Group urges southerners to answer census race question with "Confederate Southern American"

[IR5FORMUMSIE 850]

That's rather like the UK in 2001, when there was a movement to have enough people put down their religion as "Jedi" in order to have it officially recognised as such. They got the 10,000 they needed, but the Government kind of lost its sense of humour.

Not even in the Ministry of Silly Walks?

[Pooky 3,853]

Not even in the Ministry of Silly Walks?

And now for something completely different .....

[IR5FORMUMSIE 850]

And now for something completely different .....

Conrad Poohs and his dancing teeth? A man with a tape recorder up his nose?

[scandal 951]

[Obama 2012 1,714]

You're wrong.

In Texas V. White the court was deciding a factual matter of law, the question of the sale and ownership of bonds by the state of Texas during the Civil War.

In order to take up the matter it first needed to establish jurisdiction in the case, which raised the question of whether Texas secession was legal in the first place. To answer that question, the court and Chief Justice Salmon Chase relied upon LAW. They did not "create" law, what they did was interpret existing law. Which law? Nothing less than the Constitution itself, the highest law in the land. From the ruling of the Majority Decision:

The words "to form a more perfect union" come from the Constitution, the mouths of the Framers themselves.

The logic of the following sentence interpret the idea of "more perfect union" and determine that they mean indissoluble and perpetual.

On that basis, secession from the United States by a legally admitted state is impossible.

Texas was legally admitted, under the Constitution.

Therefore Texas never seceded, nor did any other Southern state.

You may not like the decision. You may rant and rave and rail against it.

But it was decided. Factually and legally, and based upon interpretation of the Constitution by the majority of Court.

It was law. It is law.

Deal.

Please, Salmon Chase was nothing more than a political hack and former member of Lincolns cabinet. His opinion shows complete bias at best and any true understanding of history and the civil war would tell you that.

Abraham Lincoln was a ####### for attacking the Southern States like he did. Fortunately the Southern States understood their rights much better than Lincoln and the Union did. It would have hurt the Union for the south to withdraw because of agriculture and farming and a couple of other factors, so Lincoln did what he did to try and stop them. Lincoln was the perpetrator or war and started the Civil War, not the south. The south seceded lawfully and within reason of which the founders (please read the Federalist Papers and documents leading up to the constitution..) wanted.

Lincoln's decision to attack the south was scrutinized greatly because even many states in the union believe it was the right of the confederacy leave if they felt the need to. Every single state in union was sovereign, as it was supposed to be. Hell, even a good amount of the northern media was in support of the south leaving the union is that's truly what they felt the need to do.

You can argue up and down all you want, but the decision by the court was very much erroneous in every way. There only saving grace that Salmon Chase gave in his decision was that with consent of the states, he felt no reason why another state should not be able to leave the union.

You can bend history all you want, you can bastardize the intent of the constitution all you want, but one of the key principles of the 'united' states was that the states were indeed 'united' and if anyone felt oppression by the rest, they could leave and do so peacefully. Madison and Jefferson were both in great support of this notion.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Please, Salmon Chase was nothing more than a political hack and former member of Lincolns cabinet. His opinion shows complete bias at best and any true understanding of history and the civil war would tell you that.

Paul, you are being selective with the Constitution here. Salmon Chase opposed slavery long before he became part of Lincoln's cabinet, and his opposition to slavery was consistent with the tenants of the Constitution, whereas, the Southern States were not, even though slavery had remained legal at the formation of this country. Secession then became an attempt to undermine what was in the spirit of the Constitution - that all men are created equal and therefore free from bondage. The Fed Gov't had very much within its jurisdiction to step in and it was the defiance of the Southern States that led to the Civil War.

I'm curious though, what book(s) you have read that support your view on this?

[SuperDuper! 230]

Constitutionally, all you have to answer is how many people reside at your residence. If you feel generous, report ages and genders. Anything else is a violation of your 4th Amendment rights.

The Senseless Census.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Why the #### not!

On the subject of census, all I have to say is, "Here we go again!"

Look for them standing in front of major retailers, special events, homeless shelters, and government offices providing services to the public: Census workers polling passerby's with the question, "Did you receive a census form yet?"

"Why, yes I have!"

"Did you complete the form and send it in yet?"

"Why, yes I did!"

"Would you care to fill out another one, just to be sure?"

[Obama 2012 1,714]

Paul, you are being selective with the Constitution here. Salmon Chase opposed slavery long before he became part of Lincoln's cabinet, and his opposition to slavery was consistent with the tenants of the Constitution, whereas, the Southern States were not, even though slavery had remained legal at the formation of this country. Secession then became an attempt to undermine what was in the spirit of the Constitution - that all men are created equal and therefore free from bondage. The Fed Gov't had very much within its jurisdiction to step in and it was the defiance of the Southern States that led to the Civil War.

I'm curious though, what book(s) you have read that support your view on this?

Oh Salmon Chase was very anti-slavery and very pro human rights, there's no doubt about that, but he was still a political hack. Hell, the man wanted to be President and tried to run in 1860 and even wanted to push Lincoln out of the way in 1864.... unsuccessfully mind you (obviously).

Lincoln himself was also anti-slavery, but Lincoln sought too much importance in holding the union together versus letting the south go their separate way. He truly felt that we'd be doomed if something weren't done to revolve the issue and keep the south as part of the United States. Lincoln honestly only freed the slaves because he felt it was the only action possible to make it so the United States could remain as a whole.... He even had thoughts on keeping slavery if that would have kept the US together at the time.

Maybe Lincoln was right and maybe it would have been complete chaos to separate, but one of the biggest ideas prior to the Civil War was the ability to secede. Hell, even Thomas Jefferson during his presidency in the inaugural address (don't quote me that it was that speech, but I believe it was) was telling the states, if they weren't happy, they can leave. He was much more about wanting everyone to get along, than to have someone be a part of the US that wasn't happy. Even back then, the nullification process was a HUGE deal. Now there were plenty of people for and plenty of people against nullification. James Madison was one who kind of flip-flopped on the issue in his later years, but through most of his life and political career was very much for it.

Fine tooth combing the 1800's is a tough deal sometimes because the works that you read are going to be relatively different depending on the accounts you read from the time period. I've spent a couple of hundred hours probably sitting in the public libraries reading different accounts of the founding up until the turn of the 20th century. Plenty of things match up and then different people have different ideas on the exact reason why the war was fought. Many say slavery was, many say state's rights, many say economic reasons, and a few say it was greed/arrogance of Lincoln's administration and his political posturing.

My point that I'm making though, is that the Civil War was not about the south seceding, because at the time, they had every right to do so as per the framework of the constitution and the founders intentions with the union. The Civil war was about the effects on everything if the south did secede. No one really denied their right to do so, but Lincoln ultimately felt that preservation of the United States was the most important possible thing there was and without that preservation, then all would be lost. He was probably right in many aspects, but at the same time, who knows..

As far as the main point in Texas v. White - The civil war set the precedent for that decision from Salmon Chase. The court and his opinion had to be what they were because of the turmoil that had just taken place. There was no way in hell that a state could be allowed to secede after the war that was just fought and everyone had been brought back into the Union. The amusing part about all of it, is the fact that the Supreme Court ruled that Texas never ceased being a part of the United States because they couldn't secede, BUT Texas was "readmitted" to the Union by congress in 1870. - So the question of interest here (which is still perplexing to many today) is if Texas 'never left' the United States, how were they 'readmitted' to the Union in 1870?

The other insteresting part about Chase and if you think about it/understand him and how he felt about wanting to get into the White House, is had this court case taken place in 1963 let's say and the civil war hadn't happened, then he probably would have ruled on the side of Texas to secede. I'm making an assumption here in saying so mind you, but it would have been great fuel for the fire in believing in sovereign states/state's right for him to have a chance against Lincoln in the Republican Primary of 1864.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

free from bondage

No, man.

[scandal 951]

Please, Salmon Chase was nothing more than a political hack and former member of Lincolns cabinet. His opinion shows complete bias at best and any true understanding of history and the civil war would tell you that.

Abraham Lincoln was a ####### for attacking the Southern States like he did. Fortunately the Southern States understood their rights much better than Lincoln and the Union did. It would have hurt the Union for the south to withdraw because of agriculture and farming and a couple of other factors, so Lincoln did what he did to try and stop them. Lincoln was the perpetrator or war and started the Civil War, not the south. The south seceded lawfully and within reason of which the founders (please read the Federalist Papers and documents leading up to the constitution..) wanted.

Lincoln's decision to attack the south was scrutinized greatly because even many states in the union believe it was the right of the confederacy leave if they felt the need to. Every single state in union was sovereign, as it was supposed to be. Hell, even a good amount of the northern media was in support of the south leaving the union is that's truly what they felt the need to do.

You can argue up and down all you want, but the decision by the court was very much erroneous in every way. There only saving grace that Salmon Chase gave in his decision was that with consent of the states, he felt no reason why another state should not be able to leave the union.

You can bend history all you want, you can bastardize the intent of the constitution all you want, but one of the key principles of the 'united' states was that the states were indeed 'united' and if anyone felt oppression by the rest, they could leave and do so peacefully. Madison and Jefferson were both in great support of this notion.

So... to recap.. your points are:

1. Salmon Chase was a "hack" and that fact invalidates a majority court decision (majority equaling more than just the Chief Justice, yes?). As to why he was a hack, this is apparently because he served in a political office (Treasury Secretary in Lincoln's Administration).

2. "Abraham Lincoln was a ####### for attacking the Southern States like he did." (sic)

3. State secession is legal.

4. The Federalist Papers (which I'm encouraged to "please read") support this point of view.

5. Texas v. White was an erroneous decision. Because you say so.

Where to begin, where to begin.

1. While today it is typical for Supreme Court appointees to come from the Federal bench or perhaps more rarely a state court, it was quite common for Court appointees to come from political office in past years. John Jay, yes, he of Federalist Papers fame, was the very first Chief Justice on the court after having served as Secretary of Foreign Affairs in Washington's first cabinet. Others similarly jumped between politics and the Court, most notably William Howard Taft who was President before becoming Chief Justice. Were Jay and Taft "hacks" because they were politicians appointed to the Court? Do we invalidate all of their Court decisions preemptorily for this "reason"? I should think not. Chase certainly had his faults, no doubt. He was blinded by his own ambition for office, and was disloyal to Lincoln throughout the War. That doesn't in any way invalidate his actions on the Court.

2. 'nuff said. If you want to call the man considered by many the greatest President of the United States a "#######", we are obviously not going to have a very civil dialog. Here's Tolstoy on Lincoln

"“Washington was a typical American. Napoleon was a typical Frenchman, but Lincoln was a humanitarian as broad as the world. He was bigger than his country — bigger than all the Presidents together. “We are still too near to his greatness,” Tolstoy concluded, “but after a few centuries more our posterity will find him considerably bigger than we do. “His genius is still too strong and too powerful for the common understanding, just as the sun is too hot when its light beams directly on us.”

But of course, Paul from Texas says he's a "#######", so who am I to argue.

3. No. See US Constitution, Federalist Papers 15-22, and Texas v. White amongst other court cases.

4. The thing I find most incredibly ironic is the avid encouragement given by secessionist nuts like you to read the Federalist Papers. I dare say you have not. If you had any inkling what you are talking about, you'd realize the ironies here. There are several.

Irony a) The Federalist Papers were authored by Jay, Hamilton and Madison. The first two staunchly Federalist (i.e. believers in a strong central government as opposed to advocates of States rights). The latter (Madison) being somewhat more moderately Federalist (Virginian, after all), but Federalist nonetheless. Not one of them had any use for those trying to pull apart the states even as they were confederating.

Irony b) The Federalist papers were directed at the people and legislators of the state of New York, in an attempt to convince them of the benefits of ratifying the Constitution and joining the Union. At the time New York was very ambivalent (having quite a large number of Tory sympathizers). The thinking went that if New York ratified, the rest of the colonies would fall in line and the Constitution would be adopted. If New York stayed out, all would be lost. New York very well could have stayed out - they certainly were not required to ratify. That would have preserved their right of independent statehood. The very purpose of the Federalist Papers was to sway them to once and for all, forever and ever more, surrender their sovereign rights as an independent state in exchange for membership in a greater nation - the United States. It was clear to all readers of the Federalist Papers (published in serial form in the daily papers) that this is precisely what Constitution ratification meant: keeping limited powers for the state, while the Federal union would be granted permanent and everlasting rights in the areas constitutionally mandated to it.

Irony c) Have you actually read 15-22? These are the F. papers which point out all of the failings of the much weaker Articles of Confederation, which preceded the Constitution. Under those Articles, states indeed did have much wider latitude to set their own policies and pretty much come and go as they pleased. The goal of the US Constitution, and indeed of the United States itself, was to create a much stronger, long lasting and permanent union, never to be sundered again. That is exactly what Papers 15-22 demonstrate, and this was the message Hamilton & Jay were trying to sell their fellow New Yorkers. Namely- never mind that weak good for nothing union - this one is the real deal. The one where we're all in it together forever more. This is the bargain New York took on ratification, as did the other ratifying colonies, as has every other state admitted to the Union ever since. Think of it as a blood pact. It is this pact which Chase refers to in Texas v. White.

Irony d) What's really really funny to me is that you want to insist on a strict constitutional Judiciary. One that takes the Constitution and the statutes as they stand, and makes no interpretations. No activist Judges, no "empathetic" Sotomayors, no rulings which make new law from the bench, right? But yet you point me at the Federalist Papers. Documents which do not have the force of law. Documents which were written in essay form by men with a political agenda at heart and published in newspapers with the intent to sway public opinion. Documents which to this very day (correctly) are used and cited by courts throughout the land to guide in our understanding of the Constitution. Where the Constitution is worded with brevity in mind, the F. Papers expound at length. And judges have relied upon them to understand the minds and intents of the Framers, to get behind and underneath their literal words and decipher their meaning. Invoking the Federalist Papers is the very essence of an interpretive Judiciary, not a literal one. I salute you for pointing me at them, but I marvel at the irony of your stance.

5. See above.

This was fun. I like talking Constitutional fundamentals. VJ needs more of this.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

My point that I'm making though, is that the Civil War was not about the south seceding, because at the time, they had every right to do so as per the framework of the constitution and the founders intentions with the union. The Civil war was about the effects on everything if the south did secede. No one really denied their right to do so, but Lincoln ultimately felt that preservation of the United States was the most important possible thing there was and without that preservation, then all would be lost. He was probably right in many aspects, but at the same time, who knows..

Salmon Chase was a great American. I'm not sure where you've read to the contrary, but that's another argument.

As for the highlighted in red...refer to the debate between Webster and Hayne.

Webster to Hayne: He tells us the Federalists are the political heirs of Tories and Monarchists, while giving his party the most distinguished lineage -- going back to ancient Rome. But today everyone is free to choose his own political grandparents -- it is all a game.

......

Responding to a rejoinder by Mr. H., W. began by summarizing Hayne's position as:

1. The Constitution is a compact between the States;
2. a compact between two, with authority reserved to one to interpret its terms, would make no sense, being surrender to that one of all power whatever;
3. Therefore the general government cannot have been given sole authority to construe its own powers.

Even if I accepted point (1), which I do not, it is faulty reasoning to say points (1) and (2) imply (3). Why? Because the federal gov't was not a signer of the constitution. So supposing a compact cannot leave one of the parties the sole arbiter of its interpretation, that has no bearing. What we have is an agreement -- which I say is between the people, and Mr. Hayne says is between the states -- which creates the federal gov't, complete with a judicial body that decides how to interpret the agreement. This might theoretically make it right for the states, as joint creators, to come together to reinterpret the Constitution. It does not make it right for one state on its own to reinterpret the Constitution.

link

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

I asked my wife, with her Filipino law degree. She says she thinks that the same principles apply for all governments and the compacts they hold with the governed: The ones with all the guns make all the laws!

Or, as she says, it, there is always the golden rule: The ones with all the gold make all the rules.

[scandal 951]

The ones with all the guns make all the laws!

That would explain Acapulco, Ciudad Juárez, Nuevo Laredo ....

[christeen 966]

I mentioned this posting to my mamma who is still in Tennessee with all the rest of my redneck family still there... I wondered what her thoughts were about the seperate ethnic desingation for former Confederate families... Her answer "Hell child, t'aint no way I'm fillin out no damfangled gov'ment form... them bastards aint' got no business knowing where I am and my personal business"... So I believe if this is the general attitude that the future of this movement might be doomed.