Commentary: Truth blown away in sugarcoated 'Gone With the Wind'

sacbee ^ | 11-13-04

[LouAvul]

....snip......

Based on Margaret Mitchell's hugely popular novel, producer David O. Selznick's four-hour epic tale of the American South during slavery, the Civil War and Reconstruction is the all-time box-office champion.

.......snip........

Considering its financial success and critical acclaim, "Gone With the Wind" may be the most famous movie ever made.

It's also a lie.

......snip.........

Along with D.W. Griffith's technically innovative but ethically reprehensible "The Birth of a Nation" (from 1915), which portrayed the Ku Klux Klan as heroic, "GWTW" presents a picture of the pre-Civil War South in which slavery is a noble institution and slaves are content with their status.

Furthermore, it puts forth an image of Reconstruction as one in which freed blacks, the occupying Union army, Southern "scalawags" and Northern "carpetbaggers" inflict great harm on the defeated South, which is saved - along with the honor of Southern womanhood - by the bravery of KKK-like vigilantes.

To his credit, Selznick did eliminate some of the most egregious racism in Mitchell's novel, including the frequent use of the N-word, and downplayed the role of the KKK, compared with "Birth of a Nation," by showing no hooded vigilantes.

......snip.........

One can say that "GWTW" was a product of its times, when racial segregation was still the law of the South and a common practice in the North, and shouldn't be judged by today's political and moral standards. And it's true that most historical scholarship prior to the 1950s, like the movie, also portrayed slavery as a relatively benign institution and Reconstruction as unequivocally evil.

.....snip.........

Or as William L. Patterson of the Chicago Defender succinctly wrote: "('Gone With the Wind' is a) weapon of terror against black America."

[lentulusgracchus]

The source for this "revelation"? A lawyer associated with the League of the South.

Take your own advice, Fraud. Cite and quote. Put up or shut up.

[lentulusgracchus]

The Ordinance passed constitutional muster several times before Taney saw fit to butcher it seventy years after the fact!

And how many times did Plessey vs. Ferguson stand up, before Brown vs. Board?

And U.S. vs. Miller has been on the books since 1939, a truly landmark case argued against a brief sitting on an empty appellee's table, Presser vs. Illinois since the 1890's, and the impenetrable Cruikshank decision that Presser rested on, since 1875 or 1877.

Sometimes it just takes a while.

[lentulusgracchus]

LOL -- classism too, now.

[nolu chan]

[ftD] So you defend that wonderful Confederate Consitution that has slavery built right into it?

I merely state the unvarnished truth that THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION HAD SLAVERY BUILT RIGHT INTO IT. There was lawful slavery in the UNION states throughout the war and after the war. Slavery existed in the UNION states after it had ceased to exist in the Southern states.

By your perverted standards, slavery must have only been immoral and unjust in the states in secession. In the Union states, it was perfectly moral, just and good throughout the war. There was no cause to invade Delaware.

Perhaps you missed it, but Washington and Jefferson were slave owners.

Perhaps you missed it, or you just want to rewrite history and pretend it did not happen, but EVERY state ratified the Constitution, and the slavery it authorized.

The first naturalization laws prohibited any non-White from becoming a naturalized citizen of the United States. The naturalization laws prohibited Chinese from becoming citizens of the United States until 1943. I say again, not a misprint, 1943.

[ftD] The States had every right to leave the Union lest they be deprived of the value of their valuable 'property' (slaves)(according to Jefferson Davis)

The states held sovereignty. Under the Articles of Confederation, Article 2, "Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled."

Under the Constitution, Amendment 10, "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."

Under the Constitution, Amendment 9, "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

Under the Constitution, Article 7, "The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the same."

The people, (the sovereigns) organized themselves as states and acted independently as sovereign states. They did not cede their sovereignty. As they did not cede their sovereignty, they retain it. As they retain their sovereignty, they retain the right to the act of secession. As they acceded, so may they secede.

THE RIGHT OF SECESSION
by Jefferson Davis

SOURCE: Jefferson Davis, The Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government, pp. 168-76

The Right of Secession -- that subject which, beyond all others, ignorance, prejudice, and political rancor have combined to cloud with misstatements and misapprehensions -- is a question easily to be determined in the light of what has already been established with regard to the history and principles of the Constitution. It is not something standing apart by itself -- a factious creation, outside of and antagonistic to the Constitution -- as might be imagined by one deriving his ideas from the political literature most current of late years. So far from being against the constitution or incompatible with it, we content that, if the right to secede is not prohibited to the States, and no power to prevent it expressly delegated to the United States, it remains as reserved to the States or the people, from whom all the powers of the General Government were derived.

The compact between the States which formed the Union was in the nature of a partnership between individuals without limitation of time, and the recognized law of such partnerships is thus stated by an eminent lawyer of Massachusetts in a work intended for popular use:

"If the articles between the partners do not contain an agreement that the partnership shall continue for a specified time, it may be dissolved at the pleasure of either partner. But no partner can exercise this power wantonly and injuriously to the other partners, without making himself responsible for the damage he thus causes. If there be a provision that the partnership shall continue a certain time, this is binding."¹

We have seen that a number of "sovereign, free, and independent" States, during the war of the Revolution, entered into a partnership with one another, which was not only unlimited in duration, but expressly declared to be a "perpetual union." Yes, when that Union failed to accomplish the purposes for which it was formed, the parties withdrew, separately and independently, one after another, without any question made of their right to do so, and formed a new association. One of the declared objects of this new partnership was to form "a more perfect union." This certainly did not mean more perfect in respect of duration; for the former union had been declared perpetual, and perpetuity admits of no addition. It did not mean that it was to be more indissoluble; for the delegates of the States, in ratifying the former compact of union, had expressed themselves in terms that could scarcely be made more stringent. They then said:

"and we do further solemnly plight and engage the faith of our respective constituents, that they abide by the determinations of the United States in Congress assembled, on all questions which, by the said confederation, are submitted to them; and that the articles thereof shall be inviolably observed by the States we respectively represent; and that the Union shall be perpetual."²

The formation of a "more perfect union" was accomplished by the organization of a government more complete in its various branches, legislative, executive, and judicial, and by the delegation to this Government of certain additional powers or functions which had previously been exercised by the Governments of the respective States -- especially in providing the means of operating directly upon individuals for the enforcement of its legitimately delegated authority. There was no abandonment nor modification of the essential principle of a compact between sovereigns, which applied to the one case as fully as to the other. There was not the slightest intimation of so radical a revolution as the surrender of the sovereignty of the contracting parties would have been. The additional powers conferred upon the Federal Government by the Constitution were merely transfers of some of those possessed by the State governments -- not subtractions from the reserved and inalienable sovereignty of the political communities which conferred them. It was merely the institution of a new agent who, however enlarged his power might be, would still remain subordinate and responsible to the source from which they were derived -- that of the sovereign people of each State. It was an amended Union, not a consolidation.

It is remarkable fact that the very powers of the Federal Government and prohibitions to the States, which are most relied upon by the advocates of centralism as incompatible with State sovereignty, were in force under the old Confederation when the sovereignty of the States was expressly recognized. The General Government had then, as now, the exclusive right and power of determining on peace and war, making treaties and alliances, maintaining an army and navy, granting letters of marque and reprisal, regulating coinage, establishing and controlling the postal service -- indeed, nearly all the so-called "characteristic powers of sovereignty" exercised by the Federal Government under the existing Constitution, except the regulation of commerce, and of levying and collecting its revenues directly, instead of through the interposition of the state authorities. The exercise of these first-named powers was prohibited to the States under the old compact, "without the consent of the United States in Congress assembled," but no one has claimed that the confederation had thereby acquired sovereignty.

Entirely in accord with these truths are the arguments of Mr. Madison in the "Federalist," to show that the great principles of the constitution are substantially the same as those of the Articles of Confederation. He says:

"I ask, What are these principles? Do they require that, in the establishment of the Constitution, the States should be regarded as distinct and independent sovereigns? They are so regarded by the Constitution proposed. . . . Do these principles, in fine, require that the powers of the General Government should be limited, and that, beyond this limit, the States should be left in possession of their sovereignty and independence? We have seen that, in the new Government as in the old, the general powers are limited; and that the States, in all unenumerated cases, are left in the enjoyment of their sovereign and independent jurisdiction."

"The truth is," he adds, "that the great principles of the constitution proposed by the Convention may be considered less as absolutely new, than as the expansion of principles which are found in the Articles of Confederation."³

In the papers immediately following, he establishes this position in detail by an analysis of the principal powers delegated to the Federal Government, showing that the spirit of the original instructions to the Convention had been followed in revising "the Federal Constitution" and rendering it "adequate to the exigencies of government and the preservation of the Union."⁴

The present Union owes its very existence to the dissolution, by separate secession of its members, of the former Union, which, as we have thus seen, as to its organic principles, rested upon precisely the same foundation. The right to withdraw from the association results, in either case, from the same principles -- principles which, I think, have been established on an impregnable basis of history, reason, law, and precedent.

It is not contended that this right should be resorted to for insufficient cause, or, as the writer already quoted on the law of partnership says, "wantonly and injuriously to the other partners," without responsibility of the seceding party for any damage thus done. No association can be dissolved without a likelihood of the occurrence of incidental questions concerning common property and mutual obligations -- questions concerning common property and mutual obligations -- questions sometimes of a complex and intricate sort. If a wrong be perpetrated, in such a case, it is a matter for determination by the means usually employed among independent and sovereign powers -- negotiation, arbitration, or, in the failure of these, by war, with which, unfortunately, Christianity and civilization have not yet been able entirely to dispense. But the suggestion of possible evils does not at all affect the question of right. There is no great principle in the affairs of either of individuals ro of nations that is not liable to such difficulties in its practical application.

But, we are told, there is no mention made of secession in the Constitution.

Mr. Everett says:
"The States are not named in it; the word sovereignty does not occur in it; the right of secession is as much ignored in it as the procession of the equinoxes."

We have seen how very untenable is the assertion that the States are not named in it, and how much pertinency or significance in the omission of the word "sovereignty." The pertinent question that occurs is, Why was so obvious an attribute of sovereignty not expressly renounced if it was intended to surrender it? It certainly existed; it was not surrendered; therefore it still exists. This would be a more natural and rational conclusion than that it has ceased to exist because it is not mentioned.

The simple truth is, that it would have been a very extraordinary thing to incorporate into the Constitution any express provision for the secession of the States and dissolution of the Union. Its founders undoubtedly desired and hoped that it would be perpetual; against the proposition for power to coerce a state, the argument was that it would be a means, not of preserving, but of destroying, the Union. It was not for them to make arrangements for its termination -- a calamity which there was no occasion to provide for in advance. Sufficient for their day was the evil thereof. It is not usual, either in partnerships or in treaties between governments, to make provision for a dissolution of the partnership or a termination of the treaty, unless there be some special reason for a limitation of time. Indeed, in treaties, the usual formula includes a declaration of their perpetuity; but in either case the power of the contracting parties, or any of them, to dissolve the compact, on terms not damaging to the rights of the other parties, is not the less clearly understood. It was not necessary in the Constitution to affirm the right of secession, because it was an attribute of sovereignty, and the States had reserved all which they had not delegated.

The right of the people of the several States to resume the powers delegated by them to the common agency, was not left without positive and ample assertion, even at a period when it had never been denied. The ratification of the Constitution by Virginia has already been quoted, in which the people of that State, through their Convention, did expressly "declare and make known that 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, and that every power not granted thereby remains with them and at their will.⁵

New York and Rhode Island were no less explicit, both declaring that "the powers of government may be reassumed by the people whenever it shall become necessary to their happiness."⁶

These expressions are not mere obiter dicta, thrown out incidentally, and entitled only to be regarded as an expression of opinion by their authors. Even if only such, they would carry great weight as the deliberately expressed judgment of enlightened contemporaries, but they are more: they are parts of the very acts or ordinances by which these States ratified the Constitution and acceded to the Union, and can not be detached from them. If they are invalid, the ratification itself was invalid, for they are inseparable. By inserting these declarations in their ordinances, Virginia, New York, and Rhode Island, formally, officially, and permanently, declared their interpretation of the Constitution as recognizing the right of secession by the resumption of their grants. By accepting the ratifications with this declaration incorporated, the other States as formally accepted the principle which it asserted.

I am well aware that it has been attempted to construe these declarations concerning the right of the people to reassume their delegations of power -- especially in the terms employed by Virginia, "people of the United States" -- as having reference to the idea of one people, in mass, or "in the aggregate." But it can scarcely be possible that any candid and intelligent reader, who has carefully considered the evidence already brought to bear on the subject, can need further argument to disabuse his mind of that political fiction. The "people of the United States," from whom the powers of the Federal Government were "derived," could have been no other than the people who ordained and ratified the Constitution; and this, it has been shown beyond the power of denial, was done by the people of each State, severally and independently. No other people were known to the authors of the declarations above quoted. Mr. Madison was a leading member of the Virginia convention, which made that declaration, as well as of the general Convention that drew up the Constitution. We have seen what his idea of "the people of the United States" was -- "not the people as composing one great body, but the people as composing thirteen soveriegnties."⁷

Mr. Lee, of Westmoreland ("Light-Horse Harry"), in the same Convention, answering Mr. Henry's objection to the expression, "we the people," said:

"It [the Constitution] is now submitted to the people of Virginia. If we do not adopt it, it will be always null and void as to us. Suppose it was found proper for our adoption, and becoming the government of the people of Virginia, by what style should it be done? Ought we not make use of the name of the people? No other style would be proper."⁸

It would certainly be superflous, after all that has been presented heretofore, to add any further evidence of the meaning that was attached to these expressions by their authors. "The people of the United States" were in their minds the people of Virginia, the people of Massachusetts, and the people of every other State that should agree to unite. They could have meant only that the people of their respective States who had delegated certain powers to the Federal Government, in ratifying the Constitution and acceding to the Union, reserved to themselves the right, in event of the failure of their purposes, to "resume" (or "reassume") those powers by seceding from the same Union.

Finally, the absurdity of the construction attempted to be put upon these expressions will be evident from a very brief analysis. If the assertion of the right of reassumption of their powers was meant for the protection of the whole people -- the people in mass -- the people "in the aggregate" -- of a consolidated republic -- against whom or what was it to protect them? By whom were the powers granted to be perverted to the injury or oppression of the whole people? As no danger could have been apprehended from either of these, it must have been against the Government of the United States that the provision was made; that is to say, the whole people of a republic make this declaration against a Government established by themselves and entirely subject to their own control, under a constitution which contains provision for its own amendment by this very same "whole people," whenever they may think proper! Is it not a libel upon the statesmen of that generation to attribute to their grave and solemn declarations a meaning so vapid and absurd?

To those who argue that the grants of the Constitution are fatal to the reservation of sovereignty by the States, the Constitution furnishes a conclusive answer in the amendment which was coeval with the adoption of the instrument, and which declares that all powers not delegated to the Government of the Union were reserved to the States or to the people. As sovereignty was not delegated by the States, it was necessarily reserved. It would be superfluous to answer arguments against implied powers of the States; none are claimed by implication, because all not delegated by the States remained with them, and it was only in an abundance of caution that they expressed the right to resume such parts of their unlimited power as was delegated for the purposes enumerated. As there be those who see danger to the perpetuity of the Union in the possession of such power by the States, and insist that our fathers did not intend to bind the States together by a compact no better than "a rope of sand," it may be well to examine their position. From what have dangers to the Union arisen? Have they sprung from too great restriction on the exercise of the granted powers, or from the resumption? The whole record of our Union answers, from the latter only.

Was this tendency to usurpation caused by the presumption of paramount authority in the General Government, or by the assertion of the right of a State to resume the powers it had delegated? Reasonably and honestly it can not be assigned to the latter. Let it be supposed that the "whole people" had recognized the right of a state of the Union, peaceably and independently, to resume the powers which, peaceably and independently, she had delegated to the Federal Government, would not this have been potent to restrain the General Government from exercising its functions to the injury and oppressoin of such State? To deny that effect would be to suppose that a dominant majority would be willing to drive a State from the Union. Would the admission of the right of a State to resume the grants it had make, have led to the exercise of that right for light and trivial causes? Surely the evidence furnished by the nations, both ancient and modern, refutes the supposition. In the language of the Declaration of Independence, "all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing ther forms to which they are accustomed." Would not real grievances be rendered more tolerable by the consciousness of power to remove them; and would not even imaginary wrongs be embittered by the manifestation of a purpose to make them perpetual? To ask these questions is to answer them.

The wise and brave men who had, at much peril and great sacrifice, secured the independence of the States, were as little disposed to surrender the sovereignty of the States as they were anxious to organize a General Government with adequate powers to remedy the defects of the Confederation. The Union they formed was not to destroy the States, but to "secure the blessing of liberty to ourselves and our posterity."

[1] Parsons, "rights of a Citizen," chap. xx, section 3.
[2] Ratification appended to Articles of Confederation. (See Elliot's "Debates," vol. i, p. 113.
[3] "Federalist," No. xl.
[4] Ibid., Nos. xli-xliv. [5] See Elliot's "Debates," vol i, p. 360.
[6] Ibid., pp. 361, 369.
[7] Elliot's "debates," vol. iii, p. 114.
[8] Ibid., p. 71.

---

[nolu chan]

[ftD] My, my what a bunch of gnat straining going on!

A constant string of phoney legal citations is typical procedure for the Brigade. I see you approve of that tactic. You must feel the need to read the long version.

[capitan_kerryfugio #151] I did not "make up" any Supreme Court decisions. I mistook a New York case for a USSC case and posted a retraction the next day.

[GOPcap #155] You also attempted to pass off extraneous material and dissents as the case ruling on four or five different cases. I don't recall many retraction or apologies for those, though you certainly attempted to escape culpability through drawn out semantics arguments.

[nc] I recall it quite well.

---

In cr #384 you purported three quotes to be about Scott v. Sandford which were about the case of Scott v. Emerson. Two of the quotes were from Chapter 10 "Versus Emerson." See nc #389.

---

When speaking about Lemmon v. The People, at cr #386 you regaled us with this mush: "Lemmon v the People was a case which foreshadowed Dred Scott. The Taney Court overturned a New York State statute which immediately freed slaves brought into the state. The decision guaranteed 'sojourn and transit' rights to slave-owners through free states. It did not address, to my knowledge, the issue of residence."

The Lemmon case never went to the Supreme Court. Fehrenbacher makes that point clear at page 445. Regarding Lemmon, the Supreme Court did not overturn anything. The actual decision, which ended in the highest court of New York, held that the slaves were free and they remained free. They were in New York when the matter was brought to court in New York, and New York law was applied. Every point you made was false.

[capitan_refugio #151 to GOPcap 11/05/2004] I did not "make up" any Supreme Court decisions. I mistook a New York case for a USSC case and posted a retraction the next day. That is what honest posters do. Dishonest posters, like yourself, only tell the half-truth.

[capitan_refugio #526 09/01/2004] "I remembered Lemmon was a sojourn and transit case regarding New York. And I recall there was SC case that foreshadowed . When I have time, I'll figure out which one that was."

No, capitan_kerryfugio, you did not post a retraction, you substituted a different lie. That is what dishonest posters do. As a substitute for the non-existent SCOTUS case of Lemmon v. The People, you substituted a different non-specific yet still non-existent SCOTUS case. As was to be expected, you have yet to "figure out which one that was." I previously provided you with a link to a complete list of all SCOTUS case citations from 1790 to 1862 and challenged you to cite the case. As was to be expected, you simply moved to another thread.

Citations of ALL SCOTUS cases 1790-1862

There is the link again. Cite the case.

---

In cr #649 you purported to quote from the Opinion of the Supreme Court in The Prize Cases. You continued, in your words, "The Supreme Court finds: (1) The rebellion is an insurrection and not a war betwenn countries, (2) The "so-called blockade" was not a blockade under international law, and (3) Closing the ports was a valid exercise of executive authority."

In this case you quoted from the recap of the argument of one of the lawyers, Mr. Carlisle, and presented it as the opinion of the court. All of your purported "findings" of the court were the reverse of the actual findings of the court.

Thank you for chiming in> I refer you to the text of Amy Warwick (1862): "But chiefly, the terms of the President's proclamation instituting [67 U.S. 635, 641]...."

The Supreme Court finds:

(1) The rebellion is an insurrection and not a war betwenn countries,
(2) The "so-called blockade" was not a blockade under international law, and
(3) Closing the ports was a valid exercise of executive authority.

-- capitan_refugio, #649, 09/03/2004

[nc] cr quotes are from pp. 640-642 of the Supreme Court Reporter.

The entirety of the quoted matter was from the Court Reporter's recitation of the Argument of Mr. Carlisle which runs from page 639 to 650. The Opinion of the Court by Mr. Justice Grier starts at page 665.

All of the findings attributed to the Court are arguments of Mr. Carlisle. None was adopted by the Court.

On FINDLAW, bracketed comments in text of case [67 U.S. 635, 650] indicate this report starts at Volume 67, page 635 and you are at the beginning of page 650.

| 635 | 639 | 640 | 641 | 650 | 665 | 682 | 699 |

[court reporter at p. 639] "One argument on each side is all that can be given. Those of Mr. Dana and Mr. Carlisle have been selected...."
[court reporter at p. 639] Begins presentation of argument by Mr. Carlisle.
[court reporter at p. 650] Ends presentation of argument by Mr. Carlisle.
[court reporter at p. 650] Begins presentation of argument by Mr. Dana.
[Opinion of the Court - Mr. Grier] pp. 665 - 682.
[Dissenting Opinion of Mr. Nelson] pp. 682 - 699.

---

[cr #1279 -- 09/16/2004 11:39:32 PM CDT]
From the Hamdi v Rumsfeld decision, comes this short review of Mitchell.

[cr #1370 -- 09/18/2004 12:20:00 AM CDT]
I have not read Mitchell but the description in the Hamdi footnote is that the plaintiff was a U.S. citizen.

[nc #1402 -- 09/18/2004 6:26:43 AM CDT]
I proved with images and links that the quote was not from the Hamdi decision as alleged on 9/16/2004 and I proved it was not from a footnote as alleged on 9/18/2004. I proved it was from the main text of a Petition for a Writ of Cert.

[capitan_refugio #1462 09/19/2004 12:17:17 AM CDT]
Yes, my statement that it was from the Hamdi "decision" was in error. It was from the Hamdi "documentation" on Findlaw.com and I mistook it for the decision or the dissent. Big deal.

No capitan. The images shown in my #1402 prove beyond a doubt that the Petition for a Writ of Cert cannot be mistaken for either the decision or the dissent. It looks nothing like a decision of the Supreme Court. It bears no resemblance to a court decision. It looks nothing like any court decision on FINDLAW. Court decisions on FINDLAW are single-spaced in HTML. This Petition was double-spaced in PDF.

It is text in a Petition for a Writ of Cert by a Public Defender spanning the width of the page, ending page 24 and continuing on page 25. It bears no resemblance to any footnote ever seen in a court decision or elsewhere.;

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERT BY PUBLIC DEFENDER

HAMDI DECISION BY U.S. SUPREME COURT

---

[capitan_kerryfugio #703] There have been no contradictory claims on my part.

"By 1984, I was prohibited from participating in partisan political campaigns, by the Hatch Act."
-- cr #1804 06/02/2004

"I worked in Reagan's campaigns in 1976, 1980, and 1984."
-- cr #412 10/24/2004

---

[nolu chan]

Forced sterilization passed Constitutional muster as well, with Justice Holmes famously declaring, "three generations of imbeciles is enough."

BUCK v. BELL, 274 U.S. 200 (1927)
Opinion by Mr. Justice Holmes

Carrie Buck is a feeble-minded white woman who was committed to the State Colony above mentioned in due form. She is the daughter of a feeble- minded mother in the same institution, and the mother of an illegitimate feeble-minded child. She was eighteen years old at the time of the trial of her case in the Circuit Court in the latter part of 1924. An Act of Virginia approved March 20, 1924 (Laws 1924, c. 394) recites that the health of the patient and the welfare of society may be promoted in certain cases by the sterilization of mental defectives....

The principle that sustains compulsory vaccination is broad enough to cover cutting the Fallopian tubes. Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 , 25 S. Ct. 358, 3 Ann. Cas. 765. Three generations of imbeciles are enough.

[lentulusgracchus]

Oh, by the way, I didn't wait to get drafted, I voluntered to defend my country-how about you?

Same. Naval OCS.

What's next, short-arm inspection?

[fortheDeclaration]

ftD] So you defend that wonderful Confederate Consitution that has slavery built right into it? I merely state the unvarnished truth that THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION HAD SLAVERY BUILT RIGHT INTO IT. There was lawful slavery in the UNION states throughout the war and after the war. Slavery existed in the UNION states after it had ceased to exist in the Southern states.

Not after the 14th amendment it didn't.

By your perverted standards, slavery must have only been immoral and unjust in the states in secession. In the Union states, it was perfectly moral, just and good throughout the war. There was no cause to invade Delaware.

No, because according to Davis, the reason for the war was to protect those valuable assests that the south had amassed in human property.

The Union states wanted to limit slavery but it was the South that was intend on spreading the cancer.

Perhaps you missed it, or you just want to rewrite history and pretend it did not happen, but EVERY state ratified the Constitution, and the slavery it authorized.

And those same states had agreed to limit it.

The first naturalization laws prohibited any non-White from becoming a naturalized citizen of the United States. The naturalization laws prohibited Chinese from becoming citizens of the United States until 1943. I say again, not a misprint, 1943.

And what does that have to do with buying and selling people?

Amazing how you guys want to cofuse civil rights with slavery.

The people, (the sovereigns) organized themselves as states and acted independently as sovereign states. They did not cede their sovereignty. As they did not cede their sovereignty, they retain it. As they retain their sovereignty, they retain the right to the act of secession. As they acceded, so may they secede

The Consitution was set up to be permenant, like the Southern States.

Not to be broken for light reasons.

The right of secession is simply the right of rebellion.

Now, in the Colonies we stated our reason for our rebellion.

We have seen Jefferson Davis state the Souths reason, to keep the profits of slavery going (lest those mean old Yankees limit slavery to the point that our slaves aren't worth a plug nickle!)

You can bring up all the legalise nonsense and we can go back and forth over it like they did back then.

But the bottom line is that the South was fighting to keep slavery-period.

As for Washington and Jefferson, both men hated the institution and wanted it to end.

[lentulusgracchus]

WHOA, looks like I spoke too soon!

Nolu chan appears to be subjecting capitan_refugio to a little early-a.m. short-arm inspection of his own!

Well, nc, getting capitan ready for his big date over at the Brigade Bathhouse?

[4CJ]

Nothing in that marvelous display of learning changes the FACT that the states were formed at the behest of the Continental Congress, the embryo of the Nation.

In that case, please provide the documentation of the act of Congress that established the states, set their boundaries, established their state constitutions, setup their electoral processes, &c.

Secondly, if each state were a permanent part of some mythical union, ratification of the Articles and Constitution would be unnecessary. ONLY independent, sovereign states/nations would have the need to ratify.

[4CJ]

There was not ONE word at the CC supporting the concept. Thus, NONE of our great leaders supported the idea that it was a "right" left to the states.

Actually Madison himself spoke of secession during the CC, and expressed a desire for state militia officers to be appointed by federal authorities to help prevent secession. He lost.

[nolu chan]

[ftD] Article 7 states that the States agreed unanimously as the Independent United States of America,

No it does not. I quote it in full below for all to see what it actually says.

Article 7 says "done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present...."

Rhode Island refused to participate and no representative was present.

The states represented at the Convention unanimously agreed to the draft of the Constitution to be "submitted to a Convention of Delegates, chosen in each State by the People thereof, under the Recommendation of its Legislature, for their Assent and Ratification...."

The States United did NOT approve of that recommendation. Rhode Island REFUSED to send a representative to the Convention. ONLY TWELVE STATES WERE REPRESENTED. Only ELEVEN states are listed by name when it came to "In convention ... present ... Resolved...." When one comes to New York, it reads "MR Hamilton from New York." Mr. Hamilton was not the only representative appointed by New York, but the others were no longer present. Mr. Hamilton lacked lawful authority to act individually on behalf of the state of New York. New York was not considered "present" either.

[ftD] The U.S. Constitution was ratified by the States United

This did not happen. George Washington was inaugurated with two states still not ratifying the Constitution -- North Carolina and Rhode Island. When the Constitutional government was formed, neither North Carolina nor Rhode Island had agreed to the Constitution, and neither was was a member of the new union, nor were they represented in the new Congress. Rhode Island held out for more than a year.

Washington was inaugurated March 4, 1789. North Carolina ratified on November 21, 1789. Rhode Island ratified on May 29, 1790.

Article. VII.

The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the same.

done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of America the Twelfth. In witness whereof We have hereunto subscribed our Names,

Attest William Jackson
Secretary

G^o. Washington
--Presid^t. and deputy from Virginia

New Hampshire
John Langdon
Nicholas Gilman

Massachusetts
Nathaniel Gorham
Rufus King

Connecticut
W^m Sam^l Johnson
Roger Sherman

New York
Alexander Hamilton

New Jersey
Wil: Livingston
David Brearley.
W^m Patterson.
Jona: Dayton

Pennsylvania
B Franklin
Thomas Mifflin
Rob^t Morris
Geo. Clymer
Tho^s FitzSimons
Jared Ingersol
James Wilson
Gouv Morris

Delaware
Geo: Read
Gunning Bedford jun
John Dickinson
Richard Bassett
Jaco: Broom

Maryland
James McHenry
Dan of S^t Tho^s Jenifer
Dan^l Carroll

Virginia
John Blair--
James Madison Jr.

North Carolina
W^m Blount
Rich^d Dobbs Spaight
Hu Williamson
J. Rutledge

South Carolina
Charles Cotesworth Pinckney
Charles Pinckney
Pierce Butler

Georgia
William Few
Abr Baldwin

In Convention Monday, September 17th 1787. Present The States of New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Connecticut, MR Hamilton from New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia.

Resolved,

That the preceeding Constitution be laid before the United States in Congress assembled, and that it is the Opinion of this Convention, that it should afterwards be submitted to a Convention of Delegates, chosen in each State by the People thereof, under the Recommendation of its Legislature, for their Assent and Ratification; and that each Convention assenting to, and ratifying the Same, should give Notice thereof to the United States in Congress assembled. Resolved, That it is the Opinion of this Convention, that as soon as the Conventions of nine States shall have ratified this Constitution, the United States in Congress assembled should fix a Day on which Electors should be appointed by the States which shall have ratified the same, and a Day on which the Electors should assemble to vote for the President, and the Time and Place for commencing Proceedings under this Constitution. That after such Publication the Electors should be appointed, and the Senators and Representatives elected: That the Electors should meet on the Day fixed for the Election of the President, and should transmit their Votes certified, signed, sealed and directed, as the Constitution requires, to the Secretary of the United States in Congress assembled, that the Senators and Representatives should convene at the Time and Place assigned; that the Senators should appoint a President of the Senate, for the sole Purpose of receiving, opening and counting the Votes for President; and, that after he shall be chosen, the Congress, together with the President, should, without Delay, proceed to execute this Constitution.

By the Unanimous Order of the Convention

Go: Washington--Presidt. W. Jackson Secretary.

[4CJ]

Taney changed the decision between the time he delivered it from the bench, to the time it was published, contrary to the rules of the Court.

Wrong. The decisions were final when published by the court reporter.

[lentulusgracchus]

Not to be broken for light reasons.

Thirteen States left the Union and a couple more tried to. You think they left for light reasons?

I want you to show me that they left the Union for "light and transitory causes", that their dispute with the North was nugatory, transitory, or trifling.

And in your answer, be sure to treat the dead people in Kansas and the John Brown raid that tried to raise a general slave insurrection in the South, a la Haiti.

And be sure to say something about the fact that Southerners were excluded for 40 years from taking their slaves with them to the Territories, that they were supporting the nation's budget with their taxes, which was being spent in the North, and that Congress had refused to fund protection from the Indians for Texans living on the frontier, in violation of the Constitution.

[nolu chan]

[ftD] "The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens of the several states, and shall have the right of transit and sojourn in any State of this Confederacy, with their slaves and other property; and the right of property in said slaves shall not be thereby impaired.(Art.4,Sec.1)"

[ftD] My, what a noble document!

"No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due." Art. 4, Sec. 2, Cl. 3.

[nc] My, what a noble document!

[nc] Slavery was wrong in both documents.

[fortheDeclaration]

This is exactly what it says, The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same. done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of America

Let me see, I see Virgina, Georgia and North Carolina and South Carolina, so we can say that they were at least part of the United States of America.

The point is that the South made sure that their Constitution did not it was the Confederate States of America.

Washington, however, had no qualms calling the signing states (which were present) the United States of America.

The South understand the difference and made sure they did not do the same thing.

I take your line of argument as akin to throwing up dust in the air.

What point are you making that disputes my assertion that the Constitution was considered the uniting of the states into the United States of America?

[fortheDeclaration]

[ftD] "The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens of the several states, and shall have the right of transit and sojourn in any State of this Confederacy, with their slaves and other property; and the right of property in said slaves shall not be thereby impaired.(Art.4,Sec.1)" [ftD] My, what a noble document! "No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due." Art. 4, Sec. 2, Cl. 3.

And why was that clause put into the Constitution in the first place?

At whose insistence?

Why it was the Souths!

And do not forget the 3/4 rule also, where the South demanded that their property was also counted for purposes of representation.

Note also we never used the word slave, like the Confederates did!

We hoped to eventually end slavery, a goal that the South found repulsive.

Moreover, the Southern Constitution also mentioned the race that was to be enslaved (negro).

[nc] My, what a noble document!

Must have been you guys copied it with a few changes to justify your slavery. [nc] Slavery was wrong in both documents.

[fortheDeclaration]

Not to be broken for light reasons. Thirteen States left the Union and a couple more tried to. You think they left for light reasons? I want you to show me that they left the Union for "light and transitory causes", that their dispute with the North was nugatory, transitory, or trifling. And in your answer, be sure to treat the dead people in Kansas and the John Brown raid that tried to raise a general slave insurrection in the South, a la Haiti.

And what happened to John Brown-they hung him!

As for Kansas, you Slavers attempted to hijact the gov't and were stopped.

Even Judge Douglas knew it was the takeover of Kansas was a farce and fought his own Party on it.

But the South is made up of 'noble' men who betray their country, try to steal elections, and revolt to keep men in slavery.

And be sure to say something about the fact that Southerners were excluded for 40 years from taking their slaves with them to the Territories, that they were supporting the nation's budget with their taxes, which was being spent in the North, and that Congress had refused to fund protection from the Indians for Texans living on the frontier, in violation of the Constitution.

LOL!

Oh, the horror not to be able to take your slaves to the Territories.

What took you so long to revolt?

How could you bear under the tyranny!

Funny, all I saw Jefferson Davis talk about was the devaluing of the dollar amount of the Souths' human property due to limiting slavery.

The very thing that both Jefferson and Washington wanted to do.

[4CJ]

And why was that clause put into the Constitution in the first place? At whose insistence? Why it was the Souths!

Get the log out of your eye. Several Yankee states wanted the slave trade to continue and voted to extend the deadline to 1808, viz: Massachusetts, New Hampshire & Connecticutt.

[unspun]

Authority higher than the People

jsu&tiAnd all the Founders.

lYes. We call Him "Who Am".

Yes. In the language of philosophy, it's a presupposition, or metaphysics, or ontology thing. It's about basis, for all of law.

And in the terms of Abraham Lincoln, bane to those with southern cow-chips on their shoulders: No one really has the right to do what is wrong.

Without that principle, the Declaration, hence the Nation, hence the Constitution are meaningless.

...except for the treasure map that Nicholas Cage finds on the back of the vellum, in the new movie.

Have a great Thanksgiving.