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.
Hanny, when Jeff Davis gave his oath at the Point it wasn't to the State of Mississippi, when he gave his oath as Sec of War; it was not to his home state.
As a cadet he gave an oath, to become a cadet he gave an oath to the stste of Miss, as did every other cadet, facilty swore a different oath. Point being primacy in law, as to who had first call on the fealty of the citizen, no one got to WP unless he first swore to his state and thus the state had first claim on his lliegence, which was why both cadet and facilty oaths were changed in late 61, and why the iron clad oath replaced the existing oath of alliegeince because the oath upoto late 61 was worded to make state above country, and did not make the oath taker liable to individiual censure by the federal government, only by his state.
Quote:
The idea that there were no US citizens prior to the CW is ignorant.
No its a fact, the legislation to make USA citizens occurs 65/66 upto that point in time there were only states with citizens, as defined in the federal and state laws of naturlization and imigration. So the ignorance of US law and history is yours.
Quote:
Ask a Londoner of 1860, or the King for that matter where Iowa was at the time and there would be no comprehension. The Documents that ended the War of 1812 were not to individual states as you well know but to the United States.
Only you think it possible to converse with the dead.
Treaty of Ghent was between the many former colonies, acting in concert, and the UK crown.
Quote:
Was he guilty of treason? Absolutely, by every bit as much a standard as John Brown. Was he convicted of it? No. Should he have been? That is a whole different thread.
Really?, JBrown was still a citizen and subject to the laws of the Union when he acted, Davis was not, hardly a valid comparison.
__________________ "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch.
Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote."
Benjamin Franklin, 1759
Hanny, saying a thing does not mean it is lawful, legal, or even practical. The issue that Davis was no longer a citizen of the Union and that his state was no longer a part of that Union, had to be determined on the field of battle, the one chosen by the actions of the South and Davis.
Nope, matters of constionla law cannot be determined by wager of war, which is simply a matter of who has the might, in which case dictators have hada bad rep and actually good guys not bad guys.
Since war was decalred by the North congress first, its clear who initated legalk war firts, and wars are only fought between sovriegns.
Quote:
For four years the idea you state above was contested on that field of battle, and then soundly defeated. Davis was a citizen of a state that belonged to the Union and he was subject to it's laws.
In those years the law of treason was changed many times, as was the loalty oath, at the end of mil conflict those laws were in place, but Davis had to be tried under the law as it existed in 60, and it was those laws that made it imposible to convict him, for thos elaws did not make secesion treason. The new ones did, just as the new law of who wasa citizen made everyone a citizen of the Union of ststes, and no longer a citizen of a stste in the union.
Quote:
Which have nothing to do with the first part of your statement. Davis can claim all he wants in regard to being a citizen of not of a state that may or may not be out of the Union. Until he wins that right on the field of battle, it did not exist.
It has everything to do with what the law of the land says is the case, and it said that their were only ststes with citizens. Which is why in part we have laws to prevent me and my mates from comming and taking your home from you and pushing you out of it.
Quote:
Just as American Independence did not exist until it was decided on the field of battle.
IMO.
Of course is existed, it existed in UK fundamental law, and Parliment, it existed de facto untill recognised by the crown.
Your principle problem is confusing rights, and the ability to enforce them, as being dependednt on the ability to use force to protect those rights.
You free will cannot be removed bgy any level of force brought to bear, your constition recognises and protects rights, what your posting is that unless you have the amount of force needed to maintain them, they mean nothing and are of no worth, in which case, why bother to write down constitions?.
__________________ "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch.
Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote."
Benjamin Franklin, 1759
"No its a fact, the legislation to make USA citizens occurs 65/66 upto that point in time there were only states with citizens, as defined in the federal and state laws of naturlization and imigration."
Um...No. Please read article 1 of the U. S. constitution. "No person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the age of twenty five years, and been seven years a citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an inhabitant of that state in which he shall be chosen."
"Treaty of Ghent was between the many former colonies, acting in concert, and the UK crown."
At the risk of sounding redundant, Um...No. Please read the treaty. "His Britannic Majesty and the United States of America, desirous of terminating the war which has unhappily subsisted between the two countries, and of restoring, upon principles of perfect reciprocity, peace, friendship, and good understanding between them, have, for that purpose, appointed their respective Plenipotentiaries...." Two countries, Hanny.
"Since war was decalred by the North congress first, its clear who initated legalk war firts, and wars are only fought between sovriegns."
I'm sure that you can produce the congressional resolution declaring war.
"It has everything to do with what the law of the land says is the case, and it said that their were only ststes with citizens."
See above.
"Of course is existed, it existed in UK fundamental law, and Parliment, it existed de facto untill recognised by the crown."
What fundamental law are you talking about, Hanny? Magna Carta? I think not. Maybe you can clarify what British legal custom allowed the right of rebellion.
Maybe you should do a little reading, Hanny, before you make such claims.
__________________ David
"I refuse to have a battle of wits with an unarmed person" diddyriddick
Quote by Hanny:
"In those years the law of treason was changed many times, as was the loalty oath, at the end of mil conflict those laws were in place, but Davis had to be tried under the law as it existed in 60, and it was those laws that made it imposible to convict him, for thos elaws did not make secesion treason. The new ones did, just as the new law of who wasa citizen made everyone a citizen of the Union of ststes, and no longer a citizen of a stste in the union."
Here is Treason in the Constitution from:
Article III Section 3 - Treason Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
The Congress shall have power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.
Congress does not have the power to change the Constitution through legislation only through Amendment. So how were your non-existent laws on Treason changed? Davis committed Treason as outlined by the Constitution and by the US Code below.
From the US Code:
"whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States."
__________________ "Those who forget to remember the past are condemned to repeat it", George Santayana.
Um...No. Please read article 1 of the U. S. constitution. "No person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the age of twenty five years, and been seven years a citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an inhabitant of that state in which he shall be chosen."
Ok read the article that explain the period of re4sidency in a stste that the fedweral constion requires a citizen of that stste to have completed before he can be its representative. since this has nothing to do with who can be a citizen of the USA, but makes clear only thatb for federal represenation a citizen must be a citizen of a stste for a period of time, its clear this article is refering to my comment thatbther were no USA citizens, only citizens in states, which was codiefied in state constitionsna federal natualizationa cts that acept acknowdlde that only ststes had citizens and all the federal authority on this was to have a sy in the term of reidency to be allowed federal reprentation. If there were such a thing as citizens of all the ssttes the article would reflect that, not as it does do, reflect that states had citizens and living 3 years in 1 and 4 in another allowed you the federal right of US citizenship. Example form history is the first negro sentor who took J davis seat who had toi show Miss residence and Miss citizenship and fullfil boith state constition laws to be rep for Miss and the article you cite to do so at federal level.
the answer your after is the state laws on who was allowed to bea citizen of a state and the federal laws which replace them on 9 April 1866 that remove state citizednship and replaces it with national citizenship of the USA, statutes at large 27, and confirmed as constional by USSC in Jones V mayer. Till 66 there was no legal person asa citizen of the USA, there were only stste citizens with equal rights set out in the constition, which istself explains the point about there not being such a thing in law as all the provision for equality of states citizesn would be unrequired.
Quote:
At the risk of sounding redundant, Um...No. Please read the treaty. "His Britannic Majesty and the United States of America, desirous of terminating the war which has unhappily subsisted between the two countries, and of restoring, upon principles of perfect reciprocity, peace, friendship, and good understanding between them, have, for that purpose, appointed their respective Plenipotentiaries...." Two countries, Hanny.
What is redundent is the the Uk crown is the sovriegntys of England ireland scotaland and wales all seperate countrys with rights in the Union, just as the colonies in the USA.
Quote:
I'm sure that you can produce the congressional resolution declaring war.
So am i, but since i already know it exists, whats in it for me to provide that which your unaware of?, since your unaware of it, what the hell are you doing posting about it when you have already formed a settled opinion?.
Quote:
See above.
See the naturlization act of 1798 which sets out whites only get federal rights.
Quote:
What fundamental law are you talking about, Hanny? Magna Carta? I think not. Maybe you can clarify what British legal custom allowed the right of rebellion.
No, im refering to US fundammetal law which is Tuckers Blackstone which was the american legal work used to teach law at William and marry the first law university in the US colonies, and wasa a copy of Uk fundmatal law written by blackstone and is the law book that sets out th right of secesion for all memebers of the UK Union and canada provinces who based their law of it, just as did the US.
Lawyers who went to congress expalined this fundametla law for all to here, see hayne for example.
[quote[
Maybe you should do a little reading, Hanny, before you make such claims.[/quote]
since im not asking you what you mean, and you are asking for what i mean, its pretty clear who knows where to look and what they will find, so thanks, but i already know what im posting about, and that you dont answers your snipe, and since you dont even know when the first law of federal citizenship was passed i suggest you take your own advice and get back to me.
__________________ "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch.
Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote."
Benjamin Franklin, 1759
Quote by Hanny:
"In those years the law of treason was changed many times, as was the loalty oath, at the end of mil conflict those laws were in place, but Davis had to be tried under the law as it existed in 60, and it was those laws that made it imposible to convict him, for thos elaws did not make secesion treason. The new ones did, just as the new law of who wasa citizen made everyone a citizen of the Union of ststes, and no longer a citizen of a stste in the union."
Here is Treason in the Constitution from: Article III Section 3 - Treason Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
The Congress shall have power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.
Congress does not have the power to change the Constitution through legislation only through Amendment. So how were your non-existent laws on Treason changed? Davis committed Treason as outlined by the Constitution and by the US Code below.
From the US Code:
"whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States."
I already exalined Davis was not a citizen to whom those laws applied.
As for when the treason laws were changed, in 1860 the US articles of war contained what constituited treason, they were changed in late 61 when citizens went with their states and left the Union, to make this imaterial as they would still be subject to the new treason laws, these ex post fact laws could not be used on mil persoanle, public figures wer covered by a different oath which was changed around teh same time an d alittle later all citizens become subject to the iron clad oath, none of these ex popst fact laws could be used against davis, and his defense in its most basic was to show secesion wasa right, and that all his actions therfore were taken not asa citizen subject to the laws of the Union.
__________________ "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch.
Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote."
Benjamin Franklin, 1759
Hanny, when Jeff Davis gave his oath at the Point it wasn't to the State of Mississippi, when he gave his oath as Sec of War; it was not to his home state. The idea that there were no US citizens prior to the CW is ignorant. Ask a Londoner of 1860, or the King for that matter where Iowa was at the time and there would be no comprehension. The Documents that ended the War of 1812 were not to individual states as you well know but to the United States.
Was he guilty of treason? Absolutely, by every bit as much a standard as John Brown. Was he convicted of it? No. Should he have been? That is a whole different thread.
And yet, the man is jumping up and down in casemate #2 Fortress Monroe, shackles on his ankles, demanding his day in court...
And so the yellow fringes (signifying military 'authority') on the military American flag seemed to be the dominant color, in those days...
No real democracy here. No real justice here. And no true belief in the system for which everyone is so busy dying...
I have begged you to try him, here. You all keep surrendering without a fight.
I call that cowardice in the line of fire, sir. Not only for refusing to try the man, but for publically libeling him as a TRAITOR without a conviction from a jury of his peers.
Most craven, suh!
Beowulf
And if he was 'guilty' of the crime, then I submit that the United States government, in all of its branches, was an accessory after the fact, in his release...
At the very least, the charge is non-feasance of duty. Misprision of felony.
Done to hide their involvement in the cause of his turning 'traitor' to the first instance.
Quote by diddyriddick:
I'm sure that you can produce the congressional resolution declaring war.
Quote by Hanny:
Quote:
So am i, but since i already know it exists, whats in it for me to provide that which your unaware of?, since your unaware of it, what the hell are you doing posting about it when you have already formed a settled opinion?.
I believe you've misnderstood the statement. I'm also unaware of a congrsssional resolution declaring war; I would very much like to see if it says what you say it does.
Quote:
I already exalined Davis was not a citizen to whom those laws applied.
Explaining it doesn't make it so. He believed he was not a citizen, but Appomattox kinda sorta proved him wrong. And that goes as well for all those who made war on the United States. The Constitution does not include defending hearth and home in its definition: levying war against them. No amount of laws or regulations could and cannot change that definition.
ole
__________________ I never knew a man who wished to be himself a slave. Consider if you know any good thing that no man desires for himself. A. Lincoln
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
