crooktooth said:
Perhaps. But a declaration by the Court that Virginia was sovereign way back in 1776 doesn't support your point, either, now does it?
Actually it does support the grounds i enterd it, since Lincolns legal posistion on secession is that secession not exist as a right that a state had, and that what had happened was rebelion, to do this requires that sov does not reside in the states who secceded, (sov cannot rebel) lincolns posistion is that no state was sov outside the Union and that the Union is sov and gave sov to the states. I enterd it in another thread to show SCOTUS rulling showing that Sov resides in the state in respect of its ability to leave a vol enterd Union, had never delegated this right and SCOTUS had confirmed this in rullings showing states were sov before the DOI, after the DOI, before and after the AoC and adoption of the Consituition and the sov states created the Union and gave it sov where delegated.
I think ill ask when you think the states lost their sov rights to leave the Union. when and where did this occur if you please.
The Constituition does not grant all Sov to the Union at all in any clause, (KY and Va resolution amke this very clear) it deliantates where sov resides in enmarated articles of the constituition, sov is shared in totatality between state and where delgated to the gov, and where not, but each is paramout in the area delegated or retained to the states who created the Union. If all sov was delegated, their would be no need to list those which were and those which were not, and we know "all sov" was not delegated because that was a motion at the PA convention and didnt even get a second to move onto debate, and the Aoc and Constituition says sov not delgated resides with the states or people.
The essential guarantee that power will remain divided is that sovereignty is divided; this was the tacit agreement on which the federal compact was achieved. And sovereignty in turn gives the right to secede. Only the concentration of all sovereignty in the national government could negate that right. On the other hand, an easy certainty of the exercise of that right could have led to an early loss of all the goods of federal union. The Constitution was silent on this issue in part, in order to maintain the tension between federal and state power---a tension which could be broken only by shattering the federal union or by so concentrating power at the center that separation of powers was fundamentally undermined---and with it the genius of the Constitution in its defense of liberty. Now Madison uses acede in KY resolutions, theis acede is the oposite to seccede, but the chose of wording is an indication of what the mans thought process were.
The AoC under which the case says "Each state retains its sov, freedom and independence, and every power, jurisdiction and right which is not expressly delegated to the United states in congress assembled." Thats why the case went to SCOTUS because VA had not expressly delgated this power to Congress. In the Constituition you have the tenth amendment to the same effect.
crooktooth said:
Again, the Court found that the whole nature of the state changed, not just the state's ability to regulate commerce. I'll repeat; whole nature. For some reason you neglect to mention that.
This is one of those examples you want, and im happy to provide to clarify, in respect of interstate commerce, congress under the constituition is where sov rests, if you look at the constituitional clause it exempts nav waterways, hence the reason for the case comming to court, SCOTUS rules because it had authority to do so, under the judicaiary act, that the entire nature had changed is concerned to the constituition clause gave Congress this right to regulate. Thats all the langauge refers to, it does not addressee the nature of sov to mean absolute sov resides in congress, just the oposite, because it goes on to deall with this subject at length later as a seperate issue and afirms that sov resides in the states except where expressly delegated, just as you would expect since the constituition says that. It, the case, expansivly says that Congress is where sov rests in respect of nav waterways, just was you would expect concidering the clause in the Constituition of interstate commerce, but it was not explicity delegated in the Constituition and so the issue went to SCOTUS, its really quite simple really, and ive explained it so at some length already, and this is one example of confusion on your part that i take exception to and comment on. You cannot comprehend the written word, its really that simple.
Back to your inability to comprehend what the case says is revealled in your repeating that which the court says the oposite, despite my quite lengthy expalnation as to what the court is addressing and why.
How do we know the court says the oposiste without even reading the case?, because J Davis in his work lists the SCOTUS cases showing Sov in respect of states having never been delgated to congress or Scotus, lists this case amongst others, as does Bledsoe (Davis con lawyer who represents him) who enterd this and other cases as part of Davisis pre trial defence, its the list of such SCOTUS rulling along with other arguments that caused the administration to not bring the case to trial, in law you cannot show secession as unconstituitional, Bledsoes book "Was davis a traitor" list this as one such SCOTUS rulling, as does Stephens (Constituitional vies of the WBTS) also list this and others, Ware v Hylton which you say say sov no longer existed in the sates, as legal argument for secession.
Now the essential point here is your not aware of the legal arguments the secessionist themselves use to support their claim to be legally allowed to secceded, because if you were you would not make the claims you have, as the cases they enter are two of the same you say say the oposite, its not that you are unaware of SCOTUS cases, although you cited Ware and Ogden to show sov was no longer held by VA in 1861, they dont btw, its that you aparantly believe that SCOTUS rulling VA no longer sov in respect of nav waterways ment it was not sov in any other matter either, when reading either case shows your inability to comprehend what the court rulled on and actually said. Now im sorry you feel upset i point this out, and ill simply say, when somone says 2+2=5 and gets upset when someone else tells them its not, its 4., they being upset at having your ignorance pointed out is no different than anothers at you argueing that no it really is 5. Now back to SCOTUS, this is not a difference in what those cases mean by what they say, its much more basic, again like 2+2=4, if we look at ware v Hylton.
"In june, 1776, the convention of virginia formally decalred that Virginia was a free, Sov and independent state, and that on the 4 th July 1776, followed the Unirted states in Congress assembeled declared that the 13 United colinies were free and independednt states, as that as such they had the full power to levy war, conclude peace etc. I consider this declaration, not that the United staes jointly in a collective capacity were independednt statesetc, but that each of them was a sov and independednt state, that is that each of them had a right to govern itself by its own authority and its own law without any control from any power on earth."
I expalined that lincolns claim that Va had no sov at all except in the Union, and that the Union gave sov to the states, is false acording to SCOTUS, (let alone the historical record) it (all states) had it before DOI, it had it after DOI, it had it under the AOC and delgated some portions to congress, and retained all others to itself, this relationship did not change with the adoption of the constituition, at no time had or has any state delegated that right away, it simply is unable to do so. I further explained that SCOTUS cannot rule on the sov of a state, when you said that SCOTUS has this power delegated to it, this is another example you want btw, you said the following:-
"The Supreme Court CAN'T lose jurisdiction over any constitutional issue. The only constitutional way for another branch of government to amend a Supreme Court decision is to amend the laws the Court used to make the decision. In the case of constitutional matters, this can only be done by amending the Constitution. The Court has the same jurisdiction over secession today that it had in 1869."
"The standard legal case referred to on the matter is Texas vs. White, decided by the US Supreme Court in 1869. In it, the Court held "the Union to be indestructable and, thus, not dissoluble by any act of a state, the government, or the people."
"To this day, Texas vs. White remains the law of the land." "it doesn't stand as legal precedent for nearly 150 years, as this case has."
Now i expalined at length that SCOTUS under the judiacary act of 1789 does not posses the power to rule on a states sov, if it did there would be no need for constituition, because SCOTUS would simply overule it, tell a state what rights it did or did not have and change its mind depending on who was apointed by the pres to sit in SCOTUS. And the people who created these black robed demons would sit and wonder what rights they would come and tell them they had or had not, and think, gee i wish we hadnt given them all the power, its almost like our creation is now our master. Now there is no reason why you should be aware of the judiciary act and its provision, but since you argued and state the cleary the oposite of it, you get upset that i point out you do not comprehend my written word, my words are not good enough?, well maybee, but if you were aware of the subject matter you would not amke the argumemnts you do make, as they are 2+2=5 arguments. You have said repetadily "Realistically, if either Massachussets or Rhode Island tried to secede, their action would be ruled unconstitutional." to which i had already pointed out that SCOTUS under the judiciary act has no such authority to do and citied two case where it said so.
Only on BB do the ignorant use Texas/white to argue as you have done, yes this is another of those examples, you asked for.
Lets remind ourself what the FF said when they created SCOTUS, look at what Hamilton and Webster said, let alone the southern leaders, look at what each state said when considering the merits of mebership of the AoC of the Union, its clear they had no doubt that they created the Union and gave it some of their sov powers, retained all others not delagated, and could resume them at the will of the people.
Madison and Jefferson are very clear in the Ky resolutions;_
"Resolved, that the several states comprising the United States of America are not united on principle of unlimited submission to the general govermnet, but that, by compact, under the style and title of the Constituition of the USA and amendments therto, they constituited agovernment for special purposes, delgating to that government certain powers, resrving to each state to itself its residuary mass of of right to theirm own self government, and that, whensover the generaql government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthorative, void and of no force, that to this compact each state acceded as a state, and is a an integral party, that then government created by this compact was not made the exclusive or final judge of then powers delegated to itself, since that would have made its descretion and not the constituition, the measure of its powers, but that, as in cases of compact among powers having no common judge, each party has an equal right vto judge for itself, as well as infractions as of the mode of redress."
SCOTUS cant lose what has never had, the power to overule a states sov except in the spheres those states delgated that sov to do so, no state ever delegated to SCOTUS or congress powers except those expressly delegated. The right for SCOTUS to tell a state it no longer exist does not reside with SCOTUS because only limited ereas of remit were delegated for it to rule on, SCOTUS has said this and i have listed two cases already. Nor does SCOTUS have the authority to tell a state it cannot leave the Union, SCOTUS exists as a creation of the will of the people, and cannot tell them what rights they have, only rule in disputes between the people where SCOTUS has been delgated authority to do so.
crooktooth said:
Really? Legendary? Is there some legend about my English usage that I'm not aware of? Please elaborate. Elaborate, or withdraw the comment as a gratuitous personal insult.
Aswered in body of post.
crooktooth said:
Ah, more personal insults. Your usual response when you've been out-argued, HB
.
Out argued?, really you are to funny, you enter two cases that secesionist use to support the legal posistion for secession because they show sov still rested in the state, as evidence that sov no longer rested with the states, now you think its insulting for me to point that out and comment on it, but it says much more about your understanding of the written word than it does any arguement i could make. Its also revealling how you see the exchange though, as if i or you can convince another to change his opinion against his will by argument.
I took the time to expalin much more than was needed to you, none of which you took any notice of and continued to argue points, despite quite adequate replys, you ignore points and return later to argue the same point as though the answer had never been given. This to you is outargueing?.
You think SCOTUS can rule on a states right to leave the Union. I say look at what the judiacary act says SCOTUS can rule on.
You say texas v White is legal precedent, i say cite a case where its used as precedent.
you say "To this day, Texas vs. White remains the law of the land." to which i said only on BB do you see this nonsense posted, its hard to be more wrong.
You repeat with "Realistically, if either Massachussets or Rhode Island tried to secede, their action would be ruled unconstitutional." i say again, read what it can and cannot rule on.
You say "The US Constitution has precedence over state constitutions, after all." i say only where the constituition is granted specificly those powers.
you say "Really? Where in the Constitution is this "guarantee"? in asking where does equal rights exist in respect of the constituition to all states possesing a right only the people have, i say Article IV Section 2. The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. yoe come back with "This guarantees equality of rights of Citizens. You claimed equality of rights of States. Your claim of equal rights between states remains unproven.", to which i say the right of secession exist with the people, not the state. you still dont get it and come back with "To flatly equate states with individuals is patently ridiculous; individuals are far more than just citizens of a state. In other words, you still haven't made your point." i repeat the right of secession exist with the people. just why dont you know where the right of secesion exists?, kind of important that dont you think?. No wonder you dont know what that clause pertains to, you didnt know where the right of secession exits with the people not the state, and certainly you did not know where in the Constituition before the 14th Amendement, individual rights for people were protected, sheesh could you exhibit any worse understanding of the subject matter?.
you say again "The Supreme Court CAN'T lose jurisdiction over any constitutional issue." i say only where the judiciary act says it can arbitrate can it do so, but nowhere else.
you say "The Court has the same jurisdiction over secession today that it had in 1869." i say it still does not have any jurisdiction.
you say "Texas vs. White), it doesn't stand as legal precedent for nearly 150 years, as this case has." i said nonsense and cite a case.
You say "The question isn't Virginia's sovereign status in 1776. It's Virginia's sovereign status in 1861. And in 1861, Virginia wasn't sovereign." i say in respect of the right of secession she and all sates was still sov along with all other non delgated sov powers not exprssely delegated.
now on may 24 1860 US Congress passed7 resolutions, the first of which says:
"resolved, that, in adoption of the fedral constituition, the states adopting the same acted severally as free independednt sov, delgating a portion of their powersw to be excercised by the federal government for the increased security of each aginst dangers , domestic and as well as forgien, and that any intermeddelling by any one of the states, or combination of their citizens, withthe domestic instituitions of the others, on any pretext whotsoever, politicaly , morally or religious, with a view to their subversion or disturbence, is in violation of the constituition, insilting to the state so interfered with, endagers their reace and tranquility--objects for which the constituition was formed--and, by necessary consequence, tends to weaken and destroy the union itself."
Passed by house and senate. It follows then that in 1860 congress agreed that all sates were free and sov, had delgated sov only where expicitly mentioned in the constituition, retained it in all other matters, and that the Union could be destroyed. how could it be destroyed?, well in the PA debates the FF said when only two states were left in the Union the union would still exist, kinda odd the FF thought states could leave untill only two remain, as lincoln said states could not. but since the FF made sure their was no constituitional power for the federal government to coerce a state by use of mil force, to make sure a state could seccede peacfully, its no wonder Buchannon and the countrys attorny general said there was no such power vested in the national government when the cotton states secceded to use force on them to prevent them.
And you think you have out argued me?. Its a comical thought which i thank you for sharing, now if you have the time obtain a good book on the constituition and have a read, and then re read what you have posted here. Try Forrest McDonald "states rights and the Union 1776 -1876". Or J R Graham "A constituitional history of Secession", of a Stephens "A Constituitional history of the WBTS" and you will find that what i have said is perfcectly correct, you on the other hand, well lets just say when your more familiar with the subject matter, you will see your posts in a whole new light, like when someone relises 2+2=4 not five, and why. BTW on another thread you asked if bob Hoskins in Enemy at the Gates etc, my advice is not to get your comprehension of history from Holywood, as it tends to make the point you dont know what your talking about, because they make works of fiction, not history.
crooktooth said:
What's your point? By your interpretation, the South seceded to protect the institution of slavery from what they considered Northern hostility. By your own words, you've conceded that the South's cause was not human liberty, but human bondage.
What i pointed out was that the North did not go to war to end slavery, that the cottons states left to preserve their constituitional rights, which include to decide the legal status of men in bondage, as the law said they could.
The cotton states indeed left to preserve the right, to determine for themselves the fate of slavery in their states, thats my intpretation because thats what they actually said the would and did do. My words echo their words.
You enterd Southern morality, post 20, i pointed out the north did not goto war on moral grounds, in reply it went on political and economic ones, youraparant intent was to claim the moral high ground for the North, ground that did not exist, one point is to remind you on what grounds the two sides said they went to war for and over.
crooktooth said:
My god, what hypocricy, HB! In one sentence you make two claims. First you say that "the people" (you mean white people, of course) of the South had an inalienable right to abolish their Government, including its Constitution. Second, you claim that Southerners were guaranteed their "property rights" (i.e. to hold the blacks in slavery) under the same Constitution! On the one hand you dismiss the Constitution when it infringes on the liberties of the Southern whites. On the other, you invoke the Constitution to dismiss the liberties of the Southern blacks.
Examples of inability to comprehend the written word coming upn as per your request.
crooktooth said:
In one sentence you make two claims. First you say that "the people" (you mean white people, of course) of the South had an inalienable right to abolish their Government, including its Constitution.
Already answerd this, but i will do so again since you changed the issue to include morality.
Free white people, as rulled by SCOTUS, thats who the FF ment, free white people.
Inalianble right to change or abolish the form of government, as claimed by the DOI as the central tenent of republican government, that any peoples institute governments on the consent of the people to be governed, the people are free white people, people of a state not in the agregate, because thats what the FF sayed they ment, as SCOTUS said thats who can alter or abolish the constituition.
What does this have to do with morality?, its a legal issue, you cannot legislate moraility, anyway the church teaches us that all wars are morally evil, but that some wars are less so. A war of self defense, acording to the church is morally aceptable, lawfull defense of property is a moral war, particulry when both sides posistion in law is that negros are property, and at the time the north made no claim to having gone to war to end slavery, instead Lincoln passed into law the original 13 amendment gaurenteing perpetualy slavery where it existed, saving the Union ment retaining and protecting slavery in 61.
He (lincoln) said when he had the chance to veto the 13th that gaurenteed in perpetuality slavery in the states where it existed, "To the effect that the federal government shall never interfere with the domestic instituition of the states, including that of persons held to service, i have no objection to its becoming express and irecrevacble." And then sent it to the States for ratification.
So what was the moral posistion of the abolishionsts?, a bunch so extreme as to make OBL look like a moderate.
Rev Sloane of NY wrote to the newspapers for publication of what he preached from the pulpit on hearing the EP.
"It is better that the 6 millions of white men, women and children in the south be slaughterd than that slavery should not be extinguished. I afirm that is is better, far better that every man women and child in every rebel state should perish in one widspread, bloody indiscrimante slaughter, better that the land should be a sahara, be it as when destroyed the cananites or overthrow Sodom and Gormorah, than that this rebelion should be succesful."
No wonder lincoln kept the abolishonist element at arms length, with fanatics like that on your side who needs enimies?, his friends were bad enough, in the original draft of the EP there is a para calling for the then now free negros "to take up arms and rise in insurection against their former masters". Licoln deleted it on the grounds that the attitude of forgien nations would "cause a problem" when he urged the now free slaves to take up arms.
The moral issue of the EP is to gift freedom to those blacks in the south, to do this as a war measure is required because under the law he had no legal power to do so, and the penalty for doing so under the existing law was death by hanging for insitment to servile insurection, just as JB was tried for.
If morality was a major concern he would have freed slaves where he had the legal authority to do so, he did not do so, he is quite clear on the *why* of the EP, to save the Union, freeing some, none or all was secondry to saving the Union, at the time he was only concerned with mil need, those slaves were what was keeping the Souith going, if insurrections broke out so much the better. That they did not is ample evidence that the condition of slavery was not as portrayed by the abolishinists, to be sure the short life of a cane harvestor was beyond description, but they were not representative of the system. N B Forrest after Chikamauga freed his slaves, he had a large number of them as teamsters and blacksmiths in his command, after freedom they all stayed on as teamsters and blacksmiths, at wars end they and he returned to his plantation and worked the land, or rather they worked and he payed them. M C Boykin diary of war tells us that despite the debt the family found itself in post war, they still provided for the plantations 17 free negros, despite no legal obligation to do so since they were then free, but had a moral obligation, to what she describes as her friends since chidhood, care was given untill death as under state law which no longer had legal weight.
Are these just exceptions to the rule?,
In the late 1930s, the Works Project Administration of the U.S. Government collected the testimonies of former slaves throughout the South which are preserved in the Slave Narratives in the National Archives of Washington, D.C. The vast majority of those interviewed had fond memories of their masters and mistresses on Southern plantations. For example, Tom Douglas, a former slave of Alabama, stated, "Slavery times wuz sho good times. We [/QUOTE]wuz fed an' clothed an' had nothin' to worry about." Simon Phillips of Alabama said, "People has the wrong idea of slave days. We was treated good. My massa never laid a hand on me the whole time I was wid him.... Sometime we loaned the massa money when he was hard pushed." Gus Brown of Richmond, Virginia remembered his former master back in Alabama with these words: "I cannot forget old massa. He was good and kind. He never believed in slavery, but his money was tied up in slaves and he didn't want to lose all he had. I knows I will see him in heaven and even though I have to walk ten miles for a bite of bread, I can still be happy to think about the good times we had then." Exhibiting a profound sadness about the results of the forced "emancipation" brought about by the North, Mary Rice, of Alabama said, "I was happy all de time in slavery days, but dere ain't much to git happy over now." James Gill of Arkansas likewise testified, "...[A]ll dem good times ceasted atter a while when de War come and de Yankees started all dere debbilment. Us was Confederates all de while."
Thats a sample of views, 70,000 views are recorded in the 13 volumes, statisticly speaking 65% of former slaves when asked in the 1930s said they were happier as slaves than free. Now thats the most authrative work i know on which to base a statistical opinion of the view of slaves, i accept its not all encompassing and ignores the views of 00s of 000s of others, but its the best stats i know of and is not an unrepresentaive measure of opinion statisticly speaking.
Lincoln's Secretary of War, Edwin Stanton, had this public statement after the EP, "The population of African descent that cultivate the lands and perform the labor of the rebels constitute a large share of their military strength, and enable the white masters to fill the rebel armies and wage a cruel and murderous war against the people of the Northern States. By reducing the laboring strength of the rebels their military power will be reduced." Consequently, the invading Northern army began to seize Southern slaves and conscript them into service to the United States, often against their will. From his headquarters at Hilton Head, South Carolina, Major-General David Hunter issued the following order:
"All able-bodied colored men between the ages of eighteen and fifty within the military lines of the Department of the South, who have had an opportunity to enlist voluntarily, and refused to do so, shall be drafted into the military service of the United States, to serve as non-commissioned officers and soldiers in the various regiments and batteries now being organized in the Department."
Now what is the moral ground being taken in reality at the time?, as property they were siezed under law by the north, as it was an insurection the property was withheld from the owners, what the EP is also saying, continue to defy the government and all such property wiill be so removed from you should the government prevail, this is not a moral act, it is a political and economic measure, as lincoln and stanton said it was. In the film Glory there is a scene where they get paid manual labor wages instead or reg army pay, and riot, in real life the sarge who led this was tried and executed for mutiney, freedom can be danger to those not used to it.
Now as to hypocricy, i dont see im guilty as claimed, i really dont. can you expain why you believe it to be so?.
crooktooth said:
Which holds greater weight? The rights of all people (presumably including blacks) to liberty, or the guarantees and obligations specified within the Constitution? It seems you pick one as more important when it suits you, but then switch to the other when in turn it becomes more convenient. You're repeatedly shifting principles to score cheap debating points.
I have provided an answer to either a legal or moral question when asked, you moved it from legal to moral and now im addressing moral and legal issues.
Slavery in the bible is sanctioned by God, he gave it to Moses in the mosiaic laws, wherin it was regulated and aproved, in 25 leviticus slavery is sanctioned when slaves are taken from forgien nations, and can be inherited from one generaqtion to another, but in the year of Jubilee all slaves would be free, debts forgiven an mortgeged land returned to its rightful owner. It prohibited racial predugicies and intolarance,Moses took a black Nubian to wife and when Aron and Miriam objected at this, because it made her free as well, God himself spoke to them in rebuke, its hard to argue moraly that the word of God sanctioning slavery does not provide moral support for the instituition of slavery. mosiac law also says slavery is a transitionary state of afairs, st Paul speaks of slavery in Epistle to the Ephensians, where he tells master and servant to love and honour each other,, he does so again in 3 and 4 Epistloe to the Coloossians, he tells that its is better to suffer as a slave some injustice (he is not talking about being a slave in the firts place, but it could be a harsh condition due to the work of a slave), and that it was better to suffer as aslave than to be free to starve or be taken as an escapped slave and punished by cruxification. His "money is the root of all evill" maxim is in reference to slavery, the rich aquire greater wealth by owning more slaves than they need, the slave to earn his freedom steals to aquire money to buy his freedom, is what the rest of the speech talks. Jesus himself rewarded the centurian who had a sick slave, he cured the sick slave because the centurian loved and cared for him, a centurion asked for thesake of love of the master for his slave, for Jesus to help, Jesus praised the master who loved his slave, and that was why he said he cured him, for a master love for his slave.
Ive been consistant in what i have said, if you think otherwise provide examples where you are still under this impression and ill expalin further. Blacks never had the same legal right as whites btw, SCOTUS said so, as did lincoln when he said that by making them free did not make them morally or socially the equal of a white man.
You dont read me right at all. I dont attempt to score points in debate, there is no point. Try not to judge me by your own standards.
crooktooth said:
Straw man argument. No one has made any mention of the "North's moral position", in this thread HB.
I remind you of your comment in post 20 "But any such moral argument founders on the basic motivation behind the South's secession; the preservation of slavery. The South left the Union in order to promote and preserve human bondage. It was intent not on extending liberty, but on oppressing it.." to which i made the reply, this an example of which you requested, where your abuse of english comprehension is exibited.
And point out my "As for the North moral posistion it did not enter into warfare to free the slaves" is in post 21 in response to yours that called into question souther morailty. another example you asked for btw.
