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

To: cowboyway
Does anybody truly believe that 230 years ago,states and commonwealths who,since they were founded as colonies had always ran their OWN affairs with local love and fidelity, would enter into a contract with no way out if the government of that union was suddenly seized by a tyrannical regime?
5 posted on 01/10/2011 9:08:40 AM PST by Happy Rain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: Happy Rain
Does anybody truly believe that 230 years ago,states and commonwealths who,since they were founded as colonies had always ran their OWN affairs with local love and fidelity, would enter into a contract with no way out if the government of that union was suddenly seized by a tyrannical regime?

A good question for the FR Lincoln Coven. They'll be here soon enough.

8 posted on 01/10/2011 9:21:27 AM PST by central_va (I won't be reconstructed, and I do not give a damn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies ]

To: Happy Rain

LOL! You must be new here. There are apparently thousands of such morons running around, and they all seem to find there way to these WBTS threads.


53 posted on 01/11/2011 5:42:23 AM PST by Lee'sGhost (Johnny Rico picked the wrong girl!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies ]

To: Happy Rain; central_va
Happy Rain: "Does anybody truly believe that 230 years ago,states and commonwealths who,since they were founded as colonies had always ran their OWN affairs with local love and fidelity, would enter into a contract with no way out if the government of that union was suddenly seized by a tyrannical regime?"

No, but you've misstated the case.
Both the old Articles of Confederation and the new Constitution were considered "perpetual" and "forever."

The new Constitution provided methods to change or amend it, but no methods for unilateral secession.
Yes, the Founders recognized that the Union might be dissolved, but only by mutual consent or from "usurpations" or "abuses" having that same effect.

In their ratification statement, Virginia spelled this out with the following words:

"powers granted under the Constitution, being derived from the people of the United States may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression"

But in December 1860, when South Carolina first seceded, there were no "abuses" or "usurpations" or "injury" or "oppression."

There was only a perceived possible future threat against slavery, represented by the Abolitionist Republicans, and their President-elect, Lincoln.

And Southerns did not just unilaterally, unconstitutionally secede -- they also immediately began unlawfully seizing Federal forts, armories, ships, customs houses, a mint, etc.
At the same time, they began firing on Federal Forces, and on May 6, 1861 declared war on the United States.

The South wanted war, the South got war.

And of all Confederate States, no state wanted war more than Virginia, which did not actually join the Confederacy until after it declared war on the United States.

Unlike, say, Florida or Alabama, which joined the Confederacy while it was still technically at peace, Virginia had a choice and it chose war.

95 posted on 01/11/2011 11:45:42 AM PST by BroJoeK (a little historical perspective....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies ]

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