Posted on 04/02/2002 9:45:23 PM PST by VinnyTex
Then show me one. If many thought that the black man was their equal in any single way then surely one of them left a trace?
You said it yourself. Since the eastern parts of the state were in rebellion, what was wrong with the "Rail Splitter" recognizing those citizens in the west who were not in rebellion? I believe the "Slave Driver" in Richmond recognized a "Missouri legislature" and even put a star on rebel flag to represent that state even though the majority of citizens in that state voted against secession.
And I'd like to see an apology about Kansas.
And I'd like some folks to admit that the sun rises in the East, and ... Oh well ...
Cheers,
Richard F.
Oh, please. I will content myself with mentioning that Lincoln's support for the Fugitive Slave Law was unvarying, and personally quite painful, and grounded ONLY in his respect for the Constitution.
If we agree that the Supremes overstepped their authority
Of course.
and that there is no federal law prohibiting the states from ignoring the ruling in Roe v. Wade and therefore no need for further federal law nor for an amendment to the Constitution, then I'm very surprised.
Federal laws trump state laws. There are, I believe, a significant number of federal statutes passed in the wake of Roe v. Wade which incorporate its pernicious doctrine into law, and I believe nullification is rebellion. I do not believe that when the federal government judges a matter to be under its jurisdiction, the states can simply disagree and ignore. At the moment, damn them, the federal government, all three branches, are agreed that the right to abortion is the operative Constitutional law of the land.
For this reason, and for deeper ones as well, I believe that the federal government must be directed by the people to repent of this doctrine. It should do so not in a way that suggests that aborting unborn children is to be left to the pleasure of the states to adopt or reject as it pleases them, because all states, counties, cities and whatever other communities in the American Republic are bound by the Declaration. Should the federal government refuse, permanently, to repent of authorizing killing of the unborn as fundamental national law, the people should alter or abolish our federal government and replace it with one that respects the laws of Nature and Nature's God. But at the moment our problem is that the people, who are the real sovereigns, have failed to instruct our national government to repent of reading abortion into the Constitution.
In sum, I think the differences between us reduce to the supremacy clause of the Constitution. I am sorry if this statement provokes another personal attack from you. I think the matters involved to be deep and difficult. I trust that, as one who has enough courage to rebuke Lincoln for disrespect of the Constitution, you acknowledge the supremacy of federal to state legislation as that document directs.
As to what you believe about the number of stars on the CSA flag, well, you believe an awful lot of absolute rot, so a little more wouldn't surprise me. That has no bearing at all on the discussion at hand. I'll just take that as a concession from you that you haven't a leg to stand on. You can't cite any constitutional authority for the partition of Virginia and have to attempt to change the subject in such an absurd fashion.
You really should find another pastime, boy. You're plum awful at this.
Between the horizontal rules is the text as printed in the paper along with two documented corrections (from the text submitted to the paper from the White House). Empahsis mine.
The Colonization of People of African Descent
Interview with President Lincoln
Speech of the President
He Holds That the White and Black Races Cannot Live Together
He Urges Intelligent Colored Men to Exert Themselves for Colonization
He Suggests Central America as the Colony
Washington. Thursday, July [August]* 14, 1862. This afternoon the President of the United States gave audience to a Committee of colored men at the White House. They were introduced by Rev. J. Mitchell, Commissioner of Emigration. E. M. Thomas, the Chairman, remarked that they were there by invitation to hear what the Executive had to say to them. Having all been seated, the President, after a few preliminary observations, informed them that a sum of money had been appropriated by Congress, and placed at his disposition for the purpose of aiding the colonization in some country of the people, or a portion of them, of African descent, thereby making it his duty, as it had been for a long time his inclination, to favor that cause. . . .
Clearly, what Lincoln said to the committee of Blacks who attended was the most controversial thing ever said by a President of the U.S. Lincoln suggested that Blacks would be happier if they were not subjugated under White rule. In a lengthy speech, he proposed that those Blacks who so desired should colonize other lands, apart from that of Whites. Lincoln promulgated:
"Why should the people of your race be
colored[colonized]**, and where? Why should they leave this country? This is, perhaps, the first question for proper consideration. You and we are different races. We have between us a broader difference than exists between almost any other two races. Whether it is right or wrong I need not discuss; but this physical difference is a great disadvantage to us both, as I think. Your race suffer very greatly, many of them by living among us, while ours suffer from your presence. In a word, we suffer on each side. If this is admitted, it affords a reason, at least, why we should be separated. You here are freemen, I suppose?"A Black man who had attended the convention responded by saying, "Yes, sir." Lincoln continued:
"Perhaps you have long been free, or all your lives. Your race is suffering, in my judgment, the greatest wrong inflicted on any people. But even when you cease to be slaves you are yet far removed from being placed on an equality with the white race. You are cut off from many of the advantages which the other race enjoys. The aspiration of men is to enjoy equality with the best when free, but on this broad continent not a single man of your race is made the equal of a single man of ours. Go where you are treated best, and the ban is still upon you."
"I do not propose to discuss this, but to present it as a fact with which we have to deal. I cannot alter it if I would. It is a fact, about which we all think and feel alike, I and you. We look to our condition, owing to the existence of the two races on this continent. I need not recount to you the effects upon white men, growing out of the institution of Slavery. . . . See our present condition the country engaged in war! our white men cutting one another’s throats, none knowing how far it will extend; and then consider what we know to be the truth. But for your race among us there could not be a war, although many men on either side do not care for you one way or the other. Nevertheless, I repeat, without the institution of Slavery and the colored race as a basis, the war could not have an existence."
"It is better, therefore, to be separated. I know that there are free men among you, who even if they could better their condition are not as much in lined to go out of the country as those who being slaves could obtain their freedom on this condition. I suppose one of the principal difficulties in the way of colonization is that the free colored man cannot see that his comfort would be advanced by it. You may believe you can live in Washington or elsewhere in the United States the remainder of your life, perhaps more so than you can in any foreign country, and hence you may come to the conclusion that you have nothing to do with the idea of going to a foreign country. This is I speak in no unkind sense an extremely selfish view of the case."
"But you ought to do something to help those who are not so fortunate as yourselves. There is an unwillingness on the part of our people, harsh as it may be, for you free colored people to remain with us. Now, if you could give a start to white people, you would open a wide door for many to be free. If we deal with those who are not free at the beginning, and whose intellects are clouded by Slavery, we have very poor materials to start with. If intelligent colored men, such as are before me, would move in this matter, much might be accomplished. It is exceedingly important that we have men at the beginning capable of thinking as white men, and not those who have been systematically oppressed."
"There is much to encourage you. For the sake of your race, you should sacrifice something of your present comfort for the purpose of being as grand in that respect as the white people. It is a cheering thought throughout life that something can be done to ameliorate the condition of those who have been subject to the hard usage of the world. It is difficult to make a man feel miserable while he feels worthy of himself and claims kindred to the great God who made him. In the American Revolutionary war sacrifices were made by men engaged in it; but they were cheered by the future. Gen. Washington himself endured greater hardships than if he had remained a British subject. Yet he was a happy man, because he was engaged in benefiting his race something for the children of his neighbors, having none of his own."
"The country of Liberia has been in existence a long time. In a certain sense, it is a success. The old President of Liberia, Roberts, has just been with me the first time I ever saw him. He says they have within the bounds of that colony between 300,000 and 400,000 people, or more than in some of our old States, such as Rhode Island or Delaware, or in some of our newer States, and less than in some of our larger ones. They are not all American colonists, or their descendants. Something less than 12,000 have been sent thither from this country. Many of the original settlers have died, yet, like people elsewhere, their offspring outnumbers those deceased."
"The question is if the colored people are persuaded to go anywhere, why not there? One reason for an unwillingness to do so is that some of you would rather remain within reach of the country of your nativity. I do not know how much attachment you may have towards our race. It does not strike me that you have the greatest reason to love them. But still you are attached to them at all events."
"The place I am thinking about having for a colony is in Central America . It is nearer to me than Liberia not much more than one-fourth as far as Liberia, and within seven days run by steamers. Unlike Liberia it is on a great line of travel it is a highway. The country is a very excellent one for any people, and with great natural resources and advantages, and especially because of the similarity of the climate with your native land thus being suited to your physical condition."
"The particular place I have in view is to be a great highway from the Atlantic or Caribbean Sea to the Pacific Ocean, and this particular place has all the advantages for a colony. On both sides there are harbors among the first in the world .Again, there is evidence of very rich coal mines. A certain amount of coal is valuable in any country, and there may be more than enough for the wants of the country. Why I attach so much importance to coal is it will afford an opportunity to the inhabitants for immediate employment till they get ready to settle permanently in their homes."
"If you take colonists where there is no good landing, there is a bad show; and so where there is nothing to cultivate and of which to make a farm. But if something is started so that you can get your daily bread as soon as you reach there, it is a great advantage. Coal land is the best thing I know of which to commence an enterprise."
"To return, you have been talked to upon this subject, and told that a speculation is intended by gentlemen, who have an interest in the country, including the coal mines. We have been mistaken all our lives if we do not know whites as well as blacks look to their self-interest. Unless among those deficient of intellect everybody you trade with makes something. You meet with these things here as elsewhere."
"If such persons have what will be an advantage to them, the question is whether it cannot be made of advantage to you. You are intelligent, and know that success does not depend on external help as on self-reliance. Much, therefore, depends upon yourselves. As to the coal mines, I think I see the means available for your self-reliance. I shall, if I get a sufficent number of you engaged, have provisions made that you shall not be wronged. If you will engage in enterprise I will spend some of the money intrusted to me. I am not sure you will succeed. The Government may lose the money, but we cannot succeed unless we try; but we think, with care, we can succeed."
"The political affairs in Central America are not in quite as satisfactory condition as I wish. There are contending factions in that quarter; but it is true all the factions are agreed alike on the subject of colonization, and want it, and are more generous than we are here. To your colored race they have no objection. Besides, I would endeavor to have you made equals, and have the best assurance that you should be the equals of the best."
"The practical thing I want to ascertain is whether I can get a number of able-bodied men, with their wives and children, who are willing to go, when I present evidence of encouragement and protection. Could I get a hundred tolerably intelligent men, with their wives and children, to ‘cut their own fodder,’ so to speak. Can I have fifty? If I could find twenty-five able-bodied men, with a mixture of women and children, good things in the family relation, I think I could make a successful commencement."
"I want you to let me know whether this can be done or not. This is the practical part of my wish to see you. These are subjects of very great importance, worthy of a month’s study, of a speech delivered in an hour. I ask you then to consider seriously not pertaining to yourselves merely, nor for your race, and ours, for the present time, but as one of the things, if successfully managed, for the good of mankind not confined to the present generation but as"
"From age to age descends the lay,
To millions yet to be,
Till far its echoes roll away,
Into eternity."E.M. Thomas, the chairman of the delegation, responded to Lincoln’s plea. He said that they would hold a consultation and in short order give an answer. Lincoln replied, Take your full time no hurry at all.
Abraham Lincoln, New York Daily Tribune, The Colonization of People of African Descent" (a speech to a delegation of blacks at the White House given 14 Aug 1862), 15 Aug 1962, p. 1.
* The paper had the date July 14, 1862. The speech was presented August 14, 1862 according to Carl Sandburg, Abraham Lincoln: The Prairie Years and the War Years, p. 316.
** The text in the Tribune version used the word "colored", but the submitted draft stated "colonized".
The Constitution only requires 2 sources prove treason. Why 6 or 8 for this? But see post 251 for another.
Yes, sovereignty is vested in people by our Creator. Unfortunately for your theory of legislative democracy, our form of government includes the sovereign states acting as the first level of government to whom the peoples' sovereignty is delegated. In our form of government, the states are the agents of the people and the federal government is given its limited sovereign powers by the states, not by the people. The United States as established in our Constitution was created by action of the states, not by a homogenous mass of people.
For that reason, a state, or several states can reverse Roe v Wade by simple legislative action. That is how our system is designed. There is no process in the Constitution whereby the people may act independently of their states to effect change in the federal government.
So, you're admitting that we don't agree at all. That makes your aggrieved tone in the earlier post simple histrionics. I'm in the habit of speaking plainly. That you call my manner of response a personal attack doesn't make it so. Let's be men, shall we? This boohooing over who slung snot is silly.
Such a simple world. In the real world, men of good will can disagree about the powers granted by the Constitution. They did so disagree from the beginning, and they continue to so disagree. Self-government involves the question of what to do when men of good will disagree.
Yes, sovereignty is vested in people by our Creator. Unfortunately for your theory of legislative democracy, our form of government includes the sovereign states acting as the first level of government to whom the peoples' sovereignty is delegated. In our form of government, the states are the agents of the people and the federal government is given its limited sovereign powers by the states, not by the people. The United States as established in our Constitution was created by action of the states, not by a homogenous mass of people.
It is simply not clear that the people granted sovereignty entire to the states, who then pass on a portion to the government of the Union. The process of ratification did eschew treating the people as a "homogenous mass," but this does not demonstrate that what the people "consolidated into states" did was other than the delegation of a portion of their sovereignty directly to their national instrument.
For that reason, a state, or several states can reverse Roe v Wade by simple legislative action. That is how our system is designed.
That's the nullifying account of things, no doubt. And when the State of California exceeds the powers I delegated to it, I can simply inform it of this, and ignore the law, I presume. It's a simple enough doctrine on paper. It's called anarchy.
There is no process in the Constitution whereby the people may act independently of their states to effect change in the federal government.
True enough, as I recall. And far short of a demonstration that there is not federal authority established and modified by such procedures which exercises its sovereign authority directly on the people.
So, you're admitting that we don't agree at all. That makes your aggrieved tone in the earlier post simple histrionics. I'm in the habit of speaking plainly. That you call my manner of response a personal attack doesn't make it so. Let's be men, shall we? This boohooing over who slung snot is silly.
I was trying to acknowledge agreement at least with your most recent post, abstracting from the insults. But braced by your manly virtue, I resolve to sling no more snot, nor cry over it once spilt.
Happy?
When you get right down to it, in creating West Virginia Congress didn't do anything unconstitutional, either. They received a petition from the recognized legislature of Virginia and acted on it, all in accordance with Article III, Section 3. Their actions were legal and constitutional.
No, Double D, what you need to show is that the reorganized legislature of Virginia was illegal. You need to provide evidence that, in light of the fact that the rest of Virginia was in rebellion and did not consider itself part of the United States, the act of loyal citizens forming a legislature loyal to the federal government violated some law. Show what law was broken then and maybe you will have a case. No opinions, please, just cite the relevant code. If you can do that then maybe you'll bring me over to your position.
The Constitution is the list of rules for government, regardless of what the mutable will of the majority of the people may be at any given time. Our heritage as Americans is to automatically assume that there are no "men of goodwill" in government. Those who serve in government must prove daily that they are of good will by strictly following the rules to which they swore obedience on taking office. If there is any need for amendment at all, it would be a need for appropriate enforcement of the Bill of Rights and of the oaths of office on the politicians who take those oaths of office. Violations should be punishable by death or imprisonment.
Nobody ever said that the people granted sovereignty "to the states entire". The states were formed first. Every single state signatory to the US Constitution was already a sovereign state with its own constitution before the US Constitution was written. That cannot be changed, nor can the nature of the government created in the articles of the Constitution, without such extensive amendment as to change everything in our form of government. The states have original sovereignty in all areas not specifically delegated to the federal government by the states in the Constitution.
Pretending that sovereignty flows in the other direction, from the federal government, through the states to the people is what officials in our government are doing now. Lincoln pretended that the people created the union first and that the states were created later, as an afterthought to set up political subdivisions. That's every bit as wrong as the idea our government pushes these days.
Seeing the way law is being formulated, passed and enforced at the federal level, one would think that the Constitution wasn't extremely sparing of the areas in which the federal government was granted authority to be exercised directly upon the people. The federal government simply has no proper authority to pass or enforce criminal law except in a few clearly defined cases. The states are the buffer between the people and the federal government. To say otherwise is to ignore the way our form of government is contructed.
Nullification of unconstitutional federal laws is a perfectly legitimate state power. To assert that the judicial branch is designed to be our only defense against usurpation of power by the legislature and executive short of armed rebellion is a guarantee that only armed rebellion will protect us, and that armed rebellion is to be the only remedy rather than the remedy of final resort. That is not at all what the framers intended as evidenced by the very design of the government they established within the articles of the Constitution.
You mean you really don't know what Texas v. White says? After all this time?
Texas v. White (74 U.S. 227-243)
Chief Justice Chase, writing for the court in its 1869 decision, said:
. . . By these the Union was solemnly declared to "be perpetual." And when these Articles were found to be inadequate to the exigencies of the country, the Constitution was ordained "to form a more perfect Union." It is difficult to convey the idea of indissoluble unity more clearly than by these words. What can be indissoluble if a perpetual Union, made more perfect, is not? . . .
"The Constitution, in all its provisions, looks to an indestructible Union, composed of indestructible States. ... Considered, therefore, as transactions under the Constitution, the Ordinance of Secession, adopted by the convention and ratified by a majority of the citizens of Texas, and all the Acts of her Legislature intended to give effect to that ordinance, were absolutely null. They were utterly without operation in law. ... Our conclusion, therefore, is, that Texas continued to be a State, and a State of the Union, notwithstanding the transactions to which we have referred."
So you were basically clueless --- you walked into a door when you suggested that the Preamble is not important, when the Chief Justice refers directly to it.
Walt
Based on what authority? Where does that power come from? I believe South Carolina tried nullification in the 1830's and were forced to back down. If you are correct then why did they retreat?
Ex parte Bollman and Swartwout - where Marshall stated that the suspension of the writ could only be performed by Congress was in 1807, well after the amended Militia Act of 1795. So now you are arguing that a Supreme Court decision is overturned by the actions of a President?
For some reason -- perhaps you can suggest a hypothesis, the current Chief Justice doesn't seem to give much credence to Bollman and Swartout.
"The question of whether only Congress may suspend it [the Writ] has never been authoritatively answered to this day, but the Lincoln administration proceeded to arrest and detain persons suspected of disloyal activities, including the mayor of Baltimore and the chief of police."
--Remarks of Supreme Court Chief Justice William A. Rehnquist
Director's Forum, Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars
November 17, 1999
Why do you think the Chief Justice apparently disagrees with you?
Walt
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.