Replies

Bubba, Bubba, you're only fooling yourself.

Here's common knowledge (aka wiki):

Massachusetts actually sent three commissioners to Washington, D.C. to negotiate these terms. When they arrived in February, 1815, news of Andrew Jackson's stunning victory at the Battle of New Orleans, and the signing of the Treaty of Ghent, preceded them and, consequently, their presence in the capital seemed both ludicrous and subversive. They quickly returned. Thereafter, both Hartford Convention and Federalist Party became synonymous with disunion, secession, and treason, especially in the South. The party was ruined, and survived only in a few localities for several more years before vanishing entirely.

I guess wiki is a Lost Causer too?

It's a beautiful thing when you keep going back to the Militia Act. Try as you will, its legality was only against combinations (of individuals) in a state obstructing the law, and was intended to help the States, not attack them. Lincoln referred to the Act verbiage himself in his April 15th proclamation:

Whereas the laws of the United States have been for some time past and now are opposed and the execution thereof obstructed in the States of South Carolina, George, Alabama, Florida, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas by combinations too powerful to be suppressed by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings or by the powers vested in the marshals by law:

So the laws are being obstructed by "combinations" in SC, MS, et al...So the representative, republican governments of the States THEMSELVES are now actually "combinations" of rebellious individuals within the states obstructing their laws? That's the foundation of your case, that "combinations in a state" actually means the GOVERNMENT in that state????

Note that Buchanan had already looked at the Act when SC seceded, and determined as "it applied to insurrections within and against the government of a State in the Union, it was utterly inapplicable to a State that had withdrawn from the Union — even if that withdrawal could be proven to be unconstitutional."

So there's your precedent. What transpired over the next couple months that gave Lincoln his power to trump that? Was a government of a State attacked?

Funny enough, the Act also raised militia by (drumroll...) conscription of 6 months (3 per the 1795 act, extended to 6 several years later), so there goes that argument too. (You thought I was going to go back on that, didn't you?)

Another inconvenient fact:

it shall be lawful for the President, if the legislature of the United States be not in session, to call forth and employ such numbers of the militia of any other state or states most convenient thereto, as may be necessary, and the use of militia, so to be called forth, may be continued, if necessary, until the expiration of thirty days after the commencement of the ensuing session.

Of course, while exhausting all options, he called Congress into session immediately on April 15, thus limiting his powers to 30 days...oh wait, no he didn't. Oh well, who's needs restraints anyway?

And you continue to justify illegal actions with packed-court decisions passed AFTER they occurred, as if somehow they somehow traverse space and time. Prize Cases, Texas v White, quite a few acts of Congress, etc. may have all "justified" his behavior after the fact, but they sure didn't legally warrant it at the time he acted.

Massachusetts actually sent three commissioners to Washington, D.C. to negotiate these terms.

Which was done weeks after the Conference published its report, and even then, the treaty had just been ratified.

Of course, if this is the position that you're taking, I suppose you should also criticize Andrew Jackson for fighting the Battle of New Orleans after the treaty he didn't know about had been signed.

I do appreciate that you cut and pasted the part about the Hartford Conference's flirtation with the idea of secession being considered treason, "especially in the south."

So the representative, republican governments of the States THEMSELVES are now actually "combinations" of rebellious individuals within the states obstructing their laws?

In a word, yes.

Note that Buchanan had already looked at the Act...

Buchanan would have found some reason to do nothing, to pass it on to the next guy.

Funny enough, the Act also raised militia by (drumroll...) conscription of 6 months (3 per the 1795 act, extended to 6 several years later), so there goes that argument too.

Calling forth the militia for 90 days (which is what Lincoln did in his April 15 decree) is not the same as conscription.

Oh well, who's needs restraints anyway?

I'm sorry. Did I miss the part of the MIlitia Act that calls for the president to convene congress immediately?

And you continue to justify illegal actions with packed-court decisions passed AFTER they occurred, as if somehow they somehow traverse space and time.

And you continue to somehow expect the court to speak to the legality of actions that haven't occurred yet, as if they somehow traverse time and space. And Lincoln didn't pack the court. That refers to adding members to the court in order to dilute an opposing bloc, as FDR threatened. Lincoln did not add members to the court that decided the case--he replaced three justices who died and one who resigned.