Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

He gets his history exactly right. He cites the Treaty of Paris which recognizes 13 sovereign nations, and he declares the Federal government was created as their agent, not to rule them.

I saw this earlier on youtube and I thought certain people on this website would be interested in seeing the thoughts of Professor Walter Williams.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r5f08eRq2MI

1 posted on 06/29/2023 4:16:36 PM PDT by DiogenesLamp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-29 next last
To: BroJoeK; jeffersondem; x; Pelham; rustbucket; central_va; Bull Snipe; PeaRidge; Ohioan

Ping to the people who regularly discuss the civil war.


2 posted on 06/29/2023 4:19:04 PM PDT by DiogenesLamp ("of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: DiogenesLamp

Thank you for posting this.


3 posted on 06/29/2023 4:29:04 PM PDT by smartymarty (How a mountain girl can love.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: DiogenesLamp

Before the South seceded, it was generally understood that the states had a right to secede. The first ones to want to do that were the New England states way back before.

The deep state at the time wanted no dimunition of their power. Lincoln even said so in his first inaugeration speech.


4 posted on 06/29/2023 4:31:53 PM PDT by odawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: DiogenesLamp

I would not say I agree with Walter, but I always appreciated that Walter was not a part of the Liberals/Lefists intellectual plantation, and even though Walter is “black” and slavery is the backdrop of the Civil War, Walter has the intellectual homesty to come to his own conclusions. He represents highly why the founders thought “freedom of speech” (intellectual freedom) was so important, so essential.


7 posted on 06/29/2023 4:35:26 PM PDT by Wuli
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: DiogenesLamp

he appears to take the treaty with Britain in 1783 as our founding document instead of the Declaration of Independence.

He states that “these states came together as principals in 1787 and they created the federal government as their agent”

This ignores our first constitution, The Articles of Confederation which was ratified by 1781.

He seems to be selecting facts and events in a limited way to get to the conclusion he wants to get to, rather than taking in the historical events as they actually occurred.


8 posted on 06/29/2023 4:39:24 PM PDT by ChronicMA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: DiogenesLamp

Darn, I didn’t even know WW had passed. RIP.


10 posted on 06/29/2023 4:40:44 PM PDT by Carriage Hill (A society grows great when old men plant trees, in whose shade they know they will never sit.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: DiogenesLamp

I have always thought this, and I had a very liberal friend years ago who thought so too. Think states still have that right.


14 posted on 06/29/2023 4:44:09 PM PDT by jocon307 (Democrats delenda est.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: DiogenesLamp
South had a right to secede

The worldwide abolitionist movement coincided with the advent of the Industrial Revolution (farms didn't need as many hands), which started about 25 years after the states approved the U.S. constitution. The constitution, as written, was not capable of reconciling labor demands between the industrial northern states and the agrarian southern states during this radical transition period of the mid-1800s.

16 posted on 06/29/2023 4:45:42 PM PDT by Right_Wing_Madman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: DiogenesLamp

Any power not reserved for the federal government is the right of the state. The Founding Fathers did not want a state trapped in the country, if the federal government turned against the state. The right to secession was a final check on the Federal government if it turned against a state.

There may be an arguement that states seceded over slavery, but the federal government did not wage war over slavery. It waged war to bring those states back into the union so they can continue to supply the textile barons with bottom-priced cotton.


17 posted on 06/29/2023 4:47:13 PM PDT by Jonty30 (If liberals were truth tellers, they'd call themselves literals. )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: DiogenesLamp

Dang! My 8th grade history teacher must have been a Walter Williams fan!

This is exactly what my school in the Chicago suburbs taught me. It was the War of Northern Aggression and increasing centralized federal power.

My favorite show to watch that year Firing Line with William F. Buckley. Watched it on our 19” round black and white Rayovac TV in the basement.

My Dad came down one night and said “What the heck are you watching??” Sat down with me and became a major fan.

Miss Mr. Williams.


19 posted on 06/29/2023 4:48:03 PM PDT by lizma2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: DiogenesLamp
I think it was the British who wanted the 13 states named in the treaty because they had some doubts as to whether the United States would stay together as one country.

When New York was still debating whether to ratify the Constitution, some of them thought they could ratify it conditionally (depending on whether a Bill of Rights was added)--James Madison wrote a letter to a New Yorker saying that once you ratify, you can't secede. I think the first time South Carolina threatened to secede was about a week after Congress met for the first time in 1789.

22 posted on 06/29/2023 4:51:27 PM PDT by Verginius Rufus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: DiogenesLamp

They did. They picked a morally poor reason. But they did.

I also think the other states had a right to say nope. If the south would have won they would have secured their right. But they didn’t.

Put it this way. The colonies had moral right on their side for the revolution, for many reasons. The south had no such moral reasons. They all insisted they’d never give up slavery, so thats what it boiled down to.


25 posted on 06/29/2023 4:53:56 PM PDT by Secret Agent Man (Gone Galt; not averse to Going Bronson.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: DiogenesLamp

When did Walter William pass?


26 posted on 06/29/2023 4:55:31 PM PDT by Morgana ( Always a bit of truth in dark humor. )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: DiogenesLamp

Since there is no provision in the U.S. Constitution for secession, there is nothing preventing it from occurring either. Once the southern states took up arms against the U.S, however, reconquest became a legitimate response.


32 posted on 06/29/2023 5:00:20 PM PDT by Telepathic Intruder
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: DiogenesLamp; odawg; ChronicMA; jocon307; lizma2
In reading James Madison's notes to the Constitutional Convention, I find the Constitution would not have been ratified if James Madison, who was unequaled in among delegates for scholarship of political organizations, had not with others supported positions that states retained sufficient sovereignty to secede as the last resort to a political impasse created by perceived usurpations or abuses of the federal government.

He believed the transcendent law of nature demanding the right of self-preservation declared the safety and happiness of society must dominate political institutions and require their sacrifice. Any use of force against a state would be invasion.

42 posted on 06/29/2023 5:10:33 PM PDT by Retain Mike ( Sat Cong)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Homer_J_Simpson

Ping.

5.56mm


46 posted on 06/29/2023 5:12:49 PM PDT by M Kehoe (Quid Pro Joe and the Ho have got to go)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: DiogenesLamp

I agree that they had the right to secede.

And they had the right to establish that right by the laws and usages of war.

What they don’t have the right to is to appeal the verdict of the laws of war. Its judgement is final.


48 posted on 06/29/2023 5:14:55 PM PDT by Jim Noble (Make the GOP illegal - everything else will follow)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: DiogenesLamp

Walter Williams was someone I looked up to for his words of wisdom and non nonsense academic rigor. He is of course completely correct here.


52 posted on 06/29/2023 5:22:22 PM PDT by FLT-bird
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: DiogenesLamp

Walter Williams was a great man.


55 posted on 06/29/2023 5:30:26 PM PDT by Codeflier (Don't worry....be happy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: DiogenesLamp

The question is more interesting when you strip out the whole slavery issue. Beyond that, I await eagerly to read the documentary support for the right to secede at will. So far no one has made that case, just lots of bloviating.


62 posted on 06/29/2023 6:08:21 PM PDT by hinckley buzzard ( Resist the narrative.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-29 next last

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


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