While on my way to a separation of church and state rally at the capitol, I happened to pass by the monument on the left. It’s a monument to the Confederate dead. There are many similar monuments throughout Texas.
I paused to read the inscription:
DIED
FOR STATES RIGHTS GUARANTEED UNDER THE CONSTITUTION
THE PEOPLE OF THE SOUTH, ANIMATED BY THE SPIRIT OF 1776, TO PRESERVE THEIR RIGHTS, WITHDREW FROM THE FEDERAL COMPACT IN 1861. THE NORTH RESORTED TO COERCION.
THE SOUTH, AGAINST OVERWHELMING NUMBERS AND RESOURCES,
FOUGHT UNTIL EXHAUSTED.
DURING THE WAR THERE WERE TWENTY TWO HUNDRED AND FIFTY SEVEN ENGAGEMENTS.
IN EIGHTEEN HUNDRED AND EIGHTY TWO OF THESE, AT LEAST ONE REGIMENT TOOK PART.
NUMBER OF MEN ENLISTED:
CONFEDERATE ARMIES 600,000; FEDERAL ARMIES 2,859,132
LOSSES FROM ALL CAUSES:
CONFEDERATE, 437,000; FEDERAL, 485,216
“FOR STATES RIGHTS GUARANTEED UNDER THE CONSTITUTION?” That sentence made me laugh out loud. Is there a state’s right to slavery in the Constitution that I am unaware of?
Whom do they think they’re kidding? Only themselves.
-David Drumm (Nal)
Nal,
The case you cite, Gassies v. Ballon 31 U.S. 762 is one of those short and sweet opinions of the Court. It doesn’t provide us with much direction. Here is the FULL opinion of the Court;
“In this case, the Court is of opinion that the jurisdiction can be sustained. The defendant in error is alleged in the proceedings to be a citizen of the United States, naturalized in Louisiana and residing there. This is equivalent to an averment that he is a citizen of that state. A citizen of the United States residing in any state of the union is a citizen of that state.
The authorities on this question have gone far enough, and this Court is not disposed to narrow any more the limitations which have been imposed by the decided cases. They have gone as far as it would be reasonable and proper to go.”
The full case is here: http://supreme.justia.com/us/31/761/case.html
What the Court was saying, is that for the purposes of jurisdiction, a citizen of the United States is a citizen of the state in which he is residing. This did not, however, imply that such determination of citizenship granted any rights or priviledges at the state level (other than those under the U.S. Constitution).
From Boyd v Nebraska:
And this was the opinion of the Court delivered by Chief Justice FULLER. (I have to be careful to know if I’m reading from the dissenting opinion.)
Both of these, it appears to me, to be the opposite of what you claimed in your above comments. Although I haven’t read the whole opinion, it’s possible that the above quotes were taken out of context.
If every citizen of a state is a citizen of the US and vice versa, there can be no logical difference between the two.
I posting too close with you. Let me read your 3:02 PM comment.
Is having the rights and privileges of a citizen the same thing as being a citizen? So, if a state confers the rights and privileges, it’s the same thing as conferring citizenship?
Except as a citizen of the US, you get the rights and privileges of any state.
Is it possible to be a citizen of the US and not be a citizen of the state in which you reside?
Correction:
“that the world was flat” SB that the earth is flat
Nal,
With the exception of your definition of “naturalization”, I think you understand citizenship.
Boyd v. Nebraska is a good case because it demonstrates that someone can be a citizen of the United States while not being a citizen of the state in which they reside.
Some other on-point cases are Snowden v. Hughes (1943) and US v. Cruikshank.
I think the most important point to take away is that one would have to be an alien before Congress could make them a citizen of the United States. This is important when discussing those of African descent because even though they (prior to the 14th Amendment) may have been born on U.S. soil, even of parents born on U.S. soil, they had never been relieved of their alien status. It would have been even more confusing when, what we cannot conceive as not being a person, was considered chattel (much the same as a cow or a goat).
In the minds of far too many, granting citizenship to someone of African descent was like making their horse a citizen. I think most of us have trouble wrapping our heads around the concept, but that was, unfortunately, the way it was. I find it easier to adopt a belief that the world was flat.
Dredd says I’m a revisionist yet he doesnt debunk ONE thing Ive said. Yes you are right “Larry may be right”—it was CLEAR from Jefferson’s Kentucky Resolve that secession was granted. Let me ask you something Dredd, am I and “Larry may be right” revising history by mentioning the Kentucky Resolve???
Frank—you continue to IGNORE the FACT that slavery became constitutional in 1857 and Lincoln said in hia inaugural that he had NO INTENTION OF INTERFERING WITH SOUTHERN SLAVERY—-so this “Emancipation Proclaimation to “free slaves”” is utter bullshit and anyone who belives the EP was to free slaves is a revisionist.
Also, I might add, that Lincoln refused to handle this peacefully. Before the war broke out, Confederate peace commissioners and Napoleon III of France attempted to work out a peace with Lincoln, Lincoln refused and blocked every effort toward a peaceful solution.
Lincoln himself NEVER said it even HIMSELF that the war was to “free slaves”. He didnt WANT them free, because he didnt want black people [free or slave] to come North. In fact, two days before Lincoln was inaugurated, the US senate passed a proposed constitutional amendment that read:
“No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give Congress the power to abolish or interfere,within any state, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of the state.”
The US house of representatives passed the amendment on Februart 28, 1861. “domestic institutions” meant SLAVERY.
Lincoln said HIMSELF that his reason for the war was to “…save the Union, and it is not either to save or destroy slavery”—-those are HIS WORDS Dredd—–no revisionism there!!!
Congress announced on July 22, 1861 that the purpose of the war was NOT “interference with the rights or established institutions of those states” [slavery] —-“but to preserve the Union with the rights of the several states unimpaired”——in other words—-the purpose of the war was SOLELY states rights!!
Where’s the revisionism Dredd? Care to debunk Lincoln’s OWN WORDS???
BBB:
This doesn’t seem to be borne out by the quote by Justice Story you posted. Justice Story writes about the state having the authority to give the rights and privileges of citizenship to non-citizens. I would argue that this is different than the authority of conferring citizenship.
The difference between having all the rights and privileges of citizenship and being a citizen is that other states don’t have to respect these rights and privileges.
/As the non-lawyer sticks his “neck” out again. 🙂
Nal,
By saying “[t]he definition is contained within the parentheses”, I assume you mean that the definition of “naturalization” you have chosen is “determination of who is a citizen”. While that may well be your personal understanding of naturalization, it does not conform to any accepted definition that I am aware of.
If you read on from the quote that I provided in Boyd v. Nebraska you will see that the Court provided the meaning of “naturalization” by using very simple words.
http://supreme.justia.com/us/143/135/case.html
“Naturalization is the act of adopting a foreigner and clothing him with the privileges of a native citizen”.
Understanding the definition of “naturalization” is extremely important because it not only grants authority, but limits it too. It limits Congress regarding citizenship to only those who are aliens. However, it only does so under the government of the United States. It does not permit Congress to make that alien a citizen of any state in particular.
I understand how that can be a bit confusing. It is possible to be a naturalized citizen of the United States while not being recognized as a citizen of any one of the states. It does, however, provide the naturalized citizen with the protections afforded native-born citizens by our U.S. Constitution, and all states must recognize that.
You asked; “Is it possible to be a citizen of a state and not be a citizen of the United States?”
The answer is Yes. A state can bestow citizenship on anyone they please, but that only affords that person citizenship in that state alone.
anon nurse,
IMO, the links are important and should be posted where the most viewers will see them … check your email
Larry – the reason I asked you to actually read a little history was so you wouldn’t ask such stupid questions
Southern states went to Federal courts – repeatedly – to deny states the right to legislate on slavery in any way they did not approve of. Because the USSC was heavily weighted towards Southern slaver owners they always received a welcoming decision.
But the facts don’t fit your myopic beliefs so they must ignored, right?
Thanks for your insights/comments, Blouise…
(And sorry if I pulled this off-thread a bit. Not my intention.)
Nal and BBB,
This is very interesting … Just my way of letting you know others are interested in what the two of you are discussing
HenMan’s Psychiatrist, Jennifer Melfi,
This is very good news.
HenMan is a valued member of this blog and, based on his rapid recovery, perhaps such intensive therapy is something that would be of benefit to all of us.
Are you accepting new patients?
Blouise-HenMan had an attack of skitzofrenia last night, but after intensive therapy, he seems to be ok now. I think. Maybe. Well, toodle-oooh! (Toodle-freakin’-oooh? How could I have said that?!)
BBB,
Thanks for taking the time to educate me.
The definition is contained within the parentheses.
Is it possible to be a citizen of a state and not be a citizen of the United States?
Nal said; “Pre-Civil War, the determination of citizenship was largely determined by the states, but only the Congress was given the power to set the rules of naturalization (determination of who is a citizen). There was never any state right to determine citizenship.”
Nal,
How is it that none of the lawyers on this blawg provided you with correction and direction? Have you taken the time to look up the definition of “naturalization”? If so, and you still believe your comment to be correct, could you please share the definition you used?
Contrary to your comment, States always have, and still do, have the authority to determine who is a citizen of their state. They even have the right (authority) to determine who (even among aliens) can be a citizen of their state.
I suggest the opinion of Justice Story as quoted in Boyd v. Nebraska (1892);
“In discussing this question, we must not confound the rights of citizenship which a State may confer within its own limits, and the rights of citizenship as a member of the Union. It does not by any means follow, because he has all the rights and privileges of a citizen of a State, that he must be a citizen of the United States. He may have all of the rights and privileges of the citizen of a State, and yet not be entitled to the rights and privileges of a citizen in any other State. For, previous to the adoption of the Constitution of the United States, every State had the undoubted right to confer on whomsoever it pleased the character of citizen, and to endow him with all its rights. But this character of course was confined to the boundaries of the State, and gave him no rights or privileges in other States beyond those secured to him by the laws of nations and the comity of States. Nor have the several States surrendered the power of conferring these rights and privileges by adopting the Constitution of the United States. Each State may still confer them upon an alien, or any one it thinks proper, or upon any class or description of persons; yet he would not be a citizen in the sense in which that word is used in the Constitution of the United States, nor entitled to sue as such in one of its courts, nor to the privileges and immunities of a citizen in the other States. The rights which he would acquire would be restricted to the State which gave them. The Constitution has conferred on Congress the right to establish an uniform rule of naturalization, and this right is evidently exclusive, and has always been held by this court to be so. Consequently, no State, since the adoption of the Constitution, can by naturalizing an alien invest him with the rights and privileges secured to a citizen of a State under the Federal government, although, so far as the State alone was concerned, he would undoubtedly be entitled to the rights of a citizen, and clothed with all the rights and immunities which the constitution and laws of the State attached to that character.”
anon nurse,
Reading … weeping
There is a rumor going around that HenMan is handsome, always right, and smart … HenMan has a very good Publicist!
There’s a war going on out there, but many are still in the dark.
Oversight,congressional hearings, protection for whistleblowers or, it’s over.
From IPA, The Institute for Public Accuracy
News Release
Rowley, McGovern and Ellsberg — Statement on Wikileaks
June 17, 2010
http://accuracy.org/newsrelease.php?articleId=2270
Powerful interests tried to secure a conviction of Ellsberg, but failed. They’re not making the same mistakes now…