Title: Judge Napolitano: Lincoln Set About On The Most Murderous War In American History Source:
[None] URL Source:[None] Published:Mar 9, 2015 Author:Judge Andrew Napolitano Post Date:2015-03-09 12:57:06 by James Deffenbach Keywords:None Views:1076 Comments:92
It's not clear if slavery was the *reason*, your honor?
South Carolina Statement of Secession:
'The General Government, as the common agent, passed laws to carry into effect these stipulations of the States. For many years these laws were executed. But an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution. "
Georgia:
"The people of Georgia having dissolved their political connection with the Government of the United States of America, present to their confederates and the world the causes which have led to the separation. For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery."
Mississippi:
In the momentous step which our State has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part, it is but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course.
Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth.
war, look at when the Emancipation Proclamation was signed, a year-and-a-half into the war.
Slavery wasn't not only the primary reason, it wasn't even on the short list at the start of the war. Lincoln and The Union signed it so as to avoid France from entering the war on the side of the Confederacy, for no other reason.
This myth that the American Civil War was fought over slavery is yet one more example of how our history books are littered with propaganda.
In fact, the Emancipation Proclamation did not even apply to the states in The Union, so how was it to be that the war was fought over that when numerous Union generals had slaves, plural? That's impossible.
One more whitewashing of history, but that's the norm. So too is it the norm for few to actually figure that out for one or more reasons.
In fact, the Emancipation Proclamation did not even apply to the states in The Union
Given that it was first issued as an ultimatum unique to the States in rebellion and then a month or so later as a decree against the States in rebellion to cripple their war effort, why would it have applied to the *Union*? None of those states were in rebellion.
To me, you are offering an example of how the reasoning behind the EP has been bastardized through the years. It had one target...the cSA's war effort and no higher purpose.
BTW, it also made immune certain sections of NOLA...
Given that it was first issued as an ultimatum unique to the States in rebellion and then a month or so later as a decree against the States in rebellion to cripple their war effort, why would it have applied to the *Union*? None of those states were in rebellion.
To me, you are offering an example of how the reasoning behind the EP has been bastardized through the years. It had one target...the cSA's war effort and no higher purpose.
You just contradicted your prior post here.
Why would it apply to the states not in rebellion?
You serious?
It's called moral high ground and integrity. We comment here constantly about how our liberties at home have been trounced and quenched, as we "fight for liberty" around the globe.
Surely you cannot believe what you're pitching about the Civil War.
No matter how you slice it, if the war was primarily about slavery, then freeing only slaves in the Confederacy would make zero sense.
"Do I contradict myself...very well...I contradict myself...I am large...I contain multitudes..."
t's called moral high ground and integrity. We comment here constantly about how our liberties at home have been trounced and quenched, as we "fight for liberty" around the globe.
Um...uh...in the 19th century we had no such policy as we weren't in to Empire Building. I may *judge* history, as I sit here today, only if I limit my judgement to the *events* of history and not the *ethics* of it.
Ethics belong to the philosophers not the historians.
We also comment here, from time to time, about what the Framers and Founders *envisioned* and *created*. Some were drunkards and some were elitists, fornicators, slave holders, and some were corrupt businessmen who gained their wealth through the Black Market. Should I reject what they have created based upon my 21st century *sense* of morality?
No matter how you slice it, if the war was primarily about slavery, then freeing only slaves in the Confederacy would make zero sense.
Non-sequitur...had Lincoln made the EP universal, he most likely would have lost the support of the border states. Most of those States had their own internal *hot* wars going on.
You really need to ask yourself this question: If there was NO slavery in the US, would there have been a Civil War?
There is no way that the question can be answered *yes* with a high degree of probability.
When you add slavery and the political and legislative conflagrations that the issue had been causing since the FOUNDING then the *probability* rises to near certainly.
I had a bad tag in this post which is why it was *EDITED* but neither of your links work.
If there was NO slavery in the US, would there have been a Civil War?
There is no way that the question can be answered *yes* with a high degree of probability.
Yes, with a high degree of probability because swarms of warmongers agitated methodically then, before that and as they still do now to achieve their massive slaughters and destructions. The only difference to them would have been that they couldn't have instigated for slave revolts to massacre Southerners like they were doing, even though there were northern slave-holding states throughout the entire war and even D.C. had some there.
Neither secession or the war started over slavery. Lincoln's election and attempted takeover of South Carolina's property, Fort Sumter, caused all of that. Even so, 8 slave States didn't move to secede when South Carolina did first and then 6 others. Months later, 4 of the 8 decided to secede, too -- in objection to Lincoln's use of force when it was clear that he was going to invade the South. So, do the math and that'll give you the answer to how many Union slave States there were.
Btw, northern states were the first to move for secession in America's history and, until the American Revolution ended, slavery on this continent was the business of Britain and other nations. General Robert E. Lee freed his slaves before going to war. General U.S. Grant didn't free his until after the war when he had to. South America had more slaves than we did and Native Americans were the last slaveholders here.
Here is a link that explains some the THE SOUTHERN SIDE OF THE CIVIL WAR: States' Rights, taxation/tariffs enriching the North and impoverishing the South, Northern domination politically and of electoral votes, the new Republican Party of Lincoln excluding Southerners, federal protectionism and subsidies for Northern business interests...
...even though there were northern slave-holding states throughout the entire war and even D.C. had some there.
The border states were not *Northern* states but were all below Mason-Dixon. There were no states North of Mason Dixon that allowed slavery.
Neither secession or the war started over slavery. Lincoln's election and attempted takeover of South Carolina's property, Fort Sumter, caused all of tha
Fort Sumter was US government property. When South Carolina seceded they declared their sovereign soil. So, yea, secession was at the root of Sumter.
States' Rights, taxation/tariffs enriching the North and impoverishing the South
Those taxes and tariffs were *punishment* for slavery...again...read the statements of secession...
No it was not. The US government isn't the property owner of our States and Territories. US government property would be like office supplies donated to it by businesses and not purchased with our taxes. Even D.C. isn't the property of "the government" but all of the United States plural.
The US government isn't the property owner of our States and Territorie
Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution states:
"Congress shall have the Power …. To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of Particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock- Yards and other needful Buildings."
The US government isn't the property owner of our States and Territories
Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution states:
"Congress shall have the Power …. To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of Particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards and other needful Buildings."
That's the wrong clause from which to argue your contention because it's about the establishment of D.C. (not exceeding ten Miles square) as the positional seat of Federal government under Congressional authority and upon its locality acceptance of land(s) granted for that construction project by one or more of the States; as well as structural appropriations therein requiring consent of the State legislature(s) wherein "the Same" D.C./District of Columbia was to be situated for administrative purposes -- not for a monarchal ownership of the United States. Better for you to cite the actual so-called "Property Clause", which is the 2nd at Section 3 of Article IV:
The Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.[8]
That amounts to a "power of attorney" for Congress to act regulatorily as needed on behalf of the States and per agreed land zoning for Indian tribes too -- not a title transferance of State Property to "the government" or even to the Congress of it. As I said before, "government property" arguably amounts only to donated supplies not purchased with our taxes and a strong case could be made against even that much being "unduly" considered joint-property of all the States as acquired in the course of duties for the Constitutional Union. It does not have the power, for example, to dispose of the Constitution's Union by disposing of our States if it wants to (secessionist though they leaningly may be, like Hawaii and Texas).
Edited formatting + 1st and last sentences of comment paragraph 1.
That's the wrong clause from which to argue your contention because it's about the establishment of D.C....
That particular clause was quoted directly to you and it clearly establishes the power to acquire property for forts. IF we were discussing speech and I cited the First Amendment would you state that I was *wrong* because 1A was the *religious* amendment?
But giving you the benefit of the doubt and assuming that you did not read the *entire* clause:
Congress shall have the Power …. To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever...over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards and other needful Buildings...
Better for you to cite the actual so-called "Property Clause", which is the 2nd at Section 3 of Article IV:
Art IV (3) assumes that the property is already purchased and grants the government the power of rule making over their assets or *management* and *control* over it.
As I said before, "government property" arguably amounts only to donated supplies not purchased with our taxes
You were wrong *before*, too.
and a strong case could be made against even that much being "unduly" considered joint-property of all the States as acquired in the course of duties for the Constitutional Union.
See: James v. Dravo Contracting Co., 302 U.S. 134, 143 (1937).
Only when the state makes a clear claim of concurrent governance. South Carolina, as I showed above, did not when it deeded Sumter to the Fed Gov...