Posted on 11/23/2014 1:51:47 PM PST by aMorePerfectUnion
I'll allow James Madison to answer that.
I return my thanks for the copy of your late very powerful Speech in the Senate of the United S. It crushes "nullification" and must hasten the abandonment of "Secession." But this dodges the blow by confounding the claim to secede at will, with the right of seceding from intolerable oppression. The former answers itself, being a violation, without cause, of a faith solemnly pledged. The latter is another name only for revolution, about which there is no theoretic controversy.
The expansion of slavery was why the South took up arms. Preserving the Union was why the North took up arms.
By what natural law principle was it necessary to preserve the Union? Why must a wife be forced to stay with her husband if she doesn't wish to do so?
...But this dodges the blow by confounding the claim to secede at will, with the right of seceding from intolerable oppression...
Madison is saying that it's okay if you are facing intolerable oppression. So who gets to decide if their oppression is intolerable?
Obviously King George did not think the Colonies were intolerably oppressed. For that matter, neither did the third of the population that constituted the British loyalists. Neither did the populations of Canada.
It would appear that if we follow the example of the founders, it is they who decided the oppression was intolerable, while obviously the King disagreed.
So who gets to decide? The people who want out, or the people who want to keep them in?
Ever hear of divorce court? She does not just get to declare the marriage contract over via unilateral secession.
Didn't we? Didn't we inform the King that we no longer wished to be part of Britain? Again, how is this different from American Independence from England?
I think you will concede that any man can leave this country and become a member of another. Why then cannot many such people?
It's pretty obvious King George didn't give a damn what the Colonies thought. That's the way tyrants operate.
They can... leave the country that is. Go anywhere you wish. But the land remains with the United States.
And the King said no way. We had to win a long, bitter war to make it a reality.
The north went to war to save the union and in the process freed the slaves. The south went to war to save slavery and in the process lost everything.
And this argument simplifies to "Might makes right", which is, I believe, an accurate assessment of what happened.
King George had the power necessary to win. What he lacked was the will to do so. So our great founding, rather than being a matter of principles in which we claim to believe, simply comes down to a matter of a lack of will power on the part of the British Chief executive.
Had Lincoln been in charge, we would all still be singing "God Save the King."
I have no argument with this claim. It accurately states the Union objectives at the beginning of the war.
However, why didn't the Southern states have just as much right to their independence as did the colonies from Britain? Again, the declaration of Independence (our founding document) recognizes the right of people to abolish one from of government and create another to their liking.
--That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
Is it not their land?
For years the colonialists sought equity with the crown. It was only after our efforts were met with the edge of a sword that we rebelled. And we clearly rebelled against the authority of the crown. Those who stood did so in full knowledge that failure meant death.
I think you will concede that any man can leave this country and become a member of another. Why then cannot many such people?
It wasn't so much what the insurrectionists did as how they did it. Antagonistic, belligerent "secession" was their first course of action, not their last resort. Violent confrontation was their preferred method of communication. Theft of armaments, treasuries, and well anything that wasn't nailed down (and a lot that was) was their modus operandi. The rebellion demanded a response.
Because they had signed on to an agreement that tied their fortunes to the Union, an agreement which has no provision for withdrawal.
Yes, our founding documents recognize the natural right of rebellion. And the Founding Fathers recognized the difference between annoyances and intolerable oppression. The south suffered no intolerable oppression. Although they were perfectly within their prerogative to seek dissolution they had no right to do so unilaterally.
Yes they did. It is only by divine providence that events worked out to produce the longshot victory which occurred for our side.
It wasn't so much what the insurrectionists did as how they did it. Antagonistic, belligerent "secession" was their first course of action, not their last resort. Violent confrontation was their preferred method of communication. Theft of armaments, treasuries, and well anything that wasn't nailed down (and a lot that was) was their modus operandi. The rebellion demanded a response.
And this is actually a reasonable position given the facts. They picked a fight when they shouldn't have. Had they just minded their own business, they would likely have been left alone.
I have a friend (Black, and a History major) that is convinced Lincoln deliberately egged them into attacking Ft. Sumter. He praises Lincoln for his genius in doing so.
I think history would have certainly worked out differently if they hadn't risen to the bait.
But it's still Ironic that Lincoln chose to use the Declaration of Independence after a battle fought to prevent Independence.
The Declaration of Independence argues that the "Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness." is a fundamental right. Can you sign your fundamental rights away? Isn't that a little like slavery?
I will point out also that the British Colonists were expected (required by law) to show perpetual allegiance to the King. We see how that turned out.
If the US Constitution had had a roach motel clause saying once states entered the union they cant get out then it would never have been ratified. The converse is also true.
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.