[tort_feasor]

I thought I would post some of the actual Constitution as it relates to this debate.

Article 1

Section 7 - The Congress shall have Power...To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections.

Section 9 - The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.

Section 10 - No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation;...

Article 2
Section 1 ...Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation: — "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

It would seem to me that Lincoln or any other president for that matter has the right power to suspend habeus Corpus in times or Rebellion.
It also seems that the "Confederecy" was specifically prohibited.

While Lincoln's presidency saw an expansion of the federal government it was not until FDR that the modern "big government" welfare state was created.

While the original colonies might be seen as having had soverignty prior to the constitution and could possibly succeed, the succession of states that were not in existence when the constitution was created is another question entirely. They never existed as independent "States". They were paid for by the United states government in the Louisiana and subsquent transactions and belonged entirely to the people of the United States as a whole. They also were organized as territories and admitted as states under the Constitution.

[Held_to_Ransom]

Jefferson Davis suspended Habeus Corpus for every single living person in the Confederacy, and except for the 3.5 million slaves who never had it a day in their lives, and who were legally counted as furniture, not people.

Every single man who carried arms in the Confederate Army did so under National Conscription.

[subedei]

"Article 1

Section 7 - The Congress shall have Power...To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections.

Section 9 - The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.

Section 10 - No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation;...

Article 2
Section 1 ...Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation: — "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.".


Article 1, Section 7: An insurrection is different than secession, one of the main issues surrounding the constitution was whether or not the Constitution was a compact of states or the legislative act of the people. If it is the former then each state retained the power, as Jon Roland puts it, "to withdraw from the compact if it were violated, either partially, by nullification of an offending act, or entirely, by secession.". Clearly there is a logical and ideological basis for the proposal that article 1 section 7 did not apply to the seceding states, whether or not you agree to the basis for it is up to you. Does one want an intentionally weakened federal government with power resting primarily in the hands of the states and the people therein, or does one want a powerful centralized federal government with weakened checks and balances against oppression?...

Article 1, Section 9: Lincoln suspended the writ of Habeas Corpus in reaction to the copperheads, what amazingly wicked thing were they doing? Protesting lincolns actions and his violations of the constitution. I seem to remember speech being protected by the first amendment, Lincoln suspended habeas corpus to get rid of opposing voices to his own.

Article 1, Section 10: They seceded, they were no longer bound by the this article of the constitution...

Article 2, Section 1: How was waging war on the south, or for that matter refusing to resolve the issue peaceably as Jackson did, protecting the constitution? How did he protect the constitution by violating it and assuming powers in the executive branch and federal government that were never delegated to them to begin with?


Without the actions of lincoln we never would have had the abuses of power and enlargement of government by FDR. With concepts like Nullification the federal government doesn't have the power to assume rights that were never granted it.

You are wrong to assume that they lost their sovereignty when they joined the union, all one has to do is read the constitutional debates, doctrine of 98', and other writings by the Jeffersonian Republicans and other founding fathers to see this. Does power lay in the hands of the people or the federal government? I cannot see how you could rail against the governmental enlargement and abuses by FDR, and then ignore the previous usurptions of power that caused it to happen, or the fundamental basis of our freedoms and sovereignty.