Posted on 04/19/2010 8:18:35 AM PDT by erod
How does “insurrection” fit in then, as the Constitution addresses?
Ah, yes.... what compassion you have!
And what compassion the slave-holders had, too!
The nice gentlemen of Texas, for example, spoke of the "Southern States and their beneficent and patriarchal system of African slavery, proclaiming the debasing doctrine of equality of all men, irrespective of race or color-- a doctrine at war with nature, in opposition to the experience of mankind, and in violation of the plainest revelations of Divine Law." [emphasis mine]
Defend away, FRiend ... but don't pretend that slavery was ever anything other than a blatant violation of the principles on which the Constitution was based.
Don’t waste time on trolls.
But it doesn't say only Congress can do it.
As objects of legislation by Congress. Still all Congress and its powers and things Congress will desist from.
Not all of it.
However, I just did.
Yeah, you said that last time, too.
And the idiocy of claiming that slavery was a compassionate institution is there for all to see.
Yes there was.
Louisiana seceded, Louisiana didn't "rebel" because a) Louisiana was, and is, sovereign, and b) Louisiana made their own decisions to join, and to leave, the Union. People don't "rebel" against the People. Ergo, there was no rebellion.
But c) since their acts of secession were found to be illegal by the Supreme Court then their actions were a rebellion. Or insurrection, take your pick.
Louisiana's decision was taken a pay grade above the Union and the Constitution -- it was taken at the People level. Only God gets over that.
Of course it was.
Considering both violated their Constitution at will and both initiated bloody wars and both held power over countries who's wartime economies were dependent on slave labor then I'd say Hitler had more in common with Jeff Davis.
“Again, you can disparage the south, but hopefully you have something more sustainable than a gated community to offer in its stead.”
I wasn’t disparaging the South, I thought you were. I am a southern boy; Georgia.
“It was property of the U.S. government and secession, even if it had been legal, didn’t change that.”
BS. The South left the union so the union must leave the South. The only reason to stay was to give Lincoln a reason to pick a fight.
BS. Ownership didn't magically change just because South Carolina decided to walk out. Sumter was owned by the federal government, built with federal money on land deeded to them free and clear by act of the South Carolina legislature. They had no legal claim to it. None whatsoever.
“Sumter was owned by the federal government, built with federal money on land deeded to them free and clear by act of the South Carolina legislature. They had no legal claim to it. None whatsoever.”
All lands once owned by the union are reverted once the union is no longer part of the new nation. Only someone looking to pick a fight would say otherwise. Saying otherwise doesn’t pass any commonse sense test whatsoever. What was the union to do, keep their post offices open in South Carolina as well?
“But c) since their acts of secession were found to be illegal by the Supreme Court then their actions were a rebellion. Or insurrection, take your pick.”
King George said the same thing, so I guess you support giving this great nation back to United Kingdom. Your racist bigotry is once again showing.
Based on what rule of law?
Saying otherwise doesn’t pass any commonse sense test whatsoever.
What is common sense in claiming ownership changed hands without the OK of the owner and without compensation?
Except that United States independence was recognized by King George in the Treaty of Paris signed in 1783.
Your racist bigotry is once again showing.
It's pretty clear you have no idea of what racist or bigotry mean. Not surprising, considering you past posts.
“And the idiocy of claiming that slavery was a compassionate institution is there for all to see.”
No idiocy on equality’s part. Equality speaks to the origins of slavery being for compassionate reasons. Equality leaves the moral judgement of enslavement vs death to the reader. I don’t see equality defending the institution of slavery itself.
I’m waiting.
I’m waiting and tapping my foot. No wonder the North is so known for their rudeness.
You can go back as far as the cavemen as far as I'm concerned. What is compassionate about saying to a person, "I own you. I own you and your wife and your children. You will work for me without pay and I can do whatever I want to you and there is nothing you can do about it?" Please. Explain to me how slavery can be considered a compassionate institution by any definition of the word. I really, really want to know.
"Those who deny freedom to others, deserve it not for themselves; and under a just God, can not long retain it." - Abraham Lincoln, 1859
Bulgarian Bull Crap.... Hitler, Idolized your Führer Lincoln
Hitler and Comrade Lincoln
BOTH
Invaded a Sovereign Country,Supported a Centralized General Government, Answered questions by military force, Didn't understand this concept'Consent of Governed',Imprisoned opposition,etc
Jefferson Davis is - Mr. Rogers - compared against Lincoln
You’re talking to yourself you know. If you’re waiting for a response maybe you should address your post to the person you’re waiting on?
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.