Posted on 06/30/2015 5:21:21 AM PDT by Raebie
Correct. And the goal of the Confederate states was to preserve their institution of slavery in the face of the threat they saw from a Republican administration. Can we agree on that?
So both sides were in agreement on this issue?
In a manner of speaking.
So why do you keep bringing it up as justification for an Invasion by the North? If one side was just as bad as the other, why mislead people about it?
Because I don't think I've every brought up slavery as justification for "invading" the South. There was a war on. A war the Confederacy began. Having had a war forced upon them, the Union set out to win it. Any "invasion" was a result of that and needs no justification from me.
The part that was no different from the slave holding People of Massachusetts in 1776.
Perhaps. But slavery was not a reason why the colonies rebelled. The Declaration of Independence makes no reference to color so some could, and did, make the claim it should apply to blacks as well as whites. So to say that a cause so completely dedicated to the preservation of slavery was for to liberty and freedom is far more hypocritical than the Founding Fathers were.
If you can't recognize the right of slave holding Virginia to secede, you can't recognize the right of slave holding Massachusetts to secede either.
Massacusetts didn't secede, it rebelled. As did the other 12 colonies. They were not under any illusions that their actions were legal. How the Southern states could believe that their method of secession was legal is a mystery to me.
My point is the two secessions were exactly alike in terms of slavery.
I would disagree on at least two counts. Both were rebellions and not secession. And the Southern rebellion was a rebellion for slavery while the Founding Fathers rebellion was not.
I contend the people of Massachusetts did not lose their right to secede from the English Union simply because they condoned slavery.
What right to secede?
Take your anti-South crap somewhere else.
Y'all are so touchy these days. All those anti-flag people must be getting to you.
Sure are. And that includes A-holes such as yourself who hate Southern conservatives.
The goal of the Confederate states was to remove Washington D.C. from the decision making process. Same as it was for the Colonists breaking from England.
In a manner of speaking.
In fact. The both did and condoned this evil thing. I believe the White House was even built with assistance from Slave Labor.
There was a war on. A war the Confederacy began. Having had a war forced upon them, the Union set out to win it. Any "invasion" was a result of that and needs no justification from me.
If you are going to argue the war was started over hurt pride (no real injury) and motivated by revenge, then why don't you stick with that instead of constantly referring to the red herring that the Union fought to abolish slavery? That is at least a plausibly truthful account of what happened.
Perhaps. But slavery was not a reason why the colonies rebelled.
Only because it was condoned without dispute by England as well. Certainly had the English sought to forbid it in the Colonies, the War would very much have included that offense against them.
Even so, the British offered freedom for any slave that would fight against the Colonists. I doubt the Colonists would have appreciated the humor of this.
The Declaration of Independence makes no reference to color so some could, and did, make the claim it should apply to blacks as well as whites.
Not the authors, nor governors nor legislators of any ratifying state make this claim at this time. Sure, it later became the basis for asserting freedom for slaves, but it certainly was not so interpreted between 1776 and 1787.
So to say that a cause so completely dedicated to the preservation of slavery was for to liberty and freedom is far more hypocritical than the Founding Fathers were.
Slavery was just the most prominent dispute between the New England driven Union and the Southern states, but it most certainly was not the only one. Trade policy was strictly tailored to suit the needs of the Industrial North at the expense of the Agrarian South. They were constantly getting outvoted on virtually every issue in which the North favored one thing and the South Favored another.
The issue of Slavery and other concerns boiled down to the belief that the policies of the Union no longer appeared to serve the best interests of the South. Their solution was to govern themselves on the Issue of Slavery, and every other thing as well.
Massacusetts didn't secede, it rebelled. As did the other 12 colonies. They were not under any illusions that their actions were legal.
In terms of English law, but according to Natural law, what they did was perfectly legal.
How the Southern states could believe that their method of secession was legal is a mystery to me.
All the more perplexing because of how many times it has been explained.
American Colonies seceding from England was contrary to English Law. Of that there can be no doubt. But the Colonists did not cite English law, they cited "Natural Law" and stated unequivocally that "Natural Law" grants them the right to Independence.
Therefore, THIS NATION was founded on this natural law principle that a people have a right to independence, ergo this *IS* the law of this nation.
It becomes axiomatic that a nation which cites Natural Law as the source of Authority for it's right to Independence is therefore duty bound to abide by Natural Law when other people seek to exercise the same right.
As these people at this time believed that there was no Higher Law than God and Nature, Independence was therefore legal to seek, just as the Colonists did.
Except for the Southern states the decisions they were most interested in were those that interfered with their slaves. Unlike the colonists who had more pressing concerns about governing, taxation, rights, etc.
In fact. The both did and condoned this evil thing. I believe the White House was even built with assistance from Slave Labor.
I believe you are correct there.
If you are going to argue the war was started over hurt pride (no real injury) and motivated by revenge, then why don't you stick with that instead of constantly referring to the red herring that the Union fought to abolish slavery? That is at least a plausibly truthful account of what happened.
Well hurt pride may have been the Southern motivation for starting the war but the Union recognized the attack on Sumter as the act of war it was intended to be. So having gotten their war I'm not sure what all the Southern bellyaching is about, other than the fact that they then went and lost it.
Certainly had the English sought to forbid it in the Colonies, the War would very much have included that offense against them.
Possibly. But the colonies had real grievances with the crown above and beyond slavery.
Even so, the British offered freedom for any slave that would fight against the Colonists. I doubt the Colonists would have appreciated the humor of this.
Kind of an "emancipation proclamation" kind of thing? You all didn't appreciate it four score and six years later.
Not the authors, nor governors nor legislators of any ratifying state make this claim at this time. Sure, it later became the basis for asserting freedom for slaves, but it certainly was not so interpreted between 1776 and 1787
If you say so.
American Colonies seceding from England was contrary to English Law. Of that there can be no doubt. But the Colonists did not cite English law, they cited "Natural Law" and stated unequivocally that "Natural Law" grants them the right to Independence.
They also didn't call it secession, which implies a legal separation. They called it what it was, a rebellion.
Slavery was just the most prominent dispute between the New England driven Union and the Southern states, but it most certainly was not the only one. Trade policy was strictly tailored to suit the needs of the Industrial North at the expense of the Agrarian South. They were constantly getting outvoted on virtually every issue in which the North favored one thing and the South Favored another.
And yet it wasn't until a president from a party so overtly anti-slavery was elected that the South decided to rebel. Tariffs, trade, all the other excuses you can name didn't cause it. But electing Lincoln did. Go figure.
In terms of English law, but according to Natural law, what they did was perfectly legal.
Amazing how the crown didn't see it that way.
It becomes axiomatic that a nation which cites Natural Law as the source of Authority for it's right to Independence is therefore duty bound to abide by Natural Law when other people seek to exercise the same right.
Yep. Still a mystery.
This is getting us nowhere. After dozens of posts that are getting less and less plesant as time goes by I've decided to leave you be and let you pontificate to other people. I'll try to refrain from posting to you in the future since it's just as amusing watching you lecture others than being on the receiving end.
So your point is that the right to independence can only be exercised if DoodleDawg finds it's motivation worthy prior to the fact.
Well hurt pride may have been the Southern motivation for starting the war but the Union recognized the attack on Sumter as the act of war it was intended to be.
That's why they were expecting the first battle of Mananas; Because they knew the Union would respond to being expelled off South Carolina property by sending a 30,000 man invasion force.
Oh wait. They weren't at all prepared for that Union invasion. Apparently they weren't intending on having a war after all. Further proof is the fact that they didn't invade Washington right after moping up the Only Army which could have stopped them.
Almost a pity I think. Had they simply invaded Washington D.C., it's possible that much further bloodshed would have been prevented. Odd behavior from people who supposedly wanted a war. Anyone who was ready for a war would have jumped at the chance to behead the opposition government.
Kind of an "emancipation proclamation" kind of thing? You all didn't appreciate it four score and six years later.
More like "any tactic that helps us win, and d@mn the principles involved!"
If you say so.
And thus do you gloss over an unpleasant truth. No, it's not because I say so, it's because that is what the objective truth is. The Declaration of Independence freed no slaves, ergo it was not meant to.
And yet it wasn't until a president from a party so overtly anti-slavery was elected that the South decided to rebel. Tariffs, trade, all the other excuses you can name didn't cause it. But electing Lincoln did. Go figure.
I'm pretty sure they figured he would Obama them to death with executive orders and refusing to enforce existing laws, usage of federal employees for attacking and prosecuting them, and so on.
I think that was a very reasonable conjecture given his rhetoric on the campaign trail.
Amazing how the crown didn't see it that way.
The Crown wasn't arguing Natural Law, they were arguing "Divine right of Kings, " and "Perpetual Allegiance to the Crown".
The British argument isn't appropriate for people asserting natural law for their own independence but denying it when people wish to be independent of them. It is in fact, extremely Hypocritical.
Yep. Still a mystery.
Only if you are obtuse. The United States asserted natural law as justification for it's Independence. It denies natural law when others wish to be independent of it. It is hypocritical because it does not adhere to it's own claimed standard.
This is getting us nowhere. After dozens of posts that are getting less and less plesant as time goes by I've decided to leave you be and let you pontificate to other people.
I would find arguing your position very unpleasant as well. I would not want to have my fig leaf stripped from me and then attempt to justify horrible carnage and riven principles without it.
But the fact remains, the damage to the concept of independence caused by that war is still with us today.
That war birthed the Fedzilla, and it's abuses only grew stronger from that period onward. What we face nowadays with an out of Control Fedzilla is the consequence of letting that monster grab so much power in the first place.
This is where the problem began;the committee on style changed it from the above to just we the people. This inferred that the people, not the States, formed the US. Since the States were acceded into the Union, then the reverse would be allowed too. The people inferred that we were a Federalist nation, not a Nation of States. The correct interpretation is that we were a country of States and this is explained in the Federalist Papers.
As with all Liberalism, meanings get skewed into something else which was never intended.
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.