Posted on 04/16/2003 5:44:44 AM PDT by Lady Eileen
I guess when you rule by the sword rather than by law you can do pretty much what you want to. You would have loved the U.S.S.R.
4ConservativeJustices was obviously referring to the quote by Stanton to Chase, saying effectively that the Constitution does not equate secession with treason and, therefore, the Federal government couldn't convict Jefferson Davis.
The -people- are the sovereigns, not the states.
It was the -people- who stopped the rebellion, or hadn't you heard?
It was the -people- who delegated supreme power and authority to the federal government.
You don't know the history.
Consider:
Washington writes to Madison:
Mount Vernon, November 5, 1786.
... Fain would I hope, that the great, and most important of all objects, the foederal governmt., may be considered with that calm and deliberate attention which the magnitude of it so loudly calls for at this critical moment. Let prejudices, unreasonable jealousies, and local interest yield to reason and liberality. Let us look to our National character, and to things beyond the present period. No morn ever dawned more favourably than ours did; and no day was ever more clouded than the present! Wisdom, and good examples are necessary at this time to rescue the political machine from the impending storm. Virginia has now an opportunity to set the latter, and has enough of the former, I hope, to take the lead in promoting this great and arduous work. Without some alteration in our political creed, the superstructure we have been seven years raising at the expence of so much blood and treasure, must fall. We are fast verging to anarchy and confusion! ...
How melancholy is the reflection, that in so short a space, we should have made such large strides towards fulfilling the prediction of our transatlantic foe! "leave them to themselves, and their government will soon dissolve." Will not the wise and good strive hard to avert this evil? Or will their supineness suffer ignorance, and the arts of self-interested designing disaffected and desperate characters, to involve this rising empire in wretchedness and contempt? What stronger evidence can be given of the want of energy in our governments than these disorders? If there exists not a power to check them, what security has a man for life, liberty, or property? To you, I am sure I need not add aught on this subject, the consequences of a lax, or inefficient government, are too obvious to be dwelt on. Thirteen Sovereignties pulling against each other, and all tugging at the foederal head will soon bring ruin on the whole; whereas a liberal, and energetic Constitution, well guarded and closely watched, to prevent incroachments, might restore us to that degree of respectability and consequence, to which we had a fair claim, and the brightest prospect of attaining. With sentiments of the sincerest esteem etc."
Madison writes to George Washington:
From Letters and Other Writings of James Madison,. New York: R. Worthington, 1884. 287-290.
To General Washington
New York, April 16th, 1787
Dear Sir,
--I have been honored with your letter of the 31 March, and find, with much pleasure, that your views of the reform which ought to be pursued by the Convention give a sanction to those I entertained. Temporizing applications will dishonor the councils which propose them, and may foment the internal malignity of the disease, at the same time that they produce an ostensible palliation of it. Radical attempts, although unsuccessful, will at least justify the authors of them.
Having been lately led to revolve the subject which is to undergo the discussion of the Convention, and formed some outlines of a new system, I take the liberty of submitting them without apology to your eye.
Conceiving that an individual independence of the States is utterly irreconcilable with their aggregate sovereignty, and that a consolidation of the whole into one simple republic would be as inexpedient as it is unattainable, I have sought for middle ground, which may at once support a due supremacy of the national authority, and not exclude the local authorities wherever they can be subordinately useful.
I would propose as the groundwork, that a change be made in the principle of representation. According to the present form of the Union, in which the intervention of the States is in all great cases necessary to effectuate the measures of Congress, an equality of suffrage does not destroy the inequality of importance in the several members. No one will deny that Virginia and Massachusetts have more weight and influence, both within and without Congress, than Delaware or Rhode Island. Under a system which would operate in many essential points without the intervention of the State legislatures, the case would be materially altered. A vote in the national Councils from Delaware would then have the same effect and value as one from the largest State in the Union. I am ready to believe that such a change would not be attended with much difficulty. A majority of the States, and those of greatest influence, will regard it as favorable to them. To the northern States it will be recommended by their present populousness; to the Southern, by their expected advantage in this respect. The lesser States must in every event yield to the predominant will. But the consideration which particularly urges a change in the representation is, that it will obviate the principal objections of the larger States to the necessary concessions of power.
I would propose next, that in addition to the present federal powers, the national Government should be armed with positive and complete authority in all cases which require uniformity; such as the regulation of trade, including the right of taxing both exports and imports, the fixing the terms and forms of naturalization, &c., &c.
Over and above this positive power, a negative in all cases whatsoever on the Legislative acts of the States, as heretofore exercised by the Kingly prerogative, appears to me to be absolutely necessary, and to be the least possible encroachment on the State jurisdictions. Without this defensive power, every positive power that can be given on paper will be evaded or defeated. The States will continue to invade the National jurisdiction, to violate treaties, and the law of nations, and to harass each other with rival and spiteful measures dictated by mistaken views of interest. . . .
The national supremacy ought also to be extended, as I conceive, to the Judiciary departments. If those who are to expound and apply the laws are connected by their interests and their oaths with the particular States wholly, and not with the Union, the participation of the Union in the making of the laws may be possibly rendered unavailing. It seems at least necessary that the oaths of the Judges should include a fidelity to the general as well as local Constitution, and that an appeal should lie to some National tribunal in all cases to which foreigners or inhabitants or other States may be parties. The admiralty jurisdiction seems to fall entirely within the purview of the National Government.
The National supremacy in the Executive departments is liable to some difficulty, unless the officers administering them could be made appointable by the Supreme Government. The Militia ought certainly to be placed, in some form or other, under the authority which is entrusted with the general protection and defense.
A Government composed of such extensive powers should be well organized and balanced. The legislative department might be divided into two branches; one of them chosen every. . .years, by the people at large, or by the Legislatures; the other to consist of fewer members, to hold their places for a longer term, and to go out in such rotation as always to leave in office a large majority of old members. Perhaps the negative on the laws might be most conveniently exercised by this branch. As a further check, a Council of revision, including the great ministerial officers, might be superadded.
A National Executive must also be provided. I have scarcely ventured, as yet, to form my own opinion either of the manner in which it ought to be constituted, or of the authorities with which it ought to be clothed.
An article should be inserted expressly guaranteeing the tranquility of the States against internal as well as external dangers.
In like manner the right of coercion should be expressly declared. With the resources of commerce in hand, the National administration might always find means of exerting it either by sea or land. But the difficulty and awkwardness of operating by force on the collective will of a State render it particularly desirable that the necessity of it might be precluded. Perhaps the negative on the laws might create such a mutuality of dependence between the general and particular authorities as to answer this purpose. Or, perhaps, some defined objects of taxation might be submitted, along with commerce, to the general authority.
To give a new system its proper validity and energy, a ratification must be obtained from the people, and not merely from the ordination of the Legislatures. This will be the more essential, as inroads on the existing Constitutions of the States will be unavoidable."
What Madison proposed was largely what was adopted, and no one had any question of this at the time of ratification.
The rebels went outside the law because they knew they had no recourse -in- the law.
Walt
I guess when you rule by the sword rather than by law you can do pretty much what you want to. You would have loved the U.S.S.R.
Personal attacks must suffice when the facts don't suit you.
What saved Davis and the rest from the noose was the fact that Abraham Lincoln STRONGLY opposed any such trials. Lincoln attended a meeting with Stanton on this very subject on the last day of his life.
Have you not seen the "April 1865" two hour show on the History Channel, or read Jay Winek's book?
Grant and Sherman meet with Lincoln at City Point early in April. He impresses on them the need for liberality and forgiveness.
When President Johnson was -determined- to try and hang Lee(and Milligan), he was balked in that attempt by Grant, who threatened to resign.
Sherman, that famous despoiler of states, proposed terms so liberal and generous to the rebels they could scarely believe it.
It was President Lincoln's words of forgiveness and reconciliation that stayed Stanton's hand, and Johnson's hand.
It was the actions of Grant and Sherman and Lee and Johnston that saved this country from the blood bath that has so often attended the end of other revolutions in other countries.
Maybe if the top 50 or 100 rebels HAD been hanged, you wouldn't have been so hooked on fantasy instead of truth.
Walt
Stanton was the Secretary of War, not the Attorney General or the Chief Justice. His opinion was one of may. Had Davis been tried he would have been convicted, no other outcome would have been conceivable to the Johnson administration.
After 9 hours that was the best that you could come up with? Pretty pathetic!
But more than your comments are worth, Peeshwank.
In theory that may to some degree be true. But it is a different type of sovereignty than that which is given to a state or government. The founders themselves, who possessed a much better understanding of Lockeanism than you, recognized this to be so:
"The United States will have a qualified sovereignty only. The individual States will retain a part of the Sovereignty." - George Mason, Constitution Convention, 20 August 1787
It was the -people- who stopped the rebellion, or hadn't you heard?
No it wasn't, Walt. The "people" did not wage that war, Walt. The "people" did not wake up one morning and, in unison, decide "we're going to invade the south and stop them from seceding." The "people" did not randomly form together in an army which, by act of their collective decision, turned in the direction of Richmond and proceded to march there. No Walt. Much to the contrary, it was Lincoln who raised the army, both by volunteer and impressment, and engaged them to wage war upon the south. It was Lincoln who decided upon that war as a means of responding to secession. It was Lincoln who managed its progress. It is Lincoln who bears responsibility for its consequences.
And speaking of responsibility, you Linco-philes sure are strange when it comes to that topic. Think about it. You shun his responsibility for war crimes by pushing it off onto other commanders or by denying them entirely just as one would deny Hitler. You shun his responsibility for the war by trying to pass it off as a collective action of the "people" asserting their "sovereignty" (even though such an assertion, if it happened at all, was against another people). You excuse away any and all wrongs that Lincoln ever did - and there were many of them - as if by dishonestly preserving his image somehow also preserves his infallability. That sort of behavior is not normal, Walt. But then again, you did learn it from the master of avoiding personal responsibility by blaming others and he did exactly that when he tried to blame his war on God.
As Bruce Catton points out in "The Coming Fury", the Lincoln Administration pretty much continued the Buchanan policy towards the secessionists pretty much unchanged.
In any event, Lincoln's call for 75,000 militia was filled quickly and to overflowing. The draft provided only @ 6% of federal man power. You conveniently overlook that the rebel government was the first to go to conscription.
The Congress provided the money and the legislation to prosecute the war. Lincoln was just one man.
Had the secessionists kept their seats in the Congress, Lincoln could not have done a thing to attack slavery. It was the slave power that rolled the dice, and they were the big losers.
Walt
Catton is wrong then as one major thing did change - Lincoln launched an invasion of the south.
In any event, Lincoln's call for 75,000 militia was filled quickly and to overflowing. The draft provided only @ 6% of federal man power.
Though I have no reason to put any credibility into statistics coming from you, such matters are not of issue here as the call was ultimately Lincoln's, and not, as you suggested, the collective will of "the people."
You conveniently overlook that the rebel government was the first to go to conscription.
Once again, unless you are intent upon playing games of tu quoque relativism, such matters are not of issue here since they say nothing of your contention that the war was the collective will of "the people."
The Congress provided the money and the legislation to prosecute the war.
Congress was out of session until July 4, 1861. Lincoln had been waging the war since April.
Lincoln was just one man.
And also the one man whose actions, more than any other individual on any side, directly brought about the war.
What about the Star of the West?
Wasn't that an invasion of the south?
Walt
Judging by his previous quote, I would have to say yes.
If it was, it was repulsed at the border and brought about no further acts of consequence. As for your comparison, if you cannot see the difference between 100 marines on a steamship and marching a 70,000 man army into Virginia, you are beyond help.
Congress was out of session until July 4, 1861.
The war lasted four years.
Walt
Or could it be that Chase was misquoted or the quote attributed to him in error?
Or could it be that Chase was misquoted or the quote attributed to him in error?
Gotta find that book by Burke Davis.
Found this bio online of Chase. No mention of the quote/opinion that the neo-rebs say is in this book by Burke Davis.
http://odur.let.rug.nl/~usa/B/spchase/chase04.htm
Walt
...or no other outcome would have been allowed...
That's Walt, W-A-L-T.
Walt
yeah, primary. Like letters from Madison to Washington.
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.