To: Non-Sequitur
It's hardly suprising that a court compised of reconstructionists would rule thusly. If they did or did not have the constitutional right to suceed from the Union has been debated endlessly since those days. I for one find it hard to believe that the original states would sign onto anything that they felt they couldn't get out of. It's also true that the confederate congress suspended habeas corpus but they never enforced it with the tyranny that the Union did.
We've gotten quite off topic here but I've enjoyed this little debate anyway. Everyone lost in that damn war. Thanks.
70 posted on
10/13/2003 10:43:35 AM PDT by
Lee Heggy
("the basic delusion that men may be governed and yet be free."H L Menken)
To: Lee Heggy
It's also true that the confederate congress suspended habeas corpus .....WITH the consent of the people. Lincoln suspended the h-c without putting to a vote in Congress. The third time Jeff Davis asked Congress to suspend, the disallowed the suspension.
To: Lee Heggy
It's hardly suprising that a court compised of reconstructionists would rule thusly. Chief Justice Roger Taney said in the dissenting opinion in the 1863 Prize Cases that the president had the power under law to put down the rebellion.
The majority opinion supported the president completely.
There is no right to unilateral state secession in U.S. law.
Walt
160 posted on
10/13/2003 3:36:49 PM PDT by
WhiskeyPapa
(Virtue is the uncontested prize.)
To: Lee Heggy
I submit that the slaves did rather better out of it. I also suppose that the nation eventually did better out of it, because no longer had white men unable to work lest they degrade themselves, and black men unable to rise in life lest they threaten the self esteem of whites.
170 posted on
10/13/2003 9:49:00 PM PDT by
donmeaker
(Bigamy is one wife too many. So is monogamy.)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson