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 ...
Yes it is.
I already cited the very name of the legislation for you. Again, you are just arguing to argue as usual.
LOL! You're imaginative if nothing else.
All court decisions are after the fact. Or hadn't you noticed that?
Firstly there was no rebellion
Yes there was.
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.
So then what you're saying is that since the Constitution does not say that states cannot be kicked out against their will then that is a power reserved to the states by the 10th Amendment?
Firstly, it was/is a contract.
Then legally all parties agreeing to the contract are bound by it, right?
You have read the constitution exactly backwards. It does not say what the states can do.
You apparently have not read Article II, Section 10 and Article IV. Those are full of things the states cannot do.
Anything not mentioned is a power reserved by the states.
Like the power to kick out another state against its will?
busy
Article III, Clause 2
That doesn't cover judicial review. You've obviously never learned what every 1L is taught as well as those who were taught civics decently.
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.
One hopes they would. There is no legal requirement. Sovereigns are free to withdraw from a treaty like the US recently did from the ABM treaty. States can do the same. Those on the other side can howl about it but that is all. That has always been the case with sovereigns. You obviously need to study some history.
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.
No, their purpose was to negotiate terms of an amicable separation agreement. Davis even offered free passage of the Mississippi and publicly stated that he wanted to establish good trading relations with the remaining states. Lincoln refused to meet with them and decided to start a war without the consent of Congress.
I'm stating what the letter says. You're stating what you wish it meant.
We both know Davis stated publicly that he wanted to negotiate, that he wanted good trade relations, that the CSA would agree to free passage of the Mississippi, etc. Davis sent the delegation with the express purpose of negotiating over the national debt, division of assets, etc.
Why? What says so?
Because. What says so? The club rules/bylaws will say under what conditions a member may be expelled...if they may be at all.
Nope. It is nowhere implied. All the evidence points to the opposite conclusion. Madison in the federalist papers - which I've already provided - described states as sovereign entities bound only by their VOLUNTARY act in ratifying the constitution. 3 states expressly reserved the right to unilateral secession. Nobody objected or said that that was in any way inconsistent with the constitution.
LOL! You're imaginative if nothing else.
You're obtuse if nothing else.
After the war had been fought. After Lincoln appointed 5 to the court....when of course the Southern Congressional delegation was not present in the Senate. Gee, how did they vote? GTFO with the nonsense that this was anything other than might makes right with no regard to legality or original intent.
Yes there was.
No there wasn't.
So then what you're saying is that since the Constitution does not say that states cannot be kicked out against their will then that is a power reserved to the states by the 10th Amendment?
You realize your entire argument here is a red herring right? No state has ever been kicked out. There has never been an attempt to kick a state out. I'm done wasting time with this ridiculous sidetrack that doesn't begin to address what the 10th amendment actually says.
Then legally all parties agreeing to the contract are bound by it, right?
As long as they are in. As we've previously outlined, sovereigns can withdraw from contracts/treaties and do so all the time. The US recently did so with an intermediate range ballistic missile treaty with Russia. Previously the US did so with the ABM treaty with Russia.
You apparently have not read Article II, Section 10 and Article IV. Those are full of things the states cannot do.
Those are powers DELEGATED by the States to the Federal government. Nowhere in the constitution are states granted powers. They had all the power. Everything. They delegated only certain powers to the federal government. Everything they did not specifically delegate, they kept.
Like the power to kick out another state against its will?
red herring/
It defines the court's jurisdiction. The legal definition of jurisdiction is the power to interpret and apply the law for a given area.
One hopes they would. There is no legal requirement. Sovereigns are free to withdraw from a treaty like the US recently did from the ABM treaty. States can do the same. Those on the other side can howl about it but that is all. That has always been the case with sovereigns. You obviously need to study some history.
Not your odd-ball history, thank you very much.
No, their purpose was to negotiate terms of an amicable separation agreement.
That is not what the letter of introduction to Lincoln said.
avis even offered free passage of the Mississippi and publicly stated that he wanted to establish good trading relations with the remaining states.
That's not what the letter to Lincoln said.
Lincoln refused to meet with them and decided to start a war without the consent of Congress.
Meet and discuss what? Surrender to Confederate demands? He wasn't going to do that and the South chose to start their rebellion in response.
We both know Davis stated publicly that he wanted to negotiate, that he wanted good trade relations, that the CSA would agree to free passage of the Mississippi, etc.
Do we? There is what you claim Davis said and there is what Davis wrote. If he wanted to negotiate, if he wanted good trade relations, if he was offering free passage down the Mississippi, then why didn't he put it in writing?
Because. What says so? The club rules/bylaws will say under what conditions a member may be expelled...if they may be at all.
The bylaws say that powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. I do not see where the power to expel a state against its will is a power prohibited to the states or delegated to the United States. So under your interpretation it must be permitted under the 10th Amendment. Right?
It is. In Article I and Article IV.
The Supreme Court had been handing down decision throughout the rebellion which made it clear that they viewed the Southern acts as illegal.
After Lincoln appointed 5 to the court....when of course the Southern Congressional delegation was not present in the Senate.
Well they were off rebelling.
Gee, how did they vote?
It varied.
GTFO with the nonsense that this was anything other than might makes right with no regard to legality or original intent.
Just responding to the crass stupidity of your arguments.
It does not grant the court the power of judicial review. Try reading Marbury vs Madison.
Not your odd-ball history, thank you very much.
Actual history. Not the court historian PC Revisionist BS you cling to.
That is not what the letter of introduction to Lincoln said.
That was the purpose of the delegation as Davis made quite clear.
That's not what the letter to Lincoln said.
Davis said so publicly.
Meet and discuss what? Surrender to Confederate demands? He wasn't going to do that and the South chose to start their rebellion in response.
Meet and discuss the division of assets and liabilities. There was never any rebellion. Lincoln chose to start a war rather than even meet to hear what anybody had to say.
Do we? There is what you claim Davis said and there is what Davis wrote. If he wanted to negotiate, if he wanted good trade relations, if he was offering free passage down the Mississippi, then why didn't he put it in writing?
Yes we do. Davis made it quite clear numerous times that he wanted good relations with the US and was willing to negotiate the terms of separation. He said so publicly. Lincoln refused to meet to discuss anything with anybody. Then he chose to start a war.
The bylaws say that powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. I do not see where the power to expel a state against its will is a power prohibited to the states or delegated to the United States. So under your interpretation it must be permitted under the 10th Amendment. Right?
Red Herring.
It is not. If it were, somebody would have objected to the express reservation by multiple states made at the time of ratification, of the right to unilateral secession. Nobody objected.
There was no rebellion. The states reserved the right to unilateral secession at the time the constitution was ratified. There was no tribunal over them. They would hardly have agreed to grant a branch of the federal government the sole power to interpret what the terms were under which they remained or stayed. That would be like appointing the fox to guard the henhouse.
Well they were off rebelling.
They were not rebelling. There was no rebellion.
It varied.,/p>
not in that case.
Just responding to the crass stupidity of your arguments.
And I'm responding to the outright lies, deliberate obtuseness and overwhelming stupidity of your arguments.
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.