I'm still waiting for a shred of evidence beyond your say-so for any of them.
Direct links in posts #64, 68, 292, 325 and 481 (at least). Citations in at least a dozen others (sorry, you actually have to type those into google like NYT article or pick up a book). Now that i see how poor you are at researching even this thread, I understand the hopelessness on you ever reading anything else we've pointed out.
Okay, in #64 you link to Durand's site, except you don't actually cite anything from him. In #68 you again link to Durand's site. In #292, you cite a PBS website the proves that a Rhode Island family was involved in the slave trade. In #325 you cite a 1927 apologia for secession, and in #481 you cite a blog post. I am humbled before your scholarship and your wealth of original sources.
And thus the crux of your defense. A ruling AFTER a president unconstitutionally acts without precedent validates any actions prior. How you consider that ruling to be "law", and how such a law is not ex post facto - such laws being explicitly unconstitutional per I.9 is stupefying.
How you think the Supreme Court rules on things that haven't haven't happened yet is even more stupefying.
But the report was released after the war ended.
You just can't get it right, can you? The war ended when the treaty was ratified by congress on February 18, 1815. That's several weeks after the Hartford Convention published its report.
I asked to correct me if I was worng, but that's too much to ask of too-busy-on-the-weekends Bubba? So sorry.
And I'm sorry that you don't have better things to do on the weekends. But since you ask so nicely now (and did you ask earlier?), Lincoln's call for 75,000 troops occurred after the shelling of Sumter , not before. Other problems with your chronology: Lincoln never promised to evacuate the forts. In fact, in his inaugural address he said the exact opposite. You also claim that the south saw "their peace treaties violated." There were no treaties. You say that the south bombarded "remaining foreign forts," but in fact only one fort was shelled.
I guess you're never going to come up with that New York Times article, are you?
I can't help you any more with slaves. If you can't look up how the British et al across the world had been harvesting our biggest crops (including cotton) MUCH cheaper than the South, then I guess it really was expanding at unprecedented rates here and destined for a global monopoly.
You still can't explain why slave prices were rising, can you? American cotton was 75% of world production before the war. During the war, there was a boom in Egyptian cotton. This ended as soon as the war was over and the Egyptian cotton business crashed as the cotton buyers returned to the US for their supply.
Feel free to quote me when I gave a date for conscription. I simply pointed out Union forces weren't joining because of warm feelings but because of bayonets, in response to you proposing it was a Davis-only legislation. Guess Lincoln never did that either.
What you said was that many men left the US army when their enlistments were up because of the Emancipation Proclamation. I pointed out that their enlistments were up and that, unlike the south, US soldiers were not held after their original enlistments were over. I also pointed out that more than half of soldiers did re-enlist, a rate roughly equivalent to current army retention. Your response was to say, "all those men fighting in the "noble war" ran as soon as their CONSCRIPTIONS were up!" I pointed out that conscription didn't begin until after the Emancipation Proclamation and that the men who were conscripted served until war's end--less than two years later.
And again with the slave population. Another broken record. Even though I gave a handful of reasons adding to the concentration in the south, you again fail at context, again assume incorrectly (despite clarification), again fail to read, and assert it was solely a matter of forced (by the Southerners) breeding, since trade was stopped because the law said it stopped.
What you said was "There's no way to increase the slave population (aka "expansion") except by bringing more into the country." This whole "forced breeding" thing is your weird obsession. I never said any such thing. Apparently the notion that slaves could actually procreate on their own, without being forced, is inconceivable to you.
How did I confuse the militia acts again? i believe it was you who claimed Lincoln was justified by one or the other even though he was never granted the powers by the act.
So you didn't actually read the two? I'm shocked. I told you the difference; the 1795 act removed the requirement that the president be officially notified. This was done at George Washington's request after the experience of the Whiskey Rebellion.
Exactly right.
In familiar fashion, the blog post Philly cites in 481 makes the assertion...
His [Davis] release came after a finding by the Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court, Salmon P. Chase, that there was nothing in the U.S. Constitution that prohibited the secession of states. If secession was not illegal, neither Davis nor any other Confederate leaders could be guilty of treason.
....and adds a hyperlinked footnote [2].
But clicking on the footnote takes you...nowhere...right back to the same blog.
Typical neo-secessionist "scholarship".