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:1618 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...
Four of the eleven Southern states did not join in the first wave of secession and did not secede over slavery. Those four states—Arkansas, North Carolina, Tennessee, and Virginia—only seceded months later when Lincoln made it clear he was going to launch an invasion. In fact, those states initially voted against secession by fairly sizable majorities. However, they believed the Union should not be maintained by force. Therefore, when Lincoln announced he was calling up 75,000 troops to form an invasion force, they held new votes, and in each case the vote was strongly in favor of secession. Thus, four of the eleven states that comprised the Confederacy seceded because of their objection to the federal government’s use of force and not because of slavery.
Virtually no history textbooks mention the fact that each Confederate state retained the right to abolish slavery within its borders, and that the Confederate Constitution permitted the admission of free states to the Confederacy. In his analysis of the Confederate Constitution, historian Forrest McDonald says the following:
All states reserved the right to abolish slavery in their domains, and new states could be admitted without slavery if two-thirds of the existing states agreed—the idea being that the tier of free states bordering the Ohio River might in time wish to join the Confederacy. (States’ Rights and the Union, University of Kansas Press, 2000, p. 204)
All states reserved the right to abolish slavery in their domains
Nope. 100% wrong.
ARTICLE IV
Sec. 2. (I) The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States; and shall have the right of transit and sojourn in any State of this Confederacy, with their slaves and other property; and the right of property in said slaves shall not be thereby impaired.
That is a separate, independent clause and states quite clearly that according to the law...once a slave always a slave...
, and new states could be admitted without slavery if two-thirds of the existing states agreed—the idea being that the tier of free states bordering the Ohio River might in time wish to join the Confederacy. (States’ Rights and the Union, University of Kansas Press, 2000, p. 204)
Again...once they joined the confederacy their constitution established slavery within their borders.
Four of the eleven Southern states did not join in the first wave of secession and did not secede over slavery.
Virginia did not secede at first because it debated declaring itself a free, unitary state. That said, it most certainly did sight slavery in its secession ordinance...
Four of the eleven Southern states did not join in the first wave of secession and did not secede over slavery.
Virginia did not secede at first because it debated declaring itself a free, unitary state.
Virginia seceded to the Confederacy after Lincoln ordered a fleet of ships to Fort Sumter. West Virginia seceding from Confederate Virginia to the Union would be evidence of Lincoln and the Union endorsing secession.
Virginia seceded to the Confederacy after Lincoln ordered a fleet of ships to Fort Sumter...
When Virginia voted to secede it did not agree to join the confederacy. What it did do was enter in to a temporary military treaty with it. They had called a May 1861 plebiscite to determine if they should join the confederacy or remain an independent republic. About 10 days after the secession vote and after intense negotiations with the provisional government of the confederacy led by the VP, Alexander Hamilton something(his last name escapes me and I'm too lazy to google at this time) they decided to join IF Richmond was made the capital.
West Virginia seceding from Confederate Virginia to the Union would be evidence of Lincoln and the Union endorsing secession.
West Virginia seceding from Confederate Virginia to the Union would be evidence of Lincoln and the Union endorsing secession.
Actually, it's evidence of the opposite.
Not only is it evidence that the Union endorsed secession, it's also evidence that it violated the Constitution in the process -- unless Virginia's secession was endorsed first:
At Article IV, Section 3, Clause 1: ... no new States shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State;
Not only is it evidence that the Union endorsed secession, it's also evidence that it violated the Constitution in the process -- unless Virginia's secession was endorsed first:
Other States had internal squabbles as well in which a government was formed...Missouri is a classic example..they had delegates in the confederate legislature while the government of Missouri, itself, was part of the Union...they didn't have the geographical advantage that the ante-bellum Northwestern Virginians had in establishing a government.
At Article IV, Section 3, Clause 1: ... no new States shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State;
A state in rebellion is, in fact, a State that not is acting in a manner legitimate to their powers and thus Article IV GUARANTEE would prevail.
Alexander Hamilton Stephens is the name I was looking for previously...
Me at #42: ... West Virginia seceding from Confederate Virginia to the Union would be evidence of Lincoln and the Union endorsing secession.
Me at 64: Not only is it evidence that the Union endorsed secession, it's also evidence that it violated the Constitution in the process -- unless Virginia's secession was endorsed first:
At Article IV, Section 3, Clause 1: ... no new States shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State;
You at #65: A state in rebellion is, in fact, a State that not is acting in a manner legitimate to their powers and thus Article IV GUARANTEE would prevail.
Am not sure what prevailing Guarantee point you're trying to make about Article IV but your categorizing of Virginia as a State in rebellion supports my assertion that the Union violated the Constitution by establishing a new State, West Virginia, in the jurisdiction of Virginia unless it endorsed Virginia's secession first. Rebellion doesn't give the U.S. government power to subvert the Constitution.
Another example of the Union violating the Constitution:
If the Southern states were still actually in the Union, as Lincoln incredibly claimed, then the Emancipation Proclamation was unconstitutional. Neither Lincoln nor Congress had the right to abolish slavery in any state. The only legal ways to abolish it would have been by a constitutional amendment or by the states abolishing it on their own.
Thanks for the info about Missouri at #65 and Virginia at #48. Even though it wasn't exactly counterpoints, was interesting nonetheless. Will check the link you supplied about Fort Sumter when I can.
Am not sure what prevailing Guarantee point you're trying to make about Article IV but your categorizing of Virginia as a State in rebellion supports my assertion that the Union violated the Constitution by establishing a new State...
*Virginia* was in rebellion. By that fact, it was no longer a *state*.
Approach it this way. Under what circumstances and by what method would Fed Gov first determine that a State no longer had a *republican* form of government and what action or actions could it then take?
If the Southern states were still actually in the Union, as Lincoln incredibly claimed, then the Emancipation Proclamation was unconstitutional.
Again, a *conundrum* is being created where none exists. Put simply, there are executive powers that exist in time of war that do not exist in time of peace. A person who openly rebels is, in fact, no longer a civilian. What would that be any different for a legislature or a governor who does?
The family's vast wealth and secrecy have also made it a target of countless conspiracy theories.
If you believe everything you read, the Rothschilds have facilitated the assassination of multiple U.S. Presidents, control the world's money supply, and have a network of clandestine agents that served as puppet business associates during the family's rise to power.
While most of these theories fail to present a shred of evidence, we thought we'd investigate one of the more famous stories regarding the family that has ever been told: that Nathan Rothschild was the driving force behind the War of 1812.
A part, in this case a state, in rebellion against the whole, i.e. fed gov, has abrogated its, for lack of a better word, *rights* under the compact. That includes the security of its border.