Posted on 04/12/2007 9:34:54 AM PDT by TexConfederate1861
Nonsense. South Carolina was held to the same requirements as any other state and enjoyed the same benefits.
Exactly what South Carolina accused the northern states and federal government of doing when the government refused to protect what everyone agreed to be private property at the time the supreme law was written.
And they were incorrect. The Fugitive Slave Laws were law of the land. They where federal laws, and Congress had passed numerous additional laws to help enforce them. And enforce them the federal government did, to the best of its ability. But in the end they were still federal laws, and if South Carolina didn't like the fact that Pennsylvania or New York didn't jump in and help enforce those laws then their beef is with the Taney court and not the federal government. In Prigg v. Pennsylvania the court ruled that while states could not pass legislation which impeded in the enforcement of federal laws like the Fugitive Slave Laws they could not be required to enforce them, either.
State's rights work both ways.
Then South Carolina just got tired of living on a one-way street. Seems to me like the northern states broke the faith -- the contract/compact. If SC couldn't effect remedy, what good was the relationship?
People get divorced every day. But they don't necessarily get slain in the process.
TR was a total Hawk on WWI.
Well, here is another scenario: Say Lincoln had recognized the Southern States, THEN he would have received the peace commissioners, and a price would have been agreed upon, etc.
So that makes a difference doesn’t it. :)
If you enter into a business partnership or a marriage you can get out, but not simply because you declare yourself to be out.
secession was/IS lawful. go read the TENTH AMENDMENT & tell me where the STATES/PEOPLE ceded that basic RIGHT of FREE states to the central government.(HINT: ceding that RIGHT is NOT in the Constitution, any place.)
Article IV establishes the Constitution as the law of the land. You can't simply declare it doesn't apply to you and have done with it.
How did they try?
People get divorced every day. But they don't necessarily get slain in the process.
Divorced people go through a legal process where both sides get to present their viewpoints and a mediator comes to an equitable agreement on the settlement of issue. What South Carolina did was walk out on the marriage after having helped run up the credit cards, taken every bit of community property they could get their hands on, and fired some shots at the spouse on the way out the door.
Let's try this scenario. Give me your house. Vacate it now, turn it over to me free and clear, sign whatever papers make me the legal owner. Once you've done that I'll pay you for it. I'll give you fair market value, I promise. Trust me. Deal?
Stealing something and then maybe offering to pay for it after you've stolen it doesn't change the fact that you stole it in the first place.
absent INDEPENDENT proof, i discount them as "hearsay".
free dixie,sw
I'd assume you mean runaway slaves. Exactly when and how did the Federal Government refuse to cooperate?
And besides that, how much "property" did South Carolina actually lose because of runaways?
Their only real gripe is that not everyone in the Union agreed with South Carolina that slavery was such a wonderful thing and should be spread everywhere as they demanded.
Quote:
______________________
"On the 23d May , 1788, South Carolina, by a Convention of her People, passed an Ordinance assenting to this Constitution, and afterwards altered her own Constitution, to conform herself to the obligations she had undertaken."
"Thus was established, by compact between the States, a Government with definite objects and powers, limited to the express words of the grant. This limitation left the whole remaining mass of power subject to the clause reserving it to the States or to the people, and rendered unnecessary any specification of reserved rights."
"We hold that the Government thus established is subject to the two great principles asserted in the Declaration of Independence; and we hold further, that the mode of its formation subjects it to a third fundamental principle, namely: the law of compact. We maintain that in every compact between two or more parties, the obligation is mutual; that the failure of one of the contracting parties to perform a material part of the agreement, entirely releases the obligation of the other; and that where no arbiter is provided, each party is remitted to his own judgment to determine the fact of failure, with all its consequences."
"In the present case, that fact is established with certainty. We assert that fourteen of the States have deliberately refused, for years past, to fulfill their constitutional obligations, and we refer to their own Statutes for the proof. "
End of quote.
________________________
So there it is. No arbiter. How to resolve?
If it's true, then the federal government was at fault for not enforcing the supreme law, as it is superior to any Thing in any state constitution, state laws, etc., which were to the contrary -- unless there were no federal penalties to the states for not harmonizing its laws with the supreme law.
If there were no penalties to the northern states for not adhering to the supreme law, why invoke penalties upon the south for seceding when there were no penalties listed?
Here’s the deal with Watie: No matter what evidence you present—official reports, census transcripts, first-hand accounts—they’re no good. They’re propaganda, lies, or liberal conspiracy. Meanwhile, all he has to do is tell you that someone (like this “Miss Gray”) told him something, and you’re expected to accept this as absolute, inarguable truth. Scores of reports of United State soldiers scalped at Pea Ridge? All lies. Census says that Stand Watie owned over a dozen slaves? Couldn’t be, because someone told him otherwise.
absent INDEPENDENT proof, i discount them as "hearsay".
free dixie,sw
US Constitution, Article III, 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.Sounds like an arbiter of such disputes to me. Merely saying that there's no arbiter doesn't make it so, just as merely saying that federal property immediately becomes state property upon secession doesn't make it so. The fact is that South Carolina didn't even TRY to arbitrate anything.
Well, that's interesting. So they just sat in their stew for 25 years without appealing to the federal government? Or the state(s) in question?
Not only interesting, but incredible. Difficult to believe.
Thanks for the info.
It takes a bit more than that to make a revolution and theft of property stick.
South Carolina had an underwater reef. They ceded the site to the Feds to build a fort to protect Charleston. They voided any claims to that reef, and the Feds constitutionally acquired the spot. The Feds built the fort. The Feds occupied the fort. From the time there was no land there at all to the time South Carolina began shelling it, it was always US Federal property. For a short time, South Carolina got away with illegally occupying the land, but today, it is still Federal property.
But you already know this, because I've documented every step for you before. Here is the text of the 1836 law wherein it was "Resolved, That this state do cede to the United States, all the right, title and claim of South Carolina to the site of Fort Sumter and the requisite quantity of adjacent territory..."
No theft was involved.
No SUCCESSFUL theft was involved.
And so began The War of Northern Aggression.
Show me where they appealed to the courts and I'll happilly retract it. Meanwhile read the 1850 Fugitive Slave Act and tell me what else they wanted, since they already had a law on the books that allowed slave catchers to force northerners to help them, something akin to forcing pro-life activists to assist in performing abortions.
Why are you being coy about it? Why not just come out and say that SC thought the Feds weren't protecting slavery?
The matter (habeas corpus) had not come before the full court (except perhaps under Marshall), but it did come before the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. As you no doubt know, single Supreme Court Justices can issue rulings by themselves.
It was proper that the writ be issued by Chief Justice Taney. This was an emergency matter since a habeas corpus writ issued by the Maryland District Court had already been disobeyed by the army that same month. The District Court was powerless to confront the army.
Several weeks earlier on May 4, 1861, Judge Giles of the Maryland District Court had issued a writ of habeas corpus that was disobeyed by the commander of Fort McHenry in Baltimore. The power of the army had already overridden the legitimate functioning civil court, the Maryland District Court. What good would it have done to issue another District Court ruling that would also get disobeyed? That was probably why the petition for the writ went directly to Taney, not the District Court.
The law said that Justices of the Supreme Court could issue writs of habeas corpus. From the Judiciary Act of 1789:
Section 14.
And be it further enacted, That all the before-mentioned courts of the United States, shall have power to issue writs of scire facias, habeas corpus, and all other writs not specially provided for by statute, which may be necessary for the exercise of their respective jurisdictions, and agreeable to the principles and usages of law. And that either of the justices of the supreme court, as well as judges of the district courts, shall have power to grant writs of habeas corpus for the purpose of an inquiry into the cause of commitment.——Provided, That writs of habeas corpus shall in no case extend to prisoners in gaol, unless where they are in custody, under or by colour of the authority of the United States, or are committed for trial before some court of the same, or are necessary to be brought into court to testify.
Chief Justice Taney himself declared in court in the Merryman case [Source: The Baltimore Sun, May 29, 1861]:
Chief Justice Taney, upon taking his seat on the bench, said that he desired to state that his associate, Judge Giles, of the Circuit Court, was present with him yesterday by his invitation, because he desired to avail himself of his counsel and advice in so important a case. The writ of habeas corpus was ordered by him as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, consequently Judge Giles could not act with him in the case.
If the writ were a District Court matter, then Judge Giles could act with Taney. But Taney stated that Giles couldn't so act with him. The writ was not a writ of the District Court -- it was a writ issued by a Justice of the Supreme Court. If such a writ were disobeyed, logic says the response (Ex parte Merryman) was the act of Justice of the Supreme Court who issued the writ, not the District Court which Taney said could not act with him in this case.
It did not come before full court under Chief Justice Marshall, it has never come before the full Supreme Court under any Chief Justice. And the only time a single justice can issue a ruling by himself is if he is sitting on the circuit court bench, as Taney was.
It was proper that the writ be issued by Chief Justice Taney. This was an emergency matter since a habeas corpus writ issued by the Maryland District Court had already been disobeyed by the army that same month. The District Court was powerless to confront the army.
Habeas corpus had been suspended in the Baltimore area by the president, so Taney's issuing the writ was invalid.
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.