Posted on 10/03/2015 1:28:14 PM PDT by Kaslin
The South disagreed, believing that the Federal fugitive slave law should preempt the Northern states' rights.
Thereupon the Southern states seceded in order to form a new federal government of their own, under which states were not free to make their own laws regarding slavery.
So yes! the Civil War originated as a states' rights issue. It's just that the North was the pro states' rights side........
Except the Southern States still will part of a Rrpublican government with the consent of the governed. In fact they controlled the Supreme Court. Just like Gore vs Bush, Democrats wanted to suppress the consent if the governed and play by their own rules.
Lincoln was a war criminal and a mass murderer. He should have been hung for crimes against humanity.
“The people who were traitors to the principles upon which *THIS* nation was founded were the ones who denied the right of Independence to others.”
Yes, the Confederates were the traitors who denied the U.S. Constitution, re-enslaved freemen who had already gained their freedom, denied the right of suffrage to Southern citizens in order to traitorously usurp the Republican form of government mandated by the U.S. Constitution, and committed manifold other capital offenses.
“The Declaration of Independence says that people have a God given right to leave a government which no longer suits their interests. It is the basis upon which we justified our secession from the United Kingdom. “
Yes, and the Confederate illegally and immorally refused to abide by the provisions of the U.S. Constitution which governed how to modify the government or in the alternative how to lawfully secede from the Union of the United States in the same manner by which a state acceded to the union of the United States. In their contempt for the rule of law and the Constitution, the wannabe Confederates continue to deny the U.S. Constitution and refuse to acknowledge the obligations and rights provided for in the Constitution to change government lawfully and even to secede lawfully.
“The same Principle should have been respected by the US Government in 1861.”
It is the Confederates and their wannabes who are the parties who are refusing to respect the Principle, the Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation, and the U.S. Constitution. So long as they continue to respect these foundations of the Republic, they need to emigrate and join the other Confederate traitors to the Constitution.
Several Northern states, exercising their states' rights, decided that they would NOT actively enforce the federal law which required the return of escaped slaves to their self-styled "owners".
The South disagreed, believing that the Federal fugitive slave law should preempt the Northern states' rights.
Thereupon the Southern states seceded in order to form a new federal government of their own, under which states were not free to make their own laws regarding slavery.
So yes! the Civil War originated as a states' rights issue. It's just that the North was the pro states' rights side........
Not sure what you’re driving at. It is a historical fact however, that Southern Democrats stated before the election that they would secede if Lincoln won.
Correct!
Cheap cotton for northern factories and tariffs on tobacco and everything else the south produced.
Which means that had the South offered a conditional surrender contingent upon keeping slavery, Lincoln would have likely taken it at this same period of time.
I've seen it asserted that the Emancipation was primarily a tool for weakening the South's attempts to get foreign support and to boost the moral of his supporters, plus laying the political ground work for stealing all the money the South invested in slavery by taking them without recompense.
Then why were 93% of them collected in New York, Boston, and Philadelphia?
The modern day irony is the fact that US paper currency is made of cotton..
It’s made of cotton..!
“So how does he/she/it figure that the Union was fighting a war to end slavery?”
The United States Government was obligated by the Constitution to suppress the unlawful Rebellion:
Constitution
Article. IV.
Section. 3.
New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.
The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.
Section. 4.
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened), against domestic Violence.
It is a requirement written into the US Constitutions. It may have been a state right to refuse to hand back fugitive slaves prior to the US Constitution, but after having ratified it, they must be regarded as having agreed to those terms.
The US Constitution required states to give back fugitive slaves. They could have objected to this requirement prior to agreeing to it, but once they agreed to it, they can no longer refuse to follow it. They voluntarily gave up that "state right."
Note, the seceding states used an unlawful method of seceding knowing the other states in Congress would rightfully defeat the lawful methods of secession.
The Government no longer had the consent of the Southern States, just as England no longer had the consent of the 13 slave owning colonies.
What the rest of England thought was immaterial. The Founders obviously regarded the right of states to secede from England as valid.
The South did win the Reconstruction, until the 1960s.
We were attacked at Fort Sumter, as at Pearl Harbor.
We would have reunited, and become the United States again. But without a lot of the baggage with which we are presently saddled. We would have been a more disciplined and respectful -- and respected -- nation than what we are today.
What tyranny?
The Declaration of Independence is the only thing which gives authority to the US Constitution. The US constitution is the daughter of the Declaration, and therefore stands in an inferior position in relation to it.
The Right of Independence is given by God, the US Constitution was written by a committee of men and is an act of men.
Acts of men do not trump Rights given by God.
And yet, Lincoln permitted New Mexico to choose whether to be a slave or free state, in spite of the Missouri compromise. Nor were a few Northern states not slave states after 1865, although I forget which at the moment.
I come from stock on both sides.
I now know, however, that what I was taught about the war was true only after a fashion. Does that mean I would have or do support slavery? No.
The argument to me is moot. WaPo wrote in 2013 that there are 60,000 slaves in the US and 30,000,000 in the world. This was in 2013.
Our own debt makes us slaves to the debt holders, for which we shall pay dearly.
In short, the war is not the one of the 1800s US. It’s here and now.
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.