Uncle Tom's Cabin

Lew Rockwell ^ | 12/16/03 | Gail Jarvis

[GOPcapitalist]

BTW, the Union Army did not invade VA till May 27, long after VA had initiated hostile action against the Union,

Lincoln had extended his blockade to Virginia over a month earlier and well before Virginia had voted to secede. Virtually every precedent in the history of warfare considers a blockade to be an overtly hostile act of war. You are also incorrect about the date of the army's arrival in Virginia. The yankee army of 10,000 men marched into Alexandria on May 24th.

[nolu chan]

[Nonseq 239] I was not aware that the Supreme Court had ruled that the powers granted to the President under the Militia Acts were unconstitutional. Or are we once again proceeding on the well-worn arguement that something is unconstitutional because you say it is?

The Supreme Court did not rule that powers granted under the Militia Act were unconstitutional. Section 1 of the Militia Act pertains to insurrection and repeats the application requirement of the Constitution, lifting the phrasing directly from the Constitution. Contrary to your misbegotten assertion to the contrary, when speaking to insurrection, the requirement is there in the most explicit language possible.

If your cockamamie assertion were true, Congress would have been amending the Constitution by legislation.

Read it again, the Militia Act of 1795 states "in case of an insurrection in any state, against the government thereof, it shall be lawful for the President of the United States, on application of the legislature of such state, or of the Executive, (when the legislature cannot be convened,) to call forth such number of the militia of any other state or states, as may be applied for, as he may judge sufficient to suppress such insurrection."

[nolu chan]

NON-SEQ'S RETREAT

---

[Nonseq 223] There was insurrection in 7 southern states, soon to be 11 states. And the section 2 of the Militia Acts provided that the President could call out the militia to supress insurrection and that he didn't need for the state to call for assistance first.

[Nonseq 240] Nowhere does it say that the presidence can act only with the approval of the legislature of the state in question.

Now, you retreat from saying it provides something to saying it does not say he can't. You now claim that, in case of insurrection, the Militia Act is silent on whether the President can act only upon state application. This absurdity, despite that I just quoted the specific requirement from the Act. I will quote it again.

In language too clear for all but Non-Seq and his brother RJ, the Militia Act of 1795 states "in case of an insurrection in any state, against the government thereof, it shall be lawful for the President of the United States, on application of the legislature of such state, or of the Executive, (when the legislature cannot be convened,) to call forth such number of the militia of any other state or states, as may be applied for, as he may judge sufficient to suppress such insurrection."

[Fledermaus]

Some of the worst forms of racism I've ever seen or noticed was never living my life in the South, but in visiting places like Boston, Philadelphia, Chicago, Pittsburgh, Toledo, Cincinatti, etc.

The first ten years of my life were spent in the 60's living in Southern California. For two years we lived in a suburb of LA and the racism against blacks, Jews, the Polish, and the Asians in our area was awful. My DEMOCRAT parents and grandparents used words like "nigger, hymie, pollack and slanty-eyed bastards" all the time.

Just think how surprised I was at 18 when I informed my parents I voted Republican and then in 1980 for Reagan. They said I was voting for the party of bigots.

[nolu chan]

[nonseq 240] Nowhere does it say that the presidence can act only with the approval of the legislature of the state in question. And since the legislatures in question were the leaders of the insurrection then it is not surprising that they didn't request federal assistance.

Section 1 of the Militia Act of 1795 pertaining to insurrection says:

And in case of an insurrection in any state, against the government thereof, it shall be lawful for the President of the United States, on application of the legislature of such state, or of the Executive, (when the legislature cannot be convened,) to call forth such number of the militia of any other state or states, as may be applied for, as he may judge sufficient to suppress such insurrection.

Article IV, Section 4 of the Constitution says,

"The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence."

on application of the legislature of such state, or of the Executive, (when the legislature cannot be convened) [MILITIA ACT OF 1795]
on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) [U.S. CONST Art 4, Sec 4]

If you try real, real hard, you will see the similarity of phrasing. Section 1, repeat Section 1, as in "one" or the first section of the Militia Act of 1795 explicitly deals with insurrection, explicitly using the word "insurrection."

In dealing with insurrection the Militia Act of 1795 copies the phrasing of the Constitution, Art 4, Sect 4 which also deals with insurrection and which would take precedence over the Militia Act of 1795 in case of any conflict between the two. There is no such conflict because Congress was careful to adopt the same requirement in the Militia Act of 1795 as existed and continues to exist in the Constitution. In dealing with insurrection, the President on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) may call forth the militia. That is what the Constitution says. That is what the Militia Act of 1795 said.

Once again, for possible penetration, Section 1 of the Militia Act deals with insurrection and does so explicitly, using the specific word "insurrection."

Again, Section 1 deals with insurrection.

Section 2 of the Militia Act does NOT apply to insurrection. Nothing in Section 2 applies to insurrection. The word "insurrection" does NOT appear in Section 2. No description of an insurrection appears in Section 2.

An insurrection is "a violent uprising of part or all of the people against the government or other authority." Law Dictionary, 2 Ed, Steven H. Gifis, 1984.

Section 2 of the Militia Act deals with Obstruction of Justice. "SEC. 2. 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...."

Section 2 of the Militia Act deals with "judicial proceedings" and "the marshals."

Section 2 of the Militia Act has nothing to do with an insurrection.

Section 2 of the Militia Act provides assistance to the courts and the marshals of the courts. For this purpose, "it shall be lawful for the President of the United States to call forth the militia of such state, or of any other state or states, as may be necessary...."

Note: The President may call forth the militia of the involved state itself. This assumes no insurrection and that the militia of the state itself may be available but not yet called forth.

CONSTITUTION

Art 1, Sec 8, Cl 15 states that Congress shall have the power:

To provide for calling forth the Militia
[1] To execute the laws of the union
[2] To suppress insurrections
[3] To repel invasions

There was no insurrection. In any case, in language too clear for all but Non-Seq and his brother RJ, the Militia Act of 1795 states "in case of an insurrection in any state, against the government thereof, it shall be lawful for the President of the United States, on application of the legislature of such state, or of the Executive, (when the legislature cannot be convened,) to call forth such number of the militia of any other state or states, as may be applied for, as he may judge sufficient to suppress such insurrection."

Section 2 of the Militia Act does not apply to insurrection. It applies to executing the laws of the union via judicial process. For example, when the opinion of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court in the Merryman case was obstructed, it was beyond the capability of the marshals to enforce. The President would have been within his legal rights to bring forth the militia of the several states to assist the marshals to enforce compliance by the despot who was obstructing justice. It was only despotic obstruction of justice, not insurrection.

[Nonseq 240] Does the mugger call the police to come and apprehend him?

Not if he is a despot.

[Fledermaus]

What crap.

The vast majority of southerners were just as poor and stupid as the slaves were. Heck, there were probably more higher educated slaves than white trash moving up.

The institution of slavery, as pointed out, was loved by all until the South started getting more powerful economically and when their populations grew their respresentation in Congress grew and thus were a threat to the elite power brokers in the North.

Remember the 3/5ths compromise? Northernors didn't want slaves counted at all, much less 3 for 5. That again would increase the Congressional representation in the House for the South and, just like today, Northern elite Eurotrash can't stand it.

That's why they are going to run Howard Dean in yet ANOTHER version of liberal elitism. McGovern, Mondale and Dukakis didn't teach them a thing.

So, as usual with the ones defeated, they re-write history, as you do, to make their version pliable today. Everyone with a brain knew, at the time of the Civil War, that slavery was on it's last leg. The major plantation owners in the South were heavily diversified before the war and weren't even using slaves as much when they required a better educated workforce. Many sent their slaves to school or taught them themselves.

Mechanization was coming and in just a few short years the slaves would have been useless in the fields. But they sure were welcomed in the North to fill the factories and work in horrid conditions with long hours, low pay, and considered replaceable if they got sick or died. Just like all those coal miners living in Robert KKK Byrd's back yard.

And who were all those jerk-off Southerners you whine about so amusingly from the top of your smug throne? Democrats. All of them. Democrats until the day they died and Democrats for 120 years after the Civil War. Standing in the door houses of the schools, fighting integration, creating poll taxes and poll tests (they learned it from their buddies up North), etc.

Yes, the Civil War was about slavery. But that's only a major reason in today's concepts. Back then slavery was still a large worldwide practice and again, the North benefited and abused it just like everyone else. And in those days it was just "common knowledge" or "conventional wisdom" to say slaves weren't really equal men just like today it's conventional wisdom to believe in global warming.

So in those terms it's awful today, but back then it was just another straw on the camel's back of an overbearing federal government ignoring states rights. Lincoln had no intention of freeing any slave once he obtained office and was pushed into the Emancipation Proclamation which, if carefully read, doesn't really emancipate anyone unless under the most perfect circumstances.

Other state rights violated that you ignore, like most who don't want another point of view to invade their glass house, is free commerce, voting rights, laws overriding state legislatures and courts, etc.

For goodness sakes the North wanted to emgargo the South and STOP them from trading cotton with the French. Again, this would increase their power and grow their states and the North would suffer in representation. And once the war started they did put an embargo on their shipping lanes.

All because the South was getting ready to undercut their manufacturing base...as we did and still do today!

They passed all kinds of instrustive laws through Congress that only applied to the South because they had the numbers. They dictated commerce on the rivers, on the rails, on the roads, what could and could not be sold and when. And they taxed or force high fees on services. All through the legislative process and backed up by their cronies in the courts.

Sound familiar? It's still happening today, only a lot worse. States rights are all but gone. And the states are stupid enough to remain at the teat of the feds.

I'll give you one thing...you earn your nickname.

[Non-Sequitur]

The one thing that does NOT happen with Wal-Mart goods is direct shipment to each and every individual store from the country or origin or even the port where goods arrive.

Of course not. Those goods are shipped to a distribution center closest to where they will be ultimately sold. But for your analogy to be true then that would mean that the majority of goods destined for sale in, say, South Carolina would first be sent to a warehouse in New York and then sent to Charleston. Now how much sense does that make? Either now or in 1860?

[Non-Sequitur]

Everyone with a brain knew, at the time of the Civil War, that slavery was on it's last leg. The major plantation owners in the South were heavily diversified before the war and weren't even using slaves as much when they required a better educated workforce. Many sent their slaves to school or taught them themselves.

I would love to know what evidence you have that supports this ridiculous statement. Then we'll go over the other nonsense you posted.

[Non-Sequitur]

And if further states

"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."

Further more, the Constitution states,

"The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

Finally never forget what Thomas Jefferson once said,

"It is our duty still to endeavor to avoid war; but if it shall actually take place, no matter by whom brought on, we must defend ourselves. If our house be on fire, without inquiring whether it was fired from within or without, we must try to extinguish it."

[PeaRidge]

"Saying that the Confederacy DIDN'T start the Civil War is like saying the colonists didn't start the American Revolution."

Then what were Fox and the warships doing in Charleston harbor the night of April 11, 1861?

[PeaRidge]

"Lincoln didn't expect a war; he expected the loyal Union men in the south to exert themselves and help put everything right."

As soon as he took office he polled his cabinet on the idea of reinforcing Ft. Sumter. All save one told him that it could not be done without the outbreak of war.

The commander of Ft. Sumter told him it would mean war. But he did in anyway.

So, "our greatest president" initiated action that took 640,000 lives.

He would endorse slavery but would not accept the loss of his tariff money.

[PeaRidge]

Walt's eyes roll back and he develops a choking sound in the throat at the idea that any blacks chose to defend the Confederacy through military service. When I told him that there was a black crew member on the Hunley, he stopped posting for nearly two days. It was a nice break.

[PeaRidge]

"I'd also argue that the Erie Canal actually helped southern commerce"

Ok, go ahead.

[PeaRidge]

"As for your claim that Lincoln never made that thoroughly documented statement, you have yet to meet your burden of proof. You know the rule. Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur."

Reading the last few Walt dumps, and especially 214, you realize how much he prefers stubbornness to logic.

He reminds me of the Clintons would never see enough proof of anything to ever admit error.

But looking at the positive side, his stonewalling has motivated you, 4CJ, and nolo chan to produce outstanding posts. I especially like their research that proves Lincoln was not worried about slavery, or Union, other than the tariff revenue forced union would continue to produce.

[PeaRidge]

20 degree ambient temperature freezes produce, adds much more weight to cotton bales, and makes sails inoperable.

[Restorer]

Virtually every precedent in the history of warfare considers a blockade to be an overtly hostile act of war.

What about armed invasion and takeover of miltary posts and other government installations? Which started clear back in 1860, all over the South. Were those also acts of war? The Union chose not to consider them such, but maybe they just weren't as "sensitive" as southerners.

I'd like a reference on the Union blockade of VA before secession. It's contrary to some things I've read elsewhere.

Thanks for your correction of the date on "invasion" of VA.

[PeaRidge]

I never heard those slurs until I got to college and met people from the places you mention.

[Non-Sequitur]

Then what were Fox and the warships doing in Charleston harbor the night of April 11, 1861?

If they had been in Charleston harbor on April 11 then they would have been peacefully landing food and supplies. But on April 11 they were still a number of miles off shore and on April 12 they were watching the Davis regime bombarding Sumter.

[PeaRidge]

Well?

Well what.

...importers were taking advantage of the 1846 Warehousing Act.

Leaving out some of the statement, Non, tends to re-frame the debate. Here is what was said: " There are many factors that contributed to it but the main reason is simple: importers were taking advantage of the 1846 Warehousing Act."

And those factors were influencing northern shipping from almost the beginning. 1600s square riggers left Liverpool, having to have the wind at the stern or quarter. So they sailed the circular trades in a roundabout direction to the Indies and southern north America.

Inventions in boat riggings, navigation, and seaworthiness eventually made the shorter route directly to the north more efficient.

1700s shipping successes and the profits from the slave trade boosted business. Coastal traders began picking up southern goods for transshipment on bigger, deeper draft ships from NYC to Europe.

Federal laws also were set up to favor northern shipping by making it illegal for foreign ships to engage in coastal trade, and required penalties if southern shippers used foreign ships for international trade.

So, technology, slave profits, and federal laws boosted the success of northern shipping.

"Ah yes, the ever popular Warehousing Act of 1846. For those unitiated in the sothron interpretation why not outline for us why one simple piece of legislation would trump common economic logic: ie, ship the goods directly to those consuming them?"

Yes, Non, your idea of direct shipment is good. Maybe you can get a top job at FED-EX by convincing them that landing your package plane in your front yard is a better 'common economic' idea than landing at an airport first.

I could give you a full and accurate description of the effect of the Act on trade, except it would bore you since you have been given the same thing several times on this and other threads by knowledgable historians and economists who you don't listen to. Ignoring the impact of federal legislation on coastal trade is not an interpretation, but fact.

There was an active packet or coastal trade that began in the 1700s.

Northern trader-packets carrying cargo were in the harbor at the time of Ft. Sumter.

Pick up the book you use to falsly describe the coastal trade, Wise's Lifeline of the Confederacy, and it lists the packet service ships that were in service before the war. Page after page.

But you know this, and like Walt, would rather argue for days than acknowledge the truth.

If you disagree, why don't you tell us what the business of the Star of the West was before Buchanan hired it to carry troops to Charleston.

But don't take my word. Here: http://www.tulane.edu/~latner/StarOfTheWest.html

[Aurelius]

Ah Walt! Merry Christmas to you. And thanks for always being there for me when I am in need of a good laugh. Your idiotic posts are a never ending source. Best wishes for the New Year.