is the pledge unconstitutional?

@OmSigDAVID,

I don't buy your argument about the alleged "command" of foreign policy on the part of the President. If he cannot treat with foreign powers without the consent of two thirds of the Senate, it is ridiculous to allege that he "commands" foreign policy.

I have consulted a reputable source, and i acknowledge that you are correct that arms were shipped to Federal arsenals in the South. However, the arms so shipped were subsequently sold. From the linked source, the following is the report of Colonel Craig, the army's Chief of Ordnance, to the new Secretary of War in January, 1861:

Quote:

In my last annual report, dated 30th of October, 1860, I had the honor, among other matters, to state as follows:

“The number of arms manufactured at the national armories during the last year was not as great as the available funds would have justified. This diminution is in a measure attributable to the diversion of armory operations from the manufacture of arms of the established model to the alteration of arms according to plans of patentees and to getting up models of arms for inventors. Our store of muskets of all kinds at this time does not exceed 530,000, dispersed among the arsenals of the country—nowhere more than 130,000 arms being together. As this supply of arms is applicable to the equipment of the Army, the Navy, the Marine Corps, and the militia of the country, it is certainly too small, and every effort should be made to increase the number of our new-model [.58 caliber] guns, whilst no further reduction by sale of the old-model [.69 caliber] serviceable arms should be allowed until our arsenals are better supplied. Our store of muskets in former years reached nearly 700,000, and was not then considered too great for the country, as was evidenced by the liberal appropriations made for the further increase and for the construction of more perfect and productive machinery for the fabrication of small arms.”

Since that date, 127,655 serviceable muskets altered to percussion have been ordered to be sold, many of which have already been disposed of and passed out of the possession of Government. I have now respectfully to recommend that no more arms on the orders already given be disposed of, and that no further sales be made except in the manner authorized by the Act of March 3, 1825. (emphasis has been added)

So, although i was incorrect about the method by which muskets passed from Federal possession to state possession, i am not incorrect that it occurred. I will attempt to find the terms of the Act of Congress of March, 1825 to attempt to know the details of how such sales were authorized. It appears from Col. Craig's report that those sales which had already been made were not made in the authorized manner--at least one can reasonably infer that.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

I don't buy your argument about the alleged "command" of foreign policy on the part of the President.
If he cannot treat with foreign powers without the consent of two thirds of the Senate,
it is ridiculous to allege that he "commands" foreign policy.

A better choice of words is that he decides what foreign policy will BE,
i.e., favorable to one country, less to another,
favorable to one filosofy, less to others,
encouraging behaviors of his preference among other nations.
Obviously, he has the power to decide against treating.
The power to treat, subject to the said ratification,
has been very significant.

Setanta wrote:

I have consulted a reputable source, and i acknowledge that you are correct that arms were shipped to Federal arsenals in the South. However, the arms so shipped were subsequently sold. From the linked source, the following is the report of Colonel Craig, the army's Chief of Ordnance, to the new Secretary of War in January, 1861:

Quote:

In my last annual report, dated 30th of October, 1860, I had the honor, among other matters, to state as follows:

“The number of arms manufactured at the national armories during the last year was not as great as the available funds would have justified. This diminution is in a measure attributable to the diversion of armory operations from the manufacture of arms of the established model to the alteration of arms according to plans of patentees and to getting up models of arms for inventors. Our store of muskets of all kinds at this time does not exceed 530,000, dispersed among the arsenals of the country—nowhere more than 130,000 arms being together. As this supply of arms is applicable to the equipment of the Army, the Navy, the Marine Corps, and the militia of the country, it is certainly too small, and every effort should be made to increase the number of our new-model [.58 caliber] guns, whilst no further reduction by sale of the old-model [.69 caliber] serviceable arms should be allowed until our arsenals are better supplied. Our store of muskets in former years reached nearly 700,000, and was not then considered too great for the country, as was evidenced by the liberal appropriations made for the further increase and for the construction of more perfect and productive machinery for the fabrication of small arms.”

Since that date, 127,655 serviceable muskets altered to percussion have been ordered to be sold, many of which have already been disposed of and passed out of the possession of Government. I have now respectfully to recommend that no more arms on the orders already given be disposed of, and that no further sales be made except in the manner authorized by the Act of March 3, 1825. (emphasis has been added)

Setanta wrote:

So, although i was incorrect about the method by which muskets passed from Federal possession to state possession,
i am not incorrect that it occurred.

Its not as if he gave them away; a sale is an exchange, for cash.
Note that the report does not indicate what percentage of those sales went South
(tho we know that he was a Southern sympathizer).

Setanta wrote:

I will attempt to find the terms of the Act of Congress of March, 1825 to attempt to know the details of how such sales were authorized. It appears from Col. Craig's report that those sales which had already been made were not made in the authorized manner--at least one can reasonably infer that.

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

The point, which is getting lost in nit-picking, is that Floyd took actions, alleged by many to be illegal, to provide access to arms to the states of the South, who had an intent to make war on the United States. This all is just a part of, although a major part of, the contention that the southern states intended war, not only before war had broken out, but even before those states formally seceded from the union. The source which i have most recently linked puts the number of arms sent from St. Louis at 115,000. Whether or not they were purchased (and your contention that this alters the case is more than a little silly--you've not demonstrated that the purchase price agreed upon was paid, let alone whether or not it was a legally valid transaction), the point is that they were intended to be used to make war upon the United States, and subsequently were used for that purpose.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

The point, which is getting lost in nit-picking,
is that Floyd took actions, alleged by many to be illegal,

Such assertions (unless rendered by a jury after trial) r without merit nor meaning.

Setanta wrote:

to provide access to arms to the states of the South,
who had an intent to make war on the United States.

I ratify my earlier post that levying war against the US
while continuing to bear allegiance thereto is treason.

I am confident that the South merely wanted to go its own way,
independently, not to wage war,
but it was prepared to defend itself from an invasion
to suppress its independence. When America declared
its Independence, it did not yearn for war with England,
but was willing to tolerate its inconveniences, for the goal;
so also, the South.

Setanta wrote:

This all is just a part of, although a major part of, the contention that the southern states intended war, not only before war had broken out, but even before those states formally seceded from the union. The source which i have most recently linked puts the number of arms sent from St. Louis at 115,000. Whether or not they were purchased (and your contention that this alters the case is more than a little silly--you've not demonstrated that the purchase price agreed upon was paid, let alone whether or not it was a legally valid transaction),

I have no further information on that specific point,
but I will offer my opinion that those people who denounced him,
woud have been screaming of his failure of consideration,
had it occurred.
This is a lot in principle as if Floyd had access to a room in the White House;
that while there, he did not steal anything,
but he re-arranged the furniture and later, he resigned.
The President was free to restore the status quo ante.

Setanta wrote:

the point is that they were intended to be used
to make war upon the United States, and subsequently were used for that purpose.

3 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

OmSigDAVID wrote:

I am confident that the South merely wanted to go its own way,
independently, not to wage war,
but it was prepared to defend itself from an invasion
to suppress its independence.

and yet they attacked first....

2 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

OmSigDAVID wrote:

I am confident that the South merely wanted to go its own way,
independently, not to wage war,
but it was prepared to defend itself from an invasion
to suppress its independence. When America declared
its Independence, it did not yearn for war with England,
but was willing to tolerate its inconveniences, for the goal;
so also, the South.

not really... they lost.

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

Juries--that's a a laugh. Juries have condemned men subsequently found to be innocent, and have let the guilty go. You're just arguing for atgument's sake.

You're delusional. The firebrands of the South intended to make war, and they did. They paid the price, and have whined about it ever since. However, there have always been people foolish enough to attempt to make noble heroes out of those vicious, slave-driving fools.

2 Replies

@hamilton,

Quote:

and yet they attacked first....

As it always is for the US, it was protecting financial interests to the detriment of others.

Quote:

In late March 1861, over a hundred leading commercial importers in New York, and a similar group in Boston, informed the collector of customs that they would not pay duties on imported goods unless these same duties were collected at Southern ports. This was followed by a threat from New York to withdraw from the Union and establish a free-trade zone.

Prior to these events, Lincoln's plan was to evacuate Fort Sumter and not precipitate a war, but he now determined to reinforce it rather than suffer prolonged economic disaster in a losing trade war.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/pearlston1.html

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Quote:

there have always been people foolish enough to attempt to make noble heroes out of those vicious, slave-driving fools.

And there are those, like you, Set, who try to make heroes out of vicious money grubbing folks who merely used the slave issue as propaganda. A century of indifference to the plight of Blacks tells us all we need to know about how caring the north was.

1 Reply

@JTT,

JTT wrote:

Quote:
there have always been people foolish enough to attempt to make noble heroes out of those vicious, slave-driving fools.

And there are those, like you, Set, who try to make heroes out of vicious money grubbing folks who merely used the slave issue as propaganda. A century of indifference to the plight of Blacks tells us all we need to know about how caring the north was.

Slaves in Rome drove free men from their land... In England and Ireland, sheep did the same deed... Slaves were not simply field hands... Many were skilled craftsmen, and during the Civil War, and before they were being used industrially... Free Men in the North did not free blacks in the South for their benefit, but to preserve their own freedom, flawed as it was, as wage slaves....

0 Replies

@hamilton,

OmSigDAVID wrote:

I am confident that the South merely wanted to go its own way,
independently, not to wage war,
but it was prepared to defend itself from an invasion
to suppress its independence.

hamilton wrote:

and yet they attacked first....

With the benefit of hindsight,
we know that proved to be very unwise, from their perspective.
Thay overestimated their own strength,
which is another way of saying that thay underestimated the enemy.

I daresay that the USA 'd have done the same thing in similar circumstances.

I understand that there is a predominantly Moslem town
somewhere (in the Northwest, is it ??). If next week,
its inhabitants fortified it with homemade artillery
and thay declared it to be "the Republic of Moslem"
I don 't believe that the USA 'd stand for that.

We might well see something a lot like Waco again.

David

1 Reply

@hamilton,

OmSigDAVID wrote:

I am confident that the South merely wanted to go its own way,
independently, not to wage war,
but it was prepared to defend itself from an invasion
to suppress its independence. When America declared
its Independence, it did not yearn for war with England,
but was willing to tolerate its inconveniences, for the goal;
so also, the South.

hamilton wrote:

not really... they lost.

Is that a non-sequitur, Mr. Hamilton ?

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

Juries--that's a a laugh. Juries have condemned men subsequently found to be innocent,
and have let the guilty go. You're just arguing for atgument's sake.

No.
I merely choose to dispute your implication
that if many people accuse someone of guilt
that indicates something.

Setanta wrote:

You're delusional.

It does not disturb my serenity to be accused of being delusional in this forum,
but it evokes a smile, coming from a man who has gone out
of his way to assert that he wants to be treated politely.
We know (from direct observation) that if someone
said that to U, u 'd throw (another) Setantrum!!!!

Setanta wrote:

The firebrands of the South intended to make war, and they did.

So, according to U,
if Lincoln had been a pacifist
and ordered all federal to leave Confederate Territory,
thay 'd STILL have attacked the North?????

I don 't think so.

Their mindset was a lot like
the Sons of Liberty in the 1770s.

David

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

I did not use an argumentum ad populum fallacy to assert Mr. Floyd's guilt. I pointed out early on that he had acted without the knowledge and consent of the Congress, and that the constitution grants the power to provide for the arming of the militia. That you don't accept that argument, and advanced an argument based on some nebulous claim of executive "possession" of the arms is meaningless on two bases. The first is that there is no constitutional basis for your claim. The second is that Mr. Floyd acted without the prior knowledge and consent of the Mr. Buchanan. Even a casual perusal of a biography of Floyd will show you that Mr. Buchanan cancelled Mr. Floyd's orders for the shipment of arms as soon as he became aware of them.

I have not "gone out of my" to assert that i want to be treated politely. Just more delusion on your part, and a staw man fallacy. What i have consistently said is that if someone attacks me, i will attack in return. My remark that you are delusional was in response to this drivel:

Quote:

I am confident that the South merely wanted to go its own way, independently, not to wage war, but it was prepared to defend itself from an invasion to suppress its independence.

If the South had not wanted to wage war, why did they seize Federal property, and fire on Federal troops? It is delusion to dredge up that silly nonsense, which the southern apologists have peddled for a century and half--therefore, to my mind, you are delusional.

It is even more delusional to suggest that the southern firebrands of 1861 were like the "sons of liberty" in the 1770s. By 1775, Americans had had troops quartered on them without their consent, had had taxes levied on them by a Parliament in which they were not represented, had been fired on by English troops, and had been subjected to an attempt to make them buy tea from a private English corporation which was suffering economically because of its own imprudence. No such enormities had been perpetrated upon the states of the South, who in fact made war on the United States without provocation.

2 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

OmSigDAVID wrote:

OmSigDAVID wrote:

I am confident that the South merely wanted to go its own way,
independently, not to wage war,
but it was prepared to defend itself from an invasion
to suppress its independence. When America declared
its Independence, it did not yearn for war with England,
but was willing to tolerate its inconveniences, for the goal;
so also, the South.

hamilton wrote:
not really... they lost.
Is that a non-sequitur, Mr. Hamilton ?

we had more and better resources than them, and could supply our army better, despite their having superior leadership, and it was quite obvious even from the beginning, although they managed to hang on for so long.

2 Replies

@Setanta,

Quote:

I did not use an argumentum ad populum fallacy

Stop with these phony pretenses, Setanta. You ain't near bright enough to carry them off.

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

I did not use an argumentum ad populum fallacy to assert Mr. Floyd's guilt.

No?? Really? U said:
"The point, . . . ,
is that Floyd took actions, alleged by many to be illegal. . . "
If THAT was not what u meant,
then what DID u mean???

Setanta wrote:

I pointed out early on that he had acted without the knowledge and consent of the Congress,

There is nothing rong with that, Setanta.
Secretaries of War or of Defense then and now were not expected
to keep running to the President (still less to the Congress) every ten minutes.
Thay r put into place to administer their respective departments.
Article 1 Section 8 does not change that.

Setanta wrote:

and that the constitution grants the power
to provide for the arming of the militia.

The militia are not at issue here,
but it also grants power over the Army n Navy,
so the difference doesn 't matter.

Setanta wrote:

That you don't accept that argument, and advanced an argument based on some nebulous claim
of executive "possession" of the arms is meaningless on two bases.

"Nebulous"??? "meaningless"??? I can 't follow your reasoning.

Setanta wrote:

The first is that there is no constitutional basis for your claim.

What?? This is unintellibile.
If u wish to explain, do so.

Setanta wrote:

The second is that Mr. Floyd acted without the prior knowledge and consent of the Mr. Buchanan.

So what??
Did u find something in law that prohibits that??
Like all the Cabinet Secretaries don 't do that now ??

Setanta wrote:

Even a casual perusal of a biography of Floyd will show you that Mr. Buchanan
cancelled Mr. Floyd's orders for the shipment of arms
as soon as he became aware of them.

Yes. That is undisputed.

Setanta wrote:

I have not "gone out of my" to assert that i want to be treated politely.
Just more delusion on your part, and a staw man fallacy.

If I were less lazy than I am,
I 'd go backtrack and prove it. I saw it recently.
If I chance upon your quote,
I 'll bring it back here n paste it.

Setanta wrote:

What i have consistently said is that if someone attacks me, i will attack in return.
My remark that you are delusional was in response to this drivel:

David wrote:

I am confident that the South merely wanted to go its own way, independently,
not to wage war, but it was prepared to defend itself from
an invasion to suppress its independence.

I ratify that.
Its the truth.

Setanta wrote:

If the South had not wanted to wage war, why did they seize Federal property, and fire on Federal troops?

Thay underestimated the enemy.
If some Moslems erected a new republic in the middle of America,
I believe that we 'd see another Waco type operation.
The USA 'd not delay much in using force.

Setanta wrote:

It is delusion to dredge up that silly nonsense, which the southern apologists have peddled for a century and half--therefore, to my mind, you are delusional.

It is even more delusional to suggest that the southern firebrands of 1861 were like the "sons of liberty" in the 1770s. By 1775, Americans had had troops quartered on them without their consent, had had taxes levied on them by a Parliament in which they were not represented, had been fired on by English troops, and had been subjected to an attempt to make them buy tea from a private English corporation which was suffering economically because of its own imprudence. No such enormities had been perpetrated upon the states of the South, who in fact made war on the United States without provocation.

U raise arguments concerning JUSTIFICATION. I am not arguing that; (it 'd take forever).
My point is that both the Sons of Liberty and the leaders of the CSA
wanted Independence, to go their own way, preferably in peace.
In retrospect, we know that the hotheaded approach
of firing on Ft. Sumter was not a good idea,
especially if thay had not yet declared their Independence.

It is my sense of the situation
that we have exhausted the value of this line of argument.

David

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

I didn't say that Mr. Floyd was guilty based on the allegations of many, i have clearly specified more than once that he acted without the authority of Congress, and i have more than once pointed out the authority of the Congress. I haven't said that he needed to "run [to the President or Congress] every ten minutes." That's willfully disingenuous on your part, given that Mr. Floyd's actions were carried out over many months in 1860.

Your remarks about the powers of the President, especially your weak argument to the effect that he is "in possession" of military property, are nebulous because they are based on no constitutional or statutory authority. I'll be more than happy to concede that point just as soon as you provide evidence that those powers were granted to the President by act of Congress. Otherwise, it is a nebulous and meaningless argument from a theory which you apprently personally hold as to the powers of the President.

I assume that you meant unintelligible. You have claimed that the military property of the United States is "in the possession" of the President, and therefore can be disposed of as he sees fit, or through the agency of his designated executive officer (Secretary of War)--however, there is no constituional authority for this claim on your part.

The claim about wanting to be treated politely is not significant, but, once again, i don't demand that, i have just pointed out that if people attack me, i treat them in like kind. I have also pointed out why i referred to you as delusional, based on your silly claims about southerners as though they were innnocent men, non-violently rebelling against an oppressive government. That is a delusion.

You can ratify your own delusional remarks to your heart's content--that doesn't mean anything. If the South was content to peacefully go its own way, why did southerners actively make war on the United States without provocation?

Certainly the firebrands of the South underestimated their enemy. I see no good reason to assume, however, that they didn't understand that their actions would lead to war, nor that they hoped to avoid war. They courted war, they sought war. They got war, they got their military ass kicked, and they've been whining about it ever since.

I agree that we exhausted this line of argument, but that's only because you insist on retailing arguments for which there is no constitutional nor historical basis. You have, essentially, repeated many of the argument of the southern apologists, and to a large extent peddled the specious claims of the "northern war of aggression" myth.

1 Reply

These two consectutive paragraphs of Article One, Section 8 of the constitution establish the power of the Congress with regard to suppressing rebellion and arming the militia:

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

The full text of the first paragraph of Article Two, Section 2 clearly define the powers of the President with regard to military forces (i have added emphasis):

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

The President's military power is not as universal as your remarks seem to suggest. On July 13, 1861, the Congress passed an act declaring that some citizens of the states of the southern confederacy were in a state of insurrection, which act authorized the President act, persuant to the power of Congress to suppress insurrecction. Mr. Lincoln has already called for 75,000 volunteers to suppress the rebellion in April, 1861, not having yet congressional authority to call out the militia. On July 29, 1861, Congress granted the President the power to call forth the militia to suppress a rebellion.

You may make whatever claims you like and whatever silly comparison to the American rebellion of 1775 that you like, but there can be no doubt that the Congress and the President acted with constitutional authority in 1861, well after southerners had committed acts of war against the United States, for which there had been no provocation.

0 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

OmSigDAVID wrote:

OmSigDAVID wrote:

I am confident that the South merely wanted to go its own way,
independently, not to wage war,
but it was prepared to defend itself from an invasion
to suppress its independence.

hamilton wrote:
and yet they attacked first....
With the benefit of hindsight,
we know that proved to be very unwise, from their perspective.
Thay overestimated their own strength,
which is another way of saying that thay underestimated the enemy.

I daresay that the USA 'd have done the same thing in similar circumstances.

I understand that there is a predominantly Moslem town
somewhere (in the Northwest, is it ??). If next week,
its inhabitants fortified it with homemade artillery
and thay declared it to be "the Republic of Moslem"
I don 't believe that the USA 'd stand for that.

We might well see something a lot like Waco again.

David

Waco was just the beginning, and the old South is still there and still militant in its reaction... The thing is; since our democracy has never forced consensus the majority can often act as though it is the whole people, and this is fine as long as the majority is doing right, and acting in the best interest of the whole people... The majority in the South dragged the rest into conflict without forethought, or preparation... In a time when many people did not get forty miles from their birth places the South was particularly insular and parochial... The War did all those Americans a great service who fought it and survived it because it taught them how tough, resourceful and determined this people was, and how vast and rich this county is... There are a lot of people in the South in particular, and in the North as well who suffer the same sort of narrow and shortsighted vision as their fathers....Look at how many thought they were going to kick the world's ass after 911... They want to go and start some endless conflict in Afghanistan thinking we can do in on the computer... They have no idea now, just as they had no idea then of the cost of war to those who pay the ultimate price, but what is suffered by civilian populations; and that some times people suffer the very war they would only inflict upon others... To effect great social change is to risk great social change... Well; the South was never much changed by the war except for being embittered... The sentiment for isolation and reaction is still there and well in the South... But; it is only a majority, and not the whole people, and they should be careful if they think they can fight the Civil War over better a second time... Only if they seize the nukes will they have a chance, and they are still thick in the military, still imbued with the religio/militarism of the past, so that is very possible... But having the nukes, what is there to stop those nut heads from using them on us???

0 Replies

is the pledge unconstitutional?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know