Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Leisure and Society
Society
History & Genealogy
From Confederation to Consolidation the Political Effects of the Civil war
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Tolkien R.R.J" data-source="post: 73451547" data-attributes="member: 411644"><p><strong>States Rights in Action </strong></p><p></p><p><em>“<em>The support of state governments in all their rights, as the most competent administrations for our domestic concerns and the surest bulwarks against anti-republican tendencies.” </em></em></p><p> <em>-Thomas Jefferson First Inaugural Address</em></p><p></p><p><em>“<em>The duty of state governments, to protect themselves from encroachments”</em></em></p><p><em>-Joseph Desha Kentucky Governor 1825</em></p><p></p><p><em>“<em>The true barriers of our liberty...are the state governments”</em></em></p><p><em>-Thomas Jefferson</em></p><p></p><p>It was the states in their sovereignty that did almost all the governing “State authority was the rule, federal the exception.” As president Pierce said in 1855 “the power is in states alone.” The federal government had no right to exercise powers not specifically delegated to it in the constitution. For example Jefferson was not against internal improvements as many believe, he just said their had to be an amendment first to the constitution to have authority. If the federal government assumed such powers that were not granted it by the constitution, its acts could be declared unconstitutional by the states. States could decide the constitutionality of laws passed by Congress. At North Carolina’s ratifying convention, James Iredell told the delegates that when “Congress passes a law consistent with the Constitution, it is to be binding on the people. If Congress, under pretense of executing one power, should, in fact, usurp another, they will violate the Constitution.” In December 1787 Roger Sherman observed that an “excellency of the constitution” was that “when the government of the united States acts within its proper bounds it will be the interest of the legislatures of the particular States to Support it,<u> but when it leaps over those bounds and interferes with the rights of the State governments they will be powerful enough to check it.</u>”</p><p></p><p><em>“<em>Unconstitutional [laws] void and of no effect. It is the right and the duty of the several states to nullify those acts”</em></em></p><p><em>-John Breckenridge Kentucky</em></p><p></p><p><em>“<em>Sir they [the states] ought not to submit, they would deserve the chains which there masters are forging for them, if they did not resist”</em></em></p><p><em>-Edward Livingston NY house of representatives</em></p><p></p><p><em>“<em>Consolidate the states by degrees, into one sovereignty, the obvious tendency of witch would transform the present republican system of the united states, into an absolute”</em></em></p><p><em>-James Madison</em></p><p><em></em></p><p><em>Before Lincoln states determined their own domestic affairs the federal was mostly for foreign as John Randolph of Roanoke said in a speech in congress 1823-24 “Cause of the existence of the federal government was the regulation of foreign commerce.” They were not forced by an all powerful authoritative federal government to comply to its standards. States could nullify unconstitutional rulings and laws from the federal government. One of the first times the federal government, in this case the supreme court, tried to force itself on a state, in the court case Chisholm V Georgia 1793. The state of Georgia declared that to submit to a federal court would destroy the “Retained sovereignty of the state.” The federalist supreme court voted 4-1 that Georgia must comply with the federal court ruling. So the Georgia legislature passed a bill that any federal agent in the state that attempted to enforce the federal supreme court ruling, <u>should be hanged</u>. So no federal agent dared enter the state. This resulted in the passing of the 11th amendment as congress itself supporter state sovereignty against the supreme court. In 1850 a dispute in Texas over land in the New Mexico territory almost led to the secession of Texas. Texas called for force to be used to maintain its integrity. South Carolina nullified the tariffs of 1828 and 1832. Virginia and Kentucky nullified alien and sedition acts in 1798. In 1824 when John Quincy Adams proposed the “American system” of internal improvements, protective tariffs, and a national bank. Jefferson responded with “the solemn declaration and protest of the commonwealth of Virginia” reaffirming the principles of 98. States rights were more common in the north in antebellum Americas [descendants of the federalist] since the southern view was the majority and often controlled the general government. The colonist had nullified the british stamp act, the Townsend acts, and the tea act.</em></p><p></p><p><em>“<em>The solemn duty of the state governments...to interpose”</em></em></p><p><em>-Daniel Webster Federalist/ Nationalist</em></p><p></p><p></p><p><strong><strong>The Embargo of 1807-1809 </strong></strong></p><p></p><p>Thomas Jefferson as president declared an embargo on all American ports. Massachusetts nullified the federal law and replied </p><p></p><p>“While this State<em><u> maintains its sovereignty</u></em> <em><u>and independence</u>, all the citizens can find protection against outrage and injustice in the strong arm of the State government..not legally binding on the citizens of this State.”</em></p><p></p><p>Connecticut responded with the resolution of the general Assembly</p><p></p><p><em>“Resolved, That to preserve the Union, and support the constitution of the United States, it becomes the duty of the Legislatures of the States, in such a crisis of affairs, vigilantly to watch over, and vigorously to maintain, the <u>powers not delegated to the United States</u>, but reserved to the States respectively, or to the people; and that a due regard to this duty, will not permit this Assembly to assist, or concur in giving effect to the <u>aforesaid unconstitutional act</u>, passed, to enforce the Embargo”</em></p><p></p><p><strong>Pennsylvanian 1809</strong></p><p></p><p>Over the Olmstead controversy said</p><p></p><p><em>“And whereas the causes and reasons which have produced this c<u>onflict between the general and State government </u>should be made known, not only that the State may be justified to her sister States, <u>who are equally interested in the preservation of the State rights; but to evince to the Government of the United States that the Legislature, in resisting encroachments on their right</u>s…<u>they are contending for the rights of the State</u>, that it will be attributed to a desire for preserving the Federal government itself, the best features of which must depend upon keeping up a just balance between the general and State governments, as guaranteed by the Constitution. … Whilst they yield to this authority, when exercised within Constitutional limits, they trust they will not be considered as acting hostile to the General Government, <u>when, as guardians of the State rights, they can not permit an infringement of those rights by an unconstitutional exercise of power in the United States courts</u>. …Resolved, that the independence of the States, as secured by the Constitution, be destroyed, the liberties of the people in so extensive country cannot long survive. To suffer the United States‟ courts to decide on State Rights will, from a bias in favor of power, necessarily destroy the Federal part of our Government: And <u>whenever the government of the United States becomes consolidated, we may learn from the history of nations what will be the event</u>.</em></p><p></p><p></p><p><strong><strong>The war of 1812</strong></strong><em></em></p><p><em></em></p><p><em>When Connecticut was called to bring out its militia to guard the cost they replied </em></p><p><em></em></p><p><em>"It must not be forgotten, <u>that the state of Connecticut is a FREE SOVEREIGN and INDEPENDENT state</u>; <u>that the United States are a confederacy of states; that we are a confederated and not a consolidated republic.</u> The governor of this state is under a high and solemn obligation, “to maintain the lawful rights and privileges thereof,<u> as a sovereign, free and independent state,”</u> as he is “to support the constitution of the United States,” and the obligation to support the latter, imposes an additional obligation to support the former."</em></p><p></p><p></p><p>and the Governor stated</p><p></p><p><em>“<em>It is their right, [states] it becomes there duty, to <strong>interpose</strong> their protecting shield between their rights and liberty of the people, and the assumed power of the general government”</em></em></p><p><em>-Governor Jonathan Trumbull Connecticut</em></p><p></p><p></p><p><strong><strong>1813 Embargo </strong></strong><em></em></p><p><em></em></p><p><em>In response to the embargo Massachusetts General Court approved</em></p><p><em></em></p><p><em>"A power to regulate commerce is abused, when employed to destroy it; and a manifest and voluntary abuse of power sanctions the right of resistance, as much as a direct and palpable usurpation. <u>The sovereignty reserved to the states</u>, was reserved to protect the citizens from acts of violence by the United States, as well as for purposes of domestic regulation. <u>We spurn the idea that the free, sovereign and independent State of Massachusetts</u> is reduced to a mere municipal corporation, without power to protect its people, and to defend them from oppression, from whatever quarter it comes. Whenever the national compact is violated, and the citizens of this State are oppressed by cruel and unauthorized laws, this Legislature is bound to interpose its power, and wrest from the oppressor its victim."</em></p><p></p><p></p><p>In 1820, when Ohio was fighting against the unconstitutional Bank of the United States, it recognized and approved "the doctrines asserted by the Legislatures of Virginia and Kentucky, in their resolutions of November and December, 1798, and January 1800 — and do consider that their principles have been recognized and adopted by a majority of the American people"</p><p></p><p><strong>Bank of the United States Controversy 1821</strong></p><p></p><p><em>Ohio wrote “The committee are aware of the doctrine, that the Federal courts are exclusively vested with jurisdiction to declare, in the last resort, t<u>he true interpretation of the Constitution of the United States. To this doctrine, in the latitude contended for, they never can give their assent</u>…. That this General Assembly do protest against the doctrine that the political rights of the separate States that compose the American Union, and their powers <u>as sovereign States,</u> may be settled and determined in the Supreme Court of the United States… </em></p><p></p><p><em><strong>Fugitive Slave Laws/ Liberty Laws</strong></em></p><p></p><p><em> “<em>The States of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin and Iowa, have enacted laws which either nullify the Acts of Congress or render useless any attempt to execute them.”</em></em></p><p><em>-South Carolina Causes of secession</em></p><p></p><p>Many northern states nullified the fugitive slave laws or passed liberty laws that nullified the federal law. Wisconsin nullified the supreme court law.</p><p></p><p><em>“Resolved, That this assumption of jurisdiction by the federal judiciary, in the said case, and without process, is an act of undelegated power, and therefore <u>without authority, void, and of no force</u>. Resolved, That the government, formed by the Constitution of the United States was not the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself; but that, as in all other cases of <u>compact among parties </u>having no common judge<u>, each party has an equal right to judge for itsel</u>f, as well of infractions as of the mode and measure of redress...</em> that the general government is the exclusive judge of the extent of the powers delegated to it, stop nothing short of despotism, since the discretion of those who administer the government, and not the Constitution, would be the measure of their powers; that the several states which formed that instrument,<u> being sovereign and independent,</u> have the unquestionable right to judge of its infraction; and that a positive defiance of those sovereignties, of all Unauthorized acts done or attempted to be done under color of that instrument, is the rightful remedy.”</p><p></p><p></p><p>States rights held the federal government in check and held it to only what it was granted to do in the constitution. So <u>from the American revolution until The civil war, you had the same constitutional republic</u>. The states doing the self governing in there state sovereignty.</p><p></p><p><em>“<em>States rights, which prior to 1860 had been an important northern belief as southern. Were overturned by Lincolns war”</em></em></p><p><em>-Dean Sprague Freedom under Lincoln</em></p><p></p><p><em>"Jeffersonianism still prevailed in the minds of most Americans but was all but snuffed out by Lincolns war"</em></p><p><em>-Thomas J Dilorenzo the real Lincoln</em></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Tolkien R.R.J, post: 73451547, member: 411644"] [B]States Rights in Action [/B][I][/I] [I]“[I]The support of state governments in all their rights, as the most competent administrations for our domestic concerns and the surest bulwarks against anti-republican tendencies.” [/I] -Thomas Jefferson First Inaugural Address[/I] [I]“[I]The duty of state governments, to protect themselves from encroachments”[/I] -Joseph Desha Kentucky Governor 1825[/I] [I]“[I]The true barriers of our liberty...are the state governments”[/I] -Thomas Jefferson[/I] It was the states in their sovereignty that did almost all the governing “State authority was the rule, federal the exception.” As president Pierce said in 1855 “the power is in states alone.” The federal government had no right to exercise powers not specifically delegated to it in the constitution. For example Jefferson was not against internal improvements as many believe, he just said their had to be an amendment first to the constitution to have authority. If the federal government assumed such powers that were not granted it by the constitution, its acts could be declared unconstitutional by the states. States could decide the constitutionality of laws passed by Congress. At North Carolina’s ratifying convention, James Iredell told the delegates that when “Congress passes a law consistent with the Constitution, it is to be binding on the people. If Congress, under pretense of executing one power, should, in fact, usurp another, they will violate the Constitution.” In December 1787 Roger Sherman observed that an “excellency of the constitution” was that “when the government of the united States acts within its proper bounds it will be the interest of the legislatures of the particular States to Support it,[U] but when it leaps over those bounds and interferes with the rights of the State governments they will be powerful enough to check it.[/U]” [I]“[I]Unconstitutional [laws] void and of no effect. It is the right and the duty of the several states to nullify those acts”[/I] -John Breckenridge Kentucky[/I] [I]“[I]Sir they [the states] ought not to submit, they would deserve the chains which there masters are forging for them, if they did not resist”[/I] -Edward Livingston NY house of representatives[/I] [I]“[I]Consolidate the states by degrees, into one sovereignty, the obvious tendency of witch would transform the present republican system of the united states, into an absolute”[/I] -James Madison Before Lincoln states determined their own domestic affairs the federal was mostly for foreign as John Randolph of Roanoke said in a speech in congress 1823-24 “Cause of the existence of the federal government was the regulation of foreign commerce.” They were not forced by an all powerful authoritative federal government to comply to its standards. States could nullify unconstitutional rulings and laws from the federal government. One of the first times the federal government, in this case the supreme court, tried to force itself on a state, in the court case Chisholm V Georgia 1793. The state of Georgia declared that to submit to a federal court would destroy the “Retained sovereignty of the state.” The federalist supreme court voted 4-1 that Georgia must comply with the federal court ruling. So the Georgia legislature passed a bill that any federal agent in the state that attempted to enforce the federal supreme court ruling, [U]should be hanged[/U]. So no federal agent dared enter the state. This resulted in the passing of the 11th amendment as congress itself supporter state sovereignty against the supreme court. In 1850 a dispute in Texas over land in the New Mexico territory almost led to the secession of Texas. Texas called for force to be used to maintain its integrity. South Carolina nullified the tariffs of 1828 and 1832. Virginia and Kentucky nullified alien and sedition acts in 1798. In 1824 when John Quincy Adams proposed the “American system” of internal improvements, protective tariffs, and a national bank. Jefferson responded with “the solemn declaration and protest of the commonwealth of Virginia” reaffirming the principles of 98. States rights were more common in the north in antebellum Americas [descendants of the federalist] since the southern view was the majority and often controlled the general government. The colonist had nullified the british stamp act, the Townsend acts, and the tea act.[/I] [I]“[I]The solemn duty of the state governments...to interpose”[/I] -Daniel Webster Federalist/ Nationalist[/I] [B][B]The Embargo of 1807-1809 [/B][/B] Thomas Jefferson as president declared an embargo on all American ports. Massachusetts nullified the federal law and replied “While this State[I][U] maintains its sovereignty[/U][/I] [I][U]and independence[/U], all the citizens can find protection against outrage and injustice in the strong arm of the State government..not legally binding on the citizens of this State.”[/I] Connecticut responded with the resolution of the general Assembly [I]“Resolved, That to preserve the Union, and support the constitution of the United States, it becomes the duty of the Legislatures of the States, in such a crisis of affairs, vigilantly to watch over, and vigorously to maintain, the [U]powers not delegated to the United States[/U], but reserved to the States respectively, or to the people; and that a due regard to this duty, will not permit this Assembly to assist, or concur in giving effect to the [U]aforesaid unconstitutional act[/U], passed, to enforce the Embargo”[/I] [B]Pennsylvanian 1809[/B] Over the Olmstead controversy said [I]“And whereas the causes and reasons which have produced this c[U]onflict between the general and State government [/U]should be made known, not only that the State may be justified to her sister States, [U]who are equally interested in the preservation of the State rights; but to evince to the Government of the United States that the Legislature, in resisting encroachments on their right[/U]s…[U]they are contending for the rights of the State[/U], that it will be attributed to a desire for preserving the Federal government itself, the best features of which must depend upon keeping up a just balance between the general and State governments, as guaranteed by the Constitution. … Whilst they yield to this authority, when exercised within Constitutional limits, they trust they will not be considered as acting hostile to the General Government, [U]when, as guardians of the State rights, they can not permit an infringement of those rights by an unconstitutional exercise of power in the United States courts[/U]. …Resolved, that the independence of the States, as secured by the Constitution, be destroyed, the liberties of the people in so extensive country cannot long survive. To suffer the United States‟ courts to decide on State Rights will, from a bias in favor of power, necessarily destroy the Federal part of our Government: And [U]whenever the government of the United States becomes consolidated, we may learn from the history of nations what will be the event[/U].[/I] [B][B]The war of 1812[/B][/B][I] When Connecticut was called to bring out its militia to guard the cost they replied "It must not be forgotten, [U]that the state of Connecticut is a FREE SOVEREIGN and INDEPENDENT state[/U]; [U]that the United States are a confederacy of states; that we are a confederated and not a consolidated republic.[/U] The governor of this state is under a high and solemn obligation, “to maintain the lawful rights and privileges thereof,[U] as a sovereign, free and independent state,”[/U] as he is “to support the constitution of the United States,” and the obligation to support the latter, imposes an additional obligation to support the former."[/I] and the Governor stated [I]“[I]It is their right, [states] it becomes there duty, to [B]interpose[/B] their protecting shield between their rights and liberty of the people, and the assumed power of the general government”[/I] -Governor Jonathan Trumbull Connecticut[/I] [I][/I] [B][B]1813 Embargo [/B][/B][I] In response to the embargo Massachusetts General Court approved "A power to regulate commerce is abused, when employed to destroy it; and a manifest and voluntary abuse of power sanctions the right of resistance, as much as a direct and palpable usurpation. [U]The sovereignty reserved to the states[/U], was reserved to protect the citizens from acts of violence by the United States, as well as for purposes of domestic regulation. [U]We spurn the idea that the free, sovereign and independent State of Massachusetts[/U] is reduced to a mere municipal corporation, without power to protect its people, and to defend them from oppression, from whatever quarter it comes. Whenever the national compact is violated, and the citizens of this State are oppressed by cruel and unauthorized laws, this Legislature is bound to interpose its power, and wrest from the oppressor its victim."[/I] In 1820, when Ohio was fighting against the unconstitutional Bank of the United States, it recognized and approved "the doctrines asserted by the Legislatures of Virginia and Kentucky, in their resolutions of November and December, 1798, and January 1800 — and do consider that their principles have been recognized and adopted by a majority of the American people" [B]Bank of the United States Controversy 1821[/B] [I]Ohio wrote “The committee are aware of the doctrine, that the Federal courts are exclusively vested with jurisdiction to declare, in the last resort, t[U]he true interpretation of the Constitution of the United States. To this doctrine, in the latitude contended for, they never can give their assent[/U]…. That this General Assembly do protest against the doctrine that the political rights of the separate States that compose the American Union, and their powers [U]as sovereign States,[/U] may be settled and determined in the Supreme Court of the United States… [/I] [I][B]Fugitive Slave Laws/ Liberty Laws[/B][/I] [I] “[I]The States of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin and Iowa, have enacted laws which either nullify the Acts of Congress or render useless any attempt to execute them.”[/I] -South Carolina Causes of secession[/I] Many northern states nullified the fugitive slave laws or passed liberty laws that nullified the federal law. Wisconsin nullified the supreme court law. [I]“Resolved, That this assumption of jurisdiction by the federal judiciary, in the said case, and without process, is an act of undelegated power, and therefore [U]without authority, void, and of no force[/U]. Resolved, That the government, formed by the Constitution of the United States was not the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself; but that, as in all other cases of [U]compact among parties [/U]having no common judge[U], each party has an equal right to judge for itsel[/U]f, as well of infractions as of the mode and measure of redress...[/I] that the general government is the exclusive judge of the extent of the powers delegated to it, stop nothing short of despotism, since the discretion of those who administer the government, and not the Constitution, would be the measure of their powers; that the several states which formed that instrument,[U] being sovereign and independent,[/U] have the unquestionable right to judge of its infraction; and that a positive defiance of those sovereignties, of all Unauthorized acts done or attempted to be done under color of that instrument, is the rightful remedy.” States rights held the federal government in check and held it to only what it was granted to do in the constitution. So [U]from the American revolution until The civil war, you had the same constitutional republic[/U]. The states doing the self governing in there state sovereignty. [I]“[I]States rights, which prior to 1860 had been an important northern belief as southern. Were overturned by Lincolns war”[/I] -Dean Sprague Freedom under Lincoln[/I] [I]"Jeffersonianism still prevailed in the minds of most Americans but was all but snuffed out by Lincolns war" -Thomas J Dilorenzo the real Lincoln[/I] [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Leisure and Society
Society
History & Genealogy
From Confederation to Consolidation the Political Effects of the Civil war
Top
Bottom