Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: Sherman Logan; Trod Upon
IOW, if in 1968 there had been a true attempt at revolution by lefties, or if there were one today, those of us who prefer the Constitution and the system it set up would have had no right to resist them.

From a legal standpoint, there was no difference between the South's rebellion in the 1860's and the Watts Rebellion in 1965 or the Detroit riots in 1967. The Union went into the South to restore order and the LAPD and California National Guard did the same thing in Watts. In both cases, civilians were killed.

The strategy of "secession" was to reduce the power/influence of the government in Washington and to increase the power/influence of the state governments because the slaveholders needed the machinery of the state governments to perpetuate their abuse of human rights (slavery) and the slaveholders were concerned that they could no longer count on support from the government in Washington.

To hear some folks nowadays, "secession" was supposedly about about protecting human liberty and personal freedom from a tyrannical government in Washington. In fact, "secession" was actually about increasing the power of the government at the state level so that slaveholders could continue to suppress human liberty and personal freedom. The slaveholders were Statists with a capital S.

222 posted on 09/03/2013 7:37:22 PM PDT by Tau Food (Never give a sword to a man who can't dance.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 219 | View Replies ]


To: Tau Food

Ahh, but my post discussed moral right to revolution, not legality.

Revolutions are by definition illegal, the violent overthrow of law in the service, at least in theory, of a higher good. The Founders never claimed their revolt was legal, since they knew it wasn’t.

They just claimed that when an existing government is using law to oppress the people, they have a moral right to overthrow that government and its laws and replace them with one that more effectively protects their inalienable rights.


223 posted on 09/04/2013 2:27:17 AM PDT by Sherman Logan (Mark Steyn: "In the Middle East, the enemy of our enemy is also our enemy.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 222 | View Replies ]

To: Tau Food
In fact, "secession" was actually about increasing the power of the government at the state level so that slaveholders could continue to suppress human liberty and personal freedom. The slaveholders were Statists with a capital S.

Most people are happy to be, if they are in control of the State.

From the Founding thru the election of 1860, the South had dominated the Federal Government. Secession took place in 1860 because they recognized they had finally lost that control.

They believed, probably correctly, that control was necessary to protect slavery.

Lincoln and the Republicans spoke a good bit about having no constitutional right to interfere with slavery within a state, but there was a great deal they could do to gum up the slaveworks without entering a State.

For instance, Congress could perfectly constitutionally prohibit the interstate commerce in slaves, even between slave states.

If effectively enforced, this would immediately result in a huge rise in price of slaves in the Deep South and a catastrophic drop in price in Upper South and Border states. Virginia in particular had supported itself for decades primarily by selling slaves South.

The Constitution requires return of fugitive slaves, but not how the return be performed. Congress could have repealed the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850, which by default would have returned the process to the states, which would be free to introduce such onerous procedures as to in practice prohibit return. Or Congress could "reform" the FSA and add procedures in Federal courts that would have the same effect.

The Congress elected in 1860/61 would have not had anywhere near the votes to pass such laws, but pretty obviously it was only matter of time till one did.

224 posted on 09/04/2013 2:44:03 AM PDT by Sherman Logan (Mark Steyn: "In the Middle East, the enemy of our enemy is also our enemy.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 222 | View Replies ]

To: Tau Food
From a legal standpoint, there was no difference between the South's rebellion in the 1860's and the Watts Rebellion in 1965 or the Detroit riots in 1967.

The legal POV of the South was that the states were sovereign, and therefore secession was merely an act of state sovereignty, not of individuals engaging in insurrection.

I disagree with that opinion, but it was not an wholly illegitimate one at the time.

Some issues are too fundamental for compromise, so by definition the only way to settle them is by war. Sad but true.

227 posted on 09/04/2013 7:34:59 AM PDT by Sherman Logan (Mark Steyn: "In the Middle East, the enemy of our enemy is also our enemy.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 222 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson