History of Liberty: Judge Napalitano on the Civil War and the Gilded Age

http://www.youtube.com ^ | June 12, 2012

[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."

[Brass Lamp]

Screwy forum...been trying to post for an hour now.

[wardaddy]

You should dig a bit deeper on Rockie

Bonafide hater of southern whites and general race baiter with a huge personal chip about such matters

Iowamark...just typical neoyankee pointing fingers probably from a pretty farm in a county in lovely Iowa with less than one in 500 black population

Telling us living in near Zimbabwe environs how intolerant we are and they know better than us something they don’t have to deal with

In other words...a stereotypical Yankee

Discussions over Civil War is just a tool from which to preach....down

[jmacusa]

Uh huh. They magically turned into conservatives, right.

[rockrr]

All that and this is all you came up with? You’re trying too hard (and falling far short).

[rockrr]

You’re probably doing it wrong.

[moehoward]

"Texas v. White."

Thanks. That was one painful decision to read. So did Chase write Lincoln's inaugural address when he was in his cabinet or just recite it verbatim in lieu of precedent...

[Pelham]

“President Lincoln refused to surrender to Confederate military aggression against the United States and its Constitution.”

That must have been the famous Confederate invasion of the North back in July 1861.

If not for the valiant defensive forces raised by Lincoln the United States above the Mason Dixon line would surely have been conquered by the huge Confederate army poised for its conquest. You, BroJoeK, have the historical situation of the time exactly right.

[BroJoeK]

nathanbedford: "Thank you for a novel and thought-provoking view of history."

Nothing "novel" about it.
It's what actually happened, but is often buried in various efforts to be "sensitive" to some people's easily bruised feeeeeeeeeeeelings. ;-)

[BroJoeK]

NKP_Vet: "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."

Sorry, FRiend, but facts are facts and as John Adams, Ronald Reagan and others have noted: "facts are stubborn things."

The fact is that Fort Sumter was only one of dozens of Federally owned facilities unlawfully seized by secessionists in January through April, 1861.
Some were seized even before a state formally declared secession, and so are obvious cases of rebellion and insurrection.

Regardless, there's no law anywhere which says that US government property suddenly, magically, becomes not US property just because somebody declares it so.
In fact, when some self-proclaimed "government" begins seizing US property, threatening and attacking US officials, those are each acts of rebellion, insurrection and/or war.

Both Presidents Buchanan and Lincoln attempted to peacefully resupply US troops in Fort Sumter and both were defeated by secessionist gun-fire -- acts of war on the United States.
Lincoln's attempt further resulted in a Confederate military assault on Sumter, causing its surrender.

So blaming Lincoln for Confederates' assault on Fort Sumter is like blaming President Franklin Roosevelt for the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor -- certainly there were things each might have done differently.
But the bottom line is: both attacks started wars which resulted in the Unconditional Surrender of the military force which assaulted the United States.

[moehoward]

"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?"

Describing the circumstances as "at pleasure" is disingenuous considering the list of grievances listed in the SC Secession Declaration.

It would appear that South Carolina did use "available constitutional remedies". Buchanan may have been against secession but he believed states had the right, and the Court agreed and ruled as much in Dred and Kentucky v. Dennison.

[moehoward]

"So blaming Lincoln for Confederates' assault on Fort Sumter is like blaming President Franklin Roosevelt for the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor"

Maybe a better comparative analogy would blaming Lincoln for Confederates' assault on Fort Sumter is like blaming President Johnson for the North Vietnamese firing on the Turner Joy...

[BroJoeK]

Pelham: "That must have been the famous Confederate invasion of the North back in July 1861."

The United States July 1861 "invasion" of Virginia didn't happen until after Confederates had illegally seized dozens of Federal facilities -- forts, ships, arsenals, armories, mints, etc. -- threatened and fired on US officials (January through April, 1861), and threatened & launched a military assault on Federal troops in the Federal Fort Sumter (April 12, 1861).

Indeed, it didn't happen until after Confederates:

• Offered military aid to secessionists in the Union state of Missouri (April 23),

• Jailed as POWs US Army officers in Texas (April 23).

• Formally declared war on the United States (May 6, 1861)

• Seized Federal military supplies at Harpers Ferry, Virginia (May 14) while Virginia was still a Union state.

• Invaded and fought Union forces in the Union state of Maryland -- Seneca Falls, Conrad's Ferry, Edward's Ferry -- June & July.

• Began taking over Union territory in Oklahoma -- June & July.

• Invaded the Union state of West Virginia (declared on June 17), Battle of Laurel Hill, July 7.

• Launched invasion into Union territory of New Mexico (July 8)

Pelham: "If not for the valiant defensive forces raised by Lincoln the United States above the Mason Dixon line..."

On April 12, 1861 the United States included six states South of the Mason Dixon line: Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, Kentucky, Tennessee and Arkansas.
After Confederates assaulted Fort Sumter, four of those states declared secession, and Confederates soon sent forces to invade the others -- plus West Virginia which had declared its secession from the secessionists.

Missouri was North of the old Mason-Dixon, but that didn't stop Confederates from attempting to seize it from the Union by military force.

So, Confederate assault on Fort Sumter was the Confederacy's Pearl Harbor, and Bull Run / Manassas equivalent to some early WWII battle -- Kasserine Pass comes to mind.

[Castlebar]

Delaware is south of the Mason Dixon line.

[rockrr]

I had to look it up - The Mason Dixon line takes an abrupt right (southerly) turn that marks Delaware’s western border. Delaware is north and east of the Mason Dixon line.

[BroJoeK]

moehoward: "Describing the circumstances as "at pleasure" is disingenuous considering the list of grievances listed in the SC Secession Declaration."

No, not "disingenuous", factual.
In fact, secessionists had no legitimate grievance, only exaggerated fears of what a President-elect Lincoln might do at some point in the future.
So secession was purely preemptive.

The truth is that by 1860 the great Slave Power had all but made slavery constitutionally legal in every state -- through the Compromise of 1850 shifting responsibility for enforcing Fugitive Slave Laws from state to Federal government, and the Supreme Court's 1857 Dred-Scott decision making all slaves perpetual slaves regardless of which state they moved to.

Lincoln was the first openly anti-slavery president ever elected, and even he only promised to restrict slavery from territories which didn't want it.

So the Slave Power's declarations of secession were, in fact, strictly "at pleasure" for no real reason except their fears of what might happen in the future.

moehoward: "It would appear that South Carolina did use "available constitutional remedies".

They did nothing of the sort.
Within days of Lincoln's election on November 6, 1860, South Carolina called for a secession convention which met in December and immediately declared secession, more than two months before Lincoln's inauguration.
They made no efforts to seek "mutual consent" from Congress, sought no redress from the Supreme Court, and provided no list of real grievances in their formal "Reasons for Secession" document.

It was strictly secession "at pleasure".

moehoward: "Buchanan may have been against secession but he believed states had the right, and the Court agreed and ruled as much in Dred and Kentucky v. Dennison."

On all three items, you have it wrong.
First, out-going President Buchanan was opposed to unilateral, unapproved secession on Constitutional grounds, and said so forcefully, in his 1860 State of the Union address.
But Buchanan also refused to use military force to stop secession, a policy that Lincoln intended to follow, so long as secessionists did not start a war.

Second, the Supreme Court's decisions in both Dred-Scott and Kentucky v. Dennison had nothing to do with secession, period.
They both strengthened the rights of slave-holders to transport slaves through non-slave states without losing their "property rights".
And Kentucky v. Dennison is irrelevant to this discussion because it involved the Union states of Ohio and Kentucky, and was issued in 1861, after the Deep South had already declared secession.

[BroJoeK]

moehoward:"Maybe a better comparative analogy would blaming Lincoln for Confederates' assault on Fort Sumter is like blaming President Johnson for the North Vietnamese firing on the Turner Joy... "

Well.... I supported Goldwater that year, and we were told that if we voted for Goldwater, there would be war in Vietnam and riots in the streets at home, plus other terrible things...
Sure enough, that's just what happened. ;-)

In fact, there were Gulf of Tonkin incidents, exaggerated by both sides for their own purposes.
North Vietnamese claimed to have hit the USS Mattox with a torpedo and shot down one US aircraft.

President Johnson (need I say it: a Texas Democrat?) and Congress (need I say it: ruled by Democrats?) responded by authorizing war in Southeast Asia.
Both came later to regret that decision, but at the time it seemed entirely necessary, regardless of how major or minor the Gulf of Tonkin Incident itself was.

By stark contrast, there is no historical dispute whatever over the Confederate assault on Fort Sumter.
It certainly happened, US troops surrendered and the entire Confederacy was delirious with joy over the results.
It caused four more states to switch from Union to Confederacy -- Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee and Arkansas -- doubling the Confederacy's white population.
Sumter was a huge success for Jefferson Davis.

Neither is there any dispute that the Confederacy's assault on Fort Sumter was a clear act of war -- as clear as the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.
Any possible doubt was removed when the Confederacy soon formally declared war on the United States, May 6, 1861.

After that, the Confederacy and slavery's fate was sealed, given the Union's resolve for victory.

[rockrr]

Buchanan The Feckless was opposed to secession but believed the office of president was powerless to stop it. He shrank from his duty to put up any opposition to the secessionists which only served to embolden them.

The only grievances that South Carolina referred to was the reticence of northern states to enforce and defend THEIR practice of the Peculiar Institution. I found it interesting when a lost causer proffered the argument that Prigg v. Pennsylvania represented an unwarranted federal intrusion into individual (southern) state sovereignty. As you’ll recall, Prigg v. Pennsylvania defended the slavers right of retrieval of slave-property from non-slave states.

So it appears that there was no pleasing some people when it came to owning other people.

[BroJoeK]

Castlebar: "Delaware is south of the Mason Dixon line."

This map shows the actual Mason-Dixon line:

This map shows an informal-understood extension to the Mississippi River:

Neither shows Delaware as "South".

[0.E.O]

That must have been the famous Confederate invasion of the North back in July 1861.

No, that would be the famous bombardment of Fort Sumter in April 1861.

[0.E.O]

It would appear that South Carolina did use "available constitutional remedies".

Let's say that tomorrow New England, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Kentucky, Michigan, Illinois, Wisconsin and Minnesota say that they are fed up with the Republican obstruction in Congress and announce that they are leaving the United States. They hold referendum among their population, which pass overwhelmingly, and declare that they are now the sovereign nation of Northeast North America. They claim that all federal property and facilities within their borders are now their property - including Fort Knox and the gold reserve. They say they are not responsible for any of the $16 trillion in debt that has been run up, leaving that responsibility to the remaining states. They refuse to support U.S. initiatives in Afghanistan instead insisting that all their soldiers be returned to the states immediately. In your opinion is that a constitutional remedy?