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.
That's a common misconception, probably associated with the popular view of the country changing, from 'republic' to 'democracy'. The draft preamble (see the debates in the federal convention, August 6, 1787) stated:
"We the people of the States of New Hampshire, Massachussetts, Rhode-Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New-York, New-Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North-Carolina, South-Carolina, and Georgia, do ordain, declare, and establish the following Constitution for the Government of Ourselves and our Posterity."
So why was that draft language changed, to the familiar "We the people of the United States"? Did the basis of the proposed government change during the constitutional convention, from the sovereign people of each individual State, acting independently in each State (as under the Articles of Confederation), to a sovereign national populace acting as a single body?
The answer is found in Article VII of the Constitution:
"The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same."
Note - only nine States were required to ratify, in order to establish the new Constitution between them. The language of the preamble was changed, simply because no one knew which (if any) States might ratify, and which States might choose to 'go it alone'. The sovereign people of each individual State, acting in their States, are also the basis of other constitutional provisions, including the requirement that each State have equal representation in the US Senate, and the requirement that three-fourths of the States (not three-fourths of the national population) approve any amendments to the Constitution.
Remember the whole reason that the articles of confederation were scrapped is because the federal government was too weak under them. States could, and did, ignore laws from congress. This is also why the constitution explicitly states that it is the supreme law of the land and so are any laws or treaties based on it.
It's also worth remembering that the Articles of Confederation required unanimous agreement by the thirteen member States, before any changes could be made in the agreement. As noted above, however, the Constitution was officially adopted upon ratification of just nine States, NOT thirteen. How was that possible? The preeminant legal reference of the day (1803 edition of Blackstones Commentaries, see Appendix Note B) explains:
SECTION XIII. The dissolution of these systems happens, when all the confederates by mutual consent, or some of them, voluntarily abandon the confederacy, and govern their own states apart, or a part of them form a different league and confederacy among each other, and withdraw themselves from the confederacy with the rest. Such was the proceeding on the part of those of the American states which first adopted the present constitution of the United States, and established a form of federal government, essentially different from that which was first established by the articles of confederation, leaving the states of Rhode Island and North Carolina, both of which, at first, rejected the new constitution, to themselves. This was an evident breach of that article of the confederation,[57] which stipulated that those "articles should be inviolably observed by every state, and that the union should be perpetual; nor should any alteration at any time thereafter be made in any of them, unless such alteration be agreed to in the congress of the United States, and be afterwards confirmed by the legislatures of every state." Yet the seceding states, as they may be not improperly termed, did not hesitate, as soon as nine states had ratified the new constitution, to supersede the former federal government, and establish a new form, more consonant to their opinion of what was necessary to the preservation and prosperity of the federal union.
The Constitution was ratified by the sovereign people of the individual States, seceding from the previous self-proclaimed "perpetual" union. In similar fashion, the sovereign people of the southern States later withdrew from a union formed under the Constitution, which nowhere claimed to be "perpetual"...
Although your question is more than just a little vague, under certain conditions, the answer is quite obviously 'yes'. (In fact, you may be able to find an analogous example or two in American history! ;^)
Your turn, my friend:
1) Was the federal government delegated any authority over the departure of a member State from the federal union? (Feel free to cite any constitutional clause that supports your answer, if you can.)
2) If no such authority was clearly delegated to the federal government, would it not remain with each of the States - in other words, would not the people of each State retain authority over its own departure? (Again, please feel free to cite any constitutional clause that supports your conclusion. ;^)
Sure. Consent of Congress is required for a state to join the Union to begin with. Once allowed in, consent of Congress is required for a state to split or combine with another state or alter their border in any fashion. Implied in that is the need for Congressional approval to leave. And I should point out that is not only my position but the belief of James Madison, Salmon Chase, Thomas Jefferson, and many others. Roger Taney didn't think states could leave at all.
2) If no such authority was clearly delegated to the federal government, would it not remain with each of the States - in other words, would not the people of each State retain authority over its own departure?
Only if you discount entirely the existence of implied powers. As I said, Congressional approval is needed for a state to join or changes in status once allowed it so recognizing that the need for Congressional approval is implied is no great stretch.
I don't recall Buchanan being a major factor. Lincoln was elected on November 6, 1860. South Carolina seceded the next month on December 24.
It seems the secessionists believed Lincoln had no respect for the Constitution or state's rights; and the secessionists were absolutely correct in those beliefs. Lincoln was a self-declared Clayite (a Hamiltonite) who desired the all-powerful, cronyistic, central-planning type of government.
Historian Charles Adams gave this interpretation of the causes of the secession:
"My view that taxes, not slavery, started the American Civil War was vindicated by American Heritage in June of 1996, which said: "The tariff, then nearly synonymous with federal taxes, was a prime cause of the Civil War." I have added and corrected some of the material in that chapter, which the reader should find of interest….
"One of the most popular myths in American history is that the Civil War was started over slavery, and that Lincoln, as the Great Emancipator, drove the nation into a bloody war to break the chains of bondage that shackled over three and a half million black Americans. This popular childhood history story is fable.
"At the eleventh hour before the Civil War began, the Southern slave owners had no need to go to war. They had already won all the battles without firing a shot. With the Supreme Court in their back pocket, with Lincoln and the Congress approving a Constitutional amendment protecting slavery forever, they were undoubtedly the victors in their struggle to preserve the slave system of America. There had to be something else that caused them to fire the first shot."
"During his campaign for the presidency in 1860, Lincoln repeated time and again that he would not interfere with slavery in the South. His first inaugural address said it all. He emphasized the anti-abolitionist policy of his administration, which can be found "in nearly all the published speeches of him who now addresses you. I do but quote from one of those speeches when I declare that 'I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the states where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.' "
"Lincoln continued in his inaugural address to assure Southern slave owners that fugitive slaves would be returned. To provide even further assurance, the Congress, with Lincoln's approval, proposed and passed a new Constitutional amendment which declared that the federal government could never interfere with slavery in any state. Even the Supreme Court gave its blessing to slavery in the famous Dred Scott case (1857). All three branches of the federal government had bent over backwards to appease the South over slavery. They could hardly have done much more."
"When the Civil War started, the moral cause of the South was strong – they wanted self-government; there was nothing wrong with that. Why should half the states in the Union be denied the right of self-determination? Is not that a fundamental human and social right?"
"The Civil War was two years old when Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation, and then only after repeated military defeats, and as a last resort to rally the North behind a worthwhile cause. Here are Lincoin's words on the subject:"
"Things had gone from bad to worse, until I felt we had reached the end of our rope on the plan we were pursuing; that we had about played our last card, and must change our tactics or lose the game. I now determined upon the adoption of the emancipation policy."
[Charles W. Adams, "For Good and Evil: The Impact of Taxes on the Course of Civilization." Madison Books, 2nd Ed, 2001, pp.xviii, 329-330]
The New England abolitionist, Lysander Spooner, claimed the government simply replaced one form of slavery, that of the black man, with another form of slavery, that of both white and black men:
"The pretence that the "abolition of slavery" was either a motive or justification for the war, is a fraud of the same character with that of "maintaining the national honor." Who, but such usurpers, robbers, and murderers as they, ever established slavery? Or what government, except one resting upon the sword, like the one we now have, was ever capable of maintaining slavery? And why did these men abolish slavery?Not from any love of liberty in general – not as an act of justice to the black man himself, but only "as a war measure," and because they wanted his assistance, and that of his friends, in carrying on the war they had undertaken for maintaining and intensifying that political, commercial, and industrial slavery, to which they have subjected the great body of the people, both white and black. And yet these impostors now cry out that they have abolished the chattel slavery of the black man – although that was not the motive of the war – as if they thought they could thereby conceal, atone for, or justify that other slavery which they were fighting to perpetuate, and to render more rigorous and inexorable than it ever was before. There was no difference of principle – but only of degree – between the slavery they boast they have abolished, and the slavery they were fighting to preserve; for all restraints upon men's natural liberty, not necessary for the simple maintenance of justice, are of the nature of slavery, and differ from each other only in degree." [Lysander Spooner, "No Treason: The Constitution of No Authority." By the Author, 1867, pp.56-57]
Mr. Kalamata
The Constitution was ratified by the sovereign people of the individual States, seceding from the previous self-proclaimed “perpetual” union. In similar fashion, the sovereign people of the southern States later withdrew from a union formed under the Constitution, which nowhere claimed to be “perpetual”... “
Your bringing these pertinent texts and comments to bear on the issues being discussed is as refreshing as it is helpful. Please don't be discouraged by those who have repeatedly balked at the concept “consent of the governed.”
Lead on.
I think that’s a common point of view, but it’s actually more than a little difficult to defend, if you look at the details. You mention constitutional requirements for joining, and membership, and then suggest that such requirements imply authority over departure. Let’s look at the Constitution:
Article I, Section 2: No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.
Article I, Section 3: No Person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen… The Senate shall chuse their other Officers, and also a President pro tempore, in the Absence of the Vice President, or when he shall exercise the Office of President of the United States.
Article I, Section 5: Section. 5. Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members, and a Majority of each shall constitute a Quorum to do Business; but a smaller Number may adjourn from day to day, and may be authorized to compel the Attendance of absent Members, in such Manner, and under such Penalties as each House may provide. ..
Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member.
Article I, Section 6: The Senators and Representatives shall receive a Compensation for their Services, to be ascertained by Law, and paid out of the Treasury of the United States. They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.
No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the Authority of the United States, which shall have been created, or the Emoluments whereof shall have been encreased during such time; and no Person holding any Office under the United States, shall be a Member of either House during his Continuance in Office.
So the Constitution clearly defines federal authority with regard to people becoming members of Congress (including age, citizenship, residency elections, returns, etc.); as well as aspects of membership (selection of officers, attendance, penalties, etc.). You would apparently suggest, then, that the federal government possesses an “implied” power to prevent Representatives and Senators from resigning? No Congress-person can leave, without prior federal approval? Or maybe they’re just stuck there, unable to leave at all, until they manage to get ‘unelected’ back home? Nobody can simply resign?
In somewhat similar fashion, my local sporting goods store has authority over anyone entering the store (via operating hours, locked doors, etc.), and some authority over behavior inside the store (don’t point a firearm at anyone), but obviously no authority whatsoever to prevent someone from leaving.
My personal view is that authority over entry, and behavior while a present, does NOT necessarily imply any authority to prevent departure. That is particularly true with regard to State secession, given that multiple States reserved the right to depart, in writing, when the they ratified the Constitution.
And I should point out that is not only my position but the belief of James Madison, Salmon Chase, Thomas Jefferson, and many others. Roger Taney didn't think states could leave at all.
I would disagree, regarding both Jefferson and Madison. Madison's opinions changed with time, but he very notably defended the right of each State ratifying the new Constitution, to withdraw (i.e., secede) from the supposedly “perpetual” union formed under the Articles of Confederation (see his writings in the relevant section of the Federalist Papers). (In essence, he helped 'sell' the Constitution to the States and their people, on terms that directly implied a right of State secession.) And it's also worth noting, that while certain language and provisions from the Articles were incorporated within the Constitution, any reference to a “perpetual” union was pointedly omitted.
Jefferson authored his little known “Declaration on the Principles of the Constitution of the United States of America, and on the Violations of Them” late in his life (1825), but therein explicitly recognized the right of secession, as did William Rawle in his “A view of the Constitution of the United States of America” (also 1825) and others. So, as one might expect, there were differing opinions on the matter.
WIJG? - If no such authority was clearly delegated to the federal government, would it not remain with each of the States - in other words, would not the people of each State retain authority over its own departure?
DD - Only if you discount entirely the existence of implied powers. As I said, Congressional approval is needed for a state to join or changes in status once allowed it so recognizing that the need for Congressional approval is implied is no great stretch.
“Implied powers” have been a troubling subject, since the early days of the republic. The ink was hardly dry on the Constitution, before some members of Congress found a nearly inexhaustible supply of “implied powers” in Article I, Section 8 (“The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States”). As Madison noted in 1799:
"...[W]hether the phrases in question be construed to authorize every measure relating to the common defence and general welfare, as contended by some; or every measure only in which there might be an application of money, as suggested by the caution of others; the effect must substantially be the same, in destroying the import and force of the particular enumeration of powers which follow these general phrases in the Constitution. For it is evident that there is not a single power whatever, which may not have some reference to the common defence, or the general welfare; nor a power of any magnitude, which, in its exercise, does not involve or admit an application of money."
Clearly, not all governmental powers that may be implied, actually exist, or the Constitution becomes a meaningless scrap of paper…
The Supreme Court is the final arbiter on what is constitutional or unconstitutional in our system of government. In Cohens vs Virginia (1821) they made the determination that the Constitution was formed by all the people of the United States and could only be changed by all the people.
“The people made the constitution, and the people can unmake it. It is the creature of their will, and lives only by their will. But this supreme and irresistible power to make or to unmake, resides only in the whole body of the people; not in any sub-division of them. The attempt of any of the parts to exercise it is usurpation, and ought to be repelled by those to whom the people have delegated their power of repelling it.” [19 U.S. 264] 1821
Don’t like it, get an amendment passed to allow a state to leave, or the supreme court to reveres this ruling. That’s how our system works.
"Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up, and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable - a most sacred right - a right, which we hope and believe, is to liberate the world."
So get yourself a group of like minded people that seem to hate the United States of America at the local, county, or state level and declare yourself a new country. I will volunteer to come out of retirement and grab an M-4 and teach you the error of your ways.
I submit there is quite a difference between a state and a senator, but let's follow your analogy in another direction. If the only powers are those that are specifically enumerated then by your definition the U.S. Air Force and the U.S. Space Force are illegal organizations because they are not specifically authorized by the Constitution. Correct?
I would disagree, regarding both Jefferson and Madison. Madison's opinions changed with time, but he very notably defended the right of each State ratifying the new Constitution, to withdraw (i.e., secede) from the supposedly “perpetual” union formed under the Articles of Confederation (see his writings in the relevant section of the Federalist Papers).
LOL! So the states seceded from the United States in order to form the United States? The convening of the Constitutional Convention was approved by Congress and the sending of the Constitution to the states for ratification was also approved by Congress. Nobody seceded from anything.
Clearly, not all governmental powers that may be implied, actually exist, or the Constitution becomes a meaningless scrap of paper…
Probably. But as Chief Justice Marshall wrote in the McCulloch decision, "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." If Congressional approval is required to join and Congressional approval is required for every other alteration in a state's status then a fair construction of the whole instrument would support Congressional approval being needed to leave as well.
So the bottom line is Southern Secession was driven by the feeling that Lincoln and the Republican controlled legislature would take action against the slave institution in the South.
Actually, I believe I used the phrase ‘necessarily implied’ – I never stated that federal powers are limited to those “specifically enumerated”. You may be remembering that phrase from a different post.
LOL! So the states seceded from the United States in order to form the United States? The convening of the Constitutional Convention was approved by Congress and the sending of the Constitution to the states for ratification was also approved by Congress. Nobody seceded from anything.
Come now - it’s well documented history; two different unions, formed under two different compacts. Membership went from 13 States (in 1787, under the Articles of Confederation); to nine States in the union formed under the Constitution, with four States NOT in that union, having not ratified the Constitution; to 12 States in the new union, in 1788, with Rhode Island existing as a separate sovereign State, NOT bound by the Constitution; to, eventually, 13 member States in the new union.
You have read the Articles of Confederation, have you not? Having read it, you cannot fail to recognize the numerous differences between the Articles and the Constitution. And no doubt you are aware that ratification of the Constitution extended over a considerable length of time, and that no State which had not ratified the new Constitution, was in any way bound by its terms.
As to the ratifying States “seceding” from the old union (formed under the Articles), to join the new union (formed under the Constitution), I will simply refer you to my Post #201, and the description provided from the 1803 edition of Blackwell’s Commentaries, which includes the following:.
“Yet the seceding states, as they may be not improperly termed, did not hesitate, as soon as nine states had ratified the new constitution, to supersede the former federal government, and establish a new form, more consonant to their opinion of what was necessary to the preservation and prosperity of the federal union.”
If Congressional approval is required to join and Congressional approval is required for every other alteration in a state's status then a fair construction of the whole instrument would support Congressional approval being needed to leave as well.
And it is equally true that State approval “is required to join” – no State can be forced to join without its approval. Furthermore, State approval “is required for every other alteration in a state's status” – as the Constitution states, such changes may not occur “without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned”. But apparently you would have us believe that it is “a fair construction of the whole instrument”, to ignore the powers reserved to the States and their people, imply additional federal powers that are not necessarily implied, and claim that States can be forced to remain in the union, without their consent.
Guess we define “a fair construction of the whole instrument” in entirely different ways…
Actually, the Constitution itself mentions exceptions.
Don’t like it, get an amendment passed... That’s how our system works.
And how, precisely, would such an amendment be passed? By "the whole body of the people" voting in a national election?
Of course not - the Constitution specifies, in writing, that amendments are adopted "when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof".
THAT'S how our system works...
As aforementioned, the Emancipation Proclamation was a wartime political stunt.
*****************
>>Kalamata wrote: "One of those listed (the N. Y. World newspaper) that criticized the so-called "emancipation" was accused of treason and shut down the next year..."
>>DoodleDawg wrote: "Your ignorance of the history of the rebellion is truly dazzling. The New York World was closed for two days in 1864 and allowed to reopen. And it wasn't for treason, as you claim, but because the authorities suspected that the World along with the New York Journal of Commerce were part of the gold hoax, a financial fraud orchestrated by Francis Mallison and Joseph Howard. Once it was established that the newspapers were unwitting dupes they were both allowed to reopen."
Your ignorance of history is superseded only by your arrogance. This is some of the message traffic for the event that I mentioned:
New York, May 18, 1864 (Received 11.35 a. m.)
Hon. W. H. Seward,
Secretary of State:"A proclamation by the President, countersigned by you, and believed to be spurious, has appeared in some of our morning papers calling for 400,000 men, and appointing the 26th instant as a day of fasting, humiliation, and prayer. Please answer immediately for steamer."
John A. Dix
Major- General
. . .Department of State,
May 18, 1864
To THE Public:"A paper purporting to be a proclamation of the President, countersigned by the Secretary of State, and bearing date the 17th day of May, is reported to this Department as having appeared in the New York World of this date. The paper is an absolute forgery. No proclamation of that kind or any other has been made or proposed to be made by the President, or issued or proposed to be issued by the State Department or any Department of the Government."
William H. Seward
(Sent to New York press and to Charles Francis Adams, London, and William L. Dayton, Paris.)
. . .Executive Mansion,
Washington, May 18, 1864
Maj. Gen. John A. Dix, Commanding, New York:"Whereas, there has been wickedly and traitorously printed and published this morning in the New York World and New York Journal of Commerce, newspapers printed and published in the city of New York, a false and spurious proclamation purporting to be signed by the President and to be countersigned by the Secretary of State, which publication is of a treasonable nature, designed to give aid and , comfort to the enemies of the United States and to the rebels now at war against the Government, and their aiders and abettors, you are, therefore, hereby commanded forthwith to arrest and imprison in any fort or military prison in your command the editors, proprietors, and the publishers of the aforesaid newspapers, and all such persons as, after I public notice has been given of the falsehood of said publication, print and publish the same, with intent to give aid and comfort to the enemy, and you will hold the persons so arrested in close custody until they can be brought to trial before a military commission for I their offense. You will also take possession, by military force, of the printing establishments of the New York World and Journal of Commerce and hold the same until further orders, and prevent any further h publication therefrom."
A. Lincoln
. . .War Department,
May 18, 1864 – 6.30 p. m.
Major-General Dix,
New York:"Your telegram of 5.40 is just received. A great national crime has been committed by the publication. The editors, proprietors, and publishers, responsible and irresponsible, are in law guilty of that crime. You were not directed to make any investigation, but to execute the President 's order; the investigation was to be made by a military commission. How you can excuse or justify delay in executing the President 's order until you make an investigation is not for me to determine."
Edwin M. Stanton,
Secretary of War.
. . .New York, May 18, 1864 (Received 10.40 p. m.)
Hon. E. M. Stanton,
Secretary of War:"The investigation was made by me as commanding officer of the department before the President 's order was received, as my dispatch showed. There has been none since. I understood the President 's orders as commands to be executed, and there has been no unnecessary delay in the execution. The telegraphic offices were seized as soon as my officers could reach them. The World and Journal of Commerce printing offices are in possession of my men. Two of my officers. Major Halpine and Captain Barstow, are engaged in the arrest of the editors, proprietors, and publishers, and a steamer is waiting at Castle Garden to take them to Fort Lafayette. The only delay has been in making proper arrangements to secure, as nearly as possible, simultaneous and effective action."
J. A. Dix,
Major- General["War of the Rebellion: a Compilation of the Official Records of the Union and Confederate Armies Ser III Vol III." U. S. Government Printing Office, 1900, pp.387-390]
Like I said, the newspapers were shut down, and treason was the charge. The charges were dropped after the instigator of the hoax was arrested:
New York, May 22, 1864
(Received 1.45 p. m.)
Hon. E. M. Stanton,Secretary of War:
"I read to the editors of The World and Journal of Commerce the order for the restoration of their respective establishments. They desire a copy and also a copy of the President's order directing their establishments to be seized. I did not publish the latter, as the authority given to me to do so was to be executed after the arrest of the editors, &c., and their arrest having been countermanded, I did not consider myself authorized to make the publication."
John A. Dix
Major- General
. . .War Department, Washington City, May 23, 1864
Major-General Dix,
New York:"You will deliver up to the telegraph companies their offices and instruments and remove their guards."
Edwin M. Stanton
(Same to General Cadwalader, Philadelphia; General Wallace, Baltimore; Colonel Bomford, Harrisburg; and Captain Foster, Pittsburg.)[Ibid. pp.400-401]
The Union news organizations were treading on thin ice throughout the war – those that were not shut down.
*****************
>>DoodleDawg wrote: "But while we're on the subject, in the past you have claimed that Lincoln shut down over 300 newspapers. I'll allow you to include these two in that total; can you tell me what the other 298 newspapers were?
I gave you a valid reference for that quote about the newspapers. If you don't believe the author performed adequate research, you can always look them up for yourself:
The War of the Rebellion: a Compilation of the Official Records of the Union and Confederate Armies
Mr. Kalamata
Not according to the Constitution, and the Constitutional Convention.
*****************
>>OIFVeteran wrote: "In fact previous President’s had done the same thing against other insurrection against the government. Starting with President Washington who led troops to put down the whiskey rebellion."
The Whiskey Rebellion was a rebellion, not secession.
*****************
>>OIFVeteran wrote: "Even President Buchanan, as spineless as he was, said the states had no right to secede, though he also claimed that the federal government had no right to force the state to stay in the Union. Though he did say that once the pretend confederacy fired on Fort Sumter that the federal government then had the right to use force to destroy the rebellion."
It doesn't matter what politicians say. The Constitution is the legal document that guides our nation. Usurpation of that legal document is tyranny, period.
*****************
>>OIFVeteran wrote: "But I think the best view on secession was expressed by President Andrew Jackson in his proclamation to the people of South Carolina on December 10, 1832, when they threatened to secede during the nullification crisis..."
During the crisis, Clay had presented a more logical system of judicial review, that wouldn't risk our Free Republic to the ideologies of five politically-appointed Men in Black:
"One writer has commented: Calhoun ''unconsciously started with the conclusion he wanted and reasoned back to the premises... he leads you willy-nilly to his conclusions" and "the sure grip of Calhoun's logic will end by making one a nullifier or a lunatic." The Constitution, Calhoun restated, was a compact between sovereign states. Each state could determine when it was violated and interpose to halt the operation of the unconstitutional law, which then became suspended. Following this, the general government could appeal to the Constitution makers, the states, and the will of three-fourths would decide the issue. Here was a kind of judicial review by the states, a process whereby 1/4 of the states plus one could effectively check the will of 3/4 of the states." [David Lindsey, "Andrew Jackson & John C. Calhoun." Barron's Educational Series, Inc., 1973, p.153]
Jackson did adopt a conciliatory tone:
"During the fall of 1832, Jackson was still willing to give conciliation a try, believing that the carrot rather than the stick might work better in bringing balky Carolina to pull in harness. When Congress gathered in early December (Calhoun absent from the Vice President's chair for the first time in eight years), Jackson in his annual message made a brief, calm reference to the nullification drive suggesting that the laws at present were adequate to meet the problem. As to the supposed source of difficulty, the tariff, he asserted that 'if upon investigation it shall be found... that the legislative protection is greater than indispensably requisite tor these objects [national security and defense], I recommend that it be gradually diminished.'The message,' thought John Quincy Adams, 'is a complete surrender to the nullifiers.'" [David Lindsey, "Andrew Jackson & John C. Calhoun." Barron's Educational Series, Inc., 1973, pp.158-159]
Howeever, Jackson later became incensed when South Carolina refused conciliation and rejected a tariff compromise. Calhoun's diplomacy, with the reluctant help of Clay, eventually prevailed.
Jackson's logic was flawed, similar to Lincoln's, in that he considered the Union superior to a Free Republic. But, unlike Lincoln, Jackson was a statesman, not a tyrant, and he accepted a subsequent tariff compromise that ended the crisis. Unfortunately for liberty, part of the compromise included a Soviet-style "Force Bill" which "gave" the President the unconstitutional power to use military force to suppress resistance to laws, which Lincoln later adopted to destroy our republic."
Mr. Kalamata
Child.
*****************
>>DoodleDawg wrote: "Be that as it may, if only powers specifically granted Congress are Constitutional and only powers specifically denied the states are excluded then would you agree that the U.S. Air Force, the U.S. Space force, the air traffic control network, and the Food and Drug Administration are only four of the hundreds of unconstitutional government organizations since the Constitution does not specifically allow for an Air Force, a Space Force, an Air Traffic Control system, or any sort of control of pharmaceuticals?"
That is correct. Without authorizing amendments by 3/4's of the state legislatures, the Constitution forbids a standing army, and virtually all modern government agencies. Article I Section 8 lists the powers authorized to the Congress, and there are not a lot of them; but you don't have to take my word for it:
"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State." [James Madison, Federalist No. 45, in Bill Bailey, "The Complete Federalist Papers." The New Federalist Papers Project, pp.214-215]
*****************
>>DoodleDawg wrote: "And would you also agree that the states have the power to expel individual states from the Union against their will since no such power is specifically prohibited."
I haven't really thought about it.
Mr. Kalamata
Not according to George Washington.
*****************
>>Kalamata wrote: "The fourth branch was the state legislatures, until the 17th Amendment."
>>DoodleDawg wrote: "You're just making this stuff up as you go along, aren't you?"
Why would I foolishly make things up when the truth is so easy to find? Why would I want to be like you?
This was the original Article I, Section 8:
"The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof, for six Years; and each Senator shall have one Vote." [Law, "Constitution of the United States and Amendments." 1787, Article I Section 3]
The Senators were bound by the will of the state legislators. If a Senator strayed from the will of the legislators, they could be forced to step down and be replaced in the Senate by another appointee of the legislators.
*****************
>>DoodleDawg wrote: "An unorthodox interpretation of Washington's farewell address."
His words are crystal clear.
*****************
>>DoodleDawg wrote: "When he says, "The necessity of reciprocal checks in the exercise of political power, by dividing and distributing it into different depositories, and constituting each the guardian of the public weal against invasions by the others, has been evinced by experiments ancient and modern, some of them in our country and under our own eyes" how do you know he wasn't referring to the three branches of government identified by the Constitution and was instead creating your fourth branch?"
Washington, like every other person in attendance at the Constitutional Convention, knew full-well that the Senate was merely an extension of the State legislatures -- their federal representatives -- which provided another "reciprocal check" against consolidation of powers.
That concept may be difficult to comprehend by central planners.
Mr. Kalamata
>>Kalamata wrote: “Perhaps General McClellan was too civilized – too endeared to the Constitution and Holy Bible — for Lincoln to keep him around.”
>>Bull Snipe wrote: “Or maybe his ability to command an army in the field, to victory, was wanting. As it was with Pope, Burnside, and Hooker.”
Too bad sanity didn’t prevail.
****************
>>Kalamata wrote: “Butler also ended up losing his command.”
>>Bull Snipe wrote: “Wasn’t that the General Butler that refused to return run away slaves to their owner in Virginia. He used the term “contraband of war” to justify not complying with the Fugitive Slave Act.”
That sounds about right.
****************
>>Bull Snipe wrote: “Was that the same General Butler who endeared himself to the citizens of New Orleans for his civilized and endearing leadership.”
I have read that he cleaned the place up.
****************
>>Bull Snipe wrote: “Was this the same General Butler that Commanded the Army of the James up until January of 1865.”
From the time it was formed until 1865 sounds about right.
Mr. Kalamata
>>”So the bottom line is Southern Secession was driven by the feeling that Lincoln and the Republican controlled legislature would take action against the slave institution in the South.”
No, that is only one of many lines. The tariff was the most hated of Lincoln’s favorite self-promotions.
Mr. Kalamata
Annoyed are you? Poor baby.
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.