|
Posts:
2,843
From:
somewhere near A2 MI.
Registered:
5/3/01
|
|
(61 of 170)
Re: Anybody care to demonstrate that secession was illegal in 1860
Oct 25, 2008 10:24 AM
|
<rdfx wrote:
"Semmes, the greatest and most successful American ships captain ever, was arrested for treason on December 15, 1865.">
As I previously stated, Semmes was not arrested for treason although I had incorrectly stated that he was arrested for piracy. It appears that Semmes was arrested for a violation of the Laws of Warfare.
"CHARGE --- VIOLATING THE USAGES OF WAR
Specification?In this, that on or about the 19th day of June, 1864, off the entrance of the port of Cherbourg, France, the said RAPHAEL SEMMES being then in command of the rebel steamer known as the Alabama, and an engagement having taken place between the said steamer and the United States steamer Kearsarge, ordered or permitted a white flag to be hoisted-on board the said rebel steamer, and took the opportunity of the cessation thereby caused in the engagement, and of the trust reposed in him, to make his escape from the said rebel steamer, for the purpose of avoiding the actual surrender of his person as a prisoner of war, and the responsibilities thereby incurred, and did subsequently, without having been exchanged as a prisoner, engage in hostilities against the United States.
GIDEON WELLES,
Secretary of the Navy.
NAVY DEPARTMENT, NOV. 25, 1865"
Admiral Semmes wrote a letter of protest on the day of his arrest to Gideon Welles , the Navy Secretary. The letter in part is provided below. Semmes is protesting the single "charge" that has been levied against him:
"I have this day been arrested by order of the Secretary of the Navy, had a guard placed over my house, and have been informed that I am to proceed to Washington, in custody, there to answer a charge preferred against me, predicated upon facts which took place anterior to the capitullatlon between Gen. JOHNSTON and Gen. SHERMAN. This being a violation of the capitulation on the part of Gen.SHERMAN I respectfully make this, my protest, against said arrest.
R. SEMMES. MOBILE, Ala., Dec. 16, 1865."
Raphael Semmes was incarcerated for just under 4 months while awaiting President Johnson's decision to try him either before a military commission or in the Federal court. He was released by presidential order on April 7, 1866 following a recommendation from Secretary Welles that was based on a combination of reconciliation on Welles' part, Semmes' appeal that the arrest had violated his terms of parole Issued by General Sherman, and the Supreme Court's Milligan ruling that the holding of military tribunals where the civil courts were operating, was unconstitutional.
|
|
|
Posts:
2,843
From:
somewhere near A2 MI.
Registered:
5/3/01
|
|
(62 of 170)
Re: Anybody care to demonstrate that secession was illegal in 1860
Oct 25, 2008 11:30 AM
|
<historicus wrote:
"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.">
Your quote which was attributed to "The President of the United States," was taken from President Buchanan's December 3, 1860 State of the Union address. Buchanan's attorney general followed up a few weeks later with a clarification of "coercion" in relation to Federal action against insurrectionary actions in the states:
"The words 'coercing a State by force of arms to remain in the confederacy?a power which I do not believe the Constitution has conferred on Congress,' ought certainly not be retained. They are too vague, and might have the effect (which I am sure the President does not intend) to mislead the commissioners concerning his sentiments. The power to defend the public property?to resist an assailing force which unlawfully attempts to drive out the troops of the United States from one of the fortifications, and to use military and naval forces for the purpose of aiding the proper officers of the United States in the execution of the laws?this, as far as it goes, is coercion, and may very well be called 'coercing a State by force of arms to remain in the Union.' The President has always asserted his right of coercion to that extent. He merely denies the right of Congress to make offensive war upon a State of the Union as such might be made upon a foreign government."
Jeremiah S. Black, Attorney General, December 30, 1860. From his memorandum to President Buchanan's draft reply to the Commissioners of South Carolina
|
|
|
Posts:
2,843
From:
somewhere near A2 MI.
Registered:
5/3/01
|
|
(63 of 170)
Oct 25, 2008 12:10 PM
|
Although not considered a legal authority, General Winfield Scott sent President Buchanan a comment in regards to the president's State of the Union coercion statement:
"From Winfield Scott to James Buchanan, December 15, 1860
Lieut. General Scott begs the President to pardon him for supplying, in this note, what he omitted to say this morning at the interview with which he was honored by the President:
Long prior to the force-bill (March 2, 1833); -- prior to the issue of his proclamation, &, in part, prior to the passage of the Ordinance of nullification -- President Jackson, under the act of March 3, 1807 -- 'authorizing the employment of the land & naval forces' -- caused reinforcements to be sent to Fort Moultrie, & a sloop of war (The Natchez) with two revenue cutters, to be sent to Charleston harbor in order, 1. To prevent the seizure of that fort by the nullifiers, & 2. To enforce the execution of the revenue laws. Genl. Scott, himself, arrived at Charleston the day after the passage of the Ordinance of nullification & many of the additional companies were then in route for the same destination.
President Jackson familiarly said, at the time, that by the assemblage of those forces, for lawful purposes he was not making war upon So. Carolina; but that if So. Carolina attacked them it would be So. C. that made war upon the U. States. Genl. S. who received his first (oral) instructions (oral) from the President & in the temporary absence of the Secretary of War (Genl. Cass) remembers those expressions well.
Saturday night,
December 15, 1860.
W. S."
|
|
|
Guest
|
|
(64 of 170)
Re: Anybody care to demonstrate that secession was illegal in 1860
Oct 25, 2008 3:24 PM
|
icepick...
shall we continue with Black's expertise?
You seem to hold him in high regard...
Would you hold somemore of his legal observations
in high esteem?
And what of the President's esteem?
Did he not have the same interpretive authority that
so many claim Lincoln to possess?
--
Certainty is not proof
Insistence is not fact
Opinion is not evidence
Arrogance is not credibility
|
|
|
Posts:
2,843
From:
somewhere near A2 MI.
Registered:
5/3/01
|
|
(65 of 170)
Re: Anybody care to demonstrate that secession was illegal in 1860
Oct 26, 2008 5:43 AM
|
<historicus wrote:
"shall we continue with Black's expertise?">
Go right ahead if you'd like.
<"You seem to hold him in high regard...Would you hold somemore of his legal observations in high esteem?">
Let me see if I understand this correctly. In the 10 years or so that I've posted on this board, my use of a part of a memorandum written by Buchanan's attorney general to illustrate that the snippet which you used from Buchanan's speech was contextually incorrect, translates to my "high esteem" for him? I'll play along though. I've inferred from the structure of your question that you have other "legal observations" of his to show me, so by all means, please post some.
Likewise, can we now assume that your previous use of McPherson to forward positions which you have taken is prima facie that you also hold him in high esteem?
|
|
|
Posts:
1,902
Registered:
11/13/07
|
|
(66 of 170)
Re: Anybody care to demonstrate that secession was illegal in 1860
Oct 26, 2008 5:53 AM
|
historicus,
In reply to your post of Oct. 25, 2008 8:22 AM.
Could you plainly state your question, vice four, rambling questions designed to statements rather than questions?
If it will help, Brian's version of what he calls 'state sovereignty' has never existed in the "pure" form he seems to think it did, right up until the Civil War.
It is my own view that the States never truly existed as fully functioning nation states, able to exert the full powers of a sovereign nation, due to the fact they had to compromise those powers in order to fight Great Britain, compromise with the Articles of Confederation, and then on to the ratification of the US Constitution.
As for intereference with the "peculair institution" that cuts both ways. The North, who wished for it to stay where it was, and the South who wanted to expand it at the expense of states rights.
Hope that helps,
Unionblue
--
Belief does not make truth.
Evidence makes truth.
And belief does not make evidence.
|
|
|
Posts:
3,403
From:
the south
Registered:
5/28/07
|
|
(67 of 170)
Re: Anybody care to demonstrate that secession was illegal in 1860
Oct 26, 2008 3:47 PM
|
|
Here in georgia, it's a requirement to exist as a town unless the basic essentials, such as sanitation and fire department, to keep a charter. I think the CSA members were a sovreign nation because they were able to form armies, have a national government, and had their own currency for what it was worth. As for McCandliss, I'm glad you can pick out his nonse in those long insomnia curing posts.
|
|
|
Guest
|
|
(68 of 170)
Re: Anybody care to demonstrate that secession was illegal in 1860
Oct 26, 2008 4:42 PM
|
Unionblue...
>It is my own view that the States never truly existed as fully functioning nation states, able to exert the full powers of a sovereign nation, due to the fact they had to compromise those powers in order to fight Great Britain, compromise with the Articles of Confederation, and then on to the ratification of the US Constitution.
Your view, I am sure, is a comfort to you. But, like a heavy weight that burdens, the comfort is overwhelmed by the failure to recognize what THEY ACTUALLY believed in the era ...versus the misconception YOU embrace today..
But, on May 24th, 1860, the Senate passed a resolution fully acknowledging that the states entering into the Union were "Sovereign"...
I submit...
"?Resolved, That, in adoption of the Federal Constitution, the States adopting the same acted severally as free and independent Sovereignties, delegating a portion of their powers to be exercised by the Federal Government for the increased security of each against dangers, domestic and as well as foreign; and that any intermeddling by any one or more States, or by a combination of their citizens, with the domestic institutions of the others, on any pretext whatever, political, moral, or religious, with a view to their disturbance or subversion, is in violation of the Constitution, insulting to the States so interfered with, endangers their peace and tranquility - objects for which the Constitution was formed -, and by necessary consequence, tend to weaken and destroy the Union itself.?
The vote was 36 - 19 in the US Senate. For.
Included in the affirmative are the states CA, IN, MN, OR, PA?one senator from OH and one from NJ."
McPherson must have missed this one...I am sure he would have included this in his book. ....heh heh
--
Certainty is not proof
Insistence is not fact
Opinion is not evidence
Arrogance is not credibility
|
|
|
Posts:
1,902
Registered:
11/13/07
|
|
(69 of 170)
Re: Anybody care to demonstrate that secession was illegal in 1860
Oct 27, 2008 2:20 AM
|
historicus,
What is a resolution?
In what way is it binding on the US Government?
And no, historicus, the burden that the states were not sovereign in the way you assume is not overwhelming, as you have yet to understand the status of those states when they ratified the Constitution and the powers they surrendered upon agreeing to the AOC.
If state sovereignty existed, without any obligation to any other state in the Union, in the "pure" form Brian preaches (as he does not explain nor does he require proof or historical example in his version) please explain the Civil War.
The Union and Lincoln said it was over unilateral secession. Why is that? Because a state could not lawfully get out of the Union on its own accord. Because all the States who ratified the Constitution realized they had surrendered their sovereignty upon joining the Union.
They knew this, they warned each other about this, and yet they joined.
No, no burden, overwhelming or otherwise. Just history.
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
|
|
(70 of 170)
Re: Anybody care to demonstrate that secession was illegal in 1860
Oct 27, 2008 2:36 AM
|
<historicus wrote:
"But, on May 24th, 1860, the Senate passed a resolution fully acknowledging that the states entering into the Union were 'Sovereign'...">
They did? According to the resolutions of May 24, 1860 that I read in the Congressional Globe it was a series of resolutions on the "rights of slavery and property in the Territories of the United States" of which the wording in the first resolution had stated that the states prior to their adoption of the Constitution had been "free and independent Sovereignties. " It does not say anything about them retaining their sovereignty once they entered the Union, as the structuring of your sentence suggests.
|
|
|
Guest
|
|
(71 of 170)
Re: Anybody care to demonstrate that secession was illegal in 1860
Oct 27, 2008 4:38 AM
|
icepick...
>" It does not say anything about them retaining their sovereignty once they entered the Union, as the structuring of your sentence suggests.
"But, on May 24th, 1860, the Senate passed a resolution fully acknowledging that the states entering into the Union were "Sovereign"...
I submit...
"?Resolved, That, in adoption of the Federal Constitution, the States adopting the same acted severally as free and independent Sovereignties, delegating a portion of their powers to be exercised by the Federal Government for the increased security of each against dangers, domestic and as well as foreign;
This clearly demonstrates, that in May of 1860, it was acknowledged that the States, in the adoption of the Federal Constitution, acted as free and independent Sovereignties.....
This is provided in response to those who maintain the States were not Soveriegn ....ever.
Do you and Unionblue hold the States were never sovereign? For if you do, you are in conflict with the Senate majority in 1860.
--
Certainty is not proof
Insistence is not fact
Opinion is not evidence
Arrogance is not credibility
|
|
|
Posts:
3,543
From:
Monticello
Registered:
1/15/07
|
|
(72 of 170)
Re: Anybody care to demonstrate that secession was illegal in 1860
Oct 27, 2008 9:18 AM
|
> icepick...
>
> shall we continue with Black's expertise?
> You seem to hold him in high regard...
>
> Would you hold somemore of his legal observations
> in high esteem?
>
> And what of the President's esteem?
> Did he not have the same interpretive authority that
> so many claim Lincoln to possess?
You're talking to people who think that the Constitution expressly gave up the sovereignty of the states-- and who think that Lincoln walked on water (when in reality it was only because you-know-what floats).
--
"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:
3,543
From:
Monticello
Registered:
1/15/07
|
|
(73 of 170)
Oct 27, 2008 9:26 AM
|
> Unionblue...
>
> >It is my own view that the States never truly
> existed as fully functioning nation states, able to
> exert the full powers of a sovereign nation, due to
> the fact they had to compromise those powers in order
> to fight Great Britain, compromise with the Articles
> of Confederation, and then on to the ratification of
> the US Constitution.
>
> Your view, I am sure, is a comfort to you. But, like
> a heavy weight that burdens, the comfort is
> overwhelmed by the failure to recognize what THEY
> ACTUALLY believed in the era ...versus the
> misconception YOU embrace today.
Which shows he's purely delusional, to think his his "view" trumps the the Founders, when they used the phrase "[bfree and independent states-- able to do those things which sovereign states by right may do."
By his logic, ANY alliance surrenders a nation's sovereignty!
(Now I can already hear him bellowing and mooing, "NO, they existed BEFORE! That DIFFRENT!" and other cherry-picking logic, common to everyone who lives in their own world, trying to brazen it out as the "real" one-- no matter WHAT anyone else says (or the GAPS in it!).
> But, on May 24th, 1860, the Senate passed a
> resolution fully acknowledging that the states
> entering into the Union were "Sovereign"...
>
> I submit...
>
> "?Resolved, That, in adoption of the Federal
> Constitution, the States adopting the same acted
> severally as free and independent Sovereignties,
> delegating a portion of their powers to be exercised
> by the Federal Government for the increased security
> of each against dangers, domestic and as well as
> foreign; and that any intermeddling by any
> one or more States, or by a combination of their
> citizens, with the domestic institutions of the
> others, on any pretext whatever, political, moral, or
> religious, with a view to their disturbance or
> subversion, is in violation of the Constitution,
> insulting to the States so interfered with, endangers
> their peace and tranquility - objects for which the
> Constitution was formed -, and by necessary
> consequence, tend to weaken and destroy the Union
> itself.?
>
> The vote was 36 - 19 in the US Senate. For.
> Included in the affirmative are the states CA, IN,
> MN, OR, PA?one senator from OH and one from NJ."
>
> McPherson must have missed this one...I am sure he
> would have included this in his book. ....heh heh
Actually, these facts only prove, that Lincoln secretly planned to start the war, by saying NOTHING about his "theory" of federal power to stop secession by force, until he actually assumed power, more than 2 months after South Carolina seceded on Dec. 24, 1860.
If Lincoln truly believed as he claimed, then he had the absolute duty to inform the members of Congress that he wanted to call an emergency-session, and let them deal with it; however he wanted to seize power under an "emergency" doctine claim (which Farber, McPherson, Jaffa and all the other Neo-nationalists claim simply "proved Lincoln's strength and courage to do the right thing against desperate conditions:"
i.e. they ignore that Lincoln deliberately CREATED those "conditions" by deliberate silence and plotting which would lend him such "plausible desperate circumstances" to blame-- just as any tyrant will concoct such a hoax to lend plausibility to his seizing power.
The problem with Anti-Lincolnites isn't that they exaggerate his scheming; on the contrary, it's that they UNDER-ESTIMATE them
|
|
|
Posts:
2,843
From:
somewhere near A2 MI.
Registered:
5/3/01
|
|
(74 of 170)
Re: Anybody care to demonstrate that secession was illegal in 1860
Oct 28, 2008 2:28 AM
|
<historicus wrote:
"This clearly demonstrates, that in May of 1860, it was acknowledged that the States, in the adoption of the Federal Constitution, acted as free and independent Sovereignties.....">
Yes, it most certainly does, which is quite different than your prior post which alluded that a Senate resolution was passed "fully acknowledging that the states entering into the Union were 'Sovereign'..."
After all, why bring McPherson into the fray? I'm unaware that McPherson has ever denied that the states were sovereign prior to their ratification of the Constitution. Can you show differently?
<"Do you and Unionblue hold the States were never sovereign? For if you do, you are in conflict with the Senate majority in 1860.">
My interpretation of the Articles of Confederation is that the states were 13 sovereign and independent entities which entered into an alliance, with each state retaining its sovereignty and independence as a member under the Articles.
|
|
|
Guest
|
|
(75 of 170)
Re: Anybody care to demonstrate that secession was illegal in 1860
Oct 28, 2008 5:42 AM
|
"But, on May 24th, 1860, the Senate passed a resolution fully acknowledging that the states entering into the Union were "Sovereign"..."
I guess that could be taken two ways...
What was said, and agreed to is what is important..and the parsing isnt necessary here..
"That, in adoption of the Federal Constitution, the States adopting the same acted severally as free and independent Sovereignties,"
My question to you is this...
When a Sovereign State delegates certain powers, does it consequently surrender its soveriengty? (new thread)
--
Certainty is not proof
Insistence is not fact
Opinion is not evidence
Arrogance is not credibility
|
|
|
|
|
