I appreciate your restraint.
[and that's a sincere statement, not a sarcastic one]
-----
You've taken Madison's words out of context. The full context clearly shows he does not mean what you impute:
As Madison’s admonition that a man of his age should distrust himself, whether distrusted by his friends or not appears in his closing statement, there is no logic in the assumption his words were taken ‘out of context’.
-----
First, South Carolina alleges that, not the Federal Government, but some state governments have passed laws which interfere with the Constitution's fugitive slave provision. But this didn't suddenly happen in November 1860, the same conditions existed for many years, during which South Carolina made no attempts to secede or deal lawfully with the problem.
§ 200. How a treaty is dissolved, when violated by one of the contracting parties.
Treaties contain promises that are perfect and reciprocal. If one of the allies fails in his engagements, the other may compel him to fulfill them: — a perfect promise confers a right to do so. But, if the latter has no other expedient than that of arms to force his ally to the performance of his promises, he will sometimes find it more eligible to cancel the promises on his own side also, and to dissolve the treaty. He has undoubtedly a right to do this, since his promises were made only on condition that the ally should, on his part, execute every thing which he had engaged to perform.
The South waited until the promise to perform was broken repeatedly. Had they leaped at the first instance, they would have been vilified for that as well.
§ 202. The violation of one article in a treaty may cancel the whole
………Every thing, therefore, which is comprehended in the same treaty, is of the same force and nature as a reciprocal promise unless where a formal exception is made to the contrary. Grotius very properly observes that "every article of a treaty carries with it a condition, by the non-performance of which the treaty is wholly cancelled."2
Law of Nations , Book II, Chap. XIII
For those wishing to claim the Law of Nations has no internal effect on the Constitution:
It will be remembered, that the object of the several states in the adoption of that instrument, was not the establishment of a general consolidated government, which should swallow up the state sovereignties, and annihilate their several jurisdictions, and powers, as states; but a federal government, with powers limited to certain determinate objects; viz. their intercourse and concerns with foreign nations; and with each other, as separate and independent states; and, as members of the same confederacy: leaving the administration of their internal, and domestic concerns, to the absolute and uncontrolable jurisdiction of the states, respectively; except in one or two particular instances, specified, and enumerated in the constitution. And because this principle was supposed not to have been expressed with sufficient precision, and certainty, an amendatory article was proposed, adopted, and ratified; whereby it is expressly declared, that, “the powers not delegated to the United States by the constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.” This article is, indeed, nothing more than an express recognition of the law of nations; for Vattel informs us, “that several sovereign, and independent states may unite themselves together by a perpetual confederacy, without each in particular ceasing to be a perfect state. They will form together a federal republic: the deliberations in common will offer no violence to the sovereignty of each member, though they may in certain respects put some constraint on the exercise of it, in virtue of voluntary engagements.
View of the Constitution of the United States George Tucker
I don’t recall claiming any injury or oppression was committed ‘by the federal government’. If you believe this statement to be in error, please show me where I’ve done so, and I will not hesitate to apologize for the blunder.
-----
South Carolina's second specific is the real reason: the election of Abraham Lincoln's Republican party. And why is that a problem?
Because his opinions and purposes were are hostile to slavery, just as they stated.
in short, they could secede in Madison's words, "at pleasure".
Madison’s words concerned the actions taken by South Carolina over federal tariffs, and had nothing to do with the respective States failing to uphold Constitutional provisions.
The reply to all such suggestions seems to be unavoidable and irresistible; that the Constitution is a compact, that its text is to be expounded according to the provisions for expounding it– making a part of the compact; and that none of the parties can rightfully renounce the expounding provision more than any other part. When such a right accrues, as may accrue, it must grow out of abuses of the compact, releasing the sufferers from their fealty to it.
James Madison to Edward Everett 28 Aug. 1830
-----
The 1794 Whiskey Rebellion demonstrates our Founders' Original Intent in the Constitution regarding the subjects of insurrection, rebellion and "domestic violence."
And gives Constitutional procedures for same. Please see post#90.
-----
First of all, we really need to celebrate the overly rich irony here, that South Carolina which had previously threatened to nullify Federal laws it didn't like, is here complaining about some State laws it claims are unconstitutional. How ludicrous is that?
Since they were concerning TWO SEPARATE AUTHORITIES, it’s not ludicrous at all.
------
No, it's a simple fact: in 1860 President Buchanan, his Cabinet, the Supreme Court, and Congress were all effectively controlled by Southerners with their Dough-face Northern allies -- no opinion to it.
Wikapedia is a great starting point, but I have trouble trusting a ‘source’ that can be altered by anyone with a computer.
Political protestations aside, Dred Scott was a Constitutionally sound decision, so what was your point?
-----
See my response in post #105 above. Most of this data can also be found in Fredriksen's Civil War Almanac.
So the options are to either take a page designed by the Lincoln Museum as gospel or buy a book? LOL! Not hardly.
-----
First, you seem to have a very strange idea here, which Sherman Logan has tried to correct you on (posts 108 & 111), but you don't yet seem to understand or admit.
Please see post #122.
-----
Yes, the Slave Power was always a minority in the nation,
Ensuring equality of both the majority as well as the minority IS one of the primary purposes of a Republican form of government.
P.S. No notice has been taken in the inclosed paper of the fact, that the present charge of usurpations & abuses of power, is not that they are measures of the Govt. violating the will of its Constituents, as was the case with the Alien & Sedition Acts, but that they are measures of a Majority of the Constituents themselves, oppressing the Minority thro’ the forms of the Govt. This distinction would lead to very different views of the topics under discussion. It is connected with the fundamental principles of Rep: Govt: and with the question of comparative danger of oppressive Majorities from the Sphere and Structure of the General Govt. and from those of the particular Govts.
James Madison to Edward Everett 17 April 1830
-----
That claim is without basis in any law whatsoever, has no merit or even logic to it, as the South Carolina representatives in Washington acknowledged, in offering to pay for properties they seized.
After the Declaration of Secession, the ownership of Ft Sumter did revert to the State, in accordance with the Law of Nations. [I'd also like to note this also covers the causes for a justified war]
§ 212. To what the sovereign is bound.
But, if the agreement has given nothing to the state which she did not before possess, — if, as in that of the Furcæ Caudinæ, the advantage simply consists in her escape from an impending danger, her preservation from a threatened loss, — such advantage is a boon of fortune, which she may enjoy without scruple. Who would refuse to be saved by the folly of his enemy? And who would think himself obliged to indemnify that enemy for the advantage he had suffered to escape him, when no fraud had been used to induce him to forego that advantage?
Book II, Chap XIV
-----
Second, the Confederacy was crushed because it formally declared war on the United States, on May 6, 1861.
Had the federal government actually followed the Law of Nations, the Constitution and the precepts of a Republican government that they were ALL sworn to uphold, it would not have been necessary to declare war.
A war, I might add, whose foundation was both reasonable and proper.
------
In 1861 Congress did approve everything appropriate to approve that President Lincoln did.
Oh, I’m certain they were ALL on board after-the-fact.
Odd how they were questioning what he was doing prior to that, though. Specifically, on Monday, February 11, 1861-
Resolved, That the President of the United States furnish to this House, if not incompatible with the public service, the reasons that have induced him to assemble so large a number of troops in this city, and why they are kept here.
Lincoln was amassing troops prior to the Declaration of War. In fact that’s WHY war was declared.
§ 42. Whether the aggrandizement of a neighbouring power can authorize a war against him. Here a very celebrated question, and of the highest importance, presents itself. It is asked, whether the aggrandizement of a neighbouring power, by whom a nation fears she may one day be crushed, be a sufficient reason for making war against him — whether she be justifiable in taking up arms to oppose his aggrandizement, or to weaken him, with the sole view of securing herself from those dangers which the weaker states have almost always reason to apprehend from an overgrown power. To the majority of politicians this question is no problem: it is more difficult of solution to those who wish to see justice and prudence ever inseparably united.
On the one hand, a state that increases her power by all the arts of good government, does no more than what is commendable — she fulfils her duties towards herself without violating those which she owes to other nations. The sovereign, who, by inheritance, by free election, or by any other just and honourable means, enlarges his dominions by the addition of new provinces or entire kingdoms, only makes use of his right, without injuring any person. How then should it be lawful to attack a state which, for its aggrandizement, makes use only of lawful means? We must either have actually suffered an injury or be visibly threatened with one, before we are authorized to take up arms, or have just grounds for making war (§§ 26, 27).
Book II, Chap III, Law of Nations
I’d call amassing 75,000 troops a VERY visible threat. Apparently, so did the Confederate States
But a declaration of war was not appropriate
For your instances of actions involving the Navy or the seas, no.
It is not easy to perceive where this power could, with us, be more prudently placed. But it must be remembered, that we may be involved in a war without a formal declaration of it. In the year 1800, we were engaged in a qualified, but public, war with France; qualified, because it was only waged on the high seas--public, because the whole nation was involved in it.
William Rawle
For the use of the militia, it is not only appropriate, but required
As war cannot lawfully be commenced on the part of the United States, without an act of Congress, such an act is, of course, a formal official notice to all the world, and equivalent to the most solemn declaration.
…….
When the case was brought up, on appeal, before the Supreme Court of the United States, the broad principle was assumed, that war gave to the sovereign full right to take the persons, and confiscate the property of the enemy, wherever found; and that the mitigations of this rigid rule, which the wise and humane policy of modern times had introduced into practice, might, more or less, affect the exercise of the right, but could not impair the right itself.
James Kent, Commentaries
-----
And the point is: those Upper-South states of Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee and Arkansas voted not only for secession, but also for the formally declared war against the United States. So they knew ahead of time they were going to war and chose to join it.
Did it occur to you they had no desire to have their own people become part of Lincoln's *75,000 troops*?
--------
While I’m enjoying the debate, I’d like to take this opportunity to propose posts containing a smaller number of points.
This suggestion is to achieve not only an easier-to-read thread, but also to shorten the time required for a comprehensive reply.
MamaTexan, attempting to legally justify Confederate seizures of Federal properties in the months before the Confederacy's declaration of war on the United States:
"After the Declaration of Secession, the ownership of Ft Sumter did revert to the State, in accordance with the Law of Nations. [I'd also like to note this also covers the causes for a justified war]
quoting: "§ 212. To what the sovereign is bound. But, if the agreement has given nothing to the state which she did not before possess..."
First of all, if I can strip away the double negatives and restate it: none -- zero, zip, nada -- of the many Federal properties seized by secessionist forces, some even before formally declaring secession, none of those properties fell into this category of items to be retained by a state because "she did... before possess..." them.
All seized Federal properties were items which, by definition, Federal, not state, government had built, paid for and owned.
These in no way automatically became properties of Confederate states on their secession -- not even according to your alleged "Law of Nations".
That's one factor which makes the seizures unlawful -- even according to an alleged "Law of Nations".
But second and more important, since when did this particular "Law of Nations" become part and parcel of the United States Constitution?
Since when did a "Law of Nations" supersede our Founders' Original Intent?
Must stop here, out of time, will come back later...
That is simply not true.
In fact, "the South" made no serious efforts -- zero, zip, nada -- to seek redress of grievances through normal constitutional methods such as congressional legislation, Supreme Court rulings or Executive Branch enforcement actions.
All of these options were readily available to the Slave Power, because until 1861 the slaveocracy strongly influenced, where it did not outright control, every branch of Federal government in Washington.
And the reason why "the South" did not appeal through normal channels is simple and obvious: Deep-South states like South Carolina had no standing in court, because they could not cite examples where their own slaves had escaped and not been returned as required by Federal law.
Furthermore, Northern Fugitive Slave laws were nothing new -- they had been around for many years without causing South Carolina a problem -- and nothing changed in November 1860.
And South Carolina had itself famously championed a "right of nullification", so it is here totally hypocritical to claim that same "right" when used by Northern states was suddenly a justification for secession.
In short, South Carolina's whole argument in it's Causes of Secession document regarding Northern Fugitive Slave laws is bogus to the max, simply a flimsy excuse intended to provide a patina of constitutional legality over what otherwise fell into Madison's category of secession "at pleasure."
*************
Now, I do intend to respond to each of your arguments in post #135, plus others following it, but am being called away too frequently to devote enough time now.
This could take a while....
;-)
Of course you're taking Madison's words out of context.
The full context clearly shows that Madison is not talking about the veracity or wisdom of his words, but instead about his ability, at his age, to perform adequately in the rough and tumble of public debate:
All he's trying to say is that the cause needs a younger spokesman.
MamaTexan: "§ 202. The violation of one article in a treaty may cancel the whole." ...Law of Nations , Book II, Chap. XIII
No Founder considered the new US Constitution as nothing more than a mere treaty.
Instead they called it a "compact" and a "union", intended to be even more "perfect" than the "perpetual union" of the old Articles of Confederation.
That's why their new Constitution provided numerous structures and methods for resolving conflicts amongst states, without the extreme necessity of dissolving the union.
Indeed, that was a major reason for a new Constitution.
When the Founders addressed the question of "disunion", which they seldom did directly, it was always in contexts similar to those of their own "disunion" from the British Empire -- only under extreme circumstances causing real "injury or oppression", only after all other lawful measures had been exhausted, and really, only after war itself had already been launched by oppressors against their citizens.
The Founders did not accept that disunion "at pleasure" was authorized by their Constitution.
But none of the necessary conditions applied in November 1860, nor did South Carolina secessionists even pretend they did.
Instead, secessionists cited only two reasons for secession: a phony reason, Northern Fugitive Slave laws, and the real reason: the Constitutional election of Abraham Lincoln's anti-slavery Republicans.
So secession under those conditions was neither "necessary" nor caused by "injury or oppression."
Instead, it was secession "at pleasure" and was therefore not in accord with the Founders' Original Intent.
MamaTexan quoting from View of the Constitution of the United States by George Tucker.
We have covered this ground in previous threads:
"On January 18, 1813, Tucker was nominated by President James Madison to a seat on the United States District Court for the District of Virginia vacated by John Tyler, Sr.
Tucker was confirmed by the United States Senate on January 19, 1813, and received commission the same day.
On February 4, 1819, he was reassigned by operation of law to the newly subdivided United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, serving until his resignation on June 30, 1825."
So you concede my point, that South Carolina's secession had nothing to do with "Big Government" causing a constitutionally valid "injury or oppression" to a state.
Now, if you'll just concede my other points, we can wrap this conversation up in short order... ;-)
MamaTexan, referring to Lincoln's election: "Because his opinions and purposes were are hostile to slavery, just as they stated."
There is no Constitutional requirement that every American must support all slavery, in each its aspects.
Indeed, obvious opposition to slavery can be found in the Constitution itself -- i.e., allowing for laws abolishing the imports of new slaves.
Nor did Lincoln propose abolishing all slavery, instead he was opposed to slavery's expansion out of the South into western and northern territories.
So there was nothing in the least unconstitutional about Lincoln's election, or his proposals to restrict slavery's expansion.
That makes the actions of South Carolina's Slave Power secession "at pleasure", which was and is not constitutional.
MamaTexan: "Madison’s words concerned the actions taken by South Carolina over federal tariffs, and had nothing to do with the respective States failing to uphold Constitutional provisions."
MamaTexan, referring to the 1794 Whiskey Rebellion: "And gives Constitutional procedures for same. Please see post#90."
Your post #90 to Sherman Logan:
Our Founders intended that obvious rebellion was to be met and defeated with military force, lead by the President.
After an insurrection is defeated, the insurrectionists should be treated with as much lieniency as possible.
MamaTexan, referring to South Carolina secessionists attitude toward nullification: "Since they were concerning TWO SEPARATE AUTHORITIES, it’s not ludicrous at all."
The simple fact is that secessionists asserted their own right to nullify laws they didn't like, but denied other states could nullify laws the secessionists did like.
But more to the point, South Carolina secessionists took no serious constitutional actions to redress their grievances before declaring secession.
MamaTexan, referring to the Slave Power's domination of Federal Washington, including the administration of President Buchanan:
"Wikapedia is a great starting point, but I have trouble trusting a ‘source’ that can be altered by anyone with a computer.
Political protestations aside, Dred Scott was a Constitutionally sound decision, so what was your point?"
My point is just that: the Slave Power ruled Washington almost continuously from the Founding of the Republic until secession in 1861.
It did so through the agency of willing Northern Democrat allies -- aka "Dough Faces" -- amongst whom President Buchanan and his Southern dominated cabinet were typical examples.
Further, the Supreme Court, as demonstrated in its 1857 Dred Scott decision, was also under slaveocracy control.
Plus, both houses of Congress -- thanks to the Constitution's 3/5 of slaves rule -- were dominated by Southerners and their Dough Face Northern allies.
Yes, the Slave Power did fade somewhat by 1860, but even as late as 1861, it could have blocked the new Merrill tariff in the Senate, had they been there to do so.
MamaTexan, referring to the Constitution's provisions for war: "Please see post #122."
In your post #122 you declare an unearned victory over Sherman Logan.
I call that "spiking the football in your own end-zone", and it's not uncommon on these threads... ;-)
I'm certain more will be said on this subject in a later post...
MamaTexan, referring to the minority Slave Power's dominant influence over Federal Washington:
"Ensuring equality of both the majority as well as the minority IS one of the primary purposes of a Republican form of government."
Careful selections of words are extraordinarily important in discussions like these.
For example, "ensuring equality" is not even one purpose of a "Republican form of government."
Protecting minority rights certainly is.
More importantly, we don't have just a "Republican form of government" since that word "republican" can be stretched to mean almost anything, including various "Peoples' Republics", which certainly do claim to "ensure equality."
What we have instead -- rather, what we were intended to have -- is a constitutionally limited Federal government.
Our government was intended to protect the rights of all its citizens, majorities and minorities.
But it also allows for the free-play of political alliances, parties, movements etc., and in this regard the Southern Slave Power was extraordinarily successful in the 72 years from the Founding of the Republic until secession in 1861.
Through strong alliances with Northern "Dough Face" Democrats, the minority slaveocracy was successful in advancing its interests for many decades.
Indeed, the Slave Power only fully lost power in Washington when it capriciously and unnecessarily seceded and walked away.
MamaTexan: "After the Declaration of Secession, the ownership of Ft Sumter did revert to the State, in accordance with the Law of Nations. [I'd also like to note this also covers the causes for a justified war]"
That's a ludicrous suggestion, which I've addressed elsewhere and will resume later...
MamaTexan: "Had the federal government actually followed the Law of Nations, the Constitution and the precepts of a Republican government that they were ALL sworn to uphold, it would not have been necessary to declare war.
A war, I might add, whose foundation was both reasonable and proper."
Sorry, but at this point you begin to abandon whatever claim to sanity you previously maintained.
First of all, the Law of Nations is not the Constitution, and does not supersede it.
Second, "domestic violence", insurrection, rebellion and war were started and waged against the United States by secessionists beginning in November 1860, of which their assault on Fort Sumter in April 1861 was only the most egregious example.
But as the secessionists crimes increased, the United States continued to make no military response -- and no Confederate Soldiers were killed by any Union force -- until after the Confederacy's declaration of war on May 6, 1861.
At that point, there was no possibility of any long-term outcome except the Confederacy's Unconditional Surrender.
MamaTexan: "Odd how they were questioning what he was doing prior to that, though. Specifically, on Monday, February 11, 1861"
Careful, careful -- you know perfectly well that in February 1861, President Buchanan was still in office, and while disagreeing that secession "at pleasure" was constitutional, was determined to do nothing militarily to oppose it.
And obviously, once the Slave Power abandoned Congress in early 1861, then Congress lost all enthusiasm for protecting the slaveocracy's interests.
MamaTexan: "Lincoln was amassing troops prior to the Declaration of War. In fact that’s WHY war was declared."
First, nations often amass troops an no war results, the 1790s "Quazi-War" against France, to cite one example.
Second, secessionists began amassing their own troops before they even seceded.
For example, in November 1860, at a time when the entire US Army had about 17,000 soldiers, South Carolina before seceding, amassed 10,000 soldiers.
These were used to seize Federal properties, most notably Fort Sumter.
Then in early March 1861, while the US Army is still only 17,000 strong, the Confederacy raised 100,000 troops and Jefferson Davis ordered preparations for the assault on Fort Sumter.
And still the United States took no military actions to suppress the rebellion.
So, if South Carolina's raising 10,000 troops in November 1860 was not an act of war, and the Confederacy's raising 100,000 troops in March 1861 was not an act of war, and if seizures of Federal property, firing on Federal forces and the Battle of Fort Sumter were all not acts of war -- how then does President Lincoln's call for a mere 75,000 troops suddenly become an "act of war"?
MamaTexan, referring to an alleged necessity for Congress to declare war: "For the use of the militia, it is not only appropriate, but required"
In historical fact, neither Founders nor later Congresses ever issued a formal Declaration of War in cases of insurrection, rebellion or "domestic violence." So your claim that those are somehow constitutionally necessary is counter-factual.
MamaTexan, referring to Upper South states joining the Confederacy after the Battle of Fort Sumter:
"Did it occur to you they had no desire to have their own people become part of Lincoln's *75,000 troops*?"
Of course -- if I remember correctly, Kentucky declared its "neutrality", declined to either send troops or join the Confederacy.
But those Upper South states which did join the Confederacy did so with full knowledge that they were going to war against the United States, a war first started and then formally declared by the Confederacy.
They chose war, and they got it.