Posted on 05/08/2020 6:40:26 AM PDT by Homer_J_Simpson
An immense crowd congregated in the Senate today, to listen to the speech of Senator DAVIS. This audience was brought together, not by the talents of Mr. DAVIS, but by his prognosticated attack upon Judge DOUGLAS. He spoke with none of the effect of SEWARD or DOUGLAS, and though he had an audience equal to that by which those Senators' speeches were listened to, he could not hold it.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
First session: November 21, 2015. Last date to add: Sometime in the future.
Reading: Self-assigned. Recommendations made and welcomed.
Posting history, in reverse order
To add this class to or drop it from your schedule notify Admissions and Records (Attn: Homer_J_Simpson) by reply or freepmail.
The reference to "Frank Pierce" is presumably to Franklin Pierce, who had been President from 1853 to 1857. It appears that some Democrats were thinking of trying to get him elected President again. Stephen Douglas was their strongest candidate but a lot of Southerners were unhappy with him over comments he made in the debates with Lincoln in 1858.
That's a false dichotomy -- in fact our Founders intended a blend allowing as much sovereignty to states as possible, while assuming only as much national leadership as necessary.
In fact, the Declaration's language is quite clear:
In fact the Constitution was adopted by "we the people" as embodied in special state ratifying conventions.
Right, and the key word here is "necessary" which, to our Founders, implied conditions similar to those they themselves faced in 1776.
Nothing remotely resembling such conditions existed in 1860.
Notice that Davis is not attacking Federal tariffs on imports of foreign made Northern products, he's not saying tariffs justify secession, he's merely defending Federal protective tariffs on imports of cotton from other countries.
In fact the US Constitution specifically authorizes Congress to abolish importation of slaves from abroad.
True, but many became Republicans and were joined by Free Soil Democrats.
In the Upper South & Border States, John Bell's Constitutional Union party was a potent alternative to Democrat secessionists.
Then Davis argued that Congress could not constitutionally abolish slavery in territories, even though Congress had long done just that, beginning with the Northwest Territories in 1787.
In fact, it was a threat Southerners had been making for decades, at least since the 1830s when they began to renege on their original intentions to gradually abolish slavery, as other states had done..
Likely the more inaudible parts were those most menacing to the republic.
Wait, was Davis calling for repeal of the ban on importing slaves? I didn’t read the speech that way.
Thanks for the thoughtful commentary. I was a little disappointed with the bland appearance of the 1860’s NYT after experiencing the sensational headlines and iconic photos of the 1940’s version. But we can still get a charge out of reading the first draft of history we have been learning about since we were youngsters. I was relieved to learn there are only 8 pages to scroll through on the Times Machine instead of the 30 odd I got with WWII microfilm. If I can keep it up until May 1865 it should be quite the educational experience.
Perhaps that was the "inaudible" part you missed? ;-)
I suspect he mumbled his way past that one.
The truth is that many Southerners in 1860 were indeed calling for repeal of anti-importation laws, and presumably Davis wanted their votes.
“Congress created the United States, making the old colonies “United” at the same moment it made them “States”.”
I see that thoughtful people no longer bother to correct you.
I don’t guess your cheerful lunacy does any real harm.
And yet... my sentence you quoted is 100% factual.
Of course, Democrats typically do think of facts as "lunacy" since in Democrat minds, the only things that really matter are their own fantasies.
Is it fair to say that in 1860 "the Old Gray Lady" was still a beautiful young Republican woman?
Davis also attacks a book - probably one discussed here - for pointing out how much the South imports from the North. He misses the point that books like that were written to counter the idea that all the wealth in the country came from cotton. Davis sees "vain boasting" and "deep-rooted hate" in Northern insistence that cotton wasn't really king and that the South depended on the North as much as the North depended on the South.
It's a little confusing with the slave trade. Davis doesn't come out and say that the transatlantic slave trade should be made legal, but there's enough in the speech to appeal those who think that the debate ought to be reopened and enough that a Northern listener might become uneasy. I don't think he favors reopening the slave trade or even the debate over it, but it did benefit him to be seen as a moderate, as opposed to those who advocated a repeal of the ban.
Towards the end of his speech Davis attacks Britain for encouraging abolitionist sentiment that threatens to divide the country. He says the South is immune to British influence, but he's pretty clearly only looking at abolitionism, since other British influences on the country that tend towards disunity are ignored. Davis would go on to divide the country and seek British recognition and aid, so his analysis here looks comical
Davis also says that while we are patrolling the seas and sending slave ships back to Africa, the British are enslaving the returnees with apprenticeships and other schemes similar to slavery. And he attacks the British for "kidnapping" Chinese coolies for work in their colonies, on the theory that the Chinese are "a race of men sufficiently high on the scale of creation to value family ties and to feel the sentiment of home," whereas the Africans are "a race of men that was never free" and presumably was never sufficiently high on the scale of creation.
What I get from the speech is that politicians speak to the issues of the day. They might claim to be highly moral, but if the situation changes, so do their speeches. Davis attacked the British for claiming only to want to abolish the slave trade and going on to abolish the whole institution in their colonies, but he doesn't see that his own views and strategies also change over time, or that a change in policy can reflect the closer application of a principle, rather than its abandonment.
It might have been a good thing if more of the Southern Whigs had joined the Democrats. They could have been a moderating influence and maybe kept the party together. They could have appealed to Northern Whigs and, if they didn't win the election, they could have made the losers's response less extreme. But it wasn't going to happen. The country was already too divided.
That's a false dichotomy -- in fact our Founders intended a blend allowing as much sovereignty to states as possible, while assuming only as much national leadership as necessary.
That is ridiculous. Being a little bit sovereign is like being a little bit pregnant. You either are or you ain't.
Under the "Articles of Confederation and perpetual Union between the states of New Hampshire, Massachusetts-bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia," created by the Founders, it was stated at Article II that "Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled." Under Article III is was maintained, "The said States hereby severally enter into a firm league of friendship with each other...."
When the king ceased to be the sovereign, the State governments did not become the sovereign. The People became the sovereigns. The People exercised their sovereignty as political communities organized as States. The People of each State creted a State government to serve them.
The People were the sovereigns under the Articles and the People are the sovereigns today. In an exercise of their sovereignty, the People threw out the Articles and that government with THIRTEEN member States, and adopted the Constitution and formed a new government with ELEVEN member states, Rhode Island and North Carolina not included in the new union as they had not ratified the Constitution when Washington was inaugurated.
The People did not delegate sovereignty to the Federal and State governments. They delegated powers. All power resides with the sovereign. The sovereign delegates such powers as seen fit by the sovereign.
The Federal government has been delegated certain powers and others have been withheld. Each State government has been delegated certain powers by the sovereigns of each individual State, resulting in different powers being delegated to different States.
For a difference in Federal and State powers, and among the several States, currently clearly on display is the internal police power within the States. The power was deliberately withheld from the Federal government. The power resides with the State governments to the extent the People of each State have chosen. The People of each State independently determine their own delegation of their sovereign power to their State government. Each State constitution is the expressed will of that political community only.
A sovereign is answerable to no higher power. The king is a sovereign. The people are sovereigns. The government, State or Federal, is not a sovereign. Exercising their sovereignty, the People can amend the Federal Constitution and reverse any ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court or any act of the Federal Congress. Neither the Federal Congress, nor the U.S. Supreme Court, has the lawful power to overturn or amend anything in the Constitution as it was issued by a higher power.
The sovereign People are organized as political communities called States. They exercise their sovereign powers as States. The States who are the members of the Union are the political communities, not the State governments.
That the Federal government is not sovereign is evident in that it can grant itself no new power. It lacks authority to either amend the Constitution, or to pass a law repugnant to the Constitution. With the Bill of Rights, the People set limits on the authority of the Federal government. Likewise, with the 14th Amendment, the people extended limits upon the State governments.
The Constitution existed before the Federal government. It set limits on who was eligible to be President. Neither the Federal nor State governments can add any requirement, or eliminate or change any requirement. The Constitution was issued by a higher power, the sovereign, before there was any Federal government. The Federal government exists at the pleasure of the People, to serve the people.
As the powers of the Federal and State governments are delegated powers, if those governments are sovereigns, one must ask, delegated by whom?
our Founders intended
Our Founders/Framers stated:
- - - - - - - - - -
Federalist IX.
[Hamilton.]
“So far are the suggestions of Montesquieu from standing in opposition to a general union of the states, that he explicitly treats of a Confederate Republic as the expedient for extending the sphere of popular government and reconciling the advantages of monarchy with those of republicanism.
“It is very probable says be, that mankind would have been obliged at length, to live constantly under the government of a Single Person, had they not contrived a kind of constitution, that has all the internal advantages of a republican, together with the external force of a monarchical government. I mean a Confederate Republic.
‘“This form of government is a convention, by which several smaller states agree to become members of a larger one, which they intend to form. It is a kind of assemblage of societies, that constitute a new one, capable of increasing by means of new associations, till they arrive to such a degree of power as to be able to provide for the security of the united body.
“‘A republic of this kind, able to withstand an external force, may support itself without any internal corruption. The form of this society prevents all manner of inconveniences.
‘“If a single member should attempt to usurp the supreme authority, he could not be supposed to have equal authority and credit in all the confederate states. ...
“‘Should a popular insurrection happen in one of the confederate states, the others are able to quell. Should abuses creep into one part, they are reformed by those that remain sound. The state may be destroyed on the one side, and not on the other; the confederacy may be dissolved, and the confederates preserve their sovereignty.
“‘As this government is composed of small republics it enjoys the internal happiness of each; and, with respect to its external situation, it is possessed, by means of the association, of all the advantages of large monarchies." [Spirit of Laws, Book IX. Ch. I.]
I have thought it proper to quote at length these interesting passages, because they contain a luminous abridgment of the principal arguments in favor of the union, and must effectually remove the false impressions which a misapplication of the other parts of the work was calculated to produce. . . .
The definition of a confederate republic seems simply to be “an assemblage of societies," or an association of two or more states into one state. The extent, modifications, and objects, of the federal authority are mere matters of discretion. So long as the separate organisation of the members be not abolished, so long as it subsists by a constitutional necessity for local purposes, though it should be in perfect subordination to the general authority of the union it would still be, in fact and in theory, an association of states, or a confederacy. . ."
- - - - - - - - - -
Federalist XXXIX.
[Madison.]
"The last paper having concluded the observations, which were meant to introduce a candid survey of the plan of government reported by the convention, we now proceed to the execution of that part of our undertaking.
The first question that offers itself is, whether the general form and aspect of the government is strictly republican? It is evident that no other form would be reconcilable with the genius of the people of America; with the fundamental principles of the revolution; or with that honorable determination which animates every votary of freedom, to rest all our political experiments on the capacity of mankind for self-government. If the plan of the convention, therefore, be found to depart from the republican character, its advocates must abandon it as no longer defensible. . . .
“First. In order to ascertain the real charaoter of the government, it may be considered in relation to the foundation on which it is to be established; to the sources from which its ordinary powers are to be drawn; to the operation of those powers; to the extent of them; and to the authority by which future changes in the government are to be introduced.
“On examining the first relation, it appears, on one hand, that the constitution is to be founded on the assent and ratification of the people of America, given by deputies elected for the special purpose; but on the other, that this assent and ratification is to be given by the people, not as individuals composing one entire nation, but as composing the distinct and independent states to which they respectively belong. It is to be the assent and ratification of the several states, derived from the supreme authority in each state — the authority of the people themselves. The act, therefore, establishing the constitution, will not be a national, but a federal act.
“That it will be a federal, and not a national act, as these terms are understood by the objectors, 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. It must result from the unanimous assent of the several states that are parties to it, differing no otherwise from their ordinary assent than in its being expressed, not by the legislative authority, but by that of the people themselves. Were the people regarded in this transaction as forming one nation, the will of the majority of the whole people of the United States would bind the minority; in the same manner as the majority in each state must bind the minority; and the will of the majority must be determined either by a comparison of the individual votes, or by considering the will of the majority of the states, as evidence of the will of a majority of the people of the United States. Neither of these rules has been adopted. 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. In this relation, then, the new constitution will, if established, be a federal, and not a national constitution."
- - - - - - - - - -
Federalist XLV.
[Madison.]
“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 XLVI
[Madison.]
“The federal and state governments are in fact but different agents and trustees of the people, instituted with different powers, and designated for different purposes. The adversaries of the constitution seem to have lost sight of the people altogether, in their reasonings on this subject; and to have viewed these different establishments, not only as mutual rivals and enemies, but as uncontrolled by any common superior, in their efforts to usurp the authorities of each other. These gentlemen must here be reminded of their error. They must be told, that the ultimate authority, wherever the derivative may be found, resides in the people alone; ...”
- - - - - - - - - -
Thanks for expanding our understandings of Senator Jefferson Davis' opinions in May of 1860.
I agree that the issue of transatlantic slave importations is not as simple as anyone might suppose, and we can begin with asking: why did Thomas Jefferson oppose transatlantic importations?
Answers include not just the moral question, but also economic self-interests of Virginia slaveholders.
Virginians developed a hugely profitable business raising and then "exporting" slaves to deeper South states.
But transatlantic importations would provide slave-buyers with an alternate source and thus threaten slave prices.
And since slaves were, if not in Jefferson's time then certainly by 1860, the single largest asset in the United States, any threat to slave values threatened also the economic underpinnings on which Americans depended.
So, for Senator Davis to outright demand an end to outlawing transatlantic importations would make him very unpopular in slave-surplus states like Virginia.
But it would make him very popular in slave-importing states like Mississippi.
Indeed, in November 1858 the Wanderer landed on Jekyll Island, Georgia with 409 slaves from the Congo.
It's owners were prosecuted, but not convicted, and of course the imported slaves remained slaves.
And even as we speak (so to speak) in May of 1860, another slave-ship, Clotilda, has landed in Mississippi near Mobile, Alabama, with a load of 110 slaves.
They had cost the ship-owner about $9,000 total in Dahomey (today Benin), Africa and were worth over $100,000 in US slave markets.
To avoid prosecution, the owners will burn the Clotilda and so keep it hidden until recently discovered, that discovery first reported in May 2019!
It would not take a rocket scientist to figure out the profits from buying slaves in Africa for $100 each then selling them in, say, New Orleans for $1,000 each.
Of course slave-exporters in states like Virginia would not like it, but then that is why master politicians like Senator Davis made the big bucks to support one side without alienating the other.
Possibly even, a brilliant mind like Davis' could figure out that very high slave prices were emptying non-cotton Border States of their slaves and thus weakening their "peculiar institution" in precisely the states the cotton-South needed as stalwart allies.
Wanderer and Clotilda:
"The states were not “sovereigns” in the sense contended for by some. They did not possess the peculiar features of sovereignty,—they could not make war, nor peace, nor alliances, nor treaties. Considering them as political beings, they were dumb, for they could not speak to any foreign sovereign whatever. They were deaf, for they could not hear any propositions from such sovereign. They had not even the organs or faculties of defence or offence, for they could not of themselves raise troops, or equip vessels, for war.... If the states, therefore, retained some portion of their sovereignty [after declaring independence], they had certainly divested themselves of essential portions of it." - Rufus King, 1789
Thanks for the civics lesson on the fine points of definitions between the words "sovereign" and "powers".
Near as I can tell, you have it exactly right: "we the people" are sovereign while state & Federal governments are delegated only such powers as we at pleasure decide.
Now if you will notice, please, the point of this discussion is the May 7, 1860 Senate floor speech of Mississippi Senator Jefferson Davis where he asserts that states are sovereign but Federal government is not.
So you have corrected young Senator Davis by reminding us that neither state nor Federal governments are "sovereign" but both have only such powers as "we the people" may grant them.
Thanks for that.
I suppose it would be within Senator Davis’ interesting views on State sovereignty that each State may regulate or not the slave trade as it sees fit - except that the Constitution reserves that power to Congress.
Exactly. The people are sovereign, not the states or the federal government. And the sovereign people, all the sovereign people, established the constitution and made it the supreme law of the land and bounded the states to it.
“a Constitution by which it was their will that the State governments should be bound.” Chisholm v Georgia 1793
"The states were not “sovereigns” in the sense contended for by some. They did not possess the peculiar features of sovereignty,—they could not make war, nor peace, nor alliances, nor treaties. Considering them as political beings, they were dumb, for they could not speak to any foreign sovereign whatever. They were deaf, for they could not hear any propositions from such sovereign. They had not even the organs or faculties of defence or offence, for they could not of themselves raise troops, or equip vessels, for war.... If the states, therefore, retained some portion of their sovereignty [after declaring independence], they had certainly divested themselves of essential portions of it." - Rufus King, 1789
It is manifestly impossible for any sovereign to divest itself of a portion of its sovereignty, and remain a sovereign. It can lose a portion of its delegated powers; said powers having been delegated to it by the people, the real sovereign.
In any case, the State governments are not sovereigns, the people hold the sovereignty. The people created the State governments and delegated certain powers to the State government, just as they delegated certain powers to the Federal government.
The people as a political group making up a State are the sovereigns and have never ceded the slightest portion of their sovereignty.
If the State government is a sovereign and recognizes no higher power, how does the U.S. Supreme Court strike down State laws, or the Federal congress enact Federal laws that are binding on the States?
As the U.S. Supreme Court can strike down laws passed by Congress and Executive Orders of the President, the Federal Executive and Legislature are not sovereigns either. As the Congress created the Judicial branch, it is not a sovereign. The only Court congress can't abolish is the Supreme Court, however, Congress can strip the Supreme Court of appellate authority, leaving it with not much to do. And as the People can exercise their sovereignty to destroy all three Federal branches, and start over as with the Constitution, the whole Federal government is not sovereign. And the people of any State can rewrite their State constitution anew and destroy their existing government and replace it one more to their liking. It's good to be the sovereign.
The people can delegate their authority to declare war, establish organs or faculties of defence or offence, raise troops, equip vessels for war, or anything else that a sovereign has the power to do. The people can amend the current State or Federal constitution or write a new one.
The government, State or Federal, only has the powers that the people delegated to it, for the purpose of serving the people, as an agent of the people. The agent of the people, through a delegation of power from the people, does not become the sovereign master of the people. Not even a little bit.
After the 14th Amendment it is really hard to find State sovereignty. With that Amendment, the People dictated who is a citizen of a State. A State does not even enjoy self-determination regarding who its citizens are. All persons born, or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the State wherein they reside. When a citizen moves from one State to another, and takes up residence in the new State, he becomes a citizen of the new State of residence. The State does not even have a say in the matter. The real sovereign has spoken.
Right, the US Constitution authorized Congress to abolish or allow international slave importations, so it's odd that Davis is quoted as saying,
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.