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 ...
” dilorenzo is the non-thinker’s easy way out”
I think, and he documents everything! Actual letters, essays, and telegrams.
You have never read his books.
Low hanging fruit? People in their own words?
Problem is, the date that Kansas was admitted as a state is different from from the date it became part of the US.
In like manner, the date of southern states in insurrection was readmitted as a state is different from the date that it became part of the US.
Of course they did. Much like Illegal Alien sanctuary cities do today.
There were other cases cases working their way up to the Court. Of particular note was Lemmon v. The People. The New York Court of Appeals held that all slaves -except fugitives- became free the moment they stepped into the state. In dissent it was noted the act would be a valid cause for war. Lemmon was noted as one South Carolinas reasons for secession.
"....slant of the website..."
What website?
DiLorenzo's been repeatedly busted for misquoting, using quotes out of context, and just not understanding what he's reading. He's a joke.
How about some examples?
There were other cases cases working their way up to the Court.
Is there any reason to believe their fate at the hands of the Taney court would have been any different?
Of particular note was Lemmon v. The People. The New York Court of Appeals held that all slaves -except fugitives- became free the moment they stepped into the state. In dissent it was noted the act would be a valid cause for war. Lemmon was noted as one South Carolinas reasons for secession.
Where was it noted?
I can hardly wait.
No BL, you have it just backwards.
And, comparing 1776 to early 1861 is a very informative exercise, you should try it sometime.
By 1776, the Brits had for years oppressed their American colonies, in almost every way imaginable, producing a long list of actual injustices, in the Declaration of Independence.
Actual British oppressions included everything from:
The Declaration's first drafts (later removed) even included a condemnation of Brits for imposing slavery on Americans!
That's a serious list of tyrannies, oppressions and usurpations (Founders' words), clearly showing that whatever "union" had previously existed, it was by 1776 already broken!
So the Declaration formally declared what had already happened: by their acts of tyranny and oppression, the Brits had made their American colonies free and Independent united States.
By stark contrast, the 1860 & early 1861 secessionists documents contained no lists of actual "usurpations" or "oppressions", but instead expressed their obsession with protecting the future of slavery against the newly elected Republicans.
Unlike our Founders in 1776, in 1860 the slave-power was fully represented -- indeed over-represented -- in Congress, the Executive and Judicial branches.
Yes, the Slave Power would soon be reduced by the 1860 elections, but that was largely their own doing: by engineering the split-up of their previously majority Democrat party.
In 1860 there had been no Federal "breech of contract", no "usurpations" or "oppressions" against the Slave Power.
The Union was not already broken, and indeed was not really broken by their Declarations of Secession.
What did break the Union, in early 1861, was numerous acts of secessionists' rebellion, insurrection and war against the United States, culminating in their assault on Fort Sumter (April 12) and confirmed by their Declaration of War against the United States, on May 6, 1861.
Where in 1776 the Brits had broken their Union with their united colonies -- by many acts of oppression and war -- in early 1861 only Slave-Power secessionists committed acts of oppression and war: against the United States!
Brass Lamp: "They declared their intent to secede from the political union which bound them to the Crown based, not on any legal right recognized within the applicable courts, but rather, on the natural right of self-determination from which all developed political power (theoretically) flows."
They declared no such "intent".
Rather, they declared that British acts of tyranny & disunion had already made the United Colonies into free and independent States.
By sharp contrast, Slave-Power secessionists in 1860 could not and did not make such claims.
Brass Lamp: "So, the arguement is that the Revolution was not an act of secession because it is dislike the Civil War which, according to you, was also not an act of secession."
Doubtless you intended to write, "unlike the Civil War".
Our Founders never used words like "secession" or "disunion" with regards to the British Empire.
Instead, they declared Independence from their status as oppressed colonies.
Both "secession" and "disunion" imply something legal and voluntary, not our Founders involuntary subjection to the oppressive British Empire.
Brass Lamp: "Finally, he caps his proof of dissimilarity with a list of things common to both.
The harder he tries, the harder he fails."
Your aspersions against rockrr are inaccurate.
No, you drank jug-fulls of pro-Confederate moonshine koolaid.
That's not "research", that's substance abuse, FRiend. ;-)
foundedonpurpose: "Pro confederate: I’m from Wisconsin, why the h3ll would I be pro confederate, no I have never had moon shine."
And you never met a metaphor before either, right?
If you've been drinking and now regurgitating pro-Confederate propaganda, then you don't need to tell us about your origins in Wisconsin.
You are what you are.
foundedonpurpose: "...here is a book to start with, let me know when you need more: The real Lincoln (in his own words) Dilorezo. Here is the link:http://www.amazon.com/books/dp/0761526463"
Dilorenzo's book is a pack of pro-Confederate propaganda lies, and since you did no actual research, you have no ability -- zero, zip, nada -- to distinguish Dilorenzo's lies from actual historical facts.
Seriously, go learn something about real history.
Remember this: our Founders in 1776 declared neither secession nor rebellion.
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.
And the American War of Rebellion had long since started -- started by the British.
In 1776 there was no Declaration of War by either Brits or our Founders.
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).
Brass Lamp: "most people in this world today are in some political union without representation."
Americans have never considered such governments as entirely legitimate.
Brass Lamp: "The same way the conquered states were forced back into a political union actually called "The Union" during reconstruction without representation."
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.
By the way, FRiend Brass Lamp, your arrogant and condescending comments such as this:
Comments like that don't improve your own argument.
They don't make you appear more brilliant, really, just the opposite, they make you sound stupid -- as if you don't really have a good argument to make, and so just throw out condescending insults instead.
I say: if you have a real argument to make, then make it, but first go through it and delete the unnecessary insults, then re-read to see if your case still makes good sense, even to you.
In fact, Southern Democrats had a hard time deciding which way to jump.
Yes, in 1964, to their everlasting credit, five (only five!) Deep South states voted for Conservative Republican Goldwater over Liberal-Texas Democrat Lyndon Johnson.
And in 1972 they all voted for Nixon over the hapless South Dakota Democrat McGovern.
But, by 1976 they all voted for Georgia Democrat Peanut Carter over Michigan's Mr. Nice Guy Ford, before turning solidly Conservative Republican in 1980 for Ronald Reagan.
Even so, Zippers Clinton carried half the previously Solid South in both 1992 and 1996.
So the South's transition from pre-1964 Big-Spending Liberal-Progressive Democrats to solidly Conservative Republican really took over 35 years.
Of course, we conservatives outside the South hugely, hugely appreciate what a struggle of conscience and emotions that change must have taken.
We understand it, appreciate it and sincerely thank you for it!
We know it was not easy for you, and we are not going to let you pretend now that it never happened.
It's why we're here to help you, FRiends.
Seriously, you know nothing about actual history, do you?
Your buddy, your pal, your close personal friend -- Jeffy-baby Davis -- after you sat and drank moonshine-koolaid with him, where you called him "Jeffy" and he called you "Foundy", in early 1861 your buddy was "under attack" from nobody until, until after "Jeffy-baby" began rebelling, insurrecting, invading and making war on the United States.
Still, Jeffy-baby was "under attack" from nobody until after Jeff's Confederate government formally declared war on the United States.
Then and only then did all h*ck break loose, and Jeffy-baby and his Confederate "government" received what they so ardently wished for and so richly deserved.
Seriously, pal, study and learn some real history.
foundedonpurpose: "Lincoln had a constitution to follow, and a bill of rights.
If he had obeyed the law, the civil war never would have happened."
In fact, the US Constitution requires the Federal Government to defend the United States against rebellion, insurrection, "domestic violence", treason, attacks, invasions and those who declare war against the USA.
Your good buddy, Jeffy-baby's Confederates did all of those things before a single Confederate soldier was killed in battle with the United States Army.
Seriously, pal, study and learn some real history.
“Your good buddy, Jeffy-baby’s Confederates did all of those things before a single Confederate soldier was killed in battle with the United States Army”
No, it was your hero Ape Lincoln who refused to get Federal troops out of the free and independent state of SC. He knew exactly what he was doing. He knew that SC would use force to get the ENEMY out of that state. The POS not only got what he wanted, but more, when 5 other states sided with the Confederacy instead of supplying troops to kill other Southerners.
Secession from the Union was not considered in NC until reports came of the April 12 bombardment of Fort Sumter near Charleston, South Carolina. Lincoln would call for 75,000 troops on April 17, in order to suppress the “rebellion”. Governor Ellis responded to Lincolns order by writing a telegram saying “I regard the levy of troops made by the Administration for the purposes of subjugating the States of the South, as in violation of the Constitution, and as a gross usurpation of power. I can be no part to this wicked violation of the laws of the Country and to this war upon the liberties of a free people. You can get no troops from North Carolina”
PS: Slavery had nothing at all to do with NC seceeding from the Union. The refusal to go to war with their fellow Southern states had everything to do with it and Gov Ellis rightfully told Ape Lincoln to kiss his ass.
Your math is as creative as your version of history. Following the attack on Sumter only 4 states joined the rebellion - Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, and Arkansas.
Actually, I was trying to be polite by not pointing directly to your whopper-lie, when you said:
I'm guessing you have no real clue what you meant, but Buchanan never said states "had a right" to secede, just the opposite: he said they had no right under the circumstances to in-effect secede "at pleasure".
What Buchanan refused to do was use US military force to prevent, stop or reverse the Deep South Slave-Power's declarations of secession.
Further, as I pointed out in post #135 above, both Dred-Scott and Kentucky v. Dennison confirmed the "rights" of slave-holders to transport their "property" into non-slave states without losing those "rights".
In effect, those court cases made slavery legal in every state, South, North, East or West.
Remember, in both cases US Supreme Court Chief Justice Taney was 100% pro-slavery, and wrote his rulings in such a way as to maximize slave-holders powers.
If Taney also included opinions which might have discomforted some slave-holders, it was only because he considered those necessary for their larger good.
Finally, as already noted, the Kentucky v. Dennison ruling came after Deep-South slave-holders had already declared secession, and so had nothing to do with their actions.
moehoward: "According to American Legal History 2nd ed., the Chief Justice opinion in Kentucky v Dennison 'was obviously meant to deny Lincoln the power to coerce states back into the Union'. "
US Supreme Court Chief Justice Roger Taney was 100% pro-slavery, and wrote his opinions to maximize slave-holders' powers.
President Lincoln never claimed "the power to coerce states back into the Union".
What Lincoln factually stated were his obligations under the Constitution to defeat rebellion, insurrection, "domestic violence", attacks, invasions, treason and declarations of war against the United States.
Indeed, in his First Inaugural Address, March 4, 1861, Lincoln notified the Confederacy that it could not have a war unless they themselves started it, which they promptly did.
Some of the rhetoric at FR is beginning to scare me, and I wonder how much is the work of leftist agents provocateurs.
I suppose it's only a matter of time before some ignoramus refers to Abraham Lincoln as a "RINO."
Ever wonder why most American Indians fought for with the Confederacy, the largest contingency being the Cherokees, read the reason. No Indian, then or now, trusts the lying ass Federal government, who tried to wipe the Indian off the face of the earth.
“Menaced by a great danger, they exercise the inalienable right of self-defense, and declare themselves a free people, independent of the Northern States of America, and at war with them by their own act. Obeying the dictates of prudence and providing for the general safety and welfare, confident of the rectitude of their intentions and true to the obligations of duty and honor, they accept the issue thus forced upon them, unite their fortunes now and forever with those of the Confederate States, and take up arms for the common cause, and with entire confidence in the justice of that cause and with a firm reliance upon Divine Providence, will resolutely abide the consequences”.
http://www.unitednativeamerica.com/cherokee.html
According to the Jeffersonian tradition. The Hamiltonian tradition, which is just as old, holds otherwise. And unlike Jefferson, Hamilton was an actual Founding Father who helped create the Constitution.
The Jeffersonian and Hamiltonian schools of thought on the Constitution have been with us from the beginning. One is just as legitimate as the other. Lincoln was merely a Hamiltonian, just as Washington, Clay, and Webster were before him.
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?"
Other than the thousands who fought for the Union army that is.
Subsequent events demonstrate just how badly things can go for an activist judge like Taney. His opinion in Dennison, like his opinion in Dred Scott, has helped place Taney at the very summit of our Supreme Court Hall of Shame.
Well I guess you are just another Federal Boot Licker then...
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.