Posted on 11/13/2004 11:12:00 AM PST by LouAvul
As opposed to that great defender of freedom, Jefferson Davis?
The colonies regarded themselves as states, self-governing.
Sought of like a Common-wealth status.
No I am referring to the meaning of the 10th it was speaking of state laws and regulations relating STRICTLY to state and local issues not national ones.
Of course you cannot accept this because it disembowels the spurious claim that there was a "right" to secede contained therein. Such a ridiculous claim would have made the document meaningless.
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.
...says the man who arbitrarily redefines the term to include massive state interventionism of the neo-mercantilist kind.
Capitalism was the economic system created by the bourgeoise (or vice versa) and is that because of its connection with the creation of capital.
In other words, you accept Marx's definition of a word with an etymology that predates him by more than a century. It's nice to see your true colors showing through though.
A simple definition in the Dictionary of Economics is " An economic system based upon the private ownership of all kinds of property and the freedom of the individual to contract with others and to engage in economic activities of his own choice and for his own profit and well-being."
...the key being _private ownership of all kinds of property_, as in all is owned and controlled by individuals rather than the state. Thank you for supporting my case, however unintended it may have been.
It is simply false that Hamilton proposed or implemented a "widescale state intervention."
You keep telling yourself that and see if it makes it any less wrong. All I need to know to rebut it is his Report on Manufactures.
Never claimed you cited Rand's book.
Then why did you bring both her and it into this discussion?
As I pointed out months ago a 15% tariff is not protective whether you believe it to be or not.
It is when the difference between the world price and the domestic price of the protected good is 14.999% or less.
A protective tariff is often 100% or more.
Generally speaking, the average rate for the United States in periods that are considered "protectionist" (i.e. the late 1820's, the 1860's, 1842-46) ranges somewhere in the 30-60% range. 100% ad valorem is NOT necessary for a tariff to be protectionist and, technically speaking, even a 1% tariff could serve that role if the difference between the domestic and world prices were less than 1%.
But only upon ridding their crown governors and setting themselves up as states. Your buddy capitan is simply spouting garbage when he suggests that states did not arise before the declaration. Virginia's constitution, as I have thoroughly documented, declared its ties with Britain "totally dissolved" and assumed complete self government on their own right. One cannot get more explicit than that.
And the Continental Congress was formed at the behest of the individual colonies, so there.
So long as we date the independence of the whole to July 4, 1776 - and I believe you'll find it rather difficult convince much of anyone otherwise - the irrefutable reality of the timeline indicates that individual state independence from Britain had already been declared in multiple cases over the previous month. Virginia ceased to be a colony and became a Commonwealth, or State, in June of 1776. Acting as representatives of that new Commonwealth, her delegates subsequently voted in favor of independence for the whole of the colonies and states in July.
I fail to see how my interpretation of the Tenth, which I believe to be correct, would make the Constitution meaningless. If the Union were one that ensured every state's happiness, there would be no reason for any state to secede. If not and if the Union were operating to the detriment of any state or region (which it certainly was with regard to the tariff and trade), then the Tenth provides a peaceful way for states to withdraw.
Basically, the Tenth provides a check against a despotic central government, a check that I hope you would view favorably.
LOL!
That is pretty pathetic!
But secession-that Old Hickory would not concede. That had nothing to do with states'rights. "In my opinion' he responded, " the admission of the right of secession is a virtual dissolution of the union." To insist that secession is a reserved right as Macon did, is to insist that each state reserved the right to put and end to the Government" whenever it wishes. " I hold that the states expressly gave up the right to secede...when the present Constitution was adopted to establish 'a more perfect union' The only right of secession is the right of revolution"(33)
Speaking of the potential secession of South Carolina,
Just let me know the moment an armed force is illegally assembled, Jackson responded: I will then "issue my proclamation warning them to disperse' and if they refuse, 'I will forthwith call into the field such a force as will overawe resistance, put treason and rebellion down without blood and arrest and hand over to the judiciary for trial and punishment, the leaders and exciters and promoters of this rebellion and treason'....Jackson, of course, had no difficulty in locating the cause of the crises, He regarded the 'modern' doctrines of secession and nullification as the 'mad theories' of a few demagogues-in particular "Mr. John C. Calhoun"....Once South Carolina made good her threat to take action after February 1, Federal soldiers would march....Everyone seemed to realize that with Jackson in the White House, 'there is but one way of seperating or dissolving the union, and that ws 'by war." In that event 'somebody may get hanged adn some killed"(Andrew Jackson, and the course of American Democracy, Robert V.Remini, V.3, p.34-36)
Now as for Jackson's determination, Remini wrote,
He was one of those extraordinary men who flourish with adversity. The more he was opposed the more determined he became. A strong, obstinate streak surged within him whenever his situation became hopeless (Remini, Vol.1.p.203)
Now, I consider Remini the definitive work on Jackson.
If you know another, one that contradicts Remini's work, please let me know.
Your pompus reply is typical of a southerner living in the world of delusion and mythology.
Nope didn't do any such thing.
Capitalism's reality predated Marx's concepts by centuries.
The first stock companies go back as far as the East India company and those established to trade slaves.
The state during H's day neither owned nor controlled companies nor businesses. It didn't even tax them.
His Report did not call for massive state intervention. It offered incentives in the best capitalist tradition to produce certain things. Certainly nowhere near the intervention of the CSA.
Because your claims were so consistent with hers.
Since the purpose of the tariff was to raise revenue such a tariff would have never been proposed because of its drastic reduction of that revenue. In such an instance a tariff of about 5% would have been proposed. H's financial system would have never been threatened by protectionist tariffs since the funding of the government was dependent on that revenue. You are surely aware of that in spite of your contentiousness.
Never said it was "necessary" that a tariff be 100% or more just that it often was that high.
Not one of these states made a separate treaty with a foreign nation, the real test of a nation.
Only Texas could claim to be have been totally independent when she entered the union.
It would be meaningless because the Union could be unraveled by any unpopular decision the government might make. It would once again place the government under the constraints of unanimity which was the reason the Articles became useless and the Constitutional Convention was called. Thus it is contradictory to the whole idea behind the CC and the Constitution resulting therefore. Since restricting state power was the driving force behind the CC it would be absurd to place an amendment within the Constitution resurrecting that destructive power. Our Founders were not that stupid.
It is false that the 10th has ever been a check on the fedgov it and the 9th are just too vague and could have been left out of the document entirely with little effect. Hence my conclusion that they were just sops to anti-federalist agitation.
In the movie "Gangs of New York", the general feeling about Lincoln is well-portrayed. They hated Lincoln in New York (Tammany Hall, Boss Tweed, etc.) and hated the blacks and the Chinese, too. I guess they hated everybody up there, and when the draft was first instituted, they were REALLY upset. It wasn't perfect up North, either. Only the South is seen as evil. There were good AND bad "slave owners" (but they were all wrong - granted). Some were treated as family members, some were treated horribly. But Gone With the Wind is JUST A MOVIE, not social commentary, set in that time and place. It's a LOVE STORY. Prissy was s l o w, the Carpetbaggers are historically accurate, Mammy was loyal to the O'Hara family, and lots of scum came in to take over the South and pick up what was left, etc. Good grief, why can't the Left just leave SOMETHING alone? Since they're so worried about it, they don't mention that in the film Ashley said he was going to free all the slaves when the war was over anyway. He WAS decent. Weak, but decent. But does any of this REALLY matter now? No.
Since the legislative branch was not in session, the rebellion made it necessary for the Executive branch to act.
When Congress reconvened on July 4th they supported Lincoln's actions.
Going back to Jackson,
Andrew Jackson, who was aleady at odds with Calhoun for other reasons, was enraged. He was said to have told on congressman that South Carolina could adopt resolutions to it hearts content, but 'if one drop of blood be shed there in defiance of the laws of the United States, I will hang the first man of them I can get my hands on to the first tree I can find'. That story may be apocryphal, but he clearly did tell Van Buren that Calhoun should be hanged for a traitor. How serious was he? "I don't believe he would hang anybody do you?" Senator Hayne asked a leading Jacksonian. The reply was: "Well before he invaded Florida on his own hook, few people could have believed that he would hang Arbuthonot and shoot Ambrister (two British subjects)-also on his own authority-could they? I tell you, Hayne, when Jackson begins talking about hanging, they can begin to look for ropes" (Daniel Farber, Lincoln's Constitution, p.61)
Regarding Lincolns actions
And yet, it is difficult to condemn these actions too harshly. Neither later historians nor Lincoln's contemporaries seem to have questioned the urgent need to expand the military. Moreover, Congress did ultimately endorse these actions. On August 5,it almost unanimously passed a bill declaring 'all the acts proclamations and orders of the President' taken after Lincoln took office ' respecting the army and navy of the United States and calling out or relating to the militia or volunteers from the States, are hereby approved and in all respects legalized and made valid (Ibid, p.138)
Regarding Habeas,
Congress ultimately settled the dispute in March 1863 with a statute declaring that the President did have the right to suspend the writ. Under the statue, a military officer could respond to the writ merely by certifying that the person was detained by authority of the president...(Ibid, p.159)
Using your thinking regarding independence it had been declared prior to 1776 by the actions of the colonies which included forming the Continental Army in June of 1775. July 4 was just the official declaration coming years after the first actions pointing to independence and months after the first acts of armed rebellion and over a year after the founding of the Continental Army.
Colonial legislatures brought a national consciousness to bear and formed a Nation prior to 7/4/76. That consciousness predated states and produced such declarations as the "Declaration of Causes and Necessity of Taking Up Arms" and later directed the states to write constitutions. They all realized that only by uniting could they hope to suceed in defying Great Britain.
So it could, but the Union was a lot more resilient than you seem to give it credit for. For over 70 years the Union stayed together -- all the while the right to secede under the Tenth was there but not invoked. The Union weathered the first nullification crisis (SC and the tariff) in the 1830s but not the second (Northern personal liberty laws and equal rights to the territories) in the 1850s.
The Union did not cease simply because the South left. It certainly stayed intact and waged a major war.
The first threats of Secession were from the New England states and my condemnation of them would have been just as scathing as of the Southern ones. It would have been just as unconstitutional there as south of the Mason-Dixon line.
No one ever pretended the 10th allowed dissolution of the Union until the fireeaters of the South in the 1850s. Such a "right" was as non-existent as a "right" to healthcare or affordable housing or food.
Every single Founder as well as Jefferson loathed the idea of secession and thought it madness exemplified. He even mentioned its advocates in his first inaugural address as objects for ridicule. Madison told Hamilton explicitly that once in the Union forever in the Union. Jackson was ready to hang South Carolina's agitators proposing secession. Washington's Farewell Address (written by Hamilton) was a warning not to follow those urging secession. 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. That discovery was left to the quacks and charletans 70 yrs later.
The real historical fact was that Taney's misconduct led to a flurry of angry letters between him and Curtis, and Curtis quit over it.
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. Taney admitted it, and rationalized his conduct. There really isn't any more to be said on the subject.
From the 1760's, the British American colonies had evidenced an increased discomfort with their British overlords, and a desire for a greater degree of autonomy.
In American political usage, the term "commonwealth" has no special implication. GOPc suggests, without further proof or citation, that by forming a "commonwealth" in June 1776, Virgina unilaterally declared their independence. In fact, what they did was form a local autonomous, republican government, and at the same time, instructed their delegates in the Continental Congress to move for independence "unitedly." Richard Henry Lee of Virgina moved the original Resolution for Independence in the Congress and it was seconded by John Adams.
It makes for an interesting comparison the place the Declaration of Independence next to the Virginia Declaration of Rights and June 1776 Constitution. One thing that stands out, is that in the Declaration of Independence, there is no doubt what the united colonies were doing in declaring themselves the United States.
Cite the passage where the "ties" are "totally dissolved."
You can't, because it doesn't exist. What was dissolved was the government not of the people.
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.