Well, yes it does. Napolitano takes Lincoln to task for opposing the Southern acts of secession, and compares them to the colonists. He claims that "the right of secession followed from the American Revolution as the colonists separated from the British Empire and declared their independence..." and forgets to mention that the colonists had to fight for that independence. So if he wants to make the comparison with the colonists then why is he so surprised that the Southern acts of 'secession' were opposed as well? Or that they had to fight for their independence?
Maybe it was a matter of “might makes right” when the colonists won independence.
But might was against the colonists. They were fighting one of the strongest countries on earh and they beat them. The confederates couldn't accomplish that.
You may disagree with the rationale (preserving slavery)...
Not at all. What I disagree with is the way the confederate supportes seem embarassed by slavery and are willing to go to any lengths to avoid admitting it was about slavery.
...or its practicality (no world-striding great, old USA if the South leaves; then again, maybe we’d all be richer and more powerful if we’d stayed with the British all along).
No, I'm glad that the United States remained whole and unbroken because that is how our Founding Father's had left it to us.
But that does not address succession as such. I believe in my right to revolt if a Stalin were to rise to power in America, but I don’t at all think Obama qualifies.
And I am not going to disagree with you. But tell me where it says that you have the right to revolt and Stalin or Obama or whoever is not supposed to oppose you.
The irony is that both the Union and Confederate regions of the U.S. were pretty consistent in their attitudes towards state sovereignty even going back to the time these were British Colonies. If it weren’t for the strength and success of the colonial military campaigns in the Southern colonies there never would have been a United States of America to begin with. Much of what later became the dominant centers of the Union remained in British hands throughout the American Revolution (I’ll cite Boston and New York City as two perfect examples), and the fact that the Northeast has historically been one of the most radically leftist parts of the U.S. for generations would lead me to believe that the people in those places would have been perfectly content to remain under British rule.
“’That has nothing to do with the point at hand.’
‘Well, yes it does. Napolitano takes Lincoln to task for opposing the Southern acts of secession, and compares them to the colonists. He claims that ‘the right of secession followed from the American Revolution as the colonists separated from the British Empire and declared their independence...’ and forgets to mention that the colonists had to fight for that independence.” ‘”
When I said “That has nothing to do with the point at hand” I was referring specifically to your point about the British not supporting the Confederacy. That was really out of left field.
Anyway, if you ask me whether the federal government had the right to use force, I’d say yes. So did the British. You see, I honestly believe that everyone has the right to revolt and every government has the right to defend itself. Those concepts can stand side by side, so long as we admit that, as beings of limited knowledge, we never know for sure who’s “in the right”.
Anyway, whether the colonists had a right to revolt has nothing to do with the British reaction. If you believe the revolutionary cause was just, then you believe the colonies were sovereign. Not sure why you bring up the Brits’ opinion on the matter, except to say, “Hey, if King George could do it, so can Lincoln.” Just because the federal government could countermand the South’s claims with force does not make them wrong.
The states had the right to secede whether or not the federal government opposed them. That much is clear. Whether they should have asserted their rights and whether or not the feds should have fought back is another matter. Just as you cannot say the colonists had no right to secede because the British met them with force, you cannot say the South had no right because the war happened. It doesn’t follow. The North could have opted not to fight. Same with the British. If Tom Paine had his way, they would have let the colonies go.
“But might was against the colonists. They were fighting one of the strongest countries on earh and they beat them”
Exactly. The colonists beat the British. That’s how “might makes right” works. It matters not how strong the British appeared to be before the war. Today we say the patriots were right largely because they won. If the British had won, we’d probably be saying they were in the right. Those who win the war write the history.
“What I disagree with is the way the confederate supportes seem embarassed by slavery and are willing to go to any lengths to avoid admitting it was about slavery.”
That’s fine, and I agree. Personally, I think slavery spoils the entire Confederate experiment. Can’t be the ones for liberty when you keep a large portion of your population in bondage. However damning the “s” brand is to their reputation, though, it doesn’t make their claim to sovereignty wrong. There can be two wrong sides on an issue (the North for denying sovereignty and the South for defending slavery).
“’or its practicality (no world-striding great, old USA if the South leaves; then again, maybe we’d all be richer and more powerful if we’d stayed with the British all along).’
‘No, I’m glad that the United States remained whole and unbroken because that is how our Founding Father’s had left it to us.’”
I’m having a hard time understanding what you’re saying “no” to, or why you’re telling me that’s what the Founders wanted. Everyone knows they did (or most of them did, the ones we remember best), why else would they have bothered Confederating themselves or writing and pushing for the ratification of the Constitution?
“But tell me where it says that you have the right to revolt and Stalin or Obama or whoever is not supposed to oppose you.”
If you’d paid attention to what I’ve been saying, you’d have noticed I said that governments have the right to defend themselves. That is, legitimate governments, which respect the natural rights and sovereignty of its citizens, have the right to defend themselves. Sadly, none of knows where the invisible line is drawn. None of us knows where or when governments stop being legitimate and slide over into tyrannies. So long as it isn’t as clear as it was in the case of Hitler and Stalin—who ran more what can be called criminal conspiracies against their people than legitimate governments—I say lets assume both the people and the people have a right to revolt and the state has the right to defend itself.
Now, when you say the government is “supposed” to oppose revolutionaries, that’s not so. They can. And perhaps in the case of the Civil War they should have. But they don’t have to. There’s no cosmic reason why the South couldn’t leave the union as peacably as it entered. Especially considering Lincoln was no Stalin.