Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: JeffersonDavis
George Washington, James Madison, Chief Justice Jay, Chief Justice Marshall, Andrew Jackson, Sam Houston, and many others, even Chief Justice Taney! --all, all-- were for a perpetual Union.

Wanna try and prove that one Corky....LMAO

It's easy enough to prove.

George Washington:

"In all our deliberations on this subject we kept steadily in our view, that which appears to us the greatest interest of every true American, the consolidation of our Union, in which is involved our prosperity, felicity, safety, perhaps our national existance."

James Madison:

"It is high time that the claim to secede at will should be put down by the public opinion; and I shall be glad to see the task commenced by someone who understands the subject."

This is in a letter of 12/23/32, to Nicholas Trist, who was serving in Andrew Jackson's Cabinet.

John Jay:

Experience disappointed the expectations they had formed from it; and then the people, in their collective and national capacity, established the present Constitution. It is remarkable that in establishing it, the people exercised their own rights and their own proper sovereignty, and conscious of the plenitude of it, they declared with becoming dignity, "We the people of the United States," 'do ordain and establish this Constitution." Here we see the people acting as the sovereigns of the whole country.; and in the language of sovereignty, establishing a Constitution by which it was their will, that the state governments should be bound, and to which the State Constitutions should be made to conform. Every State Constitution is a compact made by and between the citizens of a state to govern themeselves in a certain manner; and the Constitution of the United States is liekwise a compact made by the people of the United States to govern themselves as to general objects, in a certain manner. By this great compact however, many prerogatives were transferred to the national Government, such as those of making war and peace, contracting alliances, coining money, etc."

Chief Justice Marshall:

"If any one proposition could command the universal assent of mankind, we might expect that it would be this -- that the government of the Union, though limited in its powers, is supreme within its sphere of action. This would seem to result, necessarily, from its nature. It is the government of all; its powers are delegated by all; it represents all; and acts for all. Though any one state may be willing to control its operations, no state is willing to allow others to control them. The nation, on those subjects on which it can act, must necessarily bind its component parts. But this question is not left to mere reason; the people have, in express terms, have decided it, by saying, "this constitution, and the laws made in pursuance thereof,: shall be the supreme law of the land," and by requiring that the members of the state legislatures, and the officers of the executive and judicial departments of the states, shall take an oath of fidelity to it. The government of the United States, then, though limited in its powers, is supreme; and its laws, when made in pursuance of the constitution, form the supreme law of the land, "anything in the constitution or laws of any state, to the contrary notwithstanding."

Andrew Jackson:

"If this doctrine had been established at an earlier day, the Union would have been dissolved in its infancy. The excise law in Pennsylvania, the embargo and non-intercourse law in the Eastern States, the carriage tax in Virginia, were all deemed unconstitutional, and were more unequal in their operation than any of the laws now complained of; but, fortunately, none of those states discovered that they had the right now claimed by South Carolina. The war into which we were forced, to support the dignity of the nation and the rights of our citizens, might have ended in defeat and disgrace, instead of victory and honor, if the states who supposed it a ruinous and unconstitutional measure had thought they possessed the right of nullifying the act by which it was declared, and denying supplies for its prosecution. Hardly and unequally as those measures bore upon several members of the Union, to the legislatures of none did this efficient and peaceable remedy, as it is called, suggest itself. The discovery of this important feature in our Constitution was reserved to the present day. To the statesmen of South Carolina belongs the invention, and upon the citizens of that state will unfortunately fall the evils of reducing it to practice."

Same Houston:

"I believe a large majority of our Southern people are opposed to secession, and if the secession leaders would permit our people to take ample time to consider secession and then hold fair elections the secession movement would be defeated by an overwhelming majority. But the secession leaders declare that secession has already been peaceably accomplished and the Confederate Government independence and sovereignty will soon he acknowledged by all foreign governments. They tell us that the Confederate Government will thus be permanently established without bloodshed. They might with equal truth declare that the fountains of the great deep blue seas can be broken up without disturbing their surface waters, as to tell us that the best Government that ever existed for men can be broken up without bloodshed."

As for Chief Justice Taney, he agreed with the UNANIMOUS decision of the Court in the Prize Cases that "war" and "blockade" were possible in a rebellion without making the U.S. efforts a de facto recognition of the Confederacy.Where Taney dissented, in the losing side of a 5-4 vote, was on *who* had the right to declare the blockade and start a war: consistent with ex parte Merryman, Taney argued that the war did not and could not begin until Congress assembled in July.

Not bad, hey Corky?

Walt

21 posted on 05/03/2002 6:46:41 AM PDT by WhiskeyPapa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies ]


To: WhiskeyPapa
You haven't even had to list the opinion of the next greatest revolutionary after Washington, Alexander Hamilton, who thought it madness when the whackjobs in New England were talking secession after Jefferson's lunatic policies bankrupted the fishing and shipping industries there. At least that set of whackjobs had a semi-reasonable excuse to consider the lunacy of secession unlike that of 1860.

Give'm Jefferson's statement at his inaugaration wrt allowing its advocates free speech on the issue.

It is amusing to see reference to the Va. and Ky. resolution as having any more authority than a letter to the editor somewhere. Neither resolution was ever passed by any legislature so they are really more accurately described as the "Irresolutions" than "Resolutions." But such are the poor materials of the case of the D.S.s.

22 posted on 05/03/2002 6:58:41 AM PDT by justshutupandtakeit
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson