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 ...
You know the difference between LIHOP and MIHOP, right?
LIHOP (Let It Happen On Purpose) takes a passive approach that encourages a path but does not insist upon it. It fertilizes the favored path and promotes a thing to occur.
MIHOP (Make It Happen On Purpose) takes a more hands-on approach, crafting the circumstances upon which others are forced to react to something you sparked - whether you do anything else or not.
With regard to FDR, I believe that he LIHOP. His intel told him of the massive buildup of the Japanese navy and the hardening of attitude towards the United States. His analysts told him that when the Japanese envoys suddenly turned gracious and conciliatory it was because they had internally decided that war was the only option - but did not wish to share that attitude with the Americans. FDR knew what was coming and did nothing because, as you said, “that was the only possible way to get the United States into WWII”.
The Lost Causers would have us believe that Lincoln LIHOP’ed the south - “suckered” them into attacking. That’s foolish on the face of it. Lincoln was overtaken by the events even before he could assume office. His response was methodically slow - hoping all along to draw the recalcitrant rebels back into the fold.
The enmity and hostility of the southern fire-eaters was well established. They had been agitating and creating discord among the states for a very long time. The notion of secession was not a spontaneous one. Rather, they looked for the right circumstances to make it happen on purpose - and then set it into motion.
“Why did Southerners attack New England for talking secession during the Jefferson administration and the War of 1812? Didn’t they believe in “states’ rights?”
Was there a war launched against New England to force them to remain in the union?
In the State of New York even the right of transit for a slave has been denied by her tribunals...
Now I realize that the Lemmon case was over 8 slaves being freed, and this seems to infer a single slave. The text I reference says this is the passage regarding Lemmon.
No, because they never got any further than grumbling about among themselves a little bit, then dropping the idea. Nevertheless, the Democrats attacked them for treason in even thinking about it and used it as a club to bludgeon the Federalist party to death.
Here's one Virginia newspaper editorial from 1814;
"No man, no association of men, no State nor set of States has a right to withdraw itself from this Union, of its own accord. The same power which knit us together can only unknit. The same formality which forged the links of the Union is necessary to dissolve it. The majority of States which form the Union must consent to the withdrawal of any one branch of it. Until that consent has been obtained, any attempt to dissolve the Union, or obstruct the efficiency of its constitutional laws, is treason-treason to all intents and purposes."
Shouldn't actions be predicated on what was known and not what was imagined? The court to date had upheld the Fugitive Slave laws and had struck down personal liberty laws on every occasion. There was no reason to believe that was about to change.
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.
But again, had Lemmon reached the Supreme Court it would have been overturned just like all the other cases. Rebelling with "someday the court might rule against me" as the reason makes no sense.
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.
There was but one real reason - Lincoln and the Republicans opposed the expansion of slavery and the Southern states believed slavery should be open throughout all the territories.
Webster's definition of "statism" is:
I've been looking for Mark Levin's definition of statism, and this is as close as I can come.
If you wish to learn BroJoeK's view on "statism", listen to Mark Levin.
So your charge here is false, as is much else that you claim.
What has happened is known, we are guessing about any future rulings.
"There was but one real reason - Lincoln and the Republicans opposed the expansion of slavery..."
I don't believe that for a second. Slavery as an institution was on it's way out. Opinions on the institution and prejudices toward race were changing for the better.
Nonsense.
Brown's raid was a criminal -- indeed terrorist -- act for which he was captured by Federal troops, tried and hanged.
The Federal government could not have done more, or acted more correctly regarding Brown himself.
Brown's northern supporters are another matter.
If I remember correctly, they were not known at the time, and when they finally were exposed fled the US to avoid prosecution.
As for the propaganda value of Brown's raid, in helping convert reluctant Northern Democrats into ardent abolitionist Republicans -- well, there is that small matter of the US Constitution's First Amendment, guaranteeing freedom of the press.
So while the Slave Power did its utmost to suppress abolitionist literature in the South, there was no way they could prevent the Brown story from carrying a strong abolitionist message.
Bottom line: Brown's 1859 raid and hanging was no "war" against the South, but it was propagandized to help elect abolitionist Republicans in 1860.
And that's exactly the way the US Constitution intended such matters to be handled, FRiend.
In the end, as you well know: slavery had to be, and would have been, defeated one way or the other.
But the Slave Power in 1860 decided it would not (to quote Dylan Thomas) "go gentle into that good night..."
But would rather "Rage, rage against the dying of the light".
A rage that continues, now somewhat, ah, muted, to this very day... ;-)
“Again, there is no enumerated “right” to secession.”
States Rights are NOT enumerated. All rights not given to the Federal government are reserved to the states.
What they declared was a course of action which constituted a secession from a larger political realm. Because the Crown forbade this, they were rebelling against the authority of the larger political unit.
Instead, they declared their "United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States." Free from British imperial military rule, Independent of oppressive British laws. The word "secession" was not used, because it did not apply.
It isn't a game of word-find. This is the same little game 0.E.O tried to play in the football thread, in which he demanded that the word "explicit" appear to demonstrate explicit language. Secession is just the withdrawl and separation of a component of a larger political unit. The very clause, "That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved" is secession boldly written. Claiming that it doesn't describe the act of secession is like claiming that a gruesomely detailed murder confession just ain't so because the perpetrator didn't use the word "homicide" when narrating his latest ax killing.
By stark contrast, in 1861, Slave Power secessionists both started war (at Fort Sumter) and formally declared war on the United States (May 6, 1861).
Well now your trying what rockrr tried earlier, employing a double-standard in condemnation of slavery. Slave-holding Virginians in 1776 are "Founders", casting off the shackles of British tyranny. Slave-holding Virginians in 1860 are the "Slave Power". The institution had hardly changed at all. Maybe you just feel differently about them, for some reason unrelated to the plight of the enslaved.
Brass Lamp: "most people in this world today are in some political union without representation."
BroJoeK: Americans have never considered such governments as entirely legitimate.
Firstly, I thank you for admitting that they exist, legitimacy not withstanding, as that was the point.
Secondly, the issue of their legitimacy is not withstanding because "legitimacy" is a matter of manifesting something in law and the word is used to mean that something is given legal existence. A despotic government is quite a bit more likely to give itself legal sanction and less likely to critically review its own actions in court. Corrupt governments tend to grant themselves legitimacy as a matter of coarse. Maybe you meant that they should be seen as invalid on philosophical grounds.
Thirdly, you IMMEDIATELY followed that line with:
BroJoeK: States which had previously been in rebellion against the United States were required to meet certain standards (i.e., slavery abolished) before being fully readmitted after the war.
Apologia is confession. When you explain why a thing is done, you admit that a thing was done. In attempting to justify the non-consensual inclusion of a political section into a larger unit, you've merely forfeited the ability to deny that it happened.
When compared to the claim "Americans have never considered such governments as entirely legitimate" -- the such being "political union without representation", the sort of which you just admitted (by way of justification) the Union to have been -- it can be see that you have a problem with your argument. Surely, you don't mean to allow it conclude with a general American condemnation of the United States.
Finally,
...your arrogant and condescending comments...
...about binary thinking and poor reading comprehension referred to a line in post #142 in which I was challenged to determine whether 'rebellion' and 'secession' were synonymous terms simply because I denied that were exclusive. That false dilemma demonstrated some pretty rigid thinking. It also seemingly ignored the point of the previous post. So I dinged him on those two counts.
A neophyte like you cannot remind me of anything. You however remind me of a horse's rear end.
"I love the Union and the Constitution, but I would rather leave the Union with the Constitution than remain in the Union without it."
President Davis, President CSA. (and a true patriot of the South and the Constitution)
Thank you for that lovely bit of sophistry. As long as we’re making corrections - you do know that states do not have rights - they have powers. People have rights.
And the correct wording of the Tenth Amendment is: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
Most Indians fought with the Confederacy. Ragtail bands of Northeast Indians fought with the Union. MOST INDIANS sided with the Confederacy. Try reading some of my post and you might learn something. If any people on earth had a reason to despise the Federal government it was the American Indian. And after the war the murdering of Indians continued, with Sheridan and Sherman slaughtering them wholesale.
“In fact, every Federal property in secessionist states — dozens of them — legally remained Federal property after the Slave Power declared secession”
Yes, in the mind of Lincoln worshipping liberals.
Jefferson Davis (and his bigshot secessionist, slaveholding buddies) were not exactly pioneers in the fight for personal liberty. They were proponents of the State ("State's rights has always been their battle cry), a State big enough to protect the elitist bigshot slaveholders from the serfs and slaves who surrounded them and who were forced to support their, worthless, parasitic, lazy lifestyles.
The secessionists were/are Statists with a capital S.
“Jefferson Davis (and his bigshot secessionist, slaveholding buddies) “
Care to talk about murdering Sherman AND his “bigshot, slaveholding buddies, including himself!!
Alabama was the very first state to ratify the Sixteenth Amendment.
Kentucky was the second state to ratify the Sixteenth Amendment.
South Carolina was the third state to ratify the Sixteenth Amendment.
Mississippi was the fifth state to ratify the Sixteenth Amendment.
Okalahoma was the sixth state to ratify the Sixteenth Amendment.
Maryland was the seventh state to ratify the Sixteenth Amendment.
Georgia was the eighth state to ratify the Sixteenth Amendment.
Texas was the ninth state to ratify the Sixteenth Amendment.
Unfortunately, the South has always been first in line to protect the State. Personal liberty - not so much.
In the mind of any rational person who believes in the Constitution and the rule of law.
LOL!!!
How many Indians fought for the Confederacy and how many fought for the Union?
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.