Abraham Lincoln Bicentennial - 2009; the official work and preparation begins now

You're probably right. I was being sensitive. I picked up on the fact that you don't you like to be disagreed with. So, let's just leave it. (If you can)

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.

As Chief Justice Marshall said it is emphatically the responsibility of the judiciary to say what the law is, the Consitution grants them the jurisdiction to do so. Neither the founders, or any reasonable individual, could believe that deciding what was Constitutional and what was not could be left up to the states or to individuals. Our conversation here is proof of that.

In performing their duties the Courts do give a great deal of weight to legal precedence. I think this is evident in the fact that the courts do not often overturn the decisions of prior courts. But to suggest that the courts need to be bound in all instances by prior rulings and established beliefs on a subject is foolish. Had the court done that then we wouldn't have had Brown v. Board of Education overturning Plessey v. Ferguson, the Court could never reexamine Roe v. Wade, we would be stuck in the past.

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.

Article I gives the government the power to suppress rebellion. The courts found that the Confiscation acts were a tool that Congress chose to use as a tool to suppress the insurrection.

And all of THAT is okay with you too?

Well if I'm engaged in rebellion I guess I might squawk, but the court did rule that in cases like that the protections afforded by the Constitution to those abiding by the law did not extend to those violating it.

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.

Article I, Section 8, Clause 15 gives Congress the power to call out the milita to suppress rebellion. It says nothing about the state having to request intervention in that case. The Militia Acts passed in 1792 and 1795 gave the President the authority to call out the militia when Congress was not in session "...whenever the laws of the United States shall be opposed or the execution thereof obstructed, in any state, by combinations too powerful to be suppressed by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, or by the powers vested in the marshals by this act..." Lincoln had all the authority necessary to call out troops to put down the Southern rebellion.

So you're justifying almost a million deaths on a question the government never even BOTHERED to ask?

The 600,000 plus deaths lie at the feet of Jefferson Davis and the Southern leadership who chose armed rebellion to further their aims.

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.

Assuming, for the sake of arguement, that that is true then didn't the federal facilities, property, and structures in the Southern states belong to all the states collectively and not just the state they were located in? And that South Carolina had no more right to seize Fort Sumter without compensation than New York had to seize Fort Hamilton?

Once legal notification was given, any property ceded to the general government again reverted to the ownership of the State.

Under what rule of law? The land Sumter was built on was deeded to the federal government free and clear by an act of the South Carolina legislature. The state had no claims to it whatsoever. The fort was built by the government through revenues provided by all the states, not just South Carolina. Once the federal government took ownership of the land and built the fort then only an act of Congress could change that.

Any negotiations for recompense to the other states could and should have been directed to the government of the Confederacy.

Again, that is like my requesting you turn over legal title of your house to me, free and clear, and only then will I make an offer to pay for it. What obligation do I have to be fair? I have title to the property. The time to settle questions like that was before leaving, not after.

Did you know that the State could kick the federal enclave out even today?

I'm not aware of any case where states used eminent domain to take over federal property without consent of Congress. Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 would seem to prevent that.

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.

That does not justify rebellion.

Therefore, your 'Supreme Court' findings that make secession 'illegal' are also unconstitutional according to Article 1, Section 9, Clause 3.

Nonsense. Article I, Section 9, Clause 3 does not apply because the Court was not making law only ruling on the Constitutionality of laws passed by the Texas legislature in support of their acts of secession. Article III, Section 2 gives them that authority.

I don't think you grasp the concept of revolution

And why don't you enlighten me?

Why should I bother? You are just being coy. You were probably taught about revolution when you learned American history, so I do not think I need to repeat the lesson.

It is ok with me if you quote secession decree documents as long as you know they are not legal documents.

That's a very odd statement coming from a self confessed historian.

Are you suggesting that newspaper articles, political speeches, military dispatches, and other social commentaries of that era lack validity simply because they weren't notarized?

As Chief Justice Marshall said it is emphatically the responsibility of the judiciary to say what the law is

As long as the judiciary is ruling within the confines of the Constitution, yes.

Please provide a source for Marshalls statement.

-----

Article I, Section 8, Clause 15 gives Congress the power to call out the milita to suppress rebellion.

Trying to maintain a guaranteed Republican form of government is not 'rebellion', it is upholding the Constitution.

-----

But to suggest that the courts need to be bound in all instances by prior rulings and established beliefs on a subject is foolish.

LOL!

Those 'beliefs' you so easily discount were given by the acknowledged Constitutional lawyers and Judges of the day. The last quote was from a man whose Constitutional and legal knowledge was so highly regarded by George Washington he requested that William Rawle become the US Attorney General, yet that still isn't adequate for the all-knowing NS.

For 30 years, secession was acknowledged a a viable legal option of a State guaranteed by the Republican form of government expressed in the Constitution.

Yet again, not being what you want to hear, you disregard everything outside your limited time frame of about 1860 on.

-----

The Militia Acts passed in 1792 and 1795 gave the President the authority to call out the militia when Congress was not in session "...whenever the laws of the United States shall be opposed or the execution thereof obstructed, in any state, by combinations too powerful to be suppressed by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, or by the powers vested in the marshals by this act..."

Oh! How conveeeenint you only posted that section. Let's try it from the beginning-

1. Militia Act of 1792, Second Congress, Session I. Chapter XXVIII Passed May 2, 1792, providing for the authority of the President to call out the Militia
Section 1. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That whenever the United States shall be invaded, or be in imminent danger of invasion from any foreign nation or Indian tribe, it shall be lawful for the President of the United States, to call forth such number of the militia of the state or states most convenient to the place of danger or scene of action as he may judge necessary to repel such invasion, and to issue his orders for that purpose, to such officer or officers of the militia as he shall think proper; and in case of an insurrection in any state, against the government thereof, it shall be lawful for the President of the United States, on application of the legislature of such state, or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened) to call forth such number of the militia of any other state or states, as may be applied for, or as he may judge sufficient to suppress such insurrection.

The South was neither invading, foreign, or a member of an Indian tribe, nor were the People revolting against any of governments of the States. The States refusing to obey unconstitutional edicts from an entity that was designed to protect them is not 'rebellion'. There was no request to the federal government as per Constituently outlined procedures.... so the authority for a sitting President to call forth the militia to invade a state came from where, exactly?

Not to mention no Congressional Act can override any part of the Constitution. To allow such would make the entire document meaningless. The provisions of Article 4, Section 4 are paramount to any legislative. executive or judicial action of the federal government.

Ahem, BTW...Article I, Section 8, Clause 15 cannot operate outside the provisions for such actions laid out in Article 4 Section 4.While Article 1 is a declaratory clause, Article 4 is a RESTRICTIVE clause, and contains any enumerated power in Article 1.

( Legal contracts cannot contradict themselves...it makes them 'illegal')

-----

And that South Carolina had no more right to seize Fort Sumter without compensation than New York had to seize Fort Hamilton?

You can seize something that belongs to you, even if that ownership is shared with others.

-----

The land Sumter was built on was deeded to the federal government free and clear by an act of the South Carolina legislature. The state had no claims to it whatsoever.

Please see all the previous posts on how the States remained sovereign within their own borders.

-----

Article I, Section 9, Clause 3 does not apply because the Court was not making law only ruling on the Constitutionality of laws passed by the Texas legislature in support of their acts of secession.

Okay. The entire concept of 'separate but EQUAL' just passed right by you.

If the legislature can pass no ex post facto law, it also means the President can make no ex post facto edict and the judiciary can make no ex post fact finding.

Um...do you know ex post facto means, don't you?

-----

This has really just been a blast, but it seems odd that you think you have a better grasp of Constitutional meaning that the Founders and 3 decades of Constitutional legal authorities.

Why can't rational thinking Americans get past the reflexive 'Lincoln was right' and 'slavery=South=evil' that was instilled by their (government-funded) public education long enough to objectively look at the evidence?

Oh, I forgot. You have no interest in truth, only affirmation. The conceptual difference between the legal aspects and the moral aspects of the history of slavery in America still lies beyond your grasp.

The irony is the very 'authority' the federal government prostituted to (supposedly) adhere to the Constitution and force federal will on the States was exactly what the Founders wrote the Constitution to prevent.

Sad all that all their blood and efforts were so obviously wasted.

A political system which does not contain an effective provision for a peaceable decision of all controversies arising within itself, would be a Govt. in name only. Such a provision is obviously essential; and it is equally obvious that it cannot be either peaceable or effective by making every part an authoritative umpire. The final appeal in such cases must be to the authority of the whole, not to that of the parts separately and independently. This was the view taken of the subject, whilst the Constitution was under the consideration of the people. It was this view of it which dictated the clause declaring that the Constitution & laws of the U. S. should be the supreme law of the Land, anything in the constn or laws of any of the States to the contrary notwithstanding.
James Madison, Notes on Nullification 1835--36

For me, the key sentence in what you've quoted is: "The final appeal in such cases must be to the authority of the whole, not to that of the parts separately and independently." That's a pretty clear statement of the objection to nullification -- and also to secession. So if the government or a portion of the population of a state wanted to change its status with respect to the union, or if some of the states wanted to admit or eject a state from the union, such an action has to be done through federal channels -- by "the authority of the whole" -- not separately on the state level. The arguments against nullification in "Notes on Nullification" also apply against unilateral secession.

A political system which does not contain an effective provision for a peaceable decision of all controversies arising within itself, would be a Govt. in name only. Such a provision is obviously essential; and it is equally obvious that it cannot be either peaceable or effective by making every part an authoritative umpire. The final appeal in such cases must be to the authority of the whole, not to that of the parts separately and independently.

The "authority of the whole", while referring to the authority of the general, or 'federal' government, was the intent behind the Constitution being the supreme law of the land. That supremacy, however, does not override the authority of the states, it just means the respective governments must adhere to their own spheres of operation.

The authority not given to the federal government was retained by the States.

-----

The final appeal in such cases must be to the authority of the whole, not to that of the parts separately and independently. This was the view taken of the subject, whilst the Constitution was under the consideration of the people. It was this view of it which dictated the clause declaring that the Constitution & laws of the U. S. should be the supreme law of the Land, anything in the constn or laws of any of the States to the contrary notwithstanding.

As extra protection, the Founders added this restrictive clause: anything in the constn or laws of any of the States to the contrary notwithstanding and provided for it by having the States insert this into their constitutions:

THE TEXAS CONSTITUTION
Article 1 - BILL OF RIGHTS
Section 24 - MILITARY SUBORDINATE TO CIVIL AUTHORITY
The military shall at all times be subordinate to the civil authority

***

CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF KANSAS
BILL OF RIGHTS
Sec. 4. The people have the right to bear arms for their defense and security; but standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and shall not be tolerated, and the military shall be in strict subordination to the civil power.

***

CONSTITUTION OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
PART THE FIRST A Declaration of the Rights of the Inhabitants of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
Article XVII. The people have a right to keep and to bear arms for the common defence. And as, in time of peace, armies are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be maintained without the consent of the legislature; and the military power shall always be held in an exact subordination to the civil authority, and be governed by it.

***

THE CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF NEVADA
ARTICLE. 1. Declaration of Rights
Sec. 11. Right to keep and bear arms; civil power supreme.
2. The military shall be subordinate to the civil power; No standing army shall be maintained by this State in time of peace, and in time of War, no appropriation for a standing army shall be for a longer time than two years.

***

All the States have them. Outside its Constitutionally enumerated area of exclusive jurisdiction, the federal government becomes a military authority instead of a civil one.

Thats why the states have 'military subordinate to civil authority', it retains their sovereignty by giving them authority over the federal government within their own borders....well, it's supposed to, anyway.

States insert ~~this~~ these type of clauses into

As long as the judiciary is ruling within the confines of the Constitution, yes.

And who decides if they are ruling within the confines of the Constitution? You?

Please provide a source for Marshalls statement.

"It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases, must of necessity expound and interpret that rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the courts must decide on the operation of each. So if a law be in opposition to the constitution: if both the law and the constitution apply to a particular case, so that the court must either decide that case conformably to the law, disregarding the constitution; or conformably to the constitution, disregarding the law: the court must determine which of these conflicting rules governs the case. This is of the very essence of judicial duty." -- Chief Justice Marshall, Marbury v. Madison

Trying to maintain a guaranteed Republican form of government is not 'rebellion', it is upholding the Constitution.

The Supreme Court saw it otherwise.

Those 'beliefs' you so easily discount were given by the acknowledged Constitutional lawyers and Judges of the day.

Plessey v. Ferguson was supported by Constitutional lawyers and judges of it's day, and was probably supported by the majority of the people. But institutional discrimination and 'separate but equal' was overturned by a later court in the Brown v. Topeka Board of Education, et.al. Should the Warren Court not oveturned the earlier case merely because it would mean overturning precedent?

For 30 years, secession was acknowledged a a viable legal option of a State guaranteed by the Republican form of government expressed in the Constitution.

Turns out they were wrong. Or at least unilateral secession was found to be unconstitutional.

The South was neither invading, foreign, or a member of an Indian tribe, nor were the People revolting against any of governments of the States.

Glossed right by section 2 didn't you? As incorporated into the 1795 revision: "And be it further enacted, That whenever the laws of the United States shall be opposed or the execution thereof obstructed, in any state, by combinations too powerful to be suppressed by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, or by the powers vested in the marshals by this act, the same being notified to the President of the United States, by an associate justice or the district judge, it shall be lawful for the President of the United States to call forth the militia of such state to suppress such combinations, and to cause the laws to be duly executed. And if the militia of a state, where such combinations may happen, shall refuse, or be insufficient to suppress the same, it shall be lawful for the President, if the legislature of the United States be not in session, to call forth and employ such numbers of the militia of any other state or states most convenient thereto, as may be necessary, and the use of militia, so to be called forth, may be continued, if necessary, until the expiration of thirty days after the commencement of the ensuing session."

The south was most certainly engaged in insurrection, the laws were most certainly being opposed by forces too great to be handled by local judicial procedings, and the militias of the state were not capable of putting down the rebellion on their own because they were, in fact, part of it. Add to that the fact that Congress was not in session and Lincoln was well within his authority to call out the troops after the South initiated hostilities.

The States refusing to obey unconstitutional edicts from an entity that was designed to protect them is not 'rebellion'.

The states were not empowered to decide what was constitutional and what was not. Their actions were most certainly rebellion.

Not to mention no Congressional Act can override any part of the Constitution. To allow such would make the entire document meaningless. The provisions of Article 4, Section 4 are paramount to any legislative. executive or judicial action of the federal government.

The powers granted by the Congress to the president are limited in duration. They do not override the Constitution but recognize that Congress was not in session 12 months out of the year. And to the best of my knowledge the Militia Acts were not found unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.

Ahem, BTW...Article I, Section 8, Clause 15 cannot operate outside the provisions for such actions laid out in Article 4 Section 4.While Article 1 is a declaratory clause, Article 4 is a RESTRICTIVE clause, and contains any enumerated power in Article 1.

Article I, Section 8, Clause 15 gives the government the power and the duty to combat rebellion. It does not have anything to do with domestic violence or invasion.

You can seize something that belongs to you, even if that ownership is shared with others.

Really? If you and I jointly own a piece of property I can claim sole ownership at any time merely by claiming you violated the agreement, without having to prove my claim and without any compensation due to you? I suggest you don't go into partnership with anyone.

Please see all the previous posts on how the States remained sovereign within their own borders.

Nonsense. A December 31, 1836 act of the South Carolina legislature said, "Resolved, That this state do cede to the United States, all the right, title and claim of South Carolina to the site of Fort Sumter and the requisite quantity of adjacent territory..." provided the fort was not used to shelter fugitives from South Carolina law. So when South Carolina says that the state ceded all rights, title, and claims are you saying that they were lying?

If the legislature can pass no ex post facto law, it also means the President can make no ex post facto edict and the judiciary can make no ex post fact finding.

Um...do you know ex post facto means, don't you?

I do indeed, but I'm not sure you have a thorough understanding of how the courts work. Ex post facto means criminalizing actions that had been legal when the action was committed. That's not what the Supreme Court did. What the court ruled in Texas v. White, and which it does all the time in it's decisions, was to rule that the southern acts of unilateral secession had never been legal in the first place.

This has really just been a blast, but it seems odd that you think you have a better grasp of Constitutional meaning that the Founders and 3 decades of Constitutional legal authorities.

No, but it seems that I have a better grasp of it than you.

Why can't rational thinking Americans get past the reflexive 'Lincoln was right' and 'slavery=South=evil' that was instilled by their (government-funded) public education long enough to objectively look at the evidence?

Because in most cases Lincoln was right. And slavery doesn't enter into the picture. The South was not wrong because of slavery. The South was wrong because they launched a bloody rebellion against the U.S. government.

Oh, I forgot. You have no interest in truth, only affirmation. The conceptual difference between the legal aspects and the moral aspects of the history of slavery in America still lies beyond your grasp.

No shortage of ego on your part, is there? I have a great respect for the truth, but I don't accept that your opinion and your interpretation constitutes the truth merely because you say it does.

Oh, please. South Carolina petitioned the federal government 25 years before on the subject of unfair tariffs on cotton...

???????????????????

??????????????????

Don't look at me. I've no idea what she's talking about most of the time as it is.

This is of the very essence of judicial duty." -- Chief Justice Marshall, Marbury v. Madison

you are selectively editing again-

If, then, the courts are to regard the constitution, and the constitution is superior to any ordinary act of the legislature, the constitution, and not such ordinary act, must govern the case to which they both apply. Those then who controvert the principle that the constitution is to be considered, in court, as a paramount law, are reduced to the necessity of maintaining that the courts must close their eyes on the constitution, and see only the law. This doctrine would subvert the very foundation of all written constitutions. It would declare that an act which, according to the principles and theory of our government, is entirely void, is yet, in practice, completely obligatory. It would declare that if the legislature shall do what is expressly forbidden, such act, notwithstanding the express prohibition, is in reality effectual. It would be giving to the legislature a practical and real omnipotence, with the same breath which professes to restrict their powers within narrow limits,. It is prescribing limits, and declaring that those limits may be passed at pleasure. (snip) Thus, the particular phraseology of the constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written constitutions, that a law repugnant to the constitution is void; and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument. Marbury v. Madison (1803)

-----

The Supreme Court saw it otherwise.

Ex post facto rulings are unconstitutional. That's what Marshall said.

-----

Should the Warren Court not oveturned the earlier case merely because it would mean overturning precedent?

Does the federal government have the constitutional authority to change the political status of anything other than an alien?

If so, please point it out.

-----

Turns out they were wrong. Or at least unilateral secession was found to be unconstitutional.

Ex post facto = unconstitutional

A law that punished a citizen for an innocent action, or, in other words, for an act, which, when done, was in violation of no existing law; a law that destroys or impairs the lawful private contracts of citizens; a law that makes a man a judge in his own cause; or a law that takes property from A. and gives it to B.: it is against-all reason and justice, for a people to intrust a legislature with such powers; and therefore, it cannot be presumed that they have done it. The genius, the nature and the spirit of our state governments, amount to a prohibition of such acts of legislation; and the general principles of law and reason forbid them. The legislature may enjoin, permit, forbid and punish; they may declare new crimes; and establish rules of conduct for all its citizens in future cases; they may command what is right, and prohibit what is wrong; but they cannot change innocence into guilt; or punish innocence as a crime; or violate the right of an antecedent lawful private contract; or the right of private property. To maintain that our federal, or state legislature possesses such powers, if they had not been expressly restrained; would, in my opinion, be a political heresy, altogether inadmissible in our free republican governments. All the restrictions contained in the constitution of the United States on the power of the state legislatures, were provided in favor of the authority of the federal government. The prohibition against their making any ex post facto laws was introduced for greater caution, and very probably arose from the knowledge, that the parliament of Great Britain claimed and exercised a power to pass such laws, under the denomination of bills of attainder, or bills of pains and penalties; the first inflicting capital, and the other less punishment. Calder v. Bull

When Texas seceded, it was not 'illegal'...it was not anything. Making it 'illegal' after the fact IS an ex post facto law, ruling or edict.

-----

Ex post facto means criminalizing actions that had been legal when the action was committed. That's not what the Supreme Court did. What the court ruled in Texas v. White, and which it does all the time in it's decisions, was to rule that the southern acts of unilateral secession had never been legal in the first place

ROFLMAO! Which IS an ex post facto ruling.

-----

Glossed right by section 2 didn't you?

Section 2 follows section 1 for a reason. Legal documents can't say 'A'....oh, I meant 'B'...no, I meant 'A'. Their written in order of applicability. You can't do 'B' without conforming with 'A' first.

-----

The south was most certainly engaged in insurrection, the laws were most certainly being opposed by forces too great to be handled by local judicial procedings, and the militias of the state were not capable of putting down the rebellion on their own because they were, in fact, part of it. Add to that the fact that Congress was not in session and Lincoln was well within his authority to call out the troops after the South initiated hostilities.

I already showed you where both the Constitution and the militia Acts stipulated the State in question must request assistance....but that's not what you want to hear.

Lincoln could 'call out the militia' all he liked, but the clause in questions says the STATE HAS TO REQUEST THE ASSISTENCE, and the President cannot enter a State without that Constitutional stipulation being met. Even the evidence of your own eyes isn't enough to break the hypnotizing drone of 'Lincoln was right'...'Lincoln was right'...'Lincoln was right'.

-----

The states were not empowered to decide what was constitutional and what was not.

(snicker)

Texas Court Ruling Rebuffs Bush and World Court

-----

And to the best of my knowledge the Militia Acts were not found unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.

Please show me where I ever said the were? They are in perfect compliance because the both say the same thing.

-----

No, but it seems that I have a better grasp of it than you.

Your perceptions is obviously skewed. You still have to have a source drug out of you, and when you finally do, it doesn't even say what you think it does. LOL!

-----

Article I, Section 8, Clause 15 gives the government the power and the duty to combat rebellion. It does not have anything to do with domestic violence or invasion.

Um...you need to read it again-Article 1, Section 8, Clause 15
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

Please point out the word REBELLION anywhere in that clause.

-----

The South was wrong because they launched a bloody rebellion against the U.S. government.

Odd, I don't remember them marching on Washington D.C.

-----

I have a great respect for the truth, but I don't accept that your opinion and your interpretation constitutes the truth merely because you say it does.

It has nothing to do with 'my' opinion or 'my' interpretation. I'm posting facts. Words from the men who fought and died to establish this country and its laws. These are their words given for all to see, but Americans have been conditioned not to see the facts. The aversion to even discuss the subject is palatable.

Until the People see that legally, Lincoln was wrong, our country will continue its slide down the slippery slope into socialism.

???????????????????

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

So you are saying the Yankee tariff taxed southern cotton?

So you are saying the Yankee tariff taxed southern cotton?

No, it was supposed to be for 25 years the non slave states had been being obstructing the compact by refusing to return escaped slaves.

But as you were to lazy to even ask the question, I felt under no obligation to make the correction.

Odd, I don't remember them marching on Washington D.C.

South Carolina Governor F. W. Pickens to Gen. James Simons of the 4th Brigade, S.C. Militia.
State of South Carolina
Head Quarters. 20th April 1861
Dear Genl:
The Navy yard at Norfolk is all in flames -- Baltimore unanimous on our side, and all communications with Washington cut off -- & only 5,000 troops in Washington -- it can be taken.
Troops are meeting from Augusta to Norfolk & will be there before we start.
Send Gregg immediately with as many as he can get -- wait not a moment, or we are ruined. I will send companies as fast as possible. Let Gregg start immediately with as many possible -- no delay -- for God sake make every thing move. Let Kershaws start with as many companies as he can get immediately. I have seen Beauregard, & he is sending the detailed orders.
We will be disgraced if Georgia gets there before we do. Raise the flag, & go -- My whole heart is with you. Washington is cut off -- and if we could march on it we could take it -- as Baltimore is a unit for us and Maryland rising. They are alarmed in Va. Genl. Taliaferro & Letcher both telegraph me this morning to push forward.
Truly,

No, it was supposed to be for 25 years the non slave states had been being obstructing the compact by refusing to return escaped slaves.

What was "supposed" to be?

No, it was supposed to be for 25 years the non slave states had been being obstructing the compact by refusing to return escaped slaves

The Fugitive Slave laws were federal statutes and the government was bound to enforce them. Congress enacted numerous laws to aid in the enforcement. Penalties were imposed upon marshals who refused to enforce the law or from whom a fugitive should escape, and upon individuals who aided runaway slaves to escape. Federal marshals were allowed to raise a posse comitatus. The fee paid to a commisioner when his decision favored the claimant of a suspected runaway was $10, but only $5 when he ruled in favor of the fugitive. Both the fact of the escape and the identity of the fugitive could be determined solely on ex parte testimony. When it came to enforcing the laws the South has no right to criticize the federal government.

And when the individual states passed personal liberty laws designed to nullify the Fugitive Slave Laws, the Supreme Court struck them down. But in that 1842 decision, Prigg v. Pennsylvania (41 U.S. 539) the court also ruled that the Fugitive Slave Laws were federal laws and while the states could not override the law, the government also could not compel the states to enforce them. Justice Story, writing for the majority, noted: "If, indeed, the constitution guaranties the right, and if it requires the delivery upon the claim of the owner (as cannot well be doubted), the natural inference certainly is, that the national government is clothed with the appropriate authority and functions to enforce it. The fundamental principle, applicable to all cases of this sort, would seem to be, that where the end is required, the means are given; and where the duty is enjoined, the ability to perform it is contemplated to exist, on the part of the functionaries to whom it is intrusted. The clause is found in the national constitution, and not in that of any state. It does not point out any state functionaries, or any state action, to carry its provisions into effect. The states cannot, therefore, be compelled to enforce them; and it might well be deemed an unconstitutional exercise of the power of interpretation, to insist, that the states are bound to provide means to carry into effect the duties of the national government, nowhere delegated or intrusted to them by the constitution."

So you are complaining that the states did not do something that the Supreme Court ruled they were not required to do.

This was 4 months after SC seceded and the federal government had continued to occupy and supply the fort.

It was up to the State(s) to request assistance from the federal government if it didn't like the troops of the Confederacy being there.

Refer to post #252 that: 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.

While even the federal enclave had a right to defend itself, it still didn't have the authority to leave the enclave with federal troops without a request for assistance from a State.

-----

What was "supposed" to be?

Oh, good grief. My post was supposed to be about slavery, not cotton tariffs.