Posted on 04/15/2012 5:31:13 AM PDT by mek1959
This Friday, April 13th is the birth day of Thomas Jefferson. In recognition of his birthday I thought we’d revisit the meaning of the Declaration of Independence. On the surface the meaning of the Declaration may be self-evident, but the true meaning of many of the sentences and phrases escapes most people.
The Declaration of Independence stated to the world that the thirteen colonies were separating from Great Britain. In other words the colonies were seceding from Britain. The first paragraph says “When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.”
(Excerpt) Read more at foundersrevolution.net ...
None of which were refuted in your post #106.
But now, truly, this is it -- this is as much fun as I can stand in one day, got to leave something for another time.
So I promise, I'll return to your post #106, next chance I get.
;-)
See? That wasn't so hard, was it?
Buchanan should have been more careful with his verbiage, as his blanket statement is misleading.
'Congress has the power to declare war and consent to peace' would have been a lot more accurate, IMHO.
That's simply inaccurate. There was a third choice - or what should have been the slaveocracy's first choice - maintain the status quo. Lincoln said that his wish was to keep the union intact - with or without slavery. He was willing to suspend his own views, and the views of the abolitionists if that was what it took to keep us together.
Maintaining the status quo would mean that they could continue to own other humans and use them as chattel with only a minor irritant coming from those pesky abolitionists. They could continue to hold a prominent position in Congress and likely regain the white house.
Life could have remained good, at least for the slavemasters, and at least for a while. But the fire-eaters knew that the world was evolving and that they would not be able to hold the water back for much longer.
The War of Southern Aggression was their last gasp effort to impose their worldview on the rest of the nation. Didn't work out too well, did it?
But the simple fact is that there is no right to secession and the Confederates fired on a Federal fort.
It is an act of rebellion plain and simple.
” He was commissioned a colonel on July 12, 1861,.....
So my point here still stands: no Southern soldier was killed by any Union force before the Confederacy started and formally declared war on the United States, on May 6, 1861.
And the simple reason that’s true is because President Lincoln on his first day in office had ordered that there could not be war unless the secessionists started it.”
I didn’t speak to any southern soldier being killed before that, because I don’t know, but it does seem likely even though the Cherokee soldiers were not yet officially ‘Confederate’soldiers. And yes, the confederacy commissioned him Colonel in the summer. He was Brigadier General by the end of the war. I’m just telling you they were active up into Missouri and took fort Smith months before that.
The Cherokee were more interested in their own sovereignty than the north vs south battle, detested Lincoln because he and his political friends were ‘free soilers’ wanting more Indian land and had been waiting for this conflict for years.
John Rollin Ridge, another Cheorkee who was living in Califoria at the time, wrote about this in 1849.
“I shall not return to the Nation now until circumstances are materially changed. I shall cast my fortunes for some years with the whites. I am twenty-three years old, married, and have an infant daughter. I will still devote my life to my people, though not amongst them, and before I die, I hope to see the Cherokee Nation, in conjunction, with the Choctaws, admitted into the Confederacy of the United States.”
Between somebody who reads the Constitution carefully to find out how states are admitted and what happens when federal and state laws conflict and somebody who just assumes that states are sovereign and have the right to do as they please, who's doing their homework and who's just spinning theories out of the air?
As our country fought wars, accumulated a national debt, acquired land and created new states bonds and obligations were created. We became in fact (as we were in the Constitution from its adoption) something more than a weak league or alliance of independent states, and the idea that one state owed no obligations to the others became harder to believe.
More later.
” Your post it very timely, particularly since I was just searching for a FReeper by that name less than an hour ago, but I couldn’t remember the correct spelling.
Interesting information. Thanks for posting! “
Thank you. Stand Watie was a fascinating character. He was articulate, a devout Christian and beloved leader who inspired a rare kind of loyalty. If you go to that website, you’ll see a rare photo of him in his younger days. He was married to my grgraunt who was known as Sally, also pictured. I was blessed to find volumes of family letters left by them. And my father knew for 23 years and often spoke with his grgrandfather James Madison Bell, Watie’s Brother in law, friend & Colonel/strategist/lawyer, so the stories were pretty ‘fresh’ for as long ago as it was. My dad was born in 1893. Jim Bell lived until 1915, 88 years.
Any quotes below were taken from actual letters. I didn’t need or want to put words in these people’s mouths. They were more than capable of speaking for themselves.
This is how Jim Bell described the ‘peace’ agreement. He returned from the war to find his wife near death.
From Chapter 14 “Peace”
Bell could hardly distinguish the difference in the emotions boiling inside him. Was it the joy in his children’s faces or a tragic irony he felt most as he moved alone through the door to his failing wife.
He exited later with more determination than when he entered. Still he was consumed with the thought that the last day of this war and finally coming home to his family would be the worst day of it all. “Children, everybody, gather your things. Tomorrow, we prepare to go home.”
Sally couldn’t have agreed more. “I don’t believe I could live one year longer if I knew that we could not be settled...I am so perfectly sick of the world!” proclaimed Sally, who couldn’t get out of the refugee camps of Texas soon enough. “I never knew so much of this world as I do since I came to this country. I used to think that everyone had some sort of a soul, but one half of them has only gizzards, and some only craws!”
“Jim?” Sally looked worried. “Where is my husband and my son? Why aren’t they with you?”
“They’re fine, Sister. They’ll be along soon enough. General Watie commissioned me and Colonel Adair to meet with General Francis Herron and Brigadier-General Veatch in Shreveport to negotiate terms of surrender for the Confederate Cherokee. We prepared papers and agreement to cease hostilities. They and the others have probably signed by now. We agree only on our terms of no retaliation to us by the Federals and not relinquishing any of our lands except to provide for the Negroes. We’ve been reassured they will sign.”
He explained more of the meeting. “We begged for arrangements to be made for the Confederacy to feed all these indigent refugees. We told him the refugees are in a state of the greatest destitution and desperate from impending starvation. I think Veatch was impressed by our presentation, though he has no authority himself to appropriate funds for such a purpose, he sent our request to his superior with the recommendation that it would probably be cheaper to feed the refugees than to punish them for raiding and stealing.”
Jim dug into a pocket. “This is a note Stand sent for you.” Sally read out loud.
“My Dear Sally,
We leave this morning. Intend to go as far as Jarrett’s. Have agreed upon the cessation of hostilities with the commanders. They will leave tomorrow. Gen. Smith had surrendered the whole department on the 26th day of May. The grand council will convene 1st day of Sep when a commander from Washington is expected to arrive. I will return home soon as our council is over at Nail’s mill.
Your Husband, Stand”
I did as little editing as possible of their words, and they didn’t need much correction. These were well educated people.
http://jesusweptanamericanstory.blogspot.com/
I'm not in the least neutral, but do try to avoid insulting anyone personally. ;-)
MamaTexan, referring to item 1, Madison's rejection of secession "at pleasure":
"1) Madison's letter, as in others of that time, state not only that his opinion be kept confidential: 'I will ask the favour of you to return the letter after it has passed under your partial & confidential eye'.
"but also that it should not be trusted: 'A man whose years have but reached the canonical three-score-&-ten (and mine are much beyond the number) should distrust himself, whether distrusted by his friends or not', "
You've taken Madison's words out of context.
The full context clearly shows he does not mean what you impute:
"Having suffered my pen to take this ramble over a subject engaging so much of your attention, I will not withhold the notes made by it from your persual.
But being aware that without more development & precision, they may in some instances be liable to misapprehension or misconstruction, I will ask the favour of you to return the letter after it has passed under your partial & confidential eye."I have made no secret of my surprize and sorrow at the proceedings in S. Carolina, which are understood to assert a right to annul the Acts of Congress within the State, & even to secede from the Union itself.
But I am unwilling to enter the political field with the "telum imbelle" which alone I could wield.
The task of combating such unhappy aberrations belongs to other hands.
A man whose years have but reached the canonical three-score-&-ten (and mine are much beyond the number) should distrust himself, whether distrusted by his friends or not, and should never forget that his arguments, whatever they may be will be answered by allusions to the date of his birth."
Clearly Madison is here referring to his waining abilities to engage the rough & tumble of public debates, not to the validity of his own views.
Madison is now just too old of a political warrior -- a "telum imbelle" -- to reenter the political battles.
Now is time for a new generation to lead the charge.
MamaTexan: "Since it was the People that gave their consent, it would be logical to assume that THEY were the sole judges of whether or not they were being subjected to 'injury or oppression'."
First of all, there was no "injury or oppression" in November 1860 -- zero, zip, nada -- when South Carolina began to secede, nor does South Carolina's Declaration of the Immediate Causes claim any "injury or oppression".
In fact, it lists only two specifics, neither of which qualify as, or are even claimed to be "injury or oppression."
In short, this specific complaint is bogus to the max, without any merit, it's a crock of nonsense and doesn't even pretend to meet the standard of "injury or oppression" by the Federal Government.
In short, this specific complaint is also bogus to the max, without any merit, it's a crock of nonsense and doesn't even pretend to meet the standard of "injury or oppression" by the Federal Government.
And the reason is simple and obvious: South Carolinians did not believe that any such standard as "injury or oppression" restricted their "right of secession."
Instead, South Carolinians believed they did have an unlimited "right to secede" for any reason, or for no reason -- in short, they could secede in Madison's words, "at pleasure".
But secession "at pleasure" was not according to the Founders' Original Intent, and therefore was unconstitutional.
And when combined with unlawful actions such as seizures of Federal properties, threats of violence against Federal personnel, and military assaults on Federal forces, these are so far from being constitutional and lawful they fall in the Constitution's categories of insurrection, rebellion and domestic violence.
MamaTexan referring to: "2) As I see no point in rehashing this previously covered subject, please see post #36"
The 1794 Whiskey Rebellion demonstrates our Founders' Original Intent in the Constitution regarding the subjects of insurrection, rebellion and "domestic violence."
That's a fact.
MamaTexan referring to item #3, 'no material conditions existed':
"LOL! Can you say Personal Liberty Laws?
You know...those NULLIFYING laws passed in Northern States in order to prevent the return of fugitive slaves DESPITE the Constitutional enumeration to the contrary?"
First of all, we really need to celebrate the overly rich irony here, that South Carolina which had previously threatened to nullify Federal laws it didn't like, is here complaining about some State laws it claims are unconstitutional.
How ludicrous is that?
But more to the point, this is an obvious legal matter for the US Supreme Court to settle, and yet South Carolina made no effort to address its concerns appropriately in court.
In short, this specific complaint is still bogus to the max, without any merit, it's a crock of nonsense and doesn't even pretend to meet the standard of "injury or oppression" by the Federal Government.
MamaTexan referring to: "4) This one is unsourced opinion, so I see no reason to remark upon it."
No, it's a simple fact: in 1860 President Buchanan, his Cabinet, the Supreme Court, and Congress were all effectively controlled by Southerners with their Dough-face Northern allies -- no opinion to it.
MamaTexan referring to item 5:
"While the Declaration of Secession is acknowledged, please give sources for your other accusations."
See my response in post #105 above.
Most of this data can also be found in Fredriksen's Civil War Almanac.
MamaTexan on item 6 referring to Dough-face President Buchanan:
"He also erroneously thought Congress has power to make war and to make peace, so he didn't appear to be Constitutionally literate.
The point of posting his speech was what, exactly?"
First, you seem to have a very strange idea here, which Sherman Logan has tried to correct you on (posts 108 & 111), but you don't yet seem to understand or admit.
So I'm not sure what exactly your problem is here...
But second, to your question: you must understand the Great Slave Power, also called the slaveocracy, which ruled the United States almost the entire time from it's founding until secession began in early 1861.
Yes, the Slave Power was always a minority in the nation, but it was the majority within the majority Democrat party and maintained its dominance through the agencies of willing Dough-face Northerners, of whom President James Buchanan was a typical example.
Buchanan was a friend of the South -- "a Northern man of Southern principles" in language of that day -- Buchanan believed in slavery, he supported and helped implement the Supreme Court's Dred Scott decision, and also backed other Southern agenda items.
In short, Buchanan was the South's man in the White House, but even Buchanan could not support secession "at pleasure", and would not hand over Fort Sumter, despite South Carolina's repeated demands and threats.
That's why it matters.
MamaTexan referring to item 7: "After the filing of the Notice of Intent, or Declaration of Secession, the ownership of Ft Sumter reverted to the State."
That claim is without basis in any law whatsoever, has no merit or even logic to it, as the South Carolina representatives in Washington acknowledged, in offering to pay for properties they seized.
But even Dough-faced President Buchanan was under no legal obligation to sell Federal property to South Carolina, and he rightly refused to do so.
MamaTexan referring to item 7, Ft Sumter:
"It was fired upon because it was unlawfully occupied.
IMHO, being used as an excuse by the federal government to crush the South,"
First, nothing lawfully transferred ownership of any Federal property to any secessionist entity.
Second, the Confederacy was crushed because it formally declared war on the United States, on May 6, 1861.
MamaTexan referring to item 8, the Confederacy's Declaration of War:
"Do you, perhaps, have a link to the federal governments Constitutionally required Declaration of War as signed by Congress?
To my knowledge, there was no Declaration of War, merely Lincoln’s Proclamation, and a proclamation does not a Declaration make."
By my count, this site lists a total of 71 US military operations, wars or "quazi-wars" during the 85 years from 1776 through 1861, of which only two were formally declared by Congress: the War of 1812 and the Mexican-American War of 1846.
Most of the others did receive specific Congressional approval, and as far as I know, no Congress ever "undeclared" a war.
But formal declarations of war were rare in any case, and were never used to suppress insurrections, rebellion or "domestic violence."
In 1861 Congress did approve everything appropriate to approve that President Lincoln did.
But a declaration of war was not appropriate, and Congress didn't make one.
MamaTexan referring to '9. Prior to that Declaration of War, no Confederate soldier had been killed by any Union force.':
"9) Again, unsourced opinion."
See my response in post #110 above.
MamaTexan referring to item 10:
"True. Other States joined after the fact."
And the point is: those Upper-South states of Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee and Arkansas voted not only for secession, but also for the formally declared war against the United States.
So they knew ahead of time they were going to war and chose to join it.
Excellent post and summary (not that anyone is keeping score, LOL).
Individuals own property. Corporations and governments can also own property. I'm not sure that the state owns what you own or that you and all the other people in the state own your property.
I don't know where you're going with this. As I see it there are two matters involved here.
First, if the federal government paid money for land to build post offices, court houses, mints, custom houses, and forts, how does that differ from you or me paying money to buy a house or shop? The state government that can expropriate federal buildings can also expropriate you or me. Allowing them to do so isn't a victory for individualism or liberty.
If the federal government was granted land (or more likely water space) to build a fort on, can a state simply declare that it is grabbing back the fort and the land (or the fort that was built on those waters)? Well, there wasn't any kind of international court in those days, and the secessionists didn't want to go to the courts.
The law of enclaves and exclaves (like Guantanamo, West Berlin, Hong Kong, Macao, and those bits of Armenia in Azerbaijan and of Azerbaijan on the other side of Armenia) also wasn't very well developed in those days either, but I'd say the federal government had a pretty good case at law for retaining the fort.
But beyond the law, what about caution, prudence, and statesmanship? Or magnanimity, generosity, and gratitude? Letting the feds retain their fort would have been a small price to pay for independence if that's what South Carolina or a new nation composed of Southern states wanted.
Cooler heads and moderation might have made secession a reality, but that wasn't to be. A spirit of anger, hatred, panic, and victimization was exactly the wrong way to approach secession. Unfortunately for the disunionists, that was precisely the spirit that would prevail when secession talk came prevail in the slave states.
Again, that you believe all the "territory" is communal or owned by the national government betrays a very unhealthy devotion you have to socialism (cure music "We are the World). So "x," the PEOPLE of that State can do whatever they want to do with the land within the boarders of that State.
Second, what you're arguing, that "the PEOPLE of that State can do whatever they want to do with the land within the borders of that State" does sound a lot like socialism. I wouldn't say that the federal government or any government can do what they want with the people or land within their boarders or that property rights can be ignored. But you grant to state governments the same excessive power that you fear in the federal government.
I also have to wonder about the way you set things up here. If I live somewhere within the borders of the United Statest, it may matter where I can live and what I can do with my property whether I'm American or Canadian or Mexican. Being a US citizen in the US may mean that I have rights and obligations that a non-citzen may not have. In that sense I may be a part "owner" of the country.
Does it matter if I'm a Virginian or an New Yorker? Not so much, unless it was 150 years ago and we're talking about the right to own slaves. In so far as I'm a resident of a state, I have a right to vote and an obligation to pay taxes, but "citizenship" in a state isn't as big a deal as US citizenship, and that was true even in 1860 (slavery apart).
No, particularly since Lincoln's actions nullified the Compact.
§ 203. The treaty is void by the destruction of one of the contracting powers …….Thus, when a state is destroyed and the people are dispersed, or when they are subdued by a conqueror, all their alliances and treaties fall to the ground with the public power that had contracted them.
Book II, Chapter VIII, Law of Nations
Congratulations, you won, and your reward is an unlimited government.
Sure, right after the south crapped all over it. Congratulations, we all won, although some are too pig-headed to recognize it.
Yes, they were. You make me ashamed to admit my ignorance when it comes to the Cherokee people.
Particularly since my ancestors intermarried with them on a fairly regular basis for several centuries!
Oh, goody.
Another member of the Blah Blah Brigade.
No legal cites, no Constitutional Articles, no quotes from anyone....just blah, blah, the South was wrong.
Have a nice day whilst wallowing in your ignorance.
I appreciate your restraint.
[and that's a sincere statement, not a sarcastic one]
-----
You've taken Madison's words out of context. The full context clearly shows he does not mean what you impute:
As Madison’s admonition that a man of his age should distrust himself, whether distrusted by his friends or not appears in his closing statement, there is no logic in the assumption his words were taken ‘out of context’.
-----
First, South Carolina alleges that, not the Federal Government, but some state governments have passed laws which interfere with the Constitution's fugitive slave provision. But this didn't suddenly happen in November 1860, the same conditions existed for many years, during which South Carolina made no attempts to secede or deal lawfully with the problem.
§ 200. How a treaty is dissolved, when violated by one of the contracting parties.
Treaties contain promises that are perfect and reciprocal. If one of the allies fails in his engagements, the other may compel him to fulfill them: — a perfect promise confers a right to do so. But, if the latter has no other expedient than that of arms to force his ally to the performance of his promises, he will sometimes find it more eligible to cancel the promises on his own side also, and to dissolve the treaty. He has undoubtedly a right to do this, since his promises were made only on condition that the ally should, on his part, execute every thing which he had engaged to perform.
The South waited until the promise to perform was broken repeatedly. Had they leaped at the first instance, they would have been vilified for that as well.
§ 202. The violation of one article in a treaty may cancel the whole
………Every thing, therefore, which is comprehended in the same treaty, is of the same force and nature as a reciprocal promise unless where a formal exception is made to the contrary. Grotius very properly observes that "every article of a treaty carries with it a condition, by the non-performance of which the treaty is wholly cancelled."2
Law of Nations , Book II, Chap. XIII
For those wishing to claim the Law of Nations has no internal effect on the Constitution:
It will be remembered, that the object of the several states in the adoption of that instrument, was not the establishment of a general consolidated government, which should swallow up the state sovereignties, and annihilate their several jurisdictions, and powers, as states; but a federal government, with powers limited to certain determinate objects; viz. their intercourse and concerns with foreign nations; and with each other, as separate and independent states; and, as members of the same confederacy: leaving the administration of their internal, and domestic concerns, to the absolute and uncontrolable jurisdiction of the states, respectively; except in one or two particular instances, specified, and enumerated in the constitution. And because this principle was supposed not to have been expressed with sufficient precision, and certainty, an amendatory article was proposed, adopted, and ratified; whereby it is expressly declared, that, “the powers not delegated to the United States by the constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.” This article is, indeed, nothing more than an express recognition of the law of nations; for Vattel informs us, “that several sovereign, and independent states may unite themselves together by a perpetual confederacy, without each in particular ceasing to be a perfect state. They will form together a federal republic: the deliberations in common will offer no violence to the sovereignty of each member, though they may in certain respects put some constraint on the exercise of it, in virtue of voluntary engagements.
View of the Constitution of the United States George Tucker
I don’t recall claiming any injury or oppression was committed ‘by the federal government’. If you believe this statement to be in error, please show me where I’ve done so, and I will not hesitate to apologize for the blunder.
-----
South Carolina's second specific is the real reason: the election of Abraham Lincoln's Republican party. And why is that a problem?
Because his opinions and purposes were are hostile to slavery, just as they stated.
in short, they could secede in Madison's words, "at pleasure".
Madison’s words concerned the actions taken by South Carolina over federal tariffs, and had nothing to do with the respective States failing to uphold Constitutional provisions.
The reply to all such suggestions seems to be unavoidable and irresistible; that the Constitution is a compact, that its text is to be expounded according to the provisions for expounding it– making a part of the compact; and that none of the parties can rightfully renounce the expounding provision more than any other part. When such a right accrues, as may accrue, it must grow out of abuses of the compact, releasing the sufferers from their fealty to it.
James Madison to Edward Everett 28 Aug. 1830
-----
The 1794 Whiskey Rebellion demonstrates our Founders' Original Intent in the Constitution regarding the subjects of insurrection, rebellion and "domestic violence."
And gives Constitutional procedures for same. Please see post#90.
-----
First of all, we really need to celebrate the overly rich irony here, that South Carolina which had previously threatened to nullify Federal laws it didn't like, is here complaining about some State laws it claims are unconstitutional. How ludicrous is that?
Since they were concerning TWO SEPARATE AUTHORITIES, it’s not ludicrous at all.
------
No, it's a simple fact: in 1860 President Buchanan, his Cabinet, the Supreme Court, and Congress were all effectively controlled by Southerners with their Dough-face Northern allies -- no opinion to it.
Wikapedia is a great starting point, but I have trouble trusting a ‘source’ that can be altered by anyone with a computer.
Political protestations aside, Dred Scott was a Constitutionally sound decision, so what was your point?
-----
See my response in post #105 above. Most of this data can also be found in Fredriksen's Civil War Almanac.
So the options are to either take a page designed by the Lincoln Museum as gospel or buy a book? LOL! Not hardly.
-----
First, you seem to have a very strange idea here, which Sherman Logan has tried to correct you on (posts 108 & 111), but you don't yet seem to understand or admit.
Please see post #122.
-----
Yes, the Slave Power was always a minority in the nation,
Ensuring equality of both the majority as well as the minority IS one of the primary purposes of a Republican form of government.
P.S. No notice has been taken in the inclosed paper of the fact, that the present charge of usurpations & abuses of power, is not that they are measures of the Govt. violating the will of its Constituents, as was the case with the Alien & Sedition Acts, but that they are measures of a Majority of the Constituents themselves, oppressing the Minority thro’ the forms of the Govt. This distinction would lead to very different views of the topics under discussion. It is connected with the fundamental principles of Rep: Govt: and with the question of comparative danger of oppressive Majorities from the Sphere and Structure of the General Govt. and from those of the particular Govts.
James Madison to Edward Everett 17 April 1830
-----
That claim is without basis in any law whatsoever, has no merit or even logic to it, as the South Carolina representatives in Washington acknowledged, in offering to pay for properties they seized.
After the Declaration of Secession, the ownership of Ft Sumter did revert to the State, in accordance with the Law of Nations. [I'd also like to note this also covers the causes for a justified war]
§ 212. To what the sovereign is bound.
But, if the agreement has given nothing to the state which she did not before possess, — if, as in that of the Furcæ Caudinæ, the advantage simply consists in her escape from an impending danger, her preservation from a threatened loss, — such advantage is a boon of fortune, which she may enjoy without scruple. Who would refuse to be saved by the folly of his enemy? And who would think himself obliged to indemnify that enemy for the advantage he had suffered to escape him, when no fraud had been used to induce him to forego that advantage?
Book II, Chap XIV
-----
Second, the Confederacy was crushed because it formally declared war on the United States, on May 6, 1861.
Had the federal government actually followed the Law of Nations, the Constitution and the precepts of a Republican government that they were ALL sworn to uphold, it would not have been necessary to declare war.
A war, I might add, whose foundation was both reasonable and proper.
------
In 1861 Congress did approve everything appropriate to approve that President Lincoln did.
Oh, I’m certain they were ALL on board after-the-fact.
Odd how they were questioning what he was doing prior to that, though. Specifically, on Monday, February 11, 1861-
Resolved, That the President of the United States furnish to this House, if not incompatible with the public service, the reasons that have induced him to assemble so large a number of troops in this city, and why they are kept here.
Lincoln was amassing troops prior to the Declaration of War. In fact that’s WHY war was declared.
§ 42. Whether the aggrandizement of a neighbouring power can authorize a war against him. Here a very celebrated question, and of the highest importance, presents itself. It is asked, whether the aggrandizement of a neighbouring power, by whom a nation fears she may one day be crushed, be a sufficient reason for making war against him — whether she be justifiable in taking up arms to oppose his aggrandizement, or to weaken him, with the sole view of securing herself from those dangers which the weaker states have almost always reason to apprehend from an overgrown power. To the majority of politicians this question is no problem: it is more difficult of solution to those who wish to see justice and prudence ever inseparably united.
On the one hand, a state that increases her power by all the arts of good government, does no more than what is commendable — she fulfils her duties towards herself without violating those which she owes to other nations. The sovereign, who, by inheritance, by free election, or by any other just and honourable means, enlarges his dominions by the addition of new provinces or entire kingdoms, only makes use of his right, without injuring any person. How then should it be lawful to attack a state which, for its aggrandizement, makes use only of lawful means? We must either have actually suffered an injury or be visibly threatened with one, before we are authorized to take up arms, or have just grounds for making war (§§ 26, 27).
Book II, Chap III, Law of Nations
I’d call amassing 75,000 troops a VERY visible threat. Apparently, so did the Confederate States
But a declaration of war was not appropriate
For your instances of actions involving the Navy or the seas, no.
It is not easy to perceive where this power could, with us, be more prudently placed. But it must be remembered, that we may be involved in a war without a formal declaration of it. In the year 1800, we were engaged in a qualified, but public, war with France; qualified, because it was only waged on the high seas--public, because the whole nation was involved in it.
William Rawle
For the use of the militia, it is not only appropriate, but required
As war cannot lawfully be commenced on the part of the United States, without an act of Congress, such an act is, of course, a formal official notice to all the world, and equivalent to the most solemn declaration.
…….
When the case was brought up, on appeal, before the Supreme Court of the United States, the broad principle was assumed, that war gave to the sovereign full right to take the persons, and confiscate the property of the enemy, wherever found; and that the mitigations of this rigid rule, which the wise and humane policy of modern times had introduced into practice, might, more or less, affect the exercise of the right, but could not impair the right itself.
James Kent, Commentaries
-----
And the point is: those Upper-South states of Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee and Arkansas voted not only for secession, but also for the formally declared war against the United States. So they knew ahead of time they were going to war and chose to join it.
Did it occur to you they had no desire to have their own people become part of Lincoln's *75,000 troops*?
--------
While I’m enjoying the debate, I’d like to take this opportunity to propose posts containing a smaller number of points.
This suggestion is to achieve not only an easier-to-read thread, but also to shorten the time required for a comprehensive reply.
Oh goody, a cut~n~paste queen. At the end of the day all we have are opinions and mine are every bit as valid as yours.
Have a special kinda day ;-)
Correct me if I am wrong, but it was the rebels who opened fire on Ft. Sumter.
So it wasn’t the Union that opened fire in 1860.
No. It didn’t. What it did establish is that disunion can not happen unilaterally. All states are party to the Union. All, or at least most, would have to be party to disunion. That could occur certainly by constitutional amendment, and perhaps by legislation or by a successful case brought by a state with the supreme court as original jurisdiction.
Rebellion is always treason, unless you win.
The southern states did not attempt to peacefully secede, rather they fired on US forces, initiating a war.
Further, they did not attempt to peacefully secede prior to the war by offering cash money to the remaining states in the Union. There was certainly a need for it, and paying one’s way out would have been peaceful, if that was what they wanted.
I've asked numerous times about the Citation in Article II where the people, operating through their indicudual States DELEGATED a power they possessed to the Executive to suspend habeas corpus. Silence...as there is none.
I have asked numerous time where in Article II the the people, operating through their individual States DELEGATED a power they possessed to the Executive to issue an arrest warrant for the arrest of Chief Justice of the Supreme Court Taney ( I suspect I'll read something about Ward Hill Lamon not being credible)
And the list can go on and on but I tire of writing it, it's MANY lines long.
This is an issue of the Rule of Law and authority, not opinions about what Madison said about proper construction or intent. Lincoln had ZERO Article II Constitutional authority to do what he did, unless you can point to that section of Article II which no one can. So what do people do when they do not have an actual Constitution argument? Typically, they obfuscate with opinions, citations, in some cases of ONE Framer and present that as ironclad proof that the intent of the Founders, Framers and Ratifiers was "X". Yet, silence when it comes to a shred of Article II authority. Never a cite...just opinion and weaving together fanciful stories about the "real" meaning of the Declaration and the Constitution. Fanciful indeed.
So I will retire from this discussion, for it is not fruitful. I've merely found another group of big-government conservatives cut from Hamilton's clothe who are very comfortable waving the Constitution as a propaganda tool, but hold little fidelity to it.
Unless of course, anyone can point to that section of Article II where Lincoln was DELEGATED a power the the people of their individual States possessed to do the anti-constitutional things he did...crickets.
What you really seem to support, arbitrary power based on Machiavellian narrative about Madison, and the Framers, will someday come back to bite you. Good luck with that.
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.