Civil War History - Secession and PoliticsWas it Slavery, or was it States Rights? Perhaps it was the election of Lincoln? What were the real reasons for Southern Secession and what were the political issues in this time of war? Find your answers here in the Secession and Politics Disussion.
I don't know whether the exercise of a free press is treason. I'd have to think long and hard on the subject. My first inclination, though, is that it cannot be. For my hypothetical, I'm assuming that the NY Times got the 'sensitive military' info lawfully. The person who sold the info to the paper is the one I'd go after for treason.
You state "That's an unsupported assertion and thus has no credibility. Please provide your evidence..." You have my testimony on the issue, but I guess you're saying that's not enough for you, huh?
---------------------
It's nothing more than your opinion.
It's an interesting approach you're using; if you don't agree with someone, divert them into hours of research. After which, I suspect, you'd criticize that as well. But there's no disrespect intended. To the contrary, you're relentless; I appreciate that.
------------------------
Russ, I expect no more from you or anyone else than I am willing to give myself. I have posted evidence to support my views. I have directly quoted the Framers, I have directly quoted Supreme Court opinions, and I have directly quoted the source documentation. This is because I believe that in order for people to consider one's argument to be credible, it has to be based on fact and logic. Who knows? Perhaps after your hours of research you may find out that you change your viewpoint.
As I said, there are other reasons that I don't jump to the library. Time is one of them; I've already spent too much on this challenging discussion. Another, as I said, is that the issues on this thread are too ill-defined. But the essence on what you propose intrigues me. Evidence; a trial on the issue of legality of secession. Or would it be on the delegation of sovereign powers? Or the Art. of Confed? Or the balance of power between the People/states/colonies/crown/fed.
-----------------
This is a wide-ranging subject.
Did I say the issues are too ill-defined?
------------------
They are not. There is simply a number of issues involved.
Who would you propose as a neutral arbiter to judge the trial? Certainly not either of us! Nevertheless, its an intriguing concept. Until then, you'll either have to take my word for the factual accuracy of my statements (when it is fact rather than opinion offered) or, if you like, try to disprove my statements.
---------------------
No. I'm one who lives by the basic rule of debate: He who asserts must prove. The burden of proof is on the person making the positive assertion. If you claim the states are sovereign, it's up to you to provide the proof. Without it, it's just your opinion, and I'm free to reject it as quickly as I delete spam from my email.
Where was I? Oh, direct answers. If my answer displeases you, it's your fault because it's the answer you gave to your own hypothetical. I was just agreeing with you, and then offering an alternate hypothetical.
-------------------
That is a false statement. I gave no answer to my hypothetical. I'd like to know what your answer is. With the ratification of that constitutional amendment, what happens to slavery in the three states who voted against it? Can you please give a direct answer to this?
I still don't get your point there; it seems like a straightforward application of Art. V.
-------------
My point will be made clear, I promise you, once I have a direct answer from you.
"In our next class, we'll work on - 'What is a direct answer?'
-------------------
I hope you learn how to give one." Its clear enough that I won't learn how to from you. I thought my answer to your inquiry on my definition of sovereignty was quite clear. Yours, OTOH, to my question about the drafters and "strong" central gov't, was anything but direct.
--------------------
That's simply not true. I gave you a direct and truthful answer. You asked me for my opinion regarding ALL of the Framers, and I told you I have not formed one yet because I have not read all of their statements yet. How can I give you an opinion about ALL of the Framers if I don't know what ALL of them had to say on the subject? I will base my opinion on facts, not on supposition or wishful thinking. Until I have the facts I will withhold forming an opinion.
For clarity, allow me to merge our Article IX discussion back into the mix in our more general posts.
---------------------
I don't see how that clears things up.
I'm confused by your emphasis of 'to sit in recess of Congress.' Are you saying that the Articles otherwise provided funding for war which was not dependent on the states?
-------------------------
I'm saying the section you found was concerned solely with operations during the recess of Congress, not when Congress was in session. Remember that under the AoC, the Congress was the national government. You were generalizing about the full operation by using a particular section that was concerned only with when the Congress was in recess. That's the problem with cherrypicking sections without regard to context.
Additionally, the provision said the Congress could create such a committee if it chose to do so. It didn't require that action.
On the site I found the Articles, the commentary states that "The United States had no independent power of taxation, relying on the good faith of the states to pay bills sent to them for the maintenance of the national treasury." usconstitution.net. Is this site wrong?
--------------------------
Essentially correct, but different from the clause you were tlaking about before. Additionally, the AoC did require the states to pay their fair share. See Article VIII of the AoC.
You state that "there is no clause in the Constitution that says it's not OK to murder the President if I don't like his actions." Absolutely right. Criminal laws are not on the list of sovereign powers granted to the fed (unless they involve interstate commerce; usually the mail). The prosecutor will rely on state murder laws, and you'd still go to jail (or worse). BTW, IIRC, there is a fed law against killing the President. My guess is that the fed reasoned that killing the President impacts interstate commerce. Fed criminal laws contain a blurb on how they affect interstate commerce, so that the fed has authority to enact the law. Fed indictments contain a blurb on how the particular offender used interstate commerce so that the court has jurisdiction to decide the case.
----------------------------
18 USC 1751
Section 1751. Presidential and Presidential staff assassination, kidnapping, and assault; penalties
(a) Whoever kills (1) any individual who is the President of the
United States, the President-elect, the Vice President, or, if
there is no Vice President, the officer next in the order of
succession to the Office of the President of the United States, the
Vice President-elect, or any person who is acting as President
under the Constitution and laws of the United States, or (2) any
person appointed under section 105(a)(2)(A) of title 3 employed in
the Executive Office of the President or appointed under section
106(a)(1)(A) of title 3 employed in the Office of the Vice
President, shall be punished as provided by sections 1111 and 1112
of this title.
(b) Whoever kidnaps any individual designated in subsection (a)
of this section shall be punished (1) by imprisonment for any term
of years or for life, or (2) by death or imprisonment for any term
of years or for life, if death results to such individual.
(c) Whoever attempts to kill or kidnap any individual designated
in subsection (a) of this section shall be punished by imprisonment
for any term of years or for life.
(d) If two or more persons conspire to kill or kidnap any
individual designated in subsection (a) of this section and one or
more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the
conspiracy, each shall be punished (1) by imprisonment for any term
of years or for life, or (2) by death or imprisonment for any term
of years or for life, if death results to such individual.
(e) Whoever assaults any person designated in subsection (a)(1)
shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned not more than ten
years, or both. Whoever assaults any person designated in
subsection (a)(2) shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned
not more than one year, or both; and if the assault involved the
use of a dangerous weapon, or personal injury results, shall be
fined under this title, or imprisoned not more than ten years, or
both.
(f) The terms ''President-elect'' and ''Vice-President-elect'' as
used in this section shall mean such persons as are the apparent
successful candidates for the offices of President and Vice
President, respectively, as ascertained from the results of the
general elections held to determine the electors of President and
Vice President in accordance with title 3, United States Code,
sections 1 and 2.
(g) The Attorney General of the United States, in his discretion
is authorized to pay an amount not to exceed $100,000 for
information and services concerning a violation of subsection
(a)(1). Any officer or employee of the United States or of any
State or local government who furnishes information or renders
service in the performance of his official duties shall not be
eligible for payment under this subsection.
(h) If Federal investigative or prosecutive jurisdiction is
asserted for a violation of this section, such assertion shall
suspend the exercise of jurisdiction by a State or local authority,
under any applicable State or local law, until Federal action is
terminated.
(i) Violations of this section shall be investigated by the
Federal Bureau of Investigation. Assistance may be requested from
any Federal, State, or local agency, including the Army, Navy, and
Air Force, any statute, rule, or regulation to the contrary
notwithstanding.
(j) In a prosecution for an offense under this section the
Government need not prove that the defendant knew that the victim
of the offense was an official protected by this section.
(k) There is extraterritorial jurisdiction over the conduct
prohibited by this section.
Plug your issue - secession, slavery, war, coinage, whatever - into the word of the 10th Amend. and let the chips fall where they may. Its those words in the Constitution (specifically the 10th Amend.), not I, that determine whether a power belongs to the state or fed.
--------------------
Interesting that James Madison, "The Father of the Constitution," and the man who wrote the Tenth Amendment, didn't see it that way:
"It will hardly be contended that there is anything in the terms or nature of the compact, authorizing a party to dissolve it at pleasure." [James Madison to Nicholas Trist, 15 Feb 1830]
The article is, "Constitutionalism and Secession," 58 University of Chicago Law Review 633 (1991)
The second is a book by Daniel ****er, Sho Sato Professor of Law at UC Berkeley and Henry J. Fletcher Professor of Law at Univ. of Minnesota. The book is called Lincoln's Constitution, ISBN 0-226-23793-I.
The author's name has run afoul of the group's filter. Let's see if this works:
Wortman, Tunis. A Treatise Concerning Political Enquiry, and the Liberty of the Press. New York, Printed by George Forman for the Author, 1800. 296p. (Excerpts in Theodore A. Schroeder, Free Press Anthology, pp. 36-38) W398
"The freedom of speech and opinion, is not only necessary to the happiness of Man, considered as a Moral and Intellectual Being, but indispensibly requisite to the perpetuation of Civil Liberty. To enforce and advocate that inestimable right, is the principal object of the present Treatise." In a careful appraisal of Wortman's contribution to an American libertarian theory, Leonard W. Levy writes in his Legacy of Suppression: "It is, in a sense, the book that Jefferson did not write but should have." Wortman, a New York lawyer, expresses the libertarian views held, though not always practiced, by the Jeffersonian administration. He defends the unlimited natural right of people to express opinion in government. Freedom of thought and open debate is the only basis for intelligent management of human affairs, particularly of a democratic government. Like John Locke, Wortman espouses the theory of involuntary belief, that one's ideas are the natural and inevitable product of association and environment. The individual should have unlimited freedom to pursue knowledge, to form his own opinions, and to transmit his ideas to others. Even willful and seditious libels should not be prosecuted unless an overt act is involved. Honest government and wide publication of the truth are more effective than prosecution in combating libel. Like Milton, Wortman believed that truth would ultimately triumph over falsehood. This classic work on freedom of the press was published the same year as Madison's Virginia Report on the Alien and Sedition Acts and reflects somewhat similar ideas.
Even willful and seditious libels should not be prosecuted unless an overt act is involved." Would printing military secrets not be considered an overt act?
Would actively telling soldiers to desert be an overt act?
Would printing a story that leads with an article that is falsely attributed to the President forcing up gold prices be an overt act?
Would a story in a newspaper that tells the reading public to obstruct supplies going to the army be an overt act?
Russ, a man hands six bullets to another man with a gun so he can kill someone and knows this will be the result, is the man supplying the bullets guilty of anything?
In the same light, if a newspaper editor receives information about battle plans for an upcoming battle from an informant, then publishes those plans in effect giving the enemy a head's up to kill soldiers, is the editor as guilty as the informant? How many soldiers lives are worth a headline and an increase in newspaper sales?
Unionblue
__________________ "The American people and the Government at Washington may refuse to recognize it for a time but the inexorable logic of events will force it upon them in the end; that the war now being waged in this land is a war for and against slavery." Frederick Douglass
"Loyalty to our ancestors does not include loyalty to their mistakes." George Santayana
So far, I score the debate in favor of Cash. He has more specific references than Russ, but Russ's arguments are far from insignificant. Please gentlemen, let's have another 500 pages and 2 ink cartridges more about whether the word "secession" or "secede" should have have been in the constitution, or whether the existing wording says essentially the same thing.
Now I am required to go to the local Barnes and Noble to purchase some form of the Constitution. Wait. Maybe I have it somewhere. Check first. Buy later. Just another book to add to the four I've bought since the beginning of this debate.
Seriously, this is a subject I've long skirted. It seems logical that the seceding states had some rights on their side. But I've wondered about it and took a side only because "that's the way it was." Now the rat has been uncovered and is desperately avoiding the final stomp. Thrill of the chase. Now I'm watching that chase and learning more than I ever imagined existed. (Anyone else lifted a big, flat panel to let the dog get after the rats that lived under it?) I'm torn. I need to see a conclusion, but the debate keeps eating up my available rom and paper and ink and interest.
With respect to Neil, this "citified poodle" (spit) hasn't the mental power or resources to do battle with Cash or Russ on this subject. My interest lies in battles. But their debate has stirred up needs to keep up with which I'm nowhere equipped to do, hence, the "sit on the porch comment." Neil, if I were a dog, I certainly wouldn't identify with citified poodle. Lazy hound might come a bit closer. Lie about. Do something now and then so I can lie about some more. Citified is offensive, and I'm sure you meant nothing of the sort.
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
