Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

To: DiogenesLamp

Not a general principle, but a highly conditional one. The Declaration of Independence first establishes the unique conditions under which such an insurrection Maybe valid and then proceeds to document the ways the numerous and unique ways in which the behavior of the King has made those conditions exist. And the belligerents with which the Confederacy flew to war is absurd. The states rights argument Falls laughably hard Hollow given hell the precipitation of more was the Southern States desire to export slavery into States who’s earliest settlers had no interest in slavery. They knew that there would be less political defense for slavery the more and more non-slave states joined the union so they pressed on to ensure that other states did not have rights including that they must participate in the evil process of rounding up and sending back off on to their torture and even death slaves sua dared to escape the Deep South.


331 posted on 06/22/2018 8:40:11 PM PDT by dangus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 328 | View Replies ]


To: dangus
Not a general principle, but a highly conditional one.

The only condition the Declaration places on a populace is a desire for a new government. It places no other "conditions".

The Declaration of Independence first establishes the unique conditions under which such an insurrection Maybe valid and then proceeds to document the ways the numerous and unique ways in which the behavior of the King has made those conditions exist.

The Declaration asserts it is a courtesy to list the causes, not a requirement.

The states rights argument Falls laughably hard Hollow given hell the precipitation of more was the Southern States desire to export slavery into States who’s earliest settlers had no interest in slavery.

Why do the opinions of some give them veto power over others? Under the constitution of that era, Slavery was legal so far as the Federal government was concerned. The Constitution required states to respect the privileges and immunities of other states, and the territories should have been required to do so as well.

If slave holders wanted to move into the territories, under the law of that time, they should have been allowed to do so if they wished. Of course none of the territories could have supported plantation slavery, and it would have been a waste of time, but that is beside the point.

They knew that there would be less political defense for slavery the more and more non-slave states joined the union so they pressed on to ensure that other states did not have rights including that they must participate in the evil process of rounding up and sending back off on to their torture and even death slaves sua dared to escape the Deep South.

Actually, the US constitution required that they do that. Look up article IV, section 2. It requires slaves to be returned. At the time of the writing of the US Constitution, the vast majority of states were slave states. What the none slave states wanted was the ability to change the US constitution without going through the amendment process.

They eventually got that.

484 posted on 06/25/2018 3:35:52 PM PDT by DiogenesLamp ("of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 331 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article


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