Posted on 04/11/2011 7:51:03 AM PDT by Davy Buck
"The fact that it is acceptable to put a Confederate flag on a car *bumper and to portray Confederates as brave and gallant defenders of states’ rights rather than as traitors and defenders of slavery is a testament to 150 years of history written by the losers." - Ohio State Professer Steven Conn in a recent piece at History News Network (No, I'll not difnigy his bitterness by providing a link)
This sounds like sour grapes to me. Were it not for the "losers" . . .
(Excerpt) Read more at oldvirginiablog.blogspot.com ...
No states had ratified the Corwin Amendment by the time of Lincoln's inauguration. Ohio ratified it on May 13 and Maryland ratified it in January 1862. Illinois did not ratify it; members of the legislature voted to approve it but they were not meeting in session but were instead at a state constitutional convention, so their act was not legal.
I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable.”
And even if he had, the president plays no part in the amendment process so there was nothing Lincoln could have done to promote or discourage ratification.
Slavery was one reason, and the reason that served to motivate many people up north.
Another big reason was economics. The South sold most of their cotton to England, and imported much British goods, which were subject to tariffs. The tariff revenue was disproportionately spent on projects up North. The federal government was willing to allow the South autonomy to practice slavery, as long as they continued to pay tariffs.
K! Be careful, you just cannot keep your historian self away from here. They told me I could get ZOTTED from here for being a Lincoln man. Is Jim-Rob a NEO-Confederate? News to me.
You now have the "right" to murder the unborn. What a great court you have there.
And what you're saying is complete bullmastiff crap!
Madison in his letter to Nicholas P. Trist, dated February 15, 1830. In it he said something different than your hero court:
Applying a like view of the subject to the case of the U. S. it results, that the compact being among individuals as embodied into States, no State can at pleasure release itself therefrom, and set up for itself. The compact can only be dissolved by the consent of the other parties, or by usurpations or abuses of power justly having that effect.
Thomas Jefferson to To John C. Breckinridge Monticello
The future inhabitants of the Atlantic & Missipi States will be our sons. We leave them in distinct but bordering establishments. We think we see their happiness in their union, & we wish it. Events may prove it otherwise; and if they see their interest in separation, why should we take side with our Atlantic rather than our Missipi descendants? It is the elder and the younger son differing. God bless them both, & keep them in union, if it be for their good, but separate them, if it be better.
Thomas Jefferson to governor William Giles 1825:
If every infraction of a compact of so many parties is to be resisted at once, as a dissolution of it, none can ever be formed which would last one year. We must have patience and longer endurance then with our brethren while under delusion; give them time for reflection and experience of consequences; keep ourselves in a situation to profit by the chapter of accidents; and separate from our companions only when the sole alternatives left, are the dissolution of our Union with them, or submission to a government without limitation of powers. Between these two evils, when we must make a choice, there can be no hesitation.
Thomas Jefferson letter to Madison in August 1799:
[We should be] determined... to sever ourselves from the union we so much value rather than give up the rights of self-government...in which alone we see liberty, safety and happiness.
Yella belly sap suckin yankee
No, it's called a Supreme Court decision. All court decisions are issued after the fact, or hadn't you noticed that?
Article I, Section 9, Clause III prohibits the passage of ex post facto laws. It says nothing about judicial rulings. Regardless of what you think of the court's makeup.
Please stay away from law when you move on to your taxpayer funded college education.
My taxpayer funded college education at least allowed me the ability to read the Constitution.
We agree about the myths.
If you're not going to read the stuff you post then why should anyone else? Your claim was, "The U.S. Constitution never outlawed expansion of slavery. The CSA one did" and then you quote a clause that specifically protected slave imports from one source. And you ignore Article I, Section 9, Clause IV which says that "No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed" by congress. And you also ignore Article IV, Section 2 which said, "The citizens...shall have the right of transit and sojourn in any State of this Confederacy, with their slaves and other property; and the right of property in said slaves shall not be thereby impaired." Then further along in Article IV, "The Confederate States may acquire new territory...and the inhabitants of the several Confederate States and Territories shall have the right to take to such Territory any slaves lawfully held by them..."
So far from outlawing the expansion of slavery, the Confederate Constitution protected slave imports from the U.S.. It guaranteed that any territory acquired by the Confederacy would be slave territory. And it denied any state the right to ban slavery within its borders by guaranteeing that any slave owner could come into the state with their slaves and remain there with their property intact.
How is that 'outlawing'?
See post 109...
That doesn't change the motivation behind the petition in the first place.
Unfortunately while the case was still pending, Lincoln addressed Southerners with: "The Supreme Court of the United States is the tribunal to decide such a question, and we will submit to its decisions; and if you do also, there will be an end of the matter. Will you? If not, who are the disunionists — you or we?"
And then the decision was handed down and Lincoln and the rest of the country had a chance to see just how flawed it was. Regardless, Lincoln never said Dred Scott was an invalid decision - though if he were you he could have dismissed it as an invalid ruling from a packed court. One can accept a ruling as valid and still recognize it as flawed and try to have it overturned or modified.
Thank you for providing yet another example where Lincoln lied to the South leading to the war, and then usurped the powers he admitted are confined to a separate branch of government.
You don't need me to feed your delusions. You do that well enough all on your own.
Why would you want to preserve the “heritage” of a bunch of traitors and losers?
In other words decisions you agree with, like Dred Scott, are solid examples of prudent jurisprudence while decisions you disagree with are judicial activism. I suppose they should do away with the judiciary all together and just ask you?
"I had written to Mr. Madison, as I had before informed you, and had stated to him some general ideas for consideration and consultation when we should meet. I thought something essentially necessary to be said, in order to avoid the inference of acquiescence; that a resolution or declaration should be passed, 1. answering the reasonings of such of the States as have ventured into the field of reason, and that of the committee of Congress, taking some notice, too, of those States who have either not answered at all, or answered without reasoning. 2. Making firm protestation against the precedent and principle, and reserving the right to make this palpable violation of the federal compact the ground of doing in future whatever we might now rightfully do, should repetitions of these and other violations of the compact render it expedient. 3. Expressing in affectionate and conciliatory language our warm attachment to union with our sister States, and to the instrument and principles by which we are united; that we are willing to sacrifice to this every thing but the rights of self-government in those important points which we have never yielded, and in which alone we see liberty, safety, and happiness; that not at all disposed to make every measure of error or of wrong, a cause of scission, we are willing to look on with indulgence, and to wait with patience, till those passions and delusions shall have passed over, which the federal government have artfully excited to cover its own abuses and conceal its designs, fully confident that the good sense of the American people, and their attachment to those very rights which we are now vindicating, will, before it shall be too late, rally with us round the true principles of our federal compact. This was only meant to give a general idea of the complexion and topics of such an instrument. Mr. M. who came, as had been proposed, does not concur in the reservation proposed above; and from this I recede readily, not only in deference to his judgment, but because, as we should never think of separation but for repeated and enormous violations, so these, when they occur, will be cause enough of themselves." Thomas Jefferson
No, he didn't flip it on its head within weeks. He continued to offer the south an agreement well into 1862 that slavery would not be interfered with if the states ceased their rebellion.
How many on here still support the myth that he was the “great emancipator” is truly frightening.
Simple fact you can't refute: Before Lincoln, slavery. After Lincoln, no slavery.
Obviously comparing Corwin and Crittenden is fallacious. Corwin was a single amendment saying Congress shall never infringe on the laws as they were where they were. Crittenden was SIX amendments, including one proposing the EXPANSION of slavery which is a different issue.
It's not fallacious at all. Crittenden essentially gave the south everything that Corwin did, plus a guarantee that slavery could expand in the territories south of the old Missouri Compromise line and that it couldn't be outlawed in DC. You claim that the expansion of slavery was a different issue, but in fact it was THE issue. It's the platform that Lincoln ran on and it's the reason why Corwin was acceptable to the northern states but not the slave states, and the opposite was true of Crittenden.
Getting back to Virginia's Ratification... here is Mr. Nicholas:
Mr. NICHOLAS contended that the language of the proposed ratification would secure every thing which gentlemen desired, as it declared that all powers vested in the {626} Constitution were derived from the people, and might be resumed by them whensoever they should be perverted to their injury and oppression; and that every power not granted thereby remained at their will. No danger whatever could arise; for, says he, these expressions will become a part of the contract. The Constitution cannot be binding on Virginia, but with these conditions. If thirteen individuals are about to make a contract, and one agrees to it, but at the same time declares that he understands its meaning, signification, and intent, to be, (what the words of the contract plainly and obviously denote,) that it is not to be construed so as to impose any supplementary condition upon him, and that he is to be exonerated from it whensoever any such imposition shall be attempted, — I ask whether, in this case, these conditions, on which he has assented to it, would not be binding on the other twelve. In like manner these conditions will be binding on Congress. They can exercise no power that is not expressly granted them.
From that same event.. Patrick Henry:
The honorable gentleman who presides told us that, to prevent abuses in our government, we will assemble in Convention, recall our delegated powers, and punish our servants for abusing the trust reposed in them. O sir, we should have fine times, indeed, if, to punish tyrants, it were only sufficient to assemble the people! Your arms, wherewith you could defend yourselves, are gone; and you have no longer an aristocratical, no longer a democratical spirit. Did you ever read of any revolution in a nation, brought about by the punishment of those in power, inflicted by those who had no power at all? You read of a riot act in a country which is called one of the freest in the world, where a few neighbors cannot assemble without the risk of being shot by a hired soldiery, the engines of despotism. We may see such an act in America
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.