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."

[central_va]

Let's say that tomorrow New England, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Kentucky, Michigan, Illinois, Wisconsin and Minnesota say that they are fed up with the Republican obstruction in Congress and announce that they are leaving the United States. They hold referendum among their population, which pass overwhelmingly, and declare that they are now the sovereign nation of Northeast North America. They claim that all federal property and facilities within their borders are now their property - including Fort Knox and the gold reserve. They say they are not responsible for any of the $16 trillion in debt that has been run up, leaving that responsibility to the remaining states. They refuse to support U.S. initiatives in Afghanistan instead insisting that all their soldiers be returned to the states immediately. In your opinion is that a constitutional remedy?

That would be my dream. Go. Be gone. Take California with you.

[0.E.O]

...'the Revolutionary War was a rebellion, and so cannot also have been an act of secession'...

Are you saying that the two are synonymous?

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.

How could the colonies have been in a 'political union' with the Crown when they were denied any representation in the legislative body?

[0.E.O]

They became republicans when democrats tried to cram affirmative action and school busing down their throats and stick their nose in local politics in the 60s.

Or was it the anti-segregation and anti-miscegenation position of the Democrats?

[foundedonpurpose]

Yes I did do research.

Pro confederate: I’m from Wisconsin, why the h3ll would I be pro confederate, no I have never had moon shine.

It’s about limited government, and the fact that Lincoln run all over the constitution. and the bill of rights to destroy the states powers.

I know its hard to understand, 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

You just got to this? Are you a troll?

[rockrr]

You do know that dilorenzo is the patron saint of morons and Lost Cause Losers, right?

[0.E.O]

It’s about limited government, and the fact that Lincoln run all over the constitution. and the bill of rights to destroy the states powers.

If you have done the research then you would know that Jeff Davis was a believer in centralized government and consolidated power and trampled his constitution in ways that Lincoln would never have dreamed of. But on the other hand if your sole source on the rebellion is Tommy DiLorenzo then I guess you wouldn't know that at all. Tommy doesn't cover any of that.

[foundedonpurpose]

I’m learning. Thanks for the info.

It’s good to have an honest discussion.

[0.E.O]

It’s good to have an honest discussion.

Honest discussions are a good thing.

[NKP_Vet]

And your democrat party knows what’s right for the black man? Food stamps and keeping them on the democrat plantation.
The worse thing that ever happened to blacks was hitching up to the democrat gravy train.

[NKP_Vet]

And your democrat party knows what’s right for the black man? Food stamps and keeping them on the democrat plantation.
The worse thing that ever happened to blacks was hitching up to the democrat gravy train.

[rockrr]

No one here is part of the democrat party. Stop that foolishness.

[Brass Lamp]

Are you saying that the two are synonymous?

The above question being evidence of an unfortunate combination of binary thinking and poor reading comprehension, it falls to me to point out that secession and rebellion are obviously not mutually exclusive. Imagine, if you can, that there was once a controlling authority which did not sanction withdrawl from its influence. In fact, it expressly forbade it! To secede in spite of a directive to not do so would be, necessarily, an act of rebellion against the issuing authority.

How could the colonies have been in a 'political union' with the Crown when they were denied any representation in the legislative body?

The same way most people in this world today are in some political union without representation. The same way the conquered states were forced back into a political union actually called "The Union" during reconstruction without representation. The history of the world beyond your echo chamber is full of examples of non-represenative governments controlling people.

[0.E.O]

...it falls to me to point out that secession and rebellion are obviously not mutually exclusive.

But are they synonymous, yes or no? If not, what is the difference?

The same way most people in this world today are in some political union without representation.

Examples please?

[NKP_Vet]

One thing is absolute fact. The Dixiecrats (Southern democrats) jumped to the Republican Party in the 60s and 70s, not the big government democrat party. The primary reason was democrats shoving affirmative action and school busing down the their throats and also the democrats hitching up with the bra burning women feminist movement/pro abortion crowd. That is why the Southern Democrats (Dixiecrats if you will) joined the Republicans.

[foundedonpurpose]

So based on honest, how do you compare Jefferson Davis to Lincoln. Lincoln had a constitution to follow, and a bill of rights. If he had obeyed the law, the civil war never would have happened. Jeff Davis was under attack, I don’t get your comparison.

[rockrr]

Your facts are wrong.

The Dixicrats left the democrat party in 1948 and they left because they favored segregation, Jim Crow, and white supremacy and hoped that they would find sanctuary in the republican party. Affirmative action, school busing, bra burning hadn't happened yet. They formed a new party called the States' Rights Democratic Party. One of their central planks said,

We stand for the segregation of the races and the racial integrity of each race; the constitutional right to choose one's associates; to accept private employment without governmental interference, and to earn one's living in any lawful way. We oppose the elimination of segregation, the repeal of miscegenation statutes, the control of private employment by Federal bureaucrats called for by the misnamed civil rights program. We favor home-rule, local self-government and a minimum interference with individual rights.

The States' Rights Democratic Party didn't last too long and some returned to the democrat party with others drifting to the Republican party.

It is true that the Republicans favored less government than the democrats, but only by a matter of degree. It was conservatives operating within the Republican party who truly favored smaller, more responsive government, but the Dixicrats only wanted the federal government to leave them to continue their practice of oppression.

[moehoward]

"On all three items, you have it wrong."

I said "Buchanan may have been against secession..."
And both cases I cite found the "General Government" powerless to force a state governor to act.

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".

[Brass Lamp]

But are they synonymous, yes or no? If not, what is the difference?

If they were, in fact, one and the same, then your (and rockrr's) need for subjects to have only one describable attribute would finally be satisfied. Alas, the world is just complicated enough to allow things to be multifaceted. The difference between the two is that it is possible to be in rebellion against an authority about matters other than secession. The difference between the colonies rebelling AND seceding and the colonies JUST rebelling is that the first case potentially produces a group of independent states while leaving the authority of the crown unchallenged within its own shrunken dominion, whereas the second case has no potential for separation and challenges the power of the king throughout his realm.

Compare King John's baronial rebellion, which forced him to sign Magna Charta in 1215, to Robert the Bruce's war for a separate Sottish kingdom a century later. They were both rebellions against the English Crown, but only one sought separation from it.

It is with some humor that I note that the original full text to which you were responding above accused you of binary thinking, and that your immediate return was to demand that I answer a yes/no question.

The same way most people in this world today are in some political union without representation.

Examples please?

Really? I am going to have to ask whether you don't accept Tibet as an example because you truly believe they are represented in the Chinese government, or because you don't believe that the Chinese are running Tibet? But since the original statement was about separating from a unrepresentative government of late Eighteenth Century, I'm going ask if you think contemporary Blacks were represented within their political unit? Proceed to squirm.

[Brass Lamp]

But are they synonymous, yes or no? If not, what is the difference?

If they were, in fact, one and the same, then your (and rockrr's) need for subjects to have only one describable attribute would finally be satisfied. Alas, the world is just complicated enough to allow things to be multifaceted. The difference between the two is that it is possible to be in rebellion against an authority about matters other than secession. The difference between the colonies rebelling AND seceding and the colonies JUST rebelling is that the first case potentially produces a group of independent states while leaving the authority of the crown unchallenged within its own shrunken dominion, whereas the second case has no potential for separation and challenges the power of the king throughout his realm.

Compare King John's baronial rebellion, which forced him to sign Magna Charta in 1215, to Robert the Bruce's war for a separate Sottish kingdom a century later. They were both rebellions against the English Crown, but only one sought separation from it.

It is with some humor that I note that the original full text to which you were responding above accused you of binary thinking, and that your immediate return was to demand that I answer a yes/no question.

The same way most people in this world today are in some political union without representation.

Examples please?

Really? I am going to have to ask whether you don't accept Tibet as an example because you truly believe they are represented in the Chinese government, or because you don't believe that the Chinese are running Tibet? But since the original statement was about separating from a unrepresentative government of late Eighteenth Century, I'm going ask if you think contemporary Blacks were represented within their political unit? Proceed to squirm.

[moehoward]

"In fact, there were Gulf of Tonkin incidents, exaggerated by both sides for their own purposes."

And that is different to Sumter how? It seems that in either case the opposition was suckered into acting, or worse into a position of being claimed to have acted.