Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

History of Liberty: Judge Napalitano on the Civil War and the Gilded Age
http://www.youtube.com ^ | June 12, 2012

Posted on 08/16/2013 7:59:53 PM PDT by NKP_Vet

Lincoln's "actions were unconstitutional and he knew it," writes Napolitano, for "the rights of the states to secede from the Union . . . [are] clearly implicit in the Constitution, since it was the states that ratified the Constitution . . ." Lincoln's view "was a far departure from the approach of Thomas Jefferson, who recognized states' rights above those of the Union." Judge Napolitano also reminds his readers that the issue of using force to keep a state in the union was in fact debated -- and rejected -- at the Constitutional Convention as part of the "Virginia Plan."

(Excerpt) Read more at youtube.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: andrewnapolitano; civilwar; geraldorivera; judgenapolitano; kkk; klan; racist; randsconcerntrolls; randsconverntrolls; ronpaul
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 301-345 next last

1 posted on 08/16/2013 7:59:53 PM PDT by NKP_Vet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: NKP_Vet

If Napolitano wrote that then he was wrong.


2 posted on 08/16/2013 8:11:45 PM PDT by rockrr (Everything is different now...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NKP_Vet

It is unfortunate that Andrew Napolitano has veered into this Ron Paul kook fringe nonsense.


3 posted on 08/16/2013 8:24:58 PM PDT by iowamark
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NKP_Vet

Sounds logical to me.


4 posted on 08/16/2013 8:31:59 PM PDT by man_in_tx (Blowback (Faithfully farting twowards Mecca five times daily).)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: iowamark; rockrr
It is interesting to note that you both reside in states that didn't have a horse in that race.
5 posted on 08/16/2013 8:33:40 PM PDT by Robe (Rome did not create a great empire by talking, they did it by killing all those who opposed them)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Robe

What race are you referring to?


6 posted on 08/16/2013 8:34:58 PM PDT by rockrr (Everything is different now...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: rockrr

A great video. Lincoln’s great power grab.


7 posted on 08/16/2013 8:38:00 PM PDT by NKP_Vet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: rockrr

Why wrong? Explain your case. The Revolution was secession from England. Why can’t people decide? Why FORCE people to remain tied politically? And, why do conservatives lose their ability to think logically when it comes to the The Civil War?


8 posted on 08/16/2013 10:22:12 PM PDT by HMS Surprise (Chris Christie can STILL go straight to hell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: NKP_Vet; All

I used to think he was nuts. Then I did a lot of research from both sides and independents.

The Judge is spot on! The American people have been lied to.


9 posted on 08/16/2013 11:05:10 PM PDT by foundedonpurpose (It's time for a fundamental restoration, of our country's principles!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HMS Surprise

“And, why do conservatives lose their ability to think logically when it comes to the The Civil War?”

It’s only the Lincoln Cult that has that difficulty.


10 posted on 08/16/2013 11:14:41 PM PDT by Pelham (Deportation is the law. When it's not enforced you get California)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Pelham

Elmer Fudd compares himself to Lincoln. He is right; both acted against the Constitution.


11 posted on 08/17/2013 12:00:02 AM PDT by NTHockey (Rules of engagement #1: Take no prisoners. And to the NSA trolls, FU)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: NKP_Vet

So as a state you can voluntarily join to form a
government but then you can never leave it?

Sounds like Islam to me.


12 posted on 08/17/2013 12:06:49 AM PDT by tet68 ( " We would not die in that man's company, that fears his fellowship to die with us...." Henry V.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HMS Surprise

Stephen would agree with you in five or six languages, I know I do. Good comment.


13 posted on 08/17/2013 3:03:18 AM PDT by SandwicheGuy (*The butter acts as a lubricant and speeds up the CPU*ou)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Pelham
“And, why do conservatives lose their ability to think logically when it comes to the The Civil War?”

Liberal white guilt has infested throughout the political spectrum.

14 posted on 08/17/2013 6:02:22 AM PDT by BwanaNdege ("To learn who rules over you simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize"- Voltaire)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: HMS Surprise
Why wrong? Explain your case. The Revolution was secession from England. Why can’t people decide? Why FORCE people to remain tied politically? And, why do conservatives lose their ability to think logically when it comes to the The Civil War?

Good questions. Let's start with the last one first. I think that a lot of folks are emotionally invested in the War Between The States. Maybe it is because their ancestors lost a war? Personally I don't understand how they can be so wrapped up by events that ended 150 years ago, but I accept that there are those who are.

The Revolution was secession from England.

No it wasn't. The Revolutionary War was a rebellion against the British crown. The colonials tried for years to make their case for a representational seat at the table and were subjected to true acts of subjugation and tyranny for their efforts. When the Brits attempted to impose the tea tax shipments of tea sat unloaded, rotting at the piers and on the ships because Americans refused to accept the cargo with its poison pill. When the Boston Tea Party occurred the Brits responded by quarantining the harbor. When Americans responded by smuggling supplies into Boston the Brits sent out scouting parties to intercept and arrest them. Then the Brits advanced on Lexington to disarm the colonials. We know what happened next.

By contrast the southern slavers agitated a violent separation from the union thinly wrapped in the pretense of a secession. The orthodox definition of secession is the formal separation from an alliance or federation. But that is not how the slavers proceeded. Unlike the colonials, the slavers didn't avail themselves of their constitutional right (and duty) of redress. They didn't take their grievances to congress or the Supreme Court. Instead they turned their back on the United States Constitution and rebelled against their own country. The used the circumstance of the election of Lincoln to begin their insurrection. They began to steal everything and anything that wasn't nailed down and seizing territories - and states - in the name of their confederacy. They openly and defiantly declared their separation and dared the unionists to stop them. And they made war against their neighbors and erstwhile allies. They incited and perpetuated a war that literally tore our country apart.

People can and should decide their own fate. There may again come a time when the people are called upon to decide. I would hope that they do it right next time.

15 posted on 08/17/2013 6:41:04 AM PDT by rockrr (Everything is different now...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: HMS Surprise
And, why do conservatives lose their ability to think logically when it comes to the The Civil War?

I have been asking myself that for a long time. One reason is that the Federal take over of all things to all people is so complete that the thought of powerful state governors and legislatures is a foreign concept. Even though that was the original intent.

16 posted on 08/17/2013 6:44:16 AM PDT by central_va (I won't be reconstructed and I do not give a damn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: rockrr; central_va; HMS Surprise
If I understand your argument correctly, the Confederates forfeited their right of secession by the matter of their leaving. May we conclude that if they had been more polite they would have been justified?

If one tries to draw a distinction between the American Revolution and the southern secession based on tariff policy disputes, I think you play right into the Confederates hands. Likewise, when the American Navy moved to reinforce Fort Sumter, "we know what happened next." The distinctions are mostly artificial. It is not upon such niceties that great moral questions should be determined. As Judge Napolitano points out, Lincoln was not altogether polite in his suppression of the rebellion.

I think the right of secession turns not on such subjective niceties but on the fundamental right to secede or not. Is it a natural right? Is it is a constitutional right? Is it inherent in the peculiar arrangement of states which made the American union? If there was a right, was it somehow illegitimate to claim it to protect the perpetuation of slavery?

As to being wrapped up with events that ended 150 years ago, I take it you do not celebrate Independence Day on July 4? You do not celebrate Christmas or observe Yom Kippur?


17 posted on 08/17/2013 7:46:31 AM PDT by nathanbedford ("Attack, repeat, attack!" Bull Halsey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: nathanbedford
You make a variety of assumptions - all bad.

If I understand your argument correctly, the Confederates forfeited their right of secession by the matter of their leaving.

Nope. There is no enumerated "right" of secession. But there could still be secession if conducted properly (see West Virginia). and nope - I said nothing about forfeiture of anything.

As Judge Napolitano points out, Lincoln was not altogether polite in his suppression of the rebellion.

So what? War is hell. They shouldn't have started something and set the pace for something they couldn't finish.

I think the right of secession turns not on such subjective niceties but on the fundamental right to secede or not. Is it a natural right? Is it is a constitutional right? Is it inherent in the peculiar arrangement of states which made the American union? If there was a right, was it somehow illegitimate to claim it to protect the perpetuation of slavery?

Again, there is no enumerated "right" to secession. There is a God-given natural right to rebellion as defense against tyranny. There was no tyranny occurring in the United States of 1860 - except arguable the one being perpetuated against blacks. The south started a war for no defensible reason other than their belligerence.

As to being wrapped up with events that ended 150 years ago, I take it you do not celebrate Independence Day on July 4? You do not celebrate Christmas or observe Yom Kippur?

You take it incorrectly.

18 posted on 08/17/2013 7:59:44 AM PDT by rockrr (Everything is different now...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: rockrr
Do you realize that among your posts you contradicted virtually every one of your own arguments?


19 posted on 08/17/2013 8:09:56 AM PDT by nathanbedford ("Attack, repeat, attack!" Bull Halsey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: NKP_Vet
This is an old argument: personal liberty must include the liberty to be a slaveholder. Slavery had a long run, but we're not going back there.

The judge suggests that, until the tyrant Lincoln, everyone just sort of assumed that each state had the right to nullify U.S. laws. He seems to have forgotten that South Carolina backed off its threat to nullify U.S. laws when President Andrew Jackson threatened to personally go to South Carolina and start hanging "nullifiers' from trees.

I've always thought that South Carolina was lucky to have attempted "secession" during the presidency of James Buchanan (referred to as "Miss Nancy" by Jackson) rather than during the presidency of Jackson. Of course, South Carolina would never have dared attempting a "secession" during a Jackson presidency.

The "secessionists" were correct in predicting that Miss Nancy would do nothing in response to a "secession." They underestimated Lincoln.

20 posted on 08/17/2013 8:12:15 AM PDT by Tau Food (Never give a sword to a man who can't dance.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HMS Surprise
The Revolution was secession from England.

No, the Revolution was a Revolution. The Founders didn't pretend there was some unwritten 'penumbra' hidden in deep British law that allowed them to walk away whenever they damn well felt like it.

And most of the Fire-Eating Confederates didn't think there was some clause in the Constitution that allowed them to secede at will, or at least they never pointed that clause out at the time. Most of them had simply deluded themselves into believing the other states wouldn't try to stop them from doing so.

21 posted on 08/17/2013 8:19:56 AM PDT by Ditto
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: nathanbedford

Where?


22 posted on 08/17/2013 8:21:44 AM PDT by rockrr (Everything is different now...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: rockrr
Golly, I thought you had when you said, "By contrast [to the colonials experience with the British] the southern slavers agitated a violent separation from the union …" You meant that this behavior distinguished and made illegitimate there efforts to secede.

But later, when it was pointed out that Lincoln was certainly equally harsh in his treatment of the former states which had succeeded and had formed their own country, you dismissed his behavior saying,

So what? War is hell. They shouldn't have started something and set the pace for something they couldn't finish.

Which is it?

You make much of saying that there is no "enumerated "right" of succession" but of course that neglects the very existence of the Declaration of Independence which Lincoln explicitly sought to incorporate into and make a fundamental document of the American Republic by his speech at Gettysburg. So while the Constitution does not enumerate a right of secession the Declaration of Independence certainly articulates such a right.

Equally, the Constitution does not enumerate a prohibition against secession but it does explicitly reserve rights not otherwise enumerated to the states. Why is the right of secession not one of those rights?

The experience of West Virginia can hardly be said to be apposite because there was a succession from Virginia, that is a state of one nation, the Confederacy, to become a state of a different nation, the United States. Evidently, there is a right to secede in one direction only.

Incidentally, the south did secede in an orderly fashion by plebiscite in many cases. Once done, by their lights, federal troops invaded a sovereign nation which any nation has the right to resist and supplies a fully "defensible reason other than their own belligerence" for resort to arms.

I think a justification of Lincoln's war against the Confederacy must be made on a moral level, inherent in the moral wrong of slavery, just as Lincoln was forced to do against his inclination when he issued the Emancipation Proclamation. As Lincoln said to Harriet Stowe, author of, Uncle Tom's Cabin, "so you are the little lady who started the Civil War."

The idea that the sovereign states who formed a union of "United States" whose Constitution contains no "enumerated" prohibition against secession are somehow constitutionally prohibited from doing so, depends not on logic but on Appomattox Courthouse. The constitutional principle was established there and not in the Supreme Court (except post bellum) and not in the halls of Congress.


23 posted on 08/17/2013 9:11:10 AM PDT by nathanbedford ("Attack, repeat, attack!" Bull Halsey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: HMS Surprise

The Revolution was not secession from England. The colonies were chartered by England, but the tax power and local government was devolved from England at that time.

England was attempting to force the colonies to pay taxes levied in England where there was no representation, after taxes had already been levied by colonial governments, and was attempting to use military force to deny them rights like due process, rights to trial, and sent a military patrol to steal firearms. The port of Boston was closed by military action in an attempt to starve the citizens, absent any trial.

No similar unconstitutional acts were committed by the federal government before the insurrection of 1860.

After the insurrection started, the President declared that an insurrection had begun per the law of 1795, and the federal government successfully suppressed it.

The attempted insurrection was decided and found to be illegal in Texas v. White.


24 posted on 08/17/2013 9:39:22 AM PDT by donmeaker (Blunderbuss: A short weapon, ... now superceded in civilized countries by more advanced weaponry.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: nathanbedford
You've applied a curious twist - to both your own statements and to my reply.

As to forfeiture: I interpreted your statement as the south forfeiting by conceding their attempt at secession - they obviously did not (atleast until the bitter end). It looks like you meant that they lost at their attempt at secession (they didn't succeed at seceding LOL). I apologize for any confusion.

Then, your original statement was, "As Judge Napolitano points out, Lincoln was not altogether polite in his suppression of the rebellion." to which I responded "war is hell".

Now you phrase it as "Lincoln was certainly equally harsh..." - I categorically reject that premise. Lincoln's response to the south was reactionary and slow to get up to speed but he did not treat the rebels as harshly as the Brits treated the colonists.

So while the Constitution does not enumerate a right of secession the Declaration of Independence certainly articulates such a right.

There is no mention of secession in the Declaration of Independence. The colonists openly rebelled without pretense or deceit.

You can think the analogy of West Virginia inapt or clumsy but it stands as an example of a correct way to secede - as opposed to the way the slavers did it. The main difference is that they did not attempt unilateral secession like the confeds.

I think a justification of Lincoln's war against the Confederacy must be made on a moral level, inherent in the moral wrong of slavery, just as Lincoln was forced to do against his inclination when he issued the Emancipation Proclamation.

You can think that but you would be wrong. Although the moral wrongness of slavery was a legitimate issue of contention, it was the south's issue - not the norths. Lincoln went to war in response to the south going to war against him and the north. .

The constitutionality of unilateral secession has been addressed - and rejected by SCOTUS. That doesn't mean it couldn't come up again but it would be an uphill battle.

25 posted on 08/17/2013 9:49:33 AM PDT by rockrr (Everything is different now...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: NKP_Vet

Napolitano has it wrong about the Civil War in that it was the Democrat slavers who began to fire upon the the Union first, thus go beyond diplomacy first, and going into armed conflict first - a situation it brought unto themselves. Once military force is brought to the table, it cannot be expected that the other side will not reciprocate; whether the other side is right or wrong! And it is obvious the Democrat slavers wanted to expand slavery to the Western territories and would have used any means necessary to do so, as was obvious in Bloody Kansas.


26 posted on 08/17/2013 9:49:37 AM PDT by celmak
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rockrr

In the white guilt rationale if some of the states did not want to join the union in the first place and did not join the union, Washington would had threatened them with war and MADE them join. It was a voluntary union of states. If not, the Founding were a bunch of a lying SOBs who never had any intention of EVER letting a state out once they opted to join. If anyone believes that I’ve got some good ocean front property in Arizona to sell you.


27 posted on 08/17/2013 9:58:41 AM PDT by NKP_Vet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: NKP_Vet

What is it with people who ostensibly identify themselves as conservatives venerating a bunch of Dixiecrats?


28 posted on 08/17/2013 10:00:22 AM PDT by jmacusa (Political correctness is cultural Marxism. I'm not a Marxist.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rockrr
There is no mention of secession in the Declaration of Independence

"it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

You did not address the fact that there is no enumerated prohibition against secession and therefore it is a 10th amendment right held by the states.

The colonists openly rebelled without pretense or deceit.

I have already noted that the southern states seceded quite openly and by Democratic means.

"Lincoln was certainly equally harsh..." - I categorically reject that premise. Lincoln's response to the south was reactionary and slow to get up to speed but he did not treat the rebels as harshly as the Brits treated the colonists.

"If a pigeon attempted to fly the length of the Shenandoah Valley he would have to pack his own rations"… General Phil Sheridan in his report describing the devastation he wrought in the Shenandoah Valley. Sherman's march to the sea was worse.

The main difference is that they [West Virginia] did not attempt unilateral secession like the confeds.

Of course they did, they conducted the secession from Virginia without reference to the will of the people of the whole state, protected by force of arms of Union troops. When the southern states seceded they submitted the issue to all the people of all of the southern states respectively.

The secession of West Virginia stands in hypocritical contradistinction to the war of Northern aggression conducted against the South for doing the very same thing.


29 posted on 08/17/2013 10:08:41 AM PDT by nathanbedford ("Attack, repeat, attack!" Bull Halsey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: nathanbedford

Here’s another Halsey quote: “Hit hard, hit fast, hit often’’. Halsey was a Yankee, you know. Born in Elizabeth, NJ.


30 posted on 08/17/2013 10:11:09 AM PDT by jmacusa (Political correctness is cultural Marxism. I'm not a Marxist.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: NKP_Vet

You have such a simple-minded view of the world. Does it hurt?

If you had ever taken the time to actually read any history of the constitutional convention you would have seen the agonizing that was done over the invention of a government created from whole cloth. Every interest, every fear was debated and considered. Many interests were adopted, many rejected.

In the end the issue of leaving the union was left unaddressed. The representatives knew that and knew that their only choice was to accept the constitution as is, or walk away. They all accepted it - reluctantly or otherwise.

Why? Because they knew that the alternative was unthinkable. Going it alone meant being naked and alone in a den of wolves. No one state - no matter how strong - could survive it. They would get consumed, or subsumed - or they could join the relative safety of the republic.

As for “letting a state out once they opted to join” I stated my opinion upstream. Although secession isn’t an enumerated right, there is no reason why a state couldn’t petition for secession.


31 posted on 08/17/2013 10:14:13 AM PDT by rockrr (Everything is different now...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: jmacusa
A mere irony of geography.

I've always said that New Jersey is a great place to be from.


32 posted on 08/17/2013 10:17:34 AM PDT by nathanbedford ("Attack, repeat, attack!" Bull Halsey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: nathanbedford
"it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

Nope, no mention of secession. They are referring to the natural law of rebellion.

You did not address the fact that there is no enumerated prohibition against secession and therefore it is a 10th amendment right held by the states.

No I didn't. Because it isn't a "right" granted by omission via the 10th.

I have already noted that the southern states seceded quite openly and by Democratic means.

Unilaterally and illegally.

Sherman's march to the sea was worse.

But didn't rise to the level of the Brits treatment of the colonists.

33 posted on 08/17/2013 10:19:44 AM PDT by rockrr (Everything is different now...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: rockrr
Unilaterally and illegally.

What the heck are you talking about? There is no such thing as an "illegal" secession, because there's no such thing as a "legal" one, either. Secession is the act of leaving an organization. Whether or not you follow the "rules" of the organization you just left is only relevant if you lose.

As for West Virginia... it seceded even more "illegally" than the Confederate states did (based on your standard). The Confederate states at least used the existing state governments to declare their separation. West Virginia was created because a second, unionist-backed Virginia government was formed in Wheeling that then voted to secede (over the objections of the established Virginia government in Richmond) and was recognized by the US Government. If there had not been a war, West Virginia would have been enjoined from statehood based on Article 4 Section 3 of the Constitution itself:

New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new States shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.

Far from supporting the idea of a "legal" secession, the case of West Virginia shows that there is no such thing. The only legal secession is the one that succeeds, and the only "illegal" one is the one that fails.

34 posted on 08/17/2013 10:41:16 AM PDT by Charles H. (The_r0nin) (Hwaet! Lar bith maest hord, sothlice!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: rockrr
Nope, no mention of secession. They are referring to the natural law of rebellion.

Are you sure you want to concede a natural right of "rebellion?"

No mention of secession in the Declaration of Independence? I suppose you are correct, the declaration only provides for the right of the people to "alter" or "abolish" government and to "institute" new government. You're right, no right to secession as mentioned.

I noticed you have abandoned your core argument that there is no "enumerated" right to secession (presumably in the Constitution alone).

Unilaterally and illegally.

To argue that the opposite of what someone maintains without justification or explanation is puerile.

But didn't rise to the level of the Brits treatment of the colonists.

Whole sections of the land were burned-out and the population starved out as a deliberate policy anticipating the wars of the 20th century, I think an argument can be made that the Yankees treated the South worse than the Brits treated the colonials. But, remember your initial premise that there is no equivalence, no relevance to the American war of Independence. We are now discussing degrees of violence etc. It sounds to me like we are talking about very similar affairs with arguable degrees of violence on one side or another but no clear ability to say that one was different from another because of the degree of violence. It is impossible given these facts to say that there is no relevance between the two wars.


35 posted on 08/17/2013 10:46:17 AM PDT by nathanbedford ("Attack, repeat, attack!" Bull Halsey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: jmacusa
What is it with people who ostensibly identify themselves as conservatives venerating a bunch of Dixiecrats?

Most people want to be proud of their ancestors, their heritage. It's natural for a person to feel that the conduct of his ancestors somehow reflects on him. Many Germans feel the same way about parents or grandparents who were Nazis.

I respect very much those who happened to live in the South and even those who fought (unsuccessfully) for the Confederacy. However, the primary motive of the "secessionist" leaders was to protect slavery and I think it should have been more clear to those leaders that they were trying to row upstream against an overwhelming historical tide. "Secessionist" leaders also should have known that they were proceeding on a bogus view of the fundamental political structure of the United States and the meaning of the U.S. Constitution. Unfortunately, the South was just plagued with relatively weak and incompetent leadership at the time. I think many of those leaders predicted that Lincoln would be as impotent and submissive as President James "Miss Nancy" Buchanan. They guessed wrong, of course.

36 posted on 08/17/2013 10:58:25 AM PDT by Tau Food (Never give a sword to a man who can't dance.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: nathanbedford
Are you sure you want to concede a natural right of "rebellion?"

I'm conceding nothing.

You're right, no right to secession as mentioned.

But you are. LOL

I noticed you have abandoned your core argument that there is no "enumerated" right to secession (presumably in the Constitution alone).

Nope, wrong again. I have abandoned nothing.

I would agree that comparisons of severity are subjective and a lot depends on whose ox is being gored. I never said that there was "no relevance" but I do maintain that the attempt to compare is severely strained.

37 posted on 08/17/2013 11:02:41 AM PDT by rockrr (Everything is different now...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: rockrr
I am content to leave the debate where it stands if that suits you?

All the best.


38 posted on 08/17/2013 11:23:21 AM PDT by nathanbedford ("Attack, repeat, attack!" Bull Halsey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: NKP_Vet

Napolitano has his opinion and Madison, Jackson, Webster, and Buchanan had theirs. I’ll go with Madison, Jackson, et.al.


39 posted on 08/17/2013 11:31:49 AM PDT by 0.E.O
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nathanbedford

As you wish. Thanks for the lively discussion!


40 posted on 08/17/2013 11:36:33 AM PDT by rockrr (Everything is different now...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Charles H. (The_r0nin)
If there had not been a war, West Virginia would have been enjoined from statehood based on Article 4 Section 3 of the Constitution itself ...

But there was a war. Under the circumstances -- a state government gone into rebellion and taking up arms against the rest of the country -- West Virginia statehood wasn't much of a problem. When the state government was shooting at the rest of the country it was natural that an alternative "loyal" government would be set up, and West Virginia statehood got the approval of the state government that wasn't shooting at the constitutional federal government.

There was a question, though, of whether areas that didn't want to be included in the new state should have been part of it. And why is it worse when a state is broken up? If breaking up the union had been debated in congress or in a national convention, state borders might have been changed to accomodate areas like West Virginia or east Tennessee that weren't keen on secession.

The only legal secession is the one that succeeds, and the only "illegal" one is the one that fails.

This question of "legal" and "illegal" secession is a little beside the point. If there's a prescribed means of exiting some political union, we can talk of "legal" secession. If there isn't, an arranged separation by mutual consent would also be "legal."

In the absence of an authorized means of exit or separation, force may very well decide things. I don't think we should say that force should always be the arbiter of what's legal or constitutional and what isn't. That's why we probably want to avoid unilateral secession in favor of a settlement negotiated beforehand by the parties concerned.

Unfortunately, by the time secession or separation becomes a real possibility, people are so angry that they don't want to have negotiations or ask for consent. The act of declaring oneself independent on one's own comes to have great satsifaction for people.

41 posted on 08/17/2013 11:37:05 AM PDT by x
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: NKP_Vet
Lincoln's "actions were unconstitutional and he knew it," writes Napolitano, for "the rights of the states to secede from the Union . . . [are] clearly implicit in the Constitution, since it was the states that ratified the Constitution . . ."

Beware of what people think is "implicit" in the Constitution, hidden away in all those penumbras and emanations. If you're talking about major changes, it's best to get as many people as possible on board and (changing the metaphor) dot all the i's and cross all the t's and respond to possible objections, rather than simply assume that what one happens to believe justifies and authorizes radical steps.

Lincoln's view "was a far departure from the approach of Thomas Jefferson, who recognized states' rights above those of the Union."

Jefferson like to make provocative claims and didn't always think them through. His ideas were never the last word in constitutional interpretation, and his opinion was only one of many. Or more than one of many, since Jefferson in power and Jefferson out of power didn't always agree.

42 posted on 08/17/2013 11:49:36 AM PDT by x
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rockrr
Napolitano is a mental patient.

First, no seems to know why he suddenly resigned a high-ranking state judgeship just as his career was building steam. That alone is very bizarre.

Second, he is a huge supporter of Ralph Nader.

Third, he is a 9/11 Truther.

Fourth, he is apparently opposed to interracial marriage and believes that laws against it are constitutional.

Fifth, he has said that President Bush should have been imprisoned for his treatment of the Guantanamo inmates.

Why should his opinion on anything matter?

43 posted on 08/17/2013 12:45:52 PM PDT by wideawake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: wideawake

that’s OK - NKP_Vet’s last reference was from a leftist UC Berkley sociologist - I can’t tell if he is trading up or down LOL!


44 posted on 08/17/2013 12:52:58 PM PDT by rockrr (Everything is different now...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: jmacusa

Never knew a Dixiecrat that was not a conservative. How this country would have been a much better place if the great
Strom Thurmond had been elected president.


45 posted on 08/17/2013 12:56:39 PM PDT by NKP_Vet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: HMS Surprise
The Revolution was secession from England. Why can’t people decide? Why FORCE people to remain tied politically?

You are aware that the Revolution was a war, aren't you? That the Founders had to fight for their freedom because they knew their actions were not legal per the Crown? And that the biggest difference between them and the Confederates is that the Founders valued their cause enough to win while the Confederates wound up throwing in the towel?

46 posted on 08/17/2013 12:56:54 PM PDT by 0.E.O
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: foundedonpurpose
The American people have been lied to.

The truth being?

47 posted on 08/17/2013 12:59:53 PM PDT by 0.E.O
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: tet68
So as a state you can voluntarily join to form a government but then you can never leave it?

Except that for 37 of the 50 states there was no 'voluntarily join' to it. They were allowed in, and only after a majority of the existing states said it was OK through a vote in Congress. If the other states have to agree to let them in then why shouldn't they have to agree to let them out?

48 posted on 08/17/2013 1:02:38 PM PDT by 0.E.O
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: NKP_Vet

I never knew a Dixiecrat who WAS a conservative. Dixicrats were only southern democrats who fled the party.


49 posted on 08/17/2013 1:03:02 PM PDT by rockrr (Everything is different now...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: 0.E.O

“The truth is out there” - for some, waaay out there ;-)


50 posted on 08/17/2013 1:06:39 PM PDT by rockrr (Everything is different now...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 301-345 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson