Confederate Kook Still Smarts Under Civil War "Occupation" (El Rushbo Defends The Union Alert)

Once they seceded, the states weren't bound by any Constitutional "prohibitions"......

They couldn't secede, so they were regarded in rebellion.

So, the conclusion is that the 10th Amendment's primary goal is to limit federal power (not increase individual liberty, even though that ultimately is one of the results).

I think we can agree that limiting Federal power in all of the Bill of Rights is to protect individual liberty.

In this, the 10th is no different then the other 9.

I seem to remember (7th grade Texas History was a long time ago) that Texas retained the right to leave the US, but then Texas was a republic before it became a state.

I seem to remember (7th grade Texas History was a long time ago) that Texas retained the right to leave the US, but then Texas was a republic before it became a state.

Yes, Texas was an independent sovereign nation before she became a State.

She willingly gave up that sovereignity when she entered the Union and became a State.

That is when Texans became Americans first and Texans second.

No State has a right to leave the Union and there is no mechanism in the Constitution for doing so.

If the Founders had thought that the States would go its own way, they could have easily put in a way for a state to cease to be part of the Union.

Yeah, they would. With one of Lincoln's own cabinet appointees, one of the hottest, most non-deliberative, totally-committed partisan spear-carriers presiding.

Yeah, the vintage southron whine. Any decision you don't agree with has to be biased and invalid.

You've got your perfect dictatorship. Overawed the Congress (what was left of it -- all in his corner), slapped down the courts until he could get control of them by the appointive power -- Lincoln was your perfect tyrant, covered all the bases.

Not THE perfest one. Davis had unopposed elections, a subservient Congress and managed to do away with the inconvenience of a supreme court altogether. Now THAT's tyranny.

Ratification that confirmed and clarified that "as passed out of convention" allowed secession.

No, a ratification document that mistakenly believed unilateral secession was allowed by the Constitution. Just because they were laboring under a misconception doesn't mean that the Constitution changes to accomodate them.

Overruled? Yes. Slapped? Not even close. Chase et al issued their decision and almost immediately the 11th was proposed and ratified. Taney et al issued their decision, yet it was over a decade before it was overturned.

With Taney's fellow slavery supporters leading 15 states it took a while. But the 13th was a repudiation of his support for slavey and the 14th was a total bitch-slap for his idiotic ruling that blacks were not and could never be U.S. citizens. Sad to think that such a total mediocrity spent so much time in John Marshall's seat.

But they are LEGAL documents, unlike Madison's letter.

So's my mortgage, but it doesn't overrule the Constitution either.

And each ratified only with the understanding that each state could resume those same delegated powers. Perfectly legal. No one rejected their ratifications.

You have it bacwards. Nobody was 'ratifying' the ratification document. The states were ratifying the Constitution no the other way around. They could have put in clauses allowing you to be named king, establishing their own army, making the British pound their official currency and that wouldn't have made any of those acceptable becuause all violated the Constitution. And as it turned out unilateral secesion was unconstitutional, too. Clause or no clause.

What clause PROHIBITS secession?

Secession? Nothing. Secession with out the consent of the states? Article I and Article IV all contain clauses which by implication require Congressional approval to leave.

Let's see, that means that you believe John Jay, James Madison, John Marshall, Alexander Hamilton, Melancton Smith, Gov. Randolph, James Taylor, Henry Lee, Bushrod Washington, George Wythe, and George Clinton among others were idiots. BWAHAHAHAhahahahahahahaha!

Not them. Just some of the people around here.

Not when the "enemy" was an old woman and her cow.

Hardly. At that time Hood's army was in Tennessee.

Indian and Egyptian cotton production were taken in hand by British interests only because of the interruption of Southern cotton supplies.

You would have us believe that the Egyptian and Indian cotton industries went from zero to meeting much of the British needs in only a year or two? Hardly. Even without the rebellion the South was in trouble because Egypt and India would be competing for more and more of her markets as the years went by.

Yeah, tell me what those 60,000 Texans, most of whom never owned a slave in their lives, went to war over.

Those 60,000 Texans went to war because their leaders took them into war. And that leadership took them into war to defend slavery. Doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand that.

Yeah, tell me what those 60,000 Texans, most of whom never owned a slave in their lives, went to war over. Tell me what the big plebiscitary majorities in Virginia, Texas, and Tennessee were motivated by -- all those "pro-slavery" votes, and so few slaves owned! Talk to me!

The fact that the majority did not own slaves does not mean they were uninterested in it. The majority of people in Pennsylvania did not own or work in factories, but they supported protective tariffs. Slavery was the economic engine of the south just as manufacturing was the economic engine in Pennsylvania.

Table 1 The Fraction of Whites' Incomes from Slavery
State	Percent of the Population That Were Slaves	Per Capita Earnings of Free Whites (in dollars)	Slave Earnings per Free White (in dollars)	Fraction of Earnings Due to Slavery
Alabama	45	120	50	41.7
South Carolina	57	159	57	35.8
Florida	44	143	48	33.6
Georgia	44	136	40	29.4
Mississippi	55	253	74	29.2
Louisiana	47	229	54	23.6
Texas	30	134	26	19.4
Seven Cotton States	46	163	50	30.6
North Carolina	33	108	21	19.4
Tennessee	25	93	17	18.3
Arkansas	26	121	21	17.4
Virginia	32	121	21	17.4

All 11 States	38	135	35	25.9
Source: Computed from data in Gerald Gunderson (1974: 922, Table 1)

So's my mortgage, but it doesn't overrule the Constitution either.

No one claimed it overruled the Constitution, but in this case, it's the state's acceptance letter of the Constitution. And in that LEGAL agreement those states stipulated that it was ONLY accepted with the right to resume their delegated powers at will.

You have it bacwards. Nobody was 'ratifying' the ratification document. The states were ratifying the Constitution no the other way around.

In all legal proceedings the contracting parties must agree to the terms and conditions.

They could have put in clauses allowing you to be named king, establishing their own army, making the British pound their official currency and that wouldn't have made any of those acceptable becuause all violated the Constitution.

Guess what, they didn't. They wanted it understood up front that their ratification hinged on 'these presents' - their understanding of the agreement. If the other parties fail to reject the terms, those terms have been accepted.

And as it turned out unilateral secesion was unconstitutional, too. Clause or no clause.

Nonsense. Can you cite the case where the legality of secession was the issue before the court? You've stated on this forum a thousand times that the court can only rule on the issue before them, and everything else is dictum.

Not them. Just some of the people around here.

Not them? Then why would such esteemed jurists accept a document that ensured that they could RESUME their DELEGATED powers?

Well don't get your knickers in a twit just because you didn't mention the clause. My point is you need to provide some kind of interpretation or ruling because that clause clearly does not say what you think it does. Try not overacting and actually thinking about what's being discussed.

"To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) "

Exercising legislation may be archaic wording but even back then legislation (jurisdiction)has nothing to do with conditions of an agreement. You must be finding things in the Constitution the same way pro-abortionists do.

Foul. Indian and Egyptian cotton production were taken in hand by British interests only because of the interruption of Southern cotton supplies.

Wrong. Say what you want about the Brits, but they were not stupid enough to put all their eggs in one basket. They had alternate sources of supply ready for years before the war. And once the war started, their mills kept humming and never even noticed the absence of US cotton.

Cotton, as an agricultural industry, has had an enormous impact on the world. Some countries have been torn apart by the cotton industry, while others have prospered. Great Britain has had a major effect on the cotton industry and cotton production in several areas of the world. Especially following the Industrial Revolution, cotton became a major import into Great Britain. British cotton manufactures bought all the raw cotton that they could get their hands on because no cotton was grown in England. Realizing the potential for making a large amount of money, many farmers in North America converted their tobacco plantations into cotton plantations. Cotton fast became a major cash crop of the southern United States economy.
It did not take long for the American cotton industry to expand where it dominated the world market, the transition occurring sometime between 1790 and 1820. In 1800, American cotton displaced that of the West Indies, and in 1821 India was also surpassed by the productivity of the American cotton industry. America soon became Great Britain’s single largest source of cotton. Nearly 77% of cotton imports between 1815 and 1859 into Great Britain came from America.
America’s dominance of the cotton market started to fade during the late antebellum period. Great Britain began to see hostilities occurring between the American states. As the threat of hostilities increased, Britain looked elsewhere to fulfill its raw cotton needs. India, Brazil, Turkey, and Egypt emerged as alternative sources for cotton. England began to import cotton from Egypt as early as 1822.
Egypt became a very important trading partner for Great Britain. Although Egypt was part of the Ottoman Empire, Great Britain showed a great interest. Egypt was able to receive financial support to build the infrastructure necessary for the large export of cotton. Even though Great Britain was an active partner in the Egyptian cotton industry, it did not officially occupy Egypt until 1882. Many historians would lead you to believe that British occupation of Egypt was due solely to the importance of the Suez Canal. This paper will demonstrate that the importance of the cotton industry was also a major factor in the eventually occupation of Egypt.
The American Civil War enabled Egypt to benefit enormously. Cotton ginning factories began to be built in order to handle the increase in cotton production. Advances in transportation took place simultaneously with the increase in cotton. The Alexandria-Cairo railway was completed, creating branch lines to the important cotton market centers of Samannud and Zagazig. With these improvements in transportation, Egypt became a major cotton producer. As a result, Egypt became a very important trading partner with Great Britain. Egypt helped to fill the cotton void left by America. The cotton trade between Great Britain and Egypt eventually led to the British Empire’s occupation of Egypt.
Cotton production began to rise dramatically a year before war was declared in America. England, foreseeing a cotton shortage, encouraged colonies to start planting more cotton. Although Egypt was still a part of the Ottoman Empire, Egypt responded to the call. The Secretary of the Manchester Cotton Association sent New Orleans seed to Egypt. Enclosed in the packages were also cultivating instructions. Although the New Orleans seeds were never successfully grown, England got its foot into the door of the Egyptian cotton market.
Exports reached approximately six hundred thousand cantars in 1860. By 1861, the cotton exports increased to approximately seven hundred thousand cantars. Five hundred to six hundred thousand feddans were under cotton by 1862. Great Britain decided that if it was to have a stake in the Egyptian cotton market, it needed to invest heavily. Steam plows, cotton gins, packing presses, etc. were sent in 1863 to Egypt. One third of the Egyptian cotton crop in 1863 was being ginned in one of the eighty steam ginning factories, compared to twenty-four in 1862. The British Consul estimated that approximately forty percent of the total cultivated area in Lower Egypt was planted with cotton by 1864. Egypt’s cotton economy was growing at a very rapid pace with the help of financial backing from European investors.
A cotton boom occurred in Egypt, causing a sharp rise in the number of immigrants arriving in Egypt. Many of these immigrants were European settlers hoping to invest in the rapidly growing cotton industry. Immigration not only helped the cotton industry to flourish, but it also sparked many investment opportunities in other sectors of the Egyptian economy. For instance, homes had to be built in order to house all of the new immigrants. Houses being built created a demand for lumber and labor. Many jobs were created through the rapid immigration to Egypt.
A majority of all Egyptian cotton produced was exported to England. England imported sixty-five percent of Egypt’s cotton crop by 1859. This number rose to seventy-five percent during the following decade. Great Britain’s demand for cotton helped to solidify the cotton economy in Egypt. With a constant buyer, Egyptian farmers planted more and more cotton.
Although the cotton boom ended in 1866, Egyptian cotton was still in high demand. British manufacturers, by selling goods made from Egyptian cotton, advertised the great quality of the cotton. This enabled Egypt to still be able to sell their cotton after the boom ended. Egyptian cotton was considered to be suitable for sewing thread, medium-fine yarns, fine underwear and hosiery, among other things. The cotton produced in Egypt was very versatile, creating a constant demand.
Source: http://filebox.vt.edu/users/brmill10/portfolio/research-Cotton.html

It was the Slave Power of the south who wildly exaggereded their importance to England. They were not nearly as important as they thought they were.

Thank you for the ping.

Very interesting data.

Well don't get your knickers in a twit just because you didn't mention the clause.

I didn't realize that the Constitution was such a challenge for you to navigate.

My point is you need to provide some kind of interpretation or ruling because that clause clearly does not say what you think it does.

The clause clearly states that Congress shall exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever "...over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful building..." I'm not sure what is open to interpretation in that.

Exercising legislation may be archaic wording but even back then legislation (jurisdiction)has nothing to do with conditions of an agreement. You must be finding things in the Constitution the same way pro-abortionists do.

And what method are you using to find your odd interpretation of documents?

What about Delaware? Has anyone asked Joe Biden?

Why were there so many Northern slave states?

No one claimed it overruled the Constitution, but in this case, it's the state's acceptance letter of the Constitution. And in that LEGAL agreement those states stipulated that it was ONLY accepted with the right to resume their delegated powers at will.

But it DID accept and ratify the document. And that document DOES say that it is supreme over all state and local laws and constitutions. And ratification documents.

In all legal proceedings the contracting parties must agree to the terms and conditions.

In this case the terms and conditions of the Constitution had been agreed to in convention. All the state was doing was agreeing to abide by the Constitution itself. There was nothing left open for negotiation.

Guess what, they didn't.

But if they had, and latter got all huffy when they couldn't crown you Emperor for Life then they still wouldn't have any grounds to claim breech of contract, because that clause wasn't legal in the first place. Likewise their clause about walking out whenever they wanted.

Nonsense. Can you cite the case where the legality of secession was the issue before the court? You've stated on this forum a thousand times that the court can only rule on the issue before them, and everything else is dictum.

You mean other than Texas v White? What is needed other than that? The whole issue of secession was indeed before the court because the defense had argued that since Texas had seceded and had not yet completed reconstruction then it was not a state and did not have the right to sue in the U.S. Supreme Court. So the whole issue of the legality of secession was a matter before the court and the court ruled on that. It just didn't turn out how you would have liked.

The 10th Amendment says nothing about secession and no supreme Court decision allows it.

NOTHING in the Constitution addresses secession, that's exactly why the Tenth is applicable.

Article V doesn't say a State cannot be expelled.

I guess in your bizzaro world the union can expel a state, but continue to allow it to seat Senators in Congress.

Using the same logic of the secessionists who justify their violating Art.1 Sec.10, Section 10. No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation;

Just in case you're pretending to be obtuse, the Constitution applies to members of the Union. It does NOT apply to those that are not members.

If the Congress decided that a State was no longer a State, than that Article would not apply.

Then by all means, please cite section and clause of the Constitution granting the federal government the power to deem a state a non-state. I'll wait.

If a State can leave the Union and violate Art.1, then a State can be kicked out of the Union.

Obviously law's not your area of expertise.

It would just first have its 'statehood' denied.

Not a power delegated.

The Constitution was a compact among the People, not the states.

Balderdash. The STATES ratified independently. States ratify amendments. A citizen of New York cannot vote in Georgia. We are not one people. As Justice Thomas wrote in US Term Limits v Thorton, '[t]he ultimate source of the Constitution's authority is the consent of the people of each individual State, not the consent of the undifferentiated people of the Nation as a whole.'

By the way, what do you guys do when you say the pledge of allegiance and come to the part, 'one nation, indivisible', cross your fingers?

Hardly. We're a republic of republics.

" And what method are you using to find your odd interpretation of documents?"

E-N-G-L-I-S-H. Sorry, I didn't realize that it is a second language for you .