Federalist Patriot bashes Abe Linclon

2/17/06 | Mobile Vulgus

[Mobile Vulgus]

I don't know how many of you get the Federalist Patriot report via email, but it is a great source of conservative news and opinion that all of you should get.

You can find their site at:

http://patriotpost.us/

Anyway, even though I support them, they sent out an email today that bashed Abe Lincoln fiercely. I was so moved to annoyance by their biased and ill thought out email that I had to write them and say how disappointed I was.

You can go to their site and see the anti-Lincoln screed that they put out to know exactly what I am replying to if you desire to do so.

Now, I know some of you freepers are primo confederate apologists so I thought this would stir debate on freerepublic!!

Now, let the fur fly as we KNOW it must...

[Ciexyz]

I'll make sure and read the latest Fed-Pat digest.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Those sites are the sources of most of the canned quotes thrown up in lieu of argument here generally by those trying to defend the Insurrectionists of 1861.

My judgments are not limited to responses to small quotations. Nor do I consider myself that authoritative but when I see the same errors posted and reposted it gets tiresome in the extreme. One of the most egregious is the idea that since secession was not specifically forbidden it was allowed. This is like claiming that "divorce" should be mentioned in the marriage ceremony.

If the Constitution was so simple it would not have generated thousands of books trying to explain it. It is not and cannot be simple any more than the Bible could be.
As for the understanding of most people it is so limited as to be ludicrous. Even a site like this has people posting error after error which even non-experts can spot.

Oh, and perhaps you didn't know but the majority of the writers of the Constitution were lawyers. As were Jefferson, Hamilton, Adams, Madison, Monroe, Morris etc. etc.

[Ditto]

Wouldn't the Union be "more perfect" if "Taxachusetts" seceded and the Ted and John show disappeared forever? :^)

See my posts 136 and 145. Using the Lost Cause Constitutional logic that the Union is not perpetual and that actions not expressly prohibited are allowed, the rest of us could simply expel Taxachusetts from the Union (or better yet, sell it along with their French-looking Senator to the highest bidder) with or without their permission. ;~))

If one state can act unilaterally in leaving, why not a bunch of states acting in unison to unilaterally expel? Now that would be cool. I think we could get the required number of states to agree with out much trouble.

[WayneS]

I see it.

It is not an easy task to point out the one-time legality in this nation of such a brutal and immoral institution as slavery. You must expect to be accused of being a racist or a "slaver" wannabe or a confederate sympathizer or a Klan member, or whatever. You must expect to be accused of "defending slavery"; but not by me.

What you wrote in your post is historical fact. It is uncomfortable historical fact, but that does not diminish its truth.

Thank you.

[justshutupandtakeit]

I don't do links or many quotes so if that bothers you you will have to talk to others. I prefer speaking with people who primarily use their own words not the words of others. Though I have referred you to Hamilton's Essay on the National Bank which explains comprehensively how one determines the constitutionality of an action. It would show you also why secession was not constitutional though not directed at that issue.

You appear not to recognize the entire intent of writing the Constitution was to Strengthen the federal government and Weaken the state governments NOT the other way around.
It certainly did put a straight jacket on the states but there were few prohibitions on federal actions in the Constitution prior to the BoR which hopefully others by now have convinced you was directed at the fedgov and not the states as I claimed earlier.

[justshutupandtakeit]

You claim they discussed the issue of secession at the Convention or elsewhere I would like to see where you have seen any such discussion. I have read Madison's notes and Hamilton and see NO reference to that topic.

In fact the ONLY reference (though not called secession) is in Washington's Farewell Address which warns about listening to those who would advocate such a thing.

[WayneS]

I am a long-time supporter of what I call "forced secession"; and, of course, I have a few candidates in mind. Most of them could join together into their own nation and call themselves "The Peoples Republic of the Northeast".

Hmmmmmmm. What if???

Jeez, I think I might actually only be half joking...

[justshutupandtakeit]

Lol

Unfortunately such a pleasant though gets crashed by the realization that these idiots would probably allow an al Queda training center to be set up there.

[MamaTexan]

Slavery was an accepted, legal institution when the Declaration of Independence was written, the Revolution was fought and the Constitution was signed.

Yes. Establishing a legal, political entity known as the United States.

---------

including a strong executive and superiority of national over state laws and explicitly declares that the constitutions of the states states must conform to it, not the other way around.

No.

Which came first, the commonwealth States, or the federal government?

The States, of course!

Federalist #39

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 have 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.

________________________________________________________________

Samuel Adams to Elbridge Gerry

The Sovereignty of the State extends over every part of its Territory. The federal Constitution expresses the same Idea in Sec. 8, Art. 1. A Power is therein given to Congress "to exercise like Authority," that is to exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, "over all places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature in which the same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, and other needful Buildings," among which Light-houses may be included. Is it not the plain Conclusion from this Clause in the Compact, that Congress have not the Right to exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, nor even to purchase or controul any part of the Territory within a State for the Erection of needful Buildings unless it has the Consent of its Legislature.

---------

If you see it as a contract, you can only then be of the anti-Federalist (anti-Constitution) camp since the constitution puts itself above state constitutions which is the reason the anti-Federalists opposed adoption.

Uh, then why do I keep using the Federalist papers?

Because even the Federalists knew the meaning of the words *Republic* and *limited* government. :-)

[MamaTexan]

By the way, thanks for the discussion on the Bill of Rights.

Very much my pleasure!

-------

would find the idea of the Bill of Rights NOT applying to the States easier to accept if the Federal government was actually being run in accordance with the ideas expressed in the highlighted passages from the Federalist which you cite.

LOL! Took me many years to recover from my public education.

-------

So, since the Second Amendment doesn't actually contain the words "Congress shall make no law infringing on the right of the people to keep and bear arms", and instead simply says the right "shall not be infringed", I assume it applies to the entirety of our government(s).

Nope. Only to the government of the federal enclave known as the United States, plus it's 'jurisdiction' consisting of it's forts, ports arsenals and any property deeded to the United States by a State.

The Constitution says exactly what it means and means exactly what it says. Thats why you'll find similar words like citizen and person in one clause, yet they mean entirely two different things. Just like State and United States.

It's a brilliant piece of work!

-------

You, at least, have provided a coherent argument to the contrary which I shall digest and consider. Thanks again.

FReepers like you are why I love FR! Rational discussions are wonderful things!

[MamaTexan]

Hey Hon! You know how it goes.

Life keeps interrupting my FReep time.

(grin)

[MamaTexan]

What you wrote in your post is historical fact. It is uncomfortable historical fact, but that does not diminish its truth.

Yes, and Thank you....VERY much.

[MamaB]

Baloney. If it were not for the people in the South, Kerry would have been President.

[WayneS]

There are two basic ways to interpret documents like the Constitution (and other laws).

The first, the Strict/Totalitarian method declares that anything which is not specificallty allowed under the law in question is forbidden. You tread dangerously close to this type of interpretation when you find limits on our state governments' sovereignty which are not specifically mentioned in the Constitution.

The other, liberal with a small "l", method declares "that which is not expressly forbidden is allowed".

A free society has no choice but to lean towards interpreting its laws in the small "l" liberal manner or it quickly becomes a non-free society.

Remember, the Constitution does not give us our rights, we already have those. The Constitution permits only those infringements upon our God-given rights as MUST be infringed in order for our government to perform its essential functions (and ONLY its essential functions).

So, from a Constitutional stand-point, that which is not specifically forbidden is allowed. Thus states' right to secede exists.

And since divorce is not specifically forbidden (at least under the laws of my state) it is allowed. It does not NEED to be mentioned in the marriage ceremony because it is allowed. As with secession, is it desirable? Not by me; but it IS allowed.

[Ditto]

Basically, some states were taking from citizens of another state without any established legal right to do so. The federal government did not fulfill its legal obligation and enforce the contract.

Some individual citizens, i.e. white mostly from the north but some southern, were helping slaves escape bondage. Neither the northern states nor the Federal government helped them and most northern states had no desire to see more blacks enter their states.

But it is false to say that the Federal government did not fulfill its obligation to return those escaped slaves to the south. First, I would remind you that in the years before 1861, the Federal government was firmly in the hands of either Southern politicians or Northerners like Buchanan who were sympathetic with the south. The Supreme Court was firmly in southern hands. The Fugitive Slave Act (FSA) was was being enforced in the North at a very heavy expense by the Federal government. (Getting just one slave out of the City of Boston and on to a ship back to his "owner" cost the US treasury over a $100,000.)

Aside from the fact that the FSA went far beyond what any of the founders envisioned in the constitutional requirement that states respect the "property rights" of other states, the FSA also required individual citizens even against their will and under penalty of law, to participate in posies at the direction of Federal Marshals or deputized "slave catchers." It was without question at that point in time the most egregious violation of civil liberty in history. Add to that, the FSA virtually encouraged kidnapping of free blacks. It's rules on who could testify in the special courts that administered the law (blacks could not testify) the slave hunters (people that the south even considered to be among the lowest form of human character,) regularly abducted free blacks who had never been slaves and sell them into slavery in the south. Yet the Federal government including most Northern politicians went along with the FSA in an attempt to appease the South. Even Lincoln promised to continue to enforce the FSA once he took office.

The "property" argument used in the south was quite simply a subterfuge. The total escaped "property" that actually made it across the Mason Dixon line was a financially insignificant amount. Especially the slaves who could make it from the deep south where the fake wailing about escaped slaves was the loudest.

Westward expansion of slavery was the crux of the problem and the North, with the election of Lincoln finally drew a line in the sand that slavery would not expand beyond where it then existed. That is what drove secession.

For some interesting comments on this, see the Toombs/Stephens 'secession debate' before the Georgia state legislature.

[Ditto]

And since divorce is not specifically forbidden (at least under the laws of my state) it is allowed. It does not NEED to be mentioned in the marriage ceremony because it is allowed.

Unilateral divorce? Just say "I divorce you" 3 times like the Muslims do, and that's it?

Hmmmmm? What state are you in? South Islamostan?

[Ditto]

...including a strong executive and superiority of national over state laws and explicitly declares that the constitutions of the states states must conform to it, not the other way around.

No.

So you don't think that the Constitution requires state constitutions to conform to it? Hmmmmm? Better check you "sources".

[Ditto]

Uh, then why do I keep using the Federalist papers?

Got me Mom. If you think unilateral secession is constitutional, I am mystified why you would quote the Federalist papers, especially one written by James Madison.

James Madison to Daniel Webster15 Mar. 1833Writings 9:604--5

I return my thanks for the copy of your late very powerful Speech in the Senate of the United S. It crushes "nullification" and must hasten the abandonment of "Secession." But this dodges the blow by confounding the claim to secede at will, with the right of seceding from intolerable oppression. The former answers itself, being a violation, without cause, of a faith solemnly pledged. The latter is another name only for revolution, about which there is no theoretic controversy. Its double aspect, nevertheless, with the countenance recd from certain quarters, is giving it a popular currency here which may influence the approaching elections both for Congress & for the State Legislature. It has gained some advantage also, by mixing itself with the question whether the Constitution of the U.S. was formed by the people or by the States, now under a theoretic discussion by animated partizans.

It is fortunate when disputed theories, can be decided by undisputed facts. And here the undisputed fact is, that the Constitution was made by the people, but as imbodied into the several states, who were parties to it and therefore made by the States in their highest authoritative capacity. They might, by the same authority & by the same process have converted the Confederacy into a mere league or treaty; or continued it with enlarged or abridged powers; or have imbodied the people of their respective States into one people, nation or sovereignty; or as they did by a mixed form make them one people, nation, or sovereignty, for certain purposes, and not so for others.

The Constitution of the U.S. being established by a Competent authority, by that of the sovereign people of the several States who were the parties to it, it remains only to inquire what the Constitution is; and here it speaks for itself. It organizes a Government into the usual Legislative Executive & Judiciary Departments; invests it with specified powers, leaving others to the parties to the Constitution; it makes the Government like other Governments to operate directly on the people; places at its Command the needful Physical means of executing its powers; and finally proclaims its supremacy, and that of the laws made in pursuance of it, over the Constitutions & laws of the States; the powers of the Government being exercised, as in other elective & responsible Governments, under the controul of its Constituents, the people & legislatures of the States, and subject to the Revolutionary Rights of the people in extreme cases.

It might have been added, that whilst the Constitution, therefore, is admitted to be in force, its operation, in every respect must be precisely the same, whether its authority be derived from that of the people, in the one or the other of the modes, in question; the authority being equally Competent in both; and that, without an annulment of the Constitution itself its supremacy must be submitted to.

The only distinctive effect, between the two modes of forming a Constitution by the authority of the people, is that if formed by them as imbodied into separate communities, as in the case of the Constitution of the U.S. a dissolution of the Constitutional Compact would replace them in the condition of separate communities, that being the Condition in which they entered into the compact; whereas if formed by the people as one community, acting as such by a numerical majority, a dissolution of the compact would reduce them to a state of nature, as so many individual persons. But whilst the Constitutional compact remains undissolved, it must be executed according to the forms and provisions specified in the compact. It must not be forgotten, that compact, express or implied is the vital principle of free Governments as contradistinguished from Governments not free; and that a revolt against this principle leaves no choice but between anarchy and despotism.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Not quite. That which is not specifically forbidden and which is not contrary to the spirit of the Constitution and is not immoral is allowed. This still does not say that such laws as pass this test (Hamilton's test) are good or desirable laws.

You go astray when you contend that state "sovereignty" allows its withdrawal from the Union. There is no state sovereignty which applies outside the state boundaries hence any actions taken by one which affects other states must be either unconstitution by nature or must be adjudicated by the federal courts.

Your arguments overlook the nature of a constitution and its being the law of the land. It is not just an arrangement overthrown by unilateral decision. You like quotes read Andy Jackson about this issue.

[Luis Gonzalez]

"The Constitution was a voluntary contract with NO provision for future coercion."

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Posterity posterity n. 1. Future generations. 2. All of a person's descendents. (Lat. posteritas.) Source: AHD

Ordain ordain v. 2. To order by or as if by decree. (Lat. ordinaire, to organize) Source: AHD