Posted on 03/28/2019 8:50:21 AM PDT by NKP_Vet
The Hall of Fame recently dedicated at New York University was conceived from the Ruhmes Halle in Bavaria. This structure on University Heights, on the Harlem river, in the borough of the Bronx, New York City, has, or is intended to have, a panel of bronze with other mementos for each of one hundred and fifty native-born Americans who have been deceased at least ten years, and who are of great character and fame in authorship, education, science, art, soldiery, statesmanship, philanthropy, or in any worthy undertaking. Fifty names were to have been chosen at once; but, on account of a slight change of plans, only twenty-nine have been chosen, and twenty-one more will be in 1902. The remaining one hundred names are to be chosen during the century, five at the end of each five years. The present judges of names to be honored are one hundred representative American scholars in different callings. They are mostly Northern men, although at least one judge represents each State.
(Excerpt) Read more at abbevilleinstitute.org ...
They have a mental block against hearing the truth, because it forces them to confront an idea they vehemently reject. That Northern states were duped into killing people at the behest of the power block controlling Washington DC.
The same Liberal people who like to follow the same tax and spend policies today.
I'm wondering where in the US Constitution does it require the president to "save" the Union? I *KNOW* it requires slaves to be returned to their masters, because it is quite specific about that, but I recall no clause that requires a President to "save" or "preserve" a Union that was voluntarily joined.
Since this absolutely contradicts the Declaration of Independence, and since the Declaration of Independence is the exact premise this nation is founded upon, I can only believe that failure to include a constitutional clause prohibiting anyone from leaving, means that the Declaration of Independence was never intended to be contradicted.
Article IV, section 2.
"No person held to service or labor in one state, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due."
Enshrined slavery clause.
Almost had this one. Lincoln supported it.
“No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State.”
Almost made slavery nearly permanent. And to think people believe the war was fought over this topic when Lincoln and the Northern states were willing to give it up before the war even began.
George Washington was a traitor to England. He fought for the right of independence which all 13 colonies declared was a right given by God.
He founded a nation based on the right to independence, and so no one coming afterward should have had to fight for independence. A nation founded on the premise that states had a right to become independent cannot call people "traitors" when they avail themselves of the right to independence which Washington fought for.
It was treason against the Monarchy to demand independence, but it is not treason to seek it when you live in a nation that recognizes it as a fundamental right given by God. That paradigm changed when we left monarchy.
This is funny. Let me introduce you to the Amendment Lincoln urged to be passed when he gave his first inaugural address.
“No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State.”
Here are your own words given back to you.
Makes it perpetual and does not allow states the right to abolish it.
How did they get around that constitutional requirement to return them to their masters? Did they just declare that portion of the Constitution null and void?
Our nation is founded on the belief that it is moral and legal to separate from the mother country and form one of your own. Britain was not founded on that belief.
And when it wasn't, the Northern states decided to make the Southern states pay for the bulk of government, and to make sure money went through New York pockets.
No great surprise that the taxpayers didn't actually like paying bills for the Northern big business subsidies and corporate welfare.
And their best way to accomplish this was to propose an amendment to make it permanent, and then have their President urge that it be passed.
“No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State.”
See, by making it permanent, *THAT* would put it on the road to extinction.
Perfectly reasonable.
How did the Southern states vote? Aren't you guys claiming they fought a war to stop this from happening?
What does that platform say about the Corwin Amendment? The Republican party and especially their leader supported the Corwin Amendment which would have made slavery permanent.
Was that part of their platform?
Well sure, they thought slavery was wrong, but you can believe slavery is wrong while at the same time recognizing that someone was freeing slaves for reasons of self interest, and not because it was the morally right thing to do.
The Union was clearly willing to keep them in bondage back in March of 1861 when they passed the Corwin amendment that would have made slavery permanent.
Pretending you are motivated by morality when you are in fact motivated by self interest is easily recognizable hypocrisy. That's why they pointed out that the principle involved is that loyalty to the Union allows people to keep their slaves.
Well he bought and paid for it, he ought to at least get something for all the taxpayer money and bloodshed he spent.
They way he was writing letters to the governors of the states informing them about the Corwin amendment, (as you said, "not required") you would think he wanted his name on that version of the 13th amendment too!
Washington apparently thought so, because he kept rotating his slaves through Pennsylvania. What were they gonna do, tell him "No"?
Thank you for rebutting yourself and saving me the work.
He does that a lot, but I haven't noticed it much anymore because I stopped reading his long winded rants.
A euphemism by any other name still stinks just as bad.
From Article IV:
...person held to service or labor...
I.E. "slave."
You were pretty good in the primary wars of 2015-16, too. ;-)
You are addle-brained. You do not understand the “Fugitive Slave Clause”, even as you do not understand the Corwin Ammendment. Let me explain for you: both were about States Rights. The first was about States respecting each other’s rights and the second was about the Federal Gov’t respecting States rights.
Please stop lying and stating that the Corwin Ammendment would have maintained Slavery in perpetuity throughout the land. You are in denial of what its obvious intent was. My concern is that some hapless and unwitting FReeper will read and believe your lies.
You seem to forget that it was from *I* that you learned about Washington not daring to keep any Slave of his inside the borders of Pennsylvania for more than six months. Perhaps you will recall my telling you that Washington was strongly advised by his own AG to not temp fate with the State Laws of Pennsylvania. That AG had lost some of his own Slaves to Pennsylvania when he overstayed with them.
I like how so many people characterize a difference of opinion as "lying".
Believe it or not, two or more people can believe things that aren't actually true, but because they believe them, they aren't lying.
Lying is stating something which you know to be untrue.
And yes, the Corwin amendment would have made slavery virtually permanent, at least so far as everyone alive at that time was concerned. Sure, it would have petered out in 80 years or so, but most of those people would have been dead by then.
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.