Posted on 12/22/2019 4:23:47 AM PST by Bull Snipe
Mr. Olive and I have been debating Davis and his constitutional infractions for some time on a number of posts. I like to drag him back to reality from time to time and remind him that he can lie about Lincoln's Constitutional infractions all he wants but he can't change the fact that Davis's contempt for his Constitution were far worse than anything Lincoln might have done.
“Let me use a hypothetical what if to demonstrate my point. Let’s imagine . . .”
Yes, let’s imagine 13 slave states that claim they want freedom.
Let’s imagine representatives of the 13 slave states approve a declaration of independence. Let’s image that over 70 percent of the signers of the declaration own slaves themselves.
Let’s image the text of their declaration includes this charge against the leader of the mother country: “He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavored to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian savages, whose known rule of warfare is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes, and conditions.”
Would these circumstances, and that language, disqualify the slave states from instituting a government that derived its just powers from the consent of the governed?
Lincoln must be compared to an objective standard of legality, not some other person that may have done worse.
I sometimes have things to do which are more important than discussing the Civil War on the internet. :)
I'm sure the same is true of yourself and others. I know BroJoeK admits to having meatworld tasks that must be done.
Besides that, I think we all know where we stand, and we all know where other people are immovable, so the same old conflict will be waiting for all of us at our convenience whenever we feel like picking it up again. :)
Exactly! All FEDERAL powers are limited AND DEFINED! The rest belong to the states. The framers even appended an amendment to assist the legally-challenged in interpretation:
"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."
[Amendment 10, Powers of the States and People. Ratified 12/15/1791, in "Constitution of the United States and Amendments." 1787]
Obviously, the 10th Amendment didn't help Joey's understanding, revealing he is more legally-challenged than most. Perhaps if the framers had also explained that the delegated and prohibited powers are found in Article I, Sections 8 and 9, respectively, it would have been easier for him to understand them?
Naw. The "Joey's" of this nation would have found a way to misconstrue them, no matter what. Frankly, I am beginning to believe Joey is in love with an all-powerful government. He does sing the praises of the ACLU from time to time.
****************
>>Kalamata wrote: "The constitution is also clear that the use of central government force to present secession is treason."
>>Joey wrote: "And that is pure insanity, nothing else, typical of the way Democrats think & argue. In fact, President Jefferson signed the 1807 Insurrect Act authorizing the President to suppress rebellions."
Rebellion is not secession, Joey, except in the rhetoric of tyrant and their groupies. Besides, I am not referring to the secessionists, who were states within a foreign nation at the time Lincoln invaded. Rather I am referring to Lincoln making war on the state of Maryland to keep them from seceding. That was treason:
"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort."
["Constitution of the United States and Amendments." 1787, Article III, Sect. 3]
A reasonable person could make a case that Lincoln also committed treason when he usurped power to suspend habeas corpus from the Congress, and then used that usurped power to arrest Union citizens at gunpoint without charging them with a crime, and to imprison them without due process.
But there is no doubt Lincoln committed treason against Maryland. All who gave and aid and comfort to Lincoln were also traitors.
****************
>>Kalamata wrote: "Redefining secession as "rebellion" or "insurrection" [doesn't] make the suppression any less treasonous."
>>Joey wrote: "No, no, the truth is the reverse: even if you Democrats try to redefine your rebellion & insurrection as "secession", it remains no less treasonous."
Secession can never be rebellion or insurrection, except in the warped minds of tyrants and their groupies.
Obviously Joey is confused about the definition of 'republican'. I am a devout conservative republican. The laws in a republican form of government are bound by a constitution, not by the ever-changing whims of power-hungry politicians.
The big-government, central-planning progressive policies of the Lincoln administration, became the modern-day policies of the Democrat Party. That explains the love-affair of the progressive-Marxist democrats, like Joey, with Lincoln.
The fact that Marxist "historians," such as Eric "Phony" Foner, are hard-core Lincoln groupies should be a big red flag to all conservatives.
****************
>>Kalamata wrote: "The Lincoln gang committed treason when he declared martial law in Maryland, and prevented it from from seceding using federal troops."
>>Joey wrote: "That's a total lie because no martial law was imposed in Maryland, or anywhere else, until after Confederates formally declared war against the United States, on May 6, 1861."
Maryland was one of the United States, Joey, and it never made war against it. Rather, Lincoln usurped power from the people and made war against Maryland to strip it of its republican form of government.
The Confederacy was a foreign nation when Lincoln invaded, and could not possibly have committed treason against the United States.
****************
>>Joey wrote: "These also activated the 1807 Insurrection Act: "Whenever the President considers that unlawful obstructions, combinations, or assemblages, or rebellion against the authority of the United States, make it impracticable to enforce the laws of the United States in any State or Territory by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, he may call into Federal service such of the militia of any State, and use such of the armed forces, as he considers necessary to enforce those laws or to suppress the rebellion."
So? The Confederacy was a foreign nation when Lincoln invaded, and could not possibly have committed insurrection or rebellion.
****************
>>Joey wrote: "Here is the Maryland sequence of events: After Fort Sumter, on April 27, 1861, Lincoln suspended Habeas Corpus along the railroad tracks through Maryland, fearing Marylanders would destroy tracks to prevent Union troop movements to Washington. Two days later, April 29, the Maryland legislature voted 53-13 (four to one) against secession. A week later, May 6, Confederates in Mobile formally declared war against the United States. Two weeks later, Union Gen. "Beast" Butler declared martial law in Maryland. "
As usual, Joey is glossing over Lincoln's tyranny. Lincoln, being a slick trial lawyer and master rhetorician. had an uncanny knack of finding presidential powers in the Constitution that no one had previously noticed. In April of 1861, Lincoln found a previously unknown presidential power to suspend habeas corpus, which he then used to arrest and imprison anyone who opposed his political theory and ambitions, with particular animosity toward those who expressed support for the original construction of the U. S. Constitution. Lincoln's politics had now become the Constitution of the United States, which included a new-found presidential power to charge with treason those who opposed his politics. The Lincoln Constitution of United States, debated and ratified by Abraham Lincoln the instant he was inaugurated, had become the Supreme Law of the Land in 1861.
Fact: Lincoln formally declared war against the South on April 19, 1861 (less than a week after the Fort Sumter surrender) when he ordered the blockade of Southern ports.
Fact: By blockading Southern ports, Lincoln was either admitting the Confederacy was a foreign power, or admitting to his own treason. Take your pick.
Fact: Maryland legislators were threatened to avoid debating the issue of secession, or else; so naturally the majority secessionists eventually lost the vote:
"As the troops were landing, the shaken [Unionist Governor] Hicks signed a proclamation calling for a special session of the [Maryland] state legislature in Annapolis the following Friday, the one act the secessionists had tried for months to get him to do. Hicks" has turned traitor," wrote Horace Greeley when he heard the news. [Brigadier General Benjamin] Butler felt the same way and he decided to make this session of the legislature his personal responsibility. [Butler] told the governor that if Hicks recommended any discussion of secession in his message to the legislature, he would arrest him and if the legislature discussed it he would disperse the body, or better still, lock them all up. Hicks assured him that he had no intention of bringing up the subject and said he would never permit the great seal of Maryland to be affixed to any ordinance of secession. As proof of his intention he turned the great seal over to Butler and the latter held it during the entire session. Yet Butler's overbearing attitude convinced Hicks that an explosion would occur if the legislature met at Annapolis and he transferred the meeting place to Frederick, a town some fifty miles west of Baltimore and fairly well up in Union country. The enraged Butler was unable to do anything about it…
"It was on Monday, three days after the riots, that Governor Hicks finally gave in to the pressure from the secessionists and called a special session of the legislature. Ten Baltimore seats in the house of delegates had previously been declared vacant by the Maryland General Assembly as a result of election-day violence, and the secessionists in Baltimore determined to fill these seats with their own men. A States Rights convention was immediately called together on Monday night and candidates were nominated for a special election to be held just two days later. None of these men was a politician and in the midst of all the secessionist excitement no Union slate was even nominated. For this was destined to be perhaps the only election in American history in which every man who was nominated was elected and every man who was elected went to prison or into exile shortly afterward…"
[Dean Sprague, "Freedom under Lincoln." Houghton Mifflin Company, 1965, pp.23, 28-29]
Read carefully that last highlighted sentence; now read what happened to one of those new legislators, and also to a Maryland Militia Lieutenant:
"On May 14, when the special session of the legislature ended, Winans dutifully sent a telegram to his family in Baltimore that he would arrive by train that afternoon. The telegram was intercepted at Relay House and when his train arrived there a Union officer boarded it, went up to Mr. Winans, and told him to consider himself a prisoner. The governor and other legislators on the train protested vehemently but were only told he was being arrested for treason. Winans was held at Relay House until midnight and then forwarded to Annapolis. The next day he was sent to Fort McHenry in Baltimore…
"Ross Winans had been fortunate enough to get in and out of prison so fast that the judicial hierarchy did not become involved. But the case of John Merryman was different. The Pennsylvania militia had a special distaste for Merryman. As a lieutenant in the Maryland militia, Merryman had reconnoitered them during their brief stay at Cockeysville during the insurrection, and with his Baltimore County Horse Guards he had followed them when they retreated to the north. Later, when Pennsylvania troops had occupied the entire railroad line from Harrisburg to Baltimore, Major General William Keim, their commanding officer, decided the time had come to strike at treason. He called in Lieutenant Abel and told him to take some troops, arrest Merryman, and send him to Fort McHenry…" [Ibid. pp. 37-39]
Now Joey's spin:
>>Joey wrote: "On May 25 John Merryman was arrested and on May 28 a federal circuit court (pro-slavery, crazy Roger Taney presiding), ruled such arrests unconstitutional. Lincoln ignored Taney's ruling and the ruling was not supported by either the Supreme Court or Congress."
Joey is lying. Lincoln usurped power from the Congress when he suspended habeas corpus, which was the most dangerous usurpation of power against the citizens of the United States in its history. Chief Justice Taney followed the Constitution in his ruling, and, yet, Joey, always playing the role of the big-government progressive, misdirects by throwing an ad hominem at the judge, rather than condemning his tyrannical, big-government, white supremacist hero, Abraham Lincoln. That argument by Joey is the kind of craziness that no conservative can justify.
This is Sprague's historical narrative about Chief Justice Taney:
"The entire city of Baltimore started to buzz when it learned of the Merryman arrest. Although he had many friends who might have interceded with the authorities, Merryman decided to seek legal relief. A petition for a writ of habeas corpus was sent to the United States district court in Baltimore. As it happened, this court was in the circuit of Roger B. Taney, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. Taney was eighty-four years old, having been appointed to the Supreme Court by Andrew Jackson a quarter of a century earlier as a reward for helping Jackson break up the national bank. A Marylander by birth, he had lived many years in Baltimore, and was a strong believer in States Rights. He had written the Dred Scott decision in 1857 which held it unconstitutional for Congress to outlaw slavery in the territories. He was, above all, not a man to be cowed by military authority.
"Taney issued the writ of habeas corpus, commanding General Cadwalader to appear before him at 11 o 'clock on May 27, bringing "the body of John Merryman... now in your custody." But Cadwalader refused, and said he had been authorized to suspend the writ of habeas corpus by the President of the United States. He added, "This is a high and delicate trust and it has been enjoined upon him that it should be executed with judgment and discretion.... He [Cadwalader] most respectfully submits for your consideration that those who should co-operate in the present trying and painful position in which our country is placed should not by reason of unnecessary want of confidence in each other increase our embarrassments. He therefore respectfully requests that you will postpone further action upon this case until he can receive instructions from the President of the United States when you shall hear further from him" At the same time, Cadwalader sent a message to Washington outlining his problem and asking for instructions. But Taney would countenance no delay. He immediately ordered the United States marshal to bring General Cadwalader to court "to answer for his contempt." The marshal was denied admission to Fort McHenry and returned to inform Taney that he could not execute the writ. The executive had defied the judiciary and Taney resolved to demand redress.
"In one of the supreme moments of drama in American judicial history. Justice Taney appeared in court on May 28, 1861, to hurl his defiance at President Lincoln. He was greatly admired in Baltimore and as he approached the crowded courthouse, leaning on the arm of his grandson, the citizens silently lifted their hats and opened a path for him. With great dignity, this veteran of innumerable legal battles took his seat on the bench and slowly began reading an opinion to be known ever afterward as Ex parte Merryman. As elaborated in greater detail shortly afterward, it was to serve as the basic source document for all who opposed the policy of repression throughout the war. The President, he said, had usurped the power to suspend the writ of habeas corpus from Congress, and he cited many precedents in support of this belief. He said that the Constitution had been drawn up after a war against the tyranny of the British sovereign and it did not give the President "more regal and absolute power over the liberty of the citizens than the people of England would have thought it safe to intrust to the Crown." And even if the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus was suspended by act of Congress, there would still be no authority to hold a man indefinitely without trial. The Constitution provides that "in all criminal prosecutions the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed,... and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense. ' The basic intent of the Constitution, according to Taney, was being subverted when President Lincoln authorized the arbitrary arrest of persons such as Merryman.
"But even more flagrant, in his opinion, was the manner in which the action was carried out. For the military authorities had gone far beyond the mere suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus. This military force "has by force of arms thrust aside the judicial authorities and officers to whom the Constitution has confided the power and duty of interpreting and administering the laws and substituted a military government in its place to be administered and executed by military officers, for at the time these proceedings were held against John Merryman the district judge of Maryland —the commissioner appointed under the act of Congress — the district attorney and the marshal all reside in the city of Baltimore a few miles only from the home of the prisoner.... And yet under these circumstances a military officer stationed in Pennsylvania without giving any information to the district attorney and without any application to the judicial authorities assumes to himself the judicial power in the district of Maryland; undertakes to decide what constitutes the crime of treason or rebellion; what evidence (if indeed he required any) is sufficient to support the accusation and justify the commitment; and commits the party without having a hearing even before himself to close custody in a strongly-garrisoned fort to be there held it would seem during the pleasure of those who committed him."
"The President, he said, "does not faithfully execute the laws if he takes upon himself the legislative power by suspending the writ of habeas corpus — and the judicial power also by arresting and imprisoning a person without due process of law." He concluded that in such a case his duty was too plain to be mistaken. "I have exercised all the power which the Constitution and laws confer on me but that power has been resisted by a force too strong for me to overcome." He therefore ordered that his opinion be filed and a copy of it transmitted under seal to the President of the United States, where it would remain "with that officer in fulfillment of his constitutional obligation to 'take care that the laws be faithfully executed.'"
[Ibid. pp. 39-43]
So, what happened next? Taney was threatened with arrest. Merriman languished in prison for a while, but was eventually released and never brought to trial.
"Taney said that he knew his own imprisonment had been under consideration by the Lincoln Administration. In this he was probably correct. The newspapers were filled with stories of the imminent arrest of Taney. Horace Greeley's New York Tribune reported that Taney might "suddenly find himself in the embraces of the strong arm of that same military power which he is so defiant of. It may be necessary to teach him... that a Judge of the Supreme Court of the United States can be just as obnoxious to the laws against treason as John Merryman can be." But the danger passed and Taney was not arrested."
[Ibid. p. 43]
Greeley was just as annoyed with the limitations in the Constitution as Lincoln; and, yet, according to Joey, Taney was the bad guy for not sheepishly relinquishing his constitutionally-authorized position to a power-hungry mad-man.
****************
>>Joey wrote: "When Congress returned in July it took up the Habeas Corpus issue, debated at length and eventually authorized Lincoln to withhold it."
The Congress was packed with pro-crony-capitalism, pro-central-planning "republicans" who rubber-stamped any power Lincoln decided to add to his new Lincoln Constitution. I wonder if the remaining democrats were intimidated by Lincoln's thuggery? Just askin' . . .
****************
>>Joey wrote: "In the meantime, the Confederate Congress without much debate authorized Jefferson Davis to withhold Habeas Corpus, which he did, frequently."
That is a common lie spread by the Lincoln cultists. Davis relied on the Congress to authorize the suspension, which occurred only infrequently, and then for non-sweeping purposes. Lincoln, on the other hand, had Hitler-like power. He could do as he pleased, and he did.
****************
>>Joey wrote: "In September 1861, 1/3 of Maryland legislators, considered pro-Confederate, were arrested and held."
Now we are getting somewhere. Obviously those legislators, who had sworn an oath to the U.S. Constitution, were not aware it had been superseded by the new Lincoln Constitution, written by the devil himself.
Did Joey mention that U.S. Congressman Henry May was also arrested? How about the mayor of Baltimore? How about newspaper editors and publishers?
Wait until you hear about the progressive-style suppression of Maryland votes in the November 1861 election.
****************
>>Joey wrote: "That ratio of Marylanders supporting the Union roughly two to one is also confirmed by Maryland enlistments in the Union vs. Confederate armies."
Joey's numbers are always deceptive. Maryland supported the right of the secessionists; and if Maryland had been allowed to exercise their natural and Constitutional right to secede, rather than being oppressed by Lincoln's thuggery, those numbers would have been reversed, and moreso, providing Joey's numbers are accurate in the first place, which is always in doubt.
****************
>>Joey wrote: "In February 1862 Lincoln ordered such prisoners released, ending court challenges at the time. Sources: here, here, here, and here."
What a nice guy.
****************
>>Kalamata wrote: "Once it is understood that the entire constitution resides in Article I, Section 4, the interpretation becomes less cloudy.
I meant, Article I, Section 8.
****************
>>Kalamata wrote: "These are the clauses under which Lincoln committed treason:"
>>Joey wrote: "Here again, like any good Democrat, Kalamata simply imposes his own fantasies on Constitutional language which was never intened to support them."
Like all devout progressives, Joey treats the Constitution like a McDonald's Menu, when he is not using it for toilet paper.
****************
>>Kalamata wrote: "If a state believes the tax system is over-burdensome, or unequally distributed, it is within the power of that state, and is even their duty, to secede. Without that power, and the exercise of that power, there is no check on the power of the central government."
>>Joey wrote: "Here our Olive-boy bends & twists James Madison's words into meanings Madison himself never intended. How do we know that for sure? Because Madison tells us:
>>Joey quoting Madison: "...the compact being among individuals as imbodied into States, no State can at pleasure release itself therefrom, and set up for itself. The compact can only be dissolved by the consent of the other parties, or by usurpations or abuses of power justly having that effect. It will hardly be contended that there is anything in the terms or nature of the compact, authorizing a party to dissolve it at pleasure."
I previously stated that Joey treats the Constitution like a McDonald's Menu. Now we have front-and-center evidence that he also treats the letters of the Founding Fathers like a McDonald's Menu. In sentence 2, clause 2, Madison confirms my interpretation, when he states:
"The compact can only be dissolved by the consent of the other parties, or by usurpations or abuses of power justly having that effect."
Madison states that usurpations or abuses of power JUSTLY have the same effect as the consent of the other parties. Therefore, when Lincoln usurped powers from the states, he effectively gave consent to secession by those whose powers were being usurped.
More Madison:
"[T]his assent and ratification is to be given by the people, not as individuals composing one entire nation, but as composing the distinct and independent States to which they respectively belong. It is to be the assent and ratification of the several States, derived from the supreme authority in each State, the authority of the people themselves. The act, therefore, establishing the Constitution, will not be a national, but a federal act..."
"Were the people regarded in this transaction as forming one nation, the will of the majority of the whole people of the United States would bind the minority, in the same manner as the majority in each State must bind the minority; and the will of the majority must be determined either by a comparison of the individual votes, or by considering the will of the majority of the States as evidence of the will of a majority of the people of the United States. Neither of these rules have been adopted."
"Each State, in ratifying the Constitution, is considered as a sovereign body, independent of all others, and only to be bound by its own voluntary act. In this relation, then, the new Constitution will, if established, be a federal, and not a national constitution."
[James Madison, Federalist No. 39, in Bailey, Bill, "The Complete Federalist Papers." The New Federalist Papers Project, p.178]
So much for crazy-Lincoln's "Union of the whole people" deception.
Lincoln name-dropped the Declaration from time to time in order to trick people into believing he was sincere and patriotic; but he always ignored these key points:
"that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes"
A quarter-century of one-sided protective tariffs that transferred vast amounts of wealth from the South to the North, which was then used for corrupt, crony-capitalist infrastructure projects – IN THE NORTH – could not be considered by any sane person as a light and transient cause! So, what was the remedy?
"when a long train of abuses and usurpations... reduce(s) them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security
Like I said, it was not only the right of the states to secede, but their DUTY!
It is not rocket science, Joey, but a concept difficult to grasp by those wired to be bullies.
Mr. Kalamata
For someone who claims to support and defend the Constitution, and took an oath to do so, you appear to have nothing but disdain for original intent.
How you interpret Charles Cotesworth Pinckney's statement, which was made in the South Carolina legislature (not in Convention) is irrevelent. That little tidbit you keep trying to push on us as something of great significance, can never overcome the last argument of Pinckney's during the debate, in which he said:
"With regard to the liberty of the press, the discussion of that matter was not forgotten by the members of the Convention. It was fully debated, and the impropriety of saying any thing about it in the Constitution clearly evinced. The general government has no powers but what are expressly granted to it; it therefore has no power to take away the liberty of the press. That invaluable blessing, which deserves all the encomiums the gentleman has justly bestowed upon it is secured by all our state constitutions; and to have mentioned it in our general Constitution would perhaps furnish an argument, hereafter, that the general government had a right to exercise powers not expressly delegated to it. For the same reason, we had no bill of rights inserted in our Constitution; for, as we might perhaps have omitted the enumeration of some of our rights, it might hereafter be said we had delegated to the general government a power to take away such of our rights as we had not enumerated: but by delegating express powers, we certainly reserve to ourselves every power and right not mentioned in the Constitution."
[Charles Coteworth Pinckney, in,"Debates In The Legislature And In Convention Of The State Of South Carolina, On The Adoption Of The Federal Constitution." Constitution Society, Jan 16, 1788]
Pinckney is crystal clear that the federal government has NO power whatsoever, except for those powers that are expressly mentioned in the Constitution.
So, please show us an expressed power given to the federal government to "preserve the union," or to "prevent secession," then please drop the notion that Pinckney did not believe in state sovereignty, and the notion that Lincoln acted lawfully.
BTW, it was Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story that took Pinckney's statement out of context in his Commentaries on the Constitution, Vol I, 1833, pp. 199-200, in his deceptive attempt to trick the people into believing state sovereignty was was not an issue in the debates. Story was a Hamiltonian mercantilist, as was his mentor, John Marshall, as well as Henry Clay, Abraham Lincoln's hero. The truth was not in them.
This is my last conversation on Pinckney's statements to the S.C. Legislature.
Mr. Kalamata
>>OIFVeteran wrote: “Then what the hell does forever mean to you?!?”
I am not sure. What the hell is the context?
Mr. Kalamata
There were many anti-federalists who didn't believe the Constitution provided enough protection from big-government tyrants (such as Henry Clay and Abraham Lincoln turned out to be.) The framers never envisioned a usurper could navigate past so many barriers, particularly when the powers of the federal government were distinctly listed and defined. But slick rhetoricians, who can also act out the part of sincerity (like Clay and Lincoln,) can easily fool the masses.
James Madison ran into that kind of slick rhetoric on the floor of the House as early as 1791 (probably much earlier) in the form of abuse of the "general warfare" clause:
No argument could be drawn from the terms "common defence and general welfare." The power as to these general purposes was limited to acts laying taxes for them; and the general purposes themselves were limited and explained by the particular enumeration subjoined. To understand these terms in any sense that would justify the power in question, would give to Congress an unlimited power; would render nugatory the enumeration of particular powers; would supersede all the powers reserved to the State Governments. These terms are copied from the Articles of Confederation; had it ever been pretended that they were to be understood otherwise than as here explained?"
"It had been said, that "general welfare'' meant cases in which a general power might be exercised by Congress, without interfering with the powers of the States; and that the establishment of a National Bank was of this sort…"
"If Congress could incorporate a bank merely because the act would leave the States free to establish banks also, any other incorporations might be made by Congress. They could incorporate companies of manufacturers, or companies for cutting canals, or even religious societies, leaving similar incorporations by the States, like State Banks, to themselves. Congress might even establish religious teachers in every parish, and pay them out of the Treasury of the United States, leaving other teachers unmolested in their functions. These inadmissible consequences condemned the controverted principle."
[U. S. House Debate on creating a Bank of the United States, Feb 2, 1791]
The misuse of clause was front and center again in 1792:
"It would be absurd to say, first, that Congress may do what they please, and then that they may do this or that particular thing; after giving Congress power to raise money, and apply it to all purposes which they may pronounce necessary to the general welfare, it would be absurd, to say the least, to superadd a power to raise armies, to provide fleets,&c. In fact, the meaning of the general terms in question must either be sought in the subsequent enumeration which limits and details them, or they convert the Government from one limited, as hitherto supposed, to the enumerated powers, into a Government without any limits at all… it was always considered as clear and certain, that the old Congress was limited to the enumerated powers, and that the enumeration limited and explained the general terms." [Ibid. U. S. House Debate on Cod Fisheries, Feb 6, 1792, p.362]
Madison also mentioned the abuse in a letter to Edmund Pendleton a couple of weeks earlier:
"If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one, subject to particular exceptions. It is to be remarked that the phrase out of which this doctrine is elaborated is copied from the old Articles of Confederation, where it was always understood as nothing more than a general caption to the specified powers, and it is a fact that it was preferred in the new instrument for that very reason, as less liable than any other to misconstruction. If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one, subject to particular exceptions. It is to be remarked that the phrase out of which this doctrine is elaborated is copied from the old Articles of Confederation, where it was always understood as nothing more than a general caption to the specified powers, and it is a fact that it was preferred in the new instrument for that very reason, as less liable than any other to misconstruction." [To Edmund Pendleton, Philadelphia, Jan 21, 1792, in James Madison, "Letters and other writings of James Madison Vol I." J. B. Lippencott & Co., 1867, pp. 546-547]
The agenda items that Lincoln ran on for public office were unconstitutional abuses of the general terms, from the time he first ran until his death. He convinced many people that he was operating within the limits of the constitution (still does,) when practically everything he did was a usurpation.
Mr. Kalamata
That is most diplomatic of you, Joey.
****************
>>Joey wrote: "What's far more likely is a common human experience: like anyone growing older, Kalamata at some point naturally decided to make his peace with God and so prepare for the next life. In Kalamata's case that meant a church whose definition of "salvation" included full adherence to their own interpretations of Biblical texts, interpretations we might summarize under the heading, "Biblical science"."
Joey couldn't tell the truth if his life depended on it. I have been a Christian for most of my life, but I was also an evolutionist until about 8, maybe 9 years ago (after I retired,) when a friend asked me to take a look at the geologic column. If you understand fluid mechanics, and sedimentology generally, you cannot miss the FACT that those sedimentary layers were deposited rapidly. I had no reason to doubt the text books and literature, until I saw contrary evidence for myself.
My "awakening" was really as simple as that. Now I know that Charles Darwin and Charles Lyell were either liars, or absolute lunatics; and that tends to upset those who hero-worship them, like Joey.
****************
>>Joey wrote: "Now Kalamata tells us he is both highly educated and some sort (unspecified) of scientist meaning we should well be able to presume he understands the basic ideas of what methodologically natural science is all about -- natural explanations for natural processes."
I was a consultant on many science and engineering projects during my rewarding career. Some of my employers and co-workers called me a trouble-shooter, some an analyst; but I typically went by the title of "consultant."
****************
>>Joey wrote: "But late in life his mission became to seek out and find data and arguments which, far from being "natural explanations for natural processes" are instead: "science" which conforms to & confirms the Bible."
As usual, Joey mischaracterizes my research. I seek the truth, no matter where it leads. Joey prefers being the big-shot: the truth be damned.
****************
>>Joey wrote: "And, lo and behold, it turned out there is such data and argumentation, a lot of it, because a good number of others were engaged in the same enterprise. It began with what was long called "creationism", and about 30 years ago picked up the name "intelligent design", focused on such concepts as "irreducible & specified complexity", added to "hydrological sorting", "ecological zonation" and "differential escape" it gets us through Genesis & Noah's flood and is well on its way to becoming what Kalamata calls "Biblical science" and what Ken Ham describes as "a natural understanding of the Bible"."
LOL! If the data fits, well, it fits! Scientists are not supposed to ignore or discard data just because they don't happen to like it. The same for historians.
****************
>>Joey wrote: "Notice here Ham's word "natural": meaning no, not "natural" as in "natural explanations for natural processes", but rather as in "what we would naturally understand the Bible's words to mean"."
Joey always comes back to Ken Ham (I guess the others scare the daylights out of him.)
May I recommend books from two highly-respected scientists, which shoot all sorts of holes in Charlie Darwin's nutty theory:
****************
>>Joey wrote: "Today Intelligent Design is a multi-multi million dollar industry employing many "scientists" like our own Kalamata to spread the word and even write "peer reviewed" articles for its own "scientific" publications."
Joey lies again. I would be safe in saying that every research scientist that works for the Discovery Institute has peer reviewed articles in secular journals, despite the stumbling-blocks the rabid Darwinists set up to try to keep them out of the journals.
BTW, the Pseudoscience Industrial Complex (Evolution, Big-Bangism, and Climate-Alarmism) is a multi-multi-billion dollar industry, to be conservative, that YOU the taxpayers pay for. You actually pay for clowns (pretending to be scientists) to set up very expensive radio-telescopes so they can listen for aliens night and day, year round. -- I kid you not! LOL!
****************
>>Joey wrote: "It fights its war-on-science on many fronts, though curiously, does not seem to have assaulted our courts since being yet again defeated in the 2005 Kitzmiller vs. Dover Schools, now 15 years ago."
The war on science has been real, at least since the days of Galileo, when the orthodoxy used the power of the state (the Church in those days) to suppress Galileo's work. The same thing happens today when the orthodoxy recruits federal judges to help keep EBD ("Everything But Darwin") out of public schools.
I'll bet you didn't know that federal judges tell us what is and is not science. To be fair, that is over simplified. The ACLU briefs federal judges on what is and is not science, and then those judges copy the ACLU briefs directly into their opinions, as the "judge" did in the Dover case. So, it is really not judges that tell us what science is and is not, but a bunch of Far-Left Marxist lawyers.
****************
>>Joey wrote: "So how does (we are told) a highly educated scientist like Kalamata with lifelong work experience, lobotomize his brain into believing that "Biblical science" is the real deal while natural-science as we understand it is "just another secular religion"?"
I believe scientific data. Joey, on the other hand, believes what corrupt scientists and museum artists tell him to believe. He really doesn't understand what he is told to believe, but he believes it anyway so he can be in the consensus – so he can be part of the pseudoscience crowd.
****************
>>Joey wrote: "The answer is: using well known denial tactics which begin, first & foremost, by ignoring all data that conflicts with your own constructs, then exaggerating the importance of any which might be used to support your ideas."
Joey is a science denier, preferring instead to believe unprovable pseudoscience, such as evolutionism.
****************
>>Kalamata wrote: "I have never said modern science is a religion, Joey. The pseudoscience of evolution is a faith-based religion — no doubt! But science is not a religion."
>>Joey wrote: "And this is Denier Rule #2: redefine every word to suit your own purposes."
Joey made up a bunch of silly rules that fit him, which he then projects onto others who disagree with him. I believe that is what the Democrats do. For example, fascists label conservatives as fascists.
****************
>>Joey wrote: "In this case when he says "science is not a religion", he means (by his definition) that his own version of "Biblical science" is not a religion."
No, Joey. I'll say it again. Science is not religion. Evolutionism is religion, not science. Try to keep up.
****************
>>Joey wrote: "When he says, "the pseudoscience of evolution is a faith-based religion" he means by that not just Darwin's basic simple theory of evolution, but any and all facts or ideas from any branch of science -- be it geology, biology, physics or astronomy, etc. -- which might conflict with his own version of "Biblical science"."
Joey lies so much he is difficult to follow. I believe all science. Science can be recognized by being observable and testable. Evolutionism is neither observable, nor testable, so it is not science. It is that simple.
****************
>>Joey wrote: "Now it's immediately obvious that such denier tactics are the same ones our Democrat fellow citizens use, for example, to concoct cockamamie "articles of impeachment" when no crime exists. And even though Kalamata can see that such behavior in Democrats is deeply pathological, he refuses to see it in himself."
Evolutionism is devoutly embraced by Marxists, Joey. I am being consistent in that I am neither an evolutionist, nor a Marxist. I was inconsistent when I was an evolutionist, but not a Marxist.
****************
>>Joey wrote: "And why? Because, he says, the alternatives are just too unacceptable. That's because Kalamata blames the evil trinity of Darwin, Marx and Lincoln for all the world's ills, he attacks them all with equal ferocity, will not admit any of their ideas as potentially valid, and flat-out denies any data which might support them."
I didn't make the rules, Joey. When you are evil, you are evil; and Darwin, Marx and Lincoln were up there in the super-evil category. Don't forget to include Charlie Lyell, Darwin's partner-in-crime.
****************
>>Joey wrote: "In Kalamata's mind, to grant any of it is not just to reject his own understandings of the Bible, but also to accept as "OK" all the world's modern ills."
I need a code breaker for that one. (Talk about gibberish? LOL!)
****************
>>Joey wrote: "His logic goes something like this: if you believe Darwin, then you are responsible for AIDS, for homelessness and mass shootings by lunatics."
I don't believe I have made any of those claims, except perhaps in a general sense. I have made the claim that if you tell kids they are descendants of apes, don't be surprised if they act like them.
****************
>>Joey wrote: "If you also think Lincoln did right, then you are responsible for Hitler, Stalin, Mao and the 100 million people they killed."
Joey says some really weird stuff . . .
****************
>>Joey wrote: "Of course nobody here thinks much of Marx, but to Kalamata it's all the same -- Marx's atheistic socialism combined with Darwin's atheistic evolutionism and Lincoln's atheistic tyranny join to make Big Government the "trinitarian deity" of our atheistic fellow citizens."
That's about right.
****************
>>Joey wrote: "And that, I think, is how Kalamata lobotomized himself."
About all Joey has proven is he can spell lobotomized, or his spell-checker can.
****************
>>Kalamata referring to yours-truly's mainline theological beliefs: "That is best characterized as, pseudohistory meets pseudoscience."
>>Joey wrote: "Right, nothing which conflicts with his own constructs can break through into Kalamata's newly lobotomized brain."
LOL! Child.
Mr. Kalamata
>>Kalamata wrote: “Prior to Lincoln ramming Nazi-style central planning down our throats, the Supreme Court did not have such awesome power.
>>HandyDandy wrote: “Once you play the “Nazi” card, you have lost the argument. House rules.”
Let’s try a different house rule: once you play the Rebellion Card, you have lost the argument.
****************
>>HandyDandy wrote: “Also, if you really believe that the SCOTUS did not have “such awesome power” pre Lincoln, I would turn your attention to Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, Roger B. (The Loon) Taney. He had ruled from the bench that the blacks had not been considered as citizens at the time of the Constitution, were not then citizens, and could never be citizens. Within a couple of years all Hell broke loose.”
I didn’t say they had no power; but before Lincoln’s destruction of the separation of powers, the separation was still somewhat in effect, under which the President had just as much right (and power) to interpret the constitution as the Supreme Court. He could also reject any ruling of the Supreme Court’s if he deemed their ruling was unconstitutional.
Lincoln took that to another level in that he gave himself the right to reject any ruling, whether or not it was constitutional, as in the case of Taney’s opinion against Lincoln’s usurpation of the power over habeas corpus.
****************
>>HandyDandy wrote: “Talk about “crony capitalism” and someone being in the back pocket of The Slave Power. Look no further than the Chief Justice of the SCOTUS in 1857. Brush up on the Dred Scott Decision. It is why Taney was Lincoln’s nemesis. It is also why, after swearing in Lincoln, Taney had to sit through a tongue lashing during Abe’s First Inaugural.”
Are you kidding? Lincoln not only expressed his support for the Fugitive Slave Law in the first inaugural, but declared it constitutional. Frankly, I have read nothing (without cherry-picking) that would make me believe Lincoln cared a whit about the plight of slaves, or blacks generally. I see the slavery issue as another one of Lincoln’s political tools, as does his political descendants: the democrats of today.
I seem to recall that Lincoln’s disagreements with Taney were possibly related to Taney’s part in killing the National Bank. Lincoln was an ardent supporter of a national bank and paper currency, in the mold of Henry Clay. Have you heard or read anything like that?
Mr. Kalamata
Of course you do.
Besides that, I think we all know where we stand, and we all know where other people are immovable, so the same old conflict will be waiting for all of us at our convenience whenever we feel like picking it up again. :)
True, though I will say that the difference between recent days and the past is that Kalamata's ignorance of the history of the period is truly staggering while the same cannot be said of you. We may disagree completely on your opinions and your conclusions, as well as your eccentric economic theories, but you do know the history of the times.
We're discussing the Southern rebellion. You can't deal with the actions of one leader without taking into account the actions of the other.
Amazon has an item for $70 that you MUST have for your business. Walmart sells the same item for $90. Both offer free shipping. Obviously Amazon has by far the better deal.
But suppose the Government places a 50% protective shipping tax on all Amazon's products just before you purchase the product. Walmart items are exempt from the shipping tax. The new price at Amazon is $70 * 1.5 = $105.
Therefore, Amazon's item is now more expensive than Walmart's; and you are out 20 bucks on an item that "you must have" due to the protective tax placed against Amazon products. To make it worse, just before you buy, Walmart decides to increase its price to $100, to take advantage of the situation. So, now you are out $30.
I suppose congratulations are in order; you have discovered the basic unfairness of protective tariffs. Well done for a rare, accurate summary of what was going on at the time.
Now, can you go the next step and explain for us how the same tariffs that were applied to all consumers, north and south, somehow hit the south the hardest?
That was the economic situation that plagued the Southern exporters. Raw cotton is a nice product, but it is not fabric, woolen goods, wagon wheels, and other items the Southern farmers needed, but did not produce themselves.
No, that is the economic situation that hit Southern consumers. And Northern consumers and consumers in the Great Lakes states and the Midwest. Southern exporters were not dependent on imports to do their business. There were no import duties on slaves that were illegally imported. Cotton seed was not imported. Cotton gins were not manufactured overseas. Southern states imported little, northern states consumed the bulk of imports. So tariffs had no impact on southern exports. Your claim to the contrary is ridiculous.
Congratulations you are both wrong about tariffs. You stopped your little anti American worker story only half way through to completion. The situation is DYNAMIC and not STATIC. What happens after the price goes up is more domestic suppliers come on line because the profit margin is now artificially high. So the price pressure is now downward after the tariff with more Americans working/producing for a living and paying taxes. Get it? You do believe in the laws of supply and demand?
Luckily Lincoln wasn’t using the general welfare clause when he was suppressing the rebellion. He was using the authority given to him by congress when they passed the militia act of 1792. The law authorized the President to call the militias into Federal service “whenever the laws of the United States shall be opposed or the execution thereof obstructed, in any state, by combinations too powerful to be suppressed by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, or by the powers vested in the marshals by this act”.
Congress was given this authority by the constitution. Section 8 15: To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
I did take an oath to protect and defend the constitution. But America is not the constitution. The constitution is the operating system and America is the hardware. America existed prior to the Article of Confederation, existed during the Articles, continued when we transitioned from the article to the constitution, and will still exist if at some future date we adopt a new system.
As Rear Admiral Samuel Phillips Lee, cousin of Robert E. Lee, who didn’t follow the same treasonous path,said; “When I find the word Virginia in my commission, I will join the Confederacy”
N. York Sunday Evening [20 July 1788]
My Dear Sir
Yours of yesterday is this instant come to hand & I have but a few minutes to answer it. I am sorry that your situation obliges you to listen to propositions of the nature you describe.(here he is referring to the conditional ratification) My opinion is that a reservation of a right to withdraw if amendments be not decided on under the form of the Constitution within a certain time, is a conditional ratification, that it does not make N. York a member of the New Union, and consequently that she could not be received on that plan.(if they ratify with this condition they will not be a apart of the Union under the constitution) Compacts must be reciprocal, this principle would not in such a case be preserved. The Constitution requires an adoption in toto (here he is saying that the whole constitution must be adopted, no conditions on it. If you want to amend it you must do so after it's adopted and through the process as proscribed within it), and for ever(once adopted it is permanent). It has been so adopted by the other States.(The other states have adopted the constitution in toto and forever) An adoption for a limited time would be as defective as an adoption of some of the articles only. In short any condition whatever must viciate the ratification. What the New Congress by virtue of the power to admit new States, may be able & disposed to do in such case, I do not enquire as I suppose that is not the material point at present. I have not a moment to add more than my fervent wishes for your success & happiness.
James Madison
Also keep in mind that the reason the AoC was junked was because the central government was too weak. The founders didn't believe America would be perpetual under it. So they created a new system for America to operate with that made the federal government stronger "the supreme law of the land."
Of course not all the founders agreed with this. Patrick Henry was very much against the adoption of the constitution because of this. During the Virginia ratification convention he said this in an effort to get Virginia not to ratify the consition;
I rose yesterday to ask a question which arose in my own mind. When I asked that question, I thought the meaning of my interrogation was obvious. The fate of this question and of America may depend on this. Have they said, We, the states? Have they made a proposal of a compact between states? If they had, this would be a confederation. It is otherwise most clearly a consolidated government. The question turns, sir, on that poor little thing — the expression, We, the people, instead of the states, of America. I need not take much pains to show that the principles of this system are extremely pernicious, impolitic, and dangerous. Is this a monarchy, like England — a compact between prince and people, with checks on the former to secure the liberty of the latter? Is this a confederacy, like Holland — an association of a number of independent states, each of which retains its individual sovereignty? It is not a democracy, wherein the people retain all their rights securely. Had these principles been adhered to, we should not have been brought to this alarming transition, from a confederacy to a consolidated government.
The attitude toward the equality of men came from a lifetime of deep religious convictions. It was expressed in the Declaration of Independence, explained in the Federalist Papers and then written into our Constitution.
Would these circumstances, and that language, disqualify the slave states from instituting a government that derived its just powers from the consent of the governed?
It certainly seems that you stand with the slave owners on that subject.
No price pressure is upward because the price is set artificially high. Should an excess of manufacturers start forcing prices downward then other manufacturers will leave because they can't make the money they need. The supply part of supply and demand.
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.