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 ...
In neither case was the opposition "suckered" into anything, any more than President Roosevelt "suckered" the Japanese into attacking Pearl Harbor.
By the way, just so we're clear on this: I believe and have for years argued on Free Republic, that President Roosevelt did, in effect, "sucker" the Japanese into attacking Pearl Harbor, because that was the only possible way to get the United States into WWII in time to save the Brits and any semblance of western civilization in Europe.
But "suckered" or "un-suckered" doesn't matter.
The facts are that the United States in 1941 committed no -- zero, zip, nada -- acts of war against Japan, while the Japanese attack did in fact create a state of war with the United States.
The same is true of Fort Sumter in 1861, except, except that there was no possible "suckering" involved, since Confederate President Davis had already ordered preparations to assault Sumter, even before Lincoln's inauguration!
Davis was prepared for, and threatened, military assault on Sumter -- a clear act of war against the United States -- regardless of what Lincoln had said or did.
Lincoln merely allowed Davis (as Roosevelt "allowed" the Japanese) to carry out military attacks, creating states of war, which Confederates (and Japanese) believed were absolutely necessary for their own survival.
So Sumter and Pearl Harbor started war, and all the rest -- including Unconditional Surrender -- necessarily followed.
As for Lyndon Johnson's Gulf of Tonkin Incident -- there was an actual incident, in which North Vietnamese forces did attack US Navy ships.
Also, "Suckered" or "un-suckered", North Vietnamese were in fact assaulting militarily their neighbors to the south and west, including US forces sent to help those people.
Indeed, by August of 1964, about 150 US military had already died, and hundreds more wounded, in the Vietnam conflict.
So Johnson's decision to request authorization for limited war was, he believed, both reasonable and necessary.
The veracity of reports from the Gulf of Tonkin were irrelevant to Johnson's, and even Congress's, overall thinking.
By 1775 Brits had clearly begun war against their American colonies, in one well-known incident of which they sent Redcoats to Lexington and Concord, Massachusetts, to seize American militia arms.
In defending their rights to keep and bear arms, American militia-men first battled Redcoats.
The 1861 equivalent was the Confederate's assault on American Army troops at Fort Sumter.
Both battles created states of war against the United Colonies / States.
LOL. Up until the moment they turned renegade the cornfederate soldiers WERE part of “lying ass Federal government, who tried to wipe the Indian off the face of the earth”.
Are you saying that the indians were really that stupid?
One faction of the Cherokees fought for the confederacy under Stand Watie, who was himself a slave owner. The other faction (in a split that went back to the Trail of Tears era, when Watie essentially sold out the others), were aligned with the Union. Over the course of the war, Watie's force was plagued with desertions as his men went over to the United States side.
Apart from Watie's troops (a few thousand at their peak), I don't think you can find another Indian group of any significance aligned with the Confederacy.
Good one Ralphie - that showed him!
I'll certainly agree that there's some amount of stupidity on display here, but it's certainly not coming from rockrr, who's simply doing his level best to defend the truth against endless distortions and mockeries coming from... well, several sources.
So allow me to posit the first and greatest fundamental truth of political life:
It logically follows that to the degree you, your relatives and ancestors, were once Democrats then they & you are to blame for today's sorry state of affairs.
Now, when we ask the question: how long were Southerners Democrats?
The answer is, for all practical purposes, from the Founding of the Republic until very recent years -- about 200 years all told.
But how long have Southerners been solid Conservative Republicans?
Answer: since half of southern states voted for Zipper Clinton, both times, it's not even been 20 years!
Now, of course, everyone understands that Southerners have a long tradition of dominating in politics, of pushing their weight around more than their small numbers would otherwise allow (i.e., 3/5th rule), and of conveniently "forgetting" those parts of their past which no longer suit them (from slavery to Jim Crow to New Deal).
But FRiends, you won't get "off the hook" so easily here.
The only way we will ever forget about the truth of your past, is if you stop falsely accusing us regarding our pasts.
Somebody is being stupid here, but it's not rockrr.
In fact, most seceding states had no list of grievances -- zero, zip, nada.
Those few which did produce "Reasons for Secession" documents included no past grievances of any seriousness to justify secession, but clearly showed their only real concern was protecting the future of slavery against possible actions of those nasty, rascally black-Republicans.
So it was unconstitutional secession "at pleasure" preceded and immediately followed by many acts of rebellion, insurrection and/or war against the United States.
Lemmon to start with. But there's more in SC's declaration of secession.
"Is there any reason to believe their fate at the hands of the Taney court would have been any different?"
An excellent point. There was absolutely none.
"Where was it noted?
American Legal History Cases and Materials 2nd ed. - (Judge Thomas W) Clerke believed that the decision was "wanton aggression" for "mere propagandanism" Clerke warned that under international law the act of New York "would be a valid cause" for war.
I would be curious to learn what pack of lies are being told about me.
Or, then again, maybe not -- just chalk it all up as lies, and come right here to learn the truth, FRiend.
foundedonpurpose: "Are you a communist by chance?
Those that came over from Europe in the 1830’s were very influential in the North’s campaign."
Such questions insult your own intelligence, not mine.
Virtually everyone posting on Free Republic is a conservative of one stripe or another -- none are liberals, progressives or Democrats, much less socialists, Marxists or communists.
For you to claim otherwise is simply poor judgment and bad faith, both of which reflect poorly on you, FRiend.
You are a statist, not a socialist.
Maybe you should actually read the Lemmon decision before you keep relying on it. And as for the state laws that the South Carolina declaration mentioned, every single one that was reviewed by the Supreme Court had been overturned. So again, it's was a non issue. The Constitution had been upheld by the federal government at every level.
An excellent point. There was absolutely none.
So the Constitutional rights of the slave states with respect to their property would continue to be upheld. So...what were they really rebelling over? Care to hazard a guess on that?
But where did South Carolina note it as one of their causes for rebellion?
As I've stated previously, I am referencing college text books. I suppose since lawyers are taught "lies" it's small wonder they are so misunderstood.
Yeah yeah, I get it. You don’t like Taney......”Taney foolishly “ “Taney at the very summit of our Supreme Court Hall of Shame.” No bias there.........
I told you.
Well the South Carolina Declaration of the Causes of Secession doesn't mention the Lemmon decision. And the quote you provded doesn't mention South Carolina. So I guess I just have to take your word for it.
As I reminded you in post 822, "[t]he immediate effect of what you call a "secession" by a state would be to strip American citizens in that state of their American citizenship and of all of their individual Constitutional rights."
"Secessionists" always seem to place what you perceive to be the interests of the "state" above the rights and interests of the "individual." Notwithstanding that fact, those who stick up for individual rights are viewed by you as "statists."
Clearly, it is the "secessionists" who are the real statists.
Probably. If it was an absolute outcome THEN it would be a "non-issue".
And I have read Lemmon. But more to the point it is not I who is relying on it. It is stipulated as such in the text I mentioned earlier.
"So...what were they really rebelling over? Care to hazard a guess on that?"
There is such a stew of reasons -from both sides- there's something for everyone to believe war was justified. I'm much more interested in the legal wrangling that led up to the shooting. Once that started all legal matters are moot.
“By 1775 Brits had clearly begun war against their American colonies, in one well-known incident of which they sent Redcoats to Lexington and Concord, Massachusetts, to seize American militia arms.”
“The 1861 equivalent was the Confederate’s assault on American Army troops at Fort Sumter.”
History doesn’t repeat itself but it does rhyme. Starting with 1861 and Fort Sumter ignores what came before.
In 1859 John Brown seized the armory at Harper’s Ferry, Virginia in order to distribute the weapons and initiate a widespread guerrilla war within the southern states. Based upon his reputation for murder at Pottawatomie Creek Brown had been recruited and financed for this covert war by northern political activists.
The 1859 John Brown Raid marked the beginning of the northern war of aggression. Within two years the war against the people of the southern American states went from the covert violence of John Brown’s raid to the overt war of the Radical Republicans who regarded Brown as a messiah.
In fact, every Federal property in secessionist states -- dozens of them -- legally remained Federal property after the Slave Power declared secession.
No law anywhere says otherwise.
For a modern example, consider Gitmo at the time of Communist take-over in Cuba.
It remained US property, regardless of what Castro might have fantasized.
So, every secessionist seizure of Federal properties, every threat against Federal officials, every shooting at United States ships or forts, was an unlawful act of rebellion, insurrection and/or war.
FRiend, this is not even debatable: Confederates military assault on Fort Sumter was, factually, an act of war against the United States, confirmed three weeks later by the Confederacy's formal declaration of war against the United States, May 6, 1861.
And, all that came before even a single Confederate soldier had been killed in battle against the United States Army.
NKP_Vet: "He knew exactly what he was doing.
He knew that SC would use force to get the ENEMY out of that state.
The POS not only got what he wanted, "
FRiend, remember this: the choice for war against the United States in 1861 was (as in 1941) strictly in the hands of America's enemies.
In 1861 Jefferson Davis chose to begin war at Fort Sumter, just as in 1941 the Japanese chose to begin war at Pearl Harbor.
It is precisely the same situation.
NKP_Vet: "Secession from the Union was not considered in NC until reports came of the April 12 bombardment of Fort Sumter..."
Exactly -- Fort Sumter was a huge success for Jefferson Davis.
In one fell swoop, four previously committed Union states voted to switch sides and join the Confederacy -- Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee and Arkansas.
The Confederacy's white population doubled along with its available army manpower.
That alone can explain Davis' eagerness to start war at Fort Sumter.
But four other slave-states still did not join the Confederacy -- Maryland, Kentucky, Missouri and Delaware -- still Davis was not discouraged.
Instead, he sent or supported Confederate military in Union Border-States to take by force what he could not win with votes.
And then the Confederacy formally declared war on the United States, at which point their fate was sealed: Unconditional Surrender.
NKP_Vet: "Slavery had nothing at all to do with NC seceeding from the Union."
Somewhat correct, and the same is true of Upper-South Virginia, Tennessee and Arkansas.
So long as the only question was slavery, those four states formally refused to succeed.
Only when Jefferson Davis first started war at Fort Sumter and then formally declared war on the United States, when Upper-South states felt they must chose sides in a war to protect slavery, then they finally chose to join the slave-power.
At the same time, four Border States still refused to secede, and so were subject to repeated Confederate invasions, battles and bloodshed.
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.