You still have not retracted this ‘whopper’:
”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
“Not very clever on your part” – after all, I can quote ratification documents from the late 18th century, I can quote Tucker’s Blackstone’s of 1803, and I can quote Rawle’s View of the Constitution to prove you dead wrong. Perhaps you should see if you can find ‘reverse’ - before you 'get stuck'...
;>)
”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
“Not very clever on your part” – after all, I can quote ratification documents from the late 18th century, I can quote Tucker’s Blackstone’s of 1803, and I can quote Rawle’s View of the Constitution to prove you dead wrong. Perhaps you should see if you can find ‘reverse’ - before you 'get stuck'...
;>)
But you don't quote them.
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.
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. 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.
In any case, I didn't tell a whopper--was there a secession convention prior to 1860?
Of course you have to discredit me personally because the record doesn't support you. Taney and the other 8 justices ALL agreed that the so-called secession of the so-called seceded states was outside the bounds of the Constitution. That is an incovenient fact for your interpretation, but it remains.
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.
Walt