Posted on 05/09/2006 8:33:28 PM PDT by stainlessbanner
Then let's try this one on for size. If the south had tried to leave legally, settling all possible issues of contention such as the national debt, access to the sea via the Mississippi River, ownership of federal property, respect for treaty obligations before walking away then they WOULD have parted in peace and there would have been NO war. Instead the south walked out without negotiation and in the process they seized what they wanted, abrogated obligations, immediately blocked the Mississippi to Northern traffic, and were mum on issues such as respect for international slave trade treaties. Then they proposed some vague offer to negotiate issues of disagreement if, AND ONLY IF, the North first accepted that all their actions were legal in the first place by recognizing the legitimacy of their unilateral secession. The first and most obvious question would be if the Lincoln Administration had given them recognition then what incentive did the south have to negotiate in good faith on the other matters? Peace? The south proved that they would willingly go to war over a rock in Charleston harbor, they wouldn't have let peace get in the way of their pride on other issues. Trade? The south figured they had the world by the family jewels over cotton to begin with. What did the North have to get the Davis regime to settle on any terms other than what they demanded?
No the confederacy wanted the right to have their cake and eat it, too. And then spit on the North's slice of cake to get their point across.
But then again, Lincoln would have lost all of that tariff money...................
The loss of the disproportionately small precentage of the tariff revenue generated by the south may have been an inconvenience but it was hardly fatal and certainly no reason for a war. You will note that by 1864, without the south and in the middle of a rebellion, Northern tariff revenues were almost double that collected prior to 1861.
How inconvenient, since it is politicians who create and modify the laws we live under. You've cited a section of the Kansas-Nebraska Act as if to prove your point, and yet claim to have zero interest in how it got to be inserted in the bill. Perhaps you should only cite court cases, if having your legislative citations unraveled makes you uncomfortable...
I have no interest in political affiliations at all, simply legal fact.
Ok, what Federal abuse of the law provided South Carolina the casus belli to withdraw from the Union? ... what legal precedent[s] did they refer to upon withdrawing? ...which Federal court heard their grievance and granted their release?
Or is it also your contention that South Carolina could stop paying attention to the US Constitution at any time for any reason at all?
Forced? Did they hold a gun to his head? If he found adding it that odious or illegal, he should have let it be defeated rather than pass it.
I make no common cause with Stephen Douglas or any other Democrat from that era. The Kansas-Nebraska Act was the harbinger of Civil War and it was brought about by a bunch of greedy backstabbing Democrats. Your notions of "popular sovereignty" for the territories were not enshrined in Constitutional law, they were hatched in Chicago's smoke-filled rooms, and southern plantation parlors.
Yes, yes,....traitorous Southerns, etc., etc.,
Make that South Carolinians, and yes..absent any just cause..they were traitors to the Union and the Constitution.
The fact is slavery was legal and the federal government had no legal right to tell a State what it must or must not be, or a person what they could or could not own.
Congress has always had the right to restrict slavery, starting with founding principles. In 1787 the Congress passed the Northwest Ordinance outlining the rules of governance for US Territories west of the Ohio river. Section 14 Article 6 of that ordinance reads
"There shall be neither slavery nor involuntary servitude in the said territory, otherwise than in the punishment of crimes whereof the party shall have been duly convicted:"
Now if Congress had the lawful right to restrict slavery in the Old Northwest, what makes you think it didn't have the same lawful right to restrict it in the Louisiana Purchase?
Either we have a limited government that respects the rights of the States, or we have a behemoth that is only limited by it's own judgment as to what it can or cannot do.
Either we have State government that respects the rights of The People and obeys Federal law, or we have no Union.
Absent any concrete evidence on your part to the contrary, my conclusion has been that South Carolina's 1860 withdrawal was illegitimate, and its actions against Federal installations was illegal and traitorous.
You still haven't answered the question.
I doubt I could come up with an answer that would satisfy your odd way of looking at things.
But it's not like you've answered all my questions, either.
mac:
By South Carolina's way of looking at things, they had a more than valid reason for secession.
And really, if you get right down to it, secession was legal or no, depending on the viewpoint.
But 12 states agreed with South Carolina,not to mention those states such as New Jersey, who didn't secede, yet supported the right to do so, therefore, it seems pretty even to me.
Politicians only have the authority to make laws for government. I can't believe the amount of people who think the Founder created something with that authority. If you choose not to believe it, fine.
But do yourself a favor, read Montesquieu, read Blackstone's Commentaries, read George Tucker. Read every source the Founders quoted because trying to understand the Constitution by using only the words in the Constitution is pointless.
-----
which Federal court heard their grievance and granted their release?
They needed no permission. Just like you ask permission to join an organization, yet do not have to have its permission to leave. If you have to have permission, you are no longer free to associate.
The States possess these rights of freedom of association as well.
-----
On December 17, this Amendment was proposed in the House:
Journal of the House of Representatives of the United States, 1860-1861
MONDAY, December 17, 1860 Page 82
Resolved, That the Congress propose to the several States the following amendment to the Constitution:
Art. 8. Whenever a convention of delegates, chosen in any State by the people thereof, under the recommendation of its legislature, shall rescind and annul its ratification of this Constitution, the President shall nominate and, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint commissioners, not exceeding three, to confer with the duly appointed agents of such State, and agree upon the disposition of the public property and territory belonging to the United States lying within such State, and upon the proportion of the public debt to be assumed and paid by such State; and if the President shall approve the settlement agreed upon by the commissioners, he shall thereupon transmit the same to the Senate; and upon the ratification thereof by two-thirds of the senators present, he shall forthwith issue his proclamation declaring the assent of the United States to the withdrawal of such State from the Union.
They were trying to force the States to have to have permission to leave because this power is not granted by the Constitution!
-------
Any contract can be left with legal notice, a fact of which the members of government were all aware. Legal notice is exactly what South Carolina gave the United States government in December of 1860
Journal of the House of Representatives of the United States, 1860-1861 MONDAY, December 24, 1860.
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/hlaw:@field(DOCID+@lit(hj05715)):
The Speaker laid before the House a letter from John McQueen, Milledge L. Bonham, William W. Boyce, and John D. Ashmore, under date of December 21, 1860, stating that "We avail ourselves of the earliest opportunity, since the official communication of the intelligence, of making known to your honorable body that the people of the State of South Carolina, in their sovereign capacity, have resumed the powers heretofore delegated by them to the federal government of the United States, and have thereby dissolved our connexion with the House of Representatives."
Ordered, That the said letter be laid on the table.
South Carolina was a State with no attachments to the Union from that point on.
-----
Again, the House tried to amend the Constitution to stop succession, because the power to do so did not exist:
Journal of the Senate of the United States of America, 1789-1873
SATURDAY, March 2, 1861 Page 379
On motion by Mr. Doolittle, to amend the proposed amendment by inserting at the end thereof the following
Article 8. Under this Constitution, as originally adopted and as it now exists, no State has power to withdraw from the jurisdiction of the United States; and this Constitution, and all laws passed in pursuance of its delegated powers, are the supreme late of the land, anything contained in any constitution, ordinance, or act of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.
-----
Your notions of "popular sovereignty" for the territories were not enshrined in Constitutional law, they were hatched in Chicago's smoke-filled rooms, and southern plantation parlors.
No, actually it was 16th century France. Read Spirit of the Laws by Montesquieu
-----
they were traitors to the Union and the Constitution.
Again, you speak from ignorance.
-----
Now if Congress had the lawful right to restrict slavery in the Old Northwest, what makes you think it didn't have the same lawful right to restrict it in the Louisiana Purchase?
Because a territory is an unorganized State, Congress can do as it wishes. One a proper State is formed, Congress loses that authority. Again, it's why the clauses affecting the territories and the clauses affecting the States in the Constitution are separated.
-----
Either we have State government that respects the rights of The People and obeys Federal law, or we have no Union.
Again, States are only obligated to 'obey' the federal government as long as it does not try to roam outside it's constitutional authority.
James Madison's report on the Virginia Resolutions because of the Alien and Sedition act was one of the first times this happened:
The resolution declares, first, that "it views the powers of the federal government as resulting from the compact to which the states are parties;" in other words, that the federal powers are derived from the Constitution; and that the Constitution is a compact to which the states are parties. Clear as the position must seem, that the federal powers are derived from the Constitution, and from that alone, the committee are not unapprised of a late doctrine which opens another source of federal powers, not less extensive and important than it is new and unexpected. The examination of this doctrine will be most conveniently connected with a review of a succeeding resolution. The committee satisfy themselves here with briefly remarking that, in all the contemporary discussions and comments which the Constitution underwent, it was constantly justified and recommended on the ground that the powers not given to the government were withheld from it; and that, if any doubt could have existed on this subject, under the original text of the Constitution, it is removed, as far as words could remove it, by the 12th amendment, now a part of the Constitution, which expressly declares, "that 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."
-----
Absent any concrete evidence on your part to the contrary, my conclusion has been that South Carolina's 1860 withdrawal was illegitimate, and its actions against Federal installations was illegal and traitorous.
Where is the Amendment that says a State must stay? Where is the Amendment that allow morality to supersede the Constitution? Where does it give the federal government or any other States the ability to force their will on another state?
If you believe the Constitution is the law of the land and the government’s actions were legal, please point out the ‘perpetual union’ clause, the ‘morality clause’ or the ‘force of will clause’ in the Constitution.
LOL! I've spend an entire week trying to answer your questions (as the length of this thread will attest), yet I have to answer ALL of your questions before you'll deign to answer one of mine?
How telling.
Particularly since it's such a simple one:
Since neither the Declaration of Independence nor the right to life and liberty are mentioned in the United States Constitution, where do these rights come from?
ROTFLMAO.
Don't you believe the Constitution is the law of the land? If not then what is?
If the guidlines of the organization require that permission before you can leave then you have to abide by those guidelines. And regardless of whether you accept it or not, the Supreme Court ruled that states do need permission to leave.
The States possess these rights of freedom of association as well.
Not without the approval of Congress. Sometimes not even then. States are not allowed to associate with foreign countries at all outside of the framework of the United States. They can't enter into agreements with other states without the approval of Congress.
They were trying to force the States to have to have permission to leave because this power is not granted by the Constitution!
"They" being that well-known Constitutional expert Dan Sickles? The amendment was unnecessary, didn't pass, and was never sent to the states.
Any contract can be left with legal notice, a fact of which the members of government were all aware.
True. But the southern states did not give legal notice or comply with the terms of the contract in leaving.
South Carolina was a State with no attachments to the Union from that point on.
A statement open to debate.
Again, you speak from ignorance.
Well now there's a case of the pot calling the kettle black. IMHO, of course.
Again, States are only obligated to 'obey' the federal government as long as it does not try to roam outside it's constitutional authority.
And who decides when the federal government "roams outside it's constitutional authority?" You? The states? Or does the Supreme Court decide that?
Where is the Amendment that allow morality to supersede the Constitution? Where does it give the federal government or any other States the ability to force their will on another state?
You tell me. When the southern state unilaterally seceded, walking away from treaty obligations, debt built up while a part of the U.S., cutting states off from access to the sea via the Mississippi, weren't they forcing their will on the remaining states? They didn't allow the remaining states a say in the matter.
I guess that's why so many Southern movers and shakers, both before and after the war, were so violently opposed to teaching black people to read and write.
Wasn't it against the antebellum law in some Dixie states to teach a slave to read and write? That sounds like oppressive government to me, telling a man what he couldn't do with his "property". I thought the Confederacy and the Southern state governments were the perfect expression of the people's freedom.
Then they were the true believers whose fortitude is to be admired, but such were the minority as could be seen by the melting away of the Confederate military towards the end. There were too many sunshine patriots, ambivalent souls or outright Unionists in the South for the Confederate cause to success. Jefferson Davis was right in the last weeks of the war when he stressed the vital importance of WILL. Most of the true Confederate believers were dead or invalid from the battlefield, leaving an insufficient dedicated remnant like your relatives.
It is a myth the South was ever really committed to the CSA. The endgame of the Civil War shows the shallowness of popular commitment to the Cause.
Yes. Please show me the declaratory clause in the Constitution that gives the government the authority to force a State to stay in the Union.
yes, yes. Evil Southerners, how racist...blah, blah, blah.
Comment on my posts as you wish sir.
But I'll thank you not to ping me again.
The only authority that affected the States was the Constitution.
Congress had no authority to make up 'guidelines' after the fact.
----
Not without the approval of Congress.
If Congress has to approve it, it is no longer FREEDOM of association, but a restricted association.
----
The amendment was unnecessary, didn't pass, and was never sent to the states
LOL Non Sequitur. If it wasn't necessary, it would have never been introduced.
-----
But the southern states did not give legal notice or comply with the terms of the contract in leaving.
Show me these terms IN THE CONTRACT. Anything less makes the contract null and void for lack of full disclosure.
-----
And who decides when the federal government "roams outside it's constitutional authority?" You? The states? Or does the Supreme Court decide that?
The States, as they are the parties to the contract.
-----
When the southern state unilaterally seceded, walking away from treaty obligations, debt built up while a part of the U.S., cutting states off from access to the sea via the Mississippi, weren't they forcing their will on the remaining states?
No, as the other states were still free to go or stay at their discretion, and there was nothing to prevent the United States from petitioning the seceeding states for repayment.
Where's the provision in the Constitution for the states to leave the Union? Some say the states are absolutely sovereign, but if that's so then Article 2, section 10 would not be present.
There is no Constitutional provision for the dissolution of the Union. Of course, there is a revolutionary recourse, but given the South's precious "peculiar institution", I can see how the Dixie big shots would have been wary of an appeal to revolution.
How about the Constitution itself? If the method that the southern states chose to leave was not allowed by the Constitution then those actions were, by definition, and insurrection. And the Constitution allowed the government to suppress insurrection.
True. And by trying to secede unilaterally the states violated that Constitution. As the Supreme Court ruled.
If Congress has to approve it, it is no longer FREEDOM of association, but a restricted association.
If it is freedom of association then why do the states need the approval of Congress to be admitted? Why can't they just say, "We're a state. Here are our Congressmen and Senators?" So I guess it means that association is restricted. Restricted to those currently members and those who they allow to become members.
LOL Non Sequitur. If it wasn't necessary, it would have never been introduced.
One man thought it was necessary. The majority of Congress disagreed. And as the Supreme Court found they were absolutely correct.
Show me these terms IN THE CONTRACT. Anything less makes the contract null and void for lack of full disclosure.
Well, the Supreme Court referenced the Preamble. But they could have easily referenced Article I and Aticle IV. States are created only with the permission of the existing states. Once admitted, they cannot combine, separate, change their borders a fraction of an inch without the permission of the other states. Implied in all that is the permission to leave.
No, as the other states were still free to go or stay at their discretion, and there was nothing to prevent the United States from petitioning the seceeding states for repayment.
And nothing to make those states pay, either. They walked away, they're independent. They have no obligations with the old country. So in your world some states are more equal than others. They can walk away from any and every obligation, leaving the remaining states to shoulder the burden. They can take steps detrimental to the interests of other states, steps that they cannot take under the Constitution but which you believe they can do simply by walking away. Show me where in the Constitution that is allowed.
Heck, I keep wanting to be a redneck, but I'm tough enough or hard-workin' enough. I'll just have to settle for bein' a computer geek, redneck wannabe.
You are ridiculous. The Constitution imposes restrictions on the federal government NOT the States.
Just as man gave a CERTAIN amount of authority to the civil 'state' to be a part of society, so the States gave a CERTAIN amount of authority to the statutory United States to be part of the Union.
Relinquishing a CERTAIN amount of authority is not the same as giving carte blanch to dictate whatever it chooses.
THAT'S the kind of thinking that bred the out of control government we suffer under today.
-----
As far as the Supreme Court goes, the die hard FEDERALIST James Madison:
Report on the Virginia Resolutions
However true, therefore, it may be, that the judicial department is, in all questions submitted to it by the forms of the Constitution, to decide in the last resort, this resort must necessarily be deemed the last in relation to the authorities of the other departments of the government; not in relation to the rights of the parties to the constitutional compact, from which the judicial, as well as the other departments, hold their delegated trusts. On any other hypothesis, the delegation of judicial power would annul the authority delegating it; and the concurrence of this department with the others in usurped powers, might subvert forever, and beyond the possible reach of any rightful remedy, the very Constitution which all were instituted to preserve.
-----
Goodbye
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.