Posted on 12/22/2019 4:23:47 AM PST by Bull Snipe
"I beg to present you as a Christmas gift the City of Savannah, with one hundred and fifty heavy guns and plenty of ammunition and about twenty-five thousand bales of cotton." General William T. Sherman's "March to the Sea" was over. During the campaign General Sherman had made good on his promise d “to make Georgia howl”. Atlanta was a smoldering ruin, Savannah was in Union hands, closing one of the last large ports to Confederate blockade runners. Sherman’s Army wrecked 300 miles of railroad and numerous bridges and miles of telegraph lines. It seized 5,000 horses, 4,000 mules, and 13,000 head of cattle. It confiscated 9.5 million pounds of corn and 10.5 million pounds of fodder, and destroyed uncounted cotton gins and mills. In all, about 100 million dollars of damage was done to Georgia and the Confederate war effort.
I think most Freepers would agree that the federal judiciary, being composed of human beings with human frailties, reaches erroneous conclusions on occasion. Just look back at the comments posted here, after the Obamacare decision by the Roberts court; the legislation was passed by a Congress that insisted it was not a tax, and signed by a president who insisted it was not a tax, but then defended on the basis that it was indeed a tax. If undeniable proof of judicial 'error' is required, simply review any of the high court decisions wherein the court reversed itself (which happens from time to time).
James Madison observed in his 1799 Report on the Virginia Resolutions that some unconstitutional actions by the federal judiciary might necessarily be countered by the individual States, as parties to the compact. It may be worth noting, that such unconstitutional federal actions may become commonplace in the very near future, if American leftists succeed in 'packing' the high court with liberal activists, as is currently being discussed.
In short, any suggestion that 100% of the court's opinions are consistent with the actual written 'law of the land' may amount to seeing "the world the way you would like it to be, not the way it is". And recognizing that the high court is indeed subject to error, might perhaps be better characterized as a realistic point of view, rather than just holding the court in "contempt"...
I agree that there are decisions handed down that leave me scratching my head as well. But the solution is not doing away with the judiciary because could you honestly believe that that Congress or the President wouldn't make more decisions that we feel totally ignore the Constitution?
“the 10th Amendment was cited by the seceeding States in support of their formal severance of ties.”
No, the 10th Amendment was not cited by any of the 11 seceding states in their Ordinances of Secession.
Five of the seceding states wrote documents laying out the reason and justification for their decisions to secede from the Union. Not one of those documents cites justification under the 10 Amendment to the Constitution. In two of those documents the Constitutional article cited is Article IV, Section 2 clause 3 (aka the fugitive slave clause). One state cites Article IV section 2 clause 2. One state cites Article 7. No where in the primary documentation of secession is Amendment 10 of the Constitution mentioned.
As to your second paragraph, I would readily acknowledge that we must be eternally vigilant against the corruption and abuses of the left. Who claims otherwise?
"In short, any suggestion that 100% of the court's opinions are consistent with the actual written 'law of the land' may amount to seeing "the world the way you would like it to be, not the way it is"."
I suppose that you intended this as some sort of rebuttal to what I wrote. If so it is a silly strawman argument.
The real question is: do you believe that the Constitution designates the Judiciary as the arbiter of our laws with the Supreme Court as the highest court? Apparently kalamata does not (at least when corrected he chose to deflect by changing the subject).
The north.
“The north.”
That is an interesting comment.
Slavery in the United States was not just constitutional; it was enshrined in the United States Constitution.
If the North was fighting to overthrow slavery with violence as you and others contend, then the North was fighting to violently overthrow the United States Constitution.
At the time of the war, the South claimed the North was fighting against the Constitution. Your claim adds credibility to their view and justifies secession.
I disagree - here are a few examples (pulled up from memory):
By this Constitution, certain duties were imposed upon the several States, and the exercise of certain of their powers was restrained, which necessarily implied their continued existence as sovereign States. But to remove all doubt, an amendment was added, which declared that the 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.
South Carolina - Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union, 1860
---
Senators, the Constitution is a compact. It contains all our obligations and the duties of the federal government… I say that the Constitution is the whole compact. All the obligations, all the chains that fetter the limbs of my people, are nominated in the bond, and they wisely excluded any conclusion against them, by declaring that “the powers not granted by the Constitution to the United States, or forbidden by it to the States, belonged to the States respectively or the people.”
Robert Augustus Toombs of Georgia – Remarks upon resigning from the US Senate, 1861
---
The Constitution of 1787, having, however, omitted the clause already recited from the Articles of Confederation, which provided in explicit terms that each State retained its sovereignty and independence, some alarm was felt in the States, when invited to ratify the Constitution, lest this omission should be construed into an abandonment of their cherished principle, and they refused to be satisfied until amendments were added to the Constitution placing beyond any pretense of doubt the reservation by the States of all their sovereign rights and powers not expressly delegated to the United States by the Constitution. Strange, indeed, must it appear to the impartial observer, but it is none the less true that all these carefully worded clauses proved unavailing to prevent the rise and growth in the Northern States of a political school which has persistently claimed that the government thus formed was not a compact between States, but was in effect a national government, set up above and over the States.
Jefferson Davis - Message to Congress, April 29, 1861
---
Perhaps you were doing a quick search, using terms such as "Tenth Amendment" or "10th Amendment". What was commonly cited was the language (or paraphrased language) of the amendment itself...
No I read each of the eleven Ordnance of secession, and 5 documents, by the secession conventions, justifying their secession. I do stand corrected on the Carolina justification, it is the only one of 5 justifications that allude to the 10th amendment. The 10th is not cited in any of 11 ordinances of secession or in the supporting is the 10th amendment by the four states that wrote them.
The most accurate answer to libtard demojeff's red herring of a question is "The North went to war to save the Union and eventually added freeing the slaves as a mission parameter". Please allow me to spare you the nuisance of having to bother with him.
Yes, slavery was an affliction that predates the formation of our nation. No, slavery is not "enshrined" in the US Constitution. There is only an oblique reference to "Person held to Service or Labour". No, the North was not fighting to violently overthrow the United States Constitution. To suggest so is utterly moronic.
Cheers!
“At the time of the war, the South claimed the North was fighting against the Constitution.”
At the time of the war, the South (i.e. the Confederacy) had repudiated the entire Constitution of the United States by withdrawing from the Repulic that the Constitution defined.
They were the ones fighting against the United States Constitution.
“At the time of the war, the South (i.e. the Confederacy) had repudiated the entire Constitution of the United States . . .”
Actually, the Confederate States adopted the United States Constitution almost in its entirety. The Confederates made a few improvements and clarifications based on experience but it was almost the same words that southerners had written and offered to the nation two generations earlier.
Even after secession, the United States remained the most powerful slave nation in North America, perhaps the world.
None the less, it was the Confederacy that repudiated the Constitution of the United States and withdrew from the Republic.
Yes, the United States was the most powerful slave holding nation in North America with about 430,000 slaves. The Confederacy held the largest number of slaves in North America about 3.5 million slaves in all.
Perhaps the question might be ‘fine-tuned’ a bit: do we believe the Constitution designates the Judiciary as the ‘final’ arbiter of our laws, with the Supreme Court as the highest court (and therefore, the ‘last word’ when it comes to the Constitution)?
Given that the SCOTUS is not infallible – what resort might there be, should the court err in some way that fatally undermines the Constitution? No resort, whatsoever, because the federal judiciary alone is the arbiter of our laws? Most will quickly suggest that the other branches of the federal government will balance or limit federal judicial excesses – but as James Madison observed, it is not impossible that the entire federal government might support certain unconstitutional actions. (Indeed, we may have had glimpses of such circumstances, during the Obama administration.)
Some might then suggest that in any such case, the people should immediately invoke their God-given ‘right of revolution’. That is certainly a possibility, but hardly a desirable approach, since it could easily destroy the republic, in an effort to save it.
Obviously, there is a third alternative, to both the anemic and unreliable federal ‘checks & balances’ system, and the people’s right to revolt. One well-established point of view, dating from the early years of the republic, was that the individual States, as parties to the constitutional compact, should interpose themselves between any ‘out-of-control’ federal government and their people – in other words, that the States should have the final word, in extremis, when it comes to the Constitution.
Food for thought, perhaps, given the recent behavior of one of our largest political parties…
I suppose that you intended this as some sort of rebuttal to what I wrote. If so it is a silly strawman argument.
Not so much a rebuttal, as an example highlighting the foolishness of those who simply declare that any high court edict (no matter how perverse) somehow automatically over-rides the specific written terms of the United States Constitution. In essence, “the Supreme Court said [fill in the blank], so that’s what the Constitution says!” Unfortunately, we’ve probably all seen that kind of nonsense suggested, repeatedly, even here at FreeRepublic…
If anything, additional 'checks and balances' (besides the presumed rivalries between the three federal branches) would probably help limit federal encroachments on our constitutional rights.
“Given that the SCOTUS is not infallible – what resort might there be, should the court err in some way that fatally undermines the Constitution? No resort, whatsoever, because the federal judiciary alone is the arbiter of our laws? Most will quickly suggest that the other branches of the federal government will balance or limit federal judicial excesses.
Maybe, if the Court makes a mistake in judgment, Amend the Constitution to remedy the mistake. Worked in the case of the Dred Scott decision.
Amending the Constitution is a tool that conservatives consistently neglect. God knows why - the process puts small conservative States like Wyoming on equal footing with the ultra-large, leftist States like California and New York. Even something as simple and basic as a balanced budget amendment, or mandatory term limits, would go a long way towards preserving freedom in this country...
“Thankfully the racists running the Southern Government lost.”
You seem to imply that racialism is a southern thing, and not something that drove northern policies.
Here’s a quote that you may wish to incorporate into future posts - it is from a slave state-born politician that rose to national prominence in the years prior to War Between the States.
“I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races, that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.”
Do not disagree with your thoughts.
by the standards of today, 99% of the American population in 1860 would have been considered virulent racists.
Indeed, racism was not and is not a simple matter of North vs South. Martin Luther King noted that the most hostile reception he ever experienced was in Illinois, while George Lincoln Rockwell's most hostile audience was in North Carolina...
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.