Posted on 08/16/2013 7:59:53 PM PDT by NKP_Vet
But there was a war. Under the circumstances -- a state government gone into rebellion and taking up arms against the rest of the country -- West Virginia statehood wasn't much of a problem. When the state government was shooting at the rest of the country it was natural that an alternative "loyal" government would be set up, and West Virginia statehood got the approval of the state government that wasn't shooting at the constitutional federal government.
There was a question, though, of whether areas that didn't want to be included in the new state should have been part of it. And why is it worse when a state is broken up? If breaking up the union had been debated in congress or in a national convention, state borders might have been changed to accomodate areas like West Virginia or east Tennessee that weren't keen on secession.
The only legal secession is the one that succeeds, and the only "illegal" one is the one that fails.
This question of "legal" and "illegal" secession is a little beside the point. If there's a prescribed means of exiting some political union, we can talk of "legal" secession. If there isn't, an arranged separation by mutual consent would also be "legal."
In the absence of an authorized means of exit or separation, force may very well decide things. I don't think we should say that force should always be the arbiter of what's legal or constitutional and what isn't. That's why we probably want to avoid unilateral secession in favor of a settlement negotiated beforehand by the parties concerned.
Unfortunately, by the time secession or separation becomes a real possibility, people are so angry that they don't want to have negotiations or ask for consent. The act of declaring oneself independent on one's own comes to have great satsifaction for people.
Beware of what people think is "implicit" in the Constitution, hidden away in all those penumbras and emanations. If you're talking about major changes, it's best to get as many people as possible on board and (changing the metaphor) dot all the i's and cross all the t's and respond to possible objections, rather than simply assume that what one happens to believe justifies and authorizes radical steps.
Lincoln's view "was a far departure from the approach of Thomas Jefferson, who recognized states' rights above those of the Union."
Jefferson like to make provocative claims and didn't always think them through. His ideas were never the last word in constitutional interpretation, and his opinion was only one of many. Or more than one of many, since Jefferson in power and Jefferson out of power didn't always agree.
First, no seems to know why he suddenly resigned a high-ranking state judgeship just as his career was building steam. That alone is very bizarre.
Second, he is a huge supporter of Ralph Nader.
Third, he is a 9/11 Truther.
Fourth, he is apparently opposed to interracial marriage and believes that laws against it are constitutional.
Fifth, he has said that President Bush should have been imprisoned for his treatment of the Guantanamo inmates.
Why should his opinion on anything matter?
that’s OK - NKP_Vet’s last reference was from a leftist UC Berkley sociologist - I can’t tell if he is trading up or down LOL!
Never knew a Dixiecrat that was not a conservative. How this country would have been a much better place if the great
Strom Thurmond had been elected president.
You are aware that the Revolution was a war, aren't you? That the Founders had to fight for their freedom because they knew their actions were not legal per the Crown? And that the biggest difference between them and the Confederates is that the Founders valued their cause enough to win while the Confederates wound up throwing in the towel?
The truth being?
Except that for 37 of the 50 states there was no 'voluntarily join' to it. They were allowed in, and only after a majority of the existing states said it was OK through a vote in Congress. If the other states have to agree to let them in then why shouldn't they have to agree to let them out?
I never knew a Dixiecrat who WAS a conservative. Dixicrats were only southern democrats who fled the party.
“The truth is out there” - for some, waaay out there ;-)
What is inherently conservative about Jim Crow and wanting to deny civil rights to a sizable part of your population?
http://fff.org/explore-freedom/article/secession-slavery/
Secession and Slavery
by Scott McPherson September 12, 2008
An interesting commentary, “Lincoln, Secession, and Slavery” by Tibor Machan, published by the Cato Institute on June 1, 2002, was recently brought to my attention. I should say at the outset that I have long been a fan of Machan, and have the utmost respect for his positions. I just think he got it way wrong here.
Machan writes that the secession of the Southern states was ultimately an illegitimate act because “there is that undeniable evil of slavery.” Despite Lincoln’s own racist views, he was allegedly acting in the interests of the slaves, who were “unwilling third parties” to the secession, and therefore was “a good American” for destroying the Confederacy and slavery.
According to Machan,
[W]hen one considers that the citizens of the union who intended to go their own way were, in effect, kidnapping millions of people — most of whom would rather have stayed with the union that held out some hope for their eventual liberation — the idea of secession no longer seems so innocent. And regardless of Lincoln’s motives — however tyrannical his aspirations or ambitious — when slavery is factored in, it is doubtful that one can justify secession by the southern states.
So we can safely ignore Lincoln’s motives — “however tyrannical” [!] — because the motives of the “Southern rebels” were allegedly worse?
“[S]omething had to be done about [slavery],” writes Machan. “And to ask the slaves to wait until the rest of the people slowly undertook to change the Constitution seems obscene.” Machan acknowledges that the offending action was legal under the Constitution, but advocates and cheers an illegal and aggressive policy to rectify it because the normal, slow processes of constitutional change “seem obscene.”
Doesn’t that sound familiar?
In a habeas corpus proceeding in 1771, Lord Mansfield, Chief Justice of the King’s Bench, ordered the release of a slave named James Sommersett who had accompanied his master on a trip to England. Mansfield reasoned that while slavery was legal elsewhere, England had no law “so odious.” Nevertheless, it would be almost 40 more years before the slave trade was abolished in the rest of the British Empire, and slavery was not outlawed altogether until 1833.
Great Britain’s slaves were very much expected to “wait … to change the Constitution.” Yet, slow as it came, change did come.
Following the wisdom of the Magna Carta reissued by King Henry III in 1225, which promised the benefits of legal custom to promote freedom, serfdom was eroded and eventually abolished completely over the course of 600 years by English courts.
On this foundation, Lord Mansfield took the same approach to slavery, stating that “Whatever inconveniences, therefore, may follow from the decision, I cannot say [slavery] is allowed or approved by the law of England; and, therefore, the black must be discharged.” With this ruling James Sommersett walked away a free man, as did other slaves held in bondage in England at that time. But, as stated above, this was only the beginning of the change. It would take sixty-two more years for England’s domains to be completely rid of the scourge.
The American colonies, and later the U.S. states, were following the same path. Throughout the 18th century attempts were made by colonial legislatures to limit slavery and the slave trade. The obstruction of these laws by the King and Parliament were among the grievances of the colonists.
After the Revolution, the Northern states gradually began abolishing slavery. In the South, where slavery was much more entrenched, the process was moving more slowly. But it was moving. Major reforms to slavery were debated in the Virginia legislature in 1830. More important, throughout the first half of the 19th century Southern courts were chipping away at the evil institution — just as English courts and legislators had chipped away at villeinage and slavery. Moreover, by allowing the Southern states to secede, the United States could have accelerated the demise of slavery by providing a haven for runaway slaves.
However, this isn’t good enough for Machan. To ask slaves to wait would have been “obscene.” So the obscenity of hundreds of thousands of dead Americans — whites and blacks alike — as well as the total undermining of our constitutional Republic and the horrible destruction of war is somehow justified.
According to Machan, the Southern states could not legitimately secede because they were taking along “hostages” who would have preferred to stay in a “union that held out some hope for their eventual liberation.” Yet it is clear that “eventual liberation” was already on its way.
Machan has backed himself into a difficult corner here. If liberation was coming too slowly, then what about the those slaves who would have preferred the presumably quicker liberation that was coming under the British government but who were nonetheless swept away as hostages to the American Revolution? If, as Machan states, “secession cannot be justified if it is combined with the evil of imposing the act on unwilling third parties,” then wouldn’t Lord Mansfield’s ruling, coming 5 years before the Declaration of Independence, mean that American independence in 1776 could not be justified either?
Pretzel logic
All the right conclusions for all the wrong reasons LOL
Jefferson was a conservative DEMOCRAT. Small government.
Hamilton and the rest were BIG GOVERNMENT. Today’s big government DEMOCRATS. The roles have reversed. Democrats used to be the good guys. Lincoln’s WHIG/REPUBLICANS would also be BIG GOVERNMENT DEMOCRATS. Warmongering democrats.
democrats have always been democrats. Spit.
A Dixiecrat was a States Rights small government man, the states come first, not the Federal government. That was a Dixiecrat. In social issues they were conservative, they just wanted the right to control their own destiny, not Washington DC control is for them. Forced busing and affirmative action (all liberal democrat ideas) were the absolutely terrible ideas that didn’t work.
Name calling, a liberal trait. Got any facts to back up your nonsense? Of course not.
” Personally I don’t understand how they can be so wrapped up by events that ended 150 years ago,”
Personally, you are wrapped up in the civil war period. The vast majority of your posts are only on civil war threads.
“No similar unconstitutional acts were committed by the federal government before the insurrection of 1860.”
Liar. You know damned well the north acted against the south and were preparing to wage war against the confederacy.
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.