Uncle Tom's Cabin

People who disagree with me often claim that my historical views do not conform with "modern" interpretations. For my enlightenment, they recommend "modern" history books, books written after the 1960s. However, one correspondent took the opposite approach insisting that I needed to read a book from the past, Uncle Tom's Cabin. Of course, like most of you, I read the book years ago when I was younger. And, although I thought I remembered it, I decided to read it again; this time slowly and analytically.

Its author, Harriet Beecher Stowe was the daughter, sister, and wife of ministers and fervent Abolitionists who used New England pulpits to passionately proselytize against slavery. So it is not surprising that she became an Abolitionist and wrote her influential novel Uncle Tom’s Cabin. Although the book is the most famous of all anti-slavery polemics, I suspect most people are not aware of many of the opinions held by its author.

In rereading her book, I was first struck by Mrs. Stowe insistence that slavery in the South was no worse than slavery in the North had been. Furthermore, Stowe did not condemn Southern plantation owners but rather placed the onus of slavery on the slave system itself; especially New England slave traders, New York bankers, and other Northern entrepreneurs who profited from slave commerce.

Writer and Civil Rights activist James Baldwin was incensed by her position, stating: "It was her object to show that the evils of slavery were the inherent evils of a bad system, and not always the fault of those who had become involved in it and were its actual administrators." To Baldwin this opinion was racist and abdicated slave owners of personal responsibility.

Civil rights activists were also irritated by Mrs. Stowe’s support of the American Colonization Society’s belief that slaves should be returned to Africa, support she shared with Abraham Lincoln.

Although an Abolitionist, Stowe belonged to the "gradual emancipation" school. She believed that slaves must receive at least a basic education before being freed. And she insisted that they be converted to Christianity. After these two conditions were met, they should be recolonized to Africa.

Uncle Tom’s Cabin was published two years after the Compromises of 1850. During a hectic two-month period, Congress enacted several laws designed to placate both pro-slavery and anti-slavery factions. The law that especially rankled Mrs. Stowe was the Fugitive Slave Act, which required that all run-away slaves be returned to their owners. She thought it was hypocrisy for Northern congressmen, who publicly condemned slavery, to enact the Compromises of 1850.

Harriet Beecher Stowe decided that she could make her point more dramatically by using a fiction format. Her goal was not to write the great American novel, but, like Charles Dickens, create sympathy for members of an underclass of society, slaves.

The character "Uncle Tom" grew up on the plantation of his first master, Mr. Shelby, a Southerner who was kindly disposed toward his slaves. In the course of events, Mr. Shelby incurs such large debts that he must either sell Tom, his most valuable slave, or sell all the others. This dilemma allows Mrs. Stowe to demonstrate how the economic realities of the slave system itself often precluded humanitarian considerations.

Uncle Tom’s second master, Mr. St. Clare, was also a Southerner and a compassionate slave owner. Mrs. Stowe uses St. Clare’s Vermont cousin, Miss Ophelia, to illustrate the Northern view of slavery. Miss Ophelia chastises St. Clare: "It’s a perfect abomination for you to defend such a system – you all do – all you southerners." But, annoyed by the slipshod manner in which the house servants conduct themselves; she calls them "shiftless." Miss Ophelia is also offended by the close companionship of St. Clare’s daughter, Little Eva, with Tom and the other slaves, which she deems inappropriate.

Uncle Tom’s third and final master is perhaps the most famous villain in American literature – Simon Legree: a New England Yankee. Legree amasses enough money pirating to purchase a plantation in Louisiana. As a plantation owner, he regularly beats, curses and abuses his slaves. In one of his beatings of Tom, Legree's rage boils over and he accidentally kills the noble slave.

Toward the end of the book, an escaped slave, George Harris, realizes he can now achieve his dream of joining the colony in Liberia: "Let me go to form part of a nation, which shall have a voice in the councils of nations, and then we can speak. We have the claim of an injured race for reparation. But, then, I do not want it. I want a country, a nation, of my own."

In a postscript to Uncle Tom’s Cabin, Harriet Beecher Stowe catalogues the evils of the slavery system and then addresses Southerners:

"The author hopes she has done justice to that nobility, generosity, and humanity which in many cases characterizes individuals at the South. Such instances save us from utter despair of our kind. To you, generous, noble-minded men and women of the South – you, whose virtue, and magnanimity, and purity of character are the greater for the severer trial it has encountered – to you is her appeal."

"Do you say that the people of the free states have nothing to do with it? The people of the free states have defended, encouraged, and participated; and are more guilty for it, before God, than the South. There are multitudes of slaves temporarily owned, and sold again, by merchants in Northern cities; and shall the whole guilt or obloquy of slavery fall only on the South? Northern men, Northern mothers, Northern Christians, have something more to do than denounce their brethren at the South; they have to look to the evil among themselves."

Uncle Tom’s Cabin was published almost ten years before the War Between the States. Harriet Beecher Stowe did as much as anyone to encourage "gradual emancipation" of the New England sort..

Gail Jarvis [send him mail], a CPA living in Beaufort, SC, is an advocate of the voluntary union of states established by the founders.

Here's a Spanish one from 1562 showing the "new world" as it was known to Europe at the time.

Nice map of South America . Looks like it was taken from outer space. Funny how your depiction of the Spaniard's Novo Mundo doesn't seem to include places like California or even Western Mexico (lol).

Here's one of just North America published in 1650.

On that map NYC would be located just right of center, along the same line of meridian those letters I O N appear on, and there's a whole lot of territory mapped to the north and to the east. Let me guess and say this one is English.

Here's a nice French one from 1657. New York doesn't even make it onto their picture.

More pretzel logic from the master bender himself. I'm sure there are an infinite number of historical maps on which New York doesn't appear. Which means...nothing.

Here's a map of New Orleans published by the French in 1764. It was a small city, no doubt, but hardly the two block trading post you would have us believe.

Yes, I'm glad you are finally acknowledging the obvious, but I have never called New Orleans a 'two block trading post' and you know it.

Oh, and here's New York City, or New Amsterdam at the time, in 1639. Those little numbered dots are farms and individual houses. The city itself was little more than a nearby fort.

Farms and individual houses extending away from the city center (or fort) would indicate a thriving population center, good arable land, with plenty of room for GROWTH! As I stated before, climate, geography, and free labor were all key ingredients. Maybe if that map was done with a bit more scale, we could actually see just how extensive the little city of New Amsterdam really was in 1639!

Now I know you yankees and yankee sympathizers like to believe that your little yankee mecca of New York City is the center of the universe.

Reduced to mindless name calling again? Would you like some cheese with that whine?

Read Section 2 all you want. It does not pertain to insurrection. You said insurrection. Section 1 pertains to insurrection.

"Sec. 2. And be it further enacted, 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, [words requiring notification by an associate justice or district judge were omitted in the 1795 revision. The revision gave the President more authority] 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."

That's section 2 of the Militia Act.

Under the Act, President Lincoln could have kept the Militia in the field until January, 1862; that's 30 days after when the Congress was scheduled to next meet. But he called a special session to covene on 7/4/61. If he was out to be a tyrant, and start a war, he went about it a funny way, as he had to yield the Militia @ 5 months earlier than he would have had to otherwise.

Walt

[Walt 328] And yet the Supreme Court cites the Militia Act is saying that the president was authorized to put down the rebellion.

We were discussing insurrection, not a state of war. The Supreme Court said it was a state of War and that Lincoln was able to use the War Powers.

As you quote, the Supreme Court did say the following, quite accurately but not quite completely:

"But, by the Acts of Congress of February 28th, 1795, [The Militia Act] and 3d of March, 1807, he is authorized to called out the militia and use the military and naval forces of the United States in case of invasion by foreign nations and to suppress insurrection against the government of a State or of the United States."

It is 100% true that by the Act of 1795 he is authorized to call out the militia... to suppress insurrection.

Here, read it yourself:

Section 1 of 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."

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."

The duplicated language can leave no doubt that the Militia Act of 1795, regarding insurrection, was following and complying with Article 4, Sec 4 of the Constitution. Authorization to suppress insurrection, under this Act, is expressly conditional upon application by the State.

Lincoln was asserted to have the War Powers authorizable under U.S. Const. Art 1, Sec 15.

[Walt 336] The Constitution states that the Constitution and the laws shall be the supreme law of the land.

Now consult a book on Constitutional Law and learn what that means. ALL other laws yield to the Constitution. Your asserted claim that Federal law moots the 10th Amendment of the Constitution is ill-informed nonsense.

The Constitution is supreme over ordinary federal or state law under the Supremacy Clause of Art. VI.
-- Constitutional Law, 6 Ed., Jerome A. Barron and C. Thomas Dienes, Black Letter Series, West Group, 2003, 68

"[A]ll those who have framed written constitutions contemplate them as forming the fundamental and paramount law of the nation, and consequently the theory of every such government must be, that an act of the legislature, repugnant to the constitution, is void."
-- Quoting from Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. at 177.

[Walt 336] Laws can held be declared unconstitutional. When that happens in the case of the Militia Act, get back to me.

No need. The Militia Act of 1795, regarding insurrection, duplicated the express language of the Constitution, Art 4, Sec 4. I did not say the Act was unconstitutional. To call up the militia for insurrection, the Constitution contains the express condition precedent of state application. The Militia Act of 1795 contains the same condition precedent and contains the same language lifted directly from the Constitution.

The Act is perfectly Constitutional. It is your brain-dead misinterpretation, taking the section on Obstruction of Justice and misapplying it to Insurrection, which cannot pass muster.

Section 1 of 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."

Article IV, Section 4 of the Constitution says,

Regarding insurrection, when you find an official version of that Act which does not include the Constitutionally required express condition precedent of application by the State, you get back to me.

Nice map of South America.

North America is in there too. You can clearly make out the gulf of mexico, the floridian peninsula, and major features along the eastern US coast all the way up to Canada. It's imperfect to be sure, but considering that it was drawn in 1562 that is to be expected.

Funny how your depiction of the Spaniard's Novo Mundo doesn't seem to include places like California or even Western Mexico (lol).

What else do you expect from a map from 1562? At that point they had only known of the entire western hemisphere's existence for 70 years and certainly had not explored it in full.

On that map NYC would be located just right of center, along the same line of meridian those letters I O N appear on, and there's a whole lot of territory mapped to the north and to the east.

And even more territory mapped to the south and southwest. Considering that the eastern third of that map is the Atlantic ocean, NYC is still located on the northeastern end of the continent and, excluding the canadian colonies, the northeastern extreme of the american ones.

More pretzel logic from the master bender himself. I'm sure there are an infinite number of historical maps on which New York doesn't appear. Which means...nothing.

That's an extremely unusual argument for someone of your position to make. After all, did you not just randomly pick out that 1710 map, notice that NYC was near the center of it, and upon that fact alone conclude it was in the middle of what the Europeans viewed as the "new world"

Yes, I'm glad you are finally acknowledging the obvious, but I have never called New Orleans a 'two block trading post' and you know it.

You certainly implied as much. You have repeatedly claimed that there was next to nothing there for decades after its founding and have also suggested that the city was no more than a few blocks even a century later. Yet by 40 years past its founding it already contained several blocks of structure, which is far more than the farmland that encircled NYC at a similar stage in its development.

Farms and individual houses extending away from the city center (or fort) would indicate a thriving population center

There are little towns all over the middle of nowhere in states like Montana, Wyoming, Idaho, the Dakotas, and Nebraska today. Most if not all of them have a couple individual houses on their outskirts plus a bunch of farms around them. Are they thriving population centers too?

Maybe if that map was done with a bit more scale, we could actually see just how extensive the little city of New Amsterdam really was in 1639! Click on the zoomed out version at the LoC website. The farmhouses are individually numbered and identified for the whole NYC region. There was virtually no city there beyond a fort and a few houses at the tip of manhattan island. Everything else was farmland.

Reduced to mindless name calling again?

So identifying you as a yankee or yankee sympathizer is now a form of namecalling? How odd.

It is only fair to point out that even if secession was not ratified by VA voters till the date you mention, the Ordinance of Secession was passed on April 17, and VA troops had already attacked federal posts at Harper's Ferry and Hampton Roads with military force.

The ordinance was sent to the voters on April 17 with its adoption pending directly upon passage or rejection. The said "attacks" within the state of Virginia were without significant resistance or bloodshed and thus can hardly be characterized as such. In fact, Virginia's local militias had exercised partial jurisdiction within the Harpers Ferry arsenal for decades and often garrisoned its gates in the place of federal troops.

What you are actually saying is that till May 23, VA was still in the Union

From a legal stance, yes. That is the day secession was formally decided upon and enacted.

and that military attacks on Union posts were therefore treasonous, by strict constitutional definition.

Not necessarily. Any state by right exercises some degree of military discretion over state forces within its own borders. Depending on the particular arrangements with regard to certain military properties in those borders, state ownership is even present at times. Thus for a state to exercise an act of ownership by its own right or even some acts of military claim upon an ungarrisoned or abandoned federal position in the absence of any countering garrison or resistence to them doing so is not in itself an unconstitutional act. The perfect example is SC's garrison of Fort Moultrie after it had been abandoned by Robert Anderson.

In my question about armed attacks on federal posts, I was not referring strictly to Charleston or SC. I was speaking about federal posts throughout the South, all of which were taken with the threat of force,

That is not true. Many of the properties were simply abandoned as the union army consolidated its troops from outlying posts. Others were claimed by the states themselves for the simple reason that they had rightful ownership of the properties. Several of the coastal forts in the south dated back to the revolution and were built and paid for by the individual states, not the federal government, which acted only as conditional tenents to garrison them in defense. Ultimately it comes down to a case-by-case determination for each property. By discussing the Charleston forts I am simply noting that in what was beyond a doubt the most visible and hotly contested dispute over forts during the secession crisis, South Carolina's claim was particularly sound.

You seem to think that for 5,000(?) men with heavy guns to surround a garrison with heavy guns is a perfectly friendly act, whereas if the garrison of 100 points its vastly outclassed firepower back, without firing, it is a hostile act.

It once again depends entirely upon the circumstances. If I build my own fort and allow you to conditionally garrison it so long as you act in my defense it is my right to surround it with as many men as I want whenever I want and, where I find your presence to exist externally to our present relationship, demand that you exit it peacefully at a moment's notice. Since it is ultimately the fort that I built on my land and opened to you on my own unilateral action, you by contrast do NOT have the right to respond to those armies by turning your guns on either them or any nearby cities, towns, or passageways over which those guns may have command.

With the partial exceptionsof VA, SC, NC and GA; all federal installations in southern states were built or acquired entirely with funds from the entire Union, not from those of the particular state involved.

That is far from true. Dozens upon dozens of forts across the south were revolutionary era structures built by the states or colonies. Others were built before the states in which they existed were acquired by the United States itself. In many cases this included the primary defensive fort for major harbors and inlets. For example, Charleston Harbor's main fort, Fort Moultrie, along with two of the other three major forts there all predated the federal presence. Similar forts may be found in all of the original British colonies in the south (VA, NC, SC, GA) and also several of the gulf states. There are defensive positions originally built by the Spanish all over Florida, for example. The harbor defenses of Mobile, Alabama were begun way back in 1699 and built over the following century. Even the "new" forts around Mobile by the civil war had pre-federal components as all US army improvements were built upon existing structures.

Louisiana is another classic example as practically every major fort in the state was a pre-federal structure. The main defense of New Orleans and the Mississippi river mouth, Fort St. Philip, was begun in 1792 by the Spanish on an earlier French fort begun in 1761. The other river mouth defense, Fort Jackson, was originally Fort Bourbon from pre-American days and had only been modernized and built upon by the feds. Fort St. Philip was used prominently in the War of 1812 and in the civil war battle of New Orleans. Several of the other city defenses were built by the Spanish or French and one of its forts on the Mississippi was even built by pirates.

Texas is another classic case of a state dominated by pre-federal forts. Most of the state's forts dated from the Republic of Texas days or earlier. A few far western posts there were built by the feds in the late 1840's, but these tended to be little more than wooden stockades. Most of the central Texas stockades were pre-federal frontier defenses and virtually all of the stone forts in the state dated back to Republic of Texas or Spanish control.

To change the question somewhat, I never hear much discussion of the validity of secession by the later acquired states as opposed to those of the original four. Let us agree, for the purpose of discussion, that these four had a pre-Union existence as independent countries, the basic argument for legal secession. We could probably make an even better case for TX. On what basis can you possibly make a claim for the legality of secession by LA, FL,MS, AL, TN and AR?

Simple. The Constitution makes no distinction of rights between the pre-revolution and post-revolution states. If one is to conclude that Virginia, by right of its pre-revolutionary status, can secede that same right cannot be denied to Mississippi. Thomas Jefferson made this distinction in 1803 after he negotiated the Louisiana purchase. He wrote that the new states would be younger sons to America but no less its sons than the older sons of the east coast. As such, he wrote, they had the right to leave if their interests saw it fit to do so.

Only by your inane interpretation.

No, non-seq. The silly belief that it is inherently economical to always ship things directly from their point of origin to their final destination is yours and yours alone.

If the goods coming from Europe are destined for the people of South Carolina then of course it makes perfect sense to send them hundreds of miles away.

If some additional net economic benefit may be obtained from doing so such as warehousing, then yes. It does make sense.

And in your world it makes even more sense that if the overwhelming majority of goods are destined for the people at Point A then you first send them hundreds of miles away to Point B.

If Point B offers an additional economic benefit to the shipper and shipment between Point A and Point B costs less than the benefit offered by point B, then yes. It makes perfect sense. After all, is not my goal as a shipper to maximize my profit?

The people in Point A are happy to accept the additional shipping costs

The shipping costs are paid by the shipper himself, non-seq. And yes - if those additional shipping costs are less than the economic benefits he gains from going to point B first (of which warehousing is one), then yes that shipper will be happy to pay extra. It's a simple matter of mathematics. If the additional shipping cost is represented by -X and the economic gain from warehousing is represented by +Y then, ceteris paribus, the shipper will logically warehouse and pay the extra shipping costs so long as Y > X.

But if the overwhelming majority of the imports were destined for southern consumers, as you keep claiming, then would it not have made more sense to send them directly to the consumers?

Not if the economic benefits of warehousing and distribution points outweigh the extra cost of shipping. Though you seem not to think so, this tends to be the case more often than not. It is in fact for the same reason that airlines route their planes through hubs instead of going direct from every city to every other city. Suppose you live in Florida and want to fly to Alaska. By your logic, it would be inherently economical for every airline to offer a direct flight from Orlando to Anchorage, since that is the quickest route in between the two. Yet they do not. Instead you have to get on a plane in Orlando, fly to Chicago or Vancouver or Seattle, and switch to another plane to Anchorage. Is this because nobody wants to go to Anchorage? Hardly. Anchorage has one of the largest cruise ship tourism industries in the country. The clients of that industry do not all come from Orlando, Florida though. As a result it is more economical for the airlines to send out flights from their hubs of people from all over the country who want to go to Anchorage, so instead of flying direct to Anchorage from every single airport in the nation they route all the flights there into two or three hubs such as Seattle.

Luther v. Borden
7 Howard (48 U.S.) 1 (1849)

* * *

The fourth section of the fourth article of the Constitution [nc - see note 1] of the United States provides that the United States shall guarantee to every State in the Union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on the application of the legislature or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened) against domestic violence.

Under this article of the Constitution it rests with Congress to decide what government is the established one in a State. For as the United States guarantee to each State a republican government, Congress must necessarily decide what government is established in the State before it can determine whether it is republican or not. And when the senators and representatives of a State are admitted into the councils of the Union, the authority of the government under which they are appointed, as well as its republican character, is recognized by the proper constitutional authority. And its decision is binding on every other department of the government, and could not be questioned in a judicial tribunal. It is true that the contest in this case did not last long enough to bring the matter to this issue; and as no senators or representatives were elected under the authority of the government of which Mr. Dorr was the head, Congress was not called upon to decide the controversy. Yet the right to decide is placed there, and not in the courts.

So, too, as relates to the clause in the above-mentioned article of the Constitution, providing for cases of domestic violence. It rested with Congress, too, to determine upon the means proper to be adopted to fulfil this guarantee. They might, if they had deemed it most advisable to do so, have placed it in the power of a court to decide when the contingency had happened which required the federal government to interfere. But Congress thought otherwise, and no doubt wisely; and by the act of February 28, 1795, provided, that, '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 sufficient to suppress such insurrection.'

By this act, the power of deciding whether the exigency had arisen upon which the government of the United States is bound to interfere, is given to the President. He is to act upon the application of the legislature or of the executive, and consequently he must determine what body of men constitute the legislature, and who is the governor, before he can act. The fact that both parties claim the right to the government cannot alter the case, for both cannot be entitled to it. If there is an armed conflict, like the one of which we are speaking, it is a case of domestic violence, and one of the parties must be in insurrection against the lawful government. And the President must, of necessity, decide which is the government, and which party is unlawfully arrayed against it, before he can perform the duty imposed upon him by the act of Congress.

* * *

A question very similar to this arose in the case of Martin v. Mott, 12 Wheat. 29-31. The first clause of the first section [nc - see note 2] of the act of February 28, 1795, of which we have been speaking, authorizes the President to call out the militia to repel invasion. It is the second clause in the same section which authorizes the call to suppress an insurrection against a State government. The power given to the President in each case is the same,-- with this difference only, that it cannot be exercised by him in the latter case, except upon the application of the legislature or executive of the State.

============

[1]
Article IV, Section 4 of the Constitution

[2]
Militia Act of 1795, Section 1, Clause 1

"That whenever the United States shall be invaded, or be in imminent danger of invasion, from any foreign nation or Indian tribe, it shall be lawful for the President of the United States to call forth such number of the militia of the state or states, most convenient to the place of danger, or scene of action, as he may judge necessary to repel such invasion, and to issue his orders, for that purpose, to such officer or officers of the militia as he shall think proper."

[3]
Militia Act of 1795, Section 1, Clause 2

"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."

[Walt 349]

"Sec. 2. And be it further enacted, 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, [words requiring notification by an associate justice or district judge were omitted in the 1795 revision. The revision gave the President more authority] 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."
That's section 2 of the Militia Act.

THIS IS SECTION 2 OF THE MILITIA ACT OF FEBRUARY 28, 1795. What Militia Act are you talking about?

http://www.geocities.com/irby.geo/fed/1795militiaact.html

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, 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 to suppress such combinations, and to cause the laws to be duly executed; 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 then next session of Congress.

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.