Posted on 09/09/2019 9:42:11 AM PDT by NKP_Vet
Nearly all modern historians agree with Professor James McPherson’s conclusion that the Civil War was caused by Southern objections to the 1860 Republican Party’s resolve to prohibit slavery’s extension into any of the federal territories that had not yet been organized as states. The resolution originated with the Wilmot Proviso fourteen years earlier before the infant GOP had even been formed. In 1846 Pennsylvania Congressman David Wilmot introduced a rider to a $2 million appropriation intended for use in a negotiated settlement to end the Mexican War. The rider stipulated that the money could not be used to purchase land that might be acquired in the treaty if slavery was allowed in such territories. After considerable wrangling, the bill passed without the rider.
Contrary to first impressions, the Proviso had little to do with sympathy for black slaves. Its purpose was to keep blacks out of the new territories so that the lands might be reserved for free whites. As Wilmot put it, “The negro race already occupy enough of this fair continent . . . I would preserve for free white labor a fair country . . . where the sons of toil, of my own race and color, can live without the disgrace which association with negro slavery brings upon free labor.”
The same attitude prevailed during the Civil War. Abraham Lincoln readily admitted that his September 1862 Emancipation Proclamation was a necessity of war. Major General George McClellan, who then commanded the North’s biggest army and would become Lincoln’s opponent in the 1864 presidential elections, believed it was a deliberate attempt to incite Southern slave rebellions. Lincoln was himself aware that such uprisings might result.
(Excerpt) Read more at civilwarchat.wordpress.com ...
“The whole USCT affair was the excuse given.”
It was the reason. In May 1863 the Confederate Congress passed a resolution, endorsed by Davis to turn captured USCT’s over to the states as escaped slaves, rather than treat the as POWs. White officers were to be tried in state courts for inciting slave insurrection. The Lincoln administrations position was that USCT were soldiers and entitled to be treated as any other prisoner of war. Breaking off the prisoner exchange discussions was politically unpopular in the North as a large % of Northerners support prisoner exchange. Informal discussions on the issue continued without breaking the deadlock. Several prisoner exchanges were conducted, primarily wounded prisoners for wounded prisoners. At no time would the Confederates exchange USCTs for any reason. When Grant assumed command of all the Union Armies in 1864, he ended any hope of restarting the prisoner exchange program. Pretty much for the reasons you gave as the reason for the original end of prisoner exchange. In spite of the Confederate announcement their plans for USCT prisoners, they actually did not carry out their stated actions. USCTs were retained in their prison camps with other Union prisoners. But they were never exchanged at any time for the remainder of the war.
Congressional approval for various changes in a state's status are explicitly allowed too; admitting, combining, splitting, changes of borders. If by implication a whole branch of the military outside of those explicitly specified by the Constitution is permissible then the implied power to approve a state's leaving is permissible too. Or is that too obtuse for you as well?
As it happens, yes it was. You're just wrong. Again. The Dwight D. Eisenhower National System of Interstate and Defense Highways
Justified by Lucius Clay as, "It was evident we needed better highways. We needed them for safety, to accommodate more automobiles. We needed them for defense purposes, if that should ever be necessary. And we needed them for the economy. Not just as a public works measure, but for future growth." Defense was just one reason given, and not even the primary one.
No its not. Explicit was the state's reservation of their right to unilateral secession.
Where in the Constitution is that?
Article III, Section 2.
Analogy fail.
You can't answer it, can you?
Each state in leaving, does not harm other states or affect their rights in any way.
It certainly can. When the leaving states walk away from financial and national obligations and are in a position to cripple remaining states by blocking access to the sea then a great deal of harm can be done.
You propose that some states be able to prevent others from exercising their right to self determination and try to claim that is somehow the same as a state exercising its own.
But what about the right of association you've babbled about in the past? Don't states have the right to associate with one state and then decide they don't want to and kick it out? But let's get down to brass tacks. What clause of the Constitution prohibits the states from expelling another state against its will? Please answer it.
How about answering the question? Let me repeat it for you: other than your mythical power to withdraw at will, what sovereign powers did the states not give up to their supposed underling?
They entered U.S. waters.
We both know he didn't.
Can you prove it?
The opinions of one man are irrelevant. What the parties actually agreed to at the time is the basis of any agreement/contract.
When that one man was more responsible than any other individual for the Constitution then I'd place a great deal of weight on his opinion.
Nowhere in the constitution did they agree to surrender their right to unilateral secession.
Nowhere in the Constitution did they surrender their right to kick a state out either. Yet you claim it doesn't exist.
In fact, they went out of their way to make it clear that is not what they were agreeing to.
A big 'ol oops on their part, wasn't it?
Nope. Not by implication. The states made it quite clear that they were reserving the right to unilateral secession.
A minority of the states thought they were reserving that right. Turns out they were wrong.
Nah. It was the excuse. Grant ran the numbers and came up with a more effective though brutal strategy. The whole USCT thing was just meant to provide political cover since the policy was going to be brutal and was going to leave POW's in a really crappy situation - to which their families were going to object and put pressure on the US Army to reverse its policy - as Grant well knew.
Nowhere however is the federal government authorized to prevent a state from leaving. Total analogy fail to try to equate having an air force with the federal government having the authority to prevent a state from seceding - especially given the overwhelming evidence that the states themselves explicitly did not agree to that.
Justified by Lucius Clay as, "It was evident we needed better highways. We needed them for safety, to accommodate more automobiles. We needed them for defense purposes, if that should ever be necessary. And we needed them for the economy. Not just as a public works measure, but for future growth." Defense was just one reason given, and not even the primary one.
The authority under which the federal government was able to build interstate highways was national defense. That there would be huge economic benefits was obvious. That their primary role would be to facilitate civilian transport was also obvious. But the actual authority under which the federal government could go ahead with their construction was under the aegis of national defense.
Where in the Constitution is that?
The 9th and 10th amendments. ie it doesn't need to be in the constitution. For the federal government to have it it would need to be in the constitution, not vice versa. You have everything backwards.
ah but that doesn't grant the power of judicial review. That was a power the SCOTUS simply claimed for itself in Marbury vs Madison.....as any first year law student could tell you.
You can't answer it, can you?
The only appropriate answer to your failed analogy is laughter.
It certainly can. When the leaving states walk away from financial and national obligations and are in a position to cripple remaining states by blocking access to the sea then a great deal of harm can be done.
No it doesn't. The states will negotiate the division of assets and liabilities. That is precisely what the delegation Jefferson Davis sent to Washington which Lincoln refused to meet with was for.
But what about the right of association you've babbled about in the past? Don't states have the right to associate with one state and then decide they don't want to and kick it out? But let's get down to brass tacks. What clause of the Constitution prohibits the states from expelling another state against its will? Please answer it.
What about the right to association you've failed to grasp? Kicking someone else out is not exercising your right to free association, its stifling another's. It would be like saying silencing somebody else is the same as exercising your right to free speech. The choice to associate or not with the others is the right of each state individually.
The power to unilaterally secede is not mythical. As for the rights of the states, I'll let Madison answer: (this is from the federalist papers written before the constitution was ratified....ie this is what the states were actually agreeing to)
“...the act of the people, as forming so many independent States, not as forming one aggregate nation, is obvious from this single consideration, that it is to result neither from the decision of a majority of the people of the Union, nor from that of a majority of the States.... Each State, in ratifying the Constitution, is considered as a sovereign body, independent of all others, and only to be bound by its own voluntary act” (Federalist 39).'
An entire consolidation of the States into one complete national sovereignty would imply an entire subordination of the parts; and whatever powers might remain in them, would be altogether dependent on the general will. But as the plan of the convention aims only at a partial union or consolidation, the State governments would clearly retain all the rights of sovereignty which they before had, and which were not, by that act, EXCLUSIVELY delegated to the United States. This exclusive delegation, or rather this alienation, of State sovereignty, would only exist in three cases: where the Constitution in express terms granted an exclusive authority to the Union; where it granted in one instance an authority to the Union, and in another prohibited the States from exercising the like authority; and where it granted an authority to the Union, to which a similar authority in the States would be absolutely and totally contradictory and repugnant. (federalist #32)
The necessity of a concurrent jurisdiction in certain cases results from the division of the sovereign power; and the rule that all authorities, of which the States are not explicitly divested in favor of the Union, remain with them in full vigor, is not a theoretical consequence of that division, but is clearly admitted by the whole tenor of the instrument which contains the articles of the proposed Constitution. (federalist #32)
The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State. (federalist #45)
South Carolina had seceded. Those were South Carolina's waters.
Can you prove it?
Its not for me to prove he didn't. Its for you to prove he did. Present your evidence that he did.
When that one man was more responsible than any other individual for the Constitution then I'd place a great deal of weight on his opinion.
You might but courts don't care. What matters in contract formation is what the parties (that would be the states) actually agreed to at the time. The opinions of some individual on the side who never even openly expressed the views you wish to cite at that time, are completely irrelevant.
Nowhere in the Constitution did they surrender their right to kick a state out either. Yet you claim it doesn't exist.
Right to free association. We've gone over this. The question is pointless anyway since there has never even been an attempt to kick any state out.
A big 'ol oops on their part, wasn't it?
It is prima facie evidence of what they were agreeing to and what they were not agreeing to as the contracting parties.
A minority of the states thought they were reserving that right. Turns out they were wrong.
The two biggest and most important states....the two states which were the leaders of their respective regions did so. Under the Comity Principle, every state understood itself to have that right. This is a right states still have. Might does not make Right.
Grant was not in command of the army in May 1863. The exchange of prisoners ended at that time. When he assumed command of all Union armies in the Spring of 1864 he ended any possibility of renewing prisoner exchange for the reasons you cite. But prisoner exchange had all ready ceased 10 month before he had the authority of end it.
Ah but it does.
The only appropriate answer to your failed analogy is laughter.
When you can't answer that's all you have.
No it doesn't. The states will negotiate the division of assets and liabilities.
What requires that to do so once they've walked out? The Confederates didn't.
That is precisely what the delegation Jefferson Davis sent to Washington which Lincoln refused to meet with was for.
Show me where in writing that was laid out. Because the letter Davis sent to Lincoln introducing them promised nothing of the kind.
Kicking someone else out is not exercising your right to free association, its stifling another's.
OK so let's see if I have this right. If one state doesn't want to associate with the rest of the states then it's free to leave because it has freedom of association. But if the rest of the states don't want to associate with one state then tough, they're forced to associate with them because they don't have freedom of association? That is the most asinine thing I've heard, and considering you're the source that's saying a lot.
It's implied.
The authority under which the federal government was able to build interstate highways was national defense
Complete nonsense. The authority under which the federal government built it was three separate pieces of legislation passed in 1916, 1921, and 1953. The Defense Department did not build the highways.
The 9th and 10th amendments. ie it doesn't need to be in the constitution
So it's implied and not explicit? You said it was explicit.
The same courts that have said the right to unilateral secession doesn't exist? Those courts?
Right to free association. We've gone over this. The question is pointless anyway since there has never even been an attempt to kick any state out.
Until the Southern rebellion there never was an attempt to secede unilaterally either. But the power has to be there because the Constitution doesn't forbid it. 10th Amendment and all that. Right?
It is prima facie evidence of what they were agreeing to and what they were not agreeing to as the contracting parties.
If we reduce it to a contractual agreement then the states were bound by what the Constitution said they could do and not what they thought they could do. They ratified the Constitution as written and agreed to abide by it.
cite the correct article and paragraph for me then. No, do not try to just get away with something so sloppy as the claiming the supremacy clause covers it either.
When you can't answer that's all you have.
When you can't post a substantive response, that's all I need.
What requires that to do so once they've walked out? The Confederates didn't.
There is no "requirement" but presumably they would want good relations and especially trade relations with their neighbors. The Confederates offered to negotiate and sent a delegation. Lincoln refused to meet with them.
Show me where in writing that was laid out. Because the letter Davis sent to Lincoln introducing them promised nothing of the kind.
It didn't need to be laid out in writing. Davis sent the delegation and gave them letters to introduce them making clear what their purpose was. You're just arguing to argue at this point.
OK so let's see if I have this right. If one state doesn't want to associate with the rest of the states then it's free to leave because it has freedom of association. But if the rest of the states don't want to associate with one state then tough, they're forced to associate with them because they don't have freedom of association? That is the most asinine thing I've heard, and considering you're the source that's saying a lot.
You can leave a voluntary organization of your own volition. The rules for kicking somebody else out who wishes to remain in are different.
No its not.
Complete nonsense. The authority under which the federal government built it was three separate pieces of legislation passed in 1916, 1921, and 1953. The Defense Department did not build the highways.
I already cited the very name of the legislation for you. Again, you are just arguing to argue as usual.
So it's implied and not explicit? You said it was explicit.
I said any power not delegated to the federal government is reserved to the states. Read the 10th amendment.
The Chase court? After the fact? LOL!
Until the Southern rebellion there never was an attempt to secede unilaterally either. But the power has to be there because the Constitution doesn't forbid it. 10th Amendment and all that. Right?
Firstly there was no rebellion. The 10th amendment makes it clear that any power not delegated to the federal government is reserved by the states. You might try reading it some time.
If we reduce it to a contractual agreement then the states were bound by what the Constitution said they could do and not what they thought they could do. They ratified the Constitution as written and agreed to abide by it..
Firstly, it was/is a contract. You have read the constitution exactly backwards. It does not say what the states can do. It says what the federal government can do. Anything not mentioned is a power reserved by the states.
South Carolina did unilaterally secede. But then she was joined buy 10 others states which takes the unilateral red herring off the table.
cite the correct article and paragraph for me then.
Article III, Clause 2.
There is no "requirement" but presumably they would want good relations and especially trade relations with their neighbors.
You hope that they would. Hope is not a strategy. So what you're saying is that in your view the Constitution supports those leaving taking what they want, walking away from what they want, inflicting any level of pain and suffering on those remaining, and there is nothing they can do about it. Just a vague optimistic belief that they might possible negotiate an agreement after the fact. I find it impossible to believe that the Founding Fathers would have signed on to such a foolish position.
It didn't need to be laid out in writing. Davis sent the delegation and gave them letters to introduce them making clear what their purpose was.
Yes he did. And their purpose was to obtain recognition of the legitimacy of Southern acts of secession, nothing else. If Lincoln had caved on that then they may have talked about other things, but only if the Confederacy was interested.
You're just arguing to argue at this point.
I'm stating what the letter says. You're stating what you wish it meant.
You can leave a voluntary organization of your own volition. The rules for kicking somebody else out who wishes to remain in are different.
Why? What says so?
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.
