Posted on 01/15/2007 9:38:08 AM PST by SmithL
Article 1, Section 9, Clause 2: "The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it."
Also, related, Article 1, Section 8, Clause 15: "To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;"
Rebellion is only illegal if the rebels loose.
Of course, because then they get to write new rules, having thrown out the old ones. It's the old "Treason doth never prosper, for it it prosper, none dare call it treason" thing.
If you choose to accept the above definitions, you also have to accept that the Southern states did not rebel.
Here are some other definitions:
Insurrection:An act or instance of revolting against civil authority or an established government.
Revolt:To renounce allegiance or subjection (as to a government); A renouncing of allegiance, esp. a determined armed uprising.
Furthermore, there are other definitions of the word "rebellion" that don't necessarily mean the rebels are intent on taking over the entire government. Websters says, among other things, "open, armed, and usu. unsuccessful defiance of or resistance to an established government"
To give an example, the Jewish uprising against the Romans is called a rebellion, but the Jews certainly had no intention of capturing Rome and running the Roman Empire themselves. In fact, the Romans frequently dealt with revolts in the provinces. Boudica rebelled against Roman rule, but no one claims she planned to extend her war anywhere beyond the shores of Britain.
Insurrection is. And rebellion is mentioned in pre-war legislation like the Militia Act of 1792 and it's successors.
Rebellion is only illegal if the rebels loose.
Which they did.
If you choose to accept the above definitions, you also have to accept that the Southern states did not rebel.
I don't accept your premise for one reason. The act of secession has to be legal. As the Supreme Court ruled, unilateral secession as practiced by the Southern states was illegal. For it to have been legal then it would have had to have been done with the consent of the states. Or so Chief Justice Chase found.
"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."
-emphasis added-
"except through revolution, or through consent of the States."
Yes, as a matter of fact I do agree with Chase. You either do it with the accession of the other states or you resort to rebellion, rejecting the constitution and its protections altogether and hoping to accomplish your ends through violence or threat of violence. Like Madison said, there is no theoretic controversy about revolution; you pick up your gun and you take your chances. But you can't come crying when it doesn't turn out the way you want.
Does your ego need a little boost?
rejecting the constitution and its protections altogether and hoping to accomplish your ends through violence or threat of violence.
Total misinformation. Are you a public school teacher, per chance?
They rejected the constitution. They determined that they didn't need it's protections. They drafted their own constitution and defined constitutional protections to meet Southern needs.
The threat of violence was in the event of attack. And when that came to pass, the Southern army responded in kind.
you pick up your gun and you take your chances.
The guns the Southerners picked up were for defense. The South did not invade the north (except for that little foray in Pennsylvania and that was an attempt to compel the north to withdraw their troops from Southern soil).
You Reb bashers always, always, try to portray Southern secession as a bunch of hillbilly rabble intent on toppling the Washington government. It was anything but that.
I actually think South Carolina got it just about exactly right. The Confederate battle flag on the "statehouse grounds" flies over a memorial to the Confederate dead. It's a historical symbol in historical context. I have absolutely no problem with a Confederate flag on a Confederate memorial, nor on the graves of Confederate dead, including a few of my ancestors.
I don't think the CBF belongs in a place of honor on a state flag, or above the statehouse dome. 1861-1865 is not the sum total of any state's history. Of the many stages of our history, it is not uniquely representative, and that particular emblem was used and abused through too many years of "Glorious Cause" mythology and Jim Crow rule to be broadly representative of our shared heritage.
Please note that I'm talking about the flag itself, not the merits of the Confederate cause. This thread has inevitably become a rehash of the War of Northern Aggression, and frankly I'm a bit weary of the subject after hashing it out for the last 150 years. Okay, I personally have not carried on that argument for 150 years, but sometimes it feels like it. So if your temptation is to respond with something about Lincoln's dictatorial tendencies or the Southern commitment to states' rights, or any discussion of slavery, let's skip it.
My view of Confederate memorials on government land is pretty much like my opinion of religious displays on government land -- keep the ones where they are and stop building new ones. Leave the cross on Mt. Soledad, and leave the CBF on the SC Confederate memorial. If there's something in history that offends you, consider that what is now trendily called a "teachable moment" -- an opportunity to talk about history and belief, not try to bury them.
The flip side of that is to stop building new ones. Call it an armistice, not a surrender. Of course, that will never fly, because there's no percentage in compromise. You can't stir enough outrage for a good fundraising letter unless you're trying to tear down something old or build something new. So I have what I believe to be a sensible solution with no chance of adoption.
No, but yours is apparently so fragile that you can't admit that you were simply wrong about that one.
They rejected the constitution
Meaning that they were in rebellion.
They determined that they didn't need it's protections.
And yet here you are crying about their constitutional rights being trampled.
The South did not invade the north (except for that little foray in Pennsylvania and that was an attempt to compel the north to withdraw their troops from Southern soil).
And the Antietam campaign. And Early's raid. And the Arizona campaign. And the New Mexico campaign. And the St. Albans raid. And the invasion of Kentucky. And Morgan's Indiana raid...
When has anyone ever said they were intent on toppling the Washington government? You Lost Causers do love your straw men. For the record, southern secession was a bunch of slaveholding elite intent on removing themselves from any possible restrictions on their ability to make money by holding other men in bondage by attempting to set up their own country within the borders of the United States.
That's what a 'civil war' is, numbnuts, and the general intent of a 'rebellion'. It's been mischaracterized since the beginning.
Yankee propaganda and misinformation.
You Reb bashers avoid the real issue: do people have a right (God given, not constitutional; a constitution can't 'give' anything) to choose their own path or, are they forever bound together by documents written by men? You guys are 'the constitution this' and 'the constitution that' when in fact, the Constitution has been trampled on and watered down to near impotence since 1865 by the all powerful federal government. (and if you dems win in '08 , it will be further degraded). So, if the dems manage to win and turn our quasi-socialist country into a full fledged socialist country, should we just suffer through it because there's a piece of paper, however meaningless it has become, that says we should?
Do the following words mean anything anymore?
"When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation."
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."
Can a non-liberal love Central Brother? I suppose so.
I have no idea what dictionary you're operating from but mine defines 'Civil War' as "a war between opposing groups of citizens of the same country" and 'rebellion' as "open, armed, and usually unsuccessful defiance of or resistance to an established government." Both are very accurate descriptions of what the southern states did and the characterization is accurate. Especially the 'unsuccessful' part.
Do the following words mean anything anymore?
Well, yeah. But the difference is that the Founding Fathers won their rebellion while your side, well, they lost.
Don't leave out the part that Lincoln also left out at his Gettysburg address when he talked about this document that had been written four score and 7 years prior -
"That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do". (Like declare their independence from a central government)
Americans fought the "civil war", which was a war between the states' and federal government, and America lost it. They really lost it when the 14th Amendment was ratified in violation of many of the rules of ratification, provided for in Article V of the Constitution, such as depriving the southern states of their representation in the Senate. You shouldn't get too giddy over that, or we'll never get out from under the heel of Central Brother. Or maybe you like the 16th Amendment. I don't know.
"You Lost Causers do love your straw men" - Non-Sequitur
I suppose the 16th Amendment, and the monster it has grown into today to feed Lincoln's saved union which could have existed quite nicely as a union of northern states to this day, is a "straw man".
The Union needed Southerners to survive, because we know what the Constitution is all about, and how to keep it. Virginians pretty much wrote it. By stubbornly refusing detachment from the South, the North kept a real asset, Just like Saddam would have had a jewel in his crown if he had been able to keep Kuwait.
I don't think the CBF belongs in a place of honor on a state flag, or above the statehouse dome. 1861-1865 is not the sum total of any state's history. Of the many stages of our history, it is not uniquely representative, and that particular emblem was used and abused through too many years of "Glorious Cause" mythology and Jim Crow rule to be broadly representative of our shared heritage.
Good post.
What matters is the context. If you write something you can say, "I mean this, not that. I specifically use this word to convey this meaning."
It's harder with visual symbols. They "say" a lot, but don't explain or qualify their statement. So everyone feels free to jump in: "Flying this flag here means this."
When people explain just why a particular flag is flying in a particular place and why it's not flying elsewhere a lot of the tension -- maybe not all -- can be defused.
Those in authority can explain that flying a certain flag doesn't constitute a blanket endorsement or a universal statement, but that it's appropriate in its place as a specific tribute to an act or quality that is admirable.
But because flags are useful rallying points for those who want to win support for political movements, such people want the big, unqualified visual statement that embraces or rejects, rather than more balanced and measured verbal explanations.
Which the Southern states did. However, they must not have wanted it enough to win their rebellion. Better luck next time.
Oh I won't. But you'll forgive me if I don't lose any sleep over the price the south paid for their rebellious acts?
You have better luck next time too. States lost the "civil war", and every American who has a state government lost that part of the "civil war", which was a war between the states and the federal government. States were fighting for the original Constitutional balance, not dominance.
Your Union gained the power to tell every state how much water its toilets could flush, regulate everything under the sun nationally, have a massive tax code that Americans can't escape by moving to another State, so I hope you're happy. I guess that is all worth being able to put down a "southron", but if I were you I would question whether Central Brother is manipulating me and exploiting my vindictiveness.
You'll have to point out which part of the Constitution guaranteed the Southern states what they wanted when they wanted it.
...so I hope you're happy
So what are you still doing here?
I guess that is all worth being able to put down a "southron", but if I were you I would question whether Central Brother is manipulating me and exploiting my vindictiveness.
On the other hand it does give you a chance to bitch and moan about anything and everything, and blame it all on Lincoln to boot. What would you do without that?
'Same country' would be the key words.
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.