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

[Master PO]

cote please, and even if such a point was expressed in debate it was not incorporated into the constitution.

On the contrary,

the federal government was given explicit authority to use force against rebellion:

article i, section 8, clause 15:

(congress shall have the power) to provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions...

insurrection would a takeover of a state government by an enity, a take over such as a coup.

The southern states had state conventions, and put the decisions of leaving the union up to the people of each state, except for tenn. Which put it up to a vote of the people.

The article does not apply

 

[Master PO]

When did the USSC find the 1861 income tax law passed by Congress unconstitutional?

income tax is unconstitutional in 1861 ... the constitution states no direct tax, only the state governments shall be direct taxed...... not the people

 

[Gimmesometruth]

insurrection would a takeover of a state government by an enity, a take over such as a coup.

The southern states had state conventions, and put the decisions of leaving the union up to the people of each state, except for tenn. Which put it up to a vote of the people.

The article does not apply

So then, again, you can find a ruling by the USSC that the actions taken by the POTUS and Congress in going to war....was unconstitutional.

 

[Gimmesometruth]

income tax is unconstitutional in 1861 ... the constitution states no direct tax, only the state governments shall be direct taxed...... not the people

Yer not relying on court decisions.

 

[Master PO]

So then, again, you can find a ruling by the USSC that the actions taken by the POTUS and Congress in going to war....was unconstitutional.

so again?......what?

i was not asked a question on that subject, i posted what the founders said on the issue of southern states leaving the union

and there is no power in the constitution delegated to the federal government, to preserve the harmony of the union, BECAUSE, on may 31st 1787, the founders at the convention DENIED the federal government that power.

 

[Gimmesometruth]

income tax is unconstitutional in 1861 ... the constitution states no direct tax, only the state governments shall be direct taxed...... not the people

It can be a direct tax so long as it can be apportioned without producing
arbitrary and inequitable results.

 

[Master PO]

Yer not relying on court decisions.

read your constitution, its says no direct tax, only the states shall be direct taxed.

 

[Gimmesometruth]

so again?......what?

i was not asked a question on that subject, i posted what the founders said on the issue of southern states leaving the union

and there is no power in the constitution delegated to the federal government, to preserve the harmony of the union, BECAUSE, on may 31st 1787, the founders at the convention DENIED the federal government that power.

You are getting into amateur analysis on YOUR say so, and whats worse, yer going completely off topic.

 

[Master PO]

It can be a direct tax so long as it can be apportioned without producing
arbitrary and inequitable results.

before the 16th amendment to the constitution, its unconstitutional to direct tax the people

 

[Master PO]

You are getting into amateur analysis on YOUR say so, and whats worse, yer going completely off topic.

wrong i gave you the date, and in the past of posted the notes of the convention on this subject, you just don't want to see truth

 

[Gimmesometruth]

wrong i gave you the date, and in the past of posted the notes of the convention on this subject, you just don't want to see truth

I'll repeat, no court during Lincoln's presidency found the 1861 tax law passed by Congress unconstitutional. And this argument is so disingenuous in light of the fact that the rebels, the Confederacy, were rejecting and set to destroy the Constitution. Your argument has no proportion, it is based on absolutes.

 

[Master PO]

I'll repeat, no court during Lincoln's presidency found the 1861 tax law passed by Congress unconstitutional. And this argument is so disingenuous in light of the fact that the rebels, the Confederacy, were rejecting and set to destroy the Constitution. Your argument has no proportion, it is based on absolutes.

does not matter the constitution states NO DIRECT TAX.....income tax is a direct tax.

the south was not setting out to destroy the constitution the south left the union to start they own nation, they said goodbye to the union, they did not seek to overthrow the federal government, or get rid of the constitution

 

[Gimmesometruth]

does not matter the constitution states NO DIRECT TAX.....income tax is a direct tax.

False, you are leaving off exceptions, but this is pointless, it has nothing to do with the thread.

the south was not setting out to destroy the constitution the south left the union to start they own nation, they said goodbye to the union, they did not seek to overthrow the federal government, or get rid of the constitution

Your constitutional absolutism is only surpassed by your misunderstanding of history. The Confederacy attacked after seceding, pressing to within a few miles of DC. Their constitution was a wholesale re-write, especially over the defining and legal status of Blacks.

 

[Master PO]

False, you are leaving off exceptions, but this is pointless, it has nothing to do with the thread.

you don't read your constitution do you.

and the point i made was why did Lincoln use the constitution against the south, but violate the constitution concerning taxes.

No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken.

the constitution states that congress shall create no law, concerning free speech, ...yet if congress made a law to do that very thing, are you telling me you need a court to tell you it the law is unconstitutional?

Your constitutional absolutism is only surpassed by your misunderstanding of history. The Confederacy attacked after seceding, pressing to within a few miles of DC. Their constitution was a wholesale re-write, especially over the defining and legal status of Blacks.

the south fired on fort Sumter, because they wanted union troops off of southern territory, the u.s.federal government tried to resupply the fort, secretly by sending in a unmarked ship, and it was fired upon, the south bombarded the fort, and the union troops surrender, but were not taken prisoner, but instead where given passage back to the north, lincoln called up 15000 troops to go and fight the south and started the war.

 

[Tigerace117]

well what sam saying how does man use the constitution for his actions, and then violate it when it suits him

I don't understand the question? Was it a question?

 

[Master PO]

I don't understand the question? Was it a question?

i am not saying Lincoln was an evil man, but he used the constitution to justify his actions to keep the harmony of the union intact...[which the founders say the federal government cannot do by the way]

but he violated the very constitution he used, and created a federal income tax law during the war ,a direct tax, which is unconstitutional as stated by the constitution.

 

[Paperview]

...
the south fired on fort Sumter, because they wanted union troops off of southern territory, the u.s.federal government tried to resupply the fort, secretly by sending in a unmarked ship, and it was fired upon, the south bombarded the fort, and the union troops surrender, but were not taken prisoner, but instead where given passage back to the north, lincoln called up 15000 troops to go and fight the south and started the war.

The south was committing Acts of War starting in December 1860 / January 1861.

 

[SILVER SURFER]

The south was committing Acts of War starting in December 1860 / January 1861.

Yup, and there were more than just the following. Even if one acknowledges the southern states had the right to secede, these were committed before the involved states seceded. That made them treason under Constitution article 3, section 3. And they call it The War of NORTHERN Aggression! :lamo

1860:

South Carolina…​

arrested a Federal officer attempting to move supplies from the Charleston Arsenal to Fort Moultrie – November 7

seized the Charleston harbor batteries – November 9

seceded – December 20​

1861:

Georgia…​

took Fort Pulaski at Savannah – January 3

seceded – January 19​

Alabama…​

seized the Mount Vernon Arsenal -January 4

took Fort Gaines and Fort Morgan at Mobile – January 5

seceded – January 11​

Florida…​

seized the Apalachicola Arsenal – January 6

took Fort Marion at St Augustine – January 7

seceded – January 10​

Mississippi…​

seceded – January 9​

Louisiana…​

seized the Baton Rouge Arsenal and Barracks, and took Fort Jackson and Fort St Philip at Plaquemines Parish – January 10

seized the Marine Hospital at New Orleans – January 11

took Fort Pike at New Orleans – January 14

seceded - January 26​

Texas…

seceded – February 1​

Arkansas…

seized the Little Rock Arsenal – February 8

seized ordnance stores at Napoleon – February 12

seceded – May 6​

North Carolina…

seized Fort Caswell and Fort Johnston – April 16

seceded – May 20​

Virginia…

seceded – April 17​

Tennessee…

seceded – June 8​

 

[USViking]

insurrection would a takeover of a state government by an enity, a take over such as a coup.

The southern states had state conventions, and put the decisions of leaving the union up to the people of each state, except for tenn. Which put it up to a vote of the people.

The article does not apply

Article I Section 8 does not distinguish between one kind of insurrection and another. It therefore means that the Federal government has constitutional authority authority to use deadly force against all insurrection.

 

[Master PO]

The south was committing Acts of War starting in December 1860 / January 1861.

iam not making the point the south was not at all at fault, but that both sides did things to lead to a war.

 

[Master PO]

Article I Section 8 does not distinguish between one kind of insurrection and another. It therefore means that the Federal government has constitutional authority authority to use deadly force against all insurrection.

there was no insurrection, NO STATE government was being taken over and the federal government was not threaten or violence committed by the southern states in leaving the union.

 

[USViking]

there was no insurrection, NO STATE government was being taken over

Let me try again:

I-8 does not distinguish between insurrection against a state government and insurrection against the Federal government. Nor does it distinguish different categories of rebels. Therefore it authorizes use of deadly force against any insurrection and any rebel, including insurrection by a state against the Federal government.

and the federal government was not threaten or violence committed by the southern states in leaving the union.

(1) Threat of force and violence are enough to constitute insurrection.

(2) South Carolina committed force and violence against Ft. Sumter.

 

[Master PO]

Let me try again:

I-8 does not distinguish between insurrection against a state government and insurrection against the Federal government. Nor does it distinguish different categories of rebels. Therefore it authorizes use of deadly force against any insurrection and any rebel, including insurrection by a state against the Federal government.



(1) Threat of force and violence are enough to constitute insurrection.

(2) South Carolina committed force and violence against Ft. Sumter.

let me explain to you, an insurrection is act under threat.

the southern states in there secession used the process of law, and the people's delegates voted for secession......using RIGHT to government.

the south did not threaten the federal government, they left and wanted to be left alone and formed their own nation.

and it was the president would used action to call up 15000 men to fight the south, not congress which is the article you are citing.

 

[Gimmesometruth]

are you telling me you need a court to tell you it the law is unconstitutional?

Um, yes, that is how are system works.

the south fired on fort Sumter, because they wanted union troops off of southern territory

That was an illegal act, an insurrection, a violation of the Constitution, a violation of the very thing you said they did not want to destroy. If they did not want to destroy the USC, then why create an entirely new one and attack the US army? Ft Sumter was federal land, SC had turned it over years earlier, it was not "Southern Territory", at all. You are just dead set on finding all sorts of excuses for the insurrection of the rebels.

 

[Oberon]

Because they needed the manpower and it would have completely settled the moral question, potentially leading to foreign recognition and support.

If the north needed the manpower then they wouldn't have allowed some 500,000 of them, around 10% of the entire black population, die from disease and starvation in those 'property camps'.

In the north they did make use of black soldiers, though they didn't need the manpower. Surely they committed plenty of injustices also, but it was clear where the moral high ground was and who was standing there.

What 'moral high ground'? Lincoln's plan kept them on the plantations without permission to leave without the owners' written consent, and even set ridiculously low wages for them, $3 a month, granted them no suffrage or any other rights. they were to remain slaves, despite the fig leaf of being 'freed'.