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 ...
He loved it so much he crapped all over it!
Gosh you are good at this.
Exactly right, though I never saw those terms LIHOP and MIHOP before.
Interesting and useful words to remember.
The key point about both Fort Sumter and Pearl Harbor is that US forces in their own bases were attacked in ruthless and long-planned assaults, which the enemy well knew were acts of war against the United States.
In Japan’s case they calculated that a knockout blow would take America out if the war.
They calculated wrong.
In the Confederacy’s case, they doubtless anticipated the resulting flip-flops from Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee & Arkansas, doubling the Confederacy’s population, economy & military manpower.
That they might lose the resulting war seems to have not been a major factor in the Confederacy’s calculations.
The Cherokee who sided with the pretended confederacy were the same faction that signed the treaty sending them and the members of their tribe west.
John Ross, Principle Chief and his supporters did not sign the treaty of New Echota, and after early overtures to the confederacy, became and remained loyal to the US. Elias Budinot aka Buck Watie and his brother Stand Watie signed the treaty contrary to the desires of the principle chief and a majority of the tribe.
Per Wikipedia:
Prior to removal of the Cherokee to Indian Territory in the late 1830s, Watie and his older brother Elias Boudinot were among leaders who signed the Treaty of New Echota in 1835. The majority of the tribe opposed their action. In 1839 the brothers were attacked in an assassination attempt, as were other relatives active in the Treaty Party. All but Stand Watie were killed.
Stand Watie led his men against the US, but also against other Cherokee. Stand Watie’s forces massacred black haycutters at Wagoner, Oklahoma during this raid. Union reports said that Watie’s Indian cavalry “killed all the Negroes they could find”, including wounded men.
Ely Samuel Parker (1828 – August 31, 1895), (born Hasanoanda, later known as Donehogawa) was a Seneca attorney, engineer, and tribal diplomat. He was commissioned a lieutenant colonel during the American Civil War, when he served as adjutant to General Ulysses S. Grant. He wrote the final draft of the Confederate surrender terms at Appomattox. Later in his career, Parker rose to the rank of Brevet Brigadier General, one of only two Native Americans to earn a general’s rank during the war (the other being Stand Watie, who fought for the Confederacy).
Parker became the first Native American to become commissioner of Indian affairs.
Of course the fugitive slave law required the federal government to return slaves if they were fugitives from ‘service’.
Nothing in the federal consititution required states to return slaves who were not fugitives. Judge Taney got around that by denying Dred Scott standing.
Of course if SC had a problem with the acts of NY, they had an obligation under Article III of the constitution to resolve the controversy by application to the supreme court, not by starting an insurrection or war.
Of course the readmission of the state governments was consensual. If they had not consented, they would not have done the various acts that were required to readmit the state government as a state government to the union.
Of course territorial governments at that time were part of the US, ruled by the US, with the citizens of the territory being US citizens, though still with no representation in the Congress, just like the people of the former states that had participated in the insurrection.
Sherman didn’t start an insurrection. He did help put one down.
Neither was there a war launched by New England in 1812.
If they had launched such a war, it would have been and should have been suppressed as an insurrection.
Rights no enumerated are reserved to the states and the people.
Who are the people? The same people listed in the preamble, the first amendment, second amendment ect.
Not the people of a single state. The whole people.
Depending on the right asserted, it may be an individual right (of speech) or a common right of all the people acting together.
I can see why you are so hurt reading it.
Most of its legal reasoning came from Charles Sumner, who laid it all out in the early years of the war.
There was a reason why a southern gentleman attacked him, as another held other members at gun point. Sumner knew his law, and knew the southern men for what they were, and wasn’t afraid to say it.
Pity that other senators didn’t respond to the assault on Sumner and threatening with a deadly weapon with deadly force on the vile southern senators.
If you look at your second map, it does indeed show Delaware as green, like the rest of the south.
Odd that Tenneessee is pink.
See Jim Epperson's critique.
Herman Belz's review is also of value.
Most damning is Richard Gamble's notice in the Independent Review. Gamble would like to agree with some of the "big picture" aspects of an attack on Lincoln, but even he is forced to admit that DiLorenzo's work is "a travesty of historical method and documentation. Exasperating, maddening, and deeply disappointing ..."
DiLorenzo has a few simple prejudices that lead him to see his bugbears in everything. So for example, he tells us, "In virtually every one of the Lincoln-Douglas debates, Lincoln made it a point to champion the nationalization of money and to demonize Jackson and the Democrats for their opposition to it." That's simply not true.
He also claims to be refuting some more or less "official" version of history that's something no actual historian believes. It's a "straw man" -- a caricature of opposing opinions that he manipulates to make his own work look original and truthful to people who don't know better.
Ok, so you are arguing that the South is the most liberal area of the USA. Good luck convincing anyone of that.
Which makes sense to the South as historically they were net importers and against protectionism.
Well, no, I'm arguing that Southern bigshots have nearly always placed the interests of the State ahead of the interests of the individual and that's exactly what they were doing when they "seceded" from the Union. They used the term "state's rights" as shorthand for that Statist philosophy.
Their "secession" was designed to prtect slavery (which most people regard as repugnant to individual liberty). In addition, their "secession" constituted an attempt to immediately strip all U.S. citizens in the seceding state of their citizenship and every one of their rights under the U.S. Constitution.
I have a great deal of respect for ordinary Southerners then and now. They fought because home is, well, home. But, I don't have much use for the bigshot slaveholders who had become addicted to their parasitic lifestyles, supported by the serfs and slaves around them. And, I don't have much respect for the fact that those lazy bigshots were willing to push the entire country into a Civil War in an effort to avoid having to learn how to do the kind of honest work required to support themselves.
Slavery wasn't good for the self-respect of the slaveholder and it certainly wasn't good for anyone else. And, let me assure you - slavery isn't coming back. ;-)
Now I've also heard Mike Church on Patriot Radio speak of our Founders' "secession" from Great Britain.
Really, as a historian and scholar of the period, Church should know much better.
Indeed, he should be ashamed of himself.
In fact, our Founders never used words like "secession", "withdrawal" or "disunion" in relation to their status as colonies of the British Empire.
The reason is obvious: because those words only apply in cases of voluntary political (or otherwise) units such as the new American constitutional republic.
For Founders the question was not "secession" but rather "independence" from a non-representative colonial empire maintained through military force.
For Founders, the word "independence" itself necessarily implied Revolutionary War, but in 1776 there was nothing theoretical about it -- war was already upon them, long before they even considered declaring independence.
Indeed, for our Founders, their Declaration of Independence was a response to the war already being waged on them by the British Empire.
So I'll say it again: in 1776 the Declaration of Independence did not create something new -- independence -- but simply formally acknowledged what had already happened as a result of Britain's war on its American colonies.
By stark contrast, in 1860 there was no "war" on the Slave-Power, no breaches of constitutional contract, no "oppressions" or "usurpations" by the Federal government.
Therefore, the Slave-Powers' Declarations of Secession (not "Independence") were strictly "at pleasure", and therefore not according to our Founders Original Intent.
Brass Lamp: "It isn't a game of word-find.
This is the same little game O.E.O. ..."
In fact, you are playing "word games", hoping to equate the 1776 Declaration of Independence with 1860-1 Declarations of Secession.
Aside from the fact that both intended to announce political separations, they are quite different.
Brass Lamp: "Secession is just the withdrawl and separation of a component of a larger political unit."
But never correctly used to refer to colonies seeking independence from their imperial masters.
Brass Lamp: "Claiming that it doesn't describe the act of secession is like claiming that a gruesomely detailed murder confession..."
Sorry, but as long as words have real meanings, you will never get to redefine this one to suit your pro-Confederate secessionist agenda, FRiend.
Brass Lamp: "Slave-holding Virginians in 1776 are 'Founders', casting off the shackles of British tyranny.
Slave-holding Virginians in 1860 are the 'Slave Power'. "
Actually, one of our slave-holding Founders, to his eternal credit, tried to condemn slavery in the Declaration of Independence.
Yes, Jefferson's efforts were overruled by others, but he at least understood that slavery was morally wicked, and should be gradually abolished.
So did other slave-holders of that generation, including George Washington.
But in stark contrast, by 1860 the Slave-Power (that word itself refers to the extra electoral votes slave-states received from their peculiar "property"), the Slave-Power considered slavery to be a positive moral good, not to be criticized, condemned or complained about in any way whatever.
To a man, they would rather fight and die rather than peacefully give up their "right" to own such "property".
And so they did, in their tens and hundreds of thousands.
Brass Lamp: "Firstly, I thank you for admitting that they exist, legitimacy not withstanding, as that was the point."
Why would you claim that the existence of unrepresentative governments is somehow a matter of debate, rather than a statement of fact?
Your dispute with O.E.O. is not over the existence of unrepresentative governments, but whether such governments can be called "political unions" from which one might "secede" -- for example, the American colonies then subject to the British Empire.
In normal American usage, the word "union" implies a voluntary representative organization, which the British Empire was certainly not really ever, and by 1776 becoming ever less so.
So yes, just as you pointed out to rockrr in post #15, the Brits since 1707 were "United" but hardly a "union" in the American sense of that word. ;-)
Brass Lamp: "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.
Deny that what happened?
The full "reentry" of former Confederate states into normal political processes took some time.
So what?
Brass Lamp: "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."
In fact, I have no problem, but in your lengthy convoluted sentence here, you have no real argument.
The historical facts simply are what they are, and if you wish to claim that former Confederate states took some years before electing their own representatives and other government officials, that in fact is what happened.
So what?
Brass Lamp referring to O.E.O.'s question: "That false dilemma demonstrated some pretty rigid thinking."
I'd suspect instead that "rigid thinking" is your specialty, since I know enough of O.E.O.'s postings to realize his questions to you were simply hoping to draw out your explanations for what, at least on the surface, appear to be unintelligible arguments.
So what are you implying you little twit?
Good point.
Like I said Lincoln is the great hero of liberals. Any Constitutional conservative that knows his history does not come down on the side of warmongering big government Ape Lincoln. You are in the illustrious company of Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson and every other left-wing fanatic you can think of. You are not in the company of Judge Napalitano,and other Constitutional conservatives and libertarians that believe in Freedom, and actually have an understanding of Freedom.
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.