Replies

MamaTexan from post #135: "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’."

Of course you're taking Madison's words out of context.
The full context clearly shows that Madison is not talking about the veracity or wisdom of his words, but instead about his ability, at his age, to perform adequately in the rough and tumble of public debate:

"should never forget that his arguments, whatever they may be will be answered by allusions to the date of his birth."

All he's trying to say is that the cause needs a younger spokesman.

MamaTexan: "§ 202. The violation of one article in a treaty may cancel the whole." ...Law of Nations , Book II, Chap. XIII

No Founder considered the new US Constitution as nothing more than a mere treaty.
Instead they called it a "compact" and a "union", intended to be even more "perfect" than the "perpetual union" of the old Articles of Confederation.
That's why their new Constitution provided numerous structures and methods for resolving conflicts amongst states, without the extreme necessity of dissolving the union.
Indeed, that was a major reason for a new Constitution.

When the Founders addressed the question of "disunion", which they seldom did directly, it was always in contexts similar to those of their own "disunion" from the British Empire -- only under extreme circumstances causing real "injury or oppression", only after all other lawful measures had been exhausted, and really, only after war itself had already been launched by oppressors against their citizens.
The Founders did not accept that disunion "at pleasure" was authorized by their Constitution.

But none of the necessary conditions applied in November 1860, nor did South Carolina secessionists even pretend they did.
Instead, secessionists cited only two reasons for secession: a phony reason, Northern Fugitive Slave laws, and the real reason: the Constitutional election of Abraham Lincoln's anti-slavery Republicans.

So secession under those conditions was neither "necessary" nor caused by "injury or oppression."
Instead, it was secession "at pleasure" and was therefore not in accord with the Founders' Original Intent.

MamaTexan quoting from View of the Constitution of the United States by George Tucker.

We have covered this ground in previous threads:

While Tucker was an early commenter on the Constitution, he was not a Founder -- he neither helped write nor voted to ratify the Constitution.
So his opinions are just that -- opinions, not Original Intent.
You continue to identify Tucker as a Supreme Court Justice. He was not.
"On January 18, 1813, Tucker was nominated by President James Madison to a seat on the United States District Court for the District of Virginia vacated by John Tyler, Sr.
Tucker was confirmed by the United States Senate on January 19, 1813, and received commission the same day.
On February 4, 1819, he was reassigned by operation of law to the newly subdivided United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, serving until his resignation on June 30, 1825."

MamaTexan: "I don’t recall claiming any injury or oppression was committed ‘by the federal government’."

So you concede my point, that South Carolina's secession had nothing to do with "Big Government" causing a constitutionally valid "injury or oppression" to a state.

Now, if you'll just concede my other points, we can wrap this conversation up in short order... ;-)

MamaTexan, referring to Lincoln's election: "Because his opinions and purposes were are hostile to slavery, just as they stated."

There is no Constitutional requirement that every American must support all slavery, in each its aspects.
Indeed, obvious opposition to slavery can be found in the Constitution itself -- i.e., allowing for laws abolishing the imports of new slaves.
Nor did Lincoln propose abolishing all slavery, instead he was opposed to slavery's expansion out of the South into western and northern territories.

So there was nothing in the least unconstitutional about Lincoln's election, or his proposals to restrict slavery's expansion.
That makes the actions of South Carolina's Slave Power secession "at pleasure", which was and is not constitutional.

MamaTexan: "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."

South Carolina secessionists cited no examples where other States alleged "failing to uphold Constitutional provisions" had caused any "injury or oppression" to South Carolina.
Conditions cited in December 1860 had previously existed in one form or another for decades, without causing South Carolina's extreme response of secession.
The Constitution provides several constitutional methods for states to resolve their issues lawfully, without resorting to the extreme measure of secession, and neither South Carolina nor any other Deep South slave-state had exhausted any of those methods.
So South Carolina seceded "at pleasure", which was not our Founders Original Intent and was not constitutional.

MamaTexan, referring to the 1794 Whiskey Rebellion: "And gives Constitutional procedures for same. Please see post#90."

Your post #90 to Sherman Logan:

Again quotes both St. George Tucker and William Rawle, neither of whom were Founders, both simply expressing their learned opinions, not Original Intent.
Ignores the fact that Founders' actions in response to the Whiskey Rebellion demonstrate historically what the Founders intended by their Constitutional provisions for "rebellion", "insurrection" and "domestic violence."

Our Founders intended that obvious rebellion was to be met and defeated with military force, lead by the President.
After an insurrection is defeated, the insurrectionists should be treated with as much lieniency as possible.

MamaTexan, referring to South Carolina secessionists attitude toward nullification: "Since they were concerning TWO SEPARATE AUTHORITIES, it’s not ludicrous at all."

The simple fact is that secessionists asserted their own right to nullify laws they didn't like, but denied other states could nullify laws the secessionists did like.

But more to the point, South Carolina secessionists took no serious constitutional actions to redress their grievances before declaring secession.

MamaTexan, referring to the Slave Power's domination of Federal Washington, including the administration of President Buchanan:
"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?"

My point is just that: the Slave Power ruled Washington almost continuously from the Founding of the Republic until secession in 1861.
It did so through the agency of willing Northern Democrat allies -- aka "Dough Faces" -- amongst whom President Buchanan and his Southern dominated cabinet were typical examples.

Further, the Supreme Court, as demonstrated in its 1857 Dred Scott decision, was also under slaveocracy control.

Plus, both houses of Congress -- thanks to the Constitution's 3/5 of slaves rule -- were dominated by Southerners and their Dough Face Northern allies.
Yes, the Slave Power did fade somewhat by 1860, but even as late as 1861, it could have blocked the new Merrill tariff in the Senate, had they been there to do so.

MamaTexan, referring to the Constitution's provisions for war: "Please see post #122."

In your post #122 you declare an unearned victory over Sherman Logan.
I call that "spiking the football in your own end-zone", and it's not uncommon on these threads... ;-)

I'm certain more will be said on this subject in a later post...

MamaTexan, referring to the minority Slave Power's dominant influence over Federal Washington:
"Ensuring equality of both the majority as well as the minority IS one of the primary purposes of a Republican form of government."

Careful selections of words are extraordinarily important in discussions like these.
For example, "ensuring equality" is not even one purpose of a "Republican form of government."
Protecting minority rights certainly is.
More importantly, we don't have just a "Republican form of government" since that word "republican" can be stretched to mean almost anything, including various "Peoples' Republics", which certainly do claim to "ensure equality."
What we have instead -- rather, what we were intended to have -- is a constitutionally limited Federal government.

Our government was intended to protect the rights of all its citizens, majorities and minorities.

But it also allows for the free-play of political alliances, parties, movements etc., and in this regard the Southern Slave Power was extraordinarily successful in the 72 years from the Founding of the Republic until secession in 1861.
Through strong alliances with Northern "Dough Face" Democrats, the minority slaveocracy was successful in advancing its interests for many decades.

Indeed, the Slave Power only fully lost power in Washington when it capriciously and unnecessarily seceded and walked away.

MamaTexan: "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]"

That's a ludicrous suggestion, which I've addressed elsewhere and will resume later...

MamaTexan: "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."

Sorry, but at this point you begin to abandon whatever claim to sanity you previously maintained.
First of all, the Law of Nations is not the Constitution, and does not supersede it.

Second, "domestic violence", insurrection, rebellion and war were started and waged against the United States by secessionists beginning in November 1860, of which their assault on Fort Sumter in April 1861 was only the most egregious example.
But as the secessionists crimes increased, the United States continued to make no military response -- and no Confederate Soldiers were killed by any Union force -- until after the Confederacy's declaration of war on May 6, 1861.

At that point, there was no possibility of any long-term outcome except the Confederacy's Unconditional Surrender.

MamaTexan: "Odd how they were questioning what he was doing prior to that, though. Specifically, on Monday, February 11, 1861"

Careful, careful -- you know perfectly well that in February 1861, President Buchanan was still in office, and while disagreeing that secession "at pleasure" was constitutional, was determined to do nothing militarily to oppose it.

And obviously, once the Slave Power abandoned Congress in early 1861, then Congress lost all enthusiasm for protecting the slaveocracy's interests.

MamaTexan: "Lincoln was amassing troops prior to the Declaration of War. In fact that’s WHY war was declared."

First, nations often amass troops an no war results, the 1790s "Quazi-War" against France, to cite one example.

Second, secessionists began amassing their own troops before they even seceded.
For example, in November 1860, at a time when the entire US Army had about 17,000 soldiers, South Carolina before seceding, amassed 10,000 soldiers.
These were used to seize Federal properties, most notably Fort Sumter.

Then in early March 1861, while the US Army is still only 17,000 strong, the Confederacy raised 100,000 troops and Jefferson Davis ordered preparations for the assault on Fort Sumter.

And still the United States took no military actions to suppress the rebellion.

So, if South Carolina's raising 10,000 troops in November 1860 was not an act of war, and the Confederacy's raising 100,000 troops in March 1861 was not an act of war, and if seizures of Federal property, firing on Federal forces and the Battle of Fort Sumter were all not acts of war -- how then does President Lincoln's call for a mere 75,000 troops suddenly become an "act of war"?

MamaTexan, referring to an alleged necessity for Congress to declare war: "For the use of the militia, it is not only appropriate, but required"

In historical fact, neither Founders nor later Congresses ever issued a formal Declaration of War in cases of insurrection, rebellion or "domestic violence." So your claim that those are somehow constitutionally necessary is counter-factual.

MamaTexan, referring to Upper South states joining the Confederacy after the Battle of Fort Sumter:
"Did it occur to you they had no desire to have their own people become part of Lincoln's *75,000 troops*?"

Of course -- if I remember correctly, Kentucky declared its "neutrality", declined to either send troops or join the Confederacy.
But those Upper South states which did join the Confederacy did so with full knowledge that they were going to war against the United States, a war first started and then formally declared by the Confederacy.

They chose war, and they got it.

All he's trying to say is that the cause needs a younger spokesman.

Nice 'interpretation'. On the other hand, I took his words in a more literal sense: I'm old, I'm tired, and I'm not sure my memory is what it once was, and other people shouldn't trust it either.

-----

Instead they called it a "compact" and a "union", intended to be even more "perfect" than the "perpetual union" of the old Articles of Confederation.

The names are different, but the concept is the same....they are all agreements between parties.

Please show me the part of the Law of Nations that governs "unions' or 'compacts'.

-----

But none of the necessary conditions applied in November 1860, nor did South Carolina secessionists even pretend they did.

The facts in post #172 & 173 show that the northern states passed legislation contrary to the Fugitive Slave Act of 1793. When challenged, the City of New York, the State of New York, the US Supreme Court and the Appeals Court for the US Supreme Court ALL said the Article and the Act were constitutional....and the northern states proceeded to continue to legislate on it anyway.

Until the decision in Priggs came along a mere 7 years later, and POOF! all of a sudden the already settled law had the ability to be legislated on again by the federal government.

If the fact of unconstitutional actions at both the State and federal level is NOT 'injury or oppression', what IS?

-----

So his opinions are just that -- opinions, not Original Intent

While not, a 'Founder', he served in the Virginia militia and cavalry in the American Revolutionary War, rising to the rank of Colonel.

There are over 100 returns when Searching for his name in the 1774-1875 U.S. Congressional Documents and Debates at the Library of Congress.
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query
He was communicated with quite regularly, so he must have had SOME insight into Original Intent, wouldn't you think?

You continue to identify Tucker as a Supreme Court Justice

I thought I had previously apologized for and corrected that in a later post. He was a Virginia District Court Judge appointed by Madison.

If I have not apologized for the error, then I apologize now.

-----

So you concede my point, that South Carolina's secession had nothing to do with "Big Government" causing a constitutionally valid "injury or oppression" to a state.

No I was questioning the fact you were saying I asserted something I never did.

As far as acts of federal oppression, please see earlier posts concerning Prigg.

-----

States failing to uphold Constitutional provisions

Again, 1834 Jack v. Martin and 1842 Prigg v. Penn

The southern states had no quibble with the Constitutionally SETTLED law, so there was nothing for them to 'contest'.

The northern states had the issue, thus the burden was THEIRS to have it changed.

-----

Our Founders intended that obvious rebellion

Show me:
1) Where the Founders showed ANY justification for armed conflict between the States, and
2) Just where Lincoln adhered to the Constitutional procedures concerning rebellions or insurrections.

-------

South Carolina secessionists took no serious constitutional actions to redress their grievances before declaring secession.

Show me where such an action is required.

Show me where a simple Declaration of Intent is not sufficient.

Show me the word 'succession' in the Constitution....AT ALL!.

-----

My point is just that: the Slave Power ruled Washington almost continuously from the Founding of the Republic until secession in 1861.

The POINT is we are a nation of Laws, or we are not.

Yes the right to own slaves was IN THE CONSTITUION.....this right can't be undone except by CONSTITUTIONAL MEANS.

There is NOTHING in the Constitution that says it can be negated because someone doesn't want to 'perform the promise' that they'd made.

If the Northern states knew they could not deal with the idea of slavery, the should have just made the compact among them selves.

-----

For example, "ensuring equality" is not even one purpose of a "Republican form of government."

That's right. While the word 'ensuring' may have been poorly chosen, I did give a Founders illustration of the concept.

Protecting minority rights certainly is.

That's right....and the slave-owners were the minority.

-----

First of all, the Law of Nations is not the Constitution, and does not supersede it.

I never said it 'superseded it' I SHOWED where it was the blueprint for Constitutional construction and thus provided the rules for the compact.

With all due respect, you continue to make assertions without evidence. Nothing from the Library of Congress, no historical books or writings....nothing.

Just illustrating what happened, telling me I'm wrong, lecturing on history, and explaining your point of view.

Words

are

NOT

evidence!

I don't want it explained, I want it PROVEN by historical documentation that anyone prior to 1850 said secession was unconstitutional.

I've shown it was perfectly acceptable means of withdrawing from the Compact in a previous post where Tucker spoke about the States seceding from the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union.

Not one person on this board has offered a single shred of evidence to prove this was not the case with the exception of 'laws' passed well after the issue was 'settled' by force.

You would think if it was so commonly known that the northern states were so constitutionally correct, and the southern states were so horribly WRONG, that the web would be positively FLOODED with more information supporting that point of view than the mere trickle I've been able to find asserting the contrary one, wouldn't you?

------

I have offered evidence bot for my asserted points as well as in rebuttal. When others offer me that same courtesy, I will respond.

Until that time comes, good day.