Posted on 04/02/2021 9:04:55 AM PDT by gattaca
The land of the United States was owned by the British Crown in perpetuity. Natural law says the land belongs to those who reside on it.
We followed natural law in our exodus from English rule. Natural law still applies.
Depends on what you regard as "proof". There is plenty of written evidence about what happened in Chicago, and a rational man can only interpret it as dirty tricks.
In fact, I long ago ran across an article entitled "Dirty Tricks at the WigWam." There are more, but this one I can find quick enough.
So no problem for you if the Cuban Government attacks Guantanamo Bay and takes control of it. It’s just “natural Law”
I would give them credit for that were it something they set out to do when they invaded. As their only intent was forcing other people to live under their dominion, I can't give them credit for doing something good for ulterior reasons.
I will once again point out that they didn't even bother to free their own slaves, so clearly it was not their motivation that slaves be freed for moral reasons.
I am now convinced they only did it to prevent the South from retaliating against them economically, which it would have certainly done had they not freed the slaves.
Remember it was Seward that engineered the plan to save Fort Pickens.
All of them that had a coastline.
they didn’t even bother to free their own slaves,
What Constitutional path did Lincoln have to free the slaves in MO, Ky, MD and DE?
Race obsessed big city tax and spend liberals won that war. The Southerners were paying for the government, and the "Mercantilists" were spending the money on big government projects in the Northern states.
Look up the railroads of that era. All the northern railroads were paid for by the Federal government, and all the Southern railroads were paid for by private industry.
The Liberal Confederacy and their desire to retain slavery lost and lost big time.
Their goal wasn't to retain slavery. They could have done that simply by staying in the USA. What they wanted was independence from corrupt Washington DC which was taking 73% of it's money from the Southern states, and spending it on boondoggle projects in the Northern states.
Gustavus Fox.
It's just as bad under the USA flag as it is under the other flag, but since both sides agreed to keep doing that, I can hardly see where it is an issue in discussing why the North invaded the South.
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/rebellion
“What does Rebellion mean”
“A rebellion is an attempt to overthrow a government—an organized revolution.”
“so you have no problem with human beings being owned like dogs, cattle or sheep?”
Again, are you asking because you know I’m a strong supporter of the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution - and of historical attempts to preserve both?
Yes, I know that 13 of the original 13 states were slave states. And that those 13 states voted to enshrine slavery into the United States Constitution.
Fortunately, the founders of the Constitution provided a means to peacefully amend the Constitution to end human bondage.
Unfortunately, Lincoln and the North refused to use the peaceful Constitutional method. As far as I know, Lincoln never attempted to amend the Constitution to prohibit slavery prior to the war - even when he served in Congress.
The war would have started there if it hadn't started at Sumter. David Porter was going to start one anyway.
What Constitutional path did Lincoln have to free the slaves in MO, Ky, MD and DE?
None. And What constitutional path did he have to free the slaves anywhere else?
It called war. One side defends, one side attacks. In this case the North had to control the south to end the war. Just as we had to control German or Japan to end that war.
He actually supported an effort to amend the constitution to preserve slavery indefinitely.
Because they will never let anyone leave. Can’t have anyone show growth, freedom, liberty.... it would spell death to the old school. I’m not sure what the answer is. I am a person given God given liberty. Not a subject of the USSA.
Exactly, and what does "war" have to do with slavery which both sides kept going all throughout the war, and the winning side for 8 months longer?
The Power of the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces of the United States in time of war. Slaves were absolutely necessary to the Confederacy effort. Any action taken to disrupt the use of slave would benefit the Union cause and damage the Confederate cause.
They left before Lincoln was inaugurated. No negotiations.
They produced the far greater majority of all payments made to the Federal treasury, and they had only 1/4th the populationP> Nonsense.
It was their property in the first place, and was only given to the Federal government for the purpose of defending their states.
It was the property of all the states, North and South.
They left in December of 1860. That was "out the door."
And you claimed Lincoln refused to negotiate.
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.