Posted on 06/12/2003 5:58:28 AM PDT by Aurelius
Over the years I've heard many rail at the South for seceding from the 'glorious Union.' They claim that Jeff Davis and all Southerners were really nothing but traitors - and some of these people were born and raised in the South and should know better, but don't, thanks to their government school 'education.'
Frank Conner, in his excellent book The South Under Siege 1830-2000 deals in some detail with the question of Davis' alleged 'treason.' In referring to the Northern leaders he noted: "They believed the most logical means of justifying the North's war would be to have the federal government convict Davis of treason against the United States. Such a conviction must presuppose that the Confederate States could not have seceded from the Union; so convicting Davis would validate the war and make it morally legitimate."
Although this was the way the federal government planned to proceed, that prolific South-hater, Thaddeus Stevens, couldn't keep his mouth shut and he let the cat out of the bag. Stevens said: "The Southerners should be treated as a conquered alien enemy...This can be done without violence to the established principles only on the theory that the Southern states were severed from the Union and were an independent government de facto and an alien enemy to be dealt with according to the laws of war...No reform can be effected in the Southern States if they have never left the Union..." And, although he did not plainly say it, what Stevens really desired was that the Christian culture of the Old South be 'reformed' into something more compatible with his beliefs. No matter how you look at it, the feds tried to have it both ways - they claimed the South was in rebellion and had never been out of the Union, but then it had to do certain things to 'get back' into the Union it had never been out of. Strange, is it not, that the 'history' books never seem to pick up on this?
At any rate, the Northern government prepared to try President Davis for treason while it had him in prison. Mr. Conner has observed that: "The War Department presented its evidence for a treason trial against Davis to a famed jurist, Francis Lieber, for his analysis. Lieber pronounced 'Davis will not be found guilty and we shall stand there completely beaten'." According to Mr. Conner, U.S. Attorney General James Speed appointed a renowned attorney, John J. Clifford, as his chief prosecutor. Clifford, after studying the government's evidence against Davis, withdrew from the case. He said he had 'grave doubts' about it. Not to be undone, Speed then appointed Richard Henry Dana, a prominent maritime lawyer, to the case. Mr. Dana also withdrew. He said basically, that as long as the North had won a military victory over the South, they should just be satisfied with that. In other words - "you won the war, boys, so don't push your luck beyond that."
Mr. Conner tells us that: "In 1866 President Johnson appointed a new U.S. attorney general, Henry Stanburg. But Stanburg wouldn't touch the case either. Thus had spoken the North's best and brightest jurists re the legitimacy of the War of Northern Aggression - even though the Jefferson Davis case offered blinding fame to the prosecutor who could prove that the South had seceded unconstitutionally." None of these bright lights from the North would touch this case with a ten-foot pole. It's not that they were dumb, in fact the reverse is true. These men knew a dead horse when they saw it and were not about to climb aboard and attempt to ride it across the treacherous stream of illegal secession. They knew better. In fact, a Northerner from New York, Charles O'Connor, became the legal counsel for Jeff Davis - without charge. That, plus the celebrity jurists from the North that refused to touch the case, told the federal government that they really had no case against Davis or secession and that Davis was merely being held as a political prisoner.
Author Richard Street, writing in The Civil War back in the 1950s said exactly the same thing. Referring to Jeff Davis, Street wrote: "He was imprisoned after the war, was never brought to trial. The North didn't dare give him a trial, knowing that a trial would establish that secession was not unconstitutional, that there had been no 'rebellion' and that the South had got a raw deal." At one point the government intimated that it would be willing to offer Davis a pardon, should he ask for one. Davis refused that and he demanded that the government either give him a pardon or give him a trial, or admit that they had dealt unjustly with him. Mr. Street said: "He died 'unpardoned' by a government that was leery of giving him a public hearing." If Davis was as guilty as they claimed, why no trial???
Had the federal government had any possible chance to convict Davis and therefore declare secession unconstitutional they would have done so in a New York minute. The fact that they diddled around and finally released him without benefit of the trial he wanted proves that the North had no real case against secession. Over 600,000 boys, both North and South, were killed or maimed so the North could fight a war of conquest over something that the South did that was neither illegal or wrong. Yet they claim the moral high ground because the 'freed' the slaves, a farce at best.
"The nullifiers it appears, endeavor to shelter themselves under a distinction between a delegation and a surrender of powers. But if the powers be attributes of sovereignty & nationality & the grant of them be perpetual, as is necessarily implied, where not otherwise expressed, sovereignty & nationality are effectually transferred by it, and the dispute about the name, is but a battle of words. The practical result is not indeed left to argument or inference. The words of the Constitution are explicit that the Constitution & laws of the U. S. shall be supreme over the Constitution and laws of the several States; supreme in their exposition and execution as well as in their authority. Without a supremacy in those respects it would be like a scabbard in the hands of a soldier without a sword in it. The imagination itself is startled at the idea of twenty four independent expounders of a rule that cannot exist, but in a meaning and operation, the same for all.
"The conduct of S. Carolina has called forth not only the question of nullification; but the more formidable one of secession. It is asked whether a State by resuming the sovereign form in which it entered the Union, may not of right withdrasw from it at will. As this is a simple question whether a State, more than an individual, has a right to violate its engagements, it would seem that it might be safely left to answer itself. But the countenance given to the claim shows that it cannot be so lightly dismissed. The natural feelings which laudably attach the people composing a state, to its authority and importance, are at present too much excited by the unnatural feelings, with which they have been inspired agst. (sic) their bretheren of other States, not to expose them, to the dangers of being misled into erroneous views of the nature of the Union and the interest they have in it. One thing at least seems to be too clear to be questioned; that whilst a State remains within the Union it cannot withdraw its citizens from the operation of the Constitution & laws of the Union. In the event of an actual secession without the Consent of the Co-States, the course to be pursued by these involves questions painful in the discussion of them. God grant that the menacing appearances, which obtrude it may not be followed by positive occurrences requiring the more painful task of deciding them!"
-- James Madison, March, 1833
Walt
They were so called at the time, damn'd traitors every one.
Walt
Sure it does. It is a valid ruling by the Supreme Court. A 5-3 decision that stated in no uncertain terms that unilateral secession as practiced by the southern states was illegal. And it remains illegal to this day.
"And this issue embraces more than the fate of these United States. It presents to the whole family of man, the question, whether a constitutional republic, or a democracy--a government of the people, by the same people--can, or cannot maintain its territorial integrity against its own domestic foes. It presents the question whether discontented individuals, too few in numbers to control administration, according to organic law, in any case, can always, upon the pretenses made in this case, or on any other pretenses, or arbitrarily, without any pretense, break up their Government, and thus practically put an end to free government upon the earth."
A. Lincoln 7/4/61
Was the decision driven by a reading of the Constitution, or a knowledge that a ruling in favor of secession would rip the country to shreds anew?
I would contend that the USSC had to rule the way they did.
Your interpretation means nothing in the grand scheme of things. The fact that I would tend to agree that the founding fathers meant for the power to suspend habeas corpus to be held by Congress also means nothing. The fact is that the Constitution does not explicitly state that only Congress can suspend habeas corpus, and until the Supreme Court rules on the issue then it had not been definitively decided. Is that plain text enough for you?
I have never said that I believed that the Supreme Court has been correct on every decision it has issued. But the court does not need my approval for a decision to be valid, and the fact that you disagree with a decision is meaningless as well. Unilateral secession as practiced by the confederate states was ruled illegal. And it remains illegal to this day.
Referring to it as the 'Civil War' didn't come into widespread use until the turn of the century. Prior to that it was officially referred to as War of Southern Rebellion. And a rebellion is what it was. There was no opposing country to declare war on, just the southern states. And President Lincoln had no need to go to congress for a declaration of war to try and quell a rebellion. He had all the authority he needed in the Militia Act.
You've got him pinged. Persons of this type are particularly susceptable to idolatry as they are in constant need of some worldly item or belonging to adopt as their own object of worship. Sometimes they will discover the reality that their chosen object is inherently finite and unfulfilling (though it is often to late when they do). But not learning from their previous mistakes, they simply move onto another similar object and repeat the process with the same results. In other cases those that are truly dupes will spend a lifetime with the same finite and flawed object of devotion. These types wander through life without aim, never knowing what its purpose is and certainly never discovering it until it is already too late.
You may contend to your heart's content. That is your opinion and you are welcome to it. However, some evidence to support your claim would be nice and the fact that you believe the decision is not based on the Constitution does not make the Supreme Court decision invalid. A majority of the justices disagree with you and their opinion is the only ones that matter.
Sure it does. Article I, Section 1 explicitly says: "All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States"
Now is or is not the suspension power granted in that same article?
Actually, reference to "the civil war" predates the war itself as this was the commonly used phrase to describe and warn against what both sides saw to be approaching in the years before it. The feds officially called it the "War of the Rebellion," the confederates called it variations upon the "war of northern aggression" and the sort, and early post-war writers tended to refer to it as either the "civil war" or "war between the states." Civil war has been favored over all the others in recent times if for no other reason than that it is the easiest to say and shortest to write.
The Constitution says, "This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof ... shall be the supreme law of the land ...".
I have no quarrel with that. In areas delegated to the federal government by the Constitution, federal laws prevail as long as they are consistent with the Constitution. In the areas reserved to the states by the Constitution (everything not delegated to the central government), state laws prevail so long as they don't violate the Constitution.
And there was no Revolutionary War either. The British King had a right to send the British Army and Navy to subdue the rebels. The British were rightfully attempting to put down a rowdy civil disturbance. How was the British Army marching around the countryside an act of war?
Lincoln's cabinet and military had it figured out.
"The attempt to reinforce Sumter will provoke an attack and involve war. The very preparation for such an expedition will precipate war at that point.
~ William Seward ~
"There was not a man in the Cabinet that did not know that an attempt to reinforce Sumter would be the first blow of the war."
~ Gideon Welles ~
"Dissolution of the Union is better than a conflict. I will oppose any attempt to reinforce Sumter if it means war."
~ Salmon P. Chase ~
"They have placed an engineer officer at Fort Pickens to violate, as I consider, our agreement not to reinforce. I do not believe that we are entirely absolved from all agreement of January 29."
~ General Bragg ~
"It would be considered not only a declaration but an act of war; and would be resisted to the utmost."
"Both sides are faithfully observing the agreement (armistice) entered into by the United States Government and Mr. Mallory and Colonel Chase, which binds us not to reinforce Fort Pickens unless it shall be attacked or threatened. It binds them not to attack it unless we should attempt to reinforce it."
~ Capt. H.A. Adams, Commanding Naval Forces off Pensacola,
April 1, 1861 ~
Precisely. Just the same, Amendment 10 is part of the Constitution and, per the supremacy clause, takes precedence over all laws including federal ones that are violative of the powers reserved to the states by that amendment. As a result, state laws enacted under Amendment 10 are indeed supreme to federal laws that violate Amendment 10 because Amendment 10, as part of the Constitution, is supreme to any federal law.
Yes, my opinion has less validity than yours, which you spout freely and then deny others the privelege.
"Lick the boots." Got it. Thanks.
The constitution didn't say that Sherman's troops couldn't rape southerners on their way through, either, so that must've been okey-dokey as well. Maybe we could ask Chase what he thought of that? Wait a minute, why even bother... let's just ask Lincoln, since he is ultimately the arbiter of his own power.
Never has their been collusion by all branches of government against the people as there was during post-war "reconstruction." Dare someone question that validity of their acts? Not so, because Non-Sequitur will remind them that men with guns stand ready to protect their political power at all costs - well, actually only the cost of your life, but losers who think they're "free enough for now" are a dime a dozen.
The constitution doesn't explicitly prevent me from...
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.