Posted on 01/23/2003 6:06:25 PM PST by one2many
That, is a lie.
Richard Dana, the U.S. attorney said it. Find a source in the record to show otherwise.
But at least try and act like an adult.
Walt
"That quote is attributed to Abraham Lincoln."
And, true to form, he got it ass-backwards. Sining by silence doesn't make cowards of men; it is because they are cowards that they sin by silence.
Of course that is right. The reason the ratification debates were so rancorous is because the framers knew the Constitution was perpetually binding. A leading federalist, James Wilson, was beaten almost to death by anti-federalists. There were no illusions in 1788-90 as to the permanence of Union under law.
Unilateral state secession is a fiction of a later generation.
Walt
Poor, poor slave holders.
Walt
Oh? How do you know? We're still trying.
non se·qui·tur (nn skw-tr, -tr) n.
An inference or conclusion that does not follow from the premises or evidence.
A statement that does not follow logically from what preceded it.
Debating with these guys is like debating with an encyclopedia that has been carefully edited to only show one side of an issue.
Sorry WP and NS. That's the way I see it.
Read the ruling, Wlat. The Court nowhere decided any such thing in the "Prize Cases". The legal issue was when the war began (irregardless of what the nature of the war was, that point was made by the Court) and if Lincoln had authority to act before the Congressional declaration. The Court did not decide secession was illegal, read the ruling. The Court did not decide it was treason, read the ruling. The Court makes the ruling, Wlat. BTW, once AGAIN I request you to post a verifiable source for that "quote" from Mr. Dana. I'm curious to see the portion prior to the beginning of your snippet (if the quote even exists). I think you have yet once again deliberately taken something completely out of context and misrepresented it (if it even exists). Please post a verifiable source, if you can. Unless you fear being exposed as a fraud, yet again.
LOL - Your BS (or complete ignorance of history) reaches new heights. Some States specifically declared they could withdraw when they ratified the Constitution and created the union. If there were "no illusions" about "permanence" they would not have done that. They very obviously believed that it was NOT "permanent", and even said so in the documents that included them in the union. Your statement is like most of what you say, a lie.
When New York agreed to ratify the Constitution it specifically stated in it's declaration "That the powers of government may be reassumed by the people, whensoever it shall become necessary to their happiness."
Virginia's declaration included these words: "the powers granted under the Constitution being derived from the People of the United States may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression"
A State's right to reassume the powers it ceded to the Union were very clearly stated when the union was created. The New England states certainly didn't think it was "permanent" or they wouldn't have come within a gnat's hair of seceding themselves a few decades after the Constitution was ratified. (more than once). You have to know this, and yet you still post deceitful lies about history.
Thomas Jefferson was of the 1788-90 generation. He was also a leading participant in early American government and influenced its development for over three decades covering that same period. His credentials as a founder are unquestioned. Yet this is what he had to say on the Louisiana purchase.
"The future inhabitants of the Atlantic & Missipi States will be our sons. We leave them in distinct but bordering establishments. We think we see their happiness in their union, & we wish it. Events may prove it otherwise; and if they see their interest in separation, why should we take side with our Atlantic rather than our Missipi descendants? It is the elder and the younger son differing. God bless them both, & keep them in union, if it be for their good, but separate them, if it be better." - Jefferson, August 12, 1803
As usual, Walt, you are shown to be fibbing.
Seriously though - if you don't have any reason to post excessively large image files (which is currently the case), spare us the download times and abstain from doing it.
You'll tell any kind of lie.
Jefferson wasn't the only framer. I notice you can't quote him.
It is just so funny on one level that this nonsense of legal secession is constantly put forward in the face of the facts, the clear words of the particpants, and just plain common sense. The president of the Constitutional Convention stated plainly that the goal of every true American was the consolidation of the Union. He presented the Constitution to the Continental Congress as a document binding on the states. The Judicary Act of 1789 gave the federal government clear power to strike down state laws. The Militia ct of 1792 gives the president the power to put down insurection against a state or the United States.
In the opinions in one of the very first cases to reach the Supreme Court in 1793, the Justices write:
"As to the purposes of the Union, therefore, Georgia is not a sovereign state."
And:
"We may then infer, that the people of the United States intended to bind the several states, by the legislative power of the national government...Whoever considers, in a combined and comprehensive view, the general texture of the constitution, will be satisfied that the people of the United States intended to form themselves into a nation for national purposes."
And:
"Here we see the people acting as the sovereigns of the whole country; and in the language of sovereignty, establishing a Constitution by which it was their will, that the state governments should be bound, and to which the State Constitutions should be made to conform."
Now it seems to me that when the Supreme Court, in one of its its very first cases, comes down so hard on the side of the federal government, that the States should act to protect their rights. But they did not. This states' rights nonsense did not rear its head until it suited certain factions in the south, and for the most heinous of reasons. And I know all about the Virginia and Kentucky resolutions, and the Hartford conventions and similar rumblings under the Constitution earlier than the civil war era. The point is you have the Supreme Court saying Georgia is not a sovereign state. Georgia's reaction in 1793? Zilch. Trying to break away 70 years later seems...sort of cheesy.
And interpreting the Constitution as a compact of sovereign states flies in the face of common sense. The Articles of Confederation were a failure. Of them Washington said:
"What stronger evidence can be given of the want of energy in our government than these disorders? If there exists not a power to check them, what security has a man of life, liberty, or property? To you, I am sure I need not add aught on this subject, the consequences of a lax or inefficient government, are too obvious to be dwelt on. Thirteen sovereignties pulling against each other, and all tugging at the federal head, will soon bring ruin to the whole; whereas a liberal, and energetic Constitution, well guarded and closely watched, to prevent encroachments, might restore us to that degree of respectability and consequence, to which we had a fair claim, and the brightest prospect of attaining..."
George Washington to James Madison November 5, 1786,
having said prior to the Constitutional Convention:
"I do not conceive we can exist long as a nation, without having lodged somewhere a power which will pervade the whole Union in as energetic a manner, as the authority of the different state governments extends over the several states. To be fearful of vesting Congress, constituted as that body is, with ample authorities for national purposes, appears to me to be the very climax of popular absurdity and madness."
George Washington to John Jay, 15 August 1786
A compact of sovereign states would have been even less efficient and less able to act that the the government under the Articles.
Old GW wasn't mincing his words. Makes you wonder how his image got shanghaied onto the greal seal of the CSA, doesn't it?
"It follows from these views that no State upon its own mere motion can lawfully get out of the Union; that Resolves and Ordinances to that effect are legally void; and that acts of violence, within any State or States, against the authority of the United States, are insurrectionary or revolutionary, according to circumstances."
3/4/61
Arguments for state's rights simply crumble when exposed to the words of the people of the day. Let me leave you with one last quote:
"It is idle to talk of secession." R.E. Lee 1861
Walt
Under natural law, not United States law.
You don't know the history.
Walt
Over one hundred thousand men from the so-called seceded states served in the federal army. They look pretty good.
The best thing you can say about the secessionists is that they were fighting for the slave power, or were duped into fighting for the slave power.
You can see that in the fact that once the common soldier realized this, they mostly packed up and went home.
Walt
"South Carolina cannot get out of this union until she conquers this government."
--Illinois State Journal, November 14, 1860
That wasn't tripe, was it?
Walt
Yeah, like the troops that almost refused to lay down their arms at Richmond.
Not making much headway are you?
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.