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 ...
Worst race problems are up north. Look it up.
Depends on your experience with history! What is the level of your revisionist history?
I'm not a Lost Causer so my level of revisionist history is zero.
Look it up where?
Does all this analysis come to a point?
If so, what might that be?
Napolitano is misinformed and highly confused on a number of key points, including:
So Civil War came because Confederates wanted and started it, for reasons that are simple and obvious: they believed they would win, and war would be the fastest, simplest and most glorious way to resolve all legal issues.
Confederates wanted a Second War of Independence.
President Lincoln granted their wish, and defeated them.
By ignoring the fact that the United States was attacked and invaded in 1861, Napolitano makes a case that's otherwise not just illogical, but unintelligible.
Please note my post #107 above.
Please note my post #107 above.
No, you used to be rational.
Then you began drinking pro-Confederate moonshine-koolaid by the jug-full.
You did no serious research, simply allowed yourself to be mesmerized by cockamamie nonsense.
On this particular subject, at least, Judge Napalitano is nuts.
He and you have been lied to, FRiend.
Pelham: "It’s only the Lincoln Cult that has that difficulty."
Sorry, but our pro-Confederates are utterly blinded by their natural love of ancestors to the real historical facts.
The truth is that Deep-South slave-holders first declared secession, then started Civil War to protect their "peculiar institution" of slavery.
There is nothing -- zero, zip, nada -- "conservative" or "logical" about that.
President Lincoln refused to surrender to Confederate military aggression against the United States and its Constitution.
That is the very definition of "conservatism", FRiends.
In historical fact, there was no Civil War, and President Lincoln announced in his inaugural address (March 4, 1861) that Confederates could not have Civil War unless they themselves started it.
Confederate President Jefferson Davis promptly issued orders for the seizing of Fort Sumter and raising 100,000 man Confederate army -- at a time when the entire US Army was around 15,000 mostly scattered in posts out west.
I'm beginning to suspect that those who prattle endlessly about "white guilt" probably suffer from it themselves, and love to project their own feelings on others.
The rest of us on Free Republic have no idea what you're talking about.
You well know that all FReepers agree the Federal government is today a totally out-of-control bloated monstrosity, bearing little resemblance to the minimalist Republic our Founders intended.
We don't agree that Abraham Lincoln is responsible for the current state of affairs.
We say, if you must pin the blame on somebody, then blame Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt and the Solid South which solidly supported Democrat-progressivism for over 50 years -- until (yes, I remember it well) the presidential election of 1964.
Everyone posting here believes in a "right of secession" -- lawful, Constitutional, peaceful secession -- as envisioned by our Founders.
They were all consistent in saying or implying that disunion must only come by "mutual consent" -- meaning Congress approves -- or through some "oppression" or "usurpation" making secession "necessary".
Our Founders also intended for the Supreme Court to settle disputes amongst states and Federal government, without secession.
What no Founder intended, and no state claimed, was a "right of secession" -- "at pleasure".
And yet, that's just what happened.
In early 1861, no seceding Deep-South state made use of available constitutional remedies for their grievances.
Instead they unilaterally declared secession, "at pleasure".
And what did the Federal Government under Presidents Buchanan and Lincoln do about it?
Basically, nothing, but speeches.
So Civil War came, in April 1861, not because the Deep-South declared secession, but because they started it, at Fort Sumter, and then formally declared war on the United States, on May 6, 1861.
Are you kidding? Every damn one of them were FDR "New Deal" Democrats who loved getting as much money from the Federal government as they could and supported every tax and spend program that came down the pike.
Not a one of them was ever a fiscal conservative and all of them supported expanding the power and scope of the federal bureaucracy in every area other than equal rights.
There is and was nothing 'Conservative' about denying citizens equal rights under the law based upon race.
All Dixiecrats became republicans. The most famous being
Strom Thurmond. They became republicans when democrats tried to cram affirmative action and school busing down their throats and stick their nose in local politics in the 60s.
“What was President Lincoln’s policy in March of 1861 regarding war with the Confederacy?
(Answer: no war unless Confederates started it.)”
Lincoln started it by not getting his Federal troops the hell out Charleston Harbor. SC was a free and independent state. Lincoln knew exactly what would happen by not leaving Charleston Harbor. He orchestrated the entire thing.
“Before his inauguration, Lincoln sent a secret message to Gen Winfield Scott, the U.S. general-in-chief, asking him to make preparations to relieve the Union forts in the South soon after Lincoln took office. Lincoln knew all along what he was going to do. President Jefferson Davis sent peace commissioners to Washington to negotiate a treaty with the Lincoln administration. Lincoln refused to meet with them; and he refused to permit Secretary of State Seward to meet with them. After Lincoln assumed the presidency, his principal generals recommended the immediate evacuation of Maj Anderson’s men from Fort Sumter in Charleston Harbor—which was now located on foreign soil. To resupply it by force at this point would be a deliberate act-of-war against the C.S.A.”
http://www.southernheritage411.com/truehistory.php?th=130
Well, that would explain rockrr's posting history.
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.
Good! Accepting that there is a problem is really the first step on the path to recovery. Don't try to rush understanding. The breakthroughs will just come when you are really good and ready.
The Revolution was secession from England. No it wasn't.
Partial credit: The Revolution resulted in secession from the United Kingdom of Great Britain, as so named in the 1707 Acts of Union. I predict that you will, in short order, inform us that "Union" and "United..." somehow don't count, in this particular case.
The Revolutionary War was a rebellion against the British crown.
You see, HMS Surprise, this fellow has a problem common among leftists; his worldview is so simplistic that he believes that things can only posses one quality at a time. Because of this, he thinks that any attribute assigned to an object of study disproves all remaining properties. Observe: 'the soup is hot, and so cannot also be salty', 'the dog is tired, and so cannot also be shaggy', 'the shoes are matched, and so cannot also be leathern', 'the Revolutionary War was a rebellion, and so cannot also have been an act of secession'. See how it works?
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.
They declared their intent to secede from the political union which bound them to the Crown based, not on any legal right recognized within the applicable courts, but rather, on the natural right of self-determination from which all developed political power (theoretically) flows.
By contrast the southern slavers agitated a violent separation from the union thinly wrapped in the pretense of a secession.
So, the arguement is that the Revolution was not an act of secession because it is dislike the Civil War which, according to you, was also not an act of secession.
The orthodox definition of secession is the formal separation from an alliance or federation.
I'm pretty sure that is a definition you just spun out of whole cloth and tailored to suit your purpose. "Secession" is just a latinate word for 'withdrawl'.
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.
Note well, HMS Surprise, the ridiculous double standard rockrr employs here. It is his usual method. The "slavers" are called such because they maintained the SAME slavery practiced by their colonial ancestors. Besides, to be both 'slave holder' and 'colonist' at the same time would violate the rule-of-singular-quality described above.
They 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.
Finally, he caps his proof of dissimilarity with a list of things common to both. The harder he tries, the harder he fails.
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.