Posted on 11/13/2006 9:25:11 PM PST by freedomdefender
The Abraham Lincoln Bicentennial Commission was created by Congress to inform the public about the impact Abraham Lincoln had on the development of our nation, and to find the best possible ways to honor his accomplishments. The President, the Senate and the House of Representatives appointed a fifteen-member commission to commemorate the 200th birthday of Abraham Lincoln and to emphasize the contribution of his thoughts and ideals to America and the world.
The official public Bicentennial Commemoration launches February 2008 and closes February 2010, with the climax of the Commemoration taking place on February 12, 2009, the 200th anniversary of Lincoln’s birth.
Across the country communities, organizations and individuals have already begun to plan parades, museum exhibitions, performances, art installations and much more.
I don't disagree, but that brings the age-old question --- Do men make the times, or do the times make the men?
I know what he was saying. Even though he knew the actions to be wrong, he was going to follow Virginia regardless because of a misplaced loyalty to state over country. But that does not negate the fact that Lee knew the southern actions were rebellious, unlike modern day Southron supporters who try to cloak the Southern actions in a legality that they don't deserve.
Maybe its a little like the chicken and the egg. Surely, if it were not for the war, we would have never heard of Robert E. Lee or Stonewall Jackon on Jeb Stuart. We may never have realized the quality of a Winfield Scott Hancock or a John Reynolds. What of Dorsey Pender or George Meade? The list is endless... and I have still so much to read about their lives that it will bring a lifetime of joy.
No, I do not think you do. Again, for what he said, please refer to my post 201. I have nothing more to add or subtract.
But I will ask you this question. Do you hold Washington, Jefferson, Henry, Adams with the same contempt that you seem to hold Lee?
Slavery was banned in territories since the very founding -- beginning with the Northwest Ordinance of 1787. See article 6.
ART. 6. There shall be neither slavery nor involuntary servitude in the said territory, otherwise than in the punishment of crimes whereof the party shall have been duly convicted: Provided, always, That any person escaping into the same, from whom labor or service is lawfully claimed in any one of the original States, such fugitive may be lawfully reclaimed and conveyed to the person claiming his or her labor or service as aforesaid.It caused no concern until 1820 and stopped no settlers from the south. In fact, it encouraged many southern yoemen farmers to find land where they did not have to compete with slavery.
Yes, I know about the Northwest Ordinance. What I am saying is, if the state is to decide whether or not she is free or slave, then it really should be left up to that state to decide. She doesn't need help from the federal government in ordinances or bans. The people can decide for themselves. Something that all the ordinances and bans desperately tried to prevent.
And I don't disagree with Lee's logic at all, merely pointing out that the Southern states did leave through rebellion and not through the alternative Lee mentioned, with the consent of the people. Only one side of the equation had a say in the matter. The Southern states left without consultation with the remaining states, so the consent of the people remaining was not obtained. The only interest respected were those in the departing states. That can hardly be supported by the Constituion.
I suppose we have to disagree on that. When the NWO was written, there was wide agreement that slavery was a bad deal for all parties and nearly all of them saw the ultimate hypocrisy of claiming individual liberty as their founding principle while holding slaves. There was no argument that lands controlled by Congress should forbid slavery and they all expected that even in the original states, slavery would have faded away as a relic of colonial rule.
Sadly, the rise of King Cotton and the fabulous wealth that could be made by a few from slavery changed the way men thought about slavery. It went from being an archaic institution that embarrassed most Americans in 1787, North and South, to becoming a very big business over the next two generations.
Let's say the US conquers Canda and divides into 13 territories for settlement. Now, the democratic majority decide that gun ownership is wrong, so these new territories will be "gun free". Anyone can go and settle there, but they cannot enter with guns.
The people who believe in the 2nd amendment say.."It is legal for me to own guns." Sure, is the reply...just not here. Now, what will be the make up the new states? They will be gun free because those are the only people who are allowed in. Now, any can come and settle, that's not the point, the point is what I must lose in hardware and rights in order to make my home there.
Why not let the people decide? Cause the Congress might get gun toting people in there and that is what they are trying to avoid. Hence the ban.
I do not want to waste any more time debating the issue. So, let's just agree to disagree.
It's not that hard.
NS
And you have also posted your claim that such and such Supreme Court decisions are invalid while so and so Supreme Court decision are valid and proper.
You're dodging again. Trying to change the subject to avoid giving a response to Madison's words is a puerile maneuver and any opinion I may have given on Supreme Court rulings in no way nullifies what Madison said.
------
The fact that you happen to believe that they were not following what you consider 'established law' is irrelevant when compared to the opinions of the memebers of the court.
However true, therefore, it may be, that the judicial department is, in all questions submitted to it by the forms of the Constitution, to decide in the last resort, this resort must necessarily be deemed the last in relation to the authorities of the other departments of the government; not in relation to the rights of the parties to the constitutional compact
Madison's Report
To allow every Supreme Court that sits at the bench to determine what 'law' is or not is without following the established rules and/or previous rulings on the subject is what turned us from a "Nation of Laws and not of Men" into a Nation of Men and not of laws.
And that's okay with you?
-----
The Confication Acts of 1861 and 1862 and the Emancipation Proclamation of 1862 gave the government the authority to seize property being used to further the Southern rebellion.
Hmmmmm. I can't find that authority anywhere. Would you like to tell me how any of the branches of government can give itself or another branch authority to do anything?
It rather wipes out the entire principle of enumeration of powers, does it not?
Not to mention that the 'Confiscation Acts':
1)denied the right of due process to the slave owners
Amendment V of the Bill of rights
2)exceeded the areas of exclusive legislation
Article , Section 8, Clause 17
and
3)Violated the prohibition against issuing bills of attainer
Article 1, Section 9, Clause 3
And all of THAT is okay with you too?
-----
Article 4, Section 4
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.
Do you know what Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive means? A State must request of the United States assistance in repelling an invasion or in suppressing domestic violence.
Did the South make such a request? No. It was the federal government that was doing the invading.
-----
But the mere compact, without the power to enforce it, would be of little value. Now this power can be no where so properly lodged, as in the Union itself. Hence, the term guarantee, indicates that the United States are authorized to oppose, and if possible, prevent every state in the Union from relinquishing the republican form of government, and as auxiliary means, they are expressly authorized and required to employ their force on the application of the constituted authorities of each state, "to repress domestic violence." If a faction should attempt to subvert the government of a state for the purpose of destroying its republican form, the paternal power of the Union could thus be called forth to subdue it.
The principle of representation, although certainly the wisest and best, is not essential to the being of a republic, but to continue a member of the Union, it must be preserved, and therefore the guarantee must be so construed. It depends on the state itself to retain or abolish the principle of representation, because it depends on itself whether it will continue a member of the Union. To deny this right would be inconsistent with the principle on which all our political systems are founded, which is, that the people have in all cases, a right to determine how they will be governed.
(snip)
The seceding state, whatever might be its relative magnitude, would speedily and distinctly feel the loss of the aid and countenance of the Union. The Union losing a proportion of the national revenue, would be entitled to demand from it a proportion of the national debt. It would be entitled to treat the inhabitants and the commerce of the separated state, as appertaining to a foreign country. In public treaties already made, whether commercial or political, it could claim no participation, while foreign powers would unwillingly calculate, and slowly transfer to it, any portion of the respect and confidence borne towards the United States.
William Rawle, A View of the Constitution of the United States 1829
BACKGROUND:
William Rawle studied law at Middle Temple, London in 1781, and returned to Philadelphia to open the Rawle Law Offices on September 15, 1783. He quickly took his place among Philadelphia’s legal elite, managing a successful law practice and participating in the formation of the new republic. Rawle’s reputation as a lawyer vaulted him into the position of delegate to the Pennsylvania Constitutional Assembly of 1789. His public service continued when he accepted President Washington’s request to become the first U.S. Attorney for the District of Pennsylvania. As U.S. Attorney, Rawle was instrumental in suppressing the Whiskey Rebellion in Western Pennsylvania and prosecuting the leaders of the insurrection. In 1792, Washington offered Rawle the position of federal judge for the new Pennsylvania district. When Rawle declined that post, Washington offered the position of U.S. Attorney General, which Rawle also declined, choosing instead to maintain his thriving private law practice and to serve existing client and organizations in various positions of leadership.
-----
And if the South said 'No'?
So you're justifying almost a million deaths on a question the government never even BOTHERED to ask?
-----
they took whatever federal property they could get their hands on, all without any thought for the interests of the remaining states.
And what 'federal property' would that be? That phrase is like 'government money'., there's no such thing. The federal government held property in trust for the collective States. It 'owned' nothing.
Once legal notification was given, any property ceded to the general government again reverted to the ownership of the State.
Any negotiations for recompense to the other states could and should have been directed to the government of the Confederacy.
-----
Did you know that the State could kick the federal enclave out even today?
§ 1214. Nor can the cession be justly an object of jealousy to any state; or in the slightest degree impair its sovereignty. The ceded district is of a very narrow extent; and it rests in the option of the state, whether it shall be made or not. There can be little doubt, that the inhabitants composing it would receive with thankfulness such a blessing, since their own importance would be thereby increased, their interests be subserved, and their rights be under the immediate protection of the representatives of the whole Union. It is not improbable, that an occurrence, at the very close of the revolutionary war, had a great effect in introducing this provision into the constitution.
Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution
In fact, when the Constitution was (still) being adhered too, the States had just as much right to declare an action of the federal government unconstitutional as the federal government had to declare an act of a State unconstitutional.
It was part of the careful separation of powers in the original construction that kept the governments watching each other instead of interfering in the lives of the People.
-----
Wouldn't the time to settle matters like that be before the separation when the interests of both sides can be protected?
Oh, please. South Carolina petitioned the federal government 25 years before on the subject of unfair tariffs on cotton and prior to sending their Declaration of Causes.
Before Lincoln took office, Buchanan spent MONTHS playing the middle ground, REFUSEING to even see the representatives of South Carolina even though Congress had acknowledging the receipt of the notification.
The federal government REFUSED to leave, REFUSED to talk, and the incoming president has made it quite clear the he would not 'allow' slavery....period.
Your conjecture that matters 'could have been settled' might ring true if the federal government had made any attempt to do so.
-----
BTW- The 3 branches are separate but equal. Just because Congress is specifically mentioned doesn't mean any of the enumerations doesn't affect the other branches equally. The Founders only listed Congress first because they felt IT would be the first to get out of hand.
Therefore, your 'Supreme Court' findings that make secession 'illegal' are also unconstitutional according to Article 1, Section 9, Clause 3
No branch of the government can make something 'illegal' after the fact.
Until the measure was resubmitted to the people, the last word of people themselves should have stood. An honorable government would have resubmitted the proposal to the people and only then left the Union if that was the people's expressed wish. But an election under the guns of an alien army isn't usually considered a fair rest.
With regard to Brownlow, I knew you would like that. Remember that he was charged with treason.
Considering the quality of men who labeled him a traitor, I would think that a compliment.
Also a lot of people tend to forget about something... The South started the war.. Not Lincoln...
It's simple for those who want to see. A group of southern politicians manufactured a crisis ostensibly induced by a bogus list of non-offenses, but in reality was a naked grab for political power by a narrow and privileged class. A reading of Lincoln's first inaugural address clearly and effectively reveals the guilty party in these times.
"Point 3: No, that's not true."
Says you.
My word, you don't have to be so rude. I never said that you had to agree with me. If you don't...that's fine by me.
I'm not sure where the disconnect is. I agree that those are the two options Lee mentions. But Lee said secession was possible through "revolution, or the consent of all the people in convention assembled." Well, all the people didn't have a chance to grant their consent, only those of the seceding states. The input of those remaining was not solicited and their rights were not respected. So Lee's second option was not taken, on the first. Rebellion.
I don't think you grasp the concept of revolution.
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.