During the insurrection the only law that the North was bound to respect in the south was the law of war. The southerners were belligerents in war, and were afford NO protections by the law of the United States, other than those the government chose to grant them.
"Yep, and he violated his oath to uphold the constitution barely a month after taking it!"
According to who? What authoritative body ruled as such?
"What do you call an executive who shuns the constitution he swore to defend and throws its safeguards and checks upon him (two of which were Judges Taney and Merrick) aside? A tyrant, that's what."
"Too bad Lincoln used his military to overrun those courts and intimidate the judges that could rule against the lawbreakers in his army."
I am quite confident that if your allegations were valid, the Court system would have sorted it out. In any case, that was not an insurrectionist matter to worry about; the insurrectionists had already committed their treachery.
As Lincoln ruled neither absolutely, nor oppressively, the epithet of "tyrant" or "despot" rings hollow. It is merely neo-confederate propaganda. The plaintive whine of a loser.
"The one that cast off King George because "He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power." Kinda like Lincoln did against Judges Taney and Merrick."
I don't recall any loyal states bolting the Union because of alleged wrongs to Taney or Merrick. A tyrant or despot would not have tolerated either one of them. Taney continued on, in his embittered dotage, as Chief Justice. Merrick was eventually released from house arrest once the crisis had passed.
"You're straining at gnats and fabricating a false distinction that the secessionists themselves did not profess. A right is a right is a right, period, and the secessionists clearly stated they were acting upon their right: "THE REVOLUTION OF 1861" - Charleston Mercury"
Charleston Mercury = Robert Barnwell Rhett, fire-eater extraordinary
The distinction was made by Madison in the 1830's. Let me review the quotation you know so well:
James Madison to Daniel Webster, March 15, 1833
"I return my thanks for the copy of your late very powerful Speech in the Senate of the United S. It crushes "nullification" and must hasten the abandonment of "Secession." But this dodges the blow by confounding the claim to secede at will, with the right of seceding from intolerable oppression. The former answers itself, being a violation, without cause, of a faith solemnly pledged. The latter is another name only for revolution, about which there is no theoretic controversy. Its double aspect, nevertheless, with the countenance recd from certain quarters, is giving it a popular currency here which may influence the approaching elections both for Congress & for the State Legislature. It has gained some advantage also, by mixing itself with the question whether the Constitution of the U.S. was formed by the people or by the States, now under a theoretic discussion by animated partizans."
If the secessionists were claiming, like their ancestors some eighty year earlier, the natural right of revolution, then theirs was truly a war for independence. They were in conflict with the sovereign authority of the nation they purported to leave and could claim nothing from it.
Jaffa notes, "Lincoln was always careful to concede that secession might be a revolutionary right, as distinct from a constitutional right. But the right of revolution can justly be invoked only in the interest of human freedom, not of slavery. Jefferson, in his Note on Virginia, made plain that the slaves had the right of revolution, not the masters. In any servile uprising, he said, God would be on the side of the slaves. This is unquestionably why the confederate States always insisted that secession was a constitutional right, not a natural or revolutionary right."
...and yet they couldn't even abide by that one. I won't even go into the other laws in their own parts of the country such as Washington D.C. and Maryland where Lincoln intimidated and arrested judges
According to who?
According to history. He suspended habeas corpus which the constitution and law plainly do not permit him to do. He intimidated and house arrested a judge which the constitution and law plainly do not permit him to do.
What authoritative body ruled as such?
Truth is truth is truth is truth no matter what ad verecundiam rendering anybody pulls about it. That said, five separate authoritative federal courts ruled against him on habeas corpus and the supreme court, at other times in history - one before Lincoln, one after Lincoln - has ruled against him on habeas corpus.
I am quite confident that if your allegations were valid, the Court system would have sorted it out.
How can the court system sort it out if the judge is locked in his house by armed sentries sent from Saint Abe? The DC Circuit court plainly stated that Abe was in the wrong and hit his henchman with a solid and uncontested contempt charge, but Lincoln personally intervened to prevent the contempt charge from even being served. The court was trying to do its business under the law and Lincoln SHUT THEM DOWN BY FORCE.
As Lincoln ruled neither absolutely, nor oppressively, the epithet of "tyrant" or "despot" rings hollow.
Circular garbage. Your premise is based upon your conclusion which is in turn based upon your premise: Lincoln did not rule oppressively, therefore he was not a tyrant, and since he was not a tyrant, he did not rule oppressively. That's been your line for quite some time around here, capitan. But wait...along comes something like the Merrick incident that shows Lincoln did indeed rule oppressively. No worries! Just slander and defame the judge, post unreasonable doubts and demands against the facts of the case, dismiss the entire matter out of hand, and crap in a bowl and call it ice cream. Praise be, as Saint Abe's reputation is thus restored!
I don't recall any loyal states bolting the Union because of alleged wrongs to Taney or Merrick.
"But in the Northern States the Cherokee people saw with alarm a violated Constitution, all civil liberty put in peril, and all the rules of civilized warfare and the dictates of common humanity and decency unhesitatingly disregarded. In States which still adhered to the Union a military despotism has displaced the civil power and the laws became silent amid arms. Free speech and almost free thought became a crime. The right to the writ of habeas corpus, guaranteed by the Constitution, disappeared at the nod of a Secretary of State or a general of the lowest grade. The mandate of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court was set at naught by the military power, and this outrage on common right approved by a President sworn to support the Constitution." - Declaration of Causes of the Cherokee Nation that impell them to unite their fortunes with the Confederate States of America
And
"WHEREAS, the present administration of the government of the United States has utterly ignored the Constitution, subverted the government as constructed and intended by its makers, and established a despotic and arbitrary power instead thereof" - Missouri Ordinance of Secession
A tyrant or despot would not have tolerated either one of them.
Oh really? Here in Texas we know quite a bit about tyrants. One of them was a little mexican dictator named Santa Anna. One of the main causes that pushed Texas to take that final step was what happened to its envoy to Mexico City, Stephen F. Austin. Austin went down there to address the mounting grievances with Santa Anna and Santa Anna simply threw him in prison once he got there to get him out of the way. Am I supposed to believe then that Santa Anna was not a tyrant since he put Austin in a prison cell instead of simply having him shot on the spot?
Merrick was eventually released from house arrest once the crisis had passed.
And what "crisis" would that be, Capitan? The Great Underage Minor Enlistment Caper of 1861?
Merrick was house arrested because he gave a writ of habeas corpus to a child who lied about his age thinking he was going on an adventure then discovered the army wasn't all fun and games. Nowadays when that happens the army itself files the papers to get the kid out and back then the courts did it. But alas, Saint Abe would not win his battles if some mean old judge told him that he couldn't make kids fight for him so he solved it by getting rid of the judge till the case was over!
Charleston Mercury = Robert Barnwell Rhett, fire-eater extraordinary
Is your phonograph broken again, capitan? You say that exact same line whenever the Mercury headline is mentioned, yet you never bother to address the simple fact that it demonstrates a revolutionary belief among the secessionists.
The distinction was made by Madison in the 1830's.
And Madison was wrong. If throwing off a former regime that denies the consent of a people is a "right," then it is a right always and under all circumstances. Trying to insert false distinctions of whether that right, when exercised, is "legal" amounts to nothing more than obfuscation of the real issue. By its very DEFINITION the only real crime against sovereignty is that of being a traitor to the sovereign, or treason. And indeed one may be prosecuted as a traitor for true traitorous acts. But that status ends completely the moment a group breaks off from the former sovereign and thus no TRUE AND VALID criminal charge may be prosecuted upon it.
Do you know why the United States was NOT guilty of treason after July 4, 1776? Because on that date, or thereabouts, they formally cast off their allegiance to Britain! To be a traitor one must commit a treachery within the ruling regime, normally while still even professing friendship - like Benedict Arnold did. But once you declare that you aren't a part of their government anymore the term traitor no longer applies because you have exercised your right of consent to cast off that government and renegotiate the social contract, or whatever they call it. The southern states did this - they formally cast off their ties to the former northern government, and the very moment they did, the ONLY true criminal statute that could have formerly applied to them under that government was moot. It ceased to apply.
Jaffa notes
And Jaffa is well outside his only known credentialed expertise: ENGLISH LITERATURE. But let's look at what he says.
"Lincoln was always careful to concede that secession might be a revolutionary right, as distinct from a constitutional right.
No he wasn't. Lincoln mentioned the "revolutionary right" in detail once or twice, most notably when he was making a Jim McDermott-esque speech that praised the dictator of Mexico in the middle of a war with that nation in which they had attacked and invaded the sovereign borders of Texas. Given that Lincoln was not particularly versed in political philosophy of any sort, himself being more inclined to read Artemus Ward than, say, Tocqueville, it is highly doubtful that he even had a beginner's grasp on the false theories that Jaffa assigns to him, let alone being a defining proponent of them.
But the right of revolution can justly be invoked only in the interest of human freedom, not of slavery.
The consent of the governed is, by definition, in the interest of human freedom even if incidental attributes to that freedom are themselves not free. The same principle is precisely what permitted the founders in 1776 to act as they did despite slavery's continuation and in direct contradiction of Jaffa's simple minded and arbitrarily applied caveats.
Jefferson, in his Note on Virginia, made plain that the slaves had the right of revolution, not the masters.
In some respects a case could indeed be made that they had this right. That said, even for them to have the revolutionary right in no way precludes other people, including the non-slaves, from similarly exercising the revolutionary right on their own accord. As to the slave's actual exercise of that right though, St. Augustine addresses the issue with far greater philosophical value than Harry Jaffa could ever muster:
"But our Master in heaven says, "Every one who doeth sin is the servant of sin." And thus there are many wicked masters who have religious men as their slaves, and who are yet themselves in bondage; "for of whom a man is overcome, of the same is he brought in bondage." And beyond question it is a happier thing to be the slave of a man than of a lust; for even this very lust of ruling, to mention no others, lays waste men's hearts with the most ruthless dominion. Moreover, when men are subjected to one another in a peaceful order, the lowly position does as much good to the servant as the proud position does harm to the master. But by nature, as God first created us, no one is the slave either of man or of sin...the apostle admonishes slaves to be subject to their masters, and to serve them heartily and with good-will, so that, if they cannot be freed by their masters, they may themselves make their slavery in some sort free, by serving not in crafty fear, but in faithful love, until all unrighteousness pass away, and all principality and every human power be brought to nothing, and God be all in all."
Put another way, sin exists and slavery is a product of that sin, but if casting it off entails such subsequent sins as to render that act similarly sinful, it should not be the path of resort.
In any servile uprising, he said, God would be on the side of the slaves. This is unquestionably why the confederate States always insisted that secession was a constitutional right, not a natural or revolutionary right."
...and thus the Abratollah gives us yet another giant load of esoterical bovine refuse with no substantiating historical evidence, no causal or logical necessity, and all the contrived leaps of convenience one needs to link two unassociated and distant concepts that could not be otherwise bridged by a factually grounded and factually valid means.