Posted on 02/17/2010 3:43:05 PM PST by Constitutionalist Conservative
Prior to the American Civil War, it was popularly assumed that states which had freely chosen to enter the Union could just as freely withdraw from said union at their own discretion. Indeed, from time to time individual states or groups of states had threatened to do just that, but until 1860 no state had actually followed through on the threat.
Since then, it has been considered axiomatic that the War “settled the question” of whether or not states had the right to secede. The central government, backed by force of arms, says the answer is No. As long as no state or group of states tests the central government’s resolve, we can consider the question to be “settled” from a practical viewpoint.
This assertion has long troubled me from a philosophical and moral viewpoint. We are supposedly a nation of laws, and the central government is supposedly subservient to the laws that established and empower it.
In a nation of laws, when someone asks, “Do states have a right to secede from the Union?”, a proper answer would have one of two forms:
Here, x would be an explanation of the laws that supported the Yes or No answer.
With the secession issue, though, we are given the following as a complete and sufficient answer:
“No, because if any state tries to secede, the central government will use force of arms to keep it from succeeding.”
There is no appeal to law in this answer – just brute force.
Based on this premise, the central government can amass to itself whatever right or power it chooses, simply by asserting it. After all, who has the power to say otherwise?
Come to think of it, that’s exactly how the central government has behaved more often than not since the Civil War.
This issue came to mind today because of an item posted today on a trial lawyer’s blog (found via Politico). The lawyer’s brother had written to each of the Supreme Court justices, asking for their input on a screenplay he was writing. In the screenplay, Maine decides to secede from the US and join Canada. The writer asked for comments regarding how such an issue would play out if it ever reached the Supreme Court.
Justice Antonin Scalia actually replied to the screenwriter’s query. I have a lot of respect for Scalia regarding constitutional issues, but his answer here is beyond absurd.
I am afraid I cannot be of much help with your problem, principally because I cannot imagine that such a question could ever reach the Supreme Court. To begin with, the answer is clear. If there was any constitutional issue resolved by the Civil War, it is that there is no right to secede. (Hence, in the Pledge of Allegiance, "one Nation, indivisible.")
He actually said that a constitutional issue was settled by military action. Oh, and by including the word “indivisible” in the Pledge of Allegiance, the issue became even more settled.
What if the president were to send out the troops to prevent the news media from publishing or broadcasting anything critical of his administration? This is clearly an unconstitutional action, but by Scalia’s logic, if the president succeeds, we must then say that the military action “settled the question” of free speech.
If these scenarios are not comparable, I’d like to hear why.
Your opinion of either is not relevant. The documentation exists and you have seen both on numerous occasions.
Your failure to accept fact is not important.
Why don't you go for four lies.
He was a dictator, hiding behind a rump cabinet, with a congress out of town and a judiciary being threatened with arrest.
Then I'd be closing in on your total.
I've seen it. And it doesn't support your claims.
Your failure to present any facts is very noticeable.
Four lies in one sentence. Wow.
Here, so you won't be repeating yourself, is the definition:
tu quoque...noun. A retort, accusing another of a similar offense or similar behavior. A logical fallacy using someone else's behavior to excuse yours.
My “claim” is that the offers are documented.
You state that “I’ve seen it.”
So, the matter is settled in fact, not opinion.
You just stated that you have seen the documentation. That fact exists not because you said it but because it is what it is.
Three falsehoods and one excuse then. Lincoln was not a dictator, he did not hide behind the cabinet, Congress was not in session, and the judiciary was never threatened with arrest. More Southron myth on your part.
"Generations of historians have accurately labeled him a 'dictator'.
“Dictatorship played a decisive role in the North’s successful effort to maintain the Union by force of arms,” wrote Clinton Rossiter in Constitutional Dictatorship (first published in 1948).
“Lincoln’s amazing disregard for the Constitution was considered by nobody as legal.”
James G. Randall documented (his) assault upon law and liberty in Constitutional Problems Under Lincoln (first published in 1926).
Lincoln suspended the writ of habeas corpus and ordered the military to arrest tens of thousands of political opponents.
At his command, but without a shred of legal authority, ca. 300 newspapers were closed and all telegraphic communications censored; elections in the North were rigged; throughout the Union, Democratic voters were intimidated; in New York City, hundreds of protesters against conscription (a form of slavery) were shot;
West Virginia was unconstitutionally carved out of Virginia; and the most outspoken member of the Democratic Party opposition, Congressman Clement L. Vallandigham of Ohio, was deported.
For good measure, duly-elected members of the Maryland legislature were gaoled, as was the mayor of Baltimore and a Maryland Congressman.
In total disregard of the Second Amendment to the Constitution, inhabitants of Border States (Delaware, Kentucky, Maryland, Missouri and West Virginia) were disarmed, and wherever Lincoln’s evil tentacles could spread, private property was confiscated.
Awwww, why didn't you continue? "One great advantage which the rebels have had over us is the unity of their purposes, and the despotic power of their chief. We are now on a par with them in these respects, and we shall see which is the better cause."
So Davis was a dictator, two? I think you can make a better case for Davis the tyrant than Lincoln the dictator.
By you? Not a ringing endorsement of impartiality.
"Generations of historians have accurately labeled him a 'dictator'.
And generations of reputable historians have disputed that. You can toss all the "amazing disregard for the Constitution" you want and claim all the unconstitutional acts you and your fellow Lost Causers care to. But what you fail to provide are facts backing your claims up. Plenty of opinion - you Southron types are never shy about trotting out opinion and calling it fact. But actual documented proof that Lincoln knew an act was illegal and did it anyway is very much in short supply when dealing with you and your ilk. I mean look at this crap.
Generations of historians have accurately labeled him a 'dictator'
Like who and based on what? Randall?
Lincoln suspended the writ of habeas corpus and ordered the military to arrest tens of thousands of political opponents.
Complete and utter bullshit. Documented by legal scholars like Mark Neeley and Sandra O'Conner among others.
At his command, but without a shred of legal authority, ca. 300 newspapers were closed and all telegraphic communications censored; elections in the North were rigged; throughout the Union, Democratic voters were intimidated; in New York City, hundreds of protesters against conscription (a form of slavery) were shot;
Again, complete nonsense without a shred of evidence to support it. Over 300 newspapers closed? Name them! Hundreds of protestors shot? Evidence! You do nothing put spout the same old Southron myth, time and time again.
West Virginia was unconstitutionally carved out of Virginia; and the most outspoken member of the Democratic Party opposition, Congressman Clement L. Vallandigham of Ohio, was deported.
Complete crap.
here
More of the same nonsense.
Your only rebuttal is another weak Tu quoque.
Your's is a pathetic exisitence, non-sense.
And you squawk "Lincoln was a dictator" and offer nothing but lame opinion and Southron myth.
Your only rebuttal is another weak Tu quoque.
And I think you owe PeaRidge a big 'thank you' for posting the definition of tu quoque. It's your new favorite phrase. Well quidquid latine dictum sit altum viditur so far as the Lost Cause brigade is concerned.
Your's is a pathetic exisitence, non-sense.
But as long as I can still yank your chain then my life has purpose, clownboyway.
You said you have seen the documents? You must have missed this:
“The Government hereby instituted shall take immediate
steps for the settlement of all matters between the States forming it and their other late confederates of the United States, in relation to the public property and public debt at the time of their withdrawal from them; these States hereby declaring it to be their wish and earnest desire to adjust everything pertaining to the common property, common liabilities, and common obligations of that Union, upon the principles of right, justice, equity, and good faith.”
Statutes at Large, Provisional Government, Confederate States of America, p. 92.
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.