Posted on 07/11/2015 9:54:21 AM PDT by golux
And so do I.
Message to the US Congress December 3, 1860 from President James Buchanan:
. "Why is it...that discontent now so extensively prevails, and the Union of the States...is threatened with destruction?
"The long-continued and intemperate interference of the Northern people with the question of slavery in the Southern States has at length produced its natural effects. The different sections of the Union are now arrayed against each other, and the time has arrived, so much dreaded by the Father of his Country, when hostile geographic parties have been formed.
"I have long foreseen and often forewarned my countrymen of the now impending danger. This does not proceed soley from the claim on the part of Congress or the Territorial legislatures to exclude slavery from the Territories, nor from the efforts of different States to defeat the execution of the fugitive-slave law.
"All or any of these evils might have been endured by the South without danger to the Union (as others have been) in the hope that time and reflection might apply the remedy.
"The immediate peril arises not so much from these causes as from the fact that the incessant and violent agitation of the slavery question throughout the North for the last quarter of a century has at length produced its malign influence on the slaves and inspired them with vague notions of freedom. Hence a sense of security no longer exists around the family altar. This feeling of peace at home has given place to apprehensions of servile insurrections. Many a matron throughout the South retires at night in dread of what may befall herself and children before the morning. Should this apprehension of domestic danger, whether real or imaginary, extend and intensify itself until it shall pervade the masses of the Southern people, then disunion will become inevitable.
Then you’ve made your choice. See how easy that was?
I think it had more to do with killing their sons, wrecking their economy, Burning entire cities to the ground, destroying their assets, laying waste to huge swaths of their land and territory, and destroying their prospects for a decent future.
All in the name of forcing them back into the Union, for their own good, mind you.
And if you disagree, you've made the choice to embrace Slavery. See how easy that was?
It’s nice how the spineless POS buchanan wheedled on about how terrible secession was and what a horrible thing civil war would be and then kicked the can down the road (and in doing so virtually guaranteed that there would be a violent confrontation) so that the actual dirty deed would fall upon his successor to deal with.
What a putz!
I can see how someone like you could believe that.
English law was against it. US existence is based on it. One would think they would respect the philosophical foundation upon which their very own existence is based.
Walking out, without discussion,
You're nuts. The "discussion" was going on since 1789. It just reached a point where there was no benefit to any further discussion.
repudiating responsibility for national obligations the country entered into while you were a part,
You mean paying the taxes put upon them by losing votes to the majority? Reminds me of the definition of Democracy. "Two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner."
and with everything you could take is not legal.
You have a cash value number for everything you are claiming as an "asset" that they took? Because it needs to be compared to their contributions before it has any meaning.
But you and I both know this isn't about "assets" or "Obligations", that is just your deflection argument to justify what happened subsequently. I very much doubt there was any significant impact to the FedGov from what the Confederates kept in the way of assets.
People like Madison said it was illegal.
Not when he was trying to talk Virginia into joining. Then he said it was a perfectly reasonable solution to potential future problems.
Madison was a bit two faced. The James McClure issue also puts Madison on the opposite side of where he was 20 years earlier.
The only thing the Confederates had in common with the colonists is that you both entered into rebellions.
The "rebels" were the ones who did not respect the founding document of their own country; the document that said people had a right to independence. *THAT* is who "rebelled." What the CSA did was consistent with the principles laid out in the Declaration of Independence.
Because "Independence" was against the law of the Nation to which they belonged.
However, in this nation the concept was enshrined in our first and highest law.
Leaving was not rebellion. Stopping people from leaving, was rebellion.
Again, the Declaration created the government. The Articles of Confederation were the first set of operating rules, and the US Constitution were the second.
Never forget which of the three documents created the other two, and is therefore legally superior.
Do you really believe that the Founders would allow states to leave in a way guaranteed to cause disagreement and conflict?
Such as occurred when they left Britain? No, I can't imagine such a thing.
:)
Doesn’t it make your head hurt to turn common sense and logic on its head the way you do?
No, I guess not.
Which is what the Founders of the US wanted too, and likewise to which they asserted they had a right.
If you are going to talk about Racism being an issue with independence, start with the creation of the United States from the 13 slave holding colonies.
The DOL announced the formation of a new nation. It wasn't the creation of government. The AOC (and later the USC) are the foundations for how our republic operates.
So, we’ve skipped past what the secessionists actually said in late December 1860 (South Carolina) and early 1861 for the rest. Please note that Buchanan did not secede, but the various States did. I would consider what South Carolina, and Mississippi, and Texas, and Florida, and Georgia actually said as to why they are seceding over what Buchanan said would be the cause. But, if you read what Buchanan said, it implies that the South seceded because the mean people in the North hurt their little fe-fes, and not on the actual acts (no expansion of slavery to the Territories, lax enforcement of the Fugitive Slave Act).
And, incidentally, Buchanan? Buchanan? He’s at or near the bottom on virtually every list of presidents. You’re using him as your basis, when he did the best portrayal of Nero fiddling while Rome burned ever done in the Western Hemisphere.
Which makes the entire controversy contingent upon a single point. Did they have a legal right to leave, or did the Union have a legal right to force them to stay?
You still haven't answered that question. You know exactly to which document I will point to support my position.
And I can see how someone filled with an illusion of moral superiority would regard forcing others to bend to their will as *NOT* slavery.
You see, it's not slavery when you do it.
Reminds me of that old joke about the fellow who says:
"I *HATE* intolerance, and I will *KILL* anyone being intolerant!"
Even more appropriately it’s not slavery because I don’t do it.
(*groan*) Not again...
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.