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).
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.