Replies

Your assertion that a strict interpretation of the Constitution would allow an invasion of Nazis or communists is wrong, and is a scare tactic that holds no basis in reality.

Actually my assertion had nothing to do with a strict interpretation of the Constitution, which I support. It had to do with whether two or three or ten countries rather than the USA could have won WWII and the Cold War. I don't think they could have.

BTW, a strict interpretation of the Constitution does not deal with the legitimacy of seccession, because the Constitution does not deal with it. Another point the Lincoln haters ignore is that Lincoln did not attack to south. He promised to do nothing and urged them to reconsider. But he refused to surrender US bases in the South. The successionists then attacked Fort Sumter thus bringing the war on themselves. Lincoln's extra-Contstitutional action have to be seen in the light of an unprecedented war for the survival of the country.

a strict interpretation of the Constitution does not deal with the legitimacy of seccession

I agree. That is a fault that I wish the Founders would have directly addressed.

Lincoln's extra-Contstitutional action have to be seen in the light of an unprecedented war for the survival of the country.

But look what it led to: a centralized form of government, alien to what is found in the Constitution. Sometimes I think Lincoln's cure is worse than the problem.

=On the other hand, there might not have been a Spanish-American War, WWI, WWII and the so-called Cold War, had the South prevailed. We'll never know.

=Fort Sumter was, unfortunately, the Union's perfect excuse to generate war Between the States. Offers of negotiation from the South were disdained and the fort resupplied by a nation other than that in which the fort resided. Clearly to antagonize the South.