April 12, 1861 The War Between The States Begins!

Civil War.com ^ | Unknown | Unknown

[PeterFinn]

Lincoln suspended the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 8th, and 10th Amendments by his various Executive Orders during the course of the war.

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/executive_orders.php?year=1862 - 1863, et al.

Suspending those seven Amendments equates to suspending the Constitution. Unless, of course, you're a liberal statist in which case you think that there are no individual rights in the first place.

[stainlessbanner]

Going to the waaaayback file, eh azhenfud?

[Ditto]

It didn’t “obviously” fall to the President, as the President has no constitutional authority to suspend habeas corpus—that is textually committed to Congress.

Under the Militia Act of 1793, it did fall under the authority of the president when Congress was not in session.

Did the confederacy have such an act that allowed Jeff Davis to declare martial law in many areas of the south?

[Non-Sequitur]

But it doesn't say anything about states leaving the Union; thus, given the tenth amendment, shouldn't it be the right of every state to leave the Union if it so chooses?

In my opinion there isn't a question of whether a state may leave or not. Nothing in the Constitution forbids it. The question is the manner in which they choose to leave. The Southern states seceded unilaterally. When they did so the walked away from financial and treaty obligations leaving the remaing states to shoulder the responsibility for all obligations in full. The took with them literally every piece of federal property they could get their hands on without compensation of any kind. For a brief period of time Mississippi closed the river to all traffic bound for the North, cutting off much of the United States from access to the sea and placing an economic stranglehold on them. So my question is, why do you feel that the Constitution protects only those states leaving and offers none to those remaining? Why can the seceding states use the Constitution as a club to beat the other states up with? Don't the remaining states have any rights at all?

Secession should be allowed, but only with the approval of both sides. Requiring this makes sense because only then are the interests of both sides protected and only then are all matters of potential disagreement ironed out before the partitioning. And I believe this is implied in the Constituiton as well. Approval is needed to join. Once in, approval is needed to partition a state into to or remove a state entirely by combining it with another state. In fact, Congressional approval is needed to for a state to change it's border by a fraction of an inch. Why should leaving be any different?

[azhenfud]

Yeah - hauling up the “remember when’s”.

Been here a looong time. I’m surprised I’ve not gotten banned by now.....;-)

[Ditto]

Many regiments of Kentucky Soldiers seceded even if their state didn’t.

Many more regiments from all but one Confederate state remained loyal to the Union even after their states seceded.

Those men deserve special praise.

[TexConfederate1861]

The Confederacy and Jeff Davis aren’t the issues.
Pulling a “Noni” manuever?

[Non-Sequitur]

Really? Virginia, North & South Carolina, and Georgia were among the original 13 states. With whose "permission" did they join the Union? Your sense of history is lacking.

Looking at the original 7 rebelling states, only two were among the original 13 - Georgia and South Carolina. Flordia, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas were all admitted with the consent of the other states. So unless I need to post the definition of 'most' I suggest my statement is entirely correct.

[TexConfederate1861]

Depending on your viewpoint. In Texas we “stretched their necks” when we caught them.

[Non-Sequitur]

In memory of those Gallant Union Soldiers who gave their lives for the cause of preserving the Union.

You say to-ma-to, I say to-mah-to.

[TexConfederate1861]

If I wanted to be offensive, I would have titled this thread, “War of Northern Agression Begins!”.....But I didn’t...:)

[theFIRMbss]

>O, I’m a good old Rebel

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Virgil Caine is the name and I served on the Danville train
'Til Stoneman's cavalry came and tore up the tracks again
In the winter of '65, we were hungry, just barely alive
By May the tenth, Richmond had fell, it's a time I remember oh so well

The night they drove Old Dixie down and the bells were ringing
The night they drove Old Dixie down and the people were singin', they went
La-la-la la-la-la, la-la-la la-la-la, la-la-la-la

Back with my wife in Tennessee, when one day she called to me
"Virgil, quick, come see, there goes Robert E. Lee!"
Now I don't mind choppin' wood, and I don't care if the money's no good
Ya take what ya need and ya leave the rest
But they should never have taken the very best

The night they drove old Dixie down and the bells were ringing
The night they drove old Dixie down and all the people were singin', they went
Na-na-na na-na-na, na-na-na na-na-na, na-na-na-na

Like my father before me, I will work the land
And like my brother before me, who took a rebel stand
He was just eighteen, proud and brave
But a Yankee laid him in his grave
I swear by the mud below my feet
You can't raise a Caine back up when he's in defeat

The night they drove old Dixie oown and the bells were ringing
The night they drove old Dixie down and all the people were singin', they went
Na-na-na na-na-na, na-na-na na-na-na, na-na-na-na

The night they drove old Dixie down and all the bells were ringing
The night they drove old Dixie down and the people were singin', they went
Na-na-na na-na-na, na-na-na na-na-na, na-na-na-na

[Publius Valerius]

You cannot be serious. This issue has been before the Supreme Court at least twice (Ex Parte Bollman and Hamdi v. Rumsfeld), and this very issue—Lincoln’s suspension of the writ—was before the Chief Justice when he rode circuit. In fact, it was so well-settled, that Taney even remarked surprise when the case came before him:

“And I certainly listened to [the President’s argument that he could suspend the writ] with some surprise, for I had supposed it to be one of those points of constitutional law upon which there is no difference of opinion, and that it was admitted on all hands that the privilege of the writ could not be suspended except by act of Congress.”

In Taney’s opinion in Ex Parte Merryman, here’s his response to your statement about Article I:

“The clause in the Constitution which authorizes the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus is in the ninth section of the first article.

“This article is devoted to the Legislative Department of the United States, and has not the slightest reference to the Executive Department. It begins by providing “that all legislative powers therein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.” And after prescribing the manner in which these two branches of the legislative department shall be chosen, it proceeds to enumerate specifically the legislative powers which it thereby grants, and legislative powers which it expressly prohibits, and, at the conclusion of this specification, a clause is inserted giving Congress ‘the power to make all laws which may be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States or in any department or office thereof.’...

“It is the second article of the Constitution that provides for the organization of the Executive Department, and enumerates the powers conferred on it, and prescribes its duties. And if the high power over the liberty of the citizens now claimed was intended to be conferred on the President, it would undoubtedly be found in plain words in this article. But there is not a word in it that can furnish the slightest ground to justify the exercise of the power.”

Besides Taney’s opinion, this issue was also before the Marshall court in Ex Parte Bollman, in which Marshall stated, very clearly that “If at any time the public safety should require the suspension of the powers vested by this act in the courts of the United States, it is for the legislature to say so.”

[Non-Sequitur]

It doesn't really matter what Congress thinks, because Congress is not the judiciary.

Neither are you. Since the Supreme Court has not ruled on the question then you can hardly say Lincoln's actions were unconstitutional.

[LexBaird]

Again, this power falls to Congress, not the President. Congress can suspend the writ of habeas corpus, not the President.

The only indication of that is contextual, as the clause is within Article 1, and is silent on who may invoke it. Prior to Lincoln's action, the question had never been settled. Regardless, Lincoln did not "suspend the Constitution", as the original post contended. He acted within what he believed were his constitutional powers.

[Publius Valerius]

Even if Congress did so delegate, Congress does not have the power to delegate textually committed powers any more than it has the power to delegate the power to make laws in the President.

Again, as I’ve pointed out in earlier posts, this issue isn’t even up for debate. The President can’t suspend the writ of habeas corpus. That’s just all there is to it.

[Ditto]

The Confederacy and Jeff Davis aren’t the issues.

LOL. Don't look at that elephant in the corner.

[Publius Valerius]

Prior to Lincoln's action, the question had never been settled.

Indeed it had; see Ex Parte Bollman.

[Publius Valerius]

Since the Supreme Court has not ruled on the question then you can hardly say Lincoln's actions were unconstitutional.

I think the opinions in Ex Parte Bollman and in Ex Parte Merryman are more than clear.

[Publius Valerius]

So my question is, why do you feel that the Constitution protects only those states leaving and offers none to those remaining? Why can the seceding states use the Constitution as a club to beat the other states up with? Don't the remaining states have any rights at all?

Because it's not in the Constitution. Period. If it's not in the Constitution, it is a right delegated to the several states by the Tenth Amendment. That's the end of the debate.

If you think it's a bad deal, amend the constitution to require approval of Congress before a state can leave the Union, but as it stands now, it IS, in fact, a unilateral power of the state.