Posted on 11/13/2004 11:12:00 AM PST by LouAvul
Two things jumped out at me. First, was the use of the name "Arizona Territory." Under the Union government, Arizona Territory did not exist until 1863. Your document is dated March 11, 1861. The meeting place is shown as La Mesilla. Present-day Mesilla is near Las Cruces, New Mexico. The next-to-last clause indicates the New Mexicans (many of whom were former Texans) were responsible for the document. So your identification of the southern portions of both present-day states is correct.
The second thing is that Article IV, Section 3, Clause 3, of the Confederate Constitution of March 11, 1861, made it clear that slavery was to be legal in territories outside of the confederate states:
"In all such territory the institution of negro slavery, as it now exists in the Confederate States, shall be recognized and protected be Congress and by the Territorial government; and the inhabitants of the several Confederate States and Territories shall have the right to take to such Territory any slaves lawfully held by them in any of the States or Territories of the Confederate States."
The Mesilla Convention need not have mentioned slavery at all for it to be legal therein. I also note that the drafters of the Arizona Ordinance misidentify the Constitution as a treaty. This intellectual myopia was common among many southerners.
Robert Barnwell Rhett was a secessionist from way back. After 1850, he wore the mantle of Calhoun. Rhett was a longtime member of the US Congress and was instrumental in drafting the CSA constitution. He was clearly an influential member of southern society and was an ardent fire-eater.
He well expressed the extreme views of the secessionists. Would you prefer I quote from William L. Yancey or Laurence M. Keitt instead? Neither lived as long or were as prolific as Rhett, but they were equally as extreme.
As we have discussed in previous threads, since Taney materially changed his oral decision, presented as the decision of the Court (which garnered the 7-2 vote), it is wholly unclear whether the final published decision was truly representative of the will of the Court.
"Your logic here infers that the Supreme Court should take a poll of "the will of an emerging sectionalized national majority," and rule accordingly."
Not at all. The Court should respect the structure of the government, which includes the concept a majoritarian rule.
"The Court is supposed to interpret the law as it is, not the will of the people."
If I add "or inject into law the personal political opinions of the justices," I would say truer words were never spoken.
"The statute had already been repealed. You offer no legal argument, you merely make empty assertions, yet again."
You failed to notice that I was quoting from Fehrenbacher. You have his case study of the Dred Scott decision. You know it is a devastating indictment of Taney's conduct in the case.
From Merriam Webster: "TREATY: a contract in writing between two or more political authorities (as states or sovereigns) formally signed by representatives duly authorized and usually ratified by the lawmaking authority of the state"
From The European Treaty-Constitution and Constitutional Identity: "...a constitution establishes, modifies or reestablishes a common unit with an identity of its own; a treaty in contrast, carves out a discreet common project among sovereign parties with each retaining its own distinct identity."
From the 1856 Bouvier Law Dictionary: "TREATY, international law. A treaty is a compact made between two or more independent nations with a view to the public welfare treaties are for a perpetuity, or for a considerable time. Those matters which are accomplished by a single act, and are at once perfected in their execution, are called agreements, conventions and pactions.
Oh, I forgot. You subscribe to the Lincolnian nonsense about the Union preceding the states.
Lincoln, like most people of the time, was opposed to race-mixing. There is nothing new here, either.
The key point of difference is that Lincoln and the abolitionists believed in the fundamental humanity of the black man and the founding principles of the nation. Many southerners of the slave-power conspiracy believed in the racist ideas that Negroes were sub-human and biblically condemned to slavery. By the 1860's the south had denied the vision of Jefferson and Madison, in favor of the heresy of Calhoun. If you don't believe me, read CSA Vice President Stephens' "Cornerstone Speech" sometime. Speech"
Robert Toombs, speaking during to the Georgia legislature considering secession in November 1860, stated, "What shall be done with [the African slaves]? We must expand or perish. We are constrained by an inexorable necessity to accept expansion or extermination. Those who tell you that the territorial question is an abstraction, that you can never colonize another territory without the African slavetrade, are both deaf and blind to the history of the last sixty years."
Toobs became the CSA Secretary of State.
http://members.aol.com/jfepperson/toombs.html
I appreciate a well-timed retort. Fortunately I added that parenthetical statement.
In those days, he would have been impressed by the dust. Southern California remained greatly agricultural, with a growing citrus industry (and petroleum industry). It was about tha time that the first of my ancestors arrived in Ventura County, CA, from New York and Tennessee.
"In the case of California, I repeat that the State was off the table for any practical purposes."
For your reading pleasure:
http://www.militarymuseum.org/LosAngelesMountedRifles2.html
I believe the Articles of Confederation were more "treaty-like" in their structure; whereas the Constitution of 1787 was more "contract-like."
There's no need to qualify or nuance his support for colonization AND immigration, capitan. He favored it both to Africa and other colony locations, period. He died a proponent of it, period.
Yes you have. I posted it for you several months ago when you pretending that the confederacy "invaded" New Mexico against its wishes.
Show me the where I posted that.
You didn't post it. I did. It was during one of our discussions over the Sibley campaign and your non-existant Battle of Fort Davis.
Mine as well. 1882 when my great grandpa arrived in L.A. which he described as a sleepy Spanish town with crooked streets. He took a stage out to the Harbor in San Pedro and a ship up to Santa Barbara where he got off and stayed with some family in Lompoc, I believe. Then he bought the land at Nojoqui Falls. There is a Landmark of the Nosser Family Stage stop there. The house burned down and the Government bought the family from my grandparents.
Lincoln died a martyr to freedom. And to be remembered as the President who saved the nation and freed the slaves.
The south just died. Period.
I just read your profile, and I don't meet very many fourth generationers like myself. When my great grandparents bought their ranch in Nojoqui Falls, part of it was made of Adobe, and they bought it from a "Spaniard" as grandma would say. But the other side of the family in Santa Ynez were also Scottish, James Ritchie Torrence. The home he built there is the longest continuously occupied home in the valley. Now a wealthy family with maids live there, but the original structure still exists and twenty years ago they were kind enough to give my grandma a tour when she told them her parents had been married there and her grandfather had built the original and still existing structure. We've always been Republicans and big Reagan fans.
Oops, this was intended for you, not GOP Capitalist
I just read your profile, and I don't meet very many fourth generationers like myself. When my great grandparents bought their ranch in Nojoqui Falls, part of it was made of Adobe, and they bought it from a "Spaniard" as grandma would say. But the other side of the family in Santa Ynez were also Scottish, James Ritchie Torrence. The home he built there is the longest continuously occupied home in the valley. Now a wealthy family with maids live there, but the original structure still exists and twenty years ago they were kind enough to give my grandma a tour when she told them her parents had been married there and her grandfather had built the original and still existing structure. We've always been Republicans and big Reagan fans.
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.