Posted on 02/07/2009 7:45:28 AM PST by Loud Mime
Abraham Lincoln's Birthday is this Thursday. I thought it fitting to quote from the first Republican president's debates against Stephen Douglas. Each had an hour to present their case, hardly what the mainstream media would like.
I think, and shall try to show, that it is wrong; wrong in its direct effect, letting slavery into Kansas and Nebraska and wrong in its prospective principle, allowing it to spread to every other part of the wide world where men can be found inclined to take it.
This declared indifference, but, as I must think, covert real zeal for the spread of slavery, I cannot but hate. I hate it because of the monstrous injustice of slavery itself. I hate it because it deprives our republican example of its just influence in the world; enables the enemies of free institutions, with plausibility, to taunt us as hypocrites; causes the real friends of freedom to doubt our sincerity, and especially because it forces so many really good men amongst ourselves into an open war with the very fundamental principles of civil liberty - criticizing the Declaration of Independence, and insisting that there is no right principle of action but self-interest.
Before proceeding, let me say I think I have no prejudice against the Southern people. They are just what we would be in their situation. If slavery did not now exist among them, they would not introduce it. If it did now exist among us, we should not instantly give it up. This I believe of the masses North and South. Doubtless there are individuals on both sides who would not hold slaves under any circumstances; and others who would gladly introduce slavery anew, if it were out of existence. We know that some Southern men do free their slaves, go North, and become tip-top Abolitionists; while some Northern ones go South, and become most cruel slave-masters.
When Southern people tell us they are no more responsible for the origin of slavery than we, I acknowledge the fact. When it is said that the institution exists, and that it is very difficult to get rid of it in any satisfactory way, I can understand and appreciate the saying. I surely will not blame them for not doing what I should not know how to do myself. If all earthly power were given me, I should not know what to do as to the existing institution. My first impulse would be to free all the slaves, and send them to Liberia - to their own native land. But a moment's reflection would convince me that whatever of high hope (as I think there is) there may be in this in the long run, its sudden execution is impossible. If they were all landed there in a day, they would all perish in the next ten days; and there are not surplus shipping and surplus money enough in the world to carry them there in many times ten days. What then? Free them all, and keep them among us as underlings? Is it quite certain that this betters their condition? I think I would not hold one in slavery at any rate; yet the point is not clear enough to me to denounce people upon. What next? Free them, and make them politically and socially our equals? My own feelings will not admit of this; and if mine would, we well know that those of the great mass of white people will not. Whether this feeling accords with justice and sound judgment is not the sole question, if indeed, it is any part of it. A universal feeling, whether well or ill-founded, cannot be safely disregarded. We cannot make them equals. It does seem to me that systems of gradual emancipation might be adopted; but for their tardiness in this, I will not undertake to judge our brethren of the South.
When they remind us of their constitutional rights, I acknowledge them, not grudgingly, but fully and fairly; and I would give them any legislation for the reclaiming of their fugitives, which should not, in its stringency, be more likely to carry a free man into slavery, than our ordinary criminal laws are to hang an innocent one.
But all this, to my judgment, furnishes no more excuse for permitting slavery to go info our own free territory, than it would for reviving the African slave trade by law. The law which forbids the bringing of slaves from Africa, and that which has so long forbidden the taking of them to Nebraska, can hardly be distinguished on any moral principle; and the repeal of the former could find quite as plausible excuses as that of the latter.
>>>So was [tariffs] worth destroying the Union for? And if so, how come it’s barely mentioned at the time by the secession leaders, while slavery is talked about endlessly?<<<
I previously listed many books that expound the events leading up to secession.
The South was trying to save the Union (the Constitution was the Union). But since the writing of history belongs to the victors, the South’s story is rarely told. And since you are a victim (yes, a victim) of public education, you are so brainwashed I wonder if you will ever learn the true nature of Dishonest Abe, the murderous thug from Illinois.
There were a long train of abuses and usurpations against the South. Abe Lincoln was the final nail in the coffin of the Union. Yes, Abe Lincoln destroyed the Union. He turned our limited central government into a highly centralized, all-powerful government, with little, if any, checks and balances. While most knowledgeable people blame Barnie Frank and Chris Dodd for our current economic crisis, I place the blame squarely on the big-government marxist, Abraham Lincoln. Hitler certainly loved what Lincoln did to our nation, as he mentioned in Mein Kampf (put that on your resume, Abe).
“Since Article IV outlines the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court then I’d say it was more formal than you would like to believe.”
The Court’s power as laid out in the Constitution is referred to as “the judicial power,” which usually means interpreting and applying the law. Some people say that declaring laws unconstitutional is a natural outgrowth of those powers, and indeed the concept of judicial review has long been associated with free governments such as our own. However, striking down laws is not expressly mentioned, and generally speaking, if a federal power is not expressly mentioned, we say that it does not exist.
The question boils down, then, to whether judicial review follows logically from other parts of the Constitution. The text that, in my opinion, comes closest to granting judicial review is the Supremacy Clause of Article 6, which states that the U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and that everyone is bound by it. Which means the Supreme Court is bound by it. If that’s true, people say, they can’t very well interpret a law without checking to see if it is in line with the Constitution.
As far as I know, historians split on whether Marbury v. Madison introduced a new power, or whether it is merely the first use of a power that was there all the time. For whatever it’s worth, there was debate over whether a judicial veto should be included in the Constituion. And of course, it wasn’t. Madison said that out of all the delegates to the Convention, only 11 expressed their opinion on judicial review, and of those 9 approved and two dissented.
The biggest question for me is that if everyone at the time was aware of the concept, if it existed in several states, and if they actually discussed it at the convention, why didn’t they mention review in the Constitution itself? There are two possibilities. One is they didn’t want it. Another is they thought it was implied.
Both interpretations have merit. Myself, I like calling it an informal amendment. You know, one of those powers that we know isn’t in the Constitution but everyone’s fine with, like the draft and central banks. Both are rather undesirable to me personally, but compared to everything else the government does that has little or no basis in their expressed powers, at least those two have some basis in the text.
“Completely false. The President can veto bills for any reason, or for no reason at all. He can claim they are unconstitution, but that is his opinion only. Nothing in the Constitution gives the Executive the power to determine what is Constitutional and what is not.”
The Constitution does not specify grounds for invoking the veot, and a president can give any reason he wants. But why do you think the veto power exists in the first place? There is historical evidence that it was widely believed in the early days that presidents would restrict themselves to shooting down laws that violated the Constitution. Of course, this was an informal standard. The majority of vetoes, I’m sure, were on non-constitutional grounds. The most popular of those being that the law was simply unwise.
But to get back to why the power was included, way back when they had this lofty notion of checks and balances. Each branch was expected to limit the power of another. Why? Not because in-fighting is desirable in itself. It’s because the integrity of our system of government is of primary importance, and one way to ensure its integrity is to set various parts of the government off against eachother.
They just didn’t share the modern view of the courts as the ultimate guardians at the gates of the Constitution. Everyone was supposed to defend the Constitution. That’s primarily why we have vetoes, impeachment, pardons, judicial review, and so on. That’s why Madison and Jefferson said states ought to be able to “interpose” themselves between the federal government and the people. If a Representative, who took an oath to uphold the Constituion, thought a bill violated one or more of its principles, he was supposed to vote “no.” If a president thought Congress had overstepped its authority in creating a particular law, he could send the bill back or refuse to enforce it. If a grand jury sees that a defendant is guilty but doesn’t like the law, they can acquit.
In short, everyone was on their honor not to abuse the national trust. That’s the system the Framers created. It still exists, but we have warped it, lifting judges onto a higher plateau. There is some justification for that. We respect the law more than we respect politics. Moreover, as you indicated, presidents can vetoe for any reason, whereas judges are expected to nullify laws only when they violate the Constitution.
But let’s be fair. Judges are political too. Nevermind for a second how they “legislate from the bench.” Quite often they accept government actions as perfectly okay due to their longstanding usage. That is, they pass over a law or an act’s Constitional basis, or lackthereof, because of convention. Or, sometimes, because of expediancy.
On the other hand, various presidents have struck down laws according to pure, unalloyed principle. They have sighted, over and over again, the authority of the Constitution for not sending bills back to Congress. Washington vetoed the Apportionment Bill on Constitutional grounds. Madison vetoed the incorporation of a church in D.C. and a grant of public land to a church in Mississippi because of the establishment clause of the first amendment. He also vetoed a bill that authorized funds from the Second Bank of America to be used for internal approvements because he didn’t think federal funding of internal improvement was Constitutional. Monroe, Tyler, Polk, and Jackson also vetoed internal improvement bills for similar reasons. Some say Jackson prevented the Second Bank of America from being rechartered because of Constitutional concerns. I have my doubts. He distrusted the bank because Jacksonians weren’t in charge of it.
“’The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.’ It says nothing about being impeached because Congress thinks they have violated the Constitution.”
Some might argue that’s why they inserted “high Crimes,” as they were all familiar with the English meaning of that phrase. Not that our impeachment process is altogether the same as that of the British. Theirs was tied to the cirminal justice system, whereas ours is purely political. When an official is convicted, he’s removed from office; that’s it.
We’ve come now to believe that officials are removed primarily so that they can be tried in a criminal court. But that was not, in my opinion, the original view. The Framers adopted it as a check on executive power, which they especially feared. It was intended to safeguard the integrity of the system, and was yet another part of our wonderful system of checks and balances. Here’s how one cource describes the sort of high crimes mentioned as grounds for removing an official:
“they are constitutional wrongs that subvert the structure of government, or undermine the integrity of office and even the Constitution itself, and thus are ‘high’ offenses.”
History bears this out. The very first impeached official was one Senator Blount, who conspired to get Indians to attack Spanish settlers. He was accused of overstepping his bounds by compromising our neutrality, and for going against the Constitution’s delegation of power over foreign relations. He also stepped on the president’s authority over the executive branch when he tried to replace an Indian affairs agent.
The most famous impeachment of all time, most likely, was that of President Andrew Johnson. Historians like to highlight the partisan nature of the process, and how it was a “set-up”. But even if it was a set-up, that does not make the underlying principles null. Johnson was accused of ignoring Congress’ Constitutional role in oversight of cabinet officials. I have no doubt that the law they concocted to trap Johnson on those grounds was unconstitutional. However, it is still informative to note that Congress thought impeaching Johnson over his disregard of their interpretation of the Senate’s Constutional role was valid.
“Only for those who haven’t read the Constitutional definition of treason. And I’d like some examples of that nullification you’re talking about.”
I was referring to Andrew Jackson’s view of the South Carolina controversy and Calhoun’s nullification philosophy (which ultimately led to his resignation from the Vice Presidency) as treasonous. As you remember, the state sought to nullify a tariff law, and Jackson threatened to use naked force to enforce it.
As for my assertion that states manage to nullify federal laws, I realize I spoke a bit loosely. Mostly I was referring to how, from time to time, states deliberately ignore federal laws. Or how they render de facto enforcement of federal law difficult. Take immigration and the drug war, for instance.
Nevermind all that. There is a long history of attempted state nullification, as we’re all aware. I already mentioned the South Carolina mess. The famous Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions were a protest against the Alien and Sedition Acts. Northern states tried to nullify fugitive slave laws. Governor Faubus of Arkansas called up the National Guard to block federally mandated school integration. Oh, and there was that Civil War thing. The list goes on and on.
I meant to say, “They have sighted, over and over again, the authority of the Constitution for sending bills back to Congress. Washington vetoed the Apportionment Bill on Constitutional grounds.”
Sorta like "it was necessary to destroy the village in order to save it," huh?
But since the writing of history belongs to the victors, the South’s story is rarely told.
Oh, bull. The south's been telling its side of things since the war ended. You just can't stand that the vast majority of people think its a load of bull. Sucks to be you, huh?
you are so brainwashed I wonder if you will ever learn the true nature of Dishonest Abe, the murderous thug from Illinois.
You make me laugh. Tell me, does all your food taste like bile?
Hitler certainly loved what Lincoln did to our nation, as he mentioned in Mein Kampf
Care to actually find that quote and see what Hitler actually said?
Because it was federal property. And even if the Southern acts of secession had been legal it would still have taken an act of Congress to transfer ownership to the confederacy.
Interpret the law how? Look at it and say, "Yup it's a law"? The duty of the Supreme Court is to interpret the law as it applies to the Constitution, and rule if it violates that law or not. It says so right there in Article III, Section 2: "The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution..."
Absolute nonsense. I have never once said that a state could not secede under any circumstances and defy to point out where I did.
OK then. Show us where the constitution says a state can secede but not unilaterally.
Article I and IV make it clear that the power to admit a state and approve any change in status once it's been admitted is a power reserved to the United States by the Constitution. It's nothing I haven't said before.
Absolute BS. Please point to the order establishing such a blockade.
There you go again. It does not give the power to approve any change in status. It only gives the power to admit a state and to approve the division of a state. It does not give the power to approve secession and you cannot show where it does.
The constitution gives the court the power to interpret what a law means. It does not give the court the power to interpret what the constitution itself means. That power was meant to be reserved to the states. The constitution was after all an agreement entirely between the states. The federal government, being created by it, was not a party to it.
Then by all means point out the law that transferred ownership to us.
Governments have the right to bombard forts that belong to them, as did the Confederate Government bombard their property called Fort Sumter.
But Sumter did not belong to them.
Are you referring to Section 4, which reads: “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government”?
No I am referring to the 10th Amendment. I thought you said that you had read the Constitution?
Fort Sumter belonged to the only legitimate government of the United States at that time, which was the government of the Confederate States, and it was that government’s right to exercise Authority over all Places for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings.
OK so now not only do we have this imaginary law that transferred title of Sumter from the U.S. to the confederacy without the approval of its owners, we also apparently have another imaginary law that de-legitimatized the U.S. government. I must say, it's easy to make your case when you make stuff up as you go along. The rest of us rely on facts and documentation.
After secession the federal government was legally just another private entity (a foreign entity at that) and subject to confiscation just like any other entity. The US Congress had no right to any say in what happened to South Carolina property.
You think you need to read it again. There are two distinct statements there. The first one is "To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States..." which you correctly point out clearly applies to what is now the District of Columbia. But the second part, "...and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings..." applies to all property acquired by the federal goverment for its use in any and all states. All forts, mints, armories, dockyards, etc. If you take it as a whole to mean only D.C. then it becomes redundant; if Congress already exercies exclusive control over the district then why say they also exercise exclusive control over the forts and armories and whatever that are built there?
Nonsense. That's like saying any embassy is subject to confiscation.
The US Congress had no right to any say in what happened to South Carolina property.
But they had every right to say what happened to U.S. property. Sumter belonged to the U.S. government and only Congress could dispose of it.
Read it again. "... but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress." That prevents them from splitting or combining. Article I, Section 10 says, "No State shall, without the Consent of Congress...enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State..." Which means that if Illinois and Wisconsin want to alter their border by even a fraction of an inch then they need Congressional approval to do so. So if Congressional approval is needed to create a state in the first place, and Congressional approval is needed to before it can change its status by splitting or combining or moving its borders then it's clear that the power to approve such changes is a power given to the United States by the Constitution. And by implication that would include leaving altogether.
No it isn't. The US did not have any diplomatic agreement with SC about that fort. It was just a piece of property within the state like any other property.
But they had every right to say what happened to U.S. property.
Why? The US government is just a private actor within the borders of SC. Their laws and constitution did not apply and since there was no diplomatic recognition the US couldn't even expect the courtesies due a foreign government.
That power was meant to be reserved to the states.
Oh please! You want 50 different rulings on what is Constitutional and what is not? That isn't law, that's anarchy. It does not give the court the power to interpret what the constitution itself means.
In other words, private property rights meant nothing in the confederacy.
And that gives South Carolina the right to seize it from its rightful owners without compensation or judicial procedings? Even eminent domain cases require the rule of law. But eminent domain didn't apply here because the federal government wasn't just some other land owner. Allowing, for the sake of arguement, that their secession had been legal that still doesn't make Sumter just like any other property. It makes it the property of another sovereign nation, and then you need a treaty between countries to transfer ownership. Or a war. Which was the path that the South chose.
Why? The US government is just a private actor within the borders of SC. Their laws and constitution did not apply and since there was no diplomatic recognition the US couldn't even expect the courtesies due a foreign government.
Why? Because it belonged to them.
In fact the legal presumption always goes the other way. When detailed prescription are given it is presumed anything not listed is excluded. For example this is precisely the objection raised by the Federalists in opposition to adopting of a bill of rights. It is also the reason many judges refuse to accept jury nullification (the constitution gives juries the right to final judgment over facts, but says nothing about juries judging law). And lest we forget, the 10th makes that principle explicit when it says anything not granted to the US in the constitution is reserved to the states.
Keep looking.
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.