Posted on 04/16/2003 5:44:44 AM PDT by Lady Eileen
Washington, DC-area Freepers interested in Lincoln and/or the War Between the States should take note of a seminar held later today on the Fairfax campus of George Mason University:
The conventional wisdom in America is that Abraham Lincoln was a great emancipator who preserved American liberties. In recent years, new research has portrayed a less-flattering Lincoln that often behaved as a self-seeking politician who catered to special interest groups. So which is the real Lincoln?
On Wednesday, April 16, Thomas DiLorenzo, a former George Mason University professor of Economics, will host a seminar on that very topic. It will highlight his controversial but influential new book, The Real Lincoln: A New Look at Abraham Lincoln, His Agenda, and an Unnecessary War. In the Real Lincoln, DiLorenzo exposes the conventional wisdom of Lincoln as based on fallacies and myths propagated by our political leaders and public education system.
The seminar, which will be held in Rooms 3&4 of the GMU Student Union II, will start at 5:00 PM. Copies of the book will be available for sale during a brief autograph session after the seminar.
The Union of the States never was a purely artificial and arbitrary relation. It began among the Colonies, and grew out of common origin, mutual sympathies, kindred principles, similar interests, and geographical relations. It was confirmed and strengthened by the necessities of war, and received definite form and character and sanction from the Articles of Confederation. By these, the Union was solemnly declared to "be perpetual." And, when these Articles were found to be inadequate to the exigencies of the country, the Constitution was ordained "to form a more perfect Union."
But the perpetuity and indissolubility of the Union by no means implies the loss of distinct and individual existence, or of the right of self-government by the States. On the contrary, it may be not unreasonably said that the preservation of the States and the maintenance of their governments are as much within the design and care of the Constitution as the preservation of the Union and the maintenance of the National government. The Constitution, in all its provisions, looks to an indestructible Union composed of indestructible States.
When Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation. The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration or revocation, except through revolution or through consent of the States.
Considered as transactions under the Constitution, the ordinance of secession, adopted by the convention, and ratified by a majority of the citizens of Texas, and all the acts of her legislature intended to give effect to that ordinance, were absolutely null. They were utterly without operation in law. The State did not cease to be a State, nor her citizens to be citizens of the Union.
So the basis of his decision seems to be Chief Justice Chase's belief that the preamble's direction to 'form a more perfect union' meant maintaining and strengthening the perpetuity of the union called for by the Articles of Confederation. But his observation that the exit from the Union was possible either by rebellion or the consent of the states is no doubt a recognition of the Constitutional power given Congress to determine the status of states.
Happy?
The 10th amendment never comes into play because Congress has the power to provide for the common defense and the general welfare.
And the federal government also guarantees a republican government to all the states. That is made null if a state can secede.
There is no legal state secession in U.S. law.
This is new to you, but you will get used to it.
Walt
Arrogant, ain't he?
Arrogant, ain't he?
His world's been ripped apart.
Bless his heart.
Walt
The Articles of Confederation had no legal weight after the ratification of the Constitution, so its perpetuity language became null-and-void. Given the absence of any explicit prohibition against a state withdrawing, and the absence of any rhetoric among the ratification debates and Federalist Papers, to the effect that a state has no right to withdraw after joining the Union, one can make the logical inference that perpetuity was more hopeful rhetoric for the struggling new nation than law, and also in practice that perpetuity refers more to the tenets of the Constitution rather than membership in the Union by a state.
Justice Chase states: The Constitution, in all its provisions, looks to an indestructible Union composed of indestructible States. If he truly believed that, or followed it to its logical conclusion, the Union can survive with some members leaving, whereas a state cannot be considered indestructible if it does not have the ultimate recourse to the encroachment of Federal power that withdrawing provides. It would be swallowed and melted into a Union against the wishes of its citizens.
He states further: When Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation. The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. This is what I was referring to in an earlier reply as making a prohibition out of whole cloth. He simply states it as a fact, but does not cite any authority. Neither the Chief Justice, the Supreme Court, nor anyone in the judiciary has the Constitutional authority to create such a prohibition. Appealing to the Preamble, of all parts, shows the weakness of his argument.
This is such an ignorant statement that I don't know where to start.
And the federal government also guarantees a republican government to all the states. That is made null if a state can secede.
If you had any idea what republican, federal, and national mean in this context, you would realize how ridiculous that statement is.
There is no legal state secession in U.S. law.
You've already said that neither the Constitution nor Federal law prohibit a state from withdrawing.
This is new to you, but you will get used to it.
No, Wlat, I don't think I'll ever get over the sheer ridiculousness of what you say.
And that is why I can state, without any hesitation of my own, that your belief that the decision is without foundation legally or constitutionally is meaningless. Your opinion has no legal standing at all. The only opinions that matter were those of the Chief Justice and the four associate justices who agreed with him that the actions of the Texas legislature were without standing in the law. They were null, they violated the Constitution, they were illegal, however you want to put it. That fact will not change regardless of how loudly you state their decision to be, in effect, making legislation or how often you proclaim that the Constituion doesn't say what the court said it did.
My opinion in this case has more of a legal and Constitutional basis than the opinion of Justice Chase. I can cite the Constitution and Federal law to back up mine, he couldn't, and neither can you.
Your opinion and a buck will get you a soft drink in most towns. Your opinion alone will get you squat, which is a fair approximation of it's value. Just because you believe your opinion to be the only correct one doesn't mean that the rest of us will roll over and follow you blindly. But I'm sorry, I've seen your arguement and I'm not impressed. I've stated my opinion and the fact that you think I'm wrong doesn't bother me at all. I still believe that unilateral secession is not allowed, the Supreme Court believed that unilateral secession, and I believe that Jefferson and Madison did as well. You may believe I'm totally wrong, well, I'll just have to learn to live with that.
Wrong. Which union do you mean? The union that Lincoln claims created the states? Georgia was not included in the Articles of Association. All the original 13 states seceded from the Articles of Confederation & Perpetual Union..
No state has ever been out of the Union. (from your #787)
See above. Also North Carolina was out of the union for 9 months, Rhode Island & Providence Plantations was out of the union for over a year.
No state has ever been out of the Union for an instant since the Articles of Confederation were passed. (from your #789)
Wrong. Your "instant" lasted about as long as the "perpetual" union. Additionally, the Confederate states were out of the union for years - they were readmitted to the union via ratifying the 13th Amendment, then kicked out for refusing to ratify the 14th, only to be readmitted again when illegal military governments were instituted.
If that was all that was necessary Walt, Justice Grier et al would not have resorted to jure belli (international law of war) as the justification for the blockade. They then state that the right to secede was being decided on the field of battle, not by any congressional act.
Their own decision refutes your incorrect understanding.
According to the Constitution & debates, the legislature of the affected state or the executive (Governor) had to request that assistance. Congress had the obligation to call forth the militia. Lastly, Article IV states that the guarantee of a Republican government only applied to every State 'in this Union' - not those that left.
Also, Chase held that Texas had never left - if true then the acts of the state were legitimate and the decision re: the bonds wrong. Only by holding that Texas was not a state would his decision have merit. Justice Grier, who authored the Prize Cases dissented in TvW (5-3), holding that Texas was not a state in the union.
As another aside, I remember reading where someone asserted that President Davis did not want to be tried. He did, as documented by Rev. J. William Jones (author of Personal reminiscences, anecdotes, and letters of Gen. Robert E. Lee and other works):
'O that they had dared give me [Davis] the trial I so much coveted, and for which I so earnestly begged, in order that I might have opportunity to vindicate my people and their cause before the world and at the bar of history! They knew that I would have been triumphantly acquitted, and our people purged of all taint of treason, and they never dared to bring my case to trial."'
Chase told Stanton, 'If you bring these leaders to trial [Davis & Benjamin], it will condemn the North, for by the Constitution, secession is not rebellion', and that Davis capture was a mistake, and his 'trial will be a greater one. We cannot convict him of treason.'
And the four associate justice who agreed with him? What was their excuse?
Chase told Stanton, 'If you bring these leaders to trial [Davis & Benjamin], it will condemn the North, for by the Constitution, secession is not rebellion', and that Davis capture was a mistake, and his 'trial will be a greater one. We cannot convict him of treason.'
But that's not what Chase said. His position was that trying and convicting Davis and the other leaders of the rebellion would be a violation of their 5th Amendment protections. Since the 14th Amendment prevented the leaders of the office from holding office again, Chief Justice Chase believed that trial and conviction for treason would mean that they would be punished again for the same crime. You are right that Davis wanted a trial, but when the Chief Justice made his position clear Davis's lawyers pushed for a dismissal. They knew, even if Davis did not, that a trial would mean conviction. No other outcome would have been possible.
Justice Grier cites the Militia Act.
You will tell any kind of lie.
Walt
No it doesn't. The Constituion provides "for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions" by Congress. No mention of a need for the state to request that assistance. Likewise, Section 2 of the Militia Act says "That whenever the laws of the United States shall be opposed or the execution thereof obstructed, in any state, by combinations too powerful to be suppressed by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, or by the powers vested in the marshals by this act, the same being notified to the President of the United States, by an associate justice or the district judge, it shall be lawful for the President of the United States to call forth the militia of such state to suppress such combinations, and to cause the laws to be duly executed. And if the militia of a state, where such combinations may happen, shall refuse, or be insufficient to suppress the same, it shall be lawful for the President, if the legislature of the United States be not in session, to call forth and employ such numbers of the militia of any other state or states most convenient thereto, as may be necessary, and the use of militia, so to be called forth, may be continued, if necessary, until the expiration of thirty days after the commencement of the ensuing session." So you're wrong in that respect.
The words "secede" and "seceded" were terms of a later generation. The framers knew that the Constitution made the perpetual Union of the Articles more perfect, just as it says in the Preamble.
You know it too.
Walt
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.