Posted on 12/24/2001 4:25:26 AM PST by WhiskeyPapa
I Pledge allegiance to the Confederate Flag, and to the Southern People and the Culture for which it stands
by Lake E. High, Jr.
The Confederate flag is again under attack, as it has always been, and as it always will be. It is under attack because of what it symbolizes. The problem is that to many Southerners have forgotten just what it does symbolize.
The Confederate Nation of 1860 - 1865 was the intellectual, as well as the spiritual, continuation of the United States of America as founded, planned, and formed by Southerners. It was the stated, and often repeated, position of almost all Southerners in the 1860’s that they, and the South, were the heirs of the original political theory embodied in the U. S. Constitution of 1789. In 1860 their attempted to separate from the rest of the states and form their own nation since that was the only way the South could preserve the philosophy and the virtues that had made the United States the magnificent nation it had become.
In both of these contentions, that is, the South was the true repository of the original political theory that made the United States great, and the South was the true home of the people who took the necessary actions to found, make, and preserve the original United States, Southerners have been proven by the passage of time to be correct.
The Southern colonies of Virginia, North and South Carolina and Maryland were where the majority of the original American population resided until the 1700’s despite the fact Massachusetts was settled only 13 years after Virginia and New York was settled 18 years before South Carolina. As the population of the colonies grew, the New England States and the middle Atlantic states, gained population so that by the time of the American Revolutionary War the two general areas of the north and the South were generally equal in size with a small population advantage being shown by Virginia. This slight difference in population by a southern state was to have a profound effect on the development of the United States.
First of all, the New England states managed to start a war with England, which they verbalized as "taxation without representation." In truth the problem from their point of view was the taxes on their trade. Having started the war they then promptly managed to lose it. The British, after conquering the entire north from Maine (then part of Massachusetts) to Boston, to Providence, to New York, to the new nation’s capital, Philadelphia, shifted their military forces to move against the Southern colonies. They secured their foothold in the South by capturing Savannah and Charleston and then proceeded to move inland to subdue the Southern population. They planed to catch the Virginia forces under General Washington in a coordinated attack moving down from the north, which they held, and up from the South that they thought they would also conquer.
The British army that had mastered the north found they could not defeat the Southern people. Once in the backwoods of the South they found themselves to be the beaten Army. The British defeats at Kings Mountain and Cowpens were absolute. Their Pyrrhic victories at Camden and Guilford Courthouse were tantamount to defeat. In both North Carolina and South Carolina they were so weakened they had to retreat from the area of their few "victories" within days. Their defeats at those well-known sites among others, along with their defeat at Yorktown in Virginia, led directly to their surrender.
Having secured the political freedom from England for all the colonists, Southerners then mistakenly sat back and took a smaller role in forming the new American government that operated under an "Articles of Confederation." That first attempt at forming a government fell to the firebrands of New England who has started the war and who still asserted their moral position of leadership despite their poor showing on the field of battle. These Articles of Confederation, the product of the Yankee political mind, gave too much economic self determination to the separate colonies (as the Northern colonies had demanded in an attempt to protect their shipping, trade and manufacturing) and too little power of enforcement to a central government.
After a period of six difficult years, when the Articles of Confederation failed as a form of government, another convention was called and a new form of government was drawn up. This time the convention was under the leadership of Southerners and they brought forth the document we all refer to as the U.S. Constitution. Even northern historians do not try to pretend the Constitution and the ideas embodied therein are anything other than a product of the Southern political mind. (Yankee historians cannot deny it, but they do choose to ignore it so their students grow up ignorant of the fact that the Constitution is Southern.) So, as it turns out, when the new nation found itself in political trouble it was the South which, once again, came to the rescue just as it had when the nation found itself previously in military trouble.
With the slight population advantage it enjoyed over other states, Virginia was able to give to the new nation politicians who are nothing short of demigods. Their names are revered in all areas of the civilized world wherever political theorists converge. Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Randolph, Henry, Taylor and Monroe are just a few, there are many more. These men along with the leading political minds of South Carolina, Rutledge, Heyward, and, most importantly, Pinckney, saw their new nation through its birth and establishment.
The military leadership, as well as the political leadership, of the South saw the nation through its expansion. Under Southern leadership the British were defeated a second time in 1814. Under Southerners, most obviously John Tyler and Andrew Jackson, Florida was added as a state. The defeat of Mexico in 1846, under the Southern leadership of James Polk and numerous Southern military officers, established of the United States as a force to be feared. That was an astonishing accomplishment for so small and so young a nation
Thomas Jefferson, who added the Louisiana Purchase, barely escaped impeachment for his efforts. The north argued continuously against the war with Mexico that added the area from Texas to California just as they had argued against the Louisiana Purchase. One Congressman from Illinois, Abraham Lincoln, was particularly vehement against Texas being made a state. Northerners, having seen Mexico defeated and the United States enlarged all the way to the Pacific Ocean, then objected to the methods and motives of the acquisition of the Washington and Oregon territories in the northwest. Polk, who had added that vast area from Louisiana to California to Colorado to the pacific northwest, served only one term as President due to the constant attacks he sufferer in the Northern press. Left to the people of the north, the French would still control from Minnesota to Louisiana and Mexico would control from Texas to the Pacific while Canada would still include Washington, Oregon Idaho and Montana.
Every square inch of soil that now comprises the continental United States was added under a Southern president, and they did it over the strenuous political objections of the north. The provincial and mercenary Yankee people fought every effort to expand the United States. The expansion of the United States became a regional political disagreement that spread ill feeling north and South. Its accomplishment by Southerners was no small feat. It was accomplished under Southern military leadership and with much Southern blood. (Which is why Tennessee is called "The Volunteer State" and the names of Southerners are almost exclusively the only ones found on memorial tablets and monuments from Texas to California.). The expansion of the original colonies into the continental power it became was completely the results of the Southern mind and Southern leadership.
Having secured the freedom of the United States from England and then having formed and led the successful government into a new political age under a written constitution that is still the envy of the whole world, the South gave the entire military and political leadership that formed the United States into the boundaries it now enjoys. But these magnificent accomplishments were soon to be overshadowed by population shifts and the ensuing results that brings in a representative government. By the early 1820s the north had finally secured just enough additional population that it had achieved enough political clout to start protecting its first love, its money. The unfair and punitive tariffs that were passed in 1828 led to the South’s first half-hearted attempt to form its own separate government with the Nullification movement of 1832. The threat of war that South Carolina held out in 1832 then caused a negotiated modification of those laws to where the South could live with them. For the time being, the political question was settled by compromise.
While those changes pacified the political leaders of the South for the time being, some statesmen could see, even then, that if the North ever became totally dominant politically, the South would be destroyed, not just economically, but philosophically and spiritually as well. Those statesmen, with Calhoun in the lead, then started planting the intellectual seeds that led to the South’s second attempt at political freedom in 1860.
Unfortunately, in the 1840’s Yankee abolitionist introduced the new poison of the "voluntary end" of slavery as a political issue. There were attempts by many Southerners to defuse this situation by offering an economic solution. That is, Southerners offered to end slavery in the South just as England had ended it in the West Indies, by having the slave-holders paid for their losses when the slaves were freed. The abolitionist Yankees would have none of that. Their position was simple, the South could give up it slaves for free and each farmer could absorb the loss personally. There was to be no payment. To the Yankee abolitionists it was either their way or war.
The fact that the abolitionist movement became a dominant presence in the northern part of the United States from the 1840’s on is primarily because a liberal can politicize any subject and enrage any body of people regardless of the level of preexisting good will. (As current liberals have turned the simple good sense argument that one should not litter one’s own environment into the political upheaval of "the ecology movement." The effectiveness of liberal methods can currently be seen in the simple instance that most people believe such nonsense as the chemical cause of "ozone depletion" and "the greenhouse effect" despite any evidence of either. Liberals are absolutely capable, by their strident, activist natures of raising any question to harmful emotional heights.)
Unfortunately, the loss of the War for Southern Independence in 1865 caused the very thing that Southern statesmen had foreseen in the 1830’s; that is, the north became dominant and the cultural, spiritual, and economic base of the South was decimated. The loss of the war was most severely felt in the South, of course, but it has also had political repercussions in the north as well.
Without the South in a position of dominance, the leadership of the United States has gone from Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, Tyler and Polk to the inept, or leftist, Grant, Harding, Arthur, Harrison and Roosevelt, among others. Plus, the ascendancy of the leftist north to national prominence has also caused the rise of leaders in the South who had to be acceptable to the north. Such spectacularly immoral or totally incompetent Southern politicians as Lyndon Johnson, Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton are examples of the quality of the men that the South must now produce to garner northern votes. When these modern day jackals are contrasted with the demigods the South produced when unfettered by the northern voter, that in itself should be enough to make all people reject northern philosophy and northern politics and embrace all things Southern.
As the forces of the left have gained ascendancy in the United States, the pressure intensifies to completely obliterate anything that remains between them and complete leftist victory. That means that the traditional enemy of leftists, the South, must be erased in its every form. That is why leftists always demand that even symbols of the South be eradicated.
We, therefore, now have a coalition of people who want the Southern flag taken down and hidden from public view. This coalition is composed of three main groups. First of all are African-Americans, whose emotional position is totally unmitigated by any knowledge of history. Secondly, there are Yankees who have moved to the South and who, despite their remarkable political failures in their own states, have learned nothing and continue to vote leftist here too. Or either these northern imports have been transferred here to run the newspapers that are owned by the people who live outside the South. And, thirdly, there are leftist Southerners, or Southerners of "politically correct" leaning, who have apparently learned their history from the television and movies and who feel the South is a bad place because it is not egalitarian enough.
But the demands of this coalition of political thinkers need to be put in proper perspective. Before anyone starts to tell someone else how to act and how to think, it is incumbent on him to demonstrate the success of his own ideas and actions. So far the introduction and enforcement of leftist ideas in our world has led to nothing but sorrow and degeneration. The force necessary to make people live under a leftist government has been the direct cause of the murder of over one hundred million people in this century alone. Leftist political theory has enslaved and impoverished billions of people worldwide. Its introduction has weakened even such great nations as England and France and reduced them to the status of third rate nations. Socialism in Scandinavia has reduced it to an economic level even less than that of England. In the United States leftist ideas have turned our country into the increasingly sick society it has become.
So until this coalition of leftist can point to a single successful instance of where their leftist philosophy has improved a country, or a people, rather than to the spectacular political failures the left has precipitated in any place into which its poisonous philosophy has been introduced, they have no right to demand anything of anybody. Leftist, the most spectacular political failures in all of history, have no standing to demand that Southerners accept anything that flows from their false philosophy. And of all people, leftist have the least demand on Southerners, the people who formed, guided, expanded and gave them a great country.
The Confederate flag is a symbol. It stands for the people who had the spirit, the courage, and the intelligence to give the world its greatest governmental entity. As long as the Confederate flag flies there is hope that the terrible scourge leftists have placed on the world will pass. It represents the culture that produced the most wished for, the most just, and the finest political system on earth. And as long as the Confederate flies there is hope that the greatness that was once ours may someday be reestablished.
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.