Posted on 02/17/2006 5:47:19 PM PST by 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...
I don't care what your name is.
"Ironically John Adams for one."
Quote him.
P.S. John Madison's, A.K.A. Father of the Constitution, opinion on the Constitution IS relevant as hell here.
Nonsense. Lincoln offered every possible conciliation to the South with the exception of the only one that the South was truly concerned with --- the right to spread slavery to the entire nation. As a man elected on a Free Soil platform and with that platform absolutely dominating the election, Lincoln could hardly be expected to compromise on that issue. He vowed not to interfere with slavery where it existed. He promised to vigorously enforce the Fugitive Slave Act and respect the Dred Scott decision (both of which he believed to be unconstitutional and abhorrent laws) and he even promised to not force emancipation inside the District of Columbia, something he had strongly supported since his days in Congress. Expecting Lincoln to compromise on the expansion of slavery after he was elected on that very issue would have been like expecting Ronald Regan to come out in favor unilateral disarmament and massive tax increases after he was elected.
Outside the South, where anyone who voiced even the mildest criticism of slavery was considered to be a dangerous radical, Lincoln was seen as a moderate or even as being unfriendly to the true radical abolitionists who were Lincoln's harshest critics in the early years of his presidency. Even Stephen Douglass, the author of the Kansas-Nebraska Act which alienated much of the North, was considered by the South to be an unacceptable radical by 1860 since he supported the idea of popular sovereignty in the territories over what the South demanded -- the unconditional right to take slaves into the territories with or without popular consent. That is what split the Democrats in 1860.
There were plenty of radicals on both sides of the issues then, but none of them considered Lincoln to be a radical. By 1860, there was no possible compromise Lincoln could have made that would have stopped what was to come. Clay, Webster, Calhoun and finally Douglass had brokered every possible compromise over the previous 40 years. There was no room left for either side to maneuver. The "postponement" made in Philadelphia in 1787 in addressing slavery had finally run out as Jefferson and others predicted it would.
Already posted. Let's not play fetch a rock
If that is true then should not the reverse be true as well? Since it requires a majority of states agreeing to admit a new state, can not a majority of states also expel another state?
"...to ourselves and our Posterity..."
You claim that I am a liberal because I interpret those words in the Preamble to mean to "us and everyone that comes after us."
Let's play a game.
You tell me how "to ourselves and our posterity" means something other than to us and everyone that comes after us, and how that does not indicate perpetuity.
If you have to use more words than I did, you lose.
Unilaterally?
"Thus stands the RIGHT. But the indissoluble link of union between the people of the several states of this confederated nation, is after all, not in the right, but in the heart. If the day should ever come, (may Heaven avert it,) when the affections of the people of these states shall be alienated from each other; when the fraternal spirit shall give away to cold indifference, or collisions of interest shall fester into hatred, the bands of political association will not long hold together parties no longer attracted by the magnetism of conciliated interests and kindly sympathies; and far better will it be for the people of the disunited states, to part in friendship from each other, than to be held together by constraint. Then will be the time for reverting to the precedents which occurred at the formation and adoption of the Constitution, to form again a more perfect union, by dissolving that which could no longer bind, and to leave the separated parts to be reunited by the law of political gravitation to the center."
John Adams wrote:
"Their right to secede was not contested. No unfriendly step to injure was taken;...the door was left open for them to return whenever the proud and wayward spirit of state sovereignty should give way to the attractions of clearer sighted self-interest and kindred sympathies."
No one knows its a matter of opinion. Could go either depending on your philosophy.
Wrong again.
The act, therefore, establishing the Constitution, will not be a NATIONAL, but a FEDERAL act.A plan to form a single nation when ratifying the Constitution did not even receive a second.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.
James Madison to the people of New York in Federalist No. 39, "The Same Subject Continued, and the Incoherence of the Objections to the New Plan Exposed", The Federalist Papers, 15 Jan 1788.
That's because you are purposely misconstruing what I said. I did not say that the Articles of Confederation were perpetual, nothing is perpetual that can be changed by Amendment, what I said was that the Union created was perpetual, and that while the Constitution replaced the Articles of Confederation as the mode of government, the perpetuity of the Union remained unchanged.
Adams calls the spirit of State sovereignty which led to secession "wayward", and you call that approval of secession and a contradiction to Madison's words to Jefferson?
"It was generally agreed that the objects of the Union could not be secured by any system founded on the principle of a confederation of Sovereign States." -- James Madison
"...the door was left open for them to return whenever the proud and wayward spirit of state sovereignty should give way to the attractions of clearer sighted self-interest and kindred sympathies." -- John Adams
Madison said that the Constitutional Convention agreed that the Union could not be built on the notion of State sovereignty, and Adams called the notion of State sovereignty a "wayward spirit"...those two guys agreed on State sovereignty.
And neither thought much of it.
Your story is little confused. Mary Todd did date Stephen A. Douglas briefly between the time that she and Abe broke up after their 1st engagement and when they finally tied the knot 2 years later.
Clearly you did not read the document because Adam's next statement is a damaging statement for state nullification of federal law. Adams goes on to debate the merits of state soveriegnty under the Constitution - leaving it in the hearts of men and protected as a natural right.
I'll be back later. Again, read the Jubilee - it might help construct your debate.
Allow me to correct you: I have no intention of "beating anyone up" I am trying to let you know that calling somebody a "TRAITOR" is a very ugly thing. There is no one on FR that I know that deserves that title. Not stand watie, either. Now, that being said, yes, if Hawaii's citizens wished to secede, called a convention, and did it in a peaceful manner, I would support their right to do so. And if I were you, I wouldn't bet on the Government stopping them. They could but wouldn't. Things aren't done that way anymore.
None so blind as those too STUPID to see.
(and I don't mean CJ!)
I truly appreciate your concern. :-)
-------------------------
Natural Law is a philosophy that among other things says that humans are born with certain rights (from nature or God as you chose to believe) and give every individual as Jefferson said the right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."
True... partly. Natural law is not only a philosophy, but also legal concept. It is the source of our natural, inalienable rights.
>>>
Rather, for Aquinas and other natural law thinkers, the issue of lawfulness is not purely descriptive or "value-neutral" as it is for modern legal positivists, but normative. Only just laws "have the power of binding in conscience." It is this issue of "binding in conscience" that informs his endorsement of Augustine's statement that "that which is not just seems to be no law at all; therefore the force of a law depends on the extent of its justice." By "force" he meant moral force of a law to bind in conscience. As John Locke wrote, "we should not obey a king just out of fear, because, being more powerful, he can constrain (this in fact would be to establish firmly the authority of tyrants, robbers, and pirates), but for conscience' sake." Locke concluded from this that, "hence the binding force of civil law is dependent on natural law; and we are not so much coerced into rendering obedience to the magistrate by the power of the civil law as bound to obedience by natural right." Unless they adhere to natural law, "the rulers can perhaps by force and with the aid of arms compel the multitude to obedience, but put them under an obligation they cannot."
Natural Law, the Constitution, and Judicial Review
>>>
As therefore the creator is a being, not only of infinite power, and wisdom, but also of infinite goodness, he has been pleased to contrive the constitution and frame of humanity, that we should want no other prompter to enquire after and pursue the rule of right, but only our own self-love, that universal principle of action. For he has so intimately connected, so inseparably interwoven the laws of eternal justice with the happiness of each individual, that the latter cannot be attained but by observing the former; and, if the former be punctually obeyed, it cannot but induce the latter. In consequence of which mutual connection of justice and human felicity, he has not perplexed the law of nature with a multitude of abstracted rules and precepts, referring merely to the fitness or unfitness of things, as some have vainly surmised; but has graciously reduced the rule of obedience to this one paternal precept, “that man should “pursue his own happiness.” This is the foundation of what we call ethics, or natural law. For the several articles into which it is branched in our systems, amount to no more than demonstrating, that this or that action tends to man's real happiness, and therefore very justly concluding that the performance of it is a part of the law of nature; or, on the other hand, that this or that action is destructive of man's real happiness, and therefore that the law of nature forbids it.
THIS law of nature, being co-equal with mankind and dictated by God himself, is of course superior in obligation to any other. It is binding over all the globe, in all countries, and at all times: no human laws are of any validity, if contrary to this; and much of them as are valid derive all their force, and all their authority, mediately or immediately, from this original.
Sir William Blackstone Commentaries on the Laws of England
This means two things:
Natural law is SUPREME
and NOTHING can exert a higher power over that which created it. This is the legal adage:
’That which you create, you have the right to control’
(Here is a second source at Yale Law School. Unfortunately, the bad transcription job makes it difficult to read)
Sir William Blackstone’s Commentaries are required reading for law students and considered to be ‘the lawyer’s Bible’
-------------------------
Common Law also could only provide remedies for acts -- (your cow ate my corn)
True. But common law is exactly why we're supposed to be 'innocent until proven guilty'. Laws have no legal ability to punish for our POTENTIAL for crime.
To do so is a presumption of guilt before the establishment of legal fact.
Besides-
Prove it was MY cow! :)
If you can prove ownership, then I'll cough up.
If you can't prove ownership & I choose not to exercise ownership 'cause I'm too cheap to reimburse you for the loss, YOU have a free cow!
Enjoy...LOL!
-------------------------
not injunctions (keep your cow out of my corn field.)
Also true. This is where civil law comes into play. The only thing an injunction does is provide 'legal warning' for a possible transgression. If the cow does manage to get into the corn, it's owner would be punished. If it repeatedly does so, the injured party could ask the court to order the animal destroyed for being a nuisance....or you could just shoot it while it was destroying your property.
-------------------------
Take you pick. Was the FSA which was demanded by the Slave States unconstitutional,
The Fugitive Slave Act was based on Article 4, Section 2, Clause 3 of the Constitution, and was part of the document when it was signed. The non slave-holding states were bound by its terms.
or do you admit that the Federal Government had the power to enforce laws, Constitutionally enacted, directly on the People and well outside any Federal enclave?
The federal government was within its legal right to extent its constitutionally enumerated NATIONAL power beyond its enclave for the purpose of enforcing the compact and returning the slaves ONLY if all other avenues had been exhausted in getting the States to comply. If the State refused, it violated the contract.
I'm not sure of the policy/procedure that would happen between the feds notifying the states they’re not in compliance, and actually doing something about it. The federal government does have the authority to enforce the TERMS of the contract, though.
No States could be thrown out of the Union, but if a party no longer wanted to be a part of the contract because it wasn't being honored, it had to leave by its own volition....which is exactly what the southern states did.
Constitutional power can suppress an insurrection or rebellion, but it cannot exercise THAT power on the State. Remember, the States created the federal government.
To tell the States they could not rebel was giving the federal/national government more power that that which created it....it's not contractually possible! *That which you create, you have the right to control*
The State does exist, however, to protect the property of it's citizens and respect the property ownership (ugly as it was in this situation) of the citizens of the other States.
This is the downside of the contract for the States.
-------------------------
You could also condemn George Washington for compelling citizen farmers on private land to pay excise on their distilled spirits being sold to other citizens far from any Federal enclave.
That one, I would have to research further. I know the federal government does have the power to lay excise tax, and specifically on alcohol, but I would have to look at the particulars as to time-frame, location of said citizen, etc.
-------------------------
Madison clearly stated that the Constitution was created by the people as embodied by the States.
True. It was created by the entities (states) that were created by the People... but not directly by the People.
It works in reverse as well. The federal government can only operate in certain areas:
1) the limited jurisdiction of the federal enclave(s)
2) on the states inside its Constitutionally limited jurisdiction.
*A primary reason for a centralized government was to create a standard of weights and measures. The Commerce Clause was supposed to regulate among the several states purchases made from each other....NOT to be confused with the physical movements of goods (any where other than ports)
3) On the People in the case of rebellion, insurrection, or invasion (when requested by the State)
-------------------------
I TOLD you it was a brilliant document!
-------------------------
To say that the Constitution could not act on the people is to among other things make the Bill of Rights absolutely meaningless outside Federal enclaves.
BINGO! Why didn't the Founders do away with all the States Constitutions when they created a federal government?
Because they didn't create one aggregate 'government' in all things..... only in SOME things
The civil/State entities that created the statutory/federal government still existed. Their existence wasn't terminated by the creation of the federal government, so they all kept their State Constitutions. The ONLY time the federal government could act outside it's enclave is when it had the Constitutional authority to do so. The federal Bill of Rights was placed there to protect the People in the federal enclave.
It's also why there was SUCH contention of having a federal BOR. Many Founders were concerned that a BOR for the federal enclave would be misconstrued. They felt the Bill of Rights for the State of Virginia would cover the people under civil law, and there was no need for a BOR listing ‘civil’ rights in a statutory contract.
It's also why Virginia was the first to jump on the newly-created federal government. Madison gives a detailed explanation of how the Constitution switches from federal to national government in Federalist #39. He concludes:
The proposed Constitution, therefore, [even when tested by the rules laid down by its antagonists,] is, in strictness, neither a national nor a federal Constitution, but a composition of both. In its foundation it is federal, not national; in the sources from which the ordinary powers of the government are drawn, it is partly federal and partly national; in the operation of these powers, it is national, not federal; in the extent of them, again, it is federal, not national; and, finally, in the authoritative mode of introducing amendments, it is neither wholly federal nor wholly national.
-------------------------
but nothing Madison said in the Virginia report, (or even Jefferson who was far more radical in the Kentucky Resolution) can on fair reading give comfort to those who think unilateral secession is somehow Constitutional.
Virginia and Kentucky showed breach of contract, and the committee (which consisted of the entire House) agreed!
If a contact (such as the Constitution) is violated by either party (state/federal government) then that it breach of contract, and can be considered null and void by law.
Any contact legally entered can be exited on legal notice. That's what the Declaration of Causes were...legal notice.
-------------------------
As Madison states in one of your previous posts:
>>>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;
States would revert to States on dissolution of the contract.
>>> 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.
Which it wasn't. It was formed INDIRECTLY by the People 'as embodied by the States'.
>>> But whilst the Constitutional compact remains undissolved, it must be executed according to the forms and provisions specified in the compact.
That's just what happened. The compact was no longer recognized by the southern states because the federal government didn't hold the non slave-holding states to the legal terms of the contract. When their are multiple parties to a contract, it doesn't take all those parties to dissolve it. Each can only speak for its self. otherwise, some are kept in it unwilling.
>>> 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.
FREE governments, not enslaved governments. Madison states if the Constitution is not adhered too by all parties, it becomes worthless.
In Federalist #39;
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.
VOLUNTARY act.... not forced act, not coerced act... VOLUNTARY!
If you voluntarily enter into a legal contract, you can voluntarily exit it as well, provided you follow legal procedures.
Madison was considered a Federalist by his contemporaries, but that does NOT mean the Federalists were willing to give federal government absolute power over the People. They just wanted more power from the States.
IMHO, Madison would be appalled at our situation today.
-------------------------
And no, I'm not seeking 'comfort', just facts.
I've enjoyed our exchange immensely, and would like to thank you for it.
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.