When did the States lose their Sovereignty?

Elennsar

Colonel
Joined
May 14, 2008
Location
California
In defense of the court, neither of the other two branches should have the power, and someone needs to check the law to keep it constitutional (whatever that means), so...
 

Baggage Handler #2

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
May 6, 2008
Location
Old Northwest Territory
The peace commissioners tried to talk about detachment with lincoln but he would'nt hear them.

Vareb, Lincoln was not the court.
One does not file a petition with the court by going to another agency.
E.G. I do not get plates for my car from the mint, although through staggering coincidence, I have gotten mints from the BMV before. Go figure.
 

unionblue

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Member of the Year
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Location
Ocala, FL (as of December, 2015).
The peace commissioners tried to talk about detachment with lincoln but he would'nt hear them.

Vareb,

The South sent no such thing as "peace" commissioners to talk with Lincoln.

At no time will you find such a term applied to these men who were sent North to discuss terms with the Lincoln administration.

The term "peace" commissioners is a 20-21st century term, not a 19th century one, and is a fairly deceptive label.

But, if you do find the word "peace" used in conjunction with the Southern commissioners in any 19th century document or source, I will reconsider my opinion on the use of the word.

Sincerely,
Unionblue
 

unionblue

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Member of the Year
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Location
Ocala, FL (as of December, 2015).
Perhaps I am missing the point. The fact that states may be equal under the Constitution applies to the right of secession how?

According to what Unionblue posted.

Are you saying the Enabling Act ex post facto made the states ultimately sovereign?

Yes. Why not?

I once again see it, if anything, as confirming that there is no right of secession for the original 13.

Are you saying there is a law somewhere that says secession is illegal? Show me where it was before 1860.

__________________

Vareb,

I post a lot of posts here on this thread.

May I inquire which post of mine you are specifically referring to when you made the statement above, "According to what Unionblue posted?"

Thanks,
Unionblue
 

Vareb

Banned
Joined
Jul 2, 2008
Location
Shenandoah Valle
Vareb,

I post a lot of posts here on this thread.

May I inquire which post of mine you are specifically referring to when you made the statement above, "According to what Unionblue posted?"

Thanks,
Unionblue

The one on this thread you brought over from the History Channel Forum that was posted over there by Historicus.
 

Vareb

Banned
Joined
Jul 2, 2008
Location
Shenandoah Valle
Vareb,

The South sent no such thing as "peace" commissioners to talk with Lincoln.

At no time will you find such a term applied to these men who were sent North to discuss terms with the Lincoln administration.

The term "peace" commissioners is a 20-21st century term, not a 19th century one, and is a fairly deceptive label.

But, if you do find the word "peace" used in conjunction with the Southern commissioners in any 19th century document or source, I will reconsider my opinion on the use of the word.

Sincerely,
Unionblue

I don't know what else to call it.

http://books.google.com/books?id=ct...X&oi=book_result&resnum=2&ct=result#PPA258,M1
 

unionblue

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Member of the Year
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Location
Ocala, FL (as of December, 2015).

unionblue

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Member of the Year
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Location
Ocala, FL (as of December, 2015).
To All,

And yet it seems, we have been provided evidence that the US Senate acknowledges that the States were Sovereign by means of a resolution passed by the Senate on May 24, 1860.

"Resolved, That, in adoption of the Federal Constitution, the States adopting the same acted severally as free and independent Sovereignties, delegating a portion of their power to be exercised by the Federal Government for the increased security of each against dangers, domestic and as well as foreign; and that any intermeddling by any one or more States, or by a combination of their citizens, with the domestic institutions of the others, on any pretext whatever, political, moral, or religious, with a view to their disturbance or subversion, is in violation of the Constitution, insulting to the States so interfered with, endangers their peace and tranquility - objects for which the Constitution was formed - , and by necessary consequence, tend to weaken and destroy the Union itself..."

The above segment of the passed resolutions was passed in the US Senate 36 - 19. Included in the affrimative were the states of CA, IN, MN, OR, and PA, with one Senator from OH and one from NJ in favor.

All of the passed 7 resolutions may be seen here in their entirety:

http://dlxs.library.cornell.edu/cgi...mayantislavery;idno=42926124;view=image;seq=1

Doesn't this one segment of a set of resolutions, passed by the US Senate on May 24, 1860, prove that the States were still considered Sovereign at that time?


Sincerely,
Unionblue

Vareb,

This is the post you are referring to. You also know that I called the original poster, historicus, on the other forum, stating that he lifted a part of a document to somehow "prove" this passed, nonbinding set of resolutions, that this implied that the States were still considered Sovereign in 1860.

It was deceptive then in the manner he presented it, and if one reads a bit further before the emboldened passage he used, it further states, "...That, in the adoption of the Federal Constitution,..."

Does not the word adoption denote the time of when the States were considered Sovereign, at the adoption of the Federal Constitition in 1787? And NOT at the time of when these resolutions were introduced by Davis?

In other words, historicus tried by hiding what the resolutions were really for and took this segment out of context and now you want to claim it does the same thing?

Unionblue
 

trice

Lt. Colonel
Joined
May 2, 2006
trice said:
So, at just what point in time did the seceding states of 1860-61 file a "Petition for Detachment", and who did they file it with? If your answer is truthful, you will say they never did, which will mean this example does not apply at all. Isn't that accurate?

The peace commissioners tried to talk about detachment with lincoln but he would'nt hear them.

You leave us with only two ways to judge what you say: either you can't be honest with yourself, or you are deliberately being dishonest with us.

You presented an example of a group of citizens peacefully and legally filing a petition with the court for a change in their status, then awaiting the decision of the court in current times. You are trying to draw some far-fetched conclusion between that and the aggressive, violent, illegal course the secessionists of 1860 chose. Asked when the secessionists followed such a peaceful and legal course, asked to present an example of their filing a motion with the court, you immediately flee the light and head off on a tangent to avoid the unpleasant facts you cannot accept.

The "commissioners" are yet another example of arrogant acts by the secessionists. They are not there to present any kind of petition, and so this is just a red herring you want to draw across the trail of secessionist acts to distract us from the weakness of your argument.

Given the papers they carried from the Confederacy, no nation could have accepted them without conceding that secession was a fact and a new nation already existed. Lincoln had already said, like Buchanan before him, that he did not believe the President had the power to do that. So what you really have is the Confederacy deliberately sending a set of commissioners that they knew (or certainly should have known) in advance could not be accepted -- and then blaming Lincoln for not seeing them. Good propaganda, perhaps, but it is not a valid argument for anything.

Tim
 

Vareb

Banned
Joined
Jul 2, 2008
Location
Shenandoah Valle
Vareb,

This is the post you are referring to. You also know that I called the original poster, historicus, on the other forum, stating that he lifted a part of a document to somehow "prove" this passed, nonbinding set of resolutions, that this implied that the States were still considered Sovereign in 1860.

It was deceptive then in the manner he presented it, and if one reads a bit further before the emboldened passage he used, it further states, "...That, in the adoption of the Federal Constitution,..."

Does not the word adoption denote the time of when the States were considered Sovereign, at the adoption of the Federal Constitition in 1787? And NOT at the time of when these resolutions were introduced by Davis?

In other words, historicus tried by hiding what the resolutions were really for and took this segment out of context and now you want to claim it does the same thing?

Unionblue

Gee, Unionblue. I only understand what I read! The words were said. It was voted on that way. If they were not meant to say what they said, they wouldn't have been there, right? It really gets a little tiresome getting in a discussion when all that turns up is 'out of context' as an opinion.

It was written and voted on the way it was and the way it reads. Nothing else.

The reason it was there does not matter to me one iota.
It was there, it was voted on, it said and meant what was written. Just get over it.

It shows at that time in history, that states were considered Sovereign. End of story. You can go ahead and bend it to suit yourself. You will never convince me otherwise. :smile: Have a good day.
 

TerryB

Lt. Colonel
Joined
Dec 7, 2008
Location
Nashville TN
Checks and balances

In defense of the court, neither of the other two branches should have the power, and someone needs to check the law to keep it constitutional (whatever that means), so...


I support the right of the President to have the implicit power of veto over 5-4 decisions. The framers had no idea that the Court would trump laws passed by Congress, or they would have given the President some sort of veto power over the Court.
 

TerryB

Lt. Colonel
Joined
Dec 7, 2008
Location
Nashville TN
19th century newspaper

Vareb,

The South sent no such thing as "peace" commissioners to talk with Lincoln.

At no time will you find such a term applied to these men who were sent North to discuss terms with the Lincoln administration.

The term "peace" commissioners is a 20-21st century term, not a 19th century one, and is a fairly deceptive label.

But, if you do find the word "peace" used in conjunction with the Southern commissioners in any 19th century document or source, I will reconsider my opinion on the use of the word.

Sincerely,
Unionblue

I came across a story in the Galveston Daily News that copied the New York Sun, printed on Oct 1, 1878. The "Sun" story ran on Sept 22 of that year. It uses the term "peace commissioners" in reference to the negotiations going on before the war broke out. It's an eye-opener. They assert that Lincoln had no confidence in the North's determination to fight a war, so he decided to draft a document that would tacitly recognize the Confederacy. Mary Todd Lincoln's brother Dr. Todd, lived at the White House, and he got a copy of the document and passed it to Gov. Pickens of SC. The story said that the original document was in the widow Pickens' home to that day. Fort Sumter changed the game, and the document was forgotten. Don't know if I believe it, but they do use the phrase you gentlemen reference.
 

Vareb

Banned
Joined
Jul 2, 2008
Location
Shenandoah Valle
You leave us with only two ways to judge what you say: either you can't be honest with yourself, or you are deliberately being dishonest with us.

Call it the way you want. I don't care. I just wanted to show recent secession. I didn't know you were going to be bent all out of shape over it.:smile:

You presented an example of a group of citizens peacefully and legally filing a petition with the court for a change in their status, then awaiting the decision of the court in current times.

That's right.

You are trying to draw some far-fetched conclusion between that and the aggressive, violent, illegal course the secessionists of 1860 chose.

For your information, so far to date, you or anyone else has shown me a law that says secession is illegal.



Asked when the secessionists followed such a peaceful and legal course, asked to present an example of their filing a motion with the court, you immediately flee the light and head off on a tangent to avoid the unpleasant facts you cannot accept.

The "commissioners" are yet another example of arrogant acts by the secessionists. They are not there to present any kind of petition, and so this is just a red herring you want to draw across the trail of secessionist acts to distract us from the weakness of your argument.

I am learning from you how to twist and turn answers to questions.

Given the papers they carried from the Confederacy, no nation could have accepted them without conceding that secession was a fact and a new nation already existed. Lincoln had already said, like Buchanan before him, that he did not believe the President had the power to do that. So what you really have is the Confederacy deliberately sending a set of commissioners that they knew (or certainly should have known) in advance could not be accepted -- and then blaming Lincoln for not seeing them. Good propaganda, perhaps, but it is not a valid argument for anything.

Talking about twisting and turning? You are the best! You can't seem to handle the truth about the Civil War and how it was started without making it a personal vendetta against another poster. Then when I answer you back in kind, I get a note from ole.

Tim[/quote]
 

Vareb

Banned
Joined
Jul 2, 2008
Location
Shenandoah Valle
I came across a story in the Galveston Daily News that copied the New York Sun, printed on Oct 1, 1878. The "Sun" story ran on Sept 22 of that year. It uses the term "peace commissioners" in reference to the negotiations going on before the war broke out. It's an eye-opener. They assert that Lincoln had no confidence in the North's determination to fight a war, so he decided to draft a document that would tacitly recognize the Confederacy. Mary Todd Lincoln's brother Dr. Todd, lived at the White House, and he got a copy of the document and passed it to Gov. Pickens of SC. The story said that the original document was in the widow Pickens' home to that day. Fort Sumter changed the game, and the document was forgotten. Don't know if I believe it, but they do use the phrase you gentlemen reference.

Terry, there were 2 peace commissions sent to Washington.

This one lincoln refused to talk with.

"He (Jefferson Davis) was inaugurated on Feb. 18, 1861, and his first act was to send a peace commission to Washington, D.C., to prevent an armed conflict."

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_m042961.asp

-------------------------------------------------
lincoln Meets with John B. Baldwin

http://books.google.com/books?id=3s...X&oi=book_result&resnum=3&ct=result#PPA132,M1
 

Parrott Gun

Private
Joined
May 26, 2008
Location
Pennsylvania
As long as we're discussing non-binding resolutions how about this one passed by the Mississippi convention called to debate secession in 1851.


"Resolved, That, in the opinion of this Convention, the asserted right of secession from the Union, on the part of a State, is utterly unsanctioned by the Federal Constitution, which was framed to establish, and not destroy, the Union of the States ; and that no secession can, in fact, take place, without a subversion of the Union established, and which will not virtually amount, in its effects and consequences, to a civil revolution."
 

trice

Lt. Colonel
Joined
May 2, 2006
I support the right of the President to have the implicit power of veto over 5-4 decisions. The framers had no idea that the Court would trump laws passed by Congress, or they would have given the President some sort of veto power over the Court.

Well, that I can't agree with. What the framers were more afraid of than anything was a strong central figure crushing them individually. They saw the need for a powerful President -- and deliberately limited him by making it necessary for him to interact with Congress, particularly on treaties (the Senate) and spending (the House). They saw the need to limit what the Congress could do -- and so removed the executive power from them. They saw the need to have a check on both Congress and the President -- so they deliberately created the Supreme Court, which did not exist under the Articles of Confederation and perpetual Union. Darn smart people, or maybe just suspicious believers in the mantra of trust-but-verify.

Tim
 

trice

Lt. Colonel
Joined
May 2, 2006
For your information, so far to date, you or anyone else has shown me a law that says secession is illegal.

No need to, since it never appears to have existed at all. Now, once again I ask you for any verifiable example at all of a unilateral, legal "right of secession" as a precedent for what the Southern Fire-Eaters tried to claim in 1860. After 15 years of asking, here and elsewhere, I have yet to find anyone who can present one. You have been asked before, and have avoided answering. Do you have one? Or will you simply be honest enough to admit you do not?

Tim
 

Vareb

Banned
Joined
Jul 2, 2008
Location
Shenandoah Valle
No need to, since it never appears to have existed at all. Now, once again I ask you for any verifiable example at all of a unilateral, legal "right of secession" as a precedent for what the Southern Fire-Eaters tried to claim in 1860. After 15 years of asking, here and elsewhere, I have yet to find anyone who can present one. You have been asked before, and have avoided answering. Do you have one? Or will you simply be honest enough to admit you do not?

Tim

Nothing is simple. I will furnish you a book that will explain the right of secession easier than I can if you haven't already read it, which I doubt.

Is Secession Treason-Albert Bledsoe.

Then you can get back to me for discussion.
 
Top