If Secession Was Illegal - then How Come...?

"I believe a large majority of our Southern people are opposed to secession, and if the secession leaders would permit our people to take ample time to consider secession and then hold fair elections the secession movement would be defeated by an overwhelming majority." --Sam Houston

Texas Secession Referendum, Feb 23, 1861: 46,153 for, 14,747 against

Looks like Sam Houston, if indeed he ever made that statement which you allege to his name without a source, was proven wrong at the ballot box.

The same thing happened elsewhere in states with referendums.

Virginia Secession Referendum, May 23, 1861: 132,201 for, 37,451 against

Tennessee Secession Referendum, Jun. 8, 1861: 104,913 for, 47,238 against.

I wonder why we don't read about James Mitchell and his Letter on the Relation of the White and African Races in the United States Showing the Necessity of the Colonization of the Latter more often. After all, Lincoln seemed to like it.

LINK

LETTER

ON THE RELATION OF

THE WHITE AND AFRICAN RACES

IN

THE UNITED STATES

SHOWING THE NECESSITY OF THE

COLONIZATION OF THE LATTER

ADDRESSED TO THE PRESIDENT OF THE U.S.

WASHINGTON GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 1862

MAY 18, 1862

His Excellency ABRAHAM LINCOLN,

SIR: The conviction of this nation being wide-spread, and becoming more general each day, that the peace and prosperity of the country and the permanency of our republican civilization, require a separation of the colored or negro race from us, suggests that the statesmen whose duty it is, from time to time, to reflect in their legislative movements such public sentiment as is well grounded and correct, should now assume and fix firmly in the national policy on this subject such fundamental principles of action as will prove lights and guides to the men who in after ages shall be obliged to meet and battle with difficulties like those you have encountered; for the experience of the past shows that the future is fraught with danger to the peace of this country. The calamity that now rests upon us had long been foreseen and deprecated by the wise and reflecting men of the past generation, and untiring efforts have been made to avoid them by many of the men of this. But the mass of the nation would not heed the words of warning; they abandoned themselves to the lead of our enemies, foreign and domestic; hence this storm of blighting war. Yet, terrible as is this civil war between men of kindred race for the dominion of the servant, future history will show that it has been moderate and altogether tolerable when contrasted with a struggle between the black and white race, which, within the next one or two hundred years must sweep over this nation, unless the wise and prudent statesmen of this generation avert it. In that struggle the issue will be the existence of the weaker race, and we must not flatter ourselves that the most numerous, in all localities, will be the white race.

* * *

And will not the good men of this country sink party in patriotism in the support of the wise measures already proposed on this subject, asking the intelligent free man of color to reflect and act in harmony with such measures as tend to peace?

May the Power which rules the destiny of nations grant that the above may receive an affirmative answer, and that your hands may be strengthened in this hours of peril!

Respectfully submitted

JAMES MITCHELL Washington, May 18, 1862

Why would anybody read all that crap?

Many of us ask that question quite frequently when you arrive on new threads and proceed to release upon it your habitual daily defecation of irrelevant and unrelated Lincoln cut n' pastes.

In support of this view, Isenbergh asserted that Coke distinguished “high” treason from “petit” treason in that the former was “against the sovereign,” and that Blackstone defined other “high” offenses as those committed “against the king and government.”

To claim Blackstone as evidence that your hero Clinton's offenses were not impeachable, mac, is a fraud of unspeakable magnitude. But then again, it wouldn't be the first time you knowingly posted lies to support your leftist arguments.

"Of Offenses Against Public Justice:

THE order of our distribution will next lead us to take into consideration such crimes and misdemeanors as more especially affect the common-wealth, or public polity of the kingdom: which however, as well as those which are peculiarly pointed against the lives and security of private subjects, are also offenses against the king, as the pater-familias of the nation; to whom it appertains by his regal office to protect the community, and each individual therein, from every degree of injurious violence, by executing those laws, which the people themselves in conjunction with him have enacted; or at least have consented to, by an agreement either expressly made in the persons of their representatives, or by a tacit and implied consent perfumed and proved by immemorial usage.

THE species of crimes, which we have now before us, is subdivided into such a number of inferior and subordinate classes, that it would much exceed the bounds of an elementary treatise, and be insupportably tedious to the reader, were I to examine them all minutely, or with any degree of critical accuracy. I shall therefore confine myself principally to general definitions or descriptions of this great variety of offenses, and to the punishments inflicted by law for each particular offense; with now and then a few incidental observations: referring the student for more particulars to other voluminous authors; who have treated of these subjects with greater precision and more in detail, than is consistent with the plan of these commentaries.

THE crimes and misdemeanors, that more especially affect the common-wealth, may be divided into five species; viz. offenses against public justice, against the public peace, against public trade, against the public health, and against the public police or economy: of each of which we will take a cursory view in their order...

...THE next offense against public justice is when the suit is past its commencement, and come to trial. And that is the crime of willful and corrupt perjury; which is defined by Sir Edward Coke,30 to be a crime committed when a lawful oath is administered, in some judicial proceeding, to a person who swears willfully, absolutely and falsely, in a matter material to the issue or point in question." - Blackstone, Commentaries

THE crimes and misdemeanors, that more especially affect the common-wealth, may be divided into five species; viz. offenses against public justice, .....
...THE next offense against public justice is when the suit is past its commencement, and come to trial. And that is the crime of willful and corrupt perjury;...

So you are showing in Blackstone (without lying, misquoting, or abusing the text, of which someone has I think been accusing you) that the general category of offenses against the state, which we are invited to understand are the "high Crimes" the Constitution refers to, includes the specific crime of perjury for which William Jefferson Clinton was impeached.

Perjury about his mores, perjury about a girl, perjury about a dress.......and all committed to frustrate a lawsuit. I think the resolving power of your analysis and the stature of your source should satisfy the candor of your interlocutors.

I wonder whether Philip S. Foner, whom you cite, was (is still?) related to Eric "the Red" Foner.

You would seem to have proved your point.

As to what qualifies as a misdemeanor against the state, I have no idea. I'm not here to defend a particualr position, only demonstrate that opposing views of the Clinton impeachment are grounded in a restrictive interpretation of the constitution, and have a basis in English Common Law.

Well, GOPcapitalist has just shown that his side certainly is, and has.

Like you said, "tough shit".

So nice talking to you.

There was quite a bit of irregularity and threats in all the votes for secession. Texas is famous for fixed elections.

And you'll note that the Tennessee secession document does not suggest that secession was even legal.

Walt

"I believe a large majority of our Southern people are opposed to secession, and if the secession leaders would permit our people to take ample time to consider secession and then hold fair elections the secession movement would be defeated by an overwhelming majority."

--Sam Houston

Perhaps a more complete accounting of Sam Houston's position is in order. Here is a long letter he wrote to Texans in December 1860.

Ping to Houston's cousin, capitan_refugio.

rustbucket

LETTER OF GEN. HOUSTON
(The Daily Picayune, December 2, 1860)

The following letter of Gen. Houston gives his views of the present political crisis. It was addressed to a number of citizens of Texas who had asked an exposition by him of the course he believed Texas should take in these times of excitement.

Gentlemen -- Your letter, asking my views respecting the present crisis in our political affairs, is at hand. At present, I can reply but briefly; but I shall do so the more frankly, feeling that this is a time when the truth should be plainly spoken by every lover of his country.

I recognize among you, names of men of all parties. Some of you are old and tried friends and citizens of Texas. To such especially, I look with confidence now, when the country is agitated and revolution threatened. In all the troubles of the Republic I found you the friends of constitutional liberty. Having seen the throes of one revolution, having shared in its vicissitudes, and borne a part in bringing Texas into the Union, I trust that you, in common with patriots of these times, will ask some more weighty reasons for overthrowing the Government, than rash enthusiasts have given; and that while others are carried away by the impulse of the moment, the men of experience will be calm and decided.

I had hoped that an opportunity would have been afforded me, to rejoice in the triumph of some one of the conservative candidates for the Presidency. Had the candidate for whom the voice of Texas was declared been elected, I should have had additional cause of gratification; but such is not the case. On the contrary, I must regret and deplore the election of men, whose only claim to the confidence and support of the whole country, must be the official character which the constitution invests in them.

In remembering the many evidences which a portion of the Northern people have presented of their willingness to disregard their constitutional obligations and infringe upon the rights of their Southern brethren, I am not in the least surprised at the indignant responses now uttered by Southern men. It shows that if the time should come when we can no longer trust to the constitution for our rights, the people will not hesitate to maintain them. It will be well if those States which have yielded to a fanatical sentiment, so far as to interpose between the Federal authority and the constitutional rights of a whole section of the Union, will now, inspired by a spirit of patriotism and nationality, retrace their steps. Upon a citizen of their own section, and one of their own party, they have now placed a responsibility he cannot avoid. As the Chief Executive of the nation, he will be sworn to support the Constitution and execute the laws. His oath will bring him in conflict with the unconstitutional statues enacted by his party, in many of the States. Elected by that party, it is but natural that the conservatism of the nation will watch his course with jealous care, and demand at his hands a rigid enforcement of the Federal laws. Should he meet the same resistance which our Executives have met, it will be his duty to call to his aid the conservative masses of the country, and they will respond to the call. Should he falter or fail, and by allowing the laws to be subverted, aid in oppressing the people of the South, he must be hurled from power. From the moment of his inauguration, there will commence in "irresistible conflict" different from that which the party of Mr. Lincoln is based upon; it will be an "irresistible conflict" between the Constitution, which he has sworn to support, and the unconstitutional enactments and aims of the party which has placed him in power. He has declared the Fugitive Slave Law is constitutional. In its enforcement the conflict is with the North alone.

I need not assure you, that whenever the time shall come when we must choose between a loss of our constitutional rights and revolution, I shall choose the latter; and if I, who have led the people of Texas in stormy times of danger, hesitate to plunge into revolution now, it is not because I am ready to submit to Black Republican rule; but because I regard the constitution of my country and am determined to stand by it. Mr. Lincoln has been constitutionally elected, and much as I deprecate his success, no alternative is left me but to yield to the constitution. The moment that instrument is violated by him, I will be foremost in demanding redress, and the last to abandon my ground.

When I contemplate the horrors of civil war, such as a dissolution of the Union will ultimately force upon us, I cannot believe that the people will rashly take a step fraught with these consequences. They will consider well the blessings of the Government we have, and it will only be when the grievances we suffer are of a nature that as freemen we can no longer bear them, that they will raise the standard of revolution. Then the civilized world, our own consciences and posterity will justify us. If that time should come, then will be the day and the hour. If it has not – if our rights are yet secure, we cannot be justified.

Has the time come? If it has, the people who have to bear the burdens of revolution, must themselves effect the work.

Those who reside in cities and towns, where masses are carried in crowds and influenced by passionate appeals, may be ready for hasty action; but the working men and farmers, whose all is identified with the prosperity and peace of the country, will ask time to reflect.

As all will be alike involved in the horrors which will come after dissolution, all have a right to consider whether dissolution shall come. The liberties and security of all are at stake. It is not a question for politicians to tamper with – the masses must settle it for themselves. They are to consider whether, with Congress and the Supreme Court largely in favor of the constitution, they will be justified, because the President, who is constitutionally elected, is inimical to them. It must come to this. With all these checks and guarantees in our favor, it is urged that we should no longer wait, but at once let go the constitution. Passion is rash – wisdom considers well her way. When the bone and sinew of the country, after calmly considering the issue in all its bearings, shall feel that a yoke of oppression is upon them, they will rise to shake it off. Then when their now peaceful homes are the scene of desolation, they will feel no pang of regret. Moved by a common feeling of resistance, they will not ask for the forms of law to justify their action. Nor will they follow the noisy demagogue who will fire at the first show of danger. Men of the people will come forth to lead them, who will be ready to risk the consequences of revolution. If the Union be dissolved now, will we have additional security for slavery? Will we have our rights better secured? After enduring civil war for years, will there be any promise of a better state of things than we now enjoy? Texas, especially, has these things to consider. Our treasury is nearly empty; we have near half a million of dollars in the treasury of the United States; a million of our school fund is invested in United States bonds; we have an extensive frontier to defend. Pecuniary or personal considerations ought to weigh nothing when tyranny is in the scale; but are we justified in sacrificing these when we have yet the constitution to protect us and our rights are secure? Let us not embrace the higher law principle of our enemies, and overthrow the constitution; but when we have to resist, let it be in the name of the constitution and to uphold it.

Why this military display and call to arms in Texas? Have we enemies at home, or is an army marching upon us?

When was there the time when the citizens of the country were not willing to flock to its standard in its defense? Are the people to deliberate on this question with a military despotism in their midst ready to coerce them? We want sober thought and calm reason, not furious harangues or the argument of bayonets.

If this government is to fall, wisdom must furnish another and a better one, and if patriots yield not to the rash and reckless, who only aspire to military glory, or for anarchy and rapine, they may find that in the wreck of one free government they have lost their power to rear another.

I trust the gloom which now hangs over the land will soon be dispelled. Now is the time for the patriot to come forth and consider what is to be gained by a change. We are called upon to desert the gallant thousands who for years have been fighting our battles against fanaticism in the North. Heretofore, they have aided us to conquer, and we have been willing to abide with them. Now, after a struggle more glorious than any they have yet made, they have been driven back. They still offer us the guarantees of the constitution, and are ready to battle with us in its defense. Let true men all over Texas and the South see to it that we leave them not without a cause.

I cannot believe that we can find at present more safety out of the Union than in it. Yet, I believe it due the people that they should know where they stand. Mr. Lincoln has been elected upon a sectional issue. If he expects to maintain that sectional issue during his administration, it is well we should know it. If he intends to administer the government with equality and fairness, we should know that. Let us wait and see.

I have left upon record my position, should the rights of Texas be sacrificed by the Federal Government. In reply to Mr. Seward, in the Senate, I used these words, and I pray my friends to consider them calmly, as they were uttered:

“Whenever one section of this country presumes upon its strength for the oppression of the other, then will our constitution be a mockery, and it would matter not how soon it was severed into a thousand atoms and scattered to the four winds. If the principles are disregarded upon which the annexation of Texas was consummated, there will be for her neither honor nor interest in the Union – if the mighty, in the face of written law, can place with impunity an iron yoke upon the neck of the weak, Texas will be at no loss how to act, or where to go, before the blow aimed at her vitals is inflicted. In a spirit of good faith she entered the federal fold. By that spirit she will continue to be influenced until it is attempted to make her the victim of federal wrong.”
“As she will violate no federal rights, so will she submit to no violation of her rights by federal authority. The covenant she entered into with the Government must be observed, or it will be annulled. Louisiana was a purchase; California, New Mexico and Utah a conquest – but Texas was a voluntary annexation. If the condition of her admission is not complied with on the one part, it is not binding on the other. If I know Texas she will not submit to the threatened degradation foreshadowed in the speech from the Senator from New York. She would prefer restoration to that independence which she once enjoyed to the ignominy ensuing from sectional dictation. Sorrowing for the mistake which she had committed in sacrificing her independence at the alter of her patriotism, she would unfurl again the banner of the Lone Star to the breeze, and reenter upon a national career, where, if no glory awaited her, she would at least be free from a subjection by might to wrong and shame.”

Here I take my stand! So long as the constitution is maintained by “Federal authority,” and Texas is not the victim of “Federal wrong,” I am for the Union as it is.

I am now an aged man. My locks have become white in toiling, I believe, for the liberties of mankind. Were I young, that I might look forward to the future, feeling that whatever danger might come, my strong arm would be at hand to defend my family, I should feel less anxiety than I do at the present. The years that I will have to endure the misfortunes of civil war are but few. If I could feel that with the close of my career would end the miseries of my race, I could share its misfortunes with patience, but to feel that the perils of revolution must continue, that war with its attendant horrors of bloodshed, rapine and devastation must still be visited upon it, would embitter my last moments; and after living to witness the demolition of the best Government that ever existed, I would sink to the grave without a hope that freedom would be regenerated, or our posterity ever enjoy again the blessings with which we have parted. Let us pause and ponder well before we take any action outside the constitution.

Very truly yours, Sam Houston

Philip S. Foner was the uncle of Eric Foner.

http://www.uselectionatlas.org/

Comparing the 1864 vote count to the 1860 vote count is interesting.

Add 2 union states (NV/KS), add men who turned voting age and were not in military service.

Subtract 11 confederate states, subtract all the dead soldiers who could have voted, subtract all the soldiers not at home to vote, subtract all draft dodgers not at home to vote.

The total vote count was reduced by only 653,674 votes.

MN,OR,PA,VT all increased by more than 20%.
CT,ME,RI all increased by more than 10%
DE,MI,NH,NJ,NY,OH all increased by more than 5%
IL,IN,IA,MA all increased by 2.5% to 3.3%

Subtract all the dead soldiers, all the draft dodgers, and all the men in uniform not at home to vote.

My question is WHERE did all those extra voters come from?

Take, for example, Pennsylvania. Lincoln won by 18,849 votes. The voter turnout increased by 97,293 or 20.4% over 1860.

Take New York. Lincoln won by 6,749 votes. The voter turnout increased by 55,565 or 8.2%.

Take Connecticut. Lincoln won by 2,388 votes. The voter turnout increased by 12,139 or 16.2%

Take New Hampshire. Lincoln won by 3,562 votes. The voter turnout increased by 3,687 or 6.2%.

Take Minnesota. Lincoln won by 7,655. The voter turnout increased by 7,629 or 21.9%.

Take Indiana. Lincoln won by 19,657. The voter turnout increased by 7,974 or 2.9%.

Take Michigan. Lincoln won by 16,987. The voter turnout increased by 10,521 or 6.8%.

Subtract all the dead soldiers, the draft dodgers, the men in uniform not home to vote... why does the voter turnout go UP instead of DOWN???

My question is WHERE did all those extra voters come from?

Immmigrants into the northern states during the war more than made up for all war deaths by far. Bruce Catton talks about this in one of his books. Northern economic power grew by leaps and bounds during the war. There were plenty of men in the north still to go in the army.

Of course during the war, as before, immigration into the so-called seceded states was nil.

Walt

Texas Secession Referendum, Feb 23, 1861: 46,153 for, 14,747 against
Looks like Sam Houston, if indeed he ever made that statement which you allege to his name without a source, was proven wrong at the ballot box.
The same thing happened elsewhere in states with referendums.
Virginia Secession Referendum, May 23, 1861: 132,201 for, 37,451 against
Tennessee Secession Referendum, Jun. 8, 1861: 104,913 for, 47,238 against.

Your data don't disprove General Houston's position. Secession didn't come to a vote in most of the seceded states, so-called. That fact would tend to support his contention.

Walt

Take a look at this letter from the Lincoln papers at the Library of Congress:

PREVIOUS

NEXT

NEW SEARCH

The Abraham Lincoln Papers at the Library of Congress

John P. Usher to Abraham Lincoln, May 18, 1863 (Removal of Rev. James Mitchell as agent for colonization)

IMAGES

Abraham Lincoln Papers at the Library of Congress. Transcribed and Annotated by the Lincoln Studies Center, Knox College. Galesburg, Illinois.

From John P. Usher to Abraham Lincoln, May 18, 1863

Department of the Interior

May 18. 1863.

Sir,

The recent action of the War Department, prevents the further emigration from the U. S. of persons of African descent, for the present, and it, in my judgment, will not be renewed to such an extent as to make it necessary to employ any additional force beyond that now legally employed in the Department. I have, therefore, to suggest that the further attention of the Revd. Mr Mitchell,¹ to that business, be dispensed with.

[Note 1 James Mitchell, an Indiana minister, was appointed the agent of emigration in 1862. Though Mitchell is not listed in the 1863 Official Register, he received his salary through the end of June 1864. See Usher to Lincoln, June 29, 1864 and 39 Congress, 1 Session, Senate Executive Document 55.]

I am induced to make this suggestion to save needless expense and to afford the Pension Office an additional room, now occupied by him, which is greatly needed for the proper transaction of the business of that Bureau the delays in which are becoming the subject of just complaint.

With great respect

Your obt. Servant,

J P Usher

Secretary

PREVIOUS

NEXT

NEW SEARCH

Perhaps a more complete accounting of Sam Houston's position is in order. Here is a long letter he wrote to Texans in December 1860.

Here's some more of the one I quoted:

"The Federal Constitution, the Federal Government and its starry flag are glorious heritages bequeathed to the South and all sections of our common country by the valor and patriotism of Washington, and all the brave revolutionary soldiers, who fought for and won American independence. Our galaxy of Southern Presidents-Washington, Jefferson, Monroe. Jackson, Taylor. Tyler and Polk cemented the bonds of union between all the States which can never be broken. Washington declared for an indivisible union and Jackson made the secession of South Carolina and of other States impossible.

Jefferson by the Louisiana Purchase added a vast empire of country to our union, and Polk followed his example by further extending our Union to embrace Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, Colorado, and California. Monroe established the Monroe Doctrine which for all time preserves and safeguards the Governments of the Western Hemisphere against foreign conquest. All our Northern Presidents have been equally patriotic and just to the South. Not a single Southern right has been violated by any President or by any Federal Administration. President Lincoln has been elected, because the secession Democratic leaders divided the Democratic party and caused the nomination of two separate Presidential Democratic tickets and nominees."

-- Sam Houston, 1861

Walt

[Wlat] Immmigrants into the northern states during the war more than made up for all war deaths by far. Bruce Catton talks about this in one of his books.

Well, I'm glad Bruce Catton talked about whatever it was he talked about somewhere.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0877659.html

Voter participation in 1860 was 81.2%. Voter participation in 1864 was 71.3%.

Immigration may have outpaced war deaths in some locations, but did it outpace the number of war deaths plus the number of draft deserters plus the number of men gone to war?

And did it do so not just in a few states, but in all of CT, DE, IL, IN, IA, ME,MA,MI,MN,NH,NJ,NY,OH,OR,PA,RI.VT ??

And let's not forget Lincoln had the army out to hold down the Democrat vote.

In his book, published in 1892, General Butler proudly relates his part in the infamous work of using the army at the polls. The story is this: The election day was November 8, 1864. Lincoln had sent agents to new York City to spy ou and report how the election would go. the report boded ill for Lincoln's success: in fact, indicated that New York would give a large majority for General McClellan. Lincoln, Seward and Stanton were alarmed. The latter instantly telegraphed General Butler to reportto him the situation at New York.

"What do you want me to do?" asked Butler?
"Start at once for New York, take command of the Department of the East, relieving General Dix. I will send you all the troops you need."
"But" returned Butler, "it will not be good politics to relieve General Dix just on the eve of election."
"Dix is a brave man," said Stanton, "but he won't do anything; he is very timid about some matters."
This meant that General Dix was too honorable to use the United States Army to control and direct elections.
"Send me," suggested the shrewd Butler, "to New York with President Lincoln's order for me to relieve Dix in my pocket, but I will not use the order until such time as I think safe. I will report to Dix and be his obedient servant, and coddle him up until I see proper to spring on him my order, and take supreme command myself."
"Very well," assented Stanton; "I will send you Massachusetts troops."
"Oh, no!" objected the shrewder Butler, "it won't do for Massachusetts men to shoot down New Yorkers."

Stanton saw this also would be bad politics, so Grant was ordered to send Western troops -- 5,000 good troops and two batteries of Napoleon guns -- for the purpose of shooting down New Yorkers should New Yorkers persist in the evil intention of voting for McClellan.

When citizens of New York saw Butler and his escort proudly prancing their horses on the streets and saw the arrival of 5,000 Western troops and the Napoleon guns, there was great agitation and uneasiness over the city. newspapers charged that these warlike preparation were made to overawe citizens and prevent a fair election. Butler was virtuously indignan a such charges. General Sanford, commanding the New York State militia, called on butler and told him the State militia was strong enough to quell any disturbance that might occur and he intended to call out his militia division on election day. Butler arrogantly informed General Snaford that he (Butler) had no use for New York militia; he did not know which wya New York militia would shoot when it came to shooting. General Sanford replied that he would apply to the governor of the State for orders.

"I shall not recognize the authority of your Governor," haughtily returned Butler. "From what I hear of Governor Seymour I may find it necessary to arrest all I know who are proposing to disturb the peace on election day."

On Nov. 7th, the day before the election, after Butler had placed his troops and made all arrangement necessary to control the ballot, he wrote to Secretary of War Stanton a letter in which he said:

"I beg leave to report that the troops have all arrived, and dispositions made which will insure quiet. I enclose copy of my order No. 1, and trust it will meet your approbation. I have done all I could to prevent secessionists from voting, and think it will have some effect."

Secessionists meant democrats who chose to vote for McClellan.

And let's not forget Lincoln had the army out to hold down the Democrat vote.

There's no evidence of that.

Walt

Well, I'm glad Bruce Catton talked about whatever it was he talked about somewhere.

He talked about a lot of things, but the upshot was that the people of the United States crushed the rebellion.

Walt

[mac] I'm not here to defend a particualr position, only demonstrate that opposing views of the Clinton impeachment are grounded in a restrictive interpretation of the constitution, and have a basis in English Common Law.

[4CJ] Unfortunately, it is YOUR position that is the restrictive one, which is easily proved wrong.

I agree the position I hve chosen to defend is more restrictive.

This position suggests that the word 'high' acts as a qualifier on the construct "crimes and misdemeanors", it points out that "plain language" interpretation reguires "of the same kind" ejusdem generis interpretation be applied, and it argues that offense(s) for which impeachmnt is sought must have flowed from the public office held by the offender, not their personal behavior.

Proving this position wrong is another matter, and not as easy as you suggest.

if high crimes meant only crimes against the state, then that would allow the officers in question to be impeached for ANY misdemeanor, but not for a plethora of felonies not condsidered 'high crimes'.

I agree, the qualifier 'high' applies to the construct "crimes and misdemeanors", not to just one part of it.

The convention DROPPED the clause, "high crimes and misdemeanors against the United States."

The fact that the framers considered appending the specific language "against the United States" to their list of impeachable offenses in Article II Secion 4, suggests an intent to explicitly exclude the type of offenses that were personal rather than public in nature.

I wonder why?

Although I'm pretty sure you asked this question srcastically, it might be worthwhile to determine exactly how the phrase "against the United States" got placed into, and then taken out of Article II Section 4.

Now, having helped establish that my position is at least the more restrictive one in this regard, perhaps you'll explain how taking such a position can be labelled "far-left", or "socialist"?

[Waltrot:} From John P. Usher to Abraham Lincoln, May 18, 1863
Department of the Interior
May 18. 1863.

I have, therefore, to suggest that the further attention of the Revd. Mr Mitchell, to that business, be dispensed with.

James Mitchell, an Indiana minister, was appointed the agent of emigration in 1862 and he received his salary through the end of June 1864.

Don't bother showing me some piece of crap where somebody asked Lincoln to get rid of Mitchell. Show me the letter where Lincoln FIRED Mitchell. What difference does it make that somebody asked Lincoln to flush that turd out of the government? Lincoln kept him on the payroll.

WHAT IS YOUR POINT???

a. The PIMP did not fire that piece of human garbage named Mitchell, did he???

b. WHY did the PIMP hire that piece of human garbage?

c. WHY did the PIMP need anyone to tell him to get rid of that piece of human garbage??

d. WHY did the PIMP need a Commissioner of Ethnic Cleansing??

e. After the piece of human garbage submitted his letter, which won him the gratitude of the PIMP, that glorious letter was sent to the GPO to be printed as a pamphlet. Just how many copies of that piece of crap did they need??

f. How do you justify the PIMP appointing that piece of human garbage to lead the effort to deport Blacks to some godforsaken craphole??

h. Have you no shame at all??? How can you possibly defend the PIMP hiring this piece of human garbage???

April 1865, Lincoln to General Butler:

But what shall we do with the negroes after they are free? I can hardly believe that the South and North can live in peace, unless we can get rid of the negroes. Certainly they cannot if we don’t get rid of the negroes whom we have armed and disciplined and who have fought with us. . . . I believe that it would be better to export them all to some fertile country with a good climate, which they could have to themselves.

Benjamin F. Butler, Autobiography and Personal Reminiscences of Major-General Benjamin F. Butler: A Review of His Legal, Political, and Military Career (or, Butler’s Book) (Boston: A. M. Thayer & Co. Book Publishers, 1892), p. 903.

THIS IS WHAT WALT DEFENDS

require a separation of the colored or negro race from us

Yet, terrible as is this civil war between men of kindred race for the dominion of the servant, future history will show that it has been moderate and altogether tolerable when contrasted with a struggle between the black and white race, which, within the next one or two hundred years must sweep over this nation,

the removal of the colored race to a proper locality . . . Surely this exercise of influence is a legitimate prerogative of the Chief Magistrate, the guardian of national peace, who, being convinced of impending danger to the country, has the undoubted right to notify the nation of its approach, and recommend the remedy.

Our danger in the future arises from the fact that we have 4,500,000 persons, who, whilst amongst us, cannot be of us - persons of a different race

The social and civil evils resulting from the presence of the negro race are numerous

the license of the races, which is giving to this continent a nation of bastards.

That political economist must be blind indeed; that statesman must be a shallow thinker, who cannot see a fearful future before this country, if the production of this mixed race is not checked by removal.

possibly the next great civil war will be the conflict of this race for dominion and existence.

this population is in the way of the peace of the country

Thus far we have found that their presence here disturbs our social structure. We come now to examine how far our civil structure is damaged by this population.

But there is one clause of this sacred compact which requires the Federal government to "guarantee to the several States a republican form of government." . . . When rightly construed it must and will require the gradual removal of such anti-republican elements and peoples as cannot be engrafted on the national stock

It is admitted on all hands that our mixed and servile population constitute the root of those issues and quarrels; what shall be done with them is the question of the hour.

this repulsive admixture of blood

the men of the Exeter Hall school, who, far removed from the scene of danger, see not the degradation of this admixture of race.

he does not choose to endanger the blood of his posterity by the proximity of such a population; that here is no command in the Word of God that will oblige him to place this race on the high road to such an amalgamation with his family

they rejected the black because they could not or would not amalgamate on legal or honorable terms.

Nothing but the authority of the Divine law will change his purpose to hedge himself in and erect legal protections against this possible admixture of blood,

Where men are truly moral and religious, the white and black races do not mix, so that the influence of religion will never effect fusion,

hatred of those who would engraft, as they say, negro blood on the population of their country

We must regard the extension of equal social and civil rights to this class of persons as distasteful to the mass of the nations; the majority will never submit to it

we cannot make republican citizens out of our negro population

a possible corruption of blood in future generations

The government of Great Britain is composed of a few thousand titled and privileged persons, located in a small island, who are born to rule and govern. From their isolated position it is not possible for them to come in contact with the numerous, heterogeneous, and inferior tribes and races under their rule. They are thus protected from possible admixture of inferior blood

How can such a people comprehend the necessity or use of removing the man of color?

to protect them against this repulsive admixture of blood

What is to protect us as a people from degenerating as a race, but the resolve to receive no blood from the other races but that which can be honorably and safely engrafted on the stock of the nation.

Let us then, earnestly and respectfully recommend as a remedy for our present troubles and future danger, the perfecting the proposed plans of the administration in regard to those two conflicting races, and the careful and gradual removal of the colored race to some desirable and convenient home.

Some affect to fear that the man of color will not remove to a separate locality. It is not to be expected that a race, which has hardly attained a mental majority, will rise in a day to the stature of the men who found empires, build cities, and lay the ground work of civil institutions like ours; nor should they be expected to do this unaided and alone. They should receive the kind attention, direction, and aid of those who understand such things; nor will the world condemn a gentle pressure in the forward course to overcome the natural inertia of masses long used to the driver's will and rod. Let us do justice in the provision we make for their future comfort, and surety they will do justice to our distracted Republic.

If they should fail to do this, there would then be more propriety in weighing the requirement of some to remove without consultation, but not till then.

We know that there is a growing sentiment in the country which considered the removal of the freed man, without consulting him, "a moral and military necessity" -- as a measure necessary to the purity of public morals and the peace of the country; and this unhappy war of white man with white man, about the condition of the black, will multiply this sentiment.

But we cannot go further now than suggesting, that the mandatory relation held by the rebel master should escheat to the Federal government in a modified sense, so as to enable his proper government and gradual removal to a proper home where he can be independent.

We earnestly pray that a perpetual barrier may be reared between us and that land of the mixed races of this continent - Mexico.

As Abraham and Lot agreed to separate their conflicting retainer and dependents, the one going to the right and the other to the left, so let those two governments agree to divide this continent between the Anglo-American and mixed races