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."

[moehoward]

A world of dif between your scenario and conditions that led to secession.

The Southern states had a lengthy list of grievances, not the least of which were numerous violations of article IV section 2 of the Constitution.

The only relevant question is did those violations render secession legal?
Texas v. White says no. But that opinion seems to be founded in the notion that the territories/states/peoples were bound at the hip in perpetuity simply because there is some commonality in purpose. Yet it also says.."There was no place for reconsideration or revocation, except through revolution or through consent of the States.

So assuming it's 'illegal' to secede, what, if any remedy can the General Government have legally sought?
According to Kentucky v. Dennison, none.
"...there was "no power delegated to the General Government...to use coercive means to compel" a state governor to act.

[0.E.O]

The Southern states had a lengthy list of grievances, not the least of which were numerous violations of article IV section 2 of the Constitution.

Congress passed numerous fugitive slave laws, provided a number of ways of enforcing those laws, and in every case were an individual state tried to restrict the enforcement of the laws the courts ruled against them. If that was a grevance then it was a made-up one.

The only relevant question is did those violations render secession legal? Texas v. White says no.

Not entirely accurate. Texas v. White does say secession is legal if done with the consent of the states, as you pointed out in the quote you provded.

According to Kentucky v. Dennison, none. "...there was "no power delegated to the General Government...to use coercive means to compel" a state governor to act.

I'm not really sure why you picked this particular case since it has nothing to do with secession. If you're looking for Article IV support then perhaps a more appropriate case would be Prigg v. Pennsylvania where the court ruled that individual states could not enact laws that interfered with the enforcement of the fugitive slave laws. However, the court also ruled that the fugitive slave laws were federal laws and that states could not be made to enforce them.

[CodeToad]

“They had to ratify the various amendments to regain self government after their insurrection.”

Terrible attempt at bigoted spin since re-admission dates were established, government documents written stating re-admissions, etc.

You just don’t want to admit the southern States were considered having formally left the union because it destroys many of your bigoted arguments including the one you hold dear that the southern states were in a state of insurrection when they actually were a country of their own.

If the States had not actually left the union then the requirements mandated for them to be allowed privileges of a State, such as the mandate that they pass the 13th amendment and the fact that their representatives would not be seated in Congress, would make all such mandates unconstitutional.

South Carolina:
-Seceded: Dec. 20, 1860
-Admitted into C.S.: Feb. 4, 1861
-Readmitted into U.S.: July 9, 1868
-Local rule reestablished: Nov. 28, 1876

Mississippi:
-Seceded: Jan. 9, 1861
-Admitted into C.S.: Feb. 4, 1861
-Readmitted into U.S.: Beg. 23, 1870
-Local rule reestablished: Jan. 4, 1876

Florida:
-Seceded: Jan 10, 1861
-Admitted into C.S.: Feb. 4, 1861
-Readmitted into U.S.: June 25, 1868
-Local rule reestablished: Jan 2, 1877

Alabama:
-Seceded: Jan. 11, 1861
-Admitted into C.S.: Feb. 4, 1861
-Readmitted into U.S.: July 14, 1868
-Local rule reestablished: Nov. 16, 1874

Georgia:
-Seceded: Jan. 19, 1861
-Admitted into C.S.: Feb 4, 1861
-Readmitted into U.S.: July 15, 1870
-Local rule reestablished: Nov. 1, 1871

Louisiana:
-Seceded Jan. 26, 1861
-Admitted into C.S.: Feb. 4, 1861
-Readmitted into U.S.: June 25, 1868 or July 9, 1868
-Local rule reestablished: Jan. 2, 1877

Texas:
-Seceded: Feb. 1, 1861
-Admitted into C.S.: Mar. 2, 1861
-Readmitted into U.S.: Mar. 30, 1870
-Local rule reestablished: Jan. 14, 1873

Virginia:
-Seceded: April 17, 1861
-Admitted into C.S.: May 7, 1861
-Readmitted into U.S.: Jan. 26, 1870
-Local rule reestablished: Oct. 5, 1869

Arkansas:
-Seceded: May 6, 1861
-Admitted into C.S.: May 18, 1861
-Readmitted into U.S.: June 22, 1868
-Local rule reestablished: Nov. 10, 1874

Tennessee:
-Seceded: May 6, 1861
-Admitted into C.S.: May 16, 1861
-Readmitted into U.S.: July 24, 1866
-Local rule reestablished: Oct. 4, 1869

North Carolina:
-Seceded: May 21, 1861
-Admitted into C.S.: May 16, 1861
-Readmitted into U.S.: July 4, 1868
-Local rule reestablished Nov. 28, 1876

[Tau Food]

According to Kentucky v. Dennison, none. "...there was "no power delegated to the General Government...to use coercive means to compel" a state governor to act.

******************

Kentucky v. Dennison war overruled in Puerto Rico v. Branstad.

Another "swing and a miss" for Chief Justice Roger ("Mr. Dred Scott") Taney.

[moehoward]

"If that was a grevance then it was a made-up one."

Because the federal government would never allow a city or state to provide sanctuary to a protected class...right?

"I'm not really sure why you picked this particular case since it has nothing to do with secession."

I didn't. Kentucky v. Dennison is listed in constitutional law texts under chapters dealing with secession. See post #157. I find it quite telling that Texas v. White is barely mentioned.

[moehoward]

Um....maybe they can put that ruling in a time machine and send it 120 years back. It may have been applicable.

[Bubba Ho-Tep]

I'm sure that it will make your head explode, but legally (as the United States saw it), the southern states never left the Union. However, their actions in walking out of congress and then fighting a war meant that their delegations wouldn't be accepted back until they had passed constitutions guaranteeing a republican form of government, per Article IV, Sec. 4 of the Constitution. Further, Article I, Sec. 5 says Congress "shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members."

The dates that are given as "readmission" are actually (and go read the actual laws if you don't believe me) readmission of their delegations to Congress.

An Act to admit the State of Texas to Representation in the Congress of the United States. March 30, 1870

[CodeToad]

This will make you head explode but during the time the States were considered having left the union. It wasn’t until many years later that by USSC decree that the court claimed the States had no legal right to leave so they didn’t. Even records of the time consider their actions as re-admission into the union. If the States had not left then many things during the time would have been unconstitutional including Lincoln’s emancipation proclamation. He would have had no legal right to do that, not that the tyrant gave a shit about the law anyway.

[0.E.O]

Because the federal government would never allow a city or state to provide sanctuary to a protected class...right?

But they didn't.

I didn't. Kentucky v. Dennison is listed in constitutional law texts under chapters dealing with secession. See post #157. I find it quite telling that Texas v. White is barely mentioned.

It doesn't surprise me depending on the slant of the website. But maybe you should read the Dennison decision? Link

[Bubba Ho-Tep]

This will make you head explode but during the time the States were considered having left the union.

Very little of the southern mythology upsets me. I've heard it all. But that doesn't change the fact that, as far as the United States was concerned, the southern states remained in the Union, albeit in rebellion.

Even records of the time consider their actions as re-admission into the union.

Well, then, you won't have a problem coming up with those actual acts of readmission, then.

If the States had not left then many things during the time would have been unconstitutional including Lincoln’s emancipation proclamation. He would have had no legal right to do that...

Have you actually read the Emancipation Proclamation? It doesn't free the slaves in a different country. It frees the slaves "within any State or designated part of a State, the people whereof shall then be in rebellion against the United States."

[CodeToad]

[foundedonpurpose]

False, I’ll get back to you.

[Bubba Ho-Tep]

So in other words, you’ve got nothing.

[Bubba Ho-Tep]

If you want a way to see that the United States still considered the southern states to be in the Union that even you can understand, count the stars on the flag US soldiers carried.

You can count that high, can't you?

[foundedonpurpose]

WOW, I’m reading through the posts and you are quite the tool, I have yet to respond to you, but am being enlightened on your toolness. What elite propaganda machine university did you attend? Are you a communist by chance? Those that came over from Europe in the 1830’s were very influential in the North’s campaign. All fleeing the failure in Europe of the Engels influence. Thankfully Lincoln and Marx had time to correspond.

Talk to you soon!

[Bubba Ho-Tep]

Those that came over from Europe in the 1830’s were very influential in the North’s campaign. All fleeing the failure in Europe of the Engels influence.

Considering that Engels was born in 1820, that's some influence.

[foundedonpurpose]

You just described yourself!

Can you read and do research?

[rockrr]

Nice try. Of course I can do research - that’s why I strive for more than the low-hanging fruit. dilorenzo is the non-thinker’s easy way out.

[rockrr]

This will make you head explode but during the time the States were considered having left the union.

Yea, but not by anyone who mattered.

[rockrr]

Well bless your heart - that’s so cute!

/s