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 ...
When I refer to Dixiecrats I am referring to Southern Democrats, not the party that was started in 1948. Southern Democrats were still referred to by no-nothing northern politicians as Dixiecrats.
You and you alone. no one else uses this alternate history - at least that I’ve ever heard.
Not quite. Most were 'property disputes' but others more troubling. "...the States of Ohio and Iowa have refused to surrender to justice fugitives charged with murder,...".
Not many of us are pleased when Mexico does likewise.
That’s what I was referring to when I said, “The only grievances that South Carolina referred to was the reticence of northern states to enforce and defend THEIR practice of the Peculiar Institution”. I am not aware of any cases where murderers were allowed to escape extradition.
The only way for one state to force another state to comply with its laws - no matter how abhorrent - is through federal intervention. Yet many southerners bristled at the Prigg v. Pennsylvania decision because they viewed THAT as a federal intrusion.
My recollection of their grievances includes past controversies resolved at the supreme court, to include the resolution of Personal Liberty laws, which was decided in favor of the Slave Power.
Specifically, that referred to two of John Brown's sons, so again it comes down to issues around slavery.
Hunh. Is that like when the Rebels seized the Crown’s property and shot its Redcoats back in 1775?
I assumed it did and intended on looking it up. Thanks.
I'd say "Republican obstruction" may not be an offense worthy of breaking ranks, but divorces are often over little things. Northeast North America will probably be pissed when they find their Fort Knox rings are really cubic zirconia, and what's left of the Union will be equally angry over paying Afghan stepchild support.
So did Jefferson Davis.
If he had obeyed the law, the civil war never would have happened.
What law did he violate?
Jeff Davis was under attack...
So was Lincoln. But Davis was the initiator of the war.
That's a long way of saying you really don't have an answer.
How could South Carolina legitimately (or with a straight face) claim a refusal (by northern states) to extradite with reference to Brown’s sons? That doesn’t make sense. It would be akin tot eh state of Washington involving itself in the George Zimmerman case. I’m not disputing your suggestion but I wonder if there could be any other case they could have referred to?
Or if it was just a smokescreen.
No.
Amen, brother.
True, except that he is right.
I know how desperately you want it to be right....but then my guess is that you’re used to disappointment.
“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.”
Because the wrong that was committed then is responsible for the deterioration of the Constitution and has given birth to presidents like Barack Hussein Obama, whom you support by stupidly arguing otherwise.
As much as you want it to be about “because of losing” a war it has never been and never will be about that. It is about losing our country, which you support by stupidly arguing otherwise.
You asked for an opinion, not an answer.
No, it would not be a constitutional remedy.
But it was the remedy that the South chose in 1861. They left with out discussion, walked away from debt obligations, and took everthing they could get their hands on. If their solution was unconstitutional then how could Lincoln be accused of violating the 10th Amendment by opposing it?
Not from what I can find. The whole relevant line reads, "the States of Ohio and Iowa have refused to surrender to justice fugitives charged with murder, and with inciting servile insurrection in the State of Virginia."
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.