"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary." ~ H.L. Mencken
Civil War
"In “Springtime for Jeff Davis and the Confed’racy,” a piece published on his personal blog, April 19, Mr. Timothy Sandefur, a lawyer, author, etc., who likes to mock only southern pronunciation, takes umbrage at my “Civil War and the American Political Economy” (The Freeman, April 2011). Airing definite opinions on secession and the war of 1861-1865, he has unkind words for paleoconservatives generally and the Mises Institute in particular — a place where I certainly do not work."
- Login to post comments
User Login
Search This Site
Recent comments
Root Strikers
Non-Voting
Civil Disobedience
Reprint Rights
Comments
Timothy Sandefur, an ATTORNEY AT LAW, (not a lawyer), wrote: "In all their writings, we witness the pathetic spectacle of professed defenders of liberty arguing in favor of the illegal “right” of a racist despotism to perpetuate its institutions without criticism; of the “right,” that is, to enslave."
That statement is, in the words of Timothy Sandefur himself, "just shockingly ignorant, ...distorted, illogical, and ahistorical", in that I have yet to see any true "defenders of liberty" saying any such thing, let alone "all" of them. Off to a bad start, Timothy Sandefur, lying like that, but what can we expect from an ATTORNEY AT LAW.
Timothy Sandefur, ATTORNEY AT LAW, asserts that "secession was and remains totally illegal", in particular "unilateral secession". Some of us might want to see the particular Amendment to the Constitution, or the so-called law, "made in Pursuance thereof", which makes "secession...totally illegal".
“It cannot seriously be argued today that international law prohibits secession. It cannot seriously be denied that international law permits secession. There is a privilege of secession recognized in international law and the law imposes no duty on any people not to secede.” ~ Thomas Franck, (one of the five international law experts), as quoted in Suzanne Lalonde, Determining Boundaries in a Conflicted World: The Role of UIT POSSIDETIS 209 (2002) [Emphasis added]
And, if it was NOT, and is NOT, "totally illegal", would it not be an overt act of aggression for a foreign nation to place armed troops on another country's soil [Ft. Sumter] without its express permission?
Would this ATTORNEY AT LAW also say that the secession of the original thirteen united States of America from England "was and remains totally illegal"?
Timothy Sandefur, ATTORNEY AT LAW, also needs to understand the fundamental difference between a Declaration and a Constitution; a Declaration 'creates' nothing, it is simply a lawful and/or legal notice, and in the case The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America, specifically, it was a notice of secession.