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)
larry might be right,
No, courts (ultimately the Supreme Court) step in and identify when laws violate the Constitution.
The Declaration of Independence is a guiding document, but doesn’t have any legal effect.
BBB’s point was that nullification of laws by the states is clearly at odds with the Supremacy Clause. A state can put “Law X shall not apply within the border of the state of Y” in their state constitution, but the Supremacy Clause says that the federal law trumps the state constitution.
BBB:
“This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any state to the Contrary notwithstanding.”
So the federal government can make a law at odds with the purpose and intent of the Constitution and DOI? If it does, then it can enforce an act such as the Alien and Sedition act with impunity? In other words the Constitution nullifies the Constitution?
Larry,
I know I’m a couple of days late to the party, but I thought I’d give you a little advice: you’re coming off as strident, uninformed, and childish.
Stop using so many UPPER CASE WORDS, exclamation points!!, and question marks??? Stop behaving as if you’re smarter than everyone else on the blog. Even if you think it’s true, showing it reflects poorly on you.
When I first caught up and read this article, I was planning on disagreeing with Nal on whether there was a right to slavery for the states in the original Constitution, but you seem to have put all the focus of the discussion on yourself.
You say you want people to engage with your arguments. Step back, take some deep breaths, and raise them as topics for discussion, one or two at a time, in a calm, rational manner.
Demanding that people “refute you” clearly isn’t working.
“larry might be right” said “The Doctrine of Judicial Review (itself unconstitutional)” and “Jefferson, an anti-Federalist, wanted a way to declare acts of Congress unconstitutional by state legislatures, acting on behalf of their citizens…”
larry might be right,
What purpose does the Supremacy Clause serve?
Gosh, Larry wants to know why do we “morons” keep mentioning slavery.
From the “Declaration of Causes of Secession” (source: http://sunsite.utk.edu/civil-war/reasons.html)
Georgia: “The people of Georgia having dissolved their political connection with the Government of the United States of America, present to their confederates and the world the causes which have led to the separation. For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery.”
Mississippi: “Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery– the greatest material interest of the world.”
…
“There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union…”
…
“We must either submit to degradation, and to the loss of property [slaves] worth four billions of money, or we must secede from the Union…”
South Carolina: “A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States, whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery.”
Texas: “In all the non-slave-holding States, in violation of that good faith and comity which should exist between entirely distinct nations, the people have formed themselves into a great sectional party, now strong enough in numbers to control the affairs of each of those States, based upon an unnatural feeling of hostility to these Southern States and their beneficent and patriarchal system of African slavery, proclaiming the debasing doctrine of equality of all men, irrespective of race or color– a doctrine at war with nature, in opposition to the experience of mankind, and in violation of the plainest revelations of Divine Law. They demand the abolition of negro slavery throughout the confederacy, the recognition of political equality between the white and negro races, and avow their determination to press on their crusade against us, so long as a negro slave remains in these States.”
I would repeat, as has already been noted, that the word “tariff” appears nowhere in these documents. Despite this, Larry … well, you’ve all seen for yourself what Larry claims. You’ve also seen how well he documents his claims when repeatedly asked to.
I would call him a troll, but really he is far too comical and is more entertaining than disrupting. Still, his should be a cautionary tale. I posted this link above (http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2010/07/11/how_facts_backfire/) to an article about research that shows that “Facts don’t necessarily have the power to change our minds. In fact, quite the opposite.”
Larry said : Why do ALL of you KEEP mentioning slavery even AFTER I post quotes from LINCOLN HIMSELF that clearly state that he was PRO-SLAVERY???
Lincoln said:
Whenever I hear any one arguing for slavery I feel a strong impulse to see it tried on him personally
You know I dislike slavery; and you fully admit the abstract wrong of it.
–August 24, 1855 Letter to Joshua Speed
I have always hated slavery, I think as much as any Abolitionist.
–July 10, 1858 Speech at Chicago
Now I confess myself as belonging to that class in the country who contemplate slavery as a moral, social and political evil…
–October 7, 1858 Debate at Galesburg, Illinois
I am naturally anti-slavery. If slavery is not wrong, nothing is wrong. I can not remember when I did not so think, and feel. And yet I have never understood that the Presidency conferred upon me an unrestricted right to act officially upon this judgment and feeling.
–April 4, 1864 Letter to Albert Hodges
———————————————
Larry, you’re missing the forest because you keep planting all those trees
You’re absolutely correct in saying that Lincoln went to war, not because of slavery, but to bring the seceding states back into the Union. The seceding States seceded in order to protect slavery.
Without slavery there would have been no secession…no secession…no war. It’s simple Larry
Larry:
The Constitution was adopted in 1787. The Federalist Papers explained what it meant, so you would think it was fairly clear. Nevertheless, in 1798, the Congress adopted the Alien and Sedition Acts, which were clearly–*clearly*–unconstitutional. So in just 11 years, and only 9 from the adoption of the Bill of Rights, the Congress grossly stepped out of line. The Doctrine of Judicial Review (itself unconstitutional) was not adotped by the Supreme Court until 1803. So the situation Jefferson found himself in was the following:
1) A constitution was adopted for which he (Jefferson) had grave misgivings, and in the drafting of which he was excluded.
2) Just nine years after adopting the First Amendment, Congress violated it, and there was no obvious way to overcome this violation that was written in the constitution.
In this scenario, there were two schools of thought. Jefferson, an anti-Federalist, wanted a way to declare acts of Congress unconstitutional by state legislatures, acting on behalf of their citizens. Thus he invented nullification and justified it based on the constitution being a compact between sovereign states (which it was). Nevertheless, despite having a good argument, nullification is not specifically written down in the Constitution. It rests on the 10th Amendment, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” Obviously there must exist a power to declare acts of congress unconstitutional, right? And it’s not stated in the constitution, right? So it must reside in the States. Q.E.D.
The Federalists, at least at the time, were having none of it. Their solution, which we are stuck with today, is Judicial Review, also invented out of whole cloth and unconstitutional. In this case, the Federal government sits in judgement of its own acts. In paractice this decision has changed the fundamental structure of the country from a federal republic to a judicial oligarchy. Restraint on the part of individual justices has meant that this judicial oligarchy is a weak one, but it doesn’t change the facts.
Strictly on the basis of logic and history, Jefferson’s nullification makes more sense as a structure to protect individual rights. I say this in full knowledge that nullification has been used in the past to oppress black people.
Larry asked “Well, the South did NOT consent what Lincoln had done [force high tariffs on the South] so when Southerners began their lack of consent, that’s when Lincoln lost his power because his power ONLY comes “from the consent of the governed”——that means essentially that it was LINCOLN, NOT the South who dissolved the Union FIRST. Where am I wrong on this?”
Larry is wrong on this. If he believes his argument that a government’s power “only comes from the consent of the governed,” then he has no principled support for the confederate government, precisely because that government never had the consent of any of the four million persons held in slavery. He can either support the confederacy, or support the principle of the consent of the governed, but not both.
As George Orwell said, doublethink is “The power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one’s mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them.” The doublethinker believes both propositions passionately, completely oblivious to their inconsistency.
Lincoln did not dissolve the Union, and, in fact, he never recognized or legitimized its dissolution. He kept all the stars on the flag, and maintained that all the states remained in the Union, albeit in a state of rebellion and without legitimate governments. When Jeff Davis asked for negotiations over the war between the two countries, Lincoln responded that he would only negotiate over the future of our common country. Davis caved on this point and sent a delegation to Norfolk under those terms.
Larry writes as if he never read or understood the Scott decision. It did not hold slavery constitutional. The existence of slavery in the states where it was legal was never in question before the Court. The decision had two major holdings. First, it held that an African American descended from African slaves could not be a citizen of the United States or of a state and could not maintain a suit in federal court. Second, it held that the federal government could not constitutionally ban slavery in the territories, so a slaves presence in a federal territory could not render him free.
Larry also said “Lincoln loved slavery and even admitted on several occasions that he had no intention of interfering with it. AND he hated black people—that’s why he wantd all blacks out of the country and sent off the Liberia. If Lincoln was a Christian, then I’m Santa Claus.”
Just about everything in this sentence is false. It is a falsehood to say that Lincoln “loved” slavery, as Larry stated, because Lincoln hated slavery, and said so repeatedly. Larry has asked “Why do ALL of you KEEP mentioning slavery even AFTER I post quotes from LINCOLN HIMSELF that clearly state that he was PRO-SLAVERY???” Larry has posted no “pro-slavery” quotes by Lincoln, just statements by Lincoln that he was barred by the Constitution from interfering with it. That is not the same thing.
At one point Lincoln said that if slavery is not wrong, then nothing is wrong. So the statement that he loved slavery is false. He stated in his first Inaugural that he would not interfere with slavery where it existed in the south because he had just sworn to uphold the Constitution, which gave him no such authority. But it is false to say “had no intention of interfering with it [slavery].” He intended to interfere with slavery by seeking legislation to ban it in the territories, and in the District of Columbia.
All readers should consider Lincoln’s legislative record on the issue of slavery.
As a Congressman, he drew up a handwritten draft of a law to ban slavery in the District of Columbia, where Congress did have plenary power under the Constitution. It is on display in the New York Avenue Presbyterian Church in Washington DC to this day.
In his first two years as President, he signed four separate bills that freed slaves.
He signed the law freeing all slaves in the District of Columbia.
He signed the law abolishing slavery in the federal territories.
He signed the First Confiscation Act.
He signed the Second Confiscation Act.
All of these law bore his signature, and all granted freedom the affected slaves.
Those are the facts.
Then he signed the Emancipation Proclamation, which eventually brought freedom to nearly two million slaves as the Union Army advanced. It is simply a lie to say the Proclamation freed no slaves. It freed slaves even on the day it was signed, as it was read to slaves in Union camps on the Outer Banks of the Carolinas and to other slaves in Union military camps at midnight on January 1st, 1863. It enabled 180,000 freed African Americans to fight for their own freedom and that all slaves.
Finally, Lincoln supported the Thirteenth Amendment, ran for reelection on it, and lobbied its passage through Congress. His signature is on ceremonial copies sent to the states (even though not required by the Constitution), and a signed copy is on display at the Library of Congress website.
Lincoln signature is on all the legal documents that freed the slaves in America.
So nothing will ever educate Larry.
But the readers of the Turley blog should appreciate the real history.
As to Liberia, Lincoln supported voluntary, not mandatory, emigration of freed slaves, only if slaves consented, because of his despair at the rampant racism in the country. He never supported forced deportation. When African American leaders declined the proposal, Lincoln dropped it.
This is the most pathetic: “But when SEVEN states initially secede and then MORE do afterward, that should take precedent over the picture youre trying to paint [that just a few people dont consent]”
Just a few people?
There were four million enslaved people in the confederacy.
Larry:
““Well, the South did NOT consent what Lincoln had done [force high tariffs on the South] so when Southerners began their lack of consent, that’s when Lincoln lost his power because his power ONLY comes “from the consent of the governed”——that means essentially that it was LINCOLN, NOT the South who dissolved the Union FIRST. Where am I wrong on this?”
*******************
Larry you’re wrong in so many ways, I’ll just point out three:
First, “consent of the governed” doesn’t mean you may pick any old issue with which you disagree and then, after voicing your displeasure, stomp off with your marbles and secede. Nothing in the Constitution requires unanimous agreement by the states and they may not secede just because they do not get their individual way. That’s sandbox government which apparently is to your liking.
Second, the “South” didn’t do anything. Slave populations in the South were not consulted on the question to secede, neither were women, indentured servants, or non-land owning males. The “South” you refer to was an oligarchy of southern planters whose world was threatened because they could no longer rely on cheap slave labor to make and maintain their fortunes. They were the “Cotton Cartel” much like Mexico’s “Drug Cartels” and, again like the Mexican desperadoes, they were armed, angry,and arrogant. Toss “stupid” into that mix and you’ll get a fight every time as any bar tender will tell you.
Third, you are wrong precisely because Lincoln never dissolved the Union. To the contrary, he fought to save it. A bunch of crackpot yahoos with their own personal interests front and center did that and they got the fate of all revolutionaries who act for their own interests alone. This was no war about freedom or rights; it was crass self-interest pure and simple, and that time honored adage about pigs and hogs was “honored” one more time. Too bad it deluded (and destroyed) lots of naive Southern peons about the real causes of war and continues to delude current Southerners about their own history.
Larry: In fact, as I have already said numerous times as well, there were EIGHT (8) slave states in the NORTH (and more slaves) than the South’s SEVEN (7) slave states
citation please
Observer—–I guess you either wasnt around or just IGNORED the 6 or 7 times Ive already posted that slavery WAS CONSTITUTIONAL AFTER THE DRED SCOTT DECISION IN 1857!! Ive said this over and over, only to be ignored over and over. Besides, why do you ONLY mention the SOUTHERN slaves when you attempt to make your point about “slaves didnt consent”??? The NORTH had slaves too—-and they were allowed to KEEP their slaves! In fact, as I have already said numerous times as well, there were EIGHT (8) slave states in the NORTH (and more slaves) than the South’s SEVEN (7) slave states. Why are you ignoring the NORTHERN slaves???
Hmmmmm????
Why would the South be angry at the government or Lincoln over an issue [slavery] that was ALREADY GRANTED TO THEM UNDER THE CONSTITUTION????
Why do ALL of you KEEP mentioning slavery even AFTER I post quotes from LINCOLN HIMSELF that clearly state that he was PRO-SLAVERY??? Lincoln said in his first inaugural that he had NO INTENTION ON INTERFERING WITH SOUTHERN SLAVERY and that even if he did, it would be UNCONSTITUTIONAL to do so!!!! And you morons KEEP MENTIONING SLAVERY!
BBB said:
“Having consented to be governed does not mean that the people will always agree with the decisions of those who govern, only that those who govern have been granted that authority.”
No shit sherlock. But when SEVEN states initially secede and then MORE do afterward, that should take precedent over the picture youre trying to paint [that just a few people dont consent]. These were entire states in a secession movement saying NO to a government and president that was killing their economy and export industry by excessively high protectionist tariffs. You make it sound like just a few people can get together and refuse a law by the federal government and because that few doesnt consent, they can nullify the government’s mandate. These were entire states [I might add (again) that were free, independent and sovereign] that according to our founders had MORE authority than the federal government, because the founders clearly stated that the ONLY power the federal government is SUPPOSED to have are the powers DELEGATED to them by the states. The people in Washington do not even have the POWER to make the decisions unless the people CONSENT to it. So, Lincoln dissolved the Union FIRST, so his claim that he was “saving the Union” was utterly absurd. Get it now??
“Let me tell you something I learned about pissing contests: Stay out of them unless you can eliminate or control the wind.”
All of you get hit by piss every single time you fail [intentionally] to refute what I say. NONE of you answered my question that I posted for Mespo. In fact, NONE of my questions have been answered by anyone. All I get are posts like yours that basically resort to some ad hominem attack or resorting to some silly one-liner meant to demean me—-but I notice that no one ever REFUTES me.
Larry,
(I’m not taking sides, but please allow me to present my observations.)
The consent to be governed was formally granted by ratification of the U.S. Constitution. Prior to that, it was by the Articles of Confederation. Subsequent generations have provided tacit consent.
Having consented to be governed does not mean that the people will always agree with the decisions of those who govern, only that those who govern have been granted that authority.
Your words come across as though you are in some kind of “pissing contest”, in which you expect someone in authority to declare the winner.
Let me tell you something I learned about pissing contests: Stay out of them unless you can eliminate or control the wind. If you don’t, you only have yourself to blame when people laugh as your own urine is blown back at you.
Repeat. “Larry, just when and how did the four million slaves held in the confederated states “consent” to be governed by their slavemasters?”
Larry cannot weasel out of this one. The lad is hoist by his own petard.
Larry brought it up when he asked if “Southerners did NOT CONSENT, does that NOT mean that Lincoln and the government has no power, since their power is derived from the people’s CONSENT?”
By his own argument, the slaveowners must have also lost their power to govern, because their power also derived from the people’s consent, but their enslaved peoples never in fact consented at any time to be governed by their overlords.
Blouise, 🙂
anon nurse,
Larry has a lot of pearls in his satchel … we are but swine …
Thanks for the appropriate quotation, Blouise, as well as your comment.
Larry, just when and how did the four million slaves held in the confederated states “consent” to be governed by their slavemasters?
Larry,
I don’t really expect you to get the point … in fact you’ll probably view what follows in exactly the opposite but I will never-the-less persevere:
“… O would some Power, the gift to give us,
To see ourselves as others see us!
It would from many a blunder free us, …” (Robert Burns)
I will address this to you personally mespo, since you think you’re so smart.
I asked above:
“Well, the South did NOT consent what Lincoln had done [force high tariffs on the South] so when Southerners began their lack of consent, that’s when Lincoln lost his power because his power ONLY comes “from the consent of the governed”——that means essentially that it was LINCOLN, NOT the South who dissolved the Union FIRST. Where am I wrong on this?”
Where am I wrong mespo? If Southerners did NOT CONSENT, does that NOT mean that Lincoln and the government has no power, since their power is derived from the people’s CONSENT?
Elaine M., (& Mike)
My husband and I spent some time in New Mexico 4 years ago and I fell in love with the state. We even contemplated retiring there and would have had we been able to take all the grandkids with us.