Posted on 07/26/2006 3:22:50 PM PDT by stainlessbanner
The Constitution was not placed before the populace of any state to be ratified, the instrument was placed before conventions of delegates. You had wrote that, 'Black men voted to ratify the Constitution.' That being the case, to do so would have required that a black to be voted as a delegate for their state ratifying convention.
Bullshit. You claimed that the court ruled Lincoln's actions illegal and dredge Mitchell v Harmony for support, despite the differences in circumstances. What it all boils down to are three simple facts. Fact 1, Congress passed the Confiscation Acts in 1861 and 1863 which allowed for the seizure of private property when used to support the rebellion. Fact 2, the Emancipation Proclamation was an offshoot of that authority. Fact 3, the Supreme Court upheld the Constitutionality of the Confiscation Acts. Conclusion, your premise and what passes for logic are completely flawed.
Your vocabulary shows the limits of your IQ, your upbring, morals and decorum.
You claimed that the court ruled Lincoln's actions illegal and dredge Mitchell v Harmony for support, despite the differences in circumstances.
For the clinically obtuse, the Supreme Court held that the seizure of private property without compensation to be illegal before the war. After the war, the Supreme Court held that the Constitution applied to Presidents and paupers with equal force, and that NO provision of the Constitution could be suspended on a dictator's whim. Now your contention is that the act of Lincoln, PREVIOUSLY held by the SUPREME Court of the United States to be unconstitutional, is somehow magically made legal. Bwahahahaha!
Fact 1, Congress passed the Confiscation Acts in 1861 and 1863 which allowed for the seizure of private property when used to support the rebellion.
FACT: Congress cannot overturn a decision on the Supreme Court. The Court had already held such acts to be illegal.
Fact 2, the Emancipation Proclamation was an offshoot of that authority.
FACT: Lincoln himself wrote in the EP, 'therefore I, Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States, by virtue of the power in me vested as Commander-in-Chief, of the Army and Navy of the United States.' Lincoln claimed authority under his powers as commander-in-thief, the Supreme Court had already held this to be unconstitutional.
Fact 3, the Supreme Court upheld the Constitutionality of the Confiscation Acts.
Gee Wally. The Confiscation Acts were directed primarily at slaves in areas under Union control. The EP targeted areas NOT under Union control. Section 1-4 of the second Conscription Act mandated court proceeding to be conducted. Section 5 applied only to members of the Confederate armies, governments, legislatures and other positions of authority. It did not apply to civilians in Confederate states. It did apply to any person 'owning property in any loyal State or Territory of the United States, or in the District of Columbia'. Sections 6-8 require that in rem court proceeding be conducted for said seizures, sections 9-10 specifically addressed slaves within union controlled areas, section 11 made the federal government a slaveowner per se, section 12 authorized the President of the United States 'to make provision for the transportation, colonization, and settlement [of seized slaves], in some tropical country beyond the limits of the United States'.
And it's nice to see you in full-bore, mouth foaming mode once again, with your pathological hatred of Lincoln on display for all to see. In some of your more recent posts you seem almost rational. Can't have people getting the wrong opinion of you, now can we?
For the clinically obtuse, the Supreme Court held that the seizure of private property without compensation to be illegal before the war.
Only under certain circumstances. The Supreme Court also ruled in an 1814 case, Brown v United States, that laws regarding the confiscation of private property as a means of combatting an opponent in war were legal. As an exercise of war power, such confiscation were not subject to the restrictions of the Fifth and Sixth Amendments. The whole justification of such confiscation is built upon the foundation that it is an instrument for combatting the enemy. By depriving an enemy of property within the reach of the government, whether within U.S. territory or outside it, this impairs the enemies ability to resist the government's authority, while at the same time it helps furnish the government means for carrying on the war. Along those same lines, during the rebellion Congress passed the Confiscation Acts of 1861 and 1863. These acts were also reviewed by the Supreme Court, and their constitutionality upheld, in Miller v United States (11 Wall 268) handed down in 1871.
FACT: Congress cannot overturn a decision on the Supreme Court. The Court had already held such acts to be illegal.
Except that you are incorrect in this claim. Surprise, surprise.
FACT: Lincoln himself wrote in the EP, 'therefore I, Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States, by virtue of the power in me vested as Commander-in-Chief, of the Army and Navy of the United States.' Lincoln claimed authority under his powers as commander-in-thief, the Supreme Court had already held this to be unconstitutional.
No, it had been upheld in 1814.
Gee Wally. The Confiscation Acts were directed primarily at slaves in areas under Union control. The EP targeted areas NOT under Union control.,p> Golly, Beve, you're wrong yet again. First Confiscation Act. Both acts cover all parts of the United States, including those parts engaged in rebellion and not yet in Union control, and the Second Confication Act could most likely have been used to free slaves in Union states if it could be shown that they were used to support the southern rebellion. The Emacipation Proclamation covered only those areas in rebellion because slave owners in Union states were not assumed to be supporting the insurrection.
to make provision for the transportation, colonization, and settlement [of seized slaves], in some tropical country beyond the limits of the United States'
Why not finish the sentence? "... of such persons of the African race, made free by the provisions of this act, as may be willing to emigrate, having first obtained the consent of the government of said country to their protection and settlement within the same, with all the rights and privileges of freemen." Nothing forced in that, though you no doubt tried top give that impression, hoping people would be too stupid to check out your quote. All in keeping with Lincoln's long held support of voluntary emigration.
The Constitution was not placed before the populace of any state to be ratified, the instrument was placed before conventions of delegates. You had wrote that, 'Black men voted to ratify the Constitution.' That being the case, to do so would have required that a black to be voted as a delegate for their state ratifying convention.
You're right. I admit that I was so eager to make a point that I overlooked the details. And often the details make or break a point. But in this case, I think the point is still valid that free blacks had a part in the states adopting the Constitution which is a fact that doesn't do any good for Taney's reasoning.
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.