slavery is at the bottom of everything they were worried about

trice

Lt. Colonel
Joined
May 2, 2006
Messages
11,625
Quote:
Originally Posted by russ_aukerman
"The Supreme Court was specifically given authority over controversies between states, or where the Federal government was a party."

As I've tried to tell you, a state's exercise of its own sovereign powers is not a 'controversy between the states' or a controversy where the Federal gov't is a party. You might find later Cheif Justice Marshall's words interesting here: "Can they [Congress] make laws affecting the mode of transferring property, or contracts, or claims between citizens of the same state? Can they go beyond the delegated powers? If they were to make a law not warrented by any of the powers enumerated, it would be consideredn by the Judges as an infringement of the Constitution which they are to guard: - THEY WOULD NOT CONSIDER SUCH A LAW AS COMING UNDER THEIR JURISDICTION. - They would declare it void." John Marshall on the Fairness and Jurisdiction of the Federal Courts, June 20, 1788, in B. Bailyn, ed., The Debate on the Constitution (The Library of America, 1993), pp. 731-32.Note that 'laws affecting the mode of transferring property, or contracts, or claims between citizens of the same state' are, like secession and fireworks, subjects upon whidh a state may act entirely within their boundaries, which affect other states or people in other states. You would probably say that secession affects other states or people in other states in a degree that my other examples, and those of Marshall, do not. I would reply that the degree of 'affect' is irrelevant, under the Constitution, when a state exercises its own sovereign rights. In other words, the Constitution does not say that when a state's exercise of its own sovereign rights 'affects' others to a large degree, it becomes a 'controversy between the states' giving rise to federal court jurisdiction.



Please note that Marshall is saying to you here that it would be the Supreme Court that would make the decision on the controversy about the law. He is asserting the jurisdiction I am describing to you while you claim he does not. Talk about shooting yourself in the foot.

russ_aukerman said:
What Marshall is saying is the fundamental principle that a court has jurisdiction to determine its jurisdiction.
In short, Marshall is saying that if a state passes a law that the Supreme Court considers unconstitutional, they will declare it void. This is exactly what I am telling you. You seem to be saying you agree and do not agree at the same time.

I am not sure what you think a "controversy" is under the Constitution. It seems clear to me that one existed about both the existence and the details of the "right of secession" in 1860-61, that it involved all of the states individually as well as the United States as a whole, and that such issues are included in the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court by the Constitution should they choose to exert it.

Whether or not the Court would choose to hear such a case is another matter. My guess is that Taney would have been eager to do so. Whether the losing side in any result would abide by it is debatable as well, but I think the chances of a peaceful separation would have been increased by a decision in favor of the "right of secession", complete or partial.

Regards,
Tim
 

Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

JohnTaylor

Sergeant
Joined
Feb 7, 2006
Messages
575
trice said:
In short, it is the same United States under both the Constitution and Articles of Confederation. There is no pretense here. The laws remain in force unless explicitly changed. They are assuring their citizens, creditors, partners and allies that they will continue to uphold their obligations and pay their debts without fail.
Tim,
On May 10th, 1790, the Senate considered a bill to prohibit all intercourse with RI and to authorize the President to demand that RI pay her share of the country's war debt – $27,000. Mr. Maclay, Senator from Pennsylvania wrote of this bill: "When we came in, we found them (the Senate) on the Rhode Island resolves. The committee had been called on to give reasons on which they founded their resolutions. Elsworth (sic) spoke with great deliberation, often and long, and yet I was not convinced by him. I saw I must, if I followed my judgement, vote against both resolutions. It was, therefore, incumbent on me to give some reasons for my vote. I observed that the business was under deliberation in Rhode Island; that the resolves carried on the face of them a punishment for rejection, on the supposition that they would ruin our revenue. Let us first establish the fact against them that an intercourse with them had injured our revenue before we punish them with a prohibition of all intercourse. This resolution I considered premature. The other, for the demand of twenty-seven thousand dollars, I considered equally so. Let accounts be settled and Rhode Island has a right to be charged with, and she has a right to pay her proportion of the cost of independence. By the present resolutions, the attack comes visibly from us. She is furnished with an apology, and will stand justified to all the world if we [sic, she?] should enter into any foreign engagements." (Of course, if Rhode Island was a member of the Union, the Constitution would outlaw any congressional prohibition of trade between Rhode Island and the rest of the Union). Then on May 11th, "The Rhode Island resolutions were taken up. I was twice up against these resolutions. They admitted on all hands that Rhode Island was independent, and did not deny that the measures now taken were meant to force her into adoption of the Constitution of the United States." (italics added) Journal of William Maclay, United States Senator from Pennsylvania, 1789-1791. Edgar S. Maclay, ed., (NY: Appleton, 1890), pg. 258-9.

I realize the historical record is unkind to your views here, but you ought to face the truth: the decision on membership in the Union was up to the people of that State to make. If Rhode Island had rejected the Constitution (or even refused to do anything in regard to the question), she was independent. Nobody suggested invading Rhode Island and forcing her to join the Union, because such an act would have been repugnant to republican principles.
Respectfully,
John Taylor
 

trice

Lt. Colonel
Joined
May 2, 2006
Messages
11,625
JohnTaylor said:
On May 10th, 1790, the Senate considered a bill to prohibit all intercourse with RI and to authorize the President to demand that RI pay her share of the country's war debt – $27,000. Mr. Maclay, Senator from Pennsylvania wrote of this bill: "When we came in, we found them (the Senate) on the Rhode Island resolves. The committee had been called on to give reasons on which they founded their resolutions. Elsworth (sic) spoke with great deliberation, often and long, and yet I was not convinced by him. I saw I must, if I followed my judgement, vote against both resolutions. It was, therefore, incumbent on me to give some reasons for my vote. I observed that the business was under deliberation in Rhode Island; that the resolves carried on the face of them a punishment for rejection, on the supposition that they would ruin our revenue. Let us first establish the fact against them that an intercourse with them had injured our revenue before we punish them with a prohibition of all intercourse. This resolution I considered premature. The other, for the demand of twenty-seven thousand dollars, I considered equally so. Let accounts be settled and Rhode Island has a right to be charged with, and she has a right to pay her proportion of the cost of independence. By the present resolutions, the attack comes visibly from us. She is furnished with an apology, and will stand justified to all the world if we [sic, she?] should enter into any foreign engagements." (Of course, if Rhode Island was a member of the Union, the Constitution would outlaw any congressional prohibition of trade between Rhode Island and the rest of the Union). Then on May 11th, "The Rhode Island resolutions were taken up. I was twice up against these resolutions. They admitted on all hands that Rhode Island was independent, and did not deny that the measures now taken were meant to force her into adoption of the Constitution of the United States." (italics added) Journal of William Maclay, United States Senator from Pennsylvania, 1789-1791. Edgar S. Maclay, ed., (NY: Appleton, 1890), pg. 258-9.

I realize the historical record is unkind to your views here, but you ought to face the truth: the decision on membership in the Union was up to the people of that State to make. If Rhode Island had rejected the Constitution (or even refused to do anything in regard to the question), she was independent. Nobody suggested invading Rhode Island and forcing her to join the Union, because such an act would have been repugnant to republican principles.
John, what you are showing us here is that the Congress was actually considering legislation to compel Rhode Island to pay her share of the debt (Rhode Island being one of the states that had run up large debts through unsound policies before the Constitution, was looking for relief from the US, and had for a long time refused to follow the procedures for voting on the Constitution). Jefferson, speaking about 1784, had said that in the end the rest of the states would always use force to compel a dissenter from meeting her obligations, however much they would delay in doing it.

At this time, the US was doing exactly what you and this source say they weren't doing: they were ratcheting up the pressure on one hand (economic blockage/embargo, pressure to collect a debt) while offering a carrot on the other (assumption of some state debts by the Federal government). It hadn't gotten nasty enough yet for talk of troops, but it was headed that way -- just as Jefferson had prophesied a few years before.

There is certainly room to complain and argue about the methods used in adopting the new Constitution, and they might be regarded as illegal under the Articles. OTOH, it would be a vote of Congress that determined if they were illegal, and if most of the states agreed on changing them it is not likely that argument would be sustained by the states in Congress. Obviously, just one more reason the Articles were too weak and ineffectual to continue -- and also too prone to abuse by a substantial majority.

But the case for South Carolina is quite different. South Carolina had agreed to join under the Articles and had also agreed to the Constitution. In the debate on adopting the Constitution, the President of the South Carolina convention said this:

-----
In that Declaration the several states are not even enumerated; but after reciting, in nervous language, and with convincing arguments, our right to independence, and the tyranny which compelled us to assert it, the declaration is made in the following words: "We, therefore, the representatives of the United States of America in General Congress assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the name and by the authority of the good people of these colonies, solemnly publish and declare, that these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, [FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=-1]FREE AND INDEPENDENT STATES[/SIZE][/FONT]." The separate independence and individual sovereignty of the several states were never thought of by the enlightened band of patriots who framed this Declaration; the several states are not even mentioned by name in any part of it,--as if it was intended to impress this maxim on America, that our freedom and independence arose from our union, and that without it we could neither be free nor independent. Let us, then, consider all attempts to weaken this Union, by maintaining that each state is separately and individually independent, as a species of political heresy, which can never benefit us, but may bring on us the most serious distresses.
-----

Amazing. A man who knew Washington, Hamilton, McHenry and so many others personally, had just returned from the Philadelphia Convention where he worked with them and Madison and the rest, had taken part in the writing of the Constitution itself, who is chosen as President of the South Carolina Convention -- and his view of the matter is directly contrary to what secessionists claim is the only view possible. There were many opinions, not just one.

He was a controversial character, but clearly an important one: Charles Cotesworth Pinckney. His father was the chief justice of the colony and a member of the Royal Council; he himself was an officer of the 1st SC Continentals, the Grenadier company commander, and eventually Colonel of the regiment before serving on Washington's staff. Commanding a brigade in the South, he was captured at Charleston in 1780. While a POW: "If I had a vein that did not beat with the love of my Country, I myself would open it. If I had a drop of blood that could flow dishonourable, I myself would let it out."

This is a man South Carolina chose to represent it at the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia: an ardent nationalist. He became one of the important architects of the new Constitution, particularly the system of checks-and-balances. (Not surprising, considering his background and education as a lawyer in London.)

Appointed ambassador to France in 1796, he was at the crux of the XYZ Crisis when French diplomats refused to accept his credentials without a bribe. In 1800, he was the Federalist VP candidate, and later an unsuccessful Presidential candidate.

I keep saying there are lots of differing opinions out there; somehow all those arguing for secession keep ignoring the people I quote and claiming there is only one. That is simply not accurate.

Regards,
Tim
 

JohnTaylor

Sergeant
Joined
Feb 7, 2006
Messages
575
trice said:
John, what you are showing us here is that the Congress was actually considering legislation to compel Rhode Island to pay her share of the debt (Rhode Island being one of the states that had run up large debts through unsound policies before the Constitution, was looking for relief from the US, and had for a long time refused to follow the procedures for voting on the Constitution). Jefferson, speaking about 1784, had said that in the end the rest of the states would always use force to compel a dissenter from meeting her obligations, however much they would delay in doing it.

At this time, the US was doing exactly what you and this source say they weren't doing: they were ratcheting up the pressure on one hand (economic blockage/embargo, pressure to collect a debt) while offering a carrot on the other (assumption of some state debts by the Federal government). It hadn't gotten nasty enough yet for talk of troops, but it was headed that way -- just as Jefferson had prophesied a few years before.

There is certainly room to complain and argue about the methods used in adopting the new Constitution, and they might be regarded as illegal under the Articles. OTOH, it would be a vote of Congress that determined if they were illegal, and if most of the states agreed on changing them it is not likely that argument would be sustained by the states in Congress. Obviously, just one more reason the Articles were too weak and ineffectual to continue -- and also too prone to abuse by a substantial majority.
Tim, just for the record, was Rhode Island in the Union or out of it on May 10 1790?
Respectfully,
John Taylor
 

trice

Lt. Colonel
Joined
May 2, 2006
Messages
11,625
JohnTaylor said:
Tim, just for the record, was Rhode Island in the Union or out of it on May 10 1790?
I would consider that matter unresolved legally. People certainly had opinions about it; my own would be that they were a recalcitrant member being dragooned into compliance politely. At that moment in time Rhode Island was finally holding the convention to consider ratification of the Constitution. The Congress was trying to exert pressure to get them to finally ratify it.

A question for you: if they were not in the Union, what act (on their part or on some other party's part) had caused them to be out of it? On what date do you consider them to no longer be a member of the United States, and why?

Regards,
Tim
 

Hanny

Banned
Joined
Jul 20, 2006
Messages
1,095
trice said:
A question for you: if they were not in the Union, what act (on their part or on some other party's part) had caused them to be out of it? On what date do you consider them to no longer be a member of the United States, and why?

Regards,
Tim

A better question is, and where i think he was going, is when did NC and RI dissolve their membership to the AOC, if they did not, and i am sure they did not, the Union they were in is still in effect, and they have enterd into another Union on the date of ratification to the Constition.
 

Hanny

Banned
Joined
Jul 20, 2006
Messages
1,095
trice said:
Quote:
Originally Posted by russ_aukerman
"The Supreme Court was specifically given authority over controversies between states, or where the Federal government was a party."

As I've tried to tell you, a state's exercise of its own sovereign powers is not a 'controversy between the states' or a controversy where the Federal gov't is a party. You might find later Cheif Justice Marshall's words interesting here: "Can they [Congress] make laws affecting the mode of transferring property, or contracts, or claims between citizens of the same state? Can they go beyond the delegated powers? If they were to make a law not warrented by any of the powers enumerated, it would be consideredn by the Judges as an infringement of the Constitution which they are to guard: - THEY WOULD NOT CONSIDER SUCH A LAW AS COMING UNDER THEIR JURISDICTION. - They would declare it void." John Marshall on the Fairness and Jurisdiction of the Federal Courts, June 20, 1788, in B. Bailyn, ed., The Debate on the Constitution (The Library of America, 1993), pp. 731-32.Note that 'laws affecting the mode of transferring property, or contracts, or claims between citizens of the same state' are, like secession and fireworks, subjects upon whidh a state may act entirely within their boundaries, which affect other states or people in other states. You would probably say that secession affects other states or people in other states in a degree that my other examples, and those of Marshall, do not. I would reply that the degree of 'affect' is irrelevant, under the Constitution, when a state exercises its own sovereign rights. In other words, the Constitution does not say that when a state's exercise of its own sovereign rights 'affects' others to a large degree, it becomes a 'controversy between the states' giving rise to federal court jurisdiction.


Please note that Marshall is saying to you here that it would be the Supreme Court that would make the decision on the controversy about the law. He is asserting the jurisdiction I am describing to you while you claim he does not. Talk about shooting yourself in the foot.

Tim
That comes from when Marshal noted that would mean Congress could tell any State who was to be a citizen in its own state, overulling State Constition by needfull legislture in congress, and makes the agument that this is plabable not the intention of the Constition, since the historical record shows that states barred application as citizens who were then dissallowed as citizens in any other State, placed property/age/colour residency and colour requirements long past this case, and was mentioned by SC as a cause of secesion, the only foot with a hole in it appears to be yours!:thumbsup:


would
 

trice

Lt. Colonel
Joined
May 2, 2006
Messages
11,625
Hanny said:
That comes from when Marshal noted that would mean Congress could tell any State who was to be a citizen in its own state, overulling State Constition by needfull legislture in congress, and makes the agument that this is plabable not the intention of the Constition, since the historical record shows that states barred application as citizens who were then dissallowed as citizens in any other State, placed property/age/colour residency and colour requirements long past this case, and was mentioned by SC as a cause of secesion, the only foot with a hole in it appears to be yours!:thumbsup:
Nope. JohnTaylor was using Marshall's quote to show the Supreme Court had no jurisdiction. Marshall was saying the Court DID have jurisdiction and would declare such a law void.

Regards,
Tim
 

trice

Lt. Colonel
Joined
May 2, 2006
Messages
11,625
Hanny said:
A better question is, and where i think he was going, is when did NC and RI dissolve their membership to the AOC, if they did not, and i am sure they did not, the Union they were in is still in effect, and they have enterd into another Union on the date of ratification to the Constition.
No one can ever find an act where any of the original 13 ended their membership in the Union at the time of the adoption of the Constitution. There was none.

The United States existed before the Constitution was adopted, and continued under it. Title to property, treaty responsibilities, etc. all remained in effect and were transferred without a hitch from the government of the "Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union" to the government of the Constitution. The Union remained, although the governing rules changed.

In a practical sense, the status of those states not agreeing to adopt the Constitution was deliberately left unmentioned. It was not merely vague, it was not even described. This is such a glaring omission that I am sure it was deliberate.

By 1789-90, the new Constitution was in effect. The new Congress began trying to persuade RI and NC to adopt it. NC did. RI continued to drag their feet, and Congress turned to pressure. This pressure led RI to finally calling (after 6 times rejecting) the required Convention on the new Constitution (January 1790). When that Convention adjourned without a decision, Congress ratcheted up the pressure again. It is no accident that Congress is considering legislation that would be most unpleasant to RI at exactly the time the RI Convention reconvenes in Newport. That pressure resulted in a narrow victory for the Constitution, and the contemplated legislation was dropped.

This is what John Stuart Mills would have called persuasion with the implied promise of future coercion to follow. It is not particularly nice, but it is fairly routine political maneuvering and arm-twisting, a standard carrot-and-stick approach to get RI to do what the rest wanted.

While all this was going on, no one was too anxious to finalize the status of RI or NC. So none of the parties involved passed definitive legislation on it, preferring to leave the matter in limbo for the time being. Taking the time to get it done this way didn't hurt any of them too much, but RI and NC obviously didn't want to declare they were not part of the US (or they would have done it). Congress wasn't too eager to declare them out (or they would have done it). In the end, Congress put the question to little RI: time to make up your mind, in or out? RI, out of time, decided that staying in was better than getting out.

Better to put any further commentary on this in a different thread, though, and 1790 political maneuvering is pretty far removed from the Civil War.

Regards,
Tim
 

Hanny

Banned
Joined
Jul 20, 2006
Messages
1,095
So sorry for the delay buit have ben unable to see this post for a long time, but today i can and will pick up again.
trice said:
No one can ever find an act where any of the original 13 ended their membership in the Union at the time of the adoption of the Constitution. There was none.
Not so, all but RI and NC adopted resolutions ending membership of the AOC.
trice said:
The United States existed before the Constitution was adopted, and continued under it. Title to property, treaty responsibilities, etc. all remained in effect and were transferred without a hitch from the government of the "Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union" to the government of the Constitution. The Union remained, although the governing rules changed.
Nonsense. The AOC requires all members unamimity to change its legal status,the Union on the AOC remained in force while other states secceded from it and formed a new Union, and perpetual means not without end, but untill rescinded by law, and the new Union under the constition was created from and by states secceding from one Union, (governed by the AOC requiring all states consent), at the will of the people of each state.
trice said:
In a practical sense, the status of those states not agreeing to adopt the Constitution was deliberately left unmentioned. It was not merely vague, it was not even described. This is such a glaring omission that I am sure it was deliberate.
Odd then that Madison expalins what you are unaware off and arrive at a conclusion unwarented by a reading of the federlist papers, in which the reltionship of states still in the AOC are discussed to those in the new Union under the Constition.

trice said:
This is what John Stuart Mills would have called persuasion with the implied promise of future coercion to follow. It is not particularly nice, but it is fairly routine political maneuvering and arm-twisting, a standard carrot-and-stick approach to get RI to do what the rest wanted.
Again no, its clear that the states in the new Union wanted the people of RI and NC to express their will, not the legilature that denied them a vote on entry into or disoltution of the old Union, and perpetuated themselves in power without recorourse top a state vote to do so. yes they wanted them in the new Union, but no force was imp0lied, in fact it ws expressly denied, and no one knew how many of the States would enter into this new Union, but to make it a going concern required at least 9, the status of the rest is defined and explained in teh Federlist papers by hamilton and Madison.

trice said:
While all this was going on, no one was too anxious to finalize the status of RI or NC. So none of the parties involved passed definitive legislation on it, preferring to leave the matter in limbo for the time being. Taking the time to get it done this way didn't hurt any of them too much, but RI and NC obviously didn't want to declare they were not part of the US (or they would have done it). Congress wasn't too eager to declare them out (or they would have done it). In the end, Congress put the question to little RI: time to make up your mind, in or out? RI, out of time, decided that staying in was better than getting out.
RI Gov did exactly that in a letter to congress, ill post it for you latter, expaling that RI was not in the Union under the Constition. Congress passed discriminatory legislation of both NC and RI, mail for instance stopped at the state line, passed into state hands for delivery, taxes were applied outside the norms of membership of the Union,on imports and exports to/from thoise States not in the Union.
trice said:
Better to put any further commentary on this in a different thread, though, and 1790 political maneuvering is pretty far removed from the Civil War.
Maybe so, but as a precedednt for secesion based on the will of the state people in convenmtion, its rather compelling that every state seccedded from the AOC, despite the perpetual and unanomouse part of the Union it formed forbidding such action, entered into a new Union, and existed at the same time as the AOC with two member states existed for close to 2 years.

trice said:
Nope. JohnTaylor was using Marshall's quote to show the Supreme Court had no jurisdiction. Marshall was saying the Court DID have jurisdiction and would declare such a law void.
Yes thats right, the SC had no such jursidiction, your just not reading what Marshal wrote.
 

JerseyBart

Brigadier General
Moderator
Forum Host
Joined
Jul 19, 2006
Messages
8,818
Location
New Jersey
Now you've done it. You're gonna start people redebating the slavery issue here too. Wait, that means that I've done it too by responding. Gosh darn it to heck. Shoot. I'm buzzard bait. They're gonna send me back to Omaha and I don't even live there.

Bart :thumbsup:
 

JerseyBart

Brigadier General
Moderator
Forum Host
Joined
Jul 19, 2006
Messages
8,818
Location
New Jersey
EWC,

No it doesn't. Slavery causing the Civil War will be debated until the end of time. Not doubt about it. lol

Bart
New Corporal :thumbsup:
 

JerseyBart

Brigadier General
Moderator
Forum Host
Joined
Jul 19, 2006
Messages
8,818
Location
New Jersey
Thanks Ed. I've only been aboard since July, but I really enjoy the topic, the board and every member. It's a great place to discuss pretty much anything.

Bart :thumbsup:
 

ewc

Sergeant
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Messages
849
Location
pittsburgh
Bart- yes that's some impressive posting :thumbsup: . I've been here for years and was delighted when i made sergeant last year i think it was. You are quickly gaining on me! As a rule I stay out of these 'The South Sucks!!!' 'The North Stinks!!!' debates, which tend to help run up post counts. They do get to be highly entertaining though.
 

JerseyBart

Brigadier General
Moderator
Forum Host
Joined
Jul 19, 2006
Messages
8,818
Location
New Jersey
Ed,

I love watching the two sides go after each others' throats too. Sit back with some popcorn and enjoy the show.

Bart :thumbsup:
 


Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!
Top