Posted on 12/22/2019 4:23:47 AM PST by Bull Snipe
"I beg to present you as a Christmas gift the City of Savannah, with one hundred and fifty heavy guns and plenty of ammunition and about twenty-five thousand bales of cotton." General William T. Sherman's "March to the Sea" was over. During the campaign General Sherman had made good on his promise d “to make Georgia howl”. Atlanta was a smoldering ruin, Savannah was in Union hands, closing one of the last large ports to Confederate blockade runners. Sherman’s Army wrecked 300 miles of railroad and numerous bridges and miles of telegraph lines. It seized 5,000 horses, 4,000 mules, and 13,000 head of cattle. It confiscated 9.5 million pounds of corn and 10.5 million pounds of fodder, and destroyed uncounted cotton gins and mills. In all, about 100 million dollars of damage was done to Georgia and the Confederate war effort.
Nevertheless, signing statements carry no weight of law.
The one my grandparents swore by was the Penny Slaver.
I wish there was a "like" button on FR.
What was the legal methodology for accomplishing this within the framework of constitutional law?
Because if there was a legal means of doing this, it seems he would have just done it before the war and saved everybody a lot of trouble.
To the contrary. People only consent to what they say they consent to. If the consent is not accepted in context, then the consent is not given.
For example. Suppose a woman says "I agree to the marriage so long as I am not raped."
Then after marriage, the husband rapes her.
Rockr comes along and says "you agreed to the marriage."
Nope. Doesn't work like that. You agreed to what you specified that you agreed to. If you take issue with it, you make it known right then and there that this position is unacceptable.
Article II Section 2.
The President shall be commander in chief of the army and navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several States, when called into the actual service of the United States;
Article I Section 8
To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining of the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States,
Nevertheless, signing statements carry no weight of law.
“domestic insurrections” likely refers to all of the various factions that the Royal government was stirring up against the colonial rebels, not just one. This would have included the slaves responding the Dunmore’s, Mohawk and Seneca Indians being recruited by Loyalists up in New York, and Loyalist militias throughout the colonies.
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining of the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States,
If you accept the flawed claim that secession is "insurrection", then you can make an argument for using the military to put down the "insurrection".
But how do you go from putting down an insurrection to a blanket seizure of "property" for the entire region? Especially in light of Article 4, section 2?
What about "due process"? Or is everyone within some geographical region automatically guilty and convicted of crimes against the state?
Suppose the order was to seize all farms, or all horses, or all gold or silver? What is the difference between that and what was done?
I didn't make this point earlier, so i'll make it now.
A ratification statement is not a "signing" statement. It is at the very least an addendum to the contract. The ratification and stipulations must be accepted in whole, or rejected completely.
The statements by New York, Virginia and Rhode Island didn't make a ripple, let alone provoke spontaneous denunciations.
A reasonable conclusion is that they were within the understanding of the founders to be acceptable.
Your thinking carries a lot more weight with me than does BroJoeK's. You may very well be correct on this point, but I have to admit to just a little bit of guilty pleasure in needling him with this. :)
But the person I recall arguing with him about this previously was making a pretty good argument that "Domestic Insurrection" very much encompassed slave revolts. By your response I must conclude it wasn't you.
Good to hear from you again.
whether rebellion, insurrection or war. The President is the C in C.
“But how do you go from putting down an insurrection to a blanket seizure of “property” for the entire region?”
That property was used to make war on the United States.
Any actions to interfere with the use of that “property” in making war on the United States is a within the powers of the President authority as C in C
“What about “due process”? Or is everyone within some geographical region automatically guilty and convicted of crimes against the state?”
By their own words and desires, The Confederates were no longer citizens of the United States. Therefore they are not entitled to the protections of the laws of the United States.
“Suppose the order was to seize all farms, or all horses, or all gold or silver? What is the difference between that and what was done?”
You may want to re read the initial article in this thread.
No difference at all.
The fear of slave revolts in the American colonies/states probably didn’t amount to much until after Haiti. Haiti being the near genocide of French whites and mulattos. But that wasn’t until 1791.
There had been the Stono Rebellion of 1739 in South Carolina but I doubt that the Continental Congress had that in mind.
The Nat Turner rebellion didn’t happen until 1831. That one left the lasting fear of a Haiti style revolt.
And how do you know this? And how was all the other property also not being used to make war on the United States?
If seizure is the normal response, then the normal response should have been to seize it all.
By their own words and desires, The Confederates were no longer citizens of the United States.
What they say on the matter is of no import, because the Lincoln position was that they were and always remained so. If they were no longer citizens of the US, then it can't be an "insurrection", can it?
If they were and remained citizens of the US, as Lincoln claimed in order to justify his invasion, then they remained under the rights and protection of the US constitution.
You cannot unilaterally proclaim them all "guilty" simply for being in the territory of an "insurrected" state. Each one must be adjudicated, and each one must receive "due process."
You can then legally take the property of the guilty, and spare the property of the innocent.
Proclaiming all in a region "guilty" without trial, is the act of a dictator. It is also in no manner constitutional.
The other signatories didn't care what they wrote on their state's documents.....since they carried no weight of law.
If the ratification carries no weight of law, then the Constitution isn't ratified.
I think John Brown's raid scared the bejezus out of them. I think it contributed greatly to the belief that the two sides needed to separate.
Nonsense. The signatures were to the ratification of the United States Constitution, not the United States Constitution plus some arbitrary unilateral addendum.
Objection should have been made at the time. Since it was not, this means that understanding of the ratification was accepted.
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.