Posted on 07/09/2020 7:22:08 PM PDT by Meatspace
Sure, but nobody I know of today defends Dred Scott as ever having been a just law, except our own DiogenesLamp and woodpusher.
Should I add your name to that very short list?
So, give me the particulars of the arrests made for dumping a chamber pot on a federal soldier; there had to have been some arrests because it is a direct physical assault, and because of disease possibly fatal. You won’t find any, because there weren’t any official records of such incidents.
You show a reference [12} to support your claim. Usually one would give the cite and attribution, instead of just hanging out a note #. I assumed it was a cut-and-paste on your part, and — Lo! and Behold! — so it was. You cut-and-pasted from Wikipedia’s “General Order No. 28,” which shows that note #12 refers to a work by one Alecia Long. Specifically, “(Mis)Remembering General Order No.28: Benjamin Butler, the Woman Order, and Historical Memory”. It is an essay in the book “Occupied Women: Gender, Military Occupation, and the American Civil War,” Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University. p. 28. ISBN 9780807137178. The Wikipedia entry is itself taken directly from the LSU Press website.
(Disclaimer: My university degree in History was from the LSU system, specifically, the University of New Orleans, which in those days was part of the LSU system, but recently became part of the University of Louisiana system.)
What’s interesting is that the description of that book on Amazon and the LSU Press website contains the sentence: “Some essays REINTERPRET legendary encounters between military men and occupied women, such as those prompted by General Butler’s infamous ‘Woman Order’ and Sherman’s March to the Sea.”
Well, right there I had to ask myself: Why REINTERPRET? Why not just quote, or interpret? Is it perhaps what Ms. Long THOUGHT the order said, or intended, differed from what was known about it on May 15, 1862? I’m not about to buy the book, but maybe my local library has a copy of it.
And New Orleans’ women spitting on federal troops? Also, from the Wikipedia entry, it shows a cartoon depicting such, but that cartoon was published in “Harper’s Weekly,” in July, 1862. “Harper’s Weekly,” as you probably know, was a New York City publication, which held very strong anti-secessionist positions. Again, after the fact (i.e., the Order; but, that could be due to time lags). But knowing New Orleans women (I married one), including grandmothers and aunts, I know their temperament and their upbringing; and they would not have spat on a federal troop, but they sure as hell would have slapped him in the face if they had been disrespectful.
I do know of a woman from New Orleans who was arrested and imprisoned for yukking it up during the funeral of a federal soldier, and the Wikipedia entry does make mention of that. But, don’t you think there’d be a mention of the arrest and imprisonment of a woman for committing a far more serious offense, such as dumping the contents of her chamber pot on a federal soldier, or, certainly, on a high naval officer who was responsible for subduing the city?
It’s interesting, though, that there are records up the wazoo of poor Mumford hauling down a flag, and being executed for same. One would think that throwing the contents of chamber pots on federal troops — especially Captain (later Admiral) David Farragut, who subdued New Orleans — would warrant a similar charge and fate.
So, your “cause and effect” fail.
Butler was a corrupt megalomaniac, who pissed off not only New Orleanians but also representatives of France and Holland who were based in New Orleans, and who were wholly neutral.
Let’s put in the ballot and vote on it. I don’t give a damn how some military expert (how many decades since we won a war) gets behind it.
We’re not a country based on ‘law by press appointed ‘experts’...
Please cite the section of the Constitution where’s specifically allowed!
“Indeed, after 1801 the old Federalists and Randolph’s Old Republicans sometimes joined forces to defeat Jeffersonian Democrats’ big government programs.”
You’re joking, right? I don’t dispute your argument that there were Federalist forces opposed to Jefferson and the Democratic-Republicans (whom you refer to as “Jeffersonian Democrats,” likely because you are obsessed with the word “Democrats”). But, Jefferson and the Democratic-Republicans were not strong advocates of big government. And Jackson? He was a populist, and were he alive today would find much common ground with the GOP.
And, contrary to your earlier comment about Democrats controlling the country for 60 years (or, until Lincoln), may I remind you that the Whigs produced four presidents and some very influential leaders, including Daniel Webster and Henry Clay; even John Calhoun was a Whig for a time. As for the Whig presidents, there were four of them, but two of them had their terms cut short because they died in office. The Whigs were not ineffectual, but they could never really solidify. They were formed as an opposition to Jackson, as they favored a strong federal government. Lincoln became a Whig shortly after it was formed in the early 1830s, and remained a Whig until the party dissolved in 1855; he then ran for the presidency as a Republican in 1860.
Finally, you said “Bottom line: it’s pure Democrat propaganda to call Jeffersonian Democrats ‘conservatives’ or ‘strict constructionists’ — they were neither except when that suited them politically before 1800 and almost never afterwards.”
I think you have to look at it from the perspective of today: Jefferson and his followers were classical liberals, who identified with limited government and protections guaranteed to the people. Today, that is pretty much what modern-day conservatives believe. Conversely, the early Republicans favored big government, and the stronger the better; or, much of what the modern Democrat Party and today’s liberals advocate. I said in another post, and I don’t know if it was directed to you or not, that the two parties have flipped in their advocacies over the last 150 years or so; so that left has become right, and vice versa.
“Let’s put in the ballot and vote on it.”
What ballot do you want to put this on?
Lincoln wanted everyone to just go home, later it was ratify a couple of amendments but fundamentally the same just go home.
Because of the Scott v. Sanford decision.
Partly. But mainly by the Fourteenth Amendment.
To my knowledge, no court ever over-ruled the 7-2 Dred Scott decision of the United States Supreme Court.
The Constitution over-ruled the Scott decision with the addition of the 14th Amendment.
The framers of the constitution were smart men. They made a process in the constitution to add new states, if they wanted states to be able to leave they would have added that process.
After the civil war(because of course courts don’t hear cases until the question involves comes before them) a case did reach the supreme court which required them to decide if secession was constitutional before they could render a verdict, Texas v White 1869. In it they said this;
“Did Texas, in consecuence of these acts, cease to be a State? Or, if not, did the State cease to be a member of the Union?
It is needless to discuss, at length, the question whether the right of a State to withdraw from the Union for any cause, regarded by herself as sufficient, is consistent with the Constitution of the United States.
The Union of the States never was a purely artificial and arbitrary relation. It began among the Colonies, and grew out of common origin, mutual sympathies, kindred principles, similar interests, and geographical relations. It was confirmed and strengthened by the necessities of war, and received definite form, and character, and sanction from the Articles of Confederation. By these the Union was solemnly declared to ‘be perpetual.’ And when these Articles were found to be inadequate to the exigencies of the country, the Constitution was ordained ‘to form a more perfect Union.’ It is difficult to convey the idea of indissoluble unity more clearly than by these words. What can be indissoluble if a perpetual Union, made more perfect, is not?
But the perpetuity and indissolubility of the Union, by no means implies the loss of distinct and individual existence, or of the right of self-government by the States. Under the Articles of Confederation each State retained its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right not expressly delegated to the United States. Under the Constitution, though the powers of the States were much restricted, still, all powers not delegated to the United States, nor prohibited to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. And we have already had occasion to remark at this term, that cthe people of each State compose a State, having its own government, and endowed with all the functions essential to separate and independent existence,’ and that ‘without the States in union, there could be no such political body as the United States.’ Not only, therefore, can there be no loss of separate and independent autonomy to the States, through their union under the Constitution, but it may be not unreasonably said that the preservation of the States, and the maintenance of their governments, are as much within the design and care of the Constitution as the preservation of the Union and the maintenance of the National government. The Constitution, in all its provisions, looks to an indestructible Union, composed of indestructible States.
When, therefore, Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation. All the obligations of perpetual union, and all the guaranties of republican government in the Union, attached at once to the State. The act which consummated her admission into the Union was something more than a compact; it was the incorporation of a new member into the political body. And it was final. The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration, or revocation, except through revolution, or through consent of the States.”
Texas V White was used as precedence by the Supreme Court of Alaska as recently as 2010 in the Kohlhaas v. OFFICE OF LT. GOVERNOR.
State elections in places that have the bases would work... or put it on the presidential ballot. I trust the people.
I’m sick of corrupt and phony ‘elites’ making decisions that effect all of us. Self serving decisions that back the commie side of the democrat party. Name ONE social justice BS they didn’t fall for... Just one.
After World War II we had good people running the country’s military and Pentagon. That’s NOT the case today. These men and women don’t protect us - they protect Arabs who buy their ‘speeches’ and their wives club’s ‘tables’. They’ve got their hands out - and it’s not to us.
They make choices based on getting cushy jobs with military contractors after they retire. They don’t win wars, they don’t protect us. The military’s a commie social experiment...
“State elections in places that have the bases would work... or put it on the presidential ballot. I trust the people.”
States have no jurisdiction over military bases and there is no possible way to put it on a presidential ballot.
It’s a Pentagon decision.
This explains it better than I Could.
https://medium.com/politicoid/constitutionality-of-secession-19ce11c3b671
So what you, and Mr. Goldman, are saying is that Constitution only protects those states who are leaving? And those states remaining have no rights, no protections, and no say in what is being done to them? How does that make sense?
There is so much wrong with his arguments it hard to know where to begin. I’ll just touch on one, who were the parties to the ratification of the constitution.
The Articles of Confederation were established by the states. The document clearly states this. During the constitutional convention there was a motion to have the states ratify it. This motion was discussed with James Madison taking the side of having the people ratify the constitution. Here is an excerpt from the Notes in the Constitution explaining Madison’s argument against having the states(through their legislative bodies) ratify the constitution and for the people (through special conventions) ratify the constitution;
“Mr. MADISON thought it clear that the Legislatures were incompetent to the proposed changes. These changes would make essential inroads on the State Constitutions, and it would be a novel & dangerous doctrine that a Legislature could change the constitution under which it held its existence. There might indeed be some Constitutions within the Union, which had given a power to the Legislature to concur in alterations of the federal Compact. But there were certainly some which had not; and in the case of these, a ratification must of necessity be obtained from the people. He considered the difference between a system founded on the Legislatures only, and one founded on the people, to be the true difference between a league or treaty, and a Constitution.”
In layman terms he argued if the state’s ratified the constitution then each state would have the power to decide to change the construction(or even leave it) wherein if the people ratified the constitution then a state it states could did not have the power to change it i to her own.
This is why the constitution clearly states that it was ordained and established by “We the People...”.
I skimmed your lengthy post & I think we agree.
It still sort of leaves it up in the air.
The Constitutional Convention was originally set up and empowered to amend the Articles of Confederation (which stated perpetual union). It was not amended by slapping on a new coat of paint it was amended by pulling the old house down and building a new one. I don’t see how that invalidated the perpetual union idea.
The USSC ruled on it so that’s that for now.
So what you, and Mr. Goldman, are saying is that Constitution only protects those states who are leaving? And those states remaining have no rights, no protections, and no say in what is being done to them? How does that make sense?
We gloss over that phrase “or through consent of the States” too easily. Texas v White says a state can not act unilaterally. But if there is agreement between a state and the nation at large, not a problem. The problem in the 1860s was there was not such an agreement.
It reminds me of the current Scotland situation. Scotland isn’t going to exit without a mutual agreement with the UK, but such an agreement seems quite possible, but you can’t just force your way out.
That is an interesting comment and brings to mind Article VI of the United States Constitution:
“This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”
Note well the phrase “. . . made in Pursuance thereof . . .”
Perhaps surprisingly the United States Constitution does not require that a law be popular; or that it be moral according to the finding of this or that sect; or even that a law be “just” according to this or that community organizing group.
Seven of the nine United States Supreme Court justices ruled against Scott. Their ruling has never been found by any court of which I know to be not in pursuance of the Constitution.
Now, of course, if you and I had been present at the time of Scott, we would have given a persuasive speech or two denouncing in the strongest possible terms their reasoning and overturned the whole deal.
Britain acknowledges the United States (New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia[15]) to be free, sovereign, and independent states, and that the British Crown and all heirs and successors relinquish claims to the Government, property, and territorial rights of the same, and every part thereof,
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.