Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
gutzmank
ParticipantThe Republican Party’s position on tariffs had been the Whig Party’s position on tariffs, and yet no one seceded after Harrison’s election in 1840 or Taylor’s election in 1848. Deep South secession was about slavery. Again, see Dew.
ParticipantThe tariff was not the Deep South states’ chief concern. That was the future of slavery under a Republican administration, which they expected to take constitutional steps–such as delivering the mail–to undermine it. For details, see Dew’s APOSTLES OF DISUNION.
ParticipantThe Alien and Sedition Acts were three separate statutes. Although the idea of nullifying the Sedition Act was discussed in the abstract, nullification of that law was never actually implemented.
I have no idea how the Individual Mandate can be nullified. It is to be implemented by the IRS, and I don’t see how a state can prevent that from happening.
ParticipantI too quite enjoyed it. Yes, there was some taking liberties with facts, but that was done in quest of conveying the truth, it seems to me. (Thomas Jefferson actually respected that distinction, as is developed in Spahn’s brilliant new book on Jefferson and history.) My favorite parts were Adams’s audience with George III and Adams’s defense of the soldiers tried for their roles in the Boston Massacre.
ParticipantIn general, the quest to demonstrate that there was any substantial number of black Confederate soldiers is a snipe hunt.
ParticipantThen it depends whether secession was in fact insurrection. I infer that you think it wasn’t, which is also my understanding. (That’s not to say that I look kindly upon the Deep South states’ secessions.)
ParticipantExcept of course that there was in the late 18th century no such thing as a generalized “right to privacy” (nor is there now).
ParticipantThis question is considered at length in the lectures.
ParticipantFor members of Congress, absent a criminal violation, the punishment is defeat at the next election. For members of the other two branches of the Federal Government, the punishment is impeachment or, in the case of the president or v.p., defeat at the next election.
ParticipantIn the Philadelphia Convention and after, some people said there ought to be a federal bill of rights. Others responded that this was a bad idea, because one couldn’t include all of the rights in an enumeration, and any right that wasn’t included in the list would be excluded from the category of rights that the Federal Government had to respect. Congress’s answer to this concern was the Ninth Amendment.
ParticipantThe constitutional issue was that it was for Congress, not for the president to raise an army.
ParticipantWhy they would care is one thing, and that they did is another. They certainly did. In fact, Queen Victoria told the US ambassador that her government would never side with the CSA because it was defending slavery.
ParticipantNone of those is reserved to the states: as the Federal Government was expressly given jurisdiction over some crimes, and as it was necessary and proper that it enact statutes against others, it would perforce have to deal with search and seizure, warrants, bail, lawsuits, etc. Any government would.
ParticipantIt’s easy to find Hamilton’s Federalist essays, Wilson’s Statehouse speech, etc., online.
ParticipantI think what we’ve said above is pretty clear.
-
AuthorPosts