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.
South Carolina held a convention, elected delegates, etc. Your implication regarding North Carolina is, at best, a half-truth, and we've hashed over the preemptive invasion of Missouri enough times on these threads that anyone should recognize that the word "legal" held relatively little meaning there for either side.
Anyhow, I was just trying to help out, since you tried to pass off Rawle's commentary with regard to the people of the state, when he was discussing powers of the legislature. If I don't make it back in the next couple of days, have a happy Thanksgiving. I'll spend mine driving to see the wife's family in Minnesota.
Actually no. The members of the South Carolina secession convention were selected on December 6th by the legislature itself. No popular election was held.
Your implication regarding North Carolina is, at best, a half-truth, and we've hashed over the preemptive invasion of Missouri enough times on these threads that anyone should recognize that the word "legal" held relatively little meaning there for either side.
The are you admitting that by Rawle's definition several of the southern secessions weren't legal?
Anyhow, I was just trying to help out, since you tried to pass off Rawle's commentary with regard to the people of the state, when he was discussing powers of the legislature.
Yes, I know. You're always trying to be helpful, aren't you? Then don't muddy the waters. I quoted Rawle with accuracy, and pointed out that in several of the cases the southern states seceded in a manner in which Rawle himself would consider illegal. But in the grand scheme of things it really doesn't matter anyway because Rawle was incorrect when he claimed states could secede unilaterally to begin with.
Causes of Secession, and I've already posted the link.
Thank you for your input, it is appreciated. :-)
That wasn't the question.
If an acquaintance should come to your house and you invite him in, and after a while he decides to leave, do you have the legal authority to make him stay against his will?
No. Some were just more vocal than others.
Story, while believing slavery should be illegal, seemed to be fair-handed in his interpretation of the law.
Your conjecture.
The fact is the federal government had no authority to restrict the ownership of slaves...period.
The right to own them was in the Constitution as was the more generalized right of property.
So long as he is not trying to perform an illegal act then no. And I'm sorry if you don't like the answer but it's the best that your lame analogy deserves. The southern actions were nothing like a guest leaving my house. More like a crook trying to rob it.
The right to own them was in the Constitution as was the more generalized right of property.
No one was proposing a ban on ownership of slaves, but the Federal Government did have the right, established under the Northwest Ordinance, to restrict ownership of slaves within Federally supervised territory.
Unless you accept my "conjecture" that expansion to new markets to keep the slavery Ponzi scheme floating was the driving force behind secession, why was it that South Carolina should care so much about what happened in territories a 1000 miles away?
Were to less vocal ones allowed to voice their opinion in South Carolina?
Fine. You have no authority to force someone to associate with you. So if you don't possess that ability as an individual, it cannot be possessed as a group.
If it cannot be possessed as a group, it cannot belong to the 'body politic.'
If it cannot belong to the body politic, it cannot be given to the states.
If it did not belong to the States, it cannot have been given to the federal government.
So if the government can only legitimately exercise that authority that which has been given to it, how did the federal government force the States to remain in an association against their will?
-----
And I'm sorry if you don't like the answer but it's the best that your lame analogy deserves.
I love your answers. They make me laugh.
-----
The southern actions were nothing like a guest leaving my house. More like a crook trying to rob it.
ROFLMAO!
Kinda hard to steal a fort.
But the group has the right to compel the individual to abide by the agreements entered into when they were allowed to join the group.
Kinda hard to steal a fort.
Not really. The south stole a bunch of forts when they rebelled, along with court houses, customs houses, mints, arsenals and the like. It's when the federal government put it's foot down that the south got all hissy and started shooting, thus initiating the war.
James Madison had strong views on whether the Congress had any constitutional authority to pass laws concerning the new territories:
Congress has undertaken to do more: they have proceeded to form new states, to erect temporary governments, to appoint officers for them, and to proscribe the conditions on which new states shall be admitted to the confederacy. All this has been done; without the least color of constitutional authority
(Federalist #38)
-----
The Missouri Compromise of 1820 was ruled unconstitutional in Dred Scott. Chief Justice Taney said Congress did not have the authority to restrict slavery in any territories. Slaves were property, and the restriction of property without due process violated the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution.
In Strader v. Graham (1851), for example, the Supreme Court ruled that the Ordinance was no longer in force in the states formed in the northwest territory.
Many of your arguments are a rehash of material already covered by NS. Please see post #65.
-----
why was it that South Carolina should care so much about what happened in territories a 1000 miles away?
Because the government used the excuse of the 'Compromise' to prevent States from deciding whether or not they would be slave-holding States. If all the territories that became States were allowed to maintain the slave holding status they had had all along, there would have been more slave holding than non-slaveholding States.
The federal government was "Stacking the deck?" in an effort to restrict something they legally had no say in.
Excellent point.
"He cheats"
GroundHog
Wha??? You claimed (in post #252) that South Carolina had petitioned congress 25 years before the Causes over the subject of either runaway slaves or tariffs on cotton exports (they're so easily confused). Asked to identify the petition or its date, you point to the Causes?
The causes aren't a petition. A petition asks for a redress of grievances. The Causes are an explanation of the motives for an action taken. They petition for nothing.
I think the facts presented are sufficient. It seems you don't mind heavy-handed action by a legislature as long as it's on your side. Rebs and reb fans act like the only governmental oppression and usurpation comes from Washington. At the state level all politicians are angels and all action is beyond reproach. (unless it's a Yankee state concerning fugitive slave enforcement)
True. He included it in a footnote to his Commentaries on the Constitution with this comment:
While this sheet was passing through the press, President Jackson's Proclamation of the 10th of December, 1832, concerning the recent Ordinance of South-Carolina on the subject of the tariff, appeared. That document contains a most elaborate view of several questions, which have been discussed in this and the preceding volume, especially respecting the supremacy of the laws of the Union; the right of the judiciary to decide upon the constitutionality of those laws; and the total repugnancy to the constitution of the modern doctrine of nullification asserted in that ordinance. As a state paper it is entitled to very high praise for the clearness, force, and eloquence, with which it has defended the rights and powers of the national government. I gladly copy into these pages some of its important passages, as among time ablest commentaries ever offered upon the constitution.
So clearly, Story agreed with Jackson that secession at will wasn't an option under the Constitution.
While I take your point on Story, I also learned he was a rabid abolitionist.
It's funny that people don't use the word "rabid" about any belief that they share or respect. It looks to be wholly pejorative, and hence, not very useful, except in establishing which side those who use it come down on an issue.
Financially, the South was being bled dry, the North was helping the process and nothing had been done despite constant complaints. Then the federal government jumps in an says something that had been was no longer going to be allowed.
Such was the secessionist view, but is that the final word? First of all, it leaves out the militant fireeaters desire to secure slave property everywhere, even in states and territories that had rejected it. That was what Northerners were up against. And it also doesn't address the question of whether some interests and the opinions supporting them are to be sacred cows, forever beyond the possibility of discussion or criticism. The Founders clearly didn't think of slavery that way. By the 1850s many Southern leaders did.
I don't think the south was being bled dry. It's more accurate to say some/a few people in the south might have been bled dry from government policy. Much of the population of the south was subsistence farmers largely insulated and isolated form the markets and money. In practice there is a two tier system used by reb partisans to describe the antebellum dixie population. When the topic is slave ownership we hear that almost nobody in the south owned a slave. But when the discussion is focused on financial matters, everybody in "the South" was a producer and exporter of cash crops and was being financially devastated by the perfidious Yankee.
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.