Posted on 11/13/2004 11:12:00 AM PST by LouAvul
Did anyone attempt to even offer an impeachment motion?
With Democrats still part of the Federal Gov't, where are the attempts to impeach if Lincoln was in such violation of the Constitution.
Looks like Congress wasn't doing its job!
The crys of çivil rights'came from those who were intent on using those freedoms against the Government to create anarchy and defeat the U.S.
The Southern Cabel's yapping about legal technical points, while ignoring the same actions being taken in the South by Davis, is just hypocritical.
By the way, did you know you lost?
Get over it.
And if you think you can find a better nation then this one, let me know, I am curious to find out which one you think it is.
To return to his home state and then lead that same State and other States against the U.S. government that he had served under is nothing less then treason.
Now, it may be a just treason, as that of the Colonies, but treason is still treason.
Patrick did not mince words when he stated that Caeser had his Brutus, Charles had his Cromwell, and King George and crys of treason rang out in the assembly.
Stop trying to redefine words to mean what you want them to mean, the way the Southern Cabel wants to redefine reality.
Wait -- don't pike. Quote the rest of that passage, so we can see the context.
It is needless to discuss at length the question whether the right of a State to withdraw from the Union for any cause regarded by herself as sufficient is consistent with the Constitution of the United States.The Union of the States never was a purely artificial and [p*725] arbitrary relation. It began among the Colonies, and grew out of common origin, mutual sympathies, kindred principles, similar interests, and geographical relations. It was confirmed and strengthened by the necessities of war, and received definite form and character and sanction from the Articles of Confederation. By these, the Union was solemnly declared to "be perpetual." And when these Articles were found to be inadequate to the exigencies of the country, the Constitution was ordained "to form a more perfect Union." It is difficult to convey the idea of indissoluble unity more clearly than by these words. What can be indissoluble if a perpetual Union, made more perfect, is not?
But the perpetuity and indissolubility of the Union by no means implies the loss of distinct and individual existence, or of the right of self-government, by the States. Under the Articles of Confederation, each State retained its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right not expressly delegated to the United States. Under the Constitution, though the powers of the States were much restricted, still all powers not delegated to the United States nor prohibited to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. And we have already had occasion to remark at this term that the people of each State compose a State, having its own government, and endowed with all the functions essential to separate and independent existence, and that, "without the States in union, there could be no such political body as the United States." Not only, therefore, can there be no loss of separate and independent autonomy to the States through their union under the Constitution, but it may be not unreasonably said that the preservation of the States, and the maintenance of their governments, are as much within the design and care of the Constitution as the preservation of the Union and the maintenance of the National government. The Constitution, in all its provisions, looks to an indestructible Union composed of indestructible States. [p*726]
When, therefore, Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation. All the obligations of perpetual union, and all the guaranties of republican government in the Union, attached at once to the State. The act which consummated her admission into the Union was something more than a compact; it was the incorporation of a new member into the political body. And it was final. The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration or revocation, except through revolution or through consent of the States.
Considered therefore as transactions under the Constitution, the ordinance of secession, adopted by the convention and ratified by a majority of the citizens of Texas, and all the acts of her legislature intended to give effect to that ordinance, were absolutely null. They were utterly without operation in law. The obligations of the State, as a member of the Union, and of every citizen of the State, as a citizen of the United States, remained perfect and unimpaired. It certainly follows that the State did not cease to be a State, nor her citizens to be citizens of the Union. If this were otherwise, the State must have become foreign, and her citizens foreigners. The war must have ceased to be a war for the suppression of rebellion, and must have become a war for conquest and subjugation.
Our conclusion therefore is that Texas continued to be a State, and a State of the Union, notwithstanding the transactions to which we have referred. And this conclusion, in our judgment, is not in conflict with any act or declaration of any department of the National government, but entirely in accordance with the whole series of such acts and declarations since the first outbreak of the rebellion.
[Emphasis added]
Texas vs. White, 74 U.S. 700 (1868), Chief Justice Chase, Opinion
Here we see Chase channeling Lincoln's "mystical Union" buncombe and rejecting the implications of his being wrong with a telling "therefore".
Chase is wilfully dismissive of the legality and binding nature of the secession ordinance, which was an act of the People not "under" the Constitution, but above it. He also invokes the prerevolutionary "union" phantasm, and weasels the word "perpetual" into the discussion, from the utterly irrelevant Articles of Confederation which never governed Texas at any time and which is significant only in that that is how far Chase has to go, to retrieve the word "perpetual" for his prejudged, political screed, without bothering to inform his readers that the word "perpetual" does not have the meaning in law that he gives it here.
Chase here sits in judgment on issues in which he was himself a participant, in Lincoln's cabinet. There could never have been any doubt that he would parrot Lincoln with every line of every opinion he might be called on to write on the conduct and legality of the war (and from which he would decline to recuse himself as a party in interest), and Texas vs. White is therefore a good case to bring up whenever the seminar turns to the subject of politically-motivated judicial misconduct.
Why is that so difficult to understand?
Ping.
His State left the Union. Had he continued to serve in the United States Government, he'd have been a traitor to his State, unless he moved away and abjured his Mississippi citizenship.
As it was, his U.S. citizenship lapsed with Mississippi's secession from the Union.
There was no rebellion and no insurrection.
Was Huey Long ever impeached by the Louisiana legislature?
Any attempts to impeach him?
Did he stop Congress from meeting?
Were there Northern Democrats among the Congress?
Actually, Lincoln was getting criticism for being too weak in his action from many members of Congress.
Since your only goal is the destruction of the United States and all governments for that matter, your 'legal'arguments'ring hollow.
We are now in a war against Islamic terrorism, is the President going to have the ACLU types (like yourself and Nolu Chan) coming in and screaming, Rights, when the men who are using those same rights are attempting to destroy them forever?
No one has a 'right'to use the laws of the United States against the United States in order to destroy it.
The Southern Cabel is just angry that Buchanan wasn't the incoming President, when you guys revolted, then you would have gotten away with it.
Ofcourse, Buchanan, even though pro-South, disagreed that there was any right to secession, but he also did not believe the Federal Government had any 'right'to defend itself from secession.
Had you attempted the Secession a year earlier you might had gotten away with it.
Correction, his state attempted to leave the Union.
Did any foreign power recognize it as a separate state?
The American Colonies declared themselves a nation.
In the eyes of the British they were still colonies.
Had they lost, they would have been hung as traitors.
When you fight against your old country, you are a traitor to that nation, by any definition of the word.
And why the sensitivity to Davis being a traitor?
From what I have seen from the Southern Cabel, none of you love this nation, so why do you care about traitors against it.
Frankly, I think you are a disgrace to the South, who are very patriotic and love the nation and the principles that it was founded on the, the Declaration of Independence.
The Southern leadership led the South astray in order to protect a wicked institution and then shroud it as being the South's 'peculiar'Institution.
The South is better off being rid of it and being rid of those men to led hundred of thousands of good men to die so the Southern leadership would not lose the property value of human beings.
You obviously don't understand political violence.
Read a book about the Roman Revolution and the demise of the Roman Republic sometime, or William Shirer's Collapse of the Third Republic, about why France fell apart in the 1930's.
You don't understand, as Madison and Calhoun did, the deadliness of a national political faction that is determined to take over the country and run roughshod over the rest of the People. That's what Lincoln had at his back, backing him up on every illegality, every rip in the Constitution, every despotic measure. He was covered. He could do as he pleased. Conversely, his troops and officers in the South were likewise covered -- they could do as they pleased. Sherman was lauded, and none of his troops were court-martialed. Lincoln covered for them, for the tax agents confiscating Southern real estate and selling it to their brothers-in-law, for the carpetbaggers already swooping down on wharves and freight platforms laden with cotton. "Black Republicanism" was a "party" -- in both the political and the street sense. Do what you want to do; do what you can -- it's all good.
This has only happened once in American history. Being taken over like that is like the fourth or fifth exponential power of having your neighborhood taken over by the Rolling Forties. It isn't politics, it's political violence. Emphasis on "violence". And it is instructive, that it wasn't just people in the South who suffered from it. People hauled off to prison in the Old Northwest likewise suffered, and farmers who lost their spreads in the ensuing sixty years of Gilded Age hard-money, railroad-cossetting policies likewise suffered. But outside the South, people never connected the dots, and farmers done in by the Gilded Age never figured it out, that they had been on the wrong side in the Civil War.
With Nothern Democrats in the Senate and Congress and no attempts to impeach?
Are you finally starting to figure it out? That Lincoln couldn't have achieved emancipation -- his real agenda -- without secession and war? Helllloooooooo!!!
An incoming President with all of this power!
Yea, he had Congress controlled and just ran roughshod over the nation.
No, he just waited for Congress to go home -- and then all hell broke loose. Think that was an accident? His correspondence with Gustavus Fox, his back-channel messages to the South Carolinians, his instructions to his Secretaries of the Navy and War, suggest otherwise.
Stephen Douglas led the Northern Democrats in backing Lincoln, after he succeed in baiting the Confederates into bombarding Fort Sumter.
I have never called you a marxist to my recollection.
I have, however, called you a liar. In posting the dissent in the Prize Cases under the implication that you were extracting from the decision, you undermined any credibility you ever had so far as I and lentulusgracchus are concerned. Rather than correct your error, you continue to throw sand in our eyes. If scoring a win justifies abandonment of truth, perhaps you should re-evaluate who you're fighting for.
At one time, I believed your personal association with WiJG meant that you were capable of reasoned debate. You continue to undermine that belief when you engage in dishonesty.
If the South had kept their seats in government, Lincoln would have had a strong block of brave Southerners who would not have been intimated by Lincoln's strong arm tactics.
They could have also blocked the dreaded Morrill Tarriff Bill in the Senate.
Who fired on the U.S. flag?
An act of treason
By the way... Next time I'm headed for LALA land, I'll ping you so that you can come down and say this to my face.
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.