Posted on 01/23/2003 6:06:25 PM PST by one2many
OK.
What were the abuses the seceding states suffered that caused them to disunite?
What ends were being destroyed?
What made the spoiled confederates pick up their ball and go home?
LOL - What he/you said is completely illogical for the reasons I have already stated, and I notice you are unable to prove otherwise. I am not surprised you consider the Constitution to be a "pact with the devil".
And I stand by that. The Supreme Court doesn't make law. In the case of Texas v. White it was ruling on the Constitutionality of an act of the Texas legislature regarding secession. It ruled that the unilateral act of secession passed by the legislature violated the Constituiton.
This is important because there was nothing in the Constitution that stated or agreed with the Court's ruling...
Your opinion. The Supreme Court disagreed.
As to me, I am firmly and lovingly embracing the Court's authority by pointing out that illegal court decisions are not really law.
But who determines if the court decision is illegal? You? Who grants you that authority?
My entire position is in fact based on the authority of the Court.
How much authority can the court have if you alone can decide if their decision was illegal?
The answer could be simpler than that. Davis knew that if the Confederacy was to survive, much less thrive, it needed the larger border slave states. North Carolina and Virginia were vital for their survival. Without them the Confederacy would always be an economic colony of someone. With them the south might even win the war.
LOL - Compare Lincoln to the tyrannical shenanigans in that book if you want to.
Non eneumerated powers exercised by the federal government: protectionist tariffs, subsidization of internal improvements such as canals, roads, railroads, harbours etc., a federal banking system, bounties paid to fishing, shipping and manufacturing interests, the refusal of northern states to abide by their agreement regarding slavery, the attempts to incite insurrections and revolts, the attempts to prevent migration west & northward - which was declared unconstitutional years before - to name a few.
What made the spoiled confederates pick up their ball and go home?
Why couldn't the spoiled yankees abide by the terms of the Constitution and decisions of the US Supreme Court?
I'm not sure I follow. The case was in US Curcuit court, right? How did Taney rule on a constitutional matter without having the matter before the US Supreme court?
-btw what did Merryman do to get thrown in jail on a suspended writ of habeaus corpus?
ROFLMAO.
Two hundred recruits and the 65 men in Sumter were not going to faze the rebels. I don't know exactly, but I bet there were at least 10,000 armed rebels in and around Charleston.
Those 200 were not all the troops and that is a moot point anyway, as even adding ten extra troops and the ammunition would make Lincoln a liar.
Maybe a source on that can be cited.
It's from the "Official Records", Series One, Volume One, "Operations in Charleston Harbor", Chapter One, page 236. See, I, unlike you, can respond to requests for sources. Hmmmmm.....
General Scott definitely told the president that at least 20,000 men would be required to open the port.
And other officers said less. There were many different plans submitted and discussed, Scott's was but one of them.
It's -so- funny how hard the neo-rebs work to catch ol' Honest Abe in a lie.
LOL - It's -so- easy for anyone to do it. And -much- funnier to watch you deny the record, panic and then flood the thread with things that either disprove your own point or have nothing to do with the topic.
Once again, there was nothing to seek a ruling over. The seceding States had no grievance in regards to the legality of secession. If the other States objected to them excercising their right to secede, then they should have filed a grievance in regards to it. The seceding States had no grievance in regards to secession that would require them to even approach the Court over the issue.
At the risk of causing your head to explode, let me add something from one of those old meaningless documents you neo-rebs like to thumb your nose at: "Prudence indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light or transient Causes" -2nd Continental Congress July 4th 1776
LOL - No one is thumbing their noses at old documents, only at revisionists and propagandists who attempt to twist and misuse the words from those documents.
you- Non eneumerated powers exercised by the federal government: protectionist tariffs, subsidization of internal improvements such as canals, roads, railroads, harbours etc., a federal banking system, bounties paid to fishing, shipping and manufacturing interests, the refusal of northern states to abide by their agreement regarding slavery, the attempts to incite insurrections and revolts, the attempts to prevent migration west & northward - which was declared unconstitutional years before - to name a few.
Is that all of them? I wouldn't want to find out later that I missed an important confederate cause that you forgot to tell me about.
Does failure to support the invasion of Cuba fit in there somewhere?
Anderson saw the obvious outcome of the scheme:
Colonel L. THOMAS, Adjutant-General U. S. Army:
COLONEL: ...
I had the honor to receive by yesterday's mail the letter of the honorable Secretary of War, dated April 4, and confess that what he there states surprises me very greatly, following as it does and contradicting so positively the assurance Mr. Crawford telegraphed he was authorized to make. I trust that this matter will be at once put in a correct light, as a movement made now, when the South has been erroneously informed that none such will be attempted, would produce most disastrous results throughout our country.
It is, of course, now too late for me to give any advice in reference to the proposed scheme of Captain Fox. I fear that its result cannot fail to be disastrous to all concerned. Even with his boat at our walls the loss of life (as I think I mentioned to Mr. Fox) in unloading her will more than pay for the good to be accomplished by the expedition, which keeps us, if I can maintain possession of this work, out of position, surrounded by strong works, which must be carried to make this fort of the least value to the United States Government.
We have not oil enough to keep a light in the lantern for one night. The boats will have, therefore, to rely at night entirely upon other marks. I ought to have been informed that this expedition was to come. Colonel Lamon's remark convinced me that the idea, merely hinted at to me by Captain Fox, would not be carried out. We shall strive to do our duty, though I frankly say that my heart is not in the way which I see is to be thus commenced. That God will still avert it, and cause us to resort to pacific measures to maintain our rights, is my ardent prayer.
I am, colonel, very respectfully, your obedient servant,
ROBERT ANDERSON,
Major, First Artillery, Commanding.
-----------------------------------------
The only thing to be gained by Fox's scheme was to provoke a fight, and Secretary of War Simon Cameron had stated that to Lincoln:
"The proposition presented by Mr.Fox, so sincerely entertained and ably advocated, would be entitled to my favorable consideration if, with all the light before me and in the face of so many distinguished military authorities on the other side, I did not believe that the attempt to carry it into effect would initiate a bloody and protracted conflict. Should he succeed in relieving Fort Sumter, which is doubted by many of our most experienced soldiers and seamen, would that enable us to maintain our authority against the troops and fortifications of South Carolina?"
Provoking a fight was the only thing to be gained. Drawing the first shot, so to speak.
Later in this ruling, Taney says:
...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 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 constitution provides, as I have before said, that 'no person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property, without due process of law.' It declares that 'the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated; and no warrant shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.' It provides that the party accused shall be entitled to a speedy trial in a court of justice.
These great and fundamental laws, which congress itself could not suspend, have been disregarded and suspended, like the writ of habeas corpus, by a military order, supported by force of arms. Such is the case now before me, and I can only say that if the authority which the constitution has confided to the judiciary department and judicial officers, may thus, upon any pretext or under any circumstances, be usurped by the military power, at its discretion, the people of the United States are no longer living under a government of laws, but every citizen holds life, liberty and property at the will and pleasure of the army officer in whose military district he may happen to be found.
By creating "law", the "consensus of states" rule of law. The Court "invented" a condition not based on the Constitution or supporting documents. A rule of law that illegally usurps the pre-existing conditions in the documents that created the Constitutional union.
Your opinion. The Supreme Court disagreed.
You specifically said that in response to my statement that they did not quote anything from the Constitution that stated the "consensus of States" condition they based their ruling on. My statement is true, they did not. Therefore they do not disagree with me, they disagree with you! LOL.
But who determines if the court decision is illegal? You? Who grants you that authority?
LOL - You are getting flustered and it shows. Breathe deeply...your fears that I have somehow become omnipotent are not true. LOL - I have only been giving my personal opinion that the ruling was illegal, and therefore void. I would love to see that illegal decision before the Court on appeal.
How much authority can the court have if you alone can decide if their decision was illegal?
LOL - Don't worry, I'm not really omnipotent. See above.
The federal court system's lower courts make rulings on constitutional issues all the time. Those rulings may be appealed to the Supreme Court, which has the final say in the court system on the matter, but often the supreme court does not take the case or the parties simply abide by the lower court's ruling. To give you some modern examples, the fifth circuit court of appeals has ruled that an affirmative action system is unconstitutional. The rulings in current times apply to that circuit's jurisdiction (unless they are stayed from taking effect), which in the case I just mentioned means the University of Texas cannot use its affirmative action program. That case could be appealed to the supreme court and either affirmed or overturned if the supreme court decided to take it, but until then it is a binding constitutional ruling that requires the University of Texas to not use its previous affirmative action program.
In similar fashion, Taney ruled for the circuit court covering Maryland where Merryman was imprisoned. His decision on constitutionality was therefore binding in the case of Merryman and others under that jurisdiction (Merryman was one of hundreds of Maryland prisoners arrested in suspension of the writ). The Lincoln could have appealed it to the Supreme Court if he believed he could get it overturned. As a side note, a reversal of Taney's decision would have been unlikely as it is a very sound ruling with extensive precedent and historical evidence behind it. I strongly suspect that The Lincoln knew this. He could have still appealed it though as that is the legal procedure. Otherwise he was obliged to follow it. As it happened though, he did neither and simply ignored it. In other times, he could have and likely would have been impeached for such an act.
btw what did Merryman do to get thrown in jail on a suspended writ of habeaus corpus?
He was beleived to be a participant in the secessionist movement for Maryland. No charges were ever specified though due to the writ's suspension. He was released some time later after a continued prison stay without any charges ever filed.
LOL, it wasn't illegal, and was still legal until the 13th Amendment.
Don't forget the biggie. What the north viewed as a threat to their golden goose.
"Any Govt. for the U. States formed on the supposed practicability of using force agst. the unconstitutional proceedings of the States, wd. prove as visionary & fallacious as the Govt. of Congs."The man was a genius.
James Madison, James Madison: Writings, (edited by Jack N. Rakove, 1999), "Remarks in the Federal Convention on the Power to Negative State Laws", 8 June 1787, p. 100."The amendments which have occurred to me, proper to be recommended by congress to the state legislatures, are these:
First. That there be prefixed to the constitution a declaration--that all power is originally vested in, and consequently derived from the people.
... That the people have an indubitable, unalienable, and indefensible right to reform or change their government, whenever it be found adverse or inadiquate to the purposes of its institution."
James Madison, James Madison: Writings, (edited by Jack N. Rakove, 1999), "Speech in Congress Proposing Constitutional Amendments", 8 June 1789, p. 441."The powers delegated by this Constitution are appropriated to the departments to which they are respectively distributed: so that the Legislative Department shall never exercise the powers vested in the Executive or Judicial, nor the Executive exercise the powers vested in the Legislative or Judicial, nor the Judicial exercise the powers vested in the Legislative or Executive Departments.
The powers not delegated by this Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively."
James Madison, James Madison: Writings, (edited by Jack N. Rakove, 1999), "Speech in Congress Proposing Constitutional Amendments", 8 June 1789, p. 444.
That is because you blind yourself to the possibility that The Lincoln was anything less than a perfect and virtuous god. You ignore what you do not want to see and commit a great and sinful idolatry in the process.
That he did, as was frequently the case with Lincoln. You will never get Walt to admit it though, as he has convinced himself of Lincoln's diety level of perfection. He will never concede a fault in his false god - not even that Lincoln forgot to tie his shoe lace one morning, much less that he sinned or lied.
One time I pointed out Lincoln's lie over the very subject of this thread's article - the other 13th amendment. In addition to endorsing that amendment in his inaugural address, Lincoln claimed to have not yet read the text of it in that speech as of March 4, 1861. To demonstrate that this was a lie, I posted a December 26, 1860 letter to Lincoln from William Seward in which the latter informed the former that he had proposed that very same amendment before committee. I also quoted an eyewitness historical account sayin that Lincoln lobbied Congress extensively on the amendment before his inauguration.
Along with the fact that he paraphrased the amendment in his inaugural, both are conclusive proof that he was lying when he claimed not to have seen it on March 4, 1861. But Walt couldn't even bring himself to admit that! He actually adopted a line of argument saying that Lincoln recieved Seward's letter and worked to pass the thing, but had never, in all that time, bothered to read the two lines of text of the same amendment he was pushing and paraphrasing in his speeches. It was basically "yeah, he did all that stuff with it but he never read the thing while he was doing it"!
I'm afraid that Walt is beyond the help of any sane person on matters such as these. He is not in the business of history. Nor is he even in the business of simply respecting or upholding Abe Lincoln. His trade is the worship of Lincoln and his method is to stomp out, decry, and belittle anything and everything that does not share in or lend support to his act of idolatry.
Given his often fantastical positions, History is not his friend. In fact, it is his worst enemy.
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.