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)
Observer said:
“If he [me] 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.”
Larry said: “The slaves were NOT citizens [per the Dred Scott decision]. Jesus, you all really know NOTHING about the Dred Scott case, do you? If they are not citizens, then the Constitution isn’t applicable to them. The issue of slavery was Constitutional [from 1857-1865] but to individual slaves, it was not.”
Sorry, Larry. The slaves may not have been citizens, but they were “governed” by their slavemasters.
The issue is not whether slaves or former slaves could be citizens. The issue is whether, as persons, they were governed without consent.
Larry did not maintain that governments derive their power from the consent of the “citizens” but from the consent of the “governed.” The slaves were governed without their consent.
The southern slavemasters, on the other hand, had in fact consented to be governed by the United States when they ratified the Constitution. I read in the earlier Civil War thread that they could have validly and legally withdrawn this consent by amending the Constitution under the process in Article V, but they never did so, and the Constitution made no provision for “secession.”
Larry cannot even recall what he himself wrote.
larry might be right
1, November 10, 2010 at 7:06 am
Thank you for your correction. However an angle cannot be perpendicular as it is formed from perpendicular lines. The correct term would be right angle or 90 degree angle.
=============================================================
Angle absolutist!
Larry:
are you a slavery apologist? It doesn’t seem so to me. Seems more like you are for a smaller central government and are trying to make your point using the civil war.
Let me know if I have that right.
Fight on, brave Larry! The South will rise again. Plant yeast!!
Oh no.
Thank you,/i> Larry.
I thought I was going to have to go all week without a slavery apologist to laugh at.
Thank you for your correction. However an angle cannot be perpendicular as it is formed from perpendicular lines. The correct term would be right angle or 90 degree angle.
C Everett Kook
Your Lincoln quotes mean nothing. Like I said, he talked out both sides of his mouth. He said anti-slavery and anti-racist things around people he wanted political support from and the opposite around those who felt the same way he did.
Here’s a quote you missed from Lincoln:
“My paramount objective in this struggle is to save the Union, and it is not either to save or destroy slavery.”
That quote pretty much contradicts the ones you listed, doesnt it? Of course it does, because Lincoln, being the skilled, master of political rhetoric [and former lawyer], always knew how to say the right things to the right people and the wrong things to those who held his same views. That way, everyone is happy….he’s all things to all men and his political support grew and grew because of it.
If I lived in a day where there is no media, no video cameras, no YouTube, no cell phones, no tape recorders, no TV’s, etc….. Of course, to gain votes I will go to certain states and say “I support… this and that” and gain their support—then I will go to another state and say I support what they support even if it completely contradicted what I just said in the previous state. All they had back then were newspapers and we all know how long it took for stories/events to hit the papers.
Observer said:
“If he [me] 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.”
The slaves were NOT citizens [per the Dred Scott decision]. Jesus, you all really know NOTHING about the Dred Scott case, do you? If they are not citizens, then the Constitution isn’t applicable to them. The issue of slavery was Constitutional [from 1857-1865] but to individual slaves, it was not.
James M. said “The Declaration of Independence is a guiding document, but doesn’t have any legal effect.”
I agree with that, but that flies in the face of Observer’s attempt of refuting my point that “governments derive their powers from the consent of the governed” because since the DOI is not a legal document, then whether it applied to slaves for legal purposes of the South’s secession is a mute point.
Since I refuted your claim that slaves would have had to consent [they wouldn’t have because their NOT citizens and the DOI is not a legal document] that makes your main point of “consent of the governed” invalid.
“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.”
Wow, there’s more holes in that paragraph than swiss cheese. You call keeping stars on the flag the sole litmus test that you’re NOT dissolving the union? God, that makes my ribs hurt, I’m laughing so hard. What about shredding the Constitution by all the things I listed in my above post to mespo? He “maintained” that all the states remain in the union? And what gave him that authority since his just powers must come from the consent of the governed? {I refer back to the New Englanders referring to the Kentucky Resolve of 1798 and nearly seceding in 1814—–which their RIGHT to secede was never in question]. “Without legitimate governments”?? Exactly what IS government according to the founders? Did you miss me saying that the ONLY powers that the Federal government is supposed to have comes from those powers that the STATES delegate to them?
“First, it held that an African American descended from African slaves could not be a citizen of the United States”——-not ONLY the descendents but the ORIGINAL slaves as well—–which includes the 4 million slaves you just mentioned above that needed to “give consent” [but they were not citizens, so their consent didn’t count]. And I don’t know the Dred Scott case???? OMG.
Lincoln was a master at political rhetoric. At times he made anti-slavery and anti-racist remarks because he knew [like any politician] that to gain political support, he had to be all things to all people [and this was very easy to do in his day because of the lack of TV’s, cameras, YouTube, and a mainstream media that could have instantly ruined Lincoln if he had ever blatantly made a racist or pro-slavery comment in front of the wrong people]. It was much easier in his day to be racist because the majority of the country was racist, so Lincoln was just sharing the same sentiment the rest of the country had. Because you can recite a anti-slavery or anti-racist comment made by Lincoln here and there means nothing. His ACTIONS is what the true measure of a man is, and Lincoln’s true nature was PRO-slavery and racist.
Lincoln’s idol all his life was SLAVEOWNER Henry Clay. Clay and Lincoln were opposed to slavery “on principle” but deep down supported it heavily. As a lawyer he never, ever defended a runaway slave, but he DID defend one slaveowner….Robert Matson.
The top abolitionist at that time was William Lloyd Garrison—and Garrison once said of Lincoln, “[Lincoln] had not one drop of anti-slavery blood in his veins.”
You said:
“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”
That’s a lie. Lincoln’s EXACT quote reads: “I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery IN THE STATES WHERE IT EXISTS. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.”
Another huge reason why Lincoln supported slavery was because Lincoln and the Republican leaders feared that the freed slaves would reside in their own Northern states, and being the racist Lincoln was, he could not have that. Lincoln’s own state of Illinois had recently amended its constitution to prohibit the emigration of black people into the state—as well as several other Northern states. Black Codes existed in the north LONG before they existed in the south. Lincoln was only opposed to the EXTENSION of slavery, not of slavery itself. He didn’t want free or slave black men coming North and taking their jobs and living among them in their own homes that were there for the white race.
Mespo said:
“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.”
According to you, it means if entire states do not consent and are willing to secede over the issue in question, then “consent of the governed” [to you] means “who gives a fuck what the people have to say about it? We are the all powerful federal government and we are going to INVADE them and KILL them if they disobey!” Funny, as I have already mentioned twice now [which you keep ignoring] the Kentucky Resolve of 1798 in which Jefferson clearly stated the states have the right to secede. When New Englanders rejected Jefferson’s trade embargo in the early 1800’s, did Jefferson invade them and kill them? Even when the New Englanders met in 1814 and discussed secession from the Union, NO ONE questioned their RIGHT to secede nor did Jefferson endorse attacking them.
“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.”
What about the slave populations in the NORTH? For some strange reason, you always OMIT the Northern slaves. Why is that? Slaves were not citizens as a result of the Dred Scott decision, maybe that’s why their consent didn’t matter. You have to be a CITIZEN first. “Observer” said [in his post under yours] that ONLY the descendants of African American slaves were not citizens. That is FALSE. The original slaves that were imported into the US were also not citizens.
You completely contradict yourself when you say “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”. Oh, but wait a minute. How were the Southerners “threatened” when Lincoln ADMITTED that he could not do ANYTHING Constitutionally to interfere with Southern slavery? That brings me to precisely my point: Lincoln could NOT do anything to interfere constitutionally, that’s why he had to IGNORE the Constitution to end slavery [IF the main issue was slavery], but it was NOT. Lincoln’s real agenda was two-fold: To enforce the high protectionist tariffs on the South, and to create a centralized, all powerful government that destroy states rights. I’ve said this time and time again but you keep ignoring, ignoring, ignoring: Answer this question————– Why would Southerners feel THREATENED when under the Constitution [as a result of Dred Scott] they were constitutionally PERMITTED to have slaves??
“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.”
This entire paragraph is your personal OPINION. Are you trying to say that tariffs and states rights had NOTHING to do with the South’s secession? I will repeat: SLAVERY WAS CONSTITUTIONAL IN 1857————–why do you keep ignoring this???
Lincoln never dissolved the Union? How did he save it? Did he save it by his successful acts of any/all of the following?:
1. Suspension of Habeas Corpus throughout his entire presidency
2. Had his military imprison tens of thousands of NORTHERN political critics and opponents without due process
3. Censored all telegraph communication
4. Shut down over 300 opposition newspapers
5. Imprisoned dozens of duly elected officials of the state of Maryland
6. Participated in the rigging of Northern elections
7. Waged war without the consent of Congress
8. Illegally created a new state [West Virginia]
9. Deported the most outspoken member of the Democratic opposition, Congressman Clement L. Vallandigham of Ohio
Yes, all this was done to “save the Union” and be the “great emancipator” and be “peaceful”.
…And then there’s Sharron Angle who confronted her own frustration angle …
James M. and Larry might be right,
Thanks for your responsive comments. I’ll be happy to reply to them in the AM. Unfortunately, a friend is leaving town (moving) and has deemed it my duty to assist him with eating all the boiled shrimp and liquor he has on hand.
Wish me luck. 🙂
And some like me are L7…
Good catch Buddha.
BIL:
”
“Namely men are not angles.”
No, but many are obtuse and some are perpendicular.”
*********************
LOL, LOL. LOL
LOL
LOL
LOL
“Namely men are not angles.”
No, but many are obtuse and some are perpendicular.
BBB,
I guess that reply was to the technical aspect of your post. Conceptually, I’m fine with things the way they are. The district courts are going to have to be the first ones to hear these cases, and they are going to have to come up with decisions. The question then becomes, how far reaching are their decisions? As it stands now, they aren’t binding on other districts. Would you really be happier if one district court could bind all the other courts in the country?
BBB:
not to be contentious, but aren’t you relying on the very thing (I think it was Madison) the founders worried about? Namely men are not angles. To trust all men in positions of power to act in accordance with the Constitution is a long stretch in light of the facts I posted above about the Alien and Sedition Act.
Isn’t the very intent of the Constitution to limit the power of men over other men? Aren’t the people ultimately responsible for their freedom? You seem to think the peoples liberty resides in the conscience of good, incorruptible men. Would that it were so.
BBB,
the District Court and Circuit Court of Appeals have no personal jurisdiction over another branch of government.
Article III gives the Supreme Court appellate (but not original) jurisdiction over cases arising under the constitution and laws of the United States, and those in which the United States is a party.
Congress has given original jurisdiction for various types of cases to the district courts. E.g. 28 U.S.C. 1331 provides the district courts with original jurisdiction in “federal question” cases. “The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. 1345 provides for original jurisdiction when the United States is a plaintiff
and 1346 provides for certain situations in which the United States is a defendant.
Personal jurisdiction against the government in a U.S. district court is not an issue.
James M,
I find U.S. District and Circuit Courts that invalidate Acts of Legislature to be just as bad as having state courts do the same. Our federal laws must be uniform in application. The decisions of the district court are only binding on the parties before them (That is the parties in which the court has personal jurisdiction. In my opinion, the District Court and Circuit Court of Appeals have no personal jurisdiction over another branch of government. They have no authority to permanently enjoin).
I believe that only a court who decisions are controlling on all other courts should have the authority to permanently enjoin the government. They can do so by direct act, or by refusing to enforce the law by considering it void.
I would love to see more continuity in our legal system.
larry might be right,
You misunderstood the reason I directed you to the Supremacy Clause. It instructs judges to follow the law, and when combined with the clarity added by Marshall in Marbury it makes sure the constitution is supreme.
The idea that the legislature cannot exceed the authority granted them by the Constitution was not something brand new. There had been cases of judicial review in New Jersey, Virginia and Connecticut prior to Marbury. Wythe, Marshall’s mentor had exercised the power in Virginia.
You might find this to be of interest. I’m pretty sure that Sam Adams is the author. It appeared in the Boston Gazzette in 1772.
http://books.google.com/books?id=pBBBwSTwdrEC&lpg=PP1&dq=The%20writs%20of%20assistance%20case&pg=PA485#v=onepage&q&f=false
(I hope the link takes you to page 485.)