|
Posts:
3,541
From:
Monticello
Registered:
1/15/07
|
|
(46 of 170)
Re: Anybody care to demonstrate that secession was illegal in 1860
Oct 22, 2008 4:10 PM
|
> > Under the U.S. Constitution, Congress and only
> > Congress had the power to suppress insurrection
> and
> > who was under insurrection.
>
> Someone forgot to tell lincoln.
Ditto for suspension of habeas corpus; however also note that Congress only has the power to call out the MILITIA-- not the MILITARY-- to suppress insurrections, in Article I, Section 8, paragraph 14;
"The Congress shall have Power...To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;"
Clearly, that's not what happened.
Likewise, Article IV, section 4 requires a state's permission in order to do this within a state:
"The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence."
However there's nothing in the Constitution which transfers the sovereignty of a state's people, to those of all of the states in general.
> > It was not the power of the state, nor the
> > Confederate states, though the latter tried, to
> say
> > who was in insurrection against the United
> States.
>
> It was a peaceful secession.
And an exercise of power by a soveriegn people.
--
"Sovereign states may unite themselves together by a perpetual federal republic: this will not impair the sovereignty of each member, though they may, in certain respects, put some restraint on the exercise of it, in virtue of voluntary engagements. Meanwhile a state that has passed under the dominion of another, can no longer avail itself directly of the law of nations; such were the nations and kingdoms which the Romans rendered subject to their empire."
--Vattel
|
|
|
Posts:
1,902
Registered:
11/13/07
|
|
(47 of 170)
Re: Anybody care to demonstrate that secession was illegal in 1860
Oct 22, 2008 7:54 PM
|
Vareb,
"It was a peaceful secession."
I guess a bank robbery with no one shot while the robbers kicked in the doors, waved guns in everyones faces and then took all the money, could be termed, "Peaceful."
Too funny!
Unionblue
--
Belief does not make truth.
Evidence makes truth.
And belief does not make evidence.
|
|
|
Posts:
1,902
Registered:
11/13/07
|
|
(48 of 170)
Re: Anybody care to demonstrate that secession was illegal in 1860
Oct 22, 2008 7:56 PM
|
Brian,
At least we now see a different tack than the eternal cry of "state sovereignty."
But I also see that you are ignoring history, the Supreme Court, and actions by Congress in regard to Lincoln's actions and if they were legal under the Constitution.
Why am I not surprised?
Unionblue
--
Belief does not make truth.
Evidence makes truth.
And belief does not make evidence.
|
|
|
Posts:
3,541
From:
Monticello
Registered:
1/15/07
|
|
(49 of 170)
Re: Anybody care to demonstrate that secession was illegal in 1860
Oct 23, 2008 7:32 PM
|
> <rdfx wrote:
> "Jefferson Davis was charged with treason for being
> the President of the CSA. ">
>
> Davis's treason indictment was for levying war
> against the United States.
>
>
> <"Raphael Semmes was charged with treason for ravaging US shipping.">
>
>
> Admiral Semmes was indicted for Piracy, not treason.
>
>
>
> <"The best lawyers the US had could not make these charges stick.
> In the Yankee witch hunt after the war, no one was
> ever found guilty of secession.">
>
> The fact that Davis's treason charge never ran its
> course was not based on any inability by Federal
> prosecutors to successfully convict but based in part
> that a neutral venue would not be available for a
> trial and the concern that Davis had already been
> punished with disenfranchisement under the then
> recently passed 14th Amendment and a trial would
> constitute double jeopardy.
What garbage; any lawyer knows that double-jeopardy doesn't apply to a crime with wholly different elements. Comparing disenfranchisement to treason, is like comparing a union of sovereign states with a single nation... and whaddaya know, that's exactly what they were doing!
According to the USC, Treason against the United States, shall consist only in:
1) levying War against them, or in
2) adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.
Meanwhile Disenfranchisement is the revocation of the right of suffrage (the right to vote) to a person or group of people, or rendering a person's vote less effective, or ineffective.
These elements are wholly different from those of Treason, and hence double-jeopardy could not apply.
|
|
|
Posts:
1,902
Registered:
11/13/07
|
|
(50 of 170)
Re: Anybody care to demonstrate that secession was illegal in 1860
Oct 23, 2008 7:59 PM
|
Brian,
Are you a lawyer?
If you are, are you an expert in Constitutional law?
Just curious as to what background you actually have that might relate to anything you post here, other than your oft repeated personal opinion.
Unionblue
--
Belief does not make truth.
Evidence makes truth.
And belief does not make evidence.
|
|
|
Posts:
2,843
From:
somewhere near A2 MI.
Registered:
5/3/01
|
|
(51 of 170)
Re: Anybody care to demonstrate that secession was illegal in 1860
Oct 24, 2008 5:57 AM
|
<McCandliss wrote:
"What garbage; any lawyer knows that double-jeopardy doesn't apply to a crime with wholly different elements. Comparing disenfranchisement to treason, is like comparing...">
Well, Algonquin J. Calhoun, you do not know American history. Although I made no comparison of "disenfranchisement to treason," it's a matter of historical record that one of the primary reasons Chief Justice Chase quashed the prosecution of Jefferson Davis was due to the double jeopardy consideration -- Chase believed that Davis's disenfranchisement under the 14th Amendment already was considered punishment for any wrongdoing:
''Whether, by the operation and effect of the third clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, the defendant is exempted from indictment or prosecution for treason in levying war and participating or engaging in the late rebellion. And upon that question the opinions of the judges were opposed. And thereupon the said point is upon the request of the said defendant, stated under the direction of the said Judges, and certified under the seal of the said Circuit Court to the Supreme Court of the United States at its next session.''
Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase, December 5th, 1868.
"No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability."
14th Amendment, Section 3.
"Your honor, you have heard the prosecution tell you that my client is dishonest. Your honor, it's easy for him to say that because my client is a crook!"
Algonquin J. Calhoun, Amos 'n Andy Show
|
|
|
Posts:
3,541
From:
Monticello
Registered:
1/15/07
|
|
(52 of 170)
Re: Anybody care to demonstrate that secession was illegal in 1860
Oct 24, 2008 10:50 AM
|
> Well, Algonquin J. Calhoun, you do not know
> American history.
Oh, on the contrary-- I was simply observing that double-jeopardy was a trumped-up excuse to avoid the truth coming out in a trial-- which is why NO ONE was tried for treason.
Of course one so intellectually challenged that they can't even get a name right (thus the name-calling), goes on "ignore," anyway... good riddance to bad rodents.
--
"Sovereign states may unite themselves together by a perpetual federal republic: this will not impair the sovereignty of each member, though they may, in certain respects, put some restraint on the exercise of it, in virtue of voluntary engagements. Meanwhile a state that has passed under the dominion of another, can no longer avail itself directly of the law of nations; such were the nations and kingdoms which the Romans rendered subject to their empire."
--Vattel
|
|
|
Posts:
2,843
From:
somewhere near A2 MI.
Registered:
5/3/01
|
|
(53 of 170)
Re: Anybody care to demonstrate that secession was illegal in 1860
Oct 24, 2008 12:30 PM
|
<McCandliss wrote:
"Of course one so intellectually challenged that they can't even get a name right (thus the name-calling), goes on "ignore," anyway... good riddance to bad rodents">
Oh, I got the name exactly right and it fits your wannabe attorney claims to a "T."
|
|
|
Posts:
965
From:
Virginia/Maryland
Registered:
12/10/07
|
|
(54 of 170)
Re: Anybody care to demonstrate that secession was illegal in 1860
Oct 24, 2008 2:36 PM
|
"Admiral Semmes was indicted for Piracy, not treason."
Semmes, the greatest and most successful American ships captain ever, was arrested for treason on December 15, 1865.
The US was very embarrassed that one man and his ship, the CSS Alabama, had wreaked havoc on Union shipping all over the world.
--
1st Regiment of Virginia Volunteer Infantry
Fighting terrorism since 1861
|
|
|
Posts:
5
Registered:
10/24/08
|
|
(55 of 170)
Re: Anybody care to demonstrate that secession was illegal in 1860
Oct 24, 2008 9:56 PM
|
|
i don't know a lot about this topic, but i do know that half of the posts on this topic are people fighting over who is right, just state what you think about the topic and leave everybody elses posts alone, jeez. (especially TomJefferson)
|
|
|
Posts:
3,541
From:
Monticello
Registered:
1/15/07
|
|
(56 of 170)
Re: Anybody care to demonstrate that secession was illegal in 1860
Oct 24, 2008 10:03 PM
|
Wow, congrats-- first post, and you make my "ignore" list!
Good job!
--
"Sovereign states may unite themselves together by a perpetual federal republic: this will not impair the sovereignty of each member, though they may, in certain respects, put some restraint on the exercise of it, in virtue of voluntary engagements. Meanwhile a state that has passed under the dominion of another, can no longer avail itself directly of the law of nations; such were the nations and kingdoms which the Romans rendered subject to their empire."
--Vattel
|
|
|
Posts:
1,192
From:
NY
Registered:
2/26/04
|
|
(57 of 170)
Re: Anybody care to demonstrate that secession was illegal in 1860
Oct 25, 2008 6:51 AM
|
|
"Every State shall abide by the determination of the United States in Congress assembled, on all questions which by this confederation are submitted to them. And the Articles of this Confederation shall be inviolably observed by every State, and the Union shall be perpetual; nor shall any alteration at any time hereafter be made in any of them; unless such alteration be agreed to in a Congress of the United States, and be afterwards confirmed by the legislatures of every State."
|
|
|
Guest
|
|
(58 of 170)
Re: Anybody care to demonstrate that secession was illegal in 1860
Oct 25, 2008 8:12 AM
|
Javaman...
The source of quote was absent.
Could it be from an abandoned document?
--
Certainty is not proof
Insistence is not fact
Opinion is not evidence
Arrogance is not credibility
|
|
|
Guest
|
|
(59 of 170)
Re: Anybody care to demonstrate that secession was illegal in 1860
Oct 25, 2008 8:22 AM
|
So far, I havent seen anyone 'demonstrate secession was illegal in 1860'.
Unionblue....
Do you disagree that the States were sovereign in the adoption of the Federal Constitution, and those States adopting the USC acted as free and independent Sovereignties...and that the delegation of powers by the States to the Fed experiment was limited.... and that was recognized in 1860 to be the case and the condition of the United States?
That in the adoption of the USC, the States adopting the USC acted as free and independent Sovereignties, delegating only a portion of their powers to be exercised by the Federal Government?
That the purose was to obtain and maintain increased security of each State in theUnion against threats both domestic and foreign?
That interference by States or States in combination, with the 'peculiar institution' of the South, and or the affairs of those States outside the scope of 'delegated powers'...and with an intent to create disturbance or subversion, was to be considered a violation of the Constitution?
--
Certainty is not proof
Insistence is not fact
Opinion is not evidence
Arrogance is not credibility
|
|
|
Guest
|
|
(60 of 170)
Re: Anybody care to demonstrate that secession was illegal in 1860
Oct 25, 2008 8:32 AM
|
"Has the Constitution delegated to Congress the power to coerce a State into submission, which is atempting to withdraw or has actually withdrawn from the Confederacy? If answered in the affirmative, it must be on the principle that the power has been conferred upon Congress to declare war and to make war against a State. After much serious reflection I have arrived at the conclusion that no such power has been delegated to Congress, or to any other department of the Federal Government. It is manifest upon an inspection of the Constitution that this is not among the specific and enumerated powers granted to Congress, and it is equally apparent that its exercise is not necessary and proper for carrying into execution any one of these powers. So far from this power having been delegated to Congress, it was expressly refused by the Convention which framed the Constitution."
The President of the United States
(my emphasis added)
--
Certainty is not proof
Insistence is not fact
Opinion is not evidence
Arrogance is not credibility
|
|
|
|
|
