To Mr. Williams, Anne, and All;
First, let's settle the question of the absence of treason trials after
the Civil War. (I wish constitutional historian Harold Hymen was on this
list.) Abraham Lincoln's position was that insurgents had risen up and
unlawfully overturned loyal state governments and put constitutional
nonentities in their place. Under Lincoln's (the Executive's)
constitutional theory, treason trials would have been allowable. Lincoln,
of course, abhorred gratuitous violence. (The reason why Ex Parte Milligan
takes place during Reconstruction and not the Civil War is because Lincoln
allowed Milligan to be tried by a military tribunal but stayed the
execution. Andrew Johnson, when he succeeded to the presidency, allowed an
execution order for Milligan to proceed. That is when Milligan starts
litigating in earnest. In one sense, Ex Parte Milligan is a death penalty
case whereas Ex Parte Merriman was not.
The Radical Republicans in Congress had another theory of the War.
Thaddeus Stevens conceded that the Confederate were not legally traitors,
because they had been part of a sovereign would-be government which had lost
its struggle with the USA. As enemy combatants, they could not be tried for
treason but because they were not US citizens their states were conquered
provinces subject to the jurisdiction of CONGRESS. This position Lincoln
and later Johnson opposed. It was at least in defense of this
constitutional interpretation that the House of Representatives impeached
Andrew Johnson in 1868.
Now, about those ratification reservations, it should first be noted
that only 13 states were in a position to issue them. Vermont was not asked
to ratify the Constitution, nor was any subsequent state. So, is Walter
Williams making the argument that the original 13 ratifiers of the
Constitution--actually only 11 set the Union in motion, with Rhode Island
and North Carolina joining later--have a right to secede? The implication
being, of course, that while Virginia might have the right to secede,
Arkansas and Mississippi do not. I certainly cannot find that distinction
in the Constitution. Moreover, who is making this reservation against
misgovernance at the national level, the states, or the people who happen to
be living in the states? The Constitution commences with the phrase "We the
people..." not 'We the states.' Thus, the reservations issued in the
ratification conventions of several founding states is little different than
the reservations implied in the 9th and 10th Amendments to the Constitution.
The Supreme Court has not found much meaning in these Amendments. I wonder
whether it has ever based a ruling on these ratification binders.
Finally, the Civil War was ruthless on both sides. It left widows and
one armed and one legged men all over this country up until the 1920s. But
terrible also was the Mexican civil war of 1857-67 not to mention the
Mexican Revolution, 1910-1920. What about Russia's terrible civil war,
1917-1922. Or the one still running in Columbia that commenced in the
1950s.
Nations are often created by civil war. This one certainly was.
Perhaps it is right that we are still fighting it in words and thought. It
reminds us that who we are grows out of intense conflict over what and who
we were. Yet, it is ironic that people are still condemning Lincoln for
unjustified violence against the South, when literally tens of thousands of
southerners serve the nation in harm's way overseas for the republic that
Lincoln 1) saved, 2) created 3) despotized.
Harold S. Forsythe
----- Original Message -----
From: "Barrett Decker" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2007 10:29 AM
Subject: Re: I just want to say...
> Anne- Traitors will not do to describe the actions of people who were
> exercising their Constitutional right to secede.
>
> "On June 26, 1788, Virginia's elected delegates met to ratify the
> Constitution. In their ratification document, they said, "The People of
> Virginia declare and make known that the powers granted under the
> Constitution being derived from the People of the United States may be
> resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or
> oppression and that every power not granted thereby remains with them and
> at their will."
> When New York delegates met on July 26, 1788, their ratification document
> read, "That the Powers of Government may be resumed by the People,
> whensoever it shall become necessary to their Happiness; that every Power,
> Jurisdiction and right which is not by the said Constitution clearly
> delegated to the Congress of the United States, or the departments of the
> government thereof, remains to the People of the several States, or to
> their respective State Governments to whom they may have granted the
> same."
>
> On May 29, 1790, the Rhode Island delegates made a similar claim in their
> ratification document: "That the powers of government may be resumed by
> the people, whensoever it shall become necessary to their happiness: That
> the rights of the States respectively to nominate and appoint all State
> Officers, and every other power, jurisdiction and right, which is not by
> the said constitution clearly delegated to the Congress of the United
> States or to the departments of government thereof, remain to the people
> of the several states, or their respective State Governments to whom they
> may have granted the same."
>
> Here's a couple questions for you: Has the United States Congress usurped
> powers that were not delegated to it by the Constitution? From their
> ratification statements, isn't it clear that the nation's Founders assumed
> that States and the people have a right to take back powers they granted
> Congress in the Constitution? All but your highly trained legal scholars,
> politicians and bureaucrats – and others having contempt for the founding
> principles – will agree: Yes, Congress has exceeded its delegated powers.
> And, yes, states have a right to take back (resume) powers delegated to
> the federal government – in a word the right to secede from the Union.
>
> The Founders, who feared federal consolidation of power, saw secession as
> the ultimate brake on federal abuse and usurpation. However, President
> Abraham Lincoln, through nothing less than brutal military force, settled
> that issue. He acted unconstitutionally and with ruthless contempt for the
> founding principles.
>
> Have you ever wondered why Jefferson Davis and other Confederate leaders
> were never tried for treason? The easy answer is that plaintiffs would
> have been laughed out of court because the right of state secession had
> been taken for granted."
>
> - Walter E Williams
> http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=28529
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Anne Pemberton" <[log in to unmask]>
>>
>> Those who create pretty words to describe the actions of traitors are
>> fooling no one but themselves.
>
>>
>> To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe, please see the instructions
>> at http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html
>
> To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe, please see the instructions
> at http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html
To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe, please see the instructions
at http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html
|
