Posted on 07/09/2020 7:22:08 PM PDT by Meatspace
"It having pleased the Divine Providence to dispose the Hearts of the most Serene and most Potent Prince George the Third, by the Grace of God, King of Great Britain, France, and Ireland, Defender of the Faith, Duke of Brunswick and Lunebourg, Arch- Treasurer and Prince Elector of the Holy Roman Empire etc.. and of the United States of America, to forget all past Misunderstandings and Differences that have unhappily interrupted the good Correspondence and Friendship which they mutually wish to restore; and to establish such a beneficial and satisfactory Intercourse between the two countries upon the ground of reciprocal Advantages and mutual Convenience as may promote and secure to both perpetual Peace and Harmony;
Not only does it recognize the United States of America it says it's purpose is establish beneficial and satisfactory intercourse between THE TWO COUNTRIES, not between 14 countries. Which is what you would have if the states were actually independent from each other and sovereign.
Who was the representative from sovereign nation of Georgia who signed? The sovereign country of South Carolina? Maryland? Rhode Island?
“Obviously, you think our Founders were idiots.”
It is not the Founders that I think about in that way.
No one is arguing that the 13 Free and Independent States didn't eventually become the United States with its magnificent, power-sharing Constitution enshrining the Bill of Rights.
This little dust up began back in post 392 with the gaffe:
“The Union (The United States of America) that was created on July 4th 1776 is the same Union(The United States of America) that exists today.”
I can't find reference in the DOI to “The Union” which is said to have been created by the document.
Can you help cite the reference?
The Congress of the Confederation had a representative from Georgia. I do not know his name you state-ist retard.
We recognize that you consider yourself an idiot and do not hold it against you.
Here is what the Continental Congress put together on September 28, 1779 and sent to King George III with respect to making the treaty of peace [Source]:
The Delegates of the United States of New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia--To all who shall see these presents, send greeting.It being probable that a negotiation will soon be commenced for putting an end to the hostilities between his Most Christian Majesty and these [United] States, on the one part, and his Britannick Majesty on the other part; and it being the sincere desire of the United States that they may be terminated by a peace, founded on such solid and equitable principles as reasonably to promise a permanency of the blessings of tranquillity: . . .
They issued one of these commissions to John Adams on September 29, 1779 for him to present to the King or the King's negotiators. I forget who the other commissioner was. The last sentence of the commission [on the next page of the Journals of the Continental Congress] does mention "in the fourth year of the independence of the United States of America."
They were almost as creative as stan watie!
The Civil War Indian BGEN was Stand Watie.
Probably wasn’t going to happen. The ANV had been in almost continuous battle since May of 1862.
Had the intent been to end slavery, the abolitionists could have marched on Delaware, Kentucky, Maryland, Missouri, and Washington, D.C. in 1860 or before. They could have freed all the Union slaves, if freeing slaves was what they were really about. Of course, they would not have gained the White House and the Congress that way.
Lincoln didn't necessarily go to war to end slavery, he went to war to preserve the Union. He did however need a victory that would give strength to the Emancipation Proclamation. Read some objective history why don't you.
I read objective history. Wars are fought over power and money. The American Civil War was not exception. A small minority gave a rat's ass about slavery. It was used as a political wedge issue to gain power. Race is being used that way now as we speak. And if Lincoln went to war to save the union that was, he failed. If he thought he could control the radicals, he miscalculated. If he went to war as part of a revolution, he succeeded.
Speaking of objective history, prior to the Kansas-Nebraska Act, Lincoln never ran on the slavery issue. In 1858, Lincoln observed that slavery had always been "a minor question" with him until the passage of the Act.
Look at how the blacks abandoned the Republican party. In 1876, a compromise was made to give up reconstruction for four more years or power. They showed the limits of their idealism. Objective history suggests they lost the black vote for a century and a half with that revelation.
These founders(the federalist) convinced congress to call a convention to propose amendments to the articles.
That was what they were given the authority to do.
At the beginning of the convention a proposal was made to scrap the article and start new. Some disagreed and left but those that stayed hammered out a new system of government (the constitution) that made the central government much stronger.
That, they were never given the authority to do. It was beyond the legal authority of the Articles of Confederation under which they were functioning. Amendments under the Articles had to be unanimous. They lacked the votes to pass any amendment.
What my point was with this is that I was incorrect when I said the founders, as in all of them. As we can see the founders were split on the issue of ratifying the constitution.
The correct term for this group is the Framers.
I am glad the federalist won the ratification battle because I agree with the federalist that our country wouldn’t have survived under the articles. I’m also glad the snot-federalist forced the inclusion of the bill of rights.
The Federalist liberals did their best, with some success, of mitigating the effects of the conservative Bill of Rights via domination of the judicial branch and creative interpretation of the Constitution. Who even suspected the right to abortion emanating from a penumbra?
The current government bears no resemblance to one created by the Founders/Framers. There is a reason for that. Indeed, the current government bears no resemblance to the government inherited by Abraham Lincoln. There is a reason for that as well. Both the Constitution and the post-war Amendments served as a political revolution. Forgetting about slavery, the 14th Amdt citizenship clause, the 16th and 17th Amdts vastly changed our government. Add greenbacks.
The 16th normalized the unconstitutional unproportioned Civil War income tax. The 17th took representation away from the state legislatures and created the people’s Senate to go with the people’s House.
The State Militia has been swallowed up by the National Guard. The large standing army Jefferson feared is a reality.
If a slave was born in the U.S. and was later emancipated then citizenship is assumed with his newly freed status. Nothing in the Constitution supports the concept of a free person being neither citizen or alien and ineligible for citizenship.
Of course! And you gained this superior knowledge, contrary to all known recorded history, by using your magic eight ball.
OFFICIAL OPINIONS of The Attorneys General of the United States, Advining the President and Heads of Departments in relation to their official duties; and expounding the Constitution, subsisting treaties sith foreign governments and with Indian Tribes, and the public laws of the country. Volume I, Washington, 1852pp. 506-509.
RIGHTS OF FREE VIRGINIA NEGROES.Free negroes in Virginia are not citizens of the United States in the sense in which the term “citizens” is used in the acts regulating foreign and the coasting trade, so as to be qualified to command vessels.
Office of the Attorney General,
November 7, 1821.Sir: The question propounded for my opinion on the letter of the collector at Norfolk is, “Whether free persons of color are, in Virginia, citizens of the United States, within the intent and meaning of the acts regulating foreign and coasting trade, so as to be qualified to command vessels?”
I presume that the description, “citizen of the United States,”
- - - - - - - - - -
used in the constitution, has the same meaning that it has in the several acts of Congress passed under the authority of the constitution; otherwise there will arise a vagueness and uncertainty in our laws, which will make their execution, if not impracticable, at least extremely difficult and dangerous. Looking to the constitution as the standard of meaning, it seems very manifest that no person is included in the description of citizen of the United States who has not the full rights of a citizen in the State of his residence. Among other proofs of this, it will be sufficient to advert to the constitutional provision, that “the citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States.” Now, if a person born and residing in Virginia, but possessing none of the high characteristic privileges of a citizen of the State, is nevertheless a citizen of Virginia in the sense of the constitution, then, on his removal into another State, he acquires all the immunities and privileges of a citizen of that other State, although he possessed none of them in the State of his nativity: a consequence which certainly could not have been in the contemplation of the convention. Again: the only qualification required by the constitution to render a person eligible as President, senator, or representative of the United States, is, that he shall be a “citizen of the United States” of a given age and residence. Free negroes and mulattoes can satisfy the requisitions of age and residence as well as the white man; and if nativity, residence, and allegiance combined, (without the rights and privileges of a white man; are sufficient to make him a “citizen of the United States” in the sense of the constitution, then free negroes and mulattoes are eligible to those high offices, and may command the purse and sword of the nation.
For these and other reasons, which might easily be multiplied, I am of the opinion that the constitution, by the description of “citizens of the United States,” intended those only who enjoyed the full and equal privileges of white citizens in the State of their residence. If this be correct, and if I am right also in the other position—that we must affix the same sense to this description when found in an act of Congress, as it manifestly has in the constitution—then free people of color in Virginia are not citizens of the United States in the sense
- - - - - - - - - -
of our shipping laws, or any other laws, passed under the authority of the federal constitution; for such people have very few of the privileges of the citizens of Virginia.
1. They can vote at no election, although they may be freeholders.
2. They are incapable of any office of trust or profit, civil or military.
3. They are not competent witnesses against a white man in> any case, civil or criminal.
4. They are not enrolled in the militia, are incapable of bearing arms, and are forbidden even to have in their possession military weapons, under the penalties of forfeiture and whipping.
5. They are subject to severe corporal punishment for raising their hand against a white man, except in defence against a wanton assault.
6. They are incapable of contracting marriage with a white woman, and the attempt is severely punished.
These are some only of tho incapacities which distinguished them from the white citizens of Virginia; but they are, I think, amply sufficient to show that such persons could not have been intended to be embraced by the description “citizens of the United States,” in the sense of the constitution and acts of Congress.
The allegiance which the free man of color owes to the State of Virginia, is no evidence of citizenship; for he owes it not in consequence of any oath of allegiance. He is not required or permitted to take any such oath; the allegiance which he owes is that which a sojourning stranger owes—the mere consequence and return for the protection which he receives from the laws. Besides the general reasons which I have advanced for the exclusion of free negroes and mulattoes in Virginia from the description of “ citizens of the United States,” under the constitution and laws of the Union, there are special reasons in support of that exclusion with regard to the command of vessels. Under our laws, such persons are not competent witnesses to affect, by their oaths, the life or property of a white man; yet if, by the constitution and laws of the United States, they are citizens competent to the command of vessels, they become
- - - - - - - - - -
clothed with all the duties, powers, and authority of masters of vessels; and, among them, with the competency of affecting by their oaths, protests, &c., the property of white men, insurers, owners, freighters, and of the government itself; of which various instances under our laws, as well as under the maritime law generally, will immediately occur to you. Now, it could never have been the intention of Congress, in requiring that the master of a vessel should be a citizen of the United States; to create a citizen by the assumption of that employment, and clothe the man with rights and privileges of citizenship, which he did not previously possess. The act looked only to those who were previously citizens, and to whom alone it confines the right of entering on the employment
In addition to these considerations, I may observe, with the collector, that Congress itself has recognised the distinction between citizens of the United States and persons of color, natives of the United States, in several instances; e.g., the 1st section of the act of 3d March, 1813, “for the regulation of seamen on board the public and private vessels of the United States;” and the 3d, 5th, 6th, and 7th sections of the act of March 1, 1817, “concerning the navigation of the United States.”
Upon the whole, I am of the opinion that free persons of color in Virginia are not citizens of the United States, within the intent and meaning of the acts regulating foreign and coasting trade, so as to be qualified to command vessels.
I have the honor to remain, sir, very respectfully, your obedient servant,
WM. WIRT.
To the Secretary of the Treasury.
A few years later, the 14th Amendment bestowed citizenship by diplomatically defining all persons born or naturalized in the United States as citizens.An amendment required by Taney's idiotic conclusions in the Scott decision.
Had you even bothered once in your life to read Taney’s opinion, you would know that there was no opinion of the Court to the effect you fantasize about. Three justices held that a Negro could not be a citizen of the United States. The Supreme Court of Missouri had held that Scott was not a citizen of Missouri according to Missouri state law, and the ultimate interpreter of state law is the highest court of the state. Scott had to establish his citizenship of that particular state to satisfy his claim of federal jurisdiction via diversity of state citizenship between the parties. In the absence of jurisdiction, there can be no case. In the earlier case of Scott v. Emerson, Scott lost and did not appeal the Missouri Supreme Court decision that he was not a citizen of Missouri pursuant to Missouri law.
The ingenious 14th reversed the relationship between the states and the federal government and gave us anchor babies.
1. Four justices held that the plea in abatement was properly before the Court (Taney, Wayne, Daniel, and Curtis).2. Three justices held that a Negro could not be a citizen of the United States (Taney, Wayne, and Daniel).
3. Six justices held that the Missouri Compromise restriction was invalid (Taney, Wayne, Grier, Daniel, Campbell, and Catron).
4. Seven justices held that the laws of Missouri determined Scott's status as a slave after his return to that state from Illinois (Taney, Wayne, Nelson, Grier, Daniel, Campbell,, and Catron).
5. Seven justices held that Scott was still a slave, though there were differences of what the final judgment of the Court should be (same as in number 4).
Only a majority of justices form an Opinion of the Court. There was neither a holding of the Court that a Negro could not be a citizen, nor a holding of the Court that the plea in abatement was properly before the Court. As these were never adopted as Opinions of the Court, discussing them as such is fantasy land. That Taney’s opinion was captioned Opinion of the Court does not make everything in it an opinion of the Court.
There were holdings of the Court that the Missouri Compromise was invalid; that Missouri law determined Scott's status as a slave after his return to Missouri; and that Scott was still a slave.
A slave taken to a free state, while in that free state, might successfully sue for his freedom, but should he return to a slave state, he resumed his status as a slave. This was upheld in English as well as American law. There is ample precedent to support the holdings of the Court. See, e.g., Somerset v Steward, 1 Lofft 1 (1772); The Slave, Grace,, 2 Hagg. Adm. 94 (1827); Amy (a woman of colour) v. Smith, 11 Ky. 326 (1822); Lemmon v. The People, 20 NY 562 (1860), Strader v. Graham, 51 U.S. 82 (1851).
For example, the case of Amy (a woman of colour) v. Smith, 11 Ky. 326, 331-334 (1822) is directly on point.
3. It was not, however of that clause of the constitution of the United States, that the act of 1808 was contended by the plaintiff’s counsel to bean infraction; but of the clause which provides that “the citizens of each state shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states.”—1st clause, 2d section, and 4th article.* To entitle the plaintiff to the benefit of this clause, it is obviously necessary, that she should be a citizen of some one of the United States; and it is accordingly urged by her counsel, in support of her title to that character, that she was, before her removal from Pennsylvania, a citizen of that state, and that by her removal to Virginia, she became a citizen of the latter.Before we can determine whether she was a citizen, or not, of either of those states, it is necessary to as. certain what it is that constitutes a citizen. In England, birth in the country was alone sufficient to make any one a subject. Even a villain or a slave, born within the king’s allegiance, is, according to the principles of the common law, a subject; but it never can be admitted that he is a citizen. One may, no doubt, be a citizen by birth, as well as a subject ; but subject and citizen are evidently words of different import, and it indisputably requires something more to make a citizen, than it does to make a subject. It is, in fact, not the place of a man’s birth, but the rights and privileges he may be entitled to enjoy, which make him a citizen. The term, citizen, is derived from the Latin word, civis, and in its primary sense signifies one who is vested with the freedom and privileges of a city. At an early period after the subversion of the Roman empire, when civilization had again begun to progress, the cities in every part of Europe, either by usurpation or concession from their sovereigns, obtained extraordinary privileges, in addition to those which were common to the other subjects of their respective countries ; and one who was invested with these extraordinary privileges, whether he was an inhabitant of the city or not, or whether he was born in it or not, was deemed a citizen.—See Rees’ Cyclopædia, under the word Citizen. In England, a citizen is not only en. titled to ail the local privileges of the city to which he belongs but be has also the right of electing and being elected to parliament, which is itself rather an extraordinary privilege, since it does not belong to every class of subjects.—Com. Dig. Parliament, D. 6, 4 Inst. 6.
If we go back to Rome, whence the term, citizen, has its origin, we shall find, in the illustrious period of her republic, that citizens were the highest class of subjects to whom the jus civitatis belonged, and that the jus civitatis conferred upon those who were in possession of it, all rights and privileges, civil, political and religious.—Butler’s Horæ Juridicæ, 26, 27.
When the term came to be applied to the inhabitants of a state, it necessarily carried with it the same signification, with reference to the privileges of the state, which had been implied by it with reference to the privileges of a city, when it was applied to the inhabitants of the city; and it is in this sense, that the term, citizen, is believed to be generally, if not universally understood in the United States. This, indeed, evidently appears to be the sense in which the term is used in the clause of the constitution which is under consideration ; for the terms, “privileges and immunities,” which are expressive of the object intended to be secured to the citizens of each state, in every other, plainly import, according to the best usages of our language, something more than those ordinary rights of personal security and property, which, by the courtesy of all civilized nations, are extended to the citizens or subjects of other countries, while they reside among them.
No one can, therefore, in the correct sense of the term, be a citizen of a state, who is not entitled, upon the terms prescribed by the institutions of the state, to all the rights and privileges conferred by those institutions upon the highest class of society. It is true, that females and infants do not personally possess those rights and privileges, in any state in the Union; but they are generally dependent upon adult males, through whom they enjoy the benefits of those rights and privileges; and it is a rule of common law, as well as of common sense, that females and infants should, in this respect, partake of the quality of those adult males who belong to the same class and condition in society, and of course they will or will not be citizens, as the adult males of the same class are or are not so. Nor do we mean to say, that it is necessary, even for an adult male to be a citizen, that he should be in the actual enjoyment of all those rights and privileges which belong to a citizen. He may not only not be in the actual enjoyment of those rights and privileges, but he may even not possess those qualifications, of property, of age, or of residence, which most of the states prescribe as requisites to the enjoyment of some of their highest privileges and immunities, and yet be a citizen ; but, to be a citizen, it is necessary, that he should be entitled to the enjoyment of those privileges and immunities, upon the same terms upon which they are conferred upon other citizens; and unless he is so entitled, he cannot, in the proper sense of the term, be a citizen.
Prior to the adoption of the constitution of the United States, each state had a right to make citizens of any persons they pleased; but as the federal constitution does not authorise any but white persons to become citizens of the United States, it furnishes a presumption that none other were then citizens of any state; which presumption will stand, until repelled by positive testimony.
It results, then, that the plaintiff cannot have been a citizen, either of Pennsylvania or of Virginia, unless she belonged to a class of society, upon which, by the institutions of the states, was conferred a right to enjoy all the privileges and immunities appertaining to the state. That this was the case, there is no evidence in the record to show, and the presumption is against it. Free negroes and mulattoes are, almost everywhere, considered and treated as a degraded race of people; insomuch so, that, under the constitution and laws of the United States, they cannot become citizens of the United States.
Upon the return of Etheldred Scott to Missouri, the laws of the state of Missouri operated upon him, and those alone determined his status. The Supreme Court of Missouri found that, under the laws of Missouri, Scott was a slave,
The U.S. Supreme Court concurred that the deciding law was the law of Missouri, and that the holding in the prior case of Scott v. Emerson, a case seperate from Scott v. Sandford, was decisive and not appealed. Scott was a slave and, as such, could not use diversity of state citizenship to invoke the jurisdiction of the federal courts. There being no jurisdiction of the Circuit Court to have heard or decided the case, the Supreme Court remanded the case back to the Circuit Court with instructions to dismiss for want of jurisdiction.
As previously stated, only opinions by a majority are opinions of the Court. The Scott case was originally assigned to Justice Nelson to write the opinion of the Court. His opinion is fairly short and to the point. However, it became known that Justice Curtis intended to write a very long dissenting opinion raising many of the issues the Court had avoided, especially negro citizenship and the validity of the Missouri Compromise. Justice Wayne suggested that the Chief Justice write an opinion responding to unnecessary dicta, and that said opinion be captioned as the Opinion of the Court. Curtis went on to leak his magnum opus to the press before any official opinion on the case was officially released. Taney took up the challenge to write an opinion with page after page of dicta responding to the dicta of Justice Curtis.
Justice Curtis was the youngest justice on the Court. He never again sat on the Court, but resigned before the next session. Not only was the true owner of Dred Scott from Massachusetts, Justice Curtis was from Massachusetts. Not only were they both from Massachusetts but the noted lawyer who argued the constitutional issues for Scott was also from Massachusetts. Not only was that lawyer from Massachussetts, he was George Curtis, the elder brother of Justice Benjamin Curtis, who saw no reason for recusal.
As most of what was in the magnum opus of Justice Curtis was not properly before the court, here are a few more.
John Sanford was not a real party to the case. While the parties mutually agreed to a purported Statement of Facts, this included a fictitious sale of Dred Scott by a tehn ong-dead Dr. Emerson to John Sanford. Mrs. Emerson remarried in 1850 and, under the law of femes covert, married women did not own property. Rather, Congressman Chaffee was the new owner of Dred Scott, and the person who should have been the properly named defendant in the case. It was Congressman Chaffee who bestowed Dred Scott to Taylor Blow of Missouri via quit-claim deed right after the decision; and it was Taylor Blow who manumitted Dred Scott in Missouri. Mrs. Chaffee did claim the wages of Dred Scott being held by the Sheriff. John Sanford had died in an insane asylum. The false claim of ownership had been made to fashion a bogus claim of jurisdiction via diversity of state citizenship without implicating a sitting Massachusetts congressman.
Taney in history.
The Supreme Court in United States History, Vol 3, 1922, by Charles Warren, Formerly Assistant Attorney General of the United States, pp 24-26
The whirlwind of abuse which swept upon the Court, the loss of confidence theretofore entertained in it, and the ensuing damage to its reputation, were, however, in reality, due more largely to misunderstandings of the decision, and to falsehoods spread relative to Taney's opinion, than to the actual decision itself. While the Court was bitterly assailed for rendering any decision upon the constitutional point, after holding that the Circuit Court had no jurisdiction, the correctness of its action in so doing was, after all, a purely legal question.1 The most serious attacks upon the Court arose from a gross and willful perversion of a sentence in the Chief Justice's opinion, which certain violent anti-slavery papers of New York spread throughout the country, — the charge, reiterated again and again, that Taney had stated in his opinion that the "negro has no rights which the white man was bound to respect." These newspapers never printed the corrections of this false charge, immediately and persistently made by supporters of the Court, who pointed out that Taney had never stated this sentiment as expressing his own view, but had merely recited it historically as the view held by men in general, in the eighteenth century.2 By the brazen propagation of this lie the country was long deceived; and the prejudices and passions aroused against the Court and its decision were due far more to Taney's alleged statement than to the point of law decided by him. It was not until the1 The Washington correspondent of the New York Courier wrote, March 12, 1857 (see issue of March 16): "I discover that lawyers are disposed to take a very practical and professional view. . . . They say there was but one point decided, namely that of the citizenship of the colored man. Beyond that, all is 'leather and prunella.' . . . The stump speech of the Chief Justice was entirely gratuitous, without one particle of authority."
2 See example of correction of this falsehood, Ohio Statesman, May 13, 1857. Republican Lie No. 1."
- - - - - - - - - -
year 1886 that the Independent, of New York, which had been the chief offender in spreading the falsehood, recanted and said: "It is but just to the memory of Chief Justice Taney, as well as to the Supreme Court, to note the fact that the whole language, including these words, is simply that of historical narration. . . . Chief Justice Taney did not say it in 1857, and the Supreme Court did not say it. What Chief Justice Taney said was by way of narrative, relating to a period prior to the adoption of the Constitution."1
1 Independent, April 3, 1886.
Taney in context.
Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393, 407-08 (1857)
It is difficult at this day to realize the state of public opinion in relation to that unfortunate race, which prevailed in the civilized and enlightened portions of the world at the time of the Declaration of Independence, and when the Constitution of the United States was framed and adopted. But the public history of every European nation displays it in a manner too plain to be mistaken.They had for more than a century before been regarded as beings of an inferior order, and altogether unfit to associate with the white race, either in social or political relations; and so far inferior, that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect; and that the negro might justly and lawfully be reduced to slavery for his benefit.
He was bought and sold, and treated as an ordinary article of merchandise and traffic, whenever a profit could be made by it. This opinion was at that time fixed and universal in the civilized portion of the white race. It was regarded as an axiom in morals as well as in politics, which no one thought of disputing, or supposed to be open to dispute; and men in every grade and position in society daily and habitually acted upon it in their private pursuits, as well as in matters of public concern, without doubting for a moment the correctness of this opinion.
And in no nation was this opinion more firmly fixed or more uniformly acted upon than by the English Government and English people. They not only seized them on the coast of Africa, and sold them or held them in slavery for their own use; but they took them as ordinary articles of merchandise to every country where they could make a profit on them, and were far more extensively engaged in this commerce than any other nation in the world.
The opinion thus entertained and acted upon in England was naturally impressed upon the colonies they founded on this side of the Atlantic. And, accordingly, a negro of the African race was regarded by them as an article of property, and held, and bought and sold as such, in every one of the thirteen colonies which united in the Declaration of Independence, and afterwards formed the Constitution of the United States.
[Front page] http://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn87075163/1857-03-26/ed-1/seq-1/
[Page 2] http://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn87075163/1857-03-26/ed-1/seq-2/
The McArthur Democrat, March 26, 1857, page 1From The McArthur Democrat, March 26, 1857, page 2, column 2
Dred Scott Owned by a Republican Member of Congress
From the following article, which we copy from the Springfield Argus, it appears that Dred Scott and his family became, by the recent decision of the Supreme Court, the property of the wife of Dr. Chaffee, the Republican Member of Congress from the Springfield (Mass.) district:
It may perhaps astonish some of our rabid Fremonters [Republicans], to know that the late decision in the Supreme Court remanding to slavery Dred Scott and his family, declaring the unconstitutionality of the Missouri Compromise, and establishing the right to slave-holders to carry their chattels into Northern States without affecting their security in them – was obtained on behalf of our present honorable member of Congress. The facts are simply these: —Some years since, Dr. Chaffee, then a widower, married the widow of Dr. Emerson, of Missouri, who had died, leaving to his wife and only daughter a considerable slave property. Among those slaves was Dred Scott and his family. Among these slaves were Dred Scott and his family; and as Dr. Emerson, in the performance of his duties as a surgeon in the United States Army, has carried his family inti Illinois, they, on his death, claimed their freedom, and brought a suit to enforce it.
This suit, thus brought, was defended by the administrator of the estate on behalf, and with the consent of the wife of Dr. Chaffee and her daughter, who were the heirs at law. The decision of the Bench that Dred Scott was not a citizen of the United States, and could not sue in the U.S. Court, has remanded him and his family to the chattlehood of Mrs. Chaffee. What does the Doctor propose to do with this increasing property? Does he consent to the prosecution, and under cover of his wife’s crinoline, propose to keep good friends with the Black Republicans, by saying that he has nothing to do with her estate, and at the same time enjoying with her the benefit of that estate, which does not stop with the unfortunate Dred and his family?
These questions are open, and naturally suggest themselves to us, as they doubtless will to all who know the facts.
http://lincoln-live.lib.niu.edu/islandora/object/niu-lincoln%3A36469
Northwestern University Illinois University
University Libraries
Online Digital Collections of Original Materials
Lincoln/Net
Douglas at Clinton
1Thursday, August 12, 1858.
[excerpt]
It had been begun by Dred Scott, and we had not possession of him because he was in the hands of his abolition friends. (Laughter.)
Stephen Douglas and the press (it was everywhere) knew way back then. Today, people make believe it was a real, contested case, with two real named parties.
https://quod.lib.umich.edu/l/lincoln/lincoln3/1:20.1?rgn=div2;view=fulltext
Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln. Volume 3.
Fourth Debate with Stephen A. Douglas at Charleston, Illinois
September 18, 1858, pp. 166-167:
I will show you another charge made by Mr. Lincoln against me, as an offset to his determination of willingness to take back anything that is incorrect, and to correct any false statement he may have made. He has several times charged that the Supreme Court, President Pierce, President Buchanan and myself, at the time I introduced the Nebraska bill in January, 1854, at Washington, entered into a conspiracy to establish slavery all over this country. I branded this charge as a falsehood, and then he repeated it, asked me to analyze its truth and answer it. I told him, "Mr. Lincoln, I know what you are after—you want to occupy my time in personal matters, to prevent me from showing up the revolutionary principles which the Abolition party—whose candidate you are—have proclaimed to the world.'' But he asked me to analyze his proof, and I did so. I called his attention to the fact that at the time the Nebraska bill was introduced, there was no such case as the Dred Scott case pending in the Supreme Court, nor was it brought there for years afterwards, and hence that it was impossible there could have been any such conspiracy between the Judges of the Supreme Court and the other parties involved. I proved by the record that the charge was false, and what did he answer? Did he take it back like an honest man and say that he had been mistaken? No, he repeated the charge, and said, that although there was no such case pending that year, that there was an understanding between the Democratic owners of Dred Scott and the Judges of the Supreme Court and other parties involved that the case should be brought up. I then demanded to know who these Democratic owners of Dred Scott were. He could not or would not tell; he did not know. In truth, there were no Democratic owners of Dred Scott on the face of the land. (Laughter.)Dred Scott was owned at that time by the Rev. Dr. Chaffee, an Abolition member of Congress from Springfield, Massachusetts, and his wife, (immense laughter and applause,) and Mr. Lincoln ought to have known that Dred Scott was so owned, for the reason that as soon as the decision was announced by the court, Dr. Chaffee and his wife executed a deed emancipting him, and put that deed on record. (Cheers.) It was a matter of public record, therefore, that at the time the case was taken to the Supreme Court, Dred Scott was owned by an Abolition member of Congress, a friend of Lincoln's, and a leading man of his party, while the defence was conducted by Abolition lawyers---and thus the Abolitionists managed both sides of the case. I have exposed these facts to Mr. Lincoln, and yet he will not withdraw his charge of conspiracy. I now submit to you whether you can place any confidence in a man who continues to make a charge when its utter falsity is proven by the public records. I will state another fact to show how utterly reckless and unscrupulous this charge against the Supreme Court, President Pierce, President Buchanan and myself is. Lincoln says that President Buchanan was in the conspiracy at Washington in the winter of 1854, when the Nebraska bill was introduced. The history of this country shows that James Buchanan was at that time representing this country at the court of St. James, Great Britain, with distinguished ability and usefulness, that he had not been in the United States for nearly a year previous, and that he did not return until about three years after. (Cheers.) Yet Mr. Lincoln keeps repeating this charge of conspiracy against Mr. Buchanan, when the public records prove it to be untrue. Having proved it to be false as far as the Supreme Court and President Buchanan are concerned, I drop it, leaving the public to say whether I, by myself, without their concurrence, could have gone into a conspiracy with them. (Laughter and cheers.)
At least that would be a consistent rule. But just in the examples I gave, there are several nouns that aren't capitalized.
stan watie was a lost cause FReeper who was prone to some of the most bizarre and unhinged posts in FR’s history.
But I am also noting that the Articles of Confederation were begun at about the same time, in July, 1776, and they could not be clearer, that our country's name is, the United States of America -- capitalized.
But it should be noted that those were free, independent, sovereign states, united in a league of friendship and cooperation. It was not Hotel California.
I.The Stile of this Confederacy shall be "The United States of America".
II.
Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled.
III.
The said States hereby severally enter into a firm league of friendship with each other, for their common defense, the security of their liberties, and their mutual and general welfare, binding themselves to assist each other, against all force offered to, or attacks made upon them, or any of them, on account of religion, sovereignty, trade, or any other pretense whatever.
There is no questioning that each state retained its sovereignty, freedom and independence. There is nothing in the 1789 Constitution where those states surrendered, gave away, or threw away their sovereignty, freedom, and independence.
That just seemed to emanate from a penumbra.
I'm arguing that the Declaration of Independence -- you know, the original one, the "thirteen united States" one, signed by the members of the Second Continental Congress, the one that is on display in the Rotunda of the National Archives Museum, the permanent home of the original Declaration of Independence. They didn't chose a copy that says "thirteen United States."
The earliest mention of the "United States of America" that I found in the Journals of the Continental Congress was July 12, 1776 in an early draft of the Articles of Confederation, in particular "Art. I. THE Name of this Confederacy shall be "The United States of America.". You can see that draft here: Early draft of the Articles of confederation and perpetual union, between the colonies of ... .
It is such an early draft that the document is mainly concerned with what the "colonies" could or couldn't do under the Articles. Not "states." "Colonies." And they apparently don't list the whole colony of Delaware, just three counties in Delaware.
As you know the Articles did not become effective until March 1, 1781, when the last state, Maryland, ratified it.
Here is some more interesting history from the U.S. Department of State Archive [Link]:
"Irked by Maryland's recalcitrance, several other state governments passed resolutions endorsing the formation of a national government without the state of Maryland, but other politicians such as Congressman Thomas Burke of North Carolina persuaded their governments to refrain from doing so, arguing that without unanimous approval of the new Confederation, the new country would remain weak, divided, and open to future foreign intervention and manipulation.
Meanwhile, in 1780, British forces began to conduct raids on Maryland communities in the Chesapeake Bay. Alarmed, the state government wrote to the French minister Anne-C�sar De la Luzerne asking for French naval assistance. Luzerne wrote back, urging the government of Maryland to ratify the Articles of Confederation. Marylanders were given further incentive to ratify when Virginia agreed to relinquish its western land claims, and so the Maryland legislature ratified the Articles of Confederation on March 1, 1781.
. . .
The Articles created a sovereign, national government, and as such limited the rights of the states to conduct their own diplomacy and foreign policy. However, in practice this proved difficult to enforce, and the state of Georgia pursued its own independent policy regarding Spanish Florida, attempting to occupy disputed territories and threatening war if Spanish officials did not curb Indians attacks or refrain from harboring escaped slaves. Nor could the Confederation government prevent the landing of convicts that the British Government continued to export to its former colonies.
After the Dred Scott decision, the abolitionists realized there was no way for the Federal Government to end slavery in states were it was legal. They shifted their efforts to preventing slavery from spreading beyond the existing slave states.
Gen. Mark Milley protests too much. Makes me wonder about skeletons in his closet. He sure is trying hard to divide the country and destroy our history.
No Founder understood their new Constitution better than James Madison, who became President in 1809.
Perhaps Patrick Henry and Thomas Jefferson understood it as well or better than Madison. It would seem that he who best predicted what would result probably had the best understanding.
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.