• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Grant's view of the cause of the U.S. Civil War -- SLAVERY

Master PO said:
:lamo start running for the tall grass, it states very clearly, that a insurrection is within a state....both the 1795 act and the 1807 act.
Click to expand...

Dood, again, yer obsessed with section 331, the POTUS is not limited in using ONLY section 331, section 332 satisfied the use of federal troops in defending the Constitution/Union.

Somehow, somewhere you got the idea in yer head that ALL sections of a statute have to be satisfied for the POTUS to take action.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
Dood, again, yer obsessed with section 331, the POTUS is not limited in using ONLY section 331, section 332 satisfied the use of federal troops in defending the Constitution/Union.

Somehow, somewhere you got the idea in yer head that ALL sections of a statute have to be satisfied for the POTUS to take action.
Click to expand...

:lamo the 1807 act was the congress working to include federal troops, because the 1795 act did not allow federal troops, congress itself had to authorize the use of federal troops during the end of the whiskey rebellion of 1794 for the 1792 act, the 1795 act wording is the same for sec 1

no were you find insurrection against the federal government in these three pieces of law....1792 1795, or title 10

Lincoln in his actions called the militia out, not federal troops, and the law states, he has to ask permission from the states and there was not enough time to get their permission.
 
Last edited:
Master PO said:
:lamo the 1807 act was the congress working to include federal troops, because the 1795 act did not allow federal troops, congress itself had to authorize the use of federal troops during the end of the whiskey rebellion of 1794 for the 1792 act, the 1795 act wording is the same for sec 1

no were you find insurrection against the federal government in these three pieces of law....1792 1795, or title 10

Lincoln in his actions called the militia out, not federal troops, and the law states, he has to ask permission from the states and there was not enough time to get their permission.
Click to expand...
Oh, even though you were citing the 1807 act previously, now somehow it is not allowed. So, is your new goal post shift going to be that in 1861 the 1807 act was not a part of federal law?
 
Gimmesometruth said:
Oh, even though you were citing the 1807 act previously, now somehow it is not allowed. So, is your new goal post shift going to be that in 1861 the 1807 act was not a part of federal law?
Click to expand...


wrong, Paperview used title 10 already, Lincoln did not use federal troops but militia, and he had no time to ask 1- permission, and 2- get the legislatures of states to pass legislation, and 3- send the states legislatures approval back to him.
 
Master PO said:
wrong, Paperview used title 10 already, Lincoln did not use federal troops but militia, and he had no time to ask 1- permission, and 2- get the legislatures of states to pass legislation, and 3- send the states legislatures approval back to him.
Click to expand...
Well first off, I'm not the other poster, so don't apply his argument to me. I asked you if the 1807 act was enforceable in 1861, you avoided answering with an obvious "yes". Lincoln was using both fed and militia, which the 1807 act allowed. You keep moving yer goalposts while abandoning yer original point.
 
Master PO said:
source please..link!...afraid to post it.

:lamoyou will notice this piece is DATED 1863, after the civil war has begun!

congress makes changes to the law in july 1862,
Click to expand...
You go ahead and find a source from where ever you like showing that the use and or definition was limited to ONLY actors within a US state. I can cite US legal descriptions of US colonialists described as insurgents against British rule, before there were US states. It is a common term of art with a long history, what I cited is not inconsistent with prior usage.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
Well first off, I'm not the other poster, so don't apply his argument to me. I asked you if the 1807 act was enforceable in 1861, you avoided answering with an obvious "yes". Lincoln was using both fed and militia, which the 1807 act allowed. You keep moving yer goalposts while abandoning yer original point.
Click to expand...

i used the 1807 act, because Papwerview used it for what he was spouting

papervew only used 2 pieces of law 1795 and title 10 of 1807

why did you try to bluff your post by, by posting something from 1863?
 
Last edited:
Master PO said:
i used the 1807 act, because Papwerview used it for what he was spouting

the 1807 act was law, and the law was not changed until after the war started.
Click to expand...
So it was pointless for you to initially cite it.....and then argue with it excluded. We are done on this point.

why did you try to bluff your post by, by posting something from 1863?
Click to expand...
Again, if wish to produce anything to support your argument that the use/definition was limited to insurgents within a US state.....go ahead. As I said, it is a term of art, it is not limited to your definition. Again, I can cite pre-CW descriptions of colonialists as insurgents.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
So it was pointless for you to initially cite it.....and then argue with it excluded. We are done on this point.

Again, if wish to produce anything to support your argument that the use/definition was limited to insurgents within a US state.....go ahead. As I said, it is a term of art, it is not limited to your definition. Again, I can cite pre-CW descriptions of colonialists as insurgents.
Click to expand...
:lamo you cannot use law created in the future 1863 to justify the past what happen in 1861.

take your lumps!
 
Master PO said:
papervew only used 2 pieces of law 1795 and title 10 of 1807
Click to expand...
Good for him, he aint me, and the current debate is using any and all of the 1807 act along with any and all definition of insurgent/insurgency as used in the US. You always want to argue via omission, whether by leaving out large sections of law or the commonly understood use of the English language.
 
Master PO said:
:lamo you cannot use law created in the future 1863 to justify the past what happen in 1861.

take your lumps!
Click to expand...
I did not cite "law", I cited use of terms as understood in the US during and before the CW. You have not produced anything to show the use of the term was understood in the very limited manner as you want. You are not arguing about law, it is an argument of semantics.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
Good for him, he aint me, and the current debate is using any and all of the 1807 act along with any and all definition of insurgent/insurgency as used in the US. You always want to argue via omission, whether by leaving out large sections of law or the commonly understood use of the English language.
Click to expand...

he was wrong for posting the two acts calling it an insurrection, and about Lincoln's power

you were wrong for calling it an insurrection, because the laws at that time did not stipulate insurrection against the federal government, but clearly it involves inside states
 
Master PO said:
you were wrong for calling it an insurrection, because the laws at that time did not stipulate insurrection against the federal government, but clearly it involves inside states
Click to expand...
Sure, the 1807 insurrection act did not describe acts against federal law and how the POTUS could respond.

Yer semantic argument has no standing, at all, period.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
Sure, the 1807 insurrection act did not describe acts against federal law and how the POTUS could respond.

Yer semantic argument has no standing, at all, period.
Click to expand...

the 1807 act states what an insurrection is, which is about same as the 1792 and 1795 acts.

that if an insurrection does occur, the president cannot act without state approval for militia, ..which Lincoln used militia, but did not get approval
 
Last edited:
Master PO said:
the 1807 act states what an insurrection is,
Click to expand...
Oh, a concession that 332 also describes an insurrection....thanks.
that if an insurrection does occur, the president cannot act without state approval for militia, ..which Lincoln used militia, but did not get approval
Click to expand...
Again, an argument of omission, you are limiting his actions to sec 331, I have already argued 332 applied....you keep avoiding 332 on purpose.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
Oh, a concession that 332 also describes an insurrection....thanks. Again, an argument of omission, you are limiting his actions to sec 331, I have already argued 332 applied....you keep avoiding 332 on purpose.
Click to expand...

wrong..... the law explains clearly what an insurrection is, IN PLAIN ENGLISH.

if you can find american law between 1807 and April 1861 that states insurrection can mean against the federal government, your case would be made.

you already tried to bluff by with a something from 1863
 
Master PO said:
wrong..... the law explains clearly what an insurrection is, IN PLAIN ENGLISH.
Click to expand...
Yes, any of the descriptions contained within of those opposing the carrying out of federal law are insurgents.

if you can find american law between 1807 and April 1861 that states insurrection can mean against the federal government, your case would be made.
Click to expand...
The 1807 act describes insurrections, you already said so, section 332 is consistent.

you already tried to bluff by with a something from 1863
Click to expand...
You already admitted the 1807 act describes insurrection, I agree, and sec 332 is included.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
Yes, any of the descriptions contained within of those opposing the carrying out of federal law are insurgents.

The 1807 act describes insurrections, you already said so, section 332 is consistent.

You already admitted the 1807 act describes insurrection, I agree, and sec 332 is included.
Click to expand...

331- describes insurrection

332- does not describe an insurrection, but what presidential power can do to combat problems
 
Militia Act of 1792,
Second Congress, Session I. Chapter XXVIII
Passed May 2, 1792,
providing for the authority of the President to call out the Militia

Section 1. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That whenever the United States shall be invaded, or be in imminent danger of invasion from any foreign nation or Indian tribe, it shall be lawful for the President of the United States, to call forth such number of the militia of the state or states most convenient to the place of danger or scene of action as he may judge necessary to repel such invasion, and to issue his orders for that purpose, to such officer or officers of the militia as he shall think proper; and in case of an insurrection in any state, against the government thereof, it shall be lawful for the President of the United States, on application of the legislature of such state, or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened) to call forth such number of the militia of any other state or states, as may be applied for, or as he may judge sufficient to suppress such insurrection.

The 1795 Act For Calling Forth The Militia


An Act to provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections, and repel invasions; and to repeal the act now in force for those purposes, 28 February 1795.

That whenever the United States shall be invaded, or be in imminent danger of invasion, from any foreign nation or Indian tribe, it shall be lawful for the President of the United States to call forth such number of the militia of the state or states, most convenient to the place of danger, or scene of action, as he may judge necessary to repel such invasion, and to issue his orders, for that purpose, to such officer or officers of the militia as he shall think proper. And in case of an insurrection in any state, against the government thereof, it shall be lawful for the President of the United States, on application of the legislature of such state, or of the Executive, (when the legislature cannot be convened,) to call forth such number of the militia of any other state or states, as may be applied for, as he may judge sufficient to suppress such insurrection.

title 10 0f 1807

Whenever there is an insurrections in any State against its government, the President may, upon the request of its legislature or of its governor if the legislature cannot be convened, call into Federal service such of the militia of the other States, in the number requested by that State, and use such of the armed forces, as he considers necessary to suppress the insurrection.

(Aug. 10, 1956, ch. 1041, 70A Stat. 15.)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom