Appomattox Day

[Monash]

As I said, the U.S. is not part of the ICC.

Where do I not recognize the jurisdiction of the Republic?

Secession, not succession. The secession of the States is legal.

The actions of the North coming against the South for slavery or secession was not legal.

An international court can hear disputes about the USA, but the U.S. doesn't have to abide them.

Lees

Can you read? I've just pointed out that the ICC has nothing to do with determinations regarding Statehood . Instead that falls under the jurisdiction of the IJC. It's different court you idiot! The US has retained the right to bring or answer actions before the IJC. It doesn't have to but it can.

Then you've just wasted about a week arguing that the Republics suppression of the Confederacy was illegal while also apparently claiming to recognize the legal authority of that Republic's Constitution which says secession is illegal!

Beyond that I'm done. Take your meds and go bother someone else.

 

[TopHatter]

Well, I am explaining how I feel about the South's cause.

America, not just the South, defended slavery, and America, not just the South is based upon white supremacy. Remember 'Manifest Destiny'.

Lees

The South's cause was white supremacy.

 

[Lees]

Can you read? I've just pointed out that the ICC has noting to do with determinations regarding Statehood . Instead that falls under the jurisdiction of the IJC. It's different court you idiot! The US has retained the right to bring or answer actions before the IJC. It doesn't have to but it can.

Then you've just wasted about a week arguing that the Republics suppression of the Confederacy was illegal while also apparently claiming to recognize the legal authority of that Republic's Constitution which says secession is illegal illegal!

Beyond that I'm done. Take your meds and go bother someone else.

Again, the U.S. is not bound by any international law or pressure to have to do anything. Whether it be IJC or ICC. The IJC can recommend all it wants to. Big deal.

You keep saying that, but I have asked, where do I not recognize the jursdiction of the Republic? Which you avoid answering. Show me in the Constitution where secession is illegal?

Wise choice.

Lees

 

[Lees]

The South's cause was white supremacy.

As was the North's.

Quotes from (The Annals Of America, Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc., Vol. 9, 2003) taken from the Lincoln Douglas debates. Both Lincoln and Douglas are running for the U.S. senate seat in Illinois. Douglas was from Vermont but moved to Illinois. Lincoln was born in Kentucky but moved at age 7 to Indiana. Then later to Illinois.

Douglas says: "For one, I am opposed to Negro citizenship in any and every form. I believe this government was made on the white basis. I believe it was made by the white men, for the benefit of white men and their posterity forever, and I am in favor of confining citizenship to white men, men of European birth and descent, instead of conferring it upon Negroes, Indians, and other inferior races." (p. 9)

Lincoln replies: "I have no purpose to introduce political and social equality between the white and the black races. There is a physical difference between the two which, in my judgment will probably forever forbid their living together upon the footing of perfect equality....I, as well as Judge Douglas, am in favor of the race to which I belong having the superior position." (p. 11)

How about those yankee white supremacists? Makes you wonder why they haven't removed the god like Lincoln memorial.

Point being, America's cause was white supremacy. Not just the South's.

Lees

 

[TopHatter]

As was the North's.


Point being, America's cause was white supremacy. Not just the South's.

Lees

So then, that being the case....what was the purpose/reason/goal of the South seceding?

What did the North do to prompt such a drastic action by the South?

 

[Lees]

So then, that being the case....what was the purpose/reason/goal of the South seceding?

What did the North do to prompt such a drastic action by the South?

I said it in post #(14).

It was over slavery. But slavery as protected by the Constitution. The abolitionist North refused to give the South the protections the Constitution offered. Which would result finally in the raid of John Brown at Harpers Ferry against the South. Which was supported by the big money men in the North.

The Constitution is what united the States into the Union. Once the North refused and rejected that Constitution, it was time to leave. The South knew it had no peace, no guarantee of safety with the North. Better to leave and find it elsewhere.

Now answer my questions. Do you acknowledge the white supremacy of the North? The white supremacy of America, as I showed you? Or is it just a Southern thing, as you claimed?

Lees

 

[Monash]

Again, the U.S. is not bound by any international law or pressure to have to do anything. Whether it be IJC or ICC. The IJC can recommend all it wants to. Big deal.

You keep saying that, but I have asked, where do I not recognize the jursdiction of the Republic? Which you avoid answering. Show me in the Constitution where secession is illegal?

Wise choice.

Lees

1) YOU were the one who said international law doesn't apply. You were wrong . I repeat the US does co-operate with the ICJ if not the ICC. It doesn't have to but at times it does because the Government of the day finds it useful. This is matter of public record, of fact - international law does apply. The US also complies with a raft of other international laws on things like navigation and space as well as various other areas where international law applies. This includes international law relating to borders.

2) You keep insisting that the secessionist movement was lawful while at the same time insisting you support the Federal Constitution which according to the Supreme Court does not allow secession. Put simply? You can't have it both ways, you either fully support the right to secession & reject the relevant section of the Constitution as being 'illegal' OR you accept that secession is unlawful and therefore fully support the Constitution. Which is it?

The thing is this is not about 'liking' a provision of the Constitution. Lot's of people disagree with one or other of it's provisions for example the right to bear arms. That doesn' stop them recognizing it's authority/lawfulness though does it? You by your own admission however don't recognize it's authority on the right of secession. If your State seceded or rather attempted to? By your own admission you'd support it's attempt to do so. No-one gets to pick and choose which parts of the Constitution they'll obey, it's all or nothing.

 

[Lees]

1) YOU were the one who said international law doesn't apply. You were wrong . I repeat the US does co-operate with the ICJ if not the ICC. It doesn't have to but at times it does because the Government of the day finds it useful. This is matter of public record, of fact - international law does apply. The US also complies with a raft of other international laws on things like navigation and space as well as various other areas where international law applies. This includes international law relating to borders.

2) You keep insisting that the secessionist movement was lawful while at the same time insisting you support the Federal Constitution which according to the Supreme Court does not allow secession. Put simply? You can't have it both ways, you either fully support the right to secession & reject the relevant section of the Constitution as being 'illegal' OR you accept that secession is unlawful and therefore fully support the Constitution. Which is it?

The thing is this is not about 'liking' a provision of the Constitution. Lot's of people disagree with one or other of it's provisions for example the right to bear arms. That doesn' stop them recognizing it's authority/lawfulness though does it? You by your own admission however don't recognize it's authority on the right of secession. If your State seceded or rather attempted to? By your own admission you'd support it's attempt to do so. No-one gets to pick and choose which parts of the Constitution they'll obey, it's all or nothing.

You brought up international law in post #(20). Not me. I said in post #(13) that no state needs any recognition from another to secede. You then brought up international law in response to that in your post #(20).

Why do you avoid my question? What Constitution are you talking about? And, show me in the Constitution where secession is illegal.

Lees

 

[Monash]

You brought up international law in post #(20). Not me. I said in post #(13) that no state needs any recognition from another to secede. You then brought up international law in response to that in your post #(20).

Why do you avoid my question? What Constitution are you talking about? And, show me in the Constitution where secession is illegal.

Lees

And I said your wrong and have repeatedly. The problem? You just don't get it! According to international law a State needs to be recognized before it exists. The Confederacy never was! It doesn't matter why it wasn't recognized, all that matters is that it wasn't! Your argument that a State exists once it says it does is BS. I mean you might as well be trying to claim your in a relationship Beyonc'e FGS. If she says she's not in a relationship with you? There is no relationship. Same thing with nation states. Unilateral declarations of independence mean jack shit unless other states recognize it.

For the rest? The US Constitution you idiot. Try seceding from the good old US of A and see what happens. You insist your loyal to the American Constitution and yet still think States have the right to secede. Yet the Constitution say's 'no'! Just ask the Supreme Court. So it can't be both, which is it. One of those two claims has to go.

 

[Lees]

And I said your wrong and have repeatedly. The problem? You just don't get it! According to international law a State needs to be recognized before it exists. The Confederacy never was! It doesn't matter why it wasn't recognized, all that matters is that it wasn't! Your argument that a State exists once it says it does is BS. I mean you might as well be trying to claim your in a relationship Beyonc'e FGS. If she says she's not in a relationship with you? There is no relationship. Same thing with nation sates. Unitlateral declarations of independece mean jack shit unless other states recognize it.

For the rest? The US Constition you idiot. Try secceeding from the good old US of A and see what happens. You insist your loyal to the American Constition and yet still think States have the right to secceed. Yet the Constition say's 'no'! Just ask the Supreme Court. So it can't be both, which is it. One of those two claims has to go.

Yes, you keep saying it. Means nothing. Again, the U.S. doesn't abide by international law. We are talking about 'secession', not the origin of a State. The States already existed. The Confederacy, like the U.S. is not a State. No state needs any approval of international law or of any other state to secede.

Again, where in the Constitution does it say secession is illegal? Why are you scared?

Lees

 

[TopHatter]

As was the North's.

Quotes from (The Annals Of America, Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc., Vol. 9, 2003) taken from the Lincoln Douglas debates. Both Lincoln and Douglas are running for the U.S. senate seat in Illinois. Douglas was from Vermont but moved to Illinois. Lincoln was born in Kentucky but moved at age 7 to Indiana. Then later to Illinois.

Douglas says: "For one, I am opposed to Negro citizenship in any and every form. I believe this government was made on the white basis. I believe it was made by the white men, for the benefit of white men and their posterity forever, and I am in favor of confining citizenship to white men, men of European birth and descent, instead of conferring it upon Negroes, Indians, and other inferior races." (p. 9)

Lincoln replies: "I have no purpose to introduce political and social equality between the white and the black races. There is a physical difference between the two which, in my judgment will probably forever forbid their living together upon the footing of perfect equality....I, as well as Judge Douglas, am in favor of the race to which I belong having the superior position." (p. 11)

How about those yankee white supremacists? Makes you wonder why they haven't removed the god like Lincoln memorial.

Point being, America's cause was white supremacy. Not just the South's.

Lees

I understand that you have a pathological need to equate the North with the South, the free states with the slave states, that's Lost Cause boilerplate. But the truth isn't that simple.

Southern society was built around slavery. White supremacy was woven into the very fabric of Southern culture and Southern law.

One small example: It was illegal in the slave states to teach a black person to read and write. It wasn't all sunshine and roses in the North for black education, but the very act of teaching a black person to read wasn't going to result in your being whipped or imprisoned, and your black pupil having a finger or two amputated.

But I'll ask you again: What specific act did the North commit that justified the South seceding from the Union? Your answer was "slavery", but that's not something the North "did".

 

[Monash]

Yes, you keep saying it. Means nothing. Again, the U.S. doesn't abide by international law. We are talking about 'secession', not the origin of a State. The States already existed. The Confederacy, like the U.S. is not a State. No state needs any approval of international law or of any other state to secede.

Again, where in the Constitution does it say secession is illegal? Why are you scared?

Lees

Again it does. I even gave you examples of some areas where it has signed legally binding treaties with the international community of nations although obviously you were too lazy to even bother verifying that fact for yourself! There's an entire list of multinational treaties, agreements and accords on Wikipedia that the US is a voluntary signatory to and as a result obliged to comply with! Or is checking that fact too much like hard work for you to?

 

[Officer of Engineers]

Yes, I actually do. The South was doing nothing wrong. Slavery was protected by the Constitution.

Bullshit! Name the passage! SLAVERY WAS NEVER MENTIONED!

The South has been labeled the Rebels. But that is a false label as I have explained.

True Label. They LOST!

Where does this so called 'guilt' come from? Not from the Constitution.

Lees

The Armies of the Union of the United States of America!

 

[Officer of Engineers]

4.) Fourth of all, that Confederacy of States was based upon the right of secession. A right that every state who freely entered that Union had.

More Bullshit! Secession was never defined in the US Constitution. It was CERTAINLY NOT LEGAL. At best, your argument is Secession was NOT ILLEGAL. However, that argument failed by the USSC Decision of 1869. YOUR ONLY RECOURSE to this legal decision was ARMED REBELLION. YOU'VE LOST. YOU"RE WRONG! BOTH LEGALLY AND EFFECTIVELY!

 

[Monash]

More Bullshit! Secession was never defined in the US Constitution. It was CERTAINLY NOT LEGAL. At best, your argument is Secession was NOT ILLEGAL. However, that argument failed by the USSC Decision of 1869. YOUR ONLY RECOURSE to this legal decision was ARMED REBELLION. YOU'VE LOST. YOU"RE WRONG! BOTH LEGALLY AND EFFECTIVELY!

I would just add the point I raised previously in this farce i.e. that the South actually had the opportunity to find out if secession was technically legal or not before they seceded but they didn't even bother trying to find out!

 

[Lees]

Again it does. I even gave you examples of some areas where it has signed legally binding treaties with the international community of nations although obviously you were too lazy to even bother verifying that fact for yourself! There's an entire list of multinational treaties, agreements and accords on Wikipedia that the US is a voluntary signatory to and as a result obliged to comply with! Or is checking that fact too much like hard work for you to?

Again, why are you so scared? Where in the Constitution does it say secession is illegal? It's your statement...back it up. Your post # (31).

Lees

 

[Monash]

Again, why are you so scared? Where in the Constitution does it say secession is illegal? It's your statement...back it up. Your post # (31).

Lees

No one is scared, just frustrated with your idiocy. Either read the Supreme Court proceedings for the case Texas vs White (1869) or, once again google Wikipedia, search for the case and read the synopsis there. In that case the Court referenced the relevant sections of the Constitution when bringing down their decision. And that decision was that unilateral secession (what the confederate states did) is NOT permissible under the relevant provisions of the Constitution.

That leaves left only (a) revolution (which failed dismally) or (b) some mechanism by which the majority of States ( 2/3?) could consent to the secession of another State. Problem being? There are no clauses within the Constitution setting out what that mechanism was or how it would work.

 

[Lees]

No one is scared, just frustrated with your idiocy. Either read the Supreme Court proceedings for the case Texas vs White (1869) or, once again google Wikipedia, search for the case and read the synopsis there. In that case the Court referenced the relevant sections of the Constitution when bringing down their decision. And that decision was that unilateral secession (what the confederate states did) is NOT permissible under the relevant provisions of the Constitution.

That leaves left only (a) revolution (which failed dismally) or (b) some mechanism by which the majority of States ( 2/3?) could consent to the secession of another State. Problem being? There are no clauses within the Constituion setting out what that mechaism was or how it should work.

1869 is not 1861, The War Between the States was 1861-1866. Different Constitutions in that the yankee victors fashioned it after their desire, through a real circus act forcing the Reconcstruction amendments to pass. But the first point here is, Texas vs. White was yet future. It played no role in determining the right of secession in 1861.

Second point, Texas vs White plays no role today in the Constitutionality of secession. That case argued before the Supreme Court determined that Texas did not have to pay the money back to the Federal government. Salmon chase simply made a statement concerning secession. Texas vs White did not settle anything concerning secession.

Third point, Chase's statement, 'the U.S. Constitution establishes an indestrcuctible Union composed of indestructible States' is not true. Our first Constitution, the Articles of Confederation, did declare a perpetual Union. But come to find out, that Union was not so perpetual after all as it was tossed out the window in Philadelphia. Thus the framers after that were careful not to add such a statement to the Constitution.

Fourth point, Salmon Chase was simply trying to make up what was lost in the Jeff Davis trial. There was the trial to argue secession before the world and prove that the South were the traitors and guilty of treason. And the North claimed they would do just that and hang Jeff Davis from a sour apple tree. But the North balked. Their lawyers got scared once they started looking into it on a real legal basis and not on a feel good basis where they could just turn Davis over to a military court to be hung. And Salmon Chase was one presiding over that case.

The North let Jeff Davis go, through another dog and pony show, that they hoped relieved them of the responsibility. But all could see through it. The North didn't want it to be seen that they were the ones guilty in that War which cost over 800,000 lives. They would rather let Jeff Davis go then that to happen.

So, no trial of Jeff Davis. Secession has never been argued before the Supreme Court. And secession was always legal for any State in the Union.

Lees

 

[Lees]

I understand that you have a pathological need to equate the North with the South, the free states with the slave states, that's Lost Cause boilerplate. But the truth isn't that simple.

Southern society was built around slavery. White supremacy was woven into the very fabric of Southern culture and Southern law.

One small example: It was illegal in the slave states to teach a black person to read and write. It wasn't all sunshine and roses in the North for black education, but the very act of teaching a black person to read wasn't going to result in your being whipped or imprisoned, and your black pupil having a finger or two amputated.

But I'll ask you again: What specific act did the North commit that justified the South seceding from the Union? Your answer was "slavery", but that's not something the North "did".

Do you disagree with what I showed Lincoln and Douglas said? Did they not believe in the supremacy of the white race? White supremacy is woven throughout all America. I'm not saying that is a bad thing. It is what it is. As I said, 'manifest destiny' was for the white man.

You misrepresent my answer. You said my answer was 'slavery'. But my answer was 'it was slavery, but slavery as protected by the Constitution'. The North would not allow the South it's protections under the Constitution. Which eventually led to John Browns raid on Virginia at Harpers Ferry. The North allowed John Brown to move throughout their land and raise money for his attack against the South, though he was wanted for murder already.

The South was doing nothing wrong. But abolitonists were allowed to continue their attacks and demonize the South. Same as people like to do today. The North refused to allow the Southernor into the new territories with his slaves, with his property. The extension of slavery. This is why the War was being fought first in Kansas.

It finally came to a head in the Dred Scott decision. The Supreme Court would decide and settle the question. And the Supreme Court sided with the South. Causing the North to react violently and labling the Constitution a 'covenant with death and hell'.

Jeff Davis said: "It was not the passage of the personal liberty laws, it was not the circulation of incendiary documents, it was not the raid of John Brown, it was not the operation of unjust and unequal tariff laws, nor all combined, that constituted the intolerable grievance, but it was the systematic and persistent struggle to deprive the Southern states of equality in the Union--generally to discriminate in legislation against the interests of their people; culminating in their exclusion from the territories, the common proplerty of the states, as well as by the infraction of their compact to promote domestic tranquillity." (The Rise And Fall Of The Confederate Government, Jefferson Davis, Da Capo Pres inc., vol. 1, 1990, p. 70)

Lees

 

[Lees]

Bullshit! Name the passage! SLAVERY WAS NEVER MENTIONED!

True Label. They LOST!


The Armies of the Union of the United States of America!

Article IV Sect. 2 clause 3, of the Constitution: "No person held to service or labour in one state, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labour, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labour may be due."

This is the basis for all fugitive slave acts.

Lees

 

[Lees]

More Bullshit! Secession was never defined in the US Constitution. It was CERTAINLY NOT LEGAL. At best, your argument is Secession was NOT ILLEGAL. However, that argument failed by the USSC Decision of 1869. YOUR ONLY RECOURSE to this legal decision was ARMED REBELLION. YOU'VE LOST. YOU"RE WRONG! BOTH LEGALLY AND EFFECTIVELY!

As to secession in the Constitution, see Article X. "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. "

Article X speaks to the powers reserved to the States. But it also speaks to the powers 'delegated' by the states to the Fed. government. Key word there is 'delegated'. It does not mean surrender to. Those powers have been delegated. And what has been delegated can be resumed by the one who delegated. Thus when a state resumes the powers back from the government that it delegated them to....that is secession.

See my post #(48) for the 1869 decision you speak of.

Secession is not armed rebellion. The South seceded peacefully.

Lees

 

[TopHatter]

Do you disagree with what I showed Lincoln and Douglas said? Did they not believe in the supremacy of the white race? White supremacy is woven throughout all America. I'm not saying that is a bad thing. It is what it is. As I said, 'manifest destiny' was for the white man.

There's no question that many whites saw the white race as superior to the black race. But the South codified that supremacy into law. Which you like to conveniently like to ignore. Again, that's Lost Cause boilerplate, so no surprise there.

You misrepresent my answer. You said my answer was 'slavery'. But my answer was 'it was slavery, but slavery as protected by the Constitution'. The North would not allow the South it's protections under the Constitution. Which eventually led to John Browns raid on Virginia at Harpers Ferry. The North allowed John Brown to move throughout their land and raise money for his attack against the South, though he was wanted for murder already.

So that one act by John Brown justified the secession of the South, is that correct?

It finally came to a head in the Dred Scott decision. The Supreme Court would decide and settle the question. And the Supreme Court sided with the South. Causing the North to react violently and labling the Constitution a 'covenant with death and hell'.

How did "the North react violently" after Dred Scott? By a wholesale invasion of the South?

Secession is not armed rebellion. The South seceded peacefully.

The steamship Star of the West and Fort Sumter would like to have a word with you.

Firing on an unarmed vessel and bombarding a Federal military installation into surrender unprovoked is not "peaceful".

 

[tbm3fan]

Article IV Sect. 2 clause 3, of the Constitution: "No person held to service or labour in one state, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labour, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labour may be due."

This is the basis for all fugitive slave acts.

Lees

A very Southern interpretation of the clause which tolerates no other possible interpretation which you, very obviously, adhere to from the sound of things.

"Even among anti-slavery advocates, there were sharp disagreements about how to interpret the Fugitive Slave Clause, and the slave clauses of the Constitution as a general matter. Taking one extreme view, William Lloyd Garrison described the Constitution as “the pro-slavery, war sanctioning Constitution of the United States.” This view had much in common with southern views on the Constitution. Garrison declared the Constitution to be “a covenant with death, an agreement with hell,” precisely for the reason that it did sanction slavery.

By contrast, Frederick Douglass held a minority viewpoint within anti-slavery politics based on a textualist reading of the Constitution. Douglass argued that the Constitution made slavery illegitimate everywhere, in the South as well as in the territories. He argued that the Constitution does not explicitly condone slavery and the “WRITTEN Constitution” should not be “interpreted in light of a SECRET and UNWRITTEN understanding of its framers.” Douglass believed that the federal government could abolish slavery because it violated the Fifth Amendment due process guarantee, the Article IV guarantee of republican government, and other clauses of the Constitution. He also made originalist arguments about the Founders’ intentions to have slavery gradually wither away. By this understanding, the Constitution had become corrupted by acquiescence in pro-slavery custom, but the Constitution’s anti-slavery character could be redeemed by federal action. He also relied on a natural law interpretation of the Constitution, arguing that it should be read in conjunction with the Declaration of Independence and given the meaning that best expressed the ideals of the Declaration.

A third understanding was exemplified by Lincoln and other moderately antislavery Americans. The Constitution did indeed contain concessions to slavery. But these were compromises, not principles. The Constitution’s principles were fully compatible with the eventual abolition of slavery whether by state legislation and federal territorial legislation, and, if necessary because of minority intransigence, eventual constitutional amendment. As William Seward argued, slavery was merely “temporary, accidental, partial and incongruous,” but freedom was “perpetual, organic, universal . . . in harmony with the Constitution of the United States.”

 

[Lees]

There's no question that many whites saw the white race as superior to the black race. But the South codified that supremacy into law. Which you like to conveniently like to ignore. Again, that's Lost Cause boilerplate, so no surprise there.


So that one act by John Brown justified the secession of the South, is that correct?


How did "the North react violently" after Dred Scott? By a wholesale invasion of the South?


The steamship Star of the West and Fort Sumter would like to have a word with you.

Firing on an unarmed vessel and bombarding a Federal military installation into surrender unprovoked is not "peaceful".

Oh, speaking of codes. "Slaves in the North, like those in the South, served at the whim of their owners and could be sold or traded....They lived under a harsh system of 'black codes' that controlled their movements, prohibited their educatin, and limited their social contracts.....The two defining assumptions of all the codes were that blacks were dangerous in groups and that they were, at a basic human level, inferior."
(Complicity, Anne Farrow, Joel Lang, and Jenifer Frank, Ballantine Books, 2006, p. 63)

A well known slave born in 1797 of Ulster County, New York left a record of her 30 years in captivity. She called herself 'Sojourner Truth'. "They gave her plenty to eat, (she recalled in her third-person narrative), and also plenty of whippings...Sojourner's owner beat the child severely, until blood streamed from her wounds...." (Complicity, p. 66)

In the 1700's "black codes almost demanded harsh punishment, and it was not considered a capital crime to kill an enslaved man, woman, or child in the course of 'correcting him or her." (Complicity, p. 66)

Seems as though the North 'codified' it's white supremacy as well. I realize you have a pathological need to view the North as a kind and sweet slave holder. Yet, the facts are against you. But, go ahead, just keep believing that myth...that lie.

I didn't say by one act. Why do you misrepresent what I said?

Seward, who would be Secretary of State in the Lincoln Cabinet, said, concerning the Dred Scott decision, that it made the Missouri Compromise null and void, meaning slaveholders could take their slaves into the territories which challenged the power of Congress. The New York Evening Post stated that the Supreme Court had joined in a conspiracy of the most treasonable character. (America in 1857, Kenneth M. Stampp, Oxford University Press, 1990, p. 106)

"Republicans met the challenge of the Dred Scott decision to their existence as a party in two differnet and somewhat conflicting ways. First they attacked the Court for infringing upon the legislative authority of Congress. From being expounders, they have become makers of the law."
(America in 1857, Stampp, p. 107)

"Senator Trumbull of Illinois appealed to a power higher than the Court, The People..." (America in 1857, Stampp, p. 107)

"One way or another, the Chicago Tribune promised, the people would recover their lawmaking perogatives..." (America in 1857, Stampp, p. 107)

The North made it clear they would not abide by the Supreme Court decision.

Fort Sumter would like to have a word with you.

Lees

 

[Lees]

A very Southern interpretation of the clause which tolerates no other possible interpretation which you, very obviously, adhere to from the sound of things.

"Even among anti-slavery advocates, there were sharp disagreements about how to interpret the Fugitive Slave Clause, and the slave clauses of the Constitution as a general matter. Taking one extreme view, William Lloyd Garrison described the Constitution as “the pro-slavery, war sanctioning Constitution of the United States.” This view had much in common with southern views on the Constitution. Garrison declared the Constitution to be “a covenant with death, an agreement with hell,” precisely for the reason that it did sanction slavery.

By contrast, Frederick Douglass held a minority viewpoint within anti-slavery politics based on a textualist reading of the Constitution. Douglass argued that the Constitution made slavery illegitimate everywhere, in the South as well as in the territories. He argued that the Constitution does not explicitly condone slavery and the “WRITTEN Constitution” should not be “interpreted in light of a SECRET and UNWRITTEN understanding of its framers.” Douglass believed that the federal government could abolish slavery because it violated the Fifth Amendment due process guarantee, the Article IV guarantee of republican government, and other clauses of the Constitution. He also made originalist arguments about the Founders’ intentions to have slavery gradually wither away. By this understanding, the Constitution had become corrupted by acquiescence in pro-slavery custom, but the Constitution’s anti-slavery character could be redeemed by federal action. He also relied on a natural law interpretation of the Constitution, arguing that it should be read in conjunction with the Declaration of Independence and given the meaning that best expressed the ideals of the Declaration.

A third understanding was exemplified by Lincoln and other moderately antislavery Americans. The Constitution did indeed contain concessions to slavery. But these were compromises, not principles. The Constitution’s principles were fully compatible with the eventual abolition of slavery whether by state legislation and federal territorial legislation, and, if necessary because of minority intransigence, eventual constitutional amendment. As William Seward argued, slavery was merely “temporary, accidental, partial and incongruous,” but freedom was “perpetual, organic, universal . . . in harmony with the Constitution of the United States.”

Article IV, Sec.2, clause 3, is not a compromise.

Lees

 

[Monash]

As to secession in the Constitution, see Article X. "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. "

Article X speaks to the powers reserved to the States. But it also speaks to the powers 'delegated' by the states to the Fed. government. Key word there is 'delegated'. It does not mean surrender to. Those powers have been delegated. And what has been delegated can be resumed by the one who delegated. Thus when a state resumes the powers back from the government that it delegated them to....that is secession.

See my post #(48) for the 1869 decision you speak of.

Secession is not armed rebellion. The South seceded peacefully.

Lees

Supreme Court say 'no'! End of story.

 

[TopHatter]

Oh, speaking of codes. "Slaves in the North, like those in the South, served at the whim of their owners and could be sold or traded....They lived under a harsh system of 'black codes' that controlled their movements, prohibited their educatin, and limited their social contracts.....The two defining assumptions of all the codes were that blacks were dangerous in groups and that they were, at a basic human level, inferior."
(Complicity, Anne Farrow, Joel Lang, and Jenifer Frank, Ballantine Books, 2006, p. 63)

A well known slave born in 1797 of Ulster County, New York left a record of her 30 years in captivity. She called herself 'Sojourner Truth'. "They gave her plenty to eat, (she recalled in her third-person narrative), and also plenty of whippings...Sojourner's owner beat the child severely, until blood streamed from her wounds...." (Complicity, p. 66)

In the 1700's "black codes almost demanded harsh punishment, and it was not considered a capital crime to kill an enslaved man, woman, or child in the course of 'correcting him or her." (Complicity, p. 66)

Seems as though the North 'codified' it's white supremacy as well. I realize you have a pathological need to view the North as a kind and sweet slave holder. Yet, the facts are against you. But, go ahead, just keep believing that myth...that lie.

Congratulations, you pointed out instances of Northern states that were once slave states, where slavery rested on a foundation of white supremacy. Well done.

I didn't say by one act. Why do you misrepresent what I said?

Seward, who would be Secretary of State in the Lincoln Cabinet, said, concerning the Dred Scott decision, that it made the Missouri Compromise null and void, meaning slaveholders could take their slaves into the territories which challenged the power of Congress. The New York Evening Post stated that the Supreme Court had joined in a conspiracy of the most treasonable character. (America in 1857, Kenneth M. Stampp, Oxford University Press, 1990, p. 106)

"Republicans met the challenge of the Dred Scott decision to their existence as a party in two differnet and somewhat conflicting ways. First they attacked the Court for infringing upon the legislative authority of Congress. From being expounders, they have become makers of the law."
(America in 1857, Stampp, p. 107)

"Senator Trumbull of Illinois appealed to a power higher than the Court, The People..." (America in 1857, Stampp, p. 107)

"One way or another, the Chicago Tribune promised, the people would recover their lawmaking perogatives..." (America in 1857, Stampp, p. 107)

The North made it clear they would not abide by the Supreme Court decision.

So...the North monolithically made it clear blah blah blah. That's your justification for Southern secession? Some newspapers and a Senator? Pretty flimsy, but that's the Lost Cause for you.

Fort Sumter would like to have a word with you.

Really? About what? About how they were bombarded into submission by the Confederacy without a single hostile act?

 

[Monash]

How much longer is this farce going to continue. Any bets?

 

[tbm3fan]

Article IV, Sec.2, clause 3, is not a compromise.

Lees

In your head that is.

 

[Lees]

Congratulations, you pointed out instances of Northern states that were once slave states, where slavery rested on a foundation of white supremacy. Well done.



So...the North monolithically made it clear blah blah blah. That's your justification for Southern secession? Some newspapers and a Senator? Pretty flimsy, but that's the Lost Cause for you.



Really? About what? About how they were bombarded into submission by the Confederacy without a single hostile act?

I pointed out your error in saying it was the South that codified white supremacy into law as opposed to the North. The establishment of America rested on white supremacy.

I showed you Jeff Davis reason for secession. Source material. You say it's flimsy, but then who would know best? Here is another quote of Jeff Davis leading up to the quote I gave you in post #(49).

"The preamble to the Constitution declared the object of its founders to be 'to form a more perfect Union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity'. Now, however (in 1860), the people of a portion of the states had assumed an attitude of avowed hostility,not only to the provisions of the Constitution itself, but to the 'domestic tranquility' of the people of other states." (The Rise And Fall Of The Confederate Government, Jefferson Davis, Da Capo Press inc., Vol. 1, p. 69)

"Long before the formation of the Constitution, one of the charges preferred in the Declaration of Independence against the government of Great Britain, as justifying the separation of the colonies from that country, was that of having 'excited domestic insurrections among us'. Now, the mails were burdened with incendiary publications, secret emissaries had been sent, and in one case an armed invasion of one of the states had taken place for the very purpose of exciting domestic insurrection." (Rise And Fall Of Confederate Govt., Davis, p. 69-70)

The bombardment of Sumter was after the secession. And it was not without a hostile act.

Lees