Everyone concedes that the southern politicians were making a constitutional claim, that they were making a constitutional argument. There isn't a day that goes by in this country without important constitutional claims being made and peacefully resolved. But by acting unilaterally (as they did), they intentionally abandoned every avenue and venue (e.g., the Congress and the Supreme Court) that might have led to some sort of a peaceful resolution of either their claim or the issue (slavery) that prompted them to make it. Armed conflict was the inevitable result.
How can leadership like that be viewed as anything but completely incompetent? How could they have possibly chosen a worse path than the "secession" path they chose? And, as I've said before, they made it all the worse by going out of their way to wrap it as tightly and as visibly as they possibly could around an issue (slavery) that they had to know was from the very darkest regions of human existence. No competent politician would make a mistake like that. This is simply not competent political leadership that we're dealing with here. These are not statesmen.
And that's what I'm looking into now. How could this have happened? I'm learning now that some of the more capable politicians were trying to stop this madness. What went so terribly wrong here?
Wrong. I begin with the "assumption" that the Constitution is “the supreme Law of the land.” The Constitution guarantees that those “powers not delegated...nor prohibited...are reserved” – and because secession is nowhere “delegated” or “prohibited,” it must therefore be “reserved.” It is the ‘union-at-any-cost’ crowd that presupposes secession to be unconstitutional.
...and you cannot accept that there may exist a conflict between that assumption and either anything in our history of Union or any of the powers which were expressly delegated to the United States, then your conclusion will remain as it is.
Again, there is no “assumption” on my part, other than that the Constitution actually means what it says.
That is what Lincoln pointed out to the special session of Congress in July of 1861.
What, precisely, did he ‘point out?’ Please quote the remarks in question.
So, aside from needlessly tormenting you about your argument by asking you questions like what might have been the status of the Tenth Amendment right to "secede" after the ratification of the Constitution and before the adoption of the Tenth Amendment...
Are you suggesting that freedom of speech, freedom of religion, the right to keep and bear arms, and every other right and power detailed in the Bill of Rights did not exist prior to the ratification of the first ten amendments? Hmm? (If there is any ‘torment’ involved in the question, it would seem to be on your end... ;>)
...or tormenting you with quotes from those who voted against ratification because they knew that your view is incorrect...
That’s right: you provided a single, largely irrelevant quote from Mr. Henry. I countered with a detailed analysis by Mr. Taylor. In the end, the written words of the Constitution prove me correct – and you “incorrect”...
;>)
...there is really little that I can do to disturb what I believe to be a delusion on your part. And what would be the point of that? You seem happy with your view.
I prefer written law. You seem to prefer unwritten ‘law’ and baseless assumptions. What were you saying about ‘delusions?’
Everyone concedes that the southern politicians were making a constitutional claim, that they were making a constitutional argument. There isn't a day that goes by in this country without important constitutional claims being made and peacefully resolved. But by acting unilaterally (as they did), they intentionally abandoned every avenue and venue (e.g., the Congress and the Supreme Court) that might have led to some sort of a peaceful resolution of either their claim or the issue (slavery) that prompted them to make it.
You have repeatedly mentioned both “Congress and the Supreme Court” as possible ‘venues’ to resolve the question of secession. Congress is the legislative branch; the Supreme Court is part of the judiciary branch. The two are not the same. When asked (repeatedly) which branch had authority under the specific written terms of the Constitution to somehow influence the matter, you refuse to answer. By the way – why don’t you mention the President? Why not suggest that the Confederates should have pursued a peaceful resolution via the federal executive branch? Do you not think President Lincoln might have provided an “avenue and venue...that might have led to some sort of a peaceful resolution?”
With regard to “the issue (slavery),” I suggest (yet again) that you read the Constitution. Slavery was recognized as legal under the Constitution – and there was absolutely nothing “Congress and the Supreme Court” could do about the matter. Article V details the amendment process, and the federal government provides nothing but simple ‘support services:’ the States alone have the power to change the Constitution.
Armed conflict was the inevitable result.
Actually, “armed conflict was the inevitable result” of certain decisions made by the chief executive of the United States, against the advice of his military leaders, against the advice of all but one of his cabinet members, and contrary to peace negotiations involving cabinet members, federal judges, and his own personal emissaries.
How can leadership like that be viewed as anything but completely incompetent?
Oh, I agree: a new president who ignores the advise of everyone around him, and selects a course of action that had already produced gunfire only three months previously, resulting in a war that kills over 600,000 people – a person like that might very well be judged “completely incompetent.”
How could they have possibly chosen a worse path than the "secession" path they chose?
Since you apparently enjoy considering ‘might-have-beens,’ it would be better to suggest that the Southern States should never have ratified the Constitution in the first place – but how could they have known it would be magically replaced with unwritten ‘law’ and mystical ‘mumbo-jumbo?’
And, as I've said before, they made it all the worse by going out of their way to wrap it as tightly and as visibly as they possibly could around an issue (slavery) that they had to know was from the very darkest regions of human existence.
I’ve always wondered where all of the people like you were hiding before the war. It has been suggested that the Northerners could have bought every slave in the country and emancipated them all, ending slavery for ever, for less than it cost to wage their unconstitutional war. And such action wouldn’t even have required amending the Constitution. I suspect most Northern abolitionists were very much like modern-day D*mocrats: they supported certain issues passionately, so long as they could get the government to pay the price – or get the government to extract the price from their neighbors by force.
No competent politician would make a mistake like that. This is simply not competent political leadership that we're dealing with here. These are not statesmen.
I’ve asked before, and I don’t believe you answered:
“SHALL OUR GOVERNMENT BE BOUND BY LAW, OR BY MORALITY?”
While you’re considering your answer, perhaps you can tell us which clauses of the United States Constitution (as it existed in 1860) prohibited secession – or slavery?
And that's what I'm looking into now. How could this have happened? I'm learning now that some of the more capable politicians were trying to stop this madness. What went so terribly wrong here?
Allow me to suggest one possible answer – the federal politicians had no more respect for the Constitution than you appear to have...
;>)