[Brion McClanahan]

“If one wants to opt out of paying taxes and take their child out of pub educ then they should have every right to do so.”

South Carolina has been trying to do this since 2004 and it almost passed this year. If you put your kids in private school or homeschool, you can get a tax break for the taxes you would have paid had they gone to public school. Good idea, but as you can see, even in a politically “conservative” State, Lindsey Graham, it faces an uphill battle.

[Brion McClanahan]

The term “ancient constitutions” is primarily a reference to the Magna Charta and the unwritten British Constitution including the English Bill of Rights, not the colonial charters, though as I discussed in the early lectures those early colonial charters were intended to govern the domestic concerns of the colonists.

[Brion McClanahan]

Yes, Rawle’s interpretation of the BOR is suspect and he implies that because several States did not have a BOR that the federal BOR applies to the States, with the exception of the First (though he does say that the BOR restricts the legislature when introducing the subject, and by legislature he meant the U.S. Congress). I would say that his interpretation is incorrect (even SCOTUS agreed in Baron v. Baltimore) and that the founding generation in general would disagree with his interpretation, but that does not minimize his position on the Union and secession. Even Story got some things right in his “Commentaries.”

[Brion McClanahan]

I think your answer is correct. If the people of the States in convention determine that their destiny is better served out of the Union for whatever reason, they have the right and the authority to make that decision. The State conventions that voted to secede from the Union in 1860 and 1861 did so in greater numbers (majorities) than those which essentially voted for independence in 1776 and those which ratified the Constitution in 1787 and 1788. It was the will of the people that Lincoln and the Republicans trampled upon.

[Brion McClanahan]

Charlie,

Thanks for your question. That would be Grant, and though some have questioned the authenticity of the quote, I answered this question in a bit more depth on this site here: https://libertyclassroom.com/forums/topic/u-s-grant-statement-on-reason-for-wbts/

Hope that helps.

[Brion McClanahan]

I found the series to be entertaining. There are some times that I found the series to be a bit off (the portrayal of John Dickinson, the Alien and Sedition episode, Sally Hemings at Jefferson’s bedside when he died), but they did a good job with other events (battle of Lexington and Concord, mood at the voting on the Declaration). I would watch it again.

[Brion McClanahan]

What Kevin said, and he didn’t list them all.

[Brion McClanahan]

I am very much looking forward to this film, and I think it could have a dramatic effect on the anti-war movement and perhaps the way the War is viewed. There has already been a bit of a push in this direction with the recent publication of “American Aflame” by Leftist historian David Goldfield. I think perhaps those on the Left may begin to realize that the War Party has always been so and that Lincoln may not be “their guy” after all, regardless of what Spielberg has to say about it.

The subject of my dissertation, James A. Bayard the younger, and his son, Thomas F. Bayard, were noted “Copperheads.” It is a great subject that needs much more exploration.

[Brion McClanahan]

“Having listened to the US Constitution and History to 1877 lectures so far, the best I can figure is that the Yazoo land scandal was probably the first step in that direction and the subsequent 14th amendment more explicitly appropriates what was formerly a power of the individual states.”

You answered your own question. Fletcher v. Peck in 1810 was the first instance of a state law being invalidated by the SCOTUS. In fact, John Marshall swore at the VA Ratifying Convention in 1788 that the SCOTUS would never invalidate a State law unless it conflicted with Article 1, Section 10. He lied. The 14th Amendment was not supposed to incorporate the BOR, but it has been argued it did; Madison himself attempted to insert an incorporation amendment into the BOR but he was rejected. Very few members of the founding generation thought it was necessary or wise to have incorporation.

As to your last point, you are also correct, but we are talking baseball and the nationalists are blitzing with their linebackers. I know we have bats, but they wear pads and helmets. With the current de facto unitary construct of the central government, it has become precedence to make everything a national issue. It will take time and perseverance to correct that.

[Brion McClanahan]

Ron,

I don’t think I said we need to continually look at the opponents of the Constitution for meaning, we need to read and hear what the proponents said it would mean; however, the opponents were more astute as to how the Constitution would be abused once ratified. In that way, we can see that they were more perceptive and we can understand, perhaps, how we should guard against federal usurpation of power. We have a Constitution that was ratified by the States in 1787 and 1788 and one that has been distorted by the political class and the federal court system, most importantly the SCOTUS, beginning with Ellsworth and the Judiciary Act in 1789 and Hamilton and his various proposals in 1790 and 1791.

The rebuttal to the opponents of the Constitution is the true meaning of the document, so by looking at both sides, we can accurately ascertain how the proponents of the document promised it would be used once ratified. Several lied, but that is the Constitution we should insist that the political class abide by.

Hope that helps.

[Brion McClanahan]

There are plausibly three ways to undo Marshall:

1. Dr. Gutzman’s Federalism Amendment idea, which has a long uphill battle, even among people who believe themselves to be “originalists.”

2. Nullification, which is gaining steam among a myriad of issues.

3. Secession or decentralization, which also has some momentum at the moment, at least in non-political avenues (homeschooling, organic farming, etc.).

I don’t think the Constitution has retained any of its original intent, at least not how it was sold in 1787 and 1788. That Constitution died fairly quickly. It has retained everything the opponents of the document said it would and very little of what proponents suggested it would be.

[Brion McClanahan]

Wilson’s “Carolina Cavalier” is indeed excellent.

For a nice concise history on the events leading to the War and the War itself, Ludwell Johnson’s “North Against South” is unmatched. He discusses the Sumter incident quite well, James A. Bayard, Jr., Senator from Delaware, dined with the Confederate commissioners charged with purchasing Sumter while they were in D.C. He wrote to his son that Seward was telling these men he was sick and could not meet with them. Bayard hoped Seward was telling the truth; we now know he was not.

As for books on Norther POW camps, I would suggest:

“American Bastille” by John Marshall (free) http://books.google.com/books?id=6q40AAAAIAAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false

Also “To Die in Chicago” by George Levy; he discusses marshal law in Chicago as well as the horrible conditions at Camp Douglas.

“The Union Prison at Fort Delaware” by Brian Temple looks promising, though I have not had the chance to read it yet. Again, I ran across Fort Delaware quite a bit while working on my dissertation. Just a horrible place, and there were political prisoners there as well.

[Brion McClanahan]

The Ordinances were written in London and transmitted to the colony. The last qualifier gave the London company the right to invalidate colonial law but at the same time the company could not write law for Virginia. Dr. Gutzman may have more to add on this, but that is the general tone of the Ordinances.

[Brion McClanahan]

I cannot give you an exact date, but African slavery in the South made it obsolete.

Now, an argument could be made that sharecropping was in some respects a close cousin of indentured servitude, and if so, then it existed until the 20th century.

[Brion McClanahan]

Kathy:

One of the primary arguments against a Bill of Rights from 1788-1791 focused on the understanding that every State already had a bill of rights and therefore another enumeration would be unnecessary. The Bill of Rights, as ratified in 1791 and as clearly stated in the Preamble to the BOR, applied only to the general government, not the States. They were restrictive clauses on the central authority. States would and could have a State church for example (three did) and could abridge freedom of speech (a common argument made in 1798 when Congress passed the Sedition Act), but the general govt could not. Remember, the 1st Amendment states, “Congress shall make no law….” Madison also attempted to insert an incorporation amendment into the BOR but that failed in Congress.

As for the 14th, it was not intended to incorporate the BOR into the State constitutions when it was ratified. That is clear from the record. Incorporation was only done by SCOTUS later, so the TAC is taking the correct position–as usual–on the issue. It may not always be popular, but it is correct.

Hope that helps. I am sure Kevin will have more to say.

[Author]

Posts