Posted on 05/13/2003 6:17:13 AM PDT by VMI70
It's too bad they don't show the number of votes.
Easy:
It's OK by me: 2 (Walt, Grand Old Partisan)
Politically Correct Mistake: 40
The pentium floating-point bug accounts for the errant math.
He's the only one around here voting for the RATS. Well, unless MurrayMom has crawled out from under her rock recently...
Relevant in that Federal encroachment on a state's domain is an irritant and resented regardless of the state's geogtaphic latitude, the issue at hand, or time period in which it occurs.
Sort of like a neighbor who sends his dog to crap in your yard, tells you it's good fertilizer, and forces you at the point of a gun to let him do so.
So you're suggesting that slavery was not a reason for the southern rebellion?
Of course, nobody will ask the obvious question: Walt, what in the Sam Hell was the Union doing with a debt in the first place?
Part of the national debt was taken on in retiring the debt of Texas. Another part was incurred in ridding Florida of the Indians.
Pretty good bargain for those two states just to walk on that, huh?
Walt
I would dispute that fact completely.
My point was that if he really was very concerned about slaves then he could have freed them.
He was concerned and he did use his influence to get the 13th Amendment out of Congress and to the states for ratification.
No, he didn't, and no it wasn't.
"even Lincon knew..."
What a nonsensical comment to make.
Walt
It's not as simple as that. The question wasn't whether or not slavery was constitutional. The question was to what degree did Congress have the power to regulate or prohibit its expansion. Going back to Jefferson's ordinance of 87, the precedent had been set that Congress could and perhaps should prevent the expansion of slavery into new territories. This was the approach taken in the Wilmot Proviso, which I am sure you are familiar with. Well, the slave states damn near had a cow at the thought! It was at the time of the Wilmot Proviso, all the way back in the early 40s, as I recall, that the Slave states first started making noise about secession. The issue was slavery. It didn't matter to them if Congress had the authority or not, it was a line in the sand for them.
You would think that the question of Congressional authority to regulate slavery in the District of Columbia would not have been as controversial, but it was.
Article 1, Section 8 gives Congress the power "To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States..."
However, when Congressmen such as John Quincy Adams attempted to exercise that authority to ban slave auctions and the practice of slavery, hell, they couldn't even bring the bills to the floor. The House version of the Calhounists routinely walked out. Not exactly republican behavior. For them, the mere thought of any limit on their precious trade was reason for anarchy. What else can you call it when they walk out of Congress when they don't get their way? Or when debate on something they don't like is attempted?
In reality, as Americans migrated west, as the frontier was tamed, as new states were formed, the question of slavery--and it was a question--was a crippling impediment to progress. It held up California statehood (the slavers wouldn't accept them because they were to be--by their own choosing--a free state. So much for states' rights!)It held up the building of the railroads.
Now, if it were me, I would support the authority of Congress, per section 8, to prohibit slavery in new territories, AND in D.C. To me, that's a plain reading of the law. But if it were my line in the sand, an issue so near and dear to me that I would die for it, that I would turn on my own nation's flag, well then, I don't suppose Article 1, Section 8 counts for much. That's anarchy, my friend.
Apologies, it was early and I hadn't drank enough coffee yet. Slavery was certainly an issue, however had it been the only one there would have been recourse through the existing governmental channels.
The same could not be said of other perceived abuses.
Pretty good bargain to reply without answering the questions relating to 'walking out,' huh?
So your position is that Lincoln viewed the Union as being held by coersion from its inception?
All you need to believe to worship at Walt's First Church of Unionism is that the constituion was a grand conspiracy against the people, and once ratified was somehow given authority over the instrument of it's creation. There's also the matter of words used in the document not meaning what they really say, "perfect" being "perpetual" and so on. Not all of us have the sort of abilities that you have - mind reading people who have been dead for 150 years or so - so we rely on the text itself.
You may want to look at your refutations of constitutional questions. Is it telling to you that you never use the constitution itself as a source? It certainly is to me.
And you call my commentary nonsense?
Assuming that the issue so near your heart is within the scope of the delegated powers of Article 1, Section 8. If not, it may just be resistance to tyranny.
Let's say the government were to overstep its bounds and implement in law such a monstrosity as to bring about the death of 40 million Americans. Is there no point at which the people have an obligation to resist?
So your position is that Lincoln viewed the Union as being held by coersion from its inception?
The power of coercion was desired by both Washington and Madison.
"Your sentiments that are affairs are rapidly drwaing to a crisis, accord with my own. What the event will be is also beyond the reach of my foresight. We have errors to correct. We have probably had too good an opinion of human nature in forming our confederation. Experience has taught us, that men will not adopt and carry into execution, measures best calculated for their own good without the intervention of a corecive power. I do not concieve we can exist long as a nation, without having lodged somewhere a power which will pervade the whole Union in as energetic a manner, as the authority of the different state governments extends over the several states. To be fearful of vesting Congress, constituted as that body is, with ample authorities for national purposes, appears to me to be the very climax of popular absurdity and madness."
George Washington to John Jay, 15 August, 1786.
Madison:
"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. . . ."
How can you fault Lincoln for taking the same position as Madison and Washington?
The Union did not have the power of coercion at its inception, but the framers of the Constitution clearly desired it and made sure it was incorporated in that document.
Walt
Let's say there is a dispute over whether it's within their power or not. What then? Our Constitution provides for that in Article 3:
Section 2. The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.
The SCOTUS is the proper and delegated authority over such disputes. The only resort past that is revolution. But let's not forget what we were talking about--the introduction of a bill in the House of Representatives. This is not exactly tyranny. It is our system. To walk out when you don't like the debate is anarchic.
Let's say the government were to overstep its bounds and implement in law such a monstrosity as to bring about the death of 40 million Americans. Is there no point at which the people have an obligation to resist?
There is definitely a point at which the people have a right to resist. That should not be confused to be some sort of legal, constitutional right. It is an extraconstitutional appeal to natural rights. In our system, a republican is supposed to be prudent, and to try all available means--Congressional act, Presidential intervention, appeal to the Courts, state conventions, the press--and failing those, to take what actions are deemed necessary. There is no handbook for when that is just or not. Our Founders made their declaration and are judged by it--favorably. The slave states made their declarations and are judged by it--unfavorably. And imho, rightly so on both counts.
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.