Grant's view of the cause of the U.S. Civil War -- SLAVERY

[Master PO]

Same ole ****.

Lincoln was referring to the the Right to Revolution. He made that clear, over and over. You said secession. Difference.



#274

#658

Rawle:

A lawyer and District Attorney of Penn. --- Look at his "beefy" bio: William Rawle

Heh.

Second, Rawles book was used *one Year at West Point. (1826).* Even that is under debate as to the extent it was used as a text book.

*And that year WP had a whopping 43 graduates.

And if you *are* going to quote the two bit lawyer and author on secession, (as if he was authoritative) -

add this one:

"The consequences of an absolute secession cannot be mistaken, and they would be serious and afflicting. . . . Separation would produce jealousies and discord, which in time would ripen into mutual hostilities, and while our country would be weakened by internal war, foreign enemies would be encouraged to invade with the flattering prospect of subduing in detail those whom, collectively, they would dread to encounter. P. 299.

In every aspect therefore which this great subject presents, we feel the deepest impression of a sacred obligation to preserve the union of our country; we feel our glory, our safety, and our happiness, involved in it; we unite the interests of those who coldly calculate advantages with those who glow with what is little short of filial affection; and we must resist the attempt of its own citizens to destroy it, with the same feelings that we should avert the dagger of the parricide. P. 301. "

Was Secession Taught at West Point? Century Magazine 1909

Lincoln was talking about Right of self government


this #274 # 658. is the stupid thing i have seen!.....

do you even look at the date.. 1783! for the first 1.....they are talking about the articles of confederation

the second one, since you blew it on the first, the 2nd is to stupid to contemplate

two bit lawyer?........<---------is a a terrible way to try to explain away truth



William Rawle was G. Washington's DA for the state of PENN

YOUR REBUTTAL FELL FLAT ON ITS BACK!

 

[Paperview]

Lincoln was talking about Right of self government

Read the speech, not your one cherry picked Lost cause line: The War With Mexico: Speech in the United States House of Representatives | Teaching American History

this #274 # 658. is the stupid thing i have seen!.....

do you even look at the date.. 1783! for the first 1.....they are talking about the articles of confederation

Whoa boy.

They had the ratifying convention in 1783? lol No, they were not talking about the AoC

If you'd bother to read the actual content of my post, which I'll bring over here

The direct question, when posed, was answered when NY was considering it's ratification of the Constitution. At that time it was proposed:

"there should be reserved to the state of New York a right to withdraw herself from the union after a certain number of years."

A vote was taken, and it was negatived.

Elliot’s Debates: Volume 2 | Teaching American History

Historian Amar goes on to explain the pivotal moment of agreement:

"But exactly how were these states united? Did a state that said yes in the 1780's retain the right to unilaterally say no later on, and thereby secede? If not, why not?

Once again, it was in New York that the answer emerged most emphatically. At the outset of the Poughkeepsie convention, anti-Federalists held a strong majority. The tide turned when word arrived that New Hampshire and Virginia had said yes to the Constitution, at which point anti-Federalists proposed a compromise: they would vote to ratify, but if the new federal government failed to embrace various reforms that they favored, "there should be reserved to the state of New York a right to withdraw herself from the union after a certain number of years."

At the risk of alienating swing voters and losing on the ultimate ratification vote, Federalists emphatically opposed the compromise.

In doing so, they made clear to everyone - in New York and in the 12 other states where people were following the New York contest with interest - that the Constitution did not permit unilateral state secession.

[TABLE="class: cms_table_brtb_item_table"]
[TR]
[TD]Alexander Hamilton read aloud a letter at the Poughkeepsie convention that he had received from James Madison stating that "the Constitution requires an adoption in toto, and for ever."

Hamilton and John Jay then added their own words, which the New York press promptly reprinted: "a reservation of a right to withdraw" was "inconsistent with the Constitution, and was no ratification."[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]


Thus, it was New York where the document became an irresistible reality and where its central meaning - one nation, democratic and indivisible - emerged with crystal clarity."

Conventional Wisdom--A Commentary by Prof. Akhil Amar Yale Law School

Yes. "In toto and forever."

...you'd grasp, that there was no way they were talking about the AoC & in your quick click to the first link of Elliot's debates - where it says in Big bold letters at the top:
Ratification of the Constitution

it was an obvious typo.

the second one, since you blew it on the first,

No, I didn't. YOU blew it because didn't even bother to read it.

the 2nd is to stupid to contemplate

Probably cause it kicks your ass. Like the first one did,

two bit lawyer?........<---------is a a terrible way to try to explain away truth

Didn't bother to read the actual content of that one either, did you? Obviously.


YOUR REBUTTAL FELL FLAT ON ITS BACK!

 

[Paperview]

James Madison To Alexander Hamilton - on the question if "there should be reserved to the state of New York a right to withdraw herself from the union after a certain number of years."



[July 20, 1788]



N. York Sunday Evening



Yours of yesterday is this instant come to hand & I have but a few minutes

to answer it. I am sorry that your situation obliges you to listen to

propositions of the nature you describe. My opinion is that a reservation of

a right to withdraw if amendments be not decided on under the form of the

Constitution within a certain time, is a conditional ratification, that it

does not make N. York a member of the New Union, and consequently that she

could not be received on that plan. Compacts must be reciprocal, this

principle would not in such a case be preserved. The Constitution requires

an adoption in toto, and for ever. It has been so adopted by the other

States. An adoption for a limited time would be as defective as an adoption

of some of the articles only. In short any condition whatever must viciate

the ratification. What the New Congress by virtue of the power to admit new

States, may be able & disposed to do in such case, I do not enquire as I

suppose that is not the material point at present. I have not a moment to

add more than my fervent wishes for your success & happiness.



This idea of reserving right to withdraw was started at Richmd. & considered

as a conditional ratification which was itself considered as worse than a

rejection.

The Right of Secession. - NYTimes.com | Nov. 10, 1860

 

[Master PO]

Read the speech, not your one cherry picked Lost cause line: The War With Mexico: Speech in the United States House of Representatives | Teaching American History




Whoa boy.

They had the ratifying convention in 1783? lol No, they were not talking about the AoC

If you'd bother to read the actual content of my post, which I'll bring over here


...you'd grasp, that there was no way they were talking about the AoC & in your quick click to the first link of Elliot's debates - where it says in Big bold letters at the top:
Ratification of the Constitution

it was an obvious typo.


No, I didn't. YOU blew it because didn't even bother to read it.

Probably cause it kicks your ass. Like the first one did,




Didn't bother to read the actual content of that one either, did you? Obviously.


YOUR REBUTTAL FELL FLAT ON ITS BACK!

the u.s. constitution does NOT EXIST IN 1783, WHICH IS WHAT YOU REFERENCED

:lamo, the constitutional convention was in 1787, and the constitution was ratified by 9 states in june 1788, and went into affect being law in march 1789

didn't read did you?

 

[Paperview]

the u.s. constitution does NOT EXIST IN 1783, WHICH IS WHAT YOU REFERENCED

:lamo, the constitutional convention was in 1787, and the constitution was ratified by 9 states in june 1788, and went into affect being law in march 1789

didn't read did you?

Wow. You're not very good at this reading thing, are you?

 

[Master PO]

YOUR reference on july 23 1783

THE U.S. CONSTITUTION DOES NOT EXIST IN 1783

americans are living under the articles of confederation

 

[Paperview]

View attachment 67204140

you reference on july 23 1783

Holy mother of Jesus.

What the **** does it say in big bold letters on the top of that page?

You're displaying some major explosive brain farting if you can't comprehend that was a typo.

Go on, though. embarrass yourself to hell and show you can't read any of the other surrounding words there, or the content of the matter.

Pick on the typo and tell the world you thought the ratifying convention was held in 1783.

Because you can't understand.

Things.

 

[matchlight]

You mean removed.

No, I meant just what I wrote--convicted. See U.S.C. Art. I, sec. 3, cl. 6. Removal from office is the consequence of conviction in the Senate trial. See Art. I, sec. 3, cl. 7.

Holy crap. You think Andrew Johnson was a "radical abolitionist?"

Did I read that right?

As often seems to be the case, you did not. The poster had referred to Ben Wade--and presumably to the other radical Republicans who were involved in the effort to remove Johnson. So did I.

 

[Paperview]

Major PO can't grasp that a book printed in 1836 might possibly have a typo - or the optical character recognition scanner might have read the 8 as a 3. Naw. lol

A volume entitled:
Elliot’s Debates

The Debates in the Several State Conventions, on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution, as Recommended by the General Convention at Philadelphia, in 1787


Back to Table of Contents



HOME > Ratification of the Constitution > Elliot’s DebatesTogether with the Journal Of The Federal Convention, Luther Martin’s Letter, Yates’s Minutes, Congressional Opinions, Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions of ’98–’99, and Other Illustrations of the Constitution.
In Four Volumes.
Second Edition, with Considerable Additions.

Collected and Revised from Contemporary Publications, by Jonathan Elliot.​

Published under the Sanction of Congress.​

Washington: Printed for the Editor. 1836.
​

I gotta say, PO, you truly gave me the biggest laugh of my day. Thanks!

​

 

[Master PO]

James Madison To Alexander Hamilton - on the question if "there should be reserved to the state of New York a right to withdraw herself from the union after a certain number of years."



[July 20, 1788]



N. York Sunday Evening



Yours of yesterday is this instant come to hand & I have but a few minutes

to answer it. I am sorry that your situation obliges you to listen to

propositions of the nature you describe. My opinion is that a reservation of

a right to withdraw if amendments be not decided on under the form of the

Constitution within a certain time, is a conditional ratification, that it

does not make N. York a member of the New Union, and consequently that she

could not be received on that plan. Compacts must be reciprocal, this

principle would not in such a case be preserved. The Constitution requires

an adoption in toto, and for ever. It has been so adopted by the other

States. An adoption for a limited time would be as defective as an adoption

of some of the articles only. In short any condition whatever must viciate

the ratification. What the New Congress by virtue of the power to admit new

States, may be able & disposed to do in such case, I do not enquire as I

suppose that is not the material point at present. I have not a moment to

add more than my fervent wishes for your success & happiness.



This idea of reserving right to withdraw was started at Richmd. & considered

as a conditional ratification which was itself considered as worse than a

rejection.

The Right of Secession. - NYTimes.com | Nov. 10, 1860

more silliness

in the ratification of process of NY to join the union, the state of NY is WANTING TO PROPOSE amendments to the new constitution of the u.s., and they want to be able to reserve a right to withdraw for themselves, if the don't get their own amendments accepted.

 

[Master PO]

Major PO can't grasp that a book printed in 1836 might possibly have a typo - or the optical character recognition scanner might have read the 8 as a 3. Naw. lol

A volume entitled:
Elliot’s Debates

The Debates in the Several State Conventions, on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution, as Recommended by the General Convention at Philadelphia, in 1787


Back to Table of Contents



HOME > Ratification of the Constitution > Elliot’s DebatesTogether with the Journal Of The Federal Convention, Luther Martin’s Letter, Yates’s Minutes, Congressional Opinions, Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions of ’98–’99, and Other Illustrations of the Constitution.
In Four Volumes.
Second Edition, with Considerable Additions.

Collected and Revised from Contemporary Publications, by Jonathan Elliot.​

Published under the Sanction of Congress.​

Washington: Printed for the Editor. 1836.
​

I gotta say, PO, you truly gave me the biggest laugh of my day. Thanks!

​

that makes two of us, because your post are terrible

2 bit lawyer, i really laughed at that :lamo

 

[Paperview]

No, I meant just what I wrote--convicted. See U.S.C. Art. I, sec. 3, cl. 6. Removal from office is the consequence of conviction in the Senate trial. See Art. I, sec. 3, cl. 7.

K.

As often seems to be the case, you did not. The poster had referred to Ben Wade--and presumably to the other radical Republicans who were involved in the effort to remove Johnson. So did I.

That's why I asked if I read it right.

The line I read was "Johnson was impeached. I think you mean if he had been convicted, which he escaped by a single vote. I think it was better to have Grant as president at that time than a radical abolitionist."

It sure sounded like it based on the prior sentence.

I wasn't sure. that's why I asked.

 

[Gimmesometruth]

you see the error of your ways now

I made no "error", on the contrary, you haven't been able to stop. You have not, nor do I see the ability going forward, for you to accept that all of this is past, known and attempts to revise are utterly useless. The South lost, and will remain lost, because they will not come to terms with their wrongs.

 

[Gimmesometruth]

Really, so why did they need an amendment to make income tax (a direct tax) possible?

I imagine it had something to do with marginal rates, but seriously, I don't know, nor does it have anything to do with Grant's view of the causes of the CW.

 

[American]

I imagine it had something to do with marginal rates, but seriously, I don't know, nor does it have anything to do with Grant's view of the causes of the CW.

Except for being a great general, he was a corrupt asshole. Similar to the one you'll be voting for.

 

[Gimmesometruth]

Except for being a great general, he was a corrupt asshole. Similar to the one you'll be voting for.

I'm not voting for Drumpf.

again, absolutely unrelated to the topic.

 

[American]

I'm not voting for Drumpf.

again, absolutely unrelated to the topic.

I knew whom you're voting for.

 

[USViking]

let me explain to you, an insurrection is act under threat.

No, insurrection is synonymous with rebellion which is violence or the threat of violence with the aim of overthrowing government.

the southern states in there secession used the process of law, and the people's delegates voted for secession......using RIGHT to government.

the south did not threaten the federal government, they left and wanted to be left alone and formed their own nation.

Secession is unconstitutional under all circumstances. As Buchanan said in his farewell address it would be ridiculous to assume that the document contained the seeds of its own destruction by granting an implicit right of secession. There was certainly no explicit right!

and it was the president would used action to call up 15000 men to fight the south, not congress which is the article you are citing.

Congress also has the sole power to declare war. Do you mean to say that President, CC of the armed forces, cannot act against against a foreign invader until Congress bestows its authority?

To take such a view would be to transmogrify the Constitution into a national suicide pact.

Exactly the same principle applies to insurrection. If congress is not in session or is otherwise inactive then the President may take what military action is needed to preserve the integrity of the state. Congress might overrule the President when it reconvenes. Fortunately it stood by Lincoln in 1961&ff.

 

[Master PO]

I made no "error", on the contrary, you haven't been able to stop. You have not, nor do I see the ability going forward, for you to accept that all of this is past, known and attempts to revise are utterly useless. The South lost, and will remain lost, because they will not come to terms with their wrongs.

you constantly make errors, by saying it was an insurrection, governments don't engage in insurrections , factions do.

 

[Master PO]

No, insurrection is synonymous with rebellion which is violence or the threat of violence with the aim of overthrowing government.



Secession is unconstitutional under all circumstances. As Buchanan said in his farewell address it would be ridiculous to assume that the document contained the seeds of its own destruction by granting an implicit right of secession. There was certainly no explicit right!



Congress also has the sole power to declare war. Do you mean to say that President, CC of the armed forces, cannot act against against a foreign invader until Congress bestows its authority?

To take such a view would be to transmogrify the Constitution into a national suicide pact.

Exactly the same principle applies to insurrection. If congress is not in session or is otherwise inactive then the President may take what military action is needed to preserve the integrity of the state. Congress might overrule the President when it reconvenes. Fortunately it stood by Lincoln in 1961&ff.

" If a faction should attempt to subvert the government of a state for the purpose of destroying its republican form, the paternal power of the Union could thus be called forth to subdue it.<----------INSURRECTION

wrong..... people have a right to self government of their own state government.

congress can only authorize the president to use troops at that time in history because he is not the commander in chief until called into service by congress, as stated by the constitution.

the war powers act after the civil war authorizes the president to use troops, for a predetermined amount of time.

 

[Paperview]

" If a faction should attempt to subvert the government of a state for the purpose of destroying its republican form, the paternal power of the Union could thus be called forth to subdue it.<----------INSURRECTION

wrong..... people have a right to self government of their own state government.

congress can only authorize the president to use troops at that time in history because he is not the commander in chief until called into service by congress, as stated by the constitution.

the war powers act after the civil war authorizes the president to use troops, for a predetermined amount of time.

Always, so wrong.

Lincoln's action was authorized by the constitution, and a 1795 Act - 1 Stat. 424 (1795), 10 U.S.C. Sec. 332 - which allowed the President to call out troops to suppress an insurrection.

Affirmed by SCOTUS.

Yes, it was an insurrection.

THE MILITIA CLAUSE
​

Calling Out the Militia
The States as well as Congress may prescribe penalties for failure to obey the President’s call of the militia. They also have a concurrent power to aid the National Government by calls under their own authority, and in emergencies may use the militia to put down armed insurrection.1581 The Federal Government may call out the militia in case of civil war; its authority to suppress rebellion is found in the power to suppress insurrection and to carry on war.1582 The act of February 28, 1795,1583 which delegated to the President the power to call out the militia, was held constitutional.1584 A militiaman who refused to obey such a call was not “employed in the service of the United States so as to be subject[p.332]to the article of war,” but was liable to be tried for disobedience of the act of 1795.1585

https://www.law.cornell.edu/anncon/html/art1frag83_user.html

 

[Unitedwestand13]

you constantly make errors, by saying it was an insurrection, governments don't engage in insurrections , factions do.

And the southern states were a faction.

 

[Master PO]

Always, so wrong.

Lincoln's action was authorized by the constitution, and a 1795 Act - 1 Stat. 424 (1795), 10 U.S.C. Sec. 332 - which allowed the President to call out troops to suppress an insurrection.

Affirmed by SCOTUS.

Yes, it was an insurrection.

THE MILITIA CLAUSE
​

Calling Out the Militia
The States as well as Congress may prescribe penalties for failure to obey the President’s call of the militia. They also have a concurrent power to aid the National Government by calls under their own authority, and in emergencies may use the militia to put down armed insurrection.1581 The Federal Government may call out the militia in case of civil war; its authority to suppress rebellion is found in the power to suppress insurrection and to carry on war.1582 The act of February 28, 1795,1583 which delegated to the President the power to call out the militia, was held constitutional.1584 A militiaman who refused to obey such a call was not “employed in the service of the United States so as to be subject[p.332]to the article of war,” but was liable to be tried for disobedience of the act of 1795.1585

https://www.law.cornell.edu/anncon/html/art1frag83_user.html

artile 1 section 8

Congress shall have the power --------->To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions

Meaning congress can authorize the president to call up the militia by federal law concerning the whiskey rebellion.



The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.



the congress cannot delegate away their powers by federal legislation

 

[Master PO]

And the southern states were a faction.

a government is a faction....no!

 

[Paperview]

I'm just happy to be watching M.PO destroy every bit of credibility he has with each post.

I've been arguing with Lost causers for decades, and by far, his arguments are the most poverty-ridden I've ever seen.