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."

[rockrr]

If Napolitano wrote that then he was wrong.

[iowamark]

It is unfortunate that Andrew Napolitano has veered into this Ron Paul kook fringe nonsense.

[man_in_tx]

Sounds logical to me.

[Robe]

It is interesting to note that you both reside in states that didn't have a horse in that race.

[rockrr]

What race are you referring to?

[NKP_Vet]

A great video. Lincoln’s great power grab.

[HMS Surprise]

Why wrong? Explain your case. The Revolution was secession from England. Why can’t people decide? Why FORCE people to remain tied politically? And, why do conservatives lose their ability to think logically when it comes to the The Civil War?

[foundedonpurpose]

I used to think he was nuts. Then I did a lot of research from both sides and independents.

The Judge is spot on! The American people have been lied to.

[Pelham]

“And, why do conservatives lose their ability to think logically when it comes to the The Civil War?”

It’s only the Lincoln Cult that has that difficulty.

[NTHockey]

Elmer Fudd compares himself to Lincoln. He is right; both acted against the Constitution.

[tet68]

So as a state you can voluntarily join to form a
government but then you can never leave it?

Sounds like Islam to me.

[SandwicheGuy]

Stephen would agree with you in five or six languages, I know I do. Good comment.

[BwanaNdege]

“And, why do conservatives lose their ability to think logically when it comes to the The Civil War?”

Liberal white guilt has infested throughout the political spectrum.

[rockrr]

Why wrong? Explain your case. The Revolution was secession from England. Why can’t people decide? Why FORCE people to remain tied politically? And, why do conservatives lose their ability to think logically when it comes to the The Civil War?

Good questions. Let's start with the last one first. I think that a lot of folks are emotionally invested in the War Between The States. Maybe it is because their ancestors lost a war? Personally I don't understand how they can be so wrapped up by events that ended 150 years ago, but I accept that there are those who are.

The Revolution was secession from England.

No it wasn't. The Revolutionary War was a rebellion against the British crown. The colonials tried for years to make their case for a representational seat at the table and were subjected to true acts of subjugation and tyranny for their efforts. When the Brits attempted to impose the tea tax shipments of tea sat unloaded, rotting at the piers and on the ships because Americans refused to accept the cargo with its poison pill. When the Boston Tea Party occurred the Brits responded by quarantining the harbor. When Americans responded by smuggling supplies into Boston the Brits sent out scouting parties to intercept and arrest them. Then the Brits advanced on Lexington to disarm the colonials. We know what happened next.

By contrast the southern slavers agitated a violent separation from the union thinly wrapped in the pretense of a secession. The orthodox definition of secession is the formal separation from an alliance or federation. But that is not how the slavers proceeded. Unlike the colonials, the slavers didn't avail themselves of their constitutional right (and duty) of redress. They didn't take their grievances to congress or the Supreme Court. Instead they turned their back on the United States Constitution and rebelled against their own country. The used the circumstance of the election of Lincoln to begin their insurrection. They began to steal everything and anything that wasn't nailed down and seizing territories - and states - in the name of their confederacy. They openly and defiantly declared their separation and dared the unionists to stop them. And they made war against their neighbors and erstwhile allies. They incited and perpetuated a war that literally tore our country apart.

People can and should decide their own fate. There may again come a time when the people are called upon to decide. I would hope that they do it right next time.

[central_va]

And, why do conservatives lose their ability to think logically when it comes to the The Civil War?

I have been asking myself that for a long time. One reason is that the Federal take over of all things to all people is so complete that the thought of powerful state governors and legislatures is a foreign concept. Even though that was the original intent.

[nathanbedford]

If I understand your argument correctly, the Confederates forfeited their right of secession by the matter of their leaving. May we conclude that if they had been more polite they would have been justified?

If one tries to draw a distinction between the American Revolution and the southern secession based on tariff policy disputes, I think you play right into the Confederates hands. Likewise, when the American Navy moved to reinforce Fort Sumter, "we know what happened next." The distinctions are mostly artificial. It is not upon such niceties that great moral questions should be determined. As Judge Napolitano points out, Lincoln was not altogether polite in his suppression of the rebellion.

I think the right of secession turns not on such subjective niceties but on the fundamental right to secede or not. Is it a natural right? Is it is a constitutional right? Is it inherent in the peculiar arrangement of states which made the American union? If there was a right, was it somehow illegitimate to claim it to protect the perpetuation of slavery?

As to being wrapped up with events that ended 150 years ago, I take it you do not celebrate Independence Day on July 4? You do not celebrate Christmas or observe Yom Kippur?

[rockrr]

You make a variety of assumptions - all bad.

If I understand your argument correctly, the Confederates forfeited their right of secession by the matter of their leaving.

Nope. There is no enumerated "right" of secession. But there could still be secession if conducted properly (see West Virginia). and nope - I said nothing about forfeiture of anything.

As Judge Napolitano points out, Lincoln was not altogether polite in his suppression of the rebellion.

So what? War is hell. They shouldn't have started something and set the pace for something they couldn't finish.

I think the right of secession turns not on such subjective niceties but on the fundamental right to secede or not. Is it a natural right? Is it is a constitutional right? Is it inherent in the peculiar arrangement of states which made the American union? If there was a right, was it somehow illegitimate to claim it to protect the perpetuation of slavery?

Again, there is no enumerated "right" to secession. There is a God-given natural right to rebellion as defense against tyranny. There was no tyranny occurring in the United States of 1860 - except arguable the one being perpetuated against blacks. The south started a war for no defensible reason other than their belligerence.

As to being wrapped up with events that ended 150 years ago, I take it you do not celebrate Independence Day on July 4? You do not celebrate Christmas or observe Yom Kippur?

You take it incorrectly.

[nathanbedford]

Do you realize that among your posts you contradicted virtually every one of your own arguments?

[Tau Food]

This is an old argument: personal liberty must include the liberty to be a slaveholder. Slavery had a long run, but we're not going back there.

The judge suggests that, until the tyrant Lincoln, everyone just sort of assumed that each state had the right to nullify U.S. laws. He seems to have forgotten that South Carolina backed off its threat to nullify U.S. laws when President Andrew Jackson threatened to personally go to South Carolina and start hanging "nullifiers' from trees.

I've always thought that South Carolina was lucky to have attempted "secession" during the presidency of James Buchanan (referred to as "Miss Nancy" by Jackson) rather than during the presidency of Jackson. Of course, South Carolina would never have dared attempting a "secession" during a Jackson presidency.

The "secessionists" were correct in predicting that Miss Nancy would do nothing in response to a "secession." They underestimated Lincoln.