Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
Brion McClanahan
MemberThe constitutional argument centered on the same principles Jackson used when he advocated the Force Bill in the 1830s against South Carolina. Secession was illegal, the States were in “rebellion” against the government, and had violated Article I, Section 10 of the Constitution. I don’t think any of these points are valid, but those were the arguments, generally, most importantly the first of the list.
MemberI think it has been covered before but there are a few problems with talking about this on both the Left and the Right (and by the right I mean neo-conservatives):
1. Johnson is a sacred-cow for the Left. His Great Society extended New Deal nonsense to an unsustainable point, but the Left cannot admit that the man was a failure. Doing so would undermine their admiration for the “butter” part of “guns and butter.” If Johnson was willing to violate his oath in Vietnam, why not in the United States?
2. Neo-cons cannot admit that the war in Vietnam was built on a lie. Doing so would taint the War in Iraq, also built on a lie.
The Vietnam War was an outgrowth of post-World War II foreign policy goals, namely Truman’s policy of containment and the fear of the domino theory in Southeast Asia. The French were booted out in 1954 and the United States filled the vacuum in an attempt to stop communist aggression in Asia. We supported a thug in Ngo Dinh Diem but he was our thug until the Kennedy administration had him assassinated in 1963 and replaced with another military thug again to stop the communist threat from the North (Ho Chi Minh).
I don’t think there are any other motives for American involvement in Vietnam other than the Cold War. It was seen as a place to halt the global threat of communism. The Gulf of Tonkin incident was the way to get the Congress to authorize force and to sell it to the American people, a la weapons of mass destruction. It had been reluctant to do so before.
MemberWhen I was in college, the entire political science department (Marxists) believed they had all the answers for a better Constitution, better governing system, and better political system. This is debated all the time. It was even debated while the Constitution was being ratified. The Confederate Constitution of 1861 sought to make improvements. Certainly the infallible reputation for the Constitution and the Framers is debatable.
Member1789 when the First Congress passed the Judiciary Act. It has been a slow death ever since.
MemberThis was discussed in 1787 and 1788 and most suggested that legal coercion would need to be used rather than military force.
MemberNo, you are not missing anything. The conventions that voted to leave the Union in 1860-61 had larger majorities in favor of secession than what is assumed were for it in 1776. And, they were elected by the people of their respective states.
May 19, 2014 at 1:37 pm in reply to: Rothbard, Religion, and the War for Southern Independence #15385MemberTheology played a role on both sides, and certainly Northern Puritanical zeal had much to do with reform efforts aimed at not only abolishing slavery, but every other moral crusade as well (temperance, women’s suffrage, etc). Northern theology also gave the South its Christian defense of slavery. See Larry Tise, “Proslavery” for a nice discuss on this trend.
MemberThere were some clandestine operations by Southerners aimed at skirting the prohibition on the international slave trade, but the majority of the capital for such ventures came from the North. Look up the history of the Brown family (Brown University) or where the money used to pay for Faneuil Hall originated.
MemberKirk wrote a wonderful biography of John Randolph which included many of his speeches. It is well worth reading.
MemberAll freeholders/citizens were equal under the law which by default was the British tradition (Magna Carta). Jefferson said he was not inventing something new here, simply expressing the American mind. Equality with a capital “E” and equality with a lower case “e” are two different things.
MemberBuchanan acted by calling in federal troops but I believe the VA militia participated as well.
As for the Article IV Section 8 argument, the Southern States were out of the Union and therefore the Constitution was no longer valid law. They understood that war could be a possibility but hoped it would not happen.
MemberLincoln worked with the largest slaveowner in Delaware (who by the way was a Republican) during the War to hammer out the details of a compensated emancipation plan. When the figures were presented to congressional Republican leaders, they balked at the amount of money it would take to pull it off. Lincoln also proposed a plan to colonize free blacks in Africa. His hero Henry Clay had been behind such an idea earlier in the 19th century. Again, the Republicans argued the costs outweighed the benefits.
But Lincoln had no plan to do any of this before the War began. He stance was simple: no compromise with the South even to save the Union. Lincoln chose party over Union and party over the Constitution.
MemberNathaniel Macon (I paraphrase): “Nullification is a bad idea. You should just secede.”
MemberDan,
Dr. Gutzman is a firm proponent of an Article V Convention and has been for longer than Levin and others have been promoting the idea. It could work, particularly if it is regulated properly. Until then, and possibly forever because there is no guarantee a convention will be called, nullification is the best solution within the framework of the Union.
Here is what I said about it at the Daily Caller: http://dailycaller.com/2014/01/17/mark-levins-fair-weather-federalism/
MemberNo State allowed for recalling Senators. It was discussed in 1788 during ratification, but nothing ever came of it. New York considered it as a possible amendment in their ratifying convention. In fact, many Senators ignored directions from the State legislatures.
-
AuthorPosts