That's funny. I was reading the Virginia debates just the other day. Later on, I was pondering just this very thing, the language contained in the ratification documents. The question I have always had is what legal force such declarations have on the actual operation of the Constitution, and it seems to me the answer would be none. Otherwise, each state had, in effect, the ability to unilaterally amend the Constitution. They could say "we agree only if X" or "we agree but do not recognize Z." It doesn't work that way, it seems to me.
However, it does provide very specific information to the State government about the spirit of the state government at the time of the ratification, and what their own views and intentions were. Therefore, a Virginian in 1858 couldn't say (IMO) that the Virginia Ratification document contains legal language to which the general government is bound, because nowhere in the Constitution does it provide for the acceptance or rejection of anything other than a yes or no ratification. The general government is not empowered to entertain what are, in contractual terms, riders.
But a Virginian of 1858 could rightly say that the spirit in which the Constitution was ratified is indicated in this document, which was agreed upon by the government of Virginia, and they could take that for what it's worth.
That's my personal take on it. I have never seen anything that explains how something in a state-authored ratification document can dictate terms to a Constitution which was agreed upon in a Convention of delegates who set the terms for ratification.
When it comes to con men who better than DiLorenzo would know?
The jaw droppers at the Independent Institute debate must have also been aware of Lincoln’s demolition of the First Amendment during his administration to have reacted with such looks of disbelief. There were hundreds of opposition newspapers in the North, and many of them were shut down and their editors and owners thrown into military prisons without any due process. For example, on May 18, 1864 Lincoln issued an order to General John Dix that read as follows: "You will take possession by military force, of the printing establishments of the New York World and Journal of Commerce . . . and prohibit any further publication thereof . . . you are therefore commanded forthwith to arrest and imprison . . . the editors, proprietors and publishers of aforesaid newspapers." Dix complied, and hundreds of newspapers were censored (see Dean Sprague’s Freedom Under Lincoln).
**********
From a fine Libertarian at FR who attended the debate.
****
[DiLorenzo and others say]Lincoln has a blemished record of following the ideal of free government in his political life, as when he issued this order, on May 18, 1864:
"You will take possession by military force, of the printing establishments of the New York World and Journal of Commerce . . . and prohibit any further publication thereof. . . . You are therefore commanded forthwith to arrest and imprison . . . the editors, proprietors and publishers of the aforementioned newspapers."
What was it in these newspapers, inquiring minds may ask, that prompted Lincoln to issue this order?
"At 4 a.m. [on May 18 1864, Joseph] Howard distributed anonymously to all the New York papers a bogus proclamation, complete with the forged signature of the President, fixing May 26 `as a day of fasting, humiliation, and prayer,' and calling for an additional draft of 400,000 men required by `the situation in Virginia, the disaster at Red River, the delay at Charleston, and the general state of the country.' ...Only two papers, the New York World and the Journal of Congress, were on the street with the story before the forgery was detected." Foote, The Civil War III, p. 376.
This was the so called "Gold Hoax" -- a criminal effort to drive up the value of gold at a very critical point in the war. Once it was established that the editors were only guilty of atrocious journalistic standards for source checking, they were released from custody and allowed to reopen their papers -- after only being held for three days. Foote, p. 376.
Nevertheless, the Lincoln bashers would no doubt argue that this instance had a chilling effect on the journalistic profession, so that no paper would dare to criticize Lincoln thereafter. But consider what was written by a Northern paper just a few short weeks later on the occasion of Lincoln's renomination (along with Andrew Johnson) during the 1864 Republican (aka National Union Party) Convention:
"The age of statesmen is gone...the age of rail-splitters and tailors, of buffoons, boors, and fanatics, has succeeded...In a crisis of the most appaling magnitude, requiring statesmanship of the highest order, the country is asked to consider the claims of two ignorant, boorish, third-rate backwoods lawyers, for the highest situations in the government. Such nominations, in such a conjecture, are an insult to the common-sense of the people. God save the Republic!" Foote, p. 379.
What brave journalist dared to so brutally insult the character of the President and his running mate? None other than the editor of the New York World.
18 posted on 5/10/02 8:03 PM Pacific by ravinson
********
Moral?
Never trust a hack.
Cheers,
Richard F.
Even if the Confederate glorifiers like DiLorenzo can be allowed to ignore the ancient rule of contract law that both sides must manifest their assent to something before it becomes part of an enforceable agreement, there is no getting around this restriction (emboldened above). To my knowledge, neither the Virginia secessionists nor any other Confederates ever attempted to enforce any real or imagined Constitutional right of secession in the U.S. Courts, so they clearly waived any right to rely on anything in the U.S. Constitution, including any supposed conditions precedent. Moreover, had they asserted such a right, they would have found it difficult to prove that the Constitution had been "perverted to their injury or oppression" merely because a "Black Republican" had been elected to the Presidency.
Of course, the Confederates were not interested in proving any "states' rights" under the U.S. Constitution. They made it very clear that they were extremely dissatisfied with the U.S. Constitution because it did not sufficiently preserve and protect their cherished institution of slavery, and so they drafted their own constitution that provided as follows:
Article I... Section 9... (4) No ... law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed...
Article IV ... Section 2. (1) The citizens of each State ... shall have the right of transit and sojourn in any State of this Confederacy, with their slaves and other property; and the right of property in said slaves shall not be thereby impaired...
(3) The Confederate States may acquire new territory... In all such territory the institution of negro slavery, as it now exists in the Confederate States, shall be recognized and protected by Congress and by the Territorial government; and the inhabitants of the several Confederate States and Territories shall have the right to take to such Territory any slaves lawfully held by them in any of the States or Territories of the Confederate States...
As the Mississippi secessionists candidly admitted, the Confederates' position was "thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery", which they considered "the greatest material interest of the world." The Confederates wanted to ensure that a government of the slaveholders, by the slaveholders, and for the slaveholders would not perish.
It is good to see someone call one of these Socialist deceivers on an out and out lie; and frankly I am glad for the heads up on the Treaty of Paris. That is an excellent point to respond to those who refuse to recognize that our Constitutional system was adopted by completely sovereign States--each as sovereign, for example, as the States of France or Great Britain at the time. That is certainly how our Declaration Of Independence treats them, and thus has certainly always been the historic American view--liars like Jaffa notwithstanding.
For a fuller appreciation of how completely Socialism in all of its varieties depends upon a willingness to lie, see The Lies Of Socialism.
Do you know if the Treaty of Paris is available on the Web? I would like to lift it and publish it at my web site, or at least have a link. Again, that point is really an excellent one to nail the point.
William Flax Return Of The Gods Web Site
Or is that 'bang/?
However, the better way to use it would be after first going to the Declaration of Independence, read our seminal document, together with the study guide that helps clarify it in relation to certain common misconceptions, and then click the link to the Treaty: The Treaty, being of course, the acknowledgment of Washington's success in vindicating the Declaration.
Read the documents in context, and many things will become much clearer.
William Flax Return Of The Gods Web Site
This is, once again, a misquotation, and it misrepresents the general situation, as DiLorenzo always does.
The man is an odious public disgrace.
Richard F.
Abratollah Harry V. Jaffa Issues Fatwa Condemning Joseph Sobran
"In the Name of the Union, the Most Sovereign and the Most Central," Abratollah intones.
by Derek Copold
CLAREMONT, CA? Speaking for the Claremont Institute, the newly self-proclaimed "Abratollah" Harry V. Jaffa announced that he and his colleagues have issued a "fatwa" declaring Joseph Sobran an enemy of all that is good and right. This was done, declared the Abratollah Jaffa, because Sobran slandered the holy name of Abraham Lincoln and because he cast doubt upon the one true faith of the Union Indivisible. The fatwa ominously promises that the faithful adherent who successfully assassinates Sobran?s character will win automatic admission into the Claremont Institute's version of paradise: the Heritage Foundation.
At a conference in Claremont, California, Jaffa acknowledged the extraordinary nature of this action, but claimed he and his colleagues had no other choice. Said Claremont?s Abratollah: "There is no union but the Union, and Abraham Lincoln is Its prophet. Some things are not to be held to human standards; the life and sayings of Abraham Lincoln, peace be upon him, are two of these."
Jaffa then added, "However, we are merciful. Sobran has said some nice things about the Defender of the Union, and thus we are willing to extend once more the opportunity to Sobran to recant his blasphemous views and return to the true belief. It is not too late, even for him. Of course, this does not apply to the infidel heathens David Dieteman and Myles Kantor. They?re screwed. May the fleas of a thousand environmentalists plague them to the end of their days. May their wives join NOW. May their children go on dates with Eminem and Hillary Clinton? all at once? Enough. I must retire and commune with the Union."
The Abratollah then dismissed the press corps, laid out his prayer rug, oriented himself towards Washington, DC and began genuflecting.
Expounding upon Lincoln?s importance, Claremont Senior Fellow Charles Kessler later explained to reporters that "In the beginning was the Union, and Lincoln was with the Union, and Lincoln was the Union. In Him was centrality, and the centrality was our guarantee of plushy government appointments. This was all foretold. Lo, there was a man sent from the Union, whose name was James Madison. He came for testimony, to bear witness to the centrality, that all might believe through him. He was not the centrality, but came to bear witness to that centrality."
Of Lincoln, Kessler further elaborated, "And Lincoln became president and dwelt amongst the Washingtonians, full of grace and truth; we have beheld his glory. Oh, glory! Glory! Hallelujah! Mine eyes have seen the glory of the coming of Lincoln. Our truth is marching on."
Trying a different approach, Ken Masugi, the Claremont Institute?s Director of the Center for Local Government, stated in koan-like fashion, "Do not confuse Lincoln for the Rousseau. Always ask, what is the ?self? in the South?s notion of ?self-determination?? Self can only exist in relation to a union, the Union. Without the Union, there is no self. It is nihilism Sobran flirts with when he questions the sanctity of Lincoln. The willfulness of this columnist reveals that it is the Karl Marx of the workers? revolution who is his patron saint. And this is why the Joseph in Joseph Sobran quite rightly stands for Joseph Stalin, not the St. Joseph that his parents thought of when they christened him."
In support of the Abratollah?s fatwa, Empower America?s Seth Liebsohn added, "As President, Lincoln sought to preserve the Union, and he knew that the Union was the cause of manumission. He knew it because the founders knew it. And they knew it because I say they did. I support Claremont, because as a pro-life advocate, I cannot stand by while another pro-life advocate attacks the greatest defender of the life-giving Union. To say that Lincoln fighting the Civil War excludes him from being pro-life is to miss forests for some 600,000 thousand measly trees."
When asked about Claremont?s fatwa, Sobran shrugged and said as he began to sort through some ticking packages bearing labels reading: NARAL, GLAAD, AIPAC and the Secret Society of Seriously Scandalized Stratfordians, "Tell them to take a number."
Joe Stalin takes the cake. The triumphent WWII Russian troops returning from the victory in Europe were ordered killed (they had seen the world outside the borders and may tell others).
These figures are pretty misleading if you stop and think about it. A lot of the confederate documentation was lost during the course of the war or immediately afterwards, yet Mark E. Neely was able to identify a figure of 8,000 confederate political prisoners, 4,100 by name. The same problem didn't exist up North. One would think that to total the number of Union prisoners would be easy, unless the person doing the totaling was blessed with a highly creative imagination.