Free Republic

Kudos to you sir. The Panic of 1857 affected the NORTHERN states, but lightly affected Southern states, due to the demand for Southern exports. Losses in the North and West were estimated at 142 MILLION (back when a million was an immense sum), while Southern losses were only 17 million. The world was not beating down the doors to import Northern manufactures, especially when they could purchase superior products from Great Britain. But the world needed Southern products badly, with cotton exports single-handedly rescuing the economy.

In 1857 bitterness arose between the sections increased, as millions of Southerners - including slaves - remained prosperous and well-fed, but in the North some 200,000 had lost their jobs, and "Bread" riots occurred in the North, not the South. Parson Brownlow of Tennessee stated that Northen industrialists should refrain from attacking slavery, and instead find means to feed the starving Northern poor.

The net result of the Panic of 1857 [the worst up to that point in time] was a massive shift in fortunes, as money vanished from Northern pockets and found it's way South.

Anyone wanting to understand the economic motivations of Lincoln and the North should study the Panic of 1857 and it's aftermath, and understand the increased bitterness and hatred of Southerners and slavery.

Their resistance became labeled rebellion ...

Of course it must, otherwise the secessionists were morally and legally correct, and Lincoln and his cadre were the despots and dictators.

Again, during the convention, one James Madison, motioned for the power of the militia to PREVENT SECESSION, and force the secessionists to rejoin the union. Giving credit where it is due, the framers REJECTED his insane motion overwhelmingly.

Those framers knew that they had seceded from Great Britain, and were about to secede from the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union.

That sounds like the beginnings of legend-building and the Memory Hole right there.

Lincoln's son destroyed much of Lincoln's unfavourable papers according to Herndon IIRC.

From its founding, the Republican Party was the party of anti-slavery.

Michigan 6 July 1854: the "republican" party was against the EXTENSION of slavery (e.g., in favour of a lily white west). The 1856 platform called for, 'who are opposed ... to the extension of slavery into free territory.'

FYI, the Supreme Court ruled 7-2 that was unconstitutional.

So our Founders never intended to let everyone just "do their own thing.".

Wrong. The framers specifically rejected motions that would have allowed the federal government the power to "prevent" secession, one motion made by Madison was defeated by a vote of 9-2. Secession is not rebellion.

That was one of Lincoln's few conditions for re-admittance.

Of course, they were out of the union.

BTW. Do you know who the Governor of Tennessee was when the legislature there ratified the 13th?

"Parson" William G. Brownlow had been in office two whole days.

Both those states, as well as Arkansas were operating under Lincoln's 10% plan ...

The magazine's assertion was that APPOINTED governments ratified for Southern States. Unfortunately for their claims, the states in question had held elections for the state offices. Naturally, with the military occupying 4 of the states, secessionists would be denied suffrage [where in the Constitution is that legal?]. Yet in 4 other Southern states, free elections were held, and almost all elected were former Confederates. In the elections for federal office the majority were ex-confederates. They were also denied their seats in the federal congress.

All I presented is what happened.

You claimed, 'The "Southern" states that reatified were either pro-Union rump legislatures such as the Virginia Legislature (located in Alexandria) or provisional governments appointed by the President.

Tennessee ratified 7 Apr 1865 AD. The legislature that ratified was elected 4 Mar 1865 AD.

Louisiana ratified 17 Feb 1865 AD. The legislature that ratified was elected 5 Sep 1864 AD.

Before you start calling people names, you ought to read the history.

History? Bwahahahaha! A magazine, like Newsweek or Time? According to the constitution and laws of Virginia, the "rump" legislature with 38 members lacked the numbers to form a quorum (79 in the House and 26 in the Senate), rendering any legislation illegal.

The "Southern" states that reatified [sic] were either pro-Union rump legislatures such as the Virginia Legislature (located in Alexandria) or provisional governments appointed by the President.

Are you daft or simply uneducated? Virginia “rump” legislature? From what, 1860? And ratified for both West Virginia and Virginia? BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHahahahahaha!

As you can see, four of the Confederate states ratified even before the war ended and there were no 'former confederates' involved in those governments.

I vote for uneducated. The war ended in APRIL 1865, not December.

South Carolina held elections 18 Oct 1865 AD, placing native son James Orr into office. Orr had been a member of the Confederate Congress 18 Feb 1862 AD through 10 May 1865 AD. Regardless, The newly elected legislature ratified the 13th amendment.

In North Carolina, William Woods Holden had been appointed by President Johnson, but was defeated by NC State Senator Jonathan Worth on 9 Nov 1865 along with a new legislature. Worth was state Treasurer during the Confederacy. That legislature ratified the 13th amendment.

In Georgia, James Johnson had been appointed by President Johnson, but on 15 Nov 1865 AD Georgian Charles J. Jenkins was elected along with a new legislature. That Georgia legislature ratified the 13th amendment 6 Dec 1865 AD.

'The Vice-President of the Confederacy [Alexander Stephens], four Confederate generals, five Confederate colonels, six Confederate cabinet officers, and fifty-eight Confederate congressmen were elected to the Thirty-ninth Congress, which met in December 1865. At the state level former Confederate military and civilian officers dominated the governments. [4CJ note: the same governments that ratified the 13th; see John Hope Franklin, Reconstruction after the Civil War, p. 43] .

Because legally they did not exist. Marriage between slaves was not recognized by law because slaves were not people. They were property.

Utter BS. Marriages were sanctioned by their masters, with Justices of the Peace performing the ceremonies. There are several cases recognizing their legal status, and several wills and trusts ajudicated after the war upheld the validity of the marriages.

Had all 15 slave states held together opposing the amendment, it would have taken 46 states to ratify it. Care to do the math?

I love math! But unfortunately, you can't even get 15 states to vote as a block then or today. But you can get the Northeast to legalize homosexual marriages, and force them on the rest of the republic.

Doing time travel again? Those states only “ratified” after the war under Reconstruction governments — you know, the Carpet Baggers and Scallywags you love to hate.

Time travel? The fall 1865 elections returned many confederates and Southerners to political office - including former Whigs and Unionists - even Alexander Stephens was elected to the Senate. Those men PASSED the 13th ending slavery.

Nonsense. Even with 50 states today, 15 slave states could block any amendment to end slavery.

Nonsense - those states ratified an amendment to end slavery.

He [Taney] was the worst kind of liberal jurist, finding all sorts of meaning in the Constitution to support he pre-conceived opinions.

Ya think?:

I think the authors of that notable instrument [the Declaration of Independence] intended to include all men, but they did not intend to declare all men equal in all respects. They did not mean to say all were equal in color, size, intellect, moral developments, or social capacity. They defined with tolerable distinctness in what respects they did consider all men created equal—equal with "certain inalienable rights, among which are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." This they said, and this meant. They did not mean to assert the obvious untruth, that all were then actually enjoying that equality, nor yet, that they were about to confer it immediately upon them. In fact, they had no power to confer such a boon.

Even Abraham Lincoln shared the view.

wow, the way you glossed over how MOREE Black men fought against slavery than fought fo slavery...that is telling,t oo

wow, and three times as many WHITES fought FOR slavery and the union as it was ...

The implication here is that, from the beginning, the Republican Party was a political crusade undertaken on a platform that included a secret war plank.

LG, you nailed it. The big government socialists, aka Whigs then Republicans, had to divest the federal congress of the true conservatives, aka Jeffersonian Democratic-Republicans. True, given another 20-30 years with an ever increasing majority the northeast would have political controul of the Union, but Lincoln and his ilk were too impatient to wait, and too eager to despoil and plunder the country.

In that regard, Obama is most definitely following in Lincoln's political and socialist footsteps.

SC Justice Johnson, sitting on the 6th Circuit court...

US Supreme Court Justice Johnson, not South Carolina, my abbreviation might be confusing to some.

South Carolina's law that allowed them to seize British Subjects and sell them into slavery was a violation of agreements made with the Great Britain. That should trump state law, and would to any lawyer who's agenda didn't override their understanding of the Constitution.

The South Carolina law allowed for the blacks to be held while foreign vessels were in port - they knew beforehand. The law was in response the alarm caused the prior year by a failed slave revolt in Charleston led by former slave Denmark Vesey.

When the vessel left the ship's captain had to pay the costs of detainment. New York had laws similar allowing them to "quarantine" entire ships, just as other northern states prohibited the entry of free blacks. A little biased in your position?

SC Justice Johnson, sitting on the 6th Circuit court, did rule against the state in a habeas corpus petition, be refused to issue the writ [Elkison v. Deliesseline, 8 Fed. Cas. 493, 494 (1823)].

In his 1832 opinion Taney wrote,

The Constitution it is true has declared that a Treaty shall be the supreme law. But in order to make it so the stipulations must be within the Treaty making power. A Treaty would be void which interfered with the powers expressly delegated to Congress. So it would be void if it came in conflict with rights reserved to the states. ...

It may be said however that the law of S. Carolina is more severe and oppressive than is necessary for its own protection. Upon examining its provisions I am ready to admit that milder measures would I think have secured the object and would have created less dissatisfaction.

Article VI of the Constitution be damned.

Debts? Supremacy? Oaths? To what do you refer? If supremacy, what clause in the Constitution grants it in this case?

Taney believed in twisting the Constitution six ways from Sunday.

You want a living Constitution? He was a strict constructionist.

Where in the document can you find support for his asinine interpretation?

Asinine? 7-2 is hardly asinine. Again, there was no federal citizenship. The Naturalization Act of 1790 limited it to whites, and 'on application to any common law court of record, in any one of the states wherein lie shall have resided for the term of one year at least.' A state could also prevent an alien from being naturalized, 'no person heretofore proscribed by any state, shall be admitted a citizen as aforesaid, except by an act of the legislature of the state in which such person was proscribed.'

The Militia Act of 1795 cited above limited service to 'able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States.

If the Constitution supported federal citizenship for blacks, we wouldn't have needed the 14th Amendment. Where in the document can you find support for any other asinine interpretation?

Taney replied that the U.S. could not interfere with the state law.

Kudos, federalism and separation of powers epitomized. By extension, a slave disembarking in a non-slave state would automatically be freed. Cool.

He wrote that blacks "...were not looked upon as citizens by the contracting parties who ...

No state granted blacks full citizenship, and the federal Congress limited naturalization to whites only.

The first federal Militia Act (1795) limited service to 'each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States ...'

Taney certainly didn't believe in a living Constitution.

His ilk have that whole slavery stigma to overcome, which is a losing prospect.

The US had legalized slavery for over 200 years, north and south. Lincoln advocated an amendment that would have made slavery permanent and irrevocable. Almost 80% of the changes made by the Confederate Constitution were for less taxes, less big government, and the elimination of pork and government subsidies.

I simply cannot believe that on a discussion board committed to individual liberty the complete violation of liberty is justified as a missionary effort.

Not that I agree, but for much of the world circa 1800 blacks were seen as savages and sub-human. Heck, most Tarzan movies, Shaka Zulu, "Tears of the Sun", "Blood Diamonds" or their companions continue to demonize blacks as cannibals, sub-human etc.

Given the alternative, I laud their Davis, Lee, Jackson et al and their efforts.