Replies

>>OIFVeteran wrote: "Another thing I discovered is the reason that no one was tried for treason. I thought it was because of Lincoln's "let them up easy policy." It was not. The following letter explains why they did not try Jefferson Davis."
>>OIFVeteran quoting Richard Henry Dana: "As the Constitution in terms settles the fact that our republic is a state against which treason may be committed, the only constitutional question attending the late war was whether a levying of war against the United States which would otherwise be treason, is relieved of that character by the fact that it took the form of secession from the Union by state authority. In other words the legal issue was, whether secession by a State is a right, making an act legal and obligatory upon the nation which would otherwise have been treason of original jurisdiction".
>>OIFVeteran quoting: "Secession is nothing but revolution. The framers of our Constitution never exhausted so much labor, wisdom, and forbearance in its formation, and surrounded it with so many guards and securities, if it was intended to be broken by every member of the Confederacy at will."

The constitution is clear that secession is a retained power in that there is no defined authority to suppress it. The constitution is also clear that the use of central government force to present secession is treason. Redefining secession as "rebellion" or "insurrection" makes the suppression any less treasonous.

The Lincoln gang committed treason when he declared martial law in Maryland, and prevented it from from seceding using federal troops.

Once it is understood that the entire constitution resides in Article I, Section 4, the interpretation becomes less cloudy. These are the clauses under which Lincoln committed treason:

"Article I, Section 3: Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort."
"Article I, Section 4: Republican government: The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence."
[Constitution of the United States and Amendments." 1787]

The only way to settle that issue constitutionally is to revisit the debates leading up to Constitution, as Jefferson recommended, and conform to the interpretations at the time it was passed -- a concept that has been enshrined into law by all but the power-hungry and their groupies. This is Jefferson:

"On every question of construction [of the Constitution] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or intended against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed."
[To Justice William Johnson, 1823, Monticello, June 12, 1823, in Thomas Jefferson, "The Writings of Thomas Jefferson Vol 15." Thomas Jefferson Memorial Association, 1903, p.449]

The alternative method of settling the issue is with the barrel of the gun – the method of choice by the power-hungry tyrant.

This is the "Father of the Constitution," James Madison, on secession:

"On examining the first relation, it appears, on one hand, that the Constitution is to be founded on the assent and ratification of the people of America, given by deputies elected for the special purpose; but, on the other, that this 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.
"That it will be a federal and not a national act, as these terms are understood by the objectors; the act of the people, as forming so many independent States, not as forming one aggregate nation, is obvious from this single consideration, that it is to result neither from the decision of a majority of the people of the Union, nor from that of a majority of the States. It must result from the unanimous assent of the several States that are parties to it, differing no otherwise from their ordinary assent than in its being expressed, not by the legislative authority, but by that of the people themselves. 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]
"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."
[Ibid. Federalist No. 45, pp.214-215]

So, according to Madison, the states retain sovereign power, and are bound to the Union only by a voluntary act. However, the general government is given a power to tax. 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. The federal government will have, by default, the power do anything it pleases in all cases whatsoever, rendering the Constitution null and void. I trust Jesus Christ with that kind of power, but no one else.

Mr. Kalamata

Kalamata: "The constitution is clear that secession is a retained power in that there is no defined authority to suppress it."

The Constitution says nothing about secession, period, but no Founder ever agreed that disunion at pleasure, meaning without either "necessity" or "mutual consent", is legitimate.
All considered such disunion rebellion and took actions to suppress it.
See again my post #526 for a listing of rebellions, treason & attempted secession.

Kalamata: "The constitution is also clear that the use of central government force to present secession is treason."

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.

Kalamata: "Redefining secession as "rebellion" or "insurrection" makes the suppression any less treasonous."

No, no, the truth is the reverse: even if you Democrats try to redefine your rebellion & insurrection as "secession", it remains no less treasonous.

Kalamata: "The Lincoln gang committed treason when he declared martial law in Maryland, and prevented it from from seceding using federal troops."

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.
With war formally declared against it, the US Constitution's treason clause became operative:

"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort."

Also, its Habeas Corpus clause:

"The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it."

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."

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.
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.
When Congress returned in July it took up the Habeas Corpus issue, debated at length and eventually authorized Lincoln to withhold it.
In the meantime, the Confederate Congress without much debate authorized Jefferson Davis to withhold Habeas Corpus, which he did, frequently.
In September 1861, 1/3 of Maryland legislators, considered pro-Confederate, were arrested and held.
That ratio of Marylanders supporting the Union roughly two to one is also confirmed by Maryland enlistments in the Union vs. Confederate armies.
In February 1862 Lincoln ordered such prisoners released, ending court challenges at the time.

Sources: here, here, here, and here.

Kalamata: "Once it is understood that the entire constitution resides in Article I, Section 4, the interpretation becomes less cloudy.
These are the clauses under which Lincoln committed treason:"

Here again, like any good Democrat, Kalamata simply imposes his own fantasies on Constitutional language which was never intened to support them.

Kalamata: "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."

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:

"...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. "