thank you for the information
Ben

And that’s the bottom line. One of the beautiful things about owning this site is that I get to decide who is allowed to post here, and you’re no longer allowed.

Goodbye, neo-Confederate coward.

From the 1861 example: Why did the United States government take so long to consider armed invasion of the Southern states? If secession had been illegal, why didn’t the government just send in the troops right away? Why allow these so-called ‘Rebel’ states to form their own government, complete with a President, a Congress, its own Constitution? Had the United States acted immediately, I might be more inclined to buy into your neo-Unionist hooey (touche’).

BUT: Let us take the example to the modern day, and something that most of us can get a fair grip on since we see it in our newspapers and on our TV sets.

Drug cartels have obviously invaded the state of Arizona. They have set up sniper posts in the mountains. They have threatened, and in some cases carried out those threats, against AZ law enforcement officers. The Federal government (whose job it is to repel invasions) hasn’t done jack-shit to stop the invasion, so AZ has enacted a law to deal with the problem. In typical liberal-idiot fashion, the Obama syndicate (ooops, I mean adminstration) turns around and sues AZ for defending itself in the only way it can. Furthermore, it allows the government of the country from which the cartels come to file an Amicus Curae (Friend of the Court) brief whining about the treatment of its citizens WHO ARE IN ARIZONA ILLEGALLY IN THE FIRST PLACE! Now, if Governor Brewer were to call the legislature into special session and call for an ordinance of secession to take AZ out of the Union because the USG has failed to do its job to protect the people of AZ from invasion, IS SHE JUSTIFIED? I say HELL YES.

What say you?

Thanks for passing that along–I checked it out. Too funny.

Eric

http://uhlan.proboards34.com

…and there’s pictures too. 😉

Safford, John L. “John C. Calhoun, Lani Guinier, and Minority Rights.” PS: Political Science and Politics, Vol. 28, No. 2 (Jun., 1995), 211-216.

Lani Guinier was (is) a black Jewish woman briefly proposed by President Bill Clinton as a nominee for the U.S. Supreme Court. Guinier was an advocate of allowing minorities specifically affected by a given piece of legislation the right to veto (nullify) that legislation; in effect, she was a proponent of the ideas of John C. Calhoun.

Calhoun, in formulating his ideas about nullification (of which secession is an outgrowth), was basing them on the sentiment expressed here (among others):

“..the principle and construction contended for by sundry of the state legislatures, that the general government is the exclusive judge of the extent of the powers delegated to it, stop nothing short of despotism; since the discretion of those who adminster the government, and not the constitution, would be the measure of their powers: That the several states who formed that instrument, being sovereign and independent, have the unquestionable right to judge of its infraction; and that a nullification, by those sovereignties, of all unauthorized acts done under colour of that instrument, is the rightful remedy..”

That’s from the Kentucky Resolutions of 1798, written by none other than Thomas Jefferson. While I am not an advocate of secession, then or now, I think the argument about it (in general, not this particular one) frequently ignores/forgets that the division between Jeffersonian/Hamiltonian ideas about the nature and relationship of the federal government to the states had not been resolved by the 1830s (Calhoun’s first Ordinance of Secession), nor by 1861.

Dave Kelly’s first paragraph was right on…the issue of states’ rights was real and not an abstraction. In fact, we still argue about it today (see Roe v. Wade, gay marriage, etc.) The ‘neo-Confederate’ you quote also has a point in saying that (paraphrasing) ‘secession wasn’t against the law (i.e., addressed in the Constitution) then or now.’ Although you didn’t address this point, it’s a valid one, and I think it’s part of the reason that the argument continues in 2006.

Thanks for writing.

Your post is the sort of thoughtful and well-reasoned discourse that I appreciate a great deal, because it demonstrates that you’ve not only studied the topic, you’ve also reasoned this stuff out.

I agree with you, by the way. Calhoun was a great man, but his South Carolina roots obviously make him a major figure in secession lore.

Eric

I note this because Calhoun’s writings have always struck me as a bit underrated. He graduated from Yale, and served in Congress in 1810 and was James Monroe’s Secretary of State. I mention these things because his early career intersected with a few of the Framers (with whom he had contact) as well as giants such as John Marshall. Calhoun was an active constitutionalist–and a serious thinker whose writings, while they ultimately helped advise those leading the rebellion, still resonate on several levels.

Love your provocative posts! Sexy!

Thanks very much for your feedback. It, of course, goes without saying that I agree with all of you. Trish, you’ve been right in the middle of that particular skirmish, and I’ve very much appreciated your support throughout the process.

As I said, I pick and choose my moments carefully, but when I do decide to pitch in, it’s usually with everything I’ve got. This was clearly one of those instances.

Eric