I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races, that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will for ever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. DoodleDawg, you wrote, "I can't be responsible for their misconceptions."
But you are responsible for yours.
DoodleDawg, you quoted a portion of an 1832 letter of James Madison. But you left out these sentences from the same letter:
"A rightful secession requires the consent of the others, or an abuse of the compact absolving the seceding party from the obligations imposed by it."
And,
"The case of a claim in a State to secede from its union with the others, is a question among the States themselves as parties to a compact."
Therefore, according to Madison, if a state feels any other party of the compact has abused the compact, it has a right to secede. In either case, whether due to abuse, or the parties voluntarily agreeing to dissolve the compact, the federal government has no authorized power over the matter. Such power would have to be usurped.
DoodleDawg, you wrote, "I would say far more believed he was abiding by the Constitution that believed he was violating it. Same as today."
You are clueless about the history of those days. Lincoln suspended habeas corpus without consent of the congress, and used that usurped power to terrorize (and shut down) newspapers, the judiciary, and countless others. His administration even put out an arrest warrant on the Chief Justice, who objected to Lincoln's usurpations. On the lower side, estimates of 15,000 were thrown into prison for criticizing his government. The authorized powers in the constitution for the suspension of habeas corpus is found in Article I, Section 9.
DoodleDawg, you wrote regarding the National Gazette editorial, "I have not. But hey, when has an editorial writer ever injected their opinions in their work?"
I thought you might be interested. The editorial was printed in a newspaper owned by James Madison and Thomas Jefferson, and it was written in 1792, not 1860.
I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races, that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will for ever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. Your point being?
But you are responsible for yours.
As are you. And you insist on displaying it.
"A rightful secession requires the consent of the others, or an abuse of the compact absolving the seceding party from the obligations imposed by it."
And as Madison pointed out later in the letter, just because the South claimed the compact was abused doesn't mean that it was.
Therefore, according to Madison, if a state feels any other party of the compact has abused the compact, it has a right to secede.
Not so much, no. As Madison said in that letter, "An inference from the doctrine that a single state has a right to secede at will from the rest, is that the rest would have an equal right to secede from it; in other words, to turn it, against its will, out of its union with them. Such a doctrine would not, till of late, have been palatable anywhere, on nowhere less so than where it is not most contended for."
You are clueless about the history of those days.
Having read your posts I'm not sure I'm the clueless one.
Lincoln suspended habeas corpus without consent of the congress...
The Constitution is not clear on who may suspend habeas corpus, just the conditions under which it may be suspended. The Supreme Court has never ruled one way or the other.
...and used that usurped power to terrorize (and shut down) newspapers, the judiciary, and countless others.
Nonsense.
His administration even put out an arrest warrant on the Chief Justice, who objected to Lincoln's usurpations.
A claim that none of Chief Justice Taney's biographers have seen fit to include in any of their works on the man. Why do you think that is if the claim was true?
On the lower side, estimates of 15,000 were thrown into prison for criticizing his government.
Again, nonsense. Mark Neely, Jr. has written several books on the subject: "The Fate of Liberty: Abraham Lincoln and Civil Liberties", "Southern Rights: Political Prisoners and the Myth of Confederate Constitutionalism", "Lincoln and the Triumph of the Nation: Constitutional Conflict in the American Civil War", and other books as well. Neely looked at Constitutional abuses in the U.S. and the Confederacy, and needless to say came to much different conclusions than you and your confederate websites have.
The authorized powers in the constitution for the suspension of habeas corpus is found in Article I, Section 9.
And as I said it is silent on who may suspend it, only the circumstances under which it can be suspended.