The irrelevance of Sumter & slavery

[cash]

Originally Posted by MobileBoy

My question would be who decides if an act is legally valid.Does Lincoln have the right to decide?

According to the US Supreme Court, the President is the official who decides if there is a rebellion. If the confederates didn't agree, they were free to bring suit in the Courts as well. Oh, yeah. They didn't think the Courts had any jurisdiction so they didn't bother using the Courts.

Originally Posted by MobileBoy

Also Southerners felt that Northern states broke the contract by one state infringinging on another state's rights.

No. State rights was not a reason they cited for secession. State rights theory was the vehicle used to implement secession, but they never cited state rights as the reason why they were seceding. They did allege Northern violations of the Constitution, though. If we're so concerned about proper legal courses of action, the proper legal course of action would then be for them to take the issue to the Courts and get a ruling that would force the Northern states to comply with their constitutional duties, if in fact the Northern states were remiss.

Originally Posted by MobileBoy

You know I hold secession was illegal but Southerners might have a point for contention on the latter matter.I don't think the founders ever saw the point where a majority North or South could run the government and push its agenda by weight of population numbers.

In fact, if you read their writings, some of them did. What that situation would call for is what is known as "politics." Good old fashioned political horse trading. The West sympathized with the South on many issues, and the South could get what they wanted on most things by aligning with the West. The problem came because slavery was the one issue they couldn't get support for.

Regards,
Cash

[MobileBoy]

Cash,
Lincoln didn't have the authority to raise an army according to the Constitution.Don't dance around the issue.He didn't have the constitutional right.The judicial branch is charged with judging legal matters not the executive branch.The President is charged with seeing that laws are carried out but the Constituion doesn't give him a free ride to do whatever he deems necessary does it?Also I disgree about your interpretation of the Constituion.The President clearly has the right to call Congress back into session I'm not sure why you think otherwise.

Linc

[cash]

Originally Posted by MobileBoy

Lincoln didn't have the authority to raise an army according to the Constitution.Don't dance around the issue.He didn't have the constitutional right.

Lincoln had the right to call up the militia. It's in black and white in the Militia Act of 1795. He also had the right to use the Regular Army and Navy to fight the rebellion. It's in black and white also in the 1807 statute.

Originally Posted by MobileBoy

The judicial branch is charged with judging legal matters not the executive branch.The President is charged with seeing that laws are carried out but the Constituion doesn't give him a free ride to do whatever he deems necessary does it?

I'm afraid you have misconstrued the situation. The President has the exclusive authority to determine if a rebellion exists:

In 1827, the US Supreme Court ruled:

"Is the President the sole and exclusive judge whether the exigency has arisen, or is it to be considered as an open question, upon which every officer to whom the orders of the President are addressed, may decide for himself, and equally open to be contested by every militia-man who shall refuse to obey the orders of the President? We are all of opinion, that the authority to decide whether the exigency has arisen, belongs exclusively to the President, and that his decision is conclusive upon all other persons. We think that this construction necessarily results from the nature of the power itself, and from the manifest object contemplated by the act of Congress. The power itself is to be exercised upon sudden emergencies, upon great occasions of state, and under circumstances which may be vital to the existence of the Union. A prompt and unhesitating obedience to orders is indispensable to the complete attainment of the object. The service is a military service, and the command of a military nature; and in such cases, every delay, and every obstacle to an efficient and immediate compliance, necessarily tend to jeopard the public interests." [25 U.S. 19, 29-30]

Originally Posted by MobileBoy

Also I disgree about your interpretation of the Constituion.The President clearly has the right to call Congress back into session I'm not sure why you think otherwise.

You misconstrue what I said. I said he was limited in when he could call the Congress into session. I never said he couldn't call them back into session. You said he could call them back into session anytime he wanted. No, he couldn't call them back anytime he wanted. The term of office of the 36th Congress had expired and not all of the 37th Congress had been elected yet. He can't call a Congress that doesn't exist into session. He has to give the states time to complete the elections in order to have someone to send to the Congress. This is why Maryland had to have its special election earlier than originally planned.

Regards,
Cash

[MobileBoy]

Cash,
It was earlier in this post but somewhere I already said he had the right to call up the militia so no disagreement there.My statement that he didn't have the right to raise an army is still true he had none.That act was unconstitutional.I understand your point about him recognizing a rebellion but my point is Southerners(some anyway) contended secession was legal.Why not let the judicial branch interpret the law: that is the constitutional purpose of it.It's not for Lincoln to decide in my opinion what was legal or illegal.The Constitution was designed so that the President didn't have that very power or else he may become a tyrant.

[cash]

Originally Posted by MobileBoy

It was earlier in this post but somewhere I already said he had the right to call up the militia so no disagreement there.My statement that he didn't have the right to raise an army is still true he had none.

He already had the 15,000-man US Army. He called for the states to raise militia. Now, Lincoln did go beyond his constitutional authority in authorizing the expansion of the Army, but that's not the same as raising an army. He already had an army in hand. His expansion was done in anticipation of Congressional ratification. Had Congress refused to ratify the expansion, he would have had to cancel it and reduce its size back to the previously authorized size of 15,000 men.

Originally Posted by MobileBoy

I understand your point about him recognizing a rebellion but my point is Southerners(some anyway) contended secession was legal.Why not let the judicial branch interpret the law: that is the constitutional purpose of it.It's not for Lincoln to decide in my opinion what was legal or illegal.The Constitution was designed so that the President didn't have that very power or else he may become a tyrant.

But the President does indeed, according to the Supreme Court, have the authority to determine if a rebellion exists. If Congress disagrees with him they can cut off funding for the military actions or they can have him impeached when they next come into session. If individuals who are affected by his actions disagree, they can bring suit in Federal Court, which is what happened. The US Supreme Court agreed with Lincoln.

Regards,
Cash

[MobileBoy]

Cash,

On the Morrill Tarrif assuming all of the Congressman North and South voted would it have been passed?I'd appreciate your speculation.I was just wondering if the Morril Tarrif would have passed or if the Southertners in Congress could've prevented it from being passed?I just have questions here so I'm waiting on you to supply the answeres.

[cash]

Originally Posted by MobileBoy

Cash,

On the Morrill Tarrif assuming all of the Congressman North and South voted would it have been passed?I'd appreciate your speculation.I was just wondering if the Morril Tarrif would have passed or if the Southertners in Congress could've prevented it from being passed?I just have questions here so I'm waiting on you to supply the answeres.

It did pass the House of Representatives prior to secession. Had it been allowed to come up for an up-or-down vote in the Senate prior to secession it would probably not have passed. The additional 14 votes of the seceded senators would have been enough to kill it. Additionally, if they thought they didn't have the votes to kill it, the southern senators had the ability to keep it from coming to a vote for as long as they wished. Senate rules allowed for unlimited debate with no cloture vote as we have today. Senator after senator could have gotten up to speak for hours at a time, bringing Senate business to a standstill. Also, southern senators held powerful committee chair positions and could have kept it bottled up in committee for as long as they liked.

Regards,
Cash

[MobileBoy]

Thanks for the information Cash I appreciate it very much.

[samgrant]

Mr. Cash

I must admire your style and substance in reducing a challange as to the legallity/constitutionality question about raising militias/armies, etc., down to a question about tariffs, and then finishing that off.

My Charleston Riverdogs cap is off to you.

[MobileBoy]

Sam what challenge did he reduce or what thread were you reading.Lincoln's act of raising an army was unconstituional and still is.Ask Cash directly he won't lie about it.Did you have one to many last night?