tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post6033415166115469924..comments2024-03-28T21:35:18.586-04:00Comments on Grim's Hall: The Strangest Civil War Argument I've Ever HeardGrimhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07543082562999855432noreply@blogger.comBlogger40125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post-60199759800555004582014-09-27T18:57:37.782-04:002014-09-27T18:57:37.782-04:00On your point about speed, I remember the end of T...On your point about speed, I remember the end of <i>The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance</i>. The conductor promises that they've sent word ahead to make sure the lines are clear for the Senator's train, so they'll make thirty miles per hour all the way back to Washington D.C. <br /><br />It was clear what a feat that was, in those days.Grimhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07543082562999855432noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post-74378919686053559582014-09-27T12:16:27.529-04:002014-09-27T12:16:27.529-04:00Thanks for the source, Grim. Table 6.22 gives a le...Thanks for the source, Grim. Table 6.22 gives a less disproportionate comparison for water versus rail transport costs, in cents per ton-mile, for the 1850s. Speed was with the rails by this time: 26 mph versus 10-15 mph for steamboat.[I am skeptical at the 15-20 mph claim for canals.] <br /><br />Canal 1.5<br />Steamboat 0.5-1.5<br />Rail 2.5<br /><br />Table 6.23 gives figures for 1860 which place rail transport costing about 5-6 times greater than Mississippi or Ohio River steamboat tonnage transport.[0.37 versus 1.85-2.05]. Rail tonnage rates dropped by about a third in the 1850s. <br /><br />If you are transporting grain from the Midwest to the Northeast , also bear in mind that via New Orleans there is a much longer route.Gringonoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post-14768742657276595282014-09-26T21:38:00.100-04:002014-09-26T21:38:00.100-04:00Here's something helpful, maybe. It suggests ...<a href="http://books.google.com/books?id=dqIBqiNoB9wC&pg=PA100&lpg=PA100&dq=shipping%20rail%20vs%20river%201850&source=bl&ots=uzAUm64S6L&sig=lpoc39n3kuQRJrVNdCZzlJPaIVA&hl=en&sa=X&ei=JhQmVKHPNtD2yQStr4DgAg&ved=0CDIQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=shipping%20rail%20vs%20river%201850&f=false" rel="nofollow">Here's something helpful</a>, maybe. It suggests that there was a major cost issue: <br /><br />"As late as 1850, on competitive routes, river transportation still easily beat rail in cost efficiency for heavy shipping. For instance, shipping 2,000 pounds (one ton) from St. Louis, Missouri to St. Joseph, Missouri, a distance of more than 100 miles as the crow flies, cost $1,498.91 by rail but only $15 by steamboat!"<br /><br />Prices like that suggest a supply/demand differential to support them. Rivers only go where they go, of course. But they went to New Orleans. Grimhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07543082562999855432noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post-85527693213868933962014-09-25T23:47:49.456-04:002014-09-25T23:47:49.456-04:00Grim, regarding precisely what proportion of Midwe...Grim, regarding precisely what proportion of Midwest agricultural produce went by rail versus river in 19860, I'd have to check. <br /><br />I found out that from 1850-1860 grain production in the Midwest increased over 50%, an increase driven by increased cultivation, increased mechanization, and increased access of railroads to market the grain. <br /><br />A subject I need to know more about, because at this stage I do not know what proportion of Midwest agricultural production in 1860 went by rail. Definitely more than in 1850.Gringonoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post-72472403478758589592014-09-25T09:16:52.717-04:002014-09-25T09:16:52.717-04:00Might makes right. The 13 colonies obtained the ri...Might makes right. The 13 colonies obtained the right of independence through strength and only strength alone, with some virtue added in.<br /><br />If independence is truly desired and wanted, then prove to the world you are strong enough to take on the world and kill it.<br /><br />Ymar Sakarnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post-44353786656459505502014-09-25T03:07:20.239-04:002014-09-25T03:07:20.239-04:00"As you may know (if I'm not misrememberi...<i>"As you may know (if I'm not misremembering it), there was a smallish movement (around the time of the War of 1812) for New England to secede...because they disagreed with the other states on war policy and, basically, couldn't stand the South"</i><br /><br />Almost a pity that it didn't happen...<br /><br /><i>"Secession says, "Then we are no longer part of the USA." There's no conflict with the supremacy clause, because the Constitution continues supreme in the USA. Formally, there's no problem with it." </i><br /><br />Well, except you'll likely now have civil war as those who are also part of that country, but who are having their boundaries redrawn may not like that idea so much. All the people- if you want to redraw the bounds of the state- fine, if you want to redraw the bounds of the nation, you'll need the approval of the people of the nation.<br /><br />I started reading this comment thread essentially neutral on the issue, but after the arguments presented here, I'm swayed to the side of Perpetual Union- or at least until everyone agrees on a separation.douglashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03241790925053112959noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post-78456695776635796152014-09-24T23:56:29.757-04:002014-09-24T23:56:29.757-04:00Per your objection in the other thread I think thi...<i>Per your objection in the other thread I think this speaks well of the medieval English...they did not have to wait for Sir Isaac to get the idea that there was something to be done to a king who went too far.</i><br /><br />Well, obviously they had that idea. The idea that the law should be the same for all men... that's a different idea. And in fact, it's a bad idea. I'm not praising Newton, or his successors, for coming up with it. Some people are better than others; 'one standard for all' generally means a worse standard for almost everyone.<br /><br /><i>This interpretations strains against the whole purpose of the Constitution, which...</i><br /><br />I think the introduction of the 'temporarily' hypothesis strains the analogy unacceptably. To say, 'We shall set aside the Constitution for a while' is an affront to the supremacy clause -- indeed, it is even in the case of martial law, though there is constitutional ground for that. But it's a problem to do it 'for a while.'<br /><br />To walk away entirely -- as Scotland recently proposed to do -- is another matter. Then it is not a question of whether the law is supreme in the United States, or whether it is not. It is. Unquestionably it is. We simply are not part of the United States anymore, as the United States is no longer part of the United Kingdom. That doesn't have any bearing on whether the constitution of the United Kingdom (unwritten and customary though it is) is the ruling law there; we just <i>aren't</i> there anymore.Grimhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07543082562999855432noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post-57045796043440107162014-09-24T23:47:21.386-04:002014-09-24T23:47:21.386-04:00That's part of why I said it had the "ger...That's part of why I said it had the "germ" of the idea, rather than the full flowering of the idea...also the remarkable enforcement clause, which says that God's anointed can be attacked by the nobles if he doesn't abide by the charter. Per your objection in the other thread I think this speaks well of the medieval English...they did not have to wait for Sir Isaac to get the idea that there was something to be done to a king who went too far. So not everything was shrouded in night 'til God said "Let Newton Be." And it fits the English national myth, including the version the Founders grew up on...and which inspired <a href="http://www.bartleby.com/41/401.html" rel="nofollow">this beautiful verse.</a><br /><br /><i>In any case, the supremacy clause nor anything else spells out the distinction, nor locates the power to secede or not. That's Mike's point, and I think it rules the day.</i><br /><br />I don't think it gives enough attention to the way laws were written in those days. Nowadays even a longstanding criminal statute has to be written with definitions out the wazoo...because our legislatures don't trust the courts to read them honestly. But I once looked through some 19th-century versions of the Code of Alabama (pre- and post-slavery). They'd say things like, "The maximum penalty for larceny is X years"...and not define larceny. They even said, "The condition of Negro slavery is established in this state"...without defining "Negro slavery." <br /><br />Even a death penalty offense, like rape, would not be defined (only the procedures for imposing death)...because with centuries of common-law tradition behind them, the legislatures trusted the courts to read them the way they meant. <br /><br />The Constitution itself defines just one word -- "Treason" -- and that's because it's one law that was so frequently and systematically abused, from antiquity through Henry VIII and after. This is one reason why the U.S. constitution is so short...compared to, say, Brazil's modern one, which if I remember runs over 100 pages...and it's probably why the Tenth Amendment does <i>not</i> include the word "explicitly"...since the Framers understood that some points would be implicit. <br /><br />Imagine this: The U.S. goes to war against a tyrant overseas. One of the wealthier States doesn't like the war and doesn't want to support it. So they say, "I tell you what. We're going to do a temporary separation here. We'll be a separate country for the next few years, 'til you're through with that war, and then we'll come back." (Assume a state on the Canadian border or the Great Lakes...so it's under no threat of foreign conquest and has access to foreign trade even if the U.S. cuts it off.) <br /><br />The Constitution doesn't <i>say</i> they can't do it...it has a procedure for admitting "new" states but not for "old" ones that want to suspend their membership temporarily. Permissible? <br /><br />This interpretations strains against the whole purpose of the Constitution, which was to have a Union that was really a nation, that could fight together and prosper together, and challenge any other nation in this hemisphere. So I think my reading of the Supremacy Clause is the more reasonable one, and consistent with the intent of the Framers.Joseph W.https://www.blogger.com/profile/09480728887840887200noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post-50269874881994359172014-09-24T21:20:50.084-04:002014-09-24T21:20:50.084-04:00Secession is just an extreme case of Nullification...<i>Secession is just an extreme case of Nullification. Instead of saying, "This one federal law or constitutional provision won't apply," it says, "All of them won't apply."</i><br /><br />That's one way of looking at it. Another way is that it's a totally different thing. Nullification says, "Although I remain in the USA, I refuse your law." That's obviously unacceptable, and a violation of the supremacy clause.<br /><br />Secession says, "Then we are no longer part of the USA." There's no conflict with the supremacy clause, because the Constitution continues supreme in the USA. Formally, there's no problem with it. <br /><br />In any case, the supremacy clause nor anything else spells out the distinction, nor locates the power to secede or not. That's Mike's point, and I think it rules the day.<br /><br /><i> The newer one gave me a heroic Arthur that I can admire even on my terms. There's something similar in that more recent Robin Hood we've talked about before...I thought the reinterpretation was absolutely brilliant. </i><br /><br />I thought so, too. I don't object to the reinterpretation (within the limits of preserving the essential natures of things: I would object to a reinterpreted Gandalf who was secretly a servant of the Eye, for example). I just want to make sure we understand that the idea being forwarded there is not essential to the Arthurian corpus: it's a modern idea. The Medieval root, which is genuine, is non-favoritism towards his wife. Arthur was supposed to give her the law, and not misuse his pardon power to save his own wife from the law that bound other noblewomen. <br /><br />That was Henry VI's real flaw, as you probably know: less his churchmanlike demeanor, which was admired (as had been Edward the Confessor's, some hundreds of years earlier), but his extreme favoritism towards his wife and her own faction. Malory (writing at the time) makes Guinevere's faction the good guys of the Round Table, and lets Lancelot assist Arthur in saving her from the death-by-law she deserves; but it's clear that the factionalism itself is what destroys the Round Table.<br /><br /><i>I don't think that's how it came about. There's a germ of it in Magna Carta and the Declaration of Arbroath...and the older idea still of a king as "first among equals."</i><br /><br />Except the Magna Carta very explicitly makes distinctions between the rights of the Church and churchmen, the rights of knights and peers, and so forth. It's actually a very good example of having many laws for many kinds of people. As we've discussed (see the 'frith' list), what happened wasn't that the idea was universality; it's that the class of "free men" slowly spread to include everyone.Grimhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07543082562999855432noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post-86445068376787067212014-09-24T21:04:45.064-04:002014-09-24T21:04:45.064-04:00The idea that the law should bind all exactly alik...<i>The idea that the law should bind all exactly alike and universally follows Newton by an imaginative generation. "Lawlike" came to mean "universal" in the popular imagination. The reason for this is that the law of gravity applies to everything in just the same way...</i><br /><br />I don't <i>think</i> that's how it came about. There's a germ of it in Magna Carta and the Declaration of Arbroath...and the older idea still of a king as "first among equals." All of this long before Newton was born, let alone before the English (not a famously intellectual people) began assimilating his ideas...<br /><br /><i>no matter what kind of thing it is: you compute the motion using universal features of bodies such as mass, and thus you don't care if the mass is a bird or a stone.<br /><br />That's exactly opposed to the Medieval (and Aristotelian) notion that things move according to their natures. So a stone will not move the same way as a bird, should you toss one in the air -- and go ahead, try it, and see if it does!</i><br /><br />I treat my birds more gently than <i>that</i>, but I'll tell you something...if some human comes along and tells us that the laws we obey shouldn't apply to him, because we're "rocks" and he's a "bird," he'd better grow some wings! Joseph W.https://www.blogger.com/profile/09480728887840887200noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post-80803961593820263742014-09-24T20:47:24.955-04:002014-09-24T20:47:24.955-04:00Nullification would, but secession wouldn't.
...<i>Nullification would, but secession wouldn't.</i><br /><br />Secession is just an extreme case of Nullification. Instead of saying, "This one federal law or constitutional provision won't apply," it says, "<i>All</i> of them won't apply."<br /><br />To see the absurdity of the distinction, imagine a state pulled a Joan of Arc. "Okay, the Sixteenth Amendment shall apply to most of our state. But in the town of Domremy, federal income tax shall not apply, nor shall any other federal tax. We're not <i>nullifying</i> your Sixteenth Amendment or tax power, or claiming it's less than supreme...we're just changing the <i>area of land</i> over which it shall be supreme. In fact it still applies to all of our state, except only this little town of Domremy."<br /><br />Domremy at that point would become a major tax haven, obviously, and bring in boatloads of revenue for the state coffers. But would the Constitution still be the Supreme Law of the Land, if a state could do that? <br /><br /><i>That particular interpretation is strikingly modern, not Medieval, though</i>.<br /><br />I know, and there's a time when that would've bothered me. But every version we have is, as you say, heavily transformed from whatever the original was, and presumably is transformed to fit the era in which it's retold. The 1980's Arthur is doubtless further from the first-millennium Arthur than Mallory's fifteenth-century Arthur...but I bet neither one is <i>all</i> that close to the original anyway. The newer one gave me a heroic Arthur that I can admire even on my terms. <br /><br />There's something similar in that more recent <i>Robin Hood</i> we've talked about before...and what a shame it wasn't successful enough for sequels! Because I thought the reinterpretation was absolutely brilliant. Instead of making Richard the redeeming hero, it makes <i>Magna Carta</i> the redeeming hero, with Robin standing for the people's rights and a less arbitrary rule of law, instead of for submission to a stronger, worthier king. Joseph W.https://www.blogger.com/profile/09480728887840887200noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post-50732638517578401842014-09-24T20:37:41.264-04:002014-09-24T20:37:41.264-04:00Eric,
Washington also warned about the danger to ...Eric,<br /><br />Washington also warned about the danger to liberty of entangling alliances. Jefferson went on to mention it in his inaugural address as well (I think the phrase is actually his).<br /><br />So if the union continues to be the means for the permanent security of liberty, then let the union continue. But if it becomes destructive to the liberty that was its whole point, let those who have the capacity to remain free cast off and defend that liberty where and as they can. Grimhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07543082562999855432noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post-76634088072845595692014-09-24T20:32:46.010-04:002014-09-24T20:32:46.010-04:00It's the Union forever.
Dan Webster's gho...<i>It's the Union forever.</i><br /><br />Dan Webster's ghost will be glad. Joseph W.https://www.blogger.com/profile/09480728887840887200noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post-55792465631913074562014-09-24T20:32:27.174-04:002014-09-24T20:32:27.174-04:00JW,
Because Nullification or Secession would mean...JW,<br /><br /><i>Because Nullification or Secession would mean that the Constitution was not supreme anymore. </i><br /><br />Nullification would, but secession wouldn't. The Constitution would remain the supreme law of the land. All that would have changed is the borders of the land. The newly independent state wouldn't be part of that land anymore, but within the borders of the United States the Constitution would always reign.<br /><br /><i>As King Arthur said in Excalibur...what a magnificent interpretation..."My laws must bind everyone, high and low, or they're not laws at all." </i><br /><br />That particular interpretation is strikingly modern, not Medieval, though: King Arthur (who wasn't a king, probably, but leave that) wouldn't have said it. It made perfect sense to the Medievals for laws to bind some but not others: naturally churchmen needed different rules and protections than knights, and both of those from guildsmen. <br /><br />The idea that the law should bind all exactly alike and universally follows Newton by an imaginative generation. "Lawlike" came to mean "universal" in the popular imagination. The reason for this is that the law of gravity applies to everything in just the same way, no matter what kind of thing it is: you compute the motion using universal features of bodies such as mass, and thus you don't care if the mass is a bird or a stone.<br /><br />That's exactly opposed to the Medieval (and Aristotelian) notion that things move according to their natures. So a stone will not move the same way as a bird, should you toss one in the air -- and go ahead, try it, and see if it does!Grimhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07543082562999855432noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post-33455063988935714952014-09-24T20:30:14.736-04:002014-09-24T20:30:14.736-04:00One wonders that if the secessionists just went an...<i>One wonders that if the secessionists just went and ignored the Federal installations, or offered to buy them or what not with out starting shooting, what Lincoln could have done.</i><br /><br />Well, his <i>expressed</i> intention in the First Inaugural was to do nothing in that case. So it's at least possible he would have done nothing, no matter how much he legally "could."<br /><br />'course when you get to the realm of "arbitration by force," the "could" becomes a lot more literal...Joseph W.https://www.blogger.com/profile/09480728887840887200noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post-54972586386577119292014-09-24T20:24:04.051-04:002014-09-24T20:24:04.051-04:00Grant, in his memoirs, makes the interesting claim...Grant, in his memoirs, makes the interesting claim that the states that were part of the original 13 might have basically been able to get up and go, but that all the subsequent states, brought into the union by all the others, and at the cost of all the others, couldn't just leave. <br /><br />He expressly uses the example of Texas, which was brought into the union through the war with Mexico. <br /><br />Plus he points out the seizure of Federal property, that is, public property, by the seceding states was illegal. And basically says that the firing on fort Sumter was an insult to the Union. <br /><br />(One wonders that if the secessionists just went and ignored the Federal installations, or offered to buy them or what not with out starting shooting, what Lincoln could have done.)<br /><br />In any case, the Articles of Confederation, actually named "The Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union" set the precedent in article XIII: "...the Union shall be perpetual." So, one can quibble whether the Constitution of 1787 was an amending or a rewriting of the articles of confederation, but it is obviously a successor in the same spirit. <br /><br />Jackson obviously thought so, and so did George Washington:<br /><br />"You have been wisely admonished to "accustom yourselves to think and speak of the Union as of the palladium of your political safety and prosperity, watching for its preservation with jealous anxiety, discountenancing whatever may suggest even a suspicion that it can in any event be abandoned, and indignantly frowning upon the first dawning of any attempt to alienate any portion of our country from the rest or to enfeeble the sacred ties which now link together the various parts." Without union our independence and liberty would never have been achieved; without union they never can be maintained."<br /><br />It's the Union forever. Eric Blairnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post-88110341614076207352014-09-24T20:06:59.001-04:002014-09-24T20:06:59.001-04:00(In a way, Bolingbroke's rebellion against Ric...(In a way, Bolingbroke's rebellion against Richard lies in the same tradition, though I don't know if the Founders cited it or not. I believe the rebellion was based on Richard's seizure of John of Gaunt's property...leaving various nobles to fear they'd get the same arbitrary treatment if they didn't replace the monarch.) Joseph W.https://www.blogger.com/profile/09480728887840887200noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post-61184933226154006682014-09-24T20:03:31.971-04:002014-09-24T20:03:31.971-04:00It is prohibited to the states, at least implicitl...It <i>is</i> prohibited to the states, at least implicitly (and I think explicitly). Because Nullification or Secession would mean that the Constitution was <i>not</i> supreme anymore. A "supreme law" that a state legislature could annul would not be supreme; the only way for it to be supreme is to admit that the States can't do that.<br /><br />As King Arthur said in <i>Excalibur</i>...what a magnificent interpretation..."My laws must bind everyone, high and low, or they're not laws at all." <br /><br />The U.S. Government wasn't a monarch sent by God, deriving his title by descent from William the Conqueror, and his majesty from papal endorsements or the force he can command (and losing it like Richard II as soon as some other guy can command more force against him). Instead of reserving the right to rebel against it, the Founders created a mechanism to change it peacefully. <br /><br />They certainly were inspired by the Scots, and the English as well, who'd made a habit of throwing off kings they found too oppressive. But they created a better mechanism than execution and civil war for that - so that we've managed with only one of those so far. <br /><br />Also, the mechanism for amending the constitution in Article V would be absurd if Nullification were a true doctrine. Under Article V, it takes a vote of 3/4 of the state legislatures or conventions in 3/4 of the states to pass a new amendment. Why go to all that trouble, if <i>every single one</i> of the states can "amend" the federal constitution all by itself, either by "nullifying" the parts it doesn't like or by throwing off the whole thing?Joseph W.https://www.blogger.com/profile/09480728887840887200noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post-14565186910935332992014-09-24T19:48:20.971-04:002014-09-24T19:48:20.971-04:00The power is not delegated to the United States, a...The power is not delegated to the United States, and it is not prohibited by it to the States. Thus, by the supremacy clause, the Constitution leaves the power to the States (or to the people). <br /><br />Or, as the Declaration of Arbroath put it, it's great that God himself sent us this noble and wonderful king, Robert the Bruce... but the minute he stops doing his job, we're done with him and will pick somebody else. Or, as the Declaration of Independence put it, you shouldn't cut sling load with a long-existing political tie lightly... but when you do, you should at least give an account of why they deserved it.<br /><br />If the Constitution wanted to say, "And no one shall secede except under the following conditions," it could have said so. Since it passes over the question in silence, it's a question for the states. The Federal government is like the king of Scotland or the king of England -- the bond of loyalty is not permanent on us and all our heirs to hold from him and all his heirs forever and ever Amen. The bond of loyalty lasts as long as he does his job, not more and not less.Grimhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07543082562999855432noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post-57667651703101242202014-09-24T19:42:55.798-04:002014-09-24T19:42:55.798-04:00No, because the Supremacy Clause explicitly says t...No, because the Supremacy Clause explicitly says that the Constitution itself shall be supreme over every state and its laws. That means that Nullification and Secession <i>are</i> matters "prohibited by it to the states." Because if the States get to throw off part or all of the constitution, that would mean it's not supreme at all...just as a law that you can defy anytime you want to is not supreme over you, indeed is not really a law at all. <br /><br />btw, the Tenth Amendment reads as follows:<br /><br />"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."<br /><br />The word "expressly," which MikeD adds, isn't in there.Joseph W.https://www.blogger.com/profile/09480728887840887200noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post-11475089903495431952014-09-24T19:27:44.021-04:002014-09-24T19:27:44.021-04:00But Mike's still right, because the Tenth Amen...But Mike's still right, because the Tenth Amendment is right there in the Constitution. So the explicit delegation to the States/People of all non-explicitly assumed powers doesn't run afoul of the supremacy clause; it is in accord with it. Grimhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07543082562999855432noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post-65533582670639837472014-09-24T19:02:54.922-04:002014-09-24T19:02:54.922-04:00(Ditto if the state amends its constitution.) (Ditto if the state amends its constitution.) Joseph W.https://www.blogger.com/profile/09480728887840887200noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post-23875279816283837092014-09-24T19:01:43.894-04:002014-09-24T19:01:43.894-04:00And frankly, I think the anti-secession argument i...<i>And frankly, I think the anti-secession argument is lost right there. Unless you can point to an actual passage in the Constitution expressly forbidding that to the States (I'll save you a look, there isn't one).</i><br /><br />"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof....shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, <b>any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.</b>" - Article VI<br /><br />So if the state passes a law that says, "The whole constitution does not apply to us anymore, because we are seceding," that is a "thing in the laws of the state"...which is overridden by Article VI. The same argument applies against Nullification...of which secession is simply an extreme case. Joseph W.https://www.blogger.com/profile/09480728887840887200noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post-86563874242549073122014-09-24T17:09:42.651-04:002014-09-24T17:09:42.651-04:00I'm sure the next WACO will be just another mi...I'm sure the next WACO will be just another misunderstanding, after some states lose about 50% of their patriotic population... pure coincidence.Ymar Sakarnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post-7060019215015854732014-09-24T17:05:00.975-04:002014-09-24T17:05:00.975-04:00Lincoln may not have been crazy about slavery, but...<b>Lincoln may not have been crazy about slavery, but I think there's little evidence that he went to war to end it.</b><br /><br />If Lincoln had committed to a war to end slavery, when the South was guaranteed their "property" by Constitutional lawyers and previous Presidents/Congress, then Lincoln would really be a Tyrant, like Hussein O's Regime. That's a ridiculous reason to initialize a war.<br /><br />Kill half the nation to save the other half? Only a redistributionist Alinskyite feels the pleasure of that South African trick.<br /><br />So Lincoln was too much of a moderate for the Democrat states that wanted to secede to tolerate. They needed a pretext or reason. Lincoln refused to give it to them, but the seceding states weren't going to wait. They had already drafted all their lawyer work decades ago. They weren't going to sit down and shut up about it any more, especially since their voting power in Congress would decrease with the addition of non slave new states over the next 50 years. Opposite spiral to our Mexican demographic right now.Ymar Sakarnoreply@blogger.com