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.
Yes.
That isn't law, that's anarchy.
No. It's federalism.
Spare us the hyperbole. Do you think any other organization in SC could have barricaded itself inside a fort with canons and rifles and not aroused some objections from the lawful government?
Not hardly. If the Constitution had not given those powers to approve changes in status to Congress, or had clearly given some to Congress and just as clearly reserved some to the states then you would have a case. But in every instance mentioned, the power is clearly reserved to the Congress. Interpreting it to include secession is no stretch.
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.
You are wrong in that because nowhere in the 10th Amendment or the rest of the Constitution is the word 'explicit' used. And for good reason, as Chief Justice Marshall noted: "Among the enumerated powers, we do not find that of establishing a bank or creating a corporation. But there is no phrase in the instrument which, like the articles of confederation, excludes incidental or implied powers; and which requires that everything granted shall be expressly and minutely described. Even the 10th amendment, which was framed for the purpose of quieting the excessive jealousies which had been excited, omits the word 'expressly,' and declares only, that the powers 'not delegated to the United States, nor prohibited to the states, are reserved to the states or to the people;' thus leaving the question, whether the particular power which may become the subject of contest, has been delegated to the one government, or prohibited to the other, to depend on a fair construction of the whole instrument. The men who drew and adopted this amendment had experienced the embarrassments resulting from the insertion of this word in the articles [17 U.S. 316, 407] of confederation, and probably omitted it, to avoid those embarrassments. A constitution, to contain an accurate detail of all the subdivisions of which its great powers will admit, and of all the means by which they may be carried into execution, would partake of the prolixity of a legal code, and could scarcely be embraced by the human mind. It would, probably, never be understood by the public. Its nature, therefore, requires, that only its great outlines should be marked, its important objects designated, and the minor ingredients which compose those objects, be deduced from the nature of the objects themselves. That this idea was entertained by the framers of the American constitution, is not only to be inferred from the nature of the instrument, but from the language. Why else were some of the limitations, found in the 9th section of the 1st article, introduced? It is also, in some degree, warranted, by their having omitted to use any restrictive term which might prevent its receiving a fair and just interpretation. In considering this question, then, we must never forget that it is a constitution we are expounding."
A fair construction of the whole instrument would lead to the logical conclusion that all changes of status require Congressional approval.
Well they did try negotiations.
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.
True. The federal government was a hostile foreign power camped out inside the territory of South Carolina intending to subvert and oppose the lawful government. So any talk about eminent domain or real estate titles is nonsense and you should drop it and find another shtick.
No, it's anarchy.
I think there are plenty of people with guns on their property in South Carolina, but I don't see South Carolina demanding they evacuate their property without any legal proceedings and then shelling them when they refuse.
This is just a way of admitting the language you are looking for isn't there.
So if Cuba decides to shell Guantanamo, that’s hunky dory with you, right? They meet all the criteria you list.
Hardly. But then if the mugger says "Pretty please" before bashing you over the head and taking your wallet then that's legal?
True. The federal government was a hostile foreign power camped out inside the territory of South Carolina intending to subvert and oppose the lawful government. So any talk about eminent domain or real estate titles is nonsense and you should drop it and find another shtick.
Yeah, right. The shtick is claiming that Sumter belonged to South Carolina because you said it did. You have no rule of law to back you up, no other precedent to support your claim, nothing at all to show you were right. You challenge me on secession and I point chapter and verse as to how I come to my conclusions. Yet on Sumter you keep making it up as you go along and accuse me of having a shtick.
Really? You see armies dug in and defying the orders of the government? Where?
The evacuation order for Fort Sumter was given under the legal authority of the South Carolina militia commander. They got all the legal proceedings they were entitled to.
Anarchy is the absence of any legal authority. Federalism is divided legal authority. It is federalism.
And look who's talking? A better case could be made that you're doing the same with your fumbling for a justification for stealing Sumter.
Cuba has every legal right to kick us out of Gitmo. Only the size of the US military prevents them from doing so.
And take away a judiciary and where do you find any legal authority? It's anarchy.
Lincoln ordered the impounding of imports until the tariffs were paid, and he had federal ships stop the trade vessels that were bringing the goods into the harbor (i.e, the goods were confiscated and held “hostage”, so to speak). South Carolina had already seceded by that time, and that was one of South Carolina’s grievances after secession. Interdiction is a form of or element of blockade (according to maritime law). Thus, the interdictions were an intentional provocation.
“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.”
Lest you forget, the 10th amendment reserves all powers not expressly given to the federal government for the states and the people. Which is why I believe in jury nullification. Because juries are made up of the people, and it is the only instrument for the direct expression of their will. Everything else is filtered.
What if the legal government says it?
The shtick is claiming that Sumter belonged to South Carolina because you said it did.
It was in SC and that makes it under SC jurisdiction.
You have no rule of law to back you up, no other precedent to support your claim, nothing at all to show you were right.
Noting except the rights and privileges exercised by every sovereign government that ever existed - including BTW the Unites States.
You challenge me on secession and I point chapter and verse as to how I come to my conclusions.
Your conclusions are false for the reasons I have given you. You cannot point to chapter, verse, or anything else that says what you are claiming and your stretch is a personal opinion unsupported by the text.
You find it in the states. And who said anything about taking away the judiciary? All I'm saying is the constitution doesn't grant the federal government the right to judge its own limitations. That power was intended to remain with those who created the federal government and delegated some enumerated powers to it.
Also, on April 6, 1861 Lincoln ordered federal ships to Charleston harbor to support Sumter’s defiance of South Carolina’s demand to evacuate. On April 11, 1861, one of those ships, the “Harriet Lane” or “Harriet Lee” (I can’t remember which) fired on the Confederate ship “Nashville” in Charleston Harbor. The next day, Beauregard ordered the shelling of Sumter.
“Means compared to what? Interpret if it is a law or not? What need is there for a Supreme Court if that’s all they are there for?”
The vast majority of SCOTUS cases involve simply interpreting what a law means and applying it to specific cases. That’s not so easy as you seem to think. A relatively small number of cases involve serious Constitutional issues.
“The Constitution gives the Supreme Court judicial power to all cases, in law or equity, arising under the Constitution. What can that mean except the power to examine all cases before it against the Constitution and rule if they violate it or not?”
It clearly means that the court has jurisdiction over cases arising under federal law. Remeber, the Constitution only applied to the federal government, and saying “all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution,” was the same as saying the judicial branmch has jurisdiction over cases in federal, not state, law.
It wasn’t a large logical leap for the court to decide on its own that since the Constitution is a legal document; it is federal law. So they must interpret and apply it as well as the laws and actions of the bodies created by the same document. However, nothing about the logic of SCOTUS jurisdiction and Constitutional supremacy makes them the FINAL arbitor of what is and isn’t Constitutional. The Framers, I’m sure, intended for every seperate branch to regulate itself, and for the various branches to police eachother, and for the states to call the federal government on its excesses, and for the people to occasionally assert their own interpretation.
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.