Posted on 12/24/2001 4:25:26 AM PST by WhiskeyPapa
I guess it did to H.Askton --- he's the one who quoted a line from Article V and said it allowed secession. I simply responded, and asked him to show me where it did that. Do you agree with him?
No it's not. You posted
You put forward Taney in Merryman. Will you honor him in the Prize Cases?I did post Taney's opinion. Do you honestly think that after Lincoln refused to abide by Taney's directive in the Merryman case that any justice would rule against the war - while it's still being waged? Who knows, maybe they were scared that Lincoln would have them arrested and killed.
After secession the Confederacy never attempted to invade the Union, never attempted to overthrow Lincoln or anyone else. They exercised there God-given right to self-government and withdrew peacefully after seceding legally, with their legislative act "proven" according to existing federal laws. Lincoln was hell bent on upholding a perceived duty to maintain the union, while trashing other rights and excersing powers not delegated to him. Why is one important and not the other?
If, as some assert, the Confederacy was leaching off the Union, why not let them go in peace? Wouldn't the remaining union be even stronger without them if that were true? What could possibly justify the deaths of over 620,000 men - more American lives lost than all others wars we ever fought? What fool would sacrifice such a huge percentage of the population just to preserve a union? Would beating the Confederacy and destroying her economically, politically and socially do anything to preserve the union? The founders had expressed such sentiments before, and understood that maintaining the union under such circumstances would be pure insanity. Once defeated, the confederates states were held at gunpoint, their state governments overthrown - that's preserving a republican form of government? That's more preferable than a peaceful disunion? That's a more perfect union? It's totally opposite the very principles that were the basis for the founding of our country - the right to self-government.
Why have a written constitution at all, if any President can pick and choose at will what he wants to do? Why have a separation of powers if the President can ignore the judiciary, or assume the powers of congress? Can you see how the Confederacy could liken him to a tyrant or despot? We rail against the illegal actions of Presidents that we dislike but shouldn't we also rail againt those exact same actions in any other President as well? Why would the founders have written a constitution, and debated it for months, if anyone could pervert or usurp it, and assume powers not delegated any time they wished? Why would the states have debated for months or years before adopting it if they were not afraid of losing powers? Why would Madison draft the Bill of Rights in an attempt to encourage the remaining holdouts to ratify the Constitution? The state conventions of New York and two other states expressly resevered the right to terminate their ratification, and to reassume their powers of self-government, so why did the other states accept their ratification unconditionally? Why accept them if they did not agree? How can a union be permanent, if it allows the admission of new states - doesn't that in itself change the union? If New York or Virginia had not ratified, would the President be justified in waging war on them to force them into the union?
As you yourself noted, four justices, including Taney, did exactly that.
Walt
Did you ever see the "Gore Vidal Lincoln" miniseries with Sam Waterston as Lincoln?
There's a scene where a distracted Lincoln is at the war department telegraph office on an evening in July 1863.
The clerk says, "there is a new message from General Meade, Mr. President." Lincoln asks him to read it.
The message says something like, "With God's help, we have driven the enemy from our soil," meaning back into Virginia and across the Potomac.
Lincoln kicks the door and says, "My God! When will they realize it is ALL our soil!"
And no matter how you try and slice it, the attempt by the secessionists to renounce the federal government and haul down Old Glory in the so-called seceded states was a heinous, unlawful and unwarrented revolution against the lawful government. And they were laid low for attempting it.
Long live the United States.
Walt
If you or I believe that the Constitution is a document for all times and places, for war and peace, and that the powers are delegated to a specific party for a reason, then I would have to agree that it was unconstitutional for Lincoln and Davis. Amend the Constitution if you want, but do not deviate from it until then.
That statement is simply impossible to support based on well-known historical facts, including some we have been about this very day.
Prominent among these facts, as you may have noticed, is that the Supreme Court of the United States--including a man named Roger Taney (some of whose writings you have seen fit to wield like an evidential blugeon) ruled -unanimously- that the "so-called confederate states" were in rebellion and it was completely within the purview of the federal government to suppress said rebellion and reestablish US law through the national territory.
Now, you need to give up using Taney and his Merryman writings if you won't give equal credence to the -unanimous- ruling of the Court in the Prize Cases.
That would only be fair, wouldn't it?
What is hapening here on FR is that we see these cut in stone statements like "The seceded states tried to go in peace and did not molest the United States in any way," which the writer accepts as gospel, presumably because it fit in with what they heard on their grandpappy's knee, and then I and a few others use the record to show that such a statement is completely ludicrous. And our opposition to your statements is not so much predicated upon a love of country, as it is a dislike for the stench of the BS that you provide by the wagon load.
As Presidenmt Lincoln pointed out in 1861, the nation was in debt, a debt incurred at the name of all. To say, as you do, that the so-called seceded states can just walk away, la-de-da from that -- that they "exercised there [sic] God-given right to self-government and withdrew peacefully" is insulting to anyone with a shred of fairness about them. And in fairness to you, I think that over time, if you are exposed to enough on the record on this, you will not be so sure that the secessionists were right; with reflection, you'll come to realize that they were horribly wrong.
Walt
And as always, I suppose I should have no doubt your above proclamation and judgment over where understanding lies is itself made from an educated and balanced standpoint?
Or maybe there are a good number of reasons for me to have doubt, among them being your own track record of not having even the slightest clue over what you are talking about, not to mention your recorded prejudices (and yes, some of them are downright absurd) against the south as a whole. As I noted earlier, for somebody who frequently suggests others find themselves a library, you sure seem to have a problem when others try to pull you out of the children's section. And for that, you have only yourself to blame.
And as always, I suppose I should have no doubt your above proclamation and judgment over where understanding lies is itself made from an educated and balanced standpoint?
Or maybe there are a good number of reasons for me to have doubt, among them being your own track record of not having even the slightest clue over what you are talking about, not to mention your recorded prejudices (and yes, some of them are downright absurd) against the south as a whole. As I noted earlier, for somebody who frequently suggests others find themselves a library, you sure seem to have a problem when others try to pull you out of the children's section. And for that, you have only yourself to blame.
And as always, I suppose I should have no doubt your above proclamation and judgment over where understanding lies is itself made from an educated and balanced standpoint?
Or maybe there are a good number of reasons for me to have doubt, among them being your own track record of not having even the slightest clue over what you are talking about, not to mention your recorded prejudices (and yes, some of them are downright absurd) against the south as a whole. As I noted earlier, for somebody who frequently suggests others find themselves a library, you sure seem to have a problem when others try to pull you out of the children's section. And for that, you have only yourself to blame.
As you yourself noted, four justices, including Taney, did exactly that.
And you accuse me of distorting facts? Taney et al (see my 483) stated:
"[T]his legislation on the subject had the effect to bring into existence an ex post facto civil war"
"Here, the captures were without any Constitutional authority and void, and, on principle, no subsequent ratification could make them valid."
"[T]he President does not possess the power under the Constitution to declare war."
"[T]his power belongs exclusively to the Congress of the United States"
Where is the ruling against the war? Nelson and 3 other justices are directing their statements against the actions of Lincoln, and the subsequent attempt to legalize his unconstitutional actions.
That statement is simply impossible to support based on well-known historical facts, including some we have been about this very day.
Ya think? I have previously traced the history of this phrase from the Articles of Confederation. Fact1:
Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.
US Constitution, Article IV, Section 1.
Congress did pass legislation regarding the proving of state acts. Fact 2:
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the acts of the legislatures of the several states shall be authenticated by having the seal of their respective states affixed thereto; That the records and judicial proceedings of the courts of any state, shall be proved or admitted in any other court within the United States, by the attestation of the clerk, and the seal of the court annexed, if there be a seal, together with a certificate of the judge, chief justice, or presiding magistrate, as the case may be, that the said attestation is in due form. And the said records and judicial proceedings authenticated as aforesaid, shall have such faith and credit given to them in every court within the United States, as they have by law or usage in the courts of the state from whence the said records are or shall be taken.(a) APPROVED, May 26, 1790.
Congress also passed the Act of May 8, 1792, and the Act of March 27, 1804 to provide for other circumstances. Thus, congress has fulfilled its directive to legislate the proof of a state act. Thus, according to the historical FACTS - based on the US Constitution and federal laws - the acts of the states (their declarations of secession) are legal.
Prominent among these facts, as you may have noticed, is that the Supreme Court of the United States--including a man named Roger Taney (some of whose writings you have seen fit to wield like an evidential blugeon) ruled -unanimously- that the "so-called confederate states" were in rebellion and it was completely within the purview of the federal government to suppress said rebellion and reestablish US law through the national territory.
LOL - if you don't agree with my postings - I'm wielding a "evidential bludgeon"? I didn't post just Taney, I've posted Marshall and others as well. Do you agree with every decision they wrote?
Now, you need to give up using Taney and his Merryman writings if you won't give equal credence to the -unanimous- ruling of the Court in the Prize Cases. That would only be fair, wouldn't it?
I don't agree with Taney' s Dred Scott decision, nor do I agree with Roe v. Wade. And I did post Taney's decision in the Prize Cases . You post what supports your case, and I'll continue to post what supports mine.
What is hapening here on FR is that we see these cut in stone statements like "The seceded states tried to go in peace and did not molest the United States in any way," which the writer accepts as gospel, presumably because it fit in with what they heard on their grandpappy's knee, and then I and a few others use the record to show that such a statement is completely ludicrous. And our opposition to your statements is not so much predicated upon a love of country, as it is a dislike for the stench of the BS that you provide by the wagon load.
ROTFLMAO! The moment the states seceded they instantly attacked Washington in an attempt to overthrow the government? My grandfather was dead before I was born, so that statement of yours won't hold water either ;o) Why is it you refuse to recognize the record that I and others post that disputes your claims? My opposition to your statements is not pedicated upon a dislike of Lincoln, but a love of the Constitution. Considering that what I post is taken from the Constitution, the constitutional debates, the ratification debates in the states, the Articles of Confederation, the Federalist/Anti-Federalist Papers, the Declaration of Independence, the Congressional records, state Constitutions, the words of the founders, and legal decisions - if you want to assert that those are BS, that's your right.
As Presidenmt (sic) Lincoln pointed out in 1861, the nation was in debt, a debt incurred at the name of all. To say, as you do, that the so-called seceded states can just walk away, la-de-da from that -- that they "exercised there [sic] God-given right to self-government and withdrew peacefully" is insulting to anyone with a shred of fairness about them. And in fairness to you, I think that over time, if you are exposed to enough on the record on this, you will not be so sure that the secessionists were right; with reflection, you'll come to realize that they were horribly wrong.
And the states that walked away from the Articles of Confederation? What about them? Was it fair to abandon a union that required all members to agree to changes, yet accept the ratification of only a few to institute a new government? Was that insulting to you? I'll come to realize the secessionists were wrong? Actually just the reverse. I originally thought Lincoln correct, and the south wrong. But after studying the documents of the time, including the DoI, AoC, the Constitution et al mentioned previously, I came to the conclusion that the reverse was in fact the truth. If I could pretend that the DoI never happened, if I could forget that the AoC was dissolved peacefully, if I had never read the ratification debates of Virginia, New York and others, or possibly if I could somehow remove the 9th and 10th Amendments from my conciousness, then I would be like you. That being the case, I thank God for FreeRepublic and enlightenment!
WP: I saved it:
To: donmeaker
Under the terms of the 10th Amendment, powers not delegated or prohibited by the Constitution are reserved to the States or the people of the States - and the Constitution nowhere delegates or prohibits secession. 'So: there. No legal foundation to oppose secession. End of story.' As Harvard history professor William Gienapp recently noted, "the proponents of secession had a strong constitutional argument, probably a stronger argument than the nationalists advanced"...;>)
57 posted on 12/24/01 2:36 PM Pacific by Who is John Galt?
Don't try and weasel out.
Me? “Weasel out?” Now, that is quite humorous coming from Mr.-I-Won’t-Discuss-The-Secession-Of-The-Ratifying-States-Or-The-Alien-&-Sedition-Acts! You are a comedian! But I will nevertheless be happy to discuss the subject. A few points:
1) I was not “quoting” the amendment.
2) My statement (that the Tenth Amendment refers to the people of the States) was both rational and consistent with the historical documents of the era...
;>)
WINSTON BRYANT, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF ARKANSAS, PETITIONER 93-1828
v.
BOBBIE E. HILL et al. on writs of certiorari to the supreme court of arkansas
[May 22, 1995]
“Justice Thomas, with whom The Chief Justice, Justice O'Connor, and Justice Scalia join, dissenting...
“Nothing in the Constitution deprives the people of each State of the power to prescribe eligibility requirements for the candidates who seek to represent them in Congress. The Constitution is simply silent on this question. And where the Constitution is silent, it raises no bar to action by the States or the people.
I
“Because the majority fundamentally misunderstands the notion of -reserved- powers [which you obviously share, friend Walt... ;>], I start with some first principles. Contrary to the majority's suggestion, the people of the States need not point to any affirmative grant of power in the Constitution in order to prescribe qualifications for their representatives in Congress, or to authorize their elected state legislators to do so.
A
“Our system of government rests on one overriding principle: all power stems from the consent of the people. To phrase the principle in this way, however, is to be imprecise about something important to the notion of -reserved- powers. The ultimate source of the Constitution's authority is the consent of the people of each individual State, not the consent of the undifferentiated people of the Nation as a whole.
“The ratification procedure erected by Article VII makes this point clear [you remember Article VII – I refer to it time after time, and time after time you ignore it... ;>]. The Constitution took effect once it had been ratified by the people gathered in convention in nine different States. But the Constitution went into effect only -between the States so ratifying the same,- Art. VII; it did not bind the people of North Carolina until they had accepted it. In Madison's words, the popular consent upon which the Constitution's authority rests was -given by the people, not as individuals com- posing one entire nation, but as composing the distinct and independent States to which they respectively belong.- The Federalist No. 39 [which I have referenced repeatedly, and which you have repeatedly ignored ;>], p. 243 (C. Rossiter ed. 1961) (hereinafter The Federalist). Accord, 3 Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution 94 (J. Elliot 2d ed. 1876) (hereinaf- ter Elliot) (remarks of James Madison at the Virginia convention).
“When they adopted the Federal Constitution, of course, the people of each State surrendered some of their authority to the United States (and hence to entities accountable to the people of other States as well as to themselves). They affirmatively deprived their States of certain powers, see, e.g., Art. I, 10, and they affirmatively conferred certain powers upon the Federal Government, see, e.g., Art. I, 8. Because the people of the several States are the only true source of power, however, the Federal Government enjoys no authority beyond what the Constitution confers: the Federal Government's powers are limited and enumerated. In the words of Justice Black, -[t]he United States is entirely a creature of the Constitution. Its power and authority have no other source.- Reid v. Covert, 354 U. S. 1, 5-6 (1957) (plurality opinion) (footnote omitted).
“In each State, the remainder of the people's powers- -[t]he powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States,- Amdt. 10-are either delegated to the state government or retained by the people. The Federal Constitution does not specify which of these two possibilities obtains; it is up to the various state constitutions to declare which powers the people of each State have delegated to their state government. As far as the Federal Constitution is concerned, then, the States can exercise all powers that the Constitution does not withhold from them. The Federal Government and the States thus face different default rules: where the Constitution is silent about the exercise of a particular power-that is, where the Constitution does not speak either expressly or by necessary implication-the Federal Government lacks that power and the States enjoy it.
“These basic principles are enshrined in the Tenth Amendment, which declares that all powers neither delegated to the Federal Government nor prohibited to the States -are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.- With this careful last phrase, the Amendment avoids taking any position on the division of power between the state governments and the people of the States: it is up to the people of each State to determine which -reserved- powers their state government may exercise. But the Amendment does make clear that powers reside at the state level except where the Constitution removes them from that level. All powers that the Constitution neither delegates to the Federal Government nor prohibits to the States are controlled by the people of each State.
“To be sure, when the Tenth Amendment uses the phrase -the people,- it does not specify whether it is referring to the people of each State or the people of the Nation as a whole. But the latter interpretation would make the Amendment pointless: there would have been no reason to provide that where the Constitution is silent about whether a particular power resides at the state level, it might or might not do so. In addition, it would make no sense to speak of powers as being reserved to the undifferentiated people of the Nation as a whole, because the Constitution does not contemplate that those people will either exercise power or delegate it. The Constitution simply does not recognize any mechanism for action by the undifferentiated people of the Nation...”
Obviously, this is a minority opinion (Justices Thomas, O'Connor, and Scalia, siding with the Chief Justice). Equally obvious, however, is one simple fact: given that you (by your own definition) side with the majority, it becomes apparent that you should change your voter registration card to read ‘Democrat’...
Bon appetit!
;>)
It walks like a duck.
It is a duck.
Walt
I have quoted them repeatedly – and you have ignored them repeatedly. But (since your memory is obviously failing ;>), here you go again:
Tucker’s Blackstone’s of 1803:
“The [Tenth Amendment] to the constitution of the United States, declares, 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.
“The powers absolutely prohibited to the states by the constitution, are, shortly, contained in article 1. section 10...
“All other powers of government whatsoever, except these, and such as fall properly under the first or third heads above-mentioned, consistent with the fundamental laws, nature, and principle of a democratic state, are therefore reserved to the state governments...
“The federal government then, appears to be the organ through which the united republics communicate with foreign nations, and with each other. Their submission to its operation is voluntary: its councils, its engagements, its authority are theirs, modified, and united. Its sovereignty is an emanation from theirs, not a flame by which they have been consumed, nor a vortex in which they are swallowed up. Each is still a perfect state, still sovereign, still independent, and still capable, should the occasion require, to resume the exercise of it's functions, as such, in the most unlimited extent.
“But until the time shall arrive when the occasion requires a resumption of the rights of sovereignty by the several states (and far be that period removed when it shall happen) the exercise of the rights of sovereignty by the states individually, is wholly suspended, or discontinued, in the cases before mentioned: nor can that suspension ever be removed, so long as the present constitution remains unchanged, but by the dissolution of the bonds of union..”
Rawle’s A View of the Constitution of the United States of America (1829 edition):
“If a faction should attempt to subvert the government of a state for the purpose of destroying its republican form, the paternal power of the Union could thus be called forth [on the application of the constituted authorities of each state] to subdue it.
“Yet it is not to be understood, that its interposition would be justifiable, if the people of a state should determine to retire from the Union, whether they adopted another or retained the same form of government, or if they should, with the, express intention of seceding, expunge the representative system from their code...
“It depends on the state itself ...whether it will continue a member of the Union. To deny this right would be inconsistent with the principle on which all our political systems are founded, which is, that the people have in all cases, a right to determine how they will be governed...The states, then, may wholly withdraw from the Union...”
In other words, you’re wrong again. “Not very clever on your part.”
;>)
You still are avoiding either supporting Taney's actions on secession or disavowing them. But you have to, don't you?
So we see you saying, "Taney, Taney, Taney," over Merryman and effectively saying 'no comment' over the Prize Cases. Fine.
LOL! Your position, not mine, is founded upon judicial opinion. And I am happy to quote any opinion that highlights your incredible hypocrisy. ‘Only the federal courts may interpret the Constitution,’ you intone – and then blithely ignore any federal judicial opinion that contradicts any of your ridiculous arguments. As for “effectively saying 'no comment' “ – are you ready to discuss the secession of the ratifying States from the so-called ‘perpetual union’ formed under the Articles? Or the ‘federal-judge-approved-but-entirely-unconstitutional’ Alien and Sedition Acts?
What’s that: “no comment?”
(Are all of your family members entertainers, or is it just you? ;>)
Why don't you show us in the sources you claim, a right to unilateral state secession. Just saying they support your position, based on your track record, I don't find very compelling.
I’ve quoted those sources above. And anything and everything I quote has more credibility than the anonymous ‘newsgroup’ postings you rely upon. But I’m willing to improve: perhaps if you provide the URL for your ‘newsgroup,’ I can post the same information there, anonymously and without references, and you will take it for ‘gospel’...
;>)
Of course this whole ACW vanity teapot tempest here on FR involves unsupported statements by the neo-confederates being refuted in the record by those with a better grasp of the facts anyway.
Mr. ‘Newsgroup’ complaining about “unsupported statements?” And Mr. ‘I-Won’t-Discuss-Constitutional-Ratification’ referring to “the record” and “the facts?”
ROTFLMAO!
In any case, I didn't tell a whopper--was there a secession convention prior to 1860?
That was not what you stated. Allow me (once again) to assist you:
”It wasn;t until the slave holders saw their power to control the national government slipping away that the these positions were challenged.”
405 posted on 1/4/02 2:23 AM Pacific by WhiskeyPapa ”
You did indeed “tell a whopper”...
;>)
Of course you have to discredit me personally because the record doesn't support you.
My position is consistent with and supported by the historical record: that’s why I post an extensive list of links to historical documents at my FR homepage. You quote anonymous ‘newsgroup’ sources. The difference is obvious.
What I am doing now is very graciously offering you the opportunity to renounce a perhaps honest mistake, but the excerpt you provided regarding the -minority- opinon in the Prize Cases can only be seen as an atttempt to pervert the record--to divert attention from really happened, and you should be ashamed of that.
Precisely when did I post an “excerpt [from] the Prize Cases?” Provide a few details, and I will “graciously” address your concerns...
;>)
Why, Walt: is that a 'straw man' argument you just posted? I provided references to the suspension of the writ, not secession. How do you respond? You change the subject and claim that "not a one of these Justices will support a right to unilateral state secession!"
I never claimed they did, now did I?
Obviously it is you, not I, who is "misrepresenting and cherry picking the record." Your own posts prove it...
;>)
;>)
So, would you tell us that the Alien and Sedition Acts were not unconstitutional?
;>)
So, you've progressed from 'refusing to discuss certain subjects,' to 'straw man arguments,' to 'vague analogies.' How impressive! Did you learn that at your 'newsgroup?'
;>)
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.