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
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!
Walt, Mr. Lincoln refused to allow recognition and negotiation with the duly appointed commissioners from the Confederate Government to the Federal Government appointed by President Davis specifically to “agree, treat, consult, and negotiate” the adjustment of all points interest, including the debts and disposition of public property in the States that had left the Union (Davis, Rise and Fall, vol. I, pg. 213). Mr. Lincoln refused to recognize them, so the argument, advanced by yourself here, and Lincoln at the time, that leaving without assuming a fair portion of the public debt, is spurious.
An interesting historical analogy is worth mentioning. In 1790, after more than a year of waiting for Rhode Island to ratify the Constitution, and even refusing to impose tariffs on RI products in an effort to get “the vaut-rien” to ratify, the US Senate debated how best to deal with her refusal to ratify and what to do with RI’s share of the US war debt. On May 10th, 1790, Mr. William Maclay, Senator from Pennsylvania wrote, “Let accounts be settled and Rhode Island has a right to be charged with, and she has a right to pay her proportion of the cost of independence." In other words, the principle at the dawn of the Republic was “pay your share and you're on your own.” Then on May 11th Maclay wrote, "The Rhode Island resolutions were taken up. I was twice up against these resolutions. They (the other Senators) admitted on all hands that Rhode Island was independent, and did not deny that the measures now taken were meant to force her into adoption of the Constitution of the United States." The word “force” is used in no more violent sense than ‘convince’ RI to ratify, or be presented with a bill for $27,000. Knowing what a bunch of cheapskates Rhode Islanders were at teh time, a bill for $27,000 would have the effect of forcing them to ratify. Journal of William Maclay, United States Senator from Pennsylvania, 1789-1791. Edgar S. Maclay, ed., (NY: Appleton, 1890), pg. 259. Even this degree of coercion was denounced by some in Congress. On May 26th, Mr. Page said on the floor of the House, "Should this bill pass, and should Rhode Island adopt the Constitution, she will come with so bad a grace into the Union that she must be ashamed when she enters it." (Annals of Congress, 1st Congress, 2nd Session, pg. 1671.) The Founding Fathers were extremely concerned that this was to be a Union of the willing.
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.
With all due respect to you, I would make to opposite argument. If you are exposed to enough of the argument from the other side, you will see that there were two sides to this argument, with elements of merit on both sides. Slavery is wrong, but suppressing the ideal of government by the consent of the governed and violating the provisions of the US Constitution in an effort to overthrow slavery is more so.
Respectfully,
D J White