, why should Virginia have any cause for complaint when federal troops enter the commonwealth in pursuit of her soldiers?
Virginians were the defenders, remember?
And the Germans and the Japanese were the defenders when war came to their shore. Does that put them in the right? No. War came to them because they chose to start it in the first place. Likewise with Virginia and the confederacy.
Wonder what King George III would have thought about the colonies entering into a compact like that? Very confusing because, to the crown, each colony was independent from each other. Why would the colonies confederate to hurl off British monarchical rule and having done just that, give up their hard fought sovereignty to a Federal Construct? I really makes no sense viewed from that angle.
So predictable dearie. Day after day, fighting and name calling, re-fighting the CW and blaming Southerners for all the ills of the past. Pitiful dearie.
Oh Lord, can quotes from "Outlaw Josey Wales" or "Gangs of New York" be far behind?
Davis is Lincoln lite, 30% less goth.
Hey, you can’t call him a stalker, that’s his line. Don’t use the FR search function either, that’s stalking in his book.
There is nothing that allows it without the consent of the other states.
Yeah, I heard you the first time you made that baseless claim. Again, can you please cite where it says this in the Constitution?
Article IV gives Congress - and only Congress - the power to admit a state to the Union. Once allowed in, states cannot split or join or change their borders by a fraction of an inch without consent of Congress; that's outlined in Article IV and Article I.
I would strongly suggest that you go back and read it again. First of all, Article I makes no mention of any of these factors. Article IV, Sec. 3 says: "New states may be admitted by the Congress into this union; but no new states shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of any other state; nor any state be formed by the junction of two or more states, or parts of states, without the consent of the legislatures of the states concerned as well as of the Congress."
Still no mention of prohibition against secession.
Clearly the power to admit a state and to approve any change in status once it's allowed to join is a power delegated to the United States.
Read it again. It is delegated to Congress as well as the respective State legislatures. Did Congress pass a bill which prohibited secession? I think not. Therefore, based upon your very own argument, no explicit prohibition against secession exists in Article IV. And with the authorities delegated to the US Congress, that same legislative body failed to place any prohibition on State succession. So I now refer back to Amendment X.
The Constitution says no such thing. You made that up.
Others would disagree with you.
"Others" would back up their claim by citing where it actually says that in the Constitution. Clearly, you are not up to the task.
"Among the enumerated powers, we do not find that . . . we must never forget that it is a Constitution we are expounding." -- Chief Justice Marshall, McCulloch v Maryland
That's really nice. But unfortunately, I cannot find these words by Marshall stated anywhere in the US Constitution.
I freely admit that the Southern states were engaged in an armed rebellion against the United States. That they initiated these hostilities when they fired on Sumter.
Virginia was still a part of the United States when Fort Sumter was fired upon.
And having chosen war to further their aims then they have nobody but themselves to blame when that war came to them.
The 'choosers' of war were the ones who invaded the Commonwealth of Virginia. Virginia had committed no act of aggression whatsoever against the Union. Yet it was the Union who decided to 'DO something' by initiating armed invasion of Virginia.
THANKSGIVING DAY 2001 WHERE WAS NS? FIGHTING THE CIVIL WAR and berating Southerners...
http://www.freerepublic.com/tag/by:nonsequitur/index?more=1801068
CHRISTMAS DAY, CHRISTMAS EVE OF 2001, WHERE WAS NS? FIGHTING THE CIVIL WAR ON FR. and berating Southerners... HOW PATHETIC IS THAT?
http://www.freerepublic.com/tag/by:nonsequitur/index?more=2291068
CHRISTMAS DAY, CHRISTMAS EVE OF 2002, WHERE WAS NS? FIGHTING THE CIVIL WAR ON FR and berating Southerners... HOW PATHETIC IS THAT?
http://www.freerepublic.com/tag/by:nonsequitur/index?more=8801068
CHRISTMAS DAY, CHRISTMAS EVE OF 2003, WHERE WAS NS? FIGHTING THE CIVIL WAR ON FR and berating Southerners... HOW PATHETIC IS THAT?
http://www.freerepublic.com/tag/by:nonsequitur/index?more=16501068
I understand he/she is eaten alive with guilt over slavery and wishes every Southerner would rot in eternal hell, and I couldn’t care less if he or she spends the rest of their life arguing over the civil war and slavery. BUT the Southern slurs, the hatred of the South and the people that live there, he or she is fair game. I know he/ she won’t deny this because the hatred of all things Southern posted by NS is here for all to see, since 2001..... NS spreading his vile hatred on FR of anyone or anything Southern.
When he does that he defames me, my wife, my parents, siblings, my wife’s family, our ancestors, our children. He defames any Southerner on FR. What a miserable person he or she is.
There must be a reason he/she has such a hatred of the South and the people that live there. I think he or she is jealous. Miserable stuck in Kansas, dreams of the South and all it is.
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.