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.
The USA also meant more tax money to invest in Northern, railroads, and government subsidy.
I seem to remember a structure built in Charleston Harbor at government expense. The State of South Carolina had no problems with it being built there at government expense. They kind of liked the idea of improving their harbor and its defenses.
Madison was quite clear. Only all the people of the states acting together can overrule the Federal government.
Regards,
Cash
Surely you see the absurdity.
Since the federal government was created to handle foreign and interstate matters, there is no voice of the people of the states acting together outside of that same federal government.
Forcing a state to an unstated and unagreed to "obligation" to remain within a union is "enforcing the law?"
Quote:
Not only was it agreed to but it was also stated in Article VI, Clause 2 of the Constitution.
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
That has already been dismissed as the absurdity it is.
Where is the law specifying the "obligation" which you are saying is worthy of using invasion and death to enforce?
Yes, like I told you before your position is very absurd.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hawglips
Since the federal government was created to handle foreign and interstate matters, there is no voice of the people of the states acting together outside of that same federal government.
There's your problem. You don't understand what the Federal Government is for, and you don't understand that this is one nation. The Federal Government governs the nation as a whole.
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
That has already been dismissed as the absurdity it is.
Not very well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hawglips
Where is the law specifying the "obligation" which you are saying is worthy of using invasion and death to enforce?
The Constitution itself, as well as the entire body of US law.
You don't understand what the Federal Government is for, and you don't understand that this is one nation. The Federal Government governs the nation as a whole.
Since you've been fond of Madison and Hamilton today, maybe this will help you understand the nature of our federal government (as it was promised to the States when ratification was on the line).
"But as the plan of the convention aims only at a partial union or consolidation, the State governments would clearly retain all the rights of sovereignty which they before had, and which were not, by that act, EXCLUSIVELY delegated to the United States." –Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 32
"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the Federal Government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State Governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will for the most part be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects, which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties and properties of the people; and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State." --James Madison Federalist 45
[T]he powers of the federal government are enumerated; it can only operate in certain cases; it has legislative powers on defined and limited objects, beyond which it cannot extend its jurisdiction. -- James Madison, Speech in the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 6, 1788, Elliot's Debates (in the American Memory collection of the Library of Congress)
“The idea of a national government involves in it, not only an authority over the individual citizens, but an indefinite supremacy over all persons and things, so far as they are objects of lawful government. Among a people consolidated into one nation, this supremacy is completely vested in the national legislature. Among communities united for particular purposes, it is vested partly in the general and partly in the municipal legislatures. In the former case, all local authorities are subordinate to the supreme; and may be controlled, directed, or abolished by it at pleasure. In the latter, the local or municipal authorities form distinct and independent portions of the supremacy, no more subject, within their respective spheres, to the general authority, than the general authority is subject to them, within its own sphere. In this relation, then, the proposed government cannot be deemed a national one; since its jurisdiction extends to certain enumerated objects only, and leaves to the several States a residuary and inviolable sovereignty over all other objects.” – Madison, Federalist #39
Re: your post# 75:
paraphrasing 'I should read about the CS conscript act of April '62'
Believe you me, I've known about the conscript act of April 1862 for a long time.
This brings to bear a thought in reference to the CS Army of Tennessee. You pro-unionist state the CS soldier fought to perpetuate slavery in the South, although the overwhelming majority of CS infantry were nonslaveholders. It's strange that these CS AOT soldiers who "fought to perpetuate slavery" while being middleclass nonslaveholders in fact, re-upped their service in the Confederate army almost to the man, on their own volition. These men even set the precedence for Lee's army who did likewise. Nope, I'm not buying the "fighting to perpetuate slavery" opinion. Something else prompted such dedication in these men and it wasn't an overwhelming desire to rush out & buy slaves they couldn't afford, nor desired.
Something other than the eternal perpetuation of slavery caused thse men to risk life and limb in a war you've previously stated, was lost by 1864. These men desired to do their duty and procure their Country's independence from the Union.
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
