Posted on 11/18/2017 6:36:43 AM PST by iowamark
You probably start out that way, and then you add your own personal preferences to what they mean instead of looking at the context in which they were created.
Here we go round in circles.
True. But on the plus side you probably have a brand new load of crap you can regurgitate at will like with the tariffs stuff, your defense of Dred Scott, the funding of government load, and all the rest. So there's that.
And this is why I often just ignore the stuff you say.
Actually the subject is the Battle Hymn of the Republic.
That is the thesis of the thread, but in these discussions, we often range far afield of the original topic.
So you can “range” but I cannot?
Sure you can, but conflating "wealth" and the Declaration of independence does not make much sense in the context.
I suppose you could argue that one is a consequence of the other, and so they have an indirect relation, but the Declaration of Independence does not directly address the topic of "wealth."
DiogenesLamp is the master of the out of context quote. To understand what Chief Justice Chase felt about the Southern actions one has to look at more than just a single sentence.
In June 1867, one month before the DiogenesLamp quote, Chief Justice Chase issued a ruling in the case of Shortridge v. Macon (22 F. Cas 20). Writing from the Circuit Court Bench, Chase wrote, "The national constitution declares that "treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort." The word "only" was used to exclude from criminal jurisprudence of the new republic the odious doctrines of constructive treason. Its use, however, while limiting the definition to plain, overt acts, brings these acts into conspicuous relief as being always and in essence treasonable. War, therefore, levied against the United States by citizens of the republic, under the pretend authority of the new state government of North Carolina, or of the so-called Confederate government which assumed the title of the "Confederate States," was treason against the United States."
Chase is clear that treason is clearly defined and requires a clear waging of war or adhering to an enemy to qualify as such. Given this, then Chase is not contradicting himself when he says secession is not treason. It is not, not under the definition given in the constitution since secession does not automatically involve war or adherence to one's enemies. But Chase is also clear, both in this ruling and in Texas v. White, that secession as practiced by the Southern states was illegal. That the rebellion that they waged to further that act of secession was treasonable, but that governments are not automatically bound to put rebels on trial for a variety of reasons.
In short, DiogenesLamp is correct in that Chase did not equate secession with treason. But he is as wrong as he could possibly be by implying that meant Chase thought the Confederate secession was legal.
Link to the Shortridge v. Macon decision.
Most liberals are practiced in the art of hair-splitting. DegenerateLamp is no exception.
Nonsense.
Totally bogus and based on statistics from the 1870 census which had undercounted Southerners suspicious of Union census takers.
By 1880 conditions improved and straight-lines from 1860 to 1880 show no dip in population counts.
Actual reports of excess deaths, or cemetery populations, do not justify such exaggerated claims.
Then what are we to make of his "Lincoln wanted Davis to escape, and he was right. His capture was a mistake. His trial will be a greater one." Point?
Such a statement doesn't make sense in your explanation.
I can split hairs with the best of them, but I can also point out what is the plain meaning of something. I simply don't bring my own prejudice to the interpretation.
It is a lie to portray it as benign. The previous mission only required one ship. General Scott's orders clearly state it was a reinforcement mission.
Without seeing the quote in context it's hard to tell. What is Foote's source?
You will have to find an access to his book. I'm sure he cites his source in there somewhere.
I don't think he is making it up.
While your link discusses slavery, it also makes clear the Constitution's language refers to indentured servants or slaves, or potentially even convicts & draft dodgers.
So the Constitution does not "enshrine" slavery specifically, but any state law which might hold a person to service, that law must be honored in the other states.
Nothing says states cannot abolish slavery, enfranchise former slaves, or that states must allow slaves to be kept by owners from other states, as alleged by the Supreme Court's Dred-Scott decision.
Our pro-Confederate propagandists wish us to believe that slavery was immutably "enshrined" in the 1787 Constitution when that is totally false.
Nonsense - you are blind to your own prejudices.
Dred Scott goes too far in it's claim that former slaves could not be enfranchised. That matter would be entirely up to the states to decide. The Decision is correct that states cannot completely abolish slavery so long as the constitution protects slavery by the laws of other states.
The Constitution does not mince words. An escaped slave must be given up to the party to whom his labor is due. It doesn't say anything about where any of the parties can be, or must be, or can't be. It makes no claims regarding any specificity of location, therefore it must apply everywhere the constitution itself applies.
Everyone 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.