Posted on 07/18/2022 1:02:13 PM PDT by Dr. Franklin
“The Constitution does not supersede the natural law right of Independence.”
Now, that is rich. The 13 colonies signed a document of Perpetual Union, and that was the basis of the Constitution that later came.
You can’t be independent from your vow and responsibilities. If you made a contract and a vow, it’s permanently in effect.
Now, if that legal basis allows an out, then you can use it, but abandonment does not break the vow, or its repercussions.
Your great argument is also held by fathers and mothers who walk put on their kids to get permanently lost in the drug culture, so at least you have company for your views.
I like this analogy.
The CSA was a wife. For whatever reason she wanted to separate from her husband. She tells him she's leaving. He grabs her. (Fort Sumter.) She tells him to let go. (Surrounds Sumter with troops). He refuses.
She insists that he let go of her. (Message sent to Anderson to evacuate the fort.) He refuses and then tries to punch her in the mouth. (Lincoln sent fleet of warships with orders to attack the confederates at Charleston Harbor.)
She sees the punch coming, and punches him in the mouth instead. (Confederates fire on Sumter.)
Husband responds by using his 4 times larger size to beat her senseless. Knocking out her teeth, punching her in the face repeatedly, kicking her in the stomach, and d@mn near killing her with his vicious attack against her.
Then tells her it's *HER* fault that he had to beat her up so bad. "Look what you made me do to you!" He says.
"*That* will teach you to try and leave me!" And he has been abusing her ever since.
Yup. Your analogy works quite well.
This statement reminds me of how the Russians explain their invasion of Ukraine. "The Ukrainians have been allowing the US to operate bioweapons labs that were researching how to kill people of Russian descent with a genetically modified virus."
"The Ukrainians were oppressing Russian people who lived in the Ukraine. The Ukrainians overthrew a valid elected government favorable to Russia and installed a puppet leader hostile to Russians. And so on. "
You are repeating what their enemies said about them. But beside that, what does "Nobel" have to do with anything?
The Declaration of Independence asserts that people have a right to independence. You don't get to second guess their motives. This is like saying people only have a right to freedom of speech *IF* you agree with what they are going to say.
People have a right to independence even if *YOU* think their motives are bad. Certainly the British didn't believe the Colonists had good motives. From their perspective, the Colonists were ungrateful and disloyal to their required allegiance to the King. The colonists had immoral reasons so far as the British were concerned.
The right to Independence has nothing to do with how "noble" someone is. They have the right to independence whether they are Noble or not.
Even sick people have a right to be wrong and still be allowed due process...
Well see, you do kinda get the idea.
all the states formally agreed upon and had to abide by.
All states agreed to the process outlined in the Declaration of Independence.
Well that's incorrect. Not only did the Northern states continue to have slavery during the Civil War, they didn't even get rid of slavery until 8 months after the Civil War was over.
In addition to that, Lincoln spearheaded the effort to make slavery permanent in the United States by his support for the Corwin Amendment. (March of 1861.) So with Lincoln advocating a constitutional amendment to make slavery permanent, how can you say only the southern states insisted on slavery?
Also the "growing slavery" part is incorrect. Slavery could not grow outside of the regions where it was already in place. The lands in the territories simply could not support any large slavery presence because cotton could not be grown in these areas.
Also, you may not want to know, but the primary reason people opposed slavery was because they hated black people and did not want them in their states or the territories, which they regarded as needing to be preserved for white people only.
Yes, the Northern people were very ugly about racism and hatred of blacks, but all that has been covered up and people don't look at it.
That is why the South required a pro slave state to be admitted with each state that was against it, as the country grew.
You are again repeating claims from their enemies.
The Northern coalition had acquired such a large control of congress that they were successfully taxing the South for 72% of the all the taxes going to the Federal government. The Northern states, far more numerous and populous, were only paying 28% of the total tax burden.
The Southern states wanted additional states that would be empathetic towards them so that they could change the laws which had them paying 72% of the taxes.
The concern from the North about "expansion of slavery" was not based on moral reasons. It was based on a desire to maintain their dominance in the Congress which kept the money flowing into their pockets from the South, and it was based on an absolutely terrifying hatred of black people and a desire to keep them out of the territories which they wanted reserved for white people only.
I can see i'm educating you quite a lot about the ugly realities of 1860 America. What you have been taught growing up are lies and half-truths.
You may not be aware, but in 1787, all of them except for Massachusetts were still slave states.
This would be a good argument except for the fact that the framers of the US Constitution did not adhere to the requirements of the Articles of Confederation. The Articles of Confederation required a unanimous consent of all states signatory to the agreement, and of course the Constitutional convention preceded in spite of the fact they did not receive consent or delegates from all the states. (Rhode Island refused to participate.)
So in essence, the framers abandoned the requirements of the Articles of Confederation in creating the Constitution, so it is silly to demand that only one group of parties be required to adhere to something written in the Articles of Confederation.
Furthermore, the state of Rhode Island rejected ratification several times. They only grudgingly ratified the Constitution after having been threatened with a trade embargo against them and intimidation of violence from the proponents of the US Constitution.
When they finally did ratify the US Constitution (under duress) they stipulated that they had a right to leave if they saw the government as hostile to their rights.
Their language was very similar to the qualifiers which New York and Virginia also put into their ratification statements. (Yes, New York, Virginia and Rhode Island all declared a right to leave the Union in their ratification statements.)
In sum, the South had everything it wanted and still had access to the goods from the North they could possibly desire.
There was a framework and a vow to always stay together and work through things in the agreed upon manner.
The South abandoned its responsibilities to use “every stage…of redress” to justify any negative action. So, as the Declaration states, the United States and the CSA became “Enemies in War.”
A Perpetual Union is, by definition, Perpetual.
It never ended. The power brokers of the North have used it to gain power ever since. All of this "Black lives matter" stuff is just another version of "Waving the Bloody shirt."
It's about Liberals gaining power, just as it has always been.
Much that is wrong with society and government today can be traced right back to the civil war.
Gay Marriage? Yup. 14th amendment. Abortion? 14th amendment. Banning prayer in schools? 14th amendment.
And so on.
Should have murdered everyone who dared to defy DC's control of everything.
They are doing it properly with the January 6th "insurrectionists". I heard one of them just committed suicide yesterday.
By Northeastern Liberal standards, these people are evil and deserve to die.
That about sum it up?
Everybody lost the war. Or at least everyone's children lost that war. It changed the relationship between the states and the central government to one of more subjugation than was ever intended by the framers of the Constitution.
Our leviathan out of control abusive Federal government owes it's birth to that war.
It’s time to accept your great grandpa’s humiliation and move on.
I have no familial connection to that war. My ancestors didn't get here till the 1900s. Didn't settle in any of the Southern states either. I have no connection to the South whatsoever, I just learn history, and the more I learn, the more I realize I have been lied to my entire life about what happened and why.
As I said in a message subsequent to the one to which you are responding, this would be a great argument if the framers had adhered to the requirements of the Articles of Confederation. Because they did not, all are released from those requirements.
You can’t be independent from your vow and responsibilities. If you made a contract and a vow, it’s permanently in effect.
Descendants. You are saying that the descendants of people must be constrained by deals made by their ancestors? Why? They were not asked for their consent. Why should they feel any requirement to adhere to something which they see as unfavorable to them?
My father makes a bad deal, so *I* have to honor it? One of the first things to be tossed out of American law is "Corruption of Blood", meaning the children being held responsible for something the father did.
Now, if that legal basis allows an out,...
I ask you if you have read Virginia's ratification statement in which they conditionally ratify the US Constitution?
It says they have an "out", in the manner of the legal terminology you seem to be insisting on.
Let me make something very clear to you. *YOU* don't get to decide for other people if they are being abused or not.
The people suffering the abuse get to decide if they are abused.
With them paying 72% of the taxes, and being called horrible names for having slavery, i'm pretty sure anyone else in their situation would feel as if they were being abused.
The Northern states merely kept parity with the Southern states so that a slave state came in as each non-slave state came in.
Why did they do that?
A Perpetual Union is, by definition, Perpetual.
It only lasted 6 years, (1781-1787) and then they tossed that 'perpetual' part. Didn't give it a second thought.
Well that's incorrect. Not only did the Northern states continue to have slavery during the Civil War, they didn't even get rid of slavery until 8 months after the Civil War was over.
Well, I am actually correct, as no Northern state both kept and grew slavery. As for “keeping,” slavery, this is the truth:
Five of the Northern self-declared states adopted policies to at least gradually abolish slavery: Pennsylvania in 1780, New Hampshire and Massachusetts in 1783, and Connecticut and Rhode Island in 1784. The Republic of Vermont had limited slavery in 1777, while it was still independent before it joined the United States as the 14th state in 1791. These state jurisdictions thus enacted the first abolition laws in the Atlantic World.[4] By 1804 (including New York (1799) and New Jersey (1804)), all of the Northern states had abolished slavery or set measures in place to gradually abolish it,[3][5] although there were still hundreds of ex-slaves working without pay as indentured servants in Northern states as late as the 1840 census.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slave_states_and_free_states
Would you claim your slaves were “indentured servants” and capable of being free and of voting, when owning land?
It appears the South favored the “slave” approach that the North did not agree to. The North had indentured servants that could vote. The South, at one time, had indentured servants, but abandoned that in favor of the ‘risk-free, property-free’ approach of African slavery:
Nobody "grew" slavery. That was because it could not grow. There was no region remaining in the US where it was possible to implement plantation farming of cotton, which was by far the number 1 usage of slaves.
But yes, Northerners kept slavery until December of 1865. It ended in the South in April of 1865.
Five of the Northern self-declared states adopted policies to at least gradually abolish slavery:
Saying "I'm going to stop slavery some time in the future" is not "abolishing slavery." Slavery is abolished when you actually have no more slaves in your state.
This didn't happen in Pennsylvania until sometime in the 1840s, and possibly lasted longer than that.
It appears the South favored the “slave” approach that the North did not agree to.
In the North, slavery could not produce enough value to make it worth the trouble of having it. In the South, slavery could easily produce a massive amount of surplus value to not only pay for itself, but to fund 72% of Washington DC's entire federal budget, *and* make the slave owners wealthy besides.
Do not think the North rejected slavery because they were upstanding and moral people. If they could have seen a profit in it, they would have never let it go. The profits were just to small in the North, and the Northern people absolutely hated and detested the idea of associating with black people.
The few people who objected to it on moral grounds were a teeny tiny minority of people who were regarded as kooks by most people of their time period.
What is your source that you use to prove the North “kept slavery until December of 1865?”
You claim the South did not grow slavery. Are you saying all slaves were neutered or had their tubes tied?
You don't know when the 13th amendment took effect? The only slave states left were those in the North. I know West Virginia abolished it in January or February of 1865, but one or more of the other Northern slave states kept it until December of 1865.
You claim the South did not grow slavery. Are you saying all slaves were neutered or had their tubes tied?
That's a funny joke. You pulled a "bait and switch." When people talk about "growing slavery" they are referring to growing it outside of the areas where it then existed, such as the "territories."
Nobody refers to birthing new slaves as "growing slavery."
States abolished it in their own constitutions before the federal level did anything, so, yes, I want your proof around the North having slaves so late.
Finally, the South probably called it “breeding” by having the slaves grow their population for their owners.
Hope that helps, because that definitely happened, too.
"However, slavery legally persisted in Delaware, Kentucky, and (to a very limited extent) New Jersey, until the Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution abolished slavery throughout the United States on December 18, 1865, ending the distinction between slave and free states."
The fact that you did not know this makes you seem ill prepared to be involved in a debate on the topic of the Civil War.
Yes, the Northern states were hypocrites or liars, or what have you. They pretended they were against slavery, but didn't even stamp it out in areas they already controlled.
This website will tell you more about the lie of Northern abolition than you really want to know.
“While there were many Black, mixed-race, and white people in New Jersey who fought against slavery, most legislators refused to condemn the institution. Profits from slaveholding organizations had built and maintained the state’s major cities and regional centers like Newark and those in Bergen County.”"The official end to slavery in New Jersey did not come until Jan. 23, 1866 when Gov. Marcus L. Ward, in his first official act in office, signed a constitutional amendment to end to slavery in the state. “In other words,” notes Williams, “the institution of slavery in New Jersey survived for months following the declaration of freedom in Texas.”
And that was as much an abomination as it was anywhere else in the country. But New Jersey did not secede.
I am not sure the point you are constantly trying to make.
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.