Posted on 07/29/2019 8:44:07 AM PDT by ransomnote
*YOU* do not get to decide for others what is "intolerable."
You just need to stop with your f***ing arrogance on this point.
*YOU* get to decide for *YOU.* You don't get to decide for other people.
As i've pointed out to you innumerable times, Neither the Canadians, the Loyalists, or the British government believed the Colonists had suffered any abuses.
The Colonists disagreed.
Games Liberals play. Rejigger the Southern objections to "at pleasure", then decide subjectively what constitutes "pleasure" versus intolerable abuses."
Once again, You are trying to be supreme judge of the world, because *YOU* are presuming to declare for others what is "pleasure" and what is "abuse."
*YOU* do NOT get to be dictator. Grow the f*** up!
Mentioned indirectly in both, and considering it was the defacto status quo for the vast majority of the states when both were written, it required no special mention in either document. It was simply the acknowledged law of the land in that era.
Thomas Jefferson did write a powerful anti-slavery paragraph for the Declaration, but his fellow Southerners wouldn't have it.
And for some reason, you don't recognize this collective voice of the majority as the defining position of the entire document. It's like you don't even comprehend this representative Democracy concept.
Thomas Jefferson was chosen to write a document that represented the position of all the states, not his own personal preferences. They corrected him when he deviated from the primary purpose of the document, as well they should have done.
Even so, he managed to indirectly get some of his anti-slavery ideas into the document anyways, and so far as I can tell, no man deserves more credit for triggering the subsequent abolition movement.
That's not accurate at all. It allowed them to prevent the creation of new slaves through their state laws. It specifically forbade them from making any law that would free a slave held by other states laws. (Article IV, Section 2.)
They also could not seize any slaves that had already been born under their laws, because that would be a fifth amendment violation. The states could also not forbid someone who owned slaves by the laws of other states from entering their state.
So state laws couldn't actually do very much.
The CS constitution did the opposite. It mandated all current states and new stares must allow slavery. (So much for stared rights.) It also mandated that any territory acquired by the CSA must allow slavery.
The US constitution effectively said the same thing, it's just that people chose to read it as giving them the power to control slavery, when they really did not have such power. They only got away with what they did because they simply reinterpreted constitutional law in a liberal manner which would allow them to get away with what they were doing.
As has been pointed out numerous times, George Washington continued keeping slaves in Pennsylvania after it had passed a law to abolish slavery.
The only difference on this point between the CSA constitution and the USA constitution is that nobody could "reinterpret" the CSA constitution to change it's meaning in the manner that occurred with the USA constitution.
Had they known what the liberal liars were going to do when the US Constitution was ratified in 1789, they would have likely demanded some verbiage in there to make it impossible for Northern states to do what they did.
No one asked me but this is my understanding as well.
He is characterizing the natural law right of Independence as having a BroJoeK subjective veto clause in it, which it does not.
“Here a founding father you might listen to about the importance of national unity and putting being an American before anything else. “The unity of government which . . .”
Was this a view he held “while living?”
No it was in response to your claim our Founders could not have agreed with Madison because, as you said, "They were dead, Jim!"
It seemed a matter of unexpected confusion to jeffersondem, so I was careful to specify.
BroJoeK, your gaffe machine is bigger than BroJoe Biden’s gaffe machine.
Gaff? No, irony.
I notice, for a self proclaimed humorist, you do seem to have difficulty with irony.
As for our brother Biden, I was always told as a boy that Democrats raised the dead every election day to vote for their candidates.
Now it seems some of their walking dead have stayed above ground to run for office... {rat-atat-tat boom}
Crédit Mobilier. Teapot Dome. Corruption knows no party line.
“Gaff? No, irony.”
You tell me.
Do you want me to start your vocabulary lesson with irony, gaff, or gaffe?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.